SWAT uses flashbang on sleeping 12-year-old girl

[level.eleven]

level.eleven, Are you still beating your wife? If not, when did you quit?


See, I can do it too.

Nowhere near the same. You made the claim that the problem is SMALL. To emphasize your calculation, you used capitalization. Since you have completed the calculation and were able to determine the problem to be SMALL, you must also have a marker at which the problem becomes large. Else, you cannot classify the problem as SMALL.

That is the question I asked.

 

[GBuck]

This is a very critical question. Whenever some weasel in the .gov wants to separate us from some of our rights, we hear the tired spiel about 'if it only saves one child...'. Where do we draw the line about how much collateral damage is acceptable?

Again, how many dead/injured cops is acceptable? I would bet every dollar I make for the rest of my life that if you got rid of no knock warrants there would be FAR more cops injured than innocents injured under the current system. Again, you're talking about a very small percentages of them that end in an innocent's house. The only reason you hear about them is they get publicized and the thousands that go off DAILY with a very high success rate don't.

 

[GBuck]

Nowhere near the same. You made the claim that the problem is SMALL. To emphasize your calculation, you used capitalization. Since you have completed the calculation and were able to determine the problem to be SMALL, you must also have a marker at which the problem becomes large. Else, you cannot classify the problem as SMALL.

That is the question I asked.

I determine the problem to be small because people that have nothing better to do can find a few of these to smear a month versus the thousands that occur.

 

[NYFelon]

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

 

[GBuck]

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

The fourth isn't different. The fourth protects against unreasonable search and seizure. There's no "restrictions" on it. The Police jump through the required hoops and BAM there is a warrant. If they can't provide the necessary info, no warrant.

 

[phylodog]

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

I guess the crux of that argument would rest with the word reasonable. What may seem unreasonable to those standing on the outside may be perfectly reasonable to others.

 

[NYFelon]

You don't find the use of stun grenades by a metropolitan police force in residential buildings unreasonable? Surely sir, you jest.

EDIT: This was directed at GB. Phylo, I didn't see your post. I agree, "reasonable" is a subjective term.

 

[phylodog]

You don't find the use of stun grenades by a metropolitan police force in residential buildings unreasonable? Surely sir, you jest.

I find the answer entirely dependent upon the situation. Again, it's easy when your ass isn't on the line. Fortunately the courts have ruled that police officers lives, while obviously not as important as everyone else's, are in fact valuable.

 

[Bunnykid68]

You plan to develop a criminal charge for participating in a no knock warrant? Please let me know when you get it accomplished. Rest assured if they come for me they'll use that tactic.

Bunny I appreciate it. History has shown that we have done a pretty good job of not hitting the wrong houses around here. That, I am proud of.

I am very glad your department has been good about it. And you are very aware of how bad it would be if it went FUBAR and I think you would be all over someones ass personally if they sent you to my house, but it seems not enough of the people that push the paper give a rats ass and that concerns us greatly.

Of course some of my personal feeling with the JBTs down here in Evansville keep it at the forefront of my mind when I read these sensationalized stories.

 

[GBuck]

You don't find the use of stun grenades by a metropolitan police force in residential buildings unreasonable? Surely sir, you jest.

I don't jest. Ever. I just think that until you're the one having to serve the warrant, or oversee the process, you don't know what is reasonable or not. If you don't like what the system of checks and balances has come up with, speak with the legislatures.

 

[Bunnykid68]

You plan to develop a criminal charge for participating in a no knock warrant? Please let me know when you get it accomplished. Rest assured if they come for me they'll use that tactic.

Bunny I appreciate it. History has shown that we have done a pretty good job of not hitting the wrong houses around here. That, I am proud of.

I might suggest they prosecute the people that offered up the bad intel to the judge which got them the warrant. If you are going to flashbang a house you should at least have a reasonable idea of whom is in that house. Evansville failed horribly and I think the article that started this **** storm mentioned they did not know there was a child.

Prosecute the investigators and/or the judge if they are just willy nilly signing off on any warrants

 

[IndyDave1776]

Again, how many dead/injured cops is acceptable? I would bet every dollar I make for the rest of my life that if you got rid of no knock warrants there would be FAR more cops injured than innocents injured under the current system. Again, you're talking about a very small percentages of them that end in an innocent's house. The only reason you hear about them is they get publicized and the thousands that go off DAILY with a very high success rate don't.

I prefer for life not to be more dangerous than necessary for anyone but there are some issues that do not provide an even comparison:

1. How do you weight your scale to address the fact that a police officer deliberately signed up for a potentially dangerous job. The people who come out on the wrong end of a no-knock gone awry did not. Since it has come down to the question of how much collateral damage is acceptable being answered with the question of how many dead cops are acceptable, it seems that we cannot sidestep this question unless someone is simply going to make an abitrary decision that one life is more valuable than the other. The notion that the death of the innocent is insignificant contrasted with officer safety as a blanket position does not bode well for the presumed existence of a free republic holding to the notions of the presumption of innocence pending proof of guilt in court and proscription of deprivation (potentially of one's life) without due process.

2. This discussion seems to completely bypass the question of whether or not other means would generate satisfactory results, like simply waiting out the wanted individual. We have all watched Hogan's Heroes at some point, but I doubt that any but the most dedicated and richest of criminals have actually constructed tunnels to serve as clandestine exits.

3. Is this an issue of necessity or convenience. I find it difficult to believe that a fugitive would enter his home and never come out again. I will grant you that refraining from storming the place would require an indefinite period of time waiting either outside or watching locations the fugitive is known to frequent (presuming that he doesn't disappear), but still, is a few mow man-hours per fugitive more of an issue than the potential danger to those the police are supposedly protecting and serving?

It seems to me that there should be a workable solution that does not require the hazards of the increasingly common no-knock.

 

[GBuck]

Someone please, pull up the number of innocents killed by no knock warrants. We'll all wait.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Someone please, pull up the number of innocents killed by no knock warrants. We'll all wait.

What about terrified from being assaulted, pets killed, children threatened, property damage,.........

 

[IndyDave1776]

Someone please, pull up the number of innocents killed by no knock warrants. We'll all wait.

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.

 

[GBuck]

What about terrified from being assaulted, pets killed, children threatened, property damage,.........

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.

While I agree that it is tragic, I think you guys are underestimating the consequences if you reverse the situation.

You're talkin about 40 that have gone bad out how how many in the same time span? 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.

 

[Bunnykid68]

While I agree that it is tragic, I think you guys are underestimating the consequences if you reverse the situation.

You're talkin about 40 that have gone bad out how how many in the same time span? 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.

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]

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.

Don't confuse not being emotional about it with being casual.

 

[NYFelon]

I find the answer entirely dependent upon the situation. Again, it's easy when your ass isn't on the line. Fortunately the courts have ruled that police officers lives, while obviously not as important as everyone else's, are in fact valuable.

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.

 

[Bunnykid68]

When the government uses forces against its people and bad things happen, I just dont see how it matters much at all how few of them were harmed.