Of course not. There's no lack of people who'd commit murder over the internet if they could.

I simply believe that the vast majority of the people engaging in this activity do not do so with the intention of actually killing the victim.

I don't expect there to be a significant decline in swattings.

I believe deaths caused by swattings are far too rare for that to be a common motivation.

Yeah, you're right. It's usually only people's pets that get killed. Or their kids that need to go to the ER with blown eardrums from flash bangs.

Just a "prank", for the most part... An entirely unforeseen circumstance and byproduct of merely trying to "inconvenience" the victim...

I'm not trying to play down swatting, I'm just saying that this:

>Trying to get the target "accidentally" shot is the entire point of SWATting.

Is usually not correct.

I agree: they literally don't give a shit whether someone is going to get shot or not. It's entirely abstract to them.

It seems like you've just completely blocked the possibility that this case will not go your way. You've repeatedly denied facts and evidences present in this tragedy, that a) calling SWAT will never be accepted as calling a hitman therefore no intent lies in itself other than pranking b) the victim was killed because he disobeyed an armed officer c) restrospectively prove intent to kill in all previous swat cases, which will have wide reaching political ramifications that go beyond just the individuals involved. d) the victim was unknown to the accused therefore impossible to claim any sort of aforethought and intent which both requires evidence.

So when you react with such vulgar statements and continually attack others who present facts and evidences against your conjecture, it's hard to take you seriously.

You keep thinking the accused somehow had blood lust without even looking at all the pieces. It's so easy to jump on the bandwagon, but there's always those that choose logic over passion, this is what the legal industry is about.