Women looses fingers picking up flash bang
Executive summary
No credible item in the supplied reporting documents a woman who specifically “lost fingers” after picking up a flash‑bang, but the sources collectively show that flash‑bangs (also called stun or concussion grenades) have caused catastrophic burns, shrapnel wounds, concussions and traumatic limb injuries in multiple incidents and have led to lawsuits and settlements protester-injury-lawsuit-settlement-meghan-opbroek/" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[1] [2] [3] [4].
1. How flash‑bangs injure people: the mechanics behind the headlines
Flash‑bangs are designed to produce an intense light, a loud concussive noise and heat; they can ignite, fragment and emit burning particles, and therefore can cause burns, embedded shrapnel and blunt‑force trauma when they detonate near a person, a mechanism cited in coverage of multiple incidents and in legal analyses of these devices [1] [2] [4].
2. Documented injuries in the reporting: burns, concussions and limb trauma
The supplied reporting describes people suffering third‑degree chemical and thermal burns, concussions and embedded shrapnel after being struck by flash‑bangs — for example, a Portland protester claimed third‑degree burns and long‑term physical and mental harm and later a city settlement was reported in a separate Portland case where a flash‑bang allegedly sent shrapnel into a woman, caused a concussion and long‑term damage [5] [1]; in Minneapolis a woman was described as having parts of her calf “incinerated” after a stun grenade detonated next to her, a case that led to a million‑dollar settlement [2]; and another protester’s arm was described as “blown out” after a concussion grenade incident during the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, with ongoing surgery reported [3].
3. Use, policy and accountability: meant to be deployed overhead, not at people
Law enforcement agencies often state that aerial distraction devices are to be deployed above crowds and not fired directly at people, and some departments have suspended or reviewed use of flash‑bangs after injurious incidents; Portland police, for instance, temporarily stopped deploying them after several protesters were reportedly injured and the bureau said it was reviewing what went wrong [5] [6].
4. Lawsuits, settlements and the pattern of litigation
Multiple jurisdictions have faced lawsuits and large settlements tied to flash‑bang injuries: Portland agreed to pay claims in cases involving head injuries and shrapnel wounds [1], and a Minneapolis case where a flash‑bang allegedly exploded inside an apartment produced a seven‑figure payout after catastrophic burns [2]; plaintiffs and civil‑rights groups argue these outcomes show a recurring risk and sometimes improper use by police [2] [6].
5. What the reporting does — and does not — substantiate about finger amputations
Among the supplied sources there is thorough documentation of severe burns, embedded fragments and traumatic limb injuries, but none of the included articles or legal summaries specifically report a woman losing fingers as the direct result of picking up a flash‑bang; the material does describe catastrophic burns and limb damage that in other contexts have required surgeries and grafts, which shows plausibility but not confirmation of the exact scenario queried [2] [3] [4].
6. Bottom line and caution for readers navigating similar claims
The consistent pattern in the reporting is that flash‑bangs are capable of causing life‑altering injuries and that misuse or close‑range detonation has led to burns, embedded shrapnel and traumatic injuries that have spawned litigation and policy reviews [1] [6] [2]; however, the specific claim that a woman “lost fingers picking up [a] flash‑bang” is not documented in the provided sources, and verifying that precise allegation would require additional reporting or medical/legal records beyond what is cited here [5] [1].