"Swatting" prank may have led to death of a man

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Boadicea


So we go back to my explanation, if they drag their feet because they are trying to verify before responding and hostages do die, folks will want their heads on a platter. They rush and someone dies that shouldn't people want their head on a platter.

I understand that LEOs are often put in no-win situations... that's actually the nature of the beast and therefore should be expected and prepared for to the greatest extent possible. I also understand that no matter what they do or don't do, someone will complain. That's just life. And all anyone can do -- especially LEOs -- is make sure they do their best.

Having said that, it's not as dire or extreme as the two options you presume. For example, I suggested the dispatcher asking questions to verify details... you seem to think this would be "dragging their feet." But that is exactly what the dispatcher did in this call!!! Including asking for a description of the home... which he did not answer... which may have been their first clue that something wasn't right. (Actually, it should have been their second clue, because they already knew that the call had been received in a very unusual manner).

This isn't "dragging their feet," this is gathering as much information as possible because knowledge is power, and is the best defense for those officers going into a potentially dangerous situation.

It also occurs to me that anyone wanting to ambush officers would also make a false 911 call in order to entrap LEOs... and having information that would give them suspicion of the validity of the call would very much be to their advantage as well.

It is one of the few things I have seen in my life that is a no win situation, maybe the police should be shifted to let what ever happens and they just clean up the mess and file reports for insurance.

If police continue growing to be a greater threat to the public than the thugs on the street, then we'd probably all be better off with no police at all. And if that's the best they can do, then we'd be doing them a favor in the process.

But I think we/they can do better. I know we can.

a reply to: Boadicea

Thank god you fixed all that bolding and underlining!

You make good points there. Perhaps a slightly different approach can be part of their formal training.

Even though the jackass swatter holds almost all of the blame, it is still a tragedy that might have been avoidable. The publicity from this incident may well create the right environment to begin the conversation.

We can see on ATS that conditions need to be right and talks need to be handled carefully. Some sections will support the police in almost any circumstances. Some won't support them in any circumstances. Then there are other groups in society with different motivations. The goal here should be to further reduce the chances that anyone can be shot dead on their doorstep as an entirely innocent citizen.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Boadicea

Thank god you fixed all that bolding and underlining!

Right? Whew!

Perhaps a slightly different approach can be part of their formal training.

I think so... I really don't see any other way. It seems to me that too often, LEOs themselves create the potentially dangerous situations they are afraid of -- sometimes in the most reckless and irresponsible manner. It can only serve everyone's best interests to find ways to minimize any potential danger to anyone and everyone. But it's going to take folks willing and able to think outside the box.

And folks just willing and able to think... especially given the current trend in some parts to shun higher-IQ recruits in favor of hiring low-IQ recruits who are more likely to "follow orders" without question, and not use their own critical thinking skills... not before, during or after... because they don't have the necessary critical thinking skills. I don't know to what extent, but I often wonder how much this plays into the increasing police shootings. Officers who literally don't know any more or any better than to shoot to kill at the slightest real or imagined provocation/threat.

Even though the jackass swatter holds almost all of the blame...

Absolutely!!! And he knew exactly what he was doing. I really hope the authorities throw the book at him, and refuse to plea bargain. Although the previous conviction will probably be deemed inadmissible, if authorities can show he was conducting a "business" for swatting services, thus demonstrating a continuing pattern of behavior, I'm pretty sure that will be admissible. But I'm not a lawyer so take it with a grain of salt (and a shot of tequila if so inclined )

... it is still a tragedy that might have been avoidable. The publicity from this incident may well create the right environment to begin the conversation.

I sure hope so.

We can see on ATS that conditions need to be right and talks need to be handled carefully. Some sections will support the police in almost any circumstances. Some won't support them in any circumstances. Then there are other groups in society with different motivations.

Harder than herding cats!!! But I agree, we must find a way to have a practical and productive discussion to find practical and productive reforms. One of these days I mean to scour the internet and find recommendations and resources and such. I need to better understand the various perspectives on the various issues, and the various factors that go into each issue, and especially what folks who know much better than me are recommending in terms of reforms.

The goal here should be to further reduce the chances that anyone can be shot dead on their doorstep as an entirely innocent citizen.

Exactly.

a reply to: Boadicea

You make a lot of sense and I find I have nothing much to add beyond agreeing with you.

One of these days I mean to scour the internet and find recommendations and resources and such. I need to better understand the various perspectives on the various issues, and the various factors that go into each issue, and especially what folks who know much better than me are recommending in terms of reforms.

I posted a Rogan interview back in the thread somewhere with an ex-cop/former Marine, Michael Wood (looks like a teenager). I wouldn't usually drop a YT video and say, "Listen up!" In this case, I think he's a good start if you're looking at different issues. He covers training, professionalism, drug laws, racial issues and some of the habits that exist within the PD. He's not Moses or anything, but he's someone with a background that should give him a seat at the table if changes are ever going to be made. Likewise there'd be someone to counter his points too.

a reply to: Kandinsky

I posted a Rogan interview back in the thread somewhere with an ex-cop/former Marine, Michael Wood (looks like a teenager).

Thank you! I'll definitely hunt that up.

LEOs -- and their experience and wisdom -- must be part of the solution. While it's too easy to point to the cop on the street as the problem, in the end they are also the solution. All of us can contribute to the solutions, but we cannot cut the LEOs themselves out of the process. And I fear too many want to do just that.

a reply to: Boadicea

Give him a go and don't forget that he's describing his experience; other cops will have a very different take on it. He's got a website and it's been a looooong time since I read it. It had some policy proposals.

LEOs -- and their experience and wisdom -- must be part of the solution. While it's too easy to point to the cop on the street as the problem, in the end they are also the solution.

Exactly. It's one of those professions that has to be lived. What seems unfair to outsiders has often evolved from necessity. Sometimes it takes an outsider to change routines too. Gotta be the conversation to make changes.

The police didn't need to but them self in a position, if they even did, where a person reaching requires that person to be shot. The "He may have had a gun so he gets shot" is getting out of control.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: jidnum

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: roadgravel

And he apparently has a history of calling in bomb threats to various agencies and buildings. For the lulz

Seriously though, what relevance has that got to do with a totally innocent man being literally executed on on his own front porch by police?

If he doesn't make the call the guy does not die...

That kind of logic is like saying, she wouldn't have been raped if only she didn't dress that way...

The victim did nothing to deserve to be executed on his front porch like that.

You keep saying the word "Executed". He wasn't Executed and yes. the guy is right, if he never made the call, the guy would still be alive. you cannot deny that. It also cannot be compared to "if she didn't dress like that she wouldn't have been raped". Apples and oranges my friend.

The victim was guility of no crime, he simply stepped onto his front porch to see what the issue was, which means he was clearly 'executed', with 1 round to his head...

Also, its not an "apples and oranges" comparison at all..The suspect was a victim of a horrible crime, commited by police that was in no way any fault of his own... which by the way cost the poor man his existance on this earth.

Oh its absolutely apples and oranges. Are you delusional?

Apples = cops think there is a very bad situation going on because some idiot called and said he killed his dad, held his mom hostage and about to set the place on fire. Cops don't know this is fake at the time. They treated the situation as if it were true. This was caused by an outside influence. Neither the victim or the cops knew the truth at the time


oranges = girl dresses in revealing clothes and sick man decides to rape her.

How is that in any way similar to each other? please. explain.

a reply to: jidnum

Even if that is true. The cops do not have authority to execute someone.

Their job is to take the "perpetrator" into custody. They aren't "Judge Dredd" style "Street Judges" yet. I have no doubt that at least in the US, that will come to pass one day, but it's not happened yet. Not officially or legally anyway.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Irishhaf

Nope, as far as the cops knew this guy had already killed...

Nope. As far as the cops were told, this guy had already killed. They had absolutely no personal knowledge of any crime at all -- much less a murder. They only knew what they had been told -- not the truth of it.

However, there is absolutely no doubt that the cops did and do know that people lie and that people make false reports -- including "swatting."

So there was room for reasonable doubt.

Ok so by your logic, every situation SWAT gets called to they should all think about how people do SWAT pranks and lighten the situation at hand?

You will never win. If they end up doing that then people will say so n so died because they didn't take the situation serious enough because of previous and past false threats.

That's not how it works. Every threat is a real threat until substantial evidence is brought forth.

The Cops acted accordingly given the information that was presented to them.

People want to blame the cops when in reality it is the callers fault.

That's like me telling a dog to go attack an innocent person just to scare them assuming that the dog will not hurt them "because of reasonable doubt". No, the Dog is going to act accordingly to the information provided. Now if I never sicked the dog on them, then nobody would have never got hurt.

Point being. The caller should be made an example of and be charged with involuntary manslaughter or conspiracy to commit murder. Not the Cop.

originally posted by: BMorris
a reply to: jidnum

Even if that is true. The cops do not have authority to execute someone.

Their job is to take the "perpetrator" into custody. They aren't "Judge Dredd" style "Street Judges" yet. I have no doubt that at least in the US, that will come to pass one day, but it's not happened yet. Not officially or legally anyway.

People keep using this word "Execute". Yes they killed him, but they did not "Execute" him. I wish people would stop using such over dramatic wording.

This situation is not an execution, please look up the definition.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Couldnt agree with you more worldstarcountry, im from the uk myself. 100% this situation is the pranksters fault and the rrsponsibilty to what happened after he called falls on him hugely, i cant believe some people here are disagreeing with you.

Very well put too.

Im a gamer myself also, have been in various forms from age 8 to 42. Have job have wife have kids, the full deal, no basement life here.
The belief these gamers can do this needs to change, there are some deluded A holes online.

Throw the book at him as we say in the uk.

In summary, cops robotically knock on random door and shoot whoever answers DEAD, as a result of this videogame-inspired SWATTING prank now going viral among America's gamer 'kids'.

Could be that gamers are targetting non-gamer households, based on this incident, at least!

Sign of the times; sure sounds like automated (or maybe even AI-assisted) Martial Law to me.

originally posted by: DerBeobachter
I bet in almost every other country on earth the police wouldn´t have killed the man!

you would be wrong, and loose the bet. just the other night there was a case in Manila where there was an altercation where a lady was supposedly accidently shot (not clear by who, possibly by the illegally armed BRGY (barangay, a small political administration area could even be a couple blocks. and the BRGY police are prohibited from carrying firearms on duty) tanods (watchmen)?) accidently shot, while trying to break up the fight/argument. she was loaded into a vehicle and was being driven to the hospital. the BRGY police went in pursuit and were possibly even firing at the vehicle claiming it was the suspects fleeing. the regular police then took over the chase and they were firing at the fleeing vehicle, and when it stopped continually were firing at the vehicle while running around it. with the victim of the shooting and one other dead as a result. while not quite the same, it is a very similar case of police using deadly force immediately based upon bad information, resulting to the death of innocents. and not happening in the US.

The gunfire went on for a long time, even as two van passengers were lying on the ground and someone inside the vehicle was shouting “emergency.”
When the smoke cleared, uniformed policemen approached the bullet-riddled van that had pulled to a stop along Shaw Boulevard in Mandaluyong City. The police opened the back door of the van and pulled out bloodied passengers.
Police, reportedly led on by barangay watchmen or tanods, had opened fire on the wrong vehicle and killed two persons late Thursday. Two others were wounded

Villaceran claimed the barangay watchmen were the first to fire at the vehicle occupants at the corner of Shaw Boulevard and Old Wack Wack Road.
He said the responding policemen merely followed the watchmen’s lead.
“The tanods thought they were the assailants, that’s why they fired at them. When the police arrived, the tanods pointed them to the vehicle,” he said.

www.philstar.com...

the reality is SWATing should not be a misdemeanor under any circumstances. by the very nature of falsely reporting such a crime as to get Swat or armed response knowing full well it is false should be considered straight out premeditated murder, if someone is killed. since the chances in such a response is very likely to result in death or injury. and where no one gets killed should fall under attempted murder. full Federal charges, with full sentencing as if the person pulled the trigger themselves. it could even be considered as a conspiracy to murder since they are in effect conning the police into killing someone.

shouldn't this fall under tha statute of someone murdered in the commission of a crime? after all even as currantly considered a misdomenor, it is still a crime where someone died as a result.

the fact the police over reacted is actually a separite matter altogether. and of course they need to be charged apropriately for their separite invoved crime. not taking away from the actual perpitrator in the killing, the person who falsely called them in the first place.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

They went to the address they got called to. The guy that was supposed to be swatted had posted an address that wasn't his own and dared somebody to swat him.

so the guy who was supposedly to been swatted knew the community and their acting, he was trolling here. he gave the wrong address by purpose and started to do things would lead to "consequences" inside the community.

at least would make a good episode for CSI

I read that the assassination was on some one who did NOT play the games.

If you to would like to assassination some one with out paying for it.
just call the police who are all to happy to kill people.

How many more like this untill you wake up?

Any one remember the old days?
the cops did not Just shoot you for fun!

and the bad guys did not shoot the cops.
for the most part.
as they knew that if they gave up,
the cops would not just shoot them!

originally posted by: Planette
In summary, cops robotically knock on random door and shoot whoever answers DEAD, as a result of this videogame-inspired SWATTING prank now going viral among America's gamer 'kids'.

Could be that gamers are targetting non-gamer households, based on this incident, at least!

Sign of the times; sure sounds like automated (or maybe even AI-assisted) Martial Law to me.

That’s probably the most inaccurate “summary” posted in the entire thread. Well done

a reply to: Shamrock6

Well...when the cops take a headshot on an innocent man, it makes people a little passionate.

a reply to: Grambler

As a gamer there is nothing more annoying than a snotty nosed sore loser.

If I get beaten fair and square i'll take the anger out on myself, not others. I haven't played many online games but this swatting is just some sore losers taking revenge for getting their asses kicked.

In one way these younger gamers are a lot like Trump, they cry foul and accuse everyone of cheating if they get gibbed, gibbed meaning 'exploded into a mess of gore' and whine whenever nothing goes their way.