SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A New Jersey state legislator who is sponsoring a bill against swatting, has himself been swatted:
According to a report by NJ.com, Moriarty received a phone call at his home on Saturday from a police officer asking if everything was okay; the assemblyman was then informed that someone had anonymously called in a report of a shooting at the home. He was then told to describe his clothing and step outside, where he saw a crowd of officers armed with "helmets, flak jackets and rifles."
There was no mention if the legislator questioned the over-militarizing of the police or no-knock raids...
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
New Jersey Legislator Who Sponsored Anti-Swatting Bill Gets Swatted
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 47 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You can't have your cake and let your neighbor eat it too.
-- Ayn Rand
(Score: 3, Interesting) by gmrath on Friday April 17 2015, @12:07AM
Wow. Maybe understanding what "SWATing" is can help. An anonymous phone call (or e-mail, or text message, et cetera) is made to law enforcement saying some horrific crime is happening Right-This-Minute at this-and-that address of a (generally) innocent party. Then stand back and watch the show. Maybe it's just "I'm really going to fuck that asshole I can't stand." Even more sinister is what's happening in my neck of the woods, a state that's recently passed concealed-carry legislation. Anti-gun activists really, really don't like guns for what ever reason (probably because they were frightened by the cap pistols their parents wouldn't let them have when they were kids) call the cops (again, anonymously) reporting a gun-related crime in progress giving YOUR location and YOUR description simply because they think you might be carrying a weapon (legally or not) and they really hate that. I'll bet that will teach YOU, a responsible citizen, a lesson for wanting to defend yourself and your family when you're taken down in public and arrested. This is a tactic reportedly used by the more radical anti-gun groups. The research on this is left as an exercise. The internet is a wonderful thing.
Then, there's some talk in my state of making firearm ownership a matter of public record and in addition, if someone suspects you are up to no good ( planning a robbery, a murder, some terrorism, or a potential suicide, or throwing grass clippings over the fence, or stealing candy from babies, or "I really hate that asshole neighbor down the block and I see he's listed as a firearms owner, so I'm going to fuck him"; well, you get the idea) they call the cops (anonymously, of course) and your weapons will be forcibly confiscated for some as yet to be determined amount of time. Which seems like a violation of one or more of your Constitutional rights.
It's not the police. Law enforcement just cannot take a chance the report is a malicious act and not legit with lives in danger. The folks that make these (anonymous) calls should be held accountable, if they can be identified, and charged with a felony. When you're targeted by these whack-a-doodles and the police show up in force, one teeny-tiny mistake on your part and it could be a really bad day.
The matter of the militarization of law enforcement is a real concern and should be debated in the public forum. All firearms-related legislation should be debated in public and not settled behind closed doors by grandstanding politicians pandering to activist lobbies.
Now, I must attend to my arsenal and fondle my firearms.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday April 17 2015, @12:27AM
> An anonymous phone call
Actually, swatting only works if the caller has enough knowledge to fool the 911's caller ID (why isn't that a federal offense?).
Maybe the cops need better 911 systems, which would stop the problem at the dispatcher. Barring that, they should really think twice before pulling out the big guns.
In this case, the cops did the right thing by calling the guy and asking him to step out. But he's a legislator, not the average Joe who doesn't answer his phone during his online game.
Your rant about extremists going after your guns is a nice bout of paranoia. You seem to forget that most cops are sympathetic to legal gun ownership.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @12:57AM
Actually, swatting only works if the caller has enough knowledge to fool the 911's caller ID (why isn't that a federal offense?).
Easy way around this -- I suspect that many of the callers are close to the victims, for the same reasons that much violence is "domestic". All they have to do is visit the Swatee (intended victim), chat for a bit, squirm for a moment and then ask to use the bathroom, make the call on an extension phone in another room...and then quickly exit stage left.
(Score: 2, Informative) by redneckmother on Friday April 17 2015, @01:06AM
Very astute!
I am SO tired of news reports referring to a collection of four or five firearms as an "arsenal".
Many responsible firearms owners have multiple firearms:
A small caliber pistol for rodents. A small caliber rifle for long-range rodents or small game hunting. A large(r) caliber pistol for self defense, or perhaps hunting. A shotgun (or two or three, of differing gauges) for rodent, intruder, or predator control and hunting. A large(ish) caliber rifle (or two or more) for self defense, hunting, etc. High capacity magazines for appropriate weapons are common sense.
As I was taught many years ago (by parents, family members, and my firearms safety officer), "Use the appropriate tool for the job."
I consider FOUR firearms in one's possession to be a "minimum complement".
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @04:43AM
Exactly how much trouble are you expecting, son?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @05:15AM
As I was taught many years ago (by parents, family members, and my firearms safety officer), "Use the appropriate tool for the job."
You forgot your gun salesman...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @07:04AM
Now, I must attend to my arsenal and fondle my firearms.
Very astute!
I am SO tired of news reports referring to a collection of four or five firearms as an "arsenal".
You missed the significant part of this: is it not the number, it is the "fondling". Do you have sex with your firearms? Do you enjoy Gladiator movies or any of Frank Miller's work? Have you ever fantacized about being a manly man in a situation where a manly man may need a firearm to compensate for, let's say, masculine inadequacy? We all really want to know. (But actually, this is sick, dude!)
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday April 17 2015, @11:26AM
I agree that 4-5 guns isn't a big problem (provided they're properly stored and maintained - no more stories of 6-year-olds accidentally blowing somebody's head off please).
There are private arsenals though: Owners with closer to 100 firearms in their possession and a group of people who intend to use them in the race war / revolution / apocalypse. Many of them don't entirely recognize the authority of the US government and the government of their state to impose laws on them and their group. That kind of person seriously concerns me, because of how many innocent people will be killed if they try to accomplish their stated goals.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @06:57AM
really don't like guns for what ever reason
No, wrong, you are an ammosexual! It is not that people do not like guns, it is that they do not like the lily-livered cowards who think they need guns to protect themselves from the phantoms of their fevered imaginations! And I cannot think of a more fitting case of justice than to call down a SWAT team on such a paranoid danger to society. Except that even being a paranoid coward gun-loving idiot does not deserve a death sentence, at least without a trial.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 20 2015, @11:42AM
It's not the police.
The police are not a forced of nature; they are responsible for their own actions, even if they're 'just following orders'.
Law enforcement just cannot take a chance the report is a malicious act and not legit with lives in danger.
Nonsense. Responding with such overwhelming force without confirming anything is disgusting and anti-freedom. Using this logic, they should harass absolutely everyone in existence, because the chance that any given person could be a terrorist is non-zero, and no risk is too small.
Sadly, the ignorant general public can't see that their expectations are bullshit.