re: SWAT Team blames 1 year old for being in room, getting disfigured by flashbang

Here it is 3 dead, sheriff and deputy wounded in Ga. incident

quote:

---

Let's assume that's true. You're still are defending throwing a flashbang into a crib with a sleeping baby in it. Think about that. They're arguing that's ok to do- you know by the guys that "protect and serve" us.

---

What's the lawyer supposed to do? Not defend the client? Just type a one paragraph answer that says: "Yep, SWAT team fricked up. We admit everything. How much do you want?"

quote:

---

It is helpful to read the actual Answer rather than read some moron's misinterpretation of it.

---

I did, all the way through. Perhaps you missed this part, it was way at the end.

quote:

---

- 34 -
SIXTHDEFENSE
Plaintiffs' damages, if any, were caused by the independent acts anddecisions of persons and entities other than these defendants or those over whomthese defendants had some legal right of control.
SEVENTHDEFENSE
To the extent as may be shown by the evidence through discovery, thesedefendants show that plaintiffs' damages, if any, were directly and proximatelycaused by the contributory and comparative negligence of plaintiffs and their failure to exercise ordinary care.

---

quote:

---

Author William Norman Grigg is lazy or a moron or both. His findings are unbelievable because he misinterprets the Answer

---

In so many words, the defense is blaming the victims, including a one year old, for getting themselves blown up by a flash bang. Sounds like he interpreted it spot-on to me.

quote:

---

Let's assume that's true. You're still are defending throwing a flashbang into a crib with a sleeping baby in it. Think about that. They're arguing that's ok to do- you know by the guys that "protect and serve" us.

---

First, you seem to accept everything stated in the article as though it's true. I'm not sure the author deserves that much credibility:

quote:

---

Habersham County Sheriff, Joey Terrell, has allegedly given the most asinine defense about why a SWAT team blew a babies face off.

---

Based on the tone of the article, perhaps the author is biased? Does the phrase "the most asinine defense" suggest bias?

Does the picture of the baby suggest that, perhaps, the baby's face was not blown off? The author might have exaggerated?

Second, you assume that the targeting was intentional rather than inadvertent. Perhaps, we should let the facts play out?

quote:

---

That's supposed to give the article more credibility?

---

When you can read the document in question for yourself, yeah, it does.

quote:

---

Based on the tone of the article, perhaps the author is biased? D

---

Again, the legal brief filed by the defense is there in the article. You don't even have to click another link. There's a lot of jargon and legalese to wade through, but it's there in black and white. You don't have to take anybody's word for it.

Disgusting

quote:

---

well these attorneys likely represent the insurance company for the city or governmental entity. that insurance company has a legitimate interest in preventing an unreasonable amount of damages, correct? they can't just go admitting everything or else they risk their client (the insurance company, not the cops or the city) having to pay damages they're not liable for.

---

Dude, did you read the Answer or just skim it?

The baby is not the only plaintiff. Other persons who were present at the time of the raid are also plaintiffs in this action. The Tenth Defense was probably intended to apply to the actions of those other plaintiffs.

quote:

---

TENTH DEFENSE
To the extent as may be shown by the evidence through discovery, plaintiffs'injuries and damages, if any, were caused by the deliberate, criminal conduct of plaintiffs, and such criminal conduct supersedes any and all negligence or liability,if any, on the part of these defendants.

---

In short, the plaintiffs other than the baby were engaged in criminal conduct, and that criminal conduct acts as a superseding cause of the damages. In part and in short, the cops would not have been there if not for the criminal conduct of the other plaintiffs who were present at the time of the raid.

The paragraph might be poorly drafted for not excepting out the baby, but the action is in federal court so notice pleading, and not fact pleading, is all that is required.

quote:

---

quote:
What's the lawyer supposed to do? Not defend the client? Just type a one paragraph answer that says: "Yep, SWAT team fricked up. We admit everything. How much do you want?"


How about not defend the department? You don't have to fight every lawsuit. Give the plaintiffs what they want and forget about it. Fighting it leads to BS like this and super bad press.

If it were up to me I would fire and charge all involved in this monstrosity of a frick up, from the magistrate that signed off on this on down.

---

You sound naive. What if the family demanded $100,000,000 during presuit? The attorneys are retained by the insurance company to protect the monetary interests of the governmental entity. It's the lawyer's job to file an answer based only on the allegations that are made against the client. They have to raise those defenses before any discovery is taken in the case or all of their defenses are waived and the law firm's malpractice carrier is paying damages on the underlying claim.

It's just how the system is set up. The article uses the emotional reasoning of an 8th grade girl.