It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cops Who Flash Banged Infant’s Crib Are Blaming the Baby

page: 1
33
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+11 more 
posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Not my title, just the title of the story at the source. It is actually the lawyers legal defense for the county.

This is why no-knock raids should be banned except in the most dire of situations.

www.thedailysheeple.com...




Nearly a year has passed since a Habersham County SWAT team stormed into the Phonesavanh residence, and very nearly killed their 19 month old child. The no-knock raid was prompted by an anonymous tip which suggested there were drugs in the house.

As the officers forced their way into the home, they lobbed a flash grenade which wound up landing in the crib where baby “bou-bou” was sleeping. As it erupted, the infant suffered severe burns and had to be taken to the hospital, and placed in a medically induced coma.

To any sane person, the sheriff’s department would be responsible for the damage inflicted on this child. Not only were there no drugs in the house, but the suspect they were looking for was found elsewhere. And despite their claims that they had the house under surveillance for two days prior to the raid, somehow they had no idea that there were children who lived there.


The act of sleeping in a room about to be breached by a SWAT team constituted “criminal” conduct on the part of the infant. At the very least, the infant was fully liable for the nearly fatal injuries inflicted on him when Habersham County Sheriff’s Deputy Charles Long blindly heaved a flash-bang grenade – a “destructive device,” as described by the ATF, that when detonated burns at 2,000-3,500 degrees Fahrenheit – into the crib.

Merely by being in that room, Bou-Bou had assumed the risk of coming under attack by a SWAT team. By impeding the trajectory of that grenade, rather than fleeing from his crib, Bou-Bou failed to “avoid the consequences” of that attack. In any case, Bou-Bou, along with his parents and his siblings, are fully and exclusively to blame for the injuries that nearly killed the child and left the family with more than one million dollars in medical bills.

The SWAT team that invaded the home in Cornelia, Georgia on the basis of a bogus anonymous tip that a $50 drug transaction had occurred there is legally blameless. This is the defense presented by Haberham County Sheriff Joey Terrell and his comrades in their reply to a federal lawsuit filed last February on behalf of Bou-Bou Phonesavanh and his family.



SEVENTHDEFENSE

To the extent as may be shown by the evidence through discovery, these defendants show that plaintiffs' damages, if any, were directly and proximately caused by the contributory and comparative negligence of plaintiffs and their failure to exercise ordinary care.

TENTHDEFENSE
To the extent as may be shown by the evidence through discovery, plaintiffs' injuries and damages, if any, were caused by the deliberate, criminal conduct of plaintiffs, and such criminal conduct supersedes any and all negligence or liability,if any, on the part of these defendants.


So, injuries "if any", were caused by the negligence of the victim or the deliberate criminal conduct of the victim. And due to the victim's criminal conduct, that criminal conduct supersedes any and all liability on the part of the officers.

edit on 21-5-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



+11 more 
posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Are #ing kidding me?

What the actual #!!!!????

This is a hoax right!!! Right????

There is no #ing way in earth this bat# crazy bulk# is actually #ing real!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker
OMG...that is disgusting. The child's fault for not fleeing the crib. I know lawyers will find any loophole possible but that is taking it to the realms of evil. Cheers for the thread



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   
This has got to be a hoax surely?

American cant be THAT dumb and cruel..................?

Edit the source looks like a hoax site.
edit on 21-5-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

This is one I've been waiting out to see how it progresses. It's sad. I almost want to say, "We need to stop this! As Americans, if you are not interacting with your small council and/or higher forms of government for change, you are the biggest enabler". What good will that do? Each individual has to come to this conclusion on their own and have the will to participate.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I just searched through the legal docs they linked to and could not find anything that said what they are claiming is in there.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
This has got to be a hoax surely?

American cant be THAT dumb and cruel..................?

Edit the source looks like a hoax site.


As you can see from my reactionary response, and my very liberal use of many expletives, I also can not believe this.

I only have my phone right now, can anyone confirm this?

It just makes want to quote angry ranger from action hero therapy.

"What the diarrhea monkey #?"- angry ranger aft



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

I just clicked on all the scribd links to the actual documents and searched the terms the writer used in the article, or claimed to be quoted from the docs, and could not find any of this in them.

I think it may be a bunk story unless they have some other document that has not been released and are going from that one.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

But according to the police who were interviewed 12 months ago (infowars), the baby resisted arrest and appeared to ignore the instruction to "drop the F##### (plastic) weapon, and get your F##### hands on your head now" therefore the officers acted to protect themselves.

"7 officers were shot in friendly fire amid the chaos, all officers were debriefed and cleared of any wrong doing".

Now, hand over your guns, it appears you've had a little too much to think.

/sarc



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Seems like another attempt at fabricating moral outrage.

And enough people will lap it up willingly.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

For the sake of my blood pressure, I am assuming this is just hyperbole etc....

Thanks for looking vasa



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Let me just say I hope to see karma work its vengeance on these lying savages.
edit on 21-5-2015 by dashen because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I linked infowars in my post, and here are 3 other sources.......

sputniknews.com...
conservativeangle.com...
thinkprogress.org...

ETA: It appears this happened 12 months ago.
edit on 21-5-2015 by Sublimecraft because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Actually it's not the sheriffs department that is so dumb. It's the sheriffs department's lawyers, because that is the only defense they offered in court.

I saw a defense attorney arguing a case of felonious assault with a baseball bat once. His whole defense was based on a baseball bat is a toy not a weapon. In his closing arguments he reiterated that a baseball bat was a toy you play a game with not a weapon then he told them if you sharpen one end of a baseball bat like a pointy stick it would then be a weapon.

The six esteemed members of the jury agreed with him and acquitted the suspect.

That case shows that you never can predict what members of the jury are going to do. So defense attorneys will throw any type of crap against the wall when they're desperate and hope it sticks.
edit on 21-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: infolurker

But according to the police who were interviewed 12 months ago (infowars), the baby resisted arrest and appeared to ignore the instruction to "drop the F##### (plastic) weapon, and get your F##### hands on your head now" therefore the officers acted to protect themselves.

"7 officers were shot in friendly fire amid the chaos, all officers were debriefed and cleared of any wrong doing".

Now, hand over your guns, it appears you've had a little too much to think.

/sarc



Lol


You forgot about them beating the Chihuahua to death for aggressively barking at the officers, and the goldfish look threatening so they had to knock over is bowl to protect themselves.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Original thread which made me say bad things about police
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
This has got to be a hoax surely?

American cant be THAT dumb and cruel..................?

Edit the source looks like a hoax site.


From the actual court document.


43.These defendants admit that attached to plaintiffs' complaint as Exhibit B isa photograph of plaintiff Bounkham "Bou Bou" Phonesavanh, but specificallydeny that Exhibit B accurately depicts the injuries allegedly sustained byBounkham "Bou Bou" Phonesavanh.



86.These defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 86 of plaintiffs' complaint and specifically deny that Exhibit B attached to plaintiffs'complaint accurately depicts the injuries allegedly sustained by Bounkham "BouBou" Phonesavanh; and that defendant Long blindly and incompetently deployedthe noise flash diversionary device.



105.These defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 105 of plaintiffs' complaint and specifically deny any liability for the payment of medicalexpenses.


Botched raid, damn near killed a baby and not responsible for medical bills?


FIFTHDEFENSE

Plaintiffs' damages, if any, resulted solely from the voluntary and intentionalconduct of plaintiffs or others and not from any conduct of these defendants or those over whom these defendants had any control.


Flash-Bang Reply

So it appears this isn't a hoax.

Browsed the whole legal document and the defense constantly denied and referred proof on the plaintiff for statements they could neither confirm nor deny!

Hoax this is not!



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

Of course they are going to deny it....but what is claimed to be said by the article is untrue. Search the docs and find it.

A defense, no matter how reprehensible, is based on denying everything. This article claims they made a statement about it being the kids fault, which they did not, so a hoax it is.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

Ggrrrrr!!!!

HULK ANGRY!!!!!!!!

HULK SMASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963


I like this one: Qualified Immunity
www.scribd.com...


THIRDDEFENSE

These defendants show that under all of the facts and circumstances, their conduct was discretionary in nature, was not in violation of any clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have had fair notice, and was likewise objectively reasonable, thereby entitling these defendants to qualified immunity.


Here are the big ones...


FIFTHDEFENSE

Plaintiffs' damages, if any, resulted solely from the voluntary and intentional conduct of plaintiffs or others and not from any conduct of these defendants or those over whom these defendants had any control.


SIXTHDEFENSE

Plaintiffs' damages, if any, were caused by the independent acts and decisions of persons and entities other than these defendants or those over whom these defendants had some legal right of control

SEVENTHDEFENSE
To the extent as may be shown by the evidence through discovery, these defendants show that plaintiffs' damages, if any, were directly and proximately caused by the contributory and comparative negligence of plaintiffs and their failure to exercise ordinary care.


EIGHTHDEFENSE
These defendants show that all of their alleged actions or inactions with respect to plaintiffs were carried out in the good faith performance of their official,discretionary duties and without actual malice or actual intent to cause injury to plaintiffs. Accordingly, these defendants are entitled to official immunity under Georgia law.

NINTHDEFENSE
No act or omission of these defendants either proximately caused or contributed to any damages allegedly suffered by plaintiffs; therefore, plaintiffs have no right of recovery against these defendants.

TENTHDEFENSE
To the extent as may be shown by the evidence through discovery, plaintiffs' injuries and damages, if any, were caused by the deliberate, criminal conduct of plaintiffs, and such criminal conduct supersedes any and all negligence or liability,if any, on the part of these defendants.




edit on 21-5-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
33
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join