- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SWAT Team blames 1 year old for being in room, getting disfigured by flashbang
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:22 pm to NYNolaguy1
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:22 pm to NYNolaguy1
the one year old was in the living room. parents should not have a baby unless the baby will have it's own room. so the parents are at fault for having a baby and the baby not having it's own room.
0
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:22 pm to Artie Rome
quote:
But in reality you do know the answers. I
eh
until you get those people there under oathe in a deposition, i won't go that far
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:24 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Well, the tipster sure as frick should go to prison and be responsible for the injuries as well
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:26 pm to Artie Rome
quote:
But in reality you do know the answers.
I wish. I've gone to trials where I didn't know what the frick the witness was going to say once he actually got on the stand. The idea that you can get a nuanced understanding of the facts in the 20 days you have to file an answer is like science fiction to me.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:29 pm to NYNolaguy1
As awful as the situation is any defense attorney worth a shite has to answer the complaint.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:30 pm to Cold Cous Cous
quote:
The idea that you can get a nuanced understanding of the facts in the 20 days you have to file an answer is like science fiction to me.
My only point was that in many cases you know the answers before suit is filed. At least with enough certainty to not say "The one year old was engaged in criminal activity which should act as a bar to recovery."
Look, I'd have done the same thing. We have to. But we shouldn't have to.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:32 pm to Artie Rome
quote:But in reality, you don't know the answers.
But in reality you do know the answers.
quote:You may not have had time to interview all of your clients in depth. Moreover, you have not had an opportunity to talk to the plaintiffs at all. Sure, you might be able to do some investigation, but you have not had an opportunity to thoroughly investigate your side, let alone investigate the other side at all.
In a case like this you aren't just hearing about it when the adjuster forwards it to you. I understand it's "how it works" but it is still gross.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:33 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
You're still are defending throwing a flashbang into a crib with a sleeping baby in it.
Something tells me the cops didn't look in the window and think "There is a crib with a baby in it, make sure you throw the flashbang in there"
Just a hunch.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:35 pm to tigerinthebueche
quote:
No knock raids have no place in this scenario, IMO
My best friend was killed in the line of duty because they knocked first, giving the fricking dealer time to arm and position himself.
This post was edited on 5/26/15 at 1:36 pm
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:38 pm to SG_Geaux
quote:
My best friend was killed in the line of duty because they knocked first, giving the fricking dealer time to arm and position himself.
that doesnt make no-knocks ok, as unfortunate as it is. perhaps the answer is waiting until they leave the house for minor offenses like this $50 unsubstantiated drug deal that was reported.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:38 pm to SG_Geaux
quote:
Something tells me the cops didn't look in the window and think "There is a crib with a baby in it, make sure you throw the flashbang in there"
Just a hunch.
I do believe there were children's toys or whatnot in the front yard.
And it doesn't hurt to do a little investigating before you start throwing flashbang grenades inside suburban homes.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:38 pm to SG_Geaux
quote:
My best friend was killed in the line of duty because they knocked first, giving the fricking dealer time to arm and position himself.
That's terrible. Slightly more terrible than a 1 year old getting a flashbang to the face.
I don't know if one justifies the other.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:39 pm to SG_Geaux
Threads like these always expose who doesn't know frick about due process and law, such as the OP and the author of that horribly written article. You must offer a response to a complaint that answers to as many grounds as possible. It's Defense 101. Such obvious click bait to the uneducated and easily influenced.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:39 pm to Salviati
Again, I get it. But...to claim contributory negligence by a one year old?
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:40 pm to SG_Geaux
quote:
My best friend was killed in the line of duty because they knocked first, giving the fricking dealer time to arm and position himself.
I am sorry to hear that. I hope the department got some training. Your best friend should have never been in that position.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 1:57 pm to NYNolaguy1
SWAT is clearly undertrained in that dept and need those devices taken away from them and left to the ATF and national guard
Posted on 5/26/15 at 2:02 pm to SamuelClemens
Didn't Obama sign an executive order stating that all local and state law enforcement departments return the "military-grade" equipment (for lack of a better word)? I think I saw that on the news recently.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 2:08 pm to Artie Rome
quote:The defense is not intended to claim contrib on the part of the one year old. It's intended to claim contrib on the part of the other plaintiffs, adults, who were present at the time of the raid.
Again, I get it. But...to claim contributory negligence by a one year old?
Should the defense have excluded the baby from a contrib affirmative defense paragraph? Technically yes, the baby was not negligent, BUT technically no, defense counsel doesn't have to exclude specific plaintiffs from affirmative defenses for notice pleading.
Posted on 5/26/15 at 2:26 pm to Salviati
quote:
Should the defense have excluded the baby from a contrib affirmative defense paragraph? Technically yes, the baby was not negligent, BUT technically no, defense counsel doesn't have to exclude specific plaintiffs from affirmative defenses for notice pleading.
I know all of that. This is a discussion about many things...
Posted on 5/26/15 at 2:26 pm to NoSaint
quote:
perhaps the answer is waiting until they leave the house for minor offenses like this $50 unsubstantiated drug deal that was reported.
It always seems like this should be the logical solution to most of these issues.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News