Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
supervike

SWAT put a hole in a 2 year old.

74 posts in this topic

We are seeing this to much lately. I myself have not had the best experience with officers when needing help, Protect and Service is there slogan, I now understand that slogan, Protect the governements rights, and service thereselves.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn shame.

I'm talking about the baby, though, not politics.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the family have no insurance and have set up a website to collect donations for the babies treatment? Is that actually necessary? Surely having being the victim of the SWAT raid would cover the baby straight up? What kind of country/system makes the parents pay for treatment for an injury incurred by it's law enforcement?

*Disclaimer* I am not suggesting or commenting on whether SWAT did the right or wrong thing here, it could have been a terrible accident and the raid was done with the belief there were no children in the house, I am just commenting on the need for the family to now pay for the injuries sustained to the child - because if, as I believe, the police dept and by extension the state are accountable for those injuries it seems the family might be making a money grab without cause?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.cnn.com/2...raid/index.html

This **** allowed drugs to be manufactured and sold out of her house with her child in it and is going to cry about non-lethal munitions being used? **** her. She should be locked up and her child taken away forever.

The problem with your link, AgentO, is that there were no armed guards outside. There were no drugs in the house. The information came from a drug addicted informant who must have lied, and the man they were looking for doesn't live there and was not in the house.

I think the problem is that these type of 'no knock raids' are violent and getting to be more common. Sometimes this may be a good tactic but it's easy to find hundreds of instances where they do these raids based on shoddy intel (like this story) and tragedies occur like this or many examples of them shooting the family dog etc.... And for what? An 8ball of meth? These violent tactics can easily end in tragedy and we're lucky this baby is alive, and had there been the armed guards it could easily have been a dead officer as easily as a gang banger? Is it worth it? I don't think so.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This **** allowed drugs to be manufactured and sold out of her house with her child in it and is going to cry about non-lethal munitions being used? **** her. She should be locked up and her child taken away forever.

To my understanding, it wasn't her house, but rather her brother's house, and she was sleeping there with her family because her house had recently burned down. How recently she had moved in is unclear, but apparently she knew drugs were being sold out of the house, and tried to keep her family clear of it. Apparently, the drugs were being sold out the back, because her entire family was camped out in the living room and the baby's crib was, inexplicably yet universally reported, to have been right up against the front door, blocking it (then again, if everything was done out the back, that would make sense). The police came in loaded because the guy they were looking for had 9 arrests for armed felonies.

I can't imagine what the policeman must feel like after being responsible for tossing a grenade through the cracked door that resulted in a baby being injured so severely. Procedures or not, that is the sort of thing that haunts a guy. Personally, I would have slapped the hell out of whoever made the idiotic choice to place a baby's crib against the front door of a drug house. That's right up there with hiding weapon's in their cribs.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the family have no insurance and have set up a website to collect donations for the babies treatment? Is that actually necessary? Surely having being the victim of the SWAT raid would cover the baby straight up? What kind of country/system makes the parents pay for treatment for an injury incurred by it's law enforcement?

*Disclaimer* I am not suggesting or commenting on whether SWAT did the right or wrong thing here, it could have been a terrible accident and the raid was done with the belief there were no children in the house, I am just commenting on the need for the family to now pay for the injuries sustained to the child - because if, as I believe, the police dept and by extension the state are accountable for those injuries it seems the family might be making a money grab without cause?

True, once the pay-off comes from this police error they will be able to treat the baby and buy a new place to live. That could be years from now though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

http://www.cnn.com/2...raid/index.html

This **** allowed drugs to be manufactured and sold out of her house with her child in it and is going to cry about non-lethal munitions being used? **** her. She should be locked up and her child taken away forever.

Well thats a completely difference story to the OP.

Edited by The Id3al Experience
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine what the policeman must feel like after being responsible for tossing a grenade through the cracked door that resulted in a baby being injured so severely.

That was one of my first thoughts when I heard about this weeks ago. Tragic.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.cnn.com/2...raid/index.html

This **** allowed drugs to be manufactured and sold out of her house with her child in it and is going to cry about non-lethal munitions being used? **** her. She should be locked up and her child taken away forever.

The baby and it's mother were guests in this house, according to both the Salon report and the CNN report.

The 'non-lethal' munitions burned a hole in this kids chest, and according to the mother, may have brain damage.

Flash bangs and M-16's maybe great for rousing terrorists, but I don't think they should be part of a 'peace keepers' arsenal.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently the family have no insurance and have set up a website to collect donations for the babies treatment? Is that actually necessary? Surely having being the victim of the SWAT raid would cover the baby straight up? What kind of country/system makes the parents pay for treatment for an injury incurred by it's law enforcement?

They haven't set up a webpage, at least not directly. You'll find a bunch of webpages for groups like the Libertarians who want donations to fight against the cause du jour, in this case No-Knock warrants, but the only website for the baby that I have found was started by Holly Benton Wickersham, who claims to be a friend of the family. The page has been flagged for fraud on Grabpage, but that doesn't mean it is actually fake.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They haven't set up a webpage, at least not directly. You'll find a bunch of webpages for groups like the Libertarians who want donations to fight against the cause du jour, in this case No-Knock warrants, but the only website for the baby that I have found was started by Holly Benton Wickersham, who claims to be a friend of the family. The page has been flagged for fraud on Grabpage, but that doesn't mean it is actually fake.

Thanks Aquatus for checking that out - bad CNN for making the claim without checking it out.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are childrens hospitals here that will give a family top quality care for their child free of charge to qualified families, of which I'm sure these people would be. Aren't these around the country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with your link, AgentO, is that there were no armed guards outside. There were no drugs in the house. The information came from a drug addicted informant who must have lied, and the man they were looking for doesn't live there and was not in the house.

The guards are alleged, true, but that doesn't automatically mean they weren't there when they were reported to be (which wasn't during the raid). I'm finding conflicting reports on whether there were drugs in the house or not, but there does seem to be agreement on a drug transaction having taken place which did result in the warrant being issued. As for the man himself, he seems to have been rotating around in houses, which considering his background and continued criminal life, was at least a tactically intelligent decision. I won't go so far as to say he didn't live in the house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Aquatus for checking that out - bad CNN for making the claim without checking it out.

I really, really, dislike this modern habit of getting the news, any news, out first as top priority. If we had a properly skeptical culture, that'd be fine, but right now, it results in more problems that don't need to exist.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really, really, dislike this modern habit of getting the news, any news, out first as top priority. If we had a properly skeptical culture, that'd be fine, but right now, it results in more problems that don't need to exist.

admittedly guilty.

Here's an anecdote.

In the 80's my cousin, who was a juvenile delinquent was approached by two detectives. They made a deal with him, they would give him money to go buy some cocaine (he provided the dealer not the cops). He could do as much as he wanted and then give them what he didn't snort after he left. He did this a bunch of times over the course of a few weeks. One day they gave him marked bills and told him to go buy the coke and when he came back they gave him most of it to take with him and raided the place. immediately when they knew for a fact the stuff was there not hours later. If police followed this pattern instead of what apparently happened in the case in th OP there would probably be more good busts and less tragedy. There were no M-16's or flashbangs used and they really aren't necessary if things are handled correctly. I think these militaristic SWAT tactics in a situation like this are overkill.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, this would get kicked out of court these days. Asides from the civil rights unions going after the police for endangering the poor innocent druggie and forcing him to snort cocaine by threatening him with jail time (jail or cocaine; they must have had to twist his arm for that one), and the whole entrapment angle (cause just because there was a kilo of coke on the table and another 50 in the closet doesn't mean the poor dealer would have sold it if the cops hadn't unduly tempted him by...buying it), even seizing the coke isn't the real aim of the drug war anymore. Back in the 80's, that's what it was all about, but nowadays, the amount of coke seized isn't as important as the data acquired.

As far as the tactics, I don't necessarily think they are overkill; after all, with 50,000 raids in a year and only a few hundred "botched" (how are we defining that, anyways?), that's still doing pretty good. The problem is that surveillance is getting more and more difficult, and new technology, such as drones, are being objected to before they can be put into service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guards are alleged, true, but that doesn't automatically mean they weren't there when they were reported to be (which wasn't during the raid). I'm finding conflicting reports on whether there were drugs in the house or not, but there does seem to be agreement on a drug transaction having taken place which did result in the warrant being issued. As for the man himself, he seems to have been rotating around in houses, which considering his background and continued criminal life, was at least a tactically intelligent decision. I won't go so far as to say he didn't live in the house.

They should have staked out the house confirmed he was there waited till he left and take him then. Charging into a house in the middle of the night with what is said, he had weapons is the perfect recipei for many more injuries and deaths. This is so amature its pathetic. This is what soldiers do during war times in other countries such as Iraq. This is just my opinion. The cops made the situation a 1000 times more risky then it needed to be.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"There is no war on drugs, Its war on personal freedom" - Bill Hicks

Regulate EVERYTHING, we are all big boys, and make our own desisions, Weather its ilegla or legal, people will get high, the police and silly laws are whats creating the danger.

Edited by The Id3al Experience
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There is no war on drugs, Its war on personal freedom" - Bill Hicks

Regulate EVERYTHING, we are all big boys, and make our own desisions, Weather its ilegla or legal, people will get high, the police and silly laws are whats creating the danger.

Im on other sites much more vocal than this one and it seems more people than not, that are not in a gated community in the states think calling the cops is worse than the crime. Take for example the kid that could do 99 years for hash brownies, pathetic.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have staked out the house confirmed he was there waited till he left and take him then. Charging into a house in the middle of the night with what is said, he had weapons is the perfect recipei for many more injuries and deaths. This is so amature its pathetic. This is what soldiers do during war times in other countries such as Iraq. This is just my opinion. The cops made the situation a 1000 times more risky then it needed to be.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. I wasn't there, I'm not going to make the call. I will say that this tactic works pretty well, regardless of whether it is a war or not, which is why it is in use and why the number of raids without deaths far outnumber the raids where someone gets killed, let alone the raids where innocents get hurt, and those where innocents get killed.

After all, if there hadn't been a baby crib pressed up against front door, this wouldn't even merit a thread.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. I wasn't there, I'm not going to make the call. I will say that this tactic works pretty well, regardless of whether it is a war or not, which is why it is in use and why the number of raids without deaths far outnumber the raids where someone gets killed, let alone the raids where innocents get hurt, and those where innocents get killed.

After all, if there hadn't been a baby crib pressed up against front door, this wouldn't even merit a thread.

There house had burnt down and were staying at a relitives place. Why raid a house looking for a man that isin`t even there. Seems intelligience has become optional in the police force top to bottom. Raiding peoples houses on suspicion use to be illegal.

Woulda , coulda, shoulda, should not be a training tool when it comes to lives. Think twice act once should be.

Edited by The Silver Thong
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There house had burnt down and were staying at a relitives place.

Yes, I mentioned that earlier.

Why raid a house looking for a man that isin`t even there.

Because you think he is there.

Seems intelligience has become optional in the police force top to bottom. Raiding peoples houses on suspicion use to be illegal.

It still is. Raiding a house because you bought drugs there a few hours ago isn't.

My only question is who sold the drugs.

Woulda , coulda, shoulda, should not be a training tool when it comes to lives.

It isn't. It's an admonishment that reminds the experts with the experience and knowledge that they shouldn't make absolute judgements based on hindsight.

For the Monday morning quarterbacks who don't have the experience, or the knowledge, or even the full information on what happened in order to make a hindsight judgement to begin with...well, it means something other.

Think twice act once should be.

Same should apply to posting on subjects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.