Militarization of Police

Georgia County Won't Pay Medical Bills for Toddler Critically Injured by Flash Bang Grenade During Drug Raid

|

Baby Bounkham
via WSB-TV

Politicians like Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) who have supported the militarization of police but have found it politically unfeasible to do so now have been looking for a way to square their support with a little bit of politically-motivated outrage. Clay, whose district includes Ferguson, the town that helped catapult the issue of police militarization into the national news cycle, defended his vote, saying he only disapproved of the use of such police forces for crowd control in his district.

But while their presence at protests may be the most prominent manifestation of militarized police, the problem is endemic. Perhaps Clay and the rest of them ought to subscribe to Reason to inform themselves better.

Earlier this year, we brought you the story of Baby Bounkham, who was severely injured after a Georgia SWAT team threw a flashbang grenade that landed inside Bounkham's crib—cops were serving a drug warrant based on information from a confidential informant about a small amount of meth. The raid yielded no drugs and no suspect. Cops insisted they did what they could to prepare and didn't know there were children in the house, two seemingly contradictory contentions. The sad case illustrates the interplay between the war on drugs, militarized police, and police brutality.

The story didn't elicit national outrage, and a friend of the family raised just $38,000 in two months to cover Boumkham's medical bills. They're going to need more than that, as the county government has ruled it would be a "violation of the law" for it to pick up the medical costs their officers created the necessity for.

WSB-TV reports:

Habersham County's attorney provided the following statement, saying: "The question before the board was whether it is legally permitted to pay these expenses. After consideration of this question following advice of counsel, the board of commissioners has concluded that it would be in violation of the law for it to do so." 

The attorney for Boo Boo's family insists that is not good enough.

Those not discussing serious changes in the laws that protect cops and create situations like this, where a government can say it's against the law for it to pay the medical expenses created by its officers violent actions, ought to be ignored as the noise over the Michael Brown shooting continues. Police violence is not just a problem in Ferguson, not just a problem during protests, not just a problem for young black men, but a problem with the laws cops enforce, the tools they're given to do so, the erosion of our rights in the name of public safety, and the protections cops enjoy when they're wrong

h/t pdogg

NEXT: Hamptons' Police Chief, 53, Retires on $142,000/year Pension and $400,000 Sick-Day Bonus

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.

  1. Those heroes in blue got to go home that night. You can’t put a price on that.

    1. That’s because it has no value.

      1. I put a price on it. It’s in the deficits column. A negative number.

    2. Nothing is too good for our boys in blue. I just can’t figure out how to give them
      less.

      1. Prison time in with the general population. That’s what they deserve.

  2. Quite the conundrum for those that fellate the Rod of State Power.

    1. I’m guessing this isn’t getting a lot of play on Pravda.

    2. I’d agree the conundrum exists, but the type you refer live in a blissfully happy state of contradiction and make no attempt to balance contradictory ideas. This is why they are evil, they are not conflicted by seeing this case. If they were questioning their ethics I’d have great sympathy as its a crossroad many of us had to reach.

    3. Interesting views from around the world

      http://thinkprogress.org/world…..-ferguson/

      The Chinese government either directly owns or oversees all media within the country, including the Xinhua news service. As such, the op-ed published on Monday from commentator Li Li can be read as being an unofficial statement from Beijing. In the article, Li takes the United States to task for not yet realizing Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream, noting that “despite the progress, racial divide still remains a deeply-rooted chronic disease that keeps tearing U.S. society apart, just as manifested by the latest racial riot in Missouri.”

  3. Man that really makes me angry. VERY angry,. Stupid punk cops. SWAT cops are the biggest cowards of them all.

    http://www.Anon-Surf.tk

    1. Whoa, chill bro. Watch some of that beautiful bean footage to calm down.

    2. Anon-bot’s been confusing lately. Usually it’s like this in cop threads, but it’s been full-on cop supporting racist in the Ferguson threads. Not sure what to think.

      1. First, let me just say that i am shocked, SHOCKED!, that the county won’t pay the bills.
        But as for anon-bot, you must realize it’s purpose is to get people to read its posts, then click on the link. This development shows the continuing evolution of the bot’s programmers. I was fooled by the bot once, clicking on the link to better privacy. It made perfect sense on a libertarian forum. A smart grey-hat type would obviously compose different messages/approaches for different audiences. I am actually impressed, and would like the bot’s masters to know that I have some expertise in these matters, and am currently under-employed…

  4. If they did not want their baby’s face to be burned off, they should not have been related to someone who may or may not have sold meth to a “confidential informant.”

    /Copologist derp

    1. Innocent until proven guilty.

      1. Innocent guilty until proven guilty innocent.
        FITFY

    2. It’s the baby’s fault for living there!

  5. This IS THE STATE. Fuck the statist.

    1. That means all of the parasites donning the state’s clown costumes. Darrel Wilson, you listening, murderer?

      1. Really? You think Darrel Wilson goes anywhere outside of PoliceOne?

  6. What I think they’re saying is that they can’t pay the baby’s medical bills until a) the police have been found guilty in court or b) the plaintiff has come to an agreement the city.

    They are going to end up paying for this baby’s medical bills, it’s just that it isn’t in the plaintiff’s best interests to settle at this time.

    If the plaintiff would settle for the cost of the baby’s medical expenses, I’m sure the city attorney would agree to pay all of them, but why would the baby’s parents just settle for that?

    1. I think you’re right. I think legally they can’t pay the medical bills without that being the settlement, just like I couldn’t hit someone’s car and then say, “I don’t admit any culpability here, but I’m gonna pay your repair bill because I’m a nice guy.”

      I’m not convinced the county would be willing to pay the bills, though. Something tells me that a county where the response to burning a baby with a grenade is, “Tough shit, baby,” isn’t going to be falling all over itself to do the right thing, especially when we’re talking about a family that’s not gonna be running into the governor at the golf course any time soon.

      Nor do I think the family should let the county off the hook. Sue the fuck out of them. Yeah, I know, the taxpayers will just wind up footing the bill, but the taxpayers vote the people into office who either pull this shit or allow it to continue. Paramilitary forces throwing explosives through windows in the middle of the night because of a 51% suspicion that there might be something someone could get high with in the apartment don’t just show up overnight. This is a situation that voters either created or allowed to be created. It’s a systemic problem, and replacing individual officers isn’t going to change it. Make taxpayers pay through the nose every time Barney Fife’s M4 accidentally shoots a corgi and you might start seeing some change.

      1. I could see that quickly turning into a racket, too.

        Imagine if a city garbage truck accidentally damaged a politically connected family member’s garbage can, and the city paid his aggrieved family member $35,000 in damages–with the case never even going to court.

        Yeah, there’s the admission of guilt angle, and any lawyer will advise you to avoid that, but there may be laws specifically prohibiting pay outs in these situations–until there’s either a settlement agreement or a judgement against the city.

      2. “…but the taxpayers vote the people into office who either pull this shit or allow it to continue.”

        Yes, but admittedly people who oppose the government also have to pay. I know I’m preaching to the choir, but we can’t forget that like the dropping of bombs on brown people we don’t know this is another case of the JBT’s creating both a victim of unbridled police brutality and victims of government theft all in one swoop.

        Have to hand it to them, the State is very efficient at committing crimes. Can I coin the phrase, “Collateral State Crimes”?

        1. Collateral State Crime?

      3. Yeah, I know, the taxpayers will just wind up footing the bill

        And THERE is the problem. Lack of accountability.

        Make taxpayers pay through the nose every time Barney Fife’s M4 accidentally shoots a corgi and you might start seeing some change.

        I doubt it. Most have no idea what they pay in taxes, nor do they care. Many pay no income tax, sales taxes are partially hidden and accepted as a fact of life and unless you are a property owner, property taxes are hidden. People don’t give a fuck about taxes because they don’t see it.

        1. The “peace officers” involved should be forced to pay out of their own pockets. They’d probably be a bit less likely to endanger their own nest egg.

        2. People might wake up if they actually had to sit down and write a check to cover those taxes every week, separate from the payments they already make…like property taxes, sales tax, personal income tax, instead of them being hidden, or deducted from your pay.

        3. I live in Maricopa County. I’ve long since lost track of the money paid out in lawsuits against our Sheriff’s department. But he keeps getting re-elected because he is ‘the toughest sheriff in the country’.

      4. I think legally they can’t pay the medical bills without that being the settlement, just like I couldn’t hit someone’s car and then say, “I don’t admit any culpability here, but I’m gonna pay your repair bill because I’m a nice guy.”

        I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic. I’m going to assume so, because you certainly can pay a repair bill without signing a settlement agreement first. There’s no law against it.

        And I find it hard to believe that there is an actual law against the city saying “Look, we all know we’re going to settle with you for this and pick up these medical bills, so we’ll just start paying the bills now, and get a final settlement later.”

        Hospitals do this all the time. Its not illegal.

        1. If the city’s attorney doesn’t recommend against paying medical bills until the plaintiff has signed a settlement agreement, then the city’s attorney is woefully incompetent.

          If you think it’s a good idea to pay for charges associated with a pending lawsuit without any guarantee that the charges you pay are going to be part of that lawsuit’s settlement, then you must get ripped off a lot.

          Why would anybody in their right mind pay somebody’s expenses that was also suing them without any guarantee that what they paid for was going towards settling the pending lawsuit? That’s like putting a down payment on something without knowing how much it’s going to cost or whether your down payment will be applied to the purchase price.

          Even in the private sector, only an idiot would do something like that with a lawsuit pending in the background.

        2. “You certainly can pay a repair bill without signing a settlement agreement first. There’s no law against it.”

          There’s the law of avoiding stupid behavior.

          And if you don’t see the advantage of requiring a city to have a city attorney make a recommendation on a settlement one way or the other, a judge sign off either on a verdict against the city or a settlement agreement with the plaintiff, and all the members of the city council either voting for or against any settlement agreement–before they pay a dime to anybody?

          Then I don’t know what to say.

          The last thing you want in any city is someone making independent and arbitrary judgements about how money is spent and who gets it.

          1. Ken, the city attorney said it was illegal. Its not. It mY be stupid, but its not illegal.

            You go wandering off on some irrelevant tangent on who authorizes the payment, which I will ignore.

            There are times when picking up bills before a final settlement is smart. I do it. It has never bitten me in the ass.

            Protip: don’t act like you know what you are talking about when you don’t.

    2. If they pay before a settlement, that fact can used as evidence of guilt.

      Reason number 875,465 why our system of justice is completely fucked up.

      1. If they pay before a settlement, that fact can used as evidence of guilt.

        Not if its done right. Which is actually pretty easy. Like, stupid easy.

        1. I assume it could be done if there was an indemnification involved, but I doubt the family’s lawyer would let them sign it.

    3. That is exactly it Ken. They cannot pay jack until they agree or a court finds that they are at fault and had determined the damages. It is a one shot deal.

      This is how tort cases work. There are tons of people out there who have been injured in auto accidents and can’t pay their medical bills until the guy at fault’s insurance company settles.

      1. And yet… brilliant Ed doesn’t even mention this. Ed is just going to propagandize away.

        1. yeah, it doesn’t help the cause. I am as outraged by this case as anyone. It doesn’t help to lie or misrepresent things.

          In fairness, Ed probably knows next to nothing about how the legal system or tort cases work. I guess it is too much to ask that he learn a little before he writes an article.

          1. Apparently you didn’t know you were wrong and full of shit, that usually helps before you write a comment.

      2. They cannot pay jack until they agree or a court finds that they are at fault and had determined the damages.

        Unless there is some special law that affirmatively prohibits making any payment to or on behalf of a potential claimant, this just isn’t true.

        In fact, it happens all the time, at least in the private sector.

  7. That child brought this on himself.

    1. He paid the price of civilization. The iron price.

      1. The iron price is a poor economic system. Discourages actual production.

        1. Then why do the Scandanavians Iron Islands have the best welfare state in the world?

    2. Police sources say at least at least two witnesses, a local veteran and a hunter, confirm the baby was “comin’ right for [the police]”.

    3. To hear cop apologists/fellators say it, people merely need to do what “the nice officer” (or sometimes) “officer friendly” says and everything will be fine.

      One example of such a mindset:
      http://www.reviewjournal.com/o…..1548310025

      1. Just bend the knee and obey.

  8. Love is never having to say you’re sorry.

  9. I find it interesting that they don’t actually cite any laws. Perhaps they are correct about that, perhaps they aren’t.

    And the failure of this to gain traction is particularly annoying. This is a clear-cut case of police injuring an actual bona fide innocent who could have done nothing to avoid that.

    1. There’s no existing agenda that they can wrap this around.

      It’s more or less just police brutality and/or incompetence and to fight that means slightly shrinking that thing they want sicced on their enemies.

  10. Is there a law preventing the police from telling the union to do the decent thing and pay the medical bills?

    1. A union do the decent thing? HAHAHAHAHAHA!

    2. Yeah. The unwritten law that says that government shall never admit to making a mistake because doing so may erode the public’s faith in government infallibility.

      1. But we need these thugs and their qualified immunity, Sarc. Their murdering and plundering is indispensable to the continuance of civilization. /your logic

        1. Unlike you, I accept reality. The reality of life is that there will always be death and taxes. Do you think I want to die, just because I accept that it is unavoidable? No? Then why do you think I want government, just because I accept that it is unavoidable? Please show your work.

          1. The reality of life is that there will always be death and taxes. Do you think I want to die, just because I accept that it is unavoidable? No? Then why do you think I want government, just because I accept that it is unavoidable? Please show your work.

            That’s not reality, that’s an assumption about reality and rather in congruous analogy. Death is a biological fact of nature. Taxation as a concept exists entirely within the bounds of man-made institutions. Insisting on it’s irrefutability on par with laws of nature is just dumb. My apologies to Mr Franklin.

            1. Regardless of whether or not we agree on the inevitability of a gang of men using organized violence to steal, you do see the difference between liking it and accepting it, do you not?

              I hope so. It isn’t that difficult a concept.

              Now will you please stop making posts that say I think government is the best and only solution? I’m tired of refuting that straw man, and pretty soon I’ll quit being polite about it.

              1. You do say it’s the only solution to the problem of social order. However undesirable you describe the institution to be, you always come back to the assumption that they are indispensable if for no other reason than they are inevitable. And usually ending with that fallacious ‘death and taxes’ analogy.

                1. You do say it’s the only solution to the problem of social order.

                  No I don’t. I say that it is inevitable. Inevitable and indispensable are not the same thing. I’m beginning to think you’re distinction-challenged like our friend Tony.

                  1. As much as a libertarian as I am, I have yet had anyone explain to me how we get there.

                    I agree with you, Sarc. Even if a little community sprung up, sometime, someone would try to get to it.

                    1. As much as a libertarian as I am, I have yet had anyone explain to me how we get there.

                      Well Jorono, there are some very great libertarian authors and theorists who’ve made a variety of cases for the path to statelessness. Han Hermann-Hoppe asserts small but visible enclaves of separatists and/or the decentralization of current states is the way to go. Molyneux talks about the evolution of human morality opening the door, akin to the abolition of slavery only being possible once the moral evolution sparked by the Enlightenment reached enough popular mass to allow it. Rothbard talks about a sort of withering of the state brought on by the piecemeal takeover of it’s functions by private enterprise. There’s lots and lots of ways to get there, and a lot of good cases made. I encourage you to read some of those, so you can at least pass an Ideological Turing Test if nothing else. Cheers.

                  2. No I don’t. I say that it is inevitable. Inevitable and indispensable are not the same thing.

                    You assert that a market based system of government is impossible because of statism. That we just have to make the best of it because we’ll never escape it. I have no trouble with distinctions, but you’re the one failing in that regard. Resigning your intellectual capacities toward coping with and accepting statism, at the expense of supporting alternatives, is the same as supporting it. But maybe you can enlighten me as to how your acceptance and reluctant support for the state out of presumptive necessity is not in fact support of statism.

                    1)Do you find any moral or otherwise rational imperative for abolishing the state in favor of the market?

                    2)Does the state have any moral or otherwise rational right to exist?

                    3)Is it even conceivable that a system other than the Westphalian nation-state system would produce better outcomes in solving the problem of social order?

                    I’m beginning to think you’re distinction-challenged like our friend Tony.

                    Wouldn’t be the first time you’ve flat out called me Tony, so please spare me the line about how polite you’re being.

                    1. You assert that a market based system of government is impossible because of statism.

                      Government is organized violence. That’s where it starts. Everything else it does is based upon this real threat of organized violence.

                      How do groups of men employing organized violence in this utopian market of yours compete with one another for customers, and what happens when they come into conflict?

                      Like any business, it is in their self interest to crush their competition and claim as many customers as possible. What’s to stop them from literally killing off the competition? Once they do that then everyone is a paying customer, like it or not. And then you have government.

                      Come on genius. Explain this to me.

                    2. Government is organized violence. That’s where it starts. Everything else it does is based upon this real threat of organized violence.

                      Whose definition are you using? Two men plotting to beat and rape the woman down the street does qualify as organized violence, but it’s not government. I’d prefer Max Weber called it a territorial monopoly of ‘taxation’. Others might call it a judicial monopoly, law monopoly, monopoly of legal aggression et cetera. I’m not sure which is more correct, but any correct answer should at least have “monopoly” in the definition.

                      How do groups of men employing organized violence in this utopian market of yours compete with one another for customers, and what happens when they come into conflict?

                      When you say “utopian market of yours” I know your poisoning the well, but isn’t it a little too similar to what a progressive might say to a minarchist libertarian? When insurance companies or protection agencies come into conflict, they would tend to settle their disputes peacefully just as companies and even states tend to do now.

                    3. Are the 192+ governments around the world not existing in a state of anarchy vis-a-vis each other? Why is constant warfare of all against all, or a world government not the inevitable outcome of the current situation?

                      What’s to stop them from literally killing off the competition?

                      What’s to stop the United States from conquering and annexing every other territorial government monopoly in the world? Answer being a polycentric international legal order and of course the practical unsustainability of conquest and centralization.

                      You think it requires a genius to refute the objections you’ve raised?

                    4. I’d prefer Max Weber called it a territorial monopoly of ‘taxation’. Others might call it a judicial monopoly, law monopoly, monopoly of legal aggression et cetera.

                      And how is that monopoly secured? Oh yeah, through organized violence.

                    5. And how is that monopoly secured? Oh yeah, through organized violence.

                      Is that supposed to be snarky? Government is not simply organized violence just because it employs it. otherwise any two people whom are “organizing” to commit a crime qualify as government. Doesn’t that strike you as an overly broad definition of government?

                    6. 1)Do you find any moral or otherwise rational imperative for abolishing the state in favor of the market?

                      I just don’t see how a market would not turn into a government because the security firms have every incentive to literally kill off the competition, because once they do they can force everyone to be their customer.

                      2)Does the state have any moral or otherwise rational right to exist?

                      Not really. Except maybe to protect society from another state. Either way there’s always going to be someone with the last word in violence.

                      3)Is it even conceivable that a system other than the Westphalian nation-state system would produce better outcomes in solving the problem of social order?

                      I’m sure there are plenty of better systems out there. Unfortunately what happens when groups compete over who has the last word in violence, someone wins. And that winner becomes government.

                    7. I just don’t see how a market would not turn into a government because the security firms have every incentive to literally kill off the competition, because once they do they can force everyone to be their customer.

                      Okay so then you prefer the current state system to market based alternatives, because… statism.

                      Either way there’s always going to be someone with the last word in violence.

                      How would this be any different in a polycentric legal system?

                      Unfortunately what happens when groups compete over who has the last word in violence, someone wins. And that winner becomes government.

                      When there is a state institution already in existence yes, people fight over it and the right to exercise it’s monopoly powers. They can only exercise monopoly authority because the vast majority of people accept the traditional legitimacy of monopoly providers of security.

                      There are many places and times throughout history where this was not the case. Even medieval ‘kingdoms’ were hardly states as we know them. They were systems of allodial property owners within a network of contracted allegiances. The point here being that your view of the eternally inevitable state is not demonstrated by history.

                    8. What happened to said medieval kingdoms?

                    9. What happened to said medieval kingdoms?

                      I believe they competed with each other until one came out on top, and then called itself government.

                      Nah. Couldn’t be. That goes against FS’s narrative.

                    10. I believe they competed with each other until one came out on top, and then called itself government.

                      No, they centralized. But please explain how that goes against the narrative of showing you that states as we know them are not inevitable.

                    11. Please show how this example of medieval kingdoms centralizing into government goes against the narrative that government is inevitable! Show it!

                      derp

                    12. Please show how this example of medieval kingdoms centralizing into government goes against the narrative that government is inevitable! Show it!

                      Well they existed, for generation upon generation and then they didn’t. Maybe next you should object to the viability capitalism because there used to be a company called Enron that imploded. Derp.

                    13. Well they existed, for generation upon generation and then they didn’t.

                      They existed, for generation upon generation until someone with a bigger army came along and took all their shit.

                    14. They existed, for generation upon generation until someone with a bigger army came along and took all their shit.

                      No, not really. Unless you’re arguing that the Mongols came to town and wiped out the decentralized European polities. Did that happen?

                      I told you, these proto-states centralized largely due to religion and perverse philosophy and became the precursors of many of the states we know today. But you’re missing the point, which I clearly made multiple times; that states as we know them today are not the inevitable and constant solution to the problem of social order.

                    15. What Fd’A said.

                    16. What happened to said medieval kingdoms?

                      After a lengthy period of time they centralized thanks largely to religion and shit philosophy. I cite the medieval example to demonstrate that nation-states as we know them are not some inevitable, constant fixture of human interaction. So what’s your point?

                    17. Okay so then you prefer the current state system to market based alternatives, because… statism.

                      Prefer has nothing to do with it. How many times do I have to say that?

                      You’re like Tony insisting that libertarians want to limit government based upon what they like and what they don’t like. No, libertarians want to be limited to using force only in response to force. But Tony cannot comprehend this.

                    18. Prefer has nothing to do with it. How many times do I have to say that?

                      Doesn’t it? Your objection that market delivered security is that it will inevitably end up as a government and a sure-fire path to tyranny, this is your often repeated claim. This is why you say it’s not worth it.

                      For all your accusations of Tonyism, you’re just dancing around claiming to be taking essentially no position at all while simultaneously making affirmative claims.

                    19. Your objection that market delivered security is that it will inevitably end up as a government and a sure-fire path to tyranny,

                      Let’s be PERFECTLY clear.

                      1. Market delivered security IS government.
                      2. It is FAR too small to be effective.

                      When a nation-state gets around to wanting your shit, and they will, a small homegrown agency will NOT be able to stop them. You can’t fight tanks, fighters and destroyers with stone knives and bearskins. A thousand (even 10,000) men are not going to fend off a million man army. AND a million man army cannot defend against the firepower brought to bear with technologically advanced weaponry. Trust me on this. The world has never seen what these weapons could actually do if the leash was cut. Up to now, the ROEs have been VERY tightly constrained in the use of these weapons. There is NO way on earth that these weapons could be developed and maintained by the richest corporation on earth let alone by multiple competing organizations.

                    20. There is NO way on earth that these weapons could be developed and maintained by the richest corporation on earth let alone by multiple competing organizations.

                      Yep. The return just doesn’t justify the cost. Governments don’t give a shit about cost/benefit analysis since they can lock their customers in a cage if they fail to pay.

                    21. Yep. The return just doesn’t justify the cost. Governments don’t give a shit about cost/benefit analysis since they can lock their customers in a cage if they fail to pay.

                      Interesting! So having no ability to make economic calculation makes for better production of security? Such inabilities allow the government to produce the right amount of security for the right price then. Very interesting that security is the only product in existence for which this is the case.

                      I’d be interested to read your full thesis that refutes basically every established principle of economics. That’ll be a groundbreaking theory to be sure. Good luck with that.

                    22. Let’s be PERFECTLY clear.

                      1. Market delivered security IS government.

                      As a self-avowed libertarian, you should know better. Governance is not government as we know it today. Government as we know it is a involuntary association funded by extortion. Market based institutions, are by definition voluntary associations not funded through extortion but through production and voluntary exchange.

                      2. It is FAR too small to be effective.

                      From what little economic analysis I can apply to the police departments, security doesn’t seem to be an economy of scale.

                      When a nation-state gets around to wanting your shit, and they will, a small homegrown agency will NOT be able to stop them. You can’t fight tanks, fighters and destroyers with stone knives and bearskins.

                      Neither can Lichtenstein, but there it is. We don’t live in a Hobbesian world, if we ever did.

                      Trust me on this.

                      No thanks.

                    23. There is NO way on earth that these weapons could be developed and maintained by the richest corporation on earth let alone by multiple competing organizations.

                      Who the fuck do you think is developing these weapons currently? Government geniuses? Or maybe the people they pay to develop them.

                      A free society would be tremendously wealthy compared to statist shackled societies. I assume you read that study that showed how wealthy the US would be if regulation were kept at merely 1949 levels, and that’s just if we were actually able to limit the government, which is fantasy. In a situation with no institutions with license to plunder, the production of wealth would be almost unfathomable to us. That would buy quite a bit in terms of security.

    3. Probably not. Probably isn’t a law against Santa Claus paying the bills, either.

    4. I chocked at the absurdity of your remark.

  11. On the front page of the NY Post today “WAR ON COPS”

  12. The baby was probably a drug dealer or something

    /p1

    1. The baby certainly would have grown up to be a drug dealer. A dangerous drug dealer who, 12 or 13 years from now, will be roaming the streets armed with an illegal handgun looking to pop homies from rival gangs. This kind of interaction with the police is inevitable.

  13. Ferguson, the town that helped catapult the issue of police militarization into the national news cycle,

    No it catapulted the pseudo important issue of race relations. Police brutality and militarization is barely on anyone’s radar other than libertarians, you know, rational people.

  14. Ed, you ignorant bastard, too many young black men bring police violence on to themselves. Wake the fuck up you ignorant bastard!

    I agree with you that the police and government can be a bunch of ignorant bastards too, but don’t be just as ignorant and bastardly as they are.

    1. Last I checked, this article had to do with a baby being grenaded by the police. Totally brought that on himself.

      1. You must not have read the part where he Ed uses what happened to this baby to throw out ignorant statements about black men and the po po.

  15. Well, then I guess a civil lawsuit is the way to pry the money out of the county. That will make it lawful!

  16. As Radley Balko put it, the War On Drugs means never having to say you’re sorry.

  17. The county won’t pay for the medical expenses? Why should the taxpayers have to pay for the screw up of the police? Time to dig into that nice pension fund those cops have and let them pay for this childs future out of theirs.

    1. There should be an apostrophe in there somewhere…

      1. It’s just another payout from taxpayers. It’s not like the police department or it’s union paying civil penalties will drive them out of business. They can simply extort more money from tax payers with direct taxation or bonds.

        1. Anything’s better than the family getting nothing in compensation.

          1. It is from an equity standpoint. From a justice standpoint, which is more important in preventing future baby burnings, it’s shit. The cops who did this, their bosses and their political enablers will face not a god damned bit of responsibility, financial or otherwise for what they did. That perverts the incentives of other wielders of state power, increasing the likelihood that another small child will be mutilated by police.

  18. My guess is that this is something to do with insurance and the insurance company.

    If they admitted fault and paid the medical bills, they would be setting themselves up for big payouts in lawsuits, especially if the child has permanent injuries.

    Calling it a “violation of the law” is probably just a dodge to hide the true reason.

    1. No. Insurance policies are contracts. Under most conceivable circumstances, a person who does this sort of damage to a child is liable. That changes when it’s a government enforcer committing the crime, then legislation alone determines the level of liability.

      If they paid the medical bills, the police department’s qualified immunity, ie immunity to prosecution for crimes committed while in service to the state, falls apart.

      1. See comment above about doing the right thing.

        1. The State can never be expected to do the right thing.

          1. Because of it’s nature as a compulsorily funded association, it’s incapable of making the same moral judgements that any one of it’s individual members might be capable of. And without at least a profit motive in satisfying consumer demand, there is very little incentive to prevent this association of individuals from immoral outcomes.

  19. I’m reading the opening para. & am confused. Is it the militariz’n or demilitariz’n that this memb. Cong. has found politically infeasible? Which support is he trying to square with which?

    1. Does this pass for English in 2014?

  20. Getting back to the topic at hand the police should be forced to pay for this out of their own salaries. If they have a problem with that they can take it up with those members of the State that told them to conduct the unannounced raid that nearly killed a toddler.

    1. Yup. Make these assholes pay.

  21. I posted the following on Facebook yesterday:

    Terrific article about a terrible trend.

    http://tinyurl.com/mhw86lx [War is Boring article]

    and the comment from a buddy of mine was “I want to go on a rant about this. But I’m so exhausted with this “police state” and “police with military weapons” rhetoric. Honestly, JD… I don’t want to think you’re anti-law enforcement.”

    In order to further the conversation, I posted today’s story:

    Am I anti-law enforcement? Nope. But I am anti-militarization of police. I’d have no issue with even the smallest podunk town having a SWAT team if it were used only for its intended purpose, but as the saying goes, to a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

    “Police violence is […] a problem with the laws cops enforce, the tools they’re given to do so, the erosion of our rights in the name of public safety, and the protections cops enjoy when they’re wrong”

    https://reason.com/blog/2014/08…..l-bills-fo

    to which he replied, “Sorry JD. I’m not going to entertain the conversation. There’s plenty of groups that will listen and completely agree with your views.”

    I said, “That kind of refusal to enter into rational debate is a large part of the problem, George.”

    1. My ideology is very well thought out, and I’m fully prepared to explain and defend it, but it’s incredibly frustrating when you try to expose people to a new way of thinking, to start a conversation, to perhaps expose the flaws in someone’s ideology and nudge them to either shore up their argument or perhaps change their views (it’s the only way to do so, and it does work)… and they won’t even engage in the conversation. Most people (even those who are ideologically diametrically opposed, e.g., Tony) are at least willing to engage in the debate.

      So my question is: how do you guys respond to this kind of stonewalling? Or do you just throw up your hands and write him off an an incorrigible idiot?

  22. My ideology is very well thought out, and I’m fully prepared to explain and defend it, but it’s incredibly frustrating when you try to expose people to a new way of thinking, to start a conversation

    So anarcho-capitalism then?

  23. Why are we even looking at this? The poster boy of police brutality is the refrigerator sized violent brute who attacked police after committing a strong arm robbery. Pay no attention to that baby behind the curtain.

  24. Wow, this story should be national, if that was my child I don’t know what the fuck I would do,
    It is disturbing to see these scum get away with it,

  25. I hope the family gets a great pro bono lawyer and sues the pants off the city, the police officers involved individually, and the White House that is allowing this to occur.

    And the officer who threw the damn thing should be up on charges of attempted murder and aggravated assault.

  26. We have not hit bottom yet. We will know we are there when the police send the family a bill for the grenade.

  27. Lawyers will never allow the cops to be the ones to pay these damages; there isn’t enough money in it for anyone.
    But I’d love to see some sort of copay that cops would have to cough up in cases like these. Just a bit of skin in the game would do wonders. Maybe hold the highest ranking officer on the scene responsible.
    It’s crazy that the Marines in Fallujah had to be more careful and follow more strict rules of engagement.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.