Posted on 06/04/2014 12:17:09 PM PDT by Kaslin
When Alecia Phonesavanh heard her 19-month-old son, Bounkham, screaming, she thought he was simply frightened by the armed men who had burst into the house in the middle of the night. Then she saw the charred remains of the portable playpen where the toddler had been sleeping, and she knew something horrible had happened.
Bounkham "Bou Bou" Phonesavanh, who is in a medically induced coma at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, may never wake up. But the appalling injuries he suffered during a police raid in Habersham County, Ga., last week should awaken the country to the moral obscenity that is the war on drugs.
Two months ago, after a fire at their home in Wisconsin, Alecia, her husband and their four children, ranging in age from 1 to 7, moved in with relatives who live just of outside of Cornelia, Ga. The whole family slept together in a garage that had been converted into a bedroom.
Sometime before 3 a.m. on May 28, a SWAT team consisting of Habersham County sheriff's deputies and Cornelia police officers broke into that room. One of the cops tossed a flash-bang grenade, which creates a blinding light and a loud noise that are supposed to disorient the targets of a raid. It landed in Bou Bou's playpen and exploded in his face, causing severe burns and a deep chest wound.
The cops were looking for the Phonesavanhs' 30-year-old nephew, Wanis Thonetheva, who a few hours before had allegedly sold methamphetamine to a confidential informant from the same doorway through which the SWAT team entered. They had obtained a "no knock" warrant by claiming Thonetheva was apt to be armed and dangerous.
Thonetheva was not there, and police did not find any drugs, cash or guns, either. When they arrested him later that morning at a different location, he had about an ounce of meth but no weapons.
Habersham County Sheriff Joey Terrell and Cornelia Police Chief Rick Darby said their officers would not have used a "distraction device" if they knew children were living in the house they attacked. But their investigation of that possibility seems to have consisted entirely of asking their informant, who according to Terrell was at the house only briefly and did not go inside.
Even rudimentary surveillance should have discovered signs of children, who according to the Phonesavanhs' lawyer played with their father in the front yard every day. Alecia told ABC News there were "family stickers" on the minivan parked "right near the door they kicked in," which contained four child seats, and "my son's old playpen was right outside because we were getting ready to leave" for Wisconsin. Anyone who entered the house would have seen toys and children's clothes.
Last week, Terrell claimed Mountain Judicial Circuit District Attorney Brian Rickman had assured him the officers involved in the raid did everything right and "there's nothing to investigate." Rickman, who says he is conducting a thorough review, denies telling Terrell that. But the issue here goes beyond sloppy police work.
Terrell says Thonetheva is to blame for Bou Bou's injuries, and the alleged meth dealer may even face criminal charges based on that theory. But Thonetheva did not toss an explosive, incendiary device into a baby's crib; the police did that, in the service of an odious ideology that says violence is an acceptable response to consensual transactions in which people exchange money for drugs that legislators do not like.
"The little baby (who) was in there didn't deserve this," Terrell told WXIA, the NBC station in Atlanta. "These drug dealers don't care."
Terrell, by contrast, cares so much about the psychoactive substances his neighbors consume that he is willing to endanger the lives of innocent bystanders in his vain attempt to stop people from getting high. If people like Terrell cared a little less, Bou Bou would be home with his parents instead of clinging to life in a hospital.
They are abusing people for reasons other than drugs too. The Police are becoming militarized, and it is an ominous trend.
To: tacticalogic
Asset forfeiture is a good tool in theory. But now every “police” (quotes because police now means “revenue”) agency has an asset forfeiture group. In Tallahassee they took a grandmother’s paid for home because they said her grandson sold drugs from her porch. The paper mentioned that if she’d had a mortgage instead of owning it outright they wouldn’t have bothered. So, the sale wasn’t her fault. She wasn’t getting any money from it, but they succeeded in taking her home. Now, could she have fought it in court? In theory, but you have to come up with $5,000 down and $500/hour to use the court system. For all intents and purposes there is no justice unless you have plenty of money.
__________________
every time I drive by the police driving some hot car, I think that the car was taken from a citizen, without due process. I don’t care what the crime was; due process and selling assets to pay fines works.
I actually care not whether Obama’s Afghani heroin destroys lives. I do care whether I have to pay for the healthcare of these users.
I think that addicts need to give up healthcare access and hope that the Sallies or Catholic charities come up with some sort of charity care for them.
That’s the kind of thinking that leads to bans on large sodas. Same principle. If somebody can make case that something is bad enough, the Gov’t should step in.
You are advocating a false measure of whether or not the war is "working."
If you track the rate of Opium shipments to China during the 1800s you will note that it starts out small, and then builds massively after a few decades.
This is the NORMAL progression for drug addiction in a society which tolerates it. By 1900, Drug addiction in the Provence of Manchuria had hit 50% of adult males. As a result, China wen through government collapse, Invasion, and the dictatorship of Mao. All of this stuff traceable to the destruction caused to their society by legal drugs.
Now as to your false measure of success, that notion that the ability to buy drugs = failure. In 1900, the addiction rate to drugs such as opium and cocaine was ~ 2% of the population. After 100 years of the "War on Drugs" the addiction rate is still 2%. It hasn't risen. The NORMAL CONDITION is that it would rise until it was killing a huge chunk of our population, but it hasn't. The reason it hasn't is because the war on drugs has kept it in check. The small 2% of the black market which exists is no measure of failure, it is a measure of great success given the restrictions utilized in fighting the war on drugs.
We as a nation tolerate this 2% because we would not tolerate the necessary tactics needed to eliminate it. If we actually fought the war on drugs like it was a WAR, i.e. swiftly killing drug dealers, then we could possibly do something about that remaining 2% market, but most people would rather live with it than go that far.
I will point out that Chairman Mao did solve China's opium problem. He utterly eliminated it after World War II by killing anyone caught with opium. It CAN be done, but I think i'd rather put up with some small percentage of addicts in our population.
“every time I drive by the police driving some hot car, I think that the car was taken from a citizen, without due process.”
Back when 280Z’s were new the Highway Patrol in Pinellas County had one. An article in the paper said the trooper driving it had stopped a drug dealer and they’d seized the car. Think about that. A trooper directly benefited from a drug seizure. (I seem to recall they stopped that practice, but I’m not sure about that.)
I own a really nice car for which a police package already exists. Believe me I NEVER speed in that car as Florida can seize your car for “racing.” But there doesn’t have to be a second car to make it a race. Theoretically they have to stop you three times.
I used to know cops and trust them. That was years ago. The ones I’ve dealt with lately seem entirely different. They don’t seem to consider themselves ordinary citizens with a uniform and a gun. They seem to think of themselves as cops and their view is it’s us (cops) against them. We are all “thems.”
Actually that’s the STRUCTURED progression when one country decides it wants to get another country hooked on a drug. Opium was legal in most of the world and didn’t have the problems China had. Remember the Opium Wars was actually China trying to STOP the drug coming in.
So your answer is more shootings and more control.
Your fix is worse then the disease.
You have no idea of what you are talking about. Legalized drugs in China resulted in the deaths of around 100 million Chinese. You simply have no view of the larger historical picture.
Drugs wrecked China and killed Millions. It was horrible, it was ugly and it was brutal. Far worse than anything being discussed in reference to the "War on Drugs."
Drugging a Nation:The Story of China and the Opium Curse
What you are suggesting would be the "stupidest mistake in the history of the country."
Actually you’re the one who doesn’t know what you’re talking about. Opium was PUSHED onto China, they were trying to get it out. Meanwhile it, and all the other drugs, were legal in most of the world without having issues.
The stupid mistake is adding a black market to the other problems of drug use. You have all the same number of addicts, higher prices, more crimes, and an ever increasing police force. At least with it legal all we get is the junkies. And the only way it gets anything like China is if a government (possibly even our own) decides it’s in their best interest to give us LOTS of drugs for really cheap. Which would be a problem even if it was illegal (as seen in your own link because during most of that time China was actually trying to PREVENT opium being imported into their country).
The Enumeration of the power to interdict drugs is under the Defense clause. I know people like to assert authority under the commerce clause, but that is just wrong. Drugs are an existential threat to any nation which tolerates them, and therefore authority is granted under the Defense of the nation clause.
It's there, and I would agree that it's the gov's job to prevent such excesses.
>> “Drugs are an existential threat to any nation which tolerates them, and therefore authority is granted under the Defense of the nation clause.” <<
.
So true, and prescription drugs are the worst, yet they can advertise that crap on TV with reckless abandon.
(if you have an erection that lasts more than 4 hours,...)
.
“It’s there, and I would agree that it’s the gov’s job to prevent such excesses. “
Well, damn! Somebody should tell him!
No it isn't, and you are being flippant about death and misery to say such a childish thing.
If somebody can make case that something is bad enough, the Gov’t should step in.
If somebody can make the case that something is killing thousands of people, then you are d*** right the government should step in! Before the Harrison anti-narcotics act of 1914, thousands of people were dying from overdoses of patent medicines, most of which contained opium or cocaine. Many of these dead were children to whom had been given this "medicine" and it killed them.
1900 - Opium, morphine and cocaine in many patent medicines leads to addiction and death. Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Syrup kills many children each year due to overdosing on morphine. Morphine is the syrup’s primary ingredient but it is not listed on the label.
No! No, it's not.
To think that it is is to completely disregard greed as a motive for any criminal [forfeiture-inducing] charge.
Like I said...it’s Nanny State logic. There’s no disagreement here.
That's exactly what the USSC does though — look up Raich, it's all about the commerce [and necessary and proper] clause.
>> “Before the Harrison anti-narcotics act of 1914, thousands of people were dying from overdoses of patent medicines...” <<
.
And now we have millions dying from prescribed doses of Pharma poisons, and the govmt is cheering them on.
.
I disagree with your premise, but for the sake of argument let's just say it's true? By what sort of Naive thinking do you believe that wouldn't happen again? How are you gonna stop it if drugs are legal? You don't think the Columbians and the Afganis wouldn't ramp up production in an effort to "get another country hooked on a drug"?
Remember the Opium Wars was actually China trying to STOP the drug coming in.
In this case, the Drug dealers (the British) had more firepower than did the government of China. In an early effort to halt the flow of opium, one Chinese official burned a large shipment of the drug. (In Shanghai I believe.)
The British responded by bringing in warships and mercilessly shelled the town killing thousands. The Chinese begged for peace, and so the terms were dictated to them by the British, and those terms were the legalization of the Opium trade. People who want to talk about legalizing drugs should seriously study this period of history.
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.