What happened to the civilian is a tragedy. He should not have been killed. But the person most at fault here is the one who lied and called in SWAT in the first place.
It completely mystifies me how people can think that people with guns were justified in fatally shooting someone with no guns. That kind of thing should just never happen, either subdue them or let them get away, why are you shooting them? What could they possibly have done, short of ran to the kitchen to get a knife and then ran back and tried to stab someone? How can you mistake anything someone unarmed does for a deadly threat?
What do you think will happen if a shirtless man on a porch a pulls a pistol, while you have your high powered rifle's scope locked on their chest while you are wearing body armor, positioned behind a police car, a few hundred feet away?
So yeah, I would say they should wait until a suspect starts shooting because they have an overwhelming tactical advantage. Yes, that's a risk because the guy on the porch might be John Wick or Jason Bourne or the Terminator, but most people, even most professional criminals, are not expert marksmen under any circumstances, let alone ones where they're at a large tactical disadvantage.
Next time you meet a cop socially, ask them if criminals are smart or supervillains 'like in the movies' The cop will laugh and regale you with stories of how dumb and inept most criminals are. Police know perfectly well that most people don't have a clue, are easily intimidated by police, and not super-skilled. Sure, they have to consider the small number of dangerous exceptions, but overstating the risk factors is also a really convenient way to get off the hook for their own poor firing discipline.
Yeah, but I don't think that's reasonable to do. If you live in the U.S. you know this is a problem, choosing to still do it is more damning.
I'm not arguing that they should. I'm saying that they are, and having knowledge that they are makes the one calling in the threat seriously in the wrong. I can't stress enough, the caller's twitter handle is SWauTistic. They know full well what they're doing.
A person's bare hands can represent a deadly threat if he is close enough. Not that that was the case in this situation.
> But the person most at fault here is the one who lied and called in SWAT in the first place.
This I absolutely agree with.
We're talking about literally a life or death situation here. Why on earth would you assume anything, rather than being cautious and trying to confirm for sure what the situation actually is?
How about not assuming anything until you have more information to go on? The fake caller is definitely at fault here, and so are the police.
I disagree.