Finally. deputy indicted for her role in raid that blew babys face apart

a reply to: alienjuggalo

Except as far as anybody on the raid knew, it was based on a legally obtained warrant. Ergo, authority.

Unless they already knew it was bogus, in which case by all means go after them for it.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: alienjuggalo

Except as far as anybody on the raid knew, it was based on a legally obtained warrant. Ergo, authority.

Unless they already knew it was bogus, in which case by all means go after them for it.

BOOM! Conspiracy...

a reply to: alienjuggalo

And if a gang entered your house and threw a flashbang on your child's crib, they would all be charged.

A warrant squad executing a warrant that was, as far as they know, legally obtained would not be charged.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: alienjuggalo

Except as far as anybody on the raid knew, it was based on a legally obtained warrant. Ergo, authority.

Unless they already knew it was bogus, in which case by all means go after them for it.

so you effing say.. The other cops couldnt possibly be lying right?

a reply to: ProfessorChaos

Yep. And that's the angle that needs looking in to. Who knew what, when did they know it, and what did they do about?

Stop the no knock warrant system and return to old fashioned surveillance to get things done. If we are harming innocent people because our desire to catch criminals has a degree of collateral damage, the system is flawed. If everyone would think how they would feel having this happen in their home, I cannot imagine too many that would not agree with me.

Dealing with the officer is treating the symptom; deal with the laws that allow this to happen and you deal with the sickness.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: ProfessorChaos

Yep. And that's the angle that needs looking in to. Who knew what, when did they know it, and what did they do about?

They all knew thats why they all covered it up.. again what about the idiot that threw the grenade should he be let off?

a reply to: alienjuggalo

Did I say they weren't lying?

It looks to me, going by what YOU quoted me as saying, that I said "unless they already knew it was bogus. In which case by all means go after them for it."

Am I reading my own comment incorrectly? Am I reading YOUR quote of my comment incorrectly? Because I don't see anything in there about how they aren't lying. What I do see is actually me saying that if they already knew it was bogus, then they need to be gone after.

I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself. I don't need you trying to put words in my mouth.

a reply to: alienjuggalo

Every single officer on the raid knew it was a bogus warrant?

Source?

a reply to: alienjuggalo

I think that the unit she was a "special agent" for, the Mountain Judicial Circuit Narcotics Criminal Investigation and Suppression Team;should be investigated and all arrests & warrants audited. This behavior is indicative of a previous pattern, by her and perhaps others on the squad.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: alienjuggalo

Every single officer on the raid knew it was a bogus warrant?

Source?

Yep go ahead and just keep defending these morons who threw a effing grenade in a babys crib. Thats your M.O.

There is absolutely no way that only one deputy knew this was bs, and I know you dont believe that to be the case.

a reply to: alienjuggalo

"I have no source, I'm just making it up."

All you had to say.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: alienjuggalo

"I have no source, I'm just making it up."

All you had to say.

You are right these other cops are all innocent even the one that threw the grenade right? All because they didnt know it was a bogus warrant?

I always thought ignorance was no excuse is that just for civilians?

originally posted by: notmyrealname
Stop the no knock warrant system and return to old fashioned surveillance to get things done. If we are harming innocent people because our desire to catch criminals has a degree of collateral damage, the system is flawed. If everyone would think how they would feel having this happen in their home, I cannot imagine too many that would not agree with me.

Dealing with the officer is treating the symptom; deal with the laws that allow this to happen and you deal with the sickness.

Agreed

But then, the no knock procedures are not just about catching criminals, there other purpose is to instill fear into the masses because - They could come through OUR door at anytime!!!

originally posted by: alienjuggalo

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: alienjuggalo

Still more apples and oranges comparisons.

What apples and oranges? Ifa gang of thugs broke into my house and threw a grenade in my babies crib i would want them all charged. WTF is the difference???

Oh I know this gang had badges..

This is a horrible comparison. If a "gang of thugs" , let's use the Crips as an example, were committing a home invasion robbery, they all would have known the true intent of their actions. They would all legitimately be culpable for the outcome of the crime if someone were killed or as in this case, a baby were maimed. There's no question about that at all. Nobody goes for a ride and gets stuck in the middle of a home invasion. You know where you're headed from the onset.

In this particular case though, the majority of the officers involved were acting in good faith because they had a legit warrant signed by a judge. The only ones who should be facing charges are the deputy who perjured themselves in the affidavit to obtain the warrant and the moron who broke protocol and threw the flashbang instead of rolling it across the floor as they are intended to be used. To call for action against every single person involved from the Judge down is just looking for blood to see it glisten on you hands. UNLESS you can provide evidence incriminating the others to show there was some perjury or knowledge of the perjured information leading to the warrant being issued. It's not rocket science. Everyone is entitled to due process. If there's nothing to support charging anyone else then you can't just issue a blanket indictment against them all because you decided to create a false equivalency paradox.

I don't say this lightly and my posting history will bare this out as I'm certainly no supporter of the ever increasing, overly militarized direction law enforcement has taken in the US the last couple of decades. If there is evidence out there that the others were complicit and had foreknowledge, then yes... let them hang. Otherwise you charge those who are responsible and hope that this and other departments use it as a vivid learning experience and reevaluate some of their protocols when using CI's as the basis for no knock raids.

Here's to hoping that the department will now be responsible for the 7 figure medical bills this family has incurred and will continue to incur for this poor child as they had in the past refused to cover their liability in this issue.

It`s a shame it took a federal indictment to bring this to trial, proof that letting local law enforcement investigate themselves is a bad idea!

a reply to: [post=19603373]peter vlar

I find this kind of disgusting and doesn't fill me with too much love for the whole deal of cops/authorities

"Here's to hoping that the department will now be responsible for the 7 figure medical bills this family has incurred and will continue to incur for this poor child as they had in the past refused to cover their liability in this issue."

So they toss a gernade into a crib..just about kill and probably brain damage this child, find no contraband/drugs and then leave the family hanging..you do see why people are upset at everyone.
What would the justification be for not taking responsibilty?

a reply to: notmyrealname

Right on the money.

The no knock warrant idea was a bad one from the get go, simply because there appears to be no minimum requirement for justification for that sort of raid. I would, were I a judge looking at issuing one, want to see a massive amount of raw surveillance data, logs of who has been in and out of the specific address, photographs of the same, and so on, before even contemplating unleashing what amounts to a paramilitary outfit on a civilian neighbourhood.

The fact that these things are not a minimum requirement, that warrants for this sort of operation can be obtained without any real evidence of wrongdoing on the part of residents, is frankly appalling. Making sure that residents always have the opportunity to answer the door, and start any interaction with law enforcement from a position of relative calm, rather than with bullets and grenades flying all over the shop, should be a must. It is not, and that is not acceptable in the least. Not even a little bit!

These warrants were designed so that law enforcement officials could enter premises with what amounts to blitz tactics, and the only reason that it was deemed sensible, is so that these tactics could be used at addresses and on persons whose connection to the criminal underworld is so tight, that they would be more likely to stuff lead into the lawmen coming for them, than go without a fight. That is the ONLY sort of situation where these raids would ever be acceptable, and there should be checks and balances which require far more than a witness statement to fulfil.

Its a bloody disgrace.

a reply to: vonclod

Where did I say anything about not taking responsibility?The department in question had originally refused to take care of this child's medical bills, I'm hoping that now that there is an indictment they will step up and do the
Right thing I was pretty clear in what I said but you chose to highlight the last portion of my post. I'm simply pointing out the futility of trying to blame an entire group of officers who were following protocol and that unless it's shown they knew the warrant was obtained in the way it was the responsible parties are the deputy who perjured them self in the affidavit and the moron who broke protocol by throwing the flash bang instead of rolling it as the device is intended and then laws with hopefully the department will now take care of the 7 figure medical bills this child currently has and will continue to accrue. What part of any of that says nobody should be held accountable? None of it. It says accountability needs to be applied where necessary and not just across the board at every person who was a part of this raid in regards to being charged with a crime and that this department should get off their ass and start paying this kids medical bills. The poster I replied to was arguing that this is equitable with a street gang engaging in a home invasion and I was trying to point out the flaw in that argument. Nowhere did I imply that appropriate responsibility should be taken. Unless I'm misreading your intent. It's 4 am and I won't rule that out.

a reply to: peter vlar

Sorry I wasn't attacking you, I hate these kinds of stories.. my question in general is why should it take an indictment? that's what pisses me off..there was no evidence found, why would they not take responsibility when they injured the baby during a fruitless search, my point(badly made) was they should of been paying already.
I agree with you on the 2 who should face consequences but I find the organization contemptible in their dealings with this family.
Peace.