Yea, cause that's what I said. Obvious over reactions are why I said I give the eye roll before reading your posts on anything law enforcement related. You have an agenda and cherry pick stays and isolated incidents.

 

100's of high risk search warrants go off without a hitch every day. While horrible accidents like this are a fraction of a percentage, there is No perfect system. You question the CI's, but hate to break it to you, lawyers and Sunday school teachers aren't typically involved in that lifestyle.

No charges for the Georgia cop who threw a stun grenade into a baby's crib during drug raid that found no drugs: http://t.co/cIV22fl1Qj

 

This case is downright sick. They entered the home at 3am and threw a GRENADE??? I don't care what you say halfback...there has to be a better way than going into someone's house unannounced and throwing a grenade. We live in America...if this doesn't bother you, we will just have to agree to disagree then...and I am in favor of law enforcement...I know how tough they have it...but I won't just follow them blindly and not question things that I think are clearly wrong.

This case is downright sick. They entered the home at 3am and threw a GRENADE??? I don't care what you say halfback...there has to be a better way than going into someone's house unannounced and throwing a grenade. We live in America...if this doesn't bother you' date=' we will just have to agree to disagree then...and I am in favor of law enforcement...I know how tough they have it...but I won't just follow them blindly and not question things that I think are clearly wrong.[/quote']

 

1st, better intel or another technique should've been used with small children were in the home.

 

2nd....Jesus man, it's not an actual grenade. It's a flash bang. Look up the difference.

1st, better intel or another technique should've been used with small children were in the home.

 

2nd....Jesus man, it's not an actual grenade. It's a flash bang. Look up the difference.

 

I know it is not an actual grenade Rocket...but it was enough to almost kill a baby and probably permanently disfigure his face...so don't act like it is not dangerous...

So you think its okay that this guy is dead? Especially given that there were no drugs found? You don't think we should ever question tactics used when things go wrong? A man is dead here because the police took bogus information and decided to bust down his door 2 days after his home was burglarized by their informant. If I were the officers involved in the raid I'd be extremely upset. Not only did they appear to have killed an innocent man but several of them could have been injured and killed in the process. Questions should be raised on the decision making process here. And this is not an isolated incident.

 

Do you live to post negative posts about law enforcement? I'm serious. You seem to have an unhealthy dislike for law enforcement.

 

If law enforcement breaks the law, they should be held accountable same as anyone else.

 

As far as the warrants go, you seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room, a judge has to sign the warrant. Do you not think a judge questions the agency that brings them the warrant? I can guarantee you they do. They are not just a rubber stamp.

Do you live to post negative posts about law enforcement? I'm serious. You seem to have an unhealthy dislike for law enforcement.

 

If law enforcement breaks the law, they should be held accountable same as anyone else.

 

As far as the warrants go, you seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room, a judge has to sign the warrant. Do you not think a judge questions the agency that brings them the warrant? I can guarantee you they do. They are not just a rubber stamp.

 

First off, there's an ignore button. Feel free to use it if you don't like my posts. Second, no I do not live to post negative things about law enforcement. However, when I feel as though questions need to be raised I'll raise them--like I said you don't have to read them. I understand that being a police officer is a tough job and I don't expect them to be perfect. When mistakes are made and people get hurt they deserved to be called on it. I would hope that everyone would feel that way. They shouldn't get a pass just because they are police officers. As for the warrant process I understand that a judge has to sign it. That doesn't mean that SWAT or SRT needs to be used unless they are very certain that it is warranted. In the case that I posted about it didn't sound like they took the time to research whether it was. I wish they had. It would probably have saved an innocent man's life.

No charges for the Georgia cop who threw a stun grenade into a baby's crib during drug raid that found no drugs: http://t.co/cIV22fl1Qj

 

I didn't expect that they would. I'm glad that they didn't indict any of the officers that participated in carrying out the raid. They were just doing as they were told and from reading the grand jury's statement they were told to expect guards and a cache of weapons. That bad information is on someone else--not them. I'm sure they were horrified when they saw that they had almost killed the baby.

 

However, the people that processed the information and made the decision to go in like they did when kids were present should be held accountable somehow. I'm sure it will be a slam dunk civil suit if it even sees a courtroom. More likely there will be a big settlement. It was obvious that they were negligent--but I don't think they had any bad intentions.

 

The grand jury seemed to feel the same way. A quote from their statement:

 

"The drug investigation that led to these events was hurried, sloppy, and unfortunately not in accordance with the best practices and procedures. While no member of this grand jury condones or wishes to tolerate drug dealers and the pain and suffering that they inflict upon a community, the zeal to hold them accountable must not override cautious and patient judgment.....Some of what contributed to this tragedy can be attributed to well-intentioned people getting in too big a hurry, and not slowing down and taking enough time to consider the possible consequences of their actions. Without serious supervision and constant vigilance, the work of drug enforcement, like so many other jobs, can unfortunately become routine and lead to complacency and lack of attention to detail. The difference in this type of work is that the consequences can be devastating to both citizens and law enforcement when things go wrong. While no person intended any harm to a young child, quite simply put there should be no such thing as an "emergency" in drug investigations. While we as a community want drug dealers held to account, no seizure of evidence or apprehension of a criminal for a drug offense warrants anything but caution and careful planning. There is an inherent danger to both law enforcement officers and to innocent third parties in many of these situations. The hard work and effort brought to apprehend suspects and seize evidence must always be tempered by the realization that no amount of drugs is worth a member of the public being harmed, even if unintentionally, or a law enforcement officer being harmed.

 

 

That was very well said by the grand jury. And that is my point. It seems like when something goes wrong it is frequently because people are too focused on getting the suspect without looking at possible consequences. From what I understand, as a consequence of this botched raid, higher level drug raids like this one are now being coordinated with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. I see that as a positive step. It's a shame that it took a child almost dying and being scarred for life but it is a step in the right direction.

There were some other interesting things mentioned in the grand jury report. Like you mentioned they were expecting someone with weapons and drugs...at a house where someone was involved in an armed robbery at some point I believe.

 

 

The grand jury also seemed to indicate there was evidence that while the parents weren't involved in any criminal activity, they knew about it going on in the house. Did I read that right?

There were some other interesting things mentioned in the grand jury report. Like you mentioned they were expecting someone with weapons and drugs...at a house where someone was involved in an armed robbery at some point I believe.

 

 

The grand jury also seemed to indicate there was evidence that while the parents weren't involved in any criminal activity, they knew about it going on in the house. Did I read that right?

 

Yes you did. It also mentioned that the case agent (that submitted this information to the Sheriff) was placed on leave after the Sheriff discovered the negligence in getting all of the correct information. The case agent then resigned instead of waiting to be fired by the Sheriff. In addition, the supervisor of the county's drug task force, who was also involved in the investigation, was reassigned and had his pay reduced. Finally, the agent that yelled at the father after the child was injured was removed from the drug task force and is not allowed to ever re-apply or be involved in any investigations in the county.

Yes you did. It also mentioned that the case agent (that submitted this information to the Sheriff) was placed on leave after the Sheriff discovered the negligence in getting all of the correct information. The case agent then resigned instead of waiting to be fired by the Sheriff. In addition, the supervisor of the county's drug task force, who was also involved in the investigation, was reassigned and had his pay reduced. Finally, the agent that yelled at the father after the child was injured was removed from the drug task force and is not allowed to ever re-apply or be involved in any investigations in the county.

 

So the police department responded appropriately to the mistakes made?

So the police department responded appropriately to the mistakes made?

 

 

Sounds like it to me. Now the county needs to offer to settle with the family of the injured child which I suspect will happen. They'd be crazy to go to court.

Sounds like it to me. Now the county needs to offer to settle with the family of the injured child which I suspect will happen. They'd be crazy to go to court.

 

I'd almost guarantee they will settle for a large amount of money.

First off, there's an ignore button. Feel free to use it if you don't like my posts. Second, no I do not live to post negative things about law enforcement. However, when I feel as though questions need to be raised I'll raise them--like I said you don't have to read them. I understand that being a police officer is a tough job and I don't expect them to be perfect. When mistakes are made and people get hurt they deserved to be called on it. I would hope that everyone would feel that way. They shouldn't get a pass just because they are police officers. As for the warrant process I understand that a judge has to sign it. That doesn't mean that SWAT or SRT needs to be used unless they are very certain that it is warranted. In the case that I posted about it didn't sound like they took the time to research whether it was. I wish they had. It would probably have saved an innocent man's life.

 

No need to get testy, I was asking a question.

 

I don't think you have the training or expertise to question why and when SWAT/SRT is used. It's a legitimate question as to why a warrant was served but not the manner in which is was served. Example: I may question why a surgeon had to remove a gall bladder. I am not going to question the manner in which he removed it because I have no training or expertise in how to remove a gall bladder.

 

It would be great if we lived in a Utopian society where accidents never happened. We don't.

If true it's kind of hard to defend his actions although it wouldn't surprise me if some here tried.

 

He freaked and his aim was bad.