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
April 2017
May 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Monday, June 2, 2014

Baby suffers horrific burns thanks to the War on Drugs

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

From Atlanta, here is an absolutely horrifying story about a no-knock SWAT raid when a flash-bang grenade was thrown into his crib and detonated, leaving the baby with severe burns and in a medically-induced coma. (See more on flash-bang grenades here and here.)

This is outrageous. There is literally not one single legitimate reason to conduct a no-knock raid using a paramilitary strike force in the middle of the night for a situation like this. SWAT should be used sparingly, for special situations where normal police response is not adequate for the task - for things like hostage situations, an active shooter, or a terrorist act. Paramilitary SWAT raids should not be used on idiots who are using and/or selling illegal drugs.

As infuriating as this is, forget the SWAT team. The police were doing their job, as defined by the politicians.

Do not blame the police. Blame the politicians.

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, Speaker John Boehner and President Barack Obama might as well have personally dropped the flash-bang grenade into the baby's crib. They are all to blame for this. From the federal level to the local level, the guilty parties in this damnable crime are the politicians who have passed laws and implemented policies that have made the "solution" to the problem of drug use much worse than the problem of drug use itself. We are smashing spiders with sledgehammers.

All of the politicians, at all levels of government, of both political parties who have pushed the expansion of the increasingly literal War on Drugs are to blame for this atrocity. The politicians who have turned what should be a law enforcement action into an increasingly a literal war with military equipment and battlefield tactics are the ones who are guilty of this terrible crime against an innocent baby

The reason this abomination happened is because of public policy. This is because we have gone off the deep end in the War on Drugs, and we did that decades ago. In what rational world does it make sense to send a paramilitary strike force to raid someone's home at 3:00 am because idiots are using/selling drugs? Did they even consider that there might be children in the home who could be seriously injured or killed as a result of the raid? Go to the druggies' workplace and arrest them, or send some police officers to arrest them during the day.

If the druggies had weapons, police officers could have been killed too, because of this needlessly aggressive policy. If someone breaks down your door at 3:00 am with assault weapons and body armor and proceeds to set off an explosive in the middle of your living room, are you likely to assume that it is the police - in a raid designed to confuse and disorient the targets? Or are you likely to assume you are the victim of a home invasion by dangerous criminals and start shooting? Even if you know the attackers are police, when you see this happen to your child, are you likely to act out in a vengeance-fueled rage?

Yes, it is true that had the police went to his house and served a warrant for his arrest, the dealer might have opened fire on them. Of course, then he would be facing much more severe charges than drug dealing. He might have taken the children as hostages. (So setting off a grenade in a baby's crib somehow better than the baby being a hostage?) If the dealer has a job, arresting him at work might put innocent bystanders at risk. But innocent bystanders were already put at serious risk - and an innocent baby suffered severe burns - by the police conducting an unnecessary and excessive no-knock paramilitary SWAT raid. No, there is no way to justify this.

Do we even live in America anymore? We are sending paramilitary strike forces to raid people's homes at 3:00 am when there is no active danger - the only danger is created by the SWAT raid itself. Why did we bother fighting the Cold War for decades and spilling rivers of blood in Korea and Vietnam if we are going to voluntarily embrace a Communist form of government and become the Soviet Union?

End the War on Drugs. We are doing far more harm than good at this point, and we have for a long time.

(2 Comments)

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

Comments:

At June 2, 2014 at 6:11 PM , Blogger Mike Newton said...  

And now the "Christian" sheriff asks for public prayers, saying he'll charge two missing tenants with his own men's crimes. I always knew the Panthers and the Weathermen were right.


At June 2, 2014 at 10:34 PM , Blogger Scott Tibbs said...  

I saw they were going to charge the evicted drug dealer.

They didn't even find any drugs, only drug "residue."

And no weapons.


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.