http://barnespc.com/blog/2011/10/converting-a-fifth-amendment-invocation-into-a-negative-inference/

Generally speaking, you are responsible if someone is injured, you have taken some action without that person would not have been injured, it was forseeable that the injury would occur, *and the injury was not caused by someone else’s intervening bad conduct*.

So here’s how I see the difference: in the SWATting case, not only are the police acting in a forseeable fashion, but they’re also acting in a non-blameworthy fashion. They are predictably acting to defend themselves from a reasonably perceived threat.

In the outing case you pose, the people assaulting the outed man may be acting in a forseeable fashion, but they’re also acting in a fashion which we (rightly) expect them not to act in; they are choosing to assault someone, rather than defending themselves.

So while the person responsible for the outing is *morally* blameworthy, I don’t think he’s *legally* blameworthy, because the voluntary action of the assaulters causes all of the legal blame to accrue to them. However, in the case of the police, the situation is different; the police are acting rationally to defend themselves from a reasonably perceived threat … and so all of the moral *and* legal blame attaches to the person who constructed the situation.

SWATing involves lying to the police to get them to think someone is highly dangerous; doing so creates a serious risk that the police will misinterpret innocent actions on the part of the victim and overreact to them. It’s not nonviolent; it’s simply using an unwitting accomplice to enact the violence on your behalf.

Comment by aphrael (5d993c) — 11/29/2012

What if someone outted someone in hopes that they were subject to harassment like SWATting? What would their liabilities be if such harassment led to a death or an injury?

And I’m not attempting to equate a pizza delivery prank with SWATting in terms of potentially dangerous outcomes.

Of course not. I don’t think anything you said suggested that.

It touched a nerve with me, however, as this is the industry in which I work. I knew the young man in that story that was killed

I’m very sorry, friend.

Icy – I added to the diversion, but sometimes I think there’s a danger that if left uncorrected people may think that some of the completely unsupported BS that Milhouse says here may actually be true.

IGOT – Which business has razor thin margins, the clothing designer/manufacturer or retailer? Are you seriously telling me that a company does not have a duty to investigate whether a supplier has the ability or capacity to actually fulfill a contract before it is awarded, that it is not just operating out of a garage? Just imagine the conversation Boss to subordination: Who did you award the contract for semiconductor powered fall dress line to?

The lowest bidder

Who were they?

Never heard of them before, but they offered the lowest price.

Have they ever filled a contract of this size or type before, how big is their factory, how many employees do they have?

Uhhhh?

We had this discussion on this blog when Leviticus brought it up in connection with bleeding hearts complaining about sweat shops overseas.

I don’t know what kind of businesses you’ve worked for, but you and Millhouse both seem blissfully unaware of processes businesses commonly go through qualify vendors. That qualification process has a multitude a purposes beyond mere reputation management, including compliance with laws, ensuring continuity of supply and non-interruption of business, and ensuring the delivery of the quality of goods or services contracted.

You flunked Business 101.

That’s a pretty silly remark, and I think it’s only possible to view SWATing as nonviolent if you have no familiarity with press coverage of interactions between police and people they think are highly dangerous.

SWATing involves lying to the police to get them to think someone is highly dangerous; doing so creates a serious risk that the police will misinterpret innocent actions on the part of the victim and overreact to them. It’s not nonviolent; it’s simply using an unwitting accomplice to enact the violence on your behalf.