Another isolated incident: cops maim toddler with flash grenade

[Noztradamus]

They are probably reviewing procedure since this one was thrown next to a little kid.

Any review of procedure implies they were in the wrong. What they will do is establish an enquiry to find established procedure was correctly followed and no blame attaches.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Here's a suggestion: stop generalizing from the specific to general. Secondary suggestion:

How were the police to know a toddler was there? The general reply appears (correct me if I'm wrong) to be: Don't use no-knocks.

Well, okay then. How do they apprehend dangerous criminals? Surround the house? Let them potentially take a hostage?

 

[Babbylonian]

Here's a suggestion: stop generalizing from the specific to general. Secondary suggestion:

How were the police to know a toddler was there? The general reply appears (correct me if I'm wrong) to be: Don't use no-knocks.

Well, okay then. How do they apprehend dangerous criminals? Surround the house? Let them potentially take a hostage?

I won't speak for anyone else but I would never suggest taking an option off the table in all cases. The problem here isn't that no-knock warrants exist, nor is it that flashbang grenades are available to SWAT teams. The problems are that:
a) they could have arrested the dealer as soon as the drugs were sold (and clearly pretty easily since the stooge they used to buy the drugs was able to get access to the dealer),
b) if they wanted to wait for a search warrant to be executed at the same time, they could have taken the guy on the street as he came out and then gotten their search warrant,
c) they either lied to get their no-knock warrant or the standard to get it isn't stringent enough (just saying that someone is a drug dealer shouldn't be even close to enough; there should be some evidence of weaponry or violent behavior), and
d) they clearly didn't do enough to ascertain what was going on in the home before making their assault (setting aside the child, even if this had truly been a place filled with dangerous criminals, the flashbang may have done nothing to incapacitate someone with a weapon if that someone was in a different room).

 

[Newtons Bit]

Here's a suggestion: stop generalizing from the specific to general. Secondary suggestion:

How were the police to know a toddler was there? The general reply appears (correct me if I'm wrong) to be: Don't use no-knocks.

The correct answer is: surveillance. If the cops are so concerned about their own safety in apprehending a suspect that they want guys with automatic weapons, body armor and flashbangs, then they should also be concerned enough to monitor the house for a short period of time to determine the number of occupants in the house and whether or not they are a threat.

 

[pgwenthold]

Here's a suggestion: stop generalizing from the specific to general. Secondary suggestion:

How were the police to know a toddler was there?

Let's start with a more basic question:

How were they to know that the guilty party was NOT there?

The person they were looking for wasn't even there.

This is what I am wondering. Let's see, undercover person buys meth from a person at the place in the afternoon. They bust the door down in the middle of the night. Somewhere, in between, the perp left. How can that happen with no one knowing about it? Why wasn't someone watching the house to make sure that the person they are trying to arrest hasn't left?

 

[marplots]

Try giving us the silent treatment for awhile. I hate that.

It's been two days, did it work yet?

 

[ravdin]

Update: Haversham County is refusing to pay for Boo Boo's medical bills. Because the War On Drugs means never having to say you're sorry.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...hed-drug-raids-that-brought-injury-and-death/

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Here's a suggestion: stop generalizing from the specific to general. Secondary suggestion:

How were the police to know a toddler was there? The general reply appears (correct me if I'm wrong) to be: Don't use no-knocks.

Well, okay then. How do they apprehend dangerous criminals? Surround the house? Let them potentially take a hostage?

Maybe there was a clue or two...

....the van in the driveway had child seats, there were toys on the lawn, and a neighbor even warned officers as they approached .

http://www.teaparty.org/grand-jury-cops-threw-grenade-baby-real-victims-60970/

I'm resurrecting this because A 23 member grand jury recently announced that: … the police officers from a Georgia SWAT team will not face any charges in relation to harming and disfiguring the face of the toddler named Bounkham Phonesavanh.


Apparently there is now a Federal investigation underway..

 

[BenBurch]

Appalling.

 

[Matthew Best]

The report of the Grand Jury is available here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1310817-bou-bou-phonesavanh-grand-jury.html

And a story at BuzzFeed News is here:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mikehayes/how-a-meth-deal-and-a-botched-raid-left-a-baby-maimed#3jbk90i

What's particularly galling is that the alleged drug dealer was arrested later, at his own home, by simply knocking on his door.

 

[bit_pattern]

It would be doubtful whether any legalised regime would encompass either methamphetamine or crack cocaine (by definition, "recreational" wouldn't include heroin, either). It seems to be the case generally that meth flourishes in those areas where cocaine and MDMA are less-obtainable (ditto oxycodone, for that matter), which is certainly the case in Europe - in the UK meth was virtually unheard of until fairly recently, and is still regarded as something exotically different.

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?

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?

Precisely. In fact, there is already a HUGE "legal high" market for substances that are a poor imitation - and often more dangerous substitute for - drugs that are currently illegal.

Case in point the synthetic cannabinoid chemicals. They are marketed as legal alternatives for cannabis. They are napthalene based chemicals that attach to the THC receptors in the brain but because they are unrelated to THC chemically they don't show up in drug tests. So people who would otherwise smoke relatively benign cannabis, the effects of which are a known quantity and have been tested on humans for literally thousands of years, are instead choosing to engage in this "legal" market of chemicals of a completely unknown quantity to get around the law. These chemicals are increasingly proving to be highly addictive and resulting in health consequences that regular cannabis simply doesn't. And the long term consequences are completely unknown - although it can be assumed that there will be significant health risks, with researchers postulating that the chemical structure could well result in conditions such as brain cancer in the future.

Then there is the boom in dopaminergic substances that mimic drugs like amphetamine and cocaine - both of which aren't without their problems but some of the new chemicals such as MDPV and mephedrone are proving to have all kinds of nasty side effects that would appear worse than the drugs they seek to mimic.

 

[bit_pattern]

It's not like interactions with violent criminals can't be gentle and caring.

Since when did conducting a financial transaction between consenting parties become a violent crime?



Friedman must be spinning in his grave.