How a SWAT team upended my baby’s life — and got away with it

[Boreas]

There has been a federal program to find jobs in law enforcement for returning Iraq and Afghanistan vets. Is it any wonder that they apply their training and experience in urban warfare to their performance as police?

Unintended consequences.

https://www.bja.gov/Publications/IAC...urningVets.pdf

John

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

How can ANY risk of death or serious bodily harm to innocent civilians be justified as a 'just in case' measure?

Because investigation produced results implying a lack of innocence.

Originally Posted by donquixote99

There was NO RESISTANCE when the weapon was deployed, and no positive reason to expect armed resistance with deadly force.

1. Flash/bangs aren't weapons.
2. Their use precludes (reasonably expected) armed resistance as a safety measure.

Originally Posted by donquixote99

And nothing less than the actual existence of such armed resistance can justify throwing explosives into a citizen's home.

Disagreement abounds. All sorts of scenarios, including the suspected harboring of an armed criminal, exist justifying said use.

Originally Posted by donquixote99

What you describe is the absolute definition of institutional brutality.

Not even close.

If you desire to question the investigation? Feel free. Questioning actions undertaken due to the investigation is a losing battle on multiple fronts.

[sheltiedave]

When you ready, fire, aim, all three parts need to be questioned and reviewed.

When you kill innocents, you need to change course.

When you create multiple million dollar lawsuits, and the police officers you are using aren't even POST certified and have never received weapons training, even Zeke needs to raise a red flag.

But of course Zeke has no red flag. He just comes here to jig others, and laugh. Zeke still thinks he is running things at the Indian reservation, watching all his drunk entitled childhood friends stagger around, while he maces them, beats on their brats with the nightstick, and waits for GOOD SHOT opportunities. And he probably has some black best friends to swap stories with.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Because investigation produced results implying a lack of innocence.

1. Flash/bangs aren't weapons.
2. Their use precludes (reasonably expected) armed resistance as a safety measure.

Disagreement abounds. All sorts of scenarios, including the suspected harboring of an armed criminal, exist justifying said use.

Not even close.

If you desire to question the investigation? Feel free. Questioning actions undertaken due to the investigation is a losing battle on multiple fronts.

My god, this is insane!

In all seriousness, Zeke, are you no longer in law enforcement because you cracked up?

John

John

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Questioning actions undertaken due to the investigation is a losing battle on multiple fronts.

Skip everything else, without prejudice....

What does this claim mean, in a discussion where we're trying to see whether the cops did right or wrong? Are you trying to say that the investigation (done by other cops) is the raid team's 'cover?' They bear no blame because they were just doing what 'the investigation' said to do? Shades of the 'just following orders' defense.

I say it doesn't work, because no matter what, throwing a device capable of doing death or grevious bodily harm into a civilian's home, without you (the thrower, personally) being sure of the target, is wrong. This action (and you because you continue to defend it) shows bad intent, or depraved indifference to human life.

But there's a second possibility for what you mean. Do you mean that if I stand to 'lose the battle,' because of the law and politics and institutional power and everything, I thereby lose morally? That is, are you telling us that might makes right?

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Skip everything else, without prejudice....

What does this claim mean, in a discussion where we're trying to see whether the cops did right or wrong? Are you trying to say that the investigation (done by other cops) is the raid team's 'cover?' They bear no blame because they were just doing what 'the investigation' said to do? Shades of the 'just following orders' defense.

I say it doesn't work, because no matter what, throwing a device capable of doing death or grevious bodily harm into a civilian's home, without you (the thrower, personally) being sure of the target, is wrong. This action (and you because you continue to defend it) shows bad intent, or depraved indifference to human life.

But there's a second possibility for what you mean. Do you mean that if I stand to 'lose the battle,' because of the law and politics and institutional power and everything, I thereby lose morally? That is, are you telling us that might makes right?

"You do the best investigation that you can and act accordingly using non-lethal devices to protect everyone.

Most of the time, that works out.

That's just the way it is.

If something broke here it was the investigation (deemed hasty by review) but the entry was still by spec.

1. Sucks.
2. Happens.

That's not callous, it's realistic."

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Because investigation produced results implying a lack of innocence.

You say the implication of a lack of innocence is, by itself, enough to justify weapons deployment against whoever happens to be at an address?

Originally Posted by Zeke

Flash/bangs aren't weapons.

So the baby isn't hurt? Damn man, you are obviously, blatantly, wrong wrong wrong.

Originally Posted by Zeke

Their use precludes (reasonably expected) armed resistance as a safety measure.

We disagree because your 'safety measure' is too dangerous to citizens.

Originally Posted by Zeke

Disagreement abounds. All sorts of scenarios, including the suspected harboring of an armed criminal, exist justifying said use.

We disagree because you are defending too low a standard for use of a device this dangerous to citizens.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Zeke

"You do the best investigation that you can and act accordingly using non-lethal devices to protect everyone.

Most of the time, that works out.

That's just the way it is.

If something broke here it was the investigation (deemed hasty by review) but the entry was still by spec.

1. Sucks.
2. Happens.

That's not callous, it's realistic."

My first response to this stands. I'll quote the heart of it: "'Specs' are not a certification of moral rightness. If they permit this, it just means we're dealing with institutional brutality, in additional to individual brutality. And I think the case for that is rather open-and-shut, with the mangled baby as evidence."

And I take your cut and paste response to my later message as indicating you are unable or unwilling to engage with the actual arguments.

[sheltiedave]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

My first response to this stands. I'll quote the heart of it: "'Specs' are not a certification of moral rightness. If they permit this, it just means we're dealing with institutional brutality, in additional to individual brutality. And I think the case for that is rather open-and-shut, with the mangled baby as evidence."

And I take your cut and paste response to my later message as indicating you are unable or unwilling to engage with the actual arguments.

Zeke exists in his own world, where all action is justified and specced.
He truly is a joy to be around.

He gazes upon the ocean of entitlement and human feces floating outside his door in disgust, as he sits at the computer in his underwear, scratching that irritating piece of dry skin, caused by his former service revolver, that forced him to take the detested medical retirement. Soon the ghost of prisons past will come to visit. Bah Humbug, he snorts, and looks at the puddle of drool crystalizing on the floor at his side.

[Zeke]

You're way off but an excellent writer.