Blame the victim

Back in 2014:

« When the SWAT team hit the home’s front door with a battering ram, it resisted as if something was up against it, the sheriff said, so one of the officers threw the flash-bang grenade inside the residence.

Once inside the house, the SWAT team realized it was a portable playpen blocking the door, and the flash-bang grenade had landed inside where a 19-month-old was sleeping, the sheriff said. […]

“He’s in the burn unit. We go up to see him and his whole face is ripped open. He has a big cut on his chest,” Phonesavanh told the station at the time. »

Neither of the child’s parents had anything to do with any alleged crime.

A state grand jury failed to act, and the family were left with $1m of medical bills which the state failed to pay. In February, the family filed a federal lawsuit with the child, Bounkham “Bou Bou” Phonesavanh, as the primary defendant.

Now the police lawyers have responded:

To the extent as may be shown by the evidence through discovery, these defendants show that plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were directly and proximately caused by the contributory and comparative negligence of plaintiffs and their failure to exercise ordinary care. […]

To the extent as may be shown by the evidence through discovery, these defendants also assert the affirmatives defenses of assumption of the risk, failure to avoid consequences, laches, failure to mitigate damages, last clear chance and sudden emergency.

Yup, the baby failed to exercise ordinary care and avoid consequences.


Extra pair bonding

« We have long known that men have a genetic, evolutionary impulse to cheat, because that increases the odds of having more of their offspring in the world.

But now there is intriguing new research showing that some women, too, are biologically inclined to wander, although not for clear evolutionary benefits. Women who carry certain variants of the vasopressin receptor gene are much more likely to engage in “extra pair bonding,” the scientific euphemism for sexual infidelity. »


Questioning technicalities

« Cleveland officer acquitted in killings of unarmed pair amid 137-shot barrage

[…] “The state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant Michael Brelo knowingly caused the deaths of Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams,” said Judge John P. O’Donnell in his ruling, “because the essential element of causation was not proved for both counts.”

[…] Brelo, prosecutors said, was the only one who continued to shoot after the threat was over. He climbed onto the hood of the Malibu and shot 15 rounds into the windshield, striking Russell, who was driving, and Williams, who was in the passenger seat. »

Here’s a photo:

So what exactly do you have to do in Cleveland to knowingly cause someone’s death, if standing on the hood of their car and firing 15 rounds through the windshield at them isn’t good enough?