Another isolated incident: cops maim toddler with flash grenade - Page 2

The Central Scrutinizer · 6th June 2014, 04:23 PM

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

Doghouse Reilly · 6th June 2014, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by IDB87

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

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

Mycroft · 7th June 2014, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by BardKesnit

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 · 7th June 2014, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

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 · 7th June 2014, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

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 · 7th June 2014, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Quote:

(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:

Quote:

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 · 7th June 2014, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by schplurg

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 · 8th June 2014, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by schplurg

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 · 8th June 2014, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by schplurg

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?

Quote:

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?

Originally Posted by ravdin

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 · 8th June 2014, 11:03 AM

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 · 8th June 2014, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by 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"?

marplots · 8th June 2014, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by Chaos

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 · 9th June 2014, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by marplots

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 · 9th June 2014, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by marplots

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 · 9th June 2014, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Chaos

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 · 9th June 2014, 09:51 AM

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

William Parcher · 9th June 2014, 10:17 AM

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 · 9th June 2014, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by 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?

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 · 9th June 2014, 10:32 AM

"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 · 9th June 2014, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by ravdin

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.

lobosrul · 9th June 2014, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by marplots

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.

Yes, having a drug dealer in the house of a toddler puts them at some risk. But do you REALLY think that risk is so high that it outweighs the risk of a SWAT operation to kick in the door and possibly have a shoot out with a child in the home, instead of waiting for the drug dealer to leave the house, and then picking him up? Which he did do. And he didn't even have a weapon.

If the police had actual evidence that the child was in immediate threat of harm, then a no-knock raid is appropriate. I can't see anywhere from the article that they did.

ravdin · 9th June 2014, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by marplots

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.

For starters, there wouldn't be a flash grenade. It's against protocol for the cops to use them if there are children in the house.

Here's an out of the box idea: knock on the door first, perhaps even (gasp!) not in the middle of the night, and inform the occupants that the police are serving a warrant. Give them 30 seconds to surrender peacefully and if they do, great. Break down the door if not. These no-knock raids are ridiculous in a so-called free society.

Newtons Bit · 9th June 2014, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by 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?

Nothing says justice more than the delivery of arbitrary violence on innocent bystanders...

William Parcher · 9th June 2014, 11:24 AM

Let the courts hand out justice. Let the cops get the bad guys and risk their own lives every day.

Newtons Bit · 9th June 2014, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Let the courts hand out justice. Let the cops get the bad guys and risk their own lives every day.

If the cops were actually concerned about their own lives then they would have performed surveillance on the house before assaulting it. They didn't bother with that because they knew the risk to themselves was minimal.

Cleon · 9th June 2014, 11:49 AM

I'm getting a bit tired of "the police risk their lives all the time" as an excuse for cops who put other people's lives at risk.

Babbylonian · 9th June 2014, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon

I'm getting a bit tired of "the police risk their lives all the time" as an excuse for cops who put other people's lives at risk.

Especially when the risks are exaggerated beyond all reason. Police work doesn't even make the top 10 list of most dangerous occupations.

William Parcher · 9th June 2014, 12:02 PM

The flash grenade was probably a mistake in this situation. They are probably reviewing procedure since this one was thrown next to a little kid. Figure out what went wrong and go on from there. Meth dealers should do the same if they give a speck of care for humanity.

William Parcher · 9th June 2014, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

Especially when the risks are exaggerated beyond all reason. Police work doesn't even make the top 10 list of most dangerous occupations.

Did meth dealing make the list or is that one a low risk?

Babbylonian · 9th June 2014, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Did meth dealing make the list or is that one a low risk?

It's certainly a lot riskier when garbage cops get involved.

Belz... · 9th June 2014, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Well you could do it like police was doing it 20 years ago : instead of using a no knock warrant and kill the dog and burn the toddler on an informant info, you could investigate, watch the place, and build a case, and really determine if you really need to break in like an mini army.

Yeah but that's so uncinematic...

Belz... · 9th June 2014, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by 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."

Yeah and all it took was maiming a toddler !

marplots · 9th June 2014, 12:57 PM

So the meme is going to be that cops are brutal thugs, preying on innocent citizen-victims? Maybe we should quit hiring heartless monsters and get some folks with families of their own so they'd understand it isn't appropriate to attack toddlers. Well, unarmed toddlers.

There are good reasons to focus on officer safety. One is that this is an area were we can set policies and expect them to be followed - a stable island as contrasted with the vast variety of situations where it will be applied. Another is the fact that any particular citizen will be lucky to face a no-knock even once in their lifetime, where an officer might participate in one (or more) a week.

Here's a thought: require suspects to turn themselves in and bring any evidence they have with them. A phone call would do it. Phone calls are safe and cheap. And if that seems a stretch, just call and let them know the police are on to them - give them a chance to change their ways and avoid all the consequences. It's not like we ever blame the police for not acting when they don't arrest someone who then does something worse.

Cops are suckers if they can't see that less policing is better policing. And on the offender side, the advantages of having a toddler as human-shield are plain. I suggest a clearly visible sign on the door, equivalent to "toddler on board" - should work wonders for a meth business.

ravdin · 9th June 2014, 01:08 PM

More out of the box thinking: if the police don't want to be perceived as brutal thugs, perhaps they should stop acting like brutal thugs.

marplots · 9th June 2014, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by ravdin

More out of the box thinking: if the police don't want to be perceived as brutal thugs, perhaps they should stop acting like brutal thugs.

Exactly. It's not like interactions with violent criminals can't be gentle and caring. I mean, what sort of human being wouldn't respond in kind to courtesy?

Criminals aren't animals. They are just regular folks who've temporarily lost their way, or, in some cases, simply aren't familiar with the law and social convention. What's needed are fewer cops and more social workers. If we could simply start meaningful dialogues, I'm sure it could be worked out to everyone's satisfaction.

marplots · 9th June 2014, 01:19 PM

What? No one is going to call me out on all my straw men? I'm getting low on straw here...

Babbylonian · 9th June 2014, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

What? No one is going to call me out on all my straw men? I'm getting low on straw here...

You might want to consider changing your [flame]bait.

marplots · 9th June 2014, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

You might want to consider changing your [flame]bait.

I'm open to suggestions. What's a good rhetorical device to use?

TheGoldcountry · 9th June 2014, 01:50 PM

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

George 152 · 9th June 2014, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Chaos

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

The Blue gang doesn't have to ask questions.
Every-one is guilty even if the Blue Gang have to provide the evidence themselves

6th June 2014, 04:23 PM	#41
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 53,042	If that toddler had been armed, he could have defended himself.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer

7th June 2014, 02:22 PM	#43
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 19,819	Originally Posted by BardKesnit 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.
	__________________ Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda

7th June 2014, 02:35 PM	#44
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 19,819	Originally Posted by marplots 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.
	__________________ Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda

7th June 2014, 02:39 PM	#45
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 19,819	Originally Posted by William Parcher 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?
	__________________ Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda

7th June 2014, 03:42 PM	#46
mgidm86 Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 6,023	Originally Posted by William Parcher Quote: (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: Quote: 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.
mgidm86 Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 6,023	__________________ Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.

6th June 2014, 11:11 PM	#42
Doghouse Reilly Adrift on an uncharted sea Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,405	Originally Posted by IDB87 Sounds like the cops made a bou-bou... Yeah, let's make fun of the burned toddler's name.

7th June 2014, 03:54 PM	#47
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,505	Originally Posted by schplurg 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.

8th June 2014, 09:04 AM	#48
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4,985	Originally Posted by schplurg 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.
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4,985	__________________ Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. -Christopher Hitchens Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan

8th June 2014, 09:24 AM	#49
Chaos Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 10,519	Originally Posted by schplurg 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? Quote: 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? Originally Posted by ravdin 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?

8th June 2014, 11:03 AM	#50
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	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?

8th June 2014, 12:35 PM	#51
Chaos Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 10,519	Originally Posted by 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"?

8th June 2014, 06:29 PM	#52
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	Originally Posted by 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? Originally Posted by Chaos 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.

9th June 2014, 08:01 AM	#53
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,505	Originally Posted by marplots 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.

9th June 2014, 08:27 AM	#54
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4,985	Originally Posted by marplots 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.
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4,985	__________________ Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. -Christopher Hitchens Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan

9th June 2014, 08:49 AM	#55
Newtons Bit Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 10,016	Originally Posted by Chaos 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.
	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein

9th June 2014, 09:51 AM	#56
Psi Baba Homo Skepticalis Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 4,010	The question that needs to be asked is what did this raid accomplish and at what cost?
	__________________ We have reached a point in time where reality and satire have intersected and now you can't tell the difference. -- Lewis Black There is a cult of ignorance . . . nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge. -- Isaac Asimov

9th June 2014, 10:17 AM	#57
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 25,769	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?
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

9th June 2014, 10:23 AM	#58
lobosrul Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 2,313	Originally Posted by 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? 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.
lobosrul Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 2,313

9th June 2014, 10:32 AM	#59
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 25,769	"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."
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

9th June 2014, 10:54 AM	#60
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	Originally Posted by ravdin 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.

9th June 2014, 11:00 AM	#61
lobosrul Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 2,313	Originally Posted by marplots 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. Yes, having a drug dealer in the house of a toddler puts them at some risk. But do you REALLY think that risk is so high that it outweighs the risk of a SWAT operation to kick in the door and possibly have a shoot out with a child in the home, instead of waiting for the drug dealer to leave the house, and then picking him up? Which he did do. And he didn't even have a weapon. If the police had actual evidence that the child was in immediate threat of harm, then a no-knock raid is appropriate. I can't see anywhere from the article that they did.
lobosrul Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 2,313	Last edited by lobosrul; 9th June 2014 at 11:01 AM.

9th June 2014, 11:07 AM	#62
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4,985	Originally Posted by marplots 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. For starters, there wouldn't be a flash grenade. It's against protocol for the cops to use them if there are children in the house. Here's an out of the box idea: knock on the door first, perhaps even (gasp!) not in the middle of the night, and inform the occupants that the police are serving a warrant. Give them 30 seconds to surrender peacefully and if they do, great. Break down the door if not. These no-knock raids are ridiculous in a so-called free society.
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4,985	__________________ Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. -Christopher Hitchens Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan

9th June 2014, 11:15 AM	#63
Newtons Bit Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 10,016	Originally Posted by 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? Nothing says justice more than the delivery of arbitrary violence on innocent bystanders...
	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein

9th June 2014, 11:24 AM	#64
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 25,769	Let the courts hand out justice. Let the cops get the bad guys and risk their own lives every day.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

9th June 2014, 11:34 AM	#65
Newtons Bit Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 10,016	Originally Posted by William Parcher Let the courts hand out justice. Let the cops get the bad guys and risk their own lives every day. If the cops were actually concerned about their own lives then they would have performed surveillance on the house before assaulting it. They didn't bother with that because they knew the risk to themselves was minimal.
	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein

9th June 2014, 11:49 AM	#66
Cleon King of the Pod People Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 25,682	I'm getting a bit tired of "the police risk their lives all the time" as an excuse for cops who put other people's lives at risk.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

9th June 2014, 12:00 PM	#67
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,505	Originally Posted by Cleon I'm getting a bit tired of "the police risk their lives all the time" as an excuse for cops who put other people's lives at risk. Especially when the risks are exaggerated beyond all reason. Police work doesn't even make the top 10 list of most dangerous occupations.

9th June 2014, 12:02 PM	#68
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 25,769	The flash grenade was probably a mistake in this situation. They are probably reviewing procedure since this one was thrown next to a little kid. Figure out what went wrong and go on from there. Meth dealers should do the same if they give a speck of care for humanity.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

9th June 2014, 12:07 PM	#69
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 25,769	Originally Posted by Babbylonian Especially when the risks are exaggerated beyond all reason. Police work doesn't even make the top 10 list of most dangerous occupations. Did meth dealing make the list or is that one a low risk?
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

9th June 2014, 12:13 PM	#70
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,505	Originally Posted by William Parcher Did meth dealing make the list or is that one a low risk? It's certainly a lot riskier when garbage cops get involved.

9th June 2014, 12:18 PM	#71
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,449	Originally Posted by Aepervius Well you could do it like police was doing it 20 years ago : instead of using a no knock warrant and kill the dog and burn the toddler on an informant info, you could investigate, watch the place, and build a case, and really determine if you really need to break in like an mini army. Yeah but that's so uncinematic...
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

9th June 2014, 12:35 PM	#72
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,449	Originally Posted by 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." Yeah and all it took was maiming a toddler !
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

9th June 2014, 12:57 PM	#73
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	So the meme is going to be that cops are brutal thugs, preying on innocent citizen-victims? Maybe we should quit hiring heartless monsters and get some folks with families of their own so they'd understand it isn't appropriate to attack toddlers. Well, unarmed toddlers. There are good reasons to focus on officer safety. One is that this is an area were we can set policies and expect them to be followed - a stable island as contrasted with the vast variety of situations where it will be applied. Another is the fact that any particular citizen will be lucky to face a no-knock even once in their lifetime, where an officer might participate in one (or more) a week. Here's a thought: require suspects to turn themselves in and bring any evidence they have with them. A phone call would do it. Phone calls are safe and cheap. And if that seems a stretch, just call and let them know the police are on to them - give them a chance to change their ways and avoid all the consequences. It's not like we ever blame the police for not acting when they don't arrest someone who then does something worse. Cops are suckers if they can't see that less policing is better policing. And on the offender side, the advantages of having a toddler as human-shield are plain. I suggest a clearly visible sign on the door, equivalent to "toddler on board" - should work wonders for a meth business.

9th June 2014, 01:08 PM	#74
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4,985	More out of the box thinking: if the police don't want to be perceived as brutal thugs, perhaps they should stop acting like brutal thugs.
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4,985	__________________ Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. -Christopher Hitchens Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan

9th June 2014, 01:17 PM	#75
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	Originally Posted by ravdin More out of the box thinking: if the police don't want to be perceived as brutal thugs, perhaps they should stop acting like brutal thugs. Exactly. It's not like interactions with violent criminals can't be gentle and caring. I mean, what sort of human being wouldn't respond in kind to courtesy? Criminals aren't animals. They are just regular folks who've temporarily lost their way, or, in some cases, simply aren't familiar with the law and social convention. What's needed are fewer cops and more social workers. If we could simply start meaningful dialogues, I'm sure it could be worked out to everyone's satisfaction.