OCer SWATted by Known Gun Control Loon

[C-dub]

much as I despise MAG, their methods and any groups that do SWATting

this guy was stopped by 4 cops.....he wasn't SWATed. now, the caller was probably attempting to SWAT, but failed, because it is stated, said caller is known to the police.

There were 6 LEOs in four cars. Sure, the result wasn't what the SWATer intended, but that's only because of the reasonable reaction of the police. Maybe they know the FBI stats and opinion on folks that open carry. I'm not sure the police knew who the caller was at the time of the call or before they made contact with the "robber."

[anygunanywhere]

much as I despise MAG, their methods and any groups that do SWATting

this guy was stopped by 4 cops.....he wasn't SWATed. now, the caller was probably attempting to SWAT, but failed, because it is stated, said caller is known to the police.

One word.

Intent.

[Cedar Park Dad]

While I sympathisize I don't think you'd find a DA born who would prosecute the instance you cited.

Whats the crime?

How are you going to prove it?

Providing false statement to the police.?
Abuse of 911?

There's certainly mens rea.

In this situation whats false:

If he reported a man with a gun that he thinks is robbing someone, absent some serious proof that he knowingly made a falsehead this gets instantly poured out. Plus the negative publicity on the prosecutor makes this politically untenable.

[Cedar Park Dad]

I don't know why anyone would assume there was no evidence. In addition to what is mentioned above, there is likely survalence video from the store showing the victim acting normally. If it came to a jury, there is plenty to show the person is lying.

That wouldn't matter. UNless you see the 911 standing there eating cheetoes and making a call, if it shows a guy with a gun then a major portion of his call is now supported.

Also likely, I bet the caller has a 911 call history as well as an online history that could be used against him.

Thats an assumption. Its also one that could get knocked out with a good defense attorney.

{quote]The main question in my mind is under what grounds could you sue the person? Can you sue for attempted murder? Harassment?[/quote]
You could sue over anything. Of course they can (and will) sue you right back.
A few years later after $50,000 to $250,000 less in the bank, you've won nothing.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Again, I should be clear. SWATTING is very dangerous and I agree its bull that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I just think in this fact pattern it would be difficult.

[anygunanywhere]

Again, I should be clear. SWATTING is very dangerous and I agree its bull that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I just think in this fact pattern it would be difficult.

We will not know for certain until some DA puts on his big boy pants and does his job. Citizens have been prosecuted with les evidence.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Again, I should be clear. SWATTING is very dangerous and I agree its bull that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I just think in this fact pattern it would be difficult.

We will not know for certain until some DA puts on his big boy pants and does his job. Citizens have been prosecuted with les evidence.

This is true.

[philip964]

http://bearingarms.com/fairfax-county-s ... n=baupdate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Says swatting incident is being investigated as a crime.

Also mentions where a swatting incident that lead to the death of two people in a Walmart. (man handling a bb gun sold by Walmart was shot by police after a caller said a man with an AK47 was pointing it at people) No one has be arrested for that incident, but apparently they know who made the call.

[Cedar Park Dad]

http://bearingarms.com/fairfax-county-s ... n=baupdate

Says swatting incident is being investigated as a crime.

God deal.

[MechAg94]

If all the caller stated was there was a guy with a gun with nothing else, then yeah, you have nothing to go on. If they stated the guy was robbing the store or doing some other criminal act without actuall witnessing that, I think it spills over into criminal and/or actionable behavior. It would depend on what specifically was said and the store video would help prosecute.

However, I agree with you that there is likely no financial incentive to sue especially if the victim was not affected beyond the temporary road side detention.

[Cedar Park Dad]

If all the caller stated was there was a guy with a gun with nothing else, then yeah, you have nothing to go on. If they stated the guy was robbing the store or doing some other criminal act without actuall witnessing that, I think it spills over into criminal and/or actionable behavior. It would depend on what specifically was said and the store video would help prosecute.

However, I agree with you that there is likely no financial incentive to sue especially if the victim was not affected beyond the temporary road side detention.

It would require more than that. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Just because a witness says they saw something, doen't mean 1) they didn't think they saw something; and 2) you can prosecute them for it. You'll need better proof than that.

[txglock21]

Did anyone listen to the 911 call that is about halfway through the article? Even the dispatcher thinks it is a "phony" call by the questions and answers given.

[RoyGBiv]

Did anyone listen to the 911 call that is about halfway through the article? Even the dispatcher thinks it is a "phony" call by the questions and answers given.

Disgusting.

[C-dub]

Did anyone listen to the 911 call that is about halfway through the article? Even the dispatcher thinks it is a "phony" call by the questions and answers given.

Yeah, it didn't take long for the dispatcher to become suspicious. I was hoping that as he was getting the caller's information he was going to have that bus stopped and have him questioned by a uniformed officer and arrested.

[Saffron]

Did anyone listen to the 911 call that is about halfway through the article? Even the dispatcher thinks it is a "phony" call by the questions and answers given.

Disgusting.

I'm disappointed some people actually defend the prosecutor sweeping this under the rug.