You know what confuses me?
A dispatcher can send cops to the wrong house, they go in and kill the residents who were defending themselves, and it's the cops who are prosecuted and not the dispatcher.
๐ณ๐ฑ
@realcaseyrollins Why would the dispatcher be prosecuted? Its the cops that decided to open fire on someone who was innocent, which is the criminal offense. It is not a criminal offense to misspeak an address.
@freemo If they had gone to the right house, and a homeowners shot at the cops when they broke in, and if a cop killed that person in response, would you still hold this position?
I like to think about these situations from the perspectives of the folks involved. The homeowners who aren't wanted by the police probably think they're being intruded upon, and rightfully so. The police officers think they're going into a dangerous situation with a likely capable criminal, also rightfully so.
If they had gone to the right house, and a homeowners shot at the cops when they broke in, and if a cop killed that person in response, would you still hold this position?
In botht he situation where it is the correct house vs the incorrect house the answer is the same.
If the cops clearly announced themselves, as they are required by law, and the tenants heard them, and it was clear they heard them, and they shot and killed an officer, then the tenants are guilty regardless.
The corrolary is also true, if the cops entered without clearly announcing themselves and there is no clear indication their announcement was heard, then the cops are not allowed to draw weapons or enter the home. If they do, and the tenant gets shot then the cops should go to jail for murder.
The dispatcher has nothing to do with the situation, nor does it even matter if the house is correct so far as the murder itself goes. The only different it makes that hte house is incorrect is with regards to a breaking an enterning charge. The murder is unrelated in my eyes.
All the while, this could be solved by sending police officers to the correct locations.
The problem with chain-of-guilt thinking is there is an infinite chain of decisions where any one of them could have prevented an outcome… the police made an error if they didnt announce themselves resulting in death, dispatcher made an error that resulted in death, the phone company may have been in error for having shitty noice, maybe the person who told the dispatcher made a mistake, hell even the parents of the cops/criminals are to blame for having kids if you get pedantic enough.
Guilt should be held relative to the magnitude of the error, not the outcome. Whhy should someone who accidentally states abad address go to jail for manslaughter just because the cops happened to murder someone where the exact same mistake some other day could result in no problems at all… The idea that the results of your actions should dictate the pentalty, rather than the action itself, is a silly and misguided one to me.
\
@freemo Well, to your point I guess removing no-knock warrants could solve these problems, although those are primarily the situations I was thinking of when I wrote this.
Int he case of no knowck warrants citizwens, whether guilty or innocent, should be allowed to be legally in the clear shouldthey shoot any and all of the officers dead, so long as no announcement that they were officers were made.
Obviously this assumes they have their weapons legally. Most criiminals would not and makes a lot of this moot, but if they break into the wrong address the citizenry very well may be legally armed. This ensures the cop is responsible for making sure it the correct address or risk forfeiting their life, as should be the case.
@freemo Very good points here.