Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Alecia Phonesavanh: After our house burned down in Wisconsin a few months ago, my husband and I packed our four young kids and all our belongings into a gold minivan and drove to my sister-in-law’s place, just outside of Atlanta. On the back windshield, we pasted six stick figures: a dad, a mom, three young girls, and one baby boy. That minivan was sitting in the front driveway of my sister-in-law’s place the night a SWAT team broke in, looking for a small amount of drugs they thought my husband’s nephew had. Some of my kids’ toys were in the front yard, but the officers claimed they had no way of knowing children might be present. Our whole family was sleeping in the same room, one bed for us, one for the girls, and a crib. After the SWAT team broke down the door, they threw a flashbang grenade inside. It landed in my son’s crib.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

A Justice for Baby Bou Bou website has been set up for Bounkam Phonesavanh and other victims of police brutality.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Maybe your husband's nephew should just say no.
Or your son should. Either way. Drugs are bad, mkay?

#1 | Posted by cbob at 2014-06-25 09:08 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Guns don't kill people...

#2 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-06-25 09:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

#1 | POSTED BY CBOB

or possibly the snitch was lying/wrong?

Find it difficult to believe that a drug dealer's home would be completely absent any drugs, or do you trust the police that much?

#3 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-06-25 09:22 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"Find it difficult to believe that a drug dealer's home would be completely absent any drugs, or do you trust the police that much?"
#3 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-06-25 09:22 AM | Reply

According to the article, the kid they were told about didn't even live in that house.
This is just completely and utterly wrong.
I'm trying hard to understand the cops' attitude; there are so many powerful weapons out there in the hands of the bad guys, I try to see that they have to take precautions to protect themselves.
This story, however, simply makes that understanding impossible to support.

#4 | Posted by hawk at 2014-06-25 09:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe your husband's nephew should just say no.
Or your son should. Either way. Drugs are bad, mkay?

#1 | Posted by cbob

Really you read that article and that was the conclusion you came up with?

wow simply wow.

#5 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2014-06-25 09:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

#1 | Posted by cbob at 2014-06-25 09:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

There were no drugs in the house, Copernicus.

Given that you're having a hard time participating in reality today, its probably not a good time for you to be giving any anti-drug talks.

#6 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-25 09:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

Drugs are bad, mkay?

Raiding the homes of American families in the middle of the night like soldiers going house to house in Fallujah is worse.

#7 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-25 09:46 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 6

Raiding the homes of American families in the middle of the night like soldiers going house to house in Fallujah is worse.

#7 | POSTED BY RCADE

Which is why we need to preserve our right to possess (even very powerful) arms.

Of course, you are right this raid was unacceptable. And, I'm not saying if it happened to me, I would immediately grab my AR. I would not, today. I would give SWAT the benefit of the doubt. However, 20 years from now, I'm not so sure, the way things are going.

:) Agree? or no.. we should just lay down our defenses.

#8 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-25 10:15 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Which is why we need to preserve our right to possess (even very powerful) arms."

Having guns would not prevent this. These people were sleeping and the cops bashed down the door and threw the flash bang as they were entering. Even if they were sleeping with their guns they wouldn't have had time to protect that kid.

What needs to happen is that the cop who threw the flash bang needs to lose his job and face criminal charges for assaulting this child. Anyone involved in approving this raid, including the judge who signed off on the warrants, needs to lose their jobs.

Law enforcement is above accountability. That's why this happens. Make them face the consequences of their actions and this will stop happening.

#9 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-25 10:28 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

But how can they protect that baby if they can't burn it up?
Just the birth of the police state... drugs are just an excuse for military flunkies to play commando.

#10 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2014-06-25 10:40 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Having guns would not prevent this.

Doesn't change a thing about my point.

#11 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-25 10:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's ok though since they must have thought they were terrorists because of the Tea Party bumper sticker on the minivan.

The Left

#12 | Posted by bph320 at 2014-06-25 10:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

Having guns would not prevent this.

Doesn't change a thing about my point.

#11 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-25 10:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

Well then uh, at least you're honest.

#13 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-25 11:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

Just the birth of the police state.

Birth? Try, crazy teenage years.

#14 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-25 11:03 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Which is why we need to preserve our right to possess (even very powerful) arms.

#8 | Posted by TuffLuv

Sure, like that guy in Texas who shot the cops coming in his window on a "no knock" warrant. He thought it was a break in.
He's facing life in jail.

#15 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-06-25 11:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Find it difficult to believe that a drug dealer's home would be completely absent any drugs, or do you trust the police that much?"

I find it completely incongruous that my little "progressive" buddies have serious heartburn over incidents like this yet want to give much more growth and power to big government that performs these kinds of acts. Get ready, you ain't seen nuthin' yet if this trend continues...just consider the power of the IRS today. OH, I forgot, our little friends are OK with that as long as it's conservatives being persecuted.

#16 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-06-25 11:06 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Well what do you know, the Grand Jury let him go. Must be because it's Texas...
www.thedailychronic.net

#17 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-06-25 11:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

#13 | POSTED BY SULLY

Honesty is great. Let's talk about what "having guns" would prevent and does prevent.

Having discrete and confidential ownership of guns quietly saves more lives everyday than just about any other facet of our way of life. The knowledge (or lack thereof) of the level of defense that an individual possesses prevents massive amounts of evil on a daily basis. That is an honest fact, but even that is minor.

The big ticket is that myself, and many, many Americans believe that ever increasing government power and the proven propensity and ability of runaway government to constantly seize power from the people at every opportunity (which is the entire basis for the Magna Carta and our judicial system, I might add), is the actual largest threat to our freedom, our way of life. Not criminal gangs, thugs and murderers, but unchecked government.

As long as we are a (well) armed populace, we will always have the hope of preventing that inevitability. The minute we capitulate, it becomes inevitable indeed. That is a fact that has been proven by the trials of history, over Millennia.

[...] The Founders believed exactly what I just stated above, and that is why they chose to assert this particular right of the people.

Mind you, even if they had not, our 9th and 10th Amendments provide protection of this right of the people by denying the Federal government powers not explicitly granted them in the Constitution.

Scouts honor. ||

#18 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-25 11:17 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"Honesty is great. Let's talk about what "having guns" would prevent and does prevent.

Having discrete and confidential ownership of guns quietly saves more lives everyday than just about any other facet of our way of life."

After the first sentence I was optimistic. Then you abandoned honesty two sentences later with a ridiculous fabrication. Eddie gotta be Eddie I guess.

#19 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-25 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

BTW - I don't want to take your guns, Eddie. Just don't BS us with this "saves lives" nonsense. Plenty of other well to do countries have less guns and less violence, which proves that what you are saying simply isn't true.

#20 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-25 11:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I don't want to take your guns, Eddie. Just don't BS us with this "saves lives" nonsense."

Does the fact that cities with the most strict gun laws have the most most killings and gun crime? Pure logic tells me all this "gun control" legislation crap isn't very effective. Actually, guns DO save lives much more than you know since those incidents aren't splashed all through the media like gun crimes are.

#23 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-06-25 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

An entire generation of cops served in iraq and afghanistan, where they could kick in doors, shoot first and ask questions later, and never be held accountable for their crimes.

What did you think would happen when they came home?

Just one more part of the dubya disaster...

#24 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-06-25 11:44 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Does the fact that cities with the most strict gun laws have the most most killings and gun crime? Pure logic tells me all this "gun control" legislation crap isn't very effective. Actually, guns DO save lives much more than you know since those incidents aren't splashed all through the media like gun crimes are.

#23 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-06-25 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

You know why you can find examples that will support either point of view? Because there is no cause and effect. Crime rates are mostly driven by economics. Gun ownership has no effect one way or the other.

Therefore, you fools can stop peddling the disproven claim that guns save lives any time now.

Sheesh.

#25 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-25 11:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

After the SWAT team broke down the door, they threw a flashbang grenade inside. It landed in my son's crib.

Flashbang grenades were created for soldiers to use during battle. When they explode, the noise is so loud and the flash is so bright that anyone close by is temporarily blinded and deafened. It's been three weeks since the flashbang exploded next to my sleeping baby, and he's still covered in burns.

There's still a hole in his chest that exposes his ribs. At least that's what I've been told; I'm afraid to look.

Talk about guns all you want, but this is about the police using military hardware and tactics against citizens and the horrible outcome of it.

#26 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-25 11:50 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I find it completely incongruous that my little "progressive" buddies have serious heartburn over incidents like this yet want to give much more growth and power to big government that performs these kinds of acts.

#16 | Posted by jestgettinalong

You don't think it's possible to be both anti commando-cops and pro environmental regulations?

Or do we have to just live in your simplistic world of either government GOOD or government BAAAAAD?

#27 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-06-25 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

Raiding the homes of American families in the middle of the night like soldiers going house to house in Fallujah is worse.

#7 | POSTED BY RCADE

Ask yourself why the IRS has AR-15s. Three threads on the DR today about the militarization of local PDs, but the militarization of our federal agencies is far more troubling.

#28 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-06-25 12:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Three threads on the DR today about the militarization of local PDs, but the militarization of our federal agencies is far more troubling.

I find the militarization of local cops far more disturbing as there is a greater chance of the local PD or SWAT busting down my door my mistake than the Feds.

#29 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-25 12:07 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"Ask yourself why the IRS has AR-15s. Three threads on the DR today about the militarization of local PDs, but the militarization of our federal agencies is far more troubling."

I do find it troubling but no more troubling than local police forces, often with poorly trained cops, having such weapons.

#30 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-25 12:15 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#25 | POSTED BY SULLY

Again, ridiculously dishonest. I live in San Antonio, Texas. My city is a perfect rebuttal to your false assertion.

There is great poverty here. There is also great wealth here. This is also probably the #1 example in the world of a city that, while demographically and racially divided by very distinct lines (in most cases), actually has a very harmonious, culturally rich, and diverse society, and yes, low crime rates. This is true despite the fact that we have a large number of gangs, the Mexican mafia is very active here, and again I emphasize, GREAT POVERTY.

The atmosphere here is one of great trust as well as inter-class respect. Don't believe me? Come check it out.

Now on to the point. There is crime here. Go ahead and do your homework on where that crime takes place. There are affluent targets GALORE, my friend. A veritable shopping spree for the invader-thug.

Would you care to enlighten us on why you think there are extremely low incidences of violence and home invasion in these areas? Hints follow:

* it's not because the cops hang in those areas. No they are downtown, south town and west side dealing with problems. Hardly ever see them.

* it's not because we're all paranoid gated entrance types. Nope, like a said, availability everywhere.

* Is it because criminals are too stupid to think they could steal more from rich people than poor people? Nope.

The answer is simple. Criminals are afraid of what might happen to them when they venture into our neighborhoods.

Isn't that just hilarious irony?

It would have been more correct for you to say crime rates are driven by demographics, yes. Economics, maybe would be the important factor, if it weren't for these realities I'm explaining to you.

If you are still having trouble reconciling the truth of my former statements, just walk through this exercise:

You are a desperate person, whose only choice left is to steal something to survive. You know of 3 Houses with valuable belongings.

House 1. You have prior knowledge that the inhabitants do not possess any firearms.

House 2. You do not know whether or not the owners possess firearms.

House 3. You know the owner is a 'ahem' 'gun nut', and is armed.

Is there ever a time you would choose House 3? How often would you choose House 2 over House 1.

Now transpose the same situation to a city where it is illegal for anyone to own guns. How does this situation differ?

Your lesson is over for the day.. Test on Friday.

#31 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-25 12:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Is the the kid who's now being looked after on the police departments dime?

#32 | Posted by Tor at 2014-06-25 12:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Tuffluv - People on both sides cherry pick examples to support their agenda. That is only possible because there is no real cause and effect relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. Also, criminals don't typically travel from poor neighborhoods to rich ones to commit crimes so I have no idea why you think the area you live in is special in that regard.

If having a gun makes you feel safe good for you. Seriously.

#33 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-25 12:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

House 3 is the first choice of most real criminals, though not kids who are usually those who break into houses.

Real criminals know guns are a valuable haul from a residence, and unless you are trained in close combat, or a hardened criminal, you are undermanned in a fight with them.

The fact though is they are usually not going to come into the house when you are there anyway.

"Guns. If they're not under lock and key, they're easily found under your bed or mattress or in your nightstand drawer. They're not going to protect you from the burglar, because you usually aren't even home when he breaks in. Even worse -- your stolen gun is likely to be used during the commission of a crime, according to police."

www.signs.com

The Effects of Gun Prevalence on Burglary: Deterrence vs Inducement

www.nber.org

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-25 12:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Corky. That's the most idiotic thing I've ever read.

Sully I'm not cherry picking.

Both of you, let me simplify the hypothetical.

You are a criminal. In reality, you can probably get the job done with a pocket knife, but being a resourceful criminal, you have a gun.

Place yourself in Chicago, where gun regulations are high, ideology against guns is high, and (cause effect) gun ownership is therefore significantly low.

Now place yourself in San Antonio or Houston, where, well, we all know, it's a Texas thing..

Where are you more comfortable committing a crime?

Where are you more powerful?

Where are you likely to live a longer life?

Where are you more likely to kill someone?

High gun ownership, and low gun regulations save lives every day without ever a shot being fired.

It is a fact.

#35 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-25 12:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

-It is a fact.

What you posted is more like hypothetical anecdote than fact.

"The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence."

www.nber.org

#36 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-25 12:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

The fact though is they are usually not going to come into the house when you are there anyway.

I'll concede that this statement holds weight, Cork..

However, you need to add to it the following..

.. especially when there is a high likelihood that you are armed.

or, perhaps

.. unless there is every reason to believe you are unarmed, and defenseless.

#37 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-25 12:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

- you need to add to it the following.

You need to read the statistics.

#38 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-25 12:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Corky, your cited study is a very weak argument against common sense. It really is. And I am schooled in regression analysis.

Their carefully tentative conclusion..

Taken together, the results reported here provide suggestive evidence that increases in gun ownership may lead to more burglaries.

..is very sketchy indeed. The study admits that it draws no concrete conclusions, and only suggests that studies to the contrary may be wrong.

Logic wins. Thanks, but I think I'll take my chances that an armed society is a safer society. And remember, I own not one single handgun.

Plus, my original post stated the crime-deterrent aspect is only a minor second fiddle to the real reason for un-infringed gun ownership.

You two have succeeded in leading me down the wrong tangent, congrats.

#39 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-25 01:00 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

lol, anecdotes over facts.

Whatever.

#40 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-25 01:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Corky, regression analyses are not facts at all. They are predictive models with limited usefulness depending on the type of analysis. They are also intended to be scrutinized heavily based on rules and sub analyses (such as identifying multicolinearity)

This makes them easy targets on the one hand, and weak uh 'facts' on the other. In other words, not facts at all.

This applies to both sides of our debate, of course, which is why I tend to put more weight on common sense in matters where that makes sense.

#41 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-25 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Here is the actual study. I suggest you read it and add to your field of, "common sense".

www.nber.org

#42 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-25 01:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

I did read it. As I stated, very weak. They walk a fine line between "we got nothin'" and "more concrete evidence is needed"

To each his own interpretation.

I will continue to take solace in knowing my retired neighbor across the street who has a clear view of my house has a pistol and is not afraid to use it.

#43 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-25 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Where are you more likely to kill someone?

High gun ownership, and low gun regulations save lives every day without ever a shot being fired.

It is a fact.

#35 | Posted by TuffLuv

Killers don't consider consequences. Wherever they are, they kill because they think they'll get away with it. Whether thats avoiding jail in a gun-free city, or avoiding a gunshot wound in a fully-armed city. Criminals don't weigh the consequences based on geographic location. They think there will be no consequences because they're stupid.

#44 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-06-25 01:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

#43

And how will you feel when he kills a 15 year old kid who was walking away with your 10 year old stereo?

#45 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-25 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

I aplogize to everyone for helping Eddie derail this thread into a gun debate that I'm not even interested in.....

What's funny is that in one of his early posts, he admits it would have made no difference in this case and yet here we are still talking about guns....

Although I will say that Eddie's contributions are still more worthwhile than CBOB's inexplicable first post blaming the whole thing on imaginary drugs.

#46 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-25 01:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

We understand kids here, bud. And believe it or not, here in Texas, the majority of us grew up causing some mischief or at least had many friends who did. We are well aware that the majority of crime that would affect us is just wayward youth. You said it yourself that unarmed youths commit many of these types of crimes.

We are not trigger happy, simply prepared to take control.

This is the difference between a community that is comfortable with weapons for defense, and one that has an irrational fear of guns.

That said, you would have to be a real idiot to live in Texas and not have spoken to your children at length about consequences for your actions, and the distinct possibility that you could be killed for stealing a nickel around here.

Amazing how that works.

To answer your question, I would not be happy about it. I believe in 2nd chances.

#47 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-25 01:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Eddie's contributions

Ah, yes.. I'm a big fan of Eddie's contributions as well.

Eddie

#48 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-25 01:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Speaksoftly
Corky
Sully

Would any of you care to comment on the (by far) most important reason I argue for un-infringed gun ownership?

review..
The big ticket is that myself, and many, many Americans believe that ever increasing government power and the proven propensity and ability of runaway government to constantly seize power from the people at every opportunity (which is the entire basis for the Magna Carta and our judicial system, I might add), is the actual largest threat to our freedom, our way of life. Not criminal gangs, thugs and murderers, but unchecked government.
As long as we are a (well) armed populace, we will always have the hope of preventing that inevitability. The minute we capitulate, it becomes inevitable indeed. That is a fact that has been proven by the trials of history, over Millennia.

#49 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-25 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

You clowns need to quit feeding that idiotic 'tuffluv' troll.

.

#51 | Posted by Dave at 2014-06-25 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Every member of this SWAT team should be placed on suspension. This is beyond outrageous. And yet so many of you seem willing to write this off with just a 'tsk tsk, accidents happen'. I loathe misdirected violence, especially when carried out by the State.

#52 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-06-25 02:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

- the distinct possibility that you could be killed for stealing a nickel around here.

Lovely.

#53 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-25 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

The big ticket is that myself, and many, many Americans believe that ever increasing government power and the proven propensity and ability of runaway government to constantly seize power from the people at every opportunity (which is the entire basis for the Magna Carta and our judicial system, I might add), is the actual largest threat to our freedom, our way of life. Not criminal gangs, thugs and murderers, but unchecked government.
As long as we are a (well) armed populace, we will always have the hope of preventing that inevitability. The minute we capitulate, it becomes inevitable indeed. That is a fact that has been proven by the trials of history, over Millennia.

#49 | Posted by TuffLuv

You think you can stop the army with your AR15s?

Keep dreaming rambo. You can't win an arms race against the military. The only thing that would keep an evil government leader from ransacking america would be a revolt among his soldiers. American soldiers are not going to ransack americans on a large scale. This is an NRA-authored fantasy used to sell guns to suckers.

#54 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-06-25 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Every member of this SWAT team should be placed on suspension. This is beyond outrageous. And yet so many of you seem willing to write this off with just a 'tsk tsk, accidents happen'. I loathe misdirected violence, especially when carried out by the State.

#52 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-06-25 02:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

So you don't think the toddler had it coming because his parents were incorrectly thought to be housing someone at one point possessed a small amount of drugs?

Why do you hate America?

#55 | Posted by sully at 2014-06-25 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

You think you can stop the army with your AR15s?

No, I do not. I will not have to, because I know this..

American soldiers are not going to ransack americans on a large scale.

I never mentioned the military. You did, with your usual straw man. You seem to forget the military here is composed of citizens, many of whom also believe the way I do.

The whole point of the exercise is a stalemate, fool. Your solution is to just lower the shields, and trust the power. No one is going to listen to you, man.

#56 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-25 02:56 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The only thing that would keep an evil government leader from ransacking america would be a revolt among his soldiers.

Um, there's.. really.. only one gov.. the presid.. that has soldiers..

What if Congress intervened?

oh nevermind.

#57 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-25 03:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

I never mentioned the military. You did, with your usual straw man. You seem to forget the military here is composed of citizens, many of whom also believe the way I do.

The whole point of the exercise is a stalemate, fool. Your solution is to just lower the shields, and trust the power. No one is going to listen to you, man.

#56 | Posted by TuffLuv

Well how is an evil president gonna come after the citizens without some sort of military force? That's what you're worried about right?

I'm not saying lower the shields, or trust the power. I'm saying american police/military/etc are not going to obey orders to go after american citizens, so you don't need to buy a bunch of guns out of fear of that scenario.

#58 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-06-25 03:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Anyone who is dumb enough to think their guns will protect them from the government needs to review what happened at Waco, Ruby Ridge, and MOVE headquarters. And the Whiskey Rebellion.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-25 03:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm saying american police/military/etc are not going to obey orders to go after american citizens, so you don't need to buy a bunch of guns out of fear of that scenario.
#58 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

They do it all the time. The flashbanged a toddler. Our heavily armed populous didn't stop them. In fact it creates the justification for no-knock night raids in the first place, out of fear for officer safety.

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-25 03:40 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I'm saying american police/military/etc are not going to obey orders to go after american citizens,
#58 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

He posts in a thread about American police/military/etc. obeying orders to go after an American Citizen.

#61 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-06-25 04:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

#61 lol

#62 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-25 04:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

#59 They will protect us, and shape government policy favorable to freedom and individualism, as long as a stalemate, and arms ubiquity exists.

Your examples were just fringe elements.

#63 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-25 04:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

I like how the cops' first reaction was to threaten and lie to the mother during the incident. No special consideration whatsoever for the mother despite the inexplicable wrong they had just done her.

What did the higher ups do when they learned of it? No suspensions in the immediate aftermath.

But now that they look like cowardly fiends in front of the whole world, the cops are claiming to be "devastated".

If my job involved burning babies, I'd quit - assuming I could live with the guilt at all.

How many of the lowlives involved in this raid are quitting? How many are even admitting to being at fault?

These dirtbags are going right back to doing the same thing as soon as the furor dies down. I don't want to hear that these are good or even decent people who made a mistake. A decent person who critically injures a small child shows real remorse. The bottom feeders are playing CYA just like any violent criminal who gets caught.

#64 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-25 04:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

This story, however, simply makes that understanding impossible to support.

#4 | POSTED BY HAWK AT 2014-06-25 09:38 AM | FLAG:

A flashbang is one of the safest ways to disable a room in existence. It was a million to one chance it landed on a child.

#65 | Posted by soheifox at 2014-06-25 04:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

He posts in a thread about American police/military/etc. obeying orders to go after an American Citizen.

#61 | Posted by TFDNihilist

Right. As if a drug raid and a mass-scale military takeover of the entire country are the same thing.

#66 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-06-25 04:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

#59 They will protect us, and shape government policy favorable to freedom and individualism, as long as a stalemate, and arms ubiquity exists.
#63 | Posted by TuffLuv

You must be a time traveller because apparently you don't know the stalemate you speak of was broken in 1791.

I suppose there's a remote possibility that you're just a troll. Good luck with that.

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-25 04:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

A flashbang is one of the safest ways to disable a room in existence. It was a million to one chance it landed on a child.
#65 | Posted by soheifox

They threw it into a crib. At night. In a home with a child. There's about a million to one chance it doesn't land on the child.

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-25 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"A flashbang is one of the safest ways to disable a room in existence. It was a million to one chance it landed on a child."
#65 | Posted by soheifox at 2014-06-25 04:38 PM | Reply

You're using a device with destructive and injurious potential. You damn well better KNOW where you're putting it.

#69 | Posted by hawk at 2014-06-25 04:56 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

A flashbang is one of the safest ways to disable a room in existence. It was a million to one chance it landed on a child.
#65 | POSTED BY SOHEIFOX

That's --------. Even worse is your lack of considering the possibility of it landing on anybody which was far more significant than a million to one considering there were four people sleeping in one room.

You ------- apologist! Pathetic.

#70 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-06-25 05:12 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

You're using a device with destructive and injurious potential. You damn well better KNOW where you're putting it.

#69 | POSTED BY HAWK AT 2014-06-25 04:56 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

If you "know" where you're putting a flashbang, you don't need a flasghbang, They're not for tossing in after you've opened the door and looked around for a bit. That is not their use. That is literally not what they are for. They are for minimizing the chance of injuries. They are to be tossed in to pacify a room so nobody gets killed.

And like everything else that has ever existed or ever will, even with the best of itnentions things can go wrong.

Real life is not the movies. Police are not precognitive bulletproof superheroes. The officers are not even remotely at fault. Their superiors are.

This may shock you, but most of the time when SWAT is called in, they do their job very well and not even a single shot is fired. Man bites dog is news, but dog bites man is not.

#71 | Posted by soheifox at 2014-06-25 05:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh and if you said the people who ordered this raid should be ashamed of themselves, fired and whatnot, I'd agree wholeheartedly. But the SWAT officers are not at fault. Their job is to tackle situations regular police cannot. They should not be called in this lightly. Disproportionate force was used but it is NOT the fault of the officers on scene. Intelligence and recon is not their job. A warrant had to be signed before they could be dispatched in the first place; and those whose names are on the line there are the responsible parties.

The "War on Drugs" has issues, but holding the SWAT teams responsible is like holding soldiers in the Middle East responsible for that sack of crap war as well.

#74 | Posted by soheifox at 2014-06-25 05:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

"We had no reason to believe there were children in the house." -- Cops on scene

You mean the militarized police were incapable of acknowledging the variables associated with a targeted house? HA! The incompetence from top to bottom is obvious.

Flunkies indeed.

#75 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-06-25 05:17 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

This may shock you, but most of the time when SWAT is called in, they do their job very well and not even a single shot is fired.

That doesn't mean we should not be outraged when they ---- up royally. These types of raids should be happening less. You do realize this raid was over drugs, right? This is a symptom of the Drug War. Time for it to end.

Too bad you support a militarized police state fueled by a racist Drug War.

#77 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-06-25 05:20 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"They are for minimizing the chance of injuries."

That sentence needs to end with "to the police" for it to be accurate.

Throwing a flashbang in a room does not minimize the chance of injuries for people in the room.

Same for throwing a flashbang into a toddler's crib. It doesn't minimize the chance of injury for the toddler. It guarantees injury.

Here's a thought: If your assault plans are so dangerous that they require you to use flashbangs to minimize the changes of injury to your assault force, maybe your tactics are the problem.

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-25 05:21 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Their job is to tackle situations regular police cannot.

Regular police might have noticed the children's toys on the front lawn, indicating the children may have been present in the residence. Once again, why you support the militarized police state it beyond me.

#79 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-06-25 05:22 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

If my job involved burning babies, I'd quit - assuming I could live with the guilt at all.

Soheifox is available for counseling. He''d like to point out that you were just following orders. That should absolve you of all guilt.

Also, there are plenty of people who like burning babies. They make for excellent police officers who don't question orders.

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-25 05:30 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Just following orders" to kill, and torture doesn't cut it for an excuse. You're still a miserable excuse for a human if you even think that's ok.

And seriously, when is a SWAT team ever needed anyway? The only thing they might accomplish that wouldn't get done by surrounding a house and negotiating a surrender is that DRUGS might get flushed. And OMG that's a better outcome than putting drug-possessors in jail for years and making tax payers pay for it.

Scum bags who approve such things are the ones who deserve the prison rape treatment.

#81 | Posted by rerun2 at 2014-06-25 05:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

"But the SWAT officers are not at fault. Their job is to tackle situations regular police cannot."

Bullcrap. If their job involves breaking into homes and terrorizing and injuring children and they don't quit, then they are at fault.

It doesn't matter whose fault it is that they are ordered into situations that are inappropriate for a SWAT team. They know what the end result is and if they allow themselves to be a part of it then they are at fault.

"I was just following orders" hasn't been a viable excuse for quite some time.

#82 | Posted by sully at 2014-06-25 05:40 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#82 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2014-06-25 05:40 PM | FLAG: NEWSWORTHY

Well put.

#83 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-06-25 05:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

"This may shock you, but most of the time when SWAT is called in, they do their job very well and not even a single shot is fired."

Because they are used in situations that in no way would pose any kind of a real threat. A regular cop could just knock on the door and just as easily handle most of these situations.

They know damn well that what they do is overkill more often than not. They keep doing it anyway. That makes them dirtbags.

#84 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-25 05:44 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

And seriously, when is a SWAT team ever needed anyway?

#81 | POSTED BY RERUN2 AT 2014-06-25 05:36 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Really?

The point is that a SWAT team should not have been called here. But if you don't understand when a SWAT team is "ever" needed, I'm sure there are plenty of examples a simple Google search away.

But considering the rest of your diatribe, you're just another rube who wants to ignore the problem and attack a symptom anyway.

#85 | Posted by soheifox at 2014-06-25 05:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

The adults would like to seek a solution to the actual problem.
#86 | Posted by soheifox

What problem?
It was a "one in a million chance" they'd hit a baby.
You're not suggesting we drastically alter policies for an unpredictable, unavoidable, unforeseeable accident, are you?

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-25 06:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't understand why Conservatives feel the need to always lie about gun control.

No study shows more guns equals less crime.
No study shows cities with more gun control means more violent crime.
No study has ever shown any conclusive link between more guns and higher safety.

#88 | Posted by Sycophant at 2014-06-25 06:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Society and cultures are changed for the better or worse, one step at a time. Sometimes we have Pearl Harbor events like 9-11 that change cultures in huge giant over steps because of the fears of society. Fear is a motivator to give up what is yours if only it gives you enhanced security. Edward Bernays and other societal manipulators like Hitler and others know full well that's how the masses tick and how societies work.

#90 | Posted by Robson at 2014-06-25 06:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

The whole point of the exercise is a stalemate, fool. Your solution is to just lower the shields, and trust the power. No one is going to listen to you, man.

#56 | Posted by TuffLuv

You Texans are falling behind the wing nut curve.

Indiana Governor Signs Bill Allowing Citizens To Use Deadly Force Against Police Officers Into Law

www.addictinginfo.org

Republican Governor Mitch Daniels has signed Senate Enrolled Act 1 into law in Indiana. The new law allows citizens to use deadly force against police officers they think are illegally entering their homes. Earlier this month, Addicting Info reported that the bill had passed the Senate. Republicans say the bill is designed to keep police safe, but Democrats say the bill will lead to the wanton killing of police officers.

#91 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-25 09:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

#91: I bet it will also cause imperial storm troopers to make double sure they're just not kicking down doors for funsies.

#92 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-06-25 09:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

The militarization of the police is immoral, unconstitutional and in full swing.

#93 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-06-25 09:42 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#74 | POSTED BY SOHEIFOX

Their job is to evaluate the environment prior to entering, otherwise that T part of their acronym (Special Weapons and Tactics) goes out the window.

W/out an accurate assessment of your environment you're going in blind, and there's nothing Special about that, any cop can do that and they may as well have thrown the flash bang at themselves.

And that has nothing to do with who signed the warrant or whether the intel was correct or not. It's generally referred to as an on the scene assessment.

Pretty interesting read here:
SWAT Standards For Law Enforcement Agencies


1.1 A Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team is a designated law enforcement
team, whose members are recruited, selected, trained, equipped and assigned
to resolve critical incidents involving a threat to public safety which would
otherwise exceed the capabilities of traditional law enforcement first responders
and/or investigative units.

#94 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-06-26 05:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

It was a million to one chance it landed on a child.

Tossing a flash bang into a room filled with sleeping adults and children had a much greater than "million to one" chance of seriously hurting someone. They've caused several deaths, including one to a cop who accidentally exploded one while securing his equipment.

#95 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-26 09:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

"assigned to resolve critical incidents involving a threat to public safety which would otherwise exceed the capabilities of traditional law enforcement first responders and/or investigative units."

what was the threat to public safety?

hostage situation? high speed chase ending at this house? knowledge of a large stash of weapons with intent to harm?

nope. a kid with a bag of weed or something.

#96 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-26 09:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

"what was the threat to public safety?"

The SWAT team.

#97 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-26 09:37 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#96 | POSTED BY EBERLY

That's why using SWAT these days is being questioned.

They are being used more for serving warrants than they are the intended purpose.

It's more like a use it before you use it mentality, especially for the smaller towns where even having them is questionable.

Good read even if it's from the ACLU.

#98 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-06-26 10:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

Reefer Madness takes its toll once again.

#99 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-26 02:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

nope. a kid with a bag of weed or something.

#96 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2014-06-26 09:09 AM | FLAG:

And not what they should be called for.

#100 | Posted by soheifox at 2014-06-26 03:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

**** Time for some SWEET STREET JUSTICE!!!

#101 | Posted by AntiCadillac at 2014-06-27 02:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

The officers were just serving and protecting when they lit up a sleeping kid with a grenade searching for a small amount of plant material. Give a warm thank you to everyone who supports politicians that perpetuate the 'nading of small children in cribs.

#102 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2014-06-27 02:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort