Another isolated incident: cops maim toddler with flash grenade

[ravdin]

From the front lines of our government's morally righteous and ultimately winnable War On Drugs:

Sometime before 3 a.m. on May 28, a SWAT team consisting of Habersham County sheriff's deputies and Cornelia police officers broke into that room. One of the cops tossed a flash-bang grenade, which creates a blinding light and loud noise that are supposed to disorient the targets of a raid. It landed in Bou Bou's playpen and exploded in his face, causing severe burns and a deep chest wound.

The cops were looking for the Phonesavanhs' 30-year-old nephew, Wanis Thonetheva, who a few hours before had allegedly sold methamphetamine to a confidential informant from the same doorway through which the SWAT team entered. They had obtained a "no knock" warrant by claiming Thonetheva was apt to be armed and dangerous.

Thonetheva was not there, and police did not find any drugs, cash, or guns either. When they arrested him later that morning at a different location, he had about an ounce of meth but no weapons.

When a psycho goes on a rampage with a gun, we hear a lot of cries of "not one more!" and calls for increased gun control. But when a SWAT team throws a flash grenade into a toddler's crib in a 3 AM no knock raid, it's business as usual. No need to question either the police tactics or the premise of drug prohibition by any means necessary.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/06/04/how-cops-become-baby-burners

 

[marplots]

I don't support meth dealing. Is there a middle ground where I can have fewer injured toddlers and still arrest meth dealers? I pick that.

 

[Cain]

For some ridiculous reason, I imagined police would confirm their intended target was in fact at the residence. Is that cost-prohibitive?

Also, when it comes to drug dealers, raid the houses when they're sleeping -- at 10 a.m.

 

[Puppycow]

I don't support meth dealing. Is there a middle ground where I can have fewer injured toddlers and still arrest meth dealers? I pick that.

As a basic philosophical matter, do you think it is your right to tell other people how to live if they aren't doing anything that harms you directly?

I agree that meth is harmful, but don't see it as my place or the place of others to arrest people who use it as long as they aren't harming others.



I also imagine that in a world without laws against recreational drug use, that recreational drugs would actually be safer, because pharmaceutical companies would have an incentive to create new drugs that are safer and still enjoyable for recreational use. Maybe that's just a pipe dream; I don't know. Why would people use dangerous recreational drugs if safer ones were available?

 

[marplots]

As a basic philosophical matter, do you think it is your right to tell other people how to live if they aren't doing anything that harms you directly?

Yes. Sometimes. For example, if I have a child under my care, or even see a child under another's care that is being mistreated.

I agree that meth is harmful, but don't see it as my place or the place of others to arrest people who use it as long as they aren't harming others.

I'm not philosophically opposed to this, but think there is an element of victimization as well. Would you try to stop someone from committing suicide or mandate seatbelt use for the general protection of the public?

I'd also add there is an infectious nature about it and that users might not be fully aware of what they are getting into. If it isn't an informed choice, that might skew our response. For example, I am for regulating items that are harmful in general and especially if that harm is concealed from potential users.

I also imagine that in a world without laws against recreational drug use, that recreational drugs would actually be safer, because pharmaceutical companies would have an incentive to create new drugs that are safer and still enjoyable for recreational use. Maybe that's just a pipe dream; I don't know. Why would people use dangerous recreational drugs if safer ones were available?

Other than price? Well, usually because they want to use legal drugs outside of the regulated restrictions. So I might find I like my Percocet and want to take more than my doctor prescribed.

Quality is certainly an issue, but I think uninformed users more so. There's an element of self-experimentation and pushing limits involved. If I like my Percocet buzz, why not add a few drinks to see what that's like? Pharmacology is an expertise for a reason.

I'm addicted to tobacco and I think part of the rationale for the famous lawsuit was the harm to society from all of us smokers stealing medical care from those who chose not to smoke. Arguably, so long as I am a member of society, my actions have the potential to affect others in that society. How much they do is certainly up for debate, and when it is worth stepping in as well, but the idea of never doing so seems too far into idealism for me.

 

[BardKesnit]

Just a few things to point out...

The police knew the meth dealers had weapons in the house. A flash grenade is a non-lethal option to incapacitate people who are known to be armed. The flash grenade was not aimed at the crib. That it landed in the crib was an accident.

 

[Information Analyst]

Just a few things to point out...

The police knew the meth dealers had weapons in the house. A flash grenade is a non-lethal option to incapacitate people who are known to be armed. The flash grenade was not aimed at the crib. That it landed in the crib was an accident.

Which bit of, "police did not find any drugs, cash, or guns either," didn't you understand?

 

[Octavo]

I also imagine that in a world without laws against recreational drug use, that recreational drugs would actually be safer, because pharmaceutical companies would have an incentive to create new drugs that are safer and still enjoyable for recreational use. Maybe that's just a pipe dream; I don't know. Why would people use dangerous recreational drugs if safer ones were available?

I'm in agreement with you about allowing people to do what they want provided they aren't harming others, however I think the above is a bit naive. If recreational drugs were perfectly legal, I could see a few companies producing compounds that were deliberately and massively addictive and in addition, I don't think that you could ever completely destroy the black market for drugs.

It's all pure speculation of course, but I have a feeling that legalization wouldn't be the silver bullet you appear to be painting it as here (I apologise if I'm characterising your point here).

 

[Aepervius]

I don't support meth dealing. Is there a middle ground where I can have fewer injured toddlers and still arrest meth dealers? I pick that.

Well you could do it like police was doing it 20 years ago : instead of using a no knock warrant and kill the dog and burn the toddler on an informant info, you could investigate, watch the place, and build a case, and really determine if you really need to break in like an mini army.

very obviously in this case there was no investigation in before hand whatsoever.

But, hey That's my two cents.

 

[Aepervius]

Just a few things to point out...

The police knew the meth dealers had weapons in the house. A flash grenade is a non-lethal option to incapacitate people who are known to be armed. The flash grenade was not aimed at the crib. That it landed in the crib was an accident.

No they did not KNEW it, they supposed it from the "confidential informant" statement.

Again, they did not do any investigation beside what the "informant" told them.

 

[Aepervius]

I'm in agreement with you about allowing people to do what they want provided they aren't harming others, however I think the above is a bit naive. If recreational drugs were perfectly legal, I could see a few companies producing compounds that were deliberately and massively addictive and in addition, I don't think that you could ever completely destroy the black market for drugs.

It's all pure speculation of course, but I have a feeling that legalization wouldn't be the silver bullet you appear to be painting it as here (I apologise if I'm characterising your point here).

I agree, one should only see the live black market for cigarettes for examples, still existing.

But whereas I agree that the black market would not be gone, it would not be as huge and would certainly not be as lucrative, or even as dangerous, and we would certainly not legally destroy the lives of people just because they are using drugs, and the drug quality would be controlled, all of which out-weight IMHO the "but the black market would not be gone".

 

[12AX7]

Or they could have waited and picked this guy up when he went to the store or something, no fuss and (hopefully) no mess. But no, they had to get that meth dealer at 3am.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Well you could do it like police was doing it 20 years ago : instead of using a no knock warrant and kill the dog and burn the toddler on an informant info, you could investigate, watch the place, and build a case, and really determine if you really need to break in like an mini army.

very obviously in this case there was no investigation in before hand whatsoever.

But, hey That's my two cents.

Yea, but that's nowhere near as fun!

 

[Cleon]

Well you could do it like police was doing it 20 years ago : instead of using a no knock warrant and kill the dog and burn the toddler on an informant info, you could investigate, watch the place, and build a case, and really determine if you really need to break in like an mini army.

very obviously in this case there was no investigation in before hand whatsoever.

But, hey That's my two cents.

Three problems with that:

1. It requires effort.
2. It doesn't let cops use their fancy toys.
3. What, are you pro-drug or something?

 

[marplots]

I get the idea that legalization would reduce the violent crime. But when I imagine a corporation getting their paws on something like meth... well, I don't trust them much either, and they are quite good at expanding markets. Enhanced Boost Energy Drink anyone?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Three problems with that:

1. It requires effort.
2. It doesn't let cops use their fancy toys.
3. What, are you pro-drug or something?

It also costs more to stake out a house for a week than going in on probable cause.

And how many no- knock warrants do you suppose are conducted every singe day that we never hear about? More than you think.

 

[newyorkguy]

...And how many no-knock warrants do you suppose are conducted every single day that we never hear about? More than you think.

Police have to get a judge to issue a warrant before conducting a no-knock search, however there are many, probably a couple hundred no-knock raids every day.

The number of no-knock raids...has grown in use from 2,000 to 3,000 raids a year in the mid-1980s, to 70,000 to 80,000 annually, says Peter Kraska, a professor of criminal justice at Eastern Kentucky University who tracks the issue. Link

These tactics can result in injuries to innocent bystanders, but as stated by the OP, given the overall number of raids, they are exceedingly rare. The more traditional method of affecting arrests -- surveillance and a stop -- are not without risks either.

 

[William Parcher]

(Habersham County Sheriff Joey) Terrell said his team made an undercover drug buy at the house just a few hours before the raid.

When sheriff's deputies and Cornelia police officers, who make up the Special Response team, obtained a no-knock warrant and tried to go into the drug suspect's house just after midnight Wednesday, something was blocking the door from the inside. Terrell said they didn't know it was the playpen of the 19-month-old child, and that the boy was in the playpen sleeping.

"There was an obstruction, they inserted a flash bang, they had to push the door open. When they entered the door, they noticed it was a playpen, or like a pack-and-play type device," Terrell said. "There was a young child in the pack-and-play."

The flash grenade had exploded next to the child, Bou Phonesavanh. He suffered serious burns. Family friends have sent up a gofundme.com site to raise money for his medical expenses.

The sheriff did arrest the suspect, Wanis Thomethera, 30, along with three others. He said his deputies interviewed the parents, who told them that the suspect is a relative, and that the family only recently moved in with him because their house in Wisconsin burned.

Source.

 

[Information Analyst]

I'm in agreement with you about allowing people to do what they want provided they aren't harming others, however I think the above is a bit naive. If recreational drugs were perfectly legal, I could see a few companies producing compounds that were deliberately and massively addictive and in addition, I don't think that you could ever completely destroy the black market for drugs.

It's all pure speculation of course, but I have a feeling that legalization wouldn't be the silver bullet you appear to be painting it as here (I apologise if I'm characterising your point here).

Legalising certain certain recreational drugs wouldn't automatically mean that any newly-invented ones would be, as well.

If MDMA, for example, could be bought from a pharmacy, why would there be a black market for it, unless the officially-sanctioned product was massively overpriced?

 

[IDB87]

Sounds like the cops made a bou-bou...