2 ms·

Yes, I think that the state providing free, anonymous, harass-and-maybe-murder-as-a-service is a problem, regardless of the methods involved.

by jMyles 9y ago

mikeash 9y ago
I think pretty much everyone will agree that it's a problem. Where we disagree is your minimization of the role of the murderer.
- jMyles 9y ago
  I've lost track of what we're talking about here. This article isn't about a murder. Are you talking about Andrew Finch? In that case, sure, the police officer who shot him is very much in the wrong. Is that what you're wanting hear? I also think in a such militarized environment, that police officers who might never have imagined themselves murdering anyone are now, yes, murderers. And that's a shame. We don't really need SWAT teams in the USA at all, and certainly not thousands of deployments of them every year.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Sure it's about a murder. When I say "the murderer," I'm referring to the person who made the false emergency call, thought to be Tyler Raj Barriss. I.e. the "this person" you said we should pay very little attention to. The officer who actually fired the weapon probably deserves the label too.
    - jMyles 9y ago
      Ahh, I misunderstood then. Well, yeah, I don't that the person who made the call, while culpable for involvement in homicide is guilty of murder in the traditional sense. Something more like involuntary manslaughter. The murderer is unambiguously the person who killed.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        Involuntary manslaughter doesn't look fitting to me at all. That would mean there was no intent to kill, which I strongly doubt here. It seems that the distinction between manslaughter and murder is the presence of "malice aforethought" which Wikipedia says is one of: 1. Intent to kill, 2. Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death, 3. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or 4. Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony murder" doctrine). It looks to me like at least #3 would be the case here, and likely #2 or #1. I have no problem saying that the SWATter killed this person. Convincing the police to go and kill someone for you is little different from convincing a gun to send a bullet into their heart. The difference, of course, is that the police are living creatures with their own thoughts and culpability, but that just means their responsibility is added, not that the SWATter's responsibility is somehow diminished.
        jMyles 9y ago
        People who perform assisted suicides are sometimes charged with involuntary manslaughter. While I don't view assisted suicide as any sort of crime, I think that the relationship of the caller to the death is pretty much the same: they set up some conditions, but the police officer is the one who caused the death. As I said from the beginning, I don't really see the societal benefit to even talking about this person. The police need to stop killing people so that we can move on with the important matter of having a free society. That's the only story here.
      - cgmg 9y ago
        You're wrong: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder

Yes, I think that the state providing free, anonymous, harass-and-maybe-murder-as-a-service is a problem, regardless of the methods involved.

by jMyles 9y ago

Yes, I think that the state providing free, anonymous, harass-and-maybe-murder-as-a-service is a problem, regardless of the methods involved.

mikeash 9y ago

I think pretty much everyone will agree that it's a problem. Where we disagree is your minimization of the role of the murderer.

jMyles 9y ago
I've lost track of what we're talking about here. This article isn't about a murder. Are you talking about Andrew Finch? In that case, sure, the police officer who shot him is very much in the wrong. Is that what you're wanting hear? I also think in a such militarized environment, that police officers who might never have imagined themselves murdering anyone are now, yes, murderers. And that's a shame. We don't really need SWAT teams in the USA at all, and certainly not thousands of deployments of them every year.
- mikeash 9y ago
  Sure it's about a murder. When I say "the murderer," I'm referring to the person who made the false emergency call, thought to be Tyler Raj Barriss. I.e. the "this person" you said we should pay very little attention to. The officer who actually fired the weapon probably deserves the label too.
  - jMyles 9y ago
    Ahh, I misunderstood then. Well, yeah, I don't that the person who made the call, while culpable for involvement in homicide is guilty of murder in the traditional sense. Something more like involuntary manslaughter. The murderer is unambiguously the person who killed.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      Involuntary manslaughter doesn't look fitting to me at all. That would mean there was no intent to kill, which I strongly doubt here. It seems that the distinction between manslaughter and murder is the presence of "malice aforethought" which Wikipedia says is one of: 1. Intent to kill, 2. Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death, 3. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or 4. Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony murder" doctrine). It looks to me like at least #3 would be the case here, and likely #2 or #1. I have no problem saying that the SWATter killed this person. Convincing the police to go and kill someone for you is little different from convincing a gun to send a bullet into their heart. The difference, of course, is that the police are living creatures with their own thoughts and culpability, but that just means their responsibility is added, not that the SWATter's responsibility is somehow diminished.
      - jMyles 9y ago
        People who perform assisted suicides are sometimes charged with involuntary manslaughter. While I don't view assisted suicide as any sort of crime, I think that the relationship of the caller to the death is pretty much the same: they set up some conditions, but the police officer is the one who caused the death. As I said from the beginning, I don't really see the societal benefit to even talking about this person. The police need to stop killing people so that we can move on with the important matter of having a free society. That's the only story here.
    - cgmg 9y ago
      You're wrong: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder