4 ms·

That seems excessive. I would consider swatting lesser than attempted voluntary manslaughter which carries a maximum 10 year federal sentence. It’s also typical

That seems excessive. I would consider swatting lesser than attempted voluntary manslaughter which carries a maximum 10 year federal sentence. It’s also typically prosecuted at the state level, which kinda messes things up for the Feds. Reckless endangerment feels more appropriate, perhaps a bit too soft at 2 years maximum, though it is rarely prosecuted at the federal level. So 5 years maximum for the federal conspiracy charges seems basically in-line with any reasonable expectation.

NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
It's completely premeditated which is IIRC the main criterion for legally speaking 'murder'.
- jahewson 4y ago
  It’s not. The premeditated part gets you “voluntary” but the activity they chose to engage in carries only a very minor risk of death. They haven’t set out to kill somebody.
gnicholas 4y ago
Attempted manslaughter is a federal crime? This doesn't sound right to me, as a (former) lawyer. I would think that special circumstances would be necessary for a homicide or attempted homicide to be a federal crime, which would explain why there might be a mandatory minimum.
- jahewson 4y ago
  Yes, 18 U.S. C. § 1113. The special circumstances can be as simple as breaking another Federal law while committing manslaughter. Of course the Feds would much rather stick to prosecuting crimes that don’t overlap state laws.
  - gnicholas 4y ago
    The section you cite appears to only apply to crimes committed "within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States", which is defined here [1]. By my reading, it does not include crimes committed inside of US states. It is limited to ships, areas outside of other countries, and various other places. Am I missing something? Also, it doesn't require a 10 year sentence — it refers to "not more than seven years or fined under this title, or both.". [2] That literally means that no prison time is required. There is a cap on prison time, and it could be completely eliminated if a fine is given instead. Not exactly harsh treatment! 1: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/7# https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/7# 2: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1113 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1113
    - jcranmer 4y ago
      > The section you cite appears to only apply to crimes committed "within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States", which is defined here [1]. By my reading, it does not include crimes committed inside of US states. It is limited to ships, areas outside of other countries, and various other places. Am I missing something? It applies to land in states that is owned by the US government, which can include a lot of land thought of as inside states (national parks and military bases are the goto examples here). If you want real fun, try working out which law applies when you're on tribal land.
olliej 4y ago
No. If I drive to a random house and start shooting at it, I don’t get to call that reckless endangerment. If I kill someone I sure as hell don’t get to call it an accident. It does not matter if you think how is police operate is unreasonable, what matters is that what they do is well known and established, and the outcome is foreseeable. Also, if your best defense is “this isn’t attempted murder, it’s just terrorism” I have questions.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  Surely if the caller is getting charged with attempt to murder, then the SWAT doing the swatting should be charged with the same crime? How can the caller be more culpable than the one actually commiting the crime? This literally never happens in the history of crime.
  - 20after4 4y ago
    Because cops are (mostly) above the law.
    - olliej 4y ago
      No. I mean yes, cops are mostly above the law, and in the US they definitely murder enough (disproportionately PoC) people without consequences to be a problem. But in this case police are being told their are people with guns threatening to kill people, which is exactly the case where police are ostensibly justified in using force. Police killing a swatting victim is meaningfully difference from police making up a fake claims to get a warrant, breaking down a door without notice, and then shooting at anyone who moves, or pulling someone over, asking if they have a gun, and then shooting them if they say yes, etc
  - Thorrez 4y ago
    >Surely if the caller is getting charged with attempt to murder, then the SWAT doing the swatting should be charged with the same crime? The SWAT team didn't intend to hurt innocent people. They thought they were saving innocent people. The swatter was intentionally terrorizing innocent people.

NaturalPhallacy 4y ago

It's completely premeditated which is IIRC the main criterion for legally speaking 'murder'.

jahewson 4y ago
It’s not. The premeditated part gets you “voluntary” but the activity they chose to engage in carries only a very minor risk of death. They haven’t set out to kill somebody.

gnicholas 4y ago

Attempted manslaughter is a federal crime? This doesn't sound right to me, as a (former) lawyer. I would think that special circumstances would be necessary for a homicide or attempted homicide to be a federal crime, which would explain why there might be a mandatory minimum.

jahewson 4y ago
Yes, 18 U.S. C. § 1113. The special circumstances can be as simple as breaking another Federal law while committing manslaughter. Of course the Feds would much rather stick to prosecuting crimes that don’t overlap state laws.
- gnicholas 4y ago
  The section you cite appears to only apply to crimes committed "within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States", which is defined here [1]. By my reading, it does not include crimes committed inside of US states. It is limited to ships, areas outside of other countries, and various other places. Am I missing something? Also, it doesn't require a 10 year sentence — it refers to "not more than seven years or fined under this title, or both.". [2] That literally means that no prison time is required. There is a cap on prison time, and it could be completely eliminated if a fine is given instead. Not exactly harsh treatment! 1: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/7# https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/7# 2: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1113 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1113
  - jcranmer 4y ago
    > The section you cite appears to only apply to crimes committed "within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States", which is defined here [1]. By my reading, it does not include crimes committed inside of US states. It is limited to ships, areas outside of other countries, and various other places. Am I missing something? It applies to land in states that is owned by the US government, which can include a lot of land thought of as inside states (national parks and military bases are the goto examples here). If you want real fun, try working out which law applies when you're on tribal land.

olliej 4y ago

No. If I drive to a random house and start shooting at it, I don’t get to call that reckless endangerment. If I kill someone I sure as hell don’t get to call it an accident. It does not matter if you think how is police operate is unreasonable, what matters is that what they do is well known and established, and the outcome is foreseeable. Also, if your best defense is “this isn’t attempted murder, it’s just terrorism” I have questions.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
Surely if the caller is getting charged with attempt to murder, then the SWAT doing the swatting should be charged with the same crime? How can the caller be more culpable than the one actually commiting the crime? This literally never happens in the history of crime.
- 20after4 4y ago
  Because cops are (mostly) above the law.
  - olliej 4y ago
    No. I mean yes, cops are mostly above the law, and in the US they definitely murder enough (disproportionately PoC) people without consequences to be a problem. But in this case police are being told their are people with guns threatening to kill people, which is exactly the case where police are ostensibly justified in using force. Police killing a swatting victim is meaningfully difference from police making up a fake claims to get a warrant, breaking down a door without notice, and then shooting at anyone who moves, or pulling someone over, asking if they have a gun, and then shooting them if they say yes, etc
- Thorrez 4y ago
  >Surely if the caller is getting charged with attempt to murder, then the SWAT doing the swatting should be charged with the same crime? The SWAT team didn't intend to hurt innocent people. They thought they were saving innocent people. The swatter was intentionally terrorizing innocent people.