Breath Taking No Knock Atrocity

[EEllis]

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/to ... aid/nf9SJ/
with an update.
there were 4 kids inside the home! and the cops recon was simply incompetent, no signs of the kids? but there was a mini van with car seats and stickers everywhere.
BG wasn't even in the home at the time and it's probably a good thing. this could have gone so far south so quickly and I think the sheriff realizes it. I think he also realizes he may not have a job come next election.

In their defence the kids didn't live there, they were visiting. They say crib like it's a babies bed that is up high and you could see but it was a portable playpen that is low to the ground and was in the living room near the entrance. Now none of this make what happened OK but it does frame the situation a bit different.

[EEllis]

Turns out that the guy they were looking for wasn't there during the raid. The guy had sold meth to a CI and the cops went to get a warrant and came back to serve the warrant and the guy left to make deliveries. The guy had been arrested for drugs and weapons charges before at that location. This seems to be an almost gang sale situation with "guards" often being at the location. The woman knew they sold drugs at that location and reportedly, by her statements to the police, would take the kids in the back room and lock the door while business was occurring.

[Jim Beaux]

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/to ... aid/nf9SJ/
with an update.
there were 4 kids inside the home! and the cops recon was simply incompetent, no signs of the kids? but there was a mini van with car seats and stickers everywhere.
BG wasn't even in the home at the time and it's probably a good thing. this could have gone so far south so quickly and I think the sheriff realizes it. I think he also realizes he may not have a job come next election.

In their defence the kids didn't live there, they were visiting. They say crib like it's a babies bed that is up high and you could see but it was a portable playpen that is low to the ground and was in the living room near the entrance. Now none of this make what happened OK but it does frame the situation a bit different.

Not meaning to be argumentative, but it doesnt matter if the children lived there or not. The fact is, children where present.

There just cant be a credible defense of a trained professional who employs an explosive device while not being certain of the target or collateral damage. The dynamic is alarming when considering the possibility of a meth lab being on site.

[philip964]

Georgia Bureau of Investigation is not investigating further.

I guess the baby is just a casualy of war.

[SewTexas]

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/to ... aid/nf9SJ/
with an update.
there were 4 kids inside the home! and the cops recon was simply incompetent, no signs of the kids? but there was a mini van with car seats and stickers everywhere.
BG wasn't even in the home at the time and it's probably a good thing. this could have gone so far south so quickly and I think the sheriff realizes it. I think he also realizes he may not have a job come next election.

In their defence the kids didn't live there, they were visiting. They say crib like it's a babies bed that is up high and you could see but it was a portable playpen that is low to the ground and was in the living room near the entrance. Now none of this make what happened OK but it does frame the situation a bit different.

there should be recon anytime eyes have been taken off of a sight for more than 30 seconds. And there was a mini-van with baby seats, toys and stickers parked right in front of the house, how much bigger of a sign did they need?

[gigag04]

What I don't get is why, in the name of all that is holy, if firearms and drugs are known to be present and are such a threat to officers lives that they have to engage in combat tactics with potential children in the home, don't they wait for the guy to be leaving 7-11 and take him there then get a warrant for the house and show up and get the evidence no drama needed.


If I can think of that, why can't they?

Like I have said before we all think we are so sofistcated in our police and criminal justice system, but in much more brutal times those who enforced the law were severely punished if they burned innocents along with the guilty.

Because there are never any kids at 7-11? You might be right that it is a better choice to try and apprehend someone outside a home but you have more variables that could occur outside than in a home. Assuming that it would provide better results without having access to more data is wishful thinking. What is really needed is real research into the issue and fact based decision making.

But the children...


In all seriousness, I preferred car takedowns as it was easier to get the tactical advantage (tahoe, K9, and two patrol units). IMHO a high risk stop is more tactically sound and usually safer in cases of wrong house/car.

And when have you ever seen a high risk stop involving just 4 vehicles? None ever made it to the news, that's for sure, and there was the one up north (Schenectady NY?) where the two K9 units (from different agencies) let their dogs get too close to each other, and the news cut off the video just as they had a confrontation. I'll see if I can find the clip.

That said, I agree with you, and in cases like this one where kids were known to be present, much more tactically sound to isolate the BG instead of trying to control the whole house.

All of them that didn't start as a chase.

[mamabearCali]

A little watchfulness a little creative thought on the part of law enforcement and many of these horrific situations can be easily avoided. Take him down as he walks from his house to the car. Take him down as he is driving on the highway and you can see he is alone. Do as was suggested and arrange a meeting at a place you can control the environment. Raids in the middle of the night where there are known innocents just because that is the listed address of the person are lazy and poor police work much of the time.

That is not wishful thinking that is using ones head to make a safer arrest that won't put innocents in harms way.

Don't take this the wrong way because I'm not an expert on this but what would make you think you are either? If there is an issue, your theory just seems like the flipside of it, not making real change. By that I mean the concern that I have is that the people in LE make decisions based on what they "Think" is the best way to go without really looking and availing themselves of the science and research that we could have on the subjects. There are issues with both your scenarios that would allow bad things to happen. Just they are different bad things than what happened here. What we need is better research and evaluation of the possibilities rather than having people who have never done it mandating how it occurs.

One does not have to be an expert in these situations to have some common sense. Proper recon would include the minivan with the children's toys in the driveway. Proper recon would know that the person was in the home at the time. If I was at a party and threw a fire cracker and it went off badly and hit a kid in the mouth how much you want to bet I would be in deep trouble? That would be an accident where I had little control over the outcome. They purposefully threw an incidiary without being certain of what it would hit. That is irresponsible under any circumstances.

This child might or might not survive, will certainly be scarred for life. This toddler is enduring right now unimaginable pain. Why....because no one took the time to think or to look where they were throwing an explosive. I find that unacceptable collateral.

[EEllis]

there should be recon anytime eyes have been taken off of a sight for more than 30 seconds. And there was a mini-van with baby seats, toys and stickers parked right in front of the house, how much bigger of a sign did they need?

Not to beat this into the ground but I disagree. I haven't see a pic but I don't think a minivan nearby screams "There are kids in the drug house". I also think that your 30 sec standard would mean the end to any practical warrant service. While that may be your goal the result will not be acceptable to the public at large.

[VMI77]

What I don't get is why, in the name of all that is holy, if firearms and drugs are known to be present and are such a threat to officers lives that they have to engage in combat tactics with potential children in the home, don't they wait for the guy to be leaving 7-11 and take him there then get a warrant for the house and show up and get the evidence no drama needed.


If I can think of that, why can't they?

Like I have said before we all think we are so sofistcated in our police and criminal justice system, but in much more brutal times those who enforced the law were severely punished if they burned innocents along with the guilty.

Because there are never any kids at 7-11? You might be right that it is a better choice to try and apprehend someone outside a home but you have more variables that could occur outside than in a home. Assuming that it would provide better results without having access to more data is wishful thinking. What is really needed is real research into the issue and fact based decision making.

A little watchfulness a little creative thought on the part of law enforcement and many of these horrific situations can be easily avoided. Take him down as he walks from his house to the car. Take him down as he is driving on the highway and you can see he is alone. Do as was suggested and arrange a meeting at a place you can control the environment. Raids in the middle of the night where there are known innocents just because that is the listed address of the person are lazy and poor police work much of the time.

That is not wishful thinking that is using ones head to make a safer arrest that won't put innocents in harms way.

But momabear, that takes more time and you don't get to dress up and use all your toys.

[puma guy]

You can lead a horse to water.................then beat it to death.

[VMI77]

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/to ... aid/nf9SJ/
with an update.
there were 4 kids inside the home! and the cops recon was simply incompetent, no signs of the kids? but there was a mini van with car seats and stickers everywhere.
BG wasn't even in the home at the time and it's probably a good thing. this could have gone so far south so quickly and I think the sheriff realizes it. I think he also realizes he may not have a job come next election.

In their defence the kids didn't live there, they were visiting. They say crib like it's a babies bed that is up high and you could see but it was a portable playpen that is low to the ground and was in the living room near the entrance. Now none of this make what happened OK but it does frame the situation a bit different.

Not meaning to be argumentative, but it doesnt matter if the children lived there or not. The fact is, children where present.

There just cant be a credible defense of a trained professional who employs an explosive device while not being certain of the target or collateral damage. The dynamic is alarming when considering the possibility of a meth lab being on site.

The "I didn't know" excuse is completely bogus when the justification in the first place is "officer safety." If they didn't know a child was present, they also didn't know if there were three guys in a backroom with machine guns present. Not knowing the child was there means they didn't know who was in the house, period. So, either they knew the child was there and are lying, or they had no idea what they were going to encounter....which makes them stupid.

[VMI77]

I don't advocate drug use, ALCOHOL (and it is a drug) included, but people will use them anyway. The 'war on drugs' is government stupidity in all its glory. Drug use should be treated as a medical problem, not a criminal problem. this kind of government stupidity wouldn't be required.

What do you expect? We taught the population that 1 marijuana cigarette was equivalent to smoking 100 tobacco cigarets.. At least that's what I remember from school.
And we politicized the dangers of such drug use for years. We developed public opinion based on little more than political leanings, rather than any sort of scientific fact.

It's going to take a while for the dinosaurs to die off and get out of public office.

The war on drugs is a huge example of governmental waste that can't be stopped..

It's not going to end because there is too much money it in for too many people. It's one of our biggest industries with profits all around. And the drug dealers don't want it to end anymore than the rum runners wanted prohibition to end. So, on both sides of the line, everybody wins....it's just the innocent and the consumers that get hurt, and the consumers are easily replaced and the innocent don't matter....there is virtually no cost but bad publicity for killing or injuring innocent people in a drug raid.

[SQLGeek]

You can lead a horse to water.................then beat it to death.

Same thing, different thread.

[cb1000rider]

It's not going to end because there is too much money it in for too many people. It's one of our biggest industries with profits all around. And the drug dealers don't want it to end anymore than the rum runners wanted prohibition to end. So, on both sides of the line, everybody wins....it's just the innocent and the consumers that get hurt, and the consumers are easily replaced and the innocent don't matter....there is virtually no cost but bad publicity for killing or injuring innocent people in a drug raid.

There is a bunch of money in it... Especially for states like ours and politicians. But as Colorado has figured out, there is also a lot of money in legalization.
I have no doubt that it will correct... I'm just sad that it's going to take decades.

It's a great example of government making the same mistakes over and over... And throwing good money after bad. If corporations acted like that, they'd be bankrupt. If engineers acted like that, they'd be fired. When politicians act like that they get re-elected.

It's a big sheep issue. We've trained our sheep that the sky is purple. It's hard to un-train.

[VMI77]

It's not going to end because there is too much money it in for too many people. It's one of our biggest industries with profits all around. And the drug dealers don't want it to end anymore than the rum runners wanted prohibition to end. So, on both sides of the line, everybody wins....it's just the innocent and the consumers that get hurt, and the consumers are easily replaced and the innocent don't matter....there is virtually no cost but bad publicity for killing or injuring innocent people in a drug raid.

There is a bunch of money in it... Especially for states like ours and politicians. But as Colorado has figured out, there is also a lot of money in legalization.
I have no doubt that it will correct... I'm just sad that it's going to take decades.

It's a great example of government making the same mistakes over and over... And throwing good money after bad. If corporations acted like that, they'd be bankrupt. If engineers acted like that, they'd be fired. When politicians act like that they get re-elected.

It's a big sheep issue. We've trained our sheep that the sky is purple. It's hard to un-train.

I agree that eventually marijuana will be either decriminalized or legalized....but it will take at least another decade, probably two, and a lot of dinosaur extinction. However, they'll still have meth, cocaine, percocet, oxycontin, heroin, opium, and a whole bunch of other prescription and currently illegal drugs to go after. Meanwhile, our rulers and their cronies, now above the law, will snort coke and smoke grass and get prescription highs with impunity.