T Nation

2 YO Burned by Flash Grenade in Police Raid

From

[quote]

Just SOP, no negligence, or accountability.

I can not believe the cops can justify this to them selves let alone you and I

Having a 2 year old I would probably maim the person responsible, still, part of being a parent is dont get into situations that makes people kick in your door to your familys home.

[quote]espenl wrote:
dont get into situations that makes people kick in your door to your familys home.[/quote]

So, don’t go visit your brother because your house burns down.

Also, make sure not to permit the police to raid your brother’s house in search a nephew who may or may not be a drug dealer — and the cops find no drugs.

Got it!

Yeah, the whole militarization of police has been a pretty big fuck up

Okay.

So they had for a “drug” search warrant. To assist serving the warrant they used:

  1. SWAT (SRT)
  2. Explosive Devices

Hmmmm.

Wonder what the “Threat Assessment” on the warrant was? In our department, that is for the highest-threat search warrants. Suspects with histories of:

Multiple suspects
Assaulting police officers
Shooting police officers
Having rifles
Security camera installed
guard dogs
etc
etc

In short, this was a high risk warrant. It wasn’t for a pound of pot like you might think!

Hey, I hate the war on drugs. But this is how it’s conducted. It is “Standard Procedure” most likely if the warrant met the above requirements on the assessment. Too many officers killed serving warrants, this is how it’s done. And why I left it.

I say pick apart the warrant at the very least. Was it stale? How strong was the corroboration? If it was a bad warrant, then take action immediately.

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Okay.

Since you guys know so much about drugs and search warrants.

So they had for a “drug” search warrant:

  1. SWAT
  2. Explosive Devices

Hmmmm.

Wonder what the “Threat Assessment” on the warrant was? In our department, that is for the highest-threat search warrants. Suspects with histories of:

Multiple suspects
Assaulting police officers
Shooting police officers
Having rifles
Security camera installed
guard dogs
etc
etc

In short, this was a high risk warrant. It wasn’t for a pound of pot like you might think!

Hey, I hate the war on drugs. But this is how it’s conducted. It is “Standard Procedure” most likely if the warrant met the above requirements on the assessment. Too many officers killed serving warrants, this is how it’s done. And why I left it.[/quote]

We understand that this is now SOP; that is what a growing number of reasonable people have a problem with. It is not possible for proper preparation to have taken place and something like this happen, not a chance. Threat assesments are conducting by the same people that botched this raid, worthless as an explanation; just an excuse for pitiful work. The last thing I want to see in an officer loose their life in the line of duty, but the truth is LEOs don’t even make the top ten in workplace fatalities, if you remove deaths from automobile accidents when the officer is responsible for the crash they don’t even make the top fifteen. The spector of incompetence that incidents like this cast upon the law simply isn’t worth it.

The rationalization given by LEO, to me, is pretty much the equivalent to a hunter not being sure if that was a deer or another hunter, and just says “Guess I’ll find out after I shoot it”.

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Okay.

Since you guys know so much about drugs and search warrants.

So they had for a “drug” search warrant:

  1. SWAT
  2. Explosive Devices

Hmmmm.

Wonder what the “Threat Assessment” on the warrant was? In our department, that is for the highest-threat search warrants. Suspects with histories of:

Multiple suspects
Assaulting police officers
Shooting police officers
Having rifles
Security camera installed
guard dogs
etc
etc

In short, this was a high risk warrant. It wasn’t for a pound of pot like you might think!

Hey, I hate the war on drugs. But this is how it’s conducted. It is “Standard Procedure” most likely if the warrant met the above requirements on the assessment. Too many officers killed serving warrants, this is how it’s done. And why I left it.[/quote]

We understand that this is now SOP; that is what a growing number of reasonable people have a problem with. It is not possible for proper preparation to have taken place and something like this happen, not a chance. Threat assesments are conducting by the same people that botched this raid, worthless as an explanation; just an excuse for pitiful work. The last thing I want to see in an officer loose their life in the line of duty, but the truth is LEOs don’t even make the top ten in workplace fatalities, if you remove deaths from automobile accidents when the officer is responsible for the crash they don’t even make the top fifteen. The spector of incompetence that incidents like this cast upon the law simply isn’t worth it. [/quote]

Supervisor approve the Threat Assessment. Sgt, Lt and Capt I’m sure in this case. It depends on the “points” on how many people have to sign-off on the warrant. But it’s NOT approved strictly by the officers who execute it. And a supervisor would be present of course. Now, I know what your thinking… “Approved by POLICE.” Who in world would you want to approve these dangerous operations? A lawyer who never kicked a door in to have a gun pointed at you?? I understand the need for a neutral review, that is why a judge approves them.

If anyone has a better system, I’m open to hear about it.

The only workplace fatalities that I care about are on-duty homicides. And police are way ahead of any other jobs as far as being murdered.

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
In short, this was a high risk warrant. [/quote]

In Afganistan and Iraq, our squad (really almost our entire unit) was tasked with grabbing various bad guys. Bad guys with machines guns, bombs, grenades, military training, lookouts, and the proven will to kill.

Generally smart guys, not idiot meth heads.

Performed many, many forced entries. Easily over 100. Every forced entry sucked and generally ended badly for someone — frequently not the person we intended to grab.

Like, for instance, an 8 year old who pointed a fucking AK-47 at me. (I grabbed it and kicked the kid in the face — harsh, but better than shooting him with my breaching shotgun.)

Such was not an uncommon situation.

Not being keen to kill little kids, we started to look at alternatives.

Most typically, we would sit in vans with a block of dry ice in the middle (to keep us from dying of heat exhaustion) and grab bad guys off the street.

++++++

Surely the police can learn from this kind of stuff.

This was a warrant for one guy.

Me, I wouldn’t go in at all.

I’d establish a stake out and when he inevitably went out to 7-Eleven, a bar, or to bang his girlfriend, I’d grab his ass.

Way safer for everyone.

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

If anyone has a better system, I’m open to hear about it.

[/quote]

I would only do a forced entry: (A) if there was credible belief someone was in danger or (B) if you have a “you won’t take me alive, coppers” situation.

The real reason cops (and we soldiers) “went in” forcibly is/was to preserve evidence for a conviction that might get destroyed — e.g, flushing drugs, weapons, or whatnot. A war zone is one thing.

Here in the States, the risks are so high (and the Constitutional violations so great) in a forced entry that a forced entry should not be performed unless you don’t need that evidence for a conviction – making anything but situations A and B unreasonable.

SWAT raids to collect evidence are lazy policing.

Do more drug buys, more undercover work, and less head knocking.

Yeah, some bad guys might get away.

But then, this baby would have a face.

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
Surely the police can learn from this kind of stuff.

This was a warrant for one guy.

Me, I wouldn’t go in at all.

I’d establish a stake out and when he inevitably went out to 7-Eleven, a bar, or to bang his girlfriend, I’d grab his ass.

Way safer for everyone.
[/quote]

This is what I don’t get either. Your suggestion is reasonable, a lot safer for the officers involved, and if you’re going to do a full load out, body armor, etc. w/ X number of guy’s, Why don’t you just stake out and wait until the guy/guys you expect to be violent leave the house?

This would force them to do even a bit of ground work before kicking the door down and answer questions like do we have the right address? how many people are expected to be in the home? are they likely armed or have history of resisting? is there a dog we may have to shoot? is there a kid or civilian we don’t want to shoot?

In other news, I haven’t confirmed, this same drug task force shot and killed a preacher at a gas station after he thought they were trying to rob him:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/02/23/jury-awards-more-than-2-million-to-family-of-pastor-killed-by-narcotics-task-force/

The disturbing thing is the quote from the sheriff in the last article referred to the suspected drug dealer as a “domestic terrorist” which means certain things legally, i.e. that they don’t really have any constitutional/legal rights.

Going to the SRT teams webpage: http://habershamsheriff.com/?page_id=46 , they have a nice little 9/11 quote on the bottom of their page which is really when all this GWOT got kicked off.

Now we’re seeing a ton of blowback and people starting to openly express some discomfort with the ways things are turning out, and this sheriff’s comments are reinforcing these negative opinions.

IMO that’s a really, really dumb PR move and a dangerous attitude to have as an officer of the law.

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

If anyone has a better system, I’m open to hear about it.

[/quote]

I would only do a forced entry: (A) if there was credible belief someone was in danger or (B) if you have a “you won’t take me alive, coppers” situation.

The real reason cops (and we soldiers) “went in” forcibly is/was to preserve evidence for a conviction that might get destroyed — e.g, flushing drugs, weapons, or whatnot. A war zone is one thing.

Here in the States, the risks are so high (and the Constitutional violations so great) in a forced entry that a forced entry should not be performed unless you don’t need that evidence for a conviction – making anything but situations A and B unreasonable.

SWAT raids to collect evidence are lazy policing.

Do more drug buys, more undercover work, and less head knocking.

Yeah, some bad guys might get away.

But then, this baby would have a face.
[/quote]

This post is spot on.

Thank you for the insight thethirdruffian.

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
In Afganistan and Iraq, our squad (really almost our entire unit) was tasked with grabbing various bad guys. Bad guys with machines guns, bombs, grenades, military training, lookouts, and the proven will to kill.

Generally smart guys, not idiot meth heads.

Performed many, many forced entries. Easily over 100. Every forced entry sucked and generally ended badly for someone — frequently not the person we intended to grab.

Like, for instance, an 8 year old who pointed a fucking AK-47 at me. (I grabbed it and kicked the kid in the face — harsh, but better than shooting him with my breaching shotgun.)

Such was not an uncommon situation.

Not being keen to kill little kids, we started to look at alternatives.

Most typically, we would sit in vans with a block of dry ice in the middle (to keep us from dying of heat exhaustion) and grab bad guys off the street.

++++++

Surely the police can learn from this kind of stuff.

This was a warrant for one guy.

Me, I wouldn’t go in at all.

I’d establish a stake out and when he inevitably went out to 7-Eleven, a bar, or to bang his girlfriend, I’d grab his ass.

Way safer for everyone.
[/quote]

Good post, and a much better idea in such situations; however, these raids are practice(not in the minds of the officers who participate, most wouldn’t if they realized what they are, but that is what they are). It’s certainly possible to patiently wait for one or two people to leave a house, but when it comes time to start collecting multiple people from every(every other, every fourth, whatever) house in a city, and some of those people will be armed and aware of what is about to happen, the hope is that this real life training will pay off and result in greater efficiency.

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

If anyone has a better system, I’m open to hear about it.

[/quote]

I would only do a forced entry: (A) if there was credible belief someone was in danger or (B) if you have a “you won’t take me alive, coppers” situation.

The real reason cops (and we soldiers) “went in” forcibly is/was to preserve evidence for a conviction that might get destroyed — e.g, flushing drugs, weapons, or whatnot. A war zone is one thing.

Here in the States, the risks are so high (and the Constitutional violations so great) in a forced entry that a forced entry should not be performed unless you don’t need that evidence for a conviction – making anything but situations A and B unreasonable.

SWAT raids to collect evidence are lazy policing.

Do more drug buys, more undercover work, and less head knocking.

Yeah, some bad guys might get away.

But then, this baby would have a face.
[/quote]

Makes too much sense and I am glad you did not have to kill the kid

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

If anyone has a better system, I’m open to hear about it.

[/quote]

I would only do a forced entry: (A) if there was credible belief someone was in danger or (B) if you have a “you won’t take me alive, coppers” situation.

The real reason cops (and we soldiers) “went in” forcibly is/was to preserve evidence for a conviction that might get destroyed — e.g, flushing drugs, weapons, or whatnot. A war zone is one thing.

Here in the States, the risks are so high (and the Constitutional violations so great) in a forced entry that a forced entry should not be performed unless you don’t need that evidence for a conviction – making anything but situations A and B unreasonable.

SWAT raids to collect evidence are lazy policing.

Do more drug buys, more undercover work, and less head knocking.

Yeah, some bad guys might get away.

But then, this baby would have a face.
[/quote]

These are not arrest warrants. These are search warrants. They are going in to get the dope that is being distributed. You don’t make a big arrest or multiple street buys. No, multiple street buys gets you PC to write a search warrant. You are describing above as a “take-down arrest”. And the drug dealers we want to catch don’t deal personally! This is not TV guys.

But, you want to go court catching a high profile dealer with a bunch of take-down arrests?? You realize this will go to court multiple times. Who is doing the buys, CIs???

If you want a good arrest that hold up in court. Have the big fish with a bunchof drugs, in his home, with his homies, with his weapons. That’s how you get a plea. Go to court on a bunch of street buys using CIs with a slick dope attorney… look out (and again, the big guys don’t deal. they collect). There is a reason why drugs are seized in cars and houses. They hold up in court.

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
In Afganistan and Iraq, our squad (really almost our entire unit) was tasked with grabbing various bad guys. Bad guys with machines guns, bombs, grenades, military training, lookouts, and the proven will to kill.

Generally smart guys, not idiot meth heads.

Performed many, many forced entries. Easily over 100. Every forced entry sucked and generally ended badly for someone — frequently not the person we intended to grab.

Like, for instance, an 8 year old who pointed a fucking AK-47 at me. (I grabbed it and kicked the kid in the face — harsh, but better than shooting him with my breaching shotgun.)

Such was not an uncommon situation.

Not being keen to kill little kids, we started to look at alternatives.

Most typically, we would sit in vans with a block of dry ice in the middle (to keep us from dying of heat exhaustion) and grab bad guys off the street.

++++++

Surely the police can learn from this kind of stuff.

This was a warrant for one guy.

Me, I wouldn’t go in at all.

I’d establish a stake out and when he inevitably went out to 7-Eleven, a bar, or to bang his girlfriend, I’d grab his ass.

Way safer for everyone.
[/quote]

Good post, and a much better idea in such situations; however, these raids are practice(not in the minds of the officers who participate, most wouldn’t if they realized what they are, but that is what they are). It’s certainly possible to patiently wait for one or two people to leave a house, but when it comes time to start collecting multiple people from every(every other, every fourth, whatever) house in a city, and some of those people will be armed and aware of what is about to happen, the hope is that this real life training will pay off and result in greater efficiency.
[/quote]

Practice?

Oh, you saw Obama’s 2010 directive also! Get real man. No real officer feels that way. You really need to get to know your public servants. We are regular people, with common values, closer to you than you may think.

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

If anyone has a better system, I’m open to hear about it.

[/quote]

I would only do a forced entry: (A) if there was credible belief someone was in danger or (B) if you have a “you won’t take me alive, coppers” situation.

The real reason cops (and we soldiers) “went in” forcibly is/was to preserve evidence for a conviction that might get destroyed — e.g, flushing drugs, weapons, or whatnot. A war zone is one thing.

Here in the States, the risks are so high (and the Constitutional violations so great) in a forced entry that a forced entry should not be performed unless you don’t need that evidence for a conviction – making anything but situations A and B unreasonable.

SWAT raids to collect evidence are lazy policing.

Do more drug buys, more undercover work, and less head knocking.

Yeah, some bad guys might get away.

But then, this baby would have a face.
[/quote]

These are not arrest warrants. These are search warrants. They are going in to get the dope that is being distributed. You don’t make a big arrest or multiple street buys. No, multiple street buys gets you PC to write a search warrant. You are describing above as a “take-down arrest”. And the drug dealers we want to catch don’t deal personally! This is not TV guys.

But, you want to go court catching a high profile dealer with a bunch of take-down arrests?? You realize this will go to court multiple times. Who is doing the buys, CIs???

If you want a good arrest that hold up in court. Have the big fish with a bunchof drugs, in his home, with his homies, with his weapons. That’s how you get a plea. Go to court on a bunch of street buys using CIs with a slick dope attorney… look out (and again, the big guys don’t deal. they collect). There is a reason why drugs are seized in cars and houses. They hold up in court.[/quote]

What has been accomplished besides badly burning a child ? If you get a good arrest does that mean no one will take his pace and eventually drugs will disappear on the streets ???

The rubber stamp of bureaucracy claims another victim.

Those things are great aren’t they? Everybody crossed their I’s dotted their T’s, it was passed across the proper desks and no one is to blame.

The people charged with investigating fulfilled their obligation and found nothing wrong.

On to the next one!