SWAT team throws concussion grenade into baby playpen during no-knock raid

[churchmouse]

But how is anyone but LE responsible for this? Because the drugs this man had weren't government approved?

CM, I'm not trying to start a fight with you, I just want to know your rationale in all of this.

Not getting upset. I see a lot of this as wrong....both sides. 1 having a child in an environment that can and is conducive to violence. another having LEO stomp the door and throw incendiaries around when they should be aware of the set up.
Just about every home invasion in these parts is about drugs. All to often kids are present. It is infighting but a lot of collateral damage occurs from it. Yes, many believe this black market exists from regulation and manipulation. Might be true but it is here and I do not see it going away any time soon under our currant situation. We are breeding thugs and their numbers are legion. Drugs fund the life style. If prohibitions are ended do you think the drug culture/underground supply lines will cease. No, they will not.
This issue is far deeper than the actions of those who raided that house. I do not agree with the no knock except in cases of violent felons etc and even then they could scoop these guys up in a different manner.
There is no rational way to approach this. How do we effect change. What we are doing certainly is not working. I can point out 4 drug houses with in a mile of me and LEO knows of them.

 

[MCgrease08]

The sheriff sounds like a character from a cheap pulp crime novel.

What's going on in Georgia that allows this guy to be so blatant about his Department's thuggish tactics? He's open about his complete disdain for anyone who might suffer collateral damage in the quest to squash someone who brought it upon themselves. Because they sold drugs.

I'd sure like to see more details before making full judgement, but these raids need to stop.

 

[churchmouse]

And I refuse to accept the premise that status quo is sufficient to justify condemnation of another for his actions. "He should have known better" presupposes that there is credibility in the existence of whatever it is he should have known. I'm much more fond of condemning what shouldn't exist than what the consequences are for those that don't bow low enough.

Today it is drugs. Tomorrow it is firearms. Does the same logic still sit so well with you?

Hold up trigger.....never ever said any of it was OK.
You see having kids in that environment as OK. That is all I am saying.

 

[88GT]

There is a perfectly rational way to approach this: decriminalize the drugs and eliminate the need entirely for this kind of enforcement.

 

[Henry]

I just want to know if the enforcers went home safe, because that is what is important.



Thank you, Sir. I will have none of your protection and service today {turns cup upside down}.

 

[88GT]

Hold up trigger.....never ever said any of it was OK.
You see having kids in that environment as OK. That is all I am saying.

What environment? One with drugs in the house? Doesn't bother me.

 

[Benny]

There is a perfectly rational way to approach this: decriminalize the drugs and eliminate the need entirely for this kind of enforcement.

Stop being ridiculous. Many, many people would lose jobs if that happened.

 

[churchmouse]

What environment? One with drugs in the house? Doesn't bother me.

I give up.

 

[PRasko]

Domestic terrorism. Remember that people, you're going to hear a lot of that in the future.

Directive No. 3025.18 - Military Support of Civil Authorities against US citizens. Google it.

 

[88GT]

I give up.

What problem do you have with it?

 

[churchmouse]

There is a perfectly rational way to approach this: decriminalize the drugs and eliminate the need entirely for this kind of enforcement.

It will not stop the violence I referred to. It just will not go away. There will always be a black market at some level.


Now I give up.

 

[Benny]

Drugs were in the house, yes.

Who were the ones that harmed the child?

Rival gang? Crap, how do I even answer my own question.

 

[88GT]

It will not stop the violence I referred to. It just will not go away. There will always be a black market at some level.


Now I give up.

You mean like the black market for alcohol that is still so prevalent after prohibition was repealed?

 

[churchmouse]

Drugs were in the house, yes.

Who were the ones that harmed the child?

Rival gang? Crap, how do I even answer my own question.

LEO hurt the child of course. I am breaking my own promise.

 

[MCgrease08]

The bottom line for me is this; where there are drugs there are people. People make drugs, sell drugs and use drugs.

Many drug users also make poor decisions, which may lead to kids. They end up in that environment.

Maybe police should consider that when they plan for an arrest. They run these military stile raids to justify the federal dollars and equipment they get.

I don't know what drugs were allegedly being sold there, but these tactics used to be reserved for the likes of Pablo Escobar and Manuel Noriega. Now the average citizen gets the drug lord treatment, no matter how many tiny defenseless babies might be sleeping nearby.

 

[Henry]

A strong enforcement is necessary to ensure contraband is controlled. Taxpayer funds are needed to fund a strong enforcement.

Control of the contraband ensures that there is a premium market.

The premium market ensures there will be an organization to meet demand.

To curtail that supply, a stronger enforcement is necessary. More taxpayer funding is required.

That stronger enforcement increases the premium.


The relationship between enforcer and supplier is mutually beneficial.


Folks do to themselves whatever they wish and I am not forced to fund the tab....both shrink.

 

[MisterChester]

"Bad things can happen"

Sure they can, but just because bad things can happen doesn't mean a skydiver should go without a reserve chute.

 

[ModernGunner]

Not much in favor of no-knock raids, as they should be used sparingly. No, it's not 'alright' that the baby was seriously injured (preemptive response to the few).

But, only 1 of the previous responses (CM) rests any responsibility upon the criminal(s) in the house, putting a baby in a drug house, scumbags selling drugs out of a house knowing children were in the house, therefore knowingly putting those children (family?) at risk? Only one?

Were any of the adults sobbing when the child (or children) was taken INTO an illegal 'drug store'? Did ANY of the adults report the drug dealing and have the drug dealer removed before the incident, to insure the children weren't harmed? ANY of the adults have ANY issue with felonies being perpetrated in the presence of this little tyke? Anyone? No?
Of course, there's the obligatory 'Oh, the parents didn't know drugs were being sold of that little house' reference.
And, of course, the obligatory 'If the police hadn't raided...', but NOT 'If the scumbags hadn't been committing felonies"...

So, the drug dealers are 'okay' to operate, willfully and knowingly putting the children in the home at risk (adults, as well), knowing the home could be raided at any time, knowing the children (family?) could be harmed IF any such raid / arrests were made, and the police should do nothing. 'Cause "dealing drugs is a 'victimless' crime". 'Cause the little boy "isn't" now a victim of the drug dealers.

Ah, I understand. It's 'okay' for criminals to use children as 'shields' to prevent police intervention with the crime. Gotcha.

 

[hornadylnl]

We should all count it a privilege to sacrifice our children on the alter of the police state.

Thugs n stuff

 

[ModernGunner]

^^ Or maybe "all count it as a privilege to sacrifice our children on the alter of" selling and using illicit drugs. ^^

'Bad' to blame the criminals for the crimes, I suppose. That's kinda how it ended up where it is today.