SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the yellow-stripe-down-the-back-of-the-uniform dept.
From the NY Daily News (and covered almost everywhere):
A Kansas man shot to death by police earlier this week was the victim of a misdirected online prank known as "swatting," according to social media chatter.
The victim, identified as Andrew Finch, was gunned down on Thursday night after cops responded to his Wichita home amid a false report that he had shot his father to death and was holding his mother, brother and sister hostage.
A responding officer fatally shot Finch, 28, when he came to the front door, Wichita deputy police chief Troy Livingston said during a press conference. Livingston declined to comment on what triggered the officer to open fire and would not say whether Finch was armed.
Police briefing (10m8s). Body camera footage (53s).
I'm speechless.
takyon: The swatting was quickly linked to a dispute between two Call of Duty players:
On Twitter, more than a dozen people who identified themselves as being in the gaming community told The Eagle that a feud between two Call of Duty players sparked one to initiate a "swatting" call. After news began to spread about what happened Thursday night, the people in the gaming community, through Twitter posts, pointed at two gamers.
"I DIDNT GET ANYONE KILLED BECAUSE I DIDNT DISCHARGE A WEAPON AND BEING A SWAT MEMBER ISNT MY PROFESSION," said one gamer, who others said made the swatting call. His account was suspended overnight.
According to posts on Twitter, two gamers were arguing when one threatened to target the other with a swatting call. The person who was the target of the swatting gave the other gamer a false address, which sent police to a nearby home instead of his own, according to Twitter posts. The person who was to be the target of the swatting sent a Tweet saying, "Someone tried to swat me and got an innocent man killed." [...] Dexerto, a online news service focused on gaming and the Call of Duty game, reported the argument began over a $1 or $2 wager over the game.
Update: 911 Call from suspect (4m58s).
Brian Krebs conversed with the apparent suspect over Twitter.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Demena on Saturday December 30 2017, @08:32AM (7 children)
Possibly not. He feared the result of swatting or he would not have given the false address. In giving false address he knew some random (?) would be placed under threat. The law would see him as contributory to the death in that he, and only he, chose and pointed out the eventual target. He isn't guilt free. Pity he didn't give the address of the local cop shop. 911 would have known it was a fake call then. I can't see cops swatting their own police station and they would be even more pissed at the hoax caller.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 30 2017, @09:42AM (6 children)
No. The cops are solely to blame for the killing. If the cops weren't so crappy and dangerous nobody would have been killed.
It would just be like a prankster reporting a fake fire at someone else's address. The firemen would arrive and they wouldn't immediately be spraying water at the house. And then the authorities go try to figure out who made the prank call to give him a fine and/or a jail sentence.
In contrast because the cops were cowards and incompetents (or evil) they arrived and started spraying bullets instead of "putting their lives on the line to serve and protect the public" and checking things out first.
The only reason why swatting is dangerous is because the cops are dangerous. The cops aren't supposed to be wild dangerous animals that a swatter can unleash on victims.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Saturday December 30 2017, @10:06AM (3 children)
This bears repeating.
Might I also add that what makes especially dangerous, compared to for example ISIS, is that they face ZERO fucking consequences.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 30 2017, @10:53AM (1 child)
Yeah the problem is the system encourages such behavior. Dangerous trigger happy cops get away with murder[1] while those with restraint are fired! https://www.npr.org/2016/12/08/504718239/military-trained-police-may-be-slower-to-shoot-but-that-got-this-vet-fired [npr.org]
[1] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/8/16752914/police-arizona-philip-brailsford-daniel-shaver [vox.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1pJe_Tcdeg [youtube.com]
In the video the cops were just looking for an excuse to kill the guy. You do NOT ask a potentially armed suspect to move and definitely not to move towards you. The only reason you would order them to move is if there was some other danger. You tell them to lie down, put their hands on their head and NOT to move. Then you approach from the side while your partner covers you. In that situation if the suspect moves his hands from his head suddenly then I'd say it's a justified shoot.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday January 02 2018, @04:04PM
Those with restraint are defended -- if their restraint harms an innocent person:
https://nypost.com/2013/01/27/city-says-cops-had-no-duty-to-protect-subway-hero-who-subdued-killer/ [nypost.com]
I think that's a particularly interesting case to compare to this one though. Media tells us the cops killed this innocent person because they were told he was a threat and he had hostages and the cops had to protect those people. And yet, when cops are standing idly by watching a man being stabbed to death, we're told they have no duty to protect anyone and they're perfectly free to just stand and watch if that's what they think is best.
So...which is it? Do they have a duty to protect -- in which case you can sue them for doing nothing while you get attacked? Or do they have no duty to protect -- in which case, they had no reason to go storming into this home and kill this guy. They could have just surrounded the house and waited outside with a bullhorn. Unfortunately, right now it seems that no matter what they do we're told they obeyed the rules, even when those rules are contradictory.
(Score: 2) by forkazoo on Saturday December 30 2017, @05:32PM
Also the fact that the cops are professionals that have applied, been selected, and been trained. It's not like cops are a representative sample of the population. Some teenagers are going to be idiotic shitheads that don't think about or understand the consequences of their actions. It sucks, but we kind of have to accept it. We can't just murder dumb kids to stop them from becoming teenagers, and you don't get to do psych evals before you let your kid get born. But we absolutely don't have to accept cops that kill people for no reason. We can change policy. We can change hiring standards. We can change training procedures.
At the end of the day, that cop that killed a guy was a volunteer who put himself in that position -- he didn't get drafted and he wasn't forced to be there. The guy who got shot had no idea what was happening. He should be held responsible.
(Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Sunday December 31 2017, @06:47AM
Neither your example or this incident qualifies as an innocent prank.
The prankster reporting a fake fire is putting other people at risk. For one, while firemen are going to a fake destination, people could be dying in a real fire at another location because they have no assistance.
I am of the opinion that the cops are likely at fault as well, but there was not enough info in the TFA to jump at that conclusion, so I presume that you are simply extrapolating from other unrelated incidents.
I did not exempt them from blame, hence "shared guilt".
(Score: 2) by Demena on Sunday December 31 2017, @08:08AM
If you had used the word fully rather than solely I would agree with you. They are fully guilty for several reasons. Even if all else was to be forgiven they shot a person who was more likely to be a hostage than a criminal.
However, this does not excuse others, shared guilt does not diminish guilt. Since federal swatting is a felony. The swatter has admitted to felony murder.
The person retaining him to swat is in the same position if commissioning a swat is a felony.
The person who re-directed the swat has certainly placed themselves in an invidious position. There are too many others things he could have done that did not involve risk to anyone.