5 ms·

Police were responding, in this case, to a call made by someone claiming to be armed and holding his family hostage. You do not assume a call is fraudulent in a

Police were responding, in this case, to a call made by someone claiming to be armed and holding his family hostage. You do not assume a call is fraudulent in a situation like that. You assume the worst. What happened to the civilian is a tragedy. He should not have been killed. But the person most at fault here is the one who lied and called in SWAT in the first place.

Silhouette 9y ago
You do not assume a call is fraudulent in a situation like that. You assume the worst. We're talking about literally a life or death situation here. Why on earth would you assume anything, rather than being cautious and trying to confirm for sure what the situation actually is?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
7952 9y ago
The worse outcome is that the innocent bystander is killed. That could be a hostage, or some random person caught up in a hoax. The whole point of the police presence is to protect that person. In this situation they failed in that objective.
StavrosK 9y ago
> But the person most at fault here is the one who lied and called in SWAT in the first place. It completely mystifies me how people can think that people with guns were justified in fatally shooting someone with no guns. That kind of thing should just never happen, either subdue them or let them get away, why are you shooting them? What could they possibly have done, short of ran to the kitchen to get a knife and then ran back and tried to stab someone? How can you mistake anything someone unarmed does for a deadly threat?
- MikkoFinell 9y ago
  It mystifies me why you believe anyone thinks the shooting was justified. Literally NO ONE has said that. Please try to engage with the actual debate instead of making up strawmen to attack.
  - StavrosK 9y ago
    The grandparent said that the person most at fault was the person who called it in. I disagree, the people most at fault were the police, by far.
    - reificator 9y ago
      I get where you're coming from, but the person who called it in named themselves SWauTistic and makes a hobby of this behavior.
      - StavrosK 9y ago
        Yes, the guy is definitely guilty of some degree of murder, because he knew what he was doing. However, I'm contrasting it with my country, where calling in such a situation would be very unlikely to get someone killed, because the police are much more reticent to shoot people. In such a case, the caller could be guilty of wasting resources, but not of murder. The only difference is the handling of each situation by the police, hence my reasoning above.
        MikkoFinell 9y ago
        How many gun-related homicides are there per year in your country?
        StavrosK 9y ago
        1.5 per 100k (most of which are suicides), gun culture isn't big here.
malka 9y ago
> You do not assume a call is fraudulent in a situation like that. You assume the worst. I disagree.
FireBeyond 9y ago
A call from someone calling in via a VOIP line that was effectively out of country, yet pretending to be the neighbor. Corroboration is a good thing, and based on my (first hand) knowledge of what information shows up on a 911 dispatchers screen about call origin, should have prompted more 'skepticism'. Little details like "it's a one story house" (when in fact it's two story), and the like. > But the person most at fault here is the one who lied and called in SWAT in the first place. This I absolutely agree with.
valuearb 9y ago
Most of these calls are false or inaccurate. You don't assume the worst, or you screw up just like these cops did.
anigbrowl 9y ago
You do not assume a call is fraudulent in a situation like that. You assume the worst. How about not assuming anything until you have more information to go on? The fake caller is definitely at fault here, and so are the police.

Silhouette 9y ago

You do not assume a call is fraudulent in a situation like that. You assume the worst. We're talking about literally a life or death situation here. Why on earth would you assume anything, rather than being cautious and trying to confirm for sure what the situation actually is?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

7952 9y ago

The worse outcome is that the innocent bystander is killed. That could be a hostage, or some random person caught up in a hoax. The whole point of the police presence is to protect that person. In this situation they failed in that objective.

StavrosK 9y ago

> But the person most at fault here is the one who lied and called in SWAT in the first place. It completely mystifies me how people can think that people with guns were justified in fatally shooting someone with no guns. That kind of thing should just never happen, either subdue them or let them get away, why are you shooting them? What could they possibly have done, short of ran to the kitchen to get a knife and then ran back and tried to stab someone? How can you mistake anything someone unarmed does for a deadly threat?

MikkoFinell 9y ago
It mystifies me why you believe anyone thinks the shooting was justified. Literally NO ONE has said that. Please try to engage with the actual debate instead of making up strawmen to attack.
- StavrosK 9y ago
  The grandparent said that the person most at fault was the person who called it in. I disagree, the people most at fault were the police, by far.
  - reificator 9y ago
    I get where you're coming from, but the person who called it in named themselves SWauTistic and makes a hobby of this behavior.
    - StavrosK 9y ago
      Yes, the guy is definitely guilty of some degree of murder, because he knew what he was doing. However, I'm contrasting it with my country, where calling in such a situation would be very unlikely to get someone killed, because the police are much more reticent to shoot people. In such a case, the caller could be guilty of wasting resources, but not of murder. The only difference is the handling of each situation by the police, hence my reasoning above.
      - MikkoFinell 9y ago
        How many gun-related homicides are there per year in your country?
        StavrosK 9y ago
        1.5 per 100k (most of which are suicides), gun culture isn't big here.

malka 9y ago

> You do not assume a call is fraudulent in a situation like that. You assume the worst. I disagree.

FireBeyond 9y ago

A call from someone calling in via a VOIP line that was effectively out of country, yet pretending to be the neighbor. Corroboration is a good thing, and based on my (first hand) knowledge of what information shows up on a 911 dispatchers screen about call origin, should have prompted more 'skepticism'. Little details like "it's a one story house" (when in fact it's two story), and the like. > But the person most at fault here is the one who lied and called in SWAT in the first place. This I absolutely agree with.

valuearb 9y ago

Most of these calls are false or inaccurate. You don't assume the worst, or you screw up just like these cops did.

anigbrowl 9y ago

You do not assume a call is fraudulent in a situation like that. You assume the worst. How about not assuming anything until you have more information to go on? The fake caller is definitely at fault here, and so are the police.