Family of 'Swat' Victim Sues Kansas Police, Lawmakers Propose 40-Year Jail Terms (cbsnews.com)

An anonymous reader brings more updates about the 'Swat' call that led to a fatal police shooting: The gamer who dared another gamer to send police officers to his home had offered the address where he used to live, until his family was evicted in 2016. While he may also be charged for the fatal shooting that followed, the victim's family has now sued the city of Wichita as well as its police officers, with their attorney saying the city "is trying to put all the blame on the young man in California who placed the swatting call. But let's be clear: the swatter did not shoot the bullet that killed Andy Finch. That was an officer working under the direction of the Wichita Police Department."

The attorney points out that the 911 caller in California provided a description of the house which didn't match the actual house in Kansas, adding "How can Wichita police department officers not be trained to deal with this type of situation...? Prank calls are not new," according to CBS News. "The lawsuit cites FBI crime statistics showing Wichita has a ratio of one shooting death for every 120 officers -- a number that is 11 times greater than the national ratio and 12 times greater than the ratio in Chicago."
Meanwhle, Kansas lawmakers have introduced a new bill proposing a penalty of 10 to 40 years in prison if a swatting call ends in a person's death, which would also cause the offense to be prosecuted as murder.

One lawmaker argues that the bill is necessary because under the current system if a person phones in a swat call, "there's really no consequence for his actions."

Comments

Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

What cop would come out should this succeed?

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

So there is nothing between police officers getting away with being trigger-happy and no police at all?

One might think that proper training and guidelines together with reasonable consequences for officers who abuse their powers might lead to a police force that dies a good job without needlessly murdering citizens.

Re:Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

what?

Re:Bad Precident?

[Kohath]

How about a cop who wants to protect life and serve the people of his community rather than shoot them? Let’s hire cops like that.

Learn what’s going on before opening fire on people. Or don't be police officers at all.

We don’t need you to shoot us. We can shoot each other just fine. We need a police force to prevent violence and loss of life, not cause it.

Re: Bad Precident?

[AutodidactLabrat]

Don't worry, white people will never convict a cop of murdering an UNARMED man

Re:Bad Precident?

[AutodidactLabrat]

How about a cop who wants to protect life and serve the people of his community rather than shoot them? Let’s hire cops like that.

After 5 years of "Fight for the TEAM" there are never any such cops.
Us v. Them all the way
Republicans, mostly

Re:Bad Precident?

[bferrell]

Those who are ready and willing to shoulder full responsibility for their actions. Meaning they think about what they do instead of acting as killing automatons with an "oh well" attitude.

Re:Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

After some verdict he believes cops will somehow magically stop rushing to bust doors and shoot people. lol.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why you Black Lives Matter types resort to the sort of racism that you've just displayed. Not only does it make you look like hypocrites, but it only serves to hurt your cause.

Americans of any and all races do support convicting a police officer who does murder somebody else.

The problem is that when it comes to these recent incidents involving the police, often the supposed "victim" wasn't innocent at all. What you wrongly call cases of "murder" end up being pretty clear-cut cases of the police acting in very reasonable self defense.

Let's take the notable Michael Brown incident as an example. The media and those on the political left immediately portrayed Brown as a "victim", before all of the evidence came out. Then as the facts of the case became known, it became clearer and clearer that Brown was the aggressor. There was indisputable footage showing Brown violently attacking a cashier minutes before he encountered the police officer. Then it became clearer and clearer that Brown had launched physical attacks against the police officer, including at least one attempt to steal the officer's firearm, before the officer was put in the extremely difficult position of having to use deadly force to defend himself against Brown's aggressive physical attacks. The officer was not a "murderer". He merely defended himself from Brown's attacks.

Time and time again we find that these incidents do involve the police being attacked with weapons, or the police officers involved otherwise having their lives put in imminent danger by a violent attacker.

Ignoring the reality of these sad situations doesn't help your cause.

Mislabeling very reasonable acts of self defense by the police as being "murder" doesn't help your cause.

Making generalizations about people based on the color of their skin, like you just did, doesn't help your cause.

Failing to acknowledge the problem of black-on-black violence in most major American cities doesn't help your cause. There have been single weekends in a city like Chicago where more blacks have been killed by other blacks, than there have been blacks killed by police officers (of any race) across the country in the preceding decade.

For all of your talk about "justice", people like you seem to be the least inclined to do anything positive to actually achieve real justice.

Re:Bad Precident?

[Freischutz]

How about a cop who wants to protect life and serve the people of his community rather than shoot them? Let’s hire cops like that.

Learn what’s going on before opening fire on people. Or don't be police officers at all.

We don’t need you to shoot us. We can shoot each other just fine. We need a police force to prevent violence and loss of life, not cause it.

That is a very valid criticism and generally a good idea that works just fine in many other parts of the world to the point where some countries don't even arm their police officers. Your suggestion is, unfortunately, also fundamentally incompatible with the traditional American fondness for 'come down on them like a ton of bricks' justice where police are heavily militarised, eager to shoot first and ask questions later and trained by defence contractors to use tactics pioneered by the US Army and the IDF when dealing with insurgents in the Middle East.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

Axiomatically wrong and you know it.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shooting shitbags DOES protect the community and save lives.

The only problem is leftists pretending that the shitbags are, "jus' a good boy on his way to church. He wus goin' to college next year!" when, in fact, he wus a violent drug-selling asshole who just brutalized the local deli owner, and tried to steal a cop's gun.

Fuck off, you dishonest shill.

Re:Bad Precident?

[Hognoxious]

I can't see it making any difference to the honest decent ones.

Both of them.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure he was saying that if it quacks like a duck, the police will shoot the duck if it is black. Rather correct. Do cops shoot white people too? Fuck yeah they do.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

In what sense is any of that "traditional"?

Re: Bad Precident?

[Kohath]

The only problem is leftists pretending that the shitbags are, "jus' a good boy on his way to church. He wus goin' to college next year!" when, in fact, he wus a violent drug-selling asshole who just brutalized the local deli owner, and tried to steal a cop's gun.

Whether that’s true or false, we still don't need police officers to go murder that guy. The deli owner can do it just fine. Or the rival gangs. Or just any random guy walking by. Guns are cheap and easy to fire.

We need police to prevent random violence and retaliation. Their purpose is to give a society an alternative means of dealing with problems. If the police are just another rival gang, then it's time for the public to stop sponsoring and supporting them.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Z00L00K]

Anyone calling in for swatting should be charged with attempted murder or first degree murder and penalized with the maximum penalty.

That should put an end to it.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Cryacin]

One lawmaker argues that the bill is necessary because under the current system if a person phones in a swat call, "there's really no consequence for his actions."

So in other words, the police themselves are saying, whatever you do, don't call the police. If you call the police, innocent people are likely to die.

Re:Bad Precident?

[Dirk Becher]

The theory is that every organization that surpasses a certain number of members eventually starts to make compromises when the optimal applicants start running out. In the case of police this means resorting to either hiring Wild Bills or social workers and it seems PD has made their choice.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

A "conspiracy" charge is the only thing I can think of that might stick. You can hang anybody for anything with that.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ahead and enforce that law against a pissed off Chinese gold farmer at an internet cafe and see how far you get.

Re:Bad Precident?

[Kohath]

The theory is that every organization that surpasses a certain number of members eventually starts to make compromises when the optimal applicants start running out. In the case of police this means resorting to either hiring Wild Bills or social workers and it seems PD has made their choice.

So do less policing then. Stop trying to micromanage (for profit) everyone's driving. Stop being tax collectors. Stop worrying that a 19-year-old might drink a beer. Stop enforcing licensing rules that mostly protect incumbent businesses from competition. And, if you must do some of this enforcement, send unarmed administrators to do it so the real police can do real police work.

And - this is really critical - fire the bad police.

Re:Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look up the number of incidents handled every year vs. shootings. You will quickly see that you already have what you ask for.

Re:Bad Precident?

[Kohath]

Look up the number of incidents handled every year vs. shootings. You will quickly see that you already have what you ask for.

So we can immediately fire the bad officers like this guy in Kansas then? There’s only a few of them, right?

If police killings of innocents are so rare that we can just live with them as an inevitable consequence of policing, then we can just as easily live with immediately firing the few officers involved.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

> So in other words, the police themselves are saying, whatever you do, don't call the police. If you call the police, innocent people are likely to die.
It's not that long ago the cops murdered a chick who called 911...

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

reasonable consequences for officers who abuse their powers

Have to reign in the police unions to do that, but to the people yelling loudest about abuses public sector unions are sacrosanct.

I believe in the "bad apples" view — that the vast majority of abuses are the fault of a small percentage of officers — and the data bears this out. However, it's also true that we're powerless to do anything about the "bad apples" primarily because the police have organized themselves into powerful public sector unions.

But the typical democrat/progressive/leftist/whatever-you're-calling-yourselves-today lives in a fantasy world were on one hand the unions mustn't ever be interfered with and for whom no limits must ever be imposed, while simultaneously expecting the officers protected by these powerful unions to be disciplined when they abuse their power.

training and guidelines

No, this is the wrong way. I know that's a novel thought; who would ever dare argue against more training? Every headline leads to more chanting for "training." All you're doing by investing in excessive training is developing a rarefied class of uber-cops that become extremely proficient at abusing power. Many, many shootings and other uses of force are by police that have been trained to the n-th degree and know precisely how to guide an encounter and detect actions that they can use to justify use of force. The more we invest the more protected this class of people becomes; the job of policing has evolved to the point where the average cop is a body armored lawyer, immune from discipline due to their own expertise and their all powerful union.

Re: Bad Precident?

[SoftwareArtist]

That should put an end to it.

Sadly, it wouldn't. Making punishments more severe only has a weak effect on how well they work as deterrents. People always assume if you punish a crime really harshly, no one will commit it. But it doesn't work. People go on doing it anyway. If you're thinking of committing a crime, whether the punishment would be five years in prison or ten just isn't going to affect your thinking much.

The thing that actually does make a big difference is the certainty of punishment. If you think you can get away with it, you just don't consider the potential punishment much. But if you think you'll probably get caught, that becomes a big deterrent even if the punishment is a lot lighter.

Re:Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the problem is much bigger than that. I doubt that officer in Kansas is a particularly bad guy, it's probably a deeper issue.

This is far beyond the point where firing individual officers will accomplish anything. Things like this are much more likely to have it's roots in training, doctrine and "e'spirit de corpse". Firing individuals could have worked if they had started out with it when things were beginning to get out of hand, but now the problems seem to be institutional and cultural more than individuals.

Fixing this will require significant changes in leadership and will have to go all the way down. Maybe they'll need to fire entire units to get rid of the brain damage because this is organisational cancer, not a simple bad apple or two.

Re:Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw that. I want MORE police out there. I don't mind seeing police patrolling the neighborhood. In fact, I like seeing that because it's a visual deterrent.

As far as driving goes, I think they should be harsher on enforcement so that everyone would take it for real. If police actually pulled people over going 70 instead of 65, people would quickly realize they should obey the speed limit.

Cops give way to much leeway on speeding and other random poor driving people do.

Also, would you want to be a police officer? Without a gun? Why not? They get paid well with nice benefits. I'm sure if you bring your respect and understanding along with rational arguments that every would-be criminal would just be as polite and rational back.

By all means, go become a police officer and show us how it's done.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Darinbob]

And yet there are huge numbers who do support the "it was self defense!" argument for police and citizens alike. Ie, George Zimmerman claims "stand your ground" as a defense even though he followed Trayvon Martin after police dispatcher told him not to, and is not even convicted of manslaughter.

Maybe they don't support police murdering someone, but they also rephrase it as self defense, or a quick reaction based on police training, or that the suspect probably was guilty of something so that makes it ok.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 40 years should be for the trigger happy keystone cops.

Re: Bad Precident?

[PrimaryConsult]

Singapore would be a good counterexample. Consider crimes in the rest of the western world that are met with relatively light sentencing, like drug trafficking and "illegal firearm trafficking" (defined as being in possession of 2 or more illegal guns). In Singapore they are met with a mandatory death penalty, and not surprisingly there's (1) remarkably low occurrence and (2) even lower recurrence of those crimes.

Heck the German dudes who were jailed for 9 months for spray paint graffiti on a train there probably thought "what" *WHACK* "the" *WHACK* "fuck" *WHACK* during the three cane whacks preceding the jail term (fun fact: caning causes permanent damage). It made international news and trains are still 100% graffiti free, with few daring to try since.

Re:Bad Precident?

[dgatwood]

He/she thinks that punishing the people who make fake phone calls that lead to a police shooting death will cause the police to not come out. Pedantically, he/she's right, but only because people will stop making the fake phone calls.

Re:Bad Precident?

[geek]

"We need a police force to prevent violence and loss of life, not cause it."

Police forces are reactionary by their very nature. What you want is a physical impossibility. They can't be there before it happens unless you want a police state where they are literally listening and watching to everything from the get go.

This is also the same argument that comes out when people talk about the failing schools. Blame the teachers! The parents that are raising the feral rats aren't at all to blame. This cop may or may not have done something wrong. I'll leave that to the courts to figure out. I do know however that the parents of the swatter did a piss fucking poor job. The swatter himself is degenerative fuck and deserves to lose all freedom for the rest of his life.

Re: Bad Precident?

[ShanghaiBill]

George Zimmerman claims "stand your ground" as a defense

No, he did not. Zimmerman's defense was based on a claim of pure self-defense. It was NOT based on "stand-your-ground". The preponderance of the evidence is that he was walking away when Martin assaulted him.

Personally, I think stand-your-ground laws are stupid. If you have a clear choice between killing someone and safely backing down and walking away, you should be legally obligated to refrain from killing.

But the Zimmerman-Martin incident is irrelevant to that, since it was not a SYG situation.

Re:Bad Precident?

[dgatwood]

As far as driving goes, I think they should be harsher on enforcement so that everyone would take it for real. If police actually pulled people over going 70 instead of 65, people would quickly realize they should obey the speed limit.

The reason for lax enforcement is that everybody(*) speeds, and the speed limits are set lower than necessary under the assumption that every car on the road will speed. If someone managed to pull over every car going over the limit, there wouldn't be room on the shoulder, and nobody (including police cars) would still be left on the road. Also, if everyone drove at the posted limit consistently, the entire road system would collapse into total gridlock.

And, more realistically, if a limited number of police cars started indiscriminately pulling over every car that was speeding, regardless of how far over the limit it was going, you would see a huge increase in traffic accidents, because the police would be busy writing a ticket for a nickel crime, and thus unable to chase down the morons going 30+ over the limit as they speed by.

So between the gridlock and the huge reduction in road safety, I'm pretty sure that if they started consistently pulling over people for going 5 MPH over the limit, people would probably light city hall on fire, hunt down the people who set bafflingly low speed limits, and put their heads on a pike. Such strict enforcement of speed limits is simply a terrible idea without a complete nationwide (or at least statewide) overhaul of all the posted speed limits.

* According to an Allstate survey, 89% of American drivers admit to routinely going over the speed limit, and a whopping 40% admit to regularly driving at least 20 MPH over the speed limit. And those are just the ones that admitted it to their insurance company! If I read Purdue's 2008 study correctly, approximately 100% of Indiana drivers think that it is safe to drive above the speed limit, with more than a third considering it safe to drive up to 20 MPH over. Based on that data, it seems likely that when it comes to speed limits, law-abiding drivers amount to a rounding error. Everybody speeds.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Kjella]

So in other words, the police themselves are saying, whatever you do, don't call the police. If you call the police, innocent people are likely to die.

No, that's just reading comprehension fail. They didn't say innocent people would die. They didn't say it would - or would not - have consequences for the police officers involved. They said it wouldn't have any consequence for the person making a false report. Which may or may not be true, orthogonal to everything else.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Kjella]

Singapore would be a good counterexample. Consider crimes in the rest of the western world that are met with relatively light sentencing, like drug trafficking and "illegal firearm trafficking" (defined as being in possession of 2 or more illegal guns). In Singapore they are met with a mandatory death penalty, and not surprisingly there's (1) remarkably low occurrence and (2) even lower recurrence of those crimes.

A remarkably low occurrence because once you're facing the death penalty, why not do more crime. It's the problem all justice systems face, the punishment is supposed to be proportional to the crime but you have a limited dynamic range. Sure we could dial up to where jaywalking = death penalty, but then kidnap-rape-murder couldn't really be punished any harder. Singapore keeps the petty crime away through huge penalties. Does it keep serious crime away... I doubt it.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Darinbob]

Police called it stand-your-ground, according to wikipedia. So my mistake.

Re: Bad Precident?

[dryeo]

'tis true. Look at other countries with strict sentencing. America for example executes people or puts them away for very long periods in horrible prisons and has one of the lowest murder rates in the free world. Same with illegal drugs, those harsh penalties mean almost no illegal drug use. Meanwhile there is the various Scandinavian countries with very light sentencing plus coddling prisoners, very high crime rates.
One thing that won't affect crime rates is culture. Having a culture of getting along and deference to authority won't make any difference. Another is economics, when stealing a loaf of bread in Great Britain meant being hung, along with most other crimes, people just sat down and starved rather then turning to crime and the crime rate was almost non-existent.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the street I live on have an 'r' in it?

Re:Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

Police forces are reactionary by their very nature. What you want is a physical impossibility. They can't be there before it happens unless you want a police state where they are literally listening and watching to everything from the get go.

Stop being such a fucking retard and go read up on deescalation techniques. We used to use them before we realized we could just run around shooting everyone instead.

Re: Bad Precident?

[easyTree]

It's not needless murder if some police goon gets to power trip over sanctioned blatant murder which everyone knows will go unpunished.

Re:Bad Precident?

[HiThere]

If I read the summary correctly, the proposed law doesn't charge the incompetent police at all, only the person who makes the misleading call.

The summary seems to garble together two different actions, one aimed at police incompetence and the other aimed at making prank phone calls...although "prank" is not exactly the correct term for a call that can be expected to lead to, if not death, at least severe property damage. Still, there's often too little actual intelligence involved to call it malicious, and idiotic doesn't imply destructive. A more appropriate punishment would be to deny the perpetrator all use of electronic communications for a decade on penalty of actual confinement in prison (with continued denial of electronic communication) for an additional decade if they break the prohibition.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sarcasm will be missed by the readers.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

And since every day theyâ(TM)re armed more and more like paramilitary their accidents are more explosive.
Want more government? You got it.
That and civilly forfeiting your cash.
Better be able to prove your innocence...

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off, racist.

Re:Bad Precident?

[zugmeister]

This cop may or may not have done something wrong.

Can we can agree that shooting and killing completely innocent people is "wrong"?
Is there any indication this guy was NOT shot by a cop?
So a POS caused the SWAT team to be dispatched. Sorta like calling in a fake bomb threat. When it comes down to reality, who pulled the trigger that ended an innocent life? What are we doing about THAT problem?

Re: Bad Precident?

[fredrated]

You muddy the Michael Brown issue. You make it sound like he was shot in a struggle for the gun, but in fact he ran away and the officer pursued him and killed him. You know little or nothing about the cause you are intent on criticizing.

Re:Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

You misspelled "President".

Re:Bad Precident?

[Cacadril]

The handful of videos of police shootings I have seen lately show a police force acting very, very differently from how the police handle situations here in Norway. I think they must have been trained according to fundamentally different philosophies.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

what does your long winded blather have to do with the swatting, and the killing of an innocent?

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amadou Diallo 's "crime" was being black and perhaps having a wallet. It's hard to tell with all the gunfire, and the fact that he was damn near blown to tiny chunks by the officers.

Ousmane Zongo's "crime" was being in the crosshairs.

Oscar Grant's "crime" was being around a cop who wanted to test out his new toy taser on a guy who was already down and cuffed, except his toy was actually his gun. Oops.

Aiyana Stanley-Jones's "crime" was failure to get out of the way of a flashbang that was fired blindly into her house. She was seven.

Rekia Boyd's "crime" was running into a drunk cop.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to read about the Michael Brown incident before you spew any more misinformation and disinformation.

The Wikipedia article very clearly states:

Credible witnesses did not support accounts that Brown had his hands up in surrender. He was not shot in the back. Forensic evidence showed he was moving toward Wilson.

Of course Officer Wilson was pursing Brown; Brown had just committed several serious crimes that involved violent physical attacks! Brown needed to be placed under arrest given this harmful behavior he was actively engaging in.

But instead of surrendering like any sensible person would have done when confronted by the police, Brown proceeded to attack Officer Wilson repeatedly, and Officer Wilson was left with no choice but to defend his own life using deadly force.

Your comment is a great example of how Black Lives Matter types such as yourself try to distort the truth to fit your nonsensical narrative. You incorrectly portray the aggressor (Michael Brown, in this case) as the "victim", and you incorrectly portray the real victim (Officer Wilson) as the "aggressor".

Re:Bad Precident?

[Kohath]

The point isn't that firing a few police officers solves the problem. The point is that they'll never agree to even that.

The "it's rare, so nevermind" argument is phony. What they're really saying it "it's rare and it doesn't happen to us, so nevermind". Change it so it affects them and all of a sudden it won't matter that it's rare.

Re:Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you mean to write "president" or "precedent"?

Re:Bad Precident?

[Kohath]

"We need a police force to prevent violence and loss of life, not cause it."

...What you want is a physical impossibility. They can't be there before it happens unless you want a police state where they are literally listening and watching to everything from the get go.

Police exist to provide a means of settling disputes without the blood feuds and cycles of violence and revenge that exist when there's no law. That's how they prevent violence.

The problem is that they're now handling this role very poorly, bringing violence where there was none before and escalating minor situations into deadly ones.

This is also the same argument that comes out when people talk about the failing schools. Blame the teachers! The parents that are raising the feral rats aren't at all to blame.

I have a similar answer for that teacher. If the kid can't be taught, we don't need to pay you to fail to teach him. Anyone could do that. Or no one. It you can't be blamed, you aren't part of the solution. Just go away. Leave the problem to someone who can be blamed.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahahahahahha.

How fucking ignorant can you be ?

Singapore is one of the safest, best run countries on the planet.

Your argument is gibberish

Re: Bad Precident?

[Uberbah]

ave to reign in the police unions to do that, but to the people yelling loudest about abuses public sector unions are sacrosanct.

You can stop trying to fuck that chicken now. I know you would really like to make this "the left supports unaccountable police unions" thing happen, but it's not going to happen. Unless you can point to where leftists and the UAW have gotten together to allow auto workers to beat people heads in with wrenches (for no reason) and get away with it scott free, of course.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Uberbah]

No, he did not. Zimmerman's defense was based on a claim of pure self-defense. It was NOT based on "stand-your-ground". The preponderance of the evidence is that he was walking away when Martin assaulted him.

Have you always supported creepy neighborhood stalkers with guns, or just ones named George after 2012?

Re: Bad Precident?

[Uberbah]

Singapore would be a good counterexample.

Unless it's not. Cops in NYC insisted that stop-and-frisk was responsible for lowering crime rates, and if the policy was ended, crime rates would go back up. Policy was ended....and crime rates continued to fall.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-whites are the reason we've got militarized police.

Re:Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, import some from Canada and the UK then. Or any of the other countries where the Peelian principles are a thing.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any country that allows itself to murder it's citizens is by definition not very safe in my opinion.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mike Brown was a chimp.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

You sure it isn't the desperation created by generational poverty and the lack of social advancement opportunity?

Re:Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know a few police offers here in the UK that wanted to go to the US to work. They changed their minds when they investigated the options. Turns out they really didn't want to go work with people who they saw were very undertrained and liked to escalate problems rather than calm things down. I think it'd be quite difficult to bring in police officers from other countries, unless you completely gutted departments first.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must not know how to read as the big dumb n i g g e r was high and charged the officer.

Glad he's dead.

Stupid porch monkey's yelling 'hand up don't shoot'.... lol. I love to hear the s l a v e s sing under the masters whip.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you always supported violent low-level drug dealer pieces of shit with assault records, or did you just start when the media brainwashed you with a picture of when he was 14, because he was (literally) holding a gun in every photo of him at the age that he died?

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're lying. That never happened. The only witness to state that account was later found to have not been there.

Every single (black) witness who was proven to be there described Michael Brown as the attacker, who was shot while wrestling for the officer's gun.

It's time for you to educate yourself, stop lying, and stop spreading misinformation.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

This doesn't prove sea changes are impossible. When Australia was faced with epic levels of drunk driving they changed policing and added public campaigns and it's essentially now gone. Afterwards police turned to speeding as a preventable cause of accidents, dropped the tolerance on issuing tickets down to essentially zero kph over the limit and amazingly Australians now don't speed very much.

It's not perfect of course and there's plenty of grumbling about the speeding rules changing, but it also shows that a country's ethos towards speeding and DWI can in fact be changed by a change in police enforcement along with other efforts.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

So people holding guns are criminal, or is this about the color of the skin of the person holding the gun?

Re: Bad Precident?

[c6gunner]

It's funny how 100% of your examples are black. Couldn't find a single Asian, Native, or White victim? Only black lives matter, eh?

Re: Bad Precident?

[c6gunner]

How about a cop who wants to protect life and serve the people of his community rather than shoot them? Letâ(TM)s hire cops like that.

Sounds good; when are you signing up?

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet he didn't have a gun on him when he died? I think we'd have heard about it and it would have figured prominently in Zimmerman's defense if Martin was armed with anything other than his flesh-and-bone arms.

Re: Bad Precident?

[PrimaryConsult]

It's not death penalty for everything, but proportionately high penalties for everything. Fines for seemingly common things like fare evasion or littering reach into the S$1000s. Thus, no littering and no one dares jump a turnstile. For price perspective the cheapest adult train fare is less than 80 cents.

A few years ago Singapore was listed as the #1 safest country for women to travel alone. This is a country where four completely opposite cultures live peacefully (Chinese (Atheist and Buddhist), Islamic, Indian (Hindu and Buddhist), Western/Christian). If the high penalty / high enforcement system did not work, it would be a lot worse than America's minor white/African American/Hispanic friction (which all fall under Western/Christian).

Re: Bad Precident?

[PrimaryConsult]

I see your sarcasm, but it's completely wrong. We do not have strict sentencing on the level of Singapore. There's "deals", "parole/good behavior", and "release due to overcrowding" which all allow violent offenders the chance to get back out there and do it again. Our prisons are also a lawless place - they do not rehabilitate but instead breed worse criminal behavior. As for the death penalty, there's reluctance to use it, and no such thing as a speedy, mandatory, no-pleading-out death penalty. The US implementation is a reverse lottery, rather than a sure thing.

As for culture, there's at least 4 separate cultures in Singapore that manage to get along.

As for economics, that's a failure of the US social safety net. Singaporeans have government provided jobs and housing as a safety net. The US cuts low skill government jobs every time there's a financial crisis (the NY Subway got rid of many train cleaners in the late 2000s). So we have dirty trains and homeless people while they have clean, well landscaped everything and employed people.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

You see, in the UK this doesnâ(TM)t happen.
The problem is the guns you Americans seem to worship. Until youâ(TM)re ready to deal with that like adults youâ(TM)re going to keep having daily shootings and atrocities like this case.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

Singapore is a pretty unique place. It's a small, wealthy island nation. That means they can afford to have one of the largest police forces in the world on a per capita basis, and it means that they don't have the same problems with the roots of crime that a lot of places like the US have to deal with. Those factors play as large a part in their low crime rates as does the harshness of their punishments.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Kohath]

... George Zimmerman ... even though he followed Trayvon Martin after police dispatcher told him not to, and is not even convicted of manslaughter.

So if you follow someone against instructions and he attacks you, you're supposed to let him kill you? I guess that's why we have jury trials: to answer those sorts of questions.

What crime would you convict George Zimmerman of for following someone against instructions where nothing bad ends up happening? You must consider following someone to be criminally reckless in some way for this to make any sense.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, there's a tradeoff - Singapore ranks very poorly in terms of human rights.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Darinbob]

An unarmed person was shot, and there was little evidence about what really happened or if he was really attacked or merely felt threatened. Zimmerman had phoned the police often in days and weeks before the shooting, complaining about suspicious people and that they kept getting away.

Re: Bad Precident?

[AutodidactLabrat]

Shitbags who put toy guns under unarmed men should be hanged

Re: Bad Precident?

[Kohath]

... there was little evidence about what really happened...

Hence the Not Guilty verdict. When no one can really say for sure what happened, it's reasonable to doubt that he wasn't engaged in self defense. He doesn't have to prove it was self defense. The state has to prove it wasn't.

Obviously I have no idea whether it was or wasn't.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Darinbob]

Back to the original point, there were people who did not mind that a black guy got killed, and there are people who don't mind if a police officer shoots someone, even if the victims were unarmed. Yes, most people think it's a tragedy, but there is the fringe who don't. I brought up Zimmerman because in some circles he's celebrated as a hero.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Kohath]

Back to the original point, there were people who did not mind that a black guy got killed...

There were people who were ecstatically happy a black guy got killed because they make their living exploiting race grievance. If Travon hadn't been black, they wouldn't be daydreaming about the $$$ they're going to make from "community organizing" the aftermath. The white racists and the minority community organizers feed off each other.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

We need a totally seperate police to police the police. In fact, we could have three groups that police each other circularly.

Re: Bad Precident?

[SumDog]

> jaywalking = death penalty

There was a Star Trek TNG where a civilization had that.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Uberbah]

Have you always made up stupid hysterical bullshit in order to avoid a simple point, or has this been a recent condition for you?

Re:Bad Precident?

[Cinnamon Beige]

In this case, yeah, it didn't happen in one of the areas where the laws were adjusted to treat swatting appropriately instead of as a harmless & amusing prank--once you can cause significant harm by making a false report, the penalty needs to be more than the usual slap on the wrist of misdemeanors.

Re: Bad Precident?

[dryeo]

I'd argue that enforcement is more important then high penalties. You can have the death penalty for jay walking but if charges are seldom or never laid, it won't affect the numbers of jaywalkers.
Police states usually have low crime as once a police state is implemented for political reasons, it can also be used for plain crime. The Soviet Union had low crime, even Iraq was a fairly safe place and Cuba is perhaps the safest place in Latin America, ignoring political crimes in all cases.
Singapore is fairly authoritarian, small with a large police force, a culture (or cultures) of subservience to authority and enforces its laws. There's $1000 fines for littering where I am but it isn't enforced and there is tons of littering. Same with vandalism. Those German students may have been just as discouraged from being repeat offenders by serving one month in jail, and knowing that if they repeat the offence, they will be caught.
Singapore also has a fairly good safety net combined with very high employment, which reduces the desperate type of criminal as you seem to recognize.

Re:Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not an argument for capricious enforcement. That's an argument for changing the fucking unjust speed laws.

Re: Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a reason why, way back when, marshals used to be called "peace officers".

The cops' job is to keep the peace. That's it, that's the only thing that matters. Keeping the peace means, essentially, taking violence off the table as an option for dispute resolution. As long as nobody is shooting, stabbing, beating, mowing down or teabagging anyone else, the cops' job is done; everything else is up to lawyers, arbitrators, social workers and all the other apparatus that's maintained to help people deal with their personal disputes.

Re: Bad Precident?

[mjwx]

That should put an end to it.

Sadly, it wouldn't. Making punishments more severe only has a weak effect on how well they work as deterrents. People always assume if you punish a crime really harshly, no one will commit it. But it doesn't work. People go on doing it anyway. If you're thinking of committing a crime, whether the punishment would be five years in prison or ten just isn't going to affect your thinking much.

The thing that actually does make a big difference is the certainty of punishment. If you think you can get away with it, you just don't consider the potential punishment much. But if you think you'll probably get caught, that becomes a big deterrent even if the punishment is a lot lighter.

Getting caught committing a crime is a risk.

The thing about risk is that it's actually two categories, severity and likelihood. Severity is how bad the punishments are, likelihood is the chance you'll get caught. Jacking up the severity doesn't work if the likelihood is very low. Raising speeding fines to £1000 of 1 MPH over wont do much if the police never enforce it.

Just making harsher punishments does not make society safer, in fact it does the opposite, if the punishment for burglary is high, why not turn that B&E into a murder, it reduces the chance of being caught and the punishment is harsh enough that it's not that much less than murder.

We're be better off enforcing a lesser punishment.

Re: Bad Precident?

[chihowa]

It shows that the Australian government is authoritarian and the people are capable of being bullied into compliance.

Getting rid of drunk driving is a laudable goal, but keeping people from driving even 1 kph over an arbitrarily set speed limit is not. What will they go after next and why is this sort of behavior a good thing?

Re: Bad Precident?

[david_thornley]

Yeah, young children playing with toy guns are extremely dangerous, and anyone armed in the vicinity should shoot them.

Michael Brown is a really bad example for BLM, and they shouldn't mention him. There are other cases where the police officer shows up, shoots an unarmed child, and is not held accountable.

If police were imprisoned for a long time for shooting people who presented no actual danger, people would be more willing to accept Michael Brown as a justified case.

Re: Bad Precident?

[david_thornley]

Since she was a fairly young blonde woman, I'm expecting a bad law to come out of this. I don't know her eye color, but if it was blue it would be a near-certainty.

Re: Bad Precident?

[silentcoder]

And what exactly was Tamir Rice guilty off ? 12-year old kid with a BB-gun. Even if it had been a REAL gun - why shoot him ? Isn't gun rights supposed to be enshrined in the constitution ?

It's not like he was threatening anybody, there's video that shows he did nothing wrong.

For that matter, what exactly did John Crawford do wrong ?

I could keep going -but the fact is even if you were right about Brown - I can list a hundred names of people killed where it's absolutely, provable that they did nothing wrong- and where no cop faced any justice.

Re: Bad Precident?

[silentcoder]

Where is the evidence that he had an assault record ? Oh right, he didn't.

Even if you are right about guns. So. Fucking. What.

He was American - he had a constitutional right to own a gun if he wanted to.

You do know that black people have that right as well ? Right ?

Amazing how the SAME people who keep fighting even the most basic of common sense gun regulations ALSO keep claiming that "I thought he had a gun" is a justification for killing somebody !

Re:Bad Precident?

[silentcoder]

If I ever wanted to follow a career in law enforcement - I would only even CONSIDER doing it in a country where teh police do NOT carry guns.

That's most civilized countries.

Intriguingly it doesn't seem to cause the anarchy you seem to fear it would. The UK doesn't arm police - they ONLY get given guns for specific, known-dangerous operations and have to give them back after the op.
They patrol unarmed.

Since 2000 only 3 people have been shot by police in the UK - and nobody is therefore accusing the UK police of being trigger happy and wondering if there is maybe too many for it all to be legitimate ?
Oh, and they have a LOT less cops who GET shot than the US police as well.

So, to answer your question - I would refuse to be a cop WITH a gun.

Re:Bad Precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that not solving the source of this particular incident? The fraudulent phone call?

Why only when there is a death?

[klingens]

At the barest minimum, the swatter needs to pay the cost of the police action he caused, which will be probably a few thousand if not tens of thousands of dollars after the government accounting is done.
Then making a false accusation and/or a false statement which could have caused other harm since the SWAT team wasn't available for real emergenicies.

Make swatting immediately illegal with at least possible jailtime, with punitive damages and of course actual damages incurred by the police department. Then the civil suit from the victims.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[tinkerton]

Why do you call it a police action. Sounds like the police treated that civilian as an enemy combatant.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[Anonymous Coward]

They cannot hold people responsible for the costs, since it is only the police that determines how to react and how much cost to involve. They should, however, be held accountable for false accusation or claims involving the police, this is almost certainly already illegal and just needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Let's be clear though, the responsibility for the death lies 100% with the police. It is their job to ensure that they act reasonably to any circumstances. Clearly the police need to be held more to account on this, and need to face much more dire consequences for their incompetence.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[drewsup]

I would go one more, If i call in a false fire alarm, and a fire truck, while lawfully going through a red light, accidentally hits a car who didnt hear the siren, killing the young family in the car, am I not ultimately responsible for their deaths? Anyone calling in a swatting should be responsible for not only any deaths, but the civil suits that will fly after.
I am in no way excusing the excessive force used by the police, but the swat caller set in motion a chain of events that led to the whole murder.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[deesine]

At the barest minimum the shooter should never be allowed to own or fire a weapon or work in law enforcement, that's after serving time for voluntary manslaughter. Bare Minimum.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[olsmeister]

It should never be lawful to go through a red light. Especially now that technology exists to make the lights green for the emergency vehicles. I've almost been involved in an accident twice where a police cruiser was going so fast through town that I barely was able to react before he blasted through the light that was green for me. Due to buildings and other obstructions, I had like 1-2 seconds tops to slam on my brakes to avoid a high speed collision right in the middle of the city. And guess who would have been at fault?

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[whoever57]

I would go one more, If i call in a false fire alarm, and a fire truck, while lawfully going through a red light, accidentally hits a car who didnt hear the siren, killing the young family in the car, am I not ultimately responsible for their deaths?

I would argue that the answer to your question is no.

Take a very slightly different circumstance. My house is on fire, I call in a fire alarm and someone is killed in a traffic accident in a similar manner to the one you describe. Am I responsible for their deaths? What if the fire was my fault?

In California, it appears that the city is responsible for all such accidents:
https://www.torklaw.com/practi...

Re: Why only when there is a death?

[Dynedain]

Sure they can. In most US jurisdictions if you call in a false fire alarm, they can charge you for the cost of the fire department response. Why would police be different?

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[angel'o'sphere]

while lawfully going through a red light, accidentally hits a car who didnt hear the siren
It is only "lawfully" when the driver is certain that all conflicting traffic has stopped. In other words if he hits one, it was not lawfully. At least not in my country.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is that it's already illegal. I know it is in some areas but I don't how if it is everywhere.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[Hognoxious]

So I'll run a screwdriver down the side of your car. I won't have to pay because I didn't know in advance how much the respray would cost.

The DeVry JD alumni meeting is over there ------------------->

Re: Why only when there is a death?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time someone says, "let's be clear", what follows is always unadulterated, complete and absolute fucking bullshit.

You aren't clear about anything. You're fucking incoherent.

Re: Why only when there is a death?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking moron.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[YrWrstNtmr]

At the barest minimum, the swatter needs to pay the cost of the police action he caused, which will be probably a few thousand if not tens of thousands of dollars after the government accounting is done.

Simply monetary? No. Easily fixed with a GoFundMe.
The swatter needs to go to jail as well.

Re: Why only when there is a death?

[Anonymous Coward]

Vehicular incidents are the leading cause of police fatalities. Fucking moron.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[Mal-2]

Vietnam was a "police action". The term fits.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[Anonymous Coward]

They sure as hell didn't treat him like one of those unarmed civilians they're supposed to protect.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[Daemonik]

Sounds like the police treated that civilian as an enemy combatant.

That is precisely what the officer did. Anyone who isn't police is the enemy in their eyes.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[MangoCats]

Dude, the accountants and auditors in this case are going to cost tens of thousands of dollars - it will run over into the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, especially with all the press handling.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[stephanruby]

I agree, but your approach may only help with a fraction of swatters. Many of those swatters are underage, or their families are already so deeply in debt, that an additional bill they don't pay won't do anything to them. No, in addition to all of what you're suggesting, I think that if you swat somebody (regardless of age):

* You should automatically lose your xbox (even a family one), any other gaming console, your computer (if it's in your room), your tablet (if any of your accounts are on it), your smartphone, your TV (if it's in your room), etc. (Confiscated by the police, but given to a non-police related charity)
* You're only allowed to purchase a dumb cell phone, that has gps tracking and navigation, but that has a pre-recorded outgoing message on it (similar in function to the outgoing messages prisoners have when they're calling from a prison's pay phone). Incoming phone calls come unaltered, but that's in case you need it for a job interview. And texting works, but everything would get logged through your carrier (for parental and police supervision).
* For school work, you're only allowed to own an electronic typewriter, or a non-networked dumb computer (from a pre-approved list). If teachers want you to do research on the internet, they'll have to give you printouts instead, or have you use the computers at the public library instead.
* You lose your right to privacy. It's like you'll be on parole. Cops will be able to visit your place, go through your stuff, and confiscate items anytime they want.
* If you have siblings, things can get more complicated. But if they're younger than you, they will also lose access to their smartphone, or other electronics in their room. If they're older, they'll be required to have those devices locked-down from you and physically locked away from you. But if there are gaming consoles anywhere in the house, or anywhere in the apartment, you're in. They get confiscated permanently and everyone in the family loses access to them (until your parole period ends).
* (Please feel free to add anything else you think I may have missed.)

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

If you set the house on fire and it was an intentional act, then yes...

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[Anonymous Coward]

You hit the nail on the head. It's the legal concept known as proximate cause, or the "but for" test. Everything stems from the moron in California calling in a false report of a murder and hostage situation with an armed assailant. So even if the police screwed up, they would not have even been there had that call not come in because of a mental child having a fit over a G-D video game.

Probably the reason only in cases of a death is because there are already laws on the books that cover a non-fatal SWAT'ing. But as written most murder lawsa require you to be the one to actually kill the person, murder-for-hire being the exception. So rather than creating an incomplete law, they're closing a loophole.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[drinkypoo]

Vietnam was a "police action". The term fits.

When historians discuss Viet Nam, they don't refer to the Vietnam Police Action. It's the Vietnam War. Don't glorify the government propaganda machine.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[Mal-2]

Note the use of scare quotes. I was saying that if the term "police action" can be applied to a war, then it can be applied to shooting an unarmed civilian.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[dAzED1]

An innocent person died. An innocent life is only worth a few thousand dollars in your mind?

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[dryeo]

Around here (BC), emergency vehicles are supposed to only go through a red light if safe, which in practice means they pretty well come to a stop at a red light, make sure the intersection is clear, then go through the intersection.
Cops are also supposed to stop giving chase if it is dangerous due to high speeds etc and I can think of at least one case where a cop was convicted of dangerous driving causing death IIRC for driving stupidly with his siren on and killing someone.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[Anonymous Coward]

Prosecute the prankster. Prosecute the policemen too. If it's a ex post facto issue, then they get off scott free. Just great that that swat raids give them a license to kill with impunity. But it needs to end now. Don't just pin the blame on the shithead who made the prank call. Swat raids are for the most part officially sanctioned violence and stupidity.

Re: Why only when there is a death?

[Anonymous Coward]

and those false fire alarms include deaths, which is to say mulitple millions of dollars in damages.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I would go one more, If i call in a false fire alarm, and a fire truck, while lawfully going through a red light, accidentally hits a car who didnt hear the siren, killing the young family in the car, am I not ultimately responsible for their deaths?

No. That's called an accident. You're not responsible for the driving of either vehicle and ultimately, if someone cannot hear sirens while driving a car then there's something wrong with that - if the music is too loud, driver's fault, etc.

Or would you like to go further back and blame your parents for giving birth to you?

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm you meant Korea. Vietnam was a war. I'm not 'murkin and even I know that. Demand a refund for your alleged education.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[jrumney]

If they're really in a hurry, they travel in convoy with 4 motorcycles that speed ahead in pairs to clear alternate intersections.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[Uberbah]

That's nice. Can you try again, with an analogy that's actually relevant? The swatter didn't directly case the person to be shot the way your screwdriver directly causes paint damage.

  <------ your ass

------> hole in the ground

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[mtmra70]

Poor analogy. If I call in a false fire alarm, the fire department shows up, and without investigating applies water to the entire building, who is at fault for the water damage? I would certainly say the fire department since they blindly applied water without all the facts.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[Hognoxious]

Your original claimwas that you can't be held responsible for costs that you couldn't ascertain in advance.

"They cannot hold people responsible for the costs, since it is only the police that determines how to react and how much cost to involve. "

It's rubbish, as logic and case law both prove.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[Anonymous Coward]

accidentally hits a car who didnt hear the siren, killing the young family in the car, am I not ultimately responsible for their deaths?

The driver of the fire truck would be, the siren is a signal for all others to stop and make room and not a signal for the driver to go in blind. Just think of a big fire and where you would have multiple fire trucks come in, the risk of a crash between two of them is non zero and I think that already happened in medical emergencies near hospitals.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[Uberbah]

Nope. Feel free to come up with an indirect-to-indirect comparison and try again.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[Anonymous Coward]

Enemy combatants have more rights, since the Military has specific Rules of Engagement. The police are a lot more flexible, with "being afraid" enough to justify any response.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[eric_harris_76]

Oscar Gordon said that a corpse that's been rotting in the jungle in a "police action" smells just as bad as one rotting in a jungle in a war. Or words to that effect.

This will likely get you to the actual line. http://duckduckgo.com/?q=glory...

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[Anonymous Coward]

uh no.

the person actually hitting the person, is responsible for the death.

heading to a fake fire, is NOT an excuse for running somebody down.

best, get your head around it.

police here are guilty, of murdering someone in cold blood.

dick.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a great idea given how most fire callouts are automated by the alarm system. Burn your toast? Hope you enjoy prison!

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why do you call it a police action. Sounds like the police treated that civilian as an enemy combatant."

You're implying that they already don't.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[Anonymous Coward]

At the barest minimum, the swatter needs to pay the cost of the police action he caused, which will be probably a few thousand if not tens of thousands of dollars after the government accounting is done.
Then making a false accusation and/or a false statement which could have caused other harm since the SWAT team wasn't available for real emergenicies.

Make swatting immediately illegal with at least possible jailtime, with punitive damages and of course actual damages incurred by the police department. Then the civil suit from the victims.

Fuck the cops .. based on a phone call, they arrived at a house, failed to ascertain the actual fucking scenario on the ground, and shot an unarmed man.

They were apparently incapable of exercising judgement on the ground, incompetent or indifferent to figure out what was really happening, and pretty much went trigger happy on the victim, and shot him with no defensible reason they could actually observe.

This may be 'murder by cop', but at the end of the day, those fucking police officers are responsible for their actions .. and those actions include shooting an unarmed man, without provocation, after failing to confirm any of what they had heard was true, without establishing contact, and without attempting to de-escalate.

Boo goddamned mother fucking hoo .. the police weren't available for real emergencies. But basically they showed that in a real emergency their policy would be shoot first and ask questions later.

Fuck a goddamned fucking civil suit from the victims .. this is a goddamned fucking criminal act by the police.

If the police can't take time to confirm what they see and take appropriate actions, then they deserve to be in prison with other murderers. But let's not pretend that they don't bear the responsibility for actually shooting an unarmed civilian for no reason they could confirm for themselves.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[tinkerton]

I don't understand that sentence.

Re:Why only when there is a death?

[Dread_ed]

What you have just said is that the response, being determined by another party, is in no way connected with the swatting call. You obviously do not realize that the police response is directly tied to the specific words used by the swatter. Their intentional lies not only create the unnecessary response of law enforcement, but they shape it as well.

You have somehow decoupled the content and context of the swatter's lies from the police response. This is patently ridiculous. There isn't some "Swat address XXXX" button that just sends police for no reason wherever you want them to go. Any reasonable person would know that law enforcement will react based on the situation they think they are going into.

If the swatter says there is a kid in the bathroom at that address with a razor who is trying to kill himself, that will generate one response from the police. And if the swatter convinces the police that there is a familial murder-suicide plot in progress that has devolved into a child hostage situation, and with some family members already killed by the subject, the subject has barricaded themselves inside the house, has multiple firearms, has previous military training, etc. this will generate quite a different response from the police. And a bomb threat will generate yet another response. And a terrorist with bomb making materials will generate a different response.

The content of the lies told by the swatter results directly in a commensurate and situationally appropriate response from law enforcement So, not only is the caller responsible for initiating an unnecessary response from law enforcement in the first place, in addition, the specific false situation conveyed by the caller determines the specifics of that response from law enforcement. Yes, he would be responsible for the response, because his actions and specific words determined that response.

Fucking cops

[DogDude]

We need to get our police under fucking control. They're not heroes. They're not judge, jury or executioner. They're employees of our local governments. They need to be treated as such. The particular government employees who murdered this person need to be fired and prosecuted immediately.

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

They have guns, you don't. They can use them with impunity, you can't. He who has the guns makes the rules.

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

I have many guns.

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

After the revolution there may be some use for your kind, maybe.

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

Put your righteous indignation away, sweetheart.

It was an honest mistake in the heat of the moment. It comes with the territory. We demand officers plunge headfirst into dire situations. It's not appropriate to monday morning quarterback them. Let's leave that up to the professionals.

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

The better solution is to have *more* cops, but specialized to different jobs. Cops as exist in the US today have every job from counter-terrorism to helping a little old lady across the street, and we just ask too much of them. We expect them to be able to be Wyatt Earp or John McClane, when even with all the violence in the US, most police never fire their weapon outside of the training range. Your first time doing something you were so great?

Honestly, that's what I see with the Trump presidency as well... we ask so much of the president that the position has basically become a joke; there's no way that any one person could possibly represent what we want of them, he's basically a parody. All of the real work gets done by a huge team anyway.

Living in other countries, you find police (that are imperfect everywhere, but perhaps less in the news about such catastrophic mistakes) that are really specialized to different types of jobs, some with weapons, some without, so they can have a better idea of what they're getting into when an unknown situation hits them.

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

The most sever mistake possible, ending another man's life. We demand nothing of officers, they're more than willing to don armor and shoot at unarmed people, happens all the time. People shooting cops, not the largest cause of officer fatalities. Guess what that is, vehicular incidents, most often with them driving. You're a stunning display of the disconnect and tone deafness around all the hate towards cops, which they earn.

Re:Fucking cops

[Kohath]

We demand officers plunge headfirst into dire situations.

Time to demand they stop doing that then. Understand a situation before getting involved and opening fire on people.

Anyone can jump in and start just killing people. We don't need police for that. There are plenty of guys in the prisons who would be happy to do it instead.

Re:Fucking cops

[Applehu Akbar]

Put your righteous indignation away, sweetheart.

I, for one, will not. Remember that the SWAT raid did not occur at the swatter's intended target, but at a mistaken address where some random guy with no experience at being the target of a paramilitary raid just opened his front door and went, "Wha..?" Blasting away at such a person without checking to see whether he was an actual menace is criminal negligence not just on the part of one untrained donut muncher, but on the part of whoever trained this team. Indict them both and take away this town's SWAT toys for good.

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

They received an anonymous call that someone had hostages, they showed up and a man walked out unarmed. They gunned him down. This is not a mistake in the heat of the moment, it's untrained unhinged heavily armed people not knowing what their job actually is.
None of the other emergency services operate like this. If you call in a fake fire to someones house the fire department don't show up and "in the heat of the moment" burn it to the ground. If you call an EMT to someones property they don't make an "honest mistake" and administer a lethal dose of medication to a perfectly healthy individual who answers the door.

These people aren't police officers. They're mob justice. Shoot first and think about the situation afterwards. The motto is "protect and serve" not "guns blazing."

Re:Fucking cops

[Lucas123]

"They're not heroes"

Really? How many times a day do you face down criminals, angry drunks, gang members and abusive spouses?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

By that logic bouncers, mall cops, and concert security are heroes, besides "hurr what do YOU do?" isn't an argument, it's a fallacy, but I think you already knew that.

Re:Fucking cops

[Daemonik]

I have many guns.

The Conservative dichotomy: I must be armed so that I can keep the police from oppressing me/We need strong police to protect us.

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

they showed up and a man walked out unarmed.

That man moved his right hand up very quickly, starting from the waist. That would look to the cop like he was pulling a gun from his waist, and so he was shot. Next time you raise your hands, raise them extremely slowly, so as to prevent the cop from assuming you are pulling a weapon from your pants.

Re: Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean imagine if it was a real hostage situation and the hostage was sent to open the door.

Re:Fucking cops

[Tailhook]

We need to get our police under fucking control.

Maybe, but you're going to have to stifle your left wing instincts and reign in some public sector unions to do it.

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a gross distortion of the facts. They don't shoot people all the time, it happens occasionally. Most of the time the people who are shot are resisting arrest. Simply, not resisting greatly reduces the likelihood of being shot.

There's certainly more that needs to be done to reduce the number of shootings, but you make it sound like we're the Philippines where they have death squads roaming the neighborhoods murdering random people they suspect of selling drugs.

As for demanding nothing of officers, that's a complete load of crap. Perhaps in some backwoods rural area where they can't get real law enforcement that's the case, but not in typical cities. A lot is expected of cops, regardless of what the bigots in the #BLM think.

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't have the guns to protect us from the police. We have them to protect us from people breaking into our homes. When seconds count, police are minutes away. That's why we have our guns.

Also, civilian ownership of guns is a direct check on the government. Sure, they have napalm but has the US government "won" in Afganistan yet? Surely the biggest, most powerful country in the world can win a conflict against some scrubby people in caves, right?

You call the police after you handle the problem because you need the police report to file the insurance claim. Also, they'll take away that body for you.

Re: Fucking cops

[Applehu Akbar]

I mean imagine if it was a real hostage situation and the hostage was sent to open the door.

You jest, but now that SWAT teams are behaving this way, that is exactly what the bad guys are going to do if the cops show up: shove the hostage out the door, and then jump out a back window as he is being reflexively blown to pieces.

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

Police are generally supporters of the right for civilians to legally bear arms. Conservatives and police know something you don't: that law abiding citizens and cops have nothing to fear from each other. Until some dolt calls in a threat that inside a house there is an armed, extremely dangerous person.

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't have the guns to protect us from the police. We have them to protect us from people breaking into our homes. When seconds count, police are minutes away. That's why we have our guns.

Probably right. But this was never the Framers' intent of the 2nd Amendment, who debated self-defense and ultimately decided to leave it out of the Bill, and the minutes to the Constitutional Congress proves it (not that you said it was, but most believe it, and Justice Scalia made it so... but it is a lie lie lie invented by the NRA and swallowed by the armed sheep, who statistically more often kill themselves or their loved ones, either intentionally or accidentally, far more often than they successfully use a weapon to self-defend)

Also, civilian ownership of guns is a direct check on the government.

Hooray! Yes, yes, yes. This is really the true intent of the 2nd Amendment, to prevent tyranny. Thank you, gun owners, for selflessly putting yourselves in the line of fire to pretect unarmed me from a tyrannical government! You guys are the best. The real heros. The self-less. The brave. Keep up the good work, we're all counting on you to protect us from that tyranny.

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

How many times a day do you face down criminals, angry drunks, gang members and abusive spouses?

Zero, same as the typical cop who spends his whole shift sitting on the median of a highway holding a radar gun.

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

The liberal dichotomy: I don't trust my fellow citizens being armed / I must trust the same police that I hate to round up and arrest all the citizens with guns.

Re: Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

Well yes, that's the point: US is in this respect way closer to Philippines than to any other develooed nation. Which is a shame, really. You should see Italians arguing with their police over traffic tickets. By some miracle no one of them ever gets machinegunned. And that's the Maffia place, not at all your Scandinavia.

In fact, Philippines may have taken it from US whose forces were occupying it for half a century.

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

http://reason.com/archives/2018/01/24/henrico-incident-shows-militarized-polic

Our police are out of control. Time to stop militarizing them. It's a dangerous occupation, but it's time to stop exaggerating the dangers of it. SWAT raids and similar are examples of deliberately making policing more dangerous and more violent.

Re: Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you for fucking real? You're saying that those monsters were justified in killing an innocent man because he complied with their order to surrender too quickly. And people are trained on how to surrender to police from early childhood, practice it regularly just in case, and never react unpredictably in an unfamiliar and stressful situation. Seriously, go DIAF you fucking blame-shifting moron. Or better, go get randomly killed by a cop when answering the door.

Re:Fucking cops

[Kohath]

The Conservative dichotomy: I must be armed so that I can keep the police from oppressing me/We need strong police to protect us.

Yeah, "law and order" types need to think it through. You don’t want big government messing up your life, but you want tough enforcement by big government?

You want to protect your right to own guns, but you support the police who will be at your door to take your guns the next day if courts would let them?

Some of them are old and remember being afraid of crime 30 or 40 years ago when there was a lot of crime. There’s less crime now.

Re:Fucking cops

[Kohath]

Next time you raise your hands, raise them extremely slowly...

Because the police are there, and that means you're in mortal danger — a lot more danger then you'll ever face in any situation not involving the police. You were safe until the police arrived.

Anyone else, you could bargain. Anyone else, you could tell them they'll get caught and go to jail if they hurt you. Anyone else, you could appeal to their humanity.

Re: Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

You're saying that those monsters were justified in killing an innocent man because he complied with their order to surrender too quickly.

I never said they were justified, your just too stupid. Imagine you were that cop and the suspect raises his hands suddenly. What would you do, wait for him to shoot at you or shoot him first? Cops are definitely going to defend themselves if they suspect you are carrying a weapon. That's how they get away with killing people in court -- they say they thought you had a gun and shot you to save their own lives.

The thing at fault here is the police department training and policies. So the police are not at fault, as they are following their training and dept. policies. The victim is not at fault as he was just opening the door and raised his arms at the sight of police. So blame senior police management who were responsible for the training and policies, not the cops.

The procedure how SWAT approaches suspects should be altered such that police should carry bulletproof shields. In that case, even if the suspect is armed and shoots, the cop is safe. So the police should adopt a "carry shields, and shoot second policy."

Seriously, go DIAF you fucking blame-shifting moron.

You first, dumbass.

Re:Fucking cops

[magzteel]

they showed up and a man walked out unarmed.

That man moved his right hand up very quickly, starting from the waist. That would look to the cop like he was pulling a gun from his waist, and so he was shot. Next time you raise your hands, raise them extremely slowly, so as to prevent the cop from assuming you are pulling a weapon from your pants.

I support law enforcement but this guy was killed for no reason. He was an innocent guy who opened his door to see what was going on outside. He sees a lot of lights and people are yelling at him. He may have been raising his hand to try to shield his eyes from all those lights so he could see what was going on.

The fact that police work can be a dangerous job should not grant police the right to shoot first and ask questions later. They are in the wrong profession if they can't make correct decisions in the heat of the moment. There were multiple cops outside, only one fired. That cop shouldn't be an armed police officer. One innocent dead guy is one too many.

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

He was an innocent guy

Based on the 911 call, he wasn't. He was a murderer who had already killed one, and was about to kill two more. That's what the police assumed.

He may have been raising his hand to try to shield his eyes from all those lights

Based on the 911 call, he had a hand gun. So that action would cause the police to assume he was going to shoot at them and so they fired back.

They are in the wrong profession if they can't make correct decisions in the heat of the moment.

The SWAT team needs detectives who can figure out the situation at the 911 call and also when they confront the suspects. That detective should make intelligent decisions based on evaluating the situation.

Re:Fucking cops

[Calydor]

That girl wore some very provocative clothes. That would like to the man like she wanted to be raped. Next time you go out, wear very conservative clothes that show no more than 3% skin so as to prevent men from assuming you want to be raped.

See how your logic works?

An innocent person with no fucking clue what's going on should be allowed to react with fear and wanting to INSTANTLY SHOW HE IS NO THREAT.

Re:Fucking cops

[Uberbah]

Based on the 911 call, he wasn't. He was a murderer who had already killed one, and was about to kill two more.

And for all the cops knew, this was one of the hostages walking out the door.

Based on the 911 call, he had a hand gun.

A handgun no one saw. Don't know about Kansas cops, but I had firearms safety when I was eight and one of the cardinal rules was "always know what you are shooting at". Also the 911 all described a completely different house, a fact that none of the pathetic cop excuse makers will acknowledge.

That detective should make intelligent decisions based on evaluating the situation.

Decisions like "hey we're pretty damned safe since we're a hundred feet away and in cover".

and the suspect raises his hands suddenly

Empty hands two seconds after walking out his own door.

What would you do, wait for him to shoot at you or shoot him first?

See above on distance and cover. Even if that was an actual hostage taker, the cops chances of winning the Powerball on his way home would be greater than the suspect getting off a successful hip shot at that range.

The procedure how SWAT approaches suspects should be altered such that police should carry bulletproof shields.

They had shields.

So blame senior police management who were responsible for the training and policies, not the cops.

There was a little court case a while ago that settled the issue of "just following orders".

Re:Fucking cops

[Uberbah]

This is a gross distortion of the facts. They don't shoot people all the time, it happens occasionally.

It's barely February and American cops have already shot more people than most other countries do in a decade. And that's only looking at lethal shootings, not cases like a 2014 incident where a cop shot a man for following the cops orders who survived.

A lot is expected of cops, regardless of what the bigots in the #BLM think.

The fact that cops can gun people down for no reason and get away with it, throughout most of the country, puts the lie to that statement.

Re:Fucking cops

[Uberbah]

We don't have the guns to protect us from the police. We have them to protect us from people breaking into our homes.

And then its the cops doing a no-knock raid on your house for a bogus warrant (or when they should be going to the house across the street) and they will shoot your dumb ass if you're holding so much as a cell phone?

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

Police are generally supporters of the right for civilians to legally bear arms.

Of course they are. It gives them a viable rationale to kill on sight.

Re: Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean imagine if it was a real hostage situation and the hostage was sent to open the door.

You jest, but now that SWAT teams are behaving this way, that is exactly what the bad guys are going to do if the cops show up: shove the hostage out the door, and then jump out a back window as he is being reflexively blown to pieces.

So? This serves for bringing the situation under control. Mowing down the hostages takes the bargaining power from the criminals. They can't blackmail the officers if those show how little they care by killing the hostages themselves.

Re: Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

If you call this "under control", I do not know why not nuke the entire city so that the criminals willl not reappear there in say twenty years or so. First thing is making officers feel safe isn't it.

Re: Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the most familiar line of defence for every war criminal. Don't blame me for my henocidal activities, blame the HItler who set the policies and trained me and paid me my salary. In fact I am a victim in this thing.

Re:Fucking cops

[SuiteSisterMary]

The answer to 'what would you do, wait for him to shoot at you, or shoot him first' is answered 'Yes, I'd wait for him to shoot us first; if we're back and in cover, and he isn't carrying a rifle, he's not going to be doing much damage to us. We, presumably, have done our jobs and cleared civilians out of the area. We can always shoot him later, but we can't unshoot him. And we have voluntarily chosen to not only go into the field of police work, but specifically into the specific subfield of SWAT or whatever; we know for a goddamn fact that we're putting our lives on the line (but not as much as we would if we worked at, say, a liquor store) and that does not give us the right to shoot a man for having the physiologic reaction of trying to shield his eyes from a sudden bright light.'

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

You are 100% about this. The right wing pretends that every group in the world is out to get them. The gays are taking over so that they can force you to be gay. The blacks are taking the nation and making working impossible for poor white workers. The Jews do nothing all day but scheme to take your money. Anybody that comes from southern Europe or Africa is out to kill them. The school teachers are all communists teaching their kids to be liberals and communists. Oh and the Catholics are plotting to take over and make you pray to the Pope. And here we have these wonderful white freaks working so hard to save us all. Please, please, please do not save me.

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

We are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea on this issue. Sometimes the right thing to do is rush in and hopefully shoot a violent person and we know full well that an innocent will be mistaken and thus gunned down by a cop. On the other hand when cops stop, plan and execute a whole lot of people may perish.
Three examples are Columbine where the first cop to arrive should have rushed in and taken action saving numerous lives. Then we have the Branch Davidians. The first two cops arrived to simply serve papers and were fired upon one being killed as I recall. so here come the larger groups of cops. Now the planning and attempts to negotiate start up which gave Koresh and his ilk to rig the entire place to burn and explode if anyone broke in. The lack of immediate and forceful action could have saved many of the people in the building. Next we have the Orlando night club shooting. There was another situation in which the first cop to arrive might have saved many lives by going in with the intention of gunning down the murderer. Planning a solid response took time and that time was used to kill people over and over again. Frankly if that cop had killed two or three innocents to stop that slaughter it would still be the right thing to do,
        What we really want is to prevent as much crime as possible. Today we have many people who somehow believe that they have some sort of natural right to disobey drug laws. Stop and frisk and wire taps can make drugs a lot less of an issue. And yes that means less privacy etc.. But we must stop illegal drug use.

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

i bet this cop is on illegal drugs of some sort

Re:Fucking cops

[Kohath]

The police aren't to blame for something that could have been prevented. They're only rightfully blamed for things they actually do. Stop killing innocent people. Stop killing non-innocent people when there's an alternative choice. Even if that means something bad happens that could have been prevented.

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

Dichotomy?

When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away...

Re: Fucking cops

[sjames]

So the police are now run by Leo Wanker?

Re:Fucking cops

[TFAFalcon]

And get shot for failing to promptly follow orders.

And that doesn't even consider the panic a person must be feeling when they are suddenly the target of a large number of guns, spotlights and shouting - I'm sure they can calmly asses the situation to determine the correct speed at which the shouted orders should be followed.

Re:Fucking cops

[sjames]

Then we have the Branch Davidians. The first two cops arrived to simply serve papers and were fired upon one being killed as I recall.

Your recall is VERY wrong. Nobody walked up to serve a warrent. The compound was rushed by a large group of ATF agents armed with automatic weapons including a team whose job was to immediately shoot all the dogs no matter what else happened. It was a paramilitary assault from the start. Peaceful execution of the search warrant was never contemplated by the ATF.

Also, the ATF "fibbed" a bit to obtain the warrant.

And there's a serious issue. Law enforcement at all levels going for the exciting and violent option because knocking on the door and having a polite conversation or arresting an unarmed man jogging alone isn't nearly as much fun as raiding a compound with paramilitary gear.

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

not really.

in a fascist state, only fascists have guns.

i.e. Conservatives and their agents, the Police.

Re:Fucking cops

[magzteel]

He was an innocent guy

Based on the 911 call, he wasn't. He was a murderer who had already killed one, and was about to kill two more. That's what the police assumed.

They assumed wrong, and an innocent man is dead

He may have been raising his hand to try to shield his eyes from all those lights

Based on the 911 call, he had a hand gun. So that action would cause the police to assume he was going to shoot at them and so they fired back.

Again they assumed wrong, and they didn't "fire back". The shot an unarmed man.

They are in the wrong profession if they can't make correct decisions in the heat of the moment.

The SWAT team needs detectives who can figure out the situation at the 911 call and also when they confront the suspects. That detective should make intelligent decisions based on evaluating the situation.

They need to make intelligent decisions and not shoot unarmed innocent people in front of their home.

It may be a difficult job but it is the job they freely chose. The job entails risk. They can't mitigate the risk by killing anyone they perceive may present a threat.

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are you getting the idea that liberals hate the police? What you have described above is not a dichotomy.

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

"There are plenty of guys in the prisons who would be happy to do it instead."

And if we don't like them, we can kill them on the spot!

What will we call it? Some kind of Suicide Squad?

Re: Fucking cops

[david_thornley]

Nuking the city from orbit is the only way to be sure to stop crime.

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer to 'what would you do, wait for him to shoot at you, or shoot him first' is answered 'Yes, I'd wait for him to shoot us first; if we're back and in cover, and he isn't carrying a rifle, he's not going to be doing much damage to us. We, presumably, have done our jobs and cleared civilians out of the area. We can always shoot him later, but we can't unshoot him. And we have voluntarily chosen to not only go into the field of police work, but specifically into the specific subfield of SWAT or whatever; we know for a goddamn fact that we're putting our lives on the line (but not as much as we would if we worked at, say, a liquor store) and that does not give us the right to shoot a man for having the physiologic reaction of trying to shield his eyes from a sudden bright light.'

Preach it!

Re:Fucking cops

[Anonymous Coward]

You're still a piece of shit cop.

40 years for the police officer ?

[cats-paw]

we have a police violence problem. the victim was killed by the police and was unarmed. Well I think he was unarmed, apparently it's difficult to find that out. No matter, if he needed to be armed he would have been.

by all means let's put the prankster in jail for life and let the officer who showed such incredibly poor judgment and a police department that is operating under almost amazing levels of incompetence skate away without even a slap on the wrist.

This is not police thinking they were in a bad situation, this is a situation in which police think they need to handle every situation with a SWAT team.

Re:40 years for the police officer ?

[Anonymous Coward]

we have a police violence problem. the victim was killed by the police and was unarmed. Well I think he was unarmed, apparently it's difficult to find that out. No matter, if he needed to be armed he would have been.

Indeed, there was a report just this week about police in Baltimore planting toy guns to justify shootings. That's the sort of thing that erodes confidence, and extends beyond mere violence, to a pattern of corruption.

This is not police thinking they were in a bad situation, this is a situation in which police think they need to handle every situation with a SWAT team.

To be fair, this isn't a case where that's evident. It is a problem, but don't use this to excuse it. Instead, quite rationally appreciate that while they were mislead into circumstances where they would appropriately deploy a SWAT team, the use of force was nonetheless not properly warranted, and treat the police officer appropriately. If they fired in violation of established protocols and training, then hold them accountable. If they were trained to shoot in such circumstances, hold their trainer accountable, because such protocols are clearly inappropriate and ill-advised.

Re:40 years for the police officer ?

[Anonymous Coward]

we have a police violence problem. the victim was killed by the police and was unarmed. Well I think he was unarmed, apparently it's difficult to find that out. No matter, if he needed to be armed he would have been.

it shouldn't matter that the victim was unarmed, they were at home and would have been right to defend themselves against the murderer

Re:40 years for the police officer ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Assholes with guns.

Solution: More assholes with guns.

Re:40 years for the police officer ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Donald, is that you?

Re:40 years for the police officer ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 911 call had the perp claim to have killed one person and be holding hostages at gunpoint. It was a textbook SWAT team situation.
Perhaps the cops should have been more wary because of the anonymous 911 call. If the police department had instructed the cops properly about the specifics of the call, they might not have been so quick to shoot. But absolutely this should not have been done by a 2-man patrol knocking on the door asking if everything's cool.

Re:40 years for the police officer ?

[Uberbah]

Give this cop apologia a rest. For all the LEO knew, the man walking out the door was a hostage. An obviously unarmed hostage.

Perhaps the cops should have been more wary because of the anonymous 911 call.

Cops have to deal with false calls all the time. If they can't do that without being dumb panicky shits that murder people, they have no business wearing a badge in the first place.

Re:40 years for the police officer ?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not police thinking they were in a bad situation, this is a situation in which police think they need to handle every situation with a SWAT team.

Please don't confuse "SWAT team" with exterminators.

Re:40 years for the police officer ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, there was a report just this week about police in Baltimore planting toy guns to justify shootings. That's the sort of thing that erodes confidence,

Nope, that doesn't erode confidence. What does erode confidence is that the perpetrators don't get long jail terms for conspiracy, perversion of justice, and planned murder (toy guns don't fall just from the sky), exacerbated by them being in a position of authority and trust.

Re:40 years for the police officer ?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

He was unarmed, everyone admits that. One officer did shoot... although not a member of the SWAT team. The more trained SWAT members did not fire. And lastly, a hostage situation (or potential one) is definitely when I SWAT team should be used. It's not a problem with "every situation = SWAT", it's a problem that " 'Pranksters' can define the situation to require SWAT." If SWAT only responded to active shootouts between war heroes and terrorists, that would be what was reported as occurring.

Re:40 years for the police officer ?

[david_thornley]

Perhaps one thing to help would be to get the non-SWAT officers out of the way, or at least for them to holster their weapons.

This new bill looks fine

[Anonymous Coward]

10 to 40 years and prosecuted as murder sounds good, but it does make me wonder why a cold blooded execution isn't prosecuted as murder already. Oh, this is for the kid playing with his phone, not the criminal pulling the trigger? Nevermind, system's still fucked.

convergence of technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Technology does not always solve every problem. A smoke grenade would likely drive people out without gunfire. Draw the logical conclusion. SWAT in many cases is a misuse of police. Since 9/11 the police have been acting as military on our streets; citizens are the enemy. This has to end as it keeps ending badly.
I remember my brother as a boy playing cowboys and Indians with a fake pistol. A boy two years ago in a park, where children play was killed for having a fake pistol playing; what children do. An officer in body armor 'shot first'. One radio call and the boy was guilt of having a toy onto death. Then the jury ruled it a justified killing.

Re:convergence of technology

[Cacadril]

It's not just the police that's out of control. When shit happens, juries are told the swat team methodology is just the right way of doing things. The whole nation believes the way things are done in TV films is the only way.

Any investigation of police must be independent

[schwit1]

Every state government ought to have a group whose sole purpose in to investigate and prosecute suspected crimes by local police.

We also need to outlaw qualified immunity.

Re:Any investigation of police must be independent

[jodido]

There's a Civilian Review Board in New York City and it's a sick joke--it's totally useless for getting any kind of justice where the cops are concerned.

Oh yeah, and the governemnt's pockets are deeper

[Anonymous Coward]

If the "young man" had any sort of money, I am certain that the parents would be suing him as well. But since there isn't any profit in it, you can be certain they aren't filing a suit against the gamer. I am also reasonably certain that the WPD didn't direct the officer to shoot the innocent citizen. "under the direction" implies some agenda.

I will also just mention that 911 callers are typically in a panic situation and aren't the most reliable observers of fact. It is reasonable to assume that "detail" information in a 911 call is routinely ignored.

Eyesight

[Anonymous Coward]

GNU GOATSE PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 3, 29 June 2007

Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not not allowed.

Preamble

The GNU Goatse Public License is a free, copyleft license for
software and other kinds of works.

The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed
to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast,
the GNU Goatse Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to
share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free
software for all its victims. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the
GNU Goatse Public License for most of our software; it applies also to
any other work released this way by its assholes. You can apply it to
your asshole, too.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our Goatse Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you
want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new
free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you
these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have
certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if
you modify it: responsibilities to respect the eyesight of others.

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same
freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive
or can get the source code. And you must show them the shocker so they
know their rights.

Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps:
(1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License
giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.

Because most of the developers' and authors' don't have a clue what
they're doing, the GPL clearly explains that there is no warranty for this
free software. You get what you pay for. For both users' and authors' sake,
the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as changed, so that the
original authors don't take all the credit for the improvements in the
modified version.

Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run
modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer
can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of
protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic
pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to
use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we
have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those
products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we
stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions
of the GPL, as needed to protect the retinas of users.

Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents.
States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of
software on goatse-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to
avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program

I don't like laws like this!

[oldgraybeard]

Our justice system is getting mucked up with innuendo and complexity.
BTW I am not a lawyer so I truely don't know what I am talking about ;)

Example
Murder Premeditated - did the individual do things in the real world related to planning the crime.
Murder Hate Crime - what was the individual thinking/feeling when the crime happened.

Do we really need all these special new laws? When our standard laws might be used as a path to justice.

Just something I wonder about as an uneducated lay person ;)

Just my 2 cents ;)

Re:I don't like laws like this!

[duke_cheetah2003]

Murder Premeditated - did the individual do things in the real world related to planning the crime.
Murder Hate Crime - what was the individual thinking/feeling when the crime happened.

Do we really need all these special new laws? When our standard laws might be used as a path to justice.

Yes, we do. We need all these special case laws so when police stop someone, there is at least one law they are breaking unknowningly, allowing police to arrest, detain and search their victim for more criminal activity.

Our justice system is very very broken. In a lot of municipalities, justice is a means for the municipality to make money. It's part of their budget to include projected fines and such paid by victims of police.

Don't believe it? Just take a census of any detention facility in the USA, tell me how many of those inmates were below the poverty line before arrest. I bet it's nearly everyone. Rich people aren't in jail, they can afford to make deals that exchange jail sentences for a big juicy fines and court fees.

Re:I don't like laws like this!

[duke_cheetah2003]

Rich people aren't in jail, they can afford to make deals that exchange jail sentences for a big juicy fines and court fees.

Sorry for double post, but I had to add in.. rich people make bail, they can afford lawyers to drag the thing through court for years, costing the state enormous amounts of money. While poor people can't make bail, rot in jail without means to make enough money to pay their fines or hire a lawyer, so they rot in jail longer, get a public defender eager to make a deal with their colleague at the other table. Debtors prison basically. It's all super broken and in dire need of massive reforms.

Re:I don't like laws like this!

[Actually, I do RTFA]

These laws are about clarifying that SWATing is not "phoning in a false police report" (which may be a misdemeanor in some areas) but a felony. Hence, it going from a 1 year maximum to 10-40 years. Deaths that occur in the commission of a felony can usually be charged (depending on the state) as felony murder.

SO, why add special laws? Cause there are no laws to handle this particular case. And you don't want laws written so they can apply to other random situations that in hindsight oldgraybeard thinks are the same... that way lies arbitrary power in the hands of prosecutors and a lack of predictably.

I'm not going to get into hate crimes (which have a lot of arguments on both sides). Instead, I'm going to say there is a clear distinction in how you have to rehabilitate someone who: intentionally murders someone for profit (premeditated murder aka murder 1); partner shoots someone during a bank robbery (felony murder); kills someone in a fit of anger after an argument escalates to a shoving match escalates (regular murder aka murder 2); hits someone whlie driving recklessly (vehicular homicide); accidentally shoots someone while hunting (manslaughter) and accidentally shooting someone while hunting while drunk (negligent homicide.) Or maybe I got a few examples wrong, IANAL. But the point isn't to hurt someone because they killed someone. It's primarily to prevent future bad acts, by deterring them via punishment and via rehabilitation. So someone who knew when they woke up they were going to kill someone will get different deterrence and rehabilitation than someone who kills someone because they didn't take appropriate precautions to prevent that death.

Re:I don't like laws like this!

[david_thornley]

In the US, premeditated murder is normally considered more serious than spur-of-the-moment murder, Many crimes depend on the intention for their severity and definition. The idea is that accidents happen, and crime is performed, and the two aren't necessarily the same.

Hate crime laws in the US are for harsher sentences for crimes that are apparently meant to terrorize members of particular groups. Hate crimes, in the US, are basically criminal acts of terrorism.

Deadly Weapon

[Luthair]

Here's a question, why shouldn't swatting be considered assault with a deadly weapon.

There are definitely big issues with how police deal with reports of crimes, recall also the swat team showing up recently at the home of someone with a phone mistakenly reported as stolen. A big issue is that for someone not a criminal and not currently engaged in a crime the police appearing is entirely unexpected and their brain isn't primed to process the situation and even realize commands are aimed at them.

Re:Deadly Weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, there's no assault. The cops are free to do whatever they want after his call. Shooting people was all them.

That said, it's the same thing as a fake bomb threat and that's plenty illegal.

Re:Deadly Weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. You drive the getaway car and there's a killing, you're guilty as well. Swatting is much the same. This guy knew full well that the swatting *he instigated* could lead to death.

Re:Deadly Weapon

[bored_engineer]

Taken in isolation, your statement presumes that the police are only a weapon and have no agency. I agree that the caller should face more severe charges than filing a false report, but it's quite dangerous to think of the police as little more than a tool to be wielded.

Re:Deadly Weapon

[Luthair]

You could make a similar argument about a hitman...

This is why ...

[PPH]

... I carry a gun. Because, not only is carrying an entire cop just too heavy, they tend to go off accidentally far too often.

A product of a two party system

[Anonymous Coward]

Enjoy sucking Trump's dick, Americunts. He's got his dick deep in your ass.

Re:A product of a two party system

[Anonymous Coward]

They do, being ass fucked by the rich is very popular in the US, as with guns.
Primitive people that lack self control the yanks.

Re:Oh yeah, and the governemnt's pockets are deepe

[PPH]

California has deep pockets. This gamer was supposed to be in prison. But CA let him out early. So it's on them.

Re: Bad Idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if they are in another country, with so many holes in the 911 system?
What if the phone call is an anonymous IP phone calls?

The swatting will continue, despite your proposed punishment.

Re:Oh yeah, and the governemnt's pockets are deepe

[Anonymous Coward]

California was legally required to begin releasing inmates by order of the Federal Courts.

Boot stamping a face...

[Anonymous Coward]

... forever

What about the Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, what happens to the police who shot and killed a man with no other provocation than an out of state anonymous tip?

Re:What about the Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

He gets his name on a shirt - https://www.facebook.com/Justice-for-Andrew-Finch-334081497073999/

Re:What about the Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Depending on the jurisdiction, the cop might have to do some paperwork to get replacement ammunition.

"there's really no consequence for his actions."

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure there are.

Doesn't work

[rsilvergun]

prosecutors are generally in it for political points. It's a great way to launch a political career. This tends to make them hard on crime (since that's a popular political issue) and therefor more likely to look the other way at accusations of excessive force. Then you add to that how hard it is to get a jury to convict and it's basically impossible. I suspect if we tried to go independent it would a) be massively underfunded and b) be staffed by folks who couldn't make it as a regular prosecutor.

Re:Doesn't work

[Anonymous Coward]

Police gunning down innocent civilians is a crime too, at least in any civilised country. How is punishing such atrocious deeds harshly not being hard on crimes?

Re:Doesn't work

[Uberbah]

Can at least have cops and DA's from different jurisdictions/forces doing the investigating. Police officers shoot an unarmed man minding his own business? At least have the county sheriff's office investigate. Oh, it was the county sheriff's that did the shooting? Have the state highway patrol do the investigation. etc.

There would still be an institutional bias but it wouldn't be as bad as organizations clearing themselves of their actions.

REAL NEWS

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/417776-imperialism-ireland-event-liberal/

REAL NEWS - IMPERIALISM

[Anonymous Coward]

Modern imperialism goes on trial, and is found guilty:

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/417776-imperialism-ireland-event-liberal/

Re:REAL NEWS - IMPERIALISM

[Anonymous Coward]

NEWSFLASH! After having its centuries-old empires clawed away from it, Europe declares that imperialism is bad and that it is totally different when the big bad USA practices a softer, tamer, less brutal method of it.

Taser first, not guns.

[Anonymous Coward]

Police should be trained to use a taser until they SEE a non-toy firearm. Then they can switch to a gun.

Seems we have a bunch of fearful police. They are so afraid that shooting at citizens is their first reaction. That needs to stop.

REAL NEWS

[Anonymous Coward]

Imperialism – which today is usually referred to by the euphemism ‘liberal interventionism’ – went on Trial at the Waterside Theatre in Derry, Northern Ireland this week.

Five passionate and well-informed speakers, who included the former British Ambassador to Syria Peter Ford, detailed the carnage and chaos that has been unleashed around the globe by the aggressive, warmongering policies of the US and its closest allies.

The event could have been called ‘War on Trial.’ It might have been called ‘Regime Change on Trial.’ Or ‘Economic Sanctions on Trial.’ But it was – thanks to organizer Gregory Sharkey – called ‘Imperialism on Trial’ and, as the first speaker, the writer and broadcaster John Wight declared, that in itself was highly significant.

For the truth is the ‘I’ word is the elephant in the room in contemporary discourse. We’re not supposed to acknowledge its existence. Imperialism, according to the dominant Establishment narrative, ended when the European empires gave their colonies independence in the 1950s and 60s. In fact, the ‘old’ imperialism was only replaced by a new variant which is even more destructive, and certainly more dishonest. At least the British Empire admitted it was an empire.

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/417776-imperialism-ireland-event-liberal/

MODERN IMPERIALISM

[Anonymous Coward]

Divide and RUIN:

https://youtu.be/Jh3Q2kDE-Tk

Wheres that Fucking AI

[wolfheart111]

When u need them. Cops are the first job I hope is done away with. Replaced by a robot.... that would be sweet.

Re:Wheres that Fucking AI

[BlueStrat]

[ Wheres that Fucking AI ] When u need them. Cops are the first job I hope is done away with. Replaced by a robot.... that would be sweet.

It won't happen in the foreseeable future for three reasons:

1. Police Unions

2. Public Distrust Of "Robot Cops"

3. Police Unions

Strat

Re:Wheres that Fucking AI

[wolfheart111]

Then I geuss They will have to muge with the AI, and become semi autonomous. :)

Re:Wheres that Fucking AI

[Mike Van Pelt]

When u need them. Cops are the first job I hope is done away with. Replaced by a robot.... that would be sweet.

CitizenYouAreIllegallyParkedYouHaveThirtySecondsToMoveYourCar*BLAM*BLAM*BLAM*BLAM*BLAM*

I lock someone in a cage with a hungry lion

[Beeftopia]

* If I lock someone in a cage with a hungry lion - it's not I who killed them.
* I release a cobra into someone's bed and it bites them - it's not I who killed them.
* I chain someone to a pole in hyena country - it's not I who killed them.

This is all true - but it ignores the context, which is that I put them into an extremely dangerous situation which led to their deaths.

Re:I lock someone in a cage with a hungry lion

[Anonymous Coward]

Both the lions and hyenas act out of animal instinct.

Is what you're trying to say is that police officers are really just animals with no intelligence?

Re:I lock someone in a cage with a hungry lion

[Anonymous Coward]

* If I lock someone in a cage with a hungry lion - it's not I who killed them.

If a police force act like a hungry lion, it is time to disband the entire police force and start anew, all prior police banned from join.

Re:I lock someone in a cage with a hungry lion

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on what we've seen, lately, it should be self-obvious. Animals with no intelligence, but lots of weaponry. Or maybe more weaponry than intelligence.

Re:I lock someone in a cage with a hungry lion

[Anonymous Coward]

Cops are comparable to hungry lions, cobras, and hyenas??? Good to know. Now let's do something about that now.

Re:I lock someone in a cage with a hungry lion

[Anonymous Coward]

So to summarise:

Why did the cop shoot an unarmed civilian? Because it's in his nature

Re:I lock someone in a cage with a hungry lion

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like they say: guns don't kill people; bullets do.

Mentally ill

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I have read in the last year, that police are more likely to use deadly force against mentally ill people. A combination of an irrational fear that the mentally ill pose a high risk or danger to the police, the public, and themselves. (On the last point, there have been several cases in the last year where the police were called because someone was suicidal, and the end result was the police shot and killed them.) Along the lines of paring down some of the duties of the police, a municipality I think near San Fransisco is sending out crisis counselors (or something along those lines) before send the police to deal with someone in a mentally ill situation. If implemented well, this could improve at least that situation.
Sigh. I sigh. A lot of small cities may not have the funds to do this, a lot of locales may lack the will or be hostile to the idea.

The cop was a good shot

[Anonymous Coward]

And should be commended. The guy opening the door was not showing his hands and could have had a weapon. Looking at the alleged victim it is obvious he was in the bottom rung socio economically, he was also white and from Kentucky therefore was probably a closet racist. He probably didn't even pay any taxes and was most likely on welfare.

I say the cop should be rewarded for his marksmanship and good financial stewardship in taking out a drain on society.

If you want to feel sorry for someone feel sorry for his neighbors that had to live next to this white trash racist welfare family.

This is something both conservatives and liberals should support. After all dead white racists speak to the liberal values, and police executing well placed lethal shots into potential terrorists should speak to the conservative side of the nation. So let's come together and support the brave law enforcement officers of Kentucky who don't believe in letting weapons rust from disuse.

Re:The cop was a good shot

[bored_engineer]

That's some pretty lousy trolling. I think you can do better. Try again.

Re:Oh yeah, and the governemnt's pockets are deepe

[PPH]

Courts ordered California to bring prison population below 137.5% of design capacity. California did not add capacity to bring prison population below this mandated point. Their decision, their liability.

The police were idiots

[aberglas]

How difficult is it to bring a spare gun to a SWAT. They could have just given it to the dead victim and everyone would be happy.

Consequential Damages are crazy

[aberglas]

Because of the nail the shoe was lost
because of the shoe the horse was lost
because of the horse the rider was lost
because of the rider, the message was lost
because of the message the battle was lost
because of the battle the kingdom was lost

So the king sues the iron monger that provided the iron that made the nail?

Re:Consequential Damages are crazy

[sg_oneill]

So the king sues the iron monger that provided the iron that made the nail?

If the cavalry horse-shoe maker was intentionally acting to cause this chain of events, then yes, yes the king should.

Otherwise your analogy seriously misses the point here.

Re:Consequential Damages are crazy

[SuiteSisterMary]

Applying that analogy to this situation would be like suing the manufacturer of the chair that the prank caller was sitting in when he made the prank call.

What about pizza delivery?

[uldics]

Lets also have a rule, whenever someone orders pizza and the deliveryman drives over a pedestrian, the caller is executed, home confiscated and relatives loose citizenship.

Re:What about pizza delivery?

[BobSteinVisiBone]

Lets also have a rule, whenever someone orders pizza and the deliveryman drives over a pedestrian, the caller is executed, home confiscated and relatives loose citizenship.

Apples to oranges. A comparable incident would be if someone maliciously ordered pizza delivered to a neighbor's house and in the ensuing confusion the pizza ended up on their roof.

We should all start Swatting!

[Anonymous Coward]

We should all start swatting every day, tens if not hundreds of calls per day. That is the only way the police will finally get some reasonable training to deal something as basic as prank calls.

Let's have a strong opinion about police work

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. Let's all have a strong opinion about police work sitting on our asses on a website of news for nerds. Because we all know how it is, we are risking our lives everyday to get some BSD booting.

Re:Let's have a strong opinion about police work

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh do fuck off, please.

The logical conclusion of your line of attack is that no-one can criticise anyone for anything, ever.

The police response for this particular case was massively disproportionate and you know it.

>o.o

Since we are all lawyers here

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds so cool "act reasonably to any circumstances". To whom reason? Of self-elected judges on the Internet, that can ponder these circumstances over months instead of actually ACTING in a second? But you surely know how it. You probably dealth with some hostage situation where you had to decide very fast whether to unplug an RJ45 cable; and I am sure you did the right choice.

Re:Since we are all lawyers here

[Uberbah]

Since we're not willfully obtuse authoritarians, we can see that cops who had a house (that didn't match the description in the 911 call) surrounded, at distance, were in cover and yet shot the first person to come to the door within a matter of seconds.

Re:Since we are all lawyers here

[Cinnamon Beige]

I actually can understand the 'did not match the description in the 911 call' part, but that's because people under stress have lousy memories and some of the experiments proving this are actually quite easily and regularly repeated as a demonstration, they're that reliable in their results. You'll also get some...remixes on addresses, too, which is why modern 911 systems don't require you be capable of giving your location accurately.

The call itself ought to have tipped them off, though, since it was to the non-emergency number and apparently there wasn't even spoofed to a local number (never mind a phone belonging to the address), and I've yet to see a decent explanation for why attempting to call the house as the first move was ruled out. Hell, pretend to be scammer or something otherwise relatively innocent; you don't have to say you're the cops when you're just trying to make sure you're not doing something like having a tense standoff with a completely empty house.

I make irrelevant comparisons

[Uberbah]

Tigers, lions and hyena's oh my aren't people, and aren't trained to deal with hostile situations. Cops are. And when said cops fuck up - like shooting at the first unarmed guy to come out the door within seconds when they were at distance and behind vehicles and ballistic shields - they should go to jail. For a longer sentence than the prank caller.

Being a cop isn't even in the top 20 most dangerous jobs in the USA, once you take out car accidents which don't have anything to do with them needing to get their guns off. Dumb, panicky shits shouldn't be allowed on the force in the first place, but need to be prosecuted for negligent homicide when they fuck up. As this cop did.

Re:I make irrelevant comparisons

[Anonymous Coward]

Tigers, lions and hyena's oh my aren't people, and aren't trained to deal with hostile situations. Cops are.

Large social animals with natural lethal weapons most certainly are prepared to deal with hostile situations or they'd have died out. This kind of SWAT team cop are more like weasels in a blood rush.

Re:I make irrelevant comparisons

[Beeftopia]

Tigers, lions and hyena's oh my aren't people, and aren't trained to deal with hostile situations. Cops are. And when said cops fuck up - like shooting at the first unarmed guy to come out the door within seconds when they were at distance and behind vehicles and ballistic shields - they should go to jail. For a longer sentence than the prank caller.

This fellow used social engineering to create a context for the cops: that they had an active shooter/imminent mass murder situation, and that he'd tied up his victims in preparation to murder them. The cops accepted this context. I mean who would call in a "prank active shooter" situation?

This guy comes to the door, and the cops think he's the person about to carry out a massacre. Split second decision - he goes back in, kills everyone, maybe a member of the SWAT team and himself. Or take him out now. Split second life and death decision.

Because who the f*ck calls in a prank active shooter/imminent massacre situation?

The "prankster"-cum-murderer created a context for the cops, which they accepted. Just like when a social engineer creates a context for IT support employee, and gets that person to change/give out passwords. The prankster successfully fooled the cops, had them accept a false context, and they responded, in a split-second life and death decision, based on that false context.

The prankster-cum-murderer just "locked the guy in a cage with a lion", the analogy to this situation being the prankster-cum-murderer "made the cops think this guy was about to commit a massacre."

Re:I make irrelevant comparisons

[Uberbah]

Cops get false or misleading calls all the time - not only did the house they roll up to not match the caller's description, it didn't even have the right number of floors. For all the cop knew, the man walking out the door was a hostage, but more importantly was unarmed and made no sudden moves towards police - who were all at a safe distance and in cover.

So this copologia doesn't fly.

Yes, lets

[Uberbah]

Cops don't have dangerous jobs in the USA - roofers, retail workers, fishermen about a dozen other professions all have it harder than cops do, and thats before taking out car accidents that have nothing to do with Officer Fife needing to get his gun off.

Re:Oh yeah, and the governemnt's pockets are deepe

[Anonymous Coward]

It would take years to build out sufficient prison capacity, the court order would not let them take that time. It was not a solution available to them.

swat not police

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people keep saying "police" when this was the swat division.

Murderous police

[Anonymous Coward]

It's good to see somebody finally taking steps to seek justice against the ACTUAL murderer, who should die in a cage if laws are to be applied equally to everyone.

More addons to this

[laurencetux]

1 Have the persons prison uniform marked with a flag for SNITCH

2 make sure they spend plenty of time in "Gen Pop"

3 have an Admin review decide if it was a "good shoot" (hint unless the person that got swatted was guilty of SOMETHING ELSE it ain't)

4 any costs/payouts from the civil suit come from the Police Pension Fund

Re:More addons to this

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I object to your "admin review" rule. Being guilt of anything else shouldn't in any way excuse police misconduct on an unrelated issue.

Re:More addons to this

[laurencetux]

My side note was not intended as part of the "rule" but was to be considered as more or less a start of a decision tree

Valid Warrant for other Reason
NO: BAD SHOOT proceed to punishment phase
YES: Suspect Armed, Dangerous , Immediate Threat?
                NO: BAD SHOOT ---- ...

40 years for the cops, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget about the loser who called this in for a sec and remember that the cops showed up at the wrong house, didn't take the time to understand the situation, and just started killing.

Yes, the loser should go to jail for a while, but the cops should go to jail for MUCH longer, if not for life.

This ridiculous feudal attitude -- that cops and the military are a ruling class that all of us dirty little peasants owe are fealty to -- is getting tired. Cops are NOT above the law. If anything, they should be held to a higher standard, not a non-existent one.

Cops have earned every ounce of the contempt that society holds them in.

Re: Bad Precident? (sic)

[davecb]

One lawmaker argues that the bill is necessary because under the current system if a person phones in a swat call, "there's really no consequence for his actions."

In Canada, it's Criminal Misconduct, and also Criminal Harassment see https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/b..."> R. v. B.L.A., 2015 BCPC 203 (CanLII)

I'm not prepared to believe the US is a lawless domain: I am prepared to suspect the unnamed legislator of lying. Or perhaps mere stupidity.

Doom of U.S. Is Inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

Jan. 31, Juche 107 (2018) Wednesday

Doom of U.S. Is Inevitable

Shortly ago, the CBS of the U.S. conducted a poll on its nationals. Most of the respondents said that society was divided, ethnic and racial tensions mushroomed and they don't trust the political system which enforces policies only for the good of the few.

This is the reality of the U.S.

The daily-growing socio-economic inequalities in the U.S. are a realistic factor which quickens the national division.

The U.S. is seen as a country with the worst socio-economic inequalities in the world, where the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing day by day and a large number of people live in poverty, whereas the privileged circles no more than one percent of the population have the majority of social wealth.

As a result, the rich get richer and the poor poorer and class contradictions go from bad to worse. That's because the government backed by monopolies enforces unfair economic policy for the sake of the few.

Not a few Americans are doing extreme actions with discontent with the unreasonable policies enforced by the authorities and social system which drive them into catastrophe.

Downhill is the inevitable fate of the U.S., the empire of evils.

Ri Hak Nam

Re:Oh yeah, and the governemnt's pockets are deepe

[PPH]

It would take years to build out sufficient prison capacity

Gov. Schwarzenegger declared overcrowding an emergency in 2006. The state did nothing. There are numerous unused military facilities that they could have put to use as minimum security prisons. Nope. Wouldn't do that either. The state had more than a decade to permanently solve the population problem. And they did nothing.

Time to put that shit hole state under martial law.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, why stop there with your hyperbole. If you suck another mans dick and eat his shit, you can be a republican too. What a concept?