I'm sorry that you're gone, Kathryn Johnston.

The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure is based on a fundamental precept of common law that goes all the way back to the Middle Ages, to wit: A person should be given an opportunity to comply with the law before there is a forcible entry. To do otherwise is to create a deadly situation that is dangerous for all concerned, including the police.

The sad case of Kathryn Johnston has taken up my thoughts this week. I cannot believe this case happened in my country. The county of constitutionally protected rights. The country where it's the right of every citizen to defend themselves and their homes with deadly force.

Can't we all see ourselves in Ms. Johnston's place? We're old. We live alone. Our neighborhood has changed for the worse during the 17 years lived there. We feel vulnerable. We arm ourselves against any violence that might befall us.

Where in this scenario did we EVER believe that our government would be the agent of our demise? Don't we look to our government to protect us and not burst into our homes and shoot us down because we're exercising our constitutional rights?

All I can think is that things have gone to shit and some thing's horribly wrong.

I've had an ongoing debate - if you can call it that - with one of our local talk show hosts. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be able to read past the 1st sentence or he's just being deliberately dense.

Here's the converstion:

From: me
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:05 AM
To: KrokTalk
Subject: No-knock warrants

This really is an epidemic that should cease to exist. As American citizens, we have a constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to keep and bear arms, and due process. The practice of ramming in the door of and entering a person's home pretty much negates all of that! Not to mention the fact that it's dangerous as hell for everyone involved.

This summer the Cato Institute released a disturbing report entitled Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America. The report found that, "These increasingly frequent raids, 40,000 per year by one estimate, are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongfully targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they're sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary unites dressed not as police officers, but as solders. These raids bring unnecessary violence and provocation to nonviolent drug offenders, many of who were guilty of only misdemeanors. The raids terrorize innocents when police mistakenly target the wrong residence. And they have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not only of drug offenders, but also of police officers, children, bystanders, and innocent suspects.

From: KrokTalk

Date: 11/28/06 02:33:27 AM

To: me

Subject: RE: No-knock warrants

Thanks, (me)..but what do we do about them having time to flush the drugs? Let it go?


KROK

From: me
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 11:19 AM
To: KrokTalk
Subject: RE: No-knock warrants

Chris, I'm finding it very difficult to take you seriously on this issue. Do you honestly think that there is ANY justification in killing an elderly woman to keep a $25 dollar rock of crack cocaine from being flushed? How the heck is that doing anything to benefit our society?

It would be a different matter if the house had been under surveillance, the parties known, their actions known, and it was verified that major drug activity was taking place. This, however, was not the case and is not the case in many of these legalized home invasions.

Ms. Johnston lived alone. This could have been easily verified by speaking with the neighbors. Taking a gander at the property deed would have at least told the police that an elderly woman was in residence and that she had lived there for 17 years. Due diligence was never observed in this case. There was only suspicion.

The issue here isn't whether or not that bag gets flushed but why our law enforcement follows a policy that allows it to act in a military capacity and to forcibly enter a citizen's home in a manner that puts everyone at risk for the sake of 'saving society' from $50 worth of crack cocaine. The policy being implemented by police in cities across the United States in its 'war on drugs' effectively says that no matter how much it costs, no matter how much damage it causes, no matter how many are hurt, killed, and/or ruined in the process, these tactics are justified.

There is something terribly wrong with our society if it's become ok to kill innocents and/or non-violent offenders with impunity in order to protect us from ourselves - i.e.: getting drugs off the streets of America.

Sure, let's get drugs off the streets but let's do it in a manner that doesn't violate our civil rights or puts us in the grave when all we're doing is enjoying a quiet night at home watching Deal or No Deal.

The 'war on drugs' is No Deal to the American people. Its harm far outweighs its benefits. This fact has been documented and discussed by people far more knowledgeable than you or I but the politics of it sounds good and it keeps getting people elected. It also keeps putting non-violent offenders into over-flowing prisons, breaking apart families and communities, and putting bystanders in the grave.

I'm with Boortz on this; "We legalize the drugs. We eliminate most of the law enforcement problem. We don't have to listen to "drug deal gone wrong" stories on the radio in the morning. We then use just a fraction of the money we're using to enforce our drug laws on treatment programs. The result? Fewer murders and more people off drugs."

Here's some perspective on the subject -

http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=363

http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html


From: KrokTalk
Date: 11/30/06 02:49:50 AM
To: me
Subject: RE: No-knock warrants

Justification? So, should the police have taken the rounds and not fired back?

THAT’s why they fired, not for crack.


Thanks!
KROK

This is my reply to him today. He doesn't check his email until after his show so I'll have to update this tomorrow if he answers.

Chris, either you didn't read past the 1st sentence or you have a mind like a steel trap. Ms. Johnston was put in the position of having to defend herself and her home because her door was knocked down.

To put it another way -

"We are using Gestapo tactics to make midnight, surprise raids, kitted out in full military regalia, to serve warrants on suspects of non-violent offenses. In the course of doing so, they are killing citizens whose only offense is, when woken up suddenly at night by men breaking into their homes, having the temerity to defend themselves. This is simply outrageous, and if it doesn't shock your conscience, then you are a moral cripple."

The no-knock method of serving a search warrant is contadictory to our rights under the Constitution.

I have two 17 year-olds who have a better understanding than you do of the fact that the Constitution is meant to protect our rights; not grant them when the government sees fit.

Ok, I'm done with this subject. Brick wall and all that.....