From the lede of this  Kansas City Star story, one might suspect the crux of the issue is the volatility of stun grenades:

Kansas City police have started an internal investigation to determine if tactical officers acted properly when they broke into a home and threw a stun grenade that caught drapes on fire.

What’s unfortunate about this lede, aside from the lack of editing, is that it fails to note that the KC cops obtained a knock and announce warrant that never should have issued, executed it without knocking at a home they never should have come to, broke down the door despite the homeowner offering to open the door for them, and tossed in a stun grenade for no cognizable reason.

And then the drapes caught on fire.

JeTuan Jones said the use of force — breaking open her door and throwing a “flash bang” device past her niece’s head — was unnecessary, considering that the search warrant was for a cell phone used by her brother, who had moved out four months earlier and was in police custody.

After barging in, police realized her brother did not live there and left without searching, Jones said.

Naturally, the Kansas City police are “investigating,” the police equivalent of telling the angry popular that they aren’t ignoring their wrongdoing, but biding time until people move on to the next thing that attracts their attention so they can wrap this up without any muss or fuss.  Naturally, police officials can’t comment while the matter is under investigation.  They sure have plenty to say when they arrest a bad guy for breaking into a house and lighting the drapes on fire, but that’s different.  That’s you.  That’s not them.

Complaints are rare, he said. Police have served more than 430 search warrants this year, mostly for narcotics investigations. The Office of Community Complaints has forwarded three complaints, including Jones’, to the police Internal Affairs Unit.

Is it fair to call the engagement of conduct that would constitute a crime if done by anyone who wasn’t wearing a shield a “complaint?”  That’s a matter of who you talk to.  In this case, the “complaint” isn’t limited to the drapes on fire from the flash bang grenade, but the breaking into the home despite the warrant not authorizing such entry.  It’s a big thing to go “no-knock” when the warrant says “knock and announce.” 

And what of the warrant itself, duly signed by a Jackson County Circuit Court Judge? 

Jones’ brother attracted police interest after he began using a homicide victim’s cell phone. He told his sister he found the phone Oct. 29 while walking. He used it to call her house.

According to Jones, police began watching her house. They arrested her brother Nov. 3 as he walked to work.

That night, she saw police cars pull onto her street as she left home with her husband and one child. Minutes later, tactical officers charged her front door. Barking dogs prompted Jones’ niece to open the door. Police outside yelled for her to get down.

One might wonder what connection was drawn between the place called and the likelihood that a piece of evidence might be found there.  It was ultimately found in the apartment where the brother had been staying until he was arrested earlier that day,  Did the judge bother to read the affidavit in support of the warrant? 

There’s a nagging suspicion that the inclination to behave like storm troopers comes from the toys we give them.  Put on a SWAT uniform, black as the night so one can’t be seen.  Bring a battering ram to the door and carry stun grenades.  It’s heady times for law enforcement, emboldened by a warrant, even if its basis is garbage and it doesn’t quite allow them to break down the door and throw the grenade.  They’ve got all the fun, cool cop stuff. 

Then there’s the first rule of policing, make it home for dinner.  It’s certainly safer for law enforcement to shock and awe then ask politely.  Stun those old women and they present no threat.  Even an 84 year old bedridden woman can pull the trigger on a gun, assuming she has one.  There may be no reason to suspect she’s armed, but then you can’t bank on her being unarmed.  It could happen.

In the name of safety and effectiveness, we load up police with the toys of the trade and trust them to show sufficient discretion not to use them unless needed.  We ask way too much.

The downside of tossing the stun grenade is an investigation that will result, at absolute worst, in an admonition not to violate the terms of a warrant or use excessive force.  The police involved will bow their heads, shuffle their feet and promise never to do so again.  All is forgiven.  Except by Jones:

She wants police to pay for the damage to her house, which she estimated at thousands of dollars.

Police say they don’t usually pay for damage if it is considered “reasonable.”

In the course of protecting our safety, there will always be some “reasonable” damage.  That’s the price of giving cops stun grenade and the authority to storm into a home in the night.  They’re just doing using the toys we give them to do the job we ask of them.