E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Baby suffers horrific burns thanks to War on Drugs, Part II

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

As the father of a baby and a toddler, there are few stories in the news more horrifying to me than small children being maimed or killed. When that happens as a result of bad policy by government, it is even more horrifying. If the horrific burns suffered by Bounkham Phonesavanh have convinced me of anything, it is that the War on Drugs is a terrible mistake that needs to end. We are doing far more harm than good at this point.

I said on Monday that while less aggressive methods of arresting a drug dealer might have put innocents at risk the no-knock paramilitary raid did result in an innocent being maimed. This is not to sau that the maiming of a toddler was guaranteed, but even if no one was hurt the raid would have been excessive force. Raids like this create an unnecessarily dangerous situation and create the potential for fatalities or serious injuries that would not exist if less aggressive methods were used. No-knock paramilitary raids are vastly overused.

In addition to the raids themselves, the use of flash-bang grenades for domestic law enforcement needs to be severely curtailed if not banned outright. Had there been no flash-bang grenade, Phonesavanh would not have been maimed. As Radley Balko points out, flash-bang grenades are dangerous, potentially lethal explosives that have killed and maimed a number of people - including law enforcement agents themselves.

These are not the harmless devices in video games that make the enemy AI characters cover their eyes for a few seconds - they can cause severe burns and start deadly fires.

Are these raids necessary because of the "need" for more gun control? No. A large portion of SWAT raids are on nonviolent, unarmed drug users, not against armed-to-the-teeth gangsters. Sometimes SWAT gets the wrong house, and sometimes they act on a bad tip - as was the case with Kathryn Johnston, a 92-year-old woman gunned down in her own home. Too many innocents and nonviolent "criminals" have been mamed or killed by paramilitary raids. Police have also been killed because the violent and disorienting nature of the raids can lead people being raided to believe the people entering their homes (especially at 3:00 am) are criminals instead of police.

Furthermore, as Radley Balko pointed out last year, the evidence suggests that the threat to police is overblown. In 2008, there were 461,000 sworn officers, and 158 fatalities - a fatality rate of 0.034%. As in 34/1000 of one percent. And the number of fatalities has been a lot lower than that over the last two years. Does this mean police work is not a dangerous job? Of course not. Police definitely face risk of death or serious injury at the hands of criminals. But by being alarmists about the threat, we are creating a dangerous situation.

We are dramatically ramping up the use of force by law enforcement while violent crime has sharply decreased over the last 20 years. There is a good reason that Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act in the 1800's - they understood then (as some still do now) that using the military for domestic law enforcement is extremely dangerous to our liberty and our system of government. The role of a police officer is (or at least should be) completely different from the role of a soldier. Police are not soldiers, and there should be a clear distinction between the two.

(0 Comments)

Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.

Comments:

Post a Comment


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.