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

The Human Toll of Flashbangs

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 262 posts

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#111

Post by ars »

beloch wrote: post #16

There seems to be some room for innovation here. The police are throwing these things blind. Evidence? Well, I refuse to believe anyone, no matter how debased, would intentionally throw a flashbang into a baby's crib. What's needed is a flashbang that either won't go off if in close proximity to a living being (e.g. perhaps add an IR sensor) or a flashbang that is triggered remotely, so it can be thrown, spotted, and…

> Well, I refuse to believe anyone, no matter how debased, would intentionally throw a flashbang into a baby's crib.

I partly agree. I don't think even the very worst cop would do it (so I agree it was unintentional in this case).

But I do think there are people who are debased enough to do so on purpose.

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#112

Post by IkmoIkmo »

girvo wrote: post #24

> “If she hadn’t been selling illegal items out of the home, no warrant would have been served,” he said. “What you call extreme, we call safe.” Disgusting. The militarisation of police is a blight on our societies progress. And now where I live is succumbing to it too, albeit far more slowly than what those in the US have to deal with. The fact that SWAT teams are using flash bangs and automatic weaponry to raid a w…

> “If she hadn’t been selling illegal items out of the home, no warrant would have been served,” he said. “What you call extreme, we call safe.”

The thing that disgusts me the most is not the fact she received a wallet. The cop seems to think (or at least avert the question) that the warrant was the problem. The journalist doesn't mention this because this comment is just so clearly ridiculous that his silence is probably more powerful than to point out the obvious.

I will, in any case. The issue is that you can have a warrant for Osama Bin Laden, and you can have a warrant for an elderly lady who sells some home made food without a license to scrape by.

And for the latter you just don't throw a freaking explosive into her home. It's ridiculous. What, was she going to take her Samurai Sword and invisibility cloak and go on a murderous rampage? This woman is described as a diminutive grandmother for crying out loud. You literally could have knocked on the door like any of her customers buying food and told her to come to the station. Yet they treat her home like a siege in a game of Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six.

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#113

Post by fixedd »

zanny wrote: post #83
girvo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jesus... that's completely indefensible. Now, I don't live in the US, and I only see the bad stuff that happens through the media, but I truly can't see why the police need to do things this way...

They don't have to. There are plenty of good cops, but your mileage will vary with the integrity of the local PD. There are these hot beds of systemically bad police precincts and the power structure is organized such that those who could fix it are also those initiating it. A large contributing factor is the military industrial complex spewing out death tech at an absurd rate, and with nobody to blow up with it all…

There's 2.5k people in my town and it's news here (literally) when someone is arrested shopping at the local Wal-Mart. The police have two miltary-issue Humvees, for some reason.

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#114

Post by IkmoIkmo »

corndoge wrote: post #38

“Everyone carries a flashbang,” Malette testified. “Any time we encounter locked doors, we have an unknown, we have to gain back that initiative.” I understand that police are interested in maintaining control of a situation, but practices like throwing flashbang grenades into houses without looking...these guys seem to think they're Delta Force.

It's insane.

He literally said 'there's something behind this door, we don't know whether it's a guy with a rocket launcher or an innocent baby, so let's throw a grenade in there and 'gain the initiative' whichever case it may be'.

I never quite understood raids in the first place. Between scoping out a house, arresting any individuals outside as they walk on the curb while entering an empty home with a warrant, and raiding a house delta-force style with guns, an unknown number of people in the house with no knowledge of what you'll find. I'm sure house raids have their place, but to me that place feels rather limited. Raiding someone's house because of something like pot, or selling nachos, with grenades and all?

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#115

Post by caf »

philwelch wrote: post #51
beloch wrote: post #16

There seems to be some room for innovation here. The police are throwing these things blind. Evidence? Well, I refuse to believe anyone, no matter how debased, would intentionally throw a flashbang into a baby's crib. What's needed is a flashbang that either won't go off if in close proximity to a living being (e.g. perhaps add an IR sensor) or a flashbang that is triggered remotely, so it can be thrown, spotted, and…

> Well, I refuse to believe anyone, no matter how debased, would intentionally throw a flashbang into a baby's crib. Read some stories of the Holocaust, then. They didn't have flashbangs, but there were cases of babies being killed by being repeatedly swung into brick walls.

I've read the same about the Rwandan Genocide.

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#116

Post by Rainymood »

IkmoIkmo wrote: post #109
mikeryan wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a recent case in Albuquerque where 2 police officers are being charged with murder. In the case the police disorient a guy with a flashbang then shoot him as he turns away The police video shows Boyd talking with an officer who was seemingly trying to reach an end to the stalemate. As he picks up his backpack, Boyd tells the officer to keep his word, and not to worry about safety. "I'm not a [f———] murderer,"…

For anyone interested in the video: Warning it's graphical, naturally. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tpAZObNZfI To summarize, indeed he says 'Im not a murderer' while picking up his bag, just standing around. They fire the grenade, tell him to get down blabla. He never steps forward in any way, charges them or attacks, while the officers close in and put a dog on him. Seconds later he turns away and gets shot mult…

And this is the problem with guns, imagine if the police didn't have any guns and they would have to approach him by first. Obviously they outnumber him but know (unless he has a lethal weapon on him) there shouldn't be any lethal force. Guns escalate the situation way too quickly to a life threatening one ...

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#117

Post by fixedd »

jrs235 wrote: post #75
click170 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a chicken and egg problem. They barely deserve the salary they get now with all the incidents going on, but they won't get more intelligent people applying until the wages are increased. Probably best to start with the teachers so theres a larger pool if educated people to hire from.

It doesn't help that departments don't want intelligent officers and can refuse to hire people based on high IQ scores. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95836&page=1#.Tv-OZSNWplw

> But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

Yeah... you solve that with employment contracts, not discriminatory hiring practices.

I really don't see how saying "smart people will get bored and quit" is any different from saying "African-Americans are lazy and will eventually stop showing up on time", or some other nonsense.

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#118

Post by [deleted] »

girvo wrote: post #27
mikeryan wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a recent case in Albuquerque where 2 police officers are being charged with murder. In the case the police disorient a guy with a flashbang then shoot him as he turns away The police video shows Boyd talking with an officer who was seemingly trying to reach an end to the stalemate. As he picks up his backpack, Boyd tells the officer to keep his word, and not to worry about safety. "I'm not a [f———] murderer,"…

Jesus... that's completely indefensible. Now, I don't live in the US, and I only see the bad stuff that happens through the media, but I truly can't see why the police need to do things this way...

[deleted]

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#119

Post by base2 »

mc32 wrote: post #106
jburwell wrote: post #2

The use of flash bangs by law enforcement is horrifying. These tools were design for to support direct action missions by special operations forces, and are, essentially, burning thermite [1] (e.g. able to melt through an engine block). To be clear, a direct operation mission is the use of lethal force to kill or capture one or more individuals or perform high risk hostage rescue. In these types of military operation…

You pretty bang on. I think the unfortunate thing is that it has become an arms race. The police up their arms in response to civilians-gone-bad having heavier weapons. If I were in the police, I can imagine I'd feel safer riding in a tank to take down a suspected 'dangerous' criminal too. I think in some ways, this is a result of our fondness for the second amendment rights and arms as well as accepting the police a…

I think you would be interested in how fast someone can move in with a knife. Anyways, you give them space and they bolt away and stab or take hostage the next person they encounter. There are so many what ifs in these situations then end badly that you don't even want to let it get to that point.

If "lunging" was the only thing knife welding psychos could do the world would be much nicer place.

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#120

Post by chris_wot »

[deleted] wrote: post #118
girvo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jesus... that's completely indefensible. Now, I don't live in the US, and I only see the bad stuff that happens through the media, but I truly can't see why the police need to do things this way...

[deleted]

Justify this:

"If she hadn’t been selling illegal items out of the home, no warrant would have been served," he said. "What you call extreme, we call safe."

She sold some beer and food illegally. The police through a bomb into her house. Real safe.

Post reply on HN