bignflnut wrote:When my original comment was made, I quoted schmieg who suggested that Swatting be a specific criminal offense, so we were very much on topic. "False" report would be the point that defense attorneys would make, as djthomas is picking it apart. True, these are laypeople, if you wish, who do not comprehend the legal ramifications of what they're saying. Ignorance is the defense, then? Intent? Does anyone care why you're filing a false report? It is or it isn't false. Shall we allow misinformed people to make false reports? Shall we accept false reports from people who don't intend harm?
In criminal cases mens rea is something the state must convince the jury of beyond a reasonable doubt. By and large society seems to do alright with this arrangement. Does it get it right 100% of the time? Nope.
BTW when I said laypeople I didn't mean in terms of the law. Most people know it's illegal to make a false report. But they are usually not trained in handling stressful situations and maintaining their wits about them. Tunnel vision creeps in. People get in a car accident and forget where they are or even which direction they were headed, even though they drive that stretch of road twice a day, five days a week. People see a guy with a gun and honestly believe they see things happening that really aren't. That's life.*
You are right, the report is either false or it isn't, but the law isn't that simple. Whether the reporter reasonably knew its veracity is the crux of the matter.** I'd like to see a defense attorney seriously raise that in the Kansas incident. What I suspect will happen is minimization and deflection: of course he knew it was false, but he was just joking around, he had no idea it would evoke such a strong law enforcement response, etc.
* I totally expect the police to account for this in their response, however.
** This protects the average citizen far more than it protects the average criminal by the way.