Swatting results in death of innocent man, Kansas.

[Beardless Man]

SWAT teams are meant to first respond to dangerous calls. Hostage Situations are not easy and the innocent man who got killed is the result.

The man who shot him is responsible yes, but this would'v never happened if the false SWAT report was not made in the first place. a man was killed because a stupid little COD player got so mad he played with fire, and someone was killed by it. the person who reported this should be charged for manslaughter as he orchestrated a deadly unit to SWAT someone's home and got a man killed.

[Crissi]

You are inventing your own terms now. You arbitrary decide how far down the chain of events to go. You arbitrary decide what's direct and what's not. That's not logic.

Nope. Whats arbitrary is where you draw the line for direct connections.

[jk5834]

The officer had duty to save the hostages. You don't save hostages by letting the alleged hostage taker, who already murdered one of them, back to the hostages.

Again, you're making the assumption that the officers knew for certain that it was the hostage taker opening the door based on a general description.

[Socialhealer]

let me get this shit right

>swat responds to a possible hostage situation
>they knock on the door
>someone answer the door
>gets shoot

WHAT THE FUCK

seems like anyone can get a job in SWAT, can you knock on a door? can you shoot? welcome aboard!

people will say oh but this is just 1 SWAT member not all of them, but i bet all the other SWAT members will defend him and the police will do its best to make sure no criminal charges come against him, so yes they are all the same if they stand with him they believe his actions are justified and nothing wrong was done.

[Jonnusthegreat]

The two guys will probably get Felony Murder, and hopefully the cop will get fired.

[McFuu]

Already explained.

Then copy it, if it exists and it isn't some 1 sentence statement that makes zero sense. Otherwise you are just wrong and your logic is awful.

Are you implying those guys and the cop were in it together?

Seriously, "in it together". If this is the extent of your critical reasoning skills...

Indeed. Throw the book at everyone involved and see what sticks.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but Felony Murder is a thing, it's active in most states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule

[Elim Garak]

Nope. Whats arbitrary is where you draw the line for direct connections.

Nothing arbitrary in there I draw the line. Because I use the logical meaning of the word. There's a direct link between the cop and the victim. There's a direct link between the dispatcher and swat team arriving. There's a direct link between false reporting and dispatcher making a decision to send a swat team. There's a direct link between cops arriving sounds and the victim rushing to check it out. The event is "The Door".

You cannot bypass all the connections in-between and call it a direct connection. That's a bypass connection.

[chazus]

Again, you're making the assumption that the officers knew for certain that it was the hostage taker opening the door based on a general description.

There is no way the officer could have confirmed who the person opening the door was, because any description (Unless
the description was "some guy") is sort of moot, since nobody even knew who the guy was. They should have confirmed the situation to SOME degree.

[Animist Primal]

I can pretty much assure you the caller will get charged with some form of negligent or involuntary homicide/manslaughter. As for the cop, we just have to see what exactly happened.

[Crissi]

Nothing arbitrary in there I draw the line. Because I use the logical meaning of the word. There's a direct link between the cop and the victim. There's a direct link between the dispatcher and swat team arriving. There's a direct link between false reporting and dispatcher making a decision to send a swat team. There's a direct link between cops arriving sounds and the victim rushing to check it out. The event is "The Door".

You cannot bypass all the connections in-between and call it a direct connection. That's a bypass connection.

and having a direct link means you're partly responsible. So by doing the false report, they are partly responsible as the false report started all the direct chain of events.

and seriously dont pul the hyperbolic "but Activision!". What determines direct from irrelevent is what a reasonable person believes based on historical action - consequences as well as risk %.

[OrcsRLame]

The murderer is the cop.

Why not all 3?

[jk5834]

There is no way the officer could have confirmed who the person opening the door was, because any description (Unless
the description was "some guy") is sort of moot, since nobody even knew who the guy was. They should have confirmed the situation to SOME degree.

This is the point I was making.

[Azadina]

Again, not procedure. You're basically arguing for procedure thaats likely to kill more hostages, which is why cops dont do that shit normally.

One was allegedly murdered already. What do you hope to achieve, by letting said alleged hostage taker a chance to flee back to the hostages? More hostages aren't going to die, if you take the hostage takers out without the hostages nearby. That will cause less hostage deaths, when chance to kill more hostages is out of the picture at that point.

Atleast if I was ever hostage, I'd hope the police shoot the hostage taker the first chance they get, when I'm not near the guy. I don't want them to poll him about his favourite meal, allowing him to come back to me and point gun in my face, and probably kill me too.

Again, you're making the assumption that the officers knew for certain that it was the hostage taker opening the door based on a general description.

The police wasn't a recent hire, so one assumption is that he's done that exact job in SWAT some time prior. Seems he was convinced enough of the guy being match.

[vbnm247]

There is no way the officer could have confirmed who the person opening the door was, because any description (Unless
the description was "some guy") is sort of moot, since nobody even knew who the guy was. They should have confirmed the situation to SOME degree.

Could have been a crazy coincidence that the innocent man resembled the description of the guy who was meant to be swatted.

[lonely zergling]

American swat teams need to learn a lot from the german gsg9 units it seems. Maybe the guy who anwered the door was shocked by the "raid" and did something stupid.. the whole calling a swat team on an innocent unexpecting dude thing is horrible for all sides except the dumb caller. Hope he rots in prison forever for causing this.

[Toogoodman]

Nothing in that false report was super dangerous.

They are not responsible for the death. Only one person - the one who actually made the false report can be partially blamed with a stretch. The whole murder is cop's fault.

The false report was a homicide, and a resulting hostage situation.... That's not a dangerous situation to you? If you send SWAT to someones house, if you have anything in your hands that resembles a weapon, even an xbox controller, you're probably getting a bullet. When SWAT gets sent in, its their job to neutralize threats, not make sure some fucking idiot 15 year old kids feud with his online boyfriend gets resolved.

SWATS going into a situation think they need to save hostages, if you're opening the door, you're likely the person they're trying to neutralize, that's pretty simple. Maybe, instead of blaming police for once, we should actually logically look at this and think, "hey maybe we should make an example of this shit head kid so this type of stuff doesn't happen anymore".

As a veteran, i am EXTREMELY critical of police misuse of force, but SWAT isnt a local patrol car.

[McFuu]

That's called being an accessory/ aiding and abetting and requires at least four things to be proven for the charge to stick. 1) A crime was committed 2) The accused aided, counseled, commanded, induced or procured the person committing the crime 3) The accused acted with the intent to facilitate the crime and 4) The accused acted before the crime was completed.

The accused made a false report, which in itself is a felony, but someone died so the charge would likely be manslaughter/murder of some degree. The person committing the crime of actually killing the person would be the police officer, which I'm honestly not 100% sure how that works when an officer is on duty and doing his job, is it considered murder, and is the police officer being accused of it? If he's not being accused of murder, how can the kid be an accessory to a crime that isn't being charged? I'm no lawyer, so my questions may be stupid, just saying I think there's some grey area here. In any case, number 3 is where it gets difficult. The guy who called the swatting had zero intent for anyone to get hurt, much less killed as a result.

Yeah the kid is guilty of committing a crime or crimes, but I don't think murder is one them.

I'm not talking about accessory, I'm talking about Felony Murder. As in the crime they committed "Swatting" which results in a litany of felony charges resulted in an unintended death. That's felony murder. They do have to prove certain points, which goes for any felony, but it's completely in the realm of which they can be charged. The fact that someone died, they are facing maximum sentences before we even get to felony murder regardless.

[vbnm247]

American swat teams need to learn a lot from the german gsg9 units it seems. Maybe the guy who anwered the door was shocked by the "raid" and did something stupid.. the whole calling a swat team on an innocent unexpecting dude thing is horrible for all sides expect the dumb caller. Hope he rots in prison forever for causing this.

There have been over 400 swatting incidents in a year with zero deaths. This kind of thing was bound to cause a fatality sooner or later.

[Crissi]

One was allegedly murdered already. What do you hope to achieve, by letting said alleged hostage taker a chance to flee back to the hostages? More hostages aren't going to die, if you take the hostage takers out without the hostages nearby. That will cause less hostage deaths, when chance to kill more hostages is out of the picture at that point.

Atleast if I was ever hostage, I'd hope the police shoot the hostage taker the first chance they get, when I'm not near the guy. I don't want them to poll him about his favourite meal, allowing him to come back to me and point gun in my face, and probably kill me too.



The police wasn't a recent hire, so one assumption is that he's done that exact job in SWAT some time prior. Seems he was convinced enough of the guy being match.

If the hostages are behind the hostage taker, shooting at him kills the hostages too. I have NEVER heard of a negotiator saying "shoot at first sight" during a hostage situation. This is bizzarely irrational that has a higher risk of getting hotages killed then just waiting it out (unless the hostage taker keeps showing intent to kill. Perrsitence in intent rrequires not being KOS though).

[Elim Garak]

and having a direct link means you're partly responsible. So by doing the false report, they are partly responsible as the false report started all the direct chain of events.

They are only responsible for false report. Not all of them by the way.

and seriously dont pul the hyperbolic "but Activision!". What determines direct from irrelevent is what a reasonable person believes based on historical action - consequences as well as risk %.

Activision was an example of how silly your connections are.