New Bill Could Lead to Potential Life Sentences For Guilty Swatters

[DEAD34345]

-snip-

It just seems off to me that two people could commit the exact same crime of swatting but receive such vastly different sentences based on the outcome.

This is exactly my concern. Swatting is a horrible thing to do, of course it's a crime deserving of legal repercussions, but swatting is the "only"[footnote]"Only" being a horrible choice of word in this situation of course, but you get what I mean.[/footnote] crime committed here, no matter what the police do after that point. If my criminal loitering indirectly happened to result in a death later, my crime would (and should) still only be loitering, unless you could prove I was loitering intentionally for that purpose[footnote]Which you can't! THERE'S NO PROOF! HAHAHAHAAA-[/footnote].

Even disregarding all that though, most people committing this crime are minors, right? They can't be punished like this anyway, can they? Maybe I'm missing something but it seems mostly pointless if that's the case, although there really should be some reasonable punishments for this if there isn't already, I suppose.

 

[Diablo1099_v1legacy]

I really hope this law actually provides resources to catch Swatters rather then the "Music Piracy" mentality of making an example of the 3 guys you actually manage to catch.
While I'm sure the extra sentence duration will help to discourage, that doesn't really do much if they didn't care about the safety of others or national law in the first place.

Now, this is a great step forward, don't get me wrong, but unless the Swatters are actually arrested, it won't make much of a difference.
Urg, the one time the NSA might actually be useful, but unless the Swatters are Muslim, they won't do shit ¬_¬

 

[vallorn]

-snip-

It just seems off to me that two people could commit the exact same crime of swatting but receive such vastly different sentences based on the outcome.

This is exactly my concern. Swatting is a horrible thing to do, of course it's a crime deserving of legal repercussions, but swatting is the "only"[footnote]"Only" being a horrible choice of word in this situation of course, but you get what I mean.[/footnote] crime committed here, no matter what the police do after that point. If my criminal loitering indirectly happened to result in a death later, my crime would (and should) still only be loitering, unless you could prove I was loitering intentionally for that purpose[footnote]Which you can't! THERE'S NO PROOF! HAHAHAHAAA-[/footnote].

Even disregarding all that though, most people committing this crime are minors, right? They can't be punished like this anyway, can they? Maybe I'm missing something but it seems mostly pointless if that's the case, although there really should be some reasonable punishments for this if there isn't already, I suppose.

In the case of your example, it's very hard to prove that someone knew what was going to occur from an action like that. Unless they can prove a solid connection to you you would likely not be convicted. On the other hand, this action is premeditated and it is commonly known that SWAT teams are going to go in with guns raised. Therefore, it's very easy to prove that someone knew they were putting someone else in harms way by calling the police on them.

 

[FalloutJack]

You know what? I'm fine with this. The SWAT Team is serious business, and apparently there are over four hundred assholes willing to waste their time because they wanted to screw with another player or, in fact, because they were losing. If I were a SWAT man and you did that to me, I would be sorely-inclined to rifle-butt you and shout to the others "He fell down some stairs!". Because, if you have to resort to this in order to get your kicks online, you are a loser and you have no right to be there.

 

[RandV80]

No way it passes. You'll never get people to okay 20 years for a 13 year old little shit COD player.

Well some tough law is needed, 13 year olds who kill are treated harshly, why should those who put people's lives in danger intentionally and needlessly not be treated so as well?

I would think it's more effective law enforcement that's needed here. When these dumb kids 'swat' they do so thinking they can get away with it, and for the vast majority of the time they're right. In this case term of the prison sentence probably doesn't really matter as a deterrent, whether it's 5 years or life. And I'd think a rather lenient single year would probably be enough to smarten the little shits up.

I'm not saying they should only get a year, if caught for sentencing I'd think you'd stick to existing sentences for things like bodily harm or manslaughter should they occur. When lawmakers especially in the US are introducing new criminal laws they often have a tendency to get overzealous so they can appeal to their voting base as being 'tough on crime'. That's not really so good however when America has a problem with their industrial prison complex.

 

[EndlessSporadic]

I approve of this bill. There is nothing innocent about sending a SWAT team to another person's house. It is completely immature, and I think it is akin to insanity. Send them away and get them off the streets.

 

[Demagogue]

It is only a matter of time until somebody thinks its a home invasion, pulls their own gun, and is shot.

Don't the police still have to announce themselves when they enter? Like bust the door down and then say "This is " ?

In regards to the topic itself, like some of the others, I have a hard time with the life sentence part.

 

[thewatergamer]

Life sounds a bit harsh, but considering that would only happen if someone actually got killed, that sounds very reasonable, I hope the bill get's pushed through

 

[dyre]

Seems fair to me...if you get someone killed that way, it's the same as aggravated manslaughter, which can carry a life sentence.

It is only a matter of time until somebody thinks its a home invasion, pulls their own gun, and is shot.

Don't the police still have to announce themselves when they enter? Like bust the door down and then say "This is " ?

In regards to the topic itself, like some of the others, I have a hard time with the life sentence part.

I don't think they're legally obliged to do that, especially if they think that there's a hostage situation / active shooter and retaining the element of surprise would save lives. And swatters usually fake those exact scenarios, so...

 

[LordLundar]

This has been long overdo but I am a little off put by it carrying a life sentence. It certainly warrants prison time but that seems a bit excessive to me. It is a serious issue but this seems to be going overboard.

Pretty much. Most of the people who do swatting are dumb kids, doing dumb kid things because they think 'lol internet.' The punishment should absolutely be enough to scare the dumb kid out of them, but I also don't think that ruining their life in return is a just way to deal with this.

It depends entirely on the context of course. If someone dies, well, they should be looking at manslaughter charges. If there's serious bodily harm, then there should absolutely be some jailtime and enough fines to pay for the victim's medical expenses and personal hardship. In situations where no one gets hurt though? Scare the hell out of them and cut them loose with a fine, some probation and some substantial community service.

I really don't want to see a dumb kid get sent off to be raped and brutalized in jail (and/or have their chances at a decent life afterwards ruined) because he had a moment of absolute idiocy where no one got hurt.

To start off with, the bill has a minimum of a year, not a "life ruined" situation if no one is harmed. The punishment is equivalent to violent crimes, ie life sentence for a death. Second, those are adult sentences. Minors are not automatically treated as adults with this bill because there's still standing rights to be considered. So there won't be "little kids in jail for life" over no one getting harmed like you think it is.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I'd say spending some time in the pokey or being stuck with a juvie record would suffice - life in prison feels a bit harsh, unless someone's swatting happened to lead to people's deaths.

Honestly, I'd love to get an interview with a crestfallen swatter. "I thought it was, like, just a prank, y'know? Guy's a scrub online, he kinda deserved it..."

Yeah, keep telling yourself that, kiddo. The scrub has a clean record, whereas you'll have a hard time getting a job.

 

[Baresark]

I'm sorry, this is what I would classify as an over response to the situation. Listen, they are huge douche bags. I'm not against it carrying a significant fine and maybe some jail time due to the seriousness of it... but life? No, that is wrong. Scum is scum, but finding reasons to put people away for their life when that definitely does not fit the crime. It really needs to considered in reference to to a homicide, a lot of which do not carry a life sentence. It could at most be considered voluntary manslaughter, which does not carry a prison sentence even close to life.

The punishment has to fit the crime, and that is way passed fitting the crime. Someone dies, they have to pay for the cost of the event in fines AND they face up to 10 years in jail. That is reasonable.

 

[LordLundar]

I'd say spending some time in the pokey or being stuck with a juvie record would suffice - life in prison feels a bit harsh, unless someone's swatting happened to lead to people's deaths.

That is the the idea behind it. The person won't face life unless someone dies as a result. The amount of time sentenced is dependent on the outcome of the incident as equivalent to if the person attacked the victim with a deadly weapon.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Since it's technically a non-violent crime, they would be in a minimum security facility.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I'd say that life sentence for swatters is insane, but so is almost everything about the US justice and penal system. It's not that out of the ordinary.

 

[pookie101]

i dont see an issue with it after all the sentence range is from 1 year right up to life in prison if their little prank gets someone killed which is fitting punishment.

that said its a good chance that this isnt the first time a swatter has done it either so the sooner they are caught and locked up the safer people will be

 

[FirstNameLastName]

At first it sounded a little harsh, but after actually reading it and finding out that a life sentence is only for incidents that result in death, then I fully support it. It really is no different than fake bomb-threats, in fact, I'd say it's worse than fake terrorist/bomb threats. I hope they do start locking away the immature little shits who are willing to screw with their country's law enforcement and put others' lives at risk all because they got killed one too many times in some stupid game.

 

[9tailedflame]

It's a problem, but i thinks something like 5-10 years is plenty sufficient. Life sentences seems completely disproportionate. I REALLY don't like the mindset that in order to solve crime we just up the punishment. There should be punishment, certainly, but let's at least try to be fair and rational about it.

 

[Nazulu]

Sounds good to me. Something has to scare them off. Well, I'd go for 40 years or something, sentenced for life is even extreme to me.

 

[9tailedflame]

I'm fine with this law, only because life in prison means you got someone killed.

Most if not all swatter calls are done for pitiful reasons. Either someone killed / bested you in a game, to simply disliking a Youtuber (because that has happened to celebrities on Youtube before). It's not a prank, not a safe tactic for revenge and again is risking people's lives. You're sending in trained men with armor to combat terrorists and with a tense mindset, are likely to take no chances if they suspect the innocents to be actual killers / terrorists.

Luckily, they're professional and no one has died (thank god) but it's still not something anyone should do.
Besides you again, only face life in prison if someone died. Five or so years in jail is a justifiable length in my book.

I'm a little on the fence about the death part. If someone died, that's on the cop that broke in. Whether or not the SWAT officer decided to use lethal force or not is out of the criminal's control. I'm not by any means saying the criminal is free of blame, but, just as an extreme and absurd hypothetical example to communicate the point, what if the swat officer came in, raped everyone in the building, burned it down, and used it as a base to do the same to nearby houses. At some point, the responsibility shifts from the caller to the cop, and i feel like it's on the cop to be level-headed about the situation and not murder people who are almost certainly unarmed and overall nowhere near enough of a threat to warrant lethal force, if we're assuming this is for youtube videos and such. Again, not trying to argue for the criminal, just saying i still hold the cop to a certain responsibility to not kill people when the situation doesn't call for it.