
The Human Toll of Flashbangs - markmassie
https://www.propublica.org/article/flashbangs
======
jburwell
The use of flash bangs by law enforcement is horrifying. These tools were
design for to support direct action missions by special operations forces, and
are, essentially, burning thermite [1] (e.g. able to melt through an engine
block). To be clear, a direct operation mission is the use of lethal force to
kill or capture one or more individuals or perform high risk hostage rescue.
In these types of military operations, the operators run a extreme risk of
severe injury or death and the death of the targets is both acceptable and
highly likely. The balance of the risks and the battlefield circumstances make
their use acceptable. However, law enforcement is rarely permitted to operate
under these types of conditions. Their goal should almost always be capture
working under the Fourth Amendment presumption of innocence. As such, flash
bangs are simply not congruent with law enforcement operations.

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite)

Edit: grammer and thermite link

~~~
mikeryan
There's a recent case in Albuquerque where 2 police officers are being charged
with murder. In the case the police disorient a guy with a flashbang then
shoot him as he turns away

 _The police video shows Boyd talking with an officer who was seemingly trying
to reach an end to the stalemate. As he picks up his backpack, Boyd tells the
officer to keep his word, and not to worry about safety.

"I'm not a [f———] murderer," Boyd says.

Seconds later, a flash-bang grenade is fired at his feet. Boyd then stands
facing the officers — and as he turns away from them, at least two officers
open fire. Boyd was struck by live rounds, stun guns and bean-bag rounds —
some of which were fired as Boyd lay on the ground saying he was unable to
move._

[http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-
way/2015/01/12/376767254/alb...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-
way/2015/01/12/376767254/albuquerque-police-officers-face-murder-charges-
over-2014-shooting)

~~~
girvo
Jesus... that's completely indefensible. Now, I don't live in the US, and I
only see the bad stuff that happens through the media, but I truly can't see
why the police need to do things this way...

~~~
zanny
They don't _have_ to. There are plenty of good cops, but your mileage will
vary with the integrity of the local PD. There are these hot beds of
systemically bad police precincts and the power structure is organized such
that those who could fix it are also those initiating it.

A large contributing factor is the military industrial complex spewing out
death tech at an absurd rate, and with nobody to blow up with it all it just
goes to police forces at auction. So you end up with towns of a thousand
having swat teams and tanks and you wonder why the culture shifts from
protecting and serving to war, death, and extortion.

~~~
fixedd
There's 2.5k people in my town and it's news here (literally) when someone is
arrested shopping at the local Wal-Mart. The police have two miltary-issue
Humvees, for some reason.

~~~
base2
That stuff has always irked me, trying to look threatening/intimidating.

However when most people complain about military gear finding its way to
police I have to laugh a little bit. When automatic grenade launchers and .50
cal machine guns start appearing then there are problems(too late at that
point I guess).

MWRAPS and armored personnel carriers, those are okay. Dressing in all black(A
horrible tactical color BTW) or camo now your just doing that to look
upsetting.

The armored tanks are not so bad as it provides something that police can feel
safer and less threaten in so escalation doesn't need to happen so fast.

~~~
EliRivers
_The armored tanks are not so bad as it provides something that police can
feel safer and less threaten in so escalation doesn 't need to happen so
fast._

If you turn up in an armoured tank, you _have_ just escalated the situation.

~~~
base2
I guess police departments (if they haven't already) would be stupid enough to
deploy them in a trivial situation.

If your dealing with against a threat with a firearm I'm going to assume there
are going to be more cops with guns in the majority of the situations. Those
are the folks you don't want to set off!

So if you can feel a little bit safer in a little ole MRAP you might not be
inclined to start a shooting gallery as quickly.

~~~
amirmc
I find this attitude confusing. You're suggesting that _cops_ are the ones who
need to be made to feel safer? That by making them _them_ feel safer they
might be less likely to start shooting? Who is protecting who in this brave
new world?

~~~
tinco
You're being irrational now. Of course cops need to be and feel safe. They are
just humans, humans equipped with guns. Anything you can do to make sure they
don't fire those guns prematurely should be done, after all, they're for
protecting us.

Calling it an armored tank is exaggerating. It's basically a mobile barrier
that can carry a bunch of officers. There's all kinds of nice stuff you can do
with them, and frankly I think it would be kind of embarassing for a town if
they couldn't get a robust all terrain vehicle to some location within a
reasonable timeframe.

~~~
algorithmsRcool
I want to contend this point strongly. My home city (approx 200k people) does
not have gang activity, we don't have drugs or prostitution or muggings or
car-jackings as major problems (or problems at all). There are very very few
parts of my city that i would feel threatened walking alone down the street at
3am. All of them on the outskirts of the city and in swamp areas. And yet the
city has acquired a ex-military armored troop carrier.

Why?

We don't have shootouts with drug lords going on. My city has suffered exactly
3 officer deaths on duty in the last 25 years and only one of those was by
gunfire (15 years ago). I utterly reject the reasoning that my city's officers
need to be made to feel safe by the acquisition of ex-military hardware.

Let me be as clear as i can, that vehicle does not make me, the citizen, feel
safe. I've seen them deploy that vehicle for something as common has a home
robbery. This is not Afghanistan, criminals are not enemy combatants. When you
have that kind of hardware sitting around, you will find a use for it.

I don't know what kinds of 'nice things' you are referring to, i'd love to
hear examples. Lastly i reject that euphemistic description of that troop
carrier as a 'robust all terrain vehicle'. This is a well paved, suburban, low
violence city; not Kabul.

~~~
base2
I think the usage of the word military to describe equipment is getting
convoluted. I still have an old MILITARY 2 piece canvas tent(with the little
poles and stakes) It's certainly ex-military but in terms of offensive
capabilities I think you might be able to cripple and enemy due to laughing at
you when you try to whack them with a tent pole piece. Give that to a police
department and it's still considered Ex-Military. Canteens? Military too...

In most situations a rifle is going to be able to penetrate through almost
every part of a police/civilian vehicle. If someone is shooting at you the
only proactive thing you can do to keep your self safe is to return fire to
either take the enemy out of the fight or suppress them.

If you have a vehicle that can stop small arms fire the immediate need to
start shooting back is slowed down to a degree.

They also make nice rolling barriers in case you need to move to someone that
is injured with out the need for suppressing fire.

Also psychologically it slows people down due to the fact that they will have
less of a chance to be able to harm/pose a threat to police.

On the other hand if they start using turret mounted automatic weapons such a
MK19 then that's going to be a problem.

When folks throw around escalation when bringing in an armored vehicle I in my
mind I'm thinking the bad guy is going to get MAD due to having a harder time
killing a police officer.

I guess we can all take a vote with the knowledge that police get killed in
the line of duty. Let's pretend we are all police here. Who want's to be the
last cop killed before we achieve societal and world peace?

------
ColinCochrane
_Bou Bou was sleeping in a portable playpen at the foot of his parents’ bed
when the Habersham County Special Response Team broke down the door to the
room and threw a flashbang. The grenade landed on a pillow next to Bou Bou’s
face. The blast blew a hole in his chest, severed his nose, and tore apart his
lips and mouth._

That's horrifying. I can't believe that these things are allowed to be used
with so little oversight.

 _In October, a Habersham County grand jury declined to indict the officers
involved. “Some of what contributed to this tragedy can be attributed to well-
intentioned people getting in too big a hurry,” the grand jury wrote in its
findings._

What they call "too big a hurry" I call reckless endangerment.

~~~
mattstreet
The proper military use of flashbangs is to roll them towards the corner of a
room or doorway. Not to chuck them into the room where they could land
anywhere.

~~~
fapjacks
That's not true. The proper military use of flashbangs is to throw them into a
room (to land wherever, usually the center of the room) and then run in and
murder everyone inside. You are overstating the precision involved.

~~~
base2
Why does everyone seem to derive the usage of flashbangs from something like
Counter Strike. Knowing the room layout/size as well as what kind stuff is in
the room is never a sure thing. I'm going to assure you that the most common
place you are going to find an open area is closer to the entry point due to
the need for people to enter and exit through a door.

I guess its a moot point to try and explain the concepts that are common to
almost every CQCish type training out there.

The point is you don't throw a flash-bang and grenade at full power. Knowing
where the center of the room is and even if that's the best place for it to
land is not the easiest thing in the world.

Nearside corners people, most people that are under a threat will be closer to
the corners than the middle of the room and the corners that will give you the
most problems to due the amount of time it takes to clear and how quickly they
can ruining your day is throwing stun grenades to get effects on the nearside
corners.

~~~
fapjacks
I can tell you haven't much in the way of combat experience. All of these
things you've read online or in a FM somewhere go totally out the window in
combat. All of these things you're talking about are completely in the land of
theory when people are trying to kill you and vice versa. On two of my three
combat tours in the infantry I spent most of the time kicking in doors, zip-
tying people to themselves, and tossing a hood over their heads. And that was
when they weren't trying to fight. The real world is far too chaotic and fast
for the games you are talking about playing. You know I once had to clear the
first three stories of an office building between myself and two other guys.
There were a stupid amount of rooms. We cleared upwards of thirty rooms
because of one smartass firing down from the top floor. All those Youtube
videos you're quoting are _meaningless_ in a situation like that.

------
girvo
> _“If she hadn’t been selling illegal items out of the home, no warrant would
> have been served,” he said. “What you call extreme, we call safe.”_

Disgusting. The militarisation of police is a blight on our societies
progress. And now where I live is succumbing to it too, albeit far more slowly
than what those in the US have to deal with. The fact that SWAT teams are
using flash bangs and automatic weaponry to raid a woman's house for selling
beer without a license blows my mind.

> _Department officers testified that their general SWAT training included
> work with flashbangs even though it wasn’t formally recorded in department
> training logs._

In other words, they're lying to cover their asses again. Like police have
never done that before. Disgusting.

~~~
Retra
That's either a lie, or just poor record-keeping. I would find the poor
record-keeping entirely believable, but besides the point: even if they _had_
been trained to use flashbangs, then they we not trained properly or the
shouldn't have been used at all.

Just because something is standard procedure doesn't make it the correct
procedure.

~~~
girvo
I'd be more inclined to believe it was poor record keeping if there wasn't a
decades long history of police lying to cover for each other. Fool me a
thousand times...

~~~
Retra
I'd be worried about confirmation bias on that front. You don't remember all
the times they told the truth but just did a poor job. It sounds like a lie
either way.

But in my experience in the military, record-keeping is boring and routine, so
there is a tendency to just pump out sub-standard paperwork and say "nobody is
really going to look at it anyway, and if they do, they already know it's not
reliable."

Training records? Pah. I'm surprised they even have training records. It's
probably just a speedily-drafted form with a signature line on it. That's how
you train 45 people at once: you make one form, have them all sign it, then
you do the training. The form isn't accurate? Who cares, you got the signature
and 'did your job'.

------
SwellJoe
I'm so past fed up with police in America. The drug war is pathological. The
notion that a cop can kill an unarmed suspect with impunity (especially if
they're black or homeless or mentally ill) is disgusting. The belief that "law
and order" is a value worth allowing one group the exclusive privilege of
breaking any law and causing any disorder they like without consequence simply
has to end.

I'm at the point where I think the only sane thing is to dismantle the police,
as we know it, and rebuild something less violent, less systemically racist,
less prone to imprison or kill the mentally ill, and more aligned with basic
human decency.

Talking about how dangerous flashbangs are misses the point of how dangerous
the system that wields them is and how dangerous the people employed by that
system are. Police have dozens of tools and techniques for destroying human
life. As long as they are empowered (and even expected) to use them with
impunity, there will be tragedy after tragedy, where children, the mentally
ill, and innocent people, are injured or killed or imprisoned.

Not that talking about flashbangs is a bad idea. I just think we're past the
point where fixing flashbangs will significantly fix things. This is a
systemic problem which can only be resolved by systemic solutions.

~~~
Normati
America isn't the problem, Americans are. Everyone who voted for this is to
blame. From what I understand you can even vote for some of the local judges
or prosecutors too! There's no excuse but to recognize that your neighbors are
responsible for the problems due to their own selfishness. They want the
police to be brutal because the drug raid isn't going to be on their home,
it'll be on some poor person's home and they don't care about poor people.

This might sound harsh, but it's what most American voters do. That's why they
continually vote for police violence. If they don't understand the
consequences of their vote then they're as negligent as the policeman who
doesn't understand the consequences of throwing a flashbang into a bedroom.

~~~
SwellJoe
You're partially right, though overly optimistic about the power of
"democracy" in America. It's worth recognizing the power of gerrymandering and
money in elections. But, that's another discussion. There is no such thing as
a viable political candidate who discusses reigning in police power...not
because of the voting public. In America we choose between two parties who
have differences, but there are entire categories of governance on which they
are in lock step. Police is one of those categories. You will never hear a
Republican or a Democrat suggest abolition of the institution of police as we
know it, or even demanding basic accountability for killer cops.

Short of revolution, the only effective tools citizens have is to educate more
people about the problems (and the cost of "tough on crime" policies), protest
the clear human rights violations, film police so there are fewer invisible
victims, demand accountability from city councils and mayors and police
chiefs, etc. And, I do a little bit of all of these things (there's a Black
Lives Matter march on Saturday here in Austin; I'll be there).

So, yes, many Americans are stupid, violent, poorly-educated, racist, and
vindictive, or at least support law enforcement that is all of those things.
But, the number of people who support no-knock raids is surely not high enough
to claim the people chose this (I don't know, but I can't imagine it would
be).

~~~
thomyorkie
[http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/ron-paul-ferguson-
mili...](http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/ron-paul-ferguson-
militarization-police-110112.html)

[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/29/ron-paul-
pol...](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/29/ron-paul-police-
manhunt-boston-marathon-bombing-su/)

------
6t6t6
I don't live in the US, so I am maybe missing something but, if the police
wants to arrest someone, wouldn't be easier to wait until this person leaves
the house, grab him on the street and tell him: "Hi mate, we are the police
and now you are under arrest".

I don't see the need of assaulting a home.

~~~
MarkPNeyer
> I don't see the need of assaulting a home.

it's almost always for drugs, where they'd be afraid the person could flush
them down the toilet.

~~~
the_af
If you arrest people outside their house when they go for a walk, how on earth
are they going to "flush the drugs down the toilet"?

~~~
EC1
What, you _don 't_ carry a portable toilet around?

------
corndoge
_“Everyone carries a flashbang,” Malette testified. “Any time we encounter
locked doors, we have an unknown, we have to gain back that initiative.”_

I understand that police are interested in maintaining control of a situation,
but practices like throwing flashbang grenades into houses without
looking...these guys seem to think they're Delta Force.

~~~
IkmoIkmo
It's insane.

He literally said 'there's something behind this door, we don't know whether
it's a guy with a rocket launcher or an innocent baby, so let's throw a
grenade in there and 'gain the initiative' whichever case it may be'.

I never quite understood raids in the first place. Between scoping out a
house, arresting any individuals outside as they walk on the curb while
entering an empty home with a warrant, and raiding a house delta-force style
with guns, an unknown number of people in the house with no knowledge of what
you'll find. I'm sure house raids have their place, but to me that place feels
rather limited. Raiding someone's house because of something like pot, or
selling nachos, with grenades and all?

------
vaadu
There will NEVER be accountability as long as the conflict of interest remains
where police actions are investigated by a prosecutor that relies on these
same police for him to do a successful job.

~~~
hockley
This fact was so evident last year. I don't understand why cop cases don't
have special prosecutors or fall under federal jurisdiction.

~~~
kansface
Cops testify in federal courts, too. There is no incentive for prosecutors to
indict cops.

------
Aeolun
I don't think the problem is so much that flashbangs are being thrown, as that
they are thrown when storming the house of someone committing the grave crime
of illegally selling nachos.

~~~
fintler
Not only a raid with flashbangs. They also tried to take an old lady's house
for selling Nachos.

"Afterward, the city of Little Rock sued Harris, alleging that her property
should be declared a nuisance and “abated” — or razed — since it was being
used to facilitate criminal violations."

------
yellowapple
There seems to be a some demand for safer flashbangs (perhaps something with
really bright LEDs and really loud speakers). This[0] seems to at least
address the brightness aspect of it.

I mean, if the point of flashbang use by LEOs is supposedly to
disorient/confuse/distract a suspect during arrest, this seems to be better-
suited to that role. And better yet, if they're electronic, they should be (at
least hypothetically) entirely reusable, saving a LEA a lot of money in the
long run.

[0]: [http://www.bluesheepdog.com/2012/03/13/delta-light-ball-
flas...](http://www.bluesheepdog.com/2012/03/13/delta-light-ball-flashbang-
alternative/)

~~~
SwellJoe
Home invasion will never be safe, regardless of the tools they use.

If law enforcement's answer to tragedies like this is, "We'll train our people
in use of less dangerous tools", then the wrong questions are being asked. The
question _should_ be, "What the hell were you doing breaking into someone's
home in the middle of the night?"

------
cryoshon
Use weapons against civilians and you get predictable consequences.

Not sure why this is permitted in the USA, starting to think that most
Americans are really a bit braindead.

------
lifeisstillgood
Is there anyway to push for or endorse research into police weapons use in
USA? I seem to remember a discussion some time back pointing out there was no
central registry or even need to report gun use for all police forces.

It just seems that blowing the face off a sleeping baby ought to be the point
you start filling in forms and asking questions like "is the person throwing a
grenade well trained? Has the information they are acting upon come from as
reliable source? Is there post action public reviews?

It seems that some parts of the USA lead the world and some parts still have
hay stalks in their mouths.

------
beloch
There seems to be some room for innovation here. The police are throwing these
things blind. Evidence? Well, I refuse to believe anyone, no matter how
debased, would _intentionally_ throw a flashbang into a baby's crib. What's
needed is a flashbang that either won't go off if in close proximity to a
living being (e.g. perhaps add an IR sensor) or a flashbang that is triggered
remotely, so it can be thrown, spotted, and triggered only if in a desirable
location.

Personally, I think building a flashbang that's harder to injure people with
will simply result in increasingly idiotic behavior on the part of the police.
The real solution is to use flashbangs less and with better training. That
means regulations and oversight because the police apparently suck at policing
themselves. However, the U.S. loves to solve problems with tech even when it's
not the best solution, so there's money to be made here.

~~~
rdtsc
> Well, I refuse to believe anyone, no matter how debased, would intentionally
> throw a flashbang into a baby's crib

I can. In the extended circle of acquintances, two of the cops are the worst
abusers of their families, children & wives, the are the most racists and full
of hatred. One would enjoy showing others how he would spin his son by his
hand while simultaneously kicking him in the back with his foot (granted this
is not a US policeman, not that a US policemen are somehow qualitatively more
noble).

I think there is link between saddism (enjoyment of inflicticting pain) and
choosing to be that kind of a profession (just like there might be a link
between wanting to help people and choosing to do it).

~~~
anigbrowl
Sadly, statistics back you up in this case. US police appear to have a _much_
higher propensity to engage in domestic violence than the general population:
[http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-o...](http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-
officers-who-hit-their-wives-or-girlfriends/380329/)

------
fapjacks
As an infantry combat veteran of multiple tours, the idea that police forces
are using flashbangs is disgusting.

------
noonespecial
That the officers involved in these incidents are never indicted is kind of a
red herring. They follow procedure and feel like they've done nothing wrong.

The real issue is that we allow a procedure in which occasionally we throw
grenades at babies.

------
k-mcgrady
OT: This is the third of fourth site in recent days that I've been on and
thought I was on Medium. The designs all look identical. Medium's design is
really nice so I'm not about to complain but it is a bit strange.

~~~
portlander52232
Propublica is actually even nicer than Medium, if you ask me.

The similarity you're noticing is partly fashion, but largely just that the
technology and market conditions finally exist to use magazine-style type on
web pages.

------
briandear
flashbangs are warranted when there is a high threat profile. The problem is
that a 'raid' doesn't rise to the level of 'high threat profile.' The problem
isn't the police tactics, it's a problem of bad risk management. Police have
been considering all manner of crimes 'raid worthy.' If SWAT was going after
known dangerous and armed gang members or they were in a hostage situation,
flashbangs might be the right tactic; it would depend on the threat profile
and pre-raid intelligence. SpecOps operators rarely just blast into a room.
Oftentimes there are eyes on the target, including surveillance to determine
the threat profile. Cops could have very easily just staked out the house and
grabbed the guy when he walked outside. But that isn't as 'sexy' and suiting
up in full battle rattle and rappelling from the roof tossing flashbangs, and
kicking in doors.

While the drug war is a big prt of this, the larger problem is the lack of
meaningful and audited protocols for various situations.

Going after a guy with weed should require a much different approach than
taking down a meth lab. Though, a flashbang in a meth lab would be a sight to
see.

------
halfcat
_> At least 50 Americans have been seriously injured, maimed or killed by
flashbangs since 2000_

I was surprised to see this statistic included. It really makes this issue
seem less significant and does not help the argument being made. This means a
little over 3 people per year injured or worse. Probably less than 1 death per
year. By comparison, vending machines alone kill over a dozen people each
year. Was this supposed to say, "we located over 50 people", and not intended
to be put forward as a statistic?

------
comrh
ProPublica is quietly doing the best journalism of the past few years.

------
ck2
I don't even know what to say after reading that article.

How can this be even remotely acceptable to anyone?

I mean they are using them in cases where they know for a fact it is not a
dangerous situation - an elderly woman selling beer? They used it TWICE?
Really?

------
lordnacho
I wonder how many people were like me, in that they thought the Counterstrike
version of a flashbang was representative of the real thing?

I never really considered how they worked until now.

------
andrewstuart
Outcome of arms vendors needing new markets.

------
ted5555
First, the Albequerque incident was cold blooded murder and the indictment is
very appropriate.

Second, flash bang use is already dramatically declining so this sory is about
three years to late. But nice effort.

------
darklajid
I'm not sure if this belongs on this site. This is .. utterly political.

Reading that article leads me astray and I have to question the sanity of the
persons involved, both on the acting side (police) and the justification side
(spokesman, random "Yeah, criminals are dangerous and all" crap).

This is the prime example of a cultural clash, of an article that is relevant
for the US of A only (I hope there's a debate over there and people that think
this usage is okay are somehow considered sane, locally).

For a foreigner like me this is tragic. Every single example in that article
was bullshit. Inexcusable and mind-blowingly stupid. I'm aware of the fact
that I might be deluded and that the 'real world' \- over there - looks
different. But seriously, what do we have in common if this is acceptable and
'best practice'?

~~~
jMyles
I don't mean to question your basis for your assessment because your comment
is otherwise wonderful and agreeable, but why it is that every time an article
is written that impugns a government's use of a particular technology, it is
regarded as "utterly political?"

Even if this article weren't about flashbangs, whose particulars are examined
in the article from a perspective consistent with the norms of this website,
the drug war, as a exercise of prohibition policy, is largely on-topic here
per se because it represents a pain-point (and according to a majority of
people, at least in the USA, a failure) which many entrepreneurs and statesmen
are actively seeking to fix via innovation.

This article seems utterly on-topic to me.

~~~
darklajid
I think my main concern was and is:

Given this article, the discussion cannot avoid politics. If we're assuming
that political discussions might be sensitive and largely depending on your
upbringing/local environment etc. etc. this leads to potential conflicts.

Technical (or commercial) posts are usually easier to digest and discuss.
Posts like this seem to offer no sane way to handle them, or at least I don't
see a way to do that myself.

~~~
zanny
The alternative is ignoring and being ignorant to nonviolent citizens of a
foreign country being killed and burned by military grade technology.

You don't have to actually go into the comments section on these things. But
besides technical knowledge what are you going to contribute to the non
controversial posts? Yes, lambas are great, and a half dozen posts agreeing on
that, after an article about good lambda usage?

