T Nation

2 YO Burned by Flash Grenade in Police Raid

“Terrell has insisted his officers and those of the local police department did nothing wrong and blamed the target of the warrant (not found at the house that was invaded) on the attack on the toddler. A chief assistant district attorney for the county, J. Edward Staples, says the target of the warrant could in fact be charged for the injuries the sheriff’s deputies caused the toddler.”

“Until using violence to crack down on non-violent “crimes” becomes politically untenable for “public servants,” it won’t matter how much ass-covering law enforcement does after the fact, these kinds of incidents will continue to happen.”

Wrong place, wrong time.

After Bounkham recovers from the injuries inflicted by his government and becomes old enough to ask what happened that night, is there any explanation that will make sense to him?

http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/30/when-drug-warriors-burn-a-baby-whos-the

This is the ‘heart of the matter’; there is no possible good achived that equals the harm done to the relationship between the public and the law.

Moral of the story, don’t be suspected of breaking the law, or the government will melt your kids face, and put you in jail for it.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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 ???
[/quote]

Hey, I’m no fan of the War on Drugs. This is a horrible, terrible, and appears unforeseen tragedy. If there was knowledge that the child was in the house, then by all means, turn them inside-out.

All I’m saying is that there is no criminal wrongdoing if they did not know the child was there. This is how certain types of high-risk warrants are conducted. I would have to know “the rest of the story” instead of an editorial with a particular viewpoint.

This is one reason I’m not a fan of the War on Drugs. But it’s legal, and it’s the way things are until the courts rule otherwise (or until politicians gain some sense).

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
These are not arrest warrants. These are search warrants. [/quote]

That’s even worse.

If the police don’t have enough evidence to make an arrest already, they should not force their way in in this manner.

To say it a different way, the police have no business knocking down doors and barging in trying to get evidence. The risk to innocents and police are far too high and it makes a mockery of the Constitution.

Military-style attack on persons presumed innocent like this were never permitted on civilians prior to 20 years ago.

We couldn’t even do crap like that in Iraq, and it was real war zone, not a bunch of wanna bes.

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Moral of the story, don’t be suspected of breaking the law, or the government will melt your kids face, and put you in jail for it.[/quote]

It wasn’t even them.

It was a guy kind enough to take them in because their house burned down.

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
All I’m saying is that there is no criminal wrongdoing if they did not know the child was there. [/quote]

That needs to change. If a civilian makes a mistake performing “self-defense” or whatever, they go to prison. The same standards should apply to police.

Similarly, the money from the inevitable lawsuit needs to be drawn from the police salaries, pro-rated across the force in question – so the police with have a monetary reason to keep other police in line.

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
All I’m saying is that there is no criminal wrongdoing if they did not know the child was there. [/quote]

That needs to change. If a civilian makes a mistake performing “self-defense” or whatever, they go to prison. The same standards should apply to police.

Similarly, the money from the inevitable lawsuit needs to be drawn from the police salaries, pro-rated across the force in question – so the police with have a monetary reason to keep other police in line.[/quote]

Agreed. I’ve always found it quite baffling that alleged professionals are given a greater latitude when it comes to harming people.

Its because police forces constitute one of the few bodies granted the right to the legitimate use of force within a given territory.

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
All I’m saying is that there is no criminal wrongdoing if they did not know the child was there. [/quote]

Although most of the time you sound like a pretty reasonable LEO, this quote shows where you and the rest of your ilk lose the plot. It is your fucking job to know who’s in the house so you DON’T maim a toddler. The fact that you think it’s OK shows how out of hand things are.

[quote]dcb wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
All I’m saying is that there is no criminal wrongdoing if they did not know the child was there. [/quote]

Although most of the time you sound like a pretty reasonable LEO, this quote shows where you and the rest of your ilk lose the plot. It is your fucking job to know who’s in the house so you DON’T maim a toddler. The fact that you think it’s OK shows how out of hand things are. [/quote]

Nice straw man, buddy.

You completely overlooked “This is a horrible, terrible, and appears unforeseen tragedy. If there was knowledge that the child was in the house, then by all means, turn them inside-out.” and took a comment out of context. If you’re going to criticize everyone in a given profession, at least go about it with some integrity.

[quote]Will207 wrote:

Nice straw man, buddy.

You completely overlooked “This is a horrible, terrible, and appears unforeseen tragedy. If there was knowledge that the child was in the house, then by all means, turn them inside-out.” and took a comment out of context. If you’re going to criticize everyone in a given profession, at least go about it with some integrity.

[/quote]

Except it is not “unforeseen” that tossing grenades into houses when you don’t know–one way or the other–whether there are innocents present will inevitably lead to bad “unforeseen” consequences. He didn’t take anything out of context; he made the point that it is the LEO’s job to know before tossing the grenade.

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
All I’m saying is that there is no criminal wrongdoing if they did not know the child was there. [/quote]

That needs to change. If a civilian makes a mistake performing “self-defense” or whatever, they go to prison. The same standards should apply to police.

Similarly, the money from the inevitable lawsuit needs to be drawn from the police salaries, pro-rated across the force in question – so the police with have a monetary reason to keep other police in line.[/quote]

That’s not a bad idea as long as it’s a two way street. Maybe people will be less willing to use violence or make up bullshit complaints against police if they know they’ll be shelling out a lot of money over it.

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
All I’m saying is that there is no criminal wrongdoing if they did not know the child was there. [/quote]

That needs to change. If a civilian makes a mistake performing “self-defense” or whatever, they go to prison. The same standards should apply to police.

Similarly, the money from the inevitable lawsuit needs to be drawn from the police salaries, pro-rated across the force in question – so the police with have a monetary reason to keep other police in line.[/quote]

That’s not a bad idea as long as it’s a two way street. Maybe people will be less willing to use violence or make up bullshit complaints against police if they know they’ll be shelling out a lot of money over it.
[/quote]

It is already a one-way street running in favor of the officer. If they are assaulted on duty they are free to sue civilians and also have publicly-paid benefits in addition if they are injured on duty; officers enjoy qualified immunity from suit, civilians don’t.

[quote]dcb wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
All I’m saying is that there is no criminal wrongdoing if they did not know the child was there. [/quote]

Although most of the time you sound like a pretty reasonable LEO, this quote shows where you and the rest of your ilk lose the plot. It is your fucking job to know who’s in the house so you DON’T maim a toddler. The fact that you think it’s OK shows how out of hand things are. [/quote]

Look, you may be misunderstanding me. I don’t know the whole story on this, but I’m saying if there was no evidence to show that the officers could have reasonably believed that there was a child in there, they won’t be charged with a CRIME.

Terrible mistakes/accidents happen. Whether it’s using force, serving a warrant, arresting someone, police pursuits, etc. etc. It’s tragic. There are more questions I would like to know about the incident, but in light of those facts, there is no crime.

Do you honestly think those officers are not affected by this? Should they have known if a child was present? Yeah, I’d think so. Did they have bad information? Appears so. I would have to know more about the case before I could really assign criminal negligence. But again, investigate thoroughly and if you do find some, hold them accountable.

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

Nice straw man, buddy.

You completely overlooked “This is a horrible, terrible, and appears unforeseen tragedy. If there was knowledge that the child was in the house, then by all means, turn them inside-out.” and took a comment out of context. If you’re going to criticize everyone in a given profession, at least go about it with some integrity.

[/quote]

Except it is not “unforeseen” that tossing grenades into houses when you don’t know–one way or the other–whether there are innocents present will inevitably lead to bad “unforeseen” consequences. He didn’t take anything out of context; he made the point that it is the LEO’s job to know before tossing the granade.
[/quote]

No, he was stating that Bret620 thought it was OK that this happened even though he clearly stated otherwise.

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
All I’m saying is that there is no criminal wrongdoing if they did not know the child was there. [/quote]

That needs to change. If a civilian makes a mistake performing “self-defense” or whatever, they go to prison. The same standards should apply to police.

Similarly, the money from the inevitable lawsuit needs to be drawn from the police salaries, pro-rated across the force in question – so the police with have a monetary reason to keep other police in line.[/quote]

That’s not a bad idea as long as it’s a two way street. Maybe people will be less willing to use violence or make up bullshit complaints against police if they know they’ll be shelling out a lot of money over it.
[/quote]

It is already a one-way street running in favor of the officer. If they are assaulted on duty they are free to sue civilians and also have publicly-paid benefits in addition if they are injured on duty; officers enjoy qualified immunity from suit, civilians don’t.
[/quote]

I have never, not once, heard of a police officer successfully suing an individual for an incident that occurred while on duty. Not once.

Why should the money come out of a public fund when the offender should be paying for it?

I have heard of many frivolous suits against officers for incidents on duty.

If a complaint is made against me and is found to be unfounded, there is no recourse against the complainant. None. Nothing happens to that person. If I make up a story about someone else’s actions, I lose my job.

How is any of this in favor of the officer?

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

Nice straw man, buddy.

You completely overlooked “This is a horrible, terrible, and appears unforeseen tragedy. If there was knowledge that the child was in the house, then by all means, turn them inside-out.” and took a comment out of context. If you’re going to criticize everyone in a given profession, at least go about it with some integrity.

[/quote]

Except it is not “unforeseen” that tossing grenades into houses when you don’t know–one way or the other–whether there are innocents present will inevitably lead to bad “unforeseen” consequences. He didn’t take anything out of context; he made the point that it is the LEO’s job to know before tossing the granade.
[/quote]

No, he was stating that Bret620 thought it was OK that this happened even though he clearly stated otherwise.
[/quote]

Ok. I read the post differently. I don’t think Bret620 thinks the outcome was ok; I also don’t think that was to point of the post. I think the difference is whether the outcome was caused by an “accident” that was truly unavoidable or unforeseen.

Well, it turns out this warrant was written based on an informant.

  • The CI purchased meth in the house earlier.
  • The CI stated there were men standing guard outside the house.
  • Target known to be armed and dangerous.

They tried to breach the door. The door was barricaded. This took away the “no-knock” surprise. Due to their safety, they used a flashbang device. This was why.

  • It was the right house. Target was arrest at a later location. Warrant was done at 3am (reasonable to believe he was home).
  • It was not his child, but a woman who didn’t live there (they were friends visiting).

How could they have known the child was there? Evidence?

And let me add, like I must on every post, this is heartbreaking. An innocent child almost got killed, now he is scarred for life. It’s terrible. Any officer I know would be devastated by this.

[quote]Will207 wrote:
[/quote]

I have never, not once, heard of a police officer successfully suing an individual for an incident that occurred while on duty. Not once.

Why should the money come out of a public fund when the offender should be paying for it?

[/quote]

This is a function of the fact that most offenders don’t have money, not that they wouldn’t be liable in a civil suit if they were sued. Frankly, the same is true for LEOs. Most cops don’t have enough assets to make a suit against them individually economically viable unless there is insurance or other indemnification to cover the settlement or judgment.