SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A report at Alternet gives some context to the amount spent by the U.S. on its drug policy.
- 1,100 - The number of Americans that die each year due to violent crime caused by the drug war
- $51 billion - The amount that the U.S. government spends each year on the war on drugs
- 61 percent - The percentage of individuals targeted by drug-related SWAT raids who are people of color
- 82 percent - The number of Americans who believe that the government is losing the War on Drugs
- 18 months - The age of Bounkham "Bou Bou" Phonesavanh, a recent American casualty of the drug war
The article goes into further details on the number, including:
On May 28, a team of police officers raided the Phonesavanh's home, with the mistaken belief that the residents were involved with drugs. As they entered, they tossed a flashbang grenade that landed directly in the crib of baby Bou Bou, which exploded within point-blank range - critically injuring him.
In a harrowing article, his mother, Alecia, described seeing "a singed crib" and "a pool of blood", and later being informed by medics: "There's still a hole in his chest that exposes his ribs". Alecia said that the sole silver lining to this story is that it may "make us angry enough that we stop accepting brutal SWAT raids as a normal way to fight the war on drugs".
Fortunately, Bou Bou has been making a gradual recovery, but his family is relying on donations to support their living and medical costs.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by karmawhore on Friday July 11 2014, @02:54PM
I still haven't seen names. Who did this? Who threw a grenade into that boy's pack and play? I know this is exactly the kind of kneejerk reaction they're trying to get out of me, but I can't help it. If someone did that to my child, there would be hell to pay. I would spend the rest of my days getting every bit of revenge I could manage.
=kw= lurkin' to please
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @02:59PM
I'd hunt down the members of the SWAT team and kill their children.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday July 11 2014, @03:05PM
So killing children is acceptable to you as long as it's not your child. Good to know.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 1) by karmawhore on Friday July 11 2014, @03:18PM
I think AC was making a joke because I said "revenge." Violence is not actually what I had in mind.
=kw= lurkin' to please
(Score: 1, Troll) by BsAtHome on Friday July 11 2014, @03:21PM
It is the "eye for an eye" mentality which is very prevalent in the states. They only preach to forgive, on sundays, then they practice revenge the other days.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday July 11 2014, @03:48PM
Except that the kid is still alive and recovering. So it's gouging out the eyes of everyone in town hall for getting poked in the eye.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Friday July 11 2014, @05:21PM
poked in the eye != hole in the chest
Those responsible being shot in the chest from point blank would be a much more equal force.
This event will be haunting that cop until his dying day or I recommend much worse should happen to him.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Friday July 11 2014, @03:50PM
Yeah, it's prevalent but not universal. So I'd appreciate it if you don't over-generalize. (I live in the United States.)
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tibman on Friday July 11 2014, @05:30PM
Is revenge/vengeance on the chaotic good side of things?
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @05:54PM
Be precises, focused and selective in your targets. Don't waste time with the thugs, go after the ones giving the orders.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Friday July 11 2014, @03:16PM
Well the first person's name you are going to want is the judge who signed the warrant. You want to look at what evidence the judge had to decide if this was a dangerous situation that justified sending a militarized swat team into a family home. The officers trust the judge, so the judge is the first person to go after.
The next set of names you are going to want is pretty much everyone in the entire country. Because everyone had decided that it is the police's responsibility to protect us rather than our own responsibility to protect ourselves. Being angry at police for doing what the public expects of them is about as sensible as being angry at children for doing what their parents tell them to do.
The police themselves? They do what they are told to do. You might want to put their name on the list, but pretty close to the bottom. If everyone wasn't begging the police to protect us from boogie-men then I doubt the police would have just gone into a family home with grenades out of their own volition. Be mad at the police when they are acting against the public and policy.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hubie on Friday July 11 2014, @03:56PM
I'm not well versed in the warrant process, but I don't think the judge has any input on how the arrest will be done, in other words, I don't think it is up to the judge to say "I'll grant you this warrant if you're going to knock on their door, but I won't if you are sending in a SWAT team."
(Score: 3, Informative) by karmawhore on Friday July 11 2014, @05:15PM
They had a "no-knock warrant," so it was up to the judge to make that call.
=kw= lurkin' to please
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @05:46PM
This "no-knock" warrant was issued on the strength of testimony from a confidential informant that he had just bought drugs from a particular man. The object of the warrant had a long record, although details have been a little fuzzy whether that includes violence against police. One way or another, the individual was well known to the cops. He was also not in the home at the time of the attack. The people who were there, including the baby, were almost all out-of-town guests, sleeping peacefully at 1am. I guess the informant neglected to mention all the tourists.
Police in and around Atlanta love their no-knock warrants, although they do tend to get a little out of hand [wikipedia.org]. Which is kind of the point. I mean, a nice battering ram, flash-bang, storm-the-castle attack always looks great on Law and Order, but in real life, nobody gets the script ahead of time and there's no rehearsal.
The notion that a drug dealer poses such an immediate threat to society that he must be arrested, right this second, even if it means discharging firearms in a densely populated housing complex is completely antithetical to public safety. You can arrest him in the morning.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mrider on Friday July 11 2014, @08:10PM
There's a pretty damn big difference between "Someone is trying to harm/kill me, please come and protect me" and "That random dude looks suspicious, so please kick his door down and arrest everyone inside". Yes I expect the first. For the second one, the police had better be pretty darn sure of themselves first.
Doctor: "Do you hear voices?"
Me: "Only when my bluetooth is charged."
(Score: 2) by chromas on Friday July 11 2014, @09:31PM
You do know who brings the 'evidence' and filled-out warrant to the judge, right?