Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Thursday April 16 2015, @09:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the just-desserts dept.

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This discussion has been archived.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.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Thursday April 16 2015, @09:43PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday April 16 2015, @09:43PM (#171744) Journal

    The legislator in question has successfully fought [nj.com] an illegal DWI stop, and the officer who stopped him faced 14 criminal charges instead, before being acquitted [nj.com] in March. The case has made New Jersey headlines since July 2012.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @05:45AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @05:45AM (#171900)

      What a mess. No wonder so many kids want to go to law school...

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday April 16 2015, @10:04PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday April 16 2015, @10:04PM (#171752) Journal

    The more the police state can be turned against itself, the better. The idiots passing these laws in their sleep ought feel the pointy end of the spear early, and often.

    Someday soon, the bankers who pull their strings will wake up to justice, too, and it will be a happy day for mankind.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 1) by SubiculumHammer on Thursday April 16 2015, @10:06PM

      by SubiculumHammer (5191) on Thursday April 16 2015, @10:06PM (#171753)

      This the type of thing that brings on calls to police the internet instead of the real problem: militarized police.

      • (Score: 2) by fishybell on Thursday April 16 2015, @10:08PM

        by fishybell (3156) on Thursday April 16 2015, @10:08PM (#171755)

        I'm fairly certain that in this day and age any formal and recognized policing of the internet would just result in a internet protest, and no one in charge would care. When the internet can give you everything you want (except freedom), why bother fighting?

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by snick on Thursday April 16 2015, @10:17PM

      by snick (1408) on Thursday April 16 2015, @10:17PM (#171758)

      Seriously messed up dude.

      Swatting should be treated as attempted murder.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday April 16 2015, @10:43PM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 16 2015, @10:43PM (#171766) Journal

        Swatting should be treated as attempted murder.

        Pragmatical: how is this to be enforced? By de-anonymising the emergency callers? Are you sure you want that?
        (extra time required for passing on the identity of the caller and the operator to certify it; increased reluctance/unwilligness of witnesses to report an incident if not anonymous; etc)

        When the actual problem is: why do you need a militarized team as the very first step in investigating an incident? Isn't a more gradual reaction possible?

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday April 16 2015, @10:46PM

          by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 16 2015, @10:46PM (#171768)

          Pragmatical: how is this to be enforced? By de-anonymising the emergency callers? Are you sure you want that?

          If this keeps up, the answer to that question won't matter.

          --
          🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
          • (Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday April 16 2015, @11:43PM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 16 2015, @11:43PM (#171785) Journal

            Pragmatical: how is this to be enforced? By de-anonymising the emergency callers? Are you sure you want that?

            If this keeps up, the answer to that question won't matter.

            I'm assuming the "it" (that you refer as "keeping up") is the swatting. If I'm right, then the next thoughts (somehow in the "critical" category) that cross my mind are:

            • ownership of firearms is regulated already. Have this stopped the use of firearms for criminal purposes? (of course not. So why should I expected swatting to stop because of extra regulation? The criminals aren't going to care anyway)
            • If you only have a hammer, all the problems look like nails. Is it impossible to invent other less dangerous tools which could be used instead of the SWAT team [forbes.com]?

            Further reading - a 2006 (that's 9 years ago) report on the SWAT uses Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America 2006 [cato.org] (PDF warning: small footprint - 1.64 MB, but 103 pages). Some excerpts for your convenience:

            [PDF page 12] - In 1997 alone, the Pentagon handed over more than 1.2 million pieces of military equipment to local police departments.

            [PDF page 15] - By the early 1980s there were 3,000 annual SWAT deployments, by 1996 there were 30,000, and by 2001 there were 40,000.[...]
            In small- to medium-sized cities, Kraska estimates that 80 percent of SWAT callouts are now for warrant service. In large cities, it’s about 75 percent. These numbers, too, have been on the rise since the early 1980s. Orange County, Florida, deployed its SWAT team 619 times during one five-year period in the 1990s. Ninety-four percent of those call- outs were to serve search warrants, not for hostage situations or police standoffs.

            [PDF page 17] - SWAT teams are now being used to respond even to calls about angry dogs and domestic disputes.

            [PDF page 20] - More evidence for the effect militarization is having on the mindset of civilian police offi- cers can be found in the words and actions of civilian officers and police officials themselves. Los Angeles police chief Daryl Gates, for exam- ple, once suggested that casual drug use amounts to “treason,” and that offenders should be “be taken out and shot.”

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Friday April 17 2015, @12:14AM

              by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 17 2015, @12:14AM (#171795)

              I'm assuming the "it" (that you refer as "keeping up") is the swatting.

              Correct! I do want to be clear, though, that I'm all for de-militarizing the police force. My response has more to do with what we can expect the actual reaction to be. Swatting won't bring us any closer to that change happening. Instead they're going to try to find the easiest solution to the problem, and de-anonymizing 911 and punishing offenses with a fine might actually be it. I'm not advocating it, I'm saying that the people trying to make that statement by abusing that service will have as much luck as somebody curing their RSI by typing up a lengthy essay about it.

              --
              🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday April 17 2015, @12:43AM

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 17 2015, @12:43AM (#171802) Journal

                My response has more to do with what we can expect the actual reaction to be. Swatting won't bring us any closer to that change happening.

                I concur.
                Now, couple it with "Criminalizing swatting won't stop it" and (re)consider, for example, (the "generalized you" here) how willing are you to disclose your private info (e.g. address) on social media (security - trade-off between your protection cost and the attacker cost).

                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                • (Score: 2) by Tork on Friday April 17 2015, @12:52AM

                  by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 17 2015, @12:52AM (#171806)

                  Now, couple it with "Criminalizing swatting won't stop it" ...

                  I'm not quite with you on this one. We may have to agree to disagree, but I think if they de-anonymized it *and* made sure that you'd get punished even if you, for example, swatted somebody in Florida from a computer in Alaska, that a couple of high-profile busts would dramatically reduce swatting. I'll concede that it's unlikely that last stipulation would make it, though.

                  --
                  🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @12:57AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @12:57AM (#171811)

                    First, these fools won't be able to de-anonymize it. Second, people will, of course, ignore the law. We already know that Tough On Crime doesn't do shit.

                  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday April 17 2015, @01:07AM

                    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 17 2015, @01:07AM (#171818) Journal

                    I'm not quite with you on this one. We may have to agree to disagree, but I think if they de-anonymized it *and* made sure that you'd get punished even if you, for example, swatted somebody in Florida from a computer in Alaska, that a couple of high-profile busts would dramatically reduce swatting.

                    New business segment opens to Russian hackers: SWAT your neighbour for only $50 - you know you can't do it yourself anymore. Serious discount for bulk-buying.
                    New business segment opens to Russian mafia: "pay your ransom or get swatted - a minor inconvenience. But ignore us twice, we'll frame you as the caller... just be reasonable, why risk jail?".

                    --
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 2) by tathra on Friday April 17 2015, @01:53AM

              by tathra (3367) on Friday April 17 2015, @01:53AM (#171840)

              Los Angeles police chief Daryl Gates, for exam- ple, once suggested that casual drug use amounts to “treason,” and that offenders should be “be taken out and shot.”

              if only he really thought this, then he'd be shooting alcoholics and cigarette smokers; i have no doubt the asshole drinks alcohol and probably smokes too, making him just another violent hypocrite. instead what he means is that he thinks any use of drugs that aren't blessed by the state is deserving of execution, while abusing state-blessed drugs like alcohol is fine even if they're far more toxic to the both the individual and society. this dumbass has completely drank the DEA cool-aid and does no thinking for himself. at least some of his coworkers [www.leap.cc] and former coworkers are sensible people who put facts and evidence over transparent propaganda.

              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday April 17 2015, @02:10AM

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 17 2015, @02:10AM (#171847) Journal

                making him just another violent hypocrite

                Interesting, isn't it? I mean, the linked Cato report.

                if only he really thought this, then he'd be shooting alcoholics and cigarette smokers

                You can include food in the highly addictive substances class: you mother gets you used with it after birth and if you cease taking it regularly all your life, well... nasty withdraw symptoms, comma then death are sure to happen.
                Even more, I hear the addiction is transmitted from mother to the unborn baby during pregnancy!!!

                (Offtopic: there may be a point into the above madness.
                After all, we humans are sacks of chemicals [xkcd.com], which is awful indeed.
                My point: don't you dare tell me that smoking kills - I know it already, just let my tobacco alone, will you?)

                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                • (Score: 2) by tathra on Friday April 17 2015, @04:39AM

                  by tathra (3367) on Friday April 17 2015, @04:39AM (#171882)

                  My point: don't you dare tell me that smoking kills - I know it already, just let my tobacco alone, will you?

                  i don't give a fuck if you use nicotine, so long as you don't use it in a way that forces me to do it too, ie, don't smoke or vape it in my breathing space. drugging somebody against their will is never acceptable.

                  at any rate, my point is that if they're going to be all, "Drugs are the devil! Drug users are sub-human scum that should be executed!" they need to apply it to all drugs, or none. it'd be one thing if the drug laws were actually based on safety and scientific studies instead of racism; it'd also be something if drug laws were uniformly enforced [www.leap.cc] instead of selectively enforced almost exclusively against non-whites.

                  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday April 17 2015, @05:03AM

                    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 17 2015, @05:03AM (#171889) Journal
                    Got that, my message was tongue-in-cheek anyway (an extrapolation of your comment I was replying to, I hoped with good signal of agreement). My apologies for not being explicit.
                    (not to worry, I do take care about others while smoking).
                    --
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday April 16 2015, @11:10PM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday April 16 2015, @11:10PM (#171770) Homepage
        Not attempted murder, just reckless endangerment. Because that's exactly what it is, to the letter.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 16 2015, @11:13PM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday April 16 2015, @11:13PM (#171772)

        You want to charge all the cops? Because they're the ones who go insane when they have no evidence of anything. Or do you think the cops should have no responsibility for their own actions (even if they're being required to go to the scene), and that we should just ignore the fact that we know people sometimes lie? That fails to deal with the underlying problem: The cops resort to overwhelming force without understanding the situation.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Soybean on Thursday April 16 2015, @11:34PM

          by Soybean (5020) on Thursday April 16 2015, @11:34PM (#171784)

          > The cops resort to overwhelming force without understanding the situation

          It's OK, they are just following procedure. And sadly, we can't really expect anything more of them than to follow procedure because procedure is what gives them CYA.

          The problem is "procedure" was designed for one specific worst-case movie-plot scenario - psyscho killer who will immediately murder his hostages once he finds out the cops are outside. I don't really know, but my gut says that's probably the rarest actual scenario in real-life.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday April 16 2015, @11:32PM

        by frojack (1554) on Thursday April 16 2015, @11:32PM (#171781) Journal

        Swatting should be treated as attempted murder.

        Put just passing a bill that goes after the phony swat report, while doing noting about police seal-team-6 tactics based on some random internet untraceable phone call is just wrong.
        They don't have to bust down doors, throw stun grenades, come in with heavy weapons and assault shields on only one person's untraceable phone call.

        Cops can find better ways to determine if there is a real need for SWAP, via a multitude of methods, from simple drive-by observance, phone call into the premises,
        or just park the swat truck outside, and send a single armored officer to knock on the door, or yell through a megaphone. And when Joe Boxer comes out looking all surprised, and unarmed, they still have no reason to throw him to the ground, cuff him (for is OWN protection!!) and slap him in the backseat of a squad car while they toss the entire house.

        Maybe they need to take a lesson from Lt. Gen. Russel Honore who was tasked with leading federal troops to help rescue thousands still stranded in New Orleans days after the storm. Honore took pains to treat the residents like civilians, not criminals. He ordered weary police officers and his own soldiers to keep their guns pointed down and reminded his troops they were in an American city, not war-torn Iraq.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @05:47AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @05:47AM (#171901)

        Swatting should be treated as attempted murder.

        We should be able to trust the police to investigate alleged criminal activity without assuming they will kill innocent people.

        It could be considered attempted murder if police are assumed to be incompetent, but then whats the point in prosecuting a prankster in that sort of a society...

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday April 17 2015, @07:00AM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday April 17 2015, @07:00AM (#171921) Journal

        So...rather than saying, "Hey, maybe we shouldn't send a SWAT team absolutely every time and go in with guns blazing," or, "Hey, maybe taking a Fallujah approach to policing is a bad idea and will lead to bad, bad things," it's, "Seriously messed up dude?"

        What is seriously messed up is that people across the land aren't jumping up and down and screaming about people in authority being totally out of control. You used to have a right to due process of law. Now you get a military strike team crashing through your door and throwing grenades into your baby's crib. And none of the punters says, "Seriously messed up dude" to that? You have cops strangling people to death *on camera* and then the cops don't even get indicted and none of the wags says, "Seriously messed up dude" to that either?

        Where are the criminal syndicates who have been running the police departments and courts in Missouri as for-profit extortion rackets being perp-walked into federal courthouses? I mean, it was the Justice Department of the United States itself that reported that, and they. Have. Done. Nothing. Zero. Entire swaths of a major state in this country caught dead to rights acting like the mafia, and they have done fuck all.

        That, my friend, is what I would call "Seriously messed up dude."

        So when the legislators who visit these nightmares straight out of Stalinist Russia on the citizens of the United States get a little taste of their own medicine, then I say it's about freaking time. More, please. Let them suffer the consequences of their actions and choices for once, instead of merely dishing it out to people who can't fight back.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by gmrath on Friday April 17 2015, @12:07AM

      by gmrath (4181) on Friday April 17 2015, @12:07AM (#171792)

      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

        by bob_super (1357) on Friday April 17 2015, @12:27AM (#171799)

        > 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

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @12:57AM (#171810)

          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

        by redneckmother (3597) on Friday April 17 2015, @01:06AM (#171817)

        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".

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @04:43AM (#171884)

          I consider FOUR firearms in one's possession to be a "minimum complement".

          Exactly how much trouble are you expecting, son?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @05:15AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @05:15AM (#171893)

          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

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @07:04AM (#171922)

          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

          by Thexalon (636) on Friday April 17 2015, @11:26AM (#171971)

          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

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @06:57AM (#171920)

        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

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 20 2015, @11:42AM (#173101)

        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.

  • (Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Thursday April 16 2015, @10:14PM

    by CirclesInSand (2899) on Thursday April 16 2015, @10:14PM (#171756)

    Why do we (they) need a bill against swatting? Isn't this already illegal? Is the bill addressing something like telecom accountability?

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by snick on Thursday April 16 2015, @10:23PM

      by snick (1408) on Thursday April 16 2015, @10:23PM (#171759)

      Dunno about NJ, but in CA swatting is a misdemeanor. Totally out of synch with the seriousness of the action. SWAT teams kill people. Sending one to someone's house is like tossing a grenade through their window.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Gravis on Thursday April 16 2015, @10:30PM

        by Gravis (4596) on Thursday April 16 2015, @10:30PM (#171760)

        SWAT teams kill people. Sending one to someone's house is like tossing a grenade through their window.

        pff... that's only because SWAT teams actually throw grenades through people's windows. [cnn.com]

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by CirclesInSand on Thursday April 16 2015, @10:35PM

        by CirclesInSand (2899) on Thursday April 16 2015, @10:35PM (#171763)

        After doing some reading, I think you are right. According to http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2014/Bills/A4000/3877_I1.HTM [state.nj.us] :

        SYNOPSIS

                  Upgrades crime of false public alarm under certain circumstances.

        It describes the original penalties:

        Under current law, such an act is ordinarily a crime of the third degree, punishable by a term of imprisonment of three to five years, a fine of up to $15,000, or both. The responsible party would also be liable for a civil penalty of $2,000 or the actual costs incurred by or resulting from the law enforcement and emergency services response to the false alarm.

        And some of the penalties have increased to:

        The crime as upgraded would be punishable by a term of imprisonment of five to 10 years, a fine of up to $150,000, or both, and the responsible party would remain liable for the above described civil penalty.

        So a total incarceration time of 8 to 15 years if the text isn't misleading, for a crime that is practically manslaughter.

      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 16 2015, @11:16PM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday April 16 2015, @11:16PM (#171774)

        Yeah, except that SWAT teams are made up of human beings responsible for their own decisions, and the same applies to police departments. They're not merely a force of nature, or a tool.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday April 17 2015, @12:54AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 17 2015, @12:54AM (#171808) Journal

          except that SWAT teams are made up of human beings responsible for their own decisions

          You wish. They aren't event accountable [reuters.com], why should they feel responsible?

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday April 17 2015, @12:59AM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday April 17 2015, @12:59AM (#171813)

            That's not quite what I was getting it. They choose to do these things themselves, so there's no one to blame but them for their own actions.

            In an ideal world, they'd actually be held accountable when they violate people's rights.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday April 16 2015, @11:48PM

      by frojack (1554) on Thursday April 16 2015, @11:48PM (#171786) Journal

      Read the first link in TFS about how swatting works.

      The legislation this guy sponsored was pretty useless. Because swatters don't report the false crime in any traceable way. Even if caught (rarely) in most places they are guilty of only following a false police report, usually a misdemeanor, which they can usually wiggle out of. But most swatting is anonymous or over the internet. Sometimes swatters live in other countries. So the legislation is largely stupid, because swatters are virtually never caught.

      The real legislation they need is to tone down Swat team usage and tactics.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday April 17 2015, @07:10AM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday April 17 2015, @07:10AM (#171923) Journal

        The real legislation they need is to tone down Swat team usage and tactics.

        Thank god you said this! It's so blindingly obvious and sensible, and none are putting it so plainly: maybe the real answer to SWATting is to not send out a terror response team unless there are actual terrorists involved.

        That anyone could reach any other conclusion than what you have stated goes to show how far down the rabbit hole we are already.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday April 16 2015, @10:45PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Thursday April 16 2015, @10:45PM (#171767)

    If so many weren't hotheads, the SWAT cops could stop these raids in 5 seconds.
    Consider the tactical situation: Someone reported that something nasty is going on, and you are expected to breach into an unknown space, without confirming first where the alleged targets are and how they are armed, hoping that your armor is good enough to prevent your family from getting a nice folded flag...

    It's already a bad thing for shoot-don't-ask Army/Marines to do that in a rebel district in Iraq/Afghanistan, even with shoddy information. It's a terrible idea to have Serve/Protect officers do it in a US residential area, where there is rarely a reason to rush the end of a hostage situation.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Friday April 17 2015, @01:33AM

      by CirclesInSand (2899) on Friday April 17 2015, @01:33AM (#171829)

      Yeah, it's an irony of SWAT raids. If things were actually so dangerous that all that armor and aggression was necessary, they wouldn't actually do the raids at all in the first place: cops aren't going to voluntarily do anything that puts themselves in significant danger.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @04:42AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @04:42AM (#171883)

    So this guy, who's "somebody," gets a friendly phone call before the police throw grenades through the windows, bust down the door, and maybe shoot a few people because... terrorism and shit. Why don't the rest of us get that option?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @07:33PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @07:33PM (#172164)

      Same reason white-collar criminals who embezzle millions get a friendly call and asked to report to the station rather than assaulted at work and perp-walked out in handcuffs, like everyone else - because you're not a millionaire.