Toddler critically burned during SWAT raid


#1

wsbtv.com/news/news/local/toddler-critically-burned-during-swat-raid/nf9SJ/

Prayers…

:gopray:


#2

Praying for this child’s health & recovery.


#3

Wow. What a horrific and sad tragedy. :frowning: I know it was an accident that the child was burned but surely they could do something to increase the safety of their flash bang grenades.


#4

Can’t make the grenade any safer.
Just the procedures around which they are used.

I do not believe proper procedure was followed.


#5

How tragic. I’ll be praying for that sweet baby. As the wife of a SWAT officer, I know my husband would be torn up about something like this. It’s also sad and unfortunate that the mother either lived with or housed a known drug dealer and allowed drugs to be sold out of the home. If it weren’t for those circumstances, a raid would have never taken place. Terrible all around.


#6

Extremely unfortunate, however when one lives with a dealer who is suspected to be armed and dangerous, one must expect raids. In short the child should never have been around the criminal, otherwise this would never have transpired.


#7

praying for recovery


#8

Yeah I have to wonder whether or not proper procedure was followed as well. I hope it was followed but it would seem it was not. If proper procedure was not followed then I would fully support this family in suing the police, the government, or whoever for damages regarding this poor child’s injuries.


#9

That’s the understatement of the year. As why exactly is a SWAT team and a flash bomb needed to arrest a drug dealer anyway?


#10

What makes you think the woman was aware that the suspect was a drug dealer? How is she supposed to know that the police suspect him of being armed and dangerous. I would never guess in a million years that a SWAT team would indiscriminately throw an explosive into a household full of unsuspecting people over drugs! How about cops look before they throw?


#11

Other articles report that the family knew that drugs were being dealt out of the house, but that they put the children in another room while the deals were going on. I think I read that on CNN. So, yes, the parents knew that drugs were being dealt out of the home.


#12

They were there because their home in another state had burned to the ground and they had no where else to go.

Perhaps they would have been safer living in their car instead.


#13

At 2:00 AM.

Initial reports indicate the police were going to surprise the suspect while he slept.

Which would seem to indicate the grenade was unnecessary.


#14

I’m pretty sure that a SWAT team breaking into the house in the middle of the night is a sufficient suprise. Do many drug dealers sleep in pack-n-plays?


#15

We call it a “war” so why should we be surprised if our cops act like warriors taking a hill with minimum resources whose first priority is protection of self rather then protecting their community? With an enemy force you have to hit first and hit hard, with citizens in a house you can wait them out. A tank platoon is not coming over the hill to rescue them


#16

It is a distraction to keep the criminal from reaching a gun. Bullets are considered more dangerous than flash bangs. As to the time of night, many drug dealers do not keep business hours. The time of day is no indication of when they would be sleeping.

I am sure the department will evaluate the use of the flash bang and see if it did or did not violate policy.


#17

I am sure the grenade going off next to the baby’s face was a distraction.

Until convicted, they are not even criminals. They are citizens of this country.
Innocent until proven guilty is not just a catchy phrase.
It is a reminder that they should not be treated as enemy combatants.


#18

I know this may be a difficult concept for some, but the flash bang was not aimed at the child. The officers stated there were no signs of a child being present.

They are citizens of this country. Innocent until proven guilty is not just a catchy phrase.

They are innocent, as are the police in this case, yet you felt it acceptable to make the statement above.

I would like to point out, that for one to be proven guilty, they must first be tried. To be tried, the must first be arrested. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a statement concerning the status of one arrested, not an admonition against arrest, which is still permissible.


#19

So we can presume guilt before the arrest, but we do not presume guilt after…
:confused:


#20

They did not see the play pen?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.