Another isolated incident: cops maim toddler with flash grenade

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If that toddler had been armed, he could have defended himself.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

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

Yeah, let's make fun of the burned toddler's name.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

Only the meth dealer didn't have weapons.

There is too much "collateral damage" in the drug war.

What happens is police departments nationwide use the war on drugs to justify their SWAT teams, which require a lot of specialized equipment, paid training and overtime for the participating officers. Once a police department has a SWAT team, they have to use it to justify it's continued existence, so they're used on every drug bust they can, even when there is no evidence the suspect is armed or violent.

Police departments should be demilitarized, "no knock" warrants should be abolished, and we should become the nation that respects the rights of its citizens like we profess ourselves to be.

 

[Mycroft]

Serving a warrant and trying to apprehend a suspect is "basic police work."

Just not enough "basic police work". A little more, in this case, would have gone a long way in actually protecting the community.

 

[Mycroft]

There would seem to be another danger when a family member is drug dealing. Crooks come to the house to get the cash that they know is inside even if the dealer isn't there. The outcome of that event might be worse than a flash grenade.

Anyway all the dangers start when a family member decides to deal in drugs.

Is your argument here that the police shouldn't be concerned with the safety of children if it can be argued that the drug dealer himself has increased the child's danger?

 

[mgidm86]

(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.

I knew when I saw this post that people here would ignore the hilighted portions and keep right on arguing.

Does anyone set aside any blame for the people who kept a toddlers crib blocking the door of a drug dealers place of business?

quote from Aepervius:

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

Except for the drugs that the team bought from the house 3 hours earlier. And who knows, maybe they did even more.

I am against no-knocks and the general "police state" stuff, but I try to be skeptical anyways.

 

[Babbylonian]

Except for the drugs that the team bought from the house 3 hours earlier. And who knows, maybe they did even more.

We know at least a couple things they did: They left the house unattended for 3 hours (allowing the criminal to leave), then they came back, initiated what appears to be entirely unnecessary violence (first breaking the door then blindly throwing an incendiary device), and in the process critically wounded a toddler.

We have exactly zero evidence so far that this was in any way reasonable police action.

 

[ravdin]

Does anyone set aside any blame for the people who kept a toddlers crib blocking the door of a drug dealers place of business?

That's in dispute. The mother of the toddler claims that it's a lie that the crib was blocking the door.

 

[Chaos]

Does anyone set aside any blame for the people who kept a toddlers crib blocking the door of a drug dealers place of business?

Because they should have known the SWAT team would try to come through that door?

Except for the drugs that the team bought from the house 3 hours earlier. And who knows, maybe they did even more.

If they´d done more that justifies the SWAT raid, surely they´d have mentioned it in their defense?

That's in dispute. The mother of the toddler claims that it's a lie that the crib was blocking the door.

And even if it was blocking the door - are parents now obliged to not put their kid´s crib in a place where it might inconvenience a SWAT team launching a raid on their house?

 

[marplots]

Did I get it wrong that this was the drug dealer's house and the other people were just on an extended visit? Did SWAT even know they were there?

 

[Chaos]

Did I get it wrong that this was the drug dealer's house and the other people were just on an extended visit? Did SWAT even know they were there?

Isn´t finding that out the sort of thing that falls under "basic police work"?

 

[marplots]

Did I get it wrong that this was the drug dealer's house and the other people were just on an extended visit? Did SWAT even know they were there?

Isn´t finding that out the sort of thing that falls under "basic police work"?

Sure, and it's not even that hard to do. You tap into the sewer line, take stool samples and have them analyzed for DNA to determine how many individuals reside there. To double check for infants (whose stool may go into the garbage instead of down the toilet), you also confiscate any trash that's put out on the curb. Next, you want to take advantage of consilience and get converging lines of evidence. So, you tap into their phones and computer hook-ups, perhaps getting conversations or facebook posts which may reveal more info. Next, you bounce lasers off their windows to record any conversations (or baby cries!). And finally, just before the raid (because you want real time data), you use infrared technology to image the inside of the building. A stealth helicopter comes in handy here, because you can get images from above as well.

It's becoming apparent that these police officers do not watch crime dramas on television.

 

[Babbylonian]

It's becoming apparent that these police officers do not watch crime dramas on television.

No, it's apparent that these police officers do get their inspiration from watching TV, where breaking down doors and lying to get warrants happens all the time. Otherwise, they would have kept the suspect under surveillance while obtaining their warrant and they would have known that he left the building. Doing it the way they did meant that, even if they were right about needing a *********** SWAT team, they were letting a "likely armed" (their justification for the no-knock warrant) and dangerous suspect roam around free for hours.

Of course, that assumes that their goal was an arrest and subsequent search. If the suspect was under surveillance, then the officer(s) could have arrested the suspect outside the home, which would have required a separate warrant to enter the home and search...they wouldn't get a no-knock warrant for that, and there would be no flimsy excuse for the cops to get their rocks off toting assault weapons and throwing grenades.

It doesn't surprise me when police chiefs make excuses for the animals in their employ but it never fails to surprise me when uninvolved third parties do the same.

 

[ravdin]

Sure, and it's not even that hard to do. You tap into the sewer line, take stool samples and have them analyzed for DNA to determine how many individuals reside there. To double check for infants (whose stool may go into the garbage instead of down the toilet), you also confiscate any trash that's put out on the curb. Next, you want to take advantage of consilience and get converging lines of evidence. So, you tap into their phones and computer hook-ups, perhaps getting conversations or facebook posts which may reveal more info. Next, you bounce lasers off their windows to record any conversations (or baby cries!). And finally, just before the raid (because you want real time data), you use infrared technology to image the inside of the building. A stealth helicopter comes in handy here, because you can get images from above as well.

It's becoming apparent that these police officers do not watch crime dramas on television.

For the sake of argument, I will momentarily suspend my disbelief and accept the warped premise that a SWAT team is how we should confront a small time meth dealer. In that case, some surveillance ahead of time would reveal a lot about who is inside the house. It would seem to me that it's a good idea from the cops' point of view to know how many people are inside before a raid. The downside of this approach is that it's awfully boring to sit in a car as opposed to busting down a door, brandishing weapons and shouting orders.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Isn´t finding that out the sort of thing that falls under "basic police work"?

Yes, but "basic police work" is boring and tedious, whereas kicking down a door without knowing who is on the other side is EXCITING.

 

[Psi Baba]

The question that needs to be asked is what did this raid accomplish and at what cost?

 

[William Parcher]

At the minimum a message went out.

"Dear Drug (Meth) Dealer, you are placing yourself, family, friends, children and visitors in potential danger of all kinds. Stop dealing and the dangers will go away."

But will they listen? Will they ever listen and learn?

 

[lobosrul]

At the minimum a message went out.

"Dear Drug (Meth) Dealer, you are placing yourself, family, friends, children and visitors in potential danger of all kinds. Stop dealing and the dangers will go away."

But will they listen? Will they ever listen and learn?

That is digging extraordinarily deeply to find a positive coming out of a child being seriously burned.

Maybe we should let the police cripple more drug dealers baby cousins. I'm sure they'll get the message and stop their ways eventually.

 

[William Parcher]

"Dear Meth Dealers, we are sorry you are losing sleep with worry. Our police have been totally retrained and nobody will be in any more danger because of it. So stop worrying, get some good sleep and have an awesome day tomorrow."

 

[marplots]

For the sake of argument, I will momentarily suspend my disbelief and accept the warped premise that a SWAT team is how we should confront a small time meth dealer. In that case, some surveillance ahead of time would reveal a lot about who is inside the house. It would seem to me that it's a good idea from the cops' point of view to know how many people are inside before a raid. The downside of this approach is that it's awfully boring to sit in a car as opposed to busting down a door, brandishing weapons and shouting orders.

OK, I'll suspend my disbelief as well and for the sake of argument assume the cops are omniscient.

Now they know who is in the house. How does anything change? It's still a location where drugs are being sold - as recently as that day if I remember correctly. If they knew there was a toddler inside, they have more reason not to delay - the child is in danger - not less reason.