My ex was career military, in the infantry. One day when the news was on and talking about the war on drugs and how we should bring in the military to help with the war on drugs, he commented that it isn't what the world wants. The police are trained to wound you and take you alive. The military is trained to shoot to kill and, no, you aren't going to successfully short circuit that training for some short term assignment as a police adjunct unit.

A kinder, gentler SWAT team is one not actually prepared for the serious situations they are intended to be called in for. If you think that works, you just have no idea whatsoever what it takes to be both psychologically and logistically prepared for surviving and triumphing when facing genuine deadly force.

The military is trained to engage a motivated organized enemy force. This is very different.

Police, including SWAT, should always assume people are innocent. And they should always strive to minimize violence, if you can avoid pulling your gun out it's a lot safer for everybody, cops and criminals alike.

Let's not pretend that there are many elaborate well armed hostage situations like you see on TV. Mostly it's drunk deranged desperate people who needs to be talked out of a bad situation. Few hostage situations are organized, most of them are just sad cases...

> The police are trained to wound you and take you alive

No, the police are trained (correctly) that any shooting is shooting to kill. There have been various people arguing that the US military rules of engagement are actually stricter than the police ones, e.g. http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/03/deadly_f... - because the military operating in Afghanistan are dependent on the fragile support of the local population.

Edit: the rules of engagement used by the British Army in the occupation policing of Northern Ireland: http://mikeb302000.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/rules-of-engagemen... - these required at least one of positive identification of a weapon, incoming fire, or a verbal warning.

Meanwhile, it is perfectly possible for cops in just about any other western country not to routinelly shoot unarmed people.

One reason swatting is not done so much in Europe is that cops react in much different way.

Oh, so, in other words, you are suggesting that part of the reason it happens in the US is precisely because of the possibility that it will turn deadly. That this creates a thrill for the caller lacking in other countries.

And somehow in your mind this makes the caller less guilty of the death that results.

No: in other countries, they wouldn't send trigger-happy ninjas based solely on a dubious phone call.

In the few worse cases, it will mean some lost time, because the first responder cops will have to wait for assault teams. But in the 95% cases were a SWAT team wasn't need, it prevents unnecessarily violence escalation. And there are many more lives saved by non-escalation than lives lost to intervention delays.

Also, SWAT teams are considered elite forces (almost?) everywhere; but in some countries, elitism is based on sharpshooting abilities, in some others it's based on good judgement, clear-headedness and restrain.

My reply is to this:

One reason swatting is not done so much in Europe

Swatting is the act of making the prank call. It has nothing to do with how the SWAT team handles it. Nowhere have I argued that European police wouldn't have handled it better. That is a completely separate question from the question of how often these calls get made and why.

If you swat in most of Europe, all you'll get is a police patrol ring at the victim's doorbell, and politely enquire about the situation.

That's pretty anti-climatic, as a prank, and that's why nobody will bother making it.

For like the umpteenth time in this discussion: How on earth is that justification for not holding the caller responsible for their role in this death?

It has a lot to do with how police react. It is done to elicit aggressive response to punish victim for whatever. It was not done for fun here.

My position is that the caller needs to be held responsible. If you agree that it was not done for fun, then I really don't know why you are arguing with me at all. Everything you have said agrees that the caller acted with malice aforethought. I cannot comprehend how you think that justifies letting him off the hook.

General police violence in the US is not a justification for saying the caller should not be held responsible for their part in this.

It does not matter whather you punish him or how much all that much. The root cause is how police systematically reacts, how afraid they are and how little they value citizens lives.

I don't see people saying he should not be punished. They say that cops needs to change.

Focusing on his punishment is like adding yet another hack into badly engineered system - it makes people feel good and makes one bug go away, but it does nothing to address root cause which is bad system.

Look, I quoted what I was responding to, which was someone saying that the guilt of this guy was essentially irrelevant. They have since changed their remark.

Me asserting that it isn't okay to let him off the hook is not the same as me saying the system as a whole is fine and does not need reform.

Arguing with me from that angle amounts to putting words in my mouth.

That is a personal attack and insubstantive comment.

Well, its kind of personal, but not meant as an attack. I find this style of communications dishonest, since non of what you wrote was reflected in either of the parent statements. You comments usually tend to be more thoughtful and reflected than that.

Gosh, thanks for recognizing that I am usually thoughtful and then not giving me the benefit of the doubt before launching a dismissive volley.

> The police are trained to wound you and take you alive.

Police should be trained not to rely on firearms. The gun is a last-ditch option to protect the cop's life, not a way to neutralise citizens.

When a police officer shoots, he ought to shoot to kill, because there are very few and extreme situations that grant him the legitimacy to shoot. Very few officers experience such situations, not even once in their career.

Policing has very little in common with soldiering, and vice-versa (although we wrongfully use our soldiers as cops in foreign countries, with unsurprisingly poor results).

> you just have no idea whatsoever what it takes to be both psychologically and logistically prepared

And you do? Based on which expertise.

> A kinder, gentler SWAT team is one not actually prepared for the serious situations

This is false dichotomy , nobody is asking for 'kinder,gentler' swat team, we are asking for professional who can professionally appraised the situation before using lethal force. It's about precision not about kindness whatever that means in this context.