Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Student Tasered at UCLA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

    I still don't see why it was crucial to taser this guy REPEATEDLY. IF he doesn't cooperate with police handcuffing him then taser him once then handcuff him. What's the problem with doing it like that?

    There has to be a balance and this seemed far from beying balanced. Offcourse, you have to obey to the police, but that doesn't mean they should knock you until you lose conciousness or repeatedly taser you. That's way out of line IMO.

    Regards,

    Mourning
    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      I think you just made my point for me.

      -Calling her an "honest" woman. (She had a gun within reach)
      That doesn't make her dishonest.

      -Shot three, not one, but three officers after they "announced and knocked"
      She's 92 years old. Men just rushed her home busting thru the door. Her eyesight and hearing may not be 100% at 92 years of age (and I realize that could put some question on whether she should have a firearm or not.

      OTOH... How much time was there between the "Announced and knock" and the door flying down? Time for her to comprehend what was said? Time for her to answer the door or check the peephole?

      -Shot at officers when they had every legal reason to be there.
      They might've had no legal reason to be there. If the warrant was wrong, or misread, they had an excuse why they were there but it doesn't make anything 'right'.

      -Saying a serious look of how a case of mistaken identity could have happened, when there is no evidence other than her relatives saying that was the case. Do you think that a family would admit that their grandmothers house was used for drug deals?
      That's why I added a caveat above.

      FWIW- This story itself may or might not be accurate as presented but for discussion's sake we can assume it is to talk about these situations in general terms.

      You automatically assume that the police was in the wrong, and that was exactly the point I was trying to make.
      I believe the police have a high standard and ideal to live up to. I'd like to speak more to that to make sure it's understood what I mean by that... and why... BUT... I've got no time right now. I want to come back to it though.

      -Bball
      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

      ------

      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

      -John Wooden

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

        QUOTE=Bball;506290]That doesn't make her dishonest.[/QUOTE]

        What makes her honest to begin with?

        Originally posted by Bball
        She's 92 years old. Men just rushed her home busting thru the door. Her eyesight and hearing may not be 100% at 92 years of age (and I realize that could put some question on whether she should have a firearm or not.

        OTOH... How much time was there between the "Announced and knock" and the door flying down? Time for her to comprehend what was said? Time for her to answer the door or check the peephole?

        Obviously enough time for her to get a gun out. If you're doubting her eyesight and hearing, then you should add her quickness level to that as well. I doubt she can sprint to get a gun, or even have a lightening quick draw.

        Originally posted by Bball
        They might've had no legal reason to be there. If the warrant was wrong, or misread, they had an excuse why they were there but it doesn't make anything 'right'.
        By wrong do you mean the warrant read the wrong address, or the police read the address wrong. If the warrant was carried out on the correct house, then they have EVERY right to be there, whether or not they turned anything up. There has to be some evidence to get a warrant, obviously a judge thought they had enough.

        Now on to whether or not the police read it wrong. It really doesn't matter. They identified themselves before entering. It also doesn't give her the right to just start shooting. Unless they were grouped together holding hands, she had to have shot more than 3 times to hit three of them. If her eyesight is so bad that she couldn't identify that they were police, then obviously she was just shooting away at anything and everything.

        Originally posted by Bball
        That's why I added a caveat above.

        FWIW- This story itself may or might not be accurate as presented but for discussion's sake we can assume it is to talk about these situations in general terms.

        I believe the police have a high standard and ideal to live up to. I'd like to speak more to that to make sure it's understood what I mean by that... and why... BUT... I've got no time right now. I want to come back to it though.

        -Bball
        They can't live up to that standard, when early judgements are made without knowing the details.

        You read the story and came up with 5 or 6 different reasons why the police were in the wrong from the beginning. How can they live up to that standard when you can't even give them the slightest benefit of doubt?

        The department has even publicly said that the officers did nothing wrong, and yet she is still viewed as an innocent woman sitting in her living room that feels the need to have a gun on her in her own home.

        I seriously doubt I'm coming back to this, because it's already gotten further away from where it was supposed to go. Biasness towards anything the police do is alive and well.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

          Chief: Warrant Served at Right House

          Web Editor: Tracey Christensen
          Last Modified: 11/22/2006 9:38:33 PM


          Three police officers who killed a 92-year-old woman after she shot and wounded them were serving a warrant at the correct address, Assistant Atlanta Police Chief Alan James Dreher said at a news conference Wednesday.

          Chief Dreher said the officers bought illegal drugs earlier in the day from a man at Kathryn Johnston's house on Neal Street in Atlanta. The man who sold the drugs has not yet been identified or arrested.

          "As a result of that narcotics purchase, members of the narcotics team obtained a search warrant for that same address. As they were executing the search warrant, they announced themselves before they forced open the door. Once the door was forced, the female inside began shooting at the police officers. The officers returned fire," said Chief Dreher.

          Johnston received fatal gunshot wounds from the officers. Investigator Gregg Junnier, 40, suffered three gunshot wounds -- one in his chest which was protected by a bulletproof vest, one in the side of the face, and one in the leg. The second officer, 38-year-old Investigator Gary Smith, received one gunshot wound to his left leg. The third officer, 38-year-old Investigator Cary Bond, received one gunshot wound to his left arm.

          After the shooting Tuesday night, Johnston’s relatives rushed to the scene. They told reporters that they were convinced the police made a mistake and went to the wrong house.

          "They done the wrong house," said Johnston’s niece, Sarah Dozier. "And they killed her! This lady lived to be 92. She lived to be 92 and in good health. They went in there and she was scared to death."

          According to family members, Johnston lived alone. Dozier said that Johnston did have a firearm. She says she took her aunt to get a permit for that firearm for her own protection.

          Chief Dreher said officers search Johnson's home after the shooting and seized some suspected narcotics, which are being analyzed at a laboratory. He did not know if Ms. Johnston was suspected of being involved in any drug deals at the home.

          "Any death is a tragic death," said Dreher. "What we do know is that she was elderly. She also shot three police officers. Our heartfelt prayers go out because it's just a tragic and unfortunate incident."

          The three injured officers were placed on administrative leave with pay. All have been released from the hospital.

          Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard also spoke at Wednesday's news conference. He said a preliminary review shows the officers acted appropriately, but that his office is conducting its own independent investigation.

          http://www.11alive.com/news/news_art...?storyid=88020
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Originally posted by Bball
            Originally Posted by Bball
            That's why I added a caveat above.

            FWIW- This story itself may or might not be accurate as presented but for discussion's sake we can assume it is to talk about these situations in general terms.

            I believe the police have a high standard and ideal to live up to. I'd like to speak more to that to make sure it's understood what I mean by that... and why... BUT... I've got no time right now. I want to come back to it though.

            -Bball
            They can't live up to that standard, when early judgements are made without knowing the details.

            You read the story and came up with 5 or 6 different reasons why the police were in the wrong from the beginning. How can they live up to that standard when you can't even give them the slightest benefit of doubt?

            The department has even publicly said that the officers did nothing wrong, and yet she is still viewed as an innocent woman sitting in her living room that feels the need to have a gun on her in her own home.

            I seriously doubt I'm coming back to this, because it's already gotten further away from where it was supposed to go. Biasness towards anything the police do is alive and well.
            You are correct when you say I don't give the police/government the benefit of the doubt in these situations. There should be no doubt. If there is then we already have a problem. As the investigation moves along that doubt should be erased from the police's side of things.

            As further info comes to light then I'm open minded enough to move my position but I believe in a presumption of innocence of Amercan citizens first and foremost.

            Americans have an ingrained distrust of government and government agents (police). A big part of what this country is founded upon is a freedom to go about our lives as unencumbered as possible without government intrusion. Obviously some of that freedom has been whittled away over the years.

            Among other things drug laws, DUI laws, and now 9/11 have expanded police powers and the way the court interprets certain acts. The presumption of innocence seems to be slipping away into a "let's see what he's doing" attitude across the board. Courts bend over backwards to allow certain things and rubber stamp others.

            Take a natural distrust of government, add in a declining checks and balances from the court system, expand police powers (create an 'us vs them' atmosphere) and you start seeing an erosion of respect for the police of this country. From young officers that are "hard chargers" and taking advantage of rubber stamping judges and prosecutors (and Americans who can't afford (or feel much use in) fighting a traffic ticket regardless of circumstances) all the way to prosecutors and judges that want to be perceived as 'tough on crime' and look more to win at any cost than to back off a weak case regardless of size or importance.

            Obviously there are exceptions to the above... the above very well might even be the minority (it probably is the minority). But that is the type of thing that shouldn't be allowed to exist in the system. So it's up to those in the system to rise above it and put a stop to it. They can't just look the other way and certainly can't condone it just because of a 'thin blue line'.

            So, from the outside looking in, when I read a story about a 92 year old woman alone in her home suddenly finding men busting her door down (announced or not) I don't find it too surprising that she fired shots and asked questions later. She gets the benefit of the doubt on first blush. It was her home that was invaded. That she had a gun nearby could simply mean she was old, scared, and paranoid. And she was well within her rights to have that gun (from what we're told). And what would she be scared of? It could be of young men busting into her home. The exact scenario that unfolded.

            And this follows on the heels of a court ruling lessening the burden on police to 'knock and announce'. So how much of a 'knock and announce' was it? Or was the 'knock' the door being rammed down?

            I see in the other article I posted that the police are saying it was the proper address on the warrant and that an undercover officer had made a drug purchase there earlier. For some I suppose that is plenty to let the police (and system) off the hook. Personally, I'm curious about the amount of research/investigation that went into the warrant to determine who lived in the house in order for the police to have a better idea of what to expect. Let alone a little observation of the premises. My guess? Nobody bothered to do or require any of that- The judge rubber stamped the warrant.

            Once again, from the outside looking in this isn't sounding like a situation that needed quite so dramatic of an entrance in the first place.

            And it was for a drug bust. Apparently based on a small time buy. So a woman is dead and several people were injured. It doesn't seem worth it.

            I respect Marion Deputy and Skaut Ech as they talk about these situations and explain things from their view. Many, if not most, times I agree. Sometimes I am just playing devil's advocate in these discussions because I firmly believe that police powers should not go unchecked. Citizens should speak out and ask questions. And they should get answers.

            Before any government agent goes breaking down the door of someone's home they should be damn sure of the circumstances and reasons and that they are taking a necessary action.

            As a matter of fact, when executing a search warrant on someone's home I feel that not only should the police be required to knock and announce, they should also be required to wait and give the person(s) inside time to answer the door. There would be exceptions to this, and with exceptions comes the possibility of abuse, but if there is no fear for someone's life inside (domestic violence or kidnapping for example) then the element of surprise is not always necessary.

            It's about the rights of the individual inside their home and person, a presumption of innocence, and respecting the Constitution first and foremost.

            The Government shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt. There shouldn't be any doubt. And the police do have a high standard to uphold- It's called the Constitution.

            -Bball
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

              There's a very good reason why there is an anti-police bias in this country, ESPECIALLY if you're a minority.

              From experience, I really can't blame someone for expecting to get treated unfairly by the cops. It's second nature. There are some good cops in this country, but WOW do we have some of the worst scum on earth wearing badges. I'm not sure how some of these guys get gun permits, let alone a badge.

              All that said, this guy in the video sounded like he was asking for problems. I have little sympathy for him.

              However, to live for the last 92 years as a black woman in THIS country?

              I think by that time i'd be sleeping with a gun under my pillow, let alone having one within reach at all times. I'd be paranoid as hell.

              I don't really blame the cops either though, assuming they announced themselves coming in. I just also don't blame the old lady for being scared to death.

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

                Innocent until proven guilty doesn't just cover the victim as well Those who make up the police force are just as much a citizen who has the same proven until guilty rights as those they're sworn to protect.

                Just because you have a badge doesn't mean you forfit those rights.

                Instead of "Wow, that's awful to hear," it's "Wow, those dirty rotten policemen shot another innocent woman."
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

                  It appears now that they did have the wrong house, or perhaps no drug sale even took place. And more importantly they didn't knock. Am I reading this wrong?

                  http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/28/atl...ing/index.html

                  From CNN:
                  An informant cited in a search warrant as having purchased narcotics at an elderly Atlanta woman's house denies buying drugs there, authorities say.
                  Undercover officers raiding the 88-year-old woman's house shot her to death last week after she fired on them while they broke down her door in a high-crime neighborhood.
                  Federal prosecutors will investigate the case, Atlanta police Chief Richard Pennington announced Monday.
                  Pennington said the eight-member narcotics squad that took part in the raid has been placed on paid leave while investigators look into the informant's story and the circumstances surrounding the November 21 death of Kathryn Johnston.
                  The informant also told investigators from the Atlanta police internal affairs bureau that he was told to lie about the matter, the chief said.
                  "The FBI will investigate his statements, along with the police officers' statements as well," Pennington said.
                  Authorities said Johnston opened fire on police who tried to enter her home, prying off burglar bars and forcing open her door, during a "no-knock" drug raid. Officers returned fire, killing her.
                  Relatives put Johnston's age at 92, but Fulton County medical examiners said she was 88.
                  Neighbors and relatives said the raid had to have been a mistake. They said Johnston lived alone and was so afraid of crime in her neighborhood west of downtown Atlanta that she wouldn't let neighbors who delivered groceries for her come into her home.
                  Atlanta police reviews 'no-knock' policy

                  In an affidavit used to obtain the search warrant, narcotics officers said an informant had purchased two bags of crack cocaine from a man identified only as "Sam" in the home earlier that day.
                  Pennington said he called in federal prosecutors and the FBI after internal affairs investigators questioned the informant during the weekend.
                  "After we brought the informant in and interviewed that informant, he told us that he had no knowledge of going into that house to purchase drugs," he said. "That's what he told us. I don't know if he went in or not. We don't know if he's telling the truth."
                  In an interview with Atlanta's WAGA-TV, the informant said he had never been to Johnston's house.
                  "I'm telling them, I never went to the house," the informant told the station. "The police can't say I ever went to the house."
                  The informant then said police called him and told him "you need to cover our ***."
                  "It's all on you -- have to tell them about this Sam dude," the informant said police told him.
                  Pennington said the man was being "put away in a secure place" until the FBI could question him. The chief also promised to make "every document, every witness and piece of evidence" available to investigators.
                  Meanwhile, the seven narcotics officers and a sergeant were put on administrative leave with pay, and the department is reviewing its use of "no-knock" raids after the shootout, he said. The warrants are common in narcotics cases when officers fear suspects may try to dispose of drugs or evidence in the time it takes authorities to gain access to the home.
                  In addition to the FBI and Justice Department, the Fulton County district attorney's office and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation are taking part in the probe.
                  Pennington made his reputation cleaning up a corrupt New Orleans, Louisiana, Police Department in the 1990s. He said the "intense speculation and suspicion" surrounding Johnston's death spurred him to call in outside agencies.
                  "There are many unanswered questions. I promise each and every citizen that the complete truth will be eventually known, whatever that might be," he said. "But we must all exercise patience while we examine and re-examine every single aspect of these tragic events."
                  A spokesman for Johnston's family, the Rev. Markel Hutchins, went to Washington to request a federal investigation Monday. Hutchins said he had received assurances that agents would conduct a "swift and thorough" investigation into the woman's death.
                  Hutchins said the three midlevel officials with whom he met also promised "all resources at our disposal" to help counter the fallout in the African-American community from the shooting. He said he urged Justice Department officials to press for strong federal guidance to local police departments against the use of no-knock warrants.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

                    Originally posted by Manuel View Post
                    It appears now that they did have the wrong house, or perhaps no drug sale even took place. And more importantly they didn't knock. Am I reading this wrong?

                    http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/28/atl...ing/index.html

                    From CNN:
                    Perhaps this thread needs revisited... or at least remembered:
                    http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=21915

                    -Bball
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

                      Cops in general are more likely/willing to bust young people, especially male, or minorities; a lot of them try to take out college students as evidenced in the video. If it's just me, as some of you have suggested, consider this. A friend and I are on campus walking to a party, minding our own business. He is half cuban and I am half Japanese; not sure how easy that was to understand considering it was dark. It's real late and we're with a group of people being real social and stuff. Anyway, this cop car passes the group and just slams on the brakes and reverses to the group. This guys comes out, singles out me and my friend, and accuses us of proclaiming "**** the police/cops." No proof, no nothing, but he took down our information and seemed disheartened by my middle name. That having been said, I have experienced that cops/authority figures either show an obvious bias against people like me, or they are smart enough to hide it but hope to act in a way that could disadvatage you. I think it's just disgraceful that one of the most racist sections of our nation is the law enforcement section. If you disagree, watch the video of the dude that got gunned down in Compton whose only weapon was a flip flop. Though the topic is something many have joked about, it is serious and is something you just won't get until your mom's purse gets searched while hundreds of white women walk through the gates of a baseball stadium untouched. You guys have made some good points but you've got to try to see this through a different perspective.
                      You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X