SWAT flashbang versus an infants face

[Arkinesia]

Of course one thing that hasn't been mentioned here is the distinct problem with the idea of a no-knock warrant.

No-knock warrants have been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. However, I don't really support the no-knock warrant as is currently in place. It seems that these are being abused to just try to engage in shock-troop tactics against any potential criminal.

I get the evidence argument but these raids are getting increasingly ridiculous, not to mention dangerous to both officers and innocent bystanders.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is the implicit position of banning this kind of thing and using fucking swat teams to run around arresting people for it.
People die because of the drug ban. This time it might have been a baby.
They had no idea a child was there, but you do have an idea that because of the drug ban, people, including babies, will die.
Sooner or later, this shit happens. It's part of the cost of the drug war.

Okay? I'm not seeing how the drug ban is the fault of police officers. They don't make laws. They just enforce them.

Eh, depends on the cop. Lots of cops don't enforce them.

[Conkerials]

Yeh men. We often use SWAT teams in place of Social Workers.

It's doubtful the SWAT team knew the child was there, 'less they would've been more cautious. Besides, I don't think it's too swell of an idea to send a social worker there alone to get the child with the threat of armed personnel guarding the residence.

[Ionian Knights]

SWAT Is sent in to get Dealer.

something seems to be barricading the door after ramming. In order to keep the element of surprise intact, they flashbang the house.

Child is in crosshairs, but was not targeted on purpose by the SWAT crew.



After reading 5 pages of this thread... I'm still dumbfounded on the people who blame the SWAT team on this.

May I ask, what did they do wrong? They followed the proper procedure to preform their execution of the warrant, using their role of as the executioners of the law... unfortunately, an infant was the blocking party. All I see here is an accident, with possible child endangerment on the parents part for living in a home with drugs.

An accident they could have prevented with an application of simple equipment that they should have had access to.

you're issued a no-knock, with possible violence in the path, you want to make this quick. did they have the equipment? probably. Would you think of using it in case of a child? NOPE.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is the implicit position of banning this kind of thing and using fucking swat teams to run around arresting people for it.
People die because of the drug ban. This time it might have been a baby.
They had no idea a child was there, but you do have an idea that because of the drug ban, people, including babies, will die.
Sooner or later, this shit happens. It's part of the cost of the drug war.

So you're saying that you'd rather that people were allowed to perform open drug deals on the streets with middle schoolers?

Can people do open alcohol deals on the streets with middle schoolers?
No, they need I.D and a licensed premises.

Tell you what puts drugs in the hands of middle schoolers, a total lack of regulation of drugs.

[Ionian Knights]

So you're saying that you'd rather that people were allowed to perform open drug deals on the streets with middle schoolers?

Can people do open alcohol deals on the streets with middle schoolers?

Last I checked.. NO.

[Scomagia]

Of course one thing that hasn't been mentioned here is the distinct problem with the idea of a no-knock warrant.

No-knock warrants have been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. However, I don't really support the no-knock warrant as is currently in place. It seems that these are being abused to just try to engage in shock-troop tactics against any potential criminal.

I get the evidence argument but these raids are getting increasingly ridiculous, not to mention dangerous to both officers and innocent bystanders.

I mentioned it quite a while back.

[Spoder]

Gah. Right. You shouldn't be in the same household, regardless. This is still due to the irresponsibility of adult figures.

So what?
Why does that justify the use of a SWAT team exactly?
Kids are endangered all the time from shitty parents and we don't use SWAT teams to address it. So your argument seems completely ridiculous.

Drugs are illegal.

Officers enforce the law.

Drug dealer identified, rare opportunity to apprehend.

They go in with the intention of apprehending some bad, bad people, not knowing about the idiot family that had a toddler living with them.

Where the fuck do you draw the assumption that the SWAT team went in with the intent of solving a family's issues?

Answer: Out of your ass.

[Ostroeuropa]

Can people do open alcohol deals on the streets with middle schoolers?

Last I checked.. NO.

Yeh, so whats the problem again. Prohibitionists make me roll my eyes.

[Conkerials]

Gah. Right. You shouldn't be in the same household, regardless. This is still due to the irresponsibility of adult figures.

Says fucking who? You? On what authority? With what experience? By what right?

If you're fine with endangering the life of a child, be my guest. But by no circumstance would any reasonable parent be OK with their child in a household that's dealing meth. Bringing dangerous, tweaking strangers into the house frequently.
I'm going to get called a hypocrite for that statement, you watch.

[Ifreann]

An accident they could have prevented with an application of simple equipment that they should have had access to.

you're issued a no-knock, with possible violence in the path, you want to make this quick. did they have the equipment? probably. Would you think of using it in case of a child? NOPE.

Of course not. You use to it see what's behind the door. You don't need to be considering the possibility of a child being there to be able to discover that a child is there.

[Conkerials]

Gah. Right. You shouldn't be in the same household, regardless. This is still due to the irresponsibility of adult figures.

So what?
Why does that justify the use of a SWAT team exactly?
Kids are endangered all the time from shitty parents and we don't use SWAT teams to address it. So your argument seems completely ridiculous.

Just now seeing this.

No, but usually they don't have the whole "possible armed guards out front" threat.

[Scomagia]

Says fucking who? You? On what authority? With what experience? By what right?

If you're fine with endangering the life of a child, be my guest. But by no circumstance would any reasonable parent be OK with their child in a household that's dealing meth. Bringing dangerous, tweaking strangers into the house frequently.
I'm going to get called a hypocrite for that statement, you watch.

So they should have been staying on the street instead?

[Viritica]

1. How do you know they had such things with them?

1. I don't, but if they didn't, they should have, simple as that.

2. I'm assuming they thought there was more than one person, yes?

2. Well no amount of loud noises and bright lights are going to stop some guy in another room from flushing drugs. It's not going to get the door down any faster either.

1. Why? It's a raid. They're supposed to get in there quickly. A little camera or mirror won't help.
2. Sure. But it'll stun people on the other side of the door.

[Camicon]

Says fucking who? You? On what authority? With what experience? By what right?

If you're fine with endangering the life of a child, be my guest. But by no circumstance would any reasonable parent be OK with their child in a household that's dealing meth. Bringing dangerous, tweaking strangers into the house frequently.
I'm going to get called a hypocrite for that statement, you watch.

Between living out of a minivan for God knows how long with four children, and living in your sister-in-law's house, I know what choice I'd take. One of them lets me eat real food, keep my job, have a place to relax, and have a real bed.

[Conkerials]

If you're fine with endangering the life of a child, be my guest. But by no circumstance would any reasonable parent be OK with their child in a household that's dealing meth. Bringing dangerous, tweaking strangers into the house frequently.
I'm going to get called a hypocrite for that statement, you watch.

So they should have been staying on the street instead?

She should've addressed a social worker, as so many of you are talking about.

[Paddy O Fernature]

If you're fine with endangering the life of a child, be my guest. But by no circumstance would any reasonable parent be OK with their child in a household that's dealing meth. Bringing dangerous, tweaking strangers into the house frequently.
I'm going to get called a hypocrite for that statement, you watch.

So they should have been staying on the street instead?

If I had an infant under my direct care, I can think of several options that are better then crashing at a meth house.

[Ostroeuropa]

Says fucking who? You? On what authority? With what experience? By what right?

If you're fine with endangering the life of a child, be my guest. But by no circumstance would any reasonable parent be OK with their child in a household that's dealing meth. Bringing dangerous, tweaking strangers into the house frequently.
I'm going to get called a hypocrite for that statement, you watch.

You clearly have no fucking idea how drug dealers actually operate.
I cannot think of a single drug dealer who sells from their place of residence to anybody but the absolute closest of customers who are usually involved in the production or sale in the first place, and due to the respect afforded both ways by this, they sure as fuck would not start using the drugs in the residence once sold there.

[Camicon]

So they should have been staying on the street instead?

She should've addressed a social worker, as so many of you are talking about.

Because it's not like the USA's welfare system is all kinds of fucked, amiright?

[Conkerials]

If you're fine with endangering the life of a child, be my guest. But by no circumstance would any reasonable parent be OK with their child in a household that's dealing meth. Bringing dangerous, tweaking strangers into the house frequently.
I'm going to get called a hypocrite for that statement, you watch.

Between living out of a minivan for God knows how long with four children, and living in your sister-in-law's house, I know what choice I'd take. One of them lets me eat real food, keep my job, have a place to relax, and have a real bed.

And endanger my child's life consistently.

[Camicon]

Between living out of a minivan for God knows how long with four children, and living in your sister-in-law's house, I know what choice I'd take. One of them lets me eat real food, keep my job, have a place to relax, and have a real bed.

And endanger my child's life consistently.

Living on the street with no real food, nowhere to sleep, nowhere to play, nowhere to do homework, doesn't do that?

[Conkerials]

She should've addressed a social worker, as so many of you are talking about.

Because it's not like the USA's welfare system is all kinds of fucked, amiright?

Then why do you all complain that a social worker should've been sent? Hypocritical much?

[Mirchusko]

I fail to see what the SWAT team should have done differently. They obtained the proper warrant, went to the house where they expected armed resistance, and attempted to break down the door. When that failed, they attempted to keep the element of surprise by using the flash-bang.

Of course one thing that hasn't been mentioned here is the distinct problem with the idea of a no-knock warrant.

No-knock warrants have been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. However, I don't really support the no-knock warrant as is currently in place. It seems that these are being abused to just try to engage in shock-troop tactics against any potential criminal.

How do you think law enforcement should approach a drug dealer's house when they expect armed resistance?

[Camicon]

Because it's not like the USA's welfare system is all kinds of fucked, amiright?

Then why do you all complain that a social worker should've been sent? Hypocritical much?

I've never said anything of the sort.

[Ionian Knights]

you're issued a no-knock, with possible violence in the path, you want to make this quick. did they have the equipment? probably. Would you think of using it in case of a child? NOPE.

Of course not. You use to it see what's behind the door. You don't need to be considering the possibility of a child being there to be able to discover that a child is there.

Their intel said no child, so they didn't assume there was a child. remember, they did have a CI with them... who fucked up the intel.