I have to take a break from blogging about the Compean Ramos case to address the newest regarding Kathryn Johnston whom I blogged about in the past. Apparently, the other shoe has dropped.

Patterico is reporting that murder charges are being filed against the officers. The case will be taken to the grand jury.

I am rather disgusted by this comment made by one of the defense attorneys to the AJC reporter about the fact that the officers obtained the search warrant based on lies about an informant buying drugs at Kathryn Johnston’s house:

Csehy conceded his client may have made mistakes, but he said Junnier didn’t commit murder. “There was no malfeasance here. It was sloppy police work,” Csehy said. “It was cutting corners.”

That is just sick. They lied and brought about the death of an innocent citizen. Under Biblical law, those who bear false witness are to suffer the same sentence as would the one who was the victim of the false witness. Kathryn Johnston died. Jail time for murder is not an excessive penalty.

Further, I discussed the possible charges against the cops or the confidential informant (if he lied) here.

This part is interesting:

Johnston’s family was angry that Howard was bringing the case to the grand jury, spokesman Hutchins said.

“The family of Kathryn Johnston is extremely unhappy and disappointed with today’s turn of events. Mr. Howard’s move today of pressing charges would effectively limit the scope of and the potential charges of a federal investigation, and borders on tampering with a federal investigation.”

Why is the local D.A. leapfrogging over the federal investigation to prosecute the police officers? I prefer that states prosecute crimes over the federal government. However, here I am a little suspicious. What does this D.A. think will be gained by prosecuting before the federal investigation is complete?

That’s how Radley Balko begins his latest post on the Kathryn Johnston case, the elderly woman who was killed by police officers busting down her door on a no-knock warrant. I blogged about her in my last few posts.

It appears that there is now direct evidence that the warrant was obtained under false circumstances. One of the officers is spilling the beans–the story about the confidential informant was made up, according to him.

If so, I was right when I said here that a homicide was committed. In fact, if the officer is telling the truth, it’s an unjustifiable homicide:

Buddy Parker, a former federal prosecutor, said that officers who lied to the magistrate could face serious charges in addition to making false statements to a judge.

“If that was the case, you have a conspiracy,” said Parker. “If you have a warrantless entry, you have no legal investigation. It can be either conscious disregard for the law and all conduct flowing from that is criminal — the entry, the homicide. It’s no different from people going in to rob a bank and kill someone in a shooting.”

What thuggery!

Update:

The Fulton County D.A. is planning to pursue criminal charges against the cops. Good move.

Radley Balko, Patterico and Orin Kerr have information on the affidavit. Go read all three.

I read the affidavit and noted this part:

AS THE CRI APPROACHED THE HOME AND WENT TO THE FRONT DOOR THE CRI WAS MET BY “SAM”. “SAM” AND THE CRI SPOKE BRIEFLY AT THE FRONT PORCH. “SAM” THEN BREIFLY(sic) WALKED INTO THE HOME AT 933 NEAL ST. RETURNING WITH AN OBJECT HE EXCHANGED WITH THE CRI IN EXCHANGE FOR THE CITY FUNDS…

Note a few things. First, the affidavit does not affirmatively say that the affiant actually saw this happen–the interaction on the porch. Perhaps he did–perhaps he didn’t and it’s based on hearsay.

Second, if the warrant was issued on a no-knock basis because of the surveillance cameras the CRI said were in the house, consider a few things. The affidiavit says that “SAM” went into the house–it does not say that the CRI went into the house. So, how did the CRI know about the cameras? Did he look in the house? Had he been in the house on a previous occasion? How did he know that Sam closely monitored cameras?

Did the judge base the no knock component on the basis of the “closely monitored” surveillance cameras? If so, should she have asked these questions first?

Radley Balko updates on Kathryn Johnston. It appears that the confidential informant is claiming that he was told to lie about the drug purchase at Mrs. Johnston’s house.

From Radley:

What happens now? Do they throw the informant under the bus? Either way, it’s now pretty clear that this raid was a catstrophic failure.

Attack the informant’s credibility and you admit that you conducted a high-risk, forced entry raid based entirely on a tip from an informant you now say is unreliable. You admit you did no corroborating investigation. You admit you didn’t even send an officer to check to see if the informant was right about, for example, an external surveillance system. And all of this ineptitude led to the death of an innocent woman, not to mention to three officers getting wounded.

And that’s if the guy’s lying about the cover-up. If he’s telling the truth? Now you’re talking a major-league shit storm. If this guy’s telling the truth, not only did the officers originally investigating this case lie, but the officers investigating after the shooting then lied to cover it up. That means you not only have corruption problems with your narcotics officers, but you have problems with your internal affairs unit, the cops who are charged with keeping the other cops in line.

Someone has committed the crime of homicide under Georgia law.

Felony Murder – O.C.G.A. 16-5-1(c)

Felony murder occurs when a person causes the death of another person while in the commission of a felony. Under the felony-murder rule, malice (an intent to cause the person’s death) is irrelevant. The defendant need not have any intention to kill someone, the fact that someone died as a result of his felonious act is sufficient. Example: If Joe is robbing a bank, and a customer who is in the middle of the event suffers a heart attack and dies, it is likely that Joe will be charged with felony-murder.

Is giving a false statement in an affidavit or report to the police a felony in Georgia? If not:

Involuntary Manslaughter –According to Georgia law, there are two types of involuntary manslaughter. Neither type requires that the defendant actually intend to kill the victim.

“Unlawful Act” Involuntary Manslaughter – O.C.G.A. 16-5-3(a)

The first type of involuntary manslaughter is considered a felony. It occurs when the defendant commits a non-felonious crime, (a misdemeanor) which results in someone’s death. This is also sometimes referred to as “misdemeanor manslaughter”.

Who signed the affidavit for the search warrant? If that person lied, the level of homicide for which that person is responsible is above–depending on whether it is a felony or misdemeanor.

Then there is this:

“Criminal Negligence” Involuntary Manslaughter – O.C.G.A. 16-5-3(b)

The second kind of involuntary manslaughter is a misdemeanor. It happens when the defendant commits a lawful act in an unlawful manner which is likely to cause another person great bodily harm or death (in other words, another person’s death results from the defendant’s criminally negligent conduct). It is difficult to determine exactly what conduct is required in order to be considered criminally negligent. If it appears that a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have known that the act would endanger others, and the defendant committed the act anyway, then the defendant’s behavior is probably criminally negligent.

Go back to Radley’s statement:

Attack the informant’s credibility and you admit that you conducted a high-risk, forced entry raid based entirely on a tip from an informant you now say is unreliable. You admit you did no corroborating investigation. You admit you didn’t even send an officer to check to see if the informant was right about, for example, an external surveillance system. And all of this ineptitude led to the death of an innocent woman, not to mention to three officers getting wounded.

A prosecution is in order.

(Link to George Statutes)

Radley Balko is reporting that the police found a small amount of marijuana in Mrs. Johnston’s house. Moreover, if you look at the story, which covers a public statement from the police chief, you will see something very interesting.

Earlier reports quoted members of the police force claiming that undercover officers purchased narcotics in her home earlier that day. Now, in the story linked in the first paragraph of this post, the Police Chief admits this:

Chief Pennington said the case was built on a drug buy by a confidential informant, who claimed he purchased drugs inside Johnston’s home.

This is outrageous. How dare the police, in the span of a few hours, get a no-knock warrant based on this–with no time for other meaningful investigation!

If it is proven that the informant actually gave Mrs. Johnston’s address as the location of the buy, he should be prosecuted for the appropriate level of homicide. The governmental entities involved and the individual police, prosecutor and judge who set this in motion should be forced to give restitution–and should lose their jobs for abusing the trust of the public. There should be no qualified immunity in this case–or any other like it.

P.S. I’d like to know if Mrs. Johnston’s fingerprints were found on that bag of marijuana; also whether rolling papers or other paraphenalia used to smoke it were found. The department has already given out false information about who allegedly made the drug buy. Its credibility is suspect on the issue of how the marijuana came to be in her house.

William Grigg, at Pro Libertat, writes about how it is unfair to compare SWAT teams gone wrong to cowboys.

I particularly like this part:

But unlike today’s opportunistic paramilitary police operators, Earp – the Shootout behind the OK Corral notwithstanding – resorted to gunplay with commendable reluctance. On most occasions he out-thought and out-maneuvered the bad guy, and his preferred method of dealing with an armed suspect was to “Buffalo” him – approach him from the blind side, grab his gun hand, and stun the subject by clubbing him with the butt of his revolver.

This reminds me of how Texas Ranger Leander McNelly, with the aid of less than 20 Rangers stood down 200 Mexican soldiers and additional assorted Banditos to recover cattle stolen by the latter. He used his wits to accomplish the recovery.

It makes me wonder whether our present police forces possess half of the good sense, finesse and intelligence possessed by the old “cowboys’. The truth is, they don’t have to. They can just get a battering ram and beat down a door.

As William Grigg puts it:

If the police were genuinely concerned about a drug deal at Mrs. Johnston’s home, and they were convinced that the dealer was on the premises, why the hell didn’t they simply stake out the home and wait?

Why was it necessary to deploy a paramilitary squad to kick down the door?

My best guess is that the department was reacting to the perverse incentives created by Federal counter-narcotics assistance. A military-style raid, after all, would underscore the magnitude of the “crisis” in Johnston’s neighborhood, thereby keeping federal money flowing.

Of course, Wyatt Earp and Leander McNelly weren’t angling for Federal grants back in those days.

I have been reading R.J. Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law. I am now on the second volume. I’m obsessed. I relate everything back to what I am learning in these books.

For instance, Radley Balko has been writing about Kathryn Johnston, the 92-year old woman killed by a SWAT team in Atlanta serving a no-knock search warrant. Radley, has performed a yeoman’s job in pointing out the travesty of these SWAT teams serving warrants. Read his whole site.

First, this lady was killed for allegedly shooting and hitting three SWAT officers as they broke down the door and entered the house, using a rusty revolver. If this lady was no criminal, in my estimation she had every right to use deadly force against someone breaking down her dooor in the middle of the night. I don’t believe that she had the duty to ascertain that they were police in that instance–though if she knew prior to firing her gun, she had no right to fire at them.

Patterico, whom I enjoy reading, has criticized Radley’s position on this case. I don’t usually post about fights between bloggers, such as the Glenn Greenwald “sock-puppet” story Patterico had going for a while. Here I side with Radley Balko.

It truly concerns me that a practicing prosecutor such as Patterico would say this in one of his comments to his own post:

“May God forgive this old lady for firing on 3 cops who were, from all available information, just doing their jobs.

Because of her actions in firing on officers, she’s now getting to find out whether that forgiveness is available.”

I don’t fault the officers who were attempting to serve the warrant (unless evidence pointing to their fault arises), but for a practicing prosecuter to make such a statement as the one above, seems indicative that Patterico believes that a prosecutor’s duty is to the police rather than to justice. Assuming that Mrs. Johnston was merely reacting to what she perceived as a criminal threat–and not intentionally targeting the police to protect her “stash” (if one existed), it is quite evident to me that a gross miscarriage of justice has occurred.

Patterico and the Fulton County Prosecutor rest justification on legalism. According to the Fulton County Prosecutor:

a preliminary review of the case shows the officers “had a legal right” to search the home.

That is a statement regarding legalism. I am more concerned with justice.

If we are to determine whether there was justice here, numerous questions need to be answered. For instance, upon what does the search warrant rest? What facts were given to justify that this warrant be issued as a “no-knock warrant” which necessarily entails a violent entry? The facts, if revealed will, in part, give an answer to the question of justice.

But, then we must examine the credibility of the person giving the facts. There has been a claim that undercover officers averred that a young black male sold them drugs at Mrs. Johnston’s address a few hours before the warrant was served. Does this justify the no-knock warrant?

Well, what evidence was presented to the Judge that the young black male lived at the address, stored drugs on the premises and had a propensity for violence? What information was known to the police and given to the Judge regarding the owner of the propert–Mrs. Johnston? Was the informant who averred the “facts” an honest person who had a track record for giving accurate and truthful information. Did the Judge use care and diligence in ascertaining the facts and risks before issuing a warrant to be served in the manner it was?

We will probably never know about most of the above. For instance, Radley Balko has written extensively on these cases and the protections that informants have been given–even in instances where they have given false witness.

I wrote the following in an e-mail to Radley Balko, which incorporates some of the things I have learned from Rushdoony:

I simply could not believe that, as a practicing prosecutor, Patterico said the following in a comment to one of his own posts:

“May God forgive this old lady for firing on 3 cops who were, from all available information, just doing their jobs.
Because of her actions in firing on officers, she’s now getting to find out whether that forgiveness is available.”

He has forgotten that his job as a prosecutor is not to side with the police, it is to uphold justice. The police are not above the law–though the immunity granted them allows them to act as if they are.

It is particularly disturbing to me that he is making religious references in this comment. Does he not realize where the requirements of due process and for punishing the bearing of “false witness” originated? It is contained in the discussion regarding the ninth commandment in Deuteronomy and again in Matthew. Yet, we have laws that protect informants for bearing false witness as you have discussed many times in your posts on SWAT teams. Patterico seems to support this.

Patterico should review the requirements for “due process” as laid out in great detail in Deuteronomy. There are strict requirements for evidence and witnesses before a life can be taken. There was a woeful failure to determine the facts prior to taking the life-threatening action inherent in the violent serving of a warrant at Mrs. Johnston’s home.

When a SWAT team serves these no-knock warrants in a violent manner, only a person with no common sense would fail to recognize the great odds that some one will be hurt or killed. Thus, it is my position that in the Johnston case we have seen a great miscarriage of justice in that the police failed to acquire sufficient evidence to determine who was going to be the ultimate subject of the violent entry into Mrs. Johnston’s house, and whether she possessed the character and propensity to intentionally kill police officers.

In my opinion, the police rebelled against God’s law and the Constitution (regardless of the legalistic interpretations made by the Courts). They applied legalism (the warrant and attendant procedure) as opposed to justice as laid out in our Constitution and in God’s law.

It is my position that God has warned us time and again of the dangers of legalism over justice–he sent his Son, in part, to make this point. Yet, in our hubris and denial of our duty to “love one another”, which to me involves the keeping of the second tablet of the Ten Commandments (Thou Shalt Not Murder, Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness etc), we create results such as the death of Kathryn Johnston.

Assuming that Mrs. Johnston was merely protecting her home and not targeting police officers, if the police are not held accountable for her death, another sacrilege against justice will occur.

It is of concern to me that Patterico chooses to spout religious-infused statements without reference to the principles of Justice as laid out by the God he invokes.

Keep doing what you can in this area. You are revealing the weaknesses in our present system of justice–such as the hubris and weaknesses of those charged with administering justice–including prosecutors like Patterico.

I don’t know if Radley is a religious man–but as he is a Libertarian–I think that he would be very interested in reading Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law. Through these books, I have learned how small a sphere of influence God intended civil government to have. I do not believe that God approves of the leviathian that civil government has created to wage the War on Drugs. I believe that, under His design, a drug dealer who disrupts a neighborhood would be dealt with by his family or community–and expelled if he persists in conducting his business in a manner that is harmful to his neighbors. But, that is a topic for another post.