T Nation

2 YO Burned by Flash Grenade in Police Raid

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
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. [/quote]

I don’t know a single cop who would toss in a can if he knew a child was in the room. If I did know a cop like that, I would do everything in my power to make sure he wasn’t a cop anymore.

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Yea, most people who are arrested and assault POs don’t have money.

Yea, it is true for a lot of LEOs. For this reason, many cops don’t keep their homes in their name.

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

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.
[/quote]

Yea, most people who are arrested and assault POs don’t have money.

Yea, it is true for a lot of LEOs. For this reason, many cops don’t keep their homes in their name.

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
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?

http://fox13now.com/2014/05/30/georgia-toddler-seriously-injured-by-flash-bang-grenade-as-swat-executes-no-knock-warrant/[/quote]

When they lost the element of surprise they could have decided not to breach.

They could have also drilled holes in advance of the breach and used fiber optic cameras to determine who was inside and where. I know for a fact this procedure is used in some jurisdictions based on my interactions with a SWAT expert/trainer I have used in a number of use-of-force cases.

They could have also done a better job with the surveillance and determined who was in this house. This takes more time and requires more patience but results in better outcomes.

They could have also decided not to breach at all to gather evidence, just like 3dRuffian suggests.

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
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. [/quote]

I don’t know a single cop who would toss in a can if he knew a child was in the room. If I did know a cop like that, I would do everything in my power to make sure he wasn’t a cop anymore. [/quote]

Same outcome when you throw one in and don’t know who was in there. No excuse!

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

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

This is where the problem is . I can guarantee if the occupant would have killed a cop because he thought the cops where a rival gang , there would be hell to pay .

3rd Ruff’s suggestion should be the policy , "The only time you kick i9n a door and take down the house ,is when some one’s life is at stake " PERIOD

This is just another symptom of the War on Drugs. Just like Prohibition back in the 1920’s. It only serves to put a lot of money in the hands of criminals, brings violence to our streets and the innocent people are often the ones who suffer the most. The same ones they are trying to “protect”. It’s a NON VIOLENT crime. The violence comes as a result of criminals controlling the territory. You don’t see local liqueur stores shooting at each other do you?

It seems to me that if you plan on raiding a house, you MAKE SURE you know who’s in the fucking house. That’s just common sense… Even from a purely tactical perspective. The cops cut corners and as a result an innocent child is horribly hurt.

Is that a price that we as a society are willing to pay? It seems to me that everyone (non LEO) says no… So if EVERYONE is saying they DON’T want this, why is it still happening? How do we stop it?

How can we “control” a force that is allowed to arrest US, and kill US, and burn US but if we so much as spit at them, we are locked up?

How do we take back our power as CITIZENS and curb police violence? How do we let them know that THEY are here to protect and serve US? Not to intimidate, harm and be feared. They have too much power with little transparency and almost no accountability. It’s out of control.

For the record, I respect good police. I haven’t jumped on the “fuck the police” band wagon. But there needs to be a change.

If something like that happened in my neighborood, i would move.
Temporarily but mmediately.
Because there would be riots.

My students may have a hard time spelling common words, but they know how to burn cars and besiege precincts.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
This is just another symptom of the War on Drugs. Just like Prohibition back in the 1920’s. It only serves to put a lot of money in the hands of criminals, brings violence to our streets and the innocent people are often the ones who suffer the most. The same ones they are trying to “protect”. It’s a NON VIOLENT crime. The violence comes as a result of criminals controlling the territory. You don’t see local liqueur stores shooting at each other do you?

It seems to me that if you plan on raiding a house, you MAKE SURE you know who’s in the fucking house. That’s just common sense… Even from a purely tactical perspective. The cops cut corners and as a result an innocent child is horribly hurt.

Is that a price that we as a society are willing to pay? It seems to me that everyone (non LEO) says no… So if EVERYONE is saying they DON’T want this, why is it still happening? How do we stop it?

How can we “control” a force that is allowed to arrest US, and kill US, and burn US but if we so much as spit at them, we are locked up?

How do we take back our power as CITIZENS and curb police violence? How do we let them know that THEY are here to protect and serve US? Not to intimidate, harm and be feared. They have too much power with little transparency and almost no accountability. It’s out of control.

For the record, I respect good police. I haven’t jumped on the “fuck the police” band wagon. But there needs to be a change.[/quote]

It’s odd that public opinion of the police seems to be at a historical low, yet accountability and transparency are at an all time high. I’ve talked with a few retired police, and the shit they used to get away with would not fly today. One guy told me that if a person attended the station to make a complaint, the guy behind the front desk would run them out of the building. If that’s the kind of stuff that went on in broad daylight for all to see, what happened in the shitty parts of town under the cover of darkness? Are the police really worse today, or is there something else at play here?

I can get fired for giving a false statement on the job. If my supervisor asked me if I went McDonalds for breakfast and I told him that I was running late and skipped it, I could be fired.

This is the standard in police work these days.

Which other regular profession has more oversight?

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[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]

From my POV with my arrest and detainment a few years back, the cops of today are scared shitless. I used to wonder why I never saw a Sheriff around for my county. That’s because they’re all pulling soft jail duty, the place had them tripping over each other.

As soon as I was sprung and headed out the door, I asked one officer what they were all afraid of. “What the hell do you mean by that?”. I told him that I smelled fear on every one of them.

So that fear is a 2-way street and what used to be ordinary cops are now outfitted with swat gear for almost any call they go out on. My ex-neighbors got busted for drug dealing in 1993 or so and the detectives and uniforms did nothing even as close to an invasion we see today.

Rob

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
This is just another symptom of the War on Drugs. Just like Prohibition back in the 1920’s. It only serves to put a lot of money in the hands of criminals, brings violence to our streets and the innocent people are often the ones who suffer the most. The same ones they are trying to “protect”. It’s a NON VIOLENT crime. The violence comes as a result of criminals controlling the territory. You don’t see local liqueur stores shooting at each other do you? .[/quote]

Those are valid points, and I would say if there were legislative changes and court decisions to change the way The War on Drugs is conducted, I’m all for it. You think I always enjoyed kicking in a door for some cocaine? I endorse an informed and active citizen. Many people complain about the laws, but are found in front of their TV on voting day.

We have community meetings all the time. You know that, right? Do you know how our community meetings go?

We try to engage the community to help us fight crime. We even have specific “community coordinator” officers in my city. We use a good amount of resources to work with each neighborhood trying to provide a safe place to raise their families.

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
This is just another symptom of the War on Drugs. Just like Prohibition back in the 1920’s. It only serves to put a lot of money in the hands of criminals, brings violence to our streets and the innocent people are often the ones who suffer the most. The same ones they are trying to “protect”. It’s a NON VIOLENT crime. The violence comes as a result of criminals controlling the territory. You don’t see local liqueur stores shooting at each other do you? .[/quote]

Those are valid points, and I would say if there were legislative changes and court decisions to change the way The War on Drugs is conducted, I’m all for it. You think I always enjoyed kicking in a door for some cocaine? I endorse an informed and active citizen. Many people complain about the laws, but are found in front of their TV on voting day.

We have community meetings all the time. You know that, right? Do you know how our community meetings go?

We try to engage the community to help us fight crime. We even have specific “community coordinator” officers in my city. We use a good amount of resources to work with each neighborhood trying to provide a safe place to raise their families.
[/quote]

Funny thing advocate for changing an insane law and first line of defense is to act as you are insane .

The article was about policy that police use that is STUPID , the police need to change policy that allows them to kick in your door while you are feeding your babies

In most cases, departmental policy is more restrictive than the law for that agency. But the law provides a framework for how law enforcement operates.

In my department, I don’t think a flashbang would have been approved from the limited facts I have on the case. That’s from what I know of the incident, comparing how we execute warrants.

And I found this appears to be an arrest warrant, not a search warrant to seize contraband.

I think it’s a reasonable question to ask why was not better intelligence gathered.

The Feds may take over the investigation of this terrible incident.

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

I think it’s a reasonable question to ask why was not better intelligence gathered.
[/quote]

I think it is criminal it was not

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

I think it’s a reasonable question to ask why was not better intelligence gathered.
[/quote]

I think it is criminal it was not
[/quote]

You gotta remember- go along to get along. When it comes to paperwork you fulfill your obligation, make sure it passed across the right desks, and get on with it.

No need to ruin a good career of a good guy who does a good job when you’re all on the same team, right?

RIGHT?!?

Fucking dim wit COPS , that police force should be footing this bill , it should not even have to go to court

After seeing that, I’d probably go back to jail, but I’d put a fucking grenade in face of the asshole who burned my kid’s face off.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
After seeing that, I’d probably go back to jail, but I’d put a fucking grenade in face of the asshole who burned my kid’s face off.[/quote]

X2