Police who disfigured toddler get off scot free

[His Divine Shadow]

http://host.madison.com/wsj/ap/mcclatch ... 2ed27.html

ATLANTA — While labeling the drug investigation that ended with the disfigurement of a Wisconsin toddler “hurried and sloppy,” a grand jury in Georgia on Monday ruled the law enforcement officers involved should not face criminal charges.

In a 15-page report, jurors were largely sympathetic to the Habersham County SWAT unit that carried out the botched raid that started a national conversation about police militarization.
“Rather than seeing unfeeling or uncaring robots, what has not been seen before by others and talked or written about is that these individuals are suffering as well,” the jurors wrote. “We have seen and heard genuine regret and sadness on the part of the law enforcement officers involved, and we think it is fair and appropriate to point out that they are human beings as well.”
Bounkham “Bou Bou” Phonesavanh’s nose was detached from his face after a stun grenade, lobbed by a member of the Habersham SWAT team serving a no-knock warrant on a suspected drug dealer, landed in the 19-month-old’s playpen while he slept.

The alleged dealer, Wanis Thonetheva, did not live at the home where the Phonesavahs were temporarily staying after they had been displaced by a fire at their home in Janesville.

The family has since returned to Wisconsin while Bounkham continues his recovery.

Family members were “devastated” to learn no criminal charges would be filed, at least by the Habersham grand jury, said their attorney, Mawuli Davis. A federal investigation into the May drug raid is ongoing. “This is a very sad day for this family and for the people of Georgia,” Davis said.

The jury was critical of the case agent who secured the no-knock warrant and her supervisor on the Mountain Judicial Narcotics Criminal Investigation and Suppression Team.

The case agent has resigned and her supervisor was reassigned with a “significant reduction” in pay. Their names were not disclosed due to “numerous death threats” made against the officers, the jurors wrote.

“Much of the problem in this tragic situation involved information and intelligence,” the jurors wrote. They concluded questions were asked about the presence of children in the home but surveillance prior to the raid was lacking.

Oh well at least they feel sorry. That's whats important. So basically nothing will change and nobody will have to face any consequences of any kind, further eroding public trust in police and justice system. And I can't really blame them.

[Nephtys]

Admittedly, the actual SWAT team probably is not to blame. They were handed instructions to conduct a drug bust with a certain degree of force. Unless they had particular reason to believe otherwise, they were doing their job.

The people who gathered the intelligence, made the case and got the entire raid authorized? Now that's their fault completely for fucking up so hard. So, the case agent got sacked, and the boss got demoted and shuffled away. That's probably as best anyone can hope for.

[Elheru Aran]

Additionally, hopefully policy in conducting these kind of attacks will be adjusted to prevent more of these kind of incidents happening. I still think there should have been some consequence for the SWAT team if it could be verified that they were aware there were children at home (as I believe it was noted at one point that if they had looked through the window prior to the assault, they would have seen toys and such laying about), but if not, then I find the conclusion more or less fair.

What I do find really egregious is that IIRC the family of the toddler is not going to be compensated in any way by the county...

[Thanas]

No money at all for the family, but the police continue to get their wages? This is complete bullshit.

[Elheru Aran]

No money at all for the family, but the police continue to get their wages? This is complete bullshit.

I don't know about 'at all'; I read the story on local news. This was a while back in August, but here's a link from RT:

http://rt.com/usa/181100-baby-swat-grenade-medical/

They won't pay medical bills. No comment on any other compensation thus far that I've seen. So, yes, bullshit. Cops aside, the family needs to be compensated in some way to make up for that repugnant incident.

[PREDATOR490]

I find this unacceptable.

A kids face got ruined and even if you accept the SWAT team was just doing their job the family deserve some sort of compensation especially to cover the cost of fixing the damage done. It is beyond sad that the family are going to be shafted with medical bills and clean up costs.

[Raw Shark]

I'm pretty okay with this outcome (other than the dickery about paying the medical bills, which is un-fucking-believably low, even for the cops). The case agent who got kicked to the curb and the supervisor who signed off on it and got demoted are mostly to blame here; the cops who fragged the kid are just complete idiots sorely in need of reprimand and retraining, not criminals.

[Grumman]

Admittedly, the actual SWAT team probably is not to blame. They were handed instructions to conduct a drug bust with a certain degree of force. Unless they had particular reason to believe otherwise, they were doing their job.

And they had a moral obligation to refuse such instructions. They are complicit in this dangerous practice of using shock-and-awe tactics to save hypothetical drugs from being destroyed, and crying that they were just following orders doesn't change that.

[Simon_Jester]

So... if the police are told "here is a warrant, go to this house that we believe is full of potentially dangerous criminals and assault the place," they have a moral duty to resign rather than obey?

[ArmorPierce]

I'm sure that lawyers were the ones telling the cops not to offer to pay medical expenses as that would be close to admitting fault and can be used as leverage against them in the lawsuit that is sure to follow.

[His Divine Shadow]

We went over this in the other thread, the cops on the ground acted recklessly and there where no signs of anything like what they'd been told, they ignored the evidence of children being near and still decided to use a flash bang, then after they'd maimed the toddler they lied to his mom and said he'd just lost a tooth and prevented her from seeing him.

They're scumbags and don't deserve to wear a badge and it's not the first time this department has gotten the wrong guy (he died) and gotten off, they're thugs and not suited as police officers. They're evident of the failure of no-quality policing and problems of militarization and giving access to means they should not be allowed to possess (such as flash bangs).

They're an example of all that is wrong with policing in general and as individual officers.

You know I am pretty sure that it the government would have sold all that surplus military shit to fucking al-qaeda themselves rather than the police forces of america, that'd probably result in less dead americans.

[Simon_Jester]

We went over this in the other thread, the cops on the ground acted recklessly and there where no signs of anything like what they'd been told, they ignored the evidence of children being near and still decided to use a flash bang, then after they'd maimed the toddler they lied to his mom and said he'd just lost a tooth and prevented her from seeing him.

Definitely they had a moral duty to stop acting like berserk idiots with a commando fantasy after they didn't see evidence of the place being a crack house or whatever they thought it was.

Definitely, having a track record of incompetence like that means they shouldn't be allowed to continue as a heavily armed SWAT team. Or for that matter, as lightly armed patrol officers. Or unarmed desk police.

At the same time, I think that when we say "they had a moral responsibility to not even go to the house, even though they were sent to execute a warrant, they should have quit," we're being willfully ignorant about what police are supposed to exist for in the first place.

[Grumman]

So... if the police are told "here is a warrant, go to this house that we believe is full of potentially dangerous criminals and assault the place," they have a moral duty to resign rather than obey?

They believe that based on what? We're not talking about a hostage situation here, or even an alleged drug operation that isn't in somebody's home. I do think the police have a moral duty to abide by sensible rules of engagement and not go lobbing grenades into people's houses just because they think there might be some drugs in there that might get flushed down the loo if they enter in a more sane manner.

[Agent Fisher]

It isn't just about drugs getting flushed. Drug house occupants are usually well armed to defend their stash against other dealers or gangs that want the product for themselves. I know this may sound a bit wacky, but by SWAT teams rolling in fast and aggressive, with flashbangs, they can usually take control of anyone inside before they can shake off the effects of the flashbangs and begin actively resisting, cutting down on injuries and deaths on both sides.

And not every house that stores or deals drugs looks like a traditional crack house fortress. In modern suburbs, the best defense is camouflage, so they look just like any other house.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So... if the police are told "here is a warrant, go to this house that we believe is full of potentially dangerous criminals and assault the place," they have a moral duty to resign rather than obey?

They believe that based on what? We're not talking about a hostage situation here, or even an alleged drug operation that isn't in somebody's home. I do think the police have a moral duty to abide by sensible rules of engagement and not go lobbing grenades into people's houses just because they think there might be some drugs in there that might get flushed down the loo if they enter in a more sane manner.

If my memory serves me it is because the case manager was told by a confidential informant that he had seen armed individuals inside the home. This information was included in the affidavit presented to the judge that approved the no knock warrant. So, it wasn't about the loss of drugs at all. It's about the belief that armed individuals were inside the home. This CI also told the case manager that there were no children inside and no indication of children inside.

That being said I have a lot of problems with the requirements needed for a no knock warrant. Just one buy seems a bit light on the evidence side to justify such a response.

Also, it wasn't the police that refused to pay. It was the city or county government.

[Grumman]

It isn't just about drugs getting flushed. Drug house occupants are usually well armed to defend their stash against other dealers or gangs that want the product for themselves. I know this may sound a bit wacky, but by SWAT teams rolling in fast and aggressive, with flashbangs, they can usually take control of anyone inside before they can shake off the effects of the flashbangs and begin actively resisting, cutting down on injuries and deaths on both sides.

And not every house that stores or deals drugs looks like a traditional crack house fortress. In modern suburbs, the best defense is camouflage, so they look just like any other house.

If you cannot distinguish between a drug storehouse and any other home, that does not mean you treat regular homes like drug storehouses, it means you treat drug storehouses like regular homes. This is what I mean when I mentioned rules of engagement - their failure to identify their target is not an excuse to assume the worst, any more than it is when the cops gun somebody down for holding a phone or trying to give them the ID they asked for because the fucking idiots jump straight to "Gun! Kill him!"

On the other hand, the rules of engagement for the homeowner are quite clear: when somebody barges into your home, guns drawn, you are morally and legally justified in killing the bastard. The only exception is if they are police who clearly identify themselves as police acting on official police business, and you can't clearly identify yourself if you deliberately use a weapon designed to render the homeowners incapable of seeing and/or hearing you and your attempts to communicate.

[White Haven]

The one solitary individual who absolutely should be crucified over this, above all others, is that shitstain of a CI. Yes, there's enough blame to go around, and I'm the first to line up people involved in the serving of no-knock warrants (p.s. don't, ever, fuck off for ever even thinking of using these), but man, that confidential informant needs to burn for this. There need to be serious consequences for others involved at all levels, but that CI needs to burn.

[Nephtys]

There's a lot, and I mean a /lot/ of emotional, irrational assumptions being made in this thread without information or rational analysis. Which isn't that the alleged philosophy of this site?

We don't have information on what the SWAT team was told, what the specific intelligence was that the confidential informant posted (or even their general credibility, perhaps it was very good), if there were even vaguely credible reports of armed criminals in the 'drug house', if anyone on the SWAT team noticed anything blatant to identify this as an innocent family's home...

Sounds a lot like people are jumping to conclusions quickly, with major gaps in information, in favor of their biases.

[White Haven]

That's why I said what I did. The one thing that IS fairly clear is that the CI gave monumentally false information about this supposed 'drug house' and its 'armed guards.' The rest of the police fuckup, yeah, they should have done a lot more corroborating before rolling in with an armed invasion in my opinion, but the CI...that's someone who's way out there beyond the pale.

Now, my personal feelings regarding no-knock warrants in cases not involving actual hostage situations or sieges involve every last individual involved being fired for cause and blacklisted from ever working in law enforcement again for starters, but I realize that puts me further on the fringe than most people. The government in general and law enforcement in particular have a duty of care with regards to the civilians in their jurisdiction, and I take a fairly apocalyptic view towards violations of that duty. I also, however, take a exceptionally dim view of people using the police as weapons, whether it be politicians (see: war on drugs, war on whistleblowers, etcetera) or SWATting (4chan, this CI, etcetera).

[His Divine Shadow]

The thing I take away from this is no flash bangs for most swat teams. No swat teams for most counties really. No no knock warrants for anyone ever. Better to let drug dealers go or have them flush their stash than continuing to risk peoples lives and health. Basically stop policing the "hard" way and stop pursuing the war on drugs.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It's worth noting that this same scenario could have gone down the same way with a wanted homicide suspect. Flash bangs are an important tool that all tactical teams should have.

[Grumman]

It's worth noting that this same scenario could have gone down the same way with a wanted homicide suspect.

It can, but it's not unreasonable to believe that arresting a murder suspect is worth the associated risks while arresting a drug suspect or having access to an untouched suspected drug lab is not.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It's worth noting that this same scenario could have gone down the same way with a wanted homicide suspect.

It can, but it's not unreasonable to believe that arresting a murder suspect is worth the associated risks while arresting a drug suspect or having access to an untouched suspected drug lab is not.

We're in agreement on that. Unfortunately, your elected representatives are not. Hell, even the public is not.

[His Divine Shadow]

Buzzfeed has posted a detailed account of this story
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mikehayes/how-a ... ed#1t9bata

Hey, his birthday was yesterday.

Alecia says she won’t have enough to throw Bou Bou a birthday party when he turns 2 on Oct. 14.

Baby Bou Bou’s fight for recovery may never be over. After the raid, he was diagnosed with brain shearing. Doctors told the family that it will be a couple years before they know the full extent of his brain damage.

This month, he is going in for another surgery that will scrape gun powder out from under the skin on his chest and arms.
Bou Bou suffered permanent nerve damage from the blast and his skin on his face and chest won’t grow back on it own. He is facing two plastic surgeries every two years until the age of 20.

At night, Bou Bou wakes up screaming and holding his face, Alecia says.
“It’s very tormenting to my husband and I,” Alecia said. “Nobody wants to go to sleep.”