Man killed by police after angry CoD gamer SWATs player for lost $1.50 wager match

[Silvanus]

Having had that happen (Walking down the street near a school with an AR-15 shaped airsoft rifle without orange tip. Gets some cop attention) I can tell you, its really fucking easy to follow instructions properly.

For you, in an entirely different situation.

And you fail completely and utterly here. The only time you shoot is shooting to kill. If you think there are other options you don't draw the gun, or put it away. You never shoot to wound, you never try to leg someone. A gun is a tool with a very pecific purpose. And winging a person is not it.

No, police shoot to end the threat, not to kill. This is why once a target goes down, they are supposed to receive medical attention to save their lives.

But this aside, there was no threat in this instance. What is supposed to be a last resort was used before other options-- such as the possibility that he wasn't actually a threat-- were explored.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The only time you shoot is shooting to kill. If you think there are other options you don't draw the gun, or put it away. You never shoot to wound, you never try to leg someone.

This is the worst line of thinking ever. Please, never go near a firearm.

As others have said, it's how things operate the world over. Police forces that kill less civilians do so by primarily shooting less civilians, not shooting them in different ways. You don't want to kill someone, don't shoot them.

Hell, look at it the other way, US police using less lethal weapons when force isn't required is bad enough, encouraging them to use firearms as long as they try not to kill people would be much worse.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, it shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. Why didn't they take cover (like behind their cars) and THEN yell at him to keep his arms raised or yell at him as they were retreating for cover? Why didn't they quietly surround the house and scope it out first, like in the movies?

A good swatting would involve some supposed immediate risk to innocent people so there's no time for any of that. Though that would only possibly justify a hasty response, of course, not a trigger happy one.

A stand off with a megaphone has advantages, yeah.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, it shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. Why didn't they take cover (like behind their cars) and THEN yell at him to keep his arms raised or yell at him as they were retreating for cover? Why didn't they quietly surround the house and scope it out first, like in the movies?

A good swatting would involve some supposed immediate risk to innocent people so there's no time for any of that. Though that would only possibly justify a hasty response, of course, not a trigger happy one.

A stand off with a megaphone has advantages, yeah.

Yeah, I was thinking of a megaphone as well. And they could straight up tell him that if he lowers his arms, he is going to die.

Doesn't work well if he's confused even momentarily, though. Unless they don't kill him, they are just threatening him and are waiting to see a weapon.

 

[Saelune]

The only time you shoot is shooting to kill. If you think there are other options you don't draw the gun, or put it away. You never shoot to wound, you never try to leg someone.

This is the worst line of thinking ever. Please, never go near a firearm.

So let's talk about what happens in the body when you get in a perceived life and death sitaution, shall we? Your sympathetic nervous system goes bananas and unleashes loads of hormones and signal substances like adrenaline, noradrenaline and cortisol directly into your bloodstream in truly massive quantities. This manifests as dry mouth, nausea, 'butterflies', tunnel vision and a sense of vertigo but more pertinently as rapid pulse, increased blood pressure and muscle tension. Muscle tremors from the build up of stress hormones is very common. In your brain all non-essential parts are put on hold, so that your amygdala and reptile brain can quickly react to any changes in the situation without being impeded by complex thoughts or pointless memories.

It is in this condition that a police officer draws their gun. Aiming a gun is never easy, but it is much, much harder when your muscles are tense and shaking, your breathing is shallow and your heart is beating at over 150 beats per minute with a blood pressure that can easily go past 200/120. That's on top of the cognitive block that the situation has caused. Trying to do fancy trick shooting is impossible, because it is pretty fucking hard just to hit a mansized target in center mass from 30 feet away. So you shoot to hit the center of your target and you keep shooting until you can confirm that the target is no longer an immediate threat to yours or someone else's life. Because anything else would just endanger more lives then that of the perpetrator in front of the police officer.

And why doesnt this excuse also apply to the victim? The people telling me this seem to blame the victim for not acting properly when they were the one actually being aimed at.

My initial point that has been lost, is that everyone blames and criticizes and has no concern or empathy for the victim and are so quick and easy to excuse away why the guy with the gun and training and back up should be coddles for being a scared nervous coward when dealing with unarmed, unarmored, single individuals, sometimes they are even children or already subdued.

Its hypocritical bullshit.

People praise cops for 'risking their lives' yet when its time to actually risk their lives, they wuss out.

 

[Saelune]

The only time you shoot is shooting to kill. If you think there are other options you don't draw the gun, or put it away. You never shoot to wound, you never try to leg someone.

This is the worst line of thinking ever. Please, never go near a firearm.

As others have said, it's how things operate the world over. Police forces that kill less civilians do so by primarily shooting less civilians, not shooting them in different ways. You don't want to kill someone, don't shoot them.

Hell, look at it the other way, US police using less lethal weapons when force isn't required is bad enough, encouraging them to use firearms as long as they try not to kill people would be much worse.

Yes others have said, cause others want to look for some weaker argument to ignore the real arguments and points. God forbid I offer actual alternative suggestions that we might atleast consider. God forbid we ever consider new ways of thinking and doing things to fix clear problems.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

And why doesnt this excuse also apply to the victim? The people telling me this seem to blame the victim for not acting properly when they were the one actually being aimed at.

1. It is not an excuse. It is the framework needed to understand why police officers, military guards and everyone else allowed to potentially use a firearm against other people are taught to neutralize the threat as efficiently as possible.

2. The same applies to the victim, they are probably going through the same physiological reactions that the officer does. However, rule 1 when faced with someone threatening to use lethal force against you is to comply. Doesn't matter if it is a bank robber, someone threatening me in order to have me open the door so they can leave the ward despite their compulsory care or a police officer trying to arrest you.

My initial point that has been lost, is that everyone blames and criticizes and has no concern or empathy for the victim and are so quick and easy to excuse away why the guy with the gun and training and back up should be coddles for being a scared nervous coward when dealing with unarmed, unarmored, single individuals, sometimes they are even children or already subdued.

Its hypocritical bullshit.

People praise cops for 'risking their lives' yet when its time to actually risk their lives, they wuss out.

You know what? Fuck that. I'm not a police officer, but I've been in situations at work where I've feared for my well being, because it is expected off me to be in the same room as psychotic people having a violent episode (or self-harming people throwing shards of glass towards the staff). Some of those times I've done exceptional work, others much less so.

Let's be clear: A police officer is not an omniscient ubermensch (neither is a RN, by the way). In fact, a police officer is just another person like you and me, bound by the same limitations of the human body as we are. We must never forget this. When they enter a potentially violent situation they are just as afraid as anyone else, but their job is to make sure as few people as possible get hurt and that the situation resolves as efficiently as possible. They will make mistakes, like anyone else would. They will do the wrong thing because they are acting on limited and imperfect information in situations where their cognition is impaired due to stress (stress that anyone will suffer) and will make bad calls. This needs to be understood and respected, because what you're suggesting is that we instead consider a significant portion of the police force as murders just waiting for a chance to kill someone when they can get away with it or because they are too cowardly to sacrifice their lives on the job.

Just yesterday a bunch of Swedish security analysts wrote an op ed about the importance to not let hindsight guide the discussion about the terror attack in Stockholm in 2017. Their point being that it is really easy for someone to sit in a comfy chair after the event, with all information available and with no pressure and talk about what the optimal course of action should have been, instead of looking at why the decision made were made to begin with. As all of us who work in close proximity to violent and life and death situations know, when you're in the situation it is impossible to know what's optimal, so you do whatever you can with the information and tools at hand. Sometimes it works out perfectly, sometimes it ends in disaster.

 

[Saelune]

And why doesnt this excuse also apply to the victim? The people telling me this seem to blame the victim for not acting properly when they were the one actually being aimed at.

1. It is not an excuse. It is the framework needed to understand why police officers, military guards and everyone else allowed to potentially use a firearm against other people are taught to neutralize the threat as efficiently as possible.

2. The same applies to the victim, they are probably going through the same physiological reactions that the officer does. However, rule 1 when faced with someone threatening to use lethal force against you is to comply. Doesn't matter if it is a bank robber, someone threatening me in order to have me open the door so they can leave the ward despite their compulsory care or a police officer trying to arrest you.

My initial point that has been lost, is that everyone blames and criticizes and has no concern or empathy for the victim and are so quick and easy to excuse away why the guy with the gun and training and back up should be coddles for being a scared nervous coward when dealing with unarmed, unarmored, single individuals, sometimes they are even children or already subdued.

Its hypocritical bullshit.

People praise cops for 'risking their lives' yet when its time to actually risk their lives, they wuss out.

You know what? Fuck that. I'm not a police officer, but I've been in situations at work where I've feared for my well being, because it is expected off me to be in the same room as psychotic people having a violent episode (or self-harming people throwing shards of glass towards the staff). Some of those times I've done exceptional work, others much less so.

Let's be clear: A police officer is not an omniscient ubermensch (neither is a RN, by the way). In fact, a police officer is just another person like you and me, bound by the same limitations of the human body as we are. We must never forget this. When they enter a potentially violent situation they are just as afraid as anyone else, but their job is to make sure as few people as possible get hurt and that the situation resolves as efficiently as possible. They will make mistakes, like anyone else would. They will do the wrong thing because they are acting on limited and imperfect information in situations where their cognition is impaired due to stress (stress that anyone will suffer) and will make bad calls. This needs to be understood and respected, because what you're suggesting is that we instead consider a significant portion of the police force as murders just waiting for a chance to kill someone when they can get away with it or because they are too cowardly to sacrifice their lives on the job.

Just yesterday a bunch of Swedish security analysts wrote an op ed about the importance to not let hindsight guide the discussion about the terror attack in Stockholm in 2017. Their point being that it is really easy for someone to sit in a comfy chair after the event, with all information available and with no pressure and talk about what the optimal course of action should have been, instead of looking at why the decision made were made to begin with. As all of us who work in close proximity to violent and life and death situations know, when you're in the situation it is impossible to know what's optimal, so you do whatever you can with the information and tools at hand. Sometimes it works out perfectly, sometimes it ends in disaster.

The same doesnt apply to the victim because everyone, even you apparently, are dismissing the victim's response here as wrong and their fault.

See, "another person like you or me" might be a fair point if they were treated like another person, not as someone who even when they do wrong are excused from punishment while their victims are condemned for the same reason the cop is not condemned.

Your points would make sense if we were actually willing to punish the officers with any actual consistency.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

1. It is not an excuse. It is the framework needed to understand why police officers, military guards and everyone else allowed to potentially use a firearm against other people are taught to neutralize the threat as efficiently as possible.

2. The same applies to the victim, they are probably going through the same physiological reactions that the officer does. However, rule 1 when faced with someone threatening to use lethal force against you is to comply. Doesn't matter if it is a bank robber, someone threatening me in order to have me open the door so they can leave the ward despite their compulsory care or a police officer trying to arrest you.

Sorry, but I don't buy either of these arguments (and especially points in the reprise). The Australian lead InterFET operation proved that regardless of the size of the threat, nor the proximity of civilian elements, or the confusing nature of enemy and allied formations or composition that selective target acquisition and combat effectiveness is predicated on systems of positive identification of hostiles. Anything less ultimately undermines the effectiveness of your forces as well as destroying any good will through mounting friendly fire and collateral damage.

InterFET proved you can fight a ground shooting war against a numerically superior force without collateral, without loss of operatives, and still achieve victory not through force of arms but mobility and deception.

U.S. cops, as far as I can tell from footage, are simply trained differently from military personnel ... and not for any good reason when it comes to gun discipline. Military personnel accept the personal responsibility of doing a dangerous job, and yet we still wait for positive identification. You accept some form of personal endangerment in order to make sure who you're shooting at is in fact a valid target that won't result in collateral damages.

You do not just eyeball it or give n to paranoia and fear. If you do you're a *bad soldier*.

Guns are not toys. They are not tools for intimidation. You use them as a tool of the enemy's destruction. You treat them reverently, and you personally accept the consequences of having that power at your discretion. There is a reason why this seems so uniquely a U.S. problem. There is also a reason why I think there'd be a hell of a lot less collateral damage and wrongful shootings if you saw military trained U.S. cops.

The U.S. wasn't the only gun nut nation. Australia prior the firearms buyback scheme. Austria. Switzerland. Plenty of places in the world rivalled at one point a person's capacity to destroy on an individual level... still saw differing levels of gun discipline. What you see U.S. cops do is leagues different from their military or any other policing formation in the Western world. And there's a reason for that... it stops cops performing wrongful shootings.

They had trained their sights on him well and truly before positive identification of a weapon. Which is fucking problematic. They had no intelligence on the actual situation. What if that was a hostage told to deliver demands directly to units on scene? What if they were intellectually impaired? What if they were simply used to the idea that in the UK or Australia police wouldn't just gun them down without actually seeing a weapon?

There was a great OP-ed of a U.S. soldier who had performed two dozen raids against expected insurgent safe houses in Iraq. He was less than thoroughly impressed when he was unlawfully held at gunpoint during a police raid given he was entirely innocent and they had the wrong address... and he was met with dismissal and derision when he informed the police officers asking whether he could talk to someone responsible for their armed response training.

It was his military training of understanding hostile body language and positioning that kept him alive ... half naked on his bed, without a weapon, and still intoxicated from the night before. Without that military training to understand how one acquiesces to scrutiny he might have been another person shot in the fucking back because U.S. cops seem all too trigger happy. Failure to abide gun disciplibe is one thing, pretending like you're above public scrutiny is just a signal that these cops don't have the public interest at heart. Being a U.S. police officer isn't even in the top ten most dangerous jobs. There is no excuse for the degree of paranoia and lack of active intelligence gathering, positive identification and information dissemination.

If you already have your sights trained on someone, and when you have proof that the situation isn't what it appears to be, there is no excuse to act without positive identification... there is no excuse at all to act without positive identification to begin with, which makes this incident all the more galling. It's all well and good to make excuses and pretend like what people like Saelune are asking for is somehow some mysterious power of clairvoyance... but when you have evidence that other formations simply have better gun discipline... that humans are capable of exercising and the moral and utilitarian responsibility to do so ... frankly it sounds pathetic.

When there is a fatal police shooting in Australia, we launch a public investigation. A coronial inquest, no less. We do not entrust cops from the same district to perform the investigation, and we don't trust only cops to do the investigating.

How about starting there at the very fucking least?

Someone died that didn't need to. Someone who overwhelmingly wouldn't have been liable to have done so in any other Western nation due to how other nations handle threat evaluation. To put it bluntly, that single person probably would have been safer facing a squad of soldiers (at least in terms of not getting shot by them) in a theatre of conflict in a similar situation. This being in a situation where suicide vests are something you might commonly find in an insurgent stronghold, and in situations where soldiers will suffer getting shot at personally before engaging.

You know that scene in Three Kings where Mark Walhberg calls out; "Hey, are we shooting?..." and no one seems to be taking him seriously or bothering to respond until the enemy stops waving and instead begins to level his gun? It's played up for laughs, but that's considered the rules of engagement at the time.

You do not just commit homicide. And that's precisely what this is. That is precisely what it would be called anywhere else in the Western world.

I have sincere reservations about the ADF training state police officers in terms of counter-terrorism units in Australia ... but if we had U.S. police officers, from what I've seen, I'd have zero reservations extending that to all other armed response units.

 

[Silvanus]

1. It is not an excuse. It is the framework needed to understand why police officers, military guards and everyone else allowed to potentially use a firearm against other people are taught to neutralize the threat as efficiently as possible.

2. The same applies to the victim, they are probably going through the same physiological reactions that the officer does. However, rule 1 when faced with someone threatening to use lethal force against you is to comply. Doesn't matter if it is a bank robber, someone threatening me in order to have me open the door so they can leave the ward despite their compulsory care or a police officer trying to arrest you.

Well, yes, that's rule 1 when your mind is clear. But you just outlined a huge number of factors which cloud somebody's judgement and cause confusion in the intense heat of the moment-- particularly when somebody hasn't undergone any training and isn't expecting the situation, like the victim.

The onus is on the police to identify whether a threat actually exists. The behaviour of a startled innocent man does not mitigate that.

Just yesterday a bunch of Swedish security analysts wrote an op ed about the importance to not let hindsight guide the discussion about the terror attack in Stockholm in 2017. Their point being that it is really easy for someone to sit in a comfy chair after the event, with all information available and with no pressure and talk about what the optimal course of action should have been, instead of looking at why the decision made were made to begin with. As all of us who work in close proximity to violent and life and death situations know, when you're in the situation it is impossible to know what's optimal, so you do whatever you can with the information and tools at hand. Sometimes it works out perfectly, sometimes it ends in disaster.

Yet, we must judge whether the behaviour was appropriate. There is no alternative. We cannot merely assume it was.

In this case, there was no threat, but somebody thought in the heat of the moment that there was. The interpretation of the situation was dramatically wrong-- what let to that misinterpretation?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yes others have said, cause others want to look for some weaker argument to ignore the real arguments and points. God forbid I offer actual alternative suggestions that we might atleast consider. God forbid we ever consider new ways of thinking and doing things to fix clear problems.

You offered a suggestion, and it was pointed that it wouldn't work at all. Time to drop that idea.

Again, as people have said repeatedly, police have the option of not shooting people, and that is a proven way of having police kill less people. That is the option to take.

 

[Saelune]

Yes others have said, cause others want to look for some weaker argument to ignore the real arguments and points. God forbid I offer actual alternative suggestions that we might atleast consider. God forbid we ever consider new ways of thinking and doing things to fix clear problems.

You offered a suggestion, and it was pointed that it wouldn't work at all. Time to drop that idea.

Again, as people have said repeatedly, police have the option of not shooting people, and that is a proven way of having police kill less people. That is the option to take.

Alot of people have very confidently posed one way, and been responded with equally confident people saying otherwise.

It was pointed out by people who I do not trust to have really considered everything and by people who have blatant double standards.

I need more convincing arguments.

 

[Leg End]

Yes others have said, cause others want to look for some weaker argument to ignore the real arguments and points. God forbid I offer actual alternative suggestions that we might atleast consider. God forbid we ever consider new ways of thinking and doing things to fix clear problems.

You offered a suggestion, and it was pointed that it wouldn't work at all. Time to drop that idea.

Again, as people have said repeatedly, police have the option of not shooting people, and that is a proven way of having police kill less people. That is the option to take.

Alot of people have very confidently posed one way, and been responded with equally confident people saying otherwise.

It was pointed out by people who I do not trust to have really considered everything and by people who have blatant double standards.

I need more convincing arguments.

This sounds like your option is for police to shoot more people.

 

[vallorn]

US cops are trained to treat everyone as a potential threat and shoot to kill appropriately, they then get protected from the consequences of this because of the influence of police unions and the social standing that their position brings them. With this in mind, it's no wonder that people who are increasingly trained to see citizens as enemy combatants in all situations are quick to pull their guns and shoot people be they innocent or not.

Just look at the case of the poor man who was told to crawl on the floor, and, while complying and begging for his life, had to pull up his shorts which were being dragged down, one of the three cops in this situation thought that this was enough cause to shoot the man and kill him, he was then acquitted of this.

And people wonder why I disagree with giving the police more powers and criminalizing gun owners. If we create a new criminal class like that we make more people who the police think they can shoot at will, and that's, as with the War On Drugs, going to affect minorities mostly.

A little more specific. In this case, the guy who called the SWAT team is going to jail, Good. This isn't like posting a mean comment on social media or getting into a twitter argument or something, this is calling armed people to a person's house who are trained to shoot to kill. Frankly, it's surprising that he's one of the first deaths from this practice, and that may just show that SWAT teams receive better training and have trigger discipline approaching that of an untrained citizen.

 

[RobertEHouse]

Looks like some people are either focusing still, that this is all a police problem? A gun problem or even somehow a political problem?.Although i can understand why,it still feels like it's all dancing around the facts ignoring how this all happened.

Let's look past blaming the police for one second, and pull this forum back at looking at the very fact that a idiot across state lines callously did this. They orchestrated the guiding hand which left a innocent man dead at the foot steps of their own home.That in only a few minutes a person with not a ounce of morality just used our tax money to play his little game, because his ego was hurt. We can argue as much as we want about the man behind the gun and the uniform , but we at least have to agree to the depths the caller should be punished. That no person no matter their political , sex, or economic standing should be so inhuman that they callously exist in our world thinking what they did was okay.

We should be arguing of how "we" as a society (human behavior) has so far not evolved to the point that we can have arguments with out blowing each other away. That "willing to accept" this behavior of any person as the norm, is only demonstrated by people whom are picking at bones again.

The arguments about police corruption and gun laws or even politics have had their skeletons dry and dead for decades. Generations have picked them each having little gained at their results, changing little to nothing.Turning this discussion only on the actions of the police officer,gun laws and even politics is bullocks.

Instead what we should all be discussing is something which is running in our society today. The lack of little to none self-responsibility and morality. The inflated Self-righteous egos which make people believe they are always right and everyone who thinks differently is wrong. Our caller shows parts of his ego when he believes he did nothing wrong and thinks none of his actions lead to the death of the victim. Yet, this is the type of mind set that all our problems with any PD and gun violence are created upon.

So if you want to stop corruption and the use of violence with guns, you have to target the mind set people have grown up with. Our society has to have social media with thumbs down icons. Allow negative chats and arguments to reach the ears of people whom feel uncomfortable by them. Break bubbles that have formed up and teach people how to filter and take responsibility for their actions. In the end you will end up with a better P.D and better politicians and a heck of a lot smarter children. Then again we could all just go out for cocoa and watch the world burn. Either choice.

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

Is SWATing (equivalent) even a thing ANYWHERE outside USA?
I mean in countries I lived in police would usually do a background check on the person calling and send in a bunch of officers in civilian disguise to spot for the team before armed team moves in. Granted I heard of errors and innocent people trying to resist getting clobbered by police (losing teeth, getting arms broken etc. these teams aren't gentle) but these were usually f-ups on police intelligence and recon side. Not because someone just made an anonymous call.

To me the guy who gave an idiot fake address is innocent of a crime but he should answer for not informing authorities about lethal threat to another citizen he was aware of. Moron that sent police to someone's house making sure they'd be armed with lethal force should be just sentenced for murder with malice. It's not a hoax to direct armed men with intent to kill at someone. Police officer responsible for running this operation and officer that shot innocent bloke in his own house should face at the very least serious dressing down and demotion. If internal investigation proves no recon was done at all and team just kicked in the doors, it's again negligence that resulted in manslaughter of innocent and should be treated as such.

No idea what are regulations in USA in this regard but if the above is not close to the outcome of this situation, legislators have some serious work to do.

Edit.
Oh and innocent citizens raided like that, are much more likely to get hurt than someone shady who have had police paying them a visit in the past. Simply cause the latter had a chance already to learn simple truth of: follow officer's instructions or get hurt, while honest citizen simply has no idea what is going on, why is that happening and what to do to minimize harm done. Instinctively people who are not submissive and cowardly in nature would try to defend themselves and try to explain that this HAS GOT to be a misunderstanding. Which is a huge mistake.

 

[RobertEHouse]

Is SWATing (equivalent) even a thing ANYWHERE outside USA?
I mean in countries I lived in police would usually do a background check on the person calling and send in a bunch of officers in civilian disguise to spot for the team before armed team moves in. Granted I heard of errors and innocent people trying to resist getting clobbered by police (losing teeth, getting arms broken etc. these teams aren't gentle) but these were usually f-ups on police intelligence and recon side. Not because someone just made an anonymous call.

To me the guy who gave an idiot fake address is innocent of a crime but he should answer for not informing authorities about lethal threat to another citizen he was aware of. Moron that sent police to someone's house making sure they'd be armed with lethal force should be just sentenced for murder with malice. It's not a hoax to direct armed men with intent to kill at someone. Police officer responsible for running this operation and officer that shot innocent bloke in his own house should face at the very least serious dressing down and demotion. If internal investigation proves no recon was done at all and team just kicked in the doors, it's again negligence that resulted in manslaughter of innocent and should be treated as such.

No idea what are regulations in USA in this regard but if the above is not close to the outcome of this situation, legislators have some serious work to do.

Edit.
Oh and innocent citizens raided like that, are much more likely to get hurt than someone shady who have had police paying them a visit in the past. Simply cause the latter had a chance already to learn simple truth of: follow officer's instructions or get hurt, while honest citizen simply has no idea what is going on, why is that happening and what to do to minimize harm done. Instinctively people who are not submissive and cowardly in nature would try to defend themselves and try to explain that this HAS GOT to be a misunderstanding. Which is a huge mistake.

The guy that gave the wrong address could be brought to court and sued by the family of the victim if they wanted to. He could be charged by them with a wrongful death of the victim. That is all that could happen to him for giving the address to the SWATTER.Other than that right now he is a witness for the feds against the guy whom called in the SWAT.

The officer is being investigated by either a State investigator or the FBI. The only reason FBI would get involved is its part of a Felony charge against the SWATTER.

 

[Kyrian007]

I really shouldn't comment on this one, I'm a local journalist covering this incident because it happened in my hometown. But I'll just leave this interesting tidbit. For whatever its worth, just one week prior to this tragedy my news director interviewed our police chief. One of his comments sticks with me. He was speaking about the dangers in law enforcement and some of the things that makes it a difficult profession. He commented that; say a police officer pulls someone over and approaches the car. Then that officer sees a gun, on the passenger seat. Lying there, unsecured, within arms reach of the driver. The Chief then told us that we live in a state where it is illegal for that officer to ask the driver or anyone in the car any questions about the gun. The officer can't ask who owns the gun, if anyone has a concealed carry permit, why it is just sitting on the passenger seat... nothing. I remembered thinking at the time seems a small wonder the police haven't faced more incidents where they shoot first and kill a completely innocent person. And then this happened.