FWIS3

Oh, but kitting cops out like Road Warriors keeps us safe, right? Who needs reasonable force, proper prior investigation, and actual oversight?

After the SWAT team broke down the door, they threw a flashbang grenade inside. It landed in my son’s crib.

Flashbang grenades were created for soldiers to use during battle. When they explode, the noise is so loud and the flash is so bright that anyone close by is temporarily blinded and deafened. It’s been three weeks since the flashbang exploded next to my sleeping baby, and he’s still covered in burns.

There’s still a hole in his chest that exposes his ribs. At least that’s what I’ve been told; I’m afraid to look.

Source: Salon article

Yep. Safe.

ya have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

I've always felt that, as long as we're going with "tough on crime," we should be doubly tough on crime by law enforcement officers. Inflicting permanent injury and brain damage on an infant should easily be worth a decade behind bars.

(But good luck enforcing that, ha ha...)

What the fuck... that poor family.

Can't find too much about this story yet except in local news media (though hopefully that'll change soon), but looks like the local district attorney is investigating. Good.

Gullible Jones wrote:I've always felt that, as long as we're going with "tough on crime," we should be doubly tough on crime by law enforcement officers. Inflicting permanent injury and brain damage on an infant should easily be worth a decade behind bars.

(But good luck enforcing that, ha ha...)

The challenge is to hold law enforcement accountable without creating an environment that prevents them from being effective.

Fisher, to my mind the problem is less of efficacy at this point, than of how the hell you enforce accountability at all when the people doing the enforcing become corrupt. Right now the US so far into LEO-favoring territory that it's not even funny.

Edit: also, just from some of the things I've seen personally, I would say law enforcement is much less effective in this country than it could be. No, no details (not right now anyway) but a lot of awful shit just seems to go under the radar. In this case I don't think the supposed inverse relationship between efficacy and accountability is all that strong.

American law enforcement, you can't pull a car over without probable cause, but you can throw flash grenades into a child's cot and pass it off as enforcement.
So who here thinks that's normal???

SciFiFisher wrote:The challenge is to hold law enforcement accountable without creating an environment that prevents them from being effective.

Since the pendulum is entirely over to the "unaccountable/abuse of power" side at this particular moment in time, let's maybe try to move it back to the centre and worry about effectiveness when that becomes a realistic concern, no? Maybe we'll talk about that once SWAT teams stop putting holes in toddlers, eh?

I mean, come on - this case has nothing to do with effectiveness. The guy they were looking for didn't even live there. You want effectiveness, try having them actually bloody investigate before executing a no-knock warrant. Having a little oversight, having them investigate, having them think would in no way have reduced their effectiveness. In fact, it would have increased it. With the added benefit of not abusing their powers and harming innocent children.

Win-win, as far as I'm concerned.

IMHO if you are performing a military type raid in a civil police setting you need to know exactly who is there before you enter. That's not asking much, it's asking for police to actually do their jobs properly instead of acting like a bunch of amateur weakend warriors. (spelling intentional).

The Supreme Canuck wrote:

SciFiFisher wrote:The challenge is to hold law enforcement accountable without creating an environment that prevents them from being effective.

Since the pendulum is entirely over to the "unaccountable/abuse of power" side at this particular moment in time, let's maybe try to move it back to the centre and worry about effectiveness when that becomes a realistic concern, no? Maybe we'll talk about that once SWAT teams stop putting holes in toddlers, eh?

I mean, come on - this case has nothing to do with effectiveness. The guy they were looking for didn't even live there. You want effectiveness, try having them actually bloody investigate before executing a no-knock warrant. Having a little oversight, having them investigate, having them think would in no way have reduced their effectiveness. In fact, it would have increased it. With the added benefit of not abusing their powers and harming innocent children.

Win-win, as far as I'm concerned.

I agree that they have no business throwing flash bangs on small children. What I want to know is what evidence did they present to the judge to get the warrant? Because in order to go gang busters on a house like that you need a judge to sign the warrant that gives you permission to go gang busters on the house.

I am pretty sure they can't (legally) just decide to start kicking doors down and tossing flash bangs without someone's permission.

I agree - this sort of warrant should have stricter oversight, especially at the authorization level.

And now we have more information.

I just love the following quote.

...and while the family members were aware of drug activity in the home, "they kept the children out of sight in a different room while any of these going-ons were happening."

I'm going to say the police have been painted unfairly in this, and the mother should lose her parental rights.

This

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 the 19-month-old was sleeping, the sheriff said.

who the hell would place a playpen or a crib up against the main door into and out of a residence? What happens if the house catches on fire?

And the reason for the type of warrant issued

A confidential informant hours earlier had purchased methamphetamine at the house, the sheriff says. The informant told police that there were men standing guard outside the home, and it was unclear whether they were armed, according to CNN affiliate WGCL.

Because the suspected drug dealer, Wanis Thonetheva, had a previous weapons charge, officers were issued a "no-knock warrant" for the residence, Terrell said.

And that is what I was saying. Police don't just kick doors down and throw flash bangs for your run of the mill pot dealer. The protocol for the type of raid conducted is only used when violent criminals are suspected. Not withstanding the occasional shotgun toting granny most police teams only go with maximum force on entry when it is believed that they will be dealing highly dangerous, armed suspects.

I'm not sure it makes a difference to me. From that article:

In hindsight, Terrell said, officers would've conducted the raid differently had they known there was a child inside the home, but there was no sign of children during the alleged drug purchase that prompted the raid.

By their own admission, they would have acted differently had they been aware a child was present. Perhaps they should have found out beforehand. Perhaps such an investigation should be mandatory for obtaining a no-knock warrant in all cases. If they do due diligence, and it turns out there was a kid there after they found otherwise, well fine. That means they tried to find out, and that's acceptable. But there is no indication that the police tried to find out if a child was likely to be present prior to obtaining the warrant or prior to executing it at all. All they're saying is "well, we didn't see one when we weren't specifically looking for one."

That's what I find unacceptable. It's negligent.

SciFiFisher wrote:And that is what I was saying. Police don't just kick doors down and throw flash bangs for your run of the mill pot dealer. The protocol for the type of raid conducted is only used when violent criminals are suspected. Not withstanding the occasional shotgun toting granny most police teams only go with maximum force on entry when it is believed that they will be dealing highly dangerous, armed suspects.

Problem with that is you're saying the police department used the correct procedure in determining how to handle a bust.
By correct procedure, I mean they used an informant buying drugs from the house.
Because I know that all of us want to have police trust a drug addict/informant when basing their decision on how much force they are going to use entering a house.

Got to agree with TSC here...which means this time he's right
You have to consider the sources and a drug buying informant has as little credibility as far as that goes.
If the police department puts all their pre-mission information on that one source then they are just as credible.
Just IMHO mind you but I figure most people would agree with me here.

Imagine the military running like that...of course we entered the the school with cluster bombs, Osama's Second in command told us there were dangerous people in there! lol

The parents are pretty screwed up but now so is their kid.

I've reflected on this and done more research. According to the mother, they opened the door and then released the grenade.

Also, why is a SWAT team being sent to deal with suspected drug activity?

And why can't they get the address of the suspected perpetrator correct?

Here's another question. The police department keeps saying they would have acted differently had they known a child was present. Why couldn't they have done whatever they would do if they knew a child was present?

SciFi Chick wrote:I've reflected on this and done more research. According to the mother, they opened the door and then released the grenade.

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.

I call bullshit.
If a crib is blocking the door then it's behind the door wedged against a wall so you couldn't get a flash grenade into it.
If it's not wedged anyone can push a crib out of the way, particularly adrenalin pumped members of SWAT more particularly, they would see what it was had they looked.

Here's my summary of what happened:
Oooh, the door didn't fully open.
WTF do we do now?
We didn't expect this shit.
Quick, throw in a flash grenade in case someone is planning on coming at us with full military hardware because our stealth prowess has been shat upon and we need to maintain our coolness factor and maintain our pro SWAT status.
Oh fuck. We just burned a baby. Fuck, maybe when the marines rejected me it should have told me I wasn't meant to do SWAT.
Quick, make up some shit so we don't lose our job or come out looking like complete twats.
Yeah, the crib man, it was behind the door jamming it. That's it.

Too late. You all look like twats.

SciFi Chick wrote:Here's another question. The police department keeps saying they would have acted differently had they known a child was present. Why couldn't they have done whatever they would do if they knew a child was present?

Because they go into the place in full Rambo mode unless they're given a reason not to. Which is fucked up in itself; adults have rights, too. Even those who are accused of committing crimes. Especially them, in fact.

The Supreme Canuck wrote:

SciFi Chick wrote:Here's another question. The police department keeps saying they would have acted differently had they known a child was present. Why couldn't they have done whatever they would do if they knew a child was present?

Because they go into the place in full Rambo mode unless they're given a reason not to. Which is fucked up in itself; adults have rights, too. Even those who are accused of committing crimes. Especially them, in fact.

Which was sort of my point. I wonder if movies like Rambo have influenced these morons.

SciFi Chick wrote:Which was sort of my point.

Yes, I was agreeing with you.

I wonder if movies like Rambo have influenced these morons.

Almost certainly. I knew a guy in high school who was in the Reserves, and went on to be an armed security guard. He definitely took cues from that sort of thing. I imagine more than a few cops are the same way.

The Supreme Canuck wrote:Because they go into the place in full Rambo mode unless they're given a reason not to. Which is fucked up in itself; adults have rights, too. Even those who are accused of committing crimes. Especially them, in fact.

If you are accused you're half guilty.

You are totally guilty if you have lock picks in your possession in Virginia though.
Possession is intent to commit crime in this case. Go figure.
Go to prison for having lock picks or something that can be used as a lock pick, but you can have a .5cal Barrett no problem.
wtf is wrong with that picture?

I think this tactic should be applied to politicians.
You possess a government office, thus you are guilty of lying and trying to screw the general population.
It should be law.

So now apparently the ACLU is questioning why small town police need two grenade launchers

Interesting read...

Even the current police chief has no idea why they'd need them:

Of the grenade launchers, Chief Ronald P. Campurciani said they have never been used in the field nor will they ever be.

"I cannot think of a scenario where we would employ those weapons," Campurciani said.

So... he sounds reasonable. The previous chief, though? Not so much:

Burke said the weapons allowed the department to be prepared for incidents such as school shootings.

He added, "The bad guys have no rules. We have all the rules. Don’t worry about us, we’re trained. If we need them, we’ll use them. If we don’t need them, we won’t use them."

School shootings? Pardon-fucking-me?! Yes. Let's respond to a school shooting with grenade launchers. Good idea. Asshole.

Also... "Naw, brah... it's cool. Trust us." isn't a way to run a police force. There are, in fact, constitutional guarantees against that.

Man's been watching too much Buffy.