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.
Related Stories
Big Tech Improvements To 911 System Raises The Risk Of More 'Swatting'
Now some big changes for 911 are in the works, new technology that's raised concerns about what it means for swatting. The current system — devised 50 years ago — hasn't seen much change over the years and is limited. People typically verbally describe emergencies on the phone. The new system, called Next Generation or NG 911, is based on the Internet instead of telephone technology. The change will allow people to send information to emergency call centers as if they are posting to social media.
"It gives us the ability to access 911 using the same voice, video, text and data applications that we're all used to using on smartphones today," says Trey Fogerty of NENA. This is a big deal because a picture of an accident scene might definitely help emergency crews responding to that crisis. A text to the new 911 might also be useful during a home invasion or domestic violence situations.
But, the changes could also go awry. "You could conceivably have a video that is fabricated and is sent into a 911 dispatch center that appears to be one thing when in fact it is something quite different," says Chuck Wexler, the head of the Police Executive Research Forum. In Virginia, Fairfax County Police Chief Edwin Roessler says they've worked hard to train dispatchers and police to prevent getting duped by swatting calls and he's concerned the new system could bring more problems. "Unfortunately, there's evil people out there that continue to do this and the more we embrace that technology the more risk we have," he says.
So spotting any red flags will be crucial. Police chiefs say dispatchers will have to become adept at quickly analyzing text and video. Designers are devising a way to mark suspicious video and text messages plus working to create a trustworthy alternative to today's caller ID, according to Fogerty.
Related: Gamers Use Police Hoax to Lash Out at Opponents
Swatter Just Prankster?
Swatted: Police Kill Innocent Man in Kansas
Prosecutors seek 25 years in prison for deadly Kansas hoax
Federal prosecutors are seeking a 25-year prison sentence for a California man who made a hoax call that led police to fatally shoot a Kansas man following a dispute between online gamers.
[...] Barriss faces sentencing Friday in federal court in Wichita for making the false report resulting in a death. He has pleaded guilty to 51 charges related to fake calls and threats across the country.
The defense is seeking a 20-year prison sentence.
Sentencing is set for March 29.
Previously: Swatted: Police Kill Innocent Man in Kansas
Related: Gamers Use Police Hoax to Lash Out at Opponents
Swatter Just Prankster?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 30 2017, @04:44AM
s/Call of Duty/Cock of Duty/g
(Score: 2, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Saturday December 30 2017, @04:47AM (40 children)
Culture of mass hysteria against men and the idea that system is your slave.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 30 2017, @04:51AM
You've let out the him. It can appear in any hole and peek out of it new soon.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Saturday December 30 2017, @05:45AM (36 children)
If you don't respond to 911 calls, the system falls apart.
The call went into a substation and was apparently credible sounding enough to be treated as real. A real tale was spun. I think there is also audio of the call, if I can find it I will add it to the summary.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday December 30 2017, @06:41AM (30 children)
Responding to 911 calls doesn't kill people. It's the aggressiveness of the response that killed someone in this case. False positives are always a problem. Police and SWAT in particular are supposed to be trained to deal with fake or erroneous 911 calls.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Saturday December 30 2017, @08:52AM (15 children)
That's the mass hysteria against men that I was talking about, which apparently didn't enter the dense head of modders. There is implicit assumption that a story that a man is going to kill his family is very likely to be true. Wonder why?
And the brazen attempt to be clear of the responsibility of that murder from the guy who orchestrated this thing. There was 0% probability of that guy going to get the bullet before call to swat team was made. That probability became non-0 the moment someone decided to call the swat team. They are trained to minimize that probability, but they are also trained to make sure it is non-0. Are we going to decide who is responsible for this tragedy but calculating whether swat team was within the margin of error or not? Margin of error shouldn't even be part of the question. The responsibility lies directly with the guy who called the swat team, and that "gamer" needs to be sent behind bars for conspiring to murder someone.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Saturday December 30 2017, @03:02PM (14 children)
It does happen even if it isn't as common as the myth. Thus, you can't assume such a call is fake. That means it's up to the police officers responding to determine what actually happened. Here, I think they failed to do their job.
(Score: 4, Informative) by cubancigar11 on Saturday December 30 2017, @03:38PM (13 children)
True, but all crime can happen. Now unless we do an honest interrogation of the killer policeman, I won't be able to make a perfectly backed-up argument, but something tells if the story was that a woman killed her entire family there would be a psychologist in the place of crime instead of swat team.
See, I am not making a sexist or anti-woman argument. I am saying there is implicit 'yeah I know assholes like him they don't deserve to live' thought instilled into the police and society in general, without any data to back it up, and that played a role in quickly using a deadly force instead of only when it was required.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday December 30 2017, @05:19PM (12 children)
So why is that? Couldn't have anything to do with the relative proportion and severity of violence committed by men vis-a-vis that committed by women, hmmmm...?
See, Kyuubey, this is why you Y-chromosome-havers need feminism: the "patriarchy" (and I really prefer "kyriarchy" here for the reason I'm about to explain) harms men. A lot. Who does the most violence against our boys and men? Other boys, and other men. I guarandamntee you no woman came up with the idea of circumcision, to use the example than so many meninists get their manties in a bunch over.
Who tells boys not to ask for help, not to cry, not to show emotion? Mostly men, and women who've been brainwashed into that kind of thinking. Who tells men to gain power by subduing, dominating, and destroying other people and things? Again, mostly men. Who starts wars? Men. Who fights wars? Men. Who goes out to kill and die and suffer and bleed? Mostly men.
No one hurts men like other men. And the kyriarchy is pitting men against women for the precise same reason as what motivated Johnson to say that well-known line about telling the worst white man he's better than the best black man to get him to open his wallet for you.
Kyuubey, unless you are rich and powerful, *you have more in common with the most fringe woman than you with the elite men.* And I mean fringe, like "checks all the SJW boxes" fringe. Gay, black, Jewish, disabled, autistic, immigrant, whatever. Because from the PoV of the kyriarchy, if you ain't them, you're dirt. The sooner you understand this, the sooner you'll be able to get out of your own way.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Saturday December 30 2017, @07:43PM (5 children)
I doubt that very much. One reason I doubt that is that such facts are clearly irrelevant when they go the other way - and they *do* go the other way, several studies have clearly documented that women are more often the aggressors than men, looking at domestic violence specifically. Yet men are still presumed to be the aggressors in such incidents, by police, by shelter workers, etc. When a female seeks shelter from abuse, she'll find lots of resources - shelter, counseling, legal assistance. Male victims of domestic violence? They're referred to therapy that presumes they were the abuser.
I wasn't able to easily find a good number for today, but there were 1500 battered women shelters in the US all the way back in 1990, there are certainly many more today.
How many shelters are there for men in this country? As best I can determine, the total is 2, and the first one only opened 2 years ago.
So no, facts don't seem to drive these policies, only to be used to support them, when they happen to work for that.
"See, Kyuubey, this is why you Y-chromosome-havers need feminism: the "patriarchy" (and I really prefer "kyriarchy" here for the reason I'm about to explain) harms men. A lot."
Yes it does, and that should be your first clue there is no 'patriarchy.' 'Kyriarchy' is a cool word but it still doesn't really exist. Western civilization generally and anglophone ones specifically are gynocentric societies. We're so gynocentric, that we can assert with a straight face that we live in a misogynistic patriarchy that oppresses women as a class even though women as a class are not just equal, but formally superior, to men in our legal system. We are so deeply, reflexively gynocentric that we can almost instantly depose extremely powerful men accused of abusing women, by sheer force of universal disapproval and disdain - then resume the talk about 'rape culture' with no sense of irony, or awareness.
"Who does the most violence against our boys and men? Other boys, and other men. "
Well there's your male gaze at work, seeing the part you want to see.
Yes, men do violence as each other, in the process of competing with each other.
And what are they competing for? The approval of the female.
Is it only the man who is being violent when the woman conceives the violence, plans the violence, manipulates him to perform the violence, but it's his hands that do the work? Perhaps it's technically true but don't let that blind you to the actual power dynamic at work.
"I guarandamntee you no woman came up with the idea of circumcision, to use the example than so many meninists get their manties in a bunch over."
An interesting point to choose. I suspect you're right that it wasn't invented by a woman, but female preference plays a significant role in preserving it. But this isn't a thread about circumcision.
"Kyuubey, unless you are rich and powerful, *you have more in common with the most fringe woman than you with the elite men.* And I mean fringe, like "checks all the SJW boxes" fringe. "
Now that was just rude.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday December 30 2017, @07:56PM (4 children)
My God. What kind of solipsistic, delusional hellscape is the inside of your head if you can type that with a straight face?
Gynocentric? Western society is gynocentric? Seriously?! We haven't even had the right to fucking VOTE for 100 years! Marital rape was not outlawed until 1993! Gynocentric?!
You're only proving my point when you mention that men harm other men in competition and often in competition for women. Yes, and? Men harming other men. Why not cooperate a bit? Why not approach women as human beings, rather than some prize to be won or some resource to be fought over and hoarded and stolen and traded? Jesus Christ, I sincerely hope you're not dating or married.
Competing for womens' attention does not make our society gynocentric. It makes cross-gender relationships fucked up. And half of that is due to the above regarding how men view women. I swear to Cthulhu, not a day goes by but that I read something and thank my lucky stars I'm a lesbian...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday December 30 2017, @09:15PM (3 children)
Interestingly enough, one of the reasons that female suffrage lagged a few years in the US was that polling showed women in this country were generally against it at first. There were many women who had little or no interest in voting, and *feared losing privileges.* This would be, logically, the consequence, right? Fully equality? So that means you're signing up for the draft... well no. Of course what wound up happening, on this issue and virtually always since, is that women's rights expand wherever the old ways limited them, but they rarely if ever contract in the areas of traditional privilege.
So women have had the vote for nearly 100 years, and yet in that time not one single female has been drafted, for instance.
"I swear to Cthulhu, not a day goes by but that I read something and thank my lucky stars I'm a lesbian.."
Another of those inconvenient statistics is that lesbians are no less likely to batter their partners than men are. So be careful, and don't break your arm while you're patting yourself on the back.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday December 31 2017, @03:03AM (2 children)
Lesbians have the highest *reported* rate of domestic violence. Reported does not necessarily equal actual. And I've had an abusive lover, but guess what? She's bi, not gay, and has had more men than women. I'm with a perfect gold-star girl now and we get along wonderfully. Don't break your neck shoving your head up your arse. Or do.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Touché) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday December 31 2017, @06:44PM (1 child)
No, lesbians are demonstrably more violent. This is how collective and several works, Azuma. It doesn't matter one bit what you do. You are not an individual, and it doesn't matter if you're just as well behaved as a gay man. We can conclude based on the data available that, because you are a lesbian, you are therefore violent.
It would be unfair to other lesbians, after all, if we were to conclude differently.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday December 31 2017, @10:51PM
Preeeeetty sure I'm an individual. That voice in my head is me, my own thoughts. If you are hearing voices that are not yours, you are either a telepath or a demoniac.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday December 30 2017, @11:19PM (3 children)
I believe the rhetoric is substantially different when speaking of clitoral slicing or pin-pricking, which does much less tissue damage and does not even amputate an entire organ. I also believe that using your phrasing to refer to clitoral pin-prick generally results in a nuke from orbit being called down.
That aside, where do we go from here? You women have boots on the ground, and you're coordinated. You post things here that indicate that you're aware that men are powerless. Perhaps your implication is that legal males should let their guard down so you can continue your abusive actions wrt the misogynerd narrative. Your boots on the ground are going to be in action when 2018 rolls around. I have no idea what to expect, but it's going to be complete hysteria. You are bullies who single out and attack men who are utterly without power in retaliation for the things that men with power do.
You pull every petty bully tactic in the book. You set men up to fail just to watch them flail. You engage in gaslighting and outright lying routinely. Good grief, the compulsive lying gets old. Some days if a woman tells me that the sky is blue, I need to head outside to double-check. You even see no problem with fabricating evidence.
You know what that makes you women? It makes you sycophants. It makes you complicit in the actions of men with power. Men with power do their inhuman cocaine-fulled lizard crap, and you believe you are justified in taking revenge against the most powerless legal male you can find. You are predators hoping that men continue to be stupid enough to keep using the strategy of merely being quicker than the slowest member of the herd.
You are pretty far from the pure and innocent Hunnies you pretend to be.
Where is this going? Are you women ever going to fight the kyriarchy instead of being their lackeys?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday December 31 2017, @03:07AM (2 children)
Kurenai, for the last fucking time, I am one of the ones who's on your side. Your constant, borderline-schizophrenic ranting not only does you personally no favors, but pushes the stereotype of transwomen as unstable crazy drama queens into the spotlight. You are harming other transwomen, do you understand this?
You want to be physically female, but at the same time you seem to hate women. So...what gives? How does it make any sense to hate what you want to be? You are one sick little puppy, Kurenai, and I'm out of patience with you and your tantrums. Go fuck yourself.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday December 31 2017, @04:17PM (1 child)
Good. Moving the misogynerd narrative to a blanket accusation of sex trafficking against everybody legally male in tech was too much.
I didn't choose to have a female mind. I don't want to be an overweight, diabetic baby mamma with 10 kids from 8 different fathers living off welfare. If that means I'm not a woman, then sure, of course not!
You assholes have gobs of privilege, and you abuse it horribly. How many women are involved in sex trafficking as pimps? Don't tell me the number is 0 because I fucking know better. This newest accusation of sex trafficking is nothing more than sick psychological projection.
I'm glad we're agreed that the other can get fucked at this point.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday December 31 2017, @10:50PM
What the fuck are you ranting about? None of that addresses anything I said. Get off the internet, go have some tea or something, and calm down before you post again. You're going to collapse of apoplexy and die at your keyboard at this rate.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 03 2018, @10:06PM (1 child)
Maybe we should treat people as individuals rather than statistics.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 04 2018, @04:37AM
The data say what the data say. Nothing less (or more). Groups are made of individuals.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Troll) by looorg on Saturday December 30 2017, @11:51AM (10 children)
The problem here is that you have to respond to all calls as if they where true. Otherwise you come to that day when you have the next police conference and they ask why they didnt respond and the police answers that they thought that it was a joke. They sent a squad car around and all looked fine, or they sent a squad car around and some heavily armed psycho with a machine gun killed two police officers because they just didn't take the threat seriously.
The blame here is almost entirely with the idiot that called in the fake threat. Yes one can put some place on the LEO for escalating the situation, but he was still just acting to a perceived and reported threat.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday December 30 2017, @12:29PM (8 children)
Guilty until proven innocent? There are two things to note here. First, SWAT-style activities are way too common in the US with them being routinely used in situations where they aren't warranted, and not only endangered lives, but also destroyed considerable property in the process. This may well have been one of those situations where they weren't warranted despite the alleged dire nature of the 911 call. Second, the person who placed the fake 911 call has bragged about placing a number of such calls (more swatting, bomb threats, etc). One person shouldn't have that kind of power over another. The aggressive police response is what makes it so dangerous.
Normal people aren't trained to act properly when raided by heavily armed police with very liberal instructions on what behavior allows them to shoot you. It sounds like the victim probably had loose boxers or a similar wardrobe malfunction.
No, it's not. The idiot didn't pull the trigger on an innocent, unarmed man. The police did that.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by looorg on Saturday December 30 2017, @01:06PM (7 children)
Nobody said that. You completely miss the point as to why SWAT responses have increased and the tactics they use. You seem to believe that they just do this cause they are jackboots that like to wank off to their big guns and they get some kick out of driving around their vans and shooting people. I'm fairly sure they didn't know it was a fake call when it came in, if they had know that they wouldn't have responded in the way that they did. So you are after-the-fact constructing a scenario that just wasnt true for when it happened.
The aggressive police response fills a niche, the jackass that called in the fake threat is the one that is to blame for calling in a fake threat that he knew would result in an overwhelming show of force response. He wanted that. Suicide by cop is a well known phenomenon, SWATting is pretty much, potential-, murder-by-cop and he is the guilty party here. I'm not claiming that the officer is completely innocent but they are responding to an emergency call with non-perfect information but have to assume that the given information is correct and act according to that information.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday December 30 2017, @02:40PM (6 children)
That would be fairly accurate. The militarization of US police forces (and various government bureaucracies at multiple levels) has gotten out of hand.
And they didn't know that it was a real call. There are procedures and training precisely because things can't always be treated as worst case scenarios. A number of people have died [reason.com] because of aggressive police tactics and excessive levels of force.
Exactly. And it'll happen again.
Then they need to replaced with someone who doesn't assume such. People die when assumptions are made.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 30 2017, @04:57PM (4 children)
Quit being a whiny little bitch or we'll take away your "evil" police and see how long you survive in a world filled with real criminals. The police are out there every day putting their lives on the line. That's way more than some amateur armchair windbag has ever done. Put down the bag of Cheetos and step outside - you will see it is true
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 30 2017, @05:40PM
What part of "innocent person who is not a threat murdered" is hard for you yo understand? It is VERY disturbing that innocent people can be gunned down. Wake up fool.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 30 2017, @07:07PM
putting their lives on the line to commit armed robbery maybe. fuck you and your precious pigs. i can protect my own family from all the dangerous savages the system has built out of petty criminals.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday December 30 2017, @07:53PM (1 child)
You do realize this is a typical excluded middle fallacy. We don't have to choose between these kinds of excesses from the police or no police at all. We can, like say most of the developed world, have a police force that does its job without killing a lot of innocent people. Remember that you're only a phone call away from getting a visit from the men in black tactical gear. Wouldn't you rather that they obey the laws they're sworn to uphold?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday December 30 2017, @07:58PM
Have a +1 Insightful on me. Dear Cthulhu, when we've gotten to the point that *you* are the voice of reason in any given dialogue...yeeeeee gods...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Demena on Sunday December 31 2017, @07:41AM
Actually, your point is not relevant. Even if the call had been genuine they should not have shot. It is not usually the hostage taker who answers the door. They had no knowledge of the role of the person who answered the door.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday January 02 2018, @03:55PM
Interestingly, they legally don't have to do anything at all.
When cops show up with guns drawn and start shooting innocent people, we're told it's justified because the cops were told there were hostages or people in danger who they had to protect.
Yet when cops stand idly by and watch someone get stabbed to death, we're told that's perfectly alright because they have no legal duty to protect.
So which is it? If they have no duty to protect -- which multiple courts have held is true -- then their safest course of action would be to surround the house and wait it out. But of course that's less fun, so they'd rather go in with guns drawn and shoot anything that moves like THEY'RE playing fucking Call of Duty. Because they know there's no goddamn rules for them; they know that whatever they do the legal system will say they were correct.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday December 30 2017, @10:10PM
In other words, they're trained to not shoot some guy like they did. Better training, because this officer essentially failed a field test of whether or not he could *not* shoot the victims while getting the bad guys.
Considering the vitriol that caused it though, that is concerning that the police would respond like that. It makes me want to apologize to a few people quite frankly, you included. Nobody should die over a game, some talk, or a $1.25.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 31 2017, @12:26AM (1 child)
The problem is that the police are not willing to risk their lives to reduce the possibility of a false positive. In addition, an obvious course of action in this particular case would have been to call the home at the given address to verify that it was the location of the caller.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 31 2017, @04:36AM
This has already been discussed. For example [soylentnews.org],
It was a different scenario, but the same problem, treating a person in a way that made it more likely that they couldn't comply with police instructions. That played a role [soylentnews.org] in the shooting of the story:
This is part of the militarization of the police. Too often they are more inclined to place a potential suspect in a tactically compromised position than doing their job. I have experienced the same about 16-17 years ago. I once had a police car tailgate my vehicle (which was in regulatory noncompliance due to an expired license plate tag) on a crowded highway and light up every flashing thing they had. Fortunately, the driver (who wasn't me at the time) was able to safely find their way across two other lanes to pull off the road, but neither of us could see what was behind us due to the ridiculous light show. Tactically, it was good for the police officer in question though since we would have been unable to shoot at him accurately with that sort of light show, and it was demoralizing.
But the problem with a military approach is collateral damage. What is good tactically for the police officer is often not good for the subject of the tactics and bystanders. If police officers aren't willing to take on reasonable risks to protect those who they are supposed to protect, then they shouldn't be police officers.
(Score: 3, Informative) by forkazoo on Saturday December 30 2017, @05:26PM (4 children)
Shooting the first person that opens a door isn't the only way to respond to a 911 call.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by SpockLogic on Saturday December 30 2017, @07:34PM (3 children)
GUNS, GUNS, GUNS.
The reaction of the police is a direct result of the moronic gun culture in this country. There are so many guns out there the police have to assume they are facing an armed adversary and they shoot first in self preservation. It's still murder.
1. More guns = more gun violence.
2. More guns = more dead Americans.
3. More guns = more profits for gun manufacturers.
Only #3 counts.
The problem is GUNS.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 31 2017, @12:34AM (1 child)
>"The reaction of the police is a direct result of the moronic gun culture in this country."
No, the reaction of the police was the direct result of being told that an armed man had shot someone and was holding two others hostage.
(Score: 2) by Demena on Sunday December 31 2017, @07:51AM
It was still an unacceptable reaction. Had the call been genuine then the person answering the door would be more likely to be a hostage than perpetrator.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday January 03 2018, @10:13PM
They don't have to assume any such thing. Cops should take risks to avoid killing innocent people. Yes, that means they will actually have to put their lives on the line, but that's their job. If they don't like that, they shouldn't be cops.
Also, either guns are legal or they are not. You can't shoot people merely for owning guns. Stop blaming guns for this and start blaming hyper-aggressive cops.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by cubancigar11 on Saturday December 30 2017, @08:45AM (1 child)
Off topic? Brain damage must be common among modders.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday December 30 2017, @03:40PM
I think you're on the right track. (I admit to trouble parsing it.) We can see where the misogynerd narrative is going. All assigned males in tech are collectively and severally responsible for sex slavery. All assigned males in tech are Cock of Duty players and murderers too. And let us not forget that we have to protect the Hunnies from all this!
Yes, we have to protect the Hunnies. I'm going to start using the word again, because that's exactly what will be going on in 2018. Womyn-born-womyn are the coddled victims. They are superior, complete beings who, despite this supposed ascendancy and superiority, cannot take responsibility for themselves. They can't be arsed to take advantage of the absolutely wealth of information online to learn programming because of all the supposedly evil people assigned to a certain caste, a legal construct in our gender caste system. Even worse, all assigned males, even ones who voted for Hillary, are responsible for Trump.
The Hunnies that voted for Trump and brought this shit on themselves are off the hook! Instead of holding Trump accountable along with his female voters, instead of holding the DNC accountable, watch as the Hunnies, cowards that they are, begin holding all assigned males responsible for the fucking joke in Washington.
Net neutrality is gone, and watch as men's rights websites are slowly null routed by every major ISP. Somehow, feminists even managed to manipulate things such that many men were ready to put in place a way to silence the MHRM. Men need to be smarter than this. All assigned males are now officially under attack. Sex trafficking and murder are serious accusations.
Womyn-born-womyn are lazy cowards and will find every excuse under the sun to keep themselves ignorant of tech. First it was sexual harassment and generalized misogyny. Remember how compiler error messages were oppressing the Hunnies? Now the media is going to seriously begin painting all assigned males as murderers and sex traffickers. The stuff with journalists and Hollywood being held accountable for their sexual predators? Just a cynical attempt to move the Overton window, and I'm ashamed I fell for it.
For what end? Are we going to get a universal basic income for womyn-born-womyn only (as if we do not effectively have such a thing already)? How can rejecting career and education in favor of having 10 kids and leeching off welfare possibly be a feminist value? Because feminism doesn't stand for the things it claims to stand for. Feminists are liars and bigots, and they will lie to you with a straight face. Actions speak louder than words.
If somebody here doesn't like my usage of Hunnies—and I now hope to use the word to exclusively to attack womyn-born-womyn—perhaps womyn-born-womyn might consider not acting like children. Let's not kid ourselves. Feminism is sucking the cock of the patriarchy big time. What is the patriarchy? Men with power and privilege, which the vast majority of assigned males do not have, and therefore cannot be complicit. How does that go? Sexism is only notable when there's a power dynamic? Well, here's a power dynamic, and if you were assigned the male gender at birth, regardless of your body parts, you are on the losing end of that power dynamic unless you drew a one in a million winning golden ticket.
Personally, I'm fucking sorry that I keep giving feminism the benefit of the doubt from time to time. It won't happen again. Feminism is clearly a hate group. They will keep blowing up these stories no differently from how white supremacists love to blow up stories about some kind of failure on the part of a minority group. The white supremacist uses others' misfortunes and lack of privilege as a reason to say, “Look here! See how inferior blacks and Mexicans are! See how violent and dangerous they are!” The feminist, otherwise known as a womyn-born-womyn supremacist, uses the exact same tactics. “Look here! See how inferior assigned males are! See how violent and dangerous they are!”
Everybody assigned the male gender at birth will need to stick together. We don't have time for white supremacy. We are a demographic minority if only slightly, but a minority nonetheless. Feminism wants to turn the USA and every other country into a direct democracy, because womyn-born-womyn can simply steamroller over human rights for half the planet's population in direct democracy.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by jimtheowl on Saturday December 30 2017, @04:55AM (11 children)
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Saturday December 30 2017, @05:51AM (9 children)
https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/29/alleged-swatting-hoax-death-father-of-two/ [engadget.com]
It looks like the swatter threatened the other gamer. Either typical Internet Tough Guy trash talk, or maybe a specific swatting-related threat like "Ima SWAT you beeeeyotch". Then the other gamer gives an address from somewhere, possibly nearby, perhaps not expecting anything to happen. Then it all goes downhill from there when the swatting is in fact carried out.
The gamer who didn't do the swatting stands a good chance of walking away from all this a free manchild.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(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.
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Saturday December 30 2017, @11:10PM
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 30 2017, @08:08AM
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: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 30 2017, @05:18AM (14 children)
Police followed procedure. Nothing to see here, move on, citizen!
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday December 30 2017, @05:53AM (2 children)
#rare mod
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 30 2017, @06:16AM (1 child)
How did it get -1 insightful?
Totally agree with the mod.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday December 30 2017, @06:19AM
Score started out at 0. Got modded to -1, Troll. Then to 0, Insightful (the latest mod labels the comment if there is a tie). Finally, Overrated mod sends it down to -1, Insightful. Overrated and Underrated do not affect the comment label, just the score.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by davester666 on Saturday December 30 2017, @07:00AM
Procedure is what? Shoot the first person you see and arrest everyone else at the scene?
When did we begin completely giving police a pass on crap like this? "I thought he had a weapon" "He went for something in his pocket" "Some random unknown person phoned me and told me he was dangerous"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Saturday December 30 2017, @10:08AM (8 children)
Then change the fucking procedures. Cops are like ISIS, but on steroids and immunity.
(Score: 3, Touché) by lx on Saturday December 30 2017, @12:27PM (2 children)
Either I missed the reports of US cops burning entire villages to the ground, killing the men and raping the women, or you have no idea about the world outside your neighborhood.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday December 30 2017, @08:49PM
(Score: 2) by Demena on Sunday December 31 2017, @08:12AM
Waco, Branch Dravidians.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Saturday December 30 2017, @12:38PM (4 children)
At least US police-involved shootings are investigated right away, even if there are very few consequences.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday December 30 2017, @06:38PM (3 children)
ISIS is so terrible in the areas they control because they have immunity THERE. Cops are like ISIS, but HERE. If ISIS did the shit cops do here, they would be prosecuted. If cops did the shit they do in ISIS territory, they would face consequences. Cops==ISIS.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 30 2017, @07:58PM (2 children)
Except we already know that is completely wrong. ISIS does all kinds of shit without prosecution (by themselves that is, they might get it from the rest of the world eventually, if they lose badly enough in coming years): murder [dailymail.co.uk], kidnapping [independent.co.uk], theft [businessinsider.com], etc.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday December 31 2017, @08:19PM (1 child)
OK -- you just aren't getting it.
If ISIS member does violence in America against Americans, that member will be prosecuted because ISIS is not in power in America.
If ISIS member does violence in ISIS controlled area, ISIS member will face no consequences.
If Cop does violence in in ISIS controlled area against ISIS-member, that cop will face "prosecution" -- likely swift and deadly.
If Cop does violence in Cop controlled area (America), cop will face zero consequences.
Thus, Cops and ISIS are the same shit.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 31 2017, @08:55PM
Wow. You said nothing about about jurisdiction before. And jurisdiction is near completely irrelevant since a cop almost never acts as a cop outside of their jurisdiction.
And as I already pointed out, ISIS did a lot of stuff (brazen acts of murder, kidnapping, theft, etc) that would put actual cops in jail (and yes, I can point to police officers in jail for these sorts of crimes). This is the sort of immature puffery that lowers the quality of discussion on the internet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 31 2017, @12:37AM
>"Police followed procedure."
True, but the procedure is wrong, and gets innocent people killed.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Saturday December 30 2017, @05:29AM (17 children)
do 911 calls get traced?
Is there any consequence for the person making the false emergency claims?
In Australia, fines and up to three years in prison. What happens in the US?
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/more-than-180000-emergency-calls-in-june-were-hoaxes-20141103-11fyx6.html [smh.com.au]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday December 30 2017, @05:44AM (15 children)
I listened to the 10-minute police briefing. They said that the 911 call went to a "substation" which then relayed the info to the police.
The article I added mentions caller ID spoofing. You can also use software to make calls instead of phones, and do it over a VPN.
The problem is that it looks like these two gamers will be nabbed real quickly since they made very little effort to disguise their activities which seemed to have been streamed to others. If the gamer who gave the fake address gave one in close proximity to himself, he's getting cuffed. Maybe he won't get serious charges though.
This looks like it could be the first death linked to swatting despite years of the trend:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting#Injuries_or_deaths_due_to_swatting [wikipedia.org]
Looks like Krebs caught the scent and got plenty of evidence to put the other guy away:
https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/29/alleged-swatting-hoax-death-father-of-two/ [engadget.com]
Maybe he could have gotten away with it if he hadn't been so cocky. But now he is responsible for the first swatting death and every little online mistake he made has already been scrutinized.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Saturday December 30 2017, @06:02AM (9 children)
And the person who actually pulled the trigger: the police officer who shot an unarmed man: where is any mention of his the police officer's?
For more outrage, how about this story:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-boy-age-6-killed-deputy-involved-shooting-days-christmas-n832166 [nbcnews.com]
Apparently, it's a tragic accident when LEO kill someone by shooting at (and missing) an unarmed person but manage to hit an uninvolved child. It's an accident in an incident where the sheriff's deputy should never have fired.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Saturday December 30 2017, @06:08AM (7 children)
If you look at the video of the shooting, all of the officers were pretty far away from the victim, and it was at night.
During the 10 minute press briefing there is a strong emphasis on how the victim put his arms in the air as demanded by the officers, but repeatedly brought them back towards his waistband. And this led to him getting shot. Maybe eyes are bad but I couldn't really see it that well in the body cam footage, even in slow-mo.
Some will excuse the police actions based on that alone. Never mind that people aren't trained dogs. They can be put in shock by these incidents and do or say the wrong stuff. Comply with an uninvited police officer or die.
The press briefing said that the officer was put on administrative leave (presumably paid) which is automatic following a shooting death.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Saturday December 30 2017, @10:13AM (4 children)
Cops are liars and murderous pigs. Here's just one example -- seriously, if you aren't livid after watching this, you're fucked in the head: http://www.newser.com/story/252649/video-shows-cop-fatally-shooting-unarmed-man-in-hotel.html [newser.com]
It's gotten to the point that, like with violent gangbangers, when I hear about a cop getting killed, I think "Meh -- probably deserved it."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 30 2017, @10:58AM
Not "Did the other cops shoot him in their haste to kill more victims?" ;)
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 30 2017, @11:03AM
I usually ask 'What dirty cop needed that honest one off of his ass?'
Sadly I don't think nearly enough corrupt cops die compared to the honest ones. Remember, cockroaches are hard to kill. Dutiful little ants on the other hand...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 30 2017, @11:06AM
Oh my God. I can't even describe in words how that video just made me feel. The officer should be sentenced to death for what he did there. Poor boy was just pulling up his shorts for fuck sake, anybody who isn't amped up on hatred and adrenaline can see that!! I am seriously bothered by what I've just seen. Thank God in don't live in the USA. You people have put up with far, far, far, far too much police brutality. Unite yourselves as one and bring some order to your justice system!!
:`(
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Saturday December 30 2017, @04:56PM
It's just unbelievable that the police officer was acquitted.
I have come to believe that, in these cases, the jury was intimidated by other police. It seems to be the most likely explanation.
(Score: 2) by chromas on Sunday December 31 2017, @03:05PM (1 child)
Do police have binoculars?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday December 31 2017, @04:14PM
Do they have gun sights?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday December 30 2017, @08:01PM
Throw them both in the same cell with one 2-foot length of galvanized pipe, IMO. This guy is shit and so is the cop.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Saturday December 30 2017, @06:25AM (2 children)
So he charged people money to make SWAT calls for them?
Isn't that incitement?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday December 30 2017, @06:28AM (1 child)
I have no idea. Whatever it is, it's not great, and since the FBI are probably going to be raiding this guy's house, there could be other people going down if the bragging about swatting/bomb threats for cash turns out to be true.
I remember that bomb threat that briefly interrupted the FCC net neutrality meeting. Did he really do it, or was he just bragging like an idiot on Twitter? I smell decades of prison time in this guy's future.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Saturday December 30 2017, @06:55AM
reckless endangerment of his own future.
If he is responsible for the things he claims, then it is likely the punishment will not fit the crime(s).
Either a slap on the wrist (unlikely) or custodial, with a long non-parole period.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Informative) by EvilSS on Saturday December 30 2017, @03:52PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 31 2017, @12:40AM
>"The article I added mentions caller ID spoofing."
This is a fundamental problem. Caller ID spoofing should not be possible. It is only possible because our politicians are negligent and corrupt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 30 2017, @06:59AM
Making a false report to the police can result in fines and possible jail time. It could be charged as a felony or a misdemeanor. If it's a felony, since a death occurred as a result, it could result in a murder trial (deaths during the commission of a felony are upgradable to murders).
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday December 30 2017, @06:00AM
http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192242919.html [kansas.com]
When trolling leads to DEATH.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by leftover on Saturday December 30 2017, @06:02AM (17 children)
What I see in the responses so far is a distinct lack of outrage. Outrage is definitely warranted here, folks. A completely innocent man was gunned down in his own home due to fuckery and incompetence of multiple other people, unknown to him. Said 'other people' are now backing away from any responsibility and they are likely to succeed. This is sickening on multiple levels and it should have consequences for each of the 'other people'. The police response in particular needs to be microscopically reviewed, leading to changes in staffing decisions and training. Maybe even [Gasp!] psychological monitoring of the police operators before sending them out into residential neighborhoods.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Saturday December 30 2017, @06:13AM (8 children)
Listen to the police briefing. They have already blamed the victim for repeatedly putting his arms near his waistband instead of up in the air. Although they have only released a 7 second portion of the body cam footage and it's not easy (for me) to see what happened.
I'm not shocked that some police officer killed an unarmed victim. It's going to happen again and again. I am shocked that there doesn't seem to have been any documented case of a swatting leading to a death until this day, despite years of swatting incidents, the rise of video game streaming, lots of media attention, and some state legislation.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by BK on Saturday December 30 2017, @07:33AM (6 children)
The guy that called this to 911 will go to jail. That part's easy.
Shot for failing to follow directions. Wtf.
The police were at least 50 feet away and were shining lights in the guy's eyes to confuse him. Standard police tactics / procedure. Even if he had a pistol in his waistband -- and he didn't -- at 50 feet away, he wasn't all that threatening. Maybe if it was a 50 cal rifle... but they don't fit in the waistband.
The cop who shot should be tried for murder. But he'll probably get off because the prosecutor won't try really hard.
Wtf
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by esperto123 on Saturday December 30 2017, @12:31PM (2 children)
And the worst part is that everyone is concentrating on the swatting thing (which is bad and must be punised if just for diverting resources), but the actual problem in this trigger happy police force, the guy had no idea what was going on, as you said, was quite a distance away with strong lights on his face and wasn't really a threat by any means, and could possibly being turning around asking to his family members to get back or something.
Shit like this happens again and again, and one thing that I noticed that is common to most if not all cases, is that police do not let the other party to talk or actually listen when they do, they shout instructions and get pissed if you try to respond, that also happened very clearly in another murder by a police officer in a hotel were someone confused an airsoft with a real gun and called the police, the guy was drunk, the police officers were shouting contradictory instructions, shouting to the guy shut the fuck up, and from what I could see, the guys pants were falling down and he was trying to keep them up, and got shot for it.
I don't know what or when it happened, but police officers are being taught to shoot to kill at any percieved danger, not much warning, no proper assessment of the situation, which includes talking to the person on the other side of the scope.
I think they whatched too many movies where people go from drunk to expert marksmans in 0.5 second flat and can shoot them all between the eyes while running the other way.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 30 2017, @02:33PM
Actually it seems more plausible that the cops in that hotel video were just looking for someone to murder.
Because if you think a suspect is a threat you would ask the suspect to stay face down on the ground with his hands on top of his head and to NOT MOVE AT ALL. Then one cop approaches the guy and cuffs him while the other person covers him. If both cops are too chicken they could ask the guy to stay still while they call and wait for backup till there are enough cops to take some drunk guy face down on the ground.
But instead they asked the guy to crawl TOWARDS them and do all sorts of stuff (cross legs etc) till the guy made a "mistake" and gave them an excuse to kill him.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 30 2017, @05:57PM
What I get from the hotel video is to remain lying on the ground with arms outstretched, waiting for the cops to come in for the arrest and not saying a word. If they shoot, the wounds will be in the back (as little as that may help to prosecute them).
That will probably get me beaten up once the body cameras "malfunction", but it beats getting shot.
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Saturday December 30 2017, @12:43PM (2 children)
SidAlpha has some comments on this, and also includes the 911 recording:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n3enM3jjbU [youtube.com]
At about 6:25 in the YT is a portion of the 911 call, where the shitwit swatter says he's "poured gasoline all over the house" and might "just set it on fire". At this point the police will be twitchy as fuck about any sudden movement as a danger, gun or not.
(Score: 3, Touché) by BK on Saturday December 30 2017, @07:11PM
If you're too twitchy to even approach the place, you're too twitchy to go on the call. If you believe that shooting into a place that you legitimately think could be coated in gasoline is a good plan, you are, or should be, too dumb to hold a job that involves guns.
#disarmthepolice
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 30 2017, @07:16PM
ahh, protecting the evidence. they'll do anything to get their perp.
(Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Saturday December 30 2017, @07:37AM
There are a lot of SWAT raids. These don't typically result in police shootings, much less actual killings. Swatting is much rarer, so it's not surprising that no one has been killed to this point. There have however been a number of deaths [reason.com] from SWAT raids that were disproportionate to the suspected crime.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday December 30 2017, @06:58AM
Check out the ten plus pages of comments on Ars.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Saturday December 30 2017, @07:46AM (4 children)
Outrage? Well, it's certainly deserved, but I think you're seeing that people are just tired. The police forces in the US are almost never held responsible for their errors. In any civilized country, killing someone who was not threatening you in any way is a ticket to jail. In the US, police are immune to any sort of consequences, whether they tossed a grenade into a baby's crib, shot an Australian tourist who was trying to report a crime, or (this is not a first) held a heavily-armed SWAT raid on the wrong house.
As for the gamer who called in the SWAT raid defenitely deserves some consequences. Maybe not manslaughter - if the police were competent, no one would have died - but at a minimum he abused emergency services and knowingly endangered people.
The guy who gave a fake address? That's dumb, but probably not actionable. The question is: why did he give any address at all?
The real target of outrage must remain the police. Military gear, military mentality, kindergarten-level skills. This, apparently, at all levels from local cops to the feds. And the entire government at all levels backs them up. For this, along with many other reasons: Y'all need to fix your government. Only, like the hick told the lost tourist: If you want to get *there*, you don't want to start from *here*.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 30 2017, @12:11PM (1 child)
I thought I would just leave this here then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dzieka%C5%84ski_Taser_incident [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 30 2017, @01:03PM
he said civilized
(Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday December 30 2017, @09:24PM
He is going down big time. He is an easy defendant upon whom the prosecutor can shift as much blame (away from cops) as possible. Each word in his 911 call will be scrutinized to illustrate that he intentionally arranged the most deadly SWAT response. He couldn't be sure, of course, that the homeowner will be shot for trying to keep his pants up, but he made everything possible to make it happen.
Not a lawyer, but it looks like he will not get out of this unscathed. He felt danger, but instead of reporting it and solving the situation properly, he pushed someone else into the dangerous spot. If the criminal law won't reach him, the civil lawsuit will.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 31 2017, @06:41AM
The situation that actually occurred was both likely and expected, due to the nature of police response to such calls. This gamer called 911 fully intending for the police to respond exactly as they did.
It is morally no different from calling a hitman. In this case, the hit was successful (well, other than the target being wrong), so that would be a murder. And the police officers involved were the hitmen.
The difference here is that for some reason the hitmen will not also face consequences.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday December 30 2017, @04:11PM (1 child)
Oh, we're outraged. But what is to be done? Yes, the police were trigger happy incompetents and idiots. With all the SWATting that's been going on, you'd think the police would have realized they have to engage in a little skepticism. And, yes, their training needs a hard look. Also, need more screening to weed out the type of person who is attracted to police work because they enjoy the feeling of power it gives them to point weapons at citizens and make them endure humiliations, make them crawl on their bellies, and even hope they get a chance to kill, and want to commemorate that with notches on their revolvers. I'm thinking the cops ought to put the guns away. I understand British bobbies do not have guns. Guns have their uses, but they are seriously overused in the US.
I'd suggest the root of this goes beyond the police to the 2nd Amendment flag waving, gun loving US subculture. Having a gun handy is like keeping a spare can of gasoline on the fireplace, or building a swimming pool underneath some power lines. There are many ways a gun may get its owner or loved ones killed, from accidents to being turned on the owner by an acquaintance or relative turned hostile, being grabbed by a burglar and used on the owner, providing the means to act on impulsive suicidal or homicidal thoughts, and inciting and scaring police into using lethal force against the owner. A gun is a very bad thing to have handy if the owner ever suffers a mental breakdown, maybe overdoses on some hallucinogen possibly even by accident because it was mislabeled as something light such as aspirin. Dr. McCoy at the start of the famous Star Trek episode City on the Edge of Forever is not someone I want to see armed with a phaser. Yep, his phaser got someone killed. Not that mental cases can't throw themselves off high bridges or crash their cars at high speeds into walls, but guns make it far too easy. The police know there are a lot of well armed citizens. It's not just the police who need to put the guns down, it's everyone. But I see no letup anytime soon. Expect the body count to keep growing, for now.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 31 2017, @05:00AM
It's a red herring since it is irrelevant to the swatting or the police response.