Roving bands of black-clad terrorists
 

Toddler severely burned by stun grenade during police raid on Georgia home

I think it's seriously time to consider banning police.

Do it for the children.

SWAT type **** needs to go.

I wonder how many of these SWAT patrol have kids? Now wouldn't they enjoy an 'accidental' raid at their residence. Article states they were following protocol. Surely is some effed up protocol.

It's even worse today with small town police dept's crying they need more appropriations for high-tech and more powerful weapons. Wannabe GI Joe's in tanks to patrol the hood. There's so much un-just today.... sad.

Guy who threw that grenade ought to get one duct taped to his face then set off. I am very surprised that more officers are not killed in these raids. If they pulled one of them at my father in law's house, they would carry a lot of cops out in bags.

If the kid survives, he won't have to work a day in his life.

I, too, am surprised.

And disappointed.

Yeah, I went there.

It's obvious that baby must have been guilty of something.

Prosecutors and judges are equally to blame by allowing cops to get no knock search warrants without really inquiring into the need for one.

Paid for by the Georgia taxpayer.

But hey, at least the cops followed procedure. :rolleyes:

To play devil's advocate...

IF the cop (the one who tossed the flashbang) was acting under orders from his superior AND believed he was raiding the home of a "known" criminal, is it truly HIS fault this occurred?

I totally agree this schit needs to stop, but do you blame Joe Cop on the ground doing as he's told, or do you blame his bosses?

"I vas only following orders!"

Not quite the same, I think. Executing a warrant on a "known" criminal, and hauling people away because they're Jewish are hugely different.

I blame them both

He would almost certainly be insulated from fault, even without the stipulations you stated. This being the case, it is not acceptable for our LEO to ever do this sort of raid. Even if the were absolutely certain the guy was there, they should not have gone in if they were not every bit as certain that no innocents were in harms way. If something like this can happen, and they can say they followed protocol, the protocol is obviously flawed and they must suspend all these sorts of operations.

I don't disagree with you at all, Toby.

It's not that difficult to take a quick thermal image of the home (God knows they spend enough money on other "toys"). When they see imagery showing there's kids on the premises, that should change how they respond, so as to protect the innocent amongst the possible guilty. Is it really that important to catch the guy "red handed" before he can flush his pot down the toilet that they're accepting the risk of harming our youth?

Collateral damage is a known and accepted risk of war. Should it be so for law enforcement?

There is a difference between a known to be violent criminal and a known criminal. There is a difference between entering into a violent situation and creating a violent situation.

So, who is culpable? It seems our police departments have no shortage of would be commandos eagerly lining up for this duty - duty that they know full well involves conducting military-style raids on citizens' households. Raids that they know full well are seldom conducted under violent conditions, such as armed criminals actively shooting it out with police, hostage situations, or whatever. They know going in that the vast majority of these raids are conducted on suspects having no violent history, and are carried out at night when (hopefully) everyone is asleep. And officers are lining up for this duty...

So, are just their supervisors, the courts, their protocols, and all of that to blame? I agree, we need to look at the whole picure, and do something about it. Provide the adult supervision these boys with their toys so obviously need. Send most of them home and take away their toys, and really clamp down on when and where it is acceptable to deploy them. We need to do all of that. But never lose sight of the fact that the officers conducting these raids are as culpable as anyone else involved - beyond just following orders, they are thoroughly enjoying playing their (relatively) risk-free game of commando.

Just because protocalls allow it, it does not mean they have to do it - they exercise a great deal of judgement based upon the situation in the field. There was clearly no reason to use this grenade - our hero simply wanted to. He knew there were no ramifications for him, since protocol allows it. He is responsible for his decision and needs to be held personally liable for it. Like that will ever happen...

Yes, but the excuse is the same: "I was just following orders."

Not quite the same, yes.

Hugely different, not really

up date no drugs found
no proof of drugs
supposition that punk informer [read criminal gaming the system]
was telling the truth only basis for raid [read slim to none]

and the guy they claimed to be looking for was NOT THERE
so home invasion by cops on innocent citizen and child
no crime or criminals in the place where the grenade was thrown

how about we sue the DA and judge who signed off on this
or even better criminal charges for attempted murder and assault with great body injury
we would file charges against a crime lord to did a home invasion with this result
why not just the cops but their commanders and DA and judge
they all entered in to a conspiracy that had the child's injury as a DIRECT RESULT
WHY ARE THEY ALLOWED A FREE PASS ???????????

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

A small scale Waco raid. That is to say, the police wanted a high-visibility "show of force". There are less confrontational, less aggressive, and less hazardous ways to affect the apprehension of a known target - but those methods don't get press.
+100 SWAT was originally conceived of to be used in rare, but necessary instances. Now rolling out the paramilitary goon squad is just SOP.
I'm sure you didn't mean this to sound like the kid hit the lotto.
From the photos, it looks like he is a good candidate for physical recovery. At his age, I am not sure what the long term effect will be.

as a former toastie I can tell you..
it really hurts..really!
when he meets folks they will see scars first/ then him..
kids will ridicule him for years..
who knows..
he could blow up a P station 20 yrs from now..
and I would understand and be okay with it...


Rika