A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/24/a_swat_team_blew_a_hole_in_my_2_year_old_son/

by Brajeshwar • 12 years ago

706 446 12 years ago

opendais10• 12 years ago

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

astrodust3• 12 years ago

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?

dpeck2• 12 years ago

Sadly this doesn't seem to work. There is little to no correlation between settlements and the divisions within an organization that they are supposed to punish, especially for large jurisdictions.

Atlanta, small for a "big" city and with a terribly low budget relative to its size set its 2014 budget at 550M. A few million dollar wrongful death/abuse settlements each year don't even get noticed.

Torn• 12 years ago

It doesn't, but the war on drugs is profitable for certain stakeholders and lobbyists

toomuchtodo• 12 years ago

That it was for drugs is the most disturbing part. How does that help anyone in any capacity?

It helps police departments keep their budgets and continues their access to militarization programs (where the DoD gives them surplus equipment after combat operations).

There is no excuse whatsoever for what happened.

ceejayoz• 12 years ago

The sad thing about settlements is the town just raises taxes a little to pay for it. The cops won't lose pay or rank.

tlrobinson2• 12 years ago

"Settlements hurt"

...the taxpayers. But probably just a few dollars per individual per year, so not enough to cause enough outrage to change things.

anigbrowl4• 12 years ago

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.

Synaesthesia4• 12 years ago

Absolutely. This is the unfortunate effect of the militarisation of the police force and how ridiculous the War on Drugs has become! They were looking for drugs ...

Unfortunately South Africa's police force has also learned from the USA, as have others I see. Granted a Swat team is necessary sometimes, but overall the Police force is just becoming more indimidatory and inhumane. It's a bad trend, and a real threat to civil society.

dublinben3• 12 years ago

The ACLU just released a comprehensive report on these reprehensible tactics all around the USA.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7938911

jacquesm6• 12 years ago

That's incredible.

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

thathonkey8• 12 years ago

Depends which part. Happens all day every day in Palestine.

mortov• 12 years ago

Any /reputable/ sources for that ? Or are you just trying to bait people ? How is your comment relevant to the situation in the US ?

Synaesthesia4• 12 years ago

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.

jacquesm6• 12 years ago

Where are you located?

jordan0day2• 12 years ago

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.

malandrew4• 12 years ago

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• 12 years ago

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

simplemath7• 12 years ago

If we have to err between the safety of the public and the safety of police officers, that's an easy decision to make

You're right -it was appallingly easy for them to decide that they can do as they please.

Given the prison/police/military industrial complex fueling our massive, unprecedented in world history, Third Estate and the utter lack of any meaningful political opposition to it, things will get worse before they get better.

simplemath7• 12 years ago

Hate to be so basic but when you've decided to be a hammer, everything eventually looks like a nail.

All of this military surplus gear thats been avalanching into local PDs nationwide isn't going to just collect dust. The good ol' boys in blue will eventually find a reason to use their toys, whether its on you, me, or the family in the OP.

Since 'Protect and Serve' has been officially declared false by our wonderful Supreme Court, everyone in this country should disabuse themselves of the notion that the police are here to help us and keep the peace.

BRB blasting NWA

jrs2353• 12 years ago

The problem is most people think/thought the police are there to "protect and serve" them (the people/individuals) when they are not. The police are there to protect and serve the government.

ADD: The government is SUPPOSE to protect and serve the people.

pbhjpbhj4• 12 years ago

Police tend to treat suspects (and those around them) not as law-breaking citizens, but as enemy combatants. //

Isn't that at least partly because they arm themselves as if they were enemy combatants and treat the police as such. As in this case where apparently there was an AK47 in the house.

jordan0day2• 12 years ago

Isn't that at least partly because they arm themselves as if they were enemy combatants and treat the police as such.

That certainly happens. According to http://www.odmp.org/search/year, 30 American police officers were killed by gunfire (not-accidental) in 2013. However, like most things, what's more important is how often it occurs. It turns out that there's somewhere between 750,000-800,000 police officers in the USA, so on the high end, that's 4 gunfire-related deaths per 100,000 officers.

Compare that to jobs like fishing (127 per 100,000), roofing (34 per 100,000), and farming (26 per 100,000) (source: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/personal-finance/10-most-dan...), being shot to death as a police officer doesn't seem especially likely. (Admittedly, gunfire-related deaths don't represent a majority of officer deaths in a given year, it seems, but gunfire is the main justification behind police militarization)

Edit: To put it another way, being a police officer is 2.5 times safer (gunfire-wise, at least), than driving a car.

aidenn0• 12 years ago

What's odd about there being a rifle in the house? In many places owning rifles is fairly normal.

aestra5• 12 years ago

Saw this the other day

http://alibertarianfuture.com/big-government/police-state/th...

giarc3• 12 years ago

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.

Synaesthesia4• 12 years ago

The way the psychology works is that police regard everyone as a potential threat and a criminal, which makes them essentially not human in their eyes. When dealing in a "tactical phase" or whatever the hell they call it, they take command of a situation and have a very paranoid view of everything.

DrJones10982• 12 years ago

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...

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?

vlunkr3• 12 years ago

I think what he's trying to say is that all those things seem so surreal. We believe them, but reading the stories feels like you're reading something out of a movie. For people living in normal circumstances it's hard to imagine that some people are so cruel.

jacquesm6• 12 years ago

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

giarc3• 12 years ago

You are providing examples of aggressors, not protectors.

Every police officer on active duty right now begin their career with the idea they are to protect their citizens. This doesn't seem like the case in the original article. To me it sounds like people that have lost the intent of their job.

ffn• 12 years ago

There is like 30+ years of social-psych research and papers backing up why average people (the swat team members) can become truly the hand of evil as situations demand of them. The most (in)famous of these studies is the Milgram shock experiment which showed average people in general willing to kill innocent people if authority insisted. A less famous study, the Stanford prison experiment, showed that people were more than willing to objectify others when they were in positions of power.

Granted, there is a chance this one incident might be fake (who knows with the internet), but incidents like this are definitely real. The fact of the matter is, people are not evil, but the organization of people tend to be. What can you do about it? Probably the best thing is stop strengthening centralized organizations, live/work in a small tightly knit communities, and don't lump others into a group. If that's not possible, your next best alternative is not be black / hispanic / south-east asian / male.

baddox6• 12 years ago

I know they are real but I have trouble believing that people, human beings would actually act like this.

These are humans who decided, probably at a young age, that they wanted to do this sort of thing for a living. They then deliberately pursued training for this sort of thing, and got hired to do this sort of thing. Their livelihood likely depends on them continuing to do this sort of thing. It shouldn't be surprising that these people do this sort of thing. What else are they going to do?

pmalynin• 12 years ago

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.

thathonkey8• 12 years ago

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• 12 years ago

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.

thathonkey8• 12 years ago

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.

jason_slack• 12 years ago

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..

peterkelly2• 12 years ago

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.

fit2rule2• 12 years ago

Maybe there needs to be more publicity about drug gangs and the slaves created by the drug cartels. They exist, and they are heinous.

But so too are these kinds of reactions from the police. Its really as if the public are caught in the middle of two horrific forces, being created on both ends of the playing field. The question is: who profits? The cold hard answer, which nobody wants to admit is this: the dealers of drugs, and the dealers of weapons. Oftentimes, the same damn groups.

vdaniuk3• 12 years ago

Your stakeholder analysis is not complete.

Cops profit. Lawyers profit. DAs profit. Tough-on-crime politicians profit. Religions profit. Government profits. Political parties profit.

Basically, the whole establishment profits from maintaining status quo in the drug war.

pachydermic• 12 years ago

Police departments profit as well. They are able to confiscate all kinds of "evidence" like the car a dealer uses when they're selling drugs and then auction those items off. It's an extremely perverse incentive which must be eliminated.

More info: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21599349-america...

Well, here's the most relevant quote, anyways:

"""

Because of a legal quirk, SWAT raids can be profitable. Rules on civil asset-forfeiture allow the police to seize anything which they can plausibly claim was the proceeds of a crime. Crucially, the property-owner need not be convicted of that crime. If the police find drugs in his house, they can take his cash and possibly the house, too. He must sue to get them back.

Many police departments now depend on forfeiture for a fat chunk of their budgets. In 1986, its first year of operation, the federal Asset Forfeiture Fund held $93.7m. By 2012, that and the related Seized Asset Deposit Fund held nearly $6 billion.

Mr Balko contends that these forfeiture laws are “unfair on a very basic level”. They “disproportionately affect low-income people” and provide a perverse incentive for police to focus on drug-related crimes, which “come with a potential kickback to the police department”, rather than rape and murder investigations, which do not. They also provide an incentive to arrest suspected drug-dealers inside their houses, which can be seized, and to bust stash houses after most of their drugs have been sold, when police can seize the cash.

"""

hvs• 12 years ago

And they only exist because the product they distribute has been made illegal.

peterkelly2• 12 years ago

Maybe there needs to be more publicity about drug gangs and the slaves created by the drug cartels. They exist, and they are heinous.

This is really my main concern with the "war on drugs". Keeping the drug trade illegal doesn't get rid of it - rather, it just pushes it underground. The result is organised crime, violence, and so many other major problems.

Admittedly, I'm very far removed from the situation, but I find it difficult to imagine that there'd be so much of these problems if you could just walk into a store and buy your drug of choice in the same way that you buy cigarettes or alcohol. You don't see gangs and cartels forming from around the trade of household cleaning supplies or consumer electronics.

rosser• 12 years ago

Drug cartels and drug slavery are utterly orthogonal to what amounts to misdemeanor possession, which is essentially what many of these cases (including, for all I know, this one) amount to.

Should the SWAT team be able to toss a flashbang into your child's crib because you have a dime bag in the nightstand?

frandroid2• 12 years ago

The drug war is a race war. It has little to do with drugs. They're not going after white coke/pot users/dealers very much, are they?

silverbax883• 12 years ago

Race has nothing to do with it. Lots of meth labs getting busted in rural America are run by white dealers.

groovy2shoes• 12 years ago

It's more of a money thing. In the US, law enforcement agencies are allowed to keep and liquidate assets seized during drug raids. This generates a lot of money for the agencies, many of which have small budgets otherwise.

As far as I can tell, they care less about pot. With the exception of massive amounts of pot, they care mostly about everything else. Small amounts of pot are virtually decriminalized in much of the US, but not small amounts of other scheduled substances (I knew a [white] guy in college who went to jail during a routine traffic stop for possession of one 10 mg pill of dexmethylphenidate (a.k.a. Foculin) without a prescription -- $1500 bail).

I'm not saying police don't do racial profiling, just that the War on Drugs is not about holding a race war; it's primarily about money.

bluedino2• 12 years ago

The majority of your 'white coke' or powder cocaine busts are of Hispanic dealers (that's how it gets into the country and distributed to the big cities). Crack busts on the other hand were almost exclusively Africa-American dealers. They'd make crack out of powder cocaine once it got to their neighborhoods.

rayiner5• 12 years ago

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.

angersock3• 12 years ago

If only we spent the money on schools and social programs instead of prisons and SWAT teams!

baddox6• 12 years ago

Police enforcement efforts are almost entirely preoccupied with trafficking.

I find that hard to believe. It can't be that hard to actually shut down distribution networks with the amount of resources the government uses. But if you just focus on the parts of the network near to the end user, you can burn a lot more resources and argue that you should be given even more resources. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if they actively protect or support the major distribution networks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_traffic...

oelmekki• 12 years ago

And for social context too, this roughness is probably mandatory in a country where it's so easy to buy weapons : they never know what they will face (I'm not defending them either).

maratd2• 12 years ago

While this specific story is staged in Atlanta, this is happening throughout the country, in every state.

We need to stop the demented practice of selling surplus military equipment to local police departments. We're not saving money. Cops don't need armored cars, drones, grenades, etc.

jnbiche• 12 years ago

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...

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...

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

a3n2• 12 years ago

The targets are guys with long rap sheets of felony convictions, often for violent crimes.

Well, it's also about violent dancing and parking.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/08/swat-t...

When SWAT raids are SOP, violent dancers and babies are going to get hurt. But at least the cops are winning.

clarkmoody5• 12 years ago

I think the mentality among the police is "I'm going home tonight, no matter what."

Given the opportunity to wear body armor and carry a rifle when confronting a perceived threat, many will take it.

danielweber6• 12 years ago

They also have the opportunity to not enter the house.

There is a reason that burglary is dangerous: it invites a confrontation that doesn't have to exist.

I'm not so starry-eyed as to imagine that the cops never need to enter a house forcefully. But they can make this happen at a time and means of their choosing. They can watch to determine how many people are in the house. They can wait for some suspects to leave and detain them individually.

It's easy for me to second-guess from here. But the time to think through all these things is before you go into the house.

kika5• 12 years ago

You're essentially saying that the only way to stop this is to use an excessive force in return.

hyperliner4• 12 years ago

I think that is the mentality they need. I rather have a dead criminal than a dead police officer. Unfortunately, mistakes will always happen, so this OP piece, while unfortunately, will continue to happen. This time it happened to be a baby, which makes matters a lot more terrible for all involved.

giardini2• 12 years ago

This.

Background: it's long been known that law enforcement officers (LEOs) are _safer_ on the job than non-LEOs. Only an unfortunate few die in violent encounters with the criminal elements. When LEOs scream about how dangerous their job is, they're almost always asking for a pay raise.

Nonetheless, there was a time in the not-so-remote past when LEOs _consciously__accepted_ the possibility that they might die or be injured on the job. That attitude is fast disappearing.

Once one accepts the analogy that "battling crime" (where any "enemy" is poorly defined; those are civilians out there) is equivalent to warfare (where the enemy is well-defined and no quarter given), then one can almost unconsciously accept a "better him than me" attitude where the civilians' lives are, relative to LEO's, worthless.

The creeping acceptance of warfare's "better him than me" attitude by LEOs and police departments is the root of the problem.

jeroen947042• 12 years ago

That, exactly. And I simply cannot fathom how the response to a flash-bang grenade in a cot with a child in it can ever be "well, obviously there was no way for us to know there were children, so don't blame us" instead of "OH MY GOD WHAT HAVE WE DONE WE'RE SO SORRY!"

rqebmm• 12 years ago

lawsuits, that's how.

baddox6• 12 years ago

That part is really simply: they're being paid to perform precisely these actions.

anigbrowl4• 12 years ago

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

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.

dllthomas18• 12 years ago

As I mentioned elsewhere, I like the map but it is worth noting the default view displays 30 years worth of incidents.

simplemath7• 12 years ago

the security apparatus at every level of jurisdiction are utterly out of control

ftfy

fit2rule2• 12 years ago

SWAT teams in the US are utterly out of control.

America is dominated by cults of violence, cults of death. Its military-industrial groups do nothing but produce death and destruction at the press of a button, and yet Americans do nothing about it.

This problem won't go away until the real issue is address: the utter lack of humility in your average public, and dire amounts of arrogance in the ruling elite. It is pure and utter know-best that makes this irreversible. Until people accept the humility for change, it doesn't happen...

dasil003• 12 years ago

The real problem is that the war on drugs if fantastically profitable for everyone involved: drug cartels, police, and for-profit prisons alike. Just look at the original criminalization of marijuana (and indeed the English adoption of the Mexican word used to invoke racist hatred and fear) which was basically spearheaded by Dow so they could sell their inferior synthetic substitutes for hemp.

Legalizing drugs would make all the violence go away over night, and let us spend the money directly on the social problems drugs cause (which obviously haven't been reduced in the least be criminalization).

chillingeffect2• 12 years ago

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.

jdcarter2• 12 years ago

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.

aestra5• 12 years ago

If you are a small(ish) town cop and you get fancy new military gear then you're going to want to use it no matter if you need to or not. People like playing with toys.

justin66• 12 years ago

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

That's a really bad map. "Botched" is such an arbitrary term and it doesn't capture the way a perfectly executed raid will often damage lives. ("we only terrorized their kids! standard procedure.")

The data is pretty obviously woefully incomplete. Does anyone actually believe that that there have been only 13 "unnecessary raids on doctors or sick people" in the last 30 years? Those are the ones the author knows about. It's an infographic that hides as much as it reveals.

itbeho• 12 years ago

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• 12 years ago

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

iagooar2• 12 years ago

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.

silverbax883• 12 years ago

This sounds crazy to Americans, too. This isn't happening everywhere and the only accounts are those like this online.

tinkerrr• 12 years ago

No, this is happening in most parts of the country. See http://www.cato.org/raidmap (more "neutral" source welcome, if someone has another information source/raw data link).

jsmthrowaway• 12 years ago

A college acquaintance was tackled by a SWAT officer, still blinded from looking directly in surprise at the flash bang that had come through his window, bound with a zip tie, then "accidentally" kicked in the face as they tore his entire apartment from floor to ceiling looking for the cocaine being sold. When they didn't find anything in any room, they started tearing open his bedroom walls with an axe, sure he was hiding the pounds of cocaine somewhere.

Turns out they had the address of the apartment correct minus the street. He was at 3033 X, they wanted 3033 Y. They realized this about a half hour into the raid and said "oops, sorry," and simply packed up and left. His story is not in that map. I looked.

Another time, I left my apartment to walk to the convenience store across the street and was immediately met with six Springfield (OR) Police officers with weapons drawn and pointed directly at my center mass. I was ordered to kneel, not move, and provide identification, conflicting orders with which I was afraid to comply due to itchy triggers in my face; they ended up pushing my face into the sidewalk and taking the identification themselves. They thought I was a car thief they had been chasing.

The fun part of the second story is that they found my press credentials in my wallet first (this was when I worked in television) and a lieutenant magically appeared, apologized extensively, and offered me a bottle of water. She also called a bus to come treat the laceration on my forehead, and gave me her card and said if I had any problems, call her first, and we needn't make a big deal out of this, right? Just a misunderstanding, no big deal.

Police get it wrong a lot. Just because it's not near you doesn't mean it's not happening, believe me.

wdewind2• 12 years ago

You know, I was about to type a kind of snarky reply along the lines of "Ukraine is still in Europe, no?" and then I realized I had to pick the country in Europe that is literally in the midst of a civil war to get to a comparable situation. Sigh.

arethuza5• 12 years ago

Indeed, I was also contemplating some kind of dismissive reply then I remembered I am reading an excellent book about the Saville Inquiry into Bloody Sunday (which I am old enough to just remember happening) and decided not to make that kind of comment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_%281972%29

[Yes, it was a long time ago, but I don't think anything about our society here in the UK has changed to such an extent that would make this fundamentally impossible.]

mikeash3• 12 years ago

Belarus would probably qualify too, not that "repressive dictatorship" is a whole lot better for the comparison than "civil war".

Anyway, us Americans manage to normally live our lives because stuff like this is rare. Remember: if you see it on the news, it is not common pretty much by definition.

I'm far more worried about being run over by a truck or my house burning down than I am about being shot by the police. That's not to say that it's not a problem. This is a huge problem that needs fixing, like, now. But it doesn't directly affect my ability to live life without fear.

cgh2• 12 years ago

The US is a big place (note: I'm not American either). Keep in mind that your comment is similar to a non-European reading about far-right violence and recent EU parliament election success and thinking, "When I read stuff like this, I'm really happy I am not living in Europe. It sounds so crazy to a [Canadian|Australian|etc.] person."

vdaniuk3• 12 years ago

Should we factor in the largest prison population per capita in the world and transfer of surplus military gear to police to nullify the 'big place' factor?

tomp2• 12 years ago

What far right violence? Is there anything happening on a significant scale? What do you mean by "recent EU parliament election success"?

tlrobinson2• 12 years ago

"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.

sliverstorm• 12 years ago

I would even say "vast majority" is an understatement.

simplemath7• 12 years ago

Then why throw up your pitiful strawman in the first place?

ddeck• 12 years ago

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://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/02/17/s...

id• 12 years ago

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

Yes, people are known to underestimate the likelihood of such events happening to them relative to others.

Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias

cullenking• 12 years ago

Two years ago, the house behind mine was raided by Portland's version of SWAT, SERT. The scary thing for me was the house number matched my house number, but was on the next street.

Given that you read stories about SWAT raiding the wrong residence because they misread the house number, it made worried that the same could happen to me.

Picture proof: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/AqKIhXOCIAEaG9D.jpg:large

simplemath7• 12 years ago

It sounds crazy because it is.

seanmccann• 12 years ago

I live in the US and have never had to deal with this and live a normal life. I am by no means defending this, in fact I think it's disgusting and awful, but it's not happening on every single street in the county. Yet.

jqm3• 12 years ago

I think this type of thing is happening much more than people think.

vdaniuk3• 12 years ago

And again, US has the largest per capita number of prisoners in the whole 190 countries. Most of these prisoners are in prison for drug-related charges. Think about that. Yes, SWAT attacks are not happening on every single street, but government destroying lives seems to happen on most streets.

nogridbag• 12 years ago

I recently made the mistake of calling the local police when I heard some ongoing disturbance outside of my apartment window around 3am. I told them it's probably nothing, but they may want to look into it. I thought they may send out one car to drive by and see if everything's OK.

I was shocked what I saw next and I was thinking to myself "What have I done?!". I'm in a high-rise and have a good view of the city. It looked like they sent the entire police force. Police vehicles were flying in from every angle, SUVs jumping over curbs, driving through lawns, etc. It looked like a scene from the original Die Hard. I was nervous they would trace down my cell # if it turned out to be nothing.

hughw• 12 years ago

It mostly happens to a different demographic than the one that reads HN.

hackuser• 12 years ago

I live in the US and have never had to deal with this and live a normal life. I am by no means defending this, in fact I think it's disgusting and awful, but it's not happening on every single street in the county. Yet.

I think that's how they get away with it politically. For the politically powerful and even most of the middle class, it's only something they see on the news occasionally.

baddox6• 12 years ago

It might help you understand why a significant portion of Americans are reluctant to allow the government to place further restrictions on firearm ownership.

conductr2• 12 years ago

America is a weird place. If we collectively felt it was out of control or being abused we would fight back through law or force if it got to that point. We're generally just glad to have those options.

I think this is a topic where the legal fight is ramping up. These stories are becoming too common and though currently "legal" it just reeks of negligence.

scurvyscott2• 12 years ago

I'm of the unfortunate opinion that Americans are too pacified and complacent to actually step up and do anything against the government. I would love to see people reacting with force and violence at a system that is so oppressive and belligerent.

refurb3• 12 years ago

Go onto youtube and search for "german police beating". There are hours of footage of German police kicking the crap out of protesters (punches to the face, etc). The German police are notorious for being very physical.

anon42• 12 years ago

Punches to the face are better than holes in the chest. If I had to pick from "will get punched in the face with 90% certainty" or "will get a hole in the chest with 0.01% certainty", I'd pick the first one. Heck, I'd punch myself in the face once for good measure, too.

iagooar2• 12 years ago

That's not a good comparison, show me a video of German police raiding a house while using extreme violence. Not that I'm a big fan of the police, but in this case it's comparing apples to oranges.

joshuapants2• 12 years ago

How about literal military police (that enforce civilian laws) rather than militarized civilian police?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carabinieri http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Gendarmerie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rijkswacht (until 2001) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardia_Civil

closetnerd• 12 years ago

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

rayiner5• 12 years ago

This was the result of a 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.

opendais10• 12 years ago

You can't even be sure the people performing these "no knock warrants" aren't cops/former cops faking it to commit crimes against you:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/01/30/robbery-ring-disguis...

mcv2• 12 years ago

Exactly. This story sounds like a violent raid by a gang of thugs. What about all those Americans that own weapons in order to defend themselves and their homes? If you're allowed to shoot a stranger violently entering your home, doesn't that mean it's totally legal to shoot those cops? Don't they have to identify themselves as cops and present that warrant first? How else can you tell the difference between the cops and a well-equipped gang?

angersock3• 12 years ago

One wonders--if the evidence is so easily destroyed, how great could the crime actually be?

It's not like they're feeding a body into a wood-chipper or anything.

opendais10• 12 years ago

It would be a non-violent crime, probably. Non-violent crimes shouldn't result in swat teams.

rwmj• 12 years ago

One interesting thing is how long it will take to get rid of these sorts of things once the war on (some) drugs ends.

jacquesm6• 12 years ago

What makes you think it will ever end?

Glyptodon2• 12 years ago

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• 12 years ago

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?

mikeash3• 12 years ago

I think the problem is that it's really hard to police recreational quantities of chemicals. Physical evidence related to crimes is usually either bulkier objects which you can't just put down the toilet, or documents which do take some time to destroy and often exist in multiple places.

A sane person would probably argue that you don't get to run roughshod over people's freedoms just because a particular law is hard to enforce otherwise. But I think that's where it's coming from. You get a pervasive environment where the guys at the top are trying to be tough on drugs and the guys at the bottom keep having to let criminals go because they flushed the evidence, and it's only natural that they'll start to push for more draconian measures.

metacorrector• 12 years ago

I don't agree, the grenade that was thrown is not part of no-knock, it's because of the extreme violence that gang style criminals are apt to use.

You could have no-knock raids to capture evidence without needing to stun everybody.

Floegipoky3• 12 years ago

It's technically possible, but in practice that's never how it works. The entire purpose behind no-knock is to take them by surprise before they can even think about resisting. They use immediately overwhelming "non-lethal" force so that they never have to escalate to a "lethal" level. Obviously the definitions of these terms are imprecise at best.

Believe it or not, this is the safest way to do "no-knock" for everyone involved. Think about it- if a law-abiding gun owner was woken up to the sound of unknown men breaking down his door and had time to access her weapon, the situation would be much worse for everyone. There have been many instances of this exact thing happening, often resulting in the death of the raid victims and/or police officers. That is why stun grenades are always the first thing that goes into the building during a no-knock raid.

jaynos• 12 years ago

Wouldn't it be reasonable to observe the house for a while before a raid? That's where you pick up on clues as to who lives there. "Hmmm, seems to be a lot of small children here and not too many gang style criminals. Ok, team, we go in fast, but force probably won't be necessary." Oh, wait. This type of thinking would probably prevent the no-knock raid to begin with.

thathonkey8• 12 years ago

Not to mention you'd have to be a pretty low-level drug offender to be able to destroy enough/all of the evidence in the time "not knocking" saves the police.

(ie. You can't exactly flush a kilogram of cocaine and a triple-beam down the average toilet in a matter of minutes)

bluedino2• 12 years ago

> You can't exactly flush a kilogram of cocaine down the average toilet in a matter of minutes

I would think you could - that's the 'brick' size you see in the movies, I would guess you could flush that down in 2-3 flushes as long as it didn't clump up too bad.

EpicEng11• 12 years ago

You could easily flush a couple of kilos of cocaine. Owning a couple kilos of coke makes you a fairly successful mid-level dealer who must know people higher up on the food chain.

P.S. I'm not defending the cops here, just saying, you don't need truck fulls of drugs to be considered "big-time", and they usually get to the bigger fish via the smaller ones.

abritishguy• 12 years ago

We have the same thing in the UK, you won't see any flash bangs being used here though.

einrealist4• 12 years ago

Like in the the other European countries, too.

If someone pulls a knife or even a pistol in Germany, the police will try its best to save even the offenders life - even if it takes hours.

henryw• 12 years ago

Knocking down the door, okay fine. But did they really need to throw in a flashbang? Maybe they could have used some kind of thermal vision to see through the wall for children.

LyndsySimon3• 12 years ago

Thermal is blocked by windows, much less walls.

elementai• 12 years ago

Or, they could like look around the house and spot children toys lying around the front yard.

jacquesm6• 12 years ago

The risk of some evidence being destroyed versus potentially killing a kid (and in this case 'luckily' only wounding that kid) seems to be an easy choice. To protect and serve and all that.

PaulAJ• 12 years ago

Not exactly minor wounds. Life threatening and life changing injuries. Even if he survives, his parents are going to spend the rest of their lives dealing with the aftermath.

Why isn't this headline news across America?

dwd• 12 years ago

The issue really is the proliferation of paramilitary in western society expanded under whatever pretext was valid at the time: war on drugs, war on terror, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramilitary

The list of examples (while possibly biased) gives a clear idea of where, having these kinds of miitarised civilian forces, can lead a society.

wdr1• 12 years ago

They are almost uniquely a product of the drug war.

I see no evidence of this.

In addition to preserving evidence, they are also issue when it's believe there could be an issue of officer safety. (E.g., someone armed & dangerous.)

ser_ocelot• 12 years ago

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• 12 years ago

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.

prteja11• 12 years ago

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.

dublinben3• 12 years ago

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.

scarmig3• 12 years ago

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.

devnonymous• 12 years ago

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.

hyperliner4• 12 years ago

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

vlunkr3• 12 years ago

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.

CalRobert• 12 years ago

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.

dllthomas18• 12 years ago

"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.

arjie• 12 years ago

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• 12 years ago

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

comrh• 12 years ago

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

Tycho• 12 years ago

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.

hammerzeit• 12 years ago

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.

jcizzle• 12 years ago

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.

whiddershins• 12 years ago

At minimum, you need citations for the claims, hence I downvoted you. As for the rest, I simply disagree.

koenigdavidmj• 12 years ago

It's entirely legal to own a semi-automatic AK47 (although not if you use and/or possess drugs...but my point stands, as the gun itself would have been perfectly legal).

Signs point to this guy not storing the rifle in a safe fashion, however.

simplemath7• 12 years ago

I was with you all the way up until your demonstrably bullshit conclusion.

This is HN, so remember to get the polish out before you commence with the bootlicking.

thoughtpalette• 12 years ago

Completely disagree with just about every point.

jrs2353• 12 years ago

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.

astrodust3• 12 years ago

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

theg2• 12 years ago

It was obvious from reading the story that there was more to it. The hurt and pain caused is of course awful but leaving out this sort of information is disingenuous and makes this piece essentially propaganda when it didn't need to be.

That said, your comment is off. The suspect is not the father of the child as it appears they were visiting the suspects house.

jmccree3• 12 years ago

I'm pretty sure the poor child's situation is a direct result of a flash bang 'distractionary device' being thrown into his crib by law enforcement. The suspect was NOT in the house, and they found NO DRUGS in the house. As for having a semi-auto firearm, um every other single house in Habersham county probably has one or more semi-autos, big deal. This was a poor family in a bad situation, that the poorly trained sheriff's office "swat team" made worse.

It must be nice to never associate with criminals. For many poor families, this is not an option as the only uncle who will let you stay for free with him after your house burns down, just happens to sell some meth on the side. Is one grenaded baby worth finding even 100lbs of meth? Not to me. It's certainly not worth mauling a baby to find no drugs.

pbhjpbhj4• 12 years ago

Is one grenaded baby worth finding even 100lbs of meth? Not to me. //

Does it matter if the meth might be causing far more pain to more people?

This https://www.google.com/search?q=mother+on+meth+kills+child gives a lot of pretty stark reading material.

johngalt2• 12 years ago

The police threw a grenade into an innocent child's crib. Nothing you've said ends in '...and that's why they clearly had to burn a hole two year old'.

Don't be a criminal and don't associate with criminals and this doesn't happen to you.

Ok, but how far does this 'association' go? Where is your line where the excessive police response isn't justified. We can already see that your line is past throwing grenades at children. What's next? SWAT team mows down a preschool with gunfire because a drug dealer was picking up their kid at the time?

vlunkr3• 12 years ago

Thank you for this. It's true that associating with criminals makes it more likely that things like this will happen to you, but that doesn't justify it. A child getting hospitalized is excessive collateral damage for something indirectly related to the family.

incision• 12 years ago

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...

"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'...

"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]"

abengoam• 12 years ago

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

iambateman• 12 years ago

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... 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• 12 years ago

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• 12 years ago

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

scarmig3• 12 years ago

Let's burn the village down to save it.

Their job is fundamentally to protect and serve the public. If they and, more appropriately, the organizations they are a part of myopically equate that to preventing meth dealing while avoiding even the slightest chance of police harm, even at the cost of innocent lives, that's a problem and can and should be held against them.

mikeash3• 12 years ago

Your question is why we have laws for how police can operate.

Yes, if I were in their shoes, I would not want to knock. Which is why we need to make it a legal requirement to. Don't give them a choice.

The police are playing an inherently rigged game. They operate with one hand tied behind their back, giving criminals an inherent advantage because criminals, by definition, don't worry about following the law. The only reason this works is because the police can bring to bear vastly greater resources and numbers, but their possible actions are much more limited.

And that's how it should be. The term for a place where the police have no limits on what they can do to bring in the bad guys is called a "police state".

I don't doubt that police really really want to handle situations like this with quick and decisive action. Which is exactly why they must not be allowed to.

danielweber6• 12 years ago

It wasn't "we have to go in, better arm up." They could have watched the house and gathered more information. Since they have a warrant, are cops allowed to thermally image a house to get a headcount? Technical question: would that work or am I imagining something from TV?

SolarNet• 12 years ago

Nah we don't have thermal imaging that precise yet, also, the thermal difference between outside the house and inside the house sort of washes away any lingering body heat you might be looking for in most cases.

scurvyscott2• 12 years ago

I'm of the opinion that just because someone is a drug dealer and has been known to carry a weapon, doesn't mean that person is going to get in a shoot out with the police. I'd be willing to bet (note: I've not seen any hard statistics on this matter) that 9 times out of 10 the criminal decides that it's in his/her better interest to just be arrested and fight it later, than it is to get in a gun battle with heavily armed cops. It's an interesting thing that typical police line of thinking goes something like: 1: person MAY be a criminal of some form 2: person MAY have a weapon 3: person MAY use said weapon in a futile attempt to avoid arrest or injury 4: let's get 10 cops, arm them to the teeth, storm their house in a disorienting and scary middle of the night raid, during which we will throw explosives, brandish military type weapons, and yell and act aggressively 5: there is less of a chance that during the raid a criminal will react violently than if the police do not break in in the middle of the night screaming and waving guns

I'm not trying to be "that condescending dick" and I sympathize with what you're saying, I'm just saying I disagree with "put yourself in their position".

bumeye• 12 years ago

I'm surprised by the huge difference between those articles. Somehow i do find your article more believable. News outlets prefer to spin the story the other way because that kind of story is much more popular. It sheds light on a whole other side of what happened and i'm shocked to see how the posted article just lies about half of it.

Of course this is a sad story, no one should ever get hurt by drug violence, let alone a defenseless baby. But i think we should not rush our opinions on these things.

It's easy to get all emotional and be all upset when we read these things.

But we are supposed to be intellectuals right? We should not make judgements based on one sensationalist article. We can do better than that.

I think we should all just act a bit more rational. Don't make snap judgements. Read more about a subject before you condemn people.

In the end, i don't care what YOU think is the truth. Just make sure you know what you're talking about before you shout out your opinions.

PS: iambateman, this is not really meant for you of course ;)

People will probably misinterpret my post. In no way i mean to say that police and government don't share any blame. I'm definitely against the militarization of police. But i won't be sending money to that family either.

erbo3• 12 years ago

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."

Crito• 12 years ago

"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."

General question: could the spouse of somebody being sued for every penny they have insulate their risk by divorcing the person being sued and winning some of their assets before the lawsuit was complete?

I'm thinking that if I was being sued, was almost certainly going to lose, and would lose everything, I would want to try divorcing my spouse to ensure that they were able to retain enough of our formerly joint assets to take care of themselves.

300bps2• 12 years ago

It is complicated and state specific. In my state it would not be necessary to divorce to protect your largest asset - your house. Any house owned by a husband and wife that is titled as Joint Tenants of the Entirety (default) is protected from creditors of the husband OR wife (but not AND).

rayiner5• 12 years ago

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.

freehunter4• 12 years ago

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

Bullshit. The police can throw me in jail before a trial, preventing me from going to work. How's that not a violation of due process?

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

True. You could sue them for enough that they could no longer make the payments on their house, though.

true_religion• 12 years ago

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

The government isn't actually required to provide 'due processes' unless someone is being deprived of their life or livlihood.

That is to say, I don't believe employees of any stripe (government included) need to go through criminal processing before being suspended or fired.

More so, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure what the specifics of 'due process' are. Simply, any non-arbitrary written policy can be considered a due processes. Its' how boarder guards can get away with harassing people when they step out of line at the TSA.

300bps2• 12 years ago

The biggest problem with the rant is that it only attacks symptoms of the underlying disease. The underlying disease is the nonsensical War On Drugs. End that and most of these symptoms go away on their own.

kika5• 12 years ago

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.

pessimizer2• 12 years ago

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.

This is almost certainly not true, especially with modern executive interpretations that 'due process' in the law simply means any established process. Do you have any references for this?

malandrew4• 12 years ago

Upon applying the changes 1 and 3 you suggested, this seems to be a reasonable solution to start from. At the end of the day we need some degree of accountability. Currently we have practically none.

ajsharp• 12 years ago

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.

Nope, not unconstitutional, not even close. The constitution has literally nothing to say about suspending someone's ability to work due to arrests and legal proceedings, because it's not a set of guidelines for prosecution, it's a foundation for lawmakers and the judicial system by which to form and judge laws and crimes.

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

Assets are frozen during criminal proceedings all the time. Ironically, especially for drug-related prosecutions (big ones, albeit, and for good reason).

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.

TOTALLY. Luckily, we have the magical judicial system, which is built to handle cases, you know, individual instances where the law is either broken or does not provide enough clarity, and thus, case trial can help to narrow the meaning of laws. They can also award compensatory and punitive damages, which seem more than justified in this particular instance.

erbo3• 12 years ago

(1) Nothing prohibits officers from having to agree to these policies when they join the force. If they don't like it, they can find another job. Members of the military already have to give up certain rights while serving.

(2) A public pension is a public trust. Why should someone who has violated that trust be allowed to keep any interest in it?

(3) Those officers intended to use the force they did when they stormed that residence. That's premeditation. Even if I concede that point, though, negligent homicide still carries a hefty prison sentence.

(4) Giving those legal protections to police has given them the attitude that they are "above the law." This needs to be changed. Big time.

LeoNatan25• 12 years ago

Land of the free and the home of the brave

conductr2• 12 years ago

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.

jrs2353• 12 years ago

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...

loqi• 12 years ago

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

jimmyislive• 12 years ago

gosh...this is so outrageous !!!

joeevans2• 12 years ago

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

http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/sto...

Makes you wonder if we really should be militarizing them.

BetterLateThan• 12 years ago

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.

jscheel• 12 years ago

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.

nathanb2• 12 years ago

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?

jliptzin2• 12 years ago

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.

ars• 12 years ago

That solves nothing whatsoever. People aren't selling drugs because they believe everyone should have access to them.

They sell drugs because it makes money. Legalize drugs and they'll make money some other illegal and dangerous way.

paulhauggis• 12 years ago

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.

watwut• 12 years ago

They will sit on unused SWAT teams and use them to collect unpaid parking fees and arrest suspected loiterers from yesterday. I'm exaggerating only slightly. The point is, if judges are signing no-knock raids from non-violent suspects possibly owning small amount of marijuana, they will be signing them for other petty crimes too.

End of war of drugs would just re-channel the same tactic against other targets.

dragontamer2• 12 years ago

1. Understand the structure of the system. SWAT teams and local police are a local problem, not a national one. Cases like this will happen all around the country, but there really isn't anything you can do about it. It is up to the local population to elect their police chiefs (or... elect mayors / governors who choose good police chiefs).

2. The "Executive Branch" of Obama honestly has nothing to do with this. Understanding where you place your efforts is important. You can try and make this a national issue, but it isn't one.

3. Recognize that state departments and local police are going to do things you don't like, especially when you're far away and hold no control over them.

The US has a federal system. Its the power we've given to local officials to run localities the way they like. Now, if we are to make this a national issue, we'll have to pass something in Congress as a nation... something that seems very unlikely given the gridlock on the national law system at the moment.

nathanb2• 12 years ago

I am, in fact, aware of the difference between local, state, and federal government. Much like the US federal government, state governments are also divided into multiple branches, with law enforcement part of the executive branch. Municipal governments tend to be a little less well-defined, but still nominally respect a separation of powers.

The author did not specify, but the news article linked below suggests that the "SWAT team" was composed of a mixture of town and county officers. I'm not sure what the jurisdictional situation is, but if it were me I would try to contact the mayor of Cornelia first and, if that did not address my concerns, the governor of Georgia.

But maybe there's a better way. For instance (as has been discussed elsewhere in these comments) if no-knock warrants were declared unconstitutional, or if there was a well-defined process for redress of unjustified force complaints, perhaps the situation would improve for everyone.

anon42• 12 years ago

Long term? Make these sorts of stories public, demand change, write to your representatives, write to the media. Takes about 40 to 80 years.

Short term? 1/2 meter thick concrete walls and doors, barred windows. Though that might set off alarms for the police, so a better solution would be a bunker space under your house where you sleep and spend your time indoors. Of course also have a bedroom above ground so you can claim you slept in your bunker because you were working late on a project that day and they just caught. When they knock, put on riot gear. I mean, your welder suit.

Or maybe it would be safest to get sent to prison for life, at least there the most danger you have to look out for is getting stabbed by someone doing it for fun, rather than blown up by a guy doing it for the good of society.

einrealist4• 12 years ago

The the police will get tanks and shell their way into your bunker. The police is engaged in an arms race. But they are the only ones who are in the race.

einrealist4• 12 years ago

First, stop to speak about 'war' on insert-bad-thing-here.

With that terminology comes the behavior. And this behavior is 'self-improving'. The Police already has access to that gear of the military, which is left over from the real wars. That gear is more likely being used along with war tactics. Self protection and the appliance of gear and tactics became more important than to protect the civilians and even to protect the criminals from them self.

nyargh• 12 years ago

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

icantthinkofone• 12 years ago

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.

vasundhar• 12 years ago

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.

njharman• 12 years ago

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)

ugk• 12 years ago

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

Floegipoky3• 12 years ago

This is very relevant: http://www.cato.org/raidmap

joeevans2• 12 years ago

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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor'...

jqm3• 12 years ago

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?

esbonsa• 12 years ago

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...

anywhichway• 12 years ago

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

notacoward• 12 years ago

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.

jimwild• 12 years ago

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

ScottBurson• 12 years ago

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 :-)

rawland• 12 years ago

This. Is. Horrible.

And system failure.

gdewilde• 12 years ago

Absolutely disgusting.

@everyone

Did you vote for the 2 party dictatorship?

Are you going to vote for it again?

You are aren't you?

mcv2• 12 years ago

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?

A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son

Related Stories