HideLast Call: Our Black Friday weekend sale ends tonight! Shop now to save on all Techdirt gear »
HideLast Call: Our Black Friday weekend sale ends tonight! Shop now to save on all Techdirt gear »

Officer Indicted For Lying On Warrant Application That Led To Toddler Being Burned By Flashbang Grenade

from the actually,-I'd-rather-have-honest-cops-than-burned-toddlers,-TYVM dept

The local police union defended the indefensible: the burning/maiming of a toddler with a flashbang grenade, delivered during a no-knock raid in service of the Drug War. According to the union rep, burned toddlers are just the price society has to pay to keep the streets relatively free of criminals.

"You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community's right to live in a crime-free environment. You can't have them both," Mills said.
Thanks, but no thanks. Not only did the union defend these Georgia police officers' needlessly aggressive tactics, but it attempted to lay the blame for a burned toddler at the public's feet. And now, with a grand jury indictment being handed down, it appears the union was also defending a liar.
According to the indictment, [Deputy] Autry falsely claimed a confidential informant who had provided reliable information in the past had bought methamphetamine from Wanis Thonetheva at his mother's house in Cornelia. In truth, the informant was newly minted, and it was his roommate who claimed (without verification) to have bought drugs at the house. That lie was the basis for the early-morning, no-knock raid during which 18-month-old Bounkham "Bou Bou" Phonesavanh, Thonetheva's cousin, was nearly killed by a flash-bang grenade that landed in the playpen where he was sleeping.
Any CI that can put a no-knock raid in motion is inherently trustworthy. Except when they aren't. So, much like the toddler's family's lawsuit alleged, the impetus for the raid that saw SWAT members tripping over children's toys in the yard on their way to tossing a flashbang grenade into a crib was nothing more than some random citizen "helping" keep his neighborhood safe.

All that investigative work and "upon information and belief" was actually Habersham County Deputy Sheriff Nikki Autry spinning a tale of small-time drug running in exchange for the permission to perform the law enforcement version of a home invasion.
Specifically, Defendant Autry provided and swore, in pertinent part, (1) that she conducted an undercover drug investigation during which time CI #1459 was able to purchase a quantity of methamphetamine from [W.T] at [W.T.'s] residence; (2) that CI #1459 [was] a true and reliable informant who provided information in the past that led to criminal charges on individuals selling illegal narcotics… and (3) that she confirmed that "there [was] heavy traffic in and out of the residence."

This information that Defendant Autry provided and swore to was false, because, as Defendant Autry then well knew: (1) CI #1459 did not purchase a quantity of methamphetamine from W.T. during her investigation; (2) CI #1459 had not provided information in the past that led to criminal charges on individuals selling illegal narcotics… and (3) she had not confirmed that there was heavy traffic in and out of the residence.
The presentment accompanying the grand jury's findings suggest several improvements for drug enforcement activities, starting with dialing back the "gung-ho" aspects of drug warring.
Some of what contributed to this tragedy can be attributed to well-intentioned people getting in too big a hurry, and not slowing down and taking enough time to consider the possible consequences of their actions. Without serious supervision and constant vigilance, the work of drug enforcement, like many other jobs, can unfortunately become routine and lead to complacency and lack of attention to detail. The difference in this type of work is that the consequences can be devastating to both citizens and law enforcement when things go wrong.
Making thing go "right" more often means bringing SWAT teams and tactics back in line with their original intentions: for use only the most dangerous operations. Over the past few decades, SWAT teams have gone from seldom-used specialists who dealt with shootouts and hostage situations to routine -- but extraordinarily violent -- delivery services for unremarkable search/arrest warrants. The presentment points out law enforcement agencies have several options that don't involve violently raiding residences during odd hours.
We recommend that whenever reasonably possible, suspects be arrested away from a home when doing so can be accomplished without extra risk to law enforcement and to citizens. Going into a home with the highest level of entry should be reserved for those cases where it is absolutely necessary. This is to protect both citizens and law enforcement officers.

We have heard evidence that many drug suspects often initially believe a law enforcement entry is in fact a drug robbery. In an instant, they reach for a weapon or take an action that makes a situation escalate. This is dangerous to all involved, and neither the public nor law enforcement officers should be in this dangerous split second situation unless it is absolutely necessary for the protection of the public, which is the highest concern for our lawenforcement officers under their duty.
It's a nice set of words, but the real test will be the application of these principles -- principles that never should have been abandoned in the first place. To start with, it's rare to find an officer who places protection of the public over protection of themselves. Almost every act of unwarranted violence is defended by the words "feared for my safety." We don't ask that officers become punching bags and bullet-catchers, but there's a lot of leeway between a "furtive motion" and emptying a service weapon into an unarmed person. (Or tossing a flashbang through the nearest window with little regard for what lies behind it.)

The standard MO for drug-related warrants is to deliver them with as much violence, force and noise as possible, under the assumption that every drug dealer -- no matter how small -- awaits the arrival of police with barricades and an arsenal. This simply isn't borne out by the results of these raids, which often fail to turn up any weapons -- or at least none being wielded by the residents of the home. In some cases, there are also no drugs to be found, but this result rarely leads to the turfing of a CI or a less-violent entry when serving the next warrant.

The deaths and injuries caused by drug enforcement aren't in danger of approaching the death and injuries caused by the drug trade, but the former is more disturbing than the latter. While we might expect a certain amount of violence from purveyors of illicit substances, we don't really expect as much from law enforcement. And yet we're seeing it occur on a far too regular basis.



Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: drug war, flash bang, georgia, no knock raid, police, swat


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 11:47am

    A Crime Free Environment

    "You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community's right to live in a crime-free environment. You can't have them both," Mills said.
    Since you cannot* actually have a crime free environment, you cannot have them both. So why not preserve the citizen's right to privacy?

    * it might be possible in a harsh enough police state to have a crime free environment. But is this worth the price? Nevermind, I should not ask that question, as I know what the answer will be after considering burned / maimed toddlers. Think of the children. We must preserve the children's crime free environment.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 12:27pm

      Re: A Crime Free Environment

      * it might be possible in a harsh enough police state to have a crime free environment.

      This is not, and NEVER will be, possible.

      It was said best here!

      "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

      ~Thomas Jefferson

      As this bastard of a corrupt officer by the name of "Mills" cannot understand... crime & privacy have little to do with each other. Politicians and Bankers flaunt the fucking law in the damn daylight while nothing happens to them.

      Sacrificing privacy only turns the government thugs into criminals and once that happens the criminals of old become the heroes of new.

      The founding fathers were criminals by the letter of the law and so are just about every other group of people mounting an insurrection.

      Governments from time to time must be reminded that unjust administration of the law only diminishes their value and worth to society.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 12:32pm

      Re: A Crime Free Environment

      The only way to have a crime free environment is to have no laws making things a crime. The more laws you have, the more crime you have.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 1:14pm

      Re: A Crime Free Environment

      "it might be possible in a harsh enough police state to have a crime free environment."

      And yet, it has never been accomplished in the history of mankind.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 5:38pm

      Re: A Crime Free Environment

      We must preserve the children's crime free environment.

      add to that:

      ...and the best way is a children free environment too.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 10:59pm

      Re: A Crime Free Environment

      "it might be possible in a harsh enough police state to have a crime free environment."

      Nah the closest you could manage is having all of the crimes committed by one gang. Which would be inevitable if they ended up with that much power.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Baron von Robber, 24 Jul 2015 @ 11:51am

    Good to see more prosecutions being brought up. 1) It will make the bad cops think twice about their actions and hopefully 2) give the good cops more courage to stand up to their fellow bad cops.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 11:53am

    Well intentioned?

    From grand jury presentment:
    Some of what contributed to this tragedy can be attributed to well-intentioned people getting in too big a hurry, and not slowing down and taking enough time to consider the possible consequences of their actions.
    Strike the well intentioned part. If they were well intentioned, they would slow down and consider the possible consequences. They are not well intentioned.

    That's like saying a well intentioned drunk driver would consider the possible consequences of getting behind the wheel.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 12:20pm

      Re: Well intentioned?

      If they were well intentioned, they would slow down and consider the possible consequences.

      Of course they considered the consequences. They get bonus pay for SWAT duties.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 25 Jul 2015 @ 8:18pm

      Re: Well intentioned?

      The thing is, their work really ISN'T so dangerous that they need those tactics to survive.

      If police officers -- who wear body armor, are festooned with weapons ranging from the non-lethal to the painful to the deadly -- are in such great danger that they must employ SWAT teams to deliver paperwork, to perform safety inspections and to make arrests for mere drug possession, doesn't that amount to an official statement that our streets are so dangerous that those who lack armor and half a dozen weapons are in immediate and deadly danger?

      If every officer is in that degree of danger, then those who are less armored, less armed and less trained are obviously in FAR greater danger!

      If police need a SWAT team, John Q. Public needs a tank!

      Just imagine the police reaction if a group of citizens started going grocery shopping, delivering newspapers, eating out, maybe even doing a first amendment audit on a police station in full tactical gear, scary black rifles and armored vehicles?

      Would the police claim it was just every day business, nothing to worry about? Or would they open fire on sight and claim later they were attacked by terrorists or a rebel militia?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 11:58am

    The War On "the war on (some) drugs"

    From TFA . . . (the friendly article)
    The deaths and injuries caused by drug enforcement aren't in danger of approaching the death and injuries caused by the drug trade, but the former is more disturbing than the latter. While we might expect a certain amount of violence from purveyors of illicit substances, we don't really expect as much from law enforcement. And yet we're seeing it occur on a far too regular basis.
    Maybe it is time to wage The War On "the war on (some) drugs".

    Or maybe, "Just say Yes".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 12:06pm

      Re: The War On "the war on (some) drugs"

      Maybe it's time we stopped treating it as a War or even a law enforcement issue and treat it as a public health issue?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        DannyB (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 12:08pm

        Re: Re: The War On "the war on (some) drugs"

        The problem I see with that approach is that we would need to change the way public health issues are treated in a way that large capacity automatic weapons would be required.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 12:02pm

    "You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community's right to live in a crime-free environment. You can't have them both," Mills said.

    How about the toddler's right not to be burned by some paramilitary force with a badge? How about the rights of the family to be safe from misuse of police force? How about we talk about a balance where there is a chance of crime but the citizens aren't murdered with no mercy by the police just because they have a gun and a badge?

    There's no line to be drawn. There is a need to have a police force that is able to take care of their citizens. If your focus is the well being of the people you serve the rest comes naturally.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 12:23pm

    What exactly was the point of a no-knock raid in this case?

    Sure, people might be able to get rid of a few grams of substance down the drain, but if this was actually a distribution center then they'd have too much to get rid of it quickly. So destruction of evidence is out.

    And if they were planning on having a shoot out with the cops, then knocking would be tactically advantageous. If someone did answer the door then his body would block gunfire from any accomplices. If nobody answers the door, you've drawn their attention to that particular entrance, allowing your team to enter unopposed somewhere else.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 12:36pm

      Re:

      The entire point is so that people cannot get rid of any evidence.

      So as you can see from the Police perspective... it is already worth risking life and limb of both Office and Citizens so someone cannot flush weed down the toilet. Even if it is nothing more than a petty misdemeanor.

      The moment the law considers a small crime worthy of lethal force before anyone even has a chance to escalate is the moment it becomes corrupt.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Rekrul, 26 Jul 2015 @ 2:49pm

        Re: Re:

        So as you can see from the Police perspective... it is already worth risking life and limb of both Office and Citizens so someone cannot flush weed down the toilet. Even if it is nothing more than a petty misdemeanor.


        Ye$, but if there'$ drug$, then they can u$e a$$et $eizure to take the hou$e. Ca-ching!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 7:22pm

      Re:

      they got to play soldier, that' seems to be the point.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 12:41pm

    Editing needed

    Cushing——   This article has a writing problem.

    If a reader clicks through to the Reason article in the second link, then it becomes clear that there was both (1) a federal grand jury who returned an indictment on July 21, 2015, and also (2) a Habersham County grand jury who approved a presentment on October 6, 2014. Anyone even vaguely familiar with our system of government should obviously understand that these two grand juries, called into being under the laws of two different sovereigns, and following the differing procedures peculiar to the United States of America and the State of Georgia, are completely different institutions.

    This article, though, blurs that fact, in its transition between the discussion of the indictment, and abrupt switch to the paragraph starting:
    The presentment accompanying the grand jury's findings…

    The article falls off a cliff at this point, insamuch as it doesn't inform the reader that “grand jury” of this paragraph is not the same “grand jury” of the preceding paragraph.

    This article needs editing for clarity.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    philnc, 24 Jul 2015 @ 1:07pm

    Abolish sovereign immunity

    Sovereign immunity is the legal principal that the state is not liable for damages caused by the negligence of its agents. Most states and the federal government in the US have modified it to allow claims to be made under very stringent conditions, but it is still extraordinarily hard to get compensation from government to the stupid and reckless things their employees do. In many cases those employees themselves benefit from a kind of qualified immunity for what would be called malpractice in other professions like medicine or law.

    The answer is, of course, to abolish sovereign immunity and all qualified immunities, including judicial immunity. If someone's recklessness or carelessness injures another they should be made to pay for it. In real money. Period*. Maybe then they'll exercise the required care to get their jobs done right without killing infants and children.

    *There would be a special places for those whose profligacy or ability to hide their wealth led to there being no assets available to satisfy a judgment: debtor's prison.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John Fenderson (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 1:11pm

    Great summary

    "You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community's right to live in a crime-free environment. You can't have them both," Mills said.


    And that right there is a great summary of a major part of what has gone wrong with law enforcement in the US.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 1:40pm

      Re: Great summary

      I've been looking, but can't find where my "right to a crime-free environment" came from. Can someone give me a link?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 2:47pm

        Re: Re: Great summary

        Here ya go. See "establish justice", "insure domestic tranquility", and "promote the general welfare".

        And to FTFY, it's really a "right to as crime-free an environment as we collectively decide we want". We can't have a perfectly crime-free environment because we keep enacting laws and stuff.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 25 Jul 2015 @ 7:49am

          Re: Re: Re: Great summary

          The preamble of the Constitution does not contain any prescriptive doctrine, so that establishes no rights.

          That said, the authoritarian's desire for a crime-free environment means that the actions of the police are really accomplishing the exact opposite of establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 7:26pm

      Re: Great summary

      That's the opening line to every dictatorship ever.

      If want to be safe you have to give up your rights. Then you discover you have no rights and you are still not safe

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anon, 24 Jul 2015 @ 1:36pm

    Common Sense, for once...

    Of course most drug dealers will think a no-knock is a home invasion and robbery. (I can think of two recent cases in Canada, both of which ended in gunfire).

    The classic example is the raid which started the Waco standoff - the BATF went in with guns drawn, even though the occupants knew they were coming. They had a side squad whose sole job was to kill the dogs the compound owned. they avoided several opportunities to do peaceful inspections, deliberately escalating...

    Let's get back to the situation where a no-knock warrant is a rare and special circumstance.

    For a plain drug dealer, there's no reason why they can't be arrested while out of the house, then search the house at leisure. As for CI's, there's a situation that screams "easily abused".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    TRX (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 1:51pm

    Exactly what kinds of criminals are these people supposed to be protecting us from? Just the ones without badges?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 2:01pm

    this is what happens when a nation is allowed to regress into 'A Police State' and make no mistake, that is exactly what the USA has become! the Police in just about every station, in every town, in every State have turned into task forces that shoot first and, in fact, shoot for ANY REASON! they have become killers not like their counterparts, but worse! why? because we, the people, expect them to be honest, to do their job correctly, to protect us and make us feel safe. the other side of the coin are the ones to fear, or so we are led to believe, and we are vigilant, avoiding as much as possible situations that could endanger us. how that has changed now where we are more fearful of those we pay, via taxes, to make sure we can move freely and sleep safe in our own homes, because of the itchy trigger fingers and the 'anyone is fair game to be shot'!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 2:49pm

      Re:

      Nice screed, dude. Though next time, you might want to invest in some paragraph and sentence structure, a few sentence-starting capital letters, and so on.

      Still, classic!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John David Galt (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 2:48pm

    Inherently trustworthy? Yeah, right!

    Anyone who enjoys full or partial immunity from the law is inherently untrustworthy. It's time to either take it away, or fire the police for being more of a threat to you and me than their opponents.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Personanongrata, 24 Jul 2015 @ 3:47pm

    Radical

    "You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community's right to live in a crime-free environment. You can't have them both," Mills said.

    Now that is a radical statement.

    And the very act of a no-knock paramilitary raid in the dark of night to serve a warrant for a person(s) who has yet to be charged with a crime.

    That is even more radical... hell some might even call it state sponsored terrorism.


    Wesley Clark.... Paging Wesley Clark.... Wesley Clark please pick up the white internment camp telephone in room 101.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Wyrm (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 3:48pm

    Breach of contract

    "You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community's right to live in a crime-free environment. You can't have them both," Mills said.

    Let's assume for just a second that citizens do indeed make the choice of security over privacy... which is in itself quite doubtful.

    The problem at hand is that the police force does not even deliver the promised security. They are all too often the very cause of insecurity. Not as much as the criminals themselves (hopefully) but still enough that citizens, particularly those with specific profiles, are clearly not "more secure" when the police is given total freedom in their use of (excessive) force.

    If we can't have both, and if we can't have "crime-free environment", I think the conclusion if obvious.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 8:09pm

    The problem lies in the desire to grab headlines.
    See this force COULD have shown a lovely tale of how they took down a drug dealer and protected the community.

    This is about trying to show the community how much the police care and the extreme lengths they will go to take down bad people keeping them safe. The community nods sagely knowing that this is just what they need to do to be safe, ignoring that they could be the next ones railroaded.

    A child was harmed, and yet they still tried to spin that it was just because the bad people were bad. Turns out the bad people are those charged with protecting us, who can boldly lie and still be protected.

    It is a shame we can't charge those who supported the lies as being accessories to the crime they tried to cover up.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Sheogorath (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 10:27pm

    "You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community's right to live in a crime-free environment. You can't have them both," Mills said.
    If the price that 'crime-free environment' is police committing GBH on toddlers with flashbangs, no bloody thank you. That's far too high a price to pay.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Justme, 24 Jul 2015 @ 11:42pm

    Beating our head's on a brick wall. . .

    Many of the current issues between the public and law enforcement, even those seemingly unrelated to drug enforcement, are still the result of the drug war.

    Drug enforcement attracts officer's that are naturally thrill seeking and aggressive, and those officers are more likely to get picked for promotion. Over time this has resulted in law enforcement that is more aggressive, top to bottom.

    But with the success of the war on drugs in addressing the issue of substance abuse, victory shouldn't take more then a century or two.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Seegras (profile), 25 Jul 2015 @ 2:08am

    The deaths and injuries caused by drug enforcement aren't in danger of approaching the death and injuries caused by the drug trade,

    Ah, no. Actually, the majority of all drug related deaths and injuries are caused by "drug enforcement". And always have been.

    Because most of the "drug-related" problems, from homelessness over weird diseases to armed robberies, ARE A RESULT OF THE PROHIBITION.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2015 @ 6:08am

    Police Work vs Making Arrests

    Chances are the person the LEOs had an arrest warrant for visited several places each day where he could have been arrested with minimum fuss. The problem with that is the police would have had to conduct surveillance, been patience and planned ahead.

    Much simpler to round up a heavily armed gang, bash down doors, and carelessly throw around flash bangs in an area that you had no idea a toddler was sleeping.

    Thin blue line Uber Alles!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    leehb9 (profile), 25 Jul 2015 @ 8:44am

    It's about time....

    That there was finally some action and some good news on this story! This family has been waiting a long time for 'justice'! Hopefully, now they'll get some.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2015 @ 12:07pm

    Just so I have this straight...

    So when the public has to make a sacrifice of their constitutional rights, LEO will cry "think of the children" and how it's all to "protect the children", yet when they almost kill a child, it's for the greater good of society... I wonder how quickly they would change their tune if it was their kid that was burned.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2015 @ 12:18pm

    So aside from the police being paid though our tax dollars (which some could see as a "shake down") how are they any different than a street gang?

    Street gangs fighting wars end up with innocent people killed and maimed. These cops fighting their war on drugs kill and maim innocent people.

    If you are in a street gang and you turn against the gang you are labeled a rat. When a cop turns against other cops for their criminal behavior they are labeled rats.

    Ok, a street gang will kick your ass and steal your money if you don't show proper respect, and the cops just arrest you on a "humble" and hold you prisoner for a few days, forcing you to make bail, and costing you money out of pocket...

    street gangs have uniforms, cops have uniforms...

    I know. Cops have the marketing slogan "to protect and serve" Street gangs don't have slogans to market themselves.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2015 @ 12:38pm

    There there three types of cops in the world.

    1) Bad cops

    2) Cops that haven't had to chose to be bad cops

    3) Good Cops that are shot in the face, called "rats" or forced to retire by the bad cops because they chose not to be a bad cop.

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/the-police-are-still-out-of-control-112160.html#. VbPf0PnEPLI

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/16/baltimore-joe-crystal_n_7582374.html

    http://www.w kbw.com/news/fired-buffalo-cop-id-do-it-again

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/28/frank-phillips -police-brutality_n_5227769.html And finally 3 bad cops. Two of them choosing to ignore the 3rd as he chokes a handcuffed suspect into unconsciousness.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    GEMont, 25 Jul 2015 @ 8:58pm

    Aint Fascism Fun Folks.

    "It's a nice set of words, but the real test will be the application of these principles."

    Welcome to Hell Snowflake.

    When criminals write the laws and run law enforcement, only the innocent and law-abiding need fear the law of the land and its hired "enforcers".

    ---

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 25 Jul 2015 @ 9:53pm

    Huh

    "You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community's right to live in a crime-free environment. You can't have them both," Mills said.

    It seems nobody has actually pointed out that battering down a door, throwing grenades and raiding a home is not really exhaustively described as a privacy violation.

    It's a privacy violation if you knock at the door and 3 officers perform a search warrant.

    A paramilitary raid is not primarily a privacy issue, it is putting the lives of the targets, their neighbors and roommates at stake. As such, it is taking both a heavy toll on privacy and security of the citizens.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DNY (profile), 26 Jul 2015 @ 11:30am

    Crime free?

    So assault under color of law committed against an innocent toddler is a feature of a crime free environment? Really?

    It seems to me that current police procedures guarantee both violations of privacy and the perpetration of crime.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 26 Jul 2015 @ 3:20pm

    To start with, it's rare to find an officer who places protection of the public over protection of themselves. Almost every act of unwarranted violence is defended by the words "feared for my safety."

    Sadly, too many people agreed with this mentality. My friend thinks that cops have an absolute right to put their own safety above all else.

    Where do they draw the line though? What if there's a bad accident where a car is on fire and the driver is trapped inside? Should a cop just stand there and watch the person burn to death because trying to help them would put that cop's safety at risk?

    What if there's a school shooting going on and the first cops on the scene can hear kids screaming and shots being fired. Should they just sit outside waiting for SWAT to show up while people are dying because going into the building might put their safety at risk?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.