The SWAT-ing should be considered attempted murder in 2019. The shooting should be considered a police officer put into a tense situation, making a split second life or death decision. He made the wrong call. He made a mistake, and someone lost their life needlessly. I don't think he should be culpable for murder, however. Murder is premeditated, by definition.
We should be looking at different procedures around hostage situations, with the possibility of crank SWATing calls in mind. Putting people into these situations needlessly, on the basis of just one anonymous report, without checking and confirming the facts, isn't acting responsibly.
> The SWAT-ing should be considered attempted murder in 2019
If there is no specific intent to kill, that's as wrong in 2019 as any other year. OTOH, it does seem to be the kind of act with extreme disregard to the risk to human life that, where death does result, the “depraved indifference” subtype of murder exists to address.
Even if not that, filing a false police report is a crime (depending on jurisdiction and circumstances it may either be a felony or misdemeanor) and the death is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of that, so either the felony murder or misdemeanor manslaughter rule should apply.
If there is no specific intent to kill, that's as wrong in 2019 as any other year. OTOH, it does seem to be the kind of act with extreme disregard to the risk to human life that, where death does result, the “depraved indifference” subtype of murder exists to address.
You are right about the lack of specific intent. In 2019, it should be considered common knowledge that doing this sort of thing creates the potential for loss of life. I would be just fine with 'the “depraved indifference” subtype of murder.'
I'm not a lawyer (and I'm not the other guy, despite sharing "Dragon" in the name).
The way the law was described to me, is that most crimes have approximately 3 levels:
* Criminal Negligence (Negligent Death / Involuntary Manslaughter)
* Criminal Recklessness (Manslaughter)
* Criminal Malice (Murder)
Things may get more detailed (Murder 1st degree usually has a "premeditated" clause), but that's the general pattern. The argument is that a Police Officer who shoots an innocent man would likely be either Criminally Negligent, or maybe Criminally Reckless, in his job.
Negligence is obviously the lowest bar for a crime. It is clear that the officer was negligent in confirming whether or not the suspect was reaching for a gun (because the suspect in this case was unarmed).
Recklessness might be a case if the officer drew the gun too early. Hard for me to say if this case fits the bar, especially because the prank caller would have biased the officers.
We all understand that there was no malice in the behavior. But guess what? A mother who leaves their underage child alone too long can be held criminally negligent if the child gets hurt. As a society, we expect all citizens (officers included) to do their job.
As a society, we expect all citizens (officers included) to do their job.
I think the record shows, that putting officers into that situation too often is a recipe for disaster. We shouldn't be using a force optimized for "takedown of fortified gang hideouts" for domestic violence cases. We shouldn't be letting pranksters deploy such forces.
I agree that its a problem in the first place, but as far as I'm aware, this is the first swatting death in the USA.
So dozens of other officers were literally put into the same situation, but also haven't killed the suspect. Furthermore, swatting is (unfortunately) more common these days than it used to be, so officers need to keep that in mind when they're called into these situations.
So even IF the suspect had a gun, its likely legal for them to use it on officers if they feel the need for self defense (if the officers enter unexpectedly).
> We shouldn't be using a force optimized for "takedown of fortified gang hideouts" for domestic violence cases. We shouldn't be letting pranksters deploy such forces.
I mean... yeah. But USA has rather liberal gun laws. At a minimum, officers entering a house unwelcomed need to be doing it with significant body armor, and under the assumption that the suspects are armed.
Because its totally legal for people in their own homes to use guns on intruders.
Calling the police on someone in the US is a specific intent to kill, thus murder. You know what's likely to happen and you make that call. That's murder.
> Calling the police on someone in the US is a specific intent to kill, thus murder.
It may be evidence from which intent might be inferred, but on its own without additional evidence it is probably not strong enough to support intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
> You know what's likely to happen and you make that call.
That's not, in and of itself, intent. Intent means it's your goal, not merely something you know is a likely effect and accept.
> That's murder.
Sure, but absent an actual goal of killing, it's murder of the depraved indifference type, which is generally second degree, not the intent to kill type, which is first degree. (Though if the false report itself is a felony, it's murder of the felony murder type, which is usually first degree.)
We should be looking at different procedures around hostage situations, with the possibility of crank SWATing calls in mind. Putting people into these situations needlessly, on the basis of just one anonymous report, without checking and confirming the facts, isn't acting responsibly.