http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/30/kansas-swatting-suspect-arrested-in-los-angeles.html A California man (Tyler Barriss), mad over an online video game, called the police and made a false claim of a kidnapping and murder in Wichita. Barriss gave an address he thought was the home of another gamer. Without any investigation, cops showed up at the home of Andrew Finch. When Finch opened the door, he was told to put his hands up and was immediately shot and killed. The cop who murdered Finch was across the street from the Finch house and claimed Finch's hand was "near his waistband". Think about that - where are your hands when your arms are at your side? Finch was unarmed. Wichita Deputy Police Chief Troy Livingston said "Due to the actions of a prankster we have an innocent victim," so they admit they killed an innocent man. Lets review: 1 - the cops do no due diligence 2 - the only evidence is a phone call from California about a crime in Kansas 3 - cops descend upon the house and kill the innocent unarmed man who opens the door. 4 - cops are already making excuses and blaming the 911 caller. Aren't cops supposed to be trained? Aren't cops supposed to be "better" then the average person? Isn't that the claim for giving cops guns and extreme power? The lesson: cops are dupes and pawns? Cops are trigger happy? Imagine if you received that phone call from Barriss, went to the house, and shot the man who opened the door. You would be in jail charged with murder and all kinds of other crimes. But the killer cop is on paid vacation, relaxing, knowing he won't be charged with anything because he is above the law.
There is already a 34 page thread on this topic here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...narmed-didn’t-play-video-games.522450/page-33
1 - what due diligence are you suggesting? If they get a tip of a kidnapping and a murder, are you suggesting they take a few days/weeks/months track the calls, stake out the house, etc., while somebody is possibly being murdered at that very moment? 2 - repeat of 1. 3 - seems obvious they should descend on the house. Killing the man who answered the door was wrong. 4 - are you suggesting that somebody who falsely reports a kidnapping and murder to the police is not culpable?
Taking a wrongful action when they get there does not mean they should not have gotten there, which is what the O.P. asserts.
The way they got there seems to have been a problem. Shooting someone for opening a door doesn't seem like a valid plan.
1 - Call the 911 caller back to verify, get his drivers license number and then check it - that's a quick process for cops. Did he give his real name and address and phone number - that's easy to check. Check the Kansas address to see if it matches the 911 caller claim, who lives there, is it an apt or house or does it even exist? All that can be done in a few minutes before the cops get to the house. 3 - If everything checks out (#1), then they should act appropriately. But that's the problem - "appropriate" for cops is to do what protects the cops, to be so concerned for their own safety that they can and do take deadly action simply because they had some wildly subjective "fear for their life". 4 - Not at all, the guy who "swatted" the Kansas man should be arrested and tried for murder. And the cop who killed an innocent man should be arrested and tried for murder as well. But as in the case of John Crawford who was "swatted" while shopping in a Walmart and was killed by a cop, the killer cop was not prosecuted. The investigating state attorney publicly stated that Crawford did absolutely nothing wrong and was completely innocent, yet his killer was not charged with a crime. Whether the 911 call was real or a prank does not in any way excuse a cop who shot the innocent man.
Well we don’t know what checks were made and when but I don’t see how any of this would have necessarily avoided the tragedy. Regardless of the outcome here, officers would still need to check on the alleged kidnapping, however questionable the claim might have been. So you’re saying the police officers who are ordered in to potentially deadly situations have no right to protect themselves (let alone anyone else who might be in the area). If an officer believes a suspect is going to shoot them or a college, they should do nothing and let it happen? There is clearly a balance to be struck but there will be no perfect answer in these situations. Crime sometimes leads to innocent people being killed. If it had been a real call and the door had been answered by a real kidnapper who on seeing the police was actually reaching for a gun, would the police officer still have been a murderer for shooting him? Remember, at that point, the officer wouldn’t know anything different to what he knew in the real case. He’s on a call to a suspected kidnapping and has seen someone he thinks is going for a gun.
Murdered? murder 1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. 2. kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation. I would think the maximum the officer who fired the shot could be culpably charged with would be negligent homicide, and I'm even doubtful he should/would be found guilty of that charge.
True, I don't know if the 911 caller provided all the correct information, but since "swatting" is illegal - and he was making up a wild story of kidnapping and murder - its safe to assume he lied about his own address and identity. And if the checks had been done, and the caller found to be questionable, then the cops who showed up at the house needn't be so trigger happy. I say cops should act properly in a moral and societal sense, and you think that means cops have no right to protect themselves or anyone else. Utterly foolish. Aren't cops supposed to be trained to act properly in just these situations? To differentiate between a threat and an innocent person, to act accurately under stress? That's the claim, obviously its a false claim. And crime has consequences. The innocent person and his family must receive justice. The cop who killed an innocent, unarmed, unsuspecting man, committed a crime and must pay for it. The immediate claim was that the victims hand was "near his waistband". When you answer your door, or stand up, or walk, where are your hands? Do you answer your door with your hands in the air above your head? Of course the mans hands were near his waist. And what do people do when they answer the door and a bunch of cops are there pointing guns at you and yelling? An innocent man, who has committed no crime at all, who has no reason to expect to be the target of a swat attack, who thinks all the lights and commotion are for someone else and the cops are just telling neighbors to stay inside, opens the door and is faced with an verbal assault by armed cops. What does he do? He is startled, he steps back, he pulls his hands up, he reacts in the classic manner of a startled unsuspecting man. And the "trained" cops who are supposed to know this, kill him because they don't care and are poorly trained and incompetent.
You said that officers shouldn’t be so concerned about their own safety that they take deadly action if they fear for their own lives (you also overlooked the question of fear for other people’s lives). I’m not convinced there is any practical alternative. They are but they’re also human beings. No amount of training is going to guarantee they get it right every time (either way – would you object if an officer hesitates an innocent victim gets killed as a result). US police officers must be involved in thousands of potentially deadly incidents and confrontations every day and the vast majority go smoothly. We only hear about the small minority where things go wrong. If he had legitimate reason to fear for his own life or those of others, he did not commit a crime. If you want it to be criminal for a police officer to shoot someone who turns out to be innocent regardless of the circumstances, that would require a change in that law (and would inevitably lead to you having very few police willing to do the job anywhere such incidents are likely). There is obviously a difference between a natural stance and appearing to reach for something, otherwise the police would shoot everyone they see. The officer clearly perceived something out of the ordinary. Maybe he was just wrong. Maybe the man was reaching (just not for a gun obviously). Maybe the officer was a secret psychopath who had decided he would kill someone, anyone, that day. We don’t know. Presuming unconditionally guilt (or innocence) in the face of that practical ignorance is indefensible unless you’re working on the general principle of “police officer = guilty”.
You obfuscate. Its a simple issue. Cops accept the job of protecting and serving the public at the risk of their own lives, the safety of the public and innocent people take priority over the cop. Just like in the military, that may mean you suffer in order to prevent or avoid harming the innocent. If a person is not up to that task, then he should not be a cop. Here is the difference between a good guy and a bad guy. The good guy: And here is a bad guy:
When are the forum right wingers going to demand that everyone exercise their 2d Amendment rights and put that cop in prison where he belongs?
