Baby that was flash-banged is responsible

[SMS]

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.

Tragic event for sure....but the raid wasn't based on an "anonymous tip"...it was based on a planned buy by an informant. The parents of the kid admitted they knew drugs were being dealt from the house.

No knock raids are certainly worthy of discussion, but the parents own some responsibility here. Keep your kid in an environment where drugs are being bought/sold...bad sh%t is bound to happen.

As dirty as the extremely biased article in the OP makes it sound, if you read the actual court documents their point is that the raid was conducted lawfully and per procedure and that the parents are responsible for their presence, and the child's presence, in a location where unlawful activity is/was occurring.

Edit: But it looks like they are getting a $1M payday anyway...win one for the taxpayers! Not.
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/report-family-of-baby-bou-bou-county-reach-964k-se/nkzmb/

 

[ByrdC130]

For a $50 drug transaction...

 

[caojyn]

S

I requested the source from which you derived the quoted information in your original post. The link you provided is completely devoid of the quoted "statement" by defendant's attorney. Therefore I challenge you to produce a source that directly quotes the defendant's attorney as saying these things. If you can't or will not do so, I'd request that you redact your original post and delete the inflammatory statement that as far as I can tell, is 100% false.

My apologies
http://www.infowars.com/cops-who-flash-banged-infants-crib-are-blaming-the-baby/

And this
http://www.freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2015/05/pity-poor-stormtroopers-baby-bou-bou.html?m=1

 

[Glocktogo]

S
My apologies
http://www.infowars.com/cops-who-flash-banged-infants-crib-are-blaming-the-baby/

Yep, you got took. Ya gotta watch that confirmation bias caojyn!

William Norman Grigg from the Pro Libertate blog read through the lengthy document, and sifted through the legalese for our benefit. It’s almost unbelievable how far the sheriff’s department was willing to go to avoid paying the family whose child they burned alive.

Grigg then went on to fabricate the attributed response. Not even a paraphrase, but completely made up of whole cloth fabrication.

Seriously, I get why many would be taken in by the ruse. The "source" document is 39 pages of incredibly dry legalese, most of which is repetitive legal speak. I happen to read stuff like this for a living, so I ground through it. Nowhere in the document does the legal representative for the defendants place ANY blame on the baby. As a matter of fact, it doesn't really place any blame. It merely refutes the legal liability spelled out in the plaintiff's document. That could be partially attributed to the insurance company attempting to limit a payout in all likelihood.

FWIW, I'm completely opposed to nighttime no knock (which this was) or "knock & smash" drug raids. Absent exigent circumstances, the risk to innocent lives (and officers) is too great for a drug bust. However, irresponsible reporting such as this does the entire subject a great disservice. Some who might otherwise be against such nonsense may limit their support of reform, if they ultimately feel taken in by these charlatans.

 

[Foghorn]

The info war article is not a statement by the police or the attorney. It's the interpretation of thier defence by the author. It's intended to inflame the public into more anti police hype by a gang of tinfoilers. Info wars is so far from a credible source it's not even amusing.
The actual defence was the parents bear some responsibility for knowingly placing thier infant in a place where drugs are kept and sold. And frankly they should.
What happened was horrible, but personally I tend to leave my children at home while running down to the local Crack Shak to grab a few rocks.

Nothing screams poor craftsmanship like wrinkles in your duct tape

 

[davek]

Who are the judges that issue the warrants for these raids and why aren't those who provided false information prosecute for perjury and include amongst those liable for injury and damages?

 

[Foghorn]

Who are the judges that issue the warrants for these raids and why aren't those who provided false information prosecute for perjury and include amongst those liable for injury and damages?

What false statement are you referring too? Did I miss something in the article? Thought it said warrant was issued after buys were made from the home..

Nothing screams poor craftsmanship like wrinkles in your duct tape

 

[Norman]

1. Police actions outside the state of Oklahoma. Did JB change the rules again, or is this still in violation of them?

2. Infowars is your sourse? Wow.

3. The parents ARE at fault, at least partially. The knowingly chose to stay at a drug house. They have admitted they knew one of the other residents was selling dope. Did you think living in a crack house was going to be a good life experience for Bou Bou?

4. All children should be taken from Bou Bou's parents, including Bou Bou. See number 3.

5. NFDD's are not incendiary devices

6. Blind deployment of NFDD's is bad ju ju. For his very reason.

 

[dennishoddy]

Ok, they made a buy from the house. Simple police work should have revealed the existence of an innocent child that had no choice about being in that house. It didn't deserve to have the injuries that it sustained.
The people selling could have been arrested on the street, outside the house, etc.
Was anybody in the house in danger of losing their life by another person in the house, or was the only threat to life from law enforcement?

 

[Norman]

Ok, they made a buy from the house. Simple police work should have revealed the existence of an innocent child that had no choice about being in that house. It didn't deserve to have the injuries that it sustained.
The people selling could have been arrested on the street, outside the house, etc.
Was anybody in the house in danger of losing their life by another person in the house, or was the only threat to life from law enforcement?

Man, you have this thing down. Maybe you should be their Sheriff.

Also, the family had a nasty habit hiding all signs of their occupancy of the crackhouse (per their statement).