Hacker News Reader

I'm pretty sure the poor child's situation is a direct result of a flash bang 'distractionary device' being thrown into his crib by law enforcement. The suspect was NOT in the house, and they found NO DRUGS in the house. As for having a semi-auto firearm, um every other single house in Habersham county probably has one or more semi-autos, big deal. This was a poor family in a bad situation, that the poorly trained sheriff's office "swat team" made worse.

It must be nice to never associate with criminals. For many poor families, this is not an option as the only uncle who will let you stay for free with him after your house burns down, just happens to sell some meth on the side. Is one grenaded baby worth finding even 100lbs of meth? Not to me. It's certainly not worth mauling a baby to find no drugs.

>Is one grenaded baby worth finding even 100lbs of meth? Not to me. //

Does it matter if the meth might be causing far more pain to more people?

This https://www.google.com/search?q=mother+on+meth+kills+child gives a lot of pretty stark reading material.

Does it matter if your death will moderately increase the happiness of a room full of bunnies? The group-ethics model has some pretty obvious limits, which I think you've violated in your example.

100lb (~45kg) at 50mg is about 900,000 doses of meth. I suspect the death rate per 900,000 doses is quite high and the expected outcome probably includes the death of at least one child.

In my question I'm asking if a simplistic comparative harm analysis would perhaps weigh in favour of non-terminal injury to an infant. It's a very difficult question, of course, and a true analysis couldn't be so simplistic (what proportion of those 900k doses would get replaced by alternate supplies for example). But raising the question seems valid.

How many fewer people are doing meth because of this raid?

It's entirely legal to own a semi-automatic AK47 (although not if you use and/or possess drugs...but my point stands, as the gun itself would have been perfectly legal).

Signs point to this guy not storing the rifle in a safe fashion, however.

Did you read the article?

1. The suspect is the nephew. 2. The nephew is not the home owner. 3. The home owner wasn't the one dealing meth. 4. The nephew/suspect wasn't present at the home at the time.

They'll get him eventually even if it takes another fifty armed assaults.

The police threw a grenade into an innocent child's crib. Nothing you've said ends in '...and that's why they clearly had to burn a hole two year old'.

> Don't be a criminal and don't associate with criminals and this doesn't happen to you.

Ok, but how far does this 'association' go? Where is your line where the excessive police response isn't justified. We can already see that your line is past throwing grenades at children. What's next? SWAT team mows down a preschool with gunfire because a drug dealer was picking up their kid at the time?

Thank you for this. It's true that associating with criminals makes it more likely that things like this will happen to you, but that doesn't justify it. A child getting hospitalized is excessive collateral damage for something indirectly related to the family.

At minimum, you need citations for the claims, hence I downvoted you. As for the rest, I simply disagree.

It was obvious from reading the story that there was more to it. The hurt and pain caused is of course awful but leaving out this sort of information is disingenuous and makes this piece essentially propaganda when it didn't need to be.

That said, your comment is off. The suspect is not the father of the child as it appears they were visiting the suspects house.

Completely disagree with just about every point.

I was with you all the way up until your demonstrably bullshit conclusion.

This is HN, so remember to get the polish out before you commence with the bootlicking.