As there should be repercussions. I believe I said that in one of my earlier comments (possibly on a different thread) My entire statement is that, based on information given to the police by the caller (prankster), police have to be prepared for the worst (crazed armed terrorist). That in no way excuses firing on an unarmed individual, or even an armed individual that isn't posing a threat. This comment thread stemmed from discussing the inherent flaws in the system of emergency reporting, and why police respond so extremely. I am merely making the point that in the case of a report coming in that turns out to be true, police need to be prepared for anything. But the police firing, is beyond reproach, and the police should be punished right along side the false caller.

I don't think I really follow your LOAC example. I have operated under the LOAC during OIF, so I am somewhat familiar with them. They typically outline engage only when engaged upon. Which is what I have supported throughout my comments.

If you could, please clarify how my analysis doesn't make sense. I could attempt to clarify myself.