Police throw a FLASH BANG in an Infant’s crib – Poor Aim

The no-knock raid was prompted by an anonymous tip which suggested there were drugs in the house. As the officers forced their way into the home, they chucked a flash grenade which landed in the babys cot and the infant suffered severe burns and had to be taken to the hospital, and placed in a medically induced coma. For obvious reasons, the sheriff™s department would be responsible for the damage inflicted on this child. Not only were there no drugs in the house, but the suspect they were looking for was found elsewhere. However, the family had to FIGHT to get their $1 million dollar medical bill re-imbursed from the state. Bro, a flash bang detonates at 2,000-3,500 degrees. That landing in an infants cot? The dude had to be placed in a coma, thats how bad it was.
And you know what, even when they took it into court, this was the Police departments response:

The act of sleeping in a room about to be breached by a SWAT team constituted criminal conduct on the part of the infant. At the very least, the infant was fully liable for the nearly fatal injuries inflicted on him when Habersham County Sheriff™s Deputy Charles Long blindly heaved a flash-bang grenade “ a destructive device, as described by the ATF, that when detonated burns at 2,000-3,500 degrees Fahrenheit “ into the crib. Merely by being in that room, Bou-Bou had assumed the risk of coming under attack by a SWAT team. By impeding the trajectory of that grenade, rather than fleeing from his crib, Bou-Bou failed to avoid the consequences of that attack. In any case, Bou-Bou, along with his parents and his siblings, are fully and exclusively to blame for the injuries that nearly killed the child and left the family with more than one million dollars in medical bills. The SWAT team that invaded the home in Cornelia, Georgia on the basis of a bogus anonymous tip that a $50 drug transaction had occurred there is legally blameless.

When photographic evidence of the baby™s horrific injuries were shown in court, the defendants denied that the photograph accurately depicts the injuries allegedly sustained. The statement goes on to the blame the parents and the baby because the damages caused to the child were directly and proximately caused by the contributory and comparative negligence of the plaintiffs and their failure to exercise ordinary care.