[jthomas1600]

This is an extremely heart breaking story. The Facts I'm so glad to see Rev. Sharpton being balanced in his comments.

[JerryLove]

This seems odd in that this is one if the most blatent cases of police miscounduct I am aware of.

Of course, it's been a gigantic peeve of mine for a long time that police, particularly DEA, often with very little (no) evidience, perform no-knock raids.

Of course when you throw battering rams and flash grenades into houses you can hit and kill people. The purpose of a police department is to protect the public.

I also am not a believer that guns "accidentaly fire"... and coincidentally pointed at a child who had also just been the accidental recepient of a flash-bang? And I'm not very pre-disposed to believe reports that cover the butts of the officers involved. Remember this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A0n2qMxf0c) was reported by police as "injued by horse after attacking horse and mounted officer", when in fact he was beaten even after becoming unconsous and having attacked nothing.

Maybe there's somthing about the story I've missed in this case: but I'm not sure what the "person in the mirror" is doing that can be blamed in this case.

[bowstaff981]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

This seems odd in that this is one if the most blatent cases of police miscounduct I am aware of.

Agreed. Whether it was an accident or whatever the police shot a child. That's not an accident that can be allowed to happen. Is there any news on what has been done by the city to try to put the family at ease?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by bowstaff981

Agreed. Whether it was an accident or whatever the police shot a child.

In theory, I could even come up with defenses to that (a scuffle between a single officer and suspect, stray fire from a leget gun-battle, etc). But for an entry team to argue "grandma bumped into me"?!?, and that doesn't address the issue of the flash-bang.

Had there been the violent criminal they were supposedly looking for in here. Had he barracaded himself in and threatened violence against those inside or such. If both of those were true, there might be a valid reason to be tossing grenades into houses and force-entering.

Otherwise you surround the house, announce your presence (over a megaphone if you are that concerned about who might be inside), and wait for a surrender.

There are *way* too many instances of not only this kind of thig happening (and I don't think it's acceptable even at a drug house or the like), but of this happening to completely innocent people at completely the wrong location.

[Jeffrey]

This was one of my personal favorites.

[JerryLove]

Or this one where they shot, in the back, the homeowner who called them in the first place, having been told repeatedly that the homeowner was armed and had the intruder down, and much of it is on the 911 tape: including indications they tried to cover it up.

Or of course the case of Don Scott who, according to official ruling, was raided in the hopes of seizing his property, and was killed when un-uniformed police in unmarked cars stormed into his house and he went for his firearm.

Far too often things go like this.
- Officer wants bust to boost performance evaluation
- Officer finds guy high on street and threatenes to arrest him if he doesn't give up the location of a drug house.
- high-guy makes something up, or gives an answer but gets his numbers confused.
- police get no-knock warrant on location, perhaps screwing up the location themselves.
- police bust in innocent-people's home and, hopefully, no one is killed.

In one case, they even bothered with survelience (will have to look up the case), could easily have told that it was not a drug dispensory (no one came in or out but the two home-owners, and had ample opportunity to arrest the home-owners outside the home; but burst in anyway.

Speaking out on SWAT | The Columbia Daily Tribune - Columbia, Missouri

[Ax]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I also am not a believer that guns "accidentaly fire"...

I almost lost my brother to accidental gunfire. I was there. He tripped with his shotgun in his hand and when the stock hit the ground it went off and narrowly missed shooting him in the head. It happens.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Ax

I almost lost my brother to accidental gunfire. I was there. He tripped with his shotgun in his hand and when the stock hit the ground it went off and narrowly missed shooting him in the head. It happens.

That was, bluntly, carelessness; both in handling and in weapon selection (it isepresentative of a type of weapon with no block-safety: not the case for a police sidearm). Have your brother replace his shotgun with one which uses a drop or block safety. Also, you should likely review your procedures for when to chamber rounds (though I don't know he wasn't running down something at the time: so being loaded and chambered might have been appropriate)

A police officer entering a known hostile situation, however, is carry a sidearm which will only fire when the trigger is pulled. That the weapon happened to be pointing directly at someone seems unlikely to be conincidence.

Even if I were to accept that a weapon may fire "accidentally", and then proceed to accept that a police officer in a raid may have it pointed at a burned child when it does go off, I have to evaluate that possability in light of the fact that carelessness / indifference had already caused injury to this child through police actions.

No. There are too many "accidents" piled one on top of another to accept such a claim in this case without etraordinary proof. The child was either shot deliberately (and I'm not claiming that the officer realized he was shooting an unarmed, wounded child: just that he didn't check his target), or minimally with great carelessness.

I've had hang-fires and double-fires. I've had an AR-15 firing-pin retention bolt strip and the weapon discharge it's magazine so fast it sounded / felt like one shot. When I was 15, with a 404 breech-laded shot-pistol I had a jostling of the hammer trigger a fire (bad design) I've had all sorts of things go wrong: and I've never put a bullet somewhere other than the intended direction (though, of course, accuracy did not always occur).

[tlj009]

A police officer entering a known hostile situation, however, is carry a sidearm which will only fire when the trigger is pulled. That the weapon happened to be pointing directly at someone seems unlikely to be conincidence.

The child was asleep on the couch and the grandmother hit the officer. It does seem possible that the gun would fire if he entered, pointed at the figure on the couch, and was hit unexpectedly from another direction.

Even if I were to accept that a weapon may fire "accidentally", and then proceed to accept that a police officer in a raid may have it pointed at a burned child when it does go off, I have to evaluate that possability in light of the fact that carelessness / indifference had already caused injury to this child through police actions.

I missed that the child had been burned but still, I don't see a reason for the stun grenade at all. I think that the reasons that it happened are 1) they were after a murder suspect 2) mulitple officers had recently been killed attempting an arrest 3) there was a tv crew (some show for A&E) with them and they may have wanted a show.

No. There are too many "accidents" piled one on top of another to accept such a claim in this case without etraordinary proof. The child was either shot deliberately (and I'm not claiming that the officer realized he was shooting an unarmed, wounded child: just that he didn't check his target), or minimally with great carelessness.

I'm not going to go that far but I do think that an investigation needs to take place and procedures need to be reviewed.

I've had hang-fires and double-fires. I've had an AR-15 firing-pin retention bolt strip and the weapon discharge it's magazine so fast it sounded / felt like one shot. When I was 15, with a 404 breech-laded shot-pistol I had a jostling of the hammer trigger a fire (bad design) I've had all sorts of things go wrong: and I've never put a bullet somewhere other than the intended direction (though, of course, accuracy did not always occur).

Yes, but have you ever entered a dangerous situation with your finger on the trigger and got hit from behind? That seems to be a possibility here.

It should be noted that the family disputes this claim. They claim that the gun was fired from outside the house after the stun grenade was thrown in. Surely, that would be easily proven either true or false.

[JerryLove]

I'd be a lot more symathetic to a lone officer (or pair) responding to a domestic dispute, or BnE and having things get out of hand than I am to an entry team arguing that they were unable to control their firearms when an old woman bumped into one.