Posted on 02/21/2010 12:32:16 AM PST by The Magical Mischief Tour
The New York Times reported last week that the New York City Police Department has halted the use of "flashbang" stun grenades. The department began phasing out the devices in 2003 after their deployment in a mistaken drug raid caused 52-year-old Alberta Spruill to suffer a fatal heart attack. The prior year, the department had used flash grenades 175 times.
Flashbangs detonate with a blinding flash of light and a deafening explosion. Their function is to temporarily stun people in a targeted building until police or military personnel can get inside. Though the weapons are marketed as non-lethal, there have been a number of incidents in which they've set homes on fire (some resulting in fatalities), caused severe burns, or confused police officers into thinking they were coming under gunfire, causing them to open fire themselves.
But even when used and executed as intended, flashbangs cause injury by design, and when used by law enforcement, that injury is inflicted on people who have yet to even be charged with a crime, much less convicted of one. In most cases, the crimes that precipitated the raid are consensual and nonviolent: They're drug offenses.
Clay Conrad, a criminal defense attorney in Houston, criminal justice specialist, and author of the book Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine, has tried to challenge the use of flashbangs in the service of drug warrants. "It's just an assualt," Conrad says. "These things are designed to blind and deafen. They produce a shockwave of 136 DB or more. You're intentionally injuring people."
In 2008, federal prosecutors indicted three executives at the flashbang producer Pyrotechnic Specialties, Inc. (PSI) for fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering. The indictments came after one of the devices detonated prematurely in a SUV driven by three FBI agents in 2004. A subsequent investigation found that the company knew the devices could detonate prematurely, but covered up the problem.
In November 2008, CNN interviewed the agents about their injuries. One said, "To me, it felt like someone just whacked me in the back with a baseball bat as hard as they could." Another said, "I don't sleep. I have tremendous headaches. I have the doctors claim severe hearing loss, but for all practical purposes, I'm deaf in my left ear." Speaking of the company, another added, "If they could experience that, or someone close to them would have to go through that experience, I'm sure it would be a different story and maybe they wouldn't have allowed it to happen."
The CNN story focused on PSI's fraud and negligence, but what's striking about the FBI agents' accounts is that other than the early detonation, the grenades did exactly what they're intended to do. What the agents experienced is experienced by dozens of people every day who find themselves on the receiving end of a drug raid, where grenades are thrown through bedroom windows, rolled into living rooms, or tossed into hallways. They're being punished—intentionally injurred—before they've so much as seen the inside of a police station. That's before we get to the problem of mistaken raids, and innocent bystanders who happen to be in a home when a raid transpires.
New York City officials aren't the only ones taking notice. In 2008, a judge in New Jersey held a hearing on the use of stun grenades, then tossed the drug charges against a suspected meth offender because state police used flashbangs and paramiltary tactics to serve the search warrant on his home. "This was a commando raid-like scenario," Superior Court Judge James J. Morley said, "and my decision was based on the overall way they approached the case—at 5 a.m. with 29 police officers in commando gear and pointing a weapon at a sleeping 17-year-old." The teen wasn't the suspect. An adult living with him was.
Defense lawyer Clay Conrad's challenge on flash grenades was based on a Texas law that prevents evidence from being admitted in trial if the police committed a crime in obtaining it. He argued in a brief that the initial assault and use of flashbangs constitue a criminal assault. Conrad says the prosecution offered a generous plea before that issue could be hashed out in court. "We were prepared to argue that if these things are as harmless as the state claims, we should be able to detonate one in the courtroom. That would have been fun."
Conrad thinks the use of flashbangs and other overly aggressive tactics may be ripe for a federal challenge. "The argument is that it shocks the conscience," he says. "That argument has some validity to it in the right cases, where you're using these volatile tactics against someone who's suspected of nothing more than drug dealing. It's excessive to the point of violating the Fourth Amendment."
There are certainly scenarios in which flashbangs are appropriate, such as anytime you have someone who presents an immediate threat to the safety of others: bank robberies, hostage situations, or similar sorts of stand-offs. In these cases, the weapons can defuse an already violent situation.
But that isn't how flashbangs are primarily used. Supporters of the devices say they're important for the safety of police officers. We should obviously take sensible precautions to protect cops on the job, but those precautions can't violate the basic rights of everyone else. Flashbang grenades subject people suspected of nonviolent crimes and everyone around them to an explosion that's designed to blind and deafen, with the potential to cause severe burns and permanent hearing loss—all before anyone has been charged with a crime. That doesn't seem like a close call.
Over the last twenty years or so, I have become increasingly uncomfortable with the proliferation of no-knock raids and all of the intendant overwhelming force that accompanies them.
Police supporters say these tactics are necessary because druggies are so well armed and that proper safeguards prevent mishaps and wrongful identifications, but that is obviously not true.
This review is a good step, and long overdue.
Funny, how it took 3 FBI agents getting hurt before law enforcement finally admitted what people have known for years and lowly civilians have sued unsuccessfully for years over. Before something is finally being do or addressed with the use of these things.
I personally feel they have a place in the law enforcement arsenal. But as with all tools the courts give LEO's to work with, they quickly begin using them on situations and scenarios of less and less urgency or less and less danger. So, finally the right case ends up before the right court and the tool it taken away from LE. And the entire community has no one to blame but themselves and their eagerness to employ a given tool on society at the drop of a hat. The same thing is happening with Tazers. Cops are using them more and more on situations of less and less resistance, till we now have cops tazing 11 year old school children for talking back. A 77 year old Grandma who can't get out of a car fast enough on a traffic stop and a 67 year old man in the throws of a diabetic induced episode.
Agreed
That's what got the BATF agents shot in WACO. That's why the BATF had a grocery sack full of video tapes they were unwrapping the day before, so they would have plenty of cool video showing how neat their SWAT team guys were. It's why they went in shooting; why they immediately killed all the dogs (which were penned). It's why they invited the press and TV stations to cover the raid, and why they had to go through with the raid, even after they knew it was compromised.
If you're a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
BTW, almost all the BATF video disappeared after the raid (it was embarrassing to them). Only the video shot by the news media folks remains.
But you're cool with the practice of using them on Americans who are suspected of non-violent crimes?
Maybe if you had a couple more go off in your lap, and maybe a few thrown into your living room with your family some evening, you'd feel a bit differently about them yourself, agent!
Uhhhh.
I hope not.
The Flashbangs were developed in the mid-1970’s for Britain’s Special Air Service for use in anti-terrorist actions where they intended them to daze and incapacitate the enemy long enough for SAS Troopers to enter a room and kill them. They never really cared if the device caused harm to the terrorists, because they were going to die in a hail of gunfire in a few seconds anyway.
A little fact that seems to escape those who advocate their use in law enforcement actions these days.
I can see where they could be used by cops, but only in the most extreme of circumstances where deadly force is more or less already justified.
There is a Small Borough outside of Pittsburgh that started a SWAT team{never mind the fact the both the County and the City have a SWAT team} They bought top of the line equipment, went thru training and even got a armored truck.
In 6 years, they got called once. The new chief disbanded it as a waste of money and time. But they kept the weapons.
Where can WE get some for the 4th of July? Worse than a quarter stick?
Yes, and they provide no training (which is what is leading to these misuses of flash-bangs).
The average police department does not provide enough training for their officers' sidearms, let alone advanced tactical weaponry.
The CNN story focused on PSI's fraud and negligence, but what's striking about the FBI agents' accounts is that other than the early detonation, the grenades did exactly what they're intended to do. What the agents experienced is experienced by dozens of people every day who find themselves on the receiving end of a drug raid,
Funny, how it took 3 FBI agents getting hurt before law enforcement finally admitted what people have known for years and lowly civilians have sued unsuccessfully for years over. Before something is finally being do or addressed with the use of these things.
I personally feel they have a place in the law enforcement arsenal. But as with all tools the courts give LEO's to work with, they quickly begin using them on situations and scenarios of less and less urgency or less and less danger. So, finally the right case ends up before the right court and the tool it taken away from LE. And the entire community has no one to blame but themselves and their eagerness to employ a given tool on society at the drop of a hat. The same thing is happening with Tazers. Cops are using them more and more on situations of less and less resistance, till we now have cops tazing 11 year old school children for talking back. A 77 year old Grandma who can't get out of a car fast enough on a traffic stop and a 67 year old man in the throws of a diabetic induced episode.
You are so correct.
Not long ago, I attended a benefit for a motorcyclist who had received some terrible injuries in an accident and needed a little help getting by while he was out of work. BBQ plates and cans of beer were being sold on private property, as the MC community came together to help one of our own.
Shortly after dark, the property was suddenly stormed by deputies and members of the State Law Enforcement Division. They came in an armored vehicle as well as regular cop cars, and were in their "military" ninja suits. A helicopter hovered overhead shining powerful spotlights down on the gathering as the officers rushed in with M-4s. Once in, they demanded ID, and made a record of who was at the event.
It took about an hour and a half (with the helicopter on station the entire time). When they left, they took a couple of cases of beer that was being sold illegally (without a license), and had written a ticket to the person working at the bar for selling beer without a license. (Of course, they had also obtained some "intelligence" on American citizens who were assembling peacefully) The ticket ended up costing the guy $25.
Yep. Once they have the equipment, there ARE going to use it. And they are going to use it on whomever gives them even the slightest excuse.
Eventually, they will find a reason to come for YOU!
“The whole concept of allowing police to kick down doors...”
That type of action used to be prohibited by the 4th Amendment in that ‘old outdated Bill of Rights’. /s
I think the media is partly responsible for militarizing our LEO’s. Watch COPS or any of the dozens of other shows on TV and you’ll see the bad-ass pumped-up shaved headed super-cops strutting around with the latest black gear they got off some Ninja internet site. They try to outdo each other with how much crap they can hang on their belts. It’s almost comical when they ‘high-five’ each other after a simple drug possession arrest.
I’m NOT anti-LEO in any way. In fact, I was a Police Science Major in college way back in the early 70’s. However, I am anti-Police State, which is what seems to be the goal of young LEO’s. Their attitudes have changed dramatically in the past 40 years to become a “them vs. us” environment.
In their eyes YOU are GUILTY until proven otherwise. Get on the ground and shut up or I’ll taze you!
Cops shouldn’t be able to possess any weapon or gear that I can’t own for myself.
Better to legalize drugs and end the excuse for these fascist attacks.
Yep. A while back, I saw a video where a cop lit off a flashbang, decided not to throw it, and stuck it in his hip pocket! I expect you can still find it on YouTube...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.