• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

92 year old woman dies in Police shootout!

Mephisto

Philosopher
Mephisto
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
6,064
Now, is this legal? Someone breaks into an elderly ladies home, at night, in a crime-ridden neighborhood (no saying whether they identified themselves as police officers, or that she could hear/understand that they were), and they're surprised that they're fired upon?

Sounds to me like the lady was within her rights, and the police were a little trigger-happy. Oh, regarding the "drugs found" at the address, make note how the drugs aren't identified as illegal drugs (they could be high blood pressure medication and pain relievers).

92-year-old killed in 'roughest neighborhood in Georgia'

POSTED: 10:19 p.m. EST, November 22, 2006

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Many people on the run-down northwest Atlanta street where Kathryn Johnston lived fortify their windows with metal bars and arm themselves for protection.

Johnston, 92, was no exception.

Alone in her home, she was waiting with her gun on Tuesday night when a group of plainclothes officers with a warrant knocked down her door in a search for drugs, police said.

She opened fire, wounding three officers, before being shot to death, police said. (Watch niece's fury at police shooting )

Assistant Police Chief Alan Dreher called the killing "tragic and unfortunate" but said the officers were justified in returning fire.

"You don't know who's in the house until you open that door," Dreher said Wednesday. "And once they forced open the door, they were immediately fired upon."

My comment Apparently, they didn't think the inverse might also be true - that the old woman might have been slightly scared about who was trying to gain entrance to her home.


The Rev. Markel Hutchins, a civil rights activist and spokesman for Johnston's family, said he could understand why the elderly woman would arm herself.

"She was afraid," Hutchins said. "This is a horrifying situation in a neighborhood where crime happens often. This incident is a result of a mix-up."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/22/woman.shot.ap/index.html
 
Mephisto said:
Now, is this legal? Someone breaks into an elderly ladies home, at night, in a crime-ridden neighborhood (no saying whether they identified themselves as police officers, or that she could hear/understand that they were), and they're surprised that they're fired upon?

Sounds to me like the lady was within her rights, and the police were a little trigger-happy. Oh, regarding the "drugs found" at the address, make note how the drugs aren't identified as illegal drugs (they could be high blood pressure medication and pain relievers).

92-year-old killed in 'roughest neighborhood in Georgia'

POSTED: 10:19 p.m. EST, November 22, 2006

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Many people on the run-down northwest Atlanta street where Kathryn Johnston lived fortify their windows with metal bars and arm themselves for protection.

Johnston, 92, was no exception.

Alone in her home, she was waiting with her gun on Tuesday night when a group of plainclothes officers with a warrant knocked down her door in a search for drugs, police said.

She opened fire, wounding three officers, before being shot to death, police said. (Watch niece's fury at police shooting )

Assistant Police Chief Alan Dreher called the killing "tragic and unfortunate" but said the officers were justified in returning fire.

"You don't know who's in the house until you open that door," Dreher said Wednesday. "And once they forced open the door, they were immediately fired upon."

My comment Apparently, they didn't think the inverse might also be true - that the old woman might have been slightly scared about who was trying to gain entrance to her home.


The Rev. Markel Hutchins, a civil rights activist and spokesman for Johnston's family, said he could understand why the elderly woman would arm herself.

"She was afraid," Hutchins said. "This is a horrifying situation in a neighborhood where crime happens often. This incident is a result of a mix-up."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/22/woman.shot.ap/index.html
Click to expand...
Perhaps you missed this part:
The officers had gone to the old woman's house with a search warrant after buying drugs there from a man known only as Sam, police said.

Police issued a "John Doe" warrant on Wednesday for the arrest of Sam, believed to be in his early to mid 30s, who allegedly sold the drugs to the undercover agent.
Dreher would not say how the dealer knew Johnston.
Investigators also said they found drugs in the home after Johnston was killed.
Click to expand...

Though I am not a hard core "kill the druggies" kind of guy, one must expect that when fired upon by someone in a house where drugs are being dealt, that it might be wise to fire back, even if the gunman is a 92-year-old woman. Did you also see that she wounded several of the officers?
The police chief said the officers had identified themselves and then forced open the door of Johnson's house where she had lived for 17 years.
Investigator Gary Smith, 38, was shot in the leg and Investigator Cary Bond, 38, was struck in the arm.
Investigator Gregg Junnier, 40, was hit in the leg, the face and his bulletproof vest. They were taken to the hospital and are expected to recover.
Click to expand...
I think she knew exactly who she was firing at.
 
Last edited:
Maybe so, Tricky, but I think we'll never see the follow-up article regarding the nature of the "drugs" the police found in her home.

Still, I think this says a lot about the woman . . .

"The Rev. Markel Hutchins, a civil rights activist and spokesman for Johnston's family, said he could understand why the elderly woman would arm herself.

"She was afraid," Hutchins said. "This is a horrifying situation in a neighborhood where crime happens often. This incident is a result of a mix-up."

And IF the woman did know who she was shooting at (and why), shouldn't this police force consider boning up on breaching a domicile? I suppose the cops were lucky that she wasn't two or three determined drug pushers with assault rifles.
 
I wouldn't want to be a Police officer, and I certainly wouldn't want to be put in that situation. That being said, why is it cops are so incredibly stupid about how they are perceived by the general public. They should apologize publicly and loudly about shooting a 92 year old woman (even if they think they were justified).

The facts of the case will come out eventually.
 
Personally I prefer the police to kill members of the public irrespective of their race, sex or age.
 
Where is Claus, to say that this woman would still be alive if she had not been armed?

:duck:
 
sphenisc said:
Personally I prefer the police to kill members of the public irrespective of their race, sex or age.
Click to expand...
Really?
I can't imagine any plausible scenarios at all of where it would be necessary for police to kill anyone 5 years old or younger, under any circumstances at all. Can you?
 
drug war

This is just another example of the horrors caused by this ridiculous, horrible "War on Drugs". Now, say you're an old lady who lives in a dangerous neighborhood and who's only protection is a gun. Next, suppose a bunch of strange men break down your front door. What would you do? The fact is, there is somebody to blame for all of the times this sort of thing has happened and it is not the victims.
 
Gurdur said:
Really?
I can't imagine any plausible scenarios at all of where it would be necessary for police to kill anyone 5 years old or younger, under any circumstances at all. Can you?
Click to expand...

No, but then judgements made on factors which happen to correlate with age are not the same as judgements based on age.
 
Gurdur said:
Really?
I can't imagine any plausible scenarios at all of where it would be necessary for police to kill anyone 5 years old or younger, under any circumstances at all. Can you?
Click to expand...

I can. Someone straps a bomb to a five year old and has them run towards a big group of people.

Implausible? Only in some parts of the world.
 
I get it - so, somebody is shooting a gun and floors three cops, and what the cops (that are left) are supposed to do in that situation is try to talk to the shooter (over the gun fire) and hope she gets the message and stops shooting before she kills the rest of them.
 
billydkid said:
This is just another example of the horrors caused by this ridiculous, horrible "War on Drugs". Now, say you're an old lady who lives in a dangerous neighborhood and who's only protection is a gun. Next, suppose a bunch of strange men break down your front door. What would you do? The fact is, there is somebody to blame for all of the times this sort of thing has happened and it is not the victims.
Click to expand...

It seems you're making some assumptions here that are not in evidence.

1) The police were "strange men". The report indicates they identified themselves as police and the old woman was ready for their entrance enough to wound three of them before being shot herself.

2) The old woman was a "victim". Not everyone who is 92 years old is feeble, timid and unaware of what they are doing. This person did better in a gunfight that most young people with training would have.
 
billydkid said:
This is just another example of the horrors caused by this ridiculous, horrible "War on Drugs". Now, say you're an old lady who lives in a dangerous neighborhood and who's only protection is a gun. Next, suppose a bunch of strange men break down your front door. What would you do? The fact is, there is somebody to blame for all of the times this sort of thing has happened and it is not the victims.
Click to expand...

No. Just because you don't think the law is correct, does not mean you break it. If illegal activity is done in your home and the cops show up with a warrant, you do not shoot at them. You look through the door, see the warrant, and let them in. The fact she hasn't shot a delivery man or one of Sam's customers is evidence that she doesn't shoot everyone who comes to the door. They were not strangers once they identified themselves.
 
Mycroft said:
2) The old woman was a "victim". Not everyone who is 92 years old is feeble, timid and unaware of what they are doing. This person did better in a gunfight that most young people with training would have.
Click to expand...

Correct. There are plenty of elderly who have been busted for dealing.
 
I would be remiss if I didn't point out that this again is more evidence of Cleon's Dictum of Georgian Affairs:

Whenever Georgia is in the national news, it's always for something stupid.
 
Mephisto said:
Maybe so, Tricky, but I think we'll never see the follow-up article regarding the nature of the "drugs" the police found in her home.

Still, I think this says a lot about the woman . . .

"The Rev. Markel Hutchins, a civil rights activist and spokesman for Johnston's family, said he could understand why the elderly woman would arm herself.

"She was afraid," Hutchins said. "This is a horrifying situation in a neighborhood where crime happens often. This incident is a result of a mix-up."

And IF the woman did know who she was shooting at (and why), shouldn't this police force consider boning up on breaching a domicile? I suppose the cops were lucky that she wasn't two or three determined drug pushers with assault rifles.
Click to expand...

There was no "mix-up". Drugs were bought from the home. Warrant issued. Police arrive with warrant. Police were not let in. Police bust open door. Suspect(s) open fire on police. Police return fire. Shooter dead. Drugs found. Unfortunate, but done by the book. BTW, if the drugs were painkillers, that is still illegal. Is dealing prescription oxycotin supposed to be better than dealing dope?
 
Tailgater said:
No. Just because you don't think the law is correct, does not mean you break it. If illegal activity is done in your home and the cops show up with a warrant, you do not shoot at them. You look through the door, see the warrant, and let them in. The fact she hasn't shot a delivery man or one of Sam's customers is evidence that she doesn't shoot everyone who comes to the door. They were not strangers once they identified themselves.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you've ever watch the TV show Cops or not, but they don't knock on the door, wait for you to answer and show you the warrant. They break the door down and burst in. And these were plain clothes police. I'm pretty sure the UPS guy doesn't generally knock down your door. No matter what the police do and no matter how authoritarian our society becomes and no matter how much our rights to be left alone and live as we choose are trampled, there will be apologists. Prostitution is a crime also and at the time of 9/11 the FBI had twice as many people going after prostitution rings than investigating terrorism. At some point something like sanity has to prevail. The old "it's the law" routine - like the law in Georgia banning sex toys or the one in Alabama under which you can be executed for putting salt on railroad tracks.
 
wahrheit said:
If drugs were legal, this whole incident would not have happend.

*ducks and runs*
Click to expand...

Hard to say. If drugs were legal then there would be no profit in selling it illegally. But other contraband does, and will always, exist. Would the person for whom the warrant was issued been involved in other illegal activity? My guess is probably.

Funny part is, since he wasn't even there, the absolute best can do now is charge him for whatever evidence the undercover cop had at an earlier time. I'm willing to bet they can't even charge him for whatever other drugs they found in the house.

It's not like the now-dead lady can testify against him.
 
Rob Lister said:
Hard to say. If drugs were legal then there would be no profit in selling it illegally. But other contraband does, and will always, exist. Would the person for whom the warrant was issued been involved in other illegal activity? My guess is probably.

Funny part is, since he wasn't even there, the absolute best can do now is charge him for whatever evidence the undercover cop had at an earlier time. I'm willing to bet they can't even charge him for whatever other drugs they found in the house.

It's not like the now-dead lady can testify against him.
Click to expand...
I know it's a bold thesis, and that's why I put it below mercutio's post teasing Claus, along with a smiley. But recently I was actually thinking about it. If drugs were legal, we wouldn't have all the criminality/crime-rate caused by drugs anymore. Would that be worse or better than the probable increase in the number of people killed by drugs? Not only in regards to the actual number of deaths, but also regarding economy (costs) and general peacefulness. (Hope that's the right expressions, I'm probably lacking vocabulary here to express what I mean.)
 
Gurdur said:
Really?
I can't imagine any plausible scenarios at all of where it would be necessary for police to kill anyone 5 years old or younger, under any circumstances at all. Can you?
Click to expand...
I truly hate to have to say this - but I can: Child rigged with explosive vest (not, obviously, by the child) approaching and not stopping when told to. Child holding real gun, clearly about to pull trigger with gun aimed at officer (even though child probably does not know gun is real) or any other non-criminal person. Unless the officer is armed with a accurate non-lethal (and many of those would kill child anyway) shooting may be only option. I was in Viet-nam and we were warned about those and other possible situations - with examples of their previous occurence.
 
Last edited:
wahrheit said:
I know it's a bold thesis, and that's why I put it below mercutio's post teasing Claus, along with a smiley. But recently I was actually thinking about it. If drugs were legal, we wouldn't have all the criminality/crime-rate caused by drugs anymore. Would that be worse or better than the probable increase in the number of people killed by drugs? Not only in regards to the actual number of deaths, but also regarding economy (costs) and general peacefulness. (Hope that's the right expressions, I'm probably lacking vocabulary here to express what I mean.)
Click to expand...

Well, it's my [humble] opinion that the laws against drugs do far more harm than the drugs do, even in the absence of those laws against the drugs.

But my point was that some people choose to live in the shadows; the dark places where drugs now exist, are bought and sold. Drugs are but one means of existence in those places. get rid of them through legalization and another contraband will takes its place.
 
Last edited:
Tailgater said:
There was no "mix-up". Drugs were bought from the home. Warrant issued. Police arrive with warrant. Police were not let in. Police bust open door. Suspect(s) open fire on police. Police return fire. Shooter dead. Drugs found. Unfortunate, but done by the book. BTW, if the drugs were painkillers, that is still illegal. Is dealing prescription oxycotin supposed to be better than dealing dope?
Click to expand...
Seconded.

Tailgater stated my opinion quite nicely. If anyone was at fault for anything, it would be the people that told the cops to go there and serve the warrant.
 
Tailgater said:
There was no "mix-up". Drugs were bought from the home. Warrant issued. Police arrive with warrant. Police were not let in. Police bust open door. Suspect(s) open fire on police. Police return fire. Shooter dead. Drugs found. Unfortunate, but done by the book. BTW, if the drugs were painkillers, that is still illegal. Is dealing prescription oxycotin supposed to be better than dealing dope?
Click to expand...

"No-knock" warrants are an invitation to cop deaths.

Dreher said undercover officers purchased unspecified narcotics from a man inside Johnston's home on Neal Street in northwest Atlanta just a few hours earlier and had returned just after 7 p.m. with a "no knock" warrant to search the house.
The basis for the search warrant was not known because State Court Administrator Stefani Searcy refused to release a copy of the warrant Wednesday. State law considers all such documents public record but Searcy cited "office policy" as her reason for withholding the warrant.
Click to expand...

If someone busts in your door with little or no announcement, what are you to assume? Even if they had announced before entering, it's not completely out of left field that a 92 year old woman might not have understood what they said, or even heard at all.

Why are they even busting down doors to get a drug dealer, anyway? They had no idea who was inside, if there were any threats, or even if they had the right place at all. A little surveillance might have gone a long way.

No way around it. Cops really screwed up this one.

"No knock" warrants have caused trouble before. Just more evidence of the destructiveness of America's drug policy.
 
shecky said:
"No-knock" warrants are an invitation to cop deaths.



If someone busts in your door with little or no announcement, what are you to assume? Even if they had announced before entering, it's not completely out of left field that a 92 year old woman might not have understood what they said, or even heard at all.

Why are they even busting down doors to get a drug dealer, anyway? They had no idea who was inside, if there were any threats, or even if they had the right place at all. A little surveillance might have gone a long way.

No way around it. Cops really screwed up this one.

"No knock" warrants have caused trouble before. Just more evidence of the destructiveness of America's drug policy.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. Most "announcements" regarding warrants served by law enforcement are made AS the door is being knocked open and there are usually five or six people shouting at once. I can't imagine anything more frightening (especially to a 92 year old woman) than armed, screaming men knocking down a front door. I think the lady was perfectly justified in shooting.

The police had the option of simply surrounding the home and using the telephone to contact the inhabitants. They could have used surveillance to catch the "dealer" (I'm assuming it may have been the woman's grandson or some other relative) OUTSIDE the home. They could have spoken to the neighbors just before the raid to see who else might live at the target address; it might have help clarify how many innocents could be in the home and they might EVEN have found out that the drug dealer wasn't home or that the owner of the home was armed.

Of course, ten men bursting into a home with HKs pointed is much more dramatic than a simple siege and is more likely to make the evening news, UNLESS the 92 year old home owner is scared enough to drop the first three people through the door before they finally kill her.
 
There have been some recent high-court decisions on "announcing" a search warrant entry. The situation remains rather confused, IMO.

In order to apply for a surprise or "no-knock" warrant, the police must show that the occupants may destroy evidence, or that other circumstances exist which justify such an entry.
On arrival, exigent circumstances may override the "announcement" part of the warrant if there is probable cause; such as imminent danger to a hostage or whatever.
In this case, we are not told what the warrant specified, what (other than drug activity) was supposed to be going on inside, or much else.
Was there evidence that the dealers were armed? Did the involved principals have past records of violent confrontations with police? All of these things are normally considered, and we haven't been told much about the specifics.

Police have entered the wrong home in the past, with tragic results for both officers and residents. The basis for the warrant has been faulty as well.
In one well-publicized case from years ago the ATF went into an Illinois residence on the basis that the fellow was dealing in illegal firearms. It was a no-knock entry with plainclothes agents (???). The resident, fearing a burglary, reached for a weapon and was shot and paralyzed.
Turned out that the fellow had a large collection of black-powder weapons, all of which he owned legally. No criminal activity was involved; just a nervous neighbor who had seen "lots of guns".
The fellow sued and won in federal court.
 
Bikewer said:
There have been some recent high-court decisions on "announcing" a search warrant entry. The situation remains rather confused, IMO.

In order to apply for a surprise or "no-knock" warrant, the police must show that the occupants may destroy evidence, or that other circumstances exist which justify such an entry.
On arrival, exigent circumstances may override the "announcement" part of the warrant if there is probable cause; such as imminent danger to a hostage or whatever.
In this case, we are not told what the warrant specified, what (other than drug activity) was supposed to be going on inside, or much else.
Was there evidence that the dealers were armed? Did the involved principals have past records of violent confrontations with police? All of these things are normally considered, and we haven't been told much about the specifics.

Police have entered the wrong home in the past, with tragic results for both officers and residents. The basis for the warrant has been faulty as well.
In one well-publicized case from years ago the ATF went into an Illinois residence on the basis that the fellow was dealing in illegal firearms. It was a no-knock entry with plainclothes agents (???). The resident, fearing a burglary, reached for a weapon and was shot and paralyzed.
Turned out that the fellow had a large collection of black-powder weapons, all of which he owned legally. No criminal activity was involved; just a nervous neighbor who had seen "lots of guns".
The fellow sued and won in federal court.
Click to expand...

Thanks Bikewer, I was honestly hoping for some insight from you.

I certainly don't envy the job of law enforcement, especially when it comes to dealing with drugs and violent individuals, but the problems always seem to stem from lack of adequate intelligence. You're right about not knowing the particulars about the incident, and certainly no law enforcement officers need put their lives in any more danger than usual during an entry, but this particular incident might have gone better had it been handled differently.

I think it should be SOP, especially in bad neighborhoods, to consider that a homeowner might be armed (to protect themselves against the very people the police are trying to arrest), and there might be innocents involved. Piling through the front door may seem like a good idea, but only after tossing in a couple of flash-bangs and a five second wait.
 
Last edited:
Mephisto said:
I think it should be SOP, especially in bad neighborhoods, to consider that a homeowner might be armed (to protect themselves against the very people the police are trying to arrest), and there might be innocents involved. Piling through the front door may seem like a good idea, but only after tossing in a couple of flash-bangs and a five second wait.
Click to expand...

Actually, this might not always be true if the house is larger and well (by my standards) designed. If assaulted from any exterior door, I am too far away for a flash -bang to do more than wake me up - and in 5 seconds I will be ready to fire at anything coming through the door from any of three positions they cannot hit easily - and I will not be firing puny (yes, I know they can but.........) .40s or lower (lowest caliber I would/do consider in a weapon is .357 and I go for larger as in a bunch a .480 and sometimes a .44mag can get two in a crowd. I would not knowingly fire at police but I live in an area (that would be pretty much anywhere) where home invasions are possible - and at night I doubt I would be worried about the difference between a flash-bangand a shotgun blast.
 
I find it tragic that any of us have to live in places where it is felt necessary and understandable for a 92 year old to have a gun to protect herself.
 
Bikewer said:
In order to apply for a surprise or "no-knock" warrant, the police must show that the occupants may destroy evidence, or that other circumstances exist which justify such an entry.
Click to expand...

Based on what I've seen on Cops, in a drug bust there is no difference between "knock" and "no-knock". They generally knock, wait one second, then bust down the door.
 
Mephisto said:
I agree completely. Most "announcements" regarding warrants served by law enforcement are made AS the door is being knocked open and there are usually five or six people shouting at once. I can't imagine anything more frightening (especially to a 92 year old woman) than armed, screaming men knocking down a front door. I think the lady was perfectly justified in shooting.
Click to expand...

Seems hard for me to believe that a 92 year old woman "scared and caught by surprise" would've been able to dash to wherever a gun was kept and shoot the first three people through the door before the cops were able to see what she was doing and stop her, if it was all as sudden as you say. This woman was quite obviously collected, ready, and waiting before the door was opened - surely you must see that.
 
Joshua Korosi said:
Seems hard for me to believe that a 92 year old woman "scared and caught by surprise" would've been able to dash to wherever a gun was kept and shoot the first three people through the door before the cops were able to see what she was doing and stop her, if it was all as sudden as you say. This woman was quite obviously collected, ready, and waiting before the door was opened - surely you must see that.
Click to expand...

I hope you're being sarcastic. I just can't take the notion of a 92 year old woman protecting her stash by crouching in the doorway with a weapon seriously.

I can, however, take the notion of a 92 year old woman hearing the noises of men (and no doubt vehicles) gathering outside her home, becoming frightened, then grabbing a weapon. My grandmother lived in a gang-infested part of town for over 65 years (it got progressively worse up until her death in 1999) and as a result she slept like a soldier in combat. She also moved about her house (where she lived alone) in complete darkness because she knew that turning on lights could expose her. I KNOW that my grandmother would have been awake (and scared) had she heard a group of men whispering outside her front door no matter what the hour.

The idea that a 92 year old woman was a drug pusher guarding her merchandise would be comical if she weren't dead.
 
billydkid said:
I don't know if you've ever watch the TV show Cops or not, but they don't knock on the door, wait for you to answer and show you the warrant. They break the door down and burst in. And these were plain clothes police. I'm pretty sure the UPS guy doesn't generally knock down your door. No matter what the police do and no matter how authoritarian our society becomes and no matter how much our rights to be left alone and live as we choose are trampled, there will be apologists. Prostitution is a crime also and at the time of 9/11 the FBI had twice as many people going after prostitution rings than investigating terrorism. At some point something like sanity has to prevail. The old "it's the law" routine - like the law in Georgia banning sex toys or the one in Alabama under which you can be executed for putting salt on railroad tracks.
Click to expand...

Watch shows that show the buildup to the final confrontation. I find them more infomative to see what they are really dealing with. Maybe less action for a sound byte mentality though.

Home invasion teams are supposed to be in uniform. Plain clothes have to be damn clear they identify themselves as police, so people who don't shoot at police will not shoot them. Can you believe that some people shoot at police because they are police!

UPS always knocks on my door. I have to sign the little lightup clipboard.

I really hope you can find a place where you can live in your anarchist state so "the man" will not get you and make you fear being caught shooting up with your kids and sleeping with prostitutes. Compare the freedoms we have today to 100 years ago as society lets go of old hangups and see that the world evolves at a pace. Have you ever told a room full of children "it's free time"?
 
If the dealer was in the home and heard the police, had time to take the old woman hostage, and ended up shooting her, there would be a very different tune being sung.
 
Mephisto said:
I hope you're being sarcastic. I just can't take the notion of a 92 year old woman protecting her stash by crouching in the doorway with a weapon seriously.

I can, however, take the notion of a 92 year old woman hearing the noises of men (and no doubt vehicles) gathering outside her home, becoming frightened, then grabbing a weapon. My grandmother lived in a gang-infested part of town for over 65 years (it got progressively worse up until her death in 1999) and as a result she slept like a soldier in combat. She also moved about her house (where she lived alone) in complete darkness because she knew that turning on lights could expose her. I KNOW that my grandmother would have been awake (and scared) had she heard a group of men whispering outside her front door no matter what the hour.

The idea that a 92 year old woman was a drug pusher guarding her merchandise would be comical if she weren't dead.
Click to expand...


Really? When I was in college there was an old couple (around 70's) that sold us pot (and occasionally a few other things). They lived just off campus on a farm and one of my roomies was a local that knew them. If I didn't see the old folks burning one firsthand, I would have thought they were my grandparents.
 
Mephisto said:
I hope you're being sarcastic. I just can't take the notion of a 92 year old woman protecting her stash by crouching in the doorway with a weapon seriously..
Click to expand...

When you are old enough to get out of the house you will see this and many, far stranger things

The "meth grandma" and "meth great grandma" thing leads to a great deal of armed to the hilt great grandmas around here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom