It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: HawkeyeNation
I feel bad for the child. But this is a true case of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. The fault needs to go to the individuals living there because their illegal activity was the root cause to this. Without their illegal activity none of this would happened.
originally posted by: nugget1
And the father had this to say:
Bou Sr., a musician, wrote of his grief on his Facebook page Thursday morning. 'My friends my heart my mind my soul is fill with sadness right now my son is not doing too good l will need few days to get myself together l will get back and share music with you when we are all feels better keep rocking friends.'
WTH??? WTF??? What kind of music? Kumbaya???
The parents AND LEO should both be drawn and quartered. Something is seriously wrong with both!
originally posted by: roadgravel
If the police do not use these grenades often enough then funding to buy and keep them will go away from the budget. Displaying a need for them in the drug war, etc. is important. Plus I would imagine they have fun hurting 'bad guys' with them.
Those things are supposed to be thrown at floor level kind of like rolling a bowling ball because of the risk of serious injury or death if explodes near the face
They are designed to explode at head level for maximum effect actually.
They are designed to explode at head level for maximum effect actually. The fuse time is actually shorter then that of frag or incindiary grenades. They are also deployed into a room before an entry team makes entry generally by the number 2 man as he sweeps behind the point in a manner in which not to expose yourself meaning no one really knew what was in the room before the grenade went off.
Even more important is the correct use of deployment techniques. Movie portrayals of SWAT operations sometimes depict tactical team members throwing "stun grenades" into rooms without first looking through the door, let alone having a cover officer to protect them. Such cinematic depictions are totally off the mark. One of the fundamental rules for proper use is that you must first look into the target area before deploying a diversionary device. Another is that the officer deploying should have someone there to cover them as they introduce the flashbang into a room. While this may not be always possible, it's a good rule of thumb to follow as much as events will allow.
You may notice that I avoid using the words "tossing" or "throwing" when referring to deployments. I suggest that my fellow instructors do the same. These words convey the wrong message to officers about correct use. Picture this: A SWAT cop is tasked with the flashbang deployment at the start of a search warrant. The phrase "throw the device into the room" is in the back of their mind as they get ready because that's what their instructor taught them. The training phrases in their head and the accelerated tempo of the event may overpower their intent to place the device accurately in through the door. The flashbang is tossed too far into the room, with no caution and lands on flammable material or even a person. That's definitely a bad thing. Again, a controlled, precise delivery is required. Moreover, failing to look into a target environment before deploying a diversionary device creates problems at the operational level and raises potential liability issues.
A diversionary device instructor teaches and preaches the importance of using proper terminology. The term "stun grenade" is an example: The modern diversionary device does not stun people, nor is it a grenade. It may create a psychological and physiological diversion which affects individuals inside a structure and gives operators a brief window of opportunity to exploit for tactical purposes.
Another of the "what ifs" of using flashbangs is the possibility of children or elderly persons being found in the tactical environment. Depending upon the circumstances, officers should be trained to protect and control these individuals when they're in a target location. Care should be taken to shield them from potential harm until the situation is totally under law enforcement control. In cases where a child is found inside, it may be appropriate for a tactical officer to immediately and safely remove the youngster from the location, effectively treating that child as the most important person inside the tactical environment. Once outside, the child can be turned over to perimeter units or other support personnel, allowing the SWAT cop to return to the operation.
My point: Instructors should emphasize the importance of proper care for those who are most likely innocent and could potentially be injured if proactive steps are not taken to protect them.
originally posted by: Euphem
a reply to: Rodinus
Actually I just read about something like this happening in Denmark the other day. Not exactly this scenario, but breaking into an old man's home after threatening to shoot him and destroying his property. After that the police denied to even be involved.....
Soo yeah...not just an American thing unfortunately. Not sure why you think the US is so bad when the rest of the world is just as bad or worse.