According to at least one source, the individual that handled the warrant has been demoted with a severe reduction in pay, and another person involved was fired.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We are.looking at thing with full 20/20 after-sight. Its easy to armchair quarterback with all of that info.
The SWAT team knew what they had been told, and what was right in front of them. They also didn't have the luxury of time to mull over their decisions. In their chosen profession, a moment of hesitation can cost lives...their lives, their colleges' lives, and/or the lives of innocents/victims.
If you are going to judge their actions, these considerations MUST be taken into account.
They had all the time. They chose the time of assault. Their recklessness almost cost the life of a baby, and severely disfigured the child which will lead to lifetime if painful operations. Operations that at the very minimum should be paid for by the county.
You simply cannot gloss over the fact that a baby had a frakkin flash bang explode in its face. Flash bangs are filled with magnesium which burns at 3100 degrees Celsius. Flash bangs that explode at 170-180 dBa and cause permanent hearing loss in adults.
A military grade deterrent was used on a private residence without even scouting the location to determine the type and number of occupants. And you want to apologize for the people who rushed to action and blew up a grenade in the face of a baby. I have taken your considerations into account and I have judged them insufficient. Indeed I find them to be completely lacking in all ways. Your considerations point to a selfish brute squad interested only in getting their rocks off by kicking in doors.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like how everyone is blaming the police instead of the scumbag methheads using their child's playpen to barricade the door.
You're saying that if the police suspect a crime MIGHT have happened at a location, they are now authorized to set off explosives inside regardless of the situation?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We are.looking at thing with full 20/20 after-sight. Its easy to armchair quarterback with all of that info.
The SWAT team knew what they had been told, and what was right in front of them. They also didn't have the luxury of time to mull over their decisions. In their chosen profession, a moment of hesitation can cost lives...their lives, their colleges' lives, and/or the lives of innocents/victims.
If you are going to judge their actions, these considerations MUST be taken into account.
I don't see it really as an indictment against the police officers. They're doing their job as they've been instructed and paid to do it.
Instead, it's the system that creates these situations that is wrong. Why is SWAT being sent in on a tip from a single confidential informant? Why isn't more recon being done? Why not stake out the house for a few hours, or even watch it for a few days to observe patterns?
The crime that was suspected was selling meth. While that is definitely not good for a community, at the same time it doesn't present an immediate danger either. It's not like this one SWAT raid was going to make meth disappear from the community for eternity.
The policies and laws regarding use of force by the police need to be changed. The War on Drugs has failed. We need to walk it back and bring back community policing, not para-military raids.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Welcome to the Off-Topic Discussions, Citizen LEPLEY!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Citizen LEPLEY, if for some odd reason you don't like communist propaganda with your discussion of fantasy role-playing games, there is a little symbol--a slashed zero--to the right of every thread, and if you click on it, the politroll threads will disappear!
Well, unfortunately, not all of them. You have to click on each one individually, which, I hear from other politroll-thread haters, is a hassle. :(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In all seriousness, MOST law enforcemnt make clearer better decisions and warrants are evolving to be more restrictive making police have more info before serving them. It only takes one bad decision on the fly and now ALL cops are bad. AND its the judges that approve the warrants so if there is bad info, they should request more and not approve it.
For craps sake people i come here to talk about GAMES from one of the best companies out there! Take your fergusen talk and rants to the proper forums, this is supposed to be a fun place to hang out!
On the messageboard mainpage, directly to the left of the header "off-topic discussions" there is a little gray arrow. When you see it, it will be pointing down. Click it, and it will turn and point to the right. Also, you won't have to see the off-topic threads anymore. Then you can go about game talk and rules arguments all you like and will never see us down here again :D
The cops were following procedure. And even so, they caused a severe injury to a baby, because nobody thought to check things at all before making a raid on a house. So far, you might claim whatever you like about the guilt of the people involved. It has not been tried, right? But that is not really the issue here. After investigating the circumstances, no change will be made, no penalty will be put on anyone, and the child will not have its medical bills paid. Don't pretend it is "a tragic accident", it is what foul people have always called disgusting police brutality. This is about the policy being upheld despite awful consequences of it. Nothing will change from this... And THAT is why people are disgusted by the police as a group. Blame can be put where it belongs, otherwise it will taint everyone nearby.
This article has some details and statements from the Habersham County Sheriff Joey Terrell.
"When we did surveillance on the house, there were two guards standing guard at the door ... like they weren't letting anybody in," Terrell said. "We did make the buy out of the house. We took that information, along with our other information, and went to see the judge and got a warrant."
"According to the confidential informant, there were no children," Terrell said. "When they made the buy, they didn't see any children or any evidence of children there, so we proceeded with our standard operation."
"Due to the previous information regarding assault-type weapons at the residence, the information regarding adult male subjects standing 'guard' in front of the residence, the fact that there was no safe way to approach the residence without being detected, the possibility of the destruction of evidence, and Wanis Thonetheva's criminal history which reflected charges of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and several charges of carrying a concealed weapon, agents contacted the Habersham County Sheriff's Office [Special Response Team] unit to assist with the execution of the search warrant and the securing of the residence," a report provided by Terrell states.
Now all that being said, assuming the statements are true, I don't see that the officer did anything intentionally wrong. The county though should be at the minimum paying for the child's medical bills.
The grand jury recommended no criminal charges against any officer involved, including the case agent (who since resigned and surrendered Georgia Peace Officer certification), the members of the Habersham Special Response Team, and the deputy who tossed the mini flash bang device.
Another article with quotes from the Grand Jury report
"The drug investigation that led to these events was hurried, sloppy, and unfortunately not in accordance with the best practices and procedures," the report states. "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. In our community, the decision has previously been made that joining in a higher level drug investigation effort, which is coordinated and supervised by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, is the best way to ensure that this work is conducted with caution and attention to detail. We are pleased with this decision."
@Rynjin and Vod
You do realize not everyone has multiple choices when it comes to places to stay, right?
Also, the person in question had a "previous weapon charge," not a conviction. Do you write off any and all family that have had a run in with the police?
From reading a few articles, Wanis Thometheva, the target of the raid, not only owned the house the was raided, but another house in a different town where he was arrested. So there was at least another place they could have been.
To clarify about the "tragic accident" appelation: There was a recent case where a cop shot someone to death "in a tragic accident" and "in self-defence" with Six! Bullets! to the person's back! That is no more a "tragic accident" than if a civilian murders someone else by six bullets to the back. While it is a difficult position to be in at times and does require quick decisions... nobody has the right to claim these decisions do not have consequences OR that these consequences should not reflect on the person making the decisions. So, whether police gun down innocent people or soldiers massacre fleeing people, "you don't know because you weren't there" is nothing but whines of pitiful people. Both policemen and soldiers know what their jobs entail, including harsh, difficult, quick decisions. Not everyone is cut out for such a job. That's okay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From reading a few articles, Wanis Thometheva, the target of the raid, not only owned the house the was raided, but another house in a different town where he was arrested. So there was at least another place they could have been.@Rynjin and Vod
You do realize not everyone has multiple choices when it comes to places to stay, right?
Also, the person in question had a "previous weapon charge," not a conviction. Do you write off any and all family that have had a run in with the police?
And why is this an excuse for police officers throwing explosives into a room when they aren't aware who or what is inside that room?
And why is this an excuse for police officers throwing explosives into a room when they aren't aware who or what is inside that room?
Because of murphys rules about line of sight.
A flash bang is, if I understand it, a weapon that causes an extremely loud noise, loud enough to cause permanent deafness in adults, and a magnesium flame, something extremely hot, to destroy people's vision. A baby hit by the flash bang as it goes off WILL be injured. Whether you prefer to call it a grenade, an explosive, or a lollypop is completely irrelevant. Yes, if they had turned the baby into ground beef with a frag grenade, that would have been worse. If they had detonated the house over the baby with a few pounds of C4, that would also have been worse. That doesn't mean a flash bang is nothing. The baby was severely injured, and this is a risk they chose to take.
Edit: The post I answered was removed. The gist was: It is wrong to call a flashbang a grenade or an explosive.
Thinking about Palestinian meth labs led me, all stream-of-consciousness style, to
Hamas to introduce death penalty in Gaza for drugs
A bit old, but still, Boo!!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A flash bang is, if I understand it, a weapon that causes an extremely loud noise, loud enough to cause permanent deafness in adults, and a magnesium flame, something extremely hot, to destroy people's vision. A baby hit by the flash bang as it goes off WILL be injured. Whether you prefer to call it a grenade, an explosive, or a lollypop is completely irrelevant. Yes, if they had turned the baby into ground beef with a frag grenade, that would have been worse. If they had detonated the house over the baby with a few pounds of C4, that would also have been worse. That doesn't mean a flash bang is nothing. The baby was severely injured, and this is a risk they chose to take.
Edit: The post I answered was removed. The gist was: It is wrong to call a flashbang a grenade or an explosive.
Apparently someone decided that being on the side of baby-fraggers wasn't where they wanted to be this morning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This article has some details and statements from the Habersham County Sheriff Joey Terrell.
"When we did surveillance on the house, there were two guards standing guard at the door ... like they weren't letting anybody in," Terrell said. "We did make the buy out of the house. We took that information, along with our other information, and went to see the judge and got a warrant.""According to the confidential informant, there were no children," Terrell said. "When they made the buy, they didn't see any children or any evidence of children there, so we proceeded with our standard operation.""Due to the previous information regarding assault-type weapons at the residence, the information regarding adult male subjects standing 'guard' in front of the residence, the fact that there was no safe way to approach the residence without being detected, the possibility of the destruction of evidence, and Wanis Thonetheva's criminal history which reflected charges of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and several charges of carrying a concealed weapon, agents contacted the Habersham County Sheriff's Office [Special Response Team] unit to assist with the execution of the search warrant and the securing of the residence," a report provided by Terrell states.Now all that being said, assuming the statements are true, I don't see that the officer did anything intentionally wrong. The county though should be at the minimum paying for the child's medical bills.
The grand jury recommended no criminal charges against any officer involved, including the case agent (who since resigned and surrendered Georgia Peace Officer certification), the members of the Habersham Special Response Team, and the deputy who tossed the mini flash bang device....
These are a lot of important details that change the face of the situation. The problem isnt with the officers in my mind, its with the system that is in place to fascilitate their jobs. The swat officers were told there were people with assault rifles waiting at the door... in that context, a flashbang through a window, is a very reasonable response. I dont blame the swat officers for the event.
The problem is the investigating officers failed to maintain surveilance of the residence and realize they guys with the guns and drugs they were looking for left, and a baby showed up. Swat needs to go somewhere else...the conditions they got the warrant under weren't valid anymore.
In the end, police cannot behave like military. They cant get a tip, and drone strike a house in the middle of a residencial neighborhood in Georgia. I dont particularly want police officers to be in more danger then they have to be, but things like no knock warrants and swat raids have become the norm as opposed to the exception in what is becoming a nationally militarized police force. That isn't ok. We as citizens shouldnt accept it.
More Ferguson:
The cops were following procedure. And even so, they caused a severe injury to a baby, because nobody thought to check things at all before making a raid on a house. So far, you might claim whatever you like about the guilt of the people involved. It has not been tried, right? But that is not really the issue here. After investigating the circumstances, no change will be made, no penalty will be put on anyone, and the child will not have its medical bills paid. Don't pretend it is "a tragic accident", it is what foul people have always called disgusting police brutality. This is about the policy being upheld despite awful consequences of it. Nothing will change from this... And THAT is why people are disgusted by the police as a group. Blame can be put where it belongs, otherwise it will taint everyone nearby.The rise in the use of SWAT teams parralells directly with the new practise of firesaling or outright dumping of excess military hardware into the hands of civilian police and sheriff departments. With all this material lying around, the urge to use it increases.
The fact that the cops involved were not charged, doesn't mean that the city won't be hit with a civil lawsuit in this case.
Nor does it mean they will. Running a lawsuit requires money, and most people don't have enough. From my understanding, anyway.
Nor does it mean they will. Running a lawsuit requires money, and most people don't have enough. From my understanding, anyway.The cops were following procedure. And even so, they caused a severe injury to a baby, because nobody thought to check things at all before making a raid on a house. So far, you might claim whatever you like about the guilt of the people involved. It has not been tried, right? But that is not really the issue here. After investigating the circumstances, no change will be made, no penalty will be put on anyone, and the child will not have its medical bills paid. Don't pretend it is "a tragic accident", it is what foul people have always called disgusting police brutality. This is about the policy being upheld despite awful consequences of it. Nothing will change from this... And THAT is why people are disgusted by the police as a group. Blame can be put where it belongs, otherwise it will taint everyone nearby.The rise in the use of SWAT teams parralells directly with the new practise of firesaling or outright dumping of excess military hardware into the hands of civilian police and sheriff departments. With all this material lying around, the urge to use it increases.
The fact that the cops involved were not charged, doesn't mean that the city won't be hit with a civil lawsuit in this case.
I would be surprised of someone didn't take this probono or on contingency.
Prediction: It gets labelled a Good shooting. This goes nowhere, just inflames the tensions in St Louis a little bit more.
Yeah, that's why I held off on posting it for two hours. Then I thought, "Eh, might as well post it anyway, who knows what the story'll be by the end of the day."
More Ferguson:
OMFG. Wow, just wow. How is that not a headline?
I guess you have to credit them for perseverance. If your first attempt at igniting a race war via police brutality doesn't succeed, just try again.
Daily Show goes looking for statistics on police shootings. There's a law that requires them nationally, but no enforcement mechanism, so they don't exist.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
We are.looking at thing with full 20/20 after-sight. Its easy to armchair quarterback with all of that info.
The SWAT team knew what they had been told, and what was right in front of them. They also didn't have the luxury of time to mull over their decisions. In their chosen profession, a moment of hesitation can cost lives...their lives, their colleges' lives, and/or the lives of innocents/victims.
If you are going to judge their actions, these considerations MUST be taken into account.
The only consideration to take into account is they took the word of a rat and an addict, did zero police work (you know, stuff like "investigating" and "staking out the residence for a period of time), got a bogus "no knock" warrant, then proceeded to invade the house like it was in Fallujah.
In their chosen profession, they have rules. Some of those rules are lined out in the Fourth through Eighth Amendments to the Constitution. That judges regularly find excuses to make exemptions to our basic rights is an indictment of our judicial system, not a justification for treating American citizens who are presumably "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers" like enemy combatants in a war zone.
There is no "20/20 hindsight" when police have been doing this for years. It is pattern recognition. When cops regularly tell people who assert their rights they must be guilty for doing so (seriously, watch some freaking Youtube videos. There's only thousands to choose from, since we're recording them more now) the system is broken.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
More Ferguson:
I particularly like one of the excuses tried out by the cop in this case: he was running like he had a gun.
Of course, according to other police statement he was armed and shot at the (off-duty) officer who'd stopped him to check his papers. According to other witnesses he was only armed with a sandwich.
A gun was apparently recovered. OTOH, throw-down weapons aren't exactly unheard of.
Prediction: It gets labelled a Good shooting. This goes nowhere, just inflames the tensions in St Louis a little bit more.
Where have I heard the phrase "check your papers" before?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where have I heard the phrase "check your papers" before?
I hear nuszink!
Where have I heard the phrase "check your papers" before?Arizona?
Guilty as charged. :(
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That said, this one may really be good. But so many others have tainted the well sufficiently you can't trust the cops to be telling the truth. Or even not fabricating evidence.
Interesting. So the crooks have not tainted the well sufficiently enough. You can trust them to tell the truth most of the time and not hide evidence?
Im going to hazard a guess that there are a lot more crooks out there breaking the law than there are corrupt cops fabricating evidence.
Let me give the opinion of someone who has walked a mile in those shoes. I was a crimes against children and special victims detective for almost 10 years. I didn't care whether I made ten arrests a month or no arrests in a month. My only goal was to arrest scum bags that hurt people who couldn't protect themselves. I didn't need to fabricate evidence. I based my cases solely on the evidence that was presented. Any case worth an arrest generally has five times the evidence you need to make the arrest. You just need to find it with a little work. Every officer amd detective I worked with felt the same way.
Lumping the tens of thousands of good officers and detectives into the same group as the handful of bad ones is just plain wrong. What most people forget is a police force, no matter how big or small, is a direct reflection of the community they serve because the pool of officers comes from that community. If you really want to fix the problem, it is fairly simple. Better screening during the hiring process and better pay. When communities hire people to become officers and carry weapons that can maim and kill, and they pay the, less than a McDonalds manager makes, something is wrong.
That said, this one may really be good. But so many others have tainted the well sufficiently you can't trust the cops to be telling the truth. Or even not fabricating evidence.
Interesting. So the crooks have not tainted the well sufficiently enough. You can trust them to tell the truth most of the time and not hide evidence?
Im going to hazard a guess that there are a lot more crooks out there breaking the law than there are corrupt cops fabricating evidence.
Let me give the opinion of someone who has walked a mile in those shoes. I was a crimes against children and special victims detective for almost 10 years. I didn't care whether I made ten arrests a month or no arrests in a month. My only goal was to arrest scum bags that hurt people who couldn't protect themselves. I didn't need to fabricate evidence. I based my cases solely on the evidence that was presented. Any case worth an arrest generally has five times the evidence you need to make the arrest. You just need to find it with a little work. Every officer amd detective I worked with felt the same way.
Lumping the tens of thousands of good officers and detectives into the same group as the handful of bad ones is just plain wrong. What most people forget is a police force, no matter how big or small, is a direct reflection of the community they serve because the pool of officers comes from that community. If you really want to fix the problem, it is fairly simple. Better screening during the hiring process and better pay. When communities hire people to become officers and carry weapons that can maim and kill, and they pay the, less than a McDonalds manager makes, something is wrong.
But that won't keep the criminals safe and that sounds like the goal of some
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, this one may really be good. But so many others have tainted the well sufficiently you can't trust the cops to be telling the truth. Or even not fabricating evidence.
Interesting. So the crooks have not tainted the well sufficiently enough. You can trust them to tell the truth most of the time and not hide evidence?
Im going to hazard a guess that there are a lot more crooks out there breaking the law than there are corrupt cops fabricating evidence.
Not at all. There are obviously plenty of crooks, but no one believes them. People, especially prosecutors and juries, give far too much credence to police, even when defending themselves in suspicious circumstances.
And of course, in cases like this, the "crook" doesn't get the chance to tell the truth or lie. He's dead.That's why the videos are so important. People are seeing it and they can't just dismiss it as "Well, the cop's probably honest and the guy he shot's no angel and must have provoked it somehow."
I'm certainly not defending bad cops. I arrested three cops during my tenure. I had no patience for a bad cop as it gave the rest of cops bad name, including me at the time. If it is a "bad shooting", the cop should absolutely be arrested and put on trial.
However, the pendulum shift is concerning. Why does everyone yell for "innocence until proven guilty" for an accused civilian, but when a cop is involved in a shooting, they aren't afforded that same opportunity? Almost immeditely after every police shooting you hear cries to arrest the officer, even if there were multiple witnesses that support a "good shooting."
On a side note, when I use good or bad shooting, let me clarify. I don't think there is ever a such thing as a shooting that is good and I hope it doesn't come across that way
Anytime a weapon is discharged, whether someone is hurt or killed, it is always a bad situation for all involved.
Why Police Lie Under Oath an Opinion Piece by Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness which was first shared with me by Comrade Barrister.
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
That said, this one may really be good. But so many others have tainted the well sufficiently you can't trust the cops to be telling the truth. Or even not fabricating evidence.
Interesting. So the crooks have not tainted the well sufficiently enough. You can trust them to tell the truth most of the time and not hide evidence?
Im going to hazard a guess that there are a lot more crooks out there breaking the law than there are corrupt cops fabricating evidence.
Not at all. There are obviously plenty of crooks, but no one believes them. People, especially prosecutors and juries, give far too much credence to police, even when defending themselves in suspicious circumstances.
And of course, in cases like this, the "crook" doesn't get the chance to tell the truth or lie. He's dead.That's why the videos are so important. People are seeing it and they can't just dismiss it as "Well, the cop's probably honest and the guy he shot's no angel and must have provoked it somehow."
I think we are in agreement on the topic for the most part. As a cop (or detective), it is very sobering responsibility when you can take away people's liberties. I fully support full scrutiny on every arrest. It is why I was careful on every arrest I ever made and I made sure I had more evidence than would ever be needed to obtain a conviction. It's also why I've never had conviction overturned on appeal in more than 350 arrests.
I also absolutely support personal cameras attached to every officer's uniform. It would absolutely protect more officers against false claims than it would catch officers doing something wrong. Of course you get people screaming not to raise taxes to support that initiative and the money has to come from somewhere. You also get the crowd that will argue it violates their right to privacy.
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
SWAT kills Georgia man using info from drug addict who stole his car
Sure you can point out one or two cases a month where the cops did something wrong. How many more arrests are made where things are done correctly in that same time frame?
And to be clear, if the cops were in the wrong, then they should absolutely be held accountable for their actions. I'm not arguing with you there so not sure why you are trying to argue it here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who's arguing? Thread's about Georgia SWAT teams; saw another story about them killing someone through gross negligence. Shared it.