[dragontamer]

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.

[stcredzero]

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.

[dragontamer]

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.

Indeed, in one of the other cases, the officers were under active fire and STILL didn't kill the man: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/no-charges-man-who-shot-police-ch...

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.