"Swatting" prank may have led to death of a man

originally posted by: hombero
I want to agree, but if the person hadn't made the call nobody would have died under these circumstances. You don't feel there is any culpability there for the person who brought down the police response onto this man?

No.

That's because the police never do anything wrong - so therefore the guy they shot was guilty and dangerous.

Otherwise the police made a huge mistake and the guy was innocent, which means the police are guilty of being trigger happy maniacs.

Either way you slice it, making a prank call cannot equate to murder even if it leads to murder because only the killer who pulls the trigger ultimately decides if that trigger gets pulled or not.

Blaming the caller is avoiding responsibility for holding a gun and killing an innocent man. Or alternatively the caller led them to a real bad guy and the cops took him down justifiably.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Prove what statement exactly?

If you get jail time here (or in most countries I'm aware of), then its because you've done something which is considered by the courts to be a very serious offence, rather than a "misdemeanor".

Its just basic common knowledge.

That's horse crap. Australia may not use the same definitions, but you folks have the same general concept of felony charges and misdemeanors, and your "summary offences" still carry a possible jail penalty.

"Possible" being the key word here, because most misdemeanors in America carry a possible jail sentence.

That high horse you're trying to mount isn't gonna leave the stable.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Otherwise the police made a huge mistake and the guy was innocent, which means the police are guilty of being trigger happy maniacs.

How does the first half of the sentence lead to the second half? It makes more sense to say the 'the police were misled.' Then the second half would be '...and an investigation into the circumstances will take place.'

Either way you slice it, making a prank call cannot equate to murder even if it leads to murder because only the killer who pulls the trigger ultimately decides if that trigger gets pulled or not.

Prank calls do not justify murders. In spite of that, if cops are told a mass-shooting is occurring in a property they'll arrive ready to shoot. Guy opens the door with an Xbox controller and it might look like a weapon. The information said 'mass shooter' so they operate at that threat level.

It sucks. Innocent guy gets killed for no reason. LEO goes home knowing he killed someone needlessly. Prankster goes to prison. No sunshine in this case for anyone.

People are saying that the perpetrators of these pranks can actually be charged with intent to commit murder... which is a capital offense in some states.

The FBI is investigating now, whoever did this may have just ruined their life over a stupid internet prank.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Pankster should not go to prison.

Jail for 30 to 365 days seems sufficient and the officer that pulled the trigger may need to face consequences as well.

originally posted by: Konduit
People are saying that the perpetrators of these pranks can actually be charged with intent to commit murder... which is a capital offense in some states.

The FBI is investigating now, whoever did this may have just ruined their life over a stupid internet prank.

Pranks do not contain intent to commit murder.

Otherwise it wouldn't be a prank.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Nah, I'm not getting on any "high horse" brother... I love American culture, last thing I'd want to do is get into some slanging match on who's better or worse, when it comes to ridiculously high imprisonment rates.

On topic though, that so called 'swat' nonsense is some kind of low act... especially in the US where the police are completely unhinged and have been known to shoot suspects for simply twitching.

Given that SWAT responses carry the threat of lethal force, it's hard for me to think someone using them as a prank cannot see it as a serious situation to start.

But then it's a gamer, maybe not really in touch with the real world.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
I don't think he's responsible for the police killing anyone, that's their responsibility.

Prank 911 calls are generally 30 days in jail. Maybe 90 days in some jurisdictions.

He should face his misdemeanor but it's in no way his fault if the cops decide to murder people in cold blood.

Disagree.
The intel is lead to believe the person in question is of the highest level threat..one slight mistake could be seen as a threat...thats the head space of the swat team going in....

This isn't some prank call, it is basically yelling fire in a movie theater and needs some extremely serious consequences even without a death. This person is partially responsible and needs to be made an example of

originally posted by: muzzleflash
I don't think he's responsible for the police killing anyone, that's their responsibility.

Prank 911 calls are generally 30 days in jail. Maybe 90 days in some jurisdictions.

He should face his misdemeanor but it's in no way his fault if the cops decide to murder people in cold blood.

I would contend that "Swatting" is a civil rights violation, as it is directly causing the police to suspend someones 4th amendment rights in response to a false emergency.

I would contend that "Swatting" should not be seen as a class B misdemeanor, and I would contend that anyone participating in Swatting should be liable for civil penalty as well as criminal.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Both the pranker and the police force are already liable civilly if the living victims so choose to sue.

a reply to: SaturnFX

Maybe SWAT teams need to do better intel before barging in and killing everyone?

a reply to: hombero
oh, now you know there is no internet anonymity in 2017, not even in a video game. Once they come after the culprit, they will be discovered in short time. The state has full control. When or if the investigation determines foul play, that person will be dragged into the spotlight.

How do you think they have been taking down those child abuse rings we hear about in the dark web?? Even tor is not so anonymous anymore if they really really want you. Hell, if you issued a threat right now to the right person and sounded serious enough, you would have suits knocking on your door inside of 48 hours.

a reply to: Konduit
the reason that cannot fly legally is because then the assumption is that police officers arrive with intent to kill rather than investigate. Does popular opinion in society believe that to be the case? Perhaps. But for the courts to draw that distinction would not bode well for relations between police and the judicial system. They would have to codify using the system to file a false report as a felony when used in this specific manner, and then the individual can go to prison for felony murder, which I believe would send the message kids and young adults across the country that its not funny to put someones life on the line.
a reply to: muzzleflash
I disagree. Making that call may as well be the same as pointing a loaded firearm at someone for #s and giggles, which is menacing, criminal mischief, threat of bodily harm, making terrorist threats and/or any number of felonies that go with it. They should absolutely catch any of those felonies, or felony murder when it ends in wrongful death. We cannot allow American youth to believe there are no consequences outside of a slap on the wrist for intentionally putting someones life in harm with the possible intent of homicide as the outcome. A psyche evaluation certainly should be mandatory upon conviction as well.

It is a fair and reasonable assumption that having a concerted effort to have a tactical team deployed to an innocent person's home when they are typically called for the most severe circumstances involving violence with weapons will result in a firearm aimed at a human body, because that is the entire reason the tactical teams exist. To deal with threats with force. Im not defending the actions of the SWAT who shot the innocent man right this moment, as I don't have the information from that incident outside of the article with the possible revelation of a prank. But it is absolutely reasonable to assume the deployment of a tactical team results in a firearm being pointed at the target where they reasonably believe their deployment is necessary.

a reply to: muzzleflash

If someone phones the cops and says their neighbour has killed their kids it's the prankster's responsibility.

Wasting police time - fined. Harassing the neighbour - fined. Neighbour gets killed - serious prison time.

Put it in context. It's not an accident that the pranksters say terrorist, armed robbers, domestic slayings. They fully, knowingly want the SWAT to kick down doors and go in there with weapons drawn.

It all starts with the phone call.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Nah, I'm not getting on any "high horse" brother... I love American culture, last thing I'd want to do is get into some slanging match on who's better or worse, when it comes to ridiculously high imprisonment rates.

A funny comment to make, given your loud and oft-given opinions on America's guns, the justice system, and Americans in general. But, to be clear, I was not trying to get into a "slanging match" about imprisonment rates....which is why I didn't talk about them. I simply pointed out that Australia has different versions of the same levels of criminal charges that America does, and that Australian "misdemeanors" can also carry jail time, not just America's misdemeanors.

On topic though, that so called 'swat' nonsense is some kind of low act... especially in the US where the police are completely unhinged and have been known to shoot suspects for simply twitching.

Thanks for proving the first portion of my comment.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Exactly. They knowingly and intentionally reported a crime that would draw the strongest response possible.

Does that put them on the hook for the death specifically? In my opinion, no. But it puts them on the hook for creating the situation that lead to the death.

What I am reading, this was not even the other gamers actual address? An innocent citizen at home had no participation in this gaming, yet was killed?

I really would like to see more details. I can envision noticing people moving in the shadows suspiciously in my yard. I or my husband may very well grab the shotgun and go to the front door to scare the hooligans off of my property! Of course, that is just my own opinion...not facts of this case.

I cannot see blame on swat nor the homeowner in such a scenario, but the prank caller should be criminally negligent in the death of this person. Homeowner would have had no reason to think a SWAT team was surrounding his home and the team had every reason to believe the person stepping out with a gun...even possibly, firing it into the air, was a dangerous criminal!

a reply to: Shamrock6

Sure. They didn't have their fingers on the trigger, but they allegedly contrived the circumstances that led to it being pulled.

Swatting isn't in the news like it used to be. This case might be the nail in the coffin.

a reply to: Kandinsky

If nothing else they acted with a deranged indifference to the life of the people in that house.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It's crazy.