Current Events > Cop from the Swatting death won't face charges

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/13/us/police-no-charges-swatting-death/index.html

kinda mad about this. he was partly to blame. he should have known something was different when he got to the door. you don't just shoot someone who opens the door.

Saltstorm from regressives in 3... 2...
---

Pathetic
---

fenderbender321 posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

But I aint got shit for solutions so

Why did they need to raid the house? We can start by re-assessing whether or not we need certain laws on the books that require cops do this (drug laws and other victimless crimes).

Drug dealing isn't a victim less crime.
---

:/
---

So the swatter will be charged with the victim's death?
---

St0rmFury posted...

So the swatter will be charged with the victim's death?

The victim wouldn't be dead if it wasn't for the swatter. The SWAT team would not be there if it wasn't for his fraudulent call.

The SWAT team member is under a high pressure situation assuming the situation is as he was briefed prior. The man was told to put his arms up, this man already is a predetermined armed threat via the swatting call, he decided to reach for his waistline "apparently." The SWAT member has been told the suspect is armed and dangerous, does exactly as he is trained, situation is under control, suspect has their hands up, suspect suddenly reaches for their waist, assume it's a weapon and threat to his safety and the safety of the officers there, and controls the situation by laying fire on the target.

Again, this goes entirely as reported, and the man did reach for his waist instead of following instruction as stated.

If all falls in line and is in truth, no, the SWAT member that shot him is not in the wrong at all. The SWAT member was briefed they were going into a hostile situation where the hostage taker was armed, and ready to kill innocents. He has no idea this is all just a 'prank.'
---

I'm alright with this. The guy responsible is locked up, and I'd feel a lot better if the family received compensation.
---

Patchwork posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

But I aint got shit for solutions so

Why did they need to raid the house? We can start by re-assessing whether or not we need certain laws on the books that require cops do this (drug laws and other victimless crimes).

Drug dealing isn't a victim less crime.

It has far less victims than liquor stores and tobacco vendors.
---

It literally wasn't the cops fault.
Some asshole reported fraudulent information to the police, the police took that shit seriously and sent out the most heavily armed police force to deal with the situation.
---

He should be imprisoned and fired. He blatantly killed someone with no reason. The literal situation he was called in for doesn't even warrant killing someone. He was just 100% wrong.
---

Darkrobotisback posted...

It literally wasn't the cops fault.
Some asshole reported fraudulent information to the police, the police took that shit seriously and sent out the most heavily armed police force to deal with the situation.

But how the hell is immediately firing on a guy who opens the door the correct way to handle an unconfirmed hostage situation? Even if there really WAS a hostage situation, whats stopping the bad guy from having a hostage answer the door?
---

As the police, we have determined that we've done nothing wrong.


---

Darkrobotisback posted...

It literally wasn't the cops fault.
Some asshole reported fraudulent information to the police, the police took that shit seriously and sent out the most heavily armed police force to deal with the situation.

the's the fun thing about Fault...it can go to multiple different people for multiple different reasons. The first guy is rightfully facing charges for what he did. This guy should too. Or at least some repercussion for how he acted. "we determined we can't get him for murder or manslaughter so he's fully off the hook"...that shouldn't be right. Intentional or not he still handled himself in a terrible way that resulted in an innocent man's death. "I was scared" can't keep being used as an excuse for that.
---

As long as the swatter gets charged
---

Damn you can basically hire your own hitman for free just by calling the police smh
---

fenderbender321 posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

But I aint got shit for solutions so

Why did they need to raid the house? We can start by re-assessing whether or not we need certain laws on the books that require cops do this (drug laws and other victimless crimes).

They raided because the swatter made it seem like an active hostage situation.
---

A5modeu5 posted...

They raided because the swatter made it seem like an active hostage situation.

raiding the house seems like a terrible way to address an active hostage situation. So the guy had people hostage and was threatening to hurt them...and their thought process is they'll just run up to the door with guns drawn and ask him nicely to come out? "ahhh fuck, they got me...alright well i guess you hostages can just go then :/"
---

They didnt even go up to the guys door, they shot him from across he street after he opened the door to check wtf the commotion was outside
---

Expected.

The drunk guy crawling in a hotel room gets shot for adjusting his pants and the officer gets off free.

The law gives LEOs extreme leeway in shooting someone before a threat can even be accurately assessed. You don't need to see a weapon, you don't need to verify info, you just have to have a slight movement on the part of an innocent civilian to gun them down.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Patchwork posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

But I aint got shit for solutions so

Why did they need to raid the house? We can start by re-assessing whether or not we need certain laws on the books that require cops do this (drug laws and other victimless crimes).

Drug dealing isn't a victim less crime.

It has far less victims than liquor stores and tobacco vendors.

lol
---

darkjedilink posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Patchwork posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

But I aint got shit for solutions so

Why did they need to raid the house? We can start by re-assessing whether or not we need certain laws on the books that require cops do this (drug laws and other victimless crimes).

Drug dealing isn't a victim less crime.

It has far less victims than liquor stores and tobacco vendors.

lol

why are you laughing, he's not wrong.
---

Meanwhile police in every other developed country combined kill less people per year than US police

thronedfire2 posted...

Darkrobotisback posted...

It literally wasn't the cops fault.
Some asshole reported fraudulent information to the police, the police took that shit seriously and sent out the most heavily armed police force to deal with the situation.

But how the hell is immediately firing on a guy who opens the door the correct way to handle an unconfirmed hostage situation? Even if there really WAS a hostage situation, whats stopping the bad guy from having a hostage answer the door?

In this case, the police were "informed" that the felon "killed" his father. In that sense the SWAT team assumed Andrew Finch "was armed and dangerous, with the intention of killing other people to fulfill his rage".
---

You can shoot anyone you want if youre a cop and youre in fear for my life.
---

I don't blame the cop at all
The one who called the swat team is a murderer though
---

twitterfriends posted...

You can shoot anyone you want if youre a cop and youre in fear for my life.

You realize the swat team is only dispatched under the most serious felonies, right?
Whether it's an armed robbery, hostage negotiation to terrorist activities...
The swat team is dispatched to deal with these kind of situations, and they will use lethal force if they have to deter the threat from potentially harming other people.
---

Like was said before though, the bad guy could easily have a hostage open the door. Swat needs to think of these things

Im generally pro police, but I think swat teams have a hard on for jumping straight to the extreme, so Im against the practice in general
---

You'd think the police would evaluate situations and not just go in guns blazing on an anonymous tip. And you'd think they'd be accountable if they screwed up.

You'd think.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

You'd think the police would evaluate situations and not just go in guns blazing on an anonymous tip. And you'd think they'd be accountable if they screwed up.

You'd think.

The swat team operates in two ways.
-element of surprise
-find a way to neutralize the felon

The swat team, is less likely to negotiate with a "terrorist, armed robber, etc"
They might issue a warning through a megaphone and if the felon fails to comply, the swat team will breach the vicinity using military tactics.
---

Zikten posted...

Like was said before though, the bad guy could easily have a hostage open the door. Swat needs to think of these things

Zikten, the guy who goes on racist, antisemitic, cross site meltdowns on a monthly basis and them blames it on autism, thinks that he can tell anybody, let alone SWAT team members, how they should think.
---

omega cookie posted...

Zikten posted...

Like was said before though, the bad guy could easily have a hostage open the door. Swat needs to think of these things

I mean, logically...you hear a guy has weapons and hostages somewhere...do you honestly think the best way to think is "go in strong and shoot the first person you see move"? Your first priority (IMO) should definitely be the potential hostages and going all in so quick doesn't sound like the best way to prevent them from being hurt by a person who is threatening to hurt if his demands aren't met. I don't think its crazy to suggest that there was a much better way to handle this situation.
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

omega cookie posted...

Zikten posted...

Like was said before though, the bad guy could easily have a hostage open the door. Swat needs to think of these things

I mean, logically...you hear a guy has weapons and hostages somewhere...do you honestly think the best way to think is "go in strong and shoot the first person you see move"? Your first priority (IMO) should definitely be the potential hostages and going all in so quick doesn't sound like the best way to prevent them from being hurt by a person who is threatening to hurt if his demands aren't met. I don't think its crazy to suggest that there was a much better way to handle this situation.

They were told he had already killed his father. That's what SWAT is for. They are not negotiators, they get deployed to kill a threat before he kills more people. They don't walk up, knock politely, and say "Ummm, hi, are there any hostages in here?".

They are the end game. When they get told that a man has murdered his father, and is about to murder his hostages, they don't ask questions, they kill. Direct your anger at the person who made the call, not the guys doing what their training dictates.
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

omega cookie posted...

Zikten posted...

Like was said before though, the bad guy could easily have a hostage open the door. Swat needs to think of these things

I mean, logically...you hear a guy has weapons and hostages somewhere...do you honestly think the best way to think is "go in strong and shoot the first person you see move"? Your first priority (IMO) should definitely be the potential hostages and going all in so quick doesn't sound like the best way to prevent them from being hurt by a person who is threatening to hurt if his demands aren't met. I don't think its crazy to suggest that there was a much better way to handle this situation.

well from the way I heard of the story...
1.) Andrew "confessed" to the police (through the phone) that he killed his dad & he also "said" that his mom or brother might share the fate.
2.) the swat team arrived on scene, only to discover Andrew Finch "pulling out something from his sweater"

^the swat team must of assumed that Andrew Finch killed his family and was preparing to take on the police...
---

Darkrobotisback posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

You'd think the police would evaluate situations and not just go in guns blazing on an anonymous tip. And you'd think they'd be accountable if they screwed up.

You'd think.

The swat team operates in two ways.
-element of surprise
-find a way to neutralize the felon

The swat team, is less likely to negotiate with a "terrorist, armed robber, etc"
They might issue a warning through a megaphone and if the felon fails to comply, the swat team will breach the vicinity using military tactics.

And the police don't verify things? I can just say bad shit is happening and they'll have the SWAT team go shoot whoever they see there? It's terrifying how easy it is to turn the police into your personal hit squad.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Darkrobotisback posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

You'd think the police would evaluate situations and not just go in guns blazing on an anonymous tip. And you'd think they'd be accountable if they screwed up.

You'd think.

The swat team operates in two ways.
-element of surprise
-find a way to neutralize the felon

The swat team, is less likely to negotiate with a "terrorist, armed robber, etc"
They might issue a warning through a megaphone and if the felon fails to comply, the swat team will breach the vicinity using military tactics.

And the police don't verify things? I can just say bad shit is happening and they'll have the SWAT team go shoot whoever they see there? It's terrifying how easy it is to turn the police into your personal hit squad.

I don't think the police can verify such information without the help of a third party source (ISP, phone companies, etc).
But in the case of an emergency, verifying said information may take too long to process & the police is supposed to handle the situation ASAP.
---

Glad we have experts on CE telling SWAT how to do their jobs
---

Just to remind everyone. This wasnt a swat team. It was the local police department.
---

Nobody would be a cop if they had to worry about jail every time they dealt with trouble.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Patchwork posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

But I aint got shit for solutions so

Why did they need to raid the house? We can start by re-assessing whether or not we need certain laws on the books that require cops do this (drug laws and other victimless crimes).

Drug dealing isn't a victim less crime.

As Chris Rock said, "Drug dealers don't sell drugs, drug dealers offer drugs. Was you ever in your life not thinking about getting high and somebody sold you some fucking drugs? Hell no! Drug dealers be like 'Hey man, you want some smoke, you want some smoke?' You say 'No', that's it!"
---

I see responsibility for your own actions is still a concept some people have difficulty with.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Patchwork posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

But I aint got shit for solutions so

Why did they need to raid the house? We can start by re-assessing whether or not we need certain laws on the books that require cops do this (drug laws and other victimless crimes).

Drug dealing isn't a victim less crime.

I guess not if the police are literally killing people to try and enforce the law.

Trump's already got you covered
---

Darkrobotisback posted...

In this case, the police were "informed" that the felon "killed" his father. In that sense the SWAT team assumed Andrew Finch "was
armed and dangerous
, with the intention of killing other people to fulfill his rage".

Killing someone in a domestic dispute is a bit different from being an indiscriminate mass murderer.
---