5 ms·

Police in Georgia literally throw hand grenades into the cribs of sleeping babies and get away with it. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-georgia-deputy-

Police in Georgia literally throw hand grenades into the cribs of sleeping babies and get away with it. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-georgia-deputy-acquitted-after-flash-bang-grenade-hurts-toddler-n479361 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-georgia-deputy-acqui...

sandworm101 6y ago
Flashbangs. They are violent, but in a totally different class than actual hand grenades. No police in the US use hand grenades. The kid in the crib survived. Had it been an actual grenade ... not a survivable event. https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/05/baby-in-coma-after-police-grenade-dropped-in-crib-during-drug-raid https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/05/baby-in-coma-...
- 8fGTBjZxBcHq 6y ago
  Are you really defending the police grenading a baby.
  - mdorazio 6y ago
    Are you really purposely using the wrong word to force the conversation to fit your narrative?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      Wikipedia redirects "flashbang" to "stun grenade" and describes it as a "less lethal explosive device", so I'd say they're using the vernacular correctly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashbang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashbang
      - bigwavedave 6y ago
        Not the op, the gp, or even the parent, but I'd like to say that while I'm certainly not condoning flashbangs in cribs or saying that "grenade" is technically inaccurate in the original sentence, there is a very different mental picture when someone says "grenade" vs "stun grenade". I feel like in an era where it's easier and more prolific to crucify a person because of their words than in the known history of mankind, the distinction between "grenade" and "stun grenade" should be made. Does that make this okay? No. Not even a little. But let's err on the side of clearer communication.
        sandworm101 6y ago
        Exactly. It's akin to the difference between dropping "a bomb" and dropping "a nuke". The terms are sometimes interchangeable but should never be confused.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - Fricken 6y ago
    No, he's defending flashbanging a baby.
    - sandworm101 6y ago
      No, I was pointing out the use of a term that, in common understanding of what "grenade" means, was confusing.
  - maxlybbert 6y ago
    No, the comment pointed out that it wasn’t a grenade. A not-grenade cannot be used to “grenade a baby.”
- saganus 6y ago
  According to Wikipedia > On 28 May 2014, a 19-month-old baby boy's face was severely burned and mutilated when a stun grenade was thrown into his playpen by a SWAT team serving an arrest warrant for a suspected drug dealer in Cornelia, Georgia. The baby survived with facial disfigurement.[17] The family received $3.6 million in settlements in 2016.[18] So yeah, the baby survived. That doesn't mean there was no harm done.
- whoknew1122 6y ago
  A flash-bang is a grenade. It's not a fragmentation grenade (which you're referring to); or an incendiary grenade; or any number of other 'less than lethal' (which can be lethal) grenade types. A 'hand' grenade is one thrown by hand as opposed to projected from a grenade launcher. So, yes, a flashbang is a hand grenade. And it's a good thing those policemen used a concussive grenade to pacify that dangerous child. I'm sure that child was a threat that needed to be neutralized./s
  - chacham15 6y ago
    For justice, outcomes matter. This is why there is a difference between "attempted murder" and actual murder. Yes, both are punished, but the actual outcome does matter. Therefore, the distinction between a flashbang and an incendiary/fragmentation grenade (which what most people think when they read hand grenade) too does matter. When I read the initial statement, I thought that the child was killed and am happy to hear that thats not the case. Even though the child was definitely harmed, I am happy that it is still alive.
    - meta4s 6y ago
      You're wrong. The differences between "attempted murder" and "actual murder" are just codified laws which were enacted by a legislature. People decided. And it's certainly okay in this situation to debate those decisions. If you're just arguing that definitions matter, don't hide it under something that it's not.
- mcv 6y ago
  It's not a fragmentation grenade, but it's still a type of hand grenade. Not as deadly, but not exactly harmless either. And very irresponsible to use it in a situation that does not warrant it.
- opwieurposiu 6y ago
  Well, you see in this situation the baby was asleep, so the SWAT tactics manual only calls for a stun grenade. Had the baby been awake, of course a 120mm howitzer shell would have done a better job of ensuring the safety of the brave officers from this dangerous infant.
- jefurii 6y ago
  Survived yes but think of the effects on the kid and the family.
- meta4s 6y ago
  Did you just read what you wrote? The kid in the crib survived. How does that not stop you in your tracks? What prompts a SWAT team to do a night raid on a potential family home? Please tell me how any other point in the day where the potential of a family not being there, isn't a better option? Then if you could please explain if this was the case, that any other time is/was plausible, what you think the reason to throw the flash grenade is or was at the time? Actually interested how you divest your self from being human under the guise of being analytical and miss such an obvious analytical point.
yeetawayhn 6y ago
People conveniently leave out that it was the front door of a suspected drug dealer who had a previous weapons charge and had guards. https://www.cnn.com/2014/05/30/us/georgia-toddler-injured-stun-grenade-drug-raid/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2014/05/30/us/georgia-toddler-injured-st... So the suspected drug dealer was using the baby as a human shield.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  Your article does not support your assertion: > Because the suspected drug dealer, Wanis Thonetheva, had a previous weapons charge, officers were issued a "no-knock warrant" for the residence, Terrell said. > Thonetheva, 30, was not at the home at the time of the raid, but the toddler's mother and father and their other three children were inside. Not only was the raid unannounced, but the suspected drug dealer wasn't even home at the time.
  - passwordreset 6y ago
    ... and it's even worse than that. It seems there was no reason to suspect that this was the home of a drug dealer, as the police informant never purchased drugs there. The deputy who lied to the court to get the warrant was indicted but acquitted. From https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-georgia-deputy-acquitted-after-flash-bang-grenade-hurts-toddler-n479361 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-georgia-deputy-acqui... In 2015: "a federal grand jury indicted the undercover Habersham County deputy who secured the no-knock warrant, Nikki Autry, alleging that she provided false information to gain entry to the home where the Phonesavanhs were staying. The informant who she claimed purchased meth there never did, the indictment states, and Autry never "confirmed" that there was heavy drug traffic at the home, as she also claimed to have done."
  - yeetawayhn 6y ago
    None of that refutes the comment you are responding to. The suspected drug dealer did have a weapons charge, and the baby was placed in the way of the the front door of his residence.
oh_sigh 6y ago
One police officer once threw a hand grenade into the crib of a sleeping baby. Clearly not a good thing, but your phrasing makes it sound like it is some kind of common, repeat experience.
- monocasa 6y ago
  As someone from Atlanta, the police came out hard in defense of this, to the point where I don't feel bad speaking in terms of plurals. The phrase I believe goes "a few bad apples... spoils the bunch"?
  - oh_sigh 6y ago
    A million people could defend it, but it doesn't change the fact that the act only happened once.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      The police in Atlanta, collectively, made a point to hit home how OK it was and how any else of them would do the same thing, with police management saying such under oath during her trial. They don't get a "only once" pass under those circumstances.
      - oh_sigh 6y ago
        That still doesn't mean you can talk about the act as if it has happened multiple times. Maybe if you changed your original post to "Police support throwing grenades..." and not "Police throw grenades..."
        monocasa 6y ago
        Multiple police in Atlanta do through multiple grenades. They just only threw it into crib with an infant in it once. But made sure we all knew that they think they did nothing wrong by doing that, and would absolutely do it again under the same circumstances. When you go out of your way, under oath, to say that your organization systemically didn't learn from the mistake and would absolutely do it again, an "only once" defense doesn't hold any water.

sandworm101 6y ago

Flashbangs. They are violent, but in a totally different class than actual hand grenades. No police in the US use hand grenades. The kid in the crib survived. Had it been an actual grenade ... not a survivable event. https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/05/baby-in-coma-after-police-grenade-dropped-in-crib-during-drug-raid https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/05/baby-in-coma-...

8fGTBjZxBcHq 6y ago
Are you really defending the police grenading a baby.
- mdorazio 6y ago
  Are you really purposely using the wrong word to force the conversation to fit your narrative?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    Wikipedia redirects "flashbang" to "stun grenade" and describes it as a "less lethal explosive device", so I'd say they're using the vernacular correctly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashbang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashbang
    - bigwavedave 6y ago
      Not the op, the gp, or even the parent, but I'd like to say that while I'm certainly not condoning flashbangs in cribs or saying that "grenade" is technically inaccurate in the original sentence, there is a very different mental picture when someone says "grenade" vs "stun grenade". I feel like in an era where it's easier and more prolific to crucify a person because of their words than in the known history of mankind, the distinction between "grenade" and "stun grenade" should be made. Does that make this okay? No. Not even a little. But let's err on the side of clearer communication.
      - sandworm101 6y ago
        Exactly. It's akin to the difference between dropping "a bomb" and dropping "a nuke". The terms are sometimes interchangeable but should never be confused.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- Fricken 6y ago
  No, he's defending flashbanging a baby.
  - sandworm101 6y ago
    No, I was pointing out the use of a term that, in common understanding of what "grenade" means, was confusing.
- maxlybbert 6y ago
  No, the comment pointed out that it wasn’t a grenade. A not-grenade cannot be used to “grenade a baby.”
saganus 6y ago
According to Wikipedia > On 28 May 2014, a 19-month-old baby boy's face was severely burned and mutilated when a stun grenade was thrown into his playpen by a SWAT team serving an arrest warrant for a suspected drug dealer in Cornelia, Georgia. The baby survived with facial disfigurement.[17] The family received $3.6 million in settlements in 2016.[18] So yeah, the baby survived. That doesn't mean there was no harm done.
whoknew1122 6y ago
A flash-bang is a grenade. It's not a fragmentation grenade (which you're referring to); or an incendiary grenade; or any number of other 'less than lethal' (which can be lethal) grenade types. A 'hand' grenade is one thrown by hand as opposed to projected from a grenade launcher. So, yes, a flashbang is a hand grenade. And it's a good thing those policemen used a concussive grenade to pacify that dangerous child. I'm sure that child was a threat that needed to be neutralized./s
- chacham15 6y ago
  For justice, outcomes matter. This is why there is a difference between "attempted murder" and actual murder. Yes, both are punished, but the actual outcome does matter. Therefore, the distinction between a flashbang and an incendiary/fragmentation grenade (which what most people think when they read hand grenade) too does matter. When I read the initial statement, I thought that the child was killed and am happy to hear that thats not the case. Even though the child was definitely harmed, I am happy that it is still alive.
  - meta4s 6y ago
    You're wrong. The differences between "attempted murder" and "actual murder" are just codified laws which were enacted by a legislature. People decided. And it's certainly okay in this situation to debate those decisions. If you're just arguing that definitions matter, don't hide it under something that it's not.
mcv 6y ago
It's not a fragmentation grenade, but it's still a type of hand grenade. Not as deadly, but not exactly harmless either. And very irresponsible to use it in a situation that does not warrant it.
opwieurposiu 6y ago
Well, you see in this situation the baby was asleep, so the SWAT tactics manual only calls for a stun grenade. Had the baby been awake, of course a 120mm howitzer shell would have done a better job of ensuring the safety of the brave officers from this dangerous infant.
jefurii 6y ago
Survived yes but think of the effects on the kid and the family.
meta4s 6y ago
Did you just read what you wrote? The kid in the crib survived. How does that not stop you in your tracks? What prompts a SWAT team to do a night raid on a potential family home? Please tell me how any other point in the day where the potential of a family not being there, isn't a better option? Then if you could please explain if this was the case, that any other time is/was plausible, what you think the reason to throw the flash grenade is or was at the time? Actually interested how you divest your self from being human under the guise of being analytical and miss such an obvious analytical point.

yeetawayhn 6y ago

People conveniently leave out that it was the front door of a suspected drug dealer who had a previous weapons charge and had guards. https://www.cnn.com/2014/05/30/us/georgia-toddler-injured-stun-grenade-drug-raid/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2014/05/30/us/georgia-toddler-injured-st... So the suspected drug dealer was using the baby as a human shield.

jakelazaroff 6y ago
Your article does not support your assertion: > Because the suspected drug dealer, Wanis Thonetheva, had a previous weapons charge, officers were issued a "no-knock warrant" for the residence, Terrell said. > Thonetheva, 30, was not at the home at the time of the raid, but the toddler's mother and father and their other three children were inside. Not only was the raid unannounced, but the suspected drug dealer wasn't even home at the time.
- passwordreset 6y ago
  ... and it's even worse than that. It seems there was no reason to suspect that this was the home of a drug dealer, as the police informant never purchased drugs there. The deputy who lied to the court to get the warrant was indicted but acquitted. From https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-georgia-deputy-acquitted-after-flash-bang-grenade-hurts-toddler-n479361 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-georgia-deputy-acqui... In 2015: "a federal grand jury indicted the undercover Habersham County deputy who secured the no-knock warrant, Nikki Autry, alleging that she provided false information to gain entry to the home where the Phonesavanhs were staying. The informant who she claimed purchased meth there never did, the indictment states, and Autry never "confirmed" that there was heavy drug traffic at the home, as she also claimed to have done."
- yeetawayhn 6y ago
  None of that refutes the comment you are responding to. The suspected drug dealer did have a weapons charge, and the baby was placed in the way of the the front door of his residence.

oh_sigh 6y ago

One police officer once threw a hand grenade into the crib of a sleeping baby. Clearly not a good thing, but your phrasing makes it sound like it is some kind of common, repeat experience.

monocasa 6y ago
As someone from Atlanta, the police came out hard in defense of this, to the point where I don't feel bad speaking in terms of plurals. The phrase I believe goes "a few bad apples... spoils the bunch"?
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  A million people could defend it, but it doesn't change the fact that the act only happened once.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    The police in Atlanta, collectively, made a point to hit home how OK it was and how any else of them would do the same thing, with police management saying such under oath during her trial. They don't get a "only once" pass under those circumstances.
    - oh_sigh 6y ago
      That still doesn't mean you can talk about the act as if it has happened multiple times. Maybe if you changed your original post to "Police support throwing grenades..." and not "Police throw grenades..."
      - monocasa 6y ago
        Multiple police in Atlanta do through multiple grenades. They just only threw it into crib with an infant in it once. But made sure we all knew that they think they did nothing wrong by doing that, and would absolutely do it again under the same circumstances. When you go out of your way, under oath, to say that your organization systemically didn't learn from the mistake and would absolutely do it again, an "only once" defense doesn't hold any water.