11/30/2006 08:03 pm ET Updated May 25, 2011

No-knock = License to Kill

On November 21, Atlanta cops serving a no-knock warrant gunned down 88-year-old African American (of course) Kathryn Johnston in her own home. The controversy now is about whether or not a police informant set up the warrant, or was told to lie about it afterwards.

Franky, I couldn't give two shits. We already know that cops lie all the time to cover up their own criminal activities.

The other bone of contention is that Kathryn Johnston fired at them with a .38 caliber pistol. Again, I don't care... not in the way it's being framed anyway.

What the no-knock warrant does is gives the cops the legal right to break into your house without announcing themselves. They say it's necessary to protect the cops.

Here's my straight line to the point.

Cops take on risk when they take the job, ostensibly to put themselves between the public and danger (I don't believe this for one minute, but that's the conventional fairy tale.).

One reason I can't claim pacifism is my firm belief in the right to self defense. Kathryn Johnston never volunteered to take a bullet to protect the fucking police from some hypothetical danger.

From her point of view, and the point of view of others to which this has happened, like Ismael Mena in 1999, they are sitting at home minding their own goddamn business, when a bunch of unannounced people start smashing down their doors.

Ismael Mena and Kathryn Johnston, in my humble opinion, have every right to shoot violent intruders breaking into their homes.

What no-knock warrants say is, no they don't. And when the cops -- who routinely use rats and snitches as their highly reliable sources -- can kill you for defending yourself, because they need to live out their SWAT fantasies to imprison people for using dope (it would be cheaper and safet to just decriinalize it), then the right to self defense is a thing of the past.

No-knock warrants are just a license to kill for the cops.