“It Was The Baby’s Fault” – Georgia Police Blame 19-Month-Old Toddler For Their Need To Blow Off His Face In His Crib….

Does the headline strike you as over-the-top rhetoric, it’s not.  There are times when we defend decisions made by police, and then there are times like this when their decisions are indefensible.  However, this time we are not alone.

stun grenade 1stun grenade 2Baby Bou Bou

(Via Lew Rockwell) “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”

In their effort to deflect blame for the near-murder of 19-month-old Bounkham Phonesavah , Habersham County, Georgia Sheriff Joey Terrell and his Berserkers — more appropriately styled the Baby-Burning Stormtroopers of Habersham County — added a repellent appendix to Carl Sandburg’s cynical advice:

When police blow the face off a toddler in an illegal 2:00 a.m. no-knock SWAT raid, and the victims file an unassailable civil complaint, blame the baby.

That is the unambiguous claim made in the “Defendants’ Reply” to the lawsuit filed on behalf of the infant, who is known as “Baby Bou-Bou.”

Baby Bou-Bou and his family have received a tax-subsidized settlement that will leave them with millions of dollars of unpaid medical bills, and leave Sheriff Joey and his henchmen unscathed. Exposure of their legal strategy has prompted a number of readers — some of whom are probably chauvinistic defenders of the Sacred Brotherhood of State Coerion, aka the Blue Line — to demand specific quotes from the “Defendants’ Reply” that blame Bou-Bou for the injuries he suffered, and accuse him of negligence or “criminal” conduct. For those interested in reading full text of that reply, the document is found in my Scribd archive.

[…]  read the “Seventh Defense” on page 34, in which the defendants assert that “plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were directly and proximately caused by the contributory and comparative negligence of plaintiffs and their failure to exercise ordinary care.” Note also the claim made in the Tenth Defense (see page 35) that the injuries and damages “were caused by the deliberate, criminal conduct of plaintiffs.”

The “Four Corners” doctrine, which applies to wills, contracts, and other legal instruments, dictates that the author’s intention in composing such a document is defined by the plain meaning of the text. If a claim or assertion isn’t found within the four corners of that document, it can’t be considered. The “Defendants’ Reply” filed on behalf of Sheriff Joey and his comrades made several accusations about the supposed conduct of the “plaintiffs”; nowhere within that text is an effort made to distinguish Bou-Bou from the other defendants. Ergo, under the Four Corners doctrine, all of those accusations apply to both Bou-Bou and his parents. (link to read more)

Baby Bou Bou

(Another Report) –  It was the baby’s fault that he was nearly burned to death in his own crib.

Bou-Bou Phonesavanh was barely a year and a half old, just learning to walk, and unable to speak, but those limitations didn’t stop him from engaging in “deliberate, criminal conduct” that justified the 2:00 a.m. no-knock SWAT raid in which he was nearly killed.

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.

A tax-subsidized settlement was reached about a month ago in which the National Fire Insurance Company will pay $964,000 to the family — a little more than $538,000 for medical expenses, and multiple installments of $200,000 to the infant after he turns 18 in 2033. This arrangement will leave the family facing at least a half-million dollars in current medical expenses, a figure that will be matched or eclipsed by future costs incurred by Bou-Bou’s ongoing medical treatment.

In familiar fashion, nobody responsible for this crime will be compelled to make restitution, or be held accountable for the nearly fatal injuries inflicted on the child – and the significant but non-life-threatening injury suffered by his father — during the 2:00 a.m. home invasion that took place nearly a year ago.  (read more)

sheriff

Advertisements
This entry was posted in 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, Abusive Cops, Agitprop, Dept Of Justice, Police action, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

149 Responses to “It Was The Baby’s Fault” – Georgia Police Blame 19-Month-Old Toddler For Their Need To Blow Off His Face In His Crib….

  1. robertnotsowise says:

    this is horrifying. and no knock warrants are on the rise….

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Deserttrek says:

    there is not enough prison time for ALL cops who participate in such raids …. they are no better than isis

    Liked by 2 people

  3. archer52 says:

    This type of error is based on the quickness to get and serve warrants. A good unit does background and up to date constant surveillance of the target before the SWAT raid. They should have known by watching the place who was there- including a baby, and who was not there- the target. No target and you stand down. I Children involved and you plan differently. Trouble is the bad guys know we hesitate around kids and use kids at shields, which increases the risk for everybody. (A terrorists tactic I might point out.) If your CI is shaky, do the freaking work to either prove or disprove his reliability.

    As far as using SWAT to raid “non-violent” offenders, that can be a problem. First off, never confuse drug dealing with non-violence. By its nature it can be very violent.

    In one of our “drug house” raids, the owner came out shooting and sent a burst of rounds by the heads of the entry team, missing by inches. They shot back and guy hit the ground and gave up. His excuse was he was armed and shooting at people coming through his front door because other drug dealers were ripping each other off- violently. You can’t pick up a paper or read the Internet and not see another violent act by “non-violent offenders”.

    In another case there was a multiple murder between grow houses, another had a shooting into the occupied dwelling, another had two subjects tortured, mutilated and then murdered and burned- over a drug debt. And that was in my area, hardly a drug haven zone.

    So I’ll step off the “non-violent offense” train at this point.

    But the police attitude is just dumb and probably partially driven by the lawyers and the fear of a huge payout. Say you screwed up, pay the civil fine, make sure the child has enough funds put aside to be made whole again.

    And as far as using flash bangs, they are a very good tool when used correctly. In one of the first SWAT raids I witnessed, the flash bang landed right at the feet of the suspect, who had a sawed off pump shotgun in his hands. Funniest damn thing you ever saw, but it sure as poop made him unable to fight back- which is the goal. His only temporary injury was deafness and spots in front of his eyes. I booked the guy in and had to keep repeating myself over and over. Finally, I asked him what his problem was- thinking he was being a d**k. He motioned to his ears and in a loud voice said “I’m deaf! Flash bang went off between my feet!” He kept blinking and trying to clear his head.

    It wore off in a hour or so. Far better than getting into a shootout with SWAT or getting killed.

    But his drug dealing ways stopped in our city for sure!

    Liked by 2 people

    • wrongonred says:

      I think the counter argument is that the use of SWAT Teams, and “No Knock”, and even Knock and Announce warrants them selves raise the potential for violence, whether intentional or not. I say this because in the olden days, unless there were exigent circumstances, which required immediate service, the guy could be apprehended when he leaves the premises to go to work, school, the store, make a delivery, etc. A coordinated traffic stop, the individual is taken into custody by surprise, and the premises could then be searched without unnecessary risk to the individual or officers.

      While not near as flashy as a 4:30am raid, it is superior on just about every level. The reason being, say the intel is wrong, or you just hit the wrong house, you have just taken a homeowner (who lets assume is a law abiding citizen) and placed them in a situation where they have no idea what is happening, and they react accordingly, the possibility that it might be Law Enforcement breaking in to serve a warrant as the last thing on their minds. I know if I hear my alarm go off in the middle of the night, I am going to shoot first and ask questions later. It leaves a person in the position of either not doing anything and hoping it is the police as opposed to a robbery (with the latter being most likely, or should be), or responding with force, in which case, if it is the police, even if you are not the intended target, you are likely SOL. You are essentially forcing individuals, whether the intended target or not, to make a life or death gamble. In the end, it is really not fair to the officers who are placed at unnecessary risk, or the occupants who are also unnecessarily placed at risk, whether or not all of them or even none of them are aware of any illicit activity.

      I would be interested in someone other than just Radley Balko compiling stats on how prevalent such cock ups are. I still vividly remember having a buddy move to Overland Park, KS in High School, and the 2nd week their were in their recently purchased home, DEA busted in with MP5s while they were all sitting on their couch watching TV. Apparently, a “known” Mexican trafficker previously lived there, and DEA had just not gotten around to raiding the home. By the time they did, their intel was so old that they ended up terrorizing a middle class family with 2 kids in high school, in the middle of suburbia. As best I remember him telling me right after it occurred, they got an “apology” and a new door, and that was it.

      Liked by 7 people

      • 10010 Likes.. When My Wife & I moved into a “Home” I had just got out of knee Surgery, I was on some Heavy Pain meds, when those Jokers busted in, as I was *trying to get up for Lords Sake to answer the door.. I was thrown to the ground, Hogtied, while My HOME was searched.. (wife was at the Eye Doctor).. This is After repeatedly showing the police BEFORE My knee Surgery My lease papers that Whom they were looking for was Loooonnngg gone.. I support the Police but,, it’s kinda hard after Two experiences with them, neither were good

        Like

      • manickernel says:

        I understand what you are saying but the “assault the alamo” mentality should have gone out the door with waco 1. Now we just keep having mini-waco’s.

        Liked by 2 people

        • wrongonred says:

          I agree. It is the school of overwhelming violence of action, and the “Warrior Cop” mentality. We can thank the “War on Drugs” for that one. Officers here engage in actions which would violate RoEs on the battlefield.

          Liked by 1 person

      • I remember the story of Jose Guerena, a US Vet who was killed by SWAT team. His wife saw men with guns creeping towards the house (these men turned out later to be the SWAT team), and her screams woke her husband, who reacted like a man with a gun usually does when he hears his wife screaming in terror. The SWAT team shot him 60 times and let him bleed to death while they took two hours to search the house.

        Maybe there is a reason to use SWAT teams, but lately it seems they have a very poor track record of doing their background work and making sure they’re kicking in the right door at the moment they do it.

        ” A Tucson, Ariz., SWAT team defends shooting an Iraq War veteran 60 times during a drug raid, although it declines to say whether it found any drugs in the house and has had to retract its claim that the veteran shot first.

        And the Pima County sheriff, whose team conducted the raid, scolded the media for “questioning the legality” of the shooting….”

        http://abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-swat-team-defends-shooting-iraq-marine-veteran/story?id=13640112

        Liked by 1 person

  4. auscitizenmom says:

    That child should have been taken care of completely.

    Liked by 5 people

  5. Totally Domestic says:

    SS

    Liked by 1 person

  6. alan says:

    shame on the parents for accepting such a trivial settlement

    Like

  7. wrongonred says:

    43.These defendants admit that attached to plaintiffs’ complaint as Exhibit B is a photograph of plaintiff Bounkham “Bou Bou” Phonesavanh, but specifically deny that Exhibit B accurately depicts the injuries allegedly sustained by Bounkham “Bou Bou” Phonesavanh

    Are they essentially making the case that these are doctored images? Reply briefs must be pled in good faith. It is one thing to say that you cannot determine if the images reflect the scope of the injuries, however, to flatly deny they are representative of the injuries sustained? That borders on bad faith. I would hope a Judge would challenge them on such an assertion as to what about the photos they believe to be inaccurate, or misrepresentative of Bou Bou’s injuries.

    Like

    • sundance says:

      Do not overlook the fact the SWAT unit grabbed the baby, lied about the injuries, and tried to hide the extent of their violence from the parents of the child.

      Mom and Dad only found out when they walked into the hospital room to see their son, expecting him to have lost a tooth (the police claim) only to find out his face was blown off and he was in a coma.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Daniel says:

      Their approach is to literally deny everything and to make the plaintiffs literally prove everything.

      This is all so disgustingly shameless and devoid of humanity. If they admit anything anywhere, it jeopardizes the department’s practices and calls into question everything they have been doing and all of the reasons why. They are trying to keep this bomb of a case from blowing up in their faces. Ironic I know.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. wrongonred says:

    “Failure to mitigate damages”

    Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. I mean, it clearly is Bou Bou’s fault, because he did not move out of the way in an attempt to prevent or mitigate his injuries. He was just laying there!! /sarc

    Like

  9. Anubis says:

    I can understand a toddler being run over in the street being the kids/parents fault, but this was just bad luck where it landed. Just as any bullet you fire has to land somewhere so does every grenade you throw. What if dealers start using crack babies as shields?

    Like

    • wrongonred says:

      But it wasn’t bad luck though, it was improper deployment. “Bad luck” is randomness resulting in negative outcomes which cannot be anticipated or mitigated. This was just negligence and had nothing to do with luck. You do not deploy LSDDs where you do not have a clear line of sight. This is not the first time something like this happened. There was an 8 year old girl (in Detroit I believe) who was killed when one of these landed on top of her as she slept on her grandmother’s couch. These things are extremely hot and if not deployed properly, could potentially spark a fire depending on where they go off, which is why anyone deploying them has to exercise due diligence in doing so.

      Like

  10. art tart says:

    This case has made my blood boil since it happened. Many should have been fired over this incompetence/stupidity/arrogance/irresponsibility that nearly killed this baby. Unbelievable wounds, so painful I can’t imagine for a child, endless surgeries & it still isn’t known how Bou Bou’s mental function will be affected. Years of medical care, future surgeries, for little Bou Bou & his family spending much of their time taking Bou Bou for the medical attention he still needs although they have 2 other children to care for.

    ALL SWAT/LE had to do was surveliance on the house throughout the day & into the night but they didn’t. They didn’t even know the targeted scumbag wasn’t in the home & despite the toys & playpen in the yard/on the porch, SWAT/LE were too *inept to consider the consequences of their half a$$ preparation.

    There’s absolutely no excuse for these Officers involved, all they were worried about was saving face, dodging responsibility, saving their job, & their sorry butts, imo.

    Liked by 3 people

    • NO SWAT Raids Since this Happened Here,,, Peyton Strickland murder
      The Killing of Peyton Strickland
      http://jimfishertruecrime.blogspot.com/2012/05/killing-of-peyton-strickland.html

      Like

      • auscitizenmom says:

        Boy, there was absolutely no excuse for that.

        Like

      • art tart says:

        crossthreads42 ~ I hadn’t read about this case before. Absolutely heartbreaking & completely avoidable. Sometimes, sadly, when a Criminal Case isn’t brought the family can still get a measure of Justice like in this case, their only alternative is a Civil Suit. Money doesn’t mend a broken heart, but it does place Judgements against those that participated in the death of a loved one.

        My family brought a Civil Suit for the negligent death of my sister against her Physician that was loaded on loratabs & drunk that operated on her, she died days later. It was the only measure of Justice we could get, my sister’s life mattered, my family was her voice & now when future patients of the Dr. look him up to see if he has been sued, they will see the maximum Judgement in my State against the Physician.

        Like

  11. Daniel says:

    I can’t believe this is a civil case. Where is the criminal case against the police here? It is massive criminal negligence. If any civilian did this the charges would be enormous. So when does the “baby’s lives matter” protests begin? I cannot believe the complete and utter lack of remorse in this case. And for taxes to come from this? What on earth made these people accept this settlement?!

    Like

    • wrongonred says:

      Just wait. Just like in the Waco thread where this was mentioned, the defenders of the Thin Blue Line will come riding in, arguing that this is the parents fault and that nothing the officers did approached criminal conduct (despite negligence and willful blindness). If drunk driving is criminal conduct due to the negligence involved, tossing a LSDD into a crib is the same sort of negligence.

      Liked by 1 person

      • manickernel says:

        The difference between this and other cases mentioned here is that SWAT was employed when the need for overwhelming force was doubtful, leading to tragic results when the intelligence was erroneous or fabricated. We see police departments looking for an excuse to use SWAT just because they have them, and this is the outcome. Not to mention the overall push-back that is now occurring from such widespread militarization.

        It is evident to me that a significant police presence was needed at Twin Peaks. When a murder takes place in front of 22 officers and you end up with at least 30 or 40 armed (with guns, conservatively speaking) participants there is no other conclusion one can come to. Now that is not to say that the police did not go crazy too, but until video is released there is no way to really judge at this time.

        Like

        • T has gotten much worse than looking for an excuse to deploy these backyard soldier wannabes or groping for political points near election time. Now these departments MUST use the equipment to justify the upgrade to the next great killing machine fresh off the front lines.

          Like

  12. doodahdaze says:

    Bad Plaintiff lawyer.

    Like

  13. doodahdaze says:

    If anyone still values the 4th amendment … it is in big trouble.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. rmnewt says:

    Paying damages does absolutely nothing to deter this abusive and unjustified use of force. Coupled with no penalties for the perps or the leadership who have subsequently failed to rectify the injustice compounds the error.
    Perhaps the image of that child’s face will “burn” in the minds of the SWAT team and the defenders of the GA police actions.

    Like

  15. There’s another important question here: who gave the order to go in?

    Everyone is angry about what the SWAT team did, and as well they should be, but someone in that department did not do adequate surveillance and due diligence, and someone else, maybe the same person, gave the order for SWAT to kick in the door.

    That person or persons are the first ones who need to be fired.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. czarowniczy says:

    .”…that the injuries and damages “were caused by the deliberate, criminal conduct of plaintiffs.” Ooooookay – but under Georgia law children under the age of 13 are incapable of committing crime, so is the court going to try and blame it all on the other plaintiffs? So it’s the others’ faults that caused the police, for whatever reason, to injure the child? This is one of the interesting things about civil versus criminal court – in civil court you have a less stringent standard of proof than in a criminal trial. a ‘the preponderance of the evidence’ vice ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. I’m sure a really good civil lawyer will be able to work out something adequate for the baby.
    Flash-bangs and their cavalier use have been the subjects of more than a few civil suits, there are standards of care that most departments have in deploying them that must be followed to limit damage suits. Let’s face it (no pun implied), when you toss a giant firecracker with the ability to maim, blind, cause permanent hearing loss into a room, and you admittedly do so as you don’t knwo what’s in there and you are trying to ‘disorient’ (i.e., blind, deafen, etc) persons who MAY be a threat you assume a lot of liability. They are far more powerful than the firecrackers the users try to make them out to be, they are actually somewhat downsized versions of the assault/concussion grenade used to attack enemy positions. Police stun grenades generally have impermeable cases around the container of blast materials to prevent shrapnel (an early problem) but the filler still has good stuff like very finely pulverized aluminum and/or magnesium designed to burn hot and rapidly to create light and blast. These are the same materials used in the flash powder in big fireworks like M-80s, blockbusters and those huge 4th of July BOOM skyrockets you see at events. The metals are also used in solid rocket fuels and to pump up the explosive power of military hi-explosives like RDX and TNT when a bigger and hotter BOOM is needed. So don’t by that firecracker crap.
    There have been a few cases of flashbangs being tossed into the living rooms of the wrong house, once even into the lap of a woman sitting on a couch watching TV – when you give the police the authority to detonate high explosives in public dwellings you’d think that very stringent controls would be put in place. They tossed the grenade into the house as they didn’t know who/what was in there – so a civil jury is going to have to decide if they did due diligence before they acted. Good luck, PD.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. nivico says:

    I did a lot of research on this case last year…

    …and for what it’s worth, the parents and the family members they moved in with are hardly innocent or blameless. Armed robbery, assault, drug dealing, gang activity at the residence, shoplifting, drug possession, etc.

    I for one applaud the settlement agreement for recognizing that the child is the victim here, not the parents. He’ll begin receiving structured settlement payments once he turns 18 and the parents are not allowed to touch his money.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/06/04/gbi-and-feds-begin-to-investigate-no-knock-swat-raid-in-georgia-stun-grenade-exploded-on-toddlers-pillow/

    Liked by 3 people

    • doodahdaze says:

      I don’t think so. Why was the no knock raid needed while the baby was in the house? This sucks.

      Liked by 1 person

      • nivico says:

        The police were intimately familiar with the home and it’s usual occupants (violent armed felons). They didn’t know and had no reason to suspect that four children had recently been brought into the home and would be sleeping on the floor in the converted garage the night they executed the no-knock warrant…

        http://matchbin-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/public/sites/2239/assets/8I1_7_31_2013_E_edition.pdf

        Like

        • wrongonred says:

          I think I may have to challenge their intimate knowledge of the residence when the target of the warrant moved out (was kicked out) the week prior to, and the officer who applied for the Probable Cause Affidavit, Nikki Autry, voluntarily surrendered her GA Peace Officers License in lieu of a continued investigation by IAD into her conduct and the veracity of her statements in the warrant application.

          Not to mention that 4 children under 8 had been at the home for at least a week prior to. Any competent surveillance would have identified this. Again, Autry surrendered her Peace Officer’s License before her claims of having conducted surveillance could be investigated. This sort of a big red flag to me.

          Like

    • art tart says:

      nivico ~ I too have followed every article on Boa Boa since it happened. The family was NOT the intended target of the “no knock warrant!” The son was, his mother owned the home but didn’t live there. When the families home burned to the ground, they were allowed them to stay in the Aunt’s home because they had no money.

      Had LE/SWAT done their job responsibily & done survelliance on the afternoon/night of the no knock warrant, this would have never happened. It’s beyond stupid to throw in a hand grenade & the intended target ISN’T even in the house.

      Liked by 1 person

      • nivico says:

        The Asian gang members affiliated with the nephews and the residence were known to use trap doors in their homes to evade police (see the link below). So just because the son wasn’t apprehended at the home doesn’t necessarily mean that he wasn’t there when the police first arrived.

        He did maintain a bedroom at the residence and the door to his room was locked (presumably from the inside) when the police searched the home… with all the chaos over the baby being injured, he could have easily slipped out a window or a contraption similar to the one one used by his associate in the below raid.

        http://www2.accessnorthga.com/detail.php?n=244133

        Like

        • art tart says:

          nivico ~ I understand you want to defend LE/SWAT at all cost, but they are in an undefendable position by those us that are objective. There is no excuse for LE/SWAT to have done such a poor job of survelliance & acting so recklessly, Boa suffered for the ineptitude.

          You have no idea when the intended suspect left the house, it could have been 2 days before, the day before, early that morning, because SWAT/LE doesn’t know & neither do you, you are speculating.

          Like

          • nivico says:

            “… I understand you want to defend LE/SWAT at all cost, but they are in an undefendable position by those us that are objective. …”

            If you’re being objective as you claim, then why do you hold a different opinion of Alicia Phonesavanh than you do of Dorian Johnson?

            An ‘objective’ person would see no difference between the two. They’re both thieves, they both expose their children to drugs and criminality, and while you readily crucify Johnson you make every excuse in the book for Alicia and accept every thing she says as the gospel truth.

            Like

  18. dep0828 says:

    I’m not advocating in favor of either side but I live in GA and ever since this first happened, my initial reaction has always been where is the outrage at the parents for having their precious baby in a known drug house?

    Like

    • jello333 says:

      I don’t know the details of this one, but I’d like to know how we define “drug house”. While there are obviously some really bad people out there involved in the drug trade, not everyone who buys/sells small amounts of certain drugs are horrible people who deserve to be “raided” by brownshirts.

      Like

      • dep0828 says:

        I don’t know those details either but it seems hardly worth it to do a full on raid with on a house that only has a few roaches in the ash tray. The original reports when this story broke was that the house had been under surveillance for some time and there had been ZERO signs of any children coming or going from the residence. Otherwise, the approach would have been different.

        Like

        • art tart says:

          depo828 shared ~ “The original reports when this story broke was that the house had been under surveillance for some time and there had been ZERO signs of any children coming or going from the residence.”

          This isn’t true, I followed all the stories on this case since the day it happened. You have confused that LE/SWAT claimed “there were no signs of children” BUT that isn’t correct & they are the same A-Holes that have blamed Boa Boa! The reason LE/SWAT did the no knock warrant was because they got a tip that the person that lived in the house had sold some drugs to someone for $ 50.00. Survelliance wasn’t done on the house for days, IN FACT, had SWAT/LE done survelliance on the house in the late afternoon/night of the no knock warrant, they would have known the “suspect” wasn’t even in the house. You can’t get more stupid than that!

          It isn’t brain surgery! toys in the yard + playpen on the porch = CHILDREN! This family was coming & going from the home w/their kids, they had relatived that lived near by.

          Like

          • dep0828 says:

            Then you’ve obviously learned more than I have but as of this moment, I’ve not ever heard or read that. Do you have a link to this info? What’s your source? That would change everything.

            Like

            • art tart says:

              depo ~ you’ll have to google it to catch up. Sorry, I didn’t save the links because I read all the articles, I didn’t think I would need them again. They won’t be hard to find if your interested.

              It’s appalling that LE/SWAT/Sheriff claimed originally “they would be responsible for Boa Boa’s medical expenses.” That turned out to be a blatant lie, the family had to bring a Civil Suit to collect monies for medical expenses..

              Like

          • jello333 says:

            “they got a tip that the person that lived in the house had sold some drugs to someone for $ 50.00”

            And for that they were willing to possibly kill someone… for THAT?! I’m not even talking about the possibility that there was an innocent little kid or elderly person in the house… I’m talking ANYONE. I’d suspect that nighttime no-knock raids are the most deadly situations that cops engage in, and so ANYTIME they go into one they have to know that there’s a good chance of SOMEONE dying. This was just WRONG… even if no baby had been in the house.

            Like

            • dep0828 says:

              I’m not disagreeing. Just curious as to where this has been reported.

              Like

              • jello333 says:

                I’m not sure where this info came from… but I recall hearing something like that back when this first happened.

                Like

                • dep0828 says:

                  Ok then. To make the statements you have based on something you think you remember hearing is pretty carelessly. You’re putting it out there and disputing me as if it’s fact. Even worse, others are copying and pasting it and running with it. There’s no proof it’s even factual.

                  Like

                • jello333 says:

                  Umm… what? Is that aimed at me? I don’t think I’ve said anything negative toward you (though yes I’ve disagreed with your opinion).

                  Like

                • dep0828 says:

                  I may have hit reply to the wrong thing. My apologies.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • jello333 says:

                  No problem… so you can also disregard my second reply to your comment (which yeah, had me a bit confused).

                  Like

                • dep0828 says:

                  Whatever link or last post to me you made, I can’t open it. Either way, to be clear again, I don’t blame the baby, the baby is due damages and I believe all adults from family to police failed to think things through before taking action.

                  Like

                • jello333 says:

                  And I don’t know what “statements you have made” you’re referring to. All the statements I’ve made do NOT rely on the occupants of that house being angels, they do NOT rely on them being demons. Almost my entire argument is that night-time no-knock raids are WRONG under almost ANY circumstance. So the whole thing about the $50 drug deal is beside the point.

                  Like

              • art tart says:

                depo ~ this isn’t a new case, Sundance was just providing information SINCE Boa Boa was injured & where the case is today.

                Like

            • art tart says:

              jello ~ isn’t that the craziest thing you’ve ever heard of? A small time drug dealer sold someone some drugs, or was to have been presumed to have sold drugs because it was the person that bought the drugs, flipped on the guy that lived in the house. We don’t even know if that’s true, the guy could have been lying to get his own butt out of trouble.

              For that, they get a “no knock warrant.” I agree w/your entire comment, well said.

              Another botched drug raid leaving 92 yr. old woman dead.

              ‘Ex-Atlanta officers get prison time for cover-up in deadly raid’

              (A) Two of three men get reduced sentences for cooperating with authorities

              (B) Three ex-Atlanta police officers sentenced in elderly woman’s shooting death
              Sentences range from five to 10 years, spokesman for federal prosecutors says
              Kathryn Johnston, 92, killed in her home during botched drug raid in November 2006

              http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/24/atlanta.police/

              Liked by 1 person

    • wrongonred says:

      My understanding is that Bou Bou’s family moved in because their home, which I believe was in Wisconsin, had just burned to the ground, and they had no money, and no other place to stay. I hardly begrudge them for seeking the only roof for their child which was available.

      It is possible that they had no idea whatsoever that the nephew was engaged in drug sales. That would be like my house burning down in Missouri, my relatives in New York offering me a place to bring my family while I am waiting for the insurance issues to get straightened out, which I gladly accept. I do not know what all my relatives are doing there. Perhaps my cousin’s kid is dealing weed?? I have no idea what he does or doesn’t do. I am a few thousand miles away usually. The level of awareness and culpability with regard to what you expect from the family versus that of the police force (whose professional obligation it is to be aware) is quite the double standard.

      Liked by 1 person

      • dep0828 says:

        Honey, if I could move across the freaking country after a catastrophic fire, I could probably spend that money on a local place to rent. I damn sure wouldn’t spend it moving across the US in with people I didn’t even know.

        Like

        • jello333 says:

          Just my opinion here:

          No-knock raids, especially in the middle of the night, should be reserved for ONLY THE WORST OF THE WORST, and ONLY AS A LAST RESORT. There’s always a HUGE chance someone, maybe multiple someones are gonna wind up DEAD. In other words, I believe such raids should be EXCEEDINGLY rare, to the point of near extinction.

          Liked by 2 people

          • dep0828 says:

            You’re probably right. I don’t know enough about why this was executed the way it was to speak intelligently about it but it does seem they should be as certain as can possibly be before doing it.

            Like

            • auscitizenmom says:

              Now that I can agree with. I think they had to almost trip over some children’s things out front to get to the door.

              Like

              • nivico says:

                There were news crews filming at the residence at the time and there were no toys whatsoever in the yard that I could see in the news footage…

                …and the Google Earth bird’s eye view of the property showed that the in-ground pool in the back yard was filled with garbage.

                The mother also claimed early on that the children were squirreled away whenever drug sales were being conducted at the home.

                Like

                • art tart says:

                  nivico ~ There was a playpen on the porch & toys. The mother did say she “squirreled the kids away when the cousin sold drugs” but what does that have to do w/the family being asleep when LE/SWAT threw a grenade into the home for a no knock warrant? Absloutely nothing! The cousin wasn’t even home the no knock warrant was intended for.

                  You continue to make excuses for LE/SWAT BUT had LE/SWAT had relevant, current, survelliance on the home which they should have had IF they had just done their freaking jobs, they wouldn’t have bothered throwing the grenade since the cousin, the intended receiptant wasn’t even home. THEN! Boa Boa wouldn’t have been injured.

                  Like

          • wrongonred says:

            I agree. There is a place for them under extremely exigent circumstances, which would exclude some 99.999% of their current uses. Problem is, when you have a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail and quality of intelligence and investigation gives way to expediency and efficiency. Not much different than the classic “Trade Off Triangle” in project management.

            Like

          • auscitizenmom says:

            I agree totally.

            Like

        • wrongonred says:

          A few hundred miles in gas to stay somewhere temporarily is different than moving cross country. Even renting a local place (who is going to give you a short term rental?) Not to mention, you would still have food costs.

          Is your argument that they are wrong for accepting the hospitality of their relatives or that they were somehow involved in some sort of criminal enterprise? The cousin did not even live at the home as best as I understand, though he may have used the home for a transaction at some point. It is like you expect the family to be clairvoyant.

          I sense some scepticism from your comments with regard to the chain of events. What is your take on them? Seems like “blame the victim” to me.

          Liked by 1 person

          • jello333 says:

            YES… AND, AND, AND…

            I really hope we don’t turn this around to point the blame at anyone else, EVEN TOWARD THE COUSIN. Even IF that guy was a dealer of some kind, EVEN IF…. what he was doing is nowhere near as bad as this type of a middle-of-the-night, no-knock invasion. The blame needs to stay focused clearly on the cops who approved and carried out this raid.

            Liked by 1 person

            • auscitizenmom says:

              “The blame needs to stay focused clearly on the cops who approved and carried out this raid.” Yep.

              Like

            • Burnt Toast says:

              “The blame needs to stay focused clearly on the COPS who approved and carried out this raid.”

              I think you forgot the JUDGE who approved the warrant.

              Liked by 2 people

              • jello333 says:

                Yes I did… thanks.

                Like

              • rmnewt says:

                The problem is that there appears to a systemic problem that even with the dust settled, the authorities aren’t doing the right thing. They are defending a bad practice that led to the baby’s collateral damage. You are right that the judge is also part of the problem.

                Like

          • dep0828 says:

            They lost their house, not their means of paying for it so however they were paying for the place that burned should still be there. The victim here is a baby so I certainly do not blame him. 2 years ago I buried both of my nephews that we’re killed in a wreck. My youngest son was in the same car but lived. I feel I can at least on some level relate to the fear and anger that this child’s parents went through. However, I’m just not quick to brand the police involved as being cold hearted assholes that failed to do their jobs. This baby was a casualty of several bad decisions made by several different people on both sides.

            Like

            • auscitizenmom says:

              I think you are pretty determined to blame the parents, if not the baby. Even though you don’t know anything about what actually happened. Be careful, somebody might accuse you of being a liberal because they do that.

              Like

              • dep0828 says:

                They also say that about folks that read what they want something to say even though it doesn’t actually say that. So back atcha. I’ve clearly stated that it was a failure on both sides but that I’m certain neither side would have opted for the child being injured had they thought it through.

                Like

                • auscitizenmom says:

                  If it is a ailure on both sides, you’re still saying it was the parent’s fault, even if partly. Google the story and get the facts because it really might change your mind.

                  Like

                • dep0828 says:

                  I’ll try to give it some research tomorrow then.

                  Like

                • dep0828 says:

                  My stance is this: as a parent, under no condition would I move my kid into an unknown situation. Likewise, even the cops that I know to be complete scum, would ever in a million years injure a child. That’s why to me, it was poor decision making all the way around.

                  Like

                • art tart says:

                  depo ~ maybe you might consider reading up on the case which you state you haven’t done but that hasn’t stopped you from making accusations/asumptions/ & placing blame on the parents WHICH wasn’t their fault! The no knock warrant WAS NOT for Boa Boa’s family. You seem to have everything figured out in your mind, but, you don’t. Do some reading, catch up. What you might do or would have done doesn’t matter or have anything to do w/this case. This thread is about an actual event that could have had a different out come had LE/SWAT done their jobs correctly.

                  auscitizenmom was completly right in her comment to you in which she said politely, “I think you are pretty determined to blame the parents, if not the baby. Even though you don’t know anything about what actually happened.” SPOT ON!

                  Like

                • dep0828 says:

                  Awe. I hope you take a reading class some time because I’ve on multiple occasions stated the exact opposite of your interpretation. All of you just want to assume the police are the devil here… maybe they are… I’ve just been honest in saying that I personally haven’t seen proof of that.

                  Like

            • michellc says:

              They lost their home, had nowhere to go and a family member offered them a roof over their head.
              I had a cousin who lost their home to a fire when I was recently married, they stayed with us for awhile and other family members until the insurance finally came through. Her husband stayed during the week in a flea bag hotel because he had a job. They still had bills to pay including a mortgage on the home they no longer had, they either paid it or lost their land until the insurance paid off. They couldn’t afford to rent a place for them and their infant daughter.
              Some of the family members they stayed with they had not seen in years, they weren’t, but they could have been drug dealers and they would not have known.
              Sometimes in life you do what you have to do.

              Like

        • art tart says:

          depo ~ the home was owned by the Aunt of one of the parents, the Aunt offered the family a place to stay in that home, she didn’t live there but her son did.

          The family didn’t have any money nor insurance when their house burned down.

          Like

    • auscitizenmom says:

      While I certainly understand your question and it has merit, I believe it is possible that they had no other place to go. Their house had burned down and they had nothing, so they went to a relatives’.

      Like

      • art tart says:

        auscitizenmom ~ you are exactly correct. When your house burns down & you have no insurance, you lost your belongings, this family didn’t have many alternatives & family helped them out.

        Like

  19. jello333 says:

    I think all the stuff that’s happened over the past few years has warped me in some way. I mean, I absolutely despise the cops who were involved in this… but there’s more. When I heard about this when it first happened, and again just now, my thoughts went beyond the cops (and even “no-knock” raids in general). NOW my thoughts also turn toward the likes of Obama, Holder, Sharpton… toward the “protesters” in the street marching and rioting for the likes of GG Mike and others.

    So what I’m saying is, when I see that picture of the little kid, my hatred extends not only to the people who did that to him… but also to the scum out there who COULDN’T CARE LESS because the demographics/circumstances don’t meet their “special” criteria.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. dep0828 says:

    The situation is horrific. No one yet every one is to blame. I sincerely doubt that the cops or adults in the house would have ever voted for this outcome, but neither side thought enough ahead to prevent it. I think the kid deserves a settlement from the city and a new set of parents from DFACS.

    Like

    • art tart says:

      depo ~ you continue to overlook the fact that the family wasn’t responsible for this attack. The “no knock warrant” was NOT for this family, but the other person that lived in the house. That person wasn’t even home due to poor survelliance done on the premises by LE/SWAT but that didn’t stop them.

      This was completely avoidable had LE/SWAT been doing their job responsibly.

      Like

      • dep0828 says:

        I’m not over looking anything. What I’m saying, based on the information I have, is that they did do the surveillance and had no indication of a child or other innocents being in the home. NOW, if there is factual info out there to the contrary, I’ll try to read up on that tomorrow but as of now, I’ve not come across that.

        Like

        • michellc says:

          Children’s toys is not a sign that children may live in the home?

          You continue to blame the parents who didn’t have a roof over their head.

          Liked by 1 person

        • wrongonred says:

          Clearly there were children in the home, that is without question. That said, how is it that they could have done surveillance and missed it? Says a lot about the quality of their surveillance (or lack of it), no?

          Like

        • art tart says:

          depo ~ You are overlooking alot of information BECAUSE you haven’t read all the articles on this case, and there are alot. You think you can make a comment on your very limited knowledge & the information when those of us here know what the facts are. I have told you countless times that LE/SWAT did not have survelliance of the home the afternoon/night they threw the grenade in the home!

          depo said: What I’m saying, based on the information I have, is that they did do the surveillance and had no indication of a child or other innocents being in the home.

          depo ~ this is a blatant LIE & you have wrong information! Use your common sense!

          (1) the person LE/SWAT wanted for the “no knock warrant” wasn’t even in the home!

          See how ludicrous your comment is that LE/SWAT had done survelliance that day? HAD SWAT/LE done their freaking job, this would not have happened! The “no knock warrant” was not for Boa Boa’s family.

          Like

  21. Burnt Toast says:

    This is what they mean by ‘militarization’ of the police…

    …except the military uses these tactics against opposing military (and other armed) forces.

    Like

  22. cg says:

    Those cops should be in prison and made to pay for the damages exacted on that family and baby until the day they die

    Like

    • Les says:

      WTH? Why? They didn’t intend to do this. Maybe the drug dealer who DID deal drugs in the driveway there should pay for the damage? He DID intend to do that. Maybe don’t sell drugs in your mother’s driveway when there are kids in the house?

      Like

      • jello333 says:

        As I’ve said in other comments, this goes beyond this one case. Just IN GENERAL, no-knock, nighttime raids are almost ALWAYS wrong… period. (And yes, I realize cops don’t make the rules that allow such raids.)

        Liked by 3 people

      • art tart says:

        Les ~ the drug dealer wasn’t even home. In what reality should he pay for the poor survelliance of LE/SWAT that didn’t even know he wasn’t in the home? What if your baby had the side of his face severely burned, was in an induced coma, possible brain damage, his life altered for years because SWAT/LE did a no knock warrant on your house instead of your intended neighbors. You wouldn’t be claiming, “well, my child is in excuciating pain but it was just an accident because they raided the wrong house.”

        No one doubts LE/SWAT didn’t intend to hurt the family, but due to their OWN stupidity, they didn’t even know they were there & the intended wasn’t. Their ill preparation led to this preventable attack on this family, LE/SWAT should pay & the taxpayers that employ them which they have.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Burnt Toast says:

      One thing you MAY consider is the possibility that the assault force had no personal knowledge of what lay within, other than they were told is was a very bad guy, armed and dangerous. So said the surveillance team.

      All surveillance team knows is that number one armed and dangerous drug dealer may be alone in the house he was said to be in. At least that is what they could ascertain in the two hour window they were given to recon the site they were told he was in…

      So on and so forth…

      Until we are back to the guy who got picked up with a $50 1/4 oz. bag of pot.
      And the judge who signed off on the hit.

      Like

      • Burnt Toast says:

        BTW, “Hit” is a militaristic term used when going after a specific target with overwhelming force. Ideally with less lethal force force (AKA flashbangs) to take the target alive.

        If not, que sera sera.

        Like

      • art tart says:

        Burnt Toast ~ you nailed it, the origin of the problem, the druggie that gave the information which led to this whole debacle of the family attacked.

        Like

  23. cg says:

    Reblogged this on Catholic Glasses.

    Like

  24. michellc says:

    This is why it’s so hard to weed out the bad cops, they never have to pay out of pocket, they screw up and the taxpayers pay for their screw ups. They have no personal responsibility.

    Like

    • wrongonred says:

      The entire system could be fixed by requiring officer’s each carry an individual insurance policy, in conjunction with immunity statutes in most states being overhauled. That way, like with motor vehicle insurance, the more claims you get, the higher the rates, until eventually, if you are constantly involved in claims, you will no longer be able to afford insurance. No insurance= No active Class A Peace Officer’s license.

      It is absurd that my wife, who is a hairdresser, has more state required training to be maintain her state license than any law enforcement department in the state (initial required hours are about 3x more than required for a Class A Peace Officers license here in Mo), as well as she carries over a million dollars in liability insurance, and all she is doing is cutting and dyeing hair, yet the bar is lower to use lethal force and deprive individuals of their liberty.

      Another added plus is that tax payers would not be on the hook for payments made due to officer misconduct/incompetence/malfeasance.

      Like

  25. dep0828 says:

    What a mob. I’m so disappointed. I’ve followed this blog for years and can’t recall a single time where I’ve disagreed with or at least not been able to have an understanding of its authors POV. But the ppl that take over the comments section are unbelievable. I’ll let y’all have it. I can’t get down with ppl that aren’t open for honest conversation and thought.

    Like

    • jello333 says:

      I think you’re misinterpreting some of the reactions you’re getting here, but okay…

      Anyway, the rest of this comment is not aimed at you, dep…

      To any Treehouse haters who happen to be spying in on this little disagreement, I hope you’ve learned something. You like to proclaim that Treepers are (along with being raaayyyccciiiisss, of course) a bunch of cops-can-do-no-wrong type people.

      Well…

      Liked by 1 person

    • CoffeeBreak says:

      There’s no mob. You’re the reason why your knickers are in a twist. You were looking to scratch an itch. If you actually did spend time here then you’d know that you’ll end up leaving with you butt in your hands (ala Lee S). Are you unable to do your own research. Obviously, you have the spare time. Say hi to the nice folks at TuffHo. Bye.

      Liked by 2 people

    • art tart says:

      depo ~ I can’t get down w/anyone to lazy to read the facts in a case so they can discuss a case intelligently BUT want others to do their research.. I don’t think you’ve followed this blog for years BECAUSE most that comment here have the knowledge on cases they are commenting on, OR, do the research before commenting. You have done neither.

      We’ve provided you w/countless facts & honest conversation YET you think w/your very limited knowledge on this case you have said something relevant to add, yet what I have read, is that you have commented inaccurately several times.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Les says:

        Here’s some more facts:

        That house is listed as a three bedroom house. One of the “bedrooms” is a garage that was converted. That’s where the family was staying, in the garage. Why? Because one bedroom was for the person who owned the house (the aunt of the kids and mother of the drug dealer) and the other bedroom was the drug dealer’s bedroom. He did live there. He sold drugs there. They found him a few doors down, where he was “staying” at the moment, not living.

        The innocent drug dealer is in prison for 10 years for dealing meth. They caught him soon after the raid with an ounce of meth. An OUNCE, not a gram.

        The informant had been in the house THAT DAY and didn’t mention any kids to the police.

        The family KNEW he was dealing drugs THAT DAY in the driveway. They did nothing.

        If the police would have kicked in a different door to the house, this wouldn’t have happened. It is a cruddy situation and bad luck all around.

        I’m not crazy enough to blame police for this. My kneejerk reaction is sympathy for the baby and ANGER that parents let someone deal drugs at the home of their children without doing the right thing. THEY put their baby in that situation.

        Grand Jury:
        “On the Phonesavanh family, the grand jury wrote, “the evidence shows that the children were in danger from the moment they moved into the residence and the parents and extended family had some degree of knowledge concerning family members involved in criminal activity.”

        “There is evidence that [the Phonesavanh family] were aware of criminal activity and drug sales on the part of persons at the residence, and specifically Wanis Thonetheva.”

        Ultimately, the grand jury decided no criminal charges should be made against any of the cops that raided the house. The grand jury also said that the “no knock warrant” — which prompted the use of the flash-bang grenade that maimed Bou Bou — was justified given Thonetheva’s criminal past.”

        Liked by 1 person

        • nivico says:

          “The innocent drug dealer is in prison for 10 years for dealing meth. They caught him soon after the raid with an ounce of meth. An OUNCE, not a gram.”

          And an ounce of meth has a street value in the Atlanta area of up to $18,500.

          Needless to say, the totality of the circumstances is a wee bit more serious than a small $50 transaction.

          He was also arrested AGAIN a month ago and “authorities seized half an ounce of methamphetamine and additional quantities of marijuana, oxycodone and dilaudid.”

          http://www.ajc.com/news/news/uncle-of-baby-bou-bou-among-5-charged-in-habersham/nkzNg/

          Like

          • Les says:

            I think one or more of the other “adults” escaped charges because of the injury to the baby. I hope they feel badly every time they see that baby’s face. That baby took one for the team. People who deal drugs around kids are disgusting.

            When I look at the injuries that poor little one suffered, I want to give that poor excuse of a mother a piece of my mind. I know they are lying and the Grand Jury knew they were lying.

            Like

    • Les says:

      Eh, don’t let it bother you. We don’t always agree.

      The baby was injured by a flash grenade, not shot by a rogue police officer. It isn’t a hair needing splitting, it is just an unfortunate situation. The cops would NOT have thrown a flash grenade in a room that had a sleeping baby. Anybody with any sense knows that.

      It’s easier to sympathize with a cute baby or a dog that was shot during a raid and ignore the fact they were after a meth dealer who had also been charged with carrying a weapon while dealing meth. The only people who lived in that house were the mother and 30 year old meth dealer. Let’s not pretend nobody knew what he was doing as he had a lengthy record.

      Cops don’t always get it right, but dealing drugs is always wrong. If you want to blame somebody, blame the scumbag who bought the meth and didn’t tell the cops about the kids living there. HE could have changed the outcome.

      Like

  26. aprilyn43 says:

    Oh my God! What a travesty of injustice! Every police officer, ADA, or anyone involved with the legal system, should be ashamed; they should also be put in jail.

    Like

  27. Les says:

    http://jimfishertruecrime.blogspot.com/2014/12/toddler-seriously-injured-in-pre-dawm.html

    The facts and stories seem to be changing since I first heard of this case, they probably don’t want to lose the house bought with drug money and miss out on a chance to get rich by claiming they didn’t know about the drugs. But they knew about the drugs. That’s why they planned to move the next day.

    The pictures of that baby make me sad. I can’t imagine the pain and suffering. So sad. But I place blame squarely on the criminal who sold meth in the driveway of that home that very day. Maybe he should have waited a day for the kids to move out…

    I think a poor treeper did get beat up a bit over this for having an unpopular opinion. The parents should have called and reported Wanis for selling drugs in the driveway and let the cops know there were kids in the house. Wouldn’t you? I would.

    Like

    • wrongonred says:

      Why did Nikki Autry, the Officer who applied for the warrant, surrender her Georgia Peace Officers License in lieu of a continued investigation into the veracity of her warrant application and decision making with regard to the events which transpired? I am sorry, but when someone bails to prevent an investigation into their conduct rather than stand by their decision making, I think it is reasonable to assume that they would rather resign than face the conclusions of an internal affairs investigation. That being the case, I think you might add a few grains of salt to Habersham Co’s story.

      Like

      • Les says:

        Because their information was crap. The cops didn’t lie, the druggie did. Charge him.

        I think it’s nuts to want to hang the police and the judge and the entire justice system for this one. So did the Grand Jury who saw all the evidence.

        I’m pretty sure all the people involved in this situation are emotionally scarred. Nobody is celebrating. It sucks all around. No need to riot or “burn” other posters. (See what I did?)

        Like

        • wrongonred says:

          Is it proper procedure to deploy a LSDD outside ones line of sight? If you are going to use such equipment, you have an obligation to your fellow officers and the public to properly deploy it, which in this case they did not.

          Was it willful? I do not think so, but I think it was clearly incompetent and an unforced error, which because of nothing except recklessness, has maimed a child. I also take issue with Autry’s claim of surveillance. I think she just rubber stamped the information from the CI, and did not conduct their own Due Diligence, and it resulted in the Charlie Foxtrot it did, and she voluntarily surrendered her license to avoid this ultimate determination. It was a cock up, and I can only imagine how those involved feel (I would probably want to eat my gun if it were me) however, their sorrow and remorse does not mitigate their incompetence, and they, not the taxpayers, should be held to account for their own ineptitude.

          Like

          • Les says:

            I posted the Grand Jury report. Totally different than a media report. You read it and decide.

            The cops were not incompetent, the parents were. They put their kids in danger. THEY KNEW what was going on and the risks. They rolled the dice. Their baby lost.

            Meth was sold in that driveway that day. They tried to find out if there were kids before the raid. The cops did their jobs.

            Misplaced anger is dangerous. It makes you its slave. (See what I did there again?)

            Like

          • Les says:

            Here, Chip. You decide if the dad was helping deal drugs. The door to the garage is where the entire family was sleeping. The baby’s playpen/bed was in front of the door during the raid (think about that, putting a sleeping child by an outside door): http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wgcl/drugraidreport.pdf

            Who were the mysterious men guarding the doors? Why were drugs sold out of THAT door? Maybe dad wasn’t charged because the baby paid the price? Heck of a sacrifice. I think the hospital should write off the bill and the family should hang their heads in shame, not have their hands out wanting to be paid for being sh*tty parents.

            Like

            • Les says:

              Sorry, wrongonred, that post was meant for you.

              I don’t like what happened, but I understand WHY and HOW it happened. I don’t like meth. I think it changes people, makes them stupid. Makes them do stuff like put the baby’s bed in front of an outside door…

              Like

  28. Les says:

    The full Grand Jury report, not sure if it has been posted, too many nasty posts to want to check:
    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1310817-bou-bou-phonesavanh-grand-jury.html

    Cops DID try to make sure there were no kids there, page 10.

    Some of you owe a certain poster an apology. Not me, I like a good fight and I like to ruffle feathers. But you maybe chased off a person willing to go against the tide of popular opinion. I like people who will stand up in the wind.

    Like

    • nivico says:

      Interesting… the mother would only give a written statement to the grand jury and did not testify or allow herself to be questioned 😉

      Like

      • Les says:

        Yeah, something smells funny. She sure wanted to be interviewed by media and has a Facebook page to collect money, but she didn’t want to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Why? Because they were dealing drugs out of the door to their kids’ bedroom. And because the playpen she claims was in the yard that night is most likely the playpen that held the sleeping child that they put up against the door when they dragged it inside. And there is a question about where the minivan was parked. Was it parked right outside? Or was it parked “near” the house like the first reports say? You have to leave a little room in that driveway for people to come and go…

        I think some folks had their “facts” wrong. And I don’t mean the police.

        Like

        • nivico says:

          “And there is a question about where the minivan was parked. Was it parked right outside? Or was it parked “near” the house like the first reports say?”

          The footage I’ve seen of the parking arrangements showed the vehicles parked on the left of the property in the yard by the treeline.

          There are no toys whatsoever in the yard, and the folded up item propped up by the door that is supposedly something called a pack-n-play wouldn’t be recognizable to someone who doesn’t own one. It could easily be mistaken for a camping tent.

          Like

  29. nivico says:

    “No-knock raids, especially in the middle of the night, should be reserved for ONLY THE WORST OF THE WORST, and ONLY AS A LAST RESORT. There’s always a HUGE chance someone, maybe multiple someones are gonna wind up DEAD. In other words, I believe such raids should be EXCEEDINGLY rare, to the point of near extinction.”

    While I don’t disagree that no-knock raids are dangerous, I think folks might be overlooking the simple fact that even knocking on the door to execute a warrant is a dangerous situation for the police when they’re dealing with armed criminals.

    To emphasize this point, barely a week ago we were discussing the police officer who was shot to death while serving a warrant at a residence in Omaha.

    Arguably, there is no safe way to proceed, but a no-knock raid at least gives the police the upper hand whereas knocking on the door gives the criminals the upper hand. And if it comes down to having to choose between the safest route for the officer and the safest route for the criminal, the officer’s safety would be my choice.

    I’ve also seen a lot of folks arguing that they should have simply waited to arrest Thonetheva on the street, but there are several problems with this:

    1) They only had probable cause for a search, not an arrest. The cart (arrest) necessarily has to come after the horse (search).

    2) On the street, he is likely to have only a misdemeanor amount of drugs on him at any given time if he has any drugs on him at all. It’s a crapshoot.

    3) The bulk of the evidence they needed was reasonably believed to be in the home, not on his person.

    4) Approaching him on the street would only alert him and his associates to destroy evidence at the home.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s