A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by chc » Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 6:02 PM UTC

opendais wrote: post #52

angersock wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

I don't think "nonviolent" is a good description of a lot of hard drug rings. They aren't being violent right at the moment, but if they see a cop standing outside the door, they very well might just shoot him.

No-knock warrants are by and large a horrible thing and SWAT teams are drastically overused, but that doesn't make the problem they are meant to address any less real.

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

#122

Post by milesskorpen » Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 6:02 PM UTC

silverbax88 wrote: post #97

frandroid wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

You really can't say it has "nothing to do with it." Just look at the sentencing guidelines between crack and coke. Listen to the original hearings from when pot was made illegal. Look at the proportion of people in prison for pot (hint: It doesn't reflect the racial make-up of users). Yes — in some parts of the country the disparity is based more on class than race. But that's definitely not the whole story.

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

#123

Post by iambateman » Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 6:03 PM UTC

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?

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

#124

Post by oelmekki » Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 6:03 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #85

peterkelly wrote: post #20

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.

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 betwee…

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).

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

#125

Post by jrs235 » Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 6:04 PM UTC

jcizzle wrote: post #90

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 no…

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.

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

#126

Post by mullingitover » Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 6:04 PM UTC

silverbax88 wrote: post #97

frandroid wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

White people get arrested sometimes. That doesn't mean that the war on drugs doesn't have a race discrepancy problem[1].

[1] http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/crime09.htm

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

#127

Post by baddox » Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 6:05 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #50

malandrew wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

The judge likely knew that his or her job is heavily contingent on his or her willingness to sign off on raids like this.

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

#128

Post by milesskorpen » Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 6:05 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #72

cgh wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

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

There isn't really SWAT violence/school shootings happening on a "significant scale" in the context of the US either.

Re: Europe — http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/25/world/europe/eu-elections/ etc.

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

#129

Post by erbo » Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 6:05 PM UTC

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."

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

#130

Post by anigbrowl » Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 6:05 PM UTC

fixermark wrote: post #79

maxerickson wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is an interesting point, and depending on the jurisdiction, some judges are elected officials. It should come back on the judge that he or she authorized this abuse of power. Unfortunately, the feedback loop between the (hypothetical) judicial backstop on the system and the enforcers of the law tends to be left open by ignorance. It would be good for local political activists in Atlanta to make sure that the jud…

OK, but the judge can only go by the evidence s/he is presented with. This judge might have been rubber-stamping SWAT raid applications, or might have been given sufficient evidence to think there was a serious risk of a firefight.