Comments on: The FBI and Flash Bang Grenades

By: eric

eric — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:57:59 +0000

Wow, this is ridiculous. So now there is something wrong with flash bangs because of some FBI agents had to take one up close? Man, America is so completely screwed off its rocker. Who cares what they do to people, do you know who we typically use these things on??? Criminals, terrorists, wanted felons, murderers, rapists, drug lords, and any other people who break the law and ask to be put in their situations. In my opinion it should either be a real grenade or a rubber ball filled claymore being thrown into the room. Im sorry agents that you had to take a flash bang head on but that doesnt mean something was wrong with it or you should sue the company for injury. Ask yourelf this; If that flash bang hadn't gone off and you would have used it in an operation and it was faulty and the criminal or whoever you were flashing had taken that flash bang in the face and then compained about hearing loss and loss of vision.... would anyone have said anything or even cared at all what that person said?? I dont think so. So quit whining and man up.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:12:11 +0000

There is a simple solution to this problem: make the CEO and the CFO wear one of these babies.

By: Jared

Jared — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 04:13:25 +0000

Hey Geniuses,

You all talk about the seven deadly sins and treason. Also have you ever heard of the government pointing the finger at someone to cover up thier screwup? See the Duke lacross case.

Debbie perhaps forgot that wrath / anger is another of the deadly sins.

I am saddened by your mob mentality. You point to the courts as your agent of violence. It's as if you expect justice to come with blood.

This reporter has not spelled out any facts in the actual case, only what is alleged.

If you want a draconian system of law, fine. I'll expect each of you to be imprisioned for the next mail box you wreck when chatting on your cell-phone or the next time you pour grease down the drain or smoke in public. Afterall there is a war on (it's not offically a war you know) and you would be poisining Americans.

By: Joel

Joel — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:27:12 +0000

All the discussion here seems to be focused on the obviously criminal activities of the flashbang provider. While there was unquestionably wrongdoing on their part, I find it sickeningly ironic that the injured agents receive nothing but sympathy and compassion, while on the other hand they are more than happy to wantonly toss these clearly dangerous (by their own admissions) devices into confined spaces quite possibly inhabited by innocent women & children (in addition to violent criminals). I would be much more receptive to the case against the manufacturer (who at least hoped the devices would not go off prematurely) if every agent who has ever used such a device against a room of unknown content were to turn him or herself in to authorities and plead guilty to assault & reckless endangerment, and serve their time in prison.

By: juris speak

juris speak — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 18:40:41 +0000

Abbie, please stop composing provocative,yet, sanctimonious prose.
At the threshold, Abbie, again, you misjudged your facts and the law.
Foremost, any defendant is "innocent until proven guilty" or did you forget that.
The prosecutor MUST PROVE EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT OF THE CRIME CHARGED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. ABOVE ALL, a crime has two elements, a mental aspect and a physical aspect. Or did you, moreover, have a lapse in memory as well.
You mentioned that there was an indictment-so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
An indictment from a grand jury is just that-an indictment- a charging document and nothing more, Abbie, convictions are not AUTOMATIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A jury cannot convict bsed upon innuendo, false facts, an indictment or emotion only the law.
While a barrister or lawyer employed in the U.S. Attorney's office is
compensated for their creative cognition to locate obsure statutres and prosecute cases pursuant to those obsure statutes, it is role of a judge as rule on the fairness or JUSTICE of a case.
As it is the responsibility of the "venireman" or jurors to wiegh the exact nature, credibility, viablity and legality of the evidence and ascertain whether the defendant is guilty or innocent.

When I was enrolled and completed "Mass Communication" and "Ethices for Journalists" courses , while in college, my professors ALWAYS SCOLDED AND LECTURED HIS STUDENTS WITH THE EDICT-NEVER JUDGE ONLY WRITE-BUT WRITE FAIRLY AND OBJECTIVELY.

Perhaps, Abbie, you need to heed such immortal advice.
Besides, the defense counsel may or may not defend the case and if the defense does defend the defense has a absolute right to challenge any and all proof and the evidence for that proof.
Or, Abbie, did you forget that too?!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe what is necessary for you is for you to enroll or re-enroll in courses such as the U.S. Constitution, Criminal Law and Procedure, even an Evidence class would be indispensable to "illuminate" the murkiness and ignorance that you possess.

The evidence that the "flash bang grenades" exploded could be traced to a variety of etiology- unusual temperatures, contact with the substances that should not be near them or even improper placement, such as placing a grenade in one's lap. I WOULD suspect that members of the law enforcement community INCLUDING FBI AGENTS HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED IN THE PROPER NOT IMPROPER HANDLING OF A GRENADE OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF device, machinery, armament, firearm, or vehicle that is capable of causing harm to themselves or to others.
Abbie, did you even contemplate that prior to writing what you composed?????????? Or did these injured agents( or were they truly injured within the course and scope of their positions?) miss that course as well???????????
Besides, a member of law enforcement as would a member of the surrounding community, such as innnocent bystanders have been either injured or killed when a "flash band grenade " exploded under the "right circumstances and conditions."
Obviously, a "flash bang grenade" is a DANGEROUS device and must be manufactured and UTILIZED PROPERLY.
However, Abbie, the human organism is prone and has a suseptibility to pecadillos.
Consider, too, Abbie, that law enforcement, even individual agents of the FBI have been sued civilly for violating the civil and constitutional rights of defendants as well as innocent bystanders even when firearms or "flash bang grenades" have been used.

Finally, Abbie, civil lawsuits have s divergent and different standard of proof-"preponderance of the evidence"
A plaintiff -a person who brings a lawsuit- even an FBI agent-still must prove that the defendant is liable for the injuries.

That can be and is a GINORMOUS UNDERTAKING.

Have a nice day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By: willie b.

willie b. — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:12:34 +0000

Interesting, pathetic, incompetent. These are just a few words that come to mind from our overpaid managers who are supposed to oversee the equipment enforcement officers use.
The solution would be to fire the entire chain of command involved in the handling of the stun grenades. Jail sentences should be handed out next.

Willie b

By: nighthawksoars

nighthawksoars — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:53:41 +0000

The FBI is surprised that an American company would allow greed to trump patriotism? Wow, talk about naive!!

By: virginiastewart

virginiastewart — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:11:20 +0000

I would like to think that "Made in the USA" stood for quality and soundness of construction. HOWEVER--that is no more true than "Made in China" means the same thing. It is all a matter of making money-illegally, shoddily, dangerously, whatever! Is it any worse than adding melamine to food stuffs and importing them because they are cheap? No sir!!! Junk is junk! Witness the big 3 auto makers asking for bailouts because they make POS cars. I grow weak.....

By: Larry- Colorado

Larry- Colorado — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:44:23 +0000

35+ years in Law Enforcement and nothing surprises me. The purchasing systems are often controlled by numbers crunchers. They frequently don't know a flash bang from a rope. As for the respondent who brought up the Branch Dividian- I have known several people who were there. They were all ethical and moral people who (ironically) ambushed by a nut and his followers. I have been on similar operations where the results were zero injuries and zero deaths. These results are dictated by the subjects of the operations. Next question!

By: ron

ron — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:51:48 +0000

Things like this are why I hate "Defence Contractors" - Having been one for less than a year, after being lured by a fancy salary and benefits, I left the military, and within a few short months was just aghast at the rip-offs and pure fraud - there is NOTHING that defence contractors do that the military - regardless of which branch - can't do themselves - when it comes to aircraft, tanks, stuff like that, ok - but software, and tactics, and defense strategy and the small arms (like Flashbangs) they can do themselves - the stuff people get rich on, and then when it doesn't work, they try to sell it to others??? (like the FBI) - sell it to the taliban, maybe that would be the best solution – and then bad equipment wouldn't hurt Americans