Burning Babies and Killing Pastors: Courtesy of Georgia LEOs

So apparently the same "task force" responsible for horribly burning a toddler with a flash grenade the other day had another "incident" in 2009, which if I'm not mistaken may be indicative of a rather disturbing pattern:

Drug Task Force That Burned A Toddler This Week Also Killed An Innocent Pastor In 2009

Sheriff Joey Terrell

“The person I blame in this whole thing is the person selling the drugs,” Terrell said. “Wanis Thonetheva, that’s the person I blame in all this. They are no better than a domestic terrorist, because they don’t care about families – they didn’t care about the family, the children living in that household – to be selling dope out of it, to be selling methamphetamine out of it. All they care about is making money."

Sigh. Even crackheads are terrorists now.

But this same task force has a history. In February, I posted about a settlement in the death of Jonathan Ayers, an innocent pastor that this same drug task force killed in a drug operation in 2009.

In September 2009, the young pastor Ayers was ministering to a young woman whom a Georgia drug task force was investigating on drug charges. (She had allegedly sold an undercover officer $50 worth of coc aine.) When task force members saw Ayers alone in the car with the woman, they switched their focus to him. According to Ayers’s lawsuit, the woman was about to be evicted from the motel at which she was staying. Ayers gave her the $23 in his pocket to help cover her rent.

The task force followed Ayers to a convenience store, where he went in to get money from an ATM. When he returned and got into his car they pounced. They pulled up behind him in an unmarked black SUV. Armed agents dressed in street clothes then rushed Ayers’s car. He put his car in reverse and attempted to escape. In the process, he nicked one agent. Another then opened fire, killing him. Ayers told hospital staff was that he thought he was being robbed. His reported last words were, “Who shot me?”

Read the article. It gets nauseatingly dumbfounding.

I'm not sure there's anything left to say about our current state of civil affairs anymore. I'm afraid of the government.

It's supposed to be the other way around. Who's terrorizing who?

a reply to: NthOther

I'm not saying this cop is right, or that pastors or babies should be killed...

but when he talks about domestic terrorism and meth... he has a point.

The dealers of that nasty stuff .... I know they are selling to people who want to buy, but I recently watched a pretty, healthy 18 year old go from being a pretty, healthy 18 year old girl who worked at a fast food restaurant - to being a strung out, rough looking prostitute (and yes she appeared to have started hooking) in less than one month.

The change I witnessed in less than a month was horrifying... and everyone told me it was meth she was on. So, such a drastic change that has the ability to completely ruin a person in such a short amount of time... well hell if that is not domestic terrorism to sell it, to utterly destroy the youth in this country... its pretty damn close.

That said, cops need to use quite a bit more judgment than they are using right now when going after the dealers of this stuff.

originally posted by: NthOther
I'm not sure there's anything left to say about our current state of civil affairs anymore. I'm afraid of the government.

It's supposed to be the other way around. Who's terrorizing who?

When I goto bed I don't fall asleep worrying about a criminal breaking in and assaulting me or stealing my things. I worry about the police doing it.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
I'm not saying this cop is right, or that pastors or babies should be killed...

but when he talks about domestic terrorism and meth... he has a point.

Terrorism has a specific meaning, and actions against terrorism are allowed to violate constitutional rights. Terrorism is political in nature. Selling meth to someone is not political, it's just being a drug pusher. Allowing this to be called terrorism allows for your rights to be eroded in the name of fighting it.

Wake up folks this is planet earth!! Crazy is the name of the game. I've seen it and lived it.. and now I just say Poot!! If folks care and are pissed then go for it..or shut up!!

a reply to: Aazadan

I said if it's not its pretty damn close....

what it is, is serious on a completely different level than anything this country has yet seen I would say. And who knows whether or not its introduction into society was not political in nature?

It's ability to destroy goes far beyond any bomb.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: NthOther

I'm not saying this cop is right, or that pastors or babies should be killed...

but when he talks about domestic terrorism and meth... he has a point.

Saying something is like terrorism suddenly justifies these raids? I can't see any reason for police to conduct a military style raid, anywhere on American streets. These teams were originally created to confront acute instances of violence that endangered the public, that the ordinary police force couldn't adequately respond to. And to be honest, there haven't been that many instances in our recent history that would warrant that type of response. We have allowed the police force to gradually become a paramilitary organization, with no oversight, and with a complicit wink-and-nod from the judicial system who allow these no knock warrants under the weakest premises.

The gangsters (inferred: LEO's) should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The departments responsible should be litigated until they can't afford a single squad car. Furthermore, the judges who sign off on these bogus warrants should be held fully responsible for the bloodshed that ensues.

a reply to: OpinionatedB

Like your avatar ..

Bottom line ..It takes a line. A line of folks that give a crap. The line thus is one that makes those that could change things , not get involved. You see, It is those that won't get involved that can make things happen.. get it?? Duh!!

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: NthOther

I'm not saying this cop is right, or that pastors or babies should be killed...

but when he talks about domestic terrorism and meth... he has a point.

The dealers of that nasty stuff .... I know they are selling to people who want to buy, but I recently watched a pretty, healthy 18 year old go from being a pretty, healthy 18 year old girl who worked at a fast food restaurant - to being a strung out, rough looking prostitute (and yes she appeared to have started hooking) in less than one month.

The change I witnessed in less than a month was horrifying... and everyone told me it was meth she was on. So, such a drastic change that has the ability to completely ruin a person in such a short amount of time... well hell if that is not domestic terrorism to sell it, to utterly destroy the youth in this country... its pretty damn close.

That said, cops need to use quite a bit more judgment than they are using right now when going after the dealers of this stuff.

being an idiot and using meth/coke/whatever doesn't constitute you a instant death penalty by lawn enforcement. The absolute only time lethal force is to be used, is when you're presented with direct and imminent danger that is threatening your life and liberty. Perhaps these "tactical" agents should of been uniformed and not in civilian clothes pointing a firearm at some man who is NOT UNDER INVESTIGATION. I can't imagine automatically thinking "YEP THESE ARE COPS, I BETTER STAY PUT AND LET THEM COVER MY CHEST WITH THEIR MUZZLES" when a few strange men in civilian clothes rush me outside of a freaking gas station when I just got out of the ATM

edit; the only domestic terrorists i see when reading this story, is the idiots who killed the pastor and maimed the baby. Terrorists kill people, and use explosive devices to hurt children.. pastors helping crackheads do not compute to a domestic terrorist in my book, its more along the lines of...community outreach...something our police farce lack. isn't it their primary mission to protect and serve not kill and intimidate? heh

a reply to: LuXiferGriM

I did not say the raids or killing innocent people was justified... not ever did I say that. I said his equation between meth dealers and domestic terrorists made sense.

I believe they need to find a much more responsible way to go after dealers, but he is not wrong in his equation... it's a quite similar equation. Both destroy society, and very purposefully.

originally posted by: RUFFREADY
a reply to: OpinionatedB

Like your avatar ..

Bottom line ..It takes a line. A line of folks that give a crap. The line thus is one that makes those that could change things , not get involved. You see, It is those that won't get involved that can make things happen.. get it?? Duh!!

lol... no I actually do not get what you are saying... can you reword that for me so I can understand... cause I really don't.

a reply to: OpinionatedB

but when he talks about domestic terrorism and meth...

We are all terrorists now just like the 48 people in the Ukraine that were chased into a building and burnt alive or killed if they tried to escape.

Stand up to fracking and you too can join us terrorists even if one or two of us throw petrol bombs because the legal system has been broken for many years.

The famer will always find an excuse to take the sheep to the slaughter house if they barr, barr back because all the grass in the field has been eaten.

a reply to: VirusGuard

I know that most of us are on some kind of a watch list...

but some things really are truly harmful for our society. Just because some government entity somewhere would say I am just as bad as a meth dealer does not mean that meth dealer should be free to destroy people...

You cannot excuse the one because of the other. The one is no less wrong.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: NthOther

I'm not saying this cop is right, or that pastors or babies should be killed...

but when he talks about domestic terrorism and meth... he has a point.

The dealers of that nasty stuff .... I know they are selling to people who want to buy, but I recently watched a pretty, healthy 18 year old go from being a pretty, healthy 18 year old girl who worked at a fast food restaurant - to being a strung out, rough looking prostitute (and yes she appeared to have started hooking) in less than one month.

The change I witnessed in less than a month was horrifying... and everyone told me it was meth she was on. So, such a drastic change that has the ability to completely ruin a person in such a short amount of time... well hell if that is not domestic terrorism to sell it, to utterly destroy the youth in this country... its pretty damn close.

That said, cops need to use quite a bit more judgment than they are using right now when going after the dealers of this stuff.

To me, it sounds like you just described a health issue. A medical problem. A malady best left to the professionals in this field: DOCTORS.

Nothing you do with your own body should ever have anything (at all) to do with law enforcement and any bloodshed caused by the enforcement of these laws is on the hands of the police who spill it.

Would you rather see that 18-year old girl you knew in rehab or a prison cell? Or beat to death while handcuffed?

a reply to: Cuervo

You're 100% correct. These task forces are incredibly destructive to communities and that our current system of dealing with addicts just doesn't work. Meth addiction is a neurological issue. The drug, in doses that cause euphoria, causes the brain's reward system to immediately rewire itself and meth becomes it's new focus for survival. Sadly it also causes almost 80% of the brain's dopamine receptors to shut down and it takes at least 12 months before the brain feels "success" or "reward" without the drug. This is why addiction is so hard to beat, because most people don't make it to the 12 month mark.

As for the comments by the Sherif Terrell, that's disgusting. There's zero accountability in his statement. He's basically saying that because meth was involved they get a pass on their mistakes.

No knock warrants with flash bang entries for small time drug dealers and users is not a good plan. Never has been never will be. Now if it is a lab I get it (although a flash bang may be a bad plan in that case) one needs to enter a lab with a damn swat team as the cooks are usually heavy users, armed and not thinking straight.

Pulling over eh pastor while in an unmarked car and in plainclothes should not be part of SOP for any department. How did that pastor know what was going on, people running at you with guns will nearly always evoke a run reaction. Especially from someone like a pastor who has no reason to think the cops would need to do that to him.

Meth is bad, we all know that. Cops can be about as stupid as stupid gets though.

a reply to: OpinionatedB

Yes I agree but they will spend more time trying to hunt you down than anyone selling rocks on the corner of a street if you go up against the state.

War or drugs ! well since we liberated afgainistan the drugs production has gone up something like 4000%

Yeah we sure set the people free in Libya don't you think, schools out for summer, well its out for good along with hospitals, water and electric.

US service men were given free smokes during WWII and the price was kept low to entise a lot of woman to take up smoking and we didn't know it was addictive unill about 20 years ago ! Yes these drug pushers have killed a lot more people than your rock dealer at the end of the street

The USA has become a cancer on the world, any cells that try to destroy the cancer will find themselves under attack and now we see the USA trying to invade another organs like China/Iran/Russia/Africa

The problem is deeper and more basic.....SWAT murders notwithstanding.....
The problem is the governments overreaching its stated authority in almost every case......
There is no we the people anymore....The citizens have been socially engineered to cow before the jackboot and to fail to question official pronouncements......
The populations have been so fragmented and kept out of touch with each other that anything like unity is impossible....

a reply to: NthOther

I can understand why you started this thread and why you used the headline you did. It's attention-grabbing and exciting, Besides, nobody wants to be the second person writing a thread about the story.

In spite of that, may I suggest that next time you consider looking at the story a little more closely? Obviously the headline is either wrong, or totally unsupported. No one has even suggested that more than one baby or pastor is involved. I wonder why you created the headline to read that way? (Thanks for calling the 19-month old a "toddler" in your post, but why not in the headline?)

After the headline, you should consider the source. You're not quoting a news article, you know. You're quoting an opinion piece form The Washington Post. In the future, remember that either of those should cause you to stop and check for accuracy. It's kind of too bad you didn't.

I have my own opinions of CNN, but I think it is more widely accepted on ATS than The Post. Thankfully, CNN provides us with an actual news piece. Here's some interesting information from it:

The SWAT team, made up of six or seven officers from the sheriff's department and the Cornelia Police Department, entered the Cornelia residence Wednesday before 3 a.m.

A confidential informant hours earlier had purchased methamphetamine at the house, the sheriff says. The informant told police that there were men standing guard outside the home, and it was unclear whether they were armed, according to CNN affiliate WGCL.

Because the suspected drug dealer, Wanis Thonetheva, had a previous weapons charge, officers were issued a "no-knock warrant" for the residence, Terrell said.

When the SWAT team hit the home's front door with a battering ram, it resisted as if something was up against it, the sheriff said, so one of the officers threw the flash-bang grenade inside the residence. Once inside the house, the SWAT team realized it was a portable playpen blocking the door, and the flash-bang grenade had landed inside where the 19-month-old was sleeping, the sheriff said.

So far we have that the house was currently selling Meth, there were men (quite possibly armed) guarding the house. the front door was secured and the drug sellers had placed a 19 month old and his playpen directly in the supposed path of in-rushing officers. Did no one in the house care about the kid?

Thonetheva, 30, was not at the home at the time of the raid, but the toddler's mother and father and their other three children were inside. Thonetheva's mother was also at the house, Terrell said.

The baby's family had moved into the Cornelia residence after their Wisconsin home burned, Terrell told CNN affiliate WXIA, and while the family members were aware of drug activity in the home, "they kept the children out of sight in a different room while any of these going-ons were happening."

Three adults and three other children are in the house while drugs are being sold. The kid's parents seem to think all they have to do is keep the kids in another room, not remove them to a safer residence.

You'll notice Thonetheva himself was not at home at the time of the raid. So which of these caring parents consented to putting their 19-month old in the most probable line of direct fire?

Thonetheva was arrested at another Cornelia residence, along with three other people, shortly after the raid, Terrell said. He is charged with distribution of methamphetamine. Habersham County Chief Assistant District Attorney J. Edward Staples said Thonetheva could also be charged in connection with the baby's injuries.

Thonetheva was already out on bond for an October 2013 charge of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony -- the felony being distribution of methamphetamine, Staples said.

He is presently being held at the Habersham County Detention Center without bond. His rap sheet shows nine arrests since 2002 and includes charges of drug possession, carrying a concealed weapon, driving while his license was withdrawn and contempt of court, according to authorities.

www.cnn.com...

The only thing that the police had wrong was that they didn't know there were children in the house. Remember? They were hidden? with the result that the police had a harder time knowing they were there.

Would somebody else take the time to look at the other story the same way. Maybe that one was the police's fault, this one certainly wasn't.

Let me see, a man under suspicion starts his car, drives in reverse, hits a policeman, gets shot at, and it's ALL the fault of the police? That happened five years ago and it's proof of a police takeover? ATS has a joke forum, there's no shame in posting things there.

Come on, guys. Put together a decent story. This one looks exactly like RT propaganda.

P.s. Just had yet another thought. Why was the playpen jammed against the front door, when it should have been obvious to them that the house was going to be a raid target sooner or later? Surely there are heavier door blocking objects available. All I can come is is that either they didn't care if the kid was hurt (maybe they could get some sympathy or damages), or they were pretty sure that the police are kind, reasonable and law-abiding, and would never risk even the possibility of hurting the child.

Have you got any other reasons they might have had? I would expect you to, because those two indicate that either the raided people are inhuman beings who should be executed, or, the police there are regarded as decent, reasonable people. I suspect you'd like a third choice. What is it?

a reply to: charles1952

Why are you so interested in personally attacking me in their defense? There is no rational or moral justification for any of this, and there is most definitely a pattern of frequent and increasingly violent brutality emerging before our very eyes.

Some people apparently choose to completely ignore that and shove their heads in the sand. The people you've entrusted with your protection are now the greatest threat to your well-being. That should make you uncomfortable. I understand your desire for denial.

I don't share it.

...

I find it ironic that you criticize the source I use, accuse me of not knowing the difference between journalism and editorialism (hint: there really isn't one in the first place)... and then follow up with CNN of all things.

...

Drug users are not criminals. They are sick. You're supposed to help them get better. Throwing them in jail does not do this.

Street pushers (and their children now) are openly murdered while (and perhaps at the behest of) corporate pushers roam the most hallowed halls of Washington.

You're right, it's a joke. On us.

a reply to: NthOther

Dear NthOther,

First accept my apologies for causing you to feel as though I was personally attacking you. I certainly had no intention of launching a personal attack, and I still can't see where I did. In any event, that was not the major part of my post. However, causing you hurt in this situation means that I failed, and I apologize for my failure.

There may very well be "a pattern of frequent and increasingly violent brutality," I don't know this. Certainly there is a pattern of more frequent reports of the brutality a local police, and what appears to be silence about the brutality of federal police. This may or may not be part of a news bias, I don't know.

I do know that the last time I discussed the brutality question, I asked the posters to direct me to some statistics to help support that argument. No one did. Do you happen to have any evidence to that effect? I'd be glad to learn about it, so that I could have correct opinions.

The people you've entrusted with your protection are now the greatest threat to your well-being. That should make you uncomfortable. I understand your desire for denial.

I'm not sure that I have a desire for denial, but as long as you've brought it up, perhaps YOU have some evidence to show that the local police are the greatest threat to my well being.

Certainly, accidents and disease are greater threats, but I don't suppose you meant that. Do you mean that the police are more likely to kill innocent civilians than, say, urban gang members between the ages of 18 and 25? Again, I'd be pleased if you could direct me to your evidence.

Concerning your source, it could have been from the NRA. I would still object to it because it is an opinion piece and not a news story. I'd be very pleased if you could find a NEWS STORY, from any source you chose, that provided contradictory information.

I have no objection to providing drug addicts with treatment. Now that this multiple felon (including at least one firearms conviction) has been arrested, maybe somewhere along the way he'll get treatment. But that certainly wasn't the point of the OP.

Street pushers (and their children now) are openly murdered . . .

There wasn't anything in the news about a child being murdered, or even about a child being killed. As far as I know, he was burned and is in the hospital. By the way, you probably shouldn't use the term "murdered" in this case. It's a legal term which doesn't apply to anything in your OP. "Killed" might have worked for the pastor, but not murdered, that's false and inflammatory, unless you have your own definition for the word which I don't know about.

Anyway, thanks for your response. I'm sorry for leading you to believe I was making a personal attack. We can discuss this further if you'd like.

With respect,
Charles1952