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: 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.