Breath Taking No Knock Atrocity

[A-R]

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.

I have NO interest in defending throwing a flashbang near a child. And what I'm about to write is in no way a defense nor excuse to that action. But I think a point made above has been missed in the bloodlust to again indict police for using " no-knock" tactics.

How much blame for this is placed on the child's parents for allowing the child to sleep in a known drug house and/or for the drug users / dealers for using/dealing with children around?

Again, this is not an excuse/defense for the police action. Just a desire to see requisite blame/responsibility on the people who put children into a dangerous environment.

Would the reaction be any different if the child was injured in inter-gang gun crossfire? Or is this lamentable only because some of the blame can be pointed at the police?

[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.

I have NO interest in defending throwing a flashbang near a child. And what I'm about to write is in no way a defense nor excuse to that action. But I think a point made above has been missed in the bloodlust to again indict police for using " no-knock" tactics.

How much blame for this is placed on the child's parents for allowing the child to sleep in a known drug house and/or for the drug users / dealers for using/dealing with children around?

Again, this is not an excuse/defense for the police action. Just a desire to see requisite blame/responsibility on the people who put children into a dangerous environment.

Would the reaction be any different if the child was injured in inter-gang gun crossfire? Or is this lamentable only because some of the blame can be pointed at the police?

My comments usually are just written of because of being a police "apologist" but for the most part it seems people just use the child's injury to justify what they previously believed. The woman reportedly said that she locked her kids and herself in another room when they were dealing so she was concerned about safety and the situation. Drug houses have some closing time? After what time is it that you can be sure no one would try and jack your money or drugs? Is putting your kids playpen so close to the same door that they are selling drugs out of really that good of an idea at any hour. I won't come down on the woman to hard because when the choice is homelessness or staying with a shady relative........ but how much should you blame the cops? I also haven't seen any real conversations on strategy and tactics here. Strategy because it isn't just about the one raid. Following people until you can arrest them is great, setting up stings is awesome, but how does that effect the numbers of arrests they can make? The time they have available? The cost of operations? It can't be just about what is the best way to do one arrest. It has to be the best way to perform all the tasks required.

[SewTexas]

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.

I have NO interest in defending throwing a flashbang near a child. And what I'm about to write is in no way a defense nor excuse to that action. But I think a point made above has been missed in the bloodlust to again indict police for using " no-knock" tactics.

How much blame for this is placed on the child's parents for allowing the child to sleep in a known drug house and/or for the drug users / dealers for using/dealing with children around?

Again, this is not an excuse/defense for the police action. Just a desire to see requisite blame/responsibility on the people who put children into a dangerous environment.

Would the reaction be any different if the child was injured in inter-gang gun crossfire? Or is this lamentable only because some of the blame can be pointed at the police?

My comments usually are just written of because of being a police "apologist" but for the most part it seems people just use the child's injury to justify what they previously believed. The woman reportedly said that she locked her kids and herself in another room when they were dealing so she was concerned about safety and the situation. Drug houses have some closing time? After what time is it that you can be sure no one would try and jack your money or drugs? Is putting your kids playpen so close to the same door that they are selling drugs out of really that good of an idea at any hour. I won't come down on the woman to hard because when the choice is homelessness or staying with a shady relative........ but how much should you blame the cops? I also haven't seen any real conversations on strategy and tactics here. Strategy because it isn't just about the one raid. Following people until you can arrest them is great, setting up stings is awesome, but how does that effect the numbers of arrests they can make? The time they have available? The cost of operations? It can't be just about what is the best way to do one arrest. It has to be the best way to perform all the tasks required.

I've read maybe 3 pretty long articles about this case, they seem pretty thorough. If you read through them you get a few things out of them.

1. a couple of people have "blamed" the parents...."why did they have the kids there in the first place" well, let's see, their house had burned down, they had 4 kids, and starting over is expensive. You go to what family you have, seek comfort and try again.
2. They had JUST gotten there that day from the readings, maybe the day before, even if the parents were "aware of the goings on" where were they to go?
3. I'm wondering if the BG had maybe moved his operations? yes, there were apparently sales that happened and were witnessed, but then he was gone, at a 'partners' house. did he try to move the biz while the family was at his house? I would if I were him, kids can't keep quiet.

[EEllis]

I've read maybe 3 pretty long articles about this case, they seem pretty thorough. If you read through them you get a few things out of them.

1. a couple of people have "blamed" the parents...."why did they have the kids there in the first place" well, let's see, their house had burned down, they had 4 kids, and starting over is expensive. You go to what family you have, seek comfort and try again.
2. They had JUST gotten there that day from the readings, maybe the day before, even if the parents were "aware of the goings on" where were they to go?
3. I'm wondering if the BG had maybe moved his operations? yes, there were apparently sales that happened and were witnessed, but then he was gone, at a 'partners' house. did he try to move the biz while the family was at his house? I would if I were him, kids can't keep quiet.

1 I spoke to that " I won't come down on the woman to hard because when the choice is homelessness or staying with a shady relative......." and understand it may be a difficult choice but she made it and it is what it is. You roll the dice and you sometimes lose. She was definitely gambling.
2 Anywhere else. Now this is hearsay from the reports but she told the cops that she locked herself and the kids up while they were dealing so she knew. It seems it was a "Family" business. I can't know what her options were but there must be more than staying at a drug house. Shelters, churches, heck even the cops will help if you ask. They might not be good options but lets not pretend she had to be there.
3 Cops said that they made a buy thru a CI at that same door they entered the home. Then went right to get a warrant and served it as soon as it was signed. The dealer was offsite yes, but it was only to make a deliveries. He wasn't "moving" anything. Hours before he had dealt Meth feet from where the baby was injured.

[mamabearCali]

Considering the trouble the sheriff is likely in politically I would take EVERYTHING coming out of his mouth for public consumption with a shaker of salt.

I lost nearly everything once. All my husband and I had was one of our cars, our baby boy, and a few boxes worth possessions. You do not always have ideal choices. So perhaps these people had better option.....perhaps not.

You think other people will help....maybe, maybe not. When we asked for help we got a $20 voucher for Kroger from our church, and a bag of nearly rotten groceries from a local ministry. The next day I quite literally watched a drug deal go down 10 feet from my front door. Terrifying. We got out as best we could around two weeks later. It was a brutal two years. We moved four times and were sued by a crazy landlord that would not stop breaking into the tiny apartment we had rented to take pictures of laundry baskets with clothes and baby toys.

Maybe the parents knew about what was going on....maybe not. I had lived in that particular place for three months and had not known my neighbor was a drug dealer. Does not matter to me.

When you employ an explosive you are responsible for what happens next. If that explosive hits a child, at minimum, the ones who threw the grenade need to pony up for the extensive medical bills. They also need to do some serious revamp of their surveillance policy if they did not know that there were kids in the house, they should have. They are the ones bringing brutal if not lethal force into a citizens home they need to know (for their own saftey and others) who and what is in that home.

[jmra]

I've read maybe 3 pretty long articles about this case, they seem pretty thorough. If you read through them you get a few things out of them.

1. a couple of people have "blamed" the parents...."why did they have the kids there in the first place" well, let's see, their house had burned down, they had 4 kids, and starting over is expensive. You go to what family you have, seek comfort and try again.
2. They had JUST gotten there that day from the readings, maybe the day before, even if the parents were "aware of the goings on" where were they to go?
3. I'm wondering if the BG had maybe moved his operations? yes, there were apparently sales that happened and were witnessed, but then he was gone, at a 'partners' house. did he try to move the biz while the family was at his house? I would if I were him, kids can't keep quiet.

1 I spoke to that " I won't come down on the woman to hard because when the choice is homelessness or staying with a shady relative......." and understand it may be a difficult choice but she made it and it is what it is. You roll the dice and you sometimes lose. She was definitely gambling.
2 Anywhere else. Now this is hearsay from the reports but she told the cops that she locked herself and the kids up while they were dealing so she knew. It seems it was a "Family" business. I can't know what her options were but there must be more than staying at a drug house. Shelters, churches, heck even the cops will help if you ask. They might not be good options but lets not pretend she had to be there.
3 Cops said that they made a buy thru a CI at that same door they entered the home. Then went right to get a warrant and served it as soon as it was signed. The dealer was offsite yes, but it was only to make a deliveries. He wasn't "moving" anything. Hours before he had dealt Meth feet from where the baby was injured.

Seems to me it would have been good police work to leave a look out to watch the house while someone went to get the warrant. Had they done that they would have known that the suspect had left the house.

[Javier730]

No knock warrants should only be used when police know for sure there is a fugitive in the home they are going in, in my opinion.

[Charles L. Cotton]

No knock warrants should only be used when police know for sure there is a fugitive in the home they are going in, in my opinion.

In view of a rich history of judges who will sign any warrant requested, including no-knock warrants, and an equally rich history of no-knock warrants being abused and overused, no-knock warrants should be made unlawful. Arguing that people cannot be taken into custody outside of their home without greater danger to officers and the public is bogus. It's done all the time. In fact, until the increased militarization of law enforcement and the use of military style tactics and weapons, it was the method of choice.

If anyone doubts that some judges will sign any warrant requests, just consider so-called "no refusal" holidays. While I don't have a problem with arresting and prosecuting drunk drivers, I have a very big problem with a judge sitting by a phone with a pin in his or her hand ready to issue a warrant for every request submitted. Every judge involved in such unconstitutional tactics should be disbarred and prosecuted for official oppression. No end result is worth destroying constitutional protections.

Chas.

[longtooth]

& well said again.

[Jim Beaux]

I've read maybe 3 pretty long articles about this case, they seem pretty thorough. If you read through them you get a few things out of them.

1. a couple of people have "blamed" the parents...."why did they have the kids there in the first place" well, let's see, their house had burned down, they had 4 kids, and starting over is expensive. You go to what family you have, seek comfort and try again.
2. They had JUST gotten there that day from the readings, maybe the day before, even if the parents were "aware of the goings on" where were they to go?
3. I'm wondering if the BG had maybe moved his operations? yes, there were apparently sales that happened and were witnessed, but then he was gone, at a 'partners' house. did he try to move the biz while the family was at his house? I would if I were him, kids can't keep quiet.

1 I spoke to that " I won't come down on the woman to hard because when the choice is homelessness or staying with a shady relative......." and understand it may be a difficult choice but she made it and it is what it is. You roll the dice and you sometimes lose. She was definitely gambling.
2 Anywhere else. Now this is hearsay from the reports but she told the cops that she locked herself and the kids up while they were dealing so she knew. It seems it was a "Family" business. I can't know what her options were but there must be more than staying at a drug house. Shelters, churches, heck even the cops will help if you ask. They might not be good options but lets not pretend she had to be there.
3 Cops said that they made a buy thru a CI at that same door they entered the home. Then went right to get a warrant and served it as soon as it was signed. The dealer was offsite yes, but it was only to make a deliveries. He wasn't "moving" anything. Hours before he had dealt Meth feet from where the baby was injured.

No ifs, ands, or buts about it - All the rhetoric in the world cannot mitigate the fact that a baby was roasted in the quest of some who wanted to play cowboy.


This is my last post on this thread.

[tomneal]

Javier730 wrote:
No knock warrants should only be used when police know for sure there is a fugitive in the home they are going in, in my opinion.

Tom's Good Reasons for No Knock Warrants
- Active Kidnapping (Real Kidnappings, not custody disputes between parents.)
- Weapons of Mass Destruction

I'd like to see State and Federal legislatures change laws to limit No Knock Warrants.
Apparently the courts are ok issuing no knock swat warrants for trivial crimes.

[EEllis]

No ifs, ands, or buts about it - All the rhetoric in the world cannot mitigate the fact that a baby was roasted in the quest of some who wanted to play cowboy.

I addressed specific points others raised about the mother and their situation. I don't think the mothers decision making has any effect on the liability or responsibility of the police and the SRT team that served the warrant where the child was injured. I also don't think using inflammatory terms to describe the babies injuries or impugning the motives of specific officers, without having the slightest bit of knowledge of them aside from their being involved in this incident, is warranted.

[EEllis]

Javier730 wrote:
No knock warrants should only be used when police know for sure there is a fugitive in the home they are going in, in my opinion.

Tom's Good Reasons for No Knock Warrants
- Active Kidnapping (Real Kidnappings, not custody disputes between parents.)
- Weapons of Mass Destruction

I'd like to see State and Federal legislatures change laws to limit No Knock Warrants.
Apparently the courts are ok issuing no knock swat warrants for trivial crimes.

Honestly if you will check the criteria for such warrants very greatly from state to state and some jurisdictions prohibit no knock warrants all together. In Georgia the police are required to have Probable Cause, a higher standard than required for a normal search warrant, of a suspects threat to public safety to get a no knock warrant issued. I do think there is also some drug exemption there also. This was an active drug sale location with a suspect that had a history of violence and previous weapons charges and worked in conjunction with several other people to supply drugs. So this does not automatically make what happened here ok but lets also not trivialize the crimes and situation to make a point.

[SewTexas]

he could have been guilty of mass murder, that doesn't justify the fact that they took all eyes off the house long enough for him to leave, and for EVERYONE in the house to go to sleep. if you read it, it sounds like it was hours later, like many hours, because no judge is going to want to sign a warrant at 3 AM! so let's say the drug buy went down at 3 PM and the warrant was signed by 5, because they are just speedy that way, that gave them 10 hours!!! You're trying to make it sound like it all happened in 15 minutes, but I'm just not buying it. They still didn't take a look at the cars in front of the house to see who was there? yeh, I"m feeling better everyday about my best friend living in that area.

[mojo84]

Javier730 wrote:
No knock warrants should only be used when police know for sure there is a fugitive in the home they are going in, in my opinion.

Tom's Good Reasons for No Knock Warrants
- Active Kidnapping (Real Kidnappings, not custody disputes between parents.)
- Weapons of Mass Destruction

I'd like to see State and Federal legislatures change laws to limit No Knock Warrants.
Apparently the courts are ok issuing no knock swat warrants for trivial crimes.

Honestly if you will check the criteria for such warrants very greatly from state to state and some jurisdictions prohibit no knock warrants all together. In Georgia the police are required to have Probable Cause, a higher standard than required for a normal search warrant, of a suspects threat to public safety to get a no knock warrant issued. I do think there is also some drug exemption there also. This was an active drug sale location with a suspect that had a history of violence and previous weapons charges and worked in conjunction with several other people to supply drugs. So this does not automatically make what happened here ok but lets also not trivialize the crimes and situation to make a point.

If I was to justifiably shoot and injure an innocent bystander, I would be held liable, right? Isn't a toddler in a travel crib an innocent bystander?

Eellis, why do you never quote and challenge Charles' comments?