
A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son - Brajeshwar
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/24/a_swat_team_blew_a_hole_in_my_2_year_old_son/
======
rayiner
This was the result of a no-knock warrant: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-
knock_warrant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-knock_warrant), which allows
police to enter a home without prior warning, on the theory that giving notice
will allow people inside to destroy evidence. They are almost uniquely a
product of the drug war. One can imagine very few situations outside of drugs
were evidence could be so easily destroyed as to justify a no-knock warrant.

~~~
Glyptodon
It's a really stupid theory. Destroying evidence is just another charge to
throw on and doesn't really suggest any risk of violence. Though sure, if they
flush in time maybe the police lose out. But it hardly seems worth it. It
ought to be possible to serve warrant without instigating a violent encounter.
And it's not like the risk of destruction of evidence is anything new. You
could easily destroy evidence well before the US was even founded. Might have
been even easier, historically. Burn it, throw it in a river, etc. No-knock
aggression should be reserved for situations where there's a very very strong
expectation of violent resistance and that's it.

~~~
danielsiders
Also in general the severity of the charge is directly proportional to the
quantity of drugs. So if the quantity is instantly flushable, how serious of a
charge can it have been, and thus how much accidental damage is acceptable in
the arrest?

~~~
chc
OK, so, to the best of my knowledge, 1 kg of cocaine is worth about $20K.
Assuming cocaine has roughly the density of baking soda, this amount ought to
be easily disposable in a single flush. So you could flush $100K worth of coke
down a toilet in under a minute.

~~~
Bootvis
Seems optimistic to me. If you flush in rapid succession the reservoir has to
fill again. I guess that a good flush requires, depending on circumstances,
20s of refilling. That would lower the throughput significantly. Also, the
suspect has to move the cocaine from hiding to the toilet. Sure, $20K is a lot
of money but were not talking Pablo Escobar-like quantities here.

Edit: also clogging, not sure when this happens and not really willing to
experiment.

~~~
erroneousfunk
Cocaine is far more water soluble than baking soda. Extremely, extremely water
soluble -- about 2 grams of cocaine can dissolve in 1 ml of water (compare to
baking soda: About .1 grams per ml of water)

You can't clog a toilet by flushing cocaine.

~~~
Bootvis
But you also have to get rid of the packaging. I was imagining dumping a
package of cocaine, but that's stupid: at least opening the packaging would
help with the clogging by letting the cocaine dissolve. Not sure what the
packaging would do with the pipes and whether this only packaging holds up as
evidence.

------
erbo
This should _outrage_ any thinking citizen.

We need a new policy for instances of excessive use of force by police: if any
such is suspected, _all_ officers involved must be immediately suspended,
_without_ pay, while an impartial judge, _not_ a police "Internal Affairs
Division" (since police officers too often try to "protect their own"),
investigates to see whether the claim is justified. If it's not, the
officer(s) can be reinstated and given back pay.

If, however, the police _did_ use excessive force:

(1) The officer(s) involved must be _criminally_ indicted and prosecuted for
any applicable charges. In this case, it would likely be "premeditated assault
with a deadly weapon," and, if, God forbid, that child dies, the charge
becomes _first-degree murder._ If convicted, the officer(s) must then be
_fired,_ losing _all_ pension and benefits.

(2) The officer(s) must lose _any and all_ immunity to lawsuit and/or damages
under state law, including any "homestead exemption," making it possible for
the victims' families to sue them for every penny they have. Yes, leaving them
and their families living under a _bridge_ if necessary.

Perhaps knowing that there might be consequences like this will make some of
these officers _think_ and _double-check their facts_ before deciding to play
G.I. Joe. If they think these rules are too tough, well, they always have an
option: They can _resign_ and go _work_ for a living. To paraphrase Super
Chicken, "They knew the job was dangerous when they took it."

~~~
rayiner
This is just senseless ranting.

1) It's unconstitutional, as a violation of due process, to suspend officers
without pay, before they have been adjudicated as having done something wrong.

2) It's probably unconstitutional to impose forfeiture of vested interests as
punishment for a crime.

3) Premediated murder requires specific intent to kill. Even if the kid had
died, it would most likely be negligent homicide.

4) Removing legal protections for police sounds lovely when you only consider
situations like this one, but you forget that for every one instance of
something like this, there are dozens of instances of actual bad guys filing
meritless lawsuits.

~~~
kika
> Premediated murder requires specific intent to kill. Even if the kid had
> died, it would most likely be negligent homicide.

Honest question: I'm walking past the somebody's house with an assault grenade
in my hand. I feel miserable and I throw the grenade into the window. 5 people
die. Is that negligence? I didn't know whose house is it, is there any people
there, etc.

~~~
thoth
For starters, you should read the Illustrated Guide to Law
([http://lawcomic.net/guide/?page_id=5](http://lawcomic.net/guide/?page_id=5))
and perhaps buy the print copy of the book. Focus on Chapter 6, about Mens
Rea, and Chapter 8, Actus Reus.

Then figure out whether the jury is going to believe that you didn't intend to
harm anybody when you threw a grenade into a house.

~~~
kika
Awesome book, thanks, exactly what law idiots like me need.

I actually ignored the jury factor, my fault. When police officers brutally
kill someone they're still "our" guys, good guys.

------
incision
Sad that none of this surprises me anymore.

I gave up hope after the same local cops who have long been notorious for
shooting everybody [1](2001) got off scot-free for contriving a raid of a
local mayor, intimidating his mother in-law, shooting his dogs and
unapologetically quipping about it [2](2008).

1: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/content/nation/investig...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/content/nation/investigative/policeshootings.html)

 _" By any measure, Prince George's County police have shot and killed people
at rates that exceed those of nearly any other large police force in the
nation."_

2:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor'...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor's_residence_drug_raid)

 _" The event gained national and international media attention. While the
Calvos were cleared of wrongdoing, the police were accused by the Calvos and
civil rights groups of lacking a proper search warrant, excessive force, and
failure to conduct a proper background investigation of the home being raided.
Despite the criticisms, no action has been taken against the officers or their
respective police departments. In August 2010, Sheriff Jackson stated that
"we'd do it again. Tonight."[1]"_

------
jordan0day
The increasing militarization of police in the USA has seemingly had a
significant (and hopefully unintended) side-effect: Police tend to treat
suspects (and those around them) not as law-breaking _citizens_ , but as
_enemy combatants_.

~~~
malandrew
Is this enough to be able to challenge the constitutionality out of SWAT team
usage and no-knock warrants, based on the principle that we are innocent until
proven guilty. For example, in this case, the police were looking for one
individual and found a family inside. Shouldn't the police treat them all as
innocent instead of enemy combatants until they've positively identified the
suspect?

If we have to err between the safety of the public and the safety of police
officers, that's an easy decision to make since hazards are part of the job
they have chosen to perform. Using SWAT teams externalizes the risk and danger
of the job.

IMHO, it should be a high bar to meet to justify the use of SWAT teams in any
situation. A judge should have to sign off on the use based on extraordinary
evidence justifying why such excessive force is need. Once a warrant is
acquired, do police have carte blanche to exercise it as they see fit?

~~~
maxerickson
A judge would have signed off on this raid and was probably reasonably aware
of the tactics they were likely to employ.

~~~
fixermark
This is an interesting point, and depending on the jurisdiction, some judges
are elected officials.

It should come back on the judge that he or she authorized this abuse of
power. Unfortunately, the feedback loop between the (hypothetical) judicial
backstop on the system and the enforcers of the law tends to be left open by
ignorance.

It would be good for local political activists in Atlanta to make sure that
the judge who authorized this warrant has a significantly curtailed career.

~~~
anigbrowl
OK, but the judge can only go by the evidence s/he is presented with. This
judge might have been rubber-stamping SWAT raid applications, or might have
been given sufficient evidence to think there was a serious risk of a
firefight.

~~~
malandrew
Are judges required to make a statement on each warrant justifying their
decision to grant a warrant given the information presented, or is it
basically just a signature.

I would hope that signing off on a warrant requires more rigor than a mere
signature.

How adversarial is the warrant granting process. Is it common for warrants
asked for to be granted by default, or is there an adversarial process in
place that forces the police/detectives to go back and do more investigative
work if they don't provide enough substantive evidence to justify a warrant
being granted.

Furthermore, is warrant-granting by judges a matter of the public record. i.e.
Can I go somewhere to lookup how many warrants a particular judge has granted,
how many they have denied, and how many that were denied were eventually
granted and the average number of resubmissions required to get those that
were initially denied approved?

------
peterkelly
I'm struggling to understand how any of the officers on the SWAT team - or,
for that matter, those who formulated the policies to use tools like M-16s and
flash grenades in drug raids - could possibly consider their actions to be
less serious than someone taking or dealing in drugs.

~~~
rayiner
You're missing the social context here. First, this is never about using it's
about dealing. Police enforcement efforts are almost entirely preoccupied with
trafficking. Second, dealers are, by and large, bad people for other reasons.
Your suburban pot dealer isn't the target of no-knock raids. The targets are
guys with long rap sheets of felony convictions, often for violent crimes.

Drugs are a proxy in a war between police and gangs. Atlanta had 81 murders in
2013, versus 82 for London, which has 20x the population. To an extent the
drug trade causes some of this violence, but it's just the tip of the iceberg.
Atlanta is in a former slave-holding state and was segregated as recently as
the 1970's. It's a city where 27% of residents, and 31% of children, are below
the poverty line. Poverty is highly correlated with race: 33% of blacks and
hispanics versus only 8% of whites. It's a city where 76% of poor families are
led by women with no husband present.

Between the history of oppression and the massive racial disparity in the
incidence of poverty, there is zero trust between the black majority and the
white minority (which holds a majority of the economic and political power).
This lack of trust is at the root of much of the conflict. Black and hispanic
communities are unhappy with the crime, but also, arguably for good reasons,
don't help the police shut down the gangs. At the same time, wealthier whites
support the aggressive enforcement because they are scared and the negative
side-effects don't happen in their neighborhoods.

This is not to justify no-knock raids for drug enforcement, but to help
illuminate the mindset of the officers involved and how they justify their
actions. I am in favor of deescalating the drug war, but that's just the first
step in normalizing our cities, which see violence that is without comparison
in the developed world.

~~~
jnbiche
>Second, dealers are, by and large, bad people for other reasons. Your
suburban pot dealer isn't the target of no-knock raids. The targets are guys
with long rap sheets of felony convictions, often for violent crimes.

This may (or may not) be true in Atlanta, but in South Carolina, it's
demonstrably untrue. We had a wave of SWAT raids from 2006-2010 on poker
games, culminating in this:

[http://pokerati.com/2010/11/poker-raid-in-south-
carolina-1-p...](http://pokerati.com/2010/11/poker-raid-in-south-
carolina-1-player-1-cop-shot-violent-standoff-and-hefty-charges-in-uncertain-
battleground-state-pictures/)

None of these poker game players were "guys with long raps sheets". In fact,
most of them had no prior criminal record.

I know of numerous other SWAT raids for other white collar crimes like
campaign finance violations but I don't have time to dig them all up now.

Finally, SWAT raids are _routinely_ carried out on "suburban pot dealers".
Here's one from a few months ago:

[http://marlborough.patch.com/groups/police-and-
fire/p/swat-t...](http://marlborough.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/swat-
team-raids-home-arrests-alleged-drug-dealer-marlborough)

Just Google "pot dealer" and SWAT and you'll find tons of other examples.

~~~
Joeri
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When a police
department forms a swat team, they're going to use it, even for minor
offenses.

~~~
msie
Heh, I misread this as: "When all you have is a hummer,"

------
iagooar
When I read stuff like this, I'm really happy that I am not living in the US.
It sounds so crazy to a European person, I can't really imagine how Americans
manage to normally live their lives.

~~~
tlrobinson
_" I can't really imagine how Americans manage to normally live their lives."_

This is truly awful, but the vast majority of Americans will never be subject
to a SWAT raid or anything like it (especially if they're not involved in
illegal activity). Or terrorist attacks. Or mass shootings. Or etc etc.

People are notoriously bad at estimating the probability rare but extreme
events will happen to them.

Of course, that doesn't make this ok. I personally believe SWAT team usage
should be restricted to hostage, active shooter, and similar situations.

~~~
ddeck
_> but the vast majority of Americans will never be subject to a SWAT raid or
anything like it (especially if they're not involved in illegal activity). Or
terrorist attacks. Or mass shootings. Or etc etc._

While that's true, it's somewhat beside the point. US citizens are far more
likely to be a on the receiving end of a SWAT raid or a victim of murder than
citizens of other countries at a comparable level of development. The fact
that it's only a minority of the population doesn't mean there isn't a serious
issue.

To put some numbers on it, the US annual murder rate is ~5 people per 100k
population. Yes, it's small, but compare that to 1.0 in the UK, 1.1 in
Australia, 1.6 in Canada (0.4 in my country), and clearly it's a more
dangerous place.

There are estimated to be ~50-80k US SWAT raids per year annually. Of those in
Maryland for example:

\- half are for non-violent "part-II" crimes

\- a third resulted in no arrests

\- >1% resulted in an officer's weapon being fired

I didn't know those SWAT stats prior to today and I find them shocking.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
watch/wp/2014/02/17/s...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
watch/wp/2014/02/17/shedding-light-on-the-use-of-swat-teams/)

------
iambateman
Caveat: I don't support frequent use of no-knock warrants.

That said, this is another article on the story:
[http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/30/us/georgia-toddler-injured-
stu...](http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/30/us/georgia-toddler-injured-stun-grenade-
drug-raid/) According to CNN, the offender had sold meth to an informant "a
few hours earlier" at the house and had a previous felony weapons charge.
Their target is a meth dealer who brings a gun to the table.

Given that information, it seems less crazy to think that a law enforcement
team would feel that weapons and aggressive entry were the safest option to
prevent a gunfight.

They got it wrong. They entered a civilian home in the same way a US military
operative would enter a war zone. They focused on the one target, the one
objective, the one outcome and forgot about children. They forgot this is
America and we believe in protecting the rule of law and we also believe in
protecting innocent children.

But put yourself in their position. If your job is to protect against the
propagation of methamphetamine and you have a target who they believe has a
weapon, would you knock?

~~~
icambron
No, but I wouldn't raid a house either. I'm no police tactician, but it can't
possibly be true that raiding a house is less dangerous than waiting for the
suspect to leave his house and arresting him then. For anyone, including the
cops. SWAT teams raiding homes should be reserved for _active_ dangers, like
hostage situations or shootouts. There's no need for this sort of urgency for
apprehending a drug dealer especially given the collateral damage it's so
likely to cause.

Edit: wording

~~~
rwissmann
Exactly. And that approach seems to work well in just about every other
Western country.

------
devnonymous
America is a scary country to live in. I am not sure if it is just the fact
that this sort of thing gets reported more often of late ...only for America,
or just that I've been paying more attention of late.

The number of places and the absurdity of the manner in which you can get
killed, hurt, jailed, or have your entire life irrecoverably change is just
frightening.

Now, I don't intend to be Anti-American, I already accepted that there is a
possibility that this sort of thing gets reported more for the US. Also, I
know that one can claim that I am generalizing and this doesn't happen all the
time, all over the place.

However, I've read so many news reports[1] of simple things like frivolous
lawsuits that completely damage a persons life to completely avoidable
instances of serious life altering events like this news story which makes me
wonder why would a professional making a decent living (like say a software
engineer) would want to move to America. I personally, am not too inclined.

[1] I have often thought about creating a site that aggregates such horror
stories to serve as a warning -- a mirror, lets say ...or if you really want
me to spell it out -- a reminder, that, 'No, American is _not_ the greatest
country in the world'. Before you decide to downvote and retort, read the
article (again) and empathize with me, if you can, how this sort of thing
would invoke such a reaction.

~~~
hyperliner
America is among the top places we got in this planet, though.

------
thathonkey
This is a side-effect of police militarization that doesn't get much attention
from its critics: using advanced military equipment should also require
advanced military training. Local police agencies that receive all this new
military-spec equipment don't always get (or more likely, never get) the
funding for necessary training on how to use it. Much less does such training
really exist since this stuff was all designed for use in actual war zones.
The extant training materials would inherently be oriented around that type of
usage.

Even the worst part of the worst city in the USA could not be more different
than a war-stricken area of Iraq or any other region where military action is
a common occurrence (other than that they probably contain more friendlies
than enemies).

Aside: It is truly sickening that they used a flashbang on a residential house
where they hoped to apprehend a single, low-value suspect that could not
possibly have been that well armed. Again, lack of proper training.

~~~
agwa
Lack of proper military training is not the problem here. The problem is the
militarization in the first place. In war, collateral damage is considered
unavoidable and ultimately acceptable in pursuit of victory, which is why drug
warriors accept that the occasional baby will be maimed by a flashbang. That
sort of approach is unacceptable for domestic law-enforcement. The solution is
to roll back the militarization, not double down by giving police more
military training.

~~~
thathonkey
Hence why I said the lack of training is a side-effect of militarization. In
other words, yes, militarization of police is the main problem here. I agree
with you; I was just pointing out yet-another-reason why it is even worse in
practice than in theory.

------
nathanb
What can we do about this?

Like many of the commenters here, this article fills me with outrage. Even
given the possibility/probability (as mentioned by iambateman) that the target
of the SWAT team was guilty of meth pushing, armed, and dangerous.

What can an individual do to effect change? The executive branch seem to be
nigh-invulnerable these days. Checks and balances don't work when it's the
enforcement arm who need to be kept in check.

Is there something productive I and others can do rather than sitting here
powerless in anger?

~~~
jliptzin
Legalize all drugs, and fill each one with literature about how damaging it is
to you (similar to what some countries do on cigarette packs). If you can get
heroin at CVS, you wouldn't need to go to your local drug dealer and help
finance his shady/violent activities. I know it sounds crazy but we already
knowingly sell stuff that can kill you (cigarettes, alcohol). The gangs/drug
dealers would simply not survive if drugs were sold legally and conveniently.

~~~
paulhauggis
And who gets to foot the bill for all of these new addicts?

The cigarette companies have been used for years for killing people. Imagine
he amount of people using for ods.

Tort reform would also be need for this to ever work.

~~~
njs12345
Some countries have experimented with state supply of heroin to addicts - it's
actually a really cheap policy and seems to work well:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin-
assisted_treatment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin-assisted_treatment)

Obviously, the taxpayer is footing the bill for this, but total spending
reduces (through the reduction in drug related crime).

------
anigbrowl
Good grief. SWAT teams in the US are utterly out of control. It's one thing to
have resources for the relatively rare armed robbery/hostage/mass shooter
situation, to _respond_ to an outbreak of violence; it's quite another to be
using them for drug raids and other contexts where they initiate or are the
sole cause of violence. This goes hand in hand with the confrontation-obsessed
gun culture we have, in which a subset of gun owners dwell constantly on the
omnipresent risks of crime and the need for elephant-grade stopping power,
despite the clear long-term trend of falling crime.

The Cato institute has worked with journalist Radley Balko (who is the expert
in this area) to produce a map of botched SWAT raids:
[http://www.cato.org/raidmap](http://www.cato.org/raidmap)

I really see no other course for citizens other than to start attending public
meetings and speaking up whenever public figures spout truisms about the
safety of law enforcement officers being top priority. It's not top priority,
that's why they get paid the big bucks - to put the safety of law-abiding
citizens above their own.

~~~
chillingeffect
That's a fascinating map. One of the interesting things it shows is that the
density of botched raids is _not_ correlated to population density.

What that suggests is that the raids are the results of authories in some
areas _not knowing what they 're doing_ while authorities in other areas do.

~~~
jdcarter
Also note how many raids are the result of a single informant. I was browsing
raids in my area and most of them were from a single informant; in one case
even an informant who had a known antagonistic relationship with the subject
of the raid.

~~~
ufmace
What's disturbing is how many of them are based on a single informant and also
look like not the slightest effort was made to verify that information.
Literally picking up a guy off the street for some minor crime, telling him
you'll let him go for a bigger fish, getting an address from him, and sending
in the goons without another thought. If it's a big enough crime to justify a
SWAT raid, then surely it's big enough for just a little bit of investigation.

It seems dangerous in two ways. Both that most of these tips are probably for
completely innocent people who may now be subject to extreme levels of
violence with no justification, and that once in a while, one of them might be
for something much worse than they thought, putting the officers themselves in
a lot of unnecessary danger because they didn't do any investigation.

------
opendais
This is truly awful. The sheer lack of restraint involved in this raid is
sickening. :/

~~~
astrodust
I'm not normally a fan of litigation, but in this case they should sue the
police department into the ground. If this behaviour was way too expensive to
sustain because of liabilities, they'd have to curtail it.

Complaints are something they just ignore. Settlements _hurt_.

If this was some national security incident where the nephew was about to
activate a nuclear weapon this sort of force might be justified. That it was
for _drugs_ is the most disturbing part. How does that help anyone in any
capacity?

~~~
anigbrowl
I agree, but settlements don't hurt enough - ultimately they come out of the
taxpayer's pocket,a nd unless a mayor or police chief is held personally
responsible, all that happens is a game of bureaucratic musical chairs. This
also needs civil suits against the officers, and jail terms. At least the
Georgia Bureau of Investigation is treating it as a criminal incident, so it's
possible that one or more of these police may do time.

However, the problem is systemic. I don't see a change without major
adjustments to the law which would be highly unpopular, eg mandatory life
sentences for crimes committed by police officers or similarly draconian
measures.

~~~
dllthomas
We don't need draconian measures; we need substantive and reliably _enforced_
measures. People respond much more strongly to certainty of punishment than
severity.

~~~
anigbrowl
I hew to the economic view that they respond to the combination of the two, in
contrast to this position paper:
[http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/deterrence%20briefing%2...](http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/deterrence%20briefing%20.pdf)
which I think begs the question. The problem is that certainty of punishment
is difficult to achieve, especially where co-offenders have a strong incentive
to back each other up - in this case, groups of police officers :-(

~~~
dllthomas
We _should_ (for some value of "should") respond to the expected value plus
something like the Kelly criterion. In practice, my understanding is that the
research consistently shows that we are systematically less sensitive to
severity than certainty. Of course the severity needs to be sufficient that it
can't just be written off as a cost of doing business, but that is true long
before we hit "draconian". You can insist that, in spite of the research,
we're all perfect little economic calculators acting rationally, but know that
you run significant chance of being wrong.

But sure, let's run with your assumption.

 _" The problem is that certainty of punishment is difficult to achieve"_

"X is hard, therefore Y," without establishing that Y is worthwhile, is a
piece of reasoning responsible for many ills. Yes, it's a cost-benefit thing,
but bear the following points in mind:

When you have (X * Y) in general, and X >> Y, you can make a much bigger
difference with a small change to Y than a big change to X (unless it's an
exceptionally big change to X).

Costs of long term imprisonment scales with the _medical needs_ of the people
we're imprisoning, which is much faster than linear.

Draconian sentencing means we're doing harm to the those we falsely convict
(which will inevitably be above zero); this means increasing the risk to
innocent officers, which lowers the quality of officers we can recruit.

 _" especially where co-offenders have a strong incentive to back each other
up - in this case, groups of police officers :-("_

This is a tremendous issue, for sure, but it is one that needs to be resolved
for a whole host of reasons, of which this is only one.

Note that a more draconian sentence _reinforces_ this - if I think there's a
chance my innocent buddy is getting sent up for life, I'm more concerned (and
therefore, presumably, more willing to stretch the truth) than if I think
there's a chance my innocent buddy is getting a slap on the wrist - so if I'm
mistaken about my buddy's innocence, raising X might actually _decrease_ Y.
(Actually, that holds even if I think my buddy is guilty of something that
doesn't deserve so stiff a penalty...)

------
giarc
These stories seem fake to me. I know they are real but I have trouble
believing that people, human beings would actually act like this. Why do we
have people acting as police that wouldn't let a mother comfort her crying,
very injured child. They weren't after her, she wasn't the criminal.

~~~
nickthemagicman
Are you being serious?

In Mexico the narco terrorists pulled innocent people off of a bus and made
them pit fight to the death for their amusement.

[http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Mexican-
crook...](http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Mexican-crook-
Gangsters-arrange-fights-to-death-1692716.php)

In the middle ages they would impale you on a spike so that you died slowly
over days.

In Rwanda one tribe butchered 5 million people of another tribe with machetes.

An that's just examples I can think of off the top of my head.

And you have trouble believing that a few cops wouldn't let a mother comfort
her child?

~~~
jacquesm
You do realize you're comparing the present day United States law enforcement
with Rwandean tribes, Mexican narco-terrorists and the middle ages?

~~~
nickthemagicman
Are you blind?

Until recently America had child labor and would lynch black people. A FEDERAL
judge in my hometown of New Orleans is famous for saying "We like to try our
niggers before we hang them".

Human nature is human nature.

We live in a 'veneer' of civilization.

Underneath are still the same old animal instincts honed over millions of
years of evolution.

Don't ever forget that. Or forget it at your peril.

~~~
leaveyou
A society like the one you describe should not have nuclear weapons. Now I'm
afraid that if it weren't for the MAD (mutual assured destruction) US would
have been much more genocidal.

~~~
fnimick
Oh, we probably would have invaded/nuked the Soviet Union. It's not like MAD
stopped us from sowing destruction and chaos around the globe, either. It just
made us fight proxy wars instead of real ones with other nuclear powers.

------
joeevans
Then there's the case where the police found drugs in the mail, but let it be
delivered anyway. When the homeowner (the mayor of the town, incidentally)
came home and brought the package in, they attacked, killing his two labradors
(one while it was trying to run away).

After, even though the police had the drugs in their hands when they found it
in the mail, the chief said, "We′ve apologized for the incident, but we will
never apologize for taking drugs off our streets....Quite frankly, we′d do it
again."

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/07...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073003299.html)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor'...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor's_residence_drug_raid)

------
ser_ocelot
If stories like this are new to anyone reading this, there is a great book
worth checking out. "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's
Police Forces" by Radley Balko, ISBN-13: 9781610392112

~~~
mattzito
I came here to post a link to that exact book - the one thing I _will_ say is
that the book is basically divided into two sections. The first section is a
history of the militarization of US police that is fascinating, well-
researched, and full of 50 years of context that I was totally unaware of. The
book is worth reading for that alone.

The second section, really the last 1/3rd of the book, is a series of essays
and articles, more op-ed than factual history. This is where Radley Balko's
libertarian streak comes out full-bore, and it moves from semi-scholarly work
to libertarian polemic. It's fine, of course, it's his book and he's entitled
to write what he likes, but there's a lot of anti-government rhetoric and
anti-social policy language in there that I found offputting.

In addition, throughout the book, the police are described in aggressive
terms, they're always "threatening" or "menacing" or "assaulting" \- while the
people being arrested are "cowering", "hiding", "pleading".

It seems like it would be hard to know exactly in many cases what everyone was
doing, and instead Balko is putting his emotional slant on what was happening.
Then, in the second section of the book, he freely admits that he started
tracking and writing about when dogs were killed during SWAT raids because it
got a much more impassioned response from readers.

None of this removes the value of the book, which as I said was excellent. But
I think I would have appreciated a little more nuance in some of the tone.

------
ScottBurson
We didn't learn our lesson from Prohibition, and now it's happening all over
again, only worse.

I'm starting to think we need a Constitutional amendment that prohibits the
outlawing of drugs. Something like --

    
    
      The right of access to drugs of all kinds shall not be infringed.
      Congress shall have the power to regulate and tax drugs, but may not
      ban a drug outright.
    

This obviously needs work, but I think it's headed in the right direction.

The intent of the phrase "right of access" is that people should have the
right to obtain a drug if they can afford it; my intent is not to create any
obligation on the part of the government to make it affordable, and certainly
not to provide it for free.

The intent of the phrase "drugs of all kinds" is to include any substance
someone may wish to ingest, inhale, or inject, for any purpose, medical,
recreational, or otherwise.

The intent of "Congress shall have the power to regulate" is that I think the
FDA should continue to enforce purity and labelling requirements.

It would be nice to find wording to clarify that intoxication does not relieve
one of responsibility for any act committed while intoxicated.

I know, it's hard to imagine such a thing passing anytime in the next 50
years. But it's not too soon to start talking about it :-)

------
CalRobert
And yet if you suggest that police are anything less than complete heroes in
every way your neighbors and relatives will shun you. Defending yourself
against a corrupt, ignorant, and vindictive police force is one of the best
uses I can think of for the second amendment.

~~~
dllthomas
_" And yet if you suggest that police are anything less than complete heroes
in every way your neighbors and relatives will shun you."_

Not in my experience, but I have no trouble believing that has much to do with
my social circles.

------
notacoward
Police militarization has many causes and many bad effects. The pointless and
faintly racist "drug war" is one that has been noted in many comments here.
There's another that deserves mention, not because I believe it's most
significant but because it seems strangely absent from those same comments.

>>> Police go in armed to the teeth in part because they believe (rightly or
wrongly) that there's a high probability of the people inside being similarly
armed. <<<

It's a classic arms race. Yes, the police should stop encouraging further
escalation. So should others.

------
jacquesm
That's incredible.

What's the incidence of things like this in the rest of the world?

~~~
Synaesthesia
In Western Europe and much of Asia, almost nil (countries like South Korea,
Japan ...) In many countries, I'm afraid it's quite common, abuse of police
power is nothing strange here. I've had it happen to me.

~~~
jacquesm
Where are you located?

~~~
Synaesthesia
South Africa (Pretoria). And by, I've had that happen to me, I mean Police
intimidation, not a flashbang in my chest. For that sort of thing see
Palestine, Iraq etc However we see abuse of Police power very often here.

~~~
tomp
You can see police intimidation everywhere. Even in Slovenia and other EU
countries, I believe. But there is a difference between "go home, you're
drunk" (even though you have a legal right to be there) and "BANG! BANG!".

------
jscheel
This is what comes from the aggressive militarization of our local police
forces. Tell me again why our hometown of 7,000 (at the time) felt the need to
develop a full-fledged SWAT unit. It has become even worse since 9/11\. Shoddy
police work, an itchy trigger finger, and officers who seem to view local
neighborhoods as insurgent-ridden Iraqi streets, has led to inexcusable
collateral damage. The need for a responsive, well-funded police force is
undeniable. But, clear leadership and strong, judicious restraint must balance
that power.

------
BetterLateThan
This will be getting worse unless people disconnect themselves from the system
that allows things like this to happen.

By "disconnect" I mean secessio plebis - either physical with a move out of
$this_jurisdiction, or economic, when a person minimizes their participation
in the economy of $this_jurisdiction.

By continuing to use money of $this_central_bank for selling and buying goods
and services in $this_jurisdiction, a person sends the following message to
the legislators and enforcers:

"No matter what I say, here's my money. Let it be the token of my willingness
to take more abuse. If I did not like how things work, I wouldn't be
supporting your pyramid."

PS The main reward of government employess is neither money, nor vacation, nor
pension, nor social perks, but immunity. It's getting away with holes in
babies that makes the job attractive precisely to the people who like to make
holes in others.

------
joeevans
Some departments apparently restrict people with IQ's over a certain limit.

[http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-
cops/sto...](http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-
cops/story?id=95836)

Makes you wonder if we really should be militarizing them.

------
arjie
Troubling. Their incompetence is incredible.

The thing that always amazes me about this is the unbelievable incompetence of
our administrators. They keep doing things that don't work and expect them to
work.

The unofficial motto: "If violence isn't doing the job, you're not using
enough."

~~~
btbuildem
The incompetence would be fine if it wasn't for the lack of accountability..

------
hammerzeit
Is there any information about the actual incidence of this kind of thing?
Best thing I can find is from the ACLU report, which suggests 5 non-suicide
fatalities and 46 injuries -- but that's clearly from their limited subset.

------
vasundhar
1\. Can a person belonging to minority community dominate and trade in
Majority dominant country without support of the Majority in most profitable,
yet risky trade ? (possibility of being minority being made a scape goat ?)
2\. All being said and done, It doesn't matter what colour and state of the
kid, its a crime from the SWAT, if it is actually happened. 3\. Unfortunately
in any Surveillance state, there is no watch dog to make sure what various
wings of the state are actually doing are Right - lawfully, morally and
ethically.

There is always a way for them to escape from the charges.

------
jason_slack
Oh, my. What recourse does the family have from all of this. There baby has a
hole in his chest and severe burns.....not to mention the unjust nature of not
letting a mother tend to her injured kid..

------
njharman
> that we stop accepting brutal SWAT raids as a normal way to fight the “war
> on drugs.”

NO. Militarization et al are just symptoms. The deeper disease is the "War on
drugs". Until we end the latest failed attempt at prohibition (and even deeper
stop declaring "wars" on things (and even deeper become a
rehabilitation/support society rather than punishment/control society)) we
will suffer continuing collateral damage (erosion of rights, brutality, being
a prison state, etc)

------
prteja11
Atlanta continues to amaze me. On one hand, I see reports every week from the
police department at my school (downtown atlanta)about robberies/ mugging
(armed) with usually no police officers around to help. The response times are
usually >20 minutes (usually because they are way understaffed). And on the
other, I see militarized police brutality. I wish there is a way to funnel my
tax dollars to those departments that are going to help people rather than
hurt them.

~~~
dublinben
>those departments that are going to help people rather than hurt them

When you find a police department that fits this definition, please let us all
know. I'm skeptical it's even a possibility.

~~~
scarmig
There are some countries where police typically don't even typically carry
around projectile weapons. The UK, for instance.

I think making sure police have some skin in the game, instead of pursuing the
illusory chase of perfect security for them, is the answer. It's supposed to
be public service, after all.

------
jrs235
If the police hadn't approached the home with confrontation in mind they may
have noticed some other telling clues that the situation may not be what they
thought it would be.

This is also the us (cops) versus "them" (non-cops) mentality and will lead to
even more violent standoffs because situations like this will further lead
non-cops to view cops no longer as "the good guys" which will lead the cops to
view the...

------
comrh
Time after time.

> Jose Guerena was a U.S. Marine veteran who served in the Iraq War and was
> killed in his Tucson, Arizona home, on May 5, 2011, by officers of the Pima
> County SWAT team, while they were executing a warrant to search his home in
> relation to an ongoing investigation into drug smuggling.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Guerena_shooting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Guerena_shooting)

------
jqm
So... they caught the nephew eventually and took away his meth. Now we don't
have to worry about meth anymore. They have taken care of the problem. Oh....
wait a minute. They haven't even put a dent in the problem.

Maybe they should requisition some of those unused cold war nuclear warheads
from the military. THAT should take care of the problem. So... just how far
are we willing to take this madness hmmm?

------
Tycho
Maybe flashbang grenades are too dangerous to throw around without warning?!

There was a story I saw yesterday about police shooting a 95yr old WW2 veteran
in his own home because he didn't want to leave and was brandishing a knife.
They were bean bag rounds but they shot him 6 times from close range and he
died.

------
abengoam
And if the child gets to live, the family is stuck with the healthcare costs
circus. What a terrifying story.

------
closetnerd
The really hurtful kicker is the way they were treated given the worst
possible scenario for a given parent.

------
itbeho
I was at a State Park in California recently and had a friendly talk with a
ranger about local places to visit. It was hard not to notice the AR-15 and
Shotgun mounted in his truck, as well as the sidearm on his hip. I'd never
seen that before in all my years of camping with family.

~~~
dvere
The other side of the drug culture. They're some very nasty, and well armed
folks using public lands to grow pot.

------
conductr
Sue. It's the only way they will learn. Also, release some pictures of the
boys injuries to the media. This topic needs some major attention and I don't
think ever will get it without a large number of citizens being enraged.

------
mcv
Why do Americans accept this sort of behaviour? Why haven't you people voted
for some people who want to turn the police into an actual police force,
rather than a well-equipped gang?

------
vlunkr
This is so terrible. I hope this story gets shared everywhere, because this
shouldn't be happening. They sent a SWAT team to a house before confirming
that the person that they looked for was there? They threw a disabling weapon
inside without noticing that there was a family with children in there? And
like others have said, all that for a drug bust? It's sad that someone would
give that order in the first place, and that there are people in our police
forces who carry it out.

------
Floegipoky
This is very relevant:
[http://www.cato.org/raidmap](http://www.cato.org/raidmap)

------
ugk
This is incredibly disturbing. Police in the US are becoming increasingly
violent, even while violent crime is falling.

------
jimwild
I was thinking to moving to the US and start my company

now i'm gonna stay home. At least no one is gonna fire a flash nade at me

------
loqi
And yet we keep voting for candidates who support the drug war. This kid's
blood is on our hands.

------
nyargh
Pay police brutality settlements out of the officer's pension fund. Problem
solved.

------
esbonsa
That reminds me of the baby getting a flash-bang grenade thrown in his crib.
[http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/23/toddler...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/23/toddler-
injured-flash-grenade-drug-raid/11254289/)

~~~
anywhichway
Your link refers to the same swat raid, which would explain why it reminds you
of it.

------
pmalynin
Not to be disrespectful to the family but the only thing that comes to mind is
" 'Murica". I know a person here in Canada that was a victim of swat drug bust
it was in no way as violent. They came during the day and, yes manhandled the
suspects however they were quite polite about it.

------
LeoNatan25
Land of the free and the home of the brave

------
rawland
This. Is. Horrible.

And system failure.

------
gdewilde
Absolutely disgusting.

@everyone

Did you vote for the 2 party dictatorship?

Are you going to vote for it again?

You are aren't you?

------
icantthinkofone
Yeah. This happens to me all the time.

It reminds me of the time a guy told me about how he hated cops and that, just
the week before, he was just walking down the street, a squad car pulled over,
the cops got out and beat him up. He wasn't doing anything but walking down
the street!

I am positive there is a side of this story not being told.

------
jimmyislive
gosh...this is so outrageous !!!

------
jcizzle
1\. This happened in rural Georgia, far away from Atlanta.

2\. The suspect was later arrested for dealing meth. This isn't a little dime
bag situation as the clearly biased writer would have you believe.

3\. This isn't the suspect's first arrest, he was arrested before for
distribution. Police found an AK-47 in his house.

Here are things that could have been done to prevent this situation. 1\. The
homeowner could have not dealt meth. 2\. The parents could have not moved in
with their AK-47 owning, meth dealing nephew.

Here are some likely other outcomes even if the SWAT raid didn't occur: 1\.
One of homeowner's guns could have accidentally discharged and killed the
child. 2\. Criminals could have robbed the house (a higher likelihood when you
are running a drug ring out of your house) and killed the child.

That poor child's situation is a direct product of irresponsible parenting.
There was a reason the police were at this house. Their tactics and the damage
they did would have not been remotely possible if this guy wasn't armed with
illegal weaponry and dealing drugs.

This isn't reddit. America is not out to get you. Don't be a criminal and
don't associate with criminals and this doesn't happen to you.

~~~
jrs235
Did you read the article?

1\. The suspect is the nephew. 2\. The nephew is not the home owner. 3\. The
home owner wasn't the one dealing meth. 4\. The nephew/suspect wasn't present
at the home at the time.

~~~
astrodust
They'll get him eventually even if it takes another fifty armed assaults.

