Couple seeks damages after police raid wrong house

Henry Daily Herald ^ | 6-8-06 | By Michael Davis

[VRing]

A Stockbridge couple whose home was mistakenly raided by Henry County Police last year as they sought a drug suspect is seeking $8 million in damages from the incident.

In a lawsuit filed last month in Superior Court against county officials and police, Roy and Belinda Baker say they were roused out of bed by police who used a battering ram to knock down their door and threw concussive grenades into their home around 1 a.m. Sept. 30.

“The Law Enforcement Defendants accosted the Bakers in the hallway to their bedroom, where they had been sleeping, and yelled at the Bakers, threatened, assaulted and unlawfully touched the Bakers, and placed the Bakers face down, at gunpoint ...” the suit says.

[A CA Guy]

I is the drug dealer next door who brought law enforcement to their neighborhood.
Their criminal act was the catalyst for the opportunity for the accidental mistake in addresses.

[A CA Guy]

Lots of people selling meth make it also, doesn't mean it wasn't made there earlier.

In any case, the drug dealer was putting the whole neighborhood at risk.
I wonder how many people were coming over all hours for product.

You would think the people suing would have wondered about all the ten minute visits all day long next door.

No, in my opinion, the accident is just an excuse to pursue riches.

[A CA Guy]

I = if

[JavaTheHutt]

The place should be repaired and at most a few thousand should be given for the inconvenience of having to put up with repairs.

Well, if they find twelve people who think like you do to sit on the jury, that may be what they end up with. But consider the fact that you are on a conservative news forum and the majority of people here discussing this issue are in favor of these people getting substantially more than a few thousand bucks, what do you think the odds are that they will receive a modest judgement of anything less than 6 figures?

[JavaTheHutt]

You would think the people suing would have wondered about all the ten minute visits all day long next door.

There you go, making assumptions again. I don't believe the article stated they were dealing drugs from the house. Most drug dealers wont deal from their own house, they go out on the streets, sell in the night clubs, the bars, etc..., or just down on the street corner.

[A CA Guy]

Some also sell from their homes and may set up sophisticated cameras like the criminal in this story did.

Lots of dealers use as well and make dumb choices that lead to them getting themselves busted.

These types of people get caught when they get sloppy or over confident.

[traditional1]

" it SHOULD be financially painful

Absolutely right...punishment of the party or parties who committed the error or were negligent; but not punishing non-participants who have to be named to successfully appropriate their earnings to satisfy a judgement not of their doing.....

[traditional1]

demonstrates clear hypocrisy in using the technique you unsuccessfully attempted to utilize to insult me. It's called sarcasm. Watch, I'll use it again in this post. your grasp of the meaning of "responsible" and "fault" are based in common man-on-the-street parlance You are almost right, for once. You are correct that I am using the common meanings for these terms, however you are wrong to assume that because I choose to use the common meaning of the terms that I am unaware, or fail to "grasp" the Webster's Dictionary meaning of the terms. When I refer to someone as an idiot, I am refering to the common usage meaning, that they are stupid and/or foolish. The dictionary meaning of the word is: A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. Since you are able to assemble complete sentences, however poor the logic, that is obviously not the meaning I would be attempting to convey. "

You've proved my point. You have no argument. You ccan have the last word.........

[traditional1]

"No, in my opinion, the accident is just an excuse to pursue riches."

ding...ding....ding....we have a Winnah...

You are exactly right. Based on one of the other comments made (a very valid one in another post here), the drug dealer who was the actual target, (ignoring the contorted logic of others here that the taxpayer should bear the cost as the ultimate cause for voting for the incompetent judge/mayor/council/police chief/police force, etc.) should be named as the defendant by the Lawyer(s) to compensate the victims.

After all, but for the drug-dealing, the raid would never have taken place.

Maybe that's the method they should use to attack the drug dealers: sue the crap out of 'em for the inflicted harm to society?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I'd say the people need to get busy and discipline their government.

[muir_redwoods]

Let's throw a few concussion grenades into your home in the middle of the night and you can tell me what the experience is worth. Someone trusted with that degree of force had better have the right address in hand before the operation begins at the very least

The JBT's and their wannabe supporters can laugh this off but try squaring it with the Bill of Rights

[MarkL]

I'd say the people need to get busy and discipline their government.

I agree. That's what petitions and recall elections are for.

Mark

[takenoprisoner]

"They were in the wrong place by accident, but were attempting the to be at the right place with cause."

If only totalitarian propaganda could be forbidden here...

Just say no to totalitarians !!!!!!Little doubt this "ca guy" is a flaming totalitarian.

You ca guy need to learn to respect our constitution. Sure, some on the bench, some in congress, some at the executive, and some at judicial levels have side stepped a few of the articles. Yet still, and inspite of their treason, what really matters is that we the people continue to honor our Constitution of these United States. Moreover, we should continue to strive to elect politicians who swear an oath to uphold our constitution who will actually and knowingly honor what they are sworn to uphold.

Now, for your purview master of totalitarianism one mr. ca guy, read the fourth amendement to our Constitution.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Now check out the portion above which reads: "...and particularly describing the place to be searched..."

What does that mean to you? Probably not much since you don't respect our individual rights nor our Constitution in the first place. But to me, and probably most other reasonable persons who still honor our Constitution, it means that when the authorities in this case described the place to be searched, it is obvious they weren't at all familiar with the location to be searched. Therefore, the officers in this case, either willfully lied to the judge, or given benefit of doubt, were highly uninformed about who what and where was to be searched.

Either way they were (criminally) negligent and now they most definately should pay for their unlawful and extremely violent intrusion into this couple's home in violation of our fourth amendment to the Constitution of these United States.

Have you hugged a totalitarian facist today?

[Gaffer]

Eight million is not out of line. If they had done that at my house, I likely would have been killed because I am 'prepared' for night-time intrusions and I probably would have shot at them when woken up from a dead sleep. The 'could have happeneds' are what the Henry County should be paying for.

However, what really should happen is that the responsible individuals on the police department should be fired WITH cause and be personally liable for damages (including punitive damages), because you cannot afford to make idiotic mistakes like that when the 'could-happens' are so severe.

[from occupied ga]

rst option is to simply pick up and move out of that district

And that does somenthing about Mckinney how?

Second option is to fight to get the district lines changed to something more equtable

Easily said - I can say if you just try hard enough you can float up in the air. District lines were set by legislature at direction of judges.

Third option is to fight fire with fire, and bring up a candidate that the opposing party would be willing to vote for. In the case of battling against a mostly black district, find someone of the same color, but with a more conservative viewpoint than McKinney.

Done that had a black republican female candidate - lost about 83% to 17% of the vote. The sad fact is that the majority of the idiots in her district think exactly like she says she does (at least the ones who vote for her). They harbor intense envy and resentment of whitey for being successful while reveling in ignorance and the hip hop culture. The only way to change it would be to completely change the urban black culture of "do nothing, learn nothing, and gimme" to a culture of hard work and striving for success. You would have to undo nearly 50 years and several generations of entrenched welfare dependency and anti-achievement mentality (primarily induced by the LBJ "great society") And if you can do that, then my hat's off to you. (Some people are beyond redemption)

[geezerwheezer]

Well, no need for a jury trial is there? You have made up your mind and that's it. Glad you aren't sitting in the jury box and learning the whole story and factoring in all of the information, I mean, hell, why bother?

[Know your rights]

but for the drug-dealing, the raid would never have taken place.

Maybe that's the method they should use to attack the drug dealers: sue the crap out of 'em for the inflicted harm to society?

You're kidding, right? The harm currently in question was inflicted by government.

[Know your rights]

The person who was supposed to verify the address who didn't should be relieved of their post.

I agree.

[takenoprisoner]

"Well, no need for a jury trial is there?

No one is disputing that the illegal intrusion occured.

Think of it like this: if a machinist screws up an assembly line because he was woefully negligent, costing the company enormous amounts of money for his negligence, should he be relieved of duty? If it were my company, I would surely remove him.

If a ship's captain is woefully negligent and crashes his vessel into a bridge, causing serious damage to the bridge and vessel, injuring a number of sailors, should he be disciplined and perhaps removed? I believe so.

If a trains' engineer is woefully negligent and causes his train to derail causing untold harm and injury, should he be disciplined and removed? I believe so.

So why should LEOs who are woefully negligent be immune from discipline and also subject to be relieved from duty like anyone else in the work force?

I believe they should have to play by the same rules as all the rest who hold responsible positions.

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

You got that right. If they knew who the perps were, why didn't they just pick them up on the street and search the house afterwards? They obviously had enough eveidence to obtain a search warrant (assuming they had one). Wouldn't this also mean they had arrest warrants? What's wrong with following a suspect to the grocery store and arresting them in the parking lot? I think these sort of cops need to be charged with a crime.