Kathryn Johnston shooting, 11/21/06

Submitted by: missakins on 12/3/06

This is a case where an elderly woman was killed by narcotics officers during the forced entry of her home.

An early news release:

One source of confusion:

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 returning fire when they were fired upon.

Later in the article:

As the officers approached the house about 7 p.m., a woman inside started shooting, said Officer Joe Cobb, a police spokesman. The officers returned fire, wounding the woman, Cobb said.

Did the shooting begin as they approached the house, or after they forced entry? I also notice that reports vary regarding the woman's age, describing her as 92 or 91 in various articles.

48 hours later: A typical article.

New facts:

• The Atlanta Police state they obtained the search warrant after undercover operatives purchased drugs at the same house some hours before the shootings.
• Officer James Polite, spokesperson for the Atlanta police, states that "Narcotics was found at the location"

Now: A current article.

New facts:

• According to the medical examiner, Kathryn's age is 88, though her friends and relatives say she is 92.

Edited 12/4/2006 to correct the spelling of Kathryn's name. (tipped off by Insane Pencil)

Welcome to 48 Hour Rule

How many times have you read a news story that startles or enrages you, only to find out a few days later that it's really a much less significant story than the initial headline or article led you to believe? The phenomenon has led many on news-related message forums to follow an unofficial "48-hour rule" which encourages the news consumer to remain dispassionate after hearing an initially alarming report, until some time passes enough to obtain some pertinent details.

I believe this "48-hour rule" has its roots in the tragedy of 9-11. That morning, frightened Americans reached out in all directions for information... and a flurry of rumors and unsubstantiated reports were thrown to them by news services pressured to feed the information-hungry mob. It was the dawn of the constant headline crawl at the bottom of news channels. However, it became clear that some of the information given was inaccurate or misleading, and only information that stood the test of time without being debunked could be considered reasonably useful for discussion.

With this blog I hope to become part of the solution. I will find or accept submissions of news headlines of the sort that capture the public attention, and aim to produce a follow-up report approximately 48 hours after the event. Readers may participate as well, by submitting corrections to the original article or to my work, along with the source of their information.

In addition to corrections, I welcome discussion of the issues. I intend to allow reasonably free discussion, though I reserve the right to remove any post for any reason. I will not, however, remove a post due to disagreement with the content.

Please send all initial suggestions for an article (or other private correspondences) to 48hourrule@gmail.com. Please include whichever handle or email address you prefer to be mentioned as, or specify "anonymous".