SWAT uses flashbang on sleeping 12-year-old girl

[IndyDave1776]

And no, I'm not talking about property damage etc. It's wrong too, but it is at least something you can take to court and have your problems addressed with compensation. A life you can't.

How do you address/compensate traumatized children and/or impressionable adults (who may not be able to sleep or feel safe in their own home)? What about the emotional losses associated with the sudden killing of a family pet who may not have done anything more aggressive than existing? What about destroyed items of sentimental value?

 

[Zoub]

If a Cop got cut in half by a 12 year old with an AK what would that solve?

Once the decision is made to enter a private home, tactics are for the Pros. The real issue is why the decision was made in the first place. Not how it was done, but why it was done at all.

I honestly feel we need less SWAT teams. If they were more of a regional resource, the decision to use them might be a bit less. The same way a City SWAT team will the let the Feds bust Meth labs so they don't burn up their budget with the Hazmat clean up after the bust. Easier to bust on lesser targets.

 

[GBuck]

How do you address/compensate traumatized children and/or impressionable adults (who may not be able to sleep or feel safe in their own home)? What about the emotional losses associated with the sudden killing of a family pet who may not have done anything more aggressive than existing? What about destroyed items of sentimental value?

Ok, so we started with life and death, now we're down to "items of sentimental value" and "impressionable adults"?


Adolescent boys are molested by Cub Scout leaders far more commonly than police injure innocents in no knock warrant services, it's still a minute amount but it happens. Should we ban Cub Scout Camp? Or should we improve the process by which pack leaders are chosen?

 

[phylodog]

Please, let me say this first: I in fact do not wish to see anyone, neither milk driver, policeman nor fisherman injured in the line of their work. I wish you a long, safe career and a happy retirement.

That said, sir, you just as the other occupations mentioned willfully accepted that risk. At my former employer, I accepted the risk of possible electrocution every single day as a public safety auditor for a utility company. 4.7 kV on a shorted three phase transformer box can jump pretty far. Yet of all the structures I was tasked with servicing, I was never once "bitten." IMHO, tossing a flashbang in a window of a residential building is akin to me asking a person without the training I received to lick the box to see if it was malfunctioning. I know, it's a strange comparison, but bear with me.

We both accepted risk. Yours is an active risk, in that you choose to deal with who society deems to be the most dangerous individuals, individuals who may be willing to cause you harm to escape the consequences of their actions. My risk was somewhat less active, as the danger was mostly contingent on me making a mistake, or a huge convergence of poor factors - large shorted voltages, very cold, dry air, or even better, water. However, both of these represent equally lethal outcomes. However, in the course of my work, I couldn't task another person to investigate. Hell, I couldn't even shut down the fixture unless the problem represented a danger to the public. So, here I am, inside a box full of juice just waiting to kill me, and I can't even shut it off. You sir, get the force of arms, the element of surprise, and a virtual shield from wrongdoing simply via the difference in our professions. Both of our respective jobs could kill us, yes? Yet look at all the accommodations you get? Please, tell me again how your life isn't worth mine. I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with that assessment.

There's one more thing. As my name indicates, I am a convicted felon. My conviction is for a crime of violence. I understand you don't know me, and you don't know whether or not what I have told you is true. I can only ask you to accept it at face value, and hope that my conduct here over the course of my membership has shown that I am in fact a civilized human being. I have shown pictures of my home. I have showed pictures of my family. I am by all measures your ordinary suburban dad. I don't expect to ever see the police at my door, I don't commit crimes. But, imagining that some strange set of circumstances ends up in a wrong place wrong time scenario, my family would be subject to a very unreasonable projection of power. My wife and 10 year old son zip tied to the floor, my dog, who is large and menacing but is actually a mush most likely shot, and my house more than likely destroyed. The idea of a stun grenade coming through my front window? That's unreasonable sir. You ask why? Because - assuming I have done something - it puts the innocent persons in my home at grave risk. Putting the lives of children at risk to protect yourself cannot possibly be construed as anything other than a higher valuation of the life of a law enforcement officer versus that of a citizen.

Hopefully I have raised issues which give you a perspective you may not have before considered. Felons love their children too sir.

Stay safe in the course of your work, and by your word, I hope you continue to hold a record of excellent public service.

I'm aware of your conviction and had obtained an idea of you as a person through your postings here, I hold no grudge or bad opinion of you.

In your situation I would say that if your conviction was for something which had occurred years prior, there was not an established pattern of violence, no indications of weapons and evidence of children in the residence a no knock would not be appropriate and should not be utilized.

Contrary to what has been suggested here, no knock warrants are not increasing in frequency. They have fallen under increased scrutiny in recent years and the result has been an unwillingness of judges to sign them unless significant reason exists. There was a time when there were in excess of 300 no knock warrants served a year here, that has been reduced to less than 50 on average.

ETA: I did sign on for the risk. The reasons I do what I do are many but I also signed on with the expectation that I would be allowed to mitigate the threats whenever possible and within reason.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Ok, so we started with life and death, now we're down to "items of sentimental value" and "impressionable adults"?


Adolescent boys are molested by Cub Scout leaders far more commonly than police injure innocents in no knock warrant services, it's still a minute amount but it happens. Should we ban Cub Scout Camp? Or should we improve the process by which pack leaders are chosen?

Obviously life/death is the foremost issue. People not being able to sleep in their own homes for fear is a pretty significant problem regardless of the age of the traumatized individual. While the property damage is far less significant, such things are irreplacable and would have been damaged by someone who damned well didn't belong there in the first place.

As for the scouts, camp is 1., completely optional (as opposed to the misdirected no-knock) and, 2., is not deliberately engineered to be a violent confrontation. I would agree with improving the selection process and hanging the offenders in the case of the scout camp. I find this comparison to be at least somewhat disingenuous. You are comparing one activity which is designed for an uplifting purpose and is completely optional with one which is neither of the above.

 

[phylodog]

Obviously life/death is the foremost issue. People not being able to sleep in their own homes for fear is a pretty significant problem regardless of the age of the traumatized individual. While the property damage is far less significant, such things are irreplacable and would have been damaged by someone who damned well didn't belong there in the first place.

As for the scouts, camp is 1., completely optional (as opposed to the misdirected no-knock) and, 2., is not deliberately engineered to be a violent confrontation. I would agree with improving the selection process and hanging the offenders in the case of the scout camp. I find this comparison to be at least somewhat disingenuous. You are comparing one activity which is designed for an uplifting purpose and is completely optional with one which is neither of the above.

Any non criminal in this country who can't sleep for fear of a no knock raid in the middle of the night has completely lost touch with reality. I could develop insomnia fearing for a lightning strike or a car leaving the roadway at the curve and smashing through my home but I doubt I'd find many with a sympathetic ear. If someone feels that errant no knock warrants are more likely than either of those scenarios they need to rethink where they obtain their information.

 

[GBuck]

Any non criminal in this country who can't sleep for fear of a no knock raid in the middle of the night has completely lost touch with reality. I could develop insomnia fearing for a lightning strike or a car leaving the roadway at the curve and smashing through my home but I doubt I'd find many with a sympathetic ear. If someone feels that errant no knock warrants are more likely than either of those scenarios they need to rethink where they obtain their information.

I'd be willing to bet that no knocks gone bad are far less likely, actually.

 

[NYFelon]

Tri-tasking here - Lab assignment for school (simulation), Ingo, Debate.

Phylo - That sounds reasonable. Also, I'd like to say that I used the assumption of risk as a constructive tool, and not as a means of diminishing the reality of your position.

EDIT: I just realized, I'd need a clarification on "no evidence of weapons." Why you might ask? I own no firearms, for reasons previously established. However, I have a great many weapons - bladed, melee, and other such primitive weapons. There's probably as much steel in my house as yours, it's just in different shapes.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Any non criminal in this country who can't sleep for fear of a no knock raid in the middle of the night has completely lost touch with reality. I could develop insomnia fearing for a lightning strike or a car leaving the roadway at the curve and smashing through my home but I doubt I'd find many with a sympathetic ear. If someone feels that errant no knock warrants are more likely than either of those scenarios they need to rethink where they obtain their information.

I was referring to those who have already experienced one which would reasonably cause children and those of less than rock-solid faculty to have a serious fear issue thereafter, like the 12 year old in the article originally posted.

 

[phylodog]

Tri-tasking here - Lab assignment for school (simulation), Ingo, Debate.

Phylo - That sounds reasonable. Also, I'd like to say that I used the assumption of risk as a constructive tool, and not as a means of diminishing the reality of your position.

EDIT: I just realized, I'd need a clarification on "no evidence of weapons." Why you might ask? I own no firearms, for reasons previously established. However, I have a great many weapons - bladed, melee, and other such primitive weapons. There's probably as much steel in my house as yours, it's just in different shapes.

We're used to samurai swords hanging on the walls. Unless you've got an impressive pedigree to accompany them they wouldn't be of much concern lol.

 

[NYFelon]

We're used to samurai swords hanging on the walls. Unless you've got an impressive pedigree to accompany them they wouldn't be of much concern lol.

ha. Nor would I draw them, it's safe to say you'd have me outgunned.

 

[IndyDave1776]

We're used to samurai swords hanging on the walls. Unless you've got an impressive pedigree to accompany them they wouldn't be of much concern lol.

 

[phylodog]

lol

 

[NYFelon]

Whenever I watch Raiders, I watch that part at least 3 times.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DzcOCyHDqc[/ame]

 

[Archaic_Entity]

It seems I missed a lot by getting home and just focusing on the debates. And I see we're on to Indiana Jones by now, but I can't help but want to get people riled up again. So here it goes.

I would say that you are probably right that a majority go well enough and that mistakes make much more sensational press. Now tell me, how many people thrown under the bus through property damage, personal injury, or death represent acceptable collateral damage? Do you expect this to get any better as more departments militarize and feel motivation to do it because they have the resources (where previously they did not)? Even if we grant you that it is a small number of operations which go wrong, do you expect the families of those wrongfully killed to say, 'It's OK, this is just the cost of fighting crime.'?

I would agree that one wrongful death is too many. I'm fairly certain you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who disagrees here on the forums (no matter how angry we may seem to get with each other). However, mistakes will be made in any profession, and the best we can do is ensure they do not reoccur. And as has been pointed out, it seems like overall the departments do a good job.

Maybe we should change the game since you can't field a team.

Would you raid a house for cannabis?

GBuck (I believe) correctly pointed out that this is the law, and if you disagree with the law, change it. Until then, it's wrong to attempt to lay the blame on the LEOs who perform their duties. [No Godwin please]

What restrictions are tolerable and/or reasonable with respect to the second amendment? The first? Why should the fourth be different?

The Fourth is no different. A refresher:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."​

The judicial system provides the arbitration as to whether or not probable cause is found and whether or not a warrant is issued.

The Cato Institute puts the number at 40, which is 40 too many.

As Alan point out, this is only the death count. The ills he enumerated are very, very relevant.

Again, I would agree. 40 is way too many. One could argue that any mistake is one too many, but we must realize that they happen, and when they do you can only learn from them. There is no reason to be punitive unless the mistakes are due to negligence. And no one has proven that there was negligence in this particular incident.

Which means 40 is way to many. Would you still be so casual about this conversation if it were a family member, a friend, an INGOer or what if it just happened a few houses from you.

It happened here less than a block from houses where friends grew up, hell some of them may still live there.

GBuck correctly replied. You are asking for someone to respond emotionally, as opposed to logically. It is not the proper way to handle the situation. We need to stay divorced from the issues, and make decisions based upon the facts. That is the same stance we all take on the Second Amendment here (generally) and that is the same stance we should take on all political issues, in order to best be informed and best decide.

Also... I love the history behind that shot. For those who don't know, a little trivia. Harrison Ford improvised that shot because he had dysentery, and had just finished the prior action sequence, and couldn't do the second, so he opted to shoot the guy instead. Movie gold.

 

[rambone]

GBuck (I believe) correctly pointed out that this is the law, and if you disagree with the law, change it. Until then, it's wrong to attempt to lay the blame on the LEOs who perform their duties.

Every branch of government shares responsibility, especially for their direct actions.

First, there is the discretion available to police in enforcing the laws. It is not required that every person accused of getting high be arrested, let alone raided. Just speaking in general terms here.

Then there are the methods available. Why not pick up the suspect when he leaves the residence, rather than going in after him? It is tactically the most dangerous thing to attempt, and rarely necessary.

Lastly, if the suspected crime is for a non-violent offense, it is insane to me that the government breaks down their doors without even knocking.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

Every branch of government shares responsibility, especially for their direct actions.

Agreed. As I pointed out, however, I see no reason for punitive action without proof of negligence.

First, there is the discretion available to police in enforcing the laws. It is not required that every person accused of getting high be arrested, let alone raided. Just speaking in general terms here.

Discretion is not necessarily the option when attempting a SWAT raid. At that point, the discretionary actions have been taken, and a decision made. At that point is it no longer time to think, but time to act.

Then there are the methods available. Why not pick up the suspect when he leaves the residence, rather than going in after him? It is tactically the most dangerous thing to attempt, and rarely necessary.

Stake outs often occur, and ambushing the target outside of their comfort zone does happen. The point is taking the target off-guard. That's the same reason that Osama was taken in his compound as opposed to anywhere else. You must ensure the best time to take out all targets, and ensure they will be off their guard. Many people are most guarded when they know they're not in their safe-haven.

Lastly, if the suspected crime is for a non-violent offense, it is insane to me that the government breaks down their doors without even knocking.

Again, I point to the article. These suspects met qualifications meriting the no-knock warrant according to the department. No one has refuted that yet.

In red.

 

[NYFelon]

I'm still up writing a paper, but I was compelled to check this thread (contemplating my next paragraph). I know that you mean no malignant intent, but I find your description of American citizens as targets somewhat discomfiting. I understand you are most likely referring to only the most dangerous amongst us, but that nomenclature smacks of authoritarianism. No personal offense implied, and no godwin intended.

 

[phylodog]

Every branch of government shares responsibility, especially for their direct actions.

First, there is the discretion available to police in enforcing the laws. It is not required that every person accused of getting high be arrested, let alone raided. Just speaking in general terms here.

The police have no discretion (in Indiana) pertaining to felony crimes

Then there are the methods available. Why not pick up the suspect when he leaves the residence, rather than going in after him? It is tactically the most dangerous thing to attempt, and rarely necessary.

The city budget was just passed here in Indianapolis. I did not see any citizens standing before the council arguing for more money to pay police officers for the hours and hours of surveilance required to abandon the use of warrants and instead wait for suspects to appear outside of their homes. It is not tactically the most dangerous thing to attempt, if the suspect is in his home we can contain him and prevent him from harming anyone else while attempting to escape.

Lastly, if the suspected crime is for a non-violent offense, it is insane to me that the government breaks down their doors without even knocking.

As I've stated, the crime the suspect is currently wanted for is not the only thing taken into consideration. If someone has been convicted of armed robbery, has shot at the police before, has been seen recently with a pistol and has a warrant for dealing cocaine we aren't going to walk up on his front porch and ask for his compliance.

We have a reserve officer program, if you would like to join us and take care of these types so we don't use no knock warrants in the future I am sure the Mayor and Chief of Police would be very appreciative of your efforts. I myself have a younger brother on the department and until you've received the necessary training and have accepted the responsibilities I will continue to use the tools and tactics I have to go after the hard core criminals so that my brother doesn't have to without them.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It seems I missed a lot by getting home and just focusing on the debates. And I see we're on to Indiana Jones by now, but I can't help but want to get people riled up again. So here it goes.

What fun is a political discussion if you can't do that?

I would agree that one wrongful death is too many. I'm fairly certain you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who disagrees here on the forums (no matter how angry we may seem to get with each other). However, mistakes will be made in any profession, and the best we can do is ensure they do not reoccur. And as has been pointed out, it seems like overall the departments do a good job.

Perfection is a lot to ask of anyone, and it is frequently asked. Given my background as a professional driver who is expected never to make a mistake (in my driving or in my paperwork) and successfully protect the stupid from themselves while doing so, I can sympathize with police who are expected to remove every dangerous criminal from the street (except for those we want to be exceptions) without anyone getting so much as a scraped knee in the process and inconvenience and property damage absolutely never happening. Unfortunately this isn't reality.

While the worst offenders get the headlines and most everyone else in the profession walks away with egg on their faces in the reckoning of the general public, it is imperative to remember that superior training can do much toward overcoming a flawed concept. Unfortunately this doesn't negate the flawed concept, and we are left with a flawed and extremely dangerous tool in the hands of the inept and, frankly, disreputable as well as in the hands of well trained and honorable officers who use it responsibly. Ditto for the disparity between judges who would approve such an action only when truly necessary and those who would hand such warrants out like candy.

Again, I would raise the question of why 'opne is one too many' is acceptable for infringing or eliminating the rights of the general population but collateral damage is more acceptable here.

GBuck (I believe) correctly pointed out that this is the law, and if you disagree with the law, change it. Until then, it's wrong to attempt to lay the blame on the LEOs who perform their duties. [No Godwin please]

Unfortunately Godwin applies very well when similar things are being done with similar justifications for similar reasons and can reasonably be expected to yield similar results. My question for and/all police is at what point does one draw the line?

The Fourth is no different. A refresher:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
​

The judicial system provides the arbitration as to whether or not probable cause is found and whether or not a warrant is issued.



Again, I would agree. 40 is way too many. One could argue that any mistake is one too many, but we must realize that they happen, and when they do you can only learn from them. There is no reason to be punitive unless the mistakes are due to negligence. And no one has proven that there was negligence in this particular incident.

I agree in general including that punitive action should be taken only in cases of willful wrongdoing or negligence. The incident under consideration suggests that lobbing a potentially dangerous device into an area occupied by a child is a negligent act. Whatever became of verifying your target before discharging, regardless of teh specific instrument in use?

The pivotal point you raised is learning from the mistake. After the last major fiasco in Evansville, the police chief publicly declared that there was nothing wrong with the methods used and he saw no need for change. If a police chief can declare that there is nothing wrong with the actions which led directly to an unmitigated disaster are not flawed and will be repeated I have serious questions at several different levels including that of whether this man has any business in law enforcement whatsoever. Unfortunately, the police in general are not made up of a mass of phylodog clones.

GBuck correctly replied. You are asking for someone to respond emotionally, as opposed to logically. It is not the proper way to handle the situation. We need to stay divorced from the issues, and make decisions based upon the facts. That is the same stance we all take on the Second Amendment here (generally) and that is the same stance we should take on all political issues, in order to best be informed and best decide.

Also... I love the history behind that shot. For those who don't know, a little trivia. Harrison Ford improvised that shot because he had dysentery, and had just finished the prior action sequence, and couldn't do the second, so he opted to shoot the guy instead. Movie gold.

Sometimes the best things in life are totally unplanned!

.