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

a reply to: infolurker

Errrrrr. ...none....what's the point?
Police receive there information from citizens wanting to help. Someone contacted the police about a drug deal. The house was under surveillance. After 2 days they felt they had enough "markers" to issue and arrest warrant and breach the house. To cover all angles at all times with a minimal surveillance team is near impossible. Yes poor info and poor surveillance and poor justification. The police felt it was enough to go for the arrest. They did not plan to flash bang a child. The legal defense is they were negligent. They partook in criminal activities (drugs) and are responsible for there actions if police decide to raid.

People escape from court and prisoner transports, you find it unlikely that someone can slip out when the police force has limited resources.

I still don't understand the purpose of your response as it is completely out of context to me highlighting the obvious

a reply to: infolurker
I ask that people please refrain from getting emotional about the subject. It makes everyone's blood boil, mainly because of the article in hand. The main points highlighted are grossly misleading and a journalists dumbed down interpretation of legal documents to sell his name. The lawyers at no point directly blamed the child. Please use your brain. Do you genuinely believe they said the child could have avoided it during court?.

Lawyers are unfortunately doing what they get paid to do, the police are doing everything you or I would do if we fooked up so bad. The problem is with the SWAT team member deviating from basic training when using explosives. Please remember though that when throwing one of these you do not look at the location you are throwing...peering your head round the door defeats the object of a stealth like breach and the purpose of the weapon, to nullify threats in an enclosed space.

This is not aimed at any particular individual but seeing alot of people post with there heart. I for one am furious at the outcome but I am posting with my head

Well the, it seems that the whole issue here revolves around the story "interpreting" the defence's position in denying responsibility. Is that right?

Well, all I have to say to that is, whatever happened to just holding up your hand when you are clearly bloody wrong? The officers involved should man the F~~~ up. Sorry for the expleteive, even if deleted, it is still inferred.

Things like this make me sick.

a reply to: Jonjonj
Unfortunately hands up means alot of people fired. Hands down means more riots in the streets. The interpretations are being treated as the defence of the lawyers so there are different interpretations of what the story is. By taking it on face value you will come to a different conclusion. The issue for me is the interprations, others it's the lawyers defense and others the swat team

a reply to: rossacus

It highlights the insanity of utilizing swat teams to engage in military style operations on American citizens in their own homes for petty offenses where there is no real probability of resistance (unless you attack sleeping people at 3 AM to kill anyone who is trying to defend themselves against unknown intruders).

NOTE: Cops are not soldiers and the American people are not the "enemies of the state". Now say that 10 times

This is the consequences. Dead and maimed citizens who have very little recourse and a legal deck stacked against them.

Also, I don't find this hard to understand:

The Victims are responsible and the perpetrators who caused the injuries to the child are not:

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.

Not much of an eye for an eye type person.

But in this case?

I sure hope the lawyers, cops, and anyone that buys their BS defense, over an innocent child, gets burned.

a reply to: infolurker

Is this source like The Onion?

It's too ridiculous to be true.....

isn't it???

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The example of the baby moving out of way is a bit embelished but the story is correct.

The Cops / Lawyers are blaming the victims.

The Victims are responsible and the perpetrators who caused the injuries to the child are not:

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.

a reply to: chiefsmom
Quick question, let's assume you or I threw that flash bang. We are doing a raid, adrenaline going and the bang goes off, you have seen what terrible thing you have done. Couple days after do you admit the wrong doing, forfeit you job, pension, family lively hood and quality of life OR take the moral low ground, do everything you can to worm your way out of the situation, residing blame on others to ensure everything you love remains intact and live with that void in your stomach that is guilt.

I would like to think I would do the right thing but you never know yourself until a lifestyle threatening event happens to you

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: infolurker

Is this source like The Onion?

It's too ridiculous to be true.....

isn't it???

The event is true, that the county won't pay for the childs hospitalisation that they caused and said to be $1.5 million, is true.
That the parents are now suing, is true. So even if the OP story has a bent or not and is as reported, the incredible moral cowardice of the authorities who attempt to hide behind the law with any defense at all, is mind boggling.
This is the same Sheriff Terrell with his description of the event, It seems since that, he was shot and wounded in an unrelated event.


Some of his story sounds dodgy, since he says that the raid by SWAT, or by SWAT tactics was because there was supposed to be armed guards at the house, while there is no mention of any police actually seeing these guards when they arrived at the home.

a reply to: infolurker

Can I ask if you used to be in the police force or a victim of police brutality. I've noticed your threads tend to revolve around policing?

So were there drugs found in the home? If not, how do they come up with criminal conduct on the plaintiffs' part?

a reply to: smurfy

The event is true, that the county won't pay for the childs hospitalisation that they caused and said to be $1.5 million, is true.
That the parents are now suing, is true.

Yes, of course, I know the event is true. And the family should ABSOLUTELY be suing, and win.

Still, it sounds like a John Oliver bit ----- or, a wacked satirical story.

Mr Wigs says, "It's just the lawyers saying don't admit guilt. They just want to settle it out of court."
It's ridiculous.

WHAT KIND OF "attorneys" WOULD do this type of egregious thing?????
Scum.

a reply to: aimlessly
No drugs found but I think they bought $50 worth before....I don't know American law but I think here say is enough to constitute criminal activity

a reply to: infolurker

A SWAT team invades houses where $50 drug transactions take place? Seriously? That is a bit overkill! And blaming the baby is ridiculous. I expect no less from the police force, though. And those medical bills - way overpriced! How is the family going to deal with those?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: smurfy

The event is true, that the county won't pay for the childs hospitalisation that they caused and said to be $1.5 million, is true.
That the parents are now suing, is true.

Mr Wigs says, "It's just the lawyers saying don't admit guilt. They just want to settle it out of court."
It's ridiculous.
WHAT KIND OF "attorneys" WOULD do this type of egregious thing?????
Scum.

Exactly my point. However, in the video the Sheriff himself, clearly states that a 'totally innocent child was injured' How can he reconcile that with what the lawyers are now saying in trying to criminalise a baby? The Sheriff can't that's for sure, he's already said the opposite!

At what age are you allowed to be held criminally liable in the USA? Because it currently sits at 10 years old, in the UK.

"The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10 years old.

This means that children under 10 can’t be arrested or charged with a crime. There are other punishments that can be given to children under 10 who break the law."

The police cannot charge an 18 month old with a criminal offence it would be laghed out of court, looks like this family is in for a big pay day.

a reply to: infolurker

My god, what lawyers will do and clients will allow them to do to escape punishment.

Guilt, personal guilt, and shame have been removed from society, largely in part by PC logic. The logic is: I can't be held responsible if I claim "not guilty," and if I claim as much, then my lawyer can build an argument that defies reality. The actual physical evidence becomes not at all relevant in the case. What ever happened to officer Joe Friday of Dragnet? He only wanted the facts of the matter.

Some the best examples of this dereliction of justice is found in government at all levels from police right up to the highest of officials.

a reply to: Aliensun

I think the whole thing could have easily been avoided if the Cops would have knocked on the door and asked for the guy they wanted.... As with most situations. If a house is under surveillance, it is not hard to pull someone over, wait until they are walking outside, whatever to easily secure a person without "blind dynamic entry" tactics.

a reply to: johnwick

We're all in a movie dude, except we can't change the channel or turn it off