SWAT uses flashbang on sleeping 12-year-old girl

[steveh_131]

Officers obviously have the same moral obligation to weigh their actions as we do. Where you and I seem to be missing each other is at this line you're wanting to draw. There is no moral issue here, in this instance, that I can find.

On the contray, breaking into someone's house and kidnapping them presents a very important moral issue. The fact that it is being done on the governments' behest has absolutely no bearing. It's either morally right or morally wrong to break into someone's house and kidnap them. The law doesn't determine that morality.

Their standard is whether or not the actions are legal. Being a Jew is legal, being a drug manufacturer is not. Owning firearms is legal, being a drug dealer is not. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

It is NOT cut and dry. The law changes constantly. How can we base our morality on laws that change every minute of the day? What will be illegal tomorrow? Owning bath salts? So tomorrow it becomes morally acceptable to break into someone's house and terrify their children with grenades because they own bath salts? Do you realize how absurd this is?

See above. Explain how this is tyranny.

Government agents breaking into your home for silly reasons most certainly qualifies as tyranny.

Furthermore, your graph showing the number of incarcerations proves literally nothing except showing we have more inmates.

level.eleven posted plenty of data on this. No more is necessary.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

On the contray, breaking into someone's house and kidnapping them presents a very important moral issue. The fact that it is being done on the governments' behest has absolutely no bearing. It's either morally right or morally wrong to break into someone's house and kidnap them. The law doesn't determine that morality.



It is NOT cut and dry. The law changes constantly. How can we base our morality on laws that change every minute of the day? What will be illegal tomorrow? Owning bath salts? So tomorrow it becomes morally acceptable to break into someone's house and terrify their children with grenades because they own bath salts? Do you realize how absurd this is?



Government agents breaking into your home for silly reasons most certainly qualifies as tyranny.



level.eleven posted plenty of data on this. No more is necessary.

Yes. Yes it does present a moral issue. Kidnapping someone is terrible, and no one should ever do it. That being said, that is not what officers do at all.

Their job is to keep the peace, and uphold the law. If a person is disrupting the peace and breaking the law, then they should face the law. Again, going back to the article, these people were suspected of having a meth lab. They had a history of crime. There was enough evidence to produce a warrant. In order to protect the lives of law-abiding citizens, the police had to intervene.

Would you object to officers breaking in and taking out a criminal in a hostage situation? Or is that morally wrong because they would be killing someone?

You can't have it both ways. Morality doesn't just look at everything as black and white. Taking someone forcibly from their home isn't always kidnapping. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it's stopping a shootout.

The law reflects the current morality of the American people. That is the way it was intended to work. Right now, it is illegal to own a plant. It is illegal to concoct certain combinations of chemicals. It is illegal to distribute these items or own them. If you want that changed, then do your part to change it. That has no bearing on this discussion in the first place. The point, as it started, was attempting to prove whether or not the officers in this article exercised proper caution before undertaking this task. I have stated they have. You want to tell me what again?

 

[rambone]

I've argued on more than one occasion that you don't want the police to be the end all - be all when deciding what should or should not be legal. Be careful what you wish for. Just as opinions vary widely here, they will within any police agency and you may find that the police officer who shows up at your daughter's door doesn't think there is anything wrong with her husband beating her ass.

I've considered your argument but it does not change my mind. Every officer should act his conscience. Only a corrupt officer will cover for bully. It already happens under the current system. I will not be swayed by the scary idea of too little enforcement taking place in this country.

For tyranny to take place, all three branches of government have to be complicit. The responsibility lies on all three to obey their oaths and protect the people from oppression. The Executive Branch cannot "cop out" and defer this responsibility.

 

[steveh_131]

Yes. Yes it does present a moral issue. Kidnapping someone is terrible, and no one should ever do it. That being said, that is not what officers do at all.

Their job is to keep the peace, and uphold the law. If a person is disrupting the peace and breaking the law, then they should face the law. Again, going back to the article, these people were suspected of having a meth lab. They had a history of crime. There was enough evidence to produce a warrant. In order to protect the lives of law-abiding citizens, the police had to intervene.

Would you object to officers breaking in and taking out a criminal in a hostage situation? Or is that morally wrong because they would be killing someone?

You can't have it both ways. Morality doesn't just look at everything as black and white. Taking someone forcibly from their home isn't always kidnapping. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it's stopping a shootout.

The law reflects the current morality of the American people. That is the way it was intended to work. Right now, it is illegal to own a plant. It is illegal to concoct certain combinations of chemicals. It is illegal to distribute these items or own them. If you want that changed, then do your part to change it. That has no bearing on this discussion in the first place. The point, as it started, was attempting to prove whether or not the officers in this article exercised proper caution before undertaking this task. I have stated they have. You want to tell me what again?

I never said it was black and white. I'm arguing against the disconnect between government enforcers and the morality of their actions.

They can make the argument that they are morally ok with what they are doing. I will accept the argument, even if I disagree in specific circumstances.

I will not accept the argument that whatever they do is ok because the government ordered it and because it is not specifically prohibited by the constitution.

 

[hornadylnl]

The point, as it started, was attempting to prove whether or not the officers in this article exercised proper caution before undertaking this task. I have stated they have. You want to tell me what again?

I just googled "meth lab explosion" and returned 429,000 hits. Also this from Wiki regarding flash bangs.

Unlike a fragmentation grenade, stun grenades are constructed with a casing made to remain intact during detonation, containing most of its explosive force and avoiding shrapnel injuries, while having large circular cutouts to allow the light and sound of the explosion through. The filler consists of a pyrotechnic metal-oxidant mix of magnesium or aluminium, and an oxidizer such as ammonium perchlorate or potassium perchlorate.

So we're basically left with 3 options here. Either these officers are so stupid that they need bibs to catch the drool because they don't know what can happen when throwing flash bangs into explosive areas, they didn't really believe there was a meth lab in the house, or they were just ridding society of some losers should the place explode.

If you believe throwing flash bangs into a suspected meth lab is taking proper precautions, I'd like for you to demonstrate how safe it is by standing right next to a meth lab and deploying a flash bang into it.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

I never said it was black and white. I'm arguing against the disconnect between government enforcers and the morality of their actions.

They can make the argument that they are morally ok with what they are doing. I will accept the argument, even if I disagree in specific circumstances.

I will not accept the argument that whatever they do is ok because the government ordered it and because it is not specifically prohibited by the constitution.

Not being an LEO, I can't speak for any of them, but I think it has been pointed out before that there is a line, and gun-grabbing and genocide are on the wrong side of them for the LEOs here. So we've already differentiated the morality of the officer from the law. Phylodog even stated that owning a plant doesn't cross his line.

I just googled "meth lab explosion" and returned 429,000 hits. Also this from Wiki regarding flash bangs.

Unlike a fragmentation grenade, stun grenades are constructed with a casing made to remain intact during detonation, containing most of its explosive force and avoiding shrapnel injuries, while having large circular cutouts to allow the light and sound of the explosion through. The filler consists of a pyrotechnic metal-oxidant mix of magnesium or aluminium, and an oxidizer such as ammonium perchlorate or potassium perchlorate.

So we're basically left with 3 options here. Either these officers are so stupid that they need bibs to catch the drool because they don't know what can happen when throwing flash bangs into explosive areas, they didn't really believe there was a meth lab in the house, or they were just ridding society of some losers should the place explode.

If you believe throwing flash bangs into a suspected meth lab is taking proper precautions, I'd like for you to demonstrate how safe it is by standing right next to a meth lab and deploying a flash bang into it.

Facts unknown about this case: Basement in the house? Or other area more likely to house the lab itself than a bedroom on the ground floor? Maybe. I understand the dangerousness of meth labs, and I'm sure the officers conducting and orchestrating the raid did, too. Therefore they, likely, picked the points of entry least likely to contain volatile chemicals. You want to give the suspects an innocent before proven guilty, that's fine. I will too. I'll extend the same courtesy to the officers when it comes to contesting their willful negligence. Prove they were either, A) stupid enough to not realize what meth labs do, B) falsified their police report, their warrant, and wasted tax payer money just for "fun", or C) just felt like killing some folks.

Until then, I see no merit in your argument.

 

[hornadylnl]

Facts unknown about this case: Basement in the house? Or other area more likely to house the lab itself than a bedroom on the ground floor? Maybe. I understand the dangerousness of meth labs, and I'm sure the officers conducting and orchestrating the raid did, too. Therefore they, likely, picked the points of entry least likely to contain volatile chemicals. You want to give the suspects an innocent before proven guilty, that's fine. I will too. I'll extend the same courtesy to the officers when it comes to contesting their willful negligence. Prove they were either, A) stupid enough to not realize what meth labs do, B) falsified their police report, their warrant, and wasted tax payer money just for "fun", or C) just felt like killing some folks.

Until then, I see no merit in your argument.

Do I get the same minimal level of burden of proof to prove that as they used to get the warrant?

ETA: So you're not willing to stand in close proximity of a meth lab and lob flash bangs into it? Then please don't place my family in close proximity to it.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Not being an LEO, I can't speak for any of them, but I think it has been pointed out before that there is a line, and gun-grabbing and genocide are on the wrong side of them for the LEOs here. So we've already differentiated the morality of the officer from the law. Phylodog even stated that owning a plant doesn't cross his line.



Facts unknown about this case: Basement in the house? Or other area more likely to house the lab itself than a bedroom on the ground floor? Maybe. I understand the dangerousness of meth labs, and I'm sure the officers conducting and orchestrating the raid did, too. Therefore they, likely, picked the points of entry least likely to contain volatile chemicals. You want to give the suspects an innocent before proven guilty, that's fine. I will too. I'll extend the same courtesy to the officers when it comes to contesting their willful negligence. Prove they were either, A) stupid enough to not realize what meth labs do, B) falsified their police report, their warrant, and wasted tax payer money just for "fun", or C) just felt like killing some folks.

Until then, I see no merit in your argument.

Another fact in this case stated by those conducting the raid was they had know ideal there were two girls in the house, some police work in this case, but somehow they knew there was a meth lab. Something does not add up, they knew of a meth lab but had know idea who was in the house.

 

[Bunnykid68]

No arrests made and no charges filed. Some crack investigating in this particular case for sure.

You do not read about these things from Phylos department for a reason, why cant the rest of the departments across the country do the same?

 

[GBuck]

So their standard for imprisoning people is whether or not their alleged activity is specifically protected by the constitution?

No, but I would argue that their duty to 'disobey' a law resides in the constitution. "To uphold the Constitution of the State of Indiana and the United States.'

 

[hornadylnl]

Another fact in this case stated by those conducting the raid was they had know ideal there were to girls in the house, some police work in this case, but somehow they knew there was a meth lab. Something does not add up, they knew of a meth lab but had know idea who was in the house.

There is no illegal activity in my house. An officer gets notified that I bought some cold medicine, their local junkie informant rats me out, whatever. They bust into my house lobbing flash bangs and burn my daughter. I want the guy who burned my daughter to tell me face to face that he exorcised proper precautions.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

Do I get the same minimal level of burden of proof to prove that as they used to get the warrant?

ETA: So you're not willing to stand in close proximity of a meth lab and lob flash bangs into it? Then please don't place my family in close proximity to it.

In order to obtain a warranty, there must be probable cause of a crime. You are afforded that protection. A judge must approve the warrant.

The facts aren't fully detailed in this case, unfortunately, so we have limited information to go on. What we do know is that there was an investigation. The investigating team believed there to be a meth lab in the residence. They presented the evidence to a judge. The judge approved the warrant. There was a raid. They could look incredibly guilty on paper, and we would have no idea currently.

To answer your last question, no I wouldn't. And I wouldn't intentionally place you or yours in that position either. Fortunately, that's not a judgement call I have to make. I would like to point out, from the article:

"The information that we had did not have any juveniles in the house and did not have any juveniles in the room," he said. "We generally do not introduce these disorienting devices when they're present."​

Something tells me that these officers would agree with both of our sentiments on this matter.

Another fact in this case stated by those conducting the raid was they had know ideal there were to girls in the house, some police work in this case, but somehow they knew there was a meth lab. Something does not add up, they knew of a meth lab but had know idea who was in the house.

This is probably the most regrettable issue in the case, that they missed this piece of information. I'm sure that the investigation into the department will bring to light where this error was. If it was negligence, then I do hope that the offending parties are punished.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

There is no illegal activity in my house. An officer gets notified that I bought some cold medicine, their local junkie informant rats me out, whatever. They bust into my house lobbing flash bangs and burn my daughter. I want the guy who burned my daughter to tell me face to face that he exorcised proper precautions.

Where are you drawing the conclusions that this entire thing was based upon the purchase of cold medicine, and some junkie ratting them out?

 

[hornadylnl]

Where are you drawing the conclusions that this entire thing was based upon the purchase of cold medicine, and some junkie ratting them out?

Obviously their intel was worth as much as mammaries on a boar. And a girl got burnt. Since we now know there is not a meth lab in that house, it was worth it.

 

[GBuck]

Do I get the same minimal level of burden of proof to prove that as they used to get the warrant?

ETA: So you're not willing to stand in close proximity of a meth lab and lob flash bangs into it? Then please don't place my family in close proximity to it.

Both parts of this post assume that they had little evidence to obtain the warrant. You have no way of knowing what they do have.

 

[hornadylnl]

No arrests made and no charges filed.

Both parts of this post assume that they had little evidence to obtain the warrant. You have no way of knowing what they do have.

Obviously what they had was wrong.

 

[GBuck]

Obviously what they had was wrong.

Well there is something we agree on. That doesn't mean that they were negligent. You act like there aren't times where EVERY bit of evidence doesn't point to one thing and the contrary is true. It's very rare, as are erroneous no knock warrants, but it does happen.

 

[hornadylnl]

Well there is something we agree on. That doesn't mean that they were negligent. You act like there aren't times where EVERY bit of evidence doesn't point to one thing and the contrary is true. It's very rare, as are erroneous no knock warrants, but it does happen.

Maybe we can ask the burned girl if she thinks it was negligent. Like all past cases, there will be a law suit that costs the tax payers dearly and those involved nothing. Who knows, there might be an awards ceremony for them.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

"No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them." - Frederic Bastiat

 

[mydoghasfleas]

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." -Ayn Rand