Police Abuse

When Drug Warriors Burn a Baby, Who’s the Terrorist?

|

WSB-TV

Habersham County, Georgia, Sheriff Joey Terrell feels bad that his deputies horribly burned a toddler by tossing a "distraction device" (a.k.a. a "flash bang" grenade) into the playpen where he was sleeping during a drug raid on Wednesday morning. "The baby didn't deserve this," Terrell concedes in an interview with AccessNorthGa.com. "The family didn't deserve this. This family was displaced from another home down here and apparently just moved in." If his deputies had known there were children in the home, he says, they would not have used the grenade. But given what they knew, Terrell insists, they acted appropriately:

We keep asking ourselves, "How did this happen?" No one can answer that. You can't answer that. You try and do everything right. Bad things can happen. That's just the world we live in. Bad things happen to good people. 

But it turns out Terrell does have an answer:

The person I blame in this whole thing is the person selling the drugs. Wanis Thonetheva, that's the person I blame in all this. They are no better than a domestic terrorist, because they don't care about families—they didn't care about the family, the children living in that household—to be selling dope out of it, to be selling methamphetamine out of it. All they care about is making money. 

They don't care about what it does to families. It's domestic terrorism, and I think we should treat them as such. I don't know where we can go with that, but that's my feelings on it. It just makes me so angry! I get so mad that they don't care about what they do. They don't care about the families or the people they're selling to.

It makes me angry too, but in a different way. It makes me angry that Terrell thinks violence is an appropriate response to consensual transactions in which someone exchanges methamphetamine for money (provided that person is not a pharmacist and his customer is not a patient with a prescription). It makes me angry that Terrell sees nothing wrong with sending a heavily armed SWAT team into an alleged meth dealer's home in the middle of the night, which inevitably endangers not only the dealer but anyone else who happens to be there. In Terrell's mind, that is not an act of aggression. It was Wanis Thonetheva who attacked first by agreeing to sell speed to people who wanted it. Hence Thonetheva is a "domestic terrorist," harming an innocent child because all he cares about is making money.

Terrorists, of course, are usually motivated by politics rather than greed. And it was not Thonetheva who sent Alecia Phonesavanh's 19-month-old son, Bounkham, to the hospital with severe burns. One of Terrell's deputies did that, in service of a political ideology that says people may not alter their consciousness in ways that are not approved by the government. "He is in a medically induced coma and he is paralyzed," Phonesavanh told WSB-TV, the ABC affiliate in Atlanta. "I hope he's not going to remember this. I know his sisters, his mommy, and his daddy will never forget this. Our kids have been through enough this year. This is just more trauma that they didn't need, and I just wish there was something better I could do to make it better for him. Wrong place, wrong time."

That place is America, and that time is a period during which police believe it is their duty to launch military-style assaults on civilians who sell politically incorrect drugs, knowing full well that there is bound to be "collateral damage" like this from time to time. After Bounkham recovers from the injuries inflicted by his government and becomes old enough to ask what happened that night, is there any explanation that will make sense to him?  

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

295 responses to “When Drug Warriors Burn a Baby, Who’s the Terrorist?

  1. But you’re wrong, sheriff. I sold drugs once. And I CARE about families, including my own. Including others.

    So you’re just wrong.

    But – yeah, drug dealers are “terrorists”, not your deputies and other pigs who actually terrorize citizens – for teh childrunz…

    Fuck you with a rusty pole axe, you odious fuck.

    1. I wish I could “flash-bang” Sheriff Joey Terrell mother in her pie-hole.

      If you know what I mean…

      …wink wink…

      …knudge knudge.

  2. This isn’t the first one reported here right? Wasn’t there another baby that got hit with a flash bang a year or so ago?

    1. The girl was Aiyana Jones. It was in Detroit in 2010. At least in that case, the raid was for a violent crime and not for drugs.

      1. That’s the one.

    2. Don’t remember that one, though there’s a whole list to piss you off in Balko’s writeup of the story.

      1. Anger. Growing.

    3. http://www.theagitator.com/201…..cident-53/ this is the one i remember most as they were looking for a supposed meth lab..i mean a flash bang thrown into a suspected meth house..that makes a lot of sense..

      1. yes because white phosphorus and meth aren’t really known for their volatile properties.

    4. Surely Rachael Maddow will be doing a piece on this real soon, right?

  3. Habersham County, Georgia, Sheriff Joey Terrell feels bad that his deputies horribly burned a toddler by tossing a “distraction device” (a.k.a. a “flash bang” grenade) into his crib during a drug raid on Wednesday morning. “The baby didn’t deserve this,” Terrell concedes in an interview with AccessNorthGa.com.

    Quote him in full, Jacob.

    He then went on to say (in an interview I read last night) that he “wouldn’t have done ANYTHING different” and that the officers “went by the book” and acted totally appropriately.

    1. He forgot to add, “hth”

    2. At least the officers went home safe at the end of the shift. That’s what’s important here.

      1. The unsung and thankless warrior’s safety always comes first.

        /PoliceOne

  4. Deserve‘s got nothing to do with it.

    1. +1 Little Bill

  5. Terrell is totally disingenuous here.

    He says several times that “he wouldn’t have done anything different” but then alludes to the fact that they’ll be ‘double cautious’ next time.

    Which is it, Terrell? If you don’t do anything different, then you are by definition saying that it’s only a matter of time before the next baby gets a distraction device flashbang to the face.

    Oh, but he assures us that they’ll be ‘double careful’ next time.

    So you WILL do something different?

    Well, well, no our actions are justified, wouldn’t do anything different.

    So then you’d toss a flashbang into a baby’s face again.

    No, no, we’re going to make sure that won’t happen.

    How are you going to avoid that if you promise to do nothing different?

  6. I wonder what he’d say if somebody shot and killed one of his deputies during a nocturnal dynamic entry raid.

    “In retrospect, it was an honest mistake. I guess we should have knocked.”

    1. “nocturnal dynamic entry raid”

      So – ass fuckin’ the wife, amirite?

    2. I just have two words for you: Ruby Ridge.

  7. What if this was the wrong house?

    1. Well,did all the heroes make it home safe?

      Then it’s cool.

      1. Yes, totally acceptable.

    2. Everyone’s guilty of SOMETHING, derp.

      There are no “wrong houses” in Amerika.

      1. Yeah, they must have done ‘something’ wrong, because everything is illegal for the serfs. If pigs show up at the wrong house, then whoever is there gets what’s coming to them anyway.

        1. Yepper

    3. Innocent of what?

      /lil bill

    4. It was a preemptive strike, in that case. Just want to be double-sure that baby won’t grow up to sell meth.

    5. I’m giving them a free pass on this. They thought Chris Dorner was in the playpen

    6. Technically it was the wrong house since they found NOTHING

  8. “to protect and serve” has become “to serve man”. This is beyond disgusting.

  9. In Georgia if you’re not a Gawd-fearing Republican you are breaking the law.

    But we’re getting rid of Paul Broun – who will join Newt, crazy Cynthia McKinney, BoBarr, Zell Maddox and many others in our political Hall of Shame.

    1. Holy shit, man. In THIS story? You’re a sick fuck.

      1. Don’t pay Palin’s Buttplug any mind, Slammer, his boyfriend didn’t give him any ass sex so he’s pretty pent up and pissed off, he tends to take that out on other people when he can’t lick shit off a dick.

    2. Jesus Christ you festering butthole, is there anything in the world you won’t blame on Republicans? Because this shit totally never happens in blue states. Nope never.

      1. You guys give PB, Tony, American Socialist, et. al. WAY too much attention.

        Ignore them and they will go away. Really, they will.

    3. Oh, STFU, asscunt.

    4. This is just the government overstepping the line (Again) Nothing to do with a (D) or a (R).

      get off your high horse

    5. Hey shreeky…given todays unpleasantness in DC have been “soothing” Dear Leader today. Remember always purse the lips….yes…just like Tony showed you.

    6. It’s true. http://buckhead.patch.com/grou…..le-walmart democrats usually break the law.

  10. Any commenters here live in Habersham County, Georgia? If so, then maybe you can either confirm or put to rest the talk going around that Sheriff Joey Terrell fucks sheep. It would be nice to know the truth.

  11. Nothing in the article says they actually found drugs or arrested anyone that allegedly sold them drugs. That’s pretty standard fare for an article on a drug raid. What gives?

    1. I just noticed this in the article:

      This family was displaced from another home down here and apparently just moved in.”

      It appears that the family had nothing to do with drugs at all. The cops didn’t even check who was living in the house.

      For anyone but a cop, this would be criminal negligence.

      1. Absolutely, I’m very careful before I throw a bomb in someone’s house. All of my neighbors appreciate my prudence

    2. Another credible, reliable, paid snitching CI that wasn’t so reliable. But hey, it’s a dirty business and some times they have to use cell mates to get those otherwise impossible to obtain confessions. snarc

  12. We keep asking ourselves, “How did this happen?” No one can answer that. You can’t answer that. You try and do everything right. Bad things can happen. That’s just the world we live in. Bad things happen to good people.

    How did this happen? Nobody can answer that. How did that grenade end up in the baby’s crib? Who put it there? Nobody knows. Why did a cadre of heavily-armed men break into that house into the first place? Who decided that a threat existed that justified that kind of force? That’s one of life’s great mysteries. You try to do everything right. You put on your combat gear and go in guns blazing, completely oblivious to the response you can expect or the innocents that might get in the way, and bad things can just happen. That’s just the world we live in. Nobody can change that.

    1. *nods in agreement while scribbling notes*

      /Atlanta TEEVEE reporter.

  13. “How did this happen?” No one can answer that. You can’t answer that.

    Tide goes in, tide goes out, you can’t explain that.

    It’s pretty easy to answer how this happened, if his own conscience would allow it. People tend to not want to see when they are a monster though.

  14. “The person I blame in this whole thing is the person selling the drugs. Wanis Thonetheva, that’s the person I blame in all this.”

    Were drugs even found? Did this raid lead to Wanis Thonetheva being convicted of anything yet?

    1. It never occurred to police to just slap some cuffs on him the next time he went down to the AM/PM to buy a pack of smokes. Never occurred to them!

      1. No, that’s what they do when somebody’s actually dangerous. This allows them to play with their toys and get their war on with little chance of danger.

        1. No, that’s what they do when somebody’s actually dangerous. This allows them to play with their toys and get their war on with little chance of danger.

          That’s so true. Look at how they captured Whitey Bulger. They lured him into a basement ambush. Had they raided his gun filled apartment there’s a good chance that several officers could have been shot.

          But when it’s someone who is not a threat in the slightest, that’s when they toss in a grenade and swoop in with automatic weapons.

          It’s disgusting.

          1. its all for the show to scare anybody who is even contemplating the slightest bit of mischief.

            1. All LEO’s are TRULY cowards.

              ALL.

              1. I wouldn’t say all. 99% of them give the rest a bad name.

                1. Yes, the outcry from the 99% has been deafening.

                  1. Dammit, 1%, I mean.

      2. Come on Paul. You can’t expect them to do that. I mean, you wouldn’t even need a tactical holster, much less a bitchin helmet and sweet looking rifle! The DOD did *not* provide all that cool stuff just so the cops could pull a Joe Friday and quietly arrest the guy.

        Get serious, man!

      3. I know, right. Same thing with Koresh. Would go out to get ice cream on Wednesdays. Must have been poor intelligence.

        1. He ran down the same country road every day too. It’s not as sexy to just yoke someone up while they’re out for a constitutional though.

      4. There are no assets to be seized if you just take him outside of a McDonalds or something. Attack the house and all the property can be seized as part of drug operation. They’re auctioned off and the many times the proceeds go to the force. That’s how they further fund their bombs and tanks and such. That’s why drugs will never be decriminalized. It is the beginning point of this “war”. All offensive war is to seize the property of others. There’s no profit in taking someone on the street. LEO’s drool when they can associate a drug deal to a stack of assets. It’s christmas.

        1. Echoes of Rothbard’s “Anatomy of the State” ringing in my ears.

          1. ew you’re right…. wither that or my tinnitus from serving the state for years in an unjustifiable war zone

    2. There’s no mention of drugs being found in the stories, which leads one to believe that no, no drugs were found. The person they were looking for wasn’t even there; they were arrested elsewhere later.

      1. Yep, had the police recovered a single fucking derringer from the scene they’d be parading them in front of the news cameras.

        They didn’t get shit. And if in a week they claim they got something, they’re lying. Period, no debate, no discussion. They’re lying.

        1. I posted this above, but I think this quote from Terrell is important in this context.

          This family was displaced from another home down here and apparently just moved in.”

        2. Was the toddler wearing his seatbelt while in the playpen? Click-it or ticket. And then grenade it

      2. The person they were looking for wasn’t even there; they were arrested elsewhere later.

        Jesus. At least our soldiers try to verify that the target is home before they blow the place up…

        1. Our soldiers face tribunals for their actions. That may mean nothing or everything, given the context, but at least there’s a whiff of accountability in the air. Police have no such misfortune.

        2. We do something called a leader’s recon. Tends to minimize these sorts of things. Cops don’t get that training though which, in the end, is the whole problem. You can’t just dress up and kit out like you’re SEALforceDeltaTeam 6… you actually have to train and train a lot.

          I’m sure Deputy DingDong has lots of time practicing dynamic entries instead of standing in front of the mirror practicing the best way to yell “Get on the fucking ground!”

          1. There’s also the whole ‘never get held responsible’ thing. If hell froze over and they were held responsible for their actions, especially the bad ones, things would change in a hurry.

            1. They would file a lawsuit ala Seattle pigs?

  15. We firmly believe in commiting violence in the name of public safety.

  16. Bad things can happen. That’s just the world we live in. Bad things happen to good people.

    “It turns out that we have a special team, devoted to doing just that.”

  17. What are the chances of the mainstream media picking up this story ala Trayvon Martin/Stand your ground?

    The baby looks as if he’s the right color. I’m honestly baffled as to what lights the fire of the CNN and New York Times editorial staff.

    1. It’s obvious – this would paint cops in a bad light. Despite the old-guard “liberals” who were against “the man” – the progressive/statist media love big brother.

      “Can you imagine how quickly this state would fall apart (and how quickly we’d be shut out of these exclusive police interviews!) if we ran stories against the police who are the only thing standing between us and anarchy? Do you want that?”

      No, we should just accept that these people were “bad”, and that any police action is justified carte-blanche because of that.

      1. Funny you mention that.

        I posted the link to this story last night on Derpbook. A proggie friend who has posted tons of gungrabbing and white privilege crap post-IV massacre responded by actually defending these fucks. He suggested I should post every time someone is hurt by a firearms accident. He wants to limit citizen firearms protection to 2 per person, but is fine with an occupying army busting into family homes flashbangs a-humming and guns a-blazing.

        And he doesn’t see why anyone would need a gun. Forthaluvagawd, THIS is why we needs fucking guns, to protect ourselves from the State.

        1. Forthaluvagawd, THIS is why we needs fucking guns, to protect ourselves from Proggies.

          Fixed that for you.

        2. then why doesn’t he just not buy guns?
          why does he feel he has the right to steal the right to self defense away from others?
          why do progressives only defend “rights” they view as important, are all rights important or just those espoused by MSNBC and CNN?

      2. Excellent point DC, and maybe things would change a little if there was more exposure. I think bad cops hate public exposure more than anything…that’s also why they hate to be filmed.

    2. Trayvon Martin was about a “white” (well, at first …) individual doing something wrong to a minority. Get it? Police are the “state”, not individuals, and therefore this is *different*, you see.

      1. You forgot to say “SCIENCE” and drop the mic…

  18. Wow, now it looks like Jay Carneybarker is following Shinseki out the door.

    Part of me will miss that dweeby little lickspittle bwcause he’s so laughable. At least now he’s free to go back to being a JournoList once again.

    1. Back to?

  19. String that mother fucker up

    1. This almost looks like an R-rated RishJoMo post. You forgot the “lol” and the one-too-many capitalized letters.

  20. We keep asking ourselves, “How did this happen?” No one can answer that.

    He’s the Carnac the Magnificent of internal reviews.

  21. Off Topic:

    Jay Carney resigned. Wonder who the next sycophant will be.

    1. Baghdad Bob?

      1. Far too honest, in touch and forthcoming to do the job the way Jay Carney did it.

    2. But who will tell Obama the news that Jay Carney has resigned?

      1. I’m sure that he’ll see it on MSNBC, or maybe in tomorrow’s Washington Post.

      2. He’ll read about it in the paper tomorrow.

    3. Ahh the great old Friday afternoon news dump, so god damn predictable.

    4. Whoever it is better be ready to #ManUp.

    5. Shriek, I’m guessing. He’s dropped any pretense of being sane or in favor of limited government. Perfect fit, really.

      1. True. And he was bragging on his mad wordsmithing skillz earlier.

        1. Can you imagine him frothing and screaming on national teevee, “BUSHPIG!! CHRISTFAG!!”

          1. Jay Carney did that all the time. Just used different words.

          2. That would actually be an improvement.

  22. The Habersham County Sherrif’s Dept. would like you all to know that April is Prevent Child Abuse Month and that they are “Putting Children First”.

    1. That why they waited until May to maim an infant with chemical burns?

      1. It clearly says putting children first. And it would seem that’s exactly how the raid went down. First, target the children and small animals. That’ll send them a lesson.

  23. In the cops defense, the baby was holding a rifle, or a rattle that looked like a rifle. This made them mistake the baby for the family dog. Policy calls for shooting dogs in cribs, but after returning fire from the parakeet they were out of bullets, so grenade.

    1. A rattle could put someone’s eye out!

      Did that kid have a license for that bottle? Where are the fucking irresponsible parents in all this?

      WE NEED ANSWERS!

    2. Simpsons did it.

  24. tl;dr version:

    “I’m the victim, here. Now stop asking me all these hard questions, and GTFO.”

  25. Who’s the Terrorist?

    The government.

    The pigs are just another manifestation of that.

  26. Somebody tweeted this excellent point to our old friend Lucy She Who Shall Not Be Named:

    Franklin Harris
    ?@FranklinH3000 ?24m
    @LucyStag Ed Snowden gives up the good life = cowardly traitor. Cops shoot dogs, flashbang kids = courageous heroes. #murica

    1. I believe that he is one of our commenters, IIRC.

    2. Why are we not allowed to talk about Lucy?

      1. It’s a running joke. Basically, Lucy was much beloved by the commentariat because she was smart and funny and interacted with us. Then she just disappeared one day without explanation.

        The fictional explanation is that she was purged and that we’re not allowed to mention her, kind of like Leon Trotsky.

        1. I’m still waiting for reason to fund a Mexico trip for me to be her assassin.

          I love you Lucy, but like a cop, I’m not above killing innocents to get a free vacation.

        2. ENB is the new Lucy.

          There, I said it.

          … Hobbit

  27. Yeah, but NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED!

    So it’s all good. Good home invasion murderdeathkill bust operation. Procedures were followed.

    *chest bumps other officer while tamping down roid rage*

  28. The person I blame in this whole thing is the person selling the drugs. Wanis Thonetheva, that’s the person I blame in all this.

    Of course he does. Because this was a fuckup of epic proportions–the kind of thing we’ve previously wondered if it would wake people up*–and he knows it. This is him spinning and lying as furiously as he can in an attempt to deflect what should be a criminal fucking investigation of every single person involved. And it will probably work.

    Every sentence of his statement was dripping with ass-covering and avoidance of responsibility. His remorse was all crocodile tears. And people just let that shit slide.

    * looks like it won’t!

  29. So what has the SCOTUS had to say about using flash-bangs in no-knock raids when the suspect is not thought to be armed? As Balko points out today, doing so means intentionally harming someone who has not yet been charged with a crime, much less convicted. How can that not be a violation of the 4th, 5th or 8th Amendments?

    1. Not sure if there’s been a specific ruling on flashbangs, but if it came before the Court, I’m reasonably sure their use would be upheld under the FYTW clause.

      1. Yes, FYTW trumps everything.

  30. Aaaaaaaand a reminder of what our old friend, Mayor Daley (the senior) said:

    “Gentlemen, get it right. The police aren’t there to create disorder. The police are the to PRESERVE disorder.”

    1. My favorite Richard Daley, Sr. comment on the cops: (Probably spurious, but fun anyways)

      “Chicago has the best police force money can buy.”

  31. We keep asking ourselves, “How did this happen?” No one can answer that. You can’t answer that. You try and do everything right. Bad things can happen. That’s just the world we live in. Bad things happen to good people.

    This, from someone who works in the criminal justice system.

    Justice for thee, but not for me, eh?

  32. We keep asking ourselves, “How did this happen?” No one can answer that.

    Its pretty obvious how it happened. Some cop threw a grenade into a baby’s crib.

    Because they were conducting a raid on a house that they hadn’t really done much surveillance on, and didn’t know who was living there. And actually came up empty on (other than the burned baby, of course).

    It ain’t rocket surgery, ya fuckin’ moron.

    1. What’s the difference if it was a baby? It could’ve been anyone, including the suspect. If the house were unoccupied they’d’ve had no reason to go in.

      When have any of these grenade attacks actually prevented injury?

      1. Prevented injury to who? That’s the question you should ask.

        I’m sure there have been plenty of times when the sound of a crashing window and door combined with a couple of explosions startled a sleeping homeowner into brandishing a golf club or maybe even their firearm. The disorientation created by the flash bang probably allowed time for an on-target shot that eliminated that threat to the raiding officers.

  33. If they didn’t want their baby to be burned then they shouldn’t have shacked up with a drug dealer. It’s their fault.

    1. If they didn’t want their baby to be burned they shouldn’t have moved into a neighborhood where the residences may have some association with drug dealers. We are so dead-set against drug dealing we will burn innocent babies to keep them out of the neighborhood.

      As if actually burning the baby weren’t enough, he verbally hangs it in effigy.

    2. you wouldn’t believe the number of people coming to the cops defense when i see this story posted to facebook.

      Ok, yes you would.

      1. They aren’t going to listen until they get a cop baton shoved up their ass.

  34. I’d like two names:

    (1) The name of the cop who threw the grenade,

    (2) The name of the cop in command of the raid.

    Why don’t we have their names?

    1. Officer safety, duh!

    2. Well, 2 is, ultimately, Joey Terrell. Which explains the panicky, blame-anyone-but-me tone of the press conference.

      1. ok, I have now

        FLASHBANGED Sheriff Joey Terrell’S WIFE’s and Mother’s Pie-Holes!

        Zesty!

    3. Because this isn’t Massachussetts? [ducks]

  35. These drug dealers are domestic terrorists. It’s because of them that the SWAT teams have to breach houses with flash bangs. They’re wreaking havoc across America, by making cops wreak havoc across America.

    1. We had to burn the village to save the village.

  36. consensual, Mr. Sullum?

    this is obviously a great story that highlights the stupidity if the drug war as it’s waged now, but I’ve been reading your articles and seen you on TV and I can tell you’ve gone too far the other way and outright deny that drugs are any sort of social or even personal problem. You paint a picture of drug users casually coming into and out of drug use with no problems and no ill effects. You ignore the nature of addiction and all the data that backs that up. An addiction is by its nature not consensual. At one extreme, heroin users eventually take the heroin just to feel NORMAL. That’s a serious physical addiction. If they could just press a button on their head and not be addicted (again, essentially the picture you paint), their lives would be much simpler. Heck, if all physical drives worked like that, it’d be a hell of a lot easier for me to lose weight!
    But that isn’t so, and even if the drug war is retarded, the idea that drugs are a problem is legitimate. We need to move over to the regulation schemes that Europe has, which would end the drug war, but they still DO have some forms of regulation!

    1. TL:DR version – Edwin is a lazy fatass with no self control, therefore the government should control what and how much everyone is allowed to eat.

    2. At one extreme, heroin users eventually take the heroin just to feel NORMAL.

      Just like me and that dread insulin my addiction forces me to take.

      Edwin, you always bring the stupidest stupid. I respect that.

      1. But insulin is regulated. I’m sure it’s so in Europe too. And diabetes is a problem. So how does this contadict what s/he wrote?

    3. Yes, consensual, you dolt.

      There are very few drugs you can get physically addicted to. Wouldn’t you think spending a percent of that money on services as a medical issue would help instead.

      I believe the cop in the article mentioned meth.

      How would propose to regulate it? Know before hand that all regulations are eventually backed by grenade throwing thugs like the ones mentioned in this article.

      1. you guys are clearly ideologues and as far off the deep end as any of the people you lambast; I made a simple point that was not pro-drug-war or pro- intense- government- control.

        Yes, meth is addictive to a lot of people.

        I mentioned Europe because various of their countries have largely legalized drugs, but still have appropriate regulation. There are bans on advertising (let’s face it, it is necessary since a lot of people are stupid), and the governments actually give out drugs to addicts to minimize needle sharing and money- desperation- crime, but it all comes with strong encouragement to rehab. Personally, I would add a tort to the court for introducing someone to an drug they later become addicted to.

        I mean really, are you guys going to argue with me that some drugs can be addictive to a lot of people? (obviously it depends in the drug)

        1. Of course we’re not pro-drugs, and anything can be addictive – gambling, eating, fucking, commenting on Reason.

          What we don’t want is some dude with a gun making the decision for us. It is nothing more than that.

          We think that free market solutions would be available to help addicts if it were allowed.

          What is so hard to understand about this?

          The govt will never be there to help you, how can you not see that by now?

          1. are you sure you actually believe what you say? because I didn’t say anything much different and you guys lambasted me. All I did was mention some minimal regulation and you guys lambasted me. It sounds like you guys are ideologues and not really FOR any specific policies. If a you are is an asshole, all you’ll ever do is turn people off to your politics and end up encouraging stupid people into self destructive behavior

            1. Ok, let’s start over and be civil.

              What regulations would you propose?

            2. “If a you are is an asshole…”

              U wot m8?

          2. I’m pro-drugs.

        2. Meth is addictive to less than 5% of the people who take it. And you haven’t mentioned a single specific country that has “largely legalized drugs, but still has appropriate(loaded word) regulation.” There is only one. Portugal. You don’t even pretend to have knowledge on the subject, but that doesn’t stop you from spouting your bullshit.

          1. why are you so combat active? we’re agreeing that the drug war is bad, but I’m an asshole… for agreeing with you? sounds like you have some issues

            Amsterdam, dopey. they tolerate most drugs, but it’s still technically illegal, so they can engage in large- supplier- interdiction. And I’m pretty god damn sure you can’t put ads in magazines or TV for heroin and the like.

            BTW, your 5% number is bullshit. sounds like it’s based on number of people who have simply TRIED meth. to rely on such numbers is to minimize its destructive potential

            1. What regulations would you propose?

              1. I clearly already proposed some since I mentioned Europe, and I also mentioned adding a tort.

                it’s clear you’re so reactionary you didn’t even read my posts. good job. You’re a reactionary, but it’s OK because you’re the RIGHT kind of reactionary!

                I figure no matter how libertarian you get advertising for addictive recreational drugs would always have to be restricted; people are actually so stupid (at least in America), that they would be swayed by advertising to try such drugs, if only in part to give themselves a feeling of power and control in the sense of “I can try it, I’ll be fine, I won’t get addicted because I can control myself”

                1. I’m not being reactionary, I’m trying to have a legit conversation with you.

                  We would celebrate drugs being legal, even if it meant you couldn’t advertise.

                  We would argue you should be able to advertise if you want to, but we wouldn’t say all or nothing, that’s just stupid.

                2. I figure no matter how libertarian you get advertising for addictive recreational drugs would always have to be restricted; people are actually so stupid (at least in America), that they would be swayed by advertising to try such drugs, if only in part to give themselves a feeling of power and control in the sense of “I can try it, I’ll be fine, I won’t get addicted because I can control myself”

                  And the vast, vast majority of them would be right. You have to reduce people to the level of cattle in your own mind to justify your policies. And your rationale, if you actually applied it consistently, would justify government with no limit whatsoever, because people are stupid and need to be controlled for their own good.

            2. You want to continue government control over individuals’ bodies, and you want to continue throwing people in prison for non violent acts. IOW, you want to continue the drug war, you just want to rebrand it. Therefore, fuck you. And Amsterdam is not a country.

              BTW, your 5% number is bullshit. sounds like it’s based on number of people who have simply TRIED meth.

              Yeah, it is. What other definition of “addictive” would you use? People who haven’t tried it? Then it’s 0% addictive. You don’t even disagree with it, you just don’t like that it doesn’t sound scary enough.

              1. got it. so you’re willing to let the sadist cops run amok and murder millions rather than compromise and change the laws for the much much better .

                you’re an ideologue, and you bdknt care how many people die on the altar of your idea of perfection

                1. Where did I say anything like that? You are trying to rebrand the status quo, I am arguing for an actual change. You are also the one who doesn’t know the word “combative.” “Combat active,” seriously, dimwit?

                  1. well, you keep.framing my proposed massive expansion of drug freedom as slavery, so it sounds like you wouldn’t accept it. if you would, then what bare you arguing against

                    and that was autocorrect YOU FUCKING MORON

                    1. Sure it was, autocorrect doesn’t recognize the word “combative.” Keep telling yourself that. Or “are,” for that matter. And I would accept it if it was a step toward complete legalization, IOW, actual freedom, but you want to stop at “soft prohibition” because you think you have the right to control other people for some reason.

            3. Maybe I’m being combat active too but you can’t refute a given data point (5%) by just flinging poo around.

              There is this resource (you’re actually using it right now) that will lead you to all sorts of information. I visited a website called Google, a “search engine” if you will, where I entered some search terms and discovered pretty rapidly that the regular use rate (note: NOT the addiction rate) for meth is somewhere between 4% and 8%, depending on who you want to believe.

              You can use the aforementioned resource, I’ll call it the “Internet”, to access the data I found at the below websites. You’ll note that neither site is a friend of meth.
              http://www.drugfreeworld.org/d…..ction.html
              http://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs…..mphetamine

        3. My body belongs ONLY TO ME you fuck.

          Go suck more cock Edwin.

        4. If that kind of tort case were allowed, nobody would dare treat anybody for pain,

    4. BTW, Edwin, even though your collection of fallacies doesn’t deserve a serious response, I’ll give you this: Europe doesn’t have regulation schemes, they have prohibition. Period. Soft prohibition is still prohibition, and if people fail to obey it, they will still eventually be put in prison or killed by the state. And the vast, vast majority of users of even the most addictive drugs do not become addicts. So what you are proposing is…what, exactly? You know what, fuck you. You are a moron spouting vague platitudes about something you don’t even pretend to understand.

      1. are you seriously saying Europe’s situation isn’t worlds better than ours?

        it’s all or nothing for you?

        if that’s the case, and you’re unwilling to compromise even to massive progress, then you’re just as much of a dick to the victims of the drug war as these fucking cops are, aren’t you? at least they don’t pretend to care about progress

        1. Anything that minimizes or reduces govt is better than the current state.

          Of course, we believe that. In fact, most of us believe that NO govt would be the best.

          If the govt made pot legal, we would celebrate that. However, we would still believe that ALL drugs should be legal.

          And you still haven’t answered me, what regulations would you propose?

          1. really? I don’t believe that you believe that. I think you’d let thousands of people die just because you don’t get 100% your way on the issue. You’re clearly so reactionary you don’t even read my posts (I mentioned what regulations I would propose either implicitly or explicitly multiple times ) You’re like the abolitionist from Amistad who would rather the slaves be hanged than accept/ run with the premise that they are property and use property and shipping laws to save their lives

            1. Clearly you are the one being reactionary.

              First, don’t tell me what I believe, I know what I do.

              Second, what is the point of having a regulation if you’re not going to enforce it (Amsterdam)?

              If your proposal is to make drugs illegal, but not enforce said law, well, that is the stupidest idea I’ve heard in a while.

              I haven’t read any other regulation you’ve mentioned, except maybe not to advertise it. Fine, make all drugs legal, and we’ll agree not to put ads on TV or newspapers for it. Deal?

              1. so stupid that an entire country (Holland) is doing it and it’s working out great?

                yeah I got it. right, you’re not a reactionary

                yeah I can’t fucking point to the fucking exact codification in Portuguese or Dutch that bars heroin ads, but I’m making a pretty surefire deductive guess that it is in fact illegal

                Deal? that was literally among the very first things I said. if you really are cool with that, why did you fight that initial proposal so hard? I smell an ideologue

                1. Dude, calm down. I am for anything that improves freedom.

                  In your first post, you said we were going to far, that we actually were pro-drugs. We’re not, we’re pro-freedom.

                  In your post, you stated you still want regulations against drugs. We’re of the mind that we can make our own decisions, thank you.

                  Yes, we know about addiction. Hell, I was a heroin addict myself for 8 years. Believe me, I know. Having to worry about the cops NEVER helped my situation.

                  And yes, I got clean on my own, without a gun to my head. Go figure.

                  1. I said you went to far in your positive claims, and suggested a massive improvement in freedom

                    you argued AGAJNST me just because that massive change involved just a TESNY bit of regulation.

                    you’re such an ideologue you actually argued against drug legalization. do you see the problem here?

                    I do this on the drug posts because it’s so fucking easy

                    1. I never argued against drug legalization. You’re proposal is to still have them illegal, but not to enforce the law.

                      That would be TONS better than now. See?

                      However, I would argue that full legalization would be even better.

                      Simple.

                2. It would require constitutional changes in the USA to make it legal to sell drugs but not to advertise them. Some regul’n of advertising has held up in court, but not a complete ban. The cigaret makers never challenged the ban on their broadcast advertising; they’d’ve won if they had, but were satisfied to save their money by not advertising.

          2. “In fact, most of us believe that NO govt would be the best.”

            Seriously? Somalia is what you end up with when you have no functioning government.

            1. Someone will always be in power, I agree. I think it should be community based.

              Tony does make some good points that we will never get no govt.

              I don’t think we’d be Somalia. I think its more of a cultural thing and how people are raised.

              Many different countries have different types of govts and the results are all over the map.

              I believe the US would be ok, but is interesting to think about.

            2. Somalia is what you end up with when you have no functioning government

              Lazy and disproved examples: now coming at you from the right as well as the left.

              1. I’d say “Drink!”, but I might get addicted to alcohol, and we know how Edwin feels about that.

        2. Yes, Europe’s situation isn’t worlds better than ours. It’s the same, with few exceptions. And your pathetic straw men and ad hominems don’t make your point any less stupid.

          1. which point is stupid? where are the ad hominems. those are all you. I’ve clearly PROVEN you’re a reactionary ideologue, and probably willing to let people die just because you won’t accept anything less than your idea of perfection

            so you wouldn’t prefer Holland’s or Portugal’s system? point proven

            1. You’re right, you fucking idiot. When pot was made legal in CO and WA we were pissed!!!

              1. actually, the way you’re talking, yeah, it sounds like you must have been pissed that they didn’t outright abolish the stage.

                if you weren’t, you’ve proven my point that you’re an assholenideologue , since for no fucking reason you’ve been “arguing” with me for like 50 posts, even thought I proposed BASICALLY THE SAME THJNG, BUT FOR MORENTHAN JUST POT

            2. let people die

              Just think about that for a minute. You are saying that someone else is responsible for keeping you alive.

              So are you a child?

              1. kbolina, you’re misunderstanding the context of that phrase. I was talking of libertarians refusing anything less than perfection to the point of forgoing drug legalization regulation and instead letting the cops flash bang everyone to death and shoot their dogs

                I used the abolitionist in the “Amistad” movie as an example

                1. “Let” implies authority or control, of which we have none to speak of.

                  Drugs are already highly regulated. The SWAT raids are but one small facet of the War on Drugs. Simply stopping those raids does not by a long shot leave us in any sort of anarchic druggie’s paradise.

                  You’re falling into the statists’ trap of conflating one part of something with that entire thing. There is no need to offer anything in place of these raids in order to abolish them, because all of the other ideas have already been tried.

                  The fact that other people’s shitty ideas never work is not our fault.

                  1. I dunno what the hell you’re talking about.

                    all I know is if you are unwilling to a accept anything other than perfection, then you are just as guilty when the status quo kills millions

                    1. Do you want an argument in good faith or not? Make up your mind, for fuck’s sake.

                  2. But Edwin has authority, because everyone else is stupid! He says so! All glory to Edwin!

                  3. Jesus H Christ Donnie, you can’t even follow a fucking conversation, why don’t you just shut the fuck up….

            3. you guys are clearly ideologues and as far off the deep end

              Ad hominem

              You paint a picture of drug users casually coming into and out of drug use with no problems and no ill effects.

              Straw man.

              YOU FUCKING MORON

              Ad hominem

              Amsterdam, dopey.

              Ad hominem

              you’re an ideologue, and you bdknt care how many people die on the altar of your idea of perfection

              Straw ad hominem

              TESNY

              made up word. Was that autocorrect too?

              I’ve clearly PROVEN you’re a reactionary ideologue

              Factually incorrect ad hominem.

              There are a few of the fallacies. But go ahead and tell yourself how brilliant you are and how you won, Shrike. No, I wouldn’t prefer Holland’s or Portugal’s system, I would prefer America’s system prior to 1914. Now you can tell yourself how I’m a racist who wants to abolish the CRA and reenact slavery. But you won’t be any less wrong.

              1. literally none of your citations of logical fallacies was correct with regards my arguments. you appear to not even understand what those fallacies mean.

                I clearly proved you Guys are reactionary ideologues so.wound up you actually argued against drug legalization just because it didn’t involve your perfect fantasy of anarchy

                I still stand by what I said at 4:32, you guys are psychologically (or metaphysically?) as bad as liberals. You are doing your damnedest to make sure you beliefs are never out into practice, whether you’re willing to admit it to yourself or not

                1. Seriously? You have proven nothing but how much of an idiot you are and how you have to be correct at all costs.

                  We have made our position clear as can be, and if you don’t get it now, you never will.

                  You want soft prohibition, some regulations, we get it. We agree that it would be better than now. (Read that last sentence again before you say or respond, and then one more time.)

                  However, we would go further, if we could and have no prohibition or regulations.

                  Again, it is not an or all or nothing deal for us, anything that increases freedom is good. (Read a few more times if necessary).

                  And if you can point out one single comment where anybody on here argued against legalization just because it didn’t involve our perfect fantasy, I will send you $5 worth of bitcoins.

                  If not, STFU.

                  1. Edwin|5.30.14 @ 4:38PM|#
                    I dunno what the hell you’re talking about.

                    You don’t? Gosh, that hasn’t been clear throughout your incoherent poo flinging.

                2. Wow, I thought you were consistent, had at least an arguable position, and not crazy up until this post.

    5. Is anybody accused of forcing drugs into non-consenting people?

      No?

      Then it’s consensual.

      Fuck off, slaver.

      1. I agree with you for the most part, but I’m a slaver? sounds like yoynhave deeper issues here

        did you even read what I wrote? I said that the DRIVE is non-consensual. “Consent” as only involving other people forcing you is meaningless in a world that also includes things like fraud and risk. If you’re only regulate person- on- person force, you fail even at libertarian philosophy.

        so no, an addict NEEDING to take heroin, with no magic button to turn off that need, is not CONSENTING to his addiction. do you at all doubt that they wish they had that magic button?

        1. I know I shouldn’t feed the trolls, but I’m bored. If you define “force” as including giving somebody a substance that they become addicted to, how do we arrive at a regulatory scheme that’s better than what we have now?

          1. your proposal for recognising force as such is not necessary

            the only thing that is necessary is recognizing that addiction is not “consensual” in any meaningful sense.

            yeah, crazy thought, we have to recognize realities before we can start talking seriously about things. you know, that crazy idea that words have meaning
            you know, like if we’re talking about drugs, we should recognize the problem of addiction, instead of acting like even the mostly desperately addicted heroin user who can’t even go 8 hours without getting the shakes is just peachy keen fine

            crazy idea, huh?

            1. If you are an addict’s friend or family member, you can try to convince the addict to get treatment. But if the addict does not admit that he is an addict, if he has not bottomed out yet, then throwing him in prison is not going to help him. Force, in addition to being morally reprehensible not matter how much you tell yourself it’s for his own good, is ineffective.

              1. what the hell did any of that have to do with the fact that you weren’t even willing to accept the basic reality of addiction? all you did just now was talk about addiction, you completely ignored the fact that 5 seconds ago you were being an ideologue asshole

                1. And you follow up with a completely nonsensical straw man.I never denied the basic reality of addiction, but the fact of its existence doesn’t give you the right to control other peoples’ lives. You have nothing but straw men and ad hominems.

                  1. I deny the reality of addiction.

                    People in chronic pain chronically take pain relievers. And the pain? PTSD mostly. And that mostly from child abuse.

            2. You’re going from one extreme to the other. Yes, we KNOW that there are problems with drugs.

              However we don’t think the solution is to prevent people from doing them at the point of a gun. Geeeshh.

              Do you propose to make alcohol illegal?

              1. I’m using then extreme example of heroin to prove the point, obviously it’s a continuum. My initial proposal was to also not force people to not do things at the point of a gun. what the hell are you arguing?

                I’ve clearly proven that you’re an ideologue. you could just apologize for being an asshole, and drop out, instead of pretending that I’m saying something massively prostate as a way to act like I’m the bad guy and you’re arguing with me.
                I proved your asshole ideologueism, and now you’re just trying to cover. just drop out, and apologize for being an asshole

                1. Edwin, I apologize for being an asshole. I was reactionary.

                  It is only because I have very strong feelings about govt and cops especially.

                  Welcome to Reason.

                  1. this isnlibertarianism and the entire right is never going to get anywhere. if you argue from emotion, you just say stupid things, especially if you’re trying to advance libertarian policy.

                    you know why it pisses me off? because you’re basically being just like the left. you’re being just as emotional and reactionary . Do you really want to be like a fucking leftist douchebag college liberal fucking reporter? I fucking HATE the way they are.

                    But Sullum is still going to go around telling people that drugs are no more serious than candy or bad hygiene, thereby convincing millions of people that the current drug war is the way to, since that claim is clearly fucking nuts and retarded.
                    The 5% and similar claims are just as retarded. Even considering how many more times people try a drug just once than people whom actually get addicted is stupid, because every time you’re trying a drug it’s clearly a REALLY bad idea because you’re TEMPTING THE DEVIL (as the saying goes).
                    what’s an guy who works with addicts going to think when you come around talking about howndrugsb are A-OK and should all be legal in every way and dimensikn? What the hell do you think all those people who have seen the damage drugs can do are going to think?

                    1. Ok, one more time. We are not pro-drugs, we are pro-freedom.

                      Yes, there are problems with addiction, I was an addict myself. We believe that free market solutions are better than force in preventing and treating people with the issue of drugs.

                      And yes, we’ll argue our position hard, but we’ll back it up with logic and reasons instead of emotion.

                      Last time, we are NOT pro-drugs.

                    2. I get it

                      you don’t get that you fell into my trap WAY too easily, and if you want progress you’re going to have to mature up and smarten up

                      we have potential; Ron Paul won the CPAC straw poll. But fucks like you and Sullum are going to FUCKING RUIN IT

                    3. Edwin, I’ve been more than generous with you.

                      I NEVER, EVER said all or nothing. You are putting words in my mouth.

                      Believe me, I don’t think I’ll get what I want. Hell, if my state makes pot legal in my lifetime, I would think that would be a massive win for libertarians.

                      Before you think of yourself as being smart and that I fell into your trap, go back and read the posts.

                      I’ve been extremely consistent in my language and my beliefs.

                      One more time, I am pro-freedom, not pro-drugs. And yes, any, I repeat, ANY, little thing that moves us in that direction is a victory. Even something small as lessening the penalties for pot.

                    4. I’m not saying you fell into my trap to be smart/smug, I’m doing it to show you what I said at 4:32. you’re just as much of an emotional reactionary as a ban-everything liberal, and so when you’re not advancing stupid arguments that ignore basic realities and.make you look like a moron to any normal, reasonable.person , you’re foaming at the mouth at the slightest hint of anything that isn’t your libertarian oerfectiom, for example even anyone TRYING TO MEET YOU HALF WAY, or.most if the way as it were

                    5. Ermahgerd…you are a complete dumbass. This response to 4:49 is totally inappropriate and incoherent.

                    6. I’m actually pro-drugs too, it’s a great technology, one of the things that separates us from the other animals. Even if you limit the subject to psychoactives, isn’t it great that all the other animals were afraid of them (which is why the plants made them), but we figured out how to use them? Same with fire: All the other animals were afraid, but we figured out how to turn fire into our friend, by not being afraid of it.

                    7. There is no shortage of evidence of the negative impact of (certain) drugs, yet people choose to do them anyway. Sullum (who is not even arguing what you claim he’s arguing) has far less impact and reach than you seem to attribute to him.

                      Not every drug is marijuana, I get that and do not deny it. But the problem is that we are so far down the rabbit hole of the WoD that it’s practically impossible to differentiate the effects of the drug itself from the effects of the prohibition of that drug.

                      What I fail to see is how the government has ever, or even has the capacity to, in any way “solve” the issue of people becoming addicted to and making bad choices in service of (some) drugs.

                      The ideological position gets you to the same conclusion a lot sooner, but it’s the same conclusion nonetheless. There’s something to be said for how to sell these proposals to the public, but at the end of the day the state has only one tool of any consequence, and that is force.

                    8. I dunno man, alls I know is I fucking actually got a bunch of libertarians to argue against drug legalization, and that’s a serious problem

                    9. Ok, you’re a fucking idiot. Seriously.

                      You’re not even clever or smart.

                    10. Your obtuseness is only matched by your smugness.

                    11. Well, that didn’t happen.

                    12. Edwin, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

                    13. I think Sullum is telling people that the cops fucked up big time and their carelessness got a baby burned, but the cops are only worried about covering their asses. He’s also saying that American citizens in their homes deserve more, not less, protection than potential Al Quaeda operatives in a combat zone. And the War on Drugs is a failure and destroying our Constitutional rights. Maybe I have problems with reading comprehension.

        2. so no, an addict NEEDING to take heroin, with no magic button to turn off that need, is not CONSENTING to his addiction. do you at all doubt that they wish they had that magic button?

          So when does an adult human being cease to have rights, Edwin? When you decide he is an addict? When you worry that he might become an addict? This false conciousness bullshit doesn’t hold any more water than any of your other fallacies.

          1. Who the hell proposed that people don’t have rights? MY INITIAL PROPOSAL involved a massive upgrade in people’s rights via drugs. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU STILL “ARGUING” ABOUT!?

            Look, I clearly proved you’re an ideologue asshole, so just apologise and drop out before you make a further fool of yorself

        3. But if there’s nobody stopping hir from getting heroin, what’s the problem? Person needs heroin, gets heroin. We all need stuff, we get stuff. We need more tomorrow, we get more tomorrow.

    6. By the Governments own admission, only about 1% of people in America use hardcore non-prescription drugs such as methampetamines, cocaine, and others.

      By the Governments own admission, only about 1% of the users of hardcore non-prescription drugs become seriously, life alteringly addicted.

      So, lets ruin the lives of everyone everywhere and kill whomever the cops please. Lets throw hundreds of thousands of innocent people in prison for cruelly long periods. Lets militarize the local and state police and turn the Government into another totalitarian regime like Germany or Russia.

      For that 1% of 1% of people who use and can’t handle it.

      I like your thinking, buddy. You should work for the Government.

    7. What regul’n schemes does Europe have?

  37. Unless they have guns pointed at you there is zero need for flash bang bombs.

    1. True. And that’s true entirely independently of the war on drugs. If they were fighting the war on robbery and trying to recover stolen goods, there’d still be no reason for this promiscuous violence.

  38. I’ve decided that when I feel safer around drug dealers than I do around the police who are there to protect us from those same drug dealers then this nation has a problem. I think our police force need to start re thinking their tactics before no one will back them up.

    1. Of course you’re safer around drug dealers. Drug dealers are going to leave you alone unless you start fucking with them first. The number of wrong-door raids, raids on innocent people on the word of an incorrect informant, cases like this, et al show that cops are pretty damn dangerous to the general public.

  39. As an aside, are flash-bang grenades banned for military use by international law, or am I thinking of something else?

    1. You’re thinking of tear gas. It’s perfectly legal to clear a building with a 1000lb JDAM, but the use of a tear gas grenade on the same building is a war crime/chemical weapon.

  40. Police One Approves

    Posted by mac114 on Friday, May 30, 2014 10:29 AM Pacific Report Abuse
    OK, so “mom”, or the egg donor if you prefer, stays at a residence known for drug dealing. Great decision on her part with the welfare of her children definately not her first priority. The family just hit the ghetto lotto and will get a check for this.
    This is the type of story that the haters will pick up on and scream about the jack-booted police using excessive force and injuring children. The story about the two ofcrs pushing the vet home on his broken down scooter? CRICKETs………

    1. And Edwin approves, because someone in that house might’ve been an addict.

    2. Do they ever admit when they are the ones that caused the problem?

      Just say it, “We fucked up.”

    3. Comments were divided, with many criticizing their fellow cops.

    4. Wait, I want to hear about the ofcrs pushing the vet home on his broken scooter! We must’ve missed that one.

      There must be something more to that. Why would you push someone home on a broken scooter instead of calling him a cab and throwing the scooter in the trunk?

  41. The story made CNN. I made the mistake of reading some of the comments.

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/30/…..?hpt=hp_t2

    1. Those comments are depressing as hell. (Well, stupid, really, but depressing in the sense that so many people buy that cop bullshit.)

  42. Apparently the new standard is that the police are justified in prospectively using any degree of force as long as it reduces the risk of danger to the police.

    If you want to be a black-mask wearing, combat-booted bad-ass cop, fine, but first recognize that you don’t have the right to make it a zero risk proposition by killing or maiming anyone that conceivably presents a danger.

    1. We Department of Agriculture agents need to go home safely at the end of the day, too. That’s why we need automatic weapons.

  43. In today’s age every law enforcement agency at one time or another will be faced with an emergency or critical incident with greater risk and a higher potential for the loss of life. These incidents may involve confrontations with armed, barricaded suspects, the rescue of hostages or injured people, and there are many more scenarios. With this in mind Sheriff Joey Terrell in 2013 created a SRT Unit consisting of a group of carefully selected deputies. This elite unit continuously trains to ensure they are up to date of the latest tactics and the physically requirements. They are committed to a controlled, rapid response to high risk situations in order to gain control and minimize the risk of death or injury to any person. Team members approach their duties with a high level of confidence, motivation, flexibility, and patience. They are committed to the safe resolution of all high risk situations and will approach each situation in a professional and controlled manner, with an emphasis on a negotiated resolution.

  44. Comprised of more than 15 members, the SRT Unit assists in the execution of high-risk arrest and search warrants, hostage rescue situations, barricaded armed individuals, and other high risk situations. The SRT Unit is on a constant 24-hour standby. The Crisis Negotiations Team is a separate unit made up of patrol and a investigative deputy who work hand in hand with the SRT Unit. Law Enforcement agencies requesting assistance from the Habersham County Sheriff’s Office SRT Unit should contact the Sergeant

    How many high risk, hostage rescue, barricaded armed individuals does the newfangled SRT encounter. Not counting the ones they create themselves?

    1. Since the SOP for actual hostage situations is to try to talk the hostage taker out, I would guess that maybe 10 situations per year in the USA warrant the SWAT ‘dynamic entry’.

      (I actually cannot remember even one within the last 5 yesrs.)

    2. Yeah, but they got that baby, didn’t they? There might have been poop in that diaper.

    3. Like the one where they shot a pastor back in 2009?

  45. But is Sullum really okay with random people selling meth (not pot)?

    The drug dealer in the house was also suspected of owning guns.

    1. Who get’s to decide what should/shouldn’t be sold?

      The govt has disqualified itself since it has made pot illegal (which you seem to agree should be ok to sell).

      So, if not the gov, then who?

      1. Pot isn’t as dangerous as some other drugs, which should remain illegal. The suspect wasn’t licensed to deal pot or any other drugs anyways.

        How is this a “terrorist” act? You can argue the cops used excessive force, but did the police target the kid? They threw a stun grenade in a household known to contain weapons and drugs. And it landed on a crib.

        1. Pot isn’t as dangerous as some other drugs

          So… what?

          which should remain illegal

          Because it’s worked so well thus far?

          The suspect wasn’t licensed to deal pot or any other drugs anyways.

          Freedom means asking permission?

          How is this a “terrorist” act?

          Throwing an incendiary device into a house is considered an act of terror when done by anyone other than the police.

          You can argue the cops used excessive force

          Shoving you roughly into a cruiser is “excessive force”. This is wanton violence.

          but did the police target the kid

          Anyone else would be held to account for gross negligence and endangerment.

          They threw a stun grenade in a household

          To protect and serve.

          known to contain weapons and drugs

          Neither of which were in the house. Nor for that matter was the person they were looking for.

          And it landed on a crib.

          Oops!

        2. You never answered the question. Who should decide what should illegal and legal.

          Obviously the govt can’t do it since it fucked up mary jane for the last hundred years. So who then?

          Ok, I got it, you? Right?

          1. See? You get where I’m going here?

            Pot is less dangerous than crack, how?

            Alcohol is the most destructive drug out there, so unless you’re willing to ban that to be consistent, then you have no argument.

            Driving is dangerous, let’s ban it.

            1. So you want to legalize all drugs? You want zero oversight on any transactions? I guess I’m not surprised, since a few on libertarian (not many here) side thinks people should just cross the border without being bothered by the INS.

              But that’s not really my point. Again, what makes this a terrorist act? An undercover agent bought drug from the suspect. That he was a drug dealer isn’t in dispute. They obtained a no knock warrant to raid the place. The suspect was known to have drugs and weapons, at least according to this article.

              http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..z33CzidTbO

              Again, how is this a terrorist incident? They didn’t just bust some random guy’s house on a hearsay (without a warrant), did they?

              I’m upset when the police protect their own who beat up on homeless folks. This was an accident.

              1. Yes. Totally understandable and excusable. They were just following orders, right?

              2. Just because I want them legal, how do you conclude I want 0 oversight on the xactions? I want good service, not haphazard. Good businesses have plenty of oversight, which is how I want it.

              3. I get it…befehlt est befehlt. Makes sense to me.

        3. If it was “known”, why didn’t they find any?

        4. yeah…it landed on a crib. The house obviously held babies too. Get it? You throw grenades into houses where babies reside they die. It isn’t acceptable even if public enemy #1 was known to be in the house. Wait until he leaves.

    2. I cannot tell if you are that stupid and mendacious, or simply parodying people who are.

      Bravo!

      1. But please feel free to open your mouth and remove all doubt…

  46. Why wasn’t there a stake-out to see if the freaking target still lived there BEFORE busting in with flash grenades and whatnot? Who failed to notice a family with a baby moving in? Seriously, WTF?

    1. because we have an over-bloated government trying to perform progressive-pipe-dream social-engineering miracles on limited resources.

  47. What a bunch of negative nellies you guys are.

    Did our heroes take the baby to the hospital in cuffs?
    Did they make the hospital staff perform cavity searches?
    Perform any MRI’s to look for drugs up the baby’s butt?
    How about giving the baby a bunch of laxatives to get that hidden drug stash?

    I think the answer is no to all of those questions. Now, don’t you feel like you owe them an apology for showing the judgement to break with standard procedures when a bit of compassion was called for?

  48. “Wrong place, wrong time”

    fucking pigs. provide value, you worthless cunts.

    -FFM

  49. When Drug Warriors Burn a Baby, Who’s the Terrorist?

    Nobody, Reason Headline Writer.

    “Anything bad” isn’t terrorism.

    “Horrible things” aren’t terrorism.

    Bad things done to noncombatants to terrorize a population into capitulating are terrorism.

    The problem in the thesis of “Drug War Cops = Terrorists” is that the damage they do to civilians is either accidental [as in this case; there is absolutely no reason to believe that flashbang was thrown in the crib deliberately] or merely arrogant abuse; it’s just not intended to terrorize the innocent – the drug was is still mostly pretty popular, especially outside of pot.

    Fight the drug war. Send abusive cops to prison for decades.

    But let’s not destroy English to pretend this was “terrorism”.

    1. The drug war is just the excuse. The fear that is being instilled has nothing to do with drugs, and everything to do with obedience.

      1. How can you get obedience like that? Obeying doesn’t prevent any such problem if the police just strike at random.

        1. If you knew that the police would do this to your family, would you stand up to them?

    2. So slinging a flash-bang grenade into a house isn’t supposed to disorient and shock? Perhaps something akin to terror? And for what? To protect people from the scourge of certain chemicals that someone decided to jot down on a special list? Or that out of all of this “warring”, houses – and all the personal property including automobiles – can be conveniently confiscated and used to fund more attacks on people who dare use items from the magical list? Nope, not a single aspect of this remotely like terrorism.

      Just because a State uses ultimate Force against peaceful (and just maybe productive) people to instill fear and obedience doesn’t mean it’s not terrorism. If you want to play semantics and assign that word to just mean the “scrappy” few against the State, then fine. But understand pretty much every organized set of terrorists (a McVeigh type the exception that proves the rule) have States behind them. Just because some of them are dressed in fancy uniforms and they get to justify their terror behind microphones doesn’t change the functional reality.

      The demonization of drugs is now the lynchpin upon which a daily battle is being waged against civilians. It has distilled a level of Force to scare people, this is what it is about. It is now entrenched because these “warriors” can continue to fund their attacks by what they seize, even if no criminality ever is proven. It is true war in its classic sense, and it thrives by sewing terror and seizing property.

    3. Bull shit. The drug war is about revenue money and control. Police agencies get more money if they bust some property with drugs on it, they seize the cars, house etc. sell it at auction. And if they find out your innocent after the fact? Well, you won’t get anything, not your stuff or a apology. It also keeps the prison quotas up and government employees in work. So FUCK the drug war. Learn to read a book.

      1. Agree with you 100%. Portugal legalized all drugs 10 years ago because of abuses like this. They don’t waste all the money putting non-violent people in prison and their addiction rate dropped to half of what it is here in the U.S.

  50. Drug war is to blame. Also the militarization of America’s police force. End both of those things and this crap will stop happening. This is disgusting.

    1. Didn’t the police use flash bangs before they became militarized? If it can be used to disorient an armed suspect, then I see nothing wrong with it.

      Is the drug war to be blamed? Maybe, but I imagine there’s still some advantages to selling the stuff on the street even after legalization. Pot is flying off the shelf in CO, either someone else had to pick up the slack or the drug users will lose interest and move onto other stuff.

      1. First you would have to establish that there was in fact a suspect, he was in fact armed, he was intent upon using those arms, and there was no one else likely to be harmed in the process.

        People have rights, and the police are obligated to respect them, even at the potential expense of their own safety.

        Don’t like it? Don’t be a cop.

      2. How’s about, if you don’t want your baby harmed in a police raid, don’t move them into a drug dealer’s house??

  51. Victim’s named Bounkham? How appropriate.

  52. You fools. Those cops risk their lives every day, and as civvies, you can’t possibly understand the stress they’re under.

    For example, when I saw some homeless guys going through some of my neighbors boxes, I called 911. The 911 operator accidentally hung up on me. About 45 minutes later, 6 cops showed up at my door with guns drawn, and had to do a search of the premises “to make sure everything was okay.” Meanwhile, the homeless guys were long gone, and my houseguests were pleased as heck to be woken by cops with flashlights telling them to show their hands.

    1. And when I called the cops because my crazy ex had broken my window to get into my house, these heroes informed me that I needed to take her to court, and threatened to cite me for a bag of mulch I had sitting on my lawn, I viewed them as the brave soldiers they were.

      Or when my office was burglarized, and the burglar had left fingerprints all over the window, I understood why it took them, after three days of rain, so long to send out an obese woman who didn’t want to climb a ladder to get the prints, which she summarily declared as “all washed off from the rain.” I of course understood that the police were probably too busy risking their lives implementing the new “Click it or Ticket” program to bother with my call.

      Or a couple years ago, when I used to see the same two cops, on duty, hanging out in the same downtown bar night after night. We only had 65 murders that year, in a city of approximately 100,000, so it made sense that they were keeping us all safe, and only arresting people for serious crimes like Disorderly Conduct when some obedient and disrespectful citizen refused to leave the bar after making a comment one of these fine officers disliked.

      It is for these reasons, for their heroism, for their patriotism, and for their allegiance to the Constitution, that I no longer call on them in any situation. I understand that they are just too busy being the heroes that they are.

      1. Well written,
        What pisses me off is how removed law enforcement is from the citizenry,

        It’s like overnight we went from sheriff Andy Griffith mingling with the neighborhood to waking up to seal team six kicking down our doors!

        1. Yes, just another bureaucratic organization distanced from, and completely on a separate plane than the people it purports to serve.

      2. Mayhaps you should consider the scenarios in which they are trying to do a suck-ass job in the first place. Cost effectiveness is a huge issue for police forces across the country. I tend to view scenarios like those you describe as an indictment against the overly bloated system and not those trying to function within it.
        I have an officers in my family and they regularly detail the BS they have to put up with police wise and resource wise, all while trying to deal with law breakers under stringent ‘PC’ rules.
        Yes, there are bad cops just like there are bad office workers and bad writers/bloggers. But consider the system under which we expect police to enforce a burdensome over abundance of idiotic laws.

  53. This needs to get more publicity.

  54. How can we be loyal as true freedom loving people to a government that cares for none of our individual freedoms, and how can we be loyal to this twisted bloated sick cow welfare system that we call America?
    It is stories like this that truly make me question why we citizens decide to put up with it- maybe we need to be more radical against this increasingly brazen government?

  55. From up thread:

    I deny the reality of addiction.

    People in chronic pain chronically take pain relievers. And the pain? PTSD mostly. And that mostly from child abuse.

    1. Because fuck science.

      1. While I don’t agree wholeheartedly with MSimon, psychology and psychiatry do not rise to the standards of science. They are pseudosciences with little to no predictive or explanatory power.

    2. Do you have a moment to talk about Scientology?

  56. It is a shame some of our heroes might feel a little bad about flash bombing a toddler, but they must feel good they acted ‘appropriately’ according to their boss.

    Phew…for a minute there they might have had to feel something.

  57. Botched drug raid costs Minneapolis $1 million

    The Minneapolis City Council approved a $1 million settlement Friday after a botched drug raid in 2010 in which an officer threw a “flash-bang” grenade into a south Minneapolis apartment burning the flesh off a woman’s leg.

    The payout to Rickia Russell, who suffered permanent injuries, was the third largest payout for alleged Minneapolis police misconduct on record.

    Flash grenades are intended to distract and intimidate, not to injure people, but during the raid the device rolled under the legs of Russell, who was seated on a sofa, and exploded. The police were looking that day for a drug dealer, narcotics and a firearm, but found nothing.

    Russell, now 31, suffered third- and fourth-degree burns that caused a deep indentation on the back of one leg, requiring skin grafts from her scalp.

    Source: MN Star Tribune

  58. It’s not that they had poor intell as to who was in the house, and where they were located; they had piss-poor intell – and worse, they didn’t give a crap.

  59. Anybody else in the mood for pork chops? Somebody should roast them alive with their own incendiary grenades, make the skin extra crispy.

  60. And the world turns… people comment… get their duress expressed and then eat pizza.

    And more parasitic, rotten, county-old-boy-group-butt-sucking sheriff’s and their midget-brained minions with brain damage continue to corrupt the Republic with their shit-eating tactics.

  61. This is worse than the Torrance, Calif cops shooting up an LA Times delivery truck with two women in it and a surfer’s truck a few minutes later because they thought both trucks were Christopher Dorner’s.

    The Redondo Beach Police Chief told me they acted that way because “they were scared. You don’t understand!”

    Tell me: if a mere citizen started shooting up his neighbors because “he was scared” do you think the same police would wait even ten seconds before shooting them as “dangerous armed gunmen?”

    Cops in tactical black uniforms driving military gear and armed with military hardware. Yeah, “protect and serve.” Right.

  62. Every time a cop gets run over on the freeway while blocking traffic giving a ticket to meet his quota it’s a National Tragedy. Hundreds of cops turn out at the funeral with bagpipes playing Amazing Grace.

    I’m supposed to grieve about how these men “risk their lives every day” when in reality it’s a union scam to collect a full pension at 50 while bankrupting the state.

    Meanwhile, cops bursting into homes in the middle of the night (if they even get the house number right) and throwing grenades at two-year olds is “by the book” and perfectly reasonable. Gee, sorry. A two year old is in a coma. Oh, well. Off to the donut shop….

    Something is really wrong.

  63. Indict them, try them, if they are guilty of a crime, then convict them and then hang them. In public.

    All to be done by rule of law. But hang them. In public.

    Take back america from our elite overlords and their roided-out bullies.
    We need to make an example of roid-rage bullies, and let the elite know we aim on taking back america.

  64. They did not even do the minimal amount of police work to determine their suspect was in the house? They just wanted to kick in doors, use their toys of terrorism and intimidate.

  65. While I think that anything which causes a re-evaluation of storm-trooper style police tactics in civil enforcement is a good thing, this story has been such a subject of the ‘media model’ that it raises my critical thinking alarms to near maximum. The vast majority of the stories I have seen go on for a dozen or more sensationalizing paragraphs before there is even a mention of why the police raided the home in the first place – namely, suspicion of large scale drug trafficking.
    While I would be one of the first to criticize the existing so-called ‘drug war’ in this country as a huge waste of resources, I am left to wonder if the ‘blame’ in this instance is being inordinately placed upon the police for trying to enforce existing drug laws against violent drug traffickers.
    I have police members in my family and get to hear all the time about the types of scenarios they encounter, with individuals all too willing and even anxious to shoot a policeman while perpetrating their crimes. I think there should be a serious re-evaluation of how this story is being covered to consider that perhaps, the moral of the story should be that if you want to protect your children from harm, do not move them into a house where there is rampant illegal activity going on!!!
    I would also be curious to know the cause of the fire that led to this family moving in with relatives in the first place.

  66. If it’s small enough to flush down a toilet it’s not big enough to kill people over.

  67. If I may be obvious, if you’re having sex with another adult in a house where children live…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.