[PalmettoMason]

Two questions:

1) Aren't the detaining authorities responsible for the well being of a subject who is in "custody" Isn't that why we feed, clothe, provide medical and dental care, psychological counseling, and legal council to those who are in the custody of the government authorities? Seems to me that once they surrounded the home and denied access, the victim was in "custody". They denied medical attention to a subject that was in their custody.

2) The SWAT officers claim that they did not know the situation inside the house after the shooting, so for safety reasons they did not allow medical personnel inside to attend to the wounded victim. IF ONE OF THEIR OWN TEAM MEMBERS HAD BEEN WOUNDED AND WAS DOWN INSIDE THE HOUSE, WOULD THEY HAVE DENIED ENTRY TO MEDICAL PERSONNEL FOR AND HOUR AND FIFTEEN MINUTES IN THE INTEREST OF "SAFETY"?

[Still Thinking]

1) Aren't the detaining authorities responsible for the well being of a subject who is in "custody" Isn't that why we feed, clothe, provide medical and dental care, psychological counseling, and legal council to those who are in the custody of the government authorities? Seems to me that once they surrounded the home and denied access, the victim was in "custody". They denied medical attention to a subject that was in their custody.

Actually, that's what "custody" means, care.

[OneWingedShark]

>1) Aren’t the detaining authorities responsible for the well being of a subject who is in “custody” Isn’t that why we feed, clothe, provide medical and dental care, psychological counseling, and legal council to those who are in the custody of the government authorities? Seems to me that once they surrounded the home and denied access, the victim was in “custody”. They denied medical attention to a subject that was in their custody.

The court will rule that the bleeding victim — and there is no doubt that he was a victim if injustice & incompetence (if not flat malice) — was not actually in their custody based on the claim that the area was not secured.

>2) The SWAT officers claim that they did not know the situation inside the house after the shooting, so for safety reasons they did not allow medical personnel inside to attend to the wounded victim. IF ONE OF THEIR OWN TEAM MEMBERS HAD BEEN WOUNDED AND WAS DOWN INSIDE THE HOUSE, WOULD THEY HAVE DENIED ENTRY TO MEDICAL PERSONNEL FOR AND HOUR AND FIFTEEN MINUTES IN THE INTEREST OF “SAFETY”?

And therein you make the fatal mistake of assuming that the SWAT care about anyone not wearing their “special super-duper secret club” uniform. To their mindset non-officials are increasingly becoming like the dogs and cats slain in SWAT raids: perfectly acceptable losses.

[sport]

"Safety" did not have a damn thing to do with it, Palmetto. The murdering bastards wanted to make sure that the poor guy was dead. I have read the posts of those on these threads thay, in one way or another, try to defend the SWAT guys or rationalize their conduct. In my humble opinion, no decent individual can/ will defend them. To me, their conduct is indefensible, but that hasn't stopped some from trying.

And what is even more sickening to me is that the Swat team will get away with murdering the poor guy.