Police in Georgia literally throw hand grenades into the cribs of sleeping babies and get away with it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-georgia-deputy-acqui...

One police officer once threw a hand grenade into the crib of a sleeping baby.

Clearly not a good thing, but your phrasing makes it sound like it is some kind of common, repeat experience.

As someone from Atlanta, the police came out hard in defense of this, to the point where I don't feel bad speaking in terms of plurals.

The phrase I believe goes "a few bad apples... spoils the bunch"?

A million people could defend it, but it doesn't change the fact that the act only happened once.

The police in Atlanta, collectively, made a point to hit home how OK it was and how any else of them would do the same thing, with police management saying such under oath during her trial.

They don't get a "only once" pass under those circumstances.

That still doesn't mean you can talk about the act as if it has happened multiple times.

Maybe if you changed your original post to "Police support throwing grenades..." and not "Police throw grenades..."

Multiple police in Atlanta do through multiple grenades. They just only threw it into crib with an infant in it once. But made sure we all knew that they think they did nothing wrong by doing that, and would absolutely do it again under the same circumstances.

When you go out of your way, under oath, to say that your organization systemically didn't learn from the mistake and would absolutely do it again, an "only once" defense doesn't hold any water.

I get your point. It doesn't change the fact that your post is factually inaccurate.

If you said that the Lebanese government was bad because they have all these deadly ammonia nitrate explosions, then it is factually incorrect because there was really only one explosion. Even if the Lebanese government tries to shirk responsibility, or say the explosion was a good thing and they'd do it again - none of that means that all of the sudden there was more than one ammonium nitrate explosion.

People conveniently leave out that it was the front door of a suspected drug dealer who had a previous weapons charge and had guards.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/05/30/us/georgia-toddler-injured-st...

So the suspected drug dealer was using the baby as a human shield.

Your article does not support your assertion:

> Because the suspected drug dealer, Wanis Thonetheva, had a previous weapons charge, officers were issued a "no-knock warrant" for the residence, Terrell said.

> Thonetheva, 30, was not at the home at the time of the raid, but the toddler's mother and father and their other three children were inside.

Not only was the raid unannounced, but the suspected drug dealer wasn't even home at the time.

... and it's even worse than that. It seems there was no reason to suspect that this was the home of a drug dealer, as the police informant never purchased drugs there. The deputy who lied to the court to get the warrant was indicted but acquitted.

From https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-georgia-deputy-acqui...

In 2015: "a federal grand jury indicted the undercover Habersham County deputy who secured the no-knock warrant, Nikki Autry, alleging that she provided false information to gain entry to the home where the Phonesavanhs were staying. The informant who she claimed purchased meth there never did, the indictment states, and Autry never "confirmed" that there was heavy drug traffic at the home, as she also claimed to have done."

None of that refutes the comment you are responding to.

The suspected drug dealer did have a weapons charge, and the baby was placed in the way of the the front door of his residence.

Flashbangs. They are violent, but in a totally different class than actual hand grenades. No police in the US use hand grenades. The kid in the crib survived. Had it been an actual grenade ... not a survivable event.

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/05/baby-in-coma-...

According to Wikipedia

> On 28 May 2014, a 19-month-old baby boy's face was severely burned and mutilated when a stun grenade was thrown into his playpen by a SWAT team serving an arrest warrant for a suspected drug dealer in Cornelia, Georgia. The baby survived with facial disfigurement.[17] The family received $3.6 million in settlements in 2016.[18]

So yeah, the baby survived. That doesn't mean there was no harm done.

Well, you see in this situation the baby was asleep, so the SWAT tactics manual only calls for a stun grenade. Had the baby been awake, of course a 120mm howitzer shell would have done a better job of ensuring the safety of the brave officers from this dangerous infant.

A flash-bang is a grenade. It's not a fragmentation grenade (which you're referring to); or an incendiary grenade; or any number of other 'less than lethal' (which can be lethal) grenade types.

A 'hand' grenade is one thrown by hand as opposed to projected from a grenade launcher. So, yes, a flashbang is a hand grenade.

And it's a good thing those policemen used a concussive grenade to pacify that dangerous child. I'm sure that child was a threat that needed to be neutralized./s

For justice, outcomes matter. This is why there is a difference between "attempted murder" and actual murder. Yes, both are punished, but the actual outcome does matter. Therefore, the distinction between a flashbang and an incendiary/fragmentation grenade (which what most people think when they read hand grenade) too does matter. When I read the initial statement, I thought that the child was killed and am happy to hear that thats not the case. Even though the child was definitely harmed, I am happy that it is still alive.

You're wrong. The differences between "attempted murder" and "actual murder" are just codified laws which were enacted by a legislature. People decided. And it's certainly okay in this situation to debate those decisions. If you're just arguing that definitions matter, don't hide it under something that it's not.

Did you just read what you wrote? The kid in the crib survived. How does that not stop you in your tracks? What prompts a SWAT team to do a night raid on a potential family home? Please tell me how any other point in the day where the potential of a family not being there, isn't a better option? Then if you could please explain if this was the case, that any other time is/was plausible, what you think the reason to throw the flash grenade is or was at the time? Actually interested how you divest your self from being human under the guise of being analytical and miss such an obvious analytical point.

It's not a fragmentation grenade, but it's still a type of hand grenade. Not as deadly, but not exactly harmless either. And very irresponsible to use it in a situation that does not warrant it.

Survived yes but think of the effects on the kid and the family.

Are you really defending the police grenading a baby.

No, he's defending flashbanging a baby.

No, I was pointing out the use of a term that, in common understanding of what "grenade" means, was confusing.

No, the comment pointed out that it wasn’t a grenade. A not-grenade cannot be used to “grenade a baby.”

Wikipedia redirects "flashbang" to "stun grenade" and describes it as a "less lethal explosive device", so I'd say they're using the vernacular correctly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashbang

Not the op, the gp, or even the parent, but I'd like to say that while I'm certainly not condoning flashbangs in cribs or saying that "grenade" is technically inaccurate in the original sentence, there is a very different mental picture when someone says "grenade" vs "stun grenade". I feel like in an era where it's easier and more prolific to crucify a person because of their words than in the known history of mankind, the distinction between "grenade" and "stun grenade" should be made.

Does that make this okay? No. Not even a little. But let's err on the side of clearer communication.

Exactly. It's akin to the difference between dropping "a bomb" and dropping "a nuke". The terms are sometimes interchangeable but should never be confused.

The worst part about the police getting military gear is that the actual military has much stricter rules of engagement. With great power comes great responsibility.

On paper.

I hang out a lot with a lot of former US infantry guys on discord, and they talk all the time about how rule one was come back alive, and rule two was 'make sure you all get your stories straight.' This mythos of the American warfighter being above and beyond is propaganda. Good propaganda, because it has some basis in truth, but it whitewashes a lot of nastiness.

This was the case for the danish military in Iraq and Afghanistan as well.

The people I feel worst for are the soldiers themselves. You're informed over and over about the rules of engagement, and when you get there none of it applies.

If you don't shoot first, then your next to you friend will die. Obviously you're going to break the rules in that situation, it's what any human would do.

Now you have to live the rest of your life, knowing you broke conventions. You should be tried like the war-criminal you are. Or so it feels.

While I disagreed with the west's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, I have the utmost respect for the soldiers who fought there. They deserve a set of rules can realistically be followed.

at there are rules. you shouldn't have to go to Hague to win a case against your own sheriff.

There was a story about a ex-marine police officer who accurately judged that a suspect did not need to be shot, and then got fired for not shooting him.

Here’s the link, if anyone’s interested in reading it: https://features.propublica.org/weirton/police-shooting-leth...

It’s frustrating and sad, like stories about this tend to be.

I stopped and read this. Thank you very much for sharing. It is excellent and very well-written.

For anyone who hasn't read it, this is a similar, excellent article in the New Yorker on an ex-CIA officer's experience working as a beat cop on the streets of Atlanta. It dovetails magnificently with the ProPublica piece.

The Spy Who Came Home: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/05/07/the-spy-who-ca...

I believe that the following three paragraph-long quotes serve as a sufficient tl;dr:

"According to David M. Kennedy, one of the nation’s leading criminologists, American policing is practiced more as a craft than as a profession. “The kind of thinking that should go into framing and refining what a profession of public safety should be has still not been done,” he told me. Officers are deployed as enforcers of the state, without being taught psychology, anthropology, sociology, community dynamics, local history, or criminology. Lethal force is prioritized above other options. When Skinner joined the police force, everyone in his class was given a pistol, but none were given Tasers, because the department had run out."

"At Georgia’s state police-training facilities, the focus is “all tactics and law,” Skinner told me. Officers are taught that “once you give a lawful order it has to be followed—and that means immediately.” But the recipient of a “lawful order” may not understand why it’s being issued, or that his or her failure to comply may lead to the use of force. There’s no training on how to de-escalate tense scenarios in which no crime has been committed, even though the majority of police calls fall into that category. It is up to the officer’s discretion to shape these interactions, and the most straightforward option is to order belligerent people to the ground and, if they resist, tackle them and put them in cuffs."

"“This is how situations go so, so badly—yet justifiably, legally,” Skinner said. Police officers often encounter people during the worst moments of their lives, and Skinner believes that his role is partly to resolve trouble and partly to prevent people from crossing the line from what he calls “near-crime” into “actual crime.” The goal, he said, is “to slow things down, using the power of human interaction more than the power of the state.”"

Propaganda. It’s the exact opposite.

Yep, even in a warzone, if a member of the US military killed somebody because they thought they were reaching for a gun, they would be court-martialed and put in jail, and then kicked out of the military after their sentence.

The standard for police in the USA is appallingly low, and getting lower.

Well, apart from that guy who shot so many civilians that his colleagues kept bending his sights, who eventually got prosecuted for war crimes .. then pardoned by the President.

That says more about the President than anything else.

Come on dude, we've all seen the drone footage showing the US blowing people to pieces for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

As shitty as they are, drone strikes are operated by the CIA, and not subject to the military's rules of engagement, or military oversight, this is entirely on purpose.

The hot head will at least get a bollocking from the captain that shooting people dead isn't how you pacify a town. Within the police, no such concerns.

> How else will they protect themselves in the dangerous minefields of Atlanta?

They could put the money into dealing with the social problems that cause it to be a "minefield". Their job is to protect citizens including criminals. They're not doing it properly if they're shooting people. And they're likely making people a lot more likely to shoot at them in the process.

This is a great point, it's not in the job description of a police officer to punish criminals. But if you see the types of language that police officers frequently post with on social media, you see them framing themselves as warriors in a battle of good and evil.

Cops shouldn't see suspects as evil they the cops themselves are at war with. Formally their job is to keep the peace, get the suspect into the justice system and allow the justice system to work. Instead cops view themselves as armed enforcers on the side of "good" that the cops themselves define ad hoc.

> They could put the money into dealing with the social problems that cause it to be a "minefield".

I think you're missing the joke here, here's the relevant part of the gp:

> > including more than two dozen mine-resistant vehicles built to fight the war on terror abroad.

> How else will they protect themselves in the dangerous minefields of Atlanta?

Ah, I missed that.

Sorry about that. I’ve edited to add a /s.

It's funny you say that, because legally, the police have no requirement to protect people, as established by a long tail of caselaw; Gonzalez v. Castle Rock, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, and most recently Lozito v. New York City. Even in cases where you would think they were legally bound to protect you, e.g., if you had a restraining order against someone and called on the police to enforce it, the justice system in the US has found that they have no legal duty to do so.

The amount of money spent on this gear won't make a dent in resolving these societal issues. Our police are a bandaid on top of a deep wound that is our failings in mental health, poverty, and education.

>> Their job is to protect citizens

An interesting turn of phrase, but not reality. Cops are there to enforce laws. Some of those laws are meant to protect citizens. Other laws are to protect property, protect government interests, and enforce codes of behavior. This is particularly true when dealing with mental health issues. Protection of anyone quickly becomes secondary to physically stopping the person who is acting strangely.

That's an interesting set of distinctions without a difference.

> Some of those laws are meant to protect citizens.

Laws are made for the just common good. They may not be ideal, but that's what they exist for.

> Other laws are to protect property,

Again, for the sake of the common good. The ability to hold private property is a prerequisite for other goods we need to flourish.

> protect government interests

What is a government interest? You seem to be alienating government and construing it as some foreign body with competing interests. No, government exists for the sake of the common good of the society it governs. Once governments begin to turn into cliques that serve, e.g., some oligarchy (quite common), esp. at the expense of the common good, we call this a tyranny.

> and enforce codes of behavior.

For the sake of the common good.

No there's a real distinction, to the point that protecting citizens isn't a part of their job, legally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

I think the parent comment is missing a "/s"arcasm tag there

I was under the impression that one of the main reason police forces are getting "military gear" is because they're getting it at a steep discount due to the actual military not having anything else to do with it once they're done.

IMO this is even less charitable, since it implies that more violent police departments are seeking out surplus military equipment to better subjugate civilians.

If you require a firearm, and you can buy a military surplus weapon which is cheaper than a new "civilian" firearm, wouldn't you?

Based on the study, it seems like the answer is "yes" for violent police departments and "no" for everyone else.

There’s not much technical difference in “military rifles” from civilian AR15 other than military version has an extra pin and the finger groove

On the other hand, there's presumably a significant technical difference between police cars and mine-resistant vehicles created for military operations in the Middle East.

True. It’s sad that they hastily sourced tons of MRAPs that turned out useless, but they probably belong to museums and scrapyards.

Not very intuitive that a mine-resistant vehicle would encourage anyone to kill more civilians tho.

Not exactly, surplus weapons are really popular among civilians.

We are talking about police.

I remember reading once that what you think of as military gear obtained at a steep discount is not the first thing that comes to mind : essentially air conditioning.

Or how else US Army get rid of barely used gears and armored vehicles unfit for their uses?