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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.