...and what they call "well-intentioned" I call "doing a job despite its moral indefensibility."

(and to be clear: I'm talking specifically about pre-dawn violent raids as a measure to ostensibly enforce drug laws, not policing in general)

What's most amazing is how smug and unapologetic the involved LEOs are when they've been interviewed on camera about this incident. One can only hope that the video is accepted as evidence in the civil case and will add a significant multiplier to the damages awarded.

I'm guessing their lawyers have told them not to apologize (show apathy), as it may actually be worse for them in the civil suit.

FYI you wrote apathy when you likely meant empathy.

Apathy fits there if you take the parenthetical to be clarifying "not apologize" instead of just "apologize".

Cops in the US are immune to civil liability for acts while on duty.

There are two flaws in this statement:

1) Police, and most public officials, are subject to qualified, not absolute, immunity.

2) Given that municipal or state governments have to pick up the check when juries find against police departments, the comment you are responding to is still sensible (I'm not saying I agree with it, only that it's not illogical in the matter that you seem to be suggesting).

This comment doesn't need to be downvoted. It's not stating anything as fact - quite the opposite - it's very clear it's just a guess. And it makes logical sense according to this [1]

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-apology_apology

The officers involved most likely were following both their training and their department's policy here. That something terrible happened as a result doesn't necessarily mean they did something wrong from a legal and professional standpoint. Police work is full of situations that are ugly, even when well-thought out policy is followed to the T.

Of course, the wisdom of ever using flash bangs in policing outside of extraordinary circumstances is suspect.

Which is of course the problem with departmental policy. We routinely see SWAT teams investigating themselves and finding that everything they did was in line with departmental policy.

And policy is not law. We should not allow a shield of false legitimacy protect illegal actions.

The problem is that the law often isn't clear. You have assault, battery, manslaughter, murder, unlawful detainment, and similar laws on the books, all with varying requirements and all with various carveouts for law enforcement, self-defense, etc. They tend to be written in broad language because real life is complicated. In the end, the law in this area is generally in the form of case law created by courts in response to novel situations. The courts have to make judgement calls. In my experience, LE agencies make a lot of effort to ensure their policies conform to existing caselaw and cover the gaps in it. Sometimes they get it wrong. But more often than not, when a policy is particularly egregious, the underlying law is to blame.

In the end, police have broad authority to use reasonable force to effect lawful arrests and searches. And most people don't understand just how broad that authority is under the law.

Which is why the cases in which the police harm or injure people should be brought before the court. Not decided by a prosecutor or grand jury, those entities shouldn't be deciding what is lawful.

The proper military use of flashbangs is to roll them towards the corner of a room or doorway. Not to chuck them into the room where they could land anywhere.

Yeah the chucking part seems where they go wrong. Normally you want to get them into the area called the fatal front, around 4 to 5 feet away right in front of the door. Your basically aiming for the floor and don't want them to go very far.

I'm going to extrapolate from experience, I'm pretty sure a flash-bang in a crib is not going to have the intended effect.

Nope. You want them IN the room, not in front of your point man. It's called a "fatal funnel" also. All this shit goes out the window anyway (sideways pun intended) in combat. My preference is hand grenades, but you don't get many of those (or flashbangs, for that matter), so it really depends on the circumstance. Either way, you'll get kicked in the head if you toss a flashbang right inside the door.

Grenades blow through almost every building material you can think of with ease. Grenades thrown in-doors are pretty loud even if you have some sort of hs/ld ear protection it's going to rock you pretty good.

I may have not been clear, yes you want it in the room. Generally you want in the fatal front area, yes it's called a fatal funnel for that entire situation/entry point (and all sorts of other names).

In this instance its the fatal front(in relation to that fatal funnel). Generally you want to be able to clear your nearside corners and the immediate area in front of the door. The point is not to chuck the Flashbang in too far or you are not going to get the full stun effect in areas with the highest threat.

If you are 6ft like me you generally pretend you are tossing it just to your head if you were laying down. It's going to roll/bounce in most cases and go farther. In any case you are aiming for a point that is most likely going to be open. Flashbangs don't work so well if they roll under a couch or a TV stand.

I guess our grenade experiences differ, If I requested a crate of grenades. I would get a crate of grenades.

If you wanted to reduce things down you want to get the maximum stun in the areas where you do your fan-out to slow down anyone who might get grabby or dont need to get a good sight picture to hit you. That's all going to happen in proximity to door. in an ideal world your going to want to hit closer to the center but in less you stick your head in first or have a god-like sense of the local building construction and layout signatures you might as well throw into an area that everyone can see the flash and for the folks close in the bang.

That's not true. The proper military use of flashbangs is to throw them into a room (to land wherever, usually the center of the room) and then run in and murder everyone inside. You are overstating the precision involved.

In the military if you want kill (not murder) everyone in a room you use a fragmentation grenade generally. Flashbangs are for when you might want to leave some of the people inside the room alive, either to capture or because they might be civilians.

Why does everyone seem to derive the usage of flashbangs from something like Counter Strike. Knowing the room layout/size as well as what kind stuff is in the room is never a sure thing. I'm going to assure you that the most common place you are going to find an open area is closer to the entry point due to the need for people to enter and exit through a door.

I guess its a moot point to try and explain the concepts that are common to almost every CQCish type training out there.

The point is you don't throw a flash-bang and grenade at full power. Knowing where the center of the room is and even if that's the best place for it to land is not the easiest thing in the world.

Nearside corners people, most people that are under a threat will be closer to the corners than the middle of the room and the corners that will give you the most problems to due the amount of time it takes to clear and how quickly they can ruining your day is throwing stun grenades to get effects on the nearside corners.

I can tell you haven't much in the way of combat experience. All of these things you've read online or in a FM somewhere go totally out the window in combat. All of these things you're talking about are completely in the land of theory when people are trying to kill you and vice versa. On two of my three combat tours in the infantry I spent most of the time kicking in doors, zip-tying people to themselves, and tossing a hood over their heads. And that was when they weren't trying to fight. The real world is far too chaotic and fast for the games you are talking about playing. You know I once had to clear the first three stories of an office building between myself and two other guys. There were a stupid amount of rooms. We cleared upwards of thirty rooms because of one smartass firing down from the top floor. All those Youtube videos you're quoting are meaningless in a situation like that.

> “Some of what contributed to this tragedy can be attributed to well-intentioned people getting in too big a hurry,”

The things you can get away with when you have an uniform...

Every single person ever booked for speeding would love to use this excuse I'm sure.