SWAT invades innocent man's home - Burns it down with a flashbang - Father killed

[22lr]

Yeah...who cares about the 50 civilians that may lose there lives in the process. If it saves JUST ONE LEO, it worth it!

Never said anything about civilians, I said homes. DONT put words in my mouth please.

 

[level.eleven]

Flashbangs save lives, and I don't care if 50 houses get burned to the ground. If we can save a single officers life then it was worth it.

Quit trolling.

 

[phil]

Never said anything about civilians, I said homes. DONT put words in my mouth please.

OH gotcha...so civilian's property can be DESTROYED just because??? I'm asking(not trying to put words in your mouth).

 

[88GT]

Well let me ask you this. Do you think this man was intentionally killed? Do you think the police knew the flashbang was going to kill him and they intentionally did it?

I fail to see how that is relevant. Unless of course they did know the device would start the conflagration and unless of course they wanted him to die. But I do not believe that was the case. So for all intents and purposes, it's not a consideration to the issue at hand. (Drunk drivers don't intentionally kill anyone when they t-bone the family minivan either, but nobody brings that up when they point out the unacceptable behavior of driving drunk.)

The point is that no tidbit of information, no piece of evidence, no apprehension of ever the foulest man is worth the taking of a his life by the state without proper due process. When it becomes acceptable to make excuses for the violation of due process and a man's rights, we are already lost.

The efforts to achieve that merit their own discussion since the implementation of force against the populace is equally disturbing, and arguably just an end-run around the limitations on the state's violations against a man's life. Each escalation of force increases the risk that the individual in question faces a higher likelihood of death. To say nothing of the innocents caught in the cross-fire. The obvious example of no-knocks on wrong addresses come to mind. But even those on correct addresses where additional people are in the home.

I simply don't subscribe to the notion that the end justifies the means in these kinds of situations. I am not opposed to the use of force and plenty of it when it is righteously justified. However, I find it hard to justify the use of force exhibited in this story for being the mere acquaintance of a murder suspect with the intent to question.

 

[22lr]

OH gotcha...so civilian's property can be DESTROYED just because??? I'm asking(not trying to put words in your mouth).

Mistakes happen, why take a valuable tool away from LEOs just because someone made a mistake. By that same logic we should ban guns because people accidentally shoot people all the time.

Lets not put blame on the items used, it was a mistake. Mistakes happen, we move on. There is no reason to have a knee jerk reaction and ban a lifesaving technology. For those who dont believe me, get paintball gear and go clear a building. Hide a single bad guy in a random room and see how many guys he can take out before you get him. Now throw a flashbang before you breech, all of a sudden the point man actually has a good chance of going home to his family at the end of the day.

 

[88GT]

Flashbangs save lives, and I don't care if 50 houses get burned to the ground. If we can save a single officers life then it was worth it.

Wait. You condone the illegal taking through destruction of property by the government to save the life of a person complicit in that illegal taking? Do I read you right?

 

[phil]

Mistakes happen, why take a valuable tool away from LEOs just because someone made a mistake. By that same logic we should ban guns because people accidentally shoot people all the time.

Lets not put blame on the items used, it was a mistake. Mistakes happen, we move on. There is no reason to have a knee jerk reaction and ban a lifesaving technology. For those who dont believe me, get paintball gear and go clear a building. Hide a single bad guy in a random room and see how many guys he can take out before you get him. Now throw a flashbang before you breech, all of a sudden the point man actually has a good chance of going home to his family at the end of the day.

To me, arson is arson. If I throw a lit can of fuel in my neighbor's house and the house burns to the ground, what is going to happen to me? Why should there be any double standards?

 

[22lr]

Wait. You condone the illegal taking through destruction of property by the government to save the life of a person complicit in that illegal taking? Do I read you right?

Once again, words in my mouth.

Read my above post. By this logic we should ban all guns because accidents might happen.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Flashbangs save lives, and I don't care if 50 houses get burned to the ground. If we can save a single officers life then it was worth it.

and people wonder where the us vs. them mentality comes from. how about not going into the house? police shouldnt be legally allowed to have flash bangs. what about kids? pets? property damage?

oh, tommy smoked a joint and didnt show up to court, so now we are gonna ****ing rock his world and destroy this mother ****er and maybe smoke his ass if he even flinches the wrong way. we will burn the mother ****in house down too. sound like a pep rally you've been to?

so watch out everyone. if you have ever even touched a gun, or especially a member of a evil gun website, your probly gonna have the SWAT team busting down your door ****ing your **** up if you dont pay your parking tickets. be advised.

 

[22lr]

To me, arson is arson. If I throw a lit can of fuel in my neighbor's house and the house burns to the ground, what is going to happen to me? Why should there be any double standards?

This was not arson, it was a mistake. Huge difference. If I kill a man in cold blood its murder, if there is a accident at the range and I kill a man accidentally its not murder. The "accidental factor" changes the entire equation and the peneties are massivly different (as they should rightfully be).

 

[jsharmon7]

I fail to see how that is relevant. Unless of course they did know the device would start the conflagration and unless of course they wanted him to die. But I do not believe that was the case. So for all intents and purposes, it's not a consideration to the issue at hand. (Drunk drivers don't intentionally kill anyone when they t-bone the family minivan either, but nobody brings that up when they point out the unacceptable behavior of driving drunk.)

The point is that no tidbit of information, no piece of evidence, no apprehension of ever the foulest man is worth the taking of a his life by the state without proper due process. When it becomes acceptable to make excuses for the violation of due process and a man's rights, we are already lost.

The efforts to achieve that merit their own discussion since the implementation of force against the populace is equally disturbing, and arguably just an end-run around the limitations on a man's life. Each escalation of force increases the risk that the individual in question faces a higher likelihood of death. To say nothing of the innocents caught in the cross-fire. The obvious example of no-knocks on wrong addresses come to mind. But even those on correct addresses where additional people are in the home.

I simply don't subscribe to the notion that the end justifies the means in these kinds of situations. I am not opposed to the use of force and plenty of it when it is righteously justified. However, I find it hard to justify the use of force exhibited in this story for being the mere acquaintance of a murder suspect with the intent to question.

This is why I continue to mention the intent of the officers. The "force exhibited" was to gain control in order to serve a search warrant. The "force" of using a flashbang to disorient and distract an uncooperative subject barricaded in a house was not excessive. It's tragic that the device caused the fire and the man was killed and thereby denied due process of law, but the officers had no way of knowing or expecting that would be the outcome. I still would like to know why the man died in the fire rather than coming out or being rescued. The point is, the level of force intended to gain compliance was acceptable in my opinion, the outcome though was not.

Would you be willing to answer my question though? What would you have done if you were in the officers' shoes trying to serve a valid search warrant and the man refused to cooperate?

 

[hornadylnl]

We could stop all of this silliness if we just stationed an officer inside of every home.

 

[phil]

This is why I continue to mention the intent of the officers. The "force exhibited" was to gain control in order to serve a search warrant. The "force" of using a flashbang to disorient and distract an uncooperative subject barricaded in a house was not excessive. It's tragic that the device caused the fire and the man was killed and thereby denied due process of law, but the officers had no way of knowing or expecting that would be the outcome. I still would like to know why the man died in the fire rather than coming out or being rescued. The point is, the level of force intended to gain compliance was acceptable in my opinion, the outcome though was not.

Would you be willing to answer my question though? What would you have done if you were in the officers' shoes trying to serve a valid search warrant and the man refused to cooperate?

What's so wrong with waiting till the guy leaves his house? This is the way it used to be done.

 

[88GT]

Once again, words in my mouth.

Read my above post. By this logic we should ban all guns because accidents might happen.

Not at all. This isn't about accidents. This is about knowingly escalating the risk of seriously adverse effects for results that cannot ever justify the loss of life--LE or not. This is about preemptively using force/violence against an individual on the chance that he might respond to the attempt to arrest with force/violence of his own. I can't do that. Why should LE be able to?

It is NEVER acceptable for the state to initiate force. EVER. If loss of LE life is a concern, perhaps it would be more prudent to re-think tactics entirely, not add fuel to the fire (bad choice of words? ) by ratcheting up the force and violence themselves.

 

[E5RANGER375]

This was not arson, it was a mistake. Huge difference. If I kill a man in cold blood its murder, if there is a accident at the range and I kill a man accidentally its not murder. The "accidental factor" changes the entire equation and the peneties are massivly different (as they should rightfully be).

mistake, accident, tradgedy, bla bla bla bla bla, etc

does the words really matter? anymore you can find a word for anything you want it to fit in todays world and if you dont have one you can make up a new word.
words like mistake dont impress me.

if you run around dressed like a lolly pop kid at a chester convention, your probly gonna get "touched". if you play army with real guns, someones gonna get hurt. those arent accidents. we deal in a real world with real consequences for actions. well at least some of us do.

 

[22lr]

What's so wrong with waiting till the guy leaves his house? This is the way it used to be done.

Do we want to live in a society where the cops never pursue?

I dont.

 

[loony1]

to what part? your free to disagree, but lets debate what you disagree about. if I hear a better idea, im all for changing my mind. persuade me.

The reason for all of the different types of local police agencies (state, county, city, township etc.) is to not give all the power to 1 dept. What you had mentioned is that you would like to see all agencies combined into the state police. The next natural progression would be for state to get absorbed by the feds and so on. If you look back at past countries you can see where this has happened and didn't fair well (Germany, Italy, Eastern block countries, Iraq....)

 

[phil]

It is NEVER acceptable for the state to initiate force. EVER. If loss of LE life is a concern, perhaps it would be more prudent to re-think tactics entirely, not add fuel to the fire (bad choice of words? ) by ratcheting up the force and violence themselves.

THIS!

But officers wanting to find a peaceful tactic will probably be looked at as a ***** to his "brothers". It's much "cooler" to flex your muscles.

Swat tactics are based on pure terror......That should not be allowed.

 

[E5RANGER375]

The reason for all of the different types of local police agencies (state, county, city, township etc.) is to not give all the power to 1 dept. What you had mentioned is that you would like to see all agencies combined into the state police. The next natural progression would be for state to get absorbed by the feds and so on. If you look back at past countries you can see where this has happened and didn't fair well (Germany, Italy, Eastern block countries, Iraq....)

you have a point, but our state and federal governments ran as they should be could handle it I think. as of now. no, your right. it would be a cluster ****. thanks for the reply.

 

[Expat]

Do we want to live in a society where the cops never pursue?

I dont.

This is one of the most vile threads I have seen in awhile. Well at least a few days. If it saves lives, then yeah, it's okay to wait a few hours or until the next day. Let me guess, you got kind of excited watching the tank move in on the women and children in Waco.