Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Police Watch

Oh my, I'll leave that one alone.

You must be better than I am at finding double entendre.

Steve No, issac, ippwell, hunter 1960, why do you keep taking offense at some of the comments that I, and some of the others are making?

Don't you realize that the louder and more you howl, and the more you make snide comments about other's intellegence and and orher derogaratory remarks, that it just further proves our point?

If I came on here cold, completely neutral about my attitude towards police and prosecutors, you four, and a few more like you would do more to turn me against LE than any LEO I have ever met, good or bad. If I trusted LE before I ever read the first post, the comments made by some of you would turn me totally against LE, and the entire justice system.

Some of you must think you are really something special. In a way, you are something special, but not in the way a decent person would want to be. With your attitude, you are hurting your professions far more than anything anyone not in LE can do to you.

You are causing more harm to LE and to the way the public percieves you than any remarks made by other posters on this forum.

With your comments, you are just digging yourselves deeper into the bottom of the barrel. You are the direct cause of the problem. It is up to you to fix it, not make it worse, as you are doing.

Nah. It would have been an easy opportunity to offer a jab or two if I was so inclined.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For the most part we've done nothing but give you good advise from the start. It just seems that your story started out strange. You gave us this "woe is me" of how you were treated at the scene, and how you were treated at the jail. You didn't even admit that the suspect in this was your son.

It's very interesting that the Secret Service, became involved. They don't without reason. The GBI is more then capable of breaking down and retrieving info. off of your computer. This whole thing doesn't pass the smell test to me. I'm only hearing your side, which is only one of three.

Regarding your son, you didn't have to let him in the house. Especially if you were aware of his previous issues and background. I am sorry if these things have happened to you, but i believe that a lot of your problems you caused yourself.

There's two sides to every story, actually three, your side, their side and the truth. I like to view all sides and determine the truth. I, nor the other LEO's or Att.'s can help you via the Internet.

What is it that you want? Do you want the LEO's here to call the city LE agency and b1tch cuss the chief for arresting you? Do you want the Att's. here to represent you in court? Do you want the members to contribute to a "1234567 legal fund"?

You need to seek an Att. out of the area, if you feel the Att.'s within Cherokee Co. GA. don't represent your needs. It doesn't get any plainer then that.

Man, you must be on some serious drugs. You might want to try rehab or in a last ditch effort a tinfoil hat!

I have never read such wacko, paranoid and outright fabricated drivel in my life.

Uh, I do believe that is called transference in mental health circles Sir. See my previous post for further clarification.

...and why do you keep posting the same thing over and over? Why do you get offended when someone asks for clarification? Why do you specifically asks LEOs to answer questions so that you can say the answers are wrong?

One last question. You have stated that the entire County of Cherokee, Ga. is corrupt, LEO's, Judges, Attorneys and Juries. Assuming that is a fact, I doubt that the resources are available to frame everybody. I doubt that you are the only guy in the county with a bad kid. What makes you special and why is everyone out to get you?

It's Bush's fault.

"It's very interesting that the Secret Service, became involved. They don't without reason. The GBI is more then capable of breaking down and retrieving info. off of your computer. This whole thing doesn't pass the smell test to me. I'm only hearing your side, which is only one of three."

I had planned on staying away from this, but there is one comment that I decided not to let pass.

It is about the SS being involved, and that it doesn't past the smell test. In a way, I agree. The FBI, the GBI, and the Cobb County police department and the state crime lab are more than capable of going through a computer. There are probably local experts who could do the same thing.

When the detective said he was going to send it to the SS, I didn't believe him. When I told my attorney about it, he also said that he didn't believe it, that the SS didn't do things like that.

Several people on here have expressed the same dis-belief, even some in LE, like yourself.

I am telling the truth. Some, it might have been you, have indicated that I am lying about this. I'm not, and since I know what actually happened, it is a bit irritating for someone to tell me what I am saying didn't happen.

I can prove that the SS took my computer, and I have offered this proof before. I have the name and phone number of the Special Agent who I talked to, explaining my concerns that the SS did not do this, and that I was wondering if the detective was telling me the truth.

The Special Agent, after arguing a little bit, and me arguing back a little bit, did admit that the SS did have my computer, but that was all he would tell me.

I wanted it back as soon as possible. This was back in the summer and fall of last year. The SS agent told me that with all they had going on, I guess with the presidential election coming up that they were very busy and could not tell me when they would be finished with it. I got it back sometime in the latter part of December, 2008.

According to you, there are three sides to every story. Well I have been told that I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and I might not be, but you can rest assured that if there had been kiddie porn on that computer, I would not have bugged the SS and the local police trying to get it back, calling even more attention to myself, and calling the SS agent about once a month asking him when they would be finished with it.

If you are capable of using just the tinyest bit of logic, surely you can understand that aI would not have called even more attention to myself if there was anything illegal on that computer.

If you want to prove in your own mind, or for whatever reason, I can furnish you with the name and phone number of the SS agent. I have offered to do this for anyone who really wants to know. You being in LE, they would probably give you the information. I doubt if they would anyone else.

If you want to do that, you can, or you can not bother and go through your life thinking that I am a lying about it. That is what it seems like you, and others on here prefer to do, that you had rather think I am a liar and call me one than know the truth.

That seems to be the typical mindset of LE. I can prove what I say is true, but instead of verfying the truth, and I have explained how you can verify it, you would rather ignore it and continue to call me a lier.

But then, if I gave you the information and confirmed that what I am saying is the truth, that would show that you and others on this forum were wrong, and you don't want that come out, do you. None of you want to admit that you might have been wrong. You had rather keep on trying to cover yourselves with BS.

Every statement I have made on here about what took place is factual, and I can prove it, if anyone is actually concerned about knowing the truth. But it seems like most of you had rather not know and continue call be a liar, although I don't understand why anyone but me would be interested in what I said is true or not. Seems like everyone had rather argue about it and make insulting comments than know for sure. Takes all kinds, I guess.

No, I did not tell anyone at first that he was my son. I had my reasons for that. First, when he attacked me, I did not want to hurt him if I could avoid it. I knew he had issues, but I did not know that they were as serious as they were. Like father, like son, I guess some of you are thinking.

I don't know if any of the others who are taking a negative attitude toward me have chillen, either grown or young, but you should know that you are more tolerant of what you own child does than you would be of a stranger who attacked you or committed any other crime.

When the officer arrested me, my son told him that I had access to rifles. I did, but during the entire incident, the safe they are stored in was kept locked. I could have unlocked it and removed a rifle, but that goes back to the father-son relationship. Can you understand that?

Especially LtPPowell, can you understand that, although at the time, the father-son relationship was a little strained, but not so much that I wanted a firearm in my hands? Do you understand that when you are in a state of excitement, or in an argument with a family member that the last thing you need is a gun?

The reason I singled you out, LTppowell, is that you seem to have a major comprehension problem of even the simpliest things, and I wanted to make sure you understood exactly what I was talking about. Do you understand that self defense with a firearm, even for LE, should be a last ditch action? Do you understand that what you might want to do is a far cry from what should be or should have been done?

The arresting officer asked me if he could take the guns. At first I refused, because, and I explained this to him, that the safe was never unlocked during the incident, and guns were not an issue. He said that he only wanted to take them for safe-keeping and they would be returned when or if I posted bond. According to Georgia law, he was supposed to give me a receipt for anything taken, but he didn't.

Later, when I saw the official complaint form, I noticed that the officer had written that the guns were confiscated as evidence. He had lied to me about taking them for safe keeping.

After I posted bond, I called the arresting officer and reminded him that he said I could have the guns back after I posted bond. He said, no, I could not have them back until the matter was settled in court. So, he lied to me again, first when he said he was taking them for safekeeping, and next when he said I could get them back after I posted bond.

Had I know he was being untruthful, I would have insisted on his getting a warrant, if I had that legal right. He might could have legally taken them anyway. When he asked me about the guns, I was outside, locked up in the back seat of the police car. When I told him, the first time, that he couldn't take the guns I might could have told him that I didn't want him back in my house without a search warrant. I don't know the law on this.

A few weeks ago, I was offered a plea, to a lesser charge. I was tempted to take it, just to get out from under this, but, I looked up some laws, and according to Georgia law, anything seized as evidence becomes the property of the police department if the accused is convicted. Pleading guilty to a lesser charge is considered a conviction in Georgia.

So, had I pleaded guilty, I would have forfieted the guns.

Even though a criminal might be a lier and a crook and a thief, that does not make it right for LE to lie to you and misrepresent the law in order to enforce the law and to take you property, if it is illegal to do so.

Police should be held to higher standards than normal everyday crooks.

If a crime is committed, that doesn't mean that both the criminal and the police have to be liers and crooks. It looks like one of the two involved could be honest about it.

If a police officer has to lie, as they did to me, when they took my computer, and lie to make an arrest and seize and keep property and to get a conviction, then there is something very wrong with that law, and also in that law enforcment department.

What I have told you is factual, although, from past experience, I know these facts are going to roll off of you like water off a duck's back. And the same for LtIppowel and T Lee.

Now, let me ask you a question. Do you condone a police officer lying to a person when making an arrest, and lying to get a conviction and lying to seize property and lying to send an innocent person to jail, when you know beyond a doubt that the person going to jail is innocent? Do any of you condone that? Do any of you use that procedure during your duties of LE?

If you do condone this, then you are no better than the ones who arrested me.

When the district attorney offered the plea bargain, she listed about half a page of the things she wanted me to plead guilty to. None were true. Georgia law plainly states that an accused is entitled to a probably cause hearing to determine if there is enough evidence to proceed.

I have asked for a probable cause hearing, but it was denied. I have asked for a preliminary hearing, and it was denied. I have not been indicted for any crime, nor has my case been heard by a grand jury.

I was cleared on the kiddie porn stuff. My son is the one who said I had it on my computer. He is also the one who said I did all the things that the ADA wanted me to plead guilty to.

If seems to me that by being cleared on the porno stuff, that would show beyond any doubt that he would lie. By showing that he was capable of lying, there should be a question about whether or not he is telling the truth about all the other stuff he said I did.

I don't expect this lengthy explanation to carry any weight with any of you. Someone is going to say that I am having a woe is me day and a pity party and that I need to wear my tin foil lined hat often, and I won't even try make a guess what LtIppowell will say, other than it will be something not even related to what I have written, or something just the opposite of what I have written which he misunderstood, either deliberately not.

What bothers me more than the charges against me is why it bothers me what any of you think or care or know. I know what happened. That should be all that matters to me, but I keep trying to convince some of you that I did not commit a crime at all, but was charged with one.

I can face the charges, and I can face going to prison, but careing about what some of you think is getting to be a problem, and I am probably going to have to seek mental care because of it.

What some of you think or know about me should be, and is, the least of my problems, but it is the one I dwell on most, and spend the most time trying to convince you of my side of the tale, and each of you have been 100 % wrong in your assessment of what I did, said, and what actually happened.

Who cares? If anyone has any advice about how to ignore the opinions of others, I would really like to hear from you. Perhaps take a large dose of strong, a fast acting and mind alternating dope.

The last attorney I retained charged me $2500.00 to get me out of this. For the $2500.00 he charged, he relayed the conditions of the plea bargain to me. When I refused to accept, he called me stupid and dropped me as a client.

When I first met with this attorney, I was asking him something and he remarked that he had an IQ of 150 and that he did not need me to tell him how to do his job. I remarked that my IQ is 165 (and it is, if anyone is interested in seeing my Mensa membership papers I can prove it).

That very quickly got him off the IQ subject and onto something else.

Right now, I do not have an attorney--after paying this one, I am out of money. I went to the office where they have court appointed attorneys, but they said I make too much, although my retirement income is less that what is considered government poverty level.

So, I do not have an attorney at this time. The only choice I have is to represent myself, which means I will have a fool for a client. Or is it a fool for an attorney?

The person at the court appointed attorneys office said that I was required to have an attorney and that if I showed up in court without one, that the judge would send me to jail for contempt. So, I don't see what difference it makes. Go to jail for contempt or go to jail for something I didn't do. Jail is still jail regardless of why you are there.

Georgia must be the only state that you are not allowed to represent yourself then, every other state I can think of will allow you to make an ass of yourself in front of a court.

ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?

Roger Roots*

ABSTRACT

Police work is often lionized by jurists and scholars who claim to employ "textualist" and "originalist" methods of constitutional interpretation. Yet professional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and first appeared in America almost a half-century after the Constitution's ratification. The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles...


"The modern police-driven model of law enforcement helps sustain a playing field that is fundamentally uneven for different players upon it. Modern police act as an army of assistants for state prosecutors and gather evidence solely with an eye toward the state's interests. Police seal off crime scenes from the purview of defense investigators, act as witnesses of convenience for the state in courts of law, and instigate a substantial amount of criminal activity under the guise of crime fighting. Additionally, police enforce social class norms and act as tools of empowerment for favored interest groups to the disadvantage of others.10 Police are also a political force that constantly lobbies for increased state power and decreased constitutional liberty for American citizens"

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

Try reading Zen.

Jim

"Georgia must be the only state that you are not allowed to represent yourself then, every other state I can think of will allow you to make an ass of yourself in front of a court."

Thats what I thought, too.

Surely, you don't think the Indigent Defense Investigater would have lied to me, do you?

After all, he works for the judicial system. He would't deliberately mislead someone would he? Surely officers of the court are above that.

He might not have even lied. He might have just been stupid and thought he was telling the truth. I know that he is surrounded by enough stupid people that if stupidity is contagious, he has certainly been exposed to it.

You need to file a complaint to the next higher court. You cannot be forced to hire a lawyer. Look up the Georgia code for Courts. Les

A lot of you are hitting on zen, but everything he has said makes a lot of sense.

If anyone has ever come in contact with LE in a negative way, then they know beyond a doubt that what both zen and myself are saying is factual, and more factual than any lawyer or LEO on here will admit.

Guilty or innocent, it doesn't matter. Get on their radar for any reason, and it is like trying to pick up a piece of sch*** by the clean end.

92 YEAR OLD WOMAN KILLED BY POLICE(CBS/AP)



A police official said narcotics officers were justified in returning fire on a 92-year-old woman they shot to death after she shot them as they tried to serve a warrant at her house.

Neighbors and relatives said it was a case of mistaken identity, but Atlanta police say there was no mistake concerning the address of the house, reports CBS Radio News' Pete Combs.

Police added that the woman, identified as Kathryn Johnston, was the only resident in the house at the time and had lived there for about 17 years.

"I'm mad as hell! The neighbors know where the drugs are � ask the neighbors!" Johnston's niece, Sarah Dozier, shouted to reporters.

"My aunt was in good health. I'm sure she panicked when they kicked that door down," Dozier told WAGA-TV, adding that there were no drugs in the house. "There was no reason they had to go in there and shoot her down like a dog."

Assistant Chief Alan Dreher said the officers had a legal warrant and "knocked and announced" before they forced open the door. He said they were justified in shooting once they were fired upon.

As the plainclothes Atlanta police officers approached the house about 7 p.m., "as we have it right now, the female opened fire on the officers. The officers returned fire, and struck and killed her," Dreher said.

One of the police officers was hit in the arm, another in a thigh and the third in a shoulder. The officers were taken to a hospital for treatment, and all three were conscious and alert, police said.

"They killed her, they shot her down like a dog, and I'm upset," Dozier said. "Somebody is going to answer to it, 'cause I'm going to sue like hell! I'm going to sue like hell! Let Atlanta know that."

Rev. Markel Hutchins, a civil rights leader, said Johnston's family deserves an apology.

"Of the police brutality cases we've had, this is the most egregious because of the woman's age," Hutchins said.

Hutchins said he would try to meet with Atlanta Police Chief Richard Pennington and would also meet with lawyers.

92 YEAR OLD WOMAN KILLED BY POLICE(CBS/AP)

This is one of the initial reports on this shooting:

A police official said narcotics officers were justified in returning fire on a 92-year-old woman they shot to death after she shot them as they tried to serve a warrant at her house.

Neighbors and relatives said it was a case of mistaken identity, but Atlanta police say there was no mistake concerning the address of the house, reports CBS Radio News' Pete Combs.

Police added that the woman, identified as Kathryn Johnston, was the only resident in the house at the time and had lived there for about 17 years.

"I'm mad as hell! The neighbors know where the drugs are � ask the neighbors!" Johnston's niece, Sarah Dozier, shouted to reporters.

"My aunt was in good health. I'm sure she panicked when they kicked that door down," Dozier told WAGA-TV, adding that there were no drugs in the house. "There was no reason they had to go in there and shoot her down like a dog."

Assistant Chief Alan Dreher said the officers had a legal warrant and "knocked and announced" before they forced open the door. He said they were justified in shooting once they were fired upon.

As the plainclothes Atlanta police officers approached the house about 7 p.m., "as we have it right now, the female opened fire on the officers. The officers returned fire, and struck and killed her," Dreher said.

One of the police officers was hit in the arm, another in a thigh and the third in a shoulder. The officers were taken to a hospital for treatment, and all three were conscious and alert, police said.

"They killed her, they shot her down like a dog, and I'm upset," Dozier said. "Somebody is going to answer to it, 'cause I'm going to sue like hell! I'm going to sue like hell! Let Atlanta know that."

Rev. Markel Hutchins, a civil rights leader, said Johnston's family deserves an apology.

"Of the police brutality cases we've had, this is the most egregious because of the woman's age," Hutchins said.

Hutchins said he would try to meet with Atlanta Police Chief Richard Pennington and would also meet with lawyers.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/22/national/main2205048.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2205048

2006 huh? I'm sure we never covered that story here.

But, thanks a bunch for filling us in!

92 YEAR OLD WOMAN KILLED BY POLICE(CBS/AP)
This is a follow-up story:

updated 11:58 a.m. PT, Thurs., April 26, 2007

ATLANTA - Two police officers pleaded guilty to manslaughter Thursday in the shooting death of a 92-year-old woman during a botched drug raid. A third officer was also indicted in the woman�s death.

Gregg Junnier, 40, who retired from the Atlanta police force in January, pleaded guilty to manslaughter, violation of oath, criminal solicitation and making false statements.

Officer J.R. Smith, 35, pleaded guilty to the same four charges and to perjury, which was based on making untrue claims in a warrant.
In court, Smith said he regretted what happened.

�I�m sorry,� he said, his voice barely audible.

The state charges followed a Nov. 21 drug raid on the apartment of Kathryn Johnston, 92. An informant had described buying drugs from a dealer there, police said. When the officers burst in without warning, Johnston fired at them, and they fired back, killing her.

Junnier and Smith had been charged in an indictment unsealed earlier Thursday with felony murder, violation of oath by a public officer, criminal solicitation, burglary, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and making false statements.

The third officer, Arthur Tesler, 40, was charged with violation of oath by a public officer, making false statements and false imprisonment under color of legal process. His attorney, William McKenney, said Tesler expects to go to trial.

Tesler is �very relieved� not to face murder charges, McKenney said, �but we�re concerned about the three charges.� He said Tesler had testified before the grand jury.

Tesler and Smith have both been on administrative leave from the force.

Federal charges expected
In Junnier�s case, prosecutors asked the judge to withhold sentencing until after a hearing later Thursday in federal court, where he was also expected to enter guilty pleas. Federal charges were expected against all three officers.

U.S. Attorney David Nahmias told The Associated Press the federal sentence for Junnier would be 10 years and one month in prison. The state and federal sentences were expected to be the same.

The deadly drug raid had been set up after narcotics officers said an informant had claimed there was cocaine in the home.

When the plainclothes officers burst in without notice, police say Johnston fired a handgun at the men, wounding three, and the officers returned fire. An autopsy report revealed Johnston was shot five or six times in the chest, arms, legs and feet. Initially, the medical examiner�s office said Johnston was 88, while her relatives insisted she was 92. Public officials now agree she was 92.

Questions about no-knock raids
The case raised serious questions about no-knock warrants and whether the officers followed proper procedures.

Atlanta Police Chief Richard Pennington asked the FBI to lead a multi-agency probe into the shootout. He also announced policy changes to require the department to drug-test its nearly 1,800 officers and mandate that top supervisors sign off on narcotics operations and no-knock warrants.

To get the warrant, officers told a magistrate judge that an undercover informant had told them Johnston�s home had surveillance cameras monitored carefully by a drug dealer named �Sam.�

After the shooting, a man claiming to be the informant told a television station that he never purchased drugs there, prompting Pennington to admit he was uncertain whether the suspected drug dealer actually existed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18328267/