6 ms·

And the cop who shot a man who was no threat gets what? At the very, very least it's a gross failure to do his job the way he's paid to do it and his employmen

And the cop who shot a man who was no threat gets what? At the very, very least it's a gross failure to do his job the way he's paid to do it and his employment should be up for review. Don't get me wrong, swatting is bad for a bunch of obvious reasons and the swatter is the one with the malicious intent here but if we had a more professional police force (you'd think the swat team, supposedly the most highly trained cops, would have a little more restraint with the trigger finger) it would end this way a lot less often. Cops showing up expecting something where there is nothing should not result in anybody dying, it should result in confused cops and little more. This is very much a two part problem. If the cops didn't have an itchy trigger finger swatting wouldn't lead to outcomes like this.

almost_usual 7y ago
I had a friend whose dad took a shotgun blast to the face entering a home serving a search warrant. It's not uncommon. The officer is acting on the facts that are presented to them. This isn't a domestic violence call or an assault call. It's a call instructing the police that someone is armed and a threat to those around them.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  The fact that it's a "serious call" doesn't excuse shooting him on sight. Shooting people on sight is totally inappropriate ROE for a civilian police force in any situation.
- Miner49er 7y ago
  Was it a no knock raid? Context matters. If you break into someones home then it's perfect legal for them to shoot you in most states. It doesn't matter if you're a police officer or not.
- webkike 7y ago
  Sure, but it seems weird to prioritize the life of the police officer over the people they are sworn to protect. Policing is inherently dangerous. Sitting at home playing video games should not
  - happytoexplain 7y ago
    This is one of the most important points to me, and I rarely see it discussed. Defenders of killings by police usually point to the officer's feelings of safety and right to defend themselves using what seem to be the same standards as any average civilian. If you gave me a gun and put me in a dangerous situation I might pull the trigger when I didn't absolutely need to out of fear, and it might be totally reasonable for me to do that. That's why I'm not a police officer. We have a profession where part of the job description involves the possibility of shooting civilians to death, and we are somehow unable or unwilling to get tough and establish a bar of professionalism commensurate with such an extraordinary job description.
  - almost_usual 7y ago
    >Sure, but it seems weird to prioritize the life of the police officer over the people they are sworn to protect. If the officer doesn't engage out of caution and an innocent person in the residence (non officer) dies is that still ok?
    - webkike 7y ago
      How often does that happen? I can make the same argument about killing literally anyone because they might kill other people.
      - almost_usual 7y ago
        >I can make the same argument about killing literally anyone because they might kill other people. This feels like a slippery slope fallacy.
        webkike 7y ago
        That’s my point
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- weego 7y ago
  It's actually far less common than the various narratives would lead you to assume.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- fucking_tragedy 7y ago
  If soldiers in an active war zone can follow their rules of engagement and resist shooting civilians even though they're scared, so can cops.
  - rmrfrmrf 7y ago
    is there evidence that soldiers follow their rules of engagement?
    - jacobush 7y ago
      This is what I've always heard. I am sure the amount of violations is higher in absolute numbers, given that it's war and a lot of things. Anecdotally I've also heard former military police officers are the best de-escalators.
      - jacobush 7y ago
        ... and thinking about it, I think the difference is this: "At home", the police already has control over the land. They have "won" almost by default. No opponent can challenge them, or have any interest in seriously taking them on. The military, on the other hand often operates where they are instructed to "win the hearts and minds" and if they don't get local support, things can go very badly for them. Which gives, it's unfortunate police not more often tries to "win hearts and minds".
- dependenttypes 7y ago
  To me it seems that the police who killed the civilian is not any better than the one who killed the father of your friend. (In fact, he seems worse because at least the dude that killed your friend's father could use the "castle doctrine" defence)
- inscionent 7y ago
  Knowing a situation is dangerous is not an excuse for opening fire on an unidentified target.
mcny 7y ago
> Cops showing up expecting something where there is nothing should not result in anybody dying, it should result in confused cops and little more. I completely agree. I also think the man who "hired deadly swatting" should be immediately released with an apology from the society.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  The person who did this clearly did something that they knew was wrong, and that ended in somebody dying.
  - mcny 7y ago
    > The person who did this clearly did something that they knew was wrong, and that ended in somebody dying. Whether they did it knowingly or not does not matter in this case. I still think this exposes a systemic problem that we need to address at a systems level. This feels like monkey patching if (x !== null) {} to "fix" a null pointer exception on something that should never have been null in the first place. In this case. there should have been no shots fired at all. I am not even saying the officer who shot should go to prison. I am just saying maybe the officer who shot shouldn't have had a gun or been there in the first place. They clearly didn't have proper training. Sending the person who made the phone call to prison solves nothing. We have blameless postmortems for us. Why can't we have blameless postmortems in these cases which are more life and death? We don't live in an "eye for an eye" society, do we?
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      > We don't live in an "eye for an eye" society, do we? I disagree strongly with your characterization of this. The caller clearly knew what he was doing wrong (we can argue whether it was reasonable to assume that it would be responded to with lethal force, but that is not what you’re discussing). Likewise, the reaction of the police officer in this situation may have been a problem, but again it’s not relevant to the issue of willfully lying about a hostage situation to, at the minimum, waste the time of law enforcement and the SWATed person. Consider, for example, a residential street where the speed limit is 5 mph: it’s pretty hard for anyone to get seriously injured in an accident if vehicles follow the rules. But if a car decides to barrel down the road at highway speeds, I’m not off the hook if I push you in front of the it. I can’t just say “I’m innocent, because you couldn’t have died if everyone followed the rules” and get out of it. I’d probably still be liable if I didn’t see the car coming. Just because someone may have done something illegally that made my actions worse does not absolve me from wrongdoing; it just makes it so there are two problems to deal with.

almost_usual 7y ago

I had a friend whose dad took a shotgun blast to the face entering a home serving a search warrant. It's not uncommon. The officer is acting on the facts that are presented to them. This isn't a domestic violence call or an assault call. It's a call instructing the police that someone is armed and a threat to those around them.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
The fact that it's a "serious call" doesn't excuse shooting him on sight. Shooting people on sight is totally inappropriate ROE for a civilian police force in any situation.
Miner49er 7y ago
Was it a no knock raid? Context matters. If you break into someones home then it's perfect legal for them to shoot you in most states. It doesn't matter if you're a police officer or not.
webkike 7y ago
Sure, but it seems weird to prioritize the life of the police officer over the people they are sworn to protect. Policing is inherently dangerous. Sitting at home playing video games should not
- happytoexplain 7y ago
  This is one of the most important points to me, and I rarely see it discussed. Defenders of killings by police usually point to the officer's feelings of safety and right to defend themselves using what seem to be the same standards as any average civilian. If you gave me a gun and put me in a dangerous situation I might pull the trigger when I didn't absolutely need to out of fear, and it might be totally reasonable for me to do that. That's why I'm not a police officer. We have a profession where part of the job description involves the possibility of shooting civilians to death, and we are somehow unable or unwilling to get tough and establish a bar of professionalism commensurate with such an extraordinary job description.
- almost_usual 7y ago
  >Sure, but it seems weird to prioritize the life of the police officer over the people they are sworn to protect. If the officer doesn't engage out of caution and an innocent person in the residence (non officer) dies is that still ok?
  - webkike 7y ago
    How often does that happen? I can make the same argument about killing literally anyone because they might kill other people.
    - almost_usual 7y ago
      >I can make the same argument about killing literally anyone because they might kill other people. This feels like a slippery slope fallacy.
      - webkike 7y ago
        That’s my point
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
weego 7y ago
It's actually far less common than the various narratives would lead you to assume.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
fucking_tragedy 7y ago
If soldiers in an active war zone can follow their rules of engagement and resist shooting civilians even though they're scared, so can cops.
- rmrfrmrf 7y ago
  is there evidence that soldiers follow their rules of engagement?
  - jacobush 7y ago
    This is what I've always heard. I am sure the amount of violations is higher in absolute numbers, given that it's war and a lot of things. Anecdotally I've also heard former military police officers are the best de-escalators.
    - jacobush 7y ago
      ... and thinking about it, I think the difference is this: "At home", the police already has control over the land. They have "won" almost by default. No opponent can challenge them, or have any interest in seriously taking them on. The military, on the other hand often operates where they are instructed to "win the hearts and minds" and if they don't get local support, things can go very badly for them. Which gives, it's unfortunate police not more often tries to "win hearts and minds".
dependenttypes 7y ago
To me it seems that the police who killed the civilian is not any better than the one who killed the father of your friend. (In fact, he seems worse because at least the dude that killed your friend's father could use the "castle doctrine" defence)
inscionent 7y ago
Knowing a situation is dangerous is not an excuse for opening fire on an unidentified target.

mcny 7y ago

> Cops showing up expecting something where there is nothing should not result in anybody dying, it should result in confused cops and little more. I completely agree. I also think the man who "hired deadly swatting" should be immediately released with an apology from the society.

saagarjha 7y ago
The person who did this clearly did something that they knew was wrong, and that ended in somebody dying.
- mcny 7y ago
  > The person who did this clearly did something that they knew was wrong, and that ended in somebody dying. Whether they did it knowingly or not does not matter in this case. I still think this exposes a systemic problem that we need to address at a systems level. This feels like monkey patching if (x !== null) {} to "fix" a null pointer exception on something that should never have been null in the first place. In this case. there should have been no shots fired at all. I am not even saying the officer who shot should go to prison. I am just saying maybe the officer who shot shouldn't have had a gun or been there in the first place. They clearly didn't have proper training. Sending the person who made the phone call to prison solves nothing. We have blameless postmortems for us. Why can't we have blameless postmortems in these cases which are more life and death? We don't live in an "eye for an eye" society, do we?
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    > We don't live in an "eye for an eye" society, do we? I disagree strongly with your characterization of this. The caller clearly knew what he was doing wrong (we can argue whether it was reasonable to assume that it would be responded to with lethal force, but that is not what you’re discussing). Likewise, the reaction of the police officer in this situation may have been a problem, but again it’s not relevant to the issue of willfully lying about a hostage situation to, at the minimum, waste the time of law enforcement and the SWATed person. Consider, for example, a residential street where the speed limit is 5 mph: it’s pretty hard for anyone to get seriously injured in an accident if vehicles follow the rules. But if a car decides to barrel down the road at highway speeds, I’m not off the hook if I push you in front of the it. I can’t just say “I’m innocent, because you couldn’t have died if everyone followed the rules” and get out of it. I’d probably still be liable if I didn’t see the car coming. Just because someone may have done something illegally that made my actions worse does not absolve me from wrongdoing; it just makes it so there are two problems to deal with.