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.