Actually it does make sense. Re-directing the swat to another address shows that he thought swatting would be a negative experience. He selected another address to knowingly transfer the risk. He could have given the address of a police station, an empty quarry or anything else. He chose to give the address of another individual knowing that person would be put at risk. He, and no one else, put that specific person at risk. He gave the target to the swatter who passed it to the police. He cannot even say he thought nothing would happen because if that were true he would have given his own address.
There are four, not three culpable people involved in this.
I have a friend who is a 000 operator (It is not 911 in Australia) in Queensland. He tells me it is rare for people to get all the details right when calling in an emergency. As such as half the details they give first are just wrong. That is why the job requires special training.
The swatting part won't matter too much as the guy easily qualifies for at least one count of second degree murder ("a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life"), but they could also tack on charges for endangering each law enforcement officer who responded to the fraudulent report as well.
If that path is taken then the person who redirected the swat (gave the false address) is also guilty of murder.
I have not 'run out of arguments'. You have not presented any for a number of posts, instead you attack me from behind the shelter of AC. You are the one who started with insults and ad hominem. Don't make yourself out to be a victim or me a bully. By posting AC you leave me not twig if you are the same person between posts. Piss off troll
That i pretty much what I thought. Pretty much the same situation as Melbourne, Australia. Lots of fire and sparks in the newspapers but it is not a major problem for society although occasionally unfortunate for the individual Thank you.
I regret replying. I don't think you are even trying to argue a case here you are just being a pratt. You just acknowledge that it is a legal definition we need and you quote (badly) from colloquial dictionary. And even in your post recent post you conflate it. I have reason need to be sullen. You are not arguing a point. You failed at that. You are going for an emotional win not a logical one. And I don't care how many times you have congratulatory cyber sex with yourself.
I am not even going to discuss this with someone who does not understand that the dictionary or colloquial use of the term murder is not the same as a legal use. It might be worthwhile to look up both murder and malice in a legal dictionary.
According to you the person who gave you a job at the steel mill was a murderer because the work was murder. When you supply me with a definition of murder that does not even include any deaths then you are pulling a long bow.
Do not make a quote from a dictionary without attribution. Apart from being illegal (quoting a dictionary in media is not covered by fair use as that is the explicit use of a dictionary) it is improper and ill-mannered. If you are going to steal their work then credit them. Anyway, without the attribution it is only your words.
You really are a cretin. And I don't live in a country where I have to fear the police. You are so full of yourself at haveing had a useless insult that you failed the return of serve.
All your imaginings of what I think (rather than what I say and post) makes you just another bleating anonymous twat.
If you are going to toss insults then put your name to them Mr. A. Coward.
Well, in my country we have had incidents involving such but nevertheless the annual crime rate continues to decrease. And even where there have been a few incident they are not Muslims in general but with a specific subgroup.
Add this, Switzerland used to require all citizens to own and maintain military grade weapons as each and every citizen was considered part of the 'reserve'. I don't know if that is still the case.
That is contrary to fact. There are countries where there is an inquiry for every shot and charges for injury or death. The board or a jury decides whether it was lawful.
No, murder is not when you kill someone with malice. A red killer has no malice, just the dollar-driven incentive to kill. People have killed friends for money.
Slashdot Mirror
Cie\te? Got statistics or just rumour?
That is actually how they do it in the UK and many other civilised countries.
Actually it does make sense. Re-directing the swat to another address shows that he thought swatting would be a negative experience. He selected another address to knowingly transfer the risk. He could have given the address of a police station, an empty quarry or anything else. He chose to give the address of another individual knowing that person would be put at risk. He, and no one else, put that specific person at risk. He gave the target to the swatter who passed it to the police. He cannot even say he thought nothing would happen because if that were true he would have given his own address.
There are four, not three culpable people involved in this.
I have a friend who is a 000 operator (It is not 911 in Australia) in Queensland. He tells me it is rare for people to get all the details right when calling in an emergency. As such as half the details they give first are just wrong. That is why the job requires special training.
They were cited twice before your request.
Traffic by far. It is their biggest killer
But they had no or negative reasons for expecting the person answering the door to be the hostage taker. More likely to be a hostage.
The swatting part won't matter too much as the guy easily qualifies for at least one count of second degree murder ("a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life"), but they could also tack on charges for endangering each law enforcement officer who responded to the fraudulent report as well.
If that path is taken then the person who redirected the swat (gave the false address) is also guilty of murder.
I have not 'run out of arguments'. You have not presented any for a number of posts, instead you attack me from behind the shelter of AC. You are the one who started with insults and ad hominem. Don't make yourself out to be a victim or me a bully. By posting AC you leave me not twig if you are the same person between posts. Piss off troll
That i pretty much what I thought. Pretty much the same situation as Melbourne, Australia. Lots of fire and sparks in the newspapers but it is not a major problem for society although occasionally unfortunate for the individual Thank you.
Thank you for your added information, mine was merely gossip. I stand enlightened on the issue. Thank you.
I regret replying. I don't think you are even trying to argue a case here you are just being a pratt. You just acknowledge that it is a legal definition we need and you quote (badly) from colloquial dictionary. And even in your post recent post you conflate it. I have reason need to be sullen. You are not arguing a point. You failed at that. You are going for an emotional win not a logical one. And I don't care how many times you have congratulatory cyber sex with yourself.
Wasn't trying to steal your thunder. Apologies.
There are very few people here that arrived by boat as I am sure you know.
Still doesn't apply to the policeman.
I am not even going to discuss this with someone who does not understand that the dictionary or colloquial use of the term murder is not the same as a legal use. It might be worthwhile to look up both murder and malice in a legal dictionary.
According to you the person who gave you a job at the steel mill was a murderer because the work was murder. When you supply me with a definition of murder that does not even include any deaths then you are pulling a long bow.
Do not make a quote from a dictionary without attribution. Apart from being illegal (quoting a dictionary in media is not covered by fair use as that is the explicit use of a dictionary) it is improper and ill-mannered. If you are going to steal their work then credit them. Anyway, without the attribution it is only your words.
You really are a cretin. And I don't live in a country where I have to fear the police. You are so full of yourself at haveing had a useless insult that you failed the return of serve. All your imaginings of what I think (rather than what I say and post) makes you just another bleating anonymous twat. If you are going to toss insults then put your name to them Mr. A. Coward.
You can check it yourself at https://www.crimestatistics.vi...
Well, in my country we have had incidents involving such but nevertheless the annual crime rate continues to decrease. And even where there have been a few incident they are not Muslims in general but with a specific subgroup.
Add this, Switzerland used to require all citizens to own and maintain military grade weapons as each and every citizen was considered part of the 'reserve'. I don't know if that is still the case.
(Until recently. When, lo and behold, some mysterious local increases in crime seem to have occurred ... )
Please cite this from a good study
From 200 feet away (genius)?
Been posted.
That is contrary to fact. There are countries where there is an inquiry for every shot and charges for injury or death. The board or a jury decides whether it was lawful.
That is what I think the cop should be charged with.
No, murder is not when you kill someone with malice. A red killer has no malice, just the dollar-driven incentive to kill. People have killed friends for money.