Oh, where do I start? I saw this over at PDO. Blames Kathryn Johnston for her death, not the police Writer Rick Perlstein in A View to a Kill writes about "Stand your Ground" laws. He actually blames Kathryn Johnston for her death. Two blogs write about this: The War on Guns Cogito Ergo Geek Excerpt from The New Republic: On November 21, at around 7 p.m., narcotics officers in vests that said police (but not full uniforms) served a no-knock warrant to 933 Neal Street in Northwest Atlanta. The resident, Kathryn Johnston--88 years old by some accounts, 92 years old by others--pulled a pistol on the intruders. The police fired on their assailant. When it was over, three officers were wounded [by themselves, MP] and Johnston lay dead. The warrant, alleging drug activity at her address, appears to have been issued in error. And, although the FBI is investigating, the Fulton County Assistant District Attorney defended his cops: "This seems like another tragedy involving drugs." Actually, it seems like another tragedy involving gun policy. On July 1, a new Georgia law went into effect granting anyone who feels attacked on his or her property the "right to meet force with force, including deadly force." Georgia Senate Bill 396 also immunizes such a shooter from prosecution and civil penalty (though not, in Johnston's case, from return fire). It's not unreasonable to suppose that, had this law not passed last summer, Johnston might not have fired on those strange men barging into her house, and she might be alive today. Expect more Kathryn Johnstons. Unnoticed by most of the national press, 2006 became the year the National Rifle Association (NRA) got its way--and average citizens in almost a dozen states earned more leeway to shoot first and ask questions later than, in some circumstances, officers of the law. An unarmed thief who enters through a front door accidentally left unlocked may end up with, as punishment, a summary execution. Notes NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam, "If someone breaks into your dwelling, it's reasonable to assume that person is in there to do you harm." The new stand-your-ground laws are so frightening because they cover shooters who simply feel at risk. [Huh?, MP] It seems likely that Atlanta's finest screwed up. But, even so, cops already have a hard enough job without the NRA's state-sanctioned shoot-first blessing bearing down on them in eleven states and counting.
Well...there's no way for me to respond on this board to this idiot without getting myself banned forever, so ...
What kind of simpleton is the person that wrote that?!! I don't see how anyone can blame the outcome of this type of incident on stand your ground laws. The woman wasn't in a situation where she could have avoided this issue, or run away, or hidden & called for police. There was no time for any of that. The whole thing likely took less than a few seconds. Supposedly she was worried for her safty due to prior incidents so she had a gun at hand - she had already planned to defend herself. Then someone kicked her door in, likely screaming & shouting. Hello?! Of course she fired. Who, that had a gun at hand & was already worried about the possibility, wouldn't have fired. (Obviously I'm not taking into account the true situation here - the id vests, and maybe screaming they are cops & maybe not, maybe she knew drugs were sometimes present in her home, etc etc...) But the points the same, if I have the means at hand & I fear for my life or safety, then the existence of lack of existence of this type of law is not going to have any impact on me shooting or not. Live first, worry about jail later. I understand where antis can make the arguement that SYG laws are bad (I disagree but I can see where they are coming from) but this was not a case where the lady woke up in the middle of the night to a noise somewhere else in her house & she picked up her gun, walked through the house & shot some 15 year old kid that was trying to snatch her vcr. In that case I could understand where someone might argue the law was bad. In this case it has zero relavence. The author is a dolt.
Where to start? What does the SYG law have to do with this incident? It's totally irrevalevent. I hate to repeat what you guys just said, but I can't help myself. THE AUTHOR OF THAT ARTICLE IS TRULY AN IDIOT! I'm really surprised he didn't trot out all the other anti-gun arguments.
Well, if it was a burgaler instead of police, then any damage done (if defense was valid) to said criminal could not be grounds for the criminal's family to sue for damages or wrongful death. (retreat is not a factor but immunity from criminal and civil suits could still be valid)
On the night Johnson was killed, Johnson's neice(?) said, on camera, that she had bought Johnson the gun years before at Johnsons request. Long before SYG was enacted. Guess the 'New Repugnant' doesn't care about truth or facts.
I think you're thinking of the New York Times. Atleast one senior level editor got canned over it. It was kinda fun watching all the libs trying to coverup, backpeddle, and justify it.
Maybe the article should have been subtitled: "Why We Think Kathryn Johnston Was a Bloodthirsty Vigiliante."
Sadly, by their rather twisted and convoluted brand of logic, that's just was she was. This incident has upset me more than most because my mother is 93. Until last week, when I finally got her into an assisted living facility, she had been living in her house alone in a changing neighborhood and becoming more fearful as time passed. I understand what the niece was going thru. Mistakes happen, even to the best of us, but there's no way I'll ever understand why the cops screwed this one up so very badly.
Talking to a person like that is not even worth your time. They have their mind made up that guns are bad.