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.

[jw777]

easy killer. take your ritalin.

[Still Thinking]

I remember when the police LOOKED like police. Now it is a bit difficult to tell them from the bad guys. Faces covered, ID covered, middle of the night raids.

I don't even think that matters. It's not like it would be hard for home invader types to buy police uniforms, or facsimiles, and use police like tactics when breaking in.

Why should the burden be on the homeowner to hold his fire, then find out he guessed wrong? I say if the cops bust in, you should be able to ventilate them with impunity unless they can come up with some foolproof way for the breakin-ees to ascertain their ID BEFORE they enter.

[VRing]

That was jw777 that said that, not me.

[The Red Zone]

The law is like 40 years behind the times on this. Caveat shootor.

[VRing]

"easy killer. take your ritalin."

What department do you work for?

[A CA Guy]

There is a certain amount of errors and omissions insurance, but the court stuff is way out of line and the jury awards are insane.

Trial lawyer reform and lawsuit reforms are needed.

[Still Thinking]

Then shoot the law! ;-)

[jw777]

Which ACLU branch do you work for?

[The Red Zone]

People praise free market economics until its result happens to get nasty on them in a particular case. There is no law that calls for $8 million or $20 million or 20 cent lawsuits, they were arrived at through the balance of many forces. Dare to disturb that equilibrium only with the greatest solicitude for unintended consequences.

[traditional1]

Oops...my bad. Sorry :)

[traditional1]

"They can't pay their bills, and they go out of business.Yeah, those Lawyers have it rough. I haven't seen a lot of them at the Soup Kitchen, though, so I would think not too many of them go broke.....

[The Red Zone]

Paying back law school bills is not usually a piece of cake any more than it is for doctors to pay back their school bills. Wise business practices can mean the difference between influence in high profile cases and writing wills all day.

[Republican Party Reptile]

I agree 100% with that...it's the "pain, suffering, loss of consortium, etc., etc., plus PUNITIVE DAMAGES in the Millions" that's out of control. Reasonable compensation in addition to ACTUAL DAMAGES is where it needs to be, and the Lawyer-Lobby that holds the purse-strings of re-election campaigns have bought their jackpot for the forseeable future, as tort reform will NEVER eliminate the price-gouging practices.

umm, after all, the whole idea of PUNITIVE DAMAGES is to inflict punishment, so it SHOULD be financially painful. To only recompensate "Reasonable Compensation" suggest there is no need for punishment - it's all in the day's work and no wrong was done???

[Ditto]

In the middle of the night there is a reasonable explanation as to the mix up of addresses involved, and that is most likely what happened.

In the middle of the night, awoken from a sound sleep, many of us would have ended up in a shootout with the "intruders" and someone would have been hurt.

It seems like the PD needs some stronger message than "buying a new front door" to encourage them to be more cautious.

If you look at the government mandated fines (not civil lawsuits) imposed by Federal and State agencies on regulated businesses such as airlines, utilities and manufacturers that "screw up", perhaps $8 million is too high. But $50 k is IMHO way to low to get the level of attention that screw-ups like this deserve.

[The Red Zone]

If this were the Feds, no punitive damages would be possible. Thank Congress for that, I guess.

[A CA Guy]

The problem is that juries these days mostly consists of welfare people, government employees and only a few who are not **dependent** minded.

There needs to be limitations on what juries can award under situations unless there was proved intent that the Judge also agrees with that suggest punitive damages are due.

There needs reforms and perhaps if possible professional jurors some day if we keep getting outrageous results.

I don't think law enforcement drove to this place intending to break into the wrong area.

Some mistakes happen, we don't want ANY but all they can do is review and do the best they can to avoid a similar mistake in the future.

Even surgeons accidentally kill people now and then without intention of doing so and they also do future surgeries.

[The Red Zone]

A law that would make recompense for this kind of thing easier at the option of the plaintiffs though a binding arbitration of a civilian panel with a ceiling that moves in a fixed proportion to the history of successful lawsuit awards, would be the only reform I would suggest.

[The Red Zone]

Lets see, if I build a nuke in my back yard but only accidentally hit the button, I should get off easy because it was accidental. Sorry, with the more power comes the more duty for care with it.

[JavaTheHutt]

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.

[A CA Guy]

You can only build a nuke in your backyard in Iran. So if that were the case, would be glad to hear the button was hit.

In America, we have at least 6 verifications from high levels before we set off nukes.

That is not like going through a door.

A plane did fly into an apartment house in Fullerton California and they did not stop other planes or close down the Fullerton airport.