More, I'm indebted for this link which enables us hoi poloi to sign on to the original document. Click the link for access to theTNR article.
And of course we're all indebted to , who wrote the article which so clearly demonstrates that defending your home against violent intruders ... of any stripe ... somehow "your fault" when the results are tragic.
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 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.
If I found myself in the same situation, I would have responded the same way ... with gunfire against intruders who had demonstrated that they were violently aggressive.
This isn't "... another tragedy involving drugs."
Nor is it "... another tragedy involving gun policy".
It's another tragedy involving "no-knock warrants".
If you're a policeman and you come to my house to serve a warrant, I have a right to see the warrant before I permit you entry to search or otherwise exercise your duty.
In this day of terrorists and home-invasions, even the least reasonable expectation of an honest citizen should be that, when an armed and masked somebody breaks down my door and charges in with a conspicuous display of firepower, I can reasonably assume that they mean me harm.
In Army Basic Training, they teach that you might successfully run from a knife, but never from a gun.
Never run from a gun. Instead, have a gun and attack. Always attack.
The old laws which required a homeowner to retreat from an attack are not suitable to a soldier, because it will be the death of a soldier. Why should it be any different for a homeowner?
No, the tactics of attacking an attacker are sound.
The problem is the "No-Knock" warrant, and the current tendency of police to mask themselves, as if they are ashamed of what they do or they do not wish their face to be seen. What they do is shameful, at best, and misleading (and frightening) to an honest citizen subject to what can only be defined as a "home intrusion" at least.
Masked men bursting through the door of your home can only be resisted to the best of your ability, and this is what Kathryn Johnston was doing. In defense of her home, and in defense of her person, Kathryn Johnston was meeting aggressive violence with what surely seemed to be her best hope of survival.
Senior police officials who insist that their serving officers practice these aggressive, hooded techniques should be shot.
Unfortunately, it is their officers, and their victims, who are shot.
To return to the TNR article:
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.Yes, expect more Kathryn Johnstons. And expect more officers to be shot by innocent civilian victims who are only defending themselves against aggression.
"The War On Drugs" is not worth the death of innocents. When this writer seeks to make culprits of the victims , he is not pointing the accusing finger in the right direction.
Some people in this country consider those they call "Right Wing Conservatives" to be apologists for wrong governmental policies.
But you will not find a conservative who considers this policy worth the price in innocent lives.
Just ask yourself:
Who is the victim here?