10 years base that goes further upon further transgressions for me. Life is usually something with a lot of weight to it, ruining someone's life is heavy for sure but of such weight the punishment is an eternity locked away from society? Seems just a weee bit much.
New Bill Could Lead to Potential Life Sentences For Guilty Swatters
- Thread starter StewShearerOld
- Start date
good, this was long over due.
Life for getting some one killed due to a 'prank' seems fair to me. Especially since this 'prank' shows a gross indifference toward human life to begin with.
Life for getting some one killed due to a 'prank' seems fair to me. Especially since this 'prank' shows a gross indifference toward human life to begin with.
![[Kira Must Die]](https://eg-forums-escapist-data.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/68/68539.jpg?1620622912){kind=avatar}
Good, because seriously fuck those people.
Yeah, I got nothing else, just fuck anyone that does that.
Yeah, I got nothing else, just fuck anyone that does that.
It's not the same. The perpetrator is somewhat removed by virtue of the fact that a police officer isn't a deadly weapon, they are an autonomous being with decision making capacity. Bluntly, they should be expected to exercise more restraint and assessment capabilities than a firing mechanism. This kind of fake report should be illegal, but drawing comparisons to murder isn't appropriate.Ukomba said:
You know, if I lived in country where around 120 police officers get killed in the line of duty, I wouldn't consider calling them on someone as using object that can be expected to exercise restraint, especially if you swat them with something equivalent of "I am going to kill everyone and everything with my arsenal of IED's and assault rifles" -threat. In fact, I'd say that "an attempted murder" should automatically be the base for verdict.OneCatch said:
I find it frankly terrifying that it's being suggested that the law would de facto recognise and accept that police officers responding to unconfirmed threats will inevitably kill unarmed innocent people. That they are apparently so volatile and heavy handed that making a fallacious claim about someone is morally and judicially the same as shooting someone with a rifle or stabbing them with a knife.kuolonen said:
Who said unarmed? The worst case scenario everyone is fearing is that the family father owns a gun and will respond with force to which police will respond with more force leading to death. That's the reality of living in a country where civilian can own a bloody tanks and machine guns. Around 300 people are shot in turn by police officers a year. You can wring hands all you like, but until flying spaghetti monster lands to earth and waves a magic tentacle to fix world problems, it's something they have to accept.OneCatch said:
Hell, this has happened just this year: http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2015/03/elderly_man_shot_by_birmingham_1.html
Oh, it's far more than 300 [http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database#].kuolonen said:
If a person is armed and shoots at the police then the police have the right to return fire, even if that results in death. Neither the police nor a prank caller are as responsible as the shooter in that case*. That's a very specific case though - I think what many fear is someone unarmed and compliant being mistaken for a threat, as well as the general damage and disruption that even the most perfect raid causes.
I don't think that it is necessary to accept such a level police shootings as a fundamental part of your society, and I certainly don't think that a law which tacitly absolves law enforcement officers of killing people in the case of prank calls is a sensible or just one.
*Outside of certain niche scenarios, such as the police not announcing themselves (imo no-knock raids should be illegal in all but the most extreme cases, and recipients of them should not be charged for mistaking officers for illegal intruders).
Just to make sure I got you right, I'll try to reduct this to basic principles. You agree that US police are basically a deadly instrument, but wielder of such instrument should not be punished as such, because it would the acknowledge the police as a deadly instrument? It is better to downgrade attempted murder rather than accept police shootings on any level?OneCatch said:
If that's the case fair enough, I can't exactly tell what it would be like to live in a country where police might shoot me for jaywalking. Maybe if I did, I'd feel more inclined to put them on tighter leash, but as it is I'd prefer law to reflect what is the reality of society, instead of what we'd wish it to be.
Depends on the circumstances. You DEFINITELY don't want your SWAT team to walk in all announced and relaxed to a hostage situation. Goodbye hostages. And all you're likely to get in terms of information on it is one random phone call until you're there. Same goes for bomb threats and such - if there's a suitcase sitting in an airport, they don't assume someone forgot it. Until further notice, its assumed a bomb, just to be safe.Strazdas said:
No, this doesn't mean running in guns blazing, it does mean if the innocent victim in this case reacts violently or in a startling manner, which could happen due to shock, and the police react by shooting him believing it to be an attack, as that is what they have been informed it is, that it may count as reasonable force. It depends on the circumstances.
And what if, instead of seeing a guy sitting there playing games, they see the guy's brother walking out of the kitchen with a bloody knife from cooking dinner. Its not just one person in these houses, and you're going in fully assuming the worst, as if you don't assume the worst and it is an actual emergency, you have failed your job and people are dead.
You've also got to take into account, if someone's playing an FPS like Battlefield that tries to have as realistic sounding weapons as it can... How are the police supposed to react to what sounds like gunfire in a supposedly armed hostage situation?
Yes, if they walked in, and came to a guy's wide open living room and saw him sitting there playing games, and shot him on sight - that'd be excessive force, and there'd be and someone would likely be put on suspension at the very least. The problem is that that won't be the situation 100% of the time. There will be other exacerbating factors that could lead to a policeman opening fire, and if that happens, there is a chance it could have been reasonable, depending on the circumstances. In those cases, it is 100% the fault of the person who made the SWATing call. Even in the cases where it is excessive force, it is 100% the fault of the SWATter that the person died, the police would still have their inquiry and suspension and such, but it is still the SWATter's fault. If not but for the action of the SWATter, no harm would have been delivered to the injured party. It is also a reasonably foreseeable consequence of sending a battalion of fully armed men into a supposedly deadly situation.
Yeah, its horrible that someone could die - but the reality is it can happen, and not just because a policeman is trigger happy. It is something a SWATter should be fully aware could happen, and they probably are fully aware it could happen, and if it does happen, they should have to deal with the consequences of having a reckless disregard for human life in a civilised society.
1. In the exigent circumstance that someone ends up dead because of a SWATting, then the perpetrator in question is a prime candidate for Murder 2 under the "A killing that results from an act that demonstrates the perpetrators depraved indifference to human life" heading. The sentence for Murder in the 2nd degree usually is a life sentence but can be plead down if the DA's office chooses to do so.
2. In the circumstance of someone being hurt in a SWATting, then there's at least a causation for aggravated assault/assault with intent, which is a felony. Reason for this would be that someone who knows the capabilities of a SWAT team and maliciously facilitates their presence at an undeserving party's residence or workplace in which harm is done. Its reckless and endangers lives and health of a person, even if its not directly the SWATter's hand that causes such harm. Sentences vary by state.
3. There's also these charges that can be filed:
"Conspiracy to retaliate against a witness, victim or informant".
"Conspiracy to commit access device fraud and unauthorized access of a protected computer"
An accomplice may be found guilty of "conspiring to obstruct justice".
In the State of California pranksters bear the "full cost" of the response which can range up to $10,000.
All in all those things are deadly serious, it ties up the emergency services for that area, wastes taxpayer dollars on a prank, has the potential for a person or persons to be harmed... I see no problem in a person getting a minimum of 10 years for it and definitely no problem with a person getting life for another person being killed as a result.
Cops are not playthings, they're not toys and they're not prank props to be used for entertainment purposes. The chances of someone getting killed is low, because unless there's a huge misunderstanding by both the cops and the innocent victim of the "prank", usually the situation can be defused. Cops don't bust down doors without identifying themselves, despite how media portrays them but exigent circumstances happen and sometimes people get hurt before the situation is fully realized.
The life sentence will probably not be used often if at all, but its there if the situation ever arises and I'd harbor no qualms against the justice system handing one out should the worst happen.
2. In the circumstance of someone being hurt in a SWATting, then there's at least a causation for aggravated assault/assault with intent, which is a felony. Reason for this would be that someone who knows the capabilities of a SWAT team and maliciously facilitates their presence at an undeserving party's residence or workplace in which harm is done. Its reckless and endangers lives and health of a person, even if its not directly the SWATter's hand that causes such harm. Sentences vary by state.
3. There's also these charges that can be filed:
"Conspiracy to retaliate against a witness, victim or informant".
"Conspiracy to commit access device fraud and unauthorized access of a protected computer"
An accomplice may be found guilty of "conspiring to obstruct justice".
In the State of California pranksters bear the "full cost" of the response which can range up to $10,000.
All in all those things are deadly serious, it ties up the emergency services for that area, wastes taxpayer dollars on a prank, has the potential for a person or persons to be harmed... I see no problem in a person getting a minimum of 10 years for it and definitely no problem with a person getting life for another person being killed as a result.
Cops are not playthings, they're not toys and they're not prank props to be used for entertainment purposes. The chances of someone getting killed is low, because unless there's a huge misunderstanding by both the cops and the innocent victim of the "prank", usually the situation can be defused. Cops don't bust down doors without identifying themselves, despite how media portrays them but exigent circumstances happen and sometimes people get hurt before the situation is fully realized.
The life sentence will probably not be used often if at all, but its there if the situation ever arises and I'd harbor no qualms against the justice system handing one out should the worst happen.
The simple fact of the matter is that someone who calls in a prank swat call is placing more than one individual at the possible brink of death. It doesn't matter if you think the 911 operator is well trained enough to recognize a prank call. It doesn't matter is you think the police should be well trained enough to notice something isn't right when they arrive and that they aren't actually facing down whatever it is the prank caller said the victim was. The simple, honest truth is that the caller placed a number of human beings in a potentially volatile situation where loss of life can indeed occur. As far as I'm concerned that's attempted murder. No reasonable human being could assume anything less.
Maybe the case will be different a thousand years from now when everything is puppies and rainbows and everyone loves each other, but right now we live in a scary world. People are afraid, whether rightfully so or not, and situations like this could easily result in loss of life.
Maybe the case will be different a thousand years from now when everything is puppies and rainbows and everyone loves each other, but right now we live in a scary world. People are afraid, whether rightfully so or not, and situations like this could easily result in loss of life.
Im not saying they should not assume and emergency. im saying that people who are supposed to be trained to react quickly when invading should, you know, actual react to the situation instead of just shoot the first person they see. To use your suitcase example. A suitcase is assumed to be a bomb, but the entire airport is not arrested for being terrorists as a result. in fact in most cases the people in the airport does not even find out about it as it is taken away and neutralized.Joccaren said:
Even if we assume a bloody knife (why would it be bloody from dinner i got no idea, ketchup? as far as i know humans dont eat blood) that would be a good reason to disarm the brother, not to shoot on sight. i mean, im assuming that brother is not just straight up attacking them with the knife. there was even a case where the owner assumed house invasion and shot the SWAT member (the body armor held the low capiber bullet) and the SWAT disarmed the guy without shooting him. and thats an extreme case scenario to begin with.
Also please, Battlefield does not have or want to have realistic sounding weapons. in fact they intentionally make them distorted and made up because realistic weapon sounds feel very strange in videogames. the game sounds are way overblown compared to real weapons that are much more high piched and quicker. Real life weapons are closer to a christmas cracker sound than a battlefield machinegun. im assuming people who handle guns as an occupation would know the difference.
No, in the case of excessive force it is the fault of those that used that excessive force.
It's only a potential life sentence if the swatting results in someone's death. Life is long, it should be somewhere closer to voluntary manslaughter. But you've also got to see it like this:Strazdas said:
Let's say you have a gun and a person has money you want. If you brandish the gun at them to get the money and accidentally shoot/kill them, does it matter that you weren't waving the gun at them with the intent to shoot?
In the eyes of the law, that scenario is equivalent to swatting if the person is killed. It's not necessarily first degree murder but it's also more severe than voluntary manslaughter. So what should be the maximum time if you intentionally do something that gets someone killed?
Not quite.kuolonen said:
The police are certainly deadly under certain circumstances, in many cases excessively so. IMO, that ought to change.
But they are not 'an instrument' in any reasonable sense of the word.
They are people; autonomous, capable of decision making, and instructed in the art of upholding the law. They aren't being 'wielded' by a person making an emergency call, any more than a fire crew's response is wielded by the person who first reports a wildfire. They should be expected to assess a situation based on the available evidence (which includes being aware of their limited ability to verify single emergency calls) and do their utmost to avoid bloodshed in their execution of their response.
All that training and planning and resources does put upon them some responsibility to optimise their responses, taking into account that some people are bastards and will make malicious claims. That would be a better way of reflecting the reality of society, instead of giving police a free pass at killing people because they got a fake call.
Good. If anything this allows them to get off too easy. I think it should be considered attempted murder at the very least, considering how many people die every year, in fact every day, in American SWAT raids.
By wielding I mean using to my intended goal. Let's examine that fire crew comparison for example, but reporting a wildfire is a false comparison. We are talking about maliciously done purposeful misleading remember? I am pissed with my neighbor. I want to wreck his shit. I call fire department, tell them there is a fire in my neighbors apartment, and throw a smoke bomb through the postbox. Firemen come, see smoke, axe the door and hose the house. Who is responsible for damaged goods? Pretty sure it would be me, in the eyes of any sane judge. Because I used i.e. wielded the firemen to cause harm.OneCatch said:
It doesn't matter if instrument is a gun, person, poison or bloody killer wasps. You look at the probability of how likely it can be expected to kill the target. You can liken those trainings, plannings and resources to a safety on the gun. All of them seem to be frankly quite shit in the U.S. Add to that the fact that U.S. has quite high violent crime rate compared to rest of the developed world and Voila! Police have a very high chance to kill indeed. Therefore if someone dies as a result of swatting, it is done with an instrument that one could realistically expect to cause death. Therefore they are a murderer. And if no one dies, the chance was still there, so it was an attempted murder.
Until U.S. police have a same chance to kill unarmed civilian as an agitated earth worm, swatting them on someone is for all intents and purposes done with clear knowledge of high chance of causing death.
Again, I feel it is more important to call a murderer a murderer, rather than give him a free pass because of the fear that police death squads will form the instant some obscure sidelaw can be seen as accepting police killing as a fact of reality.