Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

salon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 464 posts

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

#181

Post by kika »

clarkmoody wrote: post #99
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.

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.

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

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

#182

Post by moggflunkies »

chillingeffect wrote: post #166
jacquesm wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This swat team just committed a violent crime. If you're looking for a small amount of drugs on a person who you aren't even sure is present in a single room with a whole pile of occupants including children and you start throwing flashbang grenades then you should be 100% culpable. Stuff like that has no application in regular policing, definitely not in raids to arrest people on suspicion of some small time crime.…

I just watched a brief youtube video on flashbang grenade training [0]. Apparently, the grenades aren't even supposed to be thrown into the room, they're only supposed to be thrown into the doorway . And that's in a military context, not even a police context. So it's bad enough they're using military hardware, but then they're not even using it according to proper training. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGhfyQ…

>arrest anyone who writes code that is vulnerable and is exploited by a malicious party and causes damages.

That is your logic.

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

#183

Post by roc »

groovy2shoes wrote: post #134
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?

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 th…

It became somewhat about money, but that's a fairly recent development in policing in general -- it's not much different from allowing the executive branch to keep all or part of other various fines.

But there's nowhere near as much money coming from seizure as is coming from the government to fund the manpower and equipment used to do the seizing.

The enforcement divisions of the DOJ seize less than 2B annually. (That's FBI/DEA/ATF/etc combined.) Their combined budget is ~27B.

Seizure (and prosecution in general) is more a problem due to perverse incentive schemes: Police are incentivized to seize money not so much to have the money directly, but to have those seizures show up on their performance reviews. Not unlike prosecutors trying to rack up convictions or traffic cops trying to fill ticket quotas.

The Drug War is much more about race.

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

#184

Post by JonnieCache »

danielsiders wrote: post #87
Glyptodon wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bef…

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?

Some substances are extremely valuable per unit volume. Especially prohibited ones.

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

#185

Post by discardorama »

freehunter wrote: post #169
rayiner wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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) R…

>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 eno…

> 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?

Because the police, over time, have put laws in place to protect their jobs even in the case of severe abuse. Why do you think the POA (Police/"Peace" Officers Association) goes around endorsing/attacking local political candidates?

Consider the shootings in Albuquerque. 26 people killed by ABQ cops in the last few years; and not a single officer held accountable. Even when there's unambiguous police video of abuse!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/06/20/albuquerqu...

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

#186

Post by rwissmann »

icambron wrote: post #161
iambateman wrote: post #123

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 th…

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 especial…

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

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

#187

Post by mikeash »

wdewind wrote: post #33
iagooar wrote: post #25

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.

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.

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.

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

#188

Post by danielweber »

iambateman wrote: post #123

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 th…

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?

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

#190

Post by malandrew »

anigbrowl wrote: post #130
fixermark wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are judges required to make a statement on each warrant justifying their decision to grant a warrant given the information presented, or is it basically just a signature.

I would hope that signing off on a warrant requires more rigor than a mere signature.

How adversarial is the warrant granting process. Is it common for warrants asked for to be granted by default, or is there an adversarial process in place that forces the police/detectives to go back and do more investigative work if they don't provide enough substantive evidence to justify a warrant being granted.

Furthermore, is warrant-granting by judges a matter of the public record. i.e. Can I go somewhere to lookup how many warrants a particular judge has granted, how many they have denied, and how many that were denied were eventually granted and the average number of resubmissions required to get those that were initially denied approved?

Post reply on HN