3 ms·

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 traditi

by 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

by jMyles 9y ago

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