Burning Babies and Killing Pastors: Courtesy of Georgia LEOs

a reply to: charles1952

So what you're saying is that an opinion piece from the Washington Post is not necessarily reliable, but conducting a military operation on the word of a "confidential informant" is? Many things about this worry me. That an informant, (who could be anybody, or nobody, or a strung-out addict with pending charges) whose word alone would be enough evidence to get a warrant. That the same informant, supposedly having been in the house already, couldn't alert them to the presence of the child in the front room. That this same informant, again having been in the house, couldn't tell if people sitting on the porch were armed or not. At the end of the day, the person they were looking for was not even there.

A true comedy of errors. Inept police-work coupled with military tactics and weapons. And we are expected to shrug this off because they were drug addicts...

Keep in mind, all this grey area is purposefully used to justify these type of raids (in the name of police safety), not prevent them.

I think most people of sound judgement would stop and reconsider the options. There is something very wrong with us if we start to think this is justifiable.

originally posted by: charles1952

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.

There's new supporting evidence in this forum every day. It probably wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that ATS members are now compiling the most comprehensive database on the increasing frequency and severity of local police brutality in the United States.

You've been around here for a little while. Surely the daily bombardment of these kinds of "stories" has not slipped past you unnoticed.

It's all right here. I don't know what else to tell you.

a reply to: charles1952

Looking more closely?
How about I am from the area and have seen the Habersham County Sheriff tactics first hand. That close enough for you?
These guys are unprofessional half-wits that should not be allowed to carry a firearm.
They carry out roadblocks designed to produce probable cause to blanketly search vehicles. Their war on drugs is all about generating revenue through asset confiscation.

Your assesment is quite funny in that it puts no consideration to the account of the parents involved in this case and accepts the HCS account with no question. These people were passing through the area staying with a relative. A relative that had a dirt bag son. A son that had not lived at the house for many months but had suddenly showed up again in the past few weeks. This family was in the process of moving out of the house and had the belongings of the child all over the house including toys and a playpin on the fornt porch. Any attempt by the police to perform the most basic surveilance would have seen the couple and their children at the home. Thats to much like work however and just like the their bigger brothers in the City of Atlanta (you know the ones recently prosecuted for killing Kathrine Johnson in a very similar case) they took the word of a CI. A Ci that was so wrong in his report that one has to question the very existance of said CI.
You may defend the police based off a dislike for the drug culture and I can understand that. I have had family members die from drugs or do jail time for drugs, so I have seen the impact that they have. All of that being said however NO DRUG or the SALE of any drug currently out there can justify the death and injury that occurs from these tactics. This is no different than police just ramming peoples cars off the road at will for the most basic of traffic violation. If it kills some kids in the process so be it their mom should not have gone 45 in a 35!!

Complete over reaction and excessive use of force.

a reply to: LuXiferGriM

Dear LuXiferGriM,

Aren't you jumping to conclusions even more than the police did?

How do you know it was the informant's word alone? Certainly, he was already on police radar having multiple convictions. Judges don't give No-Knock warrants based on a policeman coming in and saying an anonymous person gave me a tip, and I want to kick in his door without any evidence whatsoever.

A military operation? How do you reach that conclusion? One flash-bang grenade and it's military? I know that "military" is an emotional word, which is why you used it, but seriously, flash-bangs have been used for a long time.

As far as the details of the house, why are you assuming that the police went into the house seconds after the Informant left? None of us know how long it took to get the warrant, or what happened in the meantime.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: NthOther

Dear NthOther, AND EVERYBODY ELSE,

Listen, guys, this was a terrible result to a raid. Everybody agrees. The raid was legally justified because they had a warrant issued by a judge. That's the way the system works. Everybody should agree with that, too.

After that, it gets fuzzy. People are claiming the police threw it in to the crib, as though that was their intention. Of course it wasn't. We don't have enough facts to know.

It's natural to say that if some one gets hurt, then some is to blame for it and they must be punished. It doesn't always work like that.

There are new supporting stories about this every day, and there will continue to be. Consider how many times a day in this country a policemen interacts with a civilian, criminal or otherwise. There is always one to go wrong. I'm surprised people don't post ten every day.

There aren't too many stories, for example, about the people being killed in Afghanistan. Remember how there was a body count on the front pages when Bush was leading the war? Since there are many fewer stories that would mean Obama is not losing as many soldiers as Bush, right? Three quarters of the American deaths in Afghanistan were under Obama. See my point?

The population is increasing and drug cartels are spreading. These are measurable facts. The police are sometimes thugs, sometimes careless, sometimes they get bad luck, almost always they do things right. Find some numbers showing that there has been an increase in civilian deaths due to mis-behavior. Show me some numbers that indicate anything. Then, we can talk about the problems, causes, and cures.

But we don't know enough right now to be as certain in this case as many seem to be.

Besides, what happened to "You can't judge all (Blacks, Gays, Muslims, etc.) based on the actions of a relative few."

You might remember Sgt. Joe Friday and his signature line? "Just the facts, Ma'am."

With respect,
Charles1952

all the time and effort police put into busting small time operators.....what is it ?...simply an easy target.?....all the man hours and effort should not be spent trying to get the little guy.....all these resources wasted its pathetic....if they spent this time going after the main distributors,cookers and importers there wouldn't be the drugs on the street in the first place....why go after the symptoms and not root of the problem....?

i guess that is why people wonder about the governments involvement in pushing drugs on the populace....if it doesn't go that high up maybe we need to be looking at the police departments themselves as being in bed with the drug cartels making money on both sides of the fence....either that or its major incompetency on behalf of the people whom both write and uphold the laws

a reply to: NthOther

This is disturbing on many levels.

While I don't remove blame from the people who had a baby in a house with drugs, the cops didn't need to toss in flash grenades to bust someone there. Isn't that supposed to be reserved for major cases with real threats of retaliation? What happened to knocking, and going in and busting whoever? Block the rear exit, be armed and prepared, and do it that way? Why the "need" to toss in the grenade in the first place? Seems like serious overreaction.

Second, this pastor was killed by guys out of uniform, in an unmarked vehicle, with no announcement of who they even were. That's murder.

Third, since when is drug dealing terrorism? It's a crime, of course, and frequently spawns violence, but all violent crime isn't terrorism. There is no ideology being promoted in drug dealing. It's about the money. Calling it "terrorism" is simply a catch-all to label anything and everything as a "terroristic threat", so in the eyes of the foolish public (which doesn't include most here), their actions, no matter how extreme, are "excused". A lot of people will read "terrorist" in an article, or hear it, and assume the cops were "protecting the public". These days, a lot of people re willing to call an honor student a "terrorist" as well, so it's a good strategy for them.

a reply to: Dragoon01

Dear Dragoon01,

Please note, that in this thread, I am not opposed to the drug culture. I'm opposed to such virulent opposition to the police in a case where we have few facts available. And if you want to toss out the HCS statement, we have barely any facts at all.

I'm glad you responded. It's always nice to get the facts from someone on the scene. Do you have any? Do you have reason to believe that the account of the people in the home which was raided is more accurate than that given to the judge to obtain the warrant? And what did the people in the house say? The Sheriff reports they gave very little information as they spoke English very poorly. Is whatever they said, if anything, more accurate than the statement that HCS committed themselves to on national television?

Just as an aside, the Sheriff is an elected position. If everybody thinks as you do, he wouldn't be in office. The whole county has fewer than 50,000 people.

How do you know that the playpen and toys were all over the front porch? The police say they weren't. I'm objecting to the idea that the police must be lying because you claim they always do that.

Does anyone want to see what the Sheriff said in an interview with Atlanta television? The raw video, 16 minutes long, is here.

www.wsbtv.com...

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

Appreciate the additional details! Knowing the place was considered to be guarded by armed men, the no-knock method seems a lot more reasonable. That information was left out of the posts I have seen on this case. The parents placing the baby in front of the door, or allowing someone else to do so, is also very different from what was posted. No mention of the crib being used as a door block was made. If that's the case, the fault lies squarely on the parents, not the police.

In the case of the pastor, if the police were in plainclothes, and unmarked cars, how was he supposed to know they were police? They could have, and should have, approached him as he went back to his car, and announced who they were. He could have been questioned, and released, instead of being shot down for fleeing what he probably thought were gang members. That's what I would think, with no uniforms or squad cars.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Dear LadyGreenEyes,

I hope you don't mind that I submitted a request for you to be cloned 100 times to replace some other ATS posters.

About the pastor, I don't understand that one either, I'm short on facts. On the surface, I would have expected the police to make some provision for a person panicking and try to get away. In their plans, whether he was innocent or not, I'd think there would be some better alternative to "If he doesn't comply immediately, let's all shoot him."

Granted, he'd already hit a cop in his desire to escape and, innocent or guilty, you don't want to make men with guns mad at you.

I wish I knew more, but until I do, I think I'll put 60% blame on the police and 40% on the pastor. But I'm always open to new thinking. I'm grateful that you offer that.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

I would consider stacking a group of heavily armed agents of the government at the entryway of a domicile, and throwing in a flashbang grenade before a rapid breach and clear, military tactics. And I think most reasonable people would agree with that. I'm not one to get caught in the emotion of semantics, but I will call a spade a spade.

As far as what pretenses the warrant was obtained under, it is unclear, and I will agree that it was lawfully obtained. That is not to imply that I agree with either the spirit or intent of no-knock warrants.

The events that led up to the raid are unclear and debatable, I will agree on that point. The results are not. The injuries to the child were caused by overzealous negligence. The fact that the police conducted this raid with poor information, in spite of having a warrant indicating the contrary (the nature of a warrant requires specifics, thank you Fourth Amendment) bears this truth out.

At the end of the day, these law enforcement agencies should be demanded under all circumstances to stand accountable to the public for their actions, good and bad. Collateral damage in our streets, from the people who are sworn to protect us, should be met with the harshest legal ramifications that our justice system can levy.

Protecting the innocent MUST take a higher priority that apprehending suspects. While these tasks are often mutual, they are not exclusively, or even necessarily so. We should hold law enforcement to such a high standard that these types of incidents are non-existent.

originally posted by: charles1952

There are new supporting stories about this every day, and there will continue to be. Consider how many times a day in this country a policemen interacts with a civilian, criminal or otherwise. There is always one to go wrong. I'm surprised people don't post ten every day.

If we found ten new examples of police brutality every day (that sounds like a challenge), would that be enough for you? Or would you still continue to give them the benefit of the doubt and perpetuate the "one bad apple" argument.

Where is the threshold for you? Is there one?

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Dear LadyGreenEyes,

I hope you don't mind that I submitted a request for you to be cloned 100 times to replace some other ATS posters.

Not at all! Clones of me would be so cool......bwahahaha! Of course, I can just imagine some members twinging at this. *snicker*

originally posted by: charles1952
About the pastor, I don't understand that one either, I'm short on facts. On the surface, I would have expected the police to make some provision for a person panicking and try to get away. In their plans, whether he was innocent or not, I'd think there would be some better alternative to "If he doesn't comply immediately, let's all shoot him."

Granted, he'd already hit a cop in his desire to escape and, innocent or guilty, you don't want to make men with guns mad at you.

Just based on what we have, that seems all sorts of wrong. Of course, there could be facts we don't have, as is often the case with this sort of thing. Too often, a zeal to expose police corruption goes too far, and every case is assumed to be a "bad cop" case, when many aren't. IF it is as we are told, I'd consider it murder. That's a big "if", though. Do we have proof the cops didn't announce themselves, or approach him, and then he fled? Every time the cops shoot anyone, someone somewhere claims it wasn't justified.

originally posted by: charles1952
I wish I knew more, but until I do, I think I'll put 60% blame on the police and 40% on the pastor. But I'm always open to new thinking. I'm grateful that you offer that.

With respect,
Charles1952

Safe bet there. In cases like this, I like to state my opinion based on what ewe believe we know, but if the data changes, I will change with it, as the facts warrant. You seem to do that as well. Always refreshing! Seen a lot of real thinking in your posts lately, and that's the sort of thing that drew me to ATS in the first place. It a little more rare than before, but nice to see!

LGE

originally posted by: LuXiferGriM
*snip*
The events that led up to the raid are unclear and debatable, I will agree on that point. The results are not. The injuries to the child were caused by overzealous negligence. The fact that the police conducted this raid with poor information, in spite of having a warrant indicating the contrary (the nature of a warrant requires specifics, thank you Fourth Amendment) bears this truth out.

How much responsibility for the injuries to the child do you place on the parents, who were on scene, and whoever (maybe the parents) placed the crib in front of the door? Why would police, even if they believed children were in the house, be expected to assume a crib was blocking the front door?

a reply to: LuXiferGriM

Dear LuXiferGriM,

Now, that was a comparatively solid post, thanks. This may seem like I'm dodging, but I really think the best idea for anyone who wants a little deeper insight into the tragedy should take a look at the video linked above.

It's an interview with the Sheriff of this small county. With a population of just under 50,000 people, it's smaller than most cities. He talks about the training and practice for such events, his discussions with the District Attorney and the FBI. He tells about bringing the Chaplain in to help deal with the trauma. (Yes, I know the baby and family suffered trauma. The point is that these are not callous murderers.)

Every source he checked with verified that he had done everything according to the book, and when asked in the interview if, given the same facts, he'd do it the same way again, he said "Yes."

We should hold law enforcement to such a high standard that these types of incidents are non-existent.

I'm sure you know that you have set an impossible goal. One which would eliminate police in America. Even simple things like factories in which everything stays the same day after day see accidents on occasion. No group of people can always have perfect information when everyone (including the bad guys) do exactly what is expected and no one slips in the mud.

The police should be thoroughly trained, but they are people. People under incredible life and death pressure; even surgeon's patients don't shoot at them in the operating room. Maybe we should consider getting rid of 2/3 of the police. You won't recruit many new ones under the standards you propose, and see what happens when you offer a resolution at a County meeting to fire every policemen who is involved in a situation which results in someone being hurt.

I am not trying to keep the bad cops, I'm simply saying that they aren't all bad. And if it's a choice between no police and perfect police, no one will choose eliminating the police and filling the slots only when they've found a perfect cop.

The DA and the FBI didn't find negligence (according to the interview), we don't have to either until more is known.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

Now, that was a comparatively solid post, thanks.

I find your posts incredibly condescending...

It's an interview with the Sheriff of this small county.

And the departmental legal team no doubt advised him to deny liability...

The police should be thoroughly trained, but they are people.

I don't believe that there exists a parallel between workplace mishaps and collateral damage from military raids. I think trying to suggest such a thing is naive.

I'm not suggesting eliminate all of the law enforcement positions. I simply want you to see that it's not okay for this to become normal. It's not just another day at the office, It's an alarming trend. and it begins and ends with training that places the law enforcement in an us vs. them mindset. When you give them the same training and equipment that is being used on the battlefield, to use against the population, how do you expect the results to be different?

You would have to go back several hundred years in our history to understand my adamant aversion to placing a militarized police force on American streets.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

From what I've read, I'm lead to believe that the child's family were in the house because of extenuating circumstances. They had already experienced the tragedy of having their house burn down, and were staying with family in the house at issue. I don't know if they were aware of what was going on in that house, but it would seem that they had to choose staying with that part of their family or living on the street.

From behind your computer (through the prism of perfect judgement), which would you choose? Mind you, I hope you never have to make the best of a bad situation. But sometimes you have to pick the best option when there are only bad options.

a reply to: charles1952



I don’t have the exact sources that I have pulled my information from. I have read many articles in local news and I have spoken to people who know firsthand. Either they have seen the house or they have worked with the HCS in the past. I have been through their roadblocks myself so I know the tactics they use. Those accounts tell me that this was a BS raid. The HCS is as you have pointed out small time. They rejoice in any opportunity to gear up and go on a raid. Anything that gives them the opportunity to prove that they are just as capable and more importantly necessary as their bigger city or county department. Its department envy and they have to fund that envy with civil asset forfeiture.

All of that however is completely irrelevant, none of the reasoning offered by the HCS justify a no-knock raid on a home containing children late at night.
The motivations of the department and even the guilt of the person they were looking for do not justify the tactic used.
Dynamic entry is an adrenaline rush, I know because I have trained for it. Not even hard core training either just a basic class to give you an idea of what it involves. One of the things it involves is risk and danger. Its not something you want to do unless you KNOW the guy on the other side of the door is not very likely to fight back. Its not something you want to do unless you don’t have any other option. In a military setting its done when you cant just back up and blow the building to bits. In a civil setting there is really no justification for it unless it’s a hostage situation. No criminal just sits in his house 24/7/365. Waiting and being in place for the criminal to walk out of the house and get in his car would offer a much lower risk. He is less likely to be a danger to the officers and the officers are less likely to be a danger to the other innocent occupants of the home.
If you cant spend the time or funds to place the home under surveillance then the odds are the guy is not really worth arresting anyway. Every source I have checked indicated there were toys in the yard of the home. Even if that is now seen as some dirty drug dealer trick it still should signal to the officers that caution should be taken and other options should be explored. That fact that the Sherriff indicated that given all he knows now he would still conduct the raid should tell you you are dealing with a petty government thug more interested in enforcing than the welfare or civil rights of those he is supposed to be protecting. There is a protest this weekend on the county courthouse steps. For many in the community they are putting the two incidents together and starting to ask “Who watches the watchers?”

a reply to: LuXiferGriM

The point is, they were in the house, and the crib was in front of the door. Did they do anything to prevent that? Did they place it themselves? No one places a crib blocking a door under any sort of normal circumstances, including moving. Think about it; their house burned down, and they allowed the crib to block the exit of the place they were now staying??? No way any parent could be unaware that the crib was placed there.

I'd live on the street before placing my kids in the home of a drug dealer. It would be safer. They didn't have to allow the crib to be used as a barricade, either, certainly not with the baby in it! Even if someone else moved the crib, they could have moved the baby. Some blame has to rest with those in the house, for using the child as a shield. Quite a lot of blame, in my opinion.

If in that situation, and unaware, they had to get a clue when the door was barricaded. They could have left, or fled to a back room or something, instead of allowing their baby to be a bar for the door. No way any caring parent would do that. Someone would have to shoot me dead before I'd allow that with one of mine.

a reply to: OpinionatedB

If selling drugs is terrorism...

I guess selling alcohol, cigarettes and caffeinated soda-pop is terrorism?

Is that why the owner of the party store is from Iran?

This "terrorist" labeling is off the rails...