New Bill Could Lead to Potential Life Sentences For Guilty Swatters

[CaitSeith]

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

Maybe in Texas it will...

 

[CaitSeith]

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

Not SWAT. Their uniforms do the introduction. You don't announce yourself to terrorists.

 

[RonHiler]

I'm a little on the fence about the death part. If someone died, that's on the cop that broke in.

I disagree. A person died as a result of the "prankster's" actions. That's the equivalent of voluntary manslaughter (which is to say, although you didn't mean to cause lethal harm, you did so as a result of your negligence). I don't know what the sentence is for voluntary manslaughter (and I suppose it varies from state to stat), but it seems to me they should basically be the same.

The police are not a toy for you to play with. If they end up killing someone, that's not on them. That is what they are trained to do when facing a dangerous life threatening situation. Which is exactly what a swatter is sending them into (not in reality, but they don't know that, and they must take the situation seriously, because if they don't, one time it will be serious, and that could lead to someone other than the bad guys getting killed).

Anything and everything that happens as a result of the swatter setting up that situation is on them. Not on the cops. And if that situation should turn bad, they're the one that should pay the price for that.

 

[Deathfish15]

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.

Not manslaughter. First degree, premeditated murder! When someone calls in a threat knowing that they're trying to bring an armed police force to their house with said threat, it is their intent to harm/harass/possibly kill that individual using said police force. They may not be personally pulling the trigger, but they're loading the weapon and pointing it at the victim. This is completely 100% no different than hiring a hit-man ("hit-person" to be politically correct) to kill someone you know.

The "dumb kid" ruined their own life, nobody else did it for them. They're old enough to have been taught right and wrong long ago by time they're barely hitting puberty. Whether they thing "lol, internet" is their own ignorance that should befall them. Basic physics taught in 6th grade would be this: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Also take note of the trauma related to the situation. A tactical police force being told to go into a hostile situation instead is being tooled around to harass innocent citizens. A situation that will eventually make them question real situations of real danger. The citizens in the situation are going through a very scary ordeal which will put a lot of mistrust in local authorities as well as make them more paranoid with home security.

And finally lets look at the financial toll of it all. The cost of mobilizing a SWAT team is probably 3-5x that of an emergency ambulance ride to a hospital. The home owner of the property has damages related to busted down doors, broken windows, and whatever else is used to 'breach' the building. The money from the SWAT thing comes down to tax payers having to pay for everything. Is it right that a hefty taxing price go onto other,good citizens because one "dumb kid" decided to pull this kind of thing and not get punished? NO!

 

[Poetic Nova]

Good. Bill cant be passed through fast enough. Surprised that people find it harsh to give someone life sentence when their "joke" ends up in people killed.

 

[9tailedflame]

I'm a little on the fence about the death part. If someone died, that's on the cop that broke in.

I disagree. A person died as a result of the "prankster's" actions. That's the equivalent of voluntary manslaughter (which is to say, although you didn't mean to cause lethal harm, you did so as a result of your negligence). I don't know what the sentence is for voluntary manslaughter (and I suppose it varies from state to stat), but it seems to me they should basically be the same.

The police are not a toy for you to play with. If they end up killing someone, that's not on them. That is what they are trained to do when facing a dangerous life threatening situation. Which is exactly what a swatter is sending them into (not in reality, but they don't know that, and they must take the situation seriously, because if they don't, one time it will be serious, and that could lead to someone other than the bad guys getting killed).

Anything and everything that happens as a result of the swatter setting up that situation is on them. Not on the cops. And if that situation should turn bad, they're the one that should pay the price for that.

I know that the police are not a toy, don't try to act like I'm defending these degenerates that make these calls. I just don't think it should give the cops a free pass to do literally anything they want. There's a difference between taking the situation seriously and not observing the situation before you go in guns blazing. I expect the cops to properly assess the situation on some level.

How's this then, a douche does the call in thing. The swat team shows up, the people are clearly unarmed at the home, and fully complaint. The situation is in complete control. The police then decide to rape and murder everyone in the house. You've given them a free pass to do that if they want to. You've given the cops the excuse to do literally anything they want, becuase you've shifted ALL (keyword all) of the blame to the caller. Even though the situation was under total control, any racist cop could shoot a house full of unarmed black people and get away with it because you gave them a perfect scapegoat. The cop took on responsibility once the situation was under control and the cop decided to take things farther.

The caller takes MOST of the blame. In most cases, the caller takes all of the blame, but not all of the blame in all cases. You should never, ever, give anyone a free pass to do anything they want and put all the blame on others, that's just a universal bad idea, and will naturally lead to bad situations. Jail the fuckers making these calls, for a long time, i don't know if life is necessary, but you know, 5-50 range, whatever. Point is there is a line a cop can potentially cross where they start taking on some of the responsibility for the situation.

 

[LordLundar]

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.

See, there's already prior experience on this like that Chicago thu-er cop who shot the guy 16 times. Officer or no, he stepped out of line and is facing murder charges. The same thing applies here. When the officer steps out of line then s/he is accountable for his/her own actions. When s/he shoots someone in the line of duty when s/he's informed there is a heavily armed person with hostages then it's a different matter altogether. While people love to persecute police officers for incidents like that a thorough investigation usually determines a tense situation led to a snap judgement based on what was seen and the officer is exonerated. Now at that point who do you want to be behind bars? The officer who was put in a bad situation and had to make an on the spot judgement call? Or the idiot who lied that caused that situation to happen in the first place for shits and giggles?

 

[9tailedflame]

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.

See, there's already prior experience on this like that Chicago thu-er cop who shot the guy 16 times. Officer or no, he stepped out of line and is facing murder charges. The same thing applies here. When the officer steps out of line then s/he is accountable for his/her own actions. When s/he shoots someone in the line of duty when s/he's informed there is a heavily armed person with hostages then it's a different matter altogether. While people love to persecute police officers for incidents like that a thorough investigation usually determines a tense situation led to a snap judgement based on what was seen and the officer is exonerated. Now at that point who do you want to be behind bars? The officer who was put in a bad situation and had to make an on the spot judgement call? Or the idiot who lied that caused that situation to happen in the first place for shits and giggles?

Yea, i'm not trying to demonize officers caught in a bad situation, i'm just trying to avoid giving a free pass to those who would abuse it. If an officer acted even marginally reasonably, considering the situation, then even if they made a huge mistake, that's on the caller, and the caller should end up in jail for a long time regardless of what happens. But at the same time, when you've shot someone so many times that you had to reload twice, and emptied another 2 magazines into someone. Well at some point you loose the good faith you get from being put in a shitty situation.

 

[Joccaren]

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.

Not sure how it works in 'Murica, but over here there's this thing called reasonable force. If, for a reasonable police officer in their situation, they used appropriate force for what the threat was represented to be, then you can't really fault them, and it is 100% the fault of the person who made that call.
If they use excessive force for that situation, then they are liable for their actions.

Sure, I guess its a fun "What if" scenario, but its the same sort of thing as what if someone was arrested for possession of drugs their friend planted, and the police raped their family while picking them up. Its an extreme scenario that there are measures in place to prevent already, rather than something that actually needs serious consideration.


More OT: Probably the best part of this bill, IMO, is that the 'Swatter' has to pay the cost for sending a fully armed police swat team to someone's house. And no, I don't mean by going to jail. I mean they'll have something on the order of a $10,000 fine, or more, because that's what it costs to mobilise the swat team. This is excluding any civil suits for damages by the swatted party, and whether jail time works as a deterrent or not, someone who tries to swat is going to very quickly end up owing a lot of money. Not entirely sure on the law surrounding minors, but I wouldn't be surprised if the parents weren't required to pay the fine for negligence in looking after their child's actions.
Not only does this discourage people from doing it, it also stops the damage to the police force and victims from this happening [Or, more to the point, take some steps to repairing it], incurred through huge costs related to mobilising said police force, and any reasonably foreseeable damages incurred in doing so.

Maybe, just maybe, this'll stop some people from doing this shit. Actually, that's an idea, could police do a mock armed raid on their house when they come to arrest them? Sure, its actually a bad idea that'd do more harm than good, and really shouldn't be done, but maybe it'd drill into these people's heads that this whole thing isn't a joke, when their life seems to be on the line for doing it [Naturally, 'mock' implying that the weapons aren't actually armed and its just an act]. Nobody actually deserves it, doing something like that would make the police no better than the perpetrator TBH, but you've really got to wonder what it'd take to make someone with what is apparently a total of 0 empathy understand how fucked up doing something like that is.

 

[rcs619]

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.

Kids as young as 15 and 16 can be tried as adults in the US given the circumstances of the crime. Also, even if you're 21 and do this, you're still a dumb kid as far as I'm concerned

Given the nature of the crime though, the police are going to be *super* pissed, and the worst possible crime you can commit in the US these days is to disrespect the police. I don't trust the police *not* to throw the book at anyone they think they can get away with to make an example out of because they're royally pissed off at them personally.

Also, all jailtime ruins lives. Whether it was armed robbery or a non-violent drug sale, and even if you avoid the brutality and rape so many people face in prison, you lose your right to vote and you lose the ability to ever find a reliable job again. In some states you even lose the right to certain government assistance, or the ability to live where you want (since some places outright won't rent or sell to ex-cons). The US prison system is a terrible, violent, inhumane thing at the moment, and admitting people into it should be handled with extreme care. You can't take it back once it's done.

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.

Not manslaughter. First degree, premeditated murder! When someone calls in a threat knowing that they're trying to bring an armed police force to their house with said threat, it is their intent to harm/harass/possibly kill that individual using said police force. They may not be personally pulling the trigger, but they're loading the weapon and pointing it at the victim. This is completely 100% no different than hiring a hit-man ("hit-person" to be politically correct) to kill someone you know.

If you want to push for one of the lesser degrees of murder, you'd honestly probably have a decent case to make. They are setting up a situation they (I would hope) realize is inherently dangerous and someone died as a result (honestly I'd classify it as similar to DUI manslaughter, personally). However, comparing it to first-degree, pre-meditated murder, and hiring a hitman. That's just hyperbole. I really doubt some stupid troll watching a COD stream is just foaming at the mouth wanting to murder someone for the lulz, or whatever.

More than likely, they are dumb suburban kids who have always been handled with kid gloves by the cops. They think "oh, all cops are reasonable and nice, and no one will actually get hurt," because they've never been in a situation where it was likely for the police to hurt them. I would also be fairly confident in predicting that a lot of them aren't too up to date on the news, and how trigger-happy modern US cops are.

And finally lets look at the financial toll of it all. The cost of mobilizing a SWAT team is probably 3-5x that of an emergency ambulance ride to a hospital. The home owner of the property has damages related to busted down doors, broken windows, and whatever else is used to 'breach' the building. The money from the SWAT thing comes down to tax payers having to pay for everything. Is it right that a hefty taxing price go onto other,good citizens because one "dumb kid" decided to pull this kind of thing and not get punished? NO!

I don't believe I ever advocated for them not to get punished. Assuming no one got hurt, I want to see the dumb-kidness scared out of them completely, lol. They should absolutely need to repay the damages, and (since this is likely) if they and their parents are incapable of doing so, there should be a significant amount of community service involved until the difference is made up. Along with some probation to have the threat of jailtime constantly above their heads the whole time.

Given the state of the US prison system though, I just can't get behind tossing someone in jail for what is effectively a non-violent crime. If people get hurt, then you can talk some jailtime. Otherwise I'm not okay with sentencing someone (no matter how terrible, given how horrible your average internet troll is) to a year+ of brutality and/or rape unless there is a sufficiently grave reason. If the US prison system was actually about rehabilitation, and was actually a semi-humane institution, then my opinion would probably be completely different. Jailtime is a serious thing these days, and even if you avoid getting raped or brutalized, you will never be able to reliably get a job ever again. It shouldn't be wielded lightly.

 

[Deathfish15]

Not manslaughter. First degree, premeditated murder! When someone calls in a threat knowing that they're trying to bring an armed police force to their house with said threat, it is their intent to harm/harass/possibly kill that individual using said police force. They may not be personally pulling the trigger, but they're loading the weapon and pointing it at the victim. This is completely 100% no different than hiring a hit-man ("hit-person" to be politically correct) to kill someone you know.

If you want to push for one of the lesser degrees of murder, you'd honestly probably have a decent case to make. They are setting up a situation they (I would hope) realize is inherently dangerous and someone died as a result (honestly I'd classify it as similar to DUI manslaughter, personally). However, comparing it to first-degree, pre-meditated murder, and hiring a hitman. That's just hyperbole. I really doubt some stupid troll watching a COD stream is just foaming at the mouth wanting to murder someone for the lulz, or whatever.

More than likely, they are dumb suburban kids who have always been handled with kid gloves by the cops. They think "oh, all cops are reasonable and nice, and no one will actually get hurt," because they've never been in a situation where it was likely for the police to hurt them. I would also be fairly confident in predicting that a lot of them aren't too up to date on the news, and how trigger-happy modern US cops are.

And finally lets look at the financial toll of it all. The cost of mobilizing a SWAT team is probably 3-5x that of an emergency ambulance ride to a hospital. The home owner of the property has damages related to busted down doors, broken windows, and whatever else is used to 'breach' the building. The money from the SWAT thing comes down to tax payers having to pay for everything. Is it right that a hefty taxing price go onto other,good citizens because one "dumb kid" decided to pull this kind of thing and not get punished? NO!

I don't believe I ever advocated for them not to get punished. Assuming no one got hurt, I want to see the dumb-kidness scared out of them completely, lol. They should absolutely need to repay the damages, and (since this is likely) if they and their parents are incapable of doing so, there should be a significant amount of community service involved until the difference is made up. Along with some probation to have the threat of jailtime constantly above their heads the whole time.

Given the state of the US prison system though, I just can't get behind tossing someone in jail for what is effectively a non-violent crime. If people get hurt, then you can talk some jailtime. Otherwise I'm not okay with sentencing someone (no matter how terrible, given how horrible your average internet troll is) to a year+ of brutality and/or rape unless there is a sufficiently grave reason. If the US prison system was actually about rehabilitation, and was actually a semi-humane institution, then my opinion would probably be completely different. Jailtime is a serious thing these days, and even if you avoid getting raped or brutalized, you will never be able to reliably get a job ever again. It shouldn't be wielded lightly.

There are many things you're failing to realize and first and foremost is that a simple "slap on the wrist" is something that actually DOES NOT WORK in deterring crime.

You know why our prison system is crap right now? Because most states have completely done away with Capital Punishment (i.e. execution of prisoners). Instead we have these people who have murdered 3, 5, dozens of people in "life in prison", while us tax payers are paying for them to have 3 hot meals and a cot (plus library, plus gym equipment, plus so on, etc, etc). You can see where the issue is right?

The "grave reason" behind sending someone who SWATs someone to prison is because of the seriousness of the crime. You're not comprehending what the crime actually is, are you? The crime is 110% completely VIOLENT. They're saying that the victim of the SWAT is a criminal holding hostages/has a bomb/is currently killing people, etc with FULL INTENT THAT ARMED POLICE ATTACK THAT PERSON. That is one very violent crime. They're using the police as a personal weapon of assault against an individual in hopes of whatever (be it the person violently assaulted, shot, arrested, or what have you).

And these so called "kids" aren't kids at all. They're teenagers and young adults. Some are in their early 20's. There is no way that they don't have full comprehension of what they're doing. They shouldn't be trying to use armed police as a way of taking out frustration against another individual. That is a criminal action and should be punished as such. It is exactly the same as calling in a fake bomb threat or terrorist attack (which is one of the loopholes that they're trying to fix with this bill, because right now it is not considered as such).

This bill is exactly what captcha thinks it is: turning point.

 

[Tommy1138]

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.

Send them to Juvie if they're under age but jail time is a must. Their 'moment of idiocy where no one got hurt' could have easily got someone hurt plus personal hardship. I'm pretty sure I'd be traumatised for life if I suddenly had an armed squad of SWAT officers yelling in my face to surrender.

 

[Eri]

Any incident like this puts lives in jeopardy and as such there should be serious consequences.

 

[Tommy1138]

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.

A lot of places are using no-knock raids these days in the States and when about 15 officers are all yelling at you, hearing "This is the police" can easily be missed.

 

[RedDeadFred]

While I think it deserves harsher punishments, a life sentence doesn't seem like the way to go.

 

[Drejer43]

Yes punish swatters harder, but why would what happened at swatted place change the sentence? The act is the same, if anybody dies it would be the police who shot an innocent.

 

[rcs619]

There are many things you're failing to realize and first and foremost is that a simple "slap on the wrist" is something that actually works in deterring crime.

You know why our prison system is crap right now? Because most states have completely done away with Capital Punishment (i.e. execution of prisoners).

Yeah, I actually see that as a generally positive step. There has been no substantive evidence that capital punishment deters crime to any significant degree.

Most murders are done in the heat of the moment, which means that they aren't thinking about "oh gee, I could get sentenced to death for this," they're thinking about whatever circumstances have spiraled out of control to lead them to voluntarily or unintentionally end someone's life.

The murders that are premeditated, once again, are not deterred by the threat of capital punishment. Most murderers, most criminals, from the most brilliant to the most idiotic tend to think "well, I just won't get caught." They assume they are good enough to get away with it, or they're so mentally unhinged that they don't care either way.

That's before you add in that we *know* innocent people get wrongly convicted and sent to death row (and although no one talks about it as much, I would bet good money more than a few innocent people have been convicted of lesser crimes as well too). That's the main reason I oppose capital punishment. In a perfect world where *only* the murderers, and *only* the monsters got executed... you know what, fine. I could probably go for that. We don't live in a perfect world however, and I would much rather than 10,000 murderers get to live out the rest of their lives in prison than a single innocent American is unjustly stripped of their rights and then executed by their government.

Instead we have these people who have murdered 3, 5, dozens of people in "life in prison", while us tax payers are paying for them to have 3 hot meals and a cot (plus library, plus gym equipment, plus so on, etc, etc). You can see where the issue is right?

Ehh, it's not like they're living the rest of their lives out in a country club. Those "3 hot meals" are probably not the quality you assume they are. Keep in mind, that gym equipment is also out in the middle of a prison yard, where a variety of gangs and unhinged individuals may just decide to murder you on a whim. That's not even counting the ones that get sent to super-max and are locked alone in a small cell 23 hours a day, which is a fate worse than death, if you ask me. Death is easy. Being kept alive, but completely isolated for the rest of your life... that's suffering.

The main issue with the US prison system is a lack of humanity, and the fact that there is almost zero focus on rehabilitation. Some inmates are monsters. Some of them are beyond help. ...Most criminals are just people who have made poor choices due to poor education, poor socio-economic conditions or having a shitty lot in life, and those are people that *can* be rehabilitated. That way, when they're released back into society, they can be a productive part of it. If you focus on rehabilitating those who can be, they commit less crimes down the road, and you save money in the long-run on not having to house the same guy 4 or 5 different times for non-violent drug offenses or burglary.

Secondary issues with the prison system include, but are not limited to, tossing low-level criminals in with hardened felons (which either brutalize them, or in a lot of cases, make them into worse criminals than they entered prison as), widespread rape and intra-prison violence, corrupt prison guards, and the variety of hurdles that an ex-con face once they're out that almost assures they will have to struggle to find even a low-wage job (which further increases their chance of relapsing back into crime once again).

 

[VladG]

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

Already happened, early this year if I remember right. Dude got swatted, didn't know what was going on and shot a cop. Nobody died as far as remember, the cop was wearing a vest and I think it was a small caliber handgun.

Still, big props to the police for not killing the guy... Can't be easy to react properly in such a situation.

 

[EternallyBored]

While I think it deserves harsher punishments, a life sentence doesn't seem like the way to go.

What a lot of people in this thread seem to be missing, and since I can't find evidence to the contrary, is that the life sentence being proposed is not mandatory, it is up to the judge and jury to decide if a life sentence is on the table. The bill is merely giving the option with the bare minimum threshold being someone dying in the incident.

It is very likely that a future convicted Swatter that got someone killed will not automatically be guaranteed life. The option is there in case something like multiple deaths occur, SWAT officers are killed by a panicking homeowner, or the Swatter manages to rack up multiple swatting charges on top of the death/s being caused, or it can be proven that the Swatter was intentionally provoking/ planning for the police in order to murder multiple people in the home being Swatted, which would be a case for calling the charge a first degree murder.

Just because a life sentence is an option doesn't mean it will automatically be used in every case where the minimum threshold is met, most crimes in the U.S. have minimum and maximum sentences depending on the circumstances, it is up to the judge and jury to decide the appropriate punishment within those guidelines, and while I would agree that putting someone away for life for calling the police and getting someone killed when murder wasn't the actual intention would be too severe; in a case where the Swatter got multiple people killed, and it can be proven that their intention was to cause malicious physical harm to the target, I do not think a life sentence would be out of the question.

 

[Bat Vader]

Whatever time you get for "Attempted Murder" (if the victim survives) or Involuntary Manslaughter (if the victim is killed) is the appropriate amount of time. I get that you're trying to scare these people, but you're now bending the law and the reasonable consequences to prove a point. That's what fascists do.

Reasonable consequences still apply. The bill just means that life in prison is an option. The judge still doles out the type and length of punishment.