Man Updates His Facebook Status During Hostage Stand-Off

36-year-old Jason Valdez wouldn't let a little thing like a SWAT team keep him from updating his Facebook status. During a 16 hour hostage stand-off in an Utah motel, Valdez made sure to update his Facebook page with things like, "Got a cute 'Hostage' huh?" He even got help from friends who posted the location of SWAT members outside.

Comments

Obstruction?

[LordStormes]

Love to see the "helpful" comment-leavers charged with obstruction of justice. Had this guy been a little more deranged, he could have easily picked off said cops given the positions given out by his buddies.

Re:Obstruction?

[swanzilla]

Easily pick off a SWAT cop? Body armor, assault rifles, and shotguns may beg to differ.

Re:Obstruction?

[jdpars]

You haven't played the latest Call of Duty? Tells you just how to do it.

Re:Obstruction?

[interkin3tic]

The article does mention that the police were considering that. It sounded like there was only one comment about the swat team being in the bushes. I guess it depends on whether the prosecutor thinks it's important to send a message.

It's worth noting that the article makes it sound like the guy shot himself in the chest to try to commit suicide. The police say they didn't fire their gun, but also said that he could face charges for "firing his handgun at police." I suppose he may have been shooting at the police, and they may not have fired back because of the "hostage" (girlfriend sounds like it would be more accurate). Is it possible though the police are saying by trying to commit suicide (pointing the gun at himself and firing) that's "firing his handgun at police"?

Re:Obstruction?

[caerwyn]

He fired shots during the standoff, as he reported in one of the status updates.

Re:Obstruction?

[Chris Mattern]

Because video games are *such* an excellent guide to real life combat.

Re:Obstruction?

[Broken scope]

Body armor doesn't stop always stop rifle rounds.

Re:Obstruction?

[iksbob]

The article made it sound like he was going to get his girlfriend out of the room at one point, but the police tried to use that as an opportunity to storm in. In response, he fired a couple of shots and retreated (with his girlfriend) back to the room. The question is whether those shots were directed at the police, or were just warning shots over their heads. Either way, the police are going to charge him with firing on them afterwards.
I suspect they were warning shots. If he had actually fired at them, I seriously doubt he would still be alive. Or maybe that was the idea, but the officers misaimed when the perp "shot himself in the chest".

Re:Obstruction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, shoot at the cops and then yourself?

According to the article which you claim to have read the guy posted he fired off a few rounds 90 minutes before they rushed him. Then he shot himself.

They're not claiming by shooting himself he fired his gun at police. Good Lord, learn to read.

Re:Obstruction?

[Dogtanian]

Easily pick off a SWAT cop? Body armor, assault rifles, and shotguns may beg to differ.

You haven't played the latest Call of Duty? Tells you just how to do it.

Because video games are *such* an excellent guide to real life combat.

It's not Call of Duty this guy has been using to train, it's *this* hostage/kidnap simulator.

Re:Obstruction?

[Biggseye]

You are absolutely correct. Every person that gave him information during the stand off could and should be held accountable. There is no difference in this than if he was on the phone to people doing the same thing. Depending on the law in that state, if he had fired at any one, police or otherwise, the people supplying information could very well be charged with conspiracy to murder and attempted murder. These are very serious charges.

Re:Obstruction?

[MBGMorden]

The question is whether those shots were directed at the police, or were just warning shots over their heads.

"Warning shots" still count as a shot towards the individual, and are NEVER justified. Even for a person legally carrying a firearm and acting in self defense, if it comes time to shoot, you're supposed to aim to hit. Warning shots even in such a situation will, at best, tend to draw an "Illegal discharge of a firearm." charge. Simple reason being that those bullets go somewhere. You are responsible for them. If you're not shooting at a specified target with intentions to hit it then you have no damned business putting those bullets into motion in the first place, as you've just upped the possibility greatly of striking an innocent bystander.

Re:Obstruction?

[PickyH3D]

You don't get to fire warning shorts toward someone and say it's something other than firing at them. To be a warning shot, it must have been shot in their direction. The danger with shooting a gun, in any direction, in a motel really shouldn't need to be explained to anyone.

Re:Obstruction?

[gman003]

Correction: Body armor rarely stops rifle rounds. Most body armor will protect against pistol bullets, shotgun pellets, or artillery/grenade fragments. Even most military body armor is relatively useless against rifle rounds - police armor, definitely not. SWAT, perhaps, has armor that can stop an AK47 round (a rather slow-moving round for a rifle), but a common 5.56mm or 5.45mm will go right through it. And you can forget about any of the heavier rounds - there is NOTHING that will save you from a (civilian-legal in the US) .50BMG round, save being somewhere else while the shooting is going on.

Body armor's not magic. It can save you from a lot of stuff, the kind of stuff police and armies commonly encounter. Pistols - lightweight bullets, at relatively low velocity, and often designed to fragment on impact - are common and easy to protect from, since they have such low momentum to stop. Artillery kills mainly by fragments, which are also easily stopped. Same for grenades - movies and games massively understate the range on them: a fragmentation grenade can often kill someone half a football field away, if the tiny shards of metal fly in the right direction. But rifles? The most common light rifle round, 5.56x45mm, has 1800 joules of energy. The most common pistol round, 9x19mm, has 570-700 J, depending on make. That's a whole lot more energy to stop, and it's concentrated into a much smaller area (24mm^2 instead of 63mm^2).

Re:Obstruction?

[NoSig]

What if the press were there with video cameras and he was watching his TV and thus obtained information about the location of police? Should the journalists then go to jail? Or is it only OK when a journalist does it? I'm not sure myself, but I do think the issue is not so simple as you make it out to be.

Re:Obstruction?

[chaboud]

I dunno. Then we start charging people for saying "hey, the police are trying to bust you" or "hey, there's a speed trap up ahead."

Sharing tactical information that can be publicly seen should *not* be a crime. It quickly turns into a complete police state (if it hasn't already). Disclosing the positions of police officers with no malice aforethought does not attempted murder make.

Re:Obstruction?

[Anonymous Coward]

a fragmentation grenade can often kill someone half a football field away

[citation needed]

Re:Obstruction?

[PickyH3D]

I hope that happens. Helping someone like this during an armed hostage taking should cause you to get charged with aiding and abetting. Not to mention the slew of other conspiracy charges that you brought up.

After all, the assistance put the woman's life in danger. What if he flipped out because of it and killed or otherwise hurt her? It absolutely put the SWAT officer's life in danger. Not to mention it probably served to elongate the whole ordeal.

Re:Obstruction?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to see you die in a fire. It's because of people like you wanting to put EVERY FUCKING BODY in jail that the US has such a huge, overcrowded prison system.

Re:Obstruction?

[Cederic]

Tell you what, acquire a grenade, throw it 50y on a football field and stand there until it explodes.

Don't duck.

Then come back here with your braindead pointless pathetic fucking [citatation] fucking [needed]

Re:Obstruction?

[LordStormes]

No, it's because the US sees fit to lock people up for victimless, harmless activities like smoking marijuana.

Re:Obstruction?

[NineSprings]

Holy misinformation central... Wow. Check your sources friend-o.

Re:Obstruction?

[Cederic]

I dunno. Then we start charging people for saying "hey, the police are trying to bust you" or "hey, there's a speed trap up ahead."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343959/Driver-flashed-headlights-warn-motorists-speed-trap-fined.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/4569124.stm

Re:Obstruction?

[LordStormes]

The cops can see when the news cameras are out there, and they generally keep them far enough out of the thick of things that their tactical positions can't be given away, for that very reason, unless they WANT the guy to know he's covered every which way as a negotiation tactic.

(my dad used to work in hostage situations as a cop)

Re:Obstruction?

[x6060]

Hello, There are some good information and bad information in your post. 1. SOFT body armor will not stop rifle rounds. Kevlar is virtually worthless (alone) against rifle rounds. Soft armor (assuming Level IIIA here) will stop most rounds up to and including .44 Magnum (Excluding a few rounds like 5.7mm and 7.62x25) rounds that are FMJ or JHP and of normal velocities. They will NOT stop anything steel cored. 2. SWAT and the military both employ Hard armor as well as soft armor. These are typically either steel plates or ceramic plates. They will either be rated for single impact or multiple impact and whether they are assisted panels or not (If they need to be assisted it means you HAVE to have a soft vest on under the plate or it will NOT stop a rifle round). These plates tend to ONLY cover a small portion of your body though, usually just your vitals as the plates are typically only 10x8 inches in size. (and youll typically have one in front and back) 3. A 7.62x39 round (The round used in the AK47) is actually MUCH harder to stop then your typical 5.56x45 (assuming it is an XM193 round [not steel cored]) round. It is a heavier round that does NOT fragment, however the wounding characteristics are not that great. The majority of the US military uses a XM193 round that fragments on impact making it easier to stop. The Russian 5.45 round is kind of weird and not a very effective round as its wounding method is to yaw inside its target, which means the temporary and permanent crush cavities are not spectacular, though it is decent at penetrating armor. 4. Grenades and Artillery actually try to kill with the concussive force (thats why the range is stated as being shorter) and fragmentation is the secondary wounding method. (If its going to throw chunks of deadly metal everywhere then you might as well capitalize on it.)

Re:Obstruction?

[Americano]

I can't wait to see him invoke the "warning shot" defense.

"Your Honor, I fired shots to keep police away when they were trying to serve me with a felony warrant. But yo, check it out, they was just WARNING shots, I wasn't aiming at the police, just wanted to let them know that I didn't want them to come any closer."

When somebody's pointing a weapon in your direction and pulling the trigger, they're shooting at you. The fact that he has bad aim and was probably firing blind / wildly doesn't mean a thing, legally speaking. He still discharged his weapon at police, he still resisted arrest, and he still held someone - presumably against her will, unless she's going to now agree that she was his accomplice, rather than his hostage.

Re:Obstruction?

[x6060]

Ack, sorry for the formatting.

Re:Obstruction?

[Ogive17]

Not unless he is a trained sniper with enough cover and 1-way visibility to allow him to get off shots without anyone on the outside seeing him getting ready.

I really doubt "hey man, they are on the roof" is going to be very helpful, unless going through the roof was his escape route.

Re:Obstruction?

[The Moof]

What if the guy was across the street. What if he was on a 2-way radio instead of Facebook. What if we referred to him as a "spotter" instead of a "commenter"? Again, still not as black and white, but I'd say intent plays a huge roll in the legality of the situation. He was directly communicating with the hostage taker and trying to help him stay one step ahead of the police. I'd say that falls squarely under aiding and abetting.

Re:Obstruction?

[LordStormes]

All you need is a good curtain in the window, man.

Re:Obstruction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Present better information yourself, dick-o.

Re:Obstruction?

[x6060]

Well, actually the wounding potential of a grenade at 50 yards is very small. Not impossible, but not likely.

Re:Obstruction?

[X0563511]

Shots do not need to be fired at someone to warn them. You can quite clearly hear the report from any direction.

Re:Obstruction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Headshot!

Re:Obstruction?

[WankersRevenge]

Very interesting post although you did manage to sidestep the most important question of them all - how many pizza boxes will it take to stop a rifle bullet?

Re:Obstruction?

[NineSprings]

Google is your friend, junior. It still works. Even in your parents basement. Put down your PS3 for a second, and look up SAPI, then ESAPI.

Re:Obstruction?

[X0563511]

You might note the 'co.uk' part on those sites.

Last I checked, Utah was not in the UK.

Re:Obstruction?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

You don't even need to go all the way up to the .50BMG, any standard full power hunting round will do. Think things like .30-06, .308, .303, 7.62x54r, 300 Winchester magnum. Regular police body armor won't stop things like the .223 (5.56x45), 7.62x39, or .30-30 which are all fairly common hunting round for things up to white tail deer. Even S.W.A.T. armor would have issues with some of those especially with multiple shots fired. Add to the mix shotgun slugs which even if they are stopped by the armor (very unlikely if sabots are being used) will still cause serious damage. With this about all body armor is good against is are the common handgun rounds. The big handgun rounds offer power close to that of a rifle and would be almost* a hard for body armor to deal with. Luckily for law enforcement most criminals use handguns that are .38acp, 9mm, or .45acp as these are common for a semi auto pistol.

Re:Obstruction?

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to shoot a lot of AK47 rounds in the army (7.62×39mm) and we were told that they were superior against armor vests, contrary to what you stated above. Wikipedia puts the energy at just above 2 kJ so I think it would be safe to say that it would be even more useful against an armored opponent than the standard NATO round. I'm no expert but the images we were shown in the field first aid classes clearly showed shattered bones and dismembered legs from a single shot. Very different from your standard Hollywood representation.

Re:Obstruction?

[X0563511]

You've heard the expression 'loose lips sink ships?' Well, leaking tactical information -during- the operation gets people killed. People doing their job, which is (supposedly) to protect and serve the public.

I agree that making it an outright crime is not a nice thing, but what else can you do!? Clearly you can't expect people to use their brains.

Re:Obstruction?

[x6060]

Checkout the site Theboxotruth.com

They do lots of back yard ballistics testing. There is some really interesting stuff there.

Re:Obstruction?

[X0563511]

I really doubt "hey man, they are on the roof" is going to be very helpful, unless...

Actually, it is.

You then know they are on the roof, so now you know you -must- watch the stairs, where before you were uncertain. That can make all the difference, and get people killed. Another example: Hear a noise upstairs? Well, before you might be alarmed by it, depending on what you think you heard. Well, now they are really paying attention...

Re:Obstruction?

[NineSprings]

Correction -- XM193 denotes a QC rejected M193 round, which is a 55 grain 5.56mm FMJ ball round. It is no longer issued in the majority of brnaches/units The most common 5.56 round now is the M855 green tip -- 62 grain FMJ round with a steel core. Now sounds like M855A1 is the next large scale (minor gain) switch.

Re:Obstruction?

[Matheus]

And this post (and parent) are *exactly why i like to read /.

In every situation you'll get a wonderful combination of crazy ranting lunatics AND people who actually know what they are talking about. About literally every topic, this is true.

Re:Obstruction?

[GooberToo]

It can, but certainly not likely. At those distances the frag pattern is so large, the likelihood of purposely hitting someone is tiny. But, random targets do get hit.

As a side note, with so many references readily available, people like you who are both too stupid to use Google and too lazy to even try, only validate just how bad humanity has become. The world at your finger tips and you're too stupid and lazy to use it.

Re:Obstruction?

[x6060]

Yes, those rounds would be good against soft armor. But a Level IV ceramic plate could stop any of those rounds (with the exception of the .50 round)

My plates are rated to stop anything up to and including a 30.06 steel core (most people call it Armor Piercing, but that isnt technically correct) multiple times.

Re:Obstruction?

[Matheus]

...and if you'd read parent more than what you quoted you would have gotten to the following quote "Either way, the police are going to charge him with firing on them afterwards."

The point parent was possibly trying to make (which is valid) is more of a moral / intent differentiation:

Depending on which comment you believe the guy was firing as a warning or in self-defense when they decided to charge. He was not firing in an attempt to kill an officer explicitly.

Depending on your personal beliefs you may not see that as being any different but in the eyes of most religions and a strict interpretation of the law they are quite different things. (For example: If he had hit an officer he would not be guilty of 1st Degree Murder. May even drop to 3rd or even switch over to Manslaughter.)

just sayin'...

Re:Obstruction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obstruction of justice? That's a relatively minor charge compared to what they could be charged.

They could be charged as an accomplice to the crime.

Re:Obstruction?

[x6060]

Thank you for the correction. Its been a while since I dealt with the mil supply chain and Im still using M193 till this day.

Have the actually green lighted M855A1 round? Last I saw it was still at the proving grounds.

Re:Obstruction?

[x6060]

Now we just have to figure out which one of us is which!

Re:Obstruction?

[smbell]

Your information on grenades is a bit outdated. Old style 'pineapple' grenades throw off significant fragmentation. Most modern 'frag' grenades (at least those used by military) have a much higher explosive payload and vaporize most of the outer shell on detonation. It's the concussion wave that the primary lethal force. There are some fragments, but they are not likely to kill anybody, just wound.

Re:Obstruction?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

This is why I hate the whole concept of warning shots, or brandishing a weapon. It is a great way to get someone hurt or killed.

I try to explain to people who don't know much about guns that I don't believe in accidental shooting in 99.99% of cases because is actually negligence. The remaining few are truly accidental shooting even once I had a firearm accidentally discharge, but because it is pointed down nothing bad happened other than the dirt got shot. The way it happened was some friends and I were shooting empty pop cans up north and ran the SKS out of ammo. When empty the bold is automatically held open so you can put more ammo in using a stripper clip. I put the safety on, reloaded, and pulled the bold back to close it. We the bolt closed it chambered a round (like it should), but because we had freezing rain (it was only about 25F out side) the firing pin froze forward and struck the primer discharging the round even with the safety on. This only proves why you should only point firearms at things you intend to shoot (or in this case a safe direction).

Re:Obstruction?

[nschubach]

The world at your finger tips and you're too stupid and lazy to use it.

Prove it!

(sorry)

Re:Obstruction?

[UnknowingFool]

I think the correct charge is "aiding and abetting". Obstruction would occur had they failed to divulge information or evidence upon request.

Re:Obstruction?

[SilentStaid]

Let me get this straight - are you implying that somehow these morons on facebook had more information on the SWAT team's whereabouts than the journalists and were able to convey that information in twitter-sized morsels more effectively than a 1080i newscast?

Re:Obstruction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but those bullets go somewhere, and that somewhere can easily be into a bystander. If you're shooting somewhere other than your target then you're being reckless with the gun, plain and simple.

Re:Obstruction?

[gman003]

Had you read more than the first thirteen words on the Wikipedia article, you would have learned that body armor of that type is used almost exclusively by the military. Last I checked, small-town SWAT doesn't normally go out with $1500 in body armor plates.

Re:Obstruction?

[gman003]

It's... complicated. I believe the general opinion is that, for general penetration (ie. bricks, brush, etc.), 7.62x39mm will match or outperform the newer 5.56mm/5.45mm rounds. But for body armor specifically designed to stop bullets, the newer rounds significantly outperform.

Of course, my info is coming from US DoD information, so it could be biased.

In any case, against common police-type body armor, either one will work just fine.

Re:Obstruction?

[mehrotra.akash]

***HEADSHOT***

Re:Obstruction?

[gman003]

I didn't want to get into the hunting cartridges, mainly because it makes the math more complicated.

PS: Most common round used by criminals in the US? .22LR. Because it's dirt-cheap (both the guns and the ammo), and generally easy to conceal.

Re:Obstruction?

[gman003]

I am aware of the differences between soft armor and hard armor, as well as most of your other info (the 5.45 bit is new to me, though). I was simply trying to avoid needlessly complicating things. But thank you for providing more information for anyone who needs it.

Re:Obstruction?

[BitZtream]

One shot in the right location makes the body armor worthless.

If they're all standing out there not moving, it makes it much easier to put a shot under their arm and kill them, armor or no armor. Or the neck. Both those locations are great for kill shots.

I shot to the face, regardless of whats covering it is going to take you out for a while just from the energy in the bullet being dissipated.

They aren't invincible, not anywhere close. Get a clue, you don't know much about firearms and warfare.

Re:Obstruction?

[UnknowingFool]

Whether the hostage taker is skilled enough to take out a SWAT member with one shot or multiple shots, it does not address whether the hostage taker was helped by the FaceBook poster. By locating the policeman, it still is considered aiding and abetting.

Re:Obstruction?

[x6060]

Actually they do. Also Civilians have them as well.

The military also has a program of donating older plates to small town ERTs

Re:Obstruction?

[NineSprings]

You should check again :)

Re:Obstruction?

[Anonymous Coward]

(24mm^2 instead of 63mm^2)

Those are oddly specific measurements. If you used 25 and 64 instead, they'd be squares of 5 and 8 respectively, which makes it easier to picture the difference in size. One square is .5cm on a side, the other is .8cm. Did your numbers come from some reference material or something?

Re:Obstruction?

[NineSprings]

Not sure if the M855A1 was officially signed off on. I personally hope that the big machine will give the 5.56 SOST round another look before any money is spent on this 'environmentally friendly' upgrade...

Re:Obstruction?

[Kamiza Ikioi]

I especially love the picture of "3 people like this" when he talks about scaring off the police with gun shots.

This is why Facebook needs a dislike button or something else, because it makes people look like animals for "Liking" bad news. Most of the time, people hit "Like" to vote up news, not to agree with it.

Re:Obstruction?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

True, I had forgotten about that ammo, body armor would have no problem stopping that.

Re:Obstruction?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Up to and including .30-06 still wouldn't include the .300 Winchester magnum. I also wonder how it would hold up to a .270 given that that is just a faster necked down .30-06.

Re:Obstruction?

[RussellSHarris]

Did your numbers come from some reference material or something?

They came from math. The rounds are 5.56 mm and 9 mm in diameter. Open Google and type "pi * (5.56 mm / 2)^2 in (mm^2)" and "pi * (9 mm / 2)^2 in (mm^2)".

(24.28 mm^2 and 63.62 mm^2, respectively.)

Re:Obstruction?

[nobodyknowsimageek]

The thing is, merely pointing a gun at a police officer is a felony. I don't think "I was just firing warning shots" would be considered a valid defence.

Re:Obstruction?

[x6060]

It's not really that complicated as long as you're comparing apples to apples. If you look at 7.62x39 and 5.56x45 both steel core, then the 7.62 will out penetrate the 5.56 round every time. If you are looking at non steel core rounds, the 7.62 round will still out penetrate the 5.56 round. However if you start comparing non steel core 7.62 with say M855 steel core rounds then yes, the M855 will out penetrate a 7.62 FMJ lead core round.

There is lots of both types of ammo out there

Im curious as to what US DoD information youre getting that you dont think the rest of us already have. =\

Re:Obstruction?

[x6060]

Yeah, that /round cost increase for that much more copper is a LOT when you're buying millions of rounds. Plus when being shot at I dont really care how environmentally friendly my bullets are.

Re:Obstruction?

[x6060]

Depends on the penetrator. if its just FMJ with a lead core, the armor should stand up since it will take a .30.06 steel core. same with .300 WM.

Re:Obstruction?

[David89]

my skull had no problem stopping that, at an angle though

Re:Obstruction?

[x6060]

Well, unfortunattly neither of those numbers is really that correct as the actual point of impact is smaller and the final shape can be sizably larger if the round is made to deform. Modern .45 JHP rounds can end up being larger than an inch in diameter shortly after impact.

Re:Obstruction?

[LordStormes]

All depends on the angle and positioning of the 1080i newscast's cameras.

Also, FWIW, it's a common tactic during a standoff to cut off cable lines to the building, so the hostage-taker has a hard time seeing the perimeter on TV.

Re:Obstruction?

[NineSprings]

Had you read more than the first thirteen words on the Wikipedia article, you would have learned that body armor of that type is used almost exclusively by the military. Last I checked, small-town SWAT doesn't normally go out with $1500 in body armor plates.

And one more thing -- let this be a lesson why your research sources should not be limited to the Wonkypedia alone...

Re:Obstruction?

[SilentStaid]

Fair enough - one thing I thought of as well is that they're taking action to inform him directly, rather than just reporting at large. Intent probably plays a big part in it.

Re:Obstruction?

[Broken scope]

Just curious, why do you bring up something like .50 BMG when its far more likely a cop is going to be shot at with something like 7mm mag or some other high power hunting round?

Re:Obstruction?

[Broken scope]

A fragmentation grenade that doesn't give off fragments isn't a fragmentation grenade......

Re:Obstruction?

[x6060]

Good luck in trying to change terminology in the military.

Re:Obstruction?

[X0563511]

So, if I point the gun at an object and shoot it, that object being my target or not is a matter of semantics.

There's a large difference between shooting it in some known direction vs shooting it wildly. Yes, both are not the best of ideas, but you're comparing 'driving recklessly' to 'driving 200mph down the shoulder in rush hour traffic'

Re:Obstruction?

[Duradin]

.50 BMG isn't a high power hunting round? That's some tough deer you've got in your area then.

Re:Obstruction?

[Xoltri]

My dad had an SKS back in the day and those things got super hot; are you sure freezing rain made the firing pin stick or was it something else?

Re:Obstruction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. July 5th several years ago, I found a bullet in the sidewalk of my Suburban Community. Only explanation I could come up with is that it came from people in the very nearby Major City shooting shots into the air for the 4th of July.

Speedy thing goes up, speedy thing goes down. It's never appropriate to shoot into the air.

Re:Obstruction?

[Anonymous Coward]

The cherry picked kind that lets him avoid complications by being simply.. wrong. Its the best kind of information to not have!

Re:Obstruction?

[FCAdcock]

Nope. Grenades have about 20m worth of killing in them. Sure, it's possible you could get a random fragment through your neck 50 yards away, but from that distance I wouldn't even worry about covering my man sausage from the blast.

Unless you're in confined quarters (room, foxhole, vehicle) grenades aren't that much of a threat. Hell, we just awarded the MoH to a soldier who had one blow up less than two feet from his hand and all he lost was the hand. (that incident was clearly the exception, not the rule; but it shows us that grenades are a lot less lethal than most civilians assume.)

Re:Obstruction?

[c 0xFF]

I agree with you 100%. There are very few true accidents when it comes to shootings.

Well, almost 100%. I'll point out that firing a weapon in freezing rain could also be considered negligence ... so call it 99.9% or so.

Re:Obstruction?

[FCAdcock]

The most common rifle round is NOT the 5.56. By FAR it is the .22. Seeing as how you were most likely referring to military rounds, you're still dead wrong; it's the 7.62 NATO. The last I read there were over 100 million ak47's in the world.

Body armor can stop the 5.56 as well as the 7.62 round with ceramic plates. I have been hit with a 7.62 round and while it left a huge black and blue spot on my back, knocked me down, and knocked the wind out of me, the vest did it's job and I am here today telling you that you're wrong.

Your sizes are just way off for rounds. the 9mm is 9mm across (duh, a$$hat) and the 5.56 isn't 24, it's 22.3mm (that's why we call it the .223)

Movies and games do not understate the range on grenades at all. the "lethal" radius of a grenade is 5m, but the effective stopping range is about 20-25m.

And lastly, most of the killing from artillery rounds is not done by fragmentation. There just isn't that much metal in an artillery shell. The majority of the destruction is done when the shell explodes and throws everything that's close to it 50 feet farther away. You're much more likely to be killed by a car door than a shell fragment in an artillery strike.

Re:Obstruction?

[FCAdcock]

Just googled them, they cost less than $400. SAPI plates run about 290, and the newer polyethelene ones cost between 400 and 600. You can get the full package (plates, with lv III-a vest) for around 700 online.

Also, small towns don't usually have swat teams, and those that do, have swat team members who wear ceramic plates. Would YOU spend $800 on plates for your vest if it meant the difference between coming home at night or dying in someone's front yard? Most cops aren't as stupid as you think, and the ones who have been around long enough to make their way on to a swat team are even less stupid. They know what bullets do to people, and they do their best to avoid first hand experience. You study computers, doctors study anatomy, swat studies violence...

When you say that it's used "almost exclusively" you're missing some key facts. There are hundreds of millions of soldiers on the planet who wear body armor. There are probably less than 200k SWAT team members world-wide. So yes, the military outnumbers police usage by far, but that's not saying that cops don't have access to them. Hell, assuming that you live in a country that has the word "liberty" in it's constitution, YOU have access to them. They aren't restricted, just expensive considering that they only last 5 years (or until shot).

Re:Obstruction?

[gman003]

1) .22 LR is generally considered a pistol round, even though it has "rifle" in the name.

2) HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU THINK THE AK47 USES 7.62mm NATO? DID YOU NOT PAY ATTENTION AT ALL TO THE PAST 65 YEARS OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS? DOES THE TERM "THE COLD WAR" MEAN NOTHING TO YOU?

3) There are two general types of body armor, "soft" and "hard". You were using "hard". Most police forces do not use that - "soft" is much cheaper, much easier to move in, and will still stop 99% of the stuff police have to deal with.

4) You officially fail metric. 5.56mm is .223 inches - 22.3mm is .87 inches, significantly larger than any rifle, pistol, or shotgun shell still in use. If you are ex-military (you seem to be implying you are; I am explicitly doubting so), you're probably familiar with the 20mm shell - used by many small autocannons and the larger miniguns, generally in an anti-tank, anti-vehicle or (sometimes) anti-aircraft role.

5) A bullet with a 9mm diameter has a cross-sectional area of (9/2)^2*pi, or 63 mm^2.

6) What do you call debris being thrown by an artillery shell exploding? "Fragments" sounds like as good a term as any.

Re:Obstruction?

[shutdown -p now]

You're basically describing the difference between offensive and defensive grenades, not the difference between "old style" and "new style" grenades. Which one is preferred depends on the specific military, and reflects the situations they commonly face, or expect to face. Yes, modern NATO grenades are usually offensive, and this is a shift from how things were in WW2. On the other hand, Russia, for example, has its military equipped both with defensive and with offensive grenades of modern design; and still retains the original WW2 F-1 grenade (defensive) in service.

Re:Obstruction?

[DarwinSurvivor]

I'm pretty sure pointing a gun at ANYBODY is a felony in most places. Now some way reduce it if it's not loaded, but not by much.

Re:Obstruction?

[shutdown -p now]

The most common rifle round is NOT the 5.56. By FAR it is the .22. Seeing as how you were most likely referring to military rounds, you're still dead wrong; it's the 7.62 NATO. The last I read there were over 100 million ak47's in the world.

He was likely referring to the most common rifle round in US, not in the world in general, as the former would be more relevant in the context of the story.

In any case, AK doesn't use 7.62x51 (aka "7.62 NATO"), it uses 7.62x39, a completely different round.

Body armor can stop the 5.56 as well as the 7.62 round with ceramic plates. I have been hit with a 7.62 round and while it left a huge black and blue spot on my back, knocked me down, and knocked the wind out of me, the vest did it's job and I am here today telling you that you're wrong.

It depends on the bullet in question - there are many variations of 7.62x39, and some are specifically designed for improved armor piercing, but these are not the varieties you're going to see in large quantities in places like Iraq or Afghanistan. In US, on the other hand, the only limit is the wallet of the person buying ammo.

Your sizes are just way off for rounds. the 9mm is 9mm across (duh, a$$hat) and the 5.56 isn't 24, it's 22.3mm (that's why we call it the .223)

You should pay attention to the units. His sizes are specified in mm^2, which is unit of area, not of length - he simply converted bullet diameter into area.

Of course, .223 is not 22.3mm. It's 5.56mm (and the official NATO designation is actually "5.56x45mm" not ".233"), and .223 is the size in inches. 22.3mm would be an insanely large round, given that heavy MGs typically have a caliber of 12.7mm (aka .50).

Movies and games do not understate the range on grenades at all. the "lethal" radius of a grenade is 5m, but the effective stopping range is about 20-25m.

It very much depends on the grenade in question. The lethal radius of the Russian F-1 grenade of WW2 fame is 30 meters, for example (and shrapnel will fly out to as far as 100m). That's because it is designed to heavily fragment, and to be used from a defensive cover - it's not meant to be thrown out in the open, since you cannot throw it far enough to be safe without cover. In contrast, the German "potato masher" grenade of the same era had lethal radius of under 15 meters - also by design. Different grenades for different purposes.

And lastly, most of the killing from artillery rounds is not done by fragmentation.

That also depends on the types of the shells used - there are frag and HE and various combinations. For example, most rocket artillery these days is mainly used with fragmentation rounds.

Re:Obstruction?

[FCAdcock]

1. of all the .22s I own, none of them are pistols... Checking wikipedia, it says that the .22 is the most common round in the world. Logic tells me that this is trus since I can buy a box of a thousand rounds for what it costs for 20 .45 rounds.

2. you're right, typing faster than I could think.

3. SWAT teams wouldn't fall into the category of "most police forces." They are more likely to be shot than conventional police and therefore arm (and armor) themselves accordingly.

4. Yes, I do. I was wrong.

5. See above

6. I'd call it debris. Otherwise tornadoes would cause fragments.

2 years 3rd ID, served in Iraq and Afghanistan, member IAVA, DAV, and WWP.

Re:Obstruction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good clarification. I was thinking the same thing as I was reading his post. However most of what I've read deals with 223 rounds out at 600+ yards and how to accomplish that (competition shooting), but I've seen most of what you explained before. However...

The 223 M193 ONLY fragments on impact with a high twist rate rifle barrel, such as 1:8, it will not do so with what is now a standard 1:12 or 1:14. It was not designed to fragment, that just happened to be a coincidence with the manufacturing and high twist barrels used in the Viet-Nam era. The current M-16 rifles and whatever version of the 223 they use now, not sure if its still the M193 or not, does not work well against any body armor if the reports from Iraq and Afghanistan I've seen are true. A lot of the soldiers are asking for larger caliber rifles because of that, but that may just be the reputation of the 223 and them not liking it because whoever taught them to shoot initially told them it was bad. As I'm reading NineSprings posting, they may have switched the standard ammo to a steel core to compensate for this problem without replacing all their rifles, but I'm not up on the latest and greatest for military use.

Re:Obstruction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well there's that too, but that's beside the point.

Have you found that fire yet? I'm waiting.

Re:Obstruction?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Well no one was shot, only the ground. Eventhough the weapon unexpectedly discharged because it was being handled in a safe manner, maintain proper muzzle control, the bullet went in a perfectly safe direction into the rather swampy dirt a few feet out into the ravine we were shooting into.

Re:Obstruction?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Ok that makes sense. I do agree that most people consider any steel core ammo to be armor piercing eventhough alot of it, especially Chinese 7.62x39, just has mild steel cores as a cost saving measure. I mostly shoot hunting ammo either 154gr soft point 7.62x39 or 203gr soft point boat tail 7.62x54r, but that cheep Chinese surplus is tempting when you just want to waste some ammo on cans or paper.

Re:Obstruction?

[Broken scope]

Dear Smartass,

Many states have laws against using non expanding ammo when hunting game and unless you are loading custom rounds or buying from specialty ammo manufactures, I doubt you are going to find expanding .50 BMG.

Most rifles capable of delivering .50 BMG weigh in excess of 20lbs.

Unless you are shooting from ranges where the .50 BMG is needed you are likely endangering others due to the risk of missing your target and hitting something behind it.

Also, most people can't shoot at extreme range with the accuracy needed to guarantee a clean kill as opposed to maiming the animal which then has to suffer till you manage to find it and end the suffering which your incompetence caused.

Finally, the vast majority of hunting rifles are chambered in .30-30, .30-06, .308, 7mm, or other rounds which generally drop very quickly after leaving their preferred range.

.50 BMG is a High powered, Long Range Target round.

Re:Obstruction?

[x6060]

Well, actually all rounds drop at the speed of gravitys acceleration. And .50s are really fun to shoot.

Re:Obstruction?

[haxwk]

Well obviously that's what our infallible modding system is for.

Re:Obstruction?

[Duradin]

You can buy .50 BMG hollow points, soft tips, you name it.

And really, other than military surplus what ammo isn't going to be specialty for a .50 BMG?

Re:Obstruction?

[stephanruby]

The "helpful" comment was from me. I thought he was just playing Mobsters, or something.

Re:Obstruction?

[definate]

Some good information, however your information on grenades is way off.

For the brief time I dealt with this sort of stuff standard operating procedure while walking in very open high risk areas, was to maintain a minimum of a 10 meter radius between each other, such that only one man at most would die, while a few might just sustain injuries, in the likelihood of most grenades, and some certain mortar rounds.

Just in case things have changed, or I am remembering incorrectly, I looked it up on wikipedia's hand grenade article:
"For the M67 fragmentation grenade used by several NATO nations, the effective kill zone has a five meter radius, while the casualty-inducing radius is approximately fifteen meters. Fragments can fly as far as 230 meters. Usually people in a 15 meter radius are injured enough to effectively render them harmless."

This makes sense with why we had to have a 10 meter radius, as there would then only be 1 possible person in the effective kill radius, and at most there could be 4 people in the effective casualty radius. On top of that, given one lands, everyone hits the ground, and you limit yourself to only a small portion of the explosion.

Now while fragments can be launched as far as 230m away, they are not likely to kill anyone. Now while you could have bigger hand grenades which would have a greater chance of this, you're not likely to see them in operation.

Re:Obstruction?

[Eivind]

"in the bushes" isn't really a very specific position, though I agree that it's pretty dumb to post anything like that. Infact it's pretty dumb to post anything at ALL in a situation like this.

Re:Obstruction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good post, good info. I have a hunting rifle that will easily penetrate any type of body armor in use. I can hit a moving target the size of a dinner plate at 400 yards on average 4 out of 5 tries. Over broken ground, with crosswind, in poor lighting conditions, shooting from a moving and/or unstable platform. And while I'm a decent shot, I'm certainly not a great shot. Point being that no matter how much armor you have, a clean shot to the head will drop pretty much anybody, almost all the time.

Re:Obstruction?

[Anonymous Coward]

The question is whether those shots were directed at the police, or were just warning shots over their heads.

"Warning shots" still count as a shot towards the individual, and are NEVER justified. Even for a person legally carrying a firearm and acting in self defense, if it comes time to shoot, you're supposed to aim to hit. Warning shots even in such a situation will, at best, tend to draw an "Illegal discharge of a firearm." charge. Simple reason being that those bullets go somewhere. You are responsible for them. If you're not shooting at a specified target with intentions to hit it then you have no damned business putting those bullets into motion in the first place, as you've just upped the possibility greatly of striking an innocent bystander.

Proper firearm protocol:
Weapon is to remain holstered during a confrontation.
Showing the holstered weapon is the first stage of Threat. Drawing the weapon is the FINAL Threat. At this point it should be aimed down, up, or otherwise AWAY from the target. If the target is fleeing or otherwise unable to hear you or see you clearly, this is where you would fire a warning shot.
Once you decide that you ARE GOING TO FIRE, you aim the weapon and fire... this is ONE action.

Now, notice that this differs from what the police do every day. They are completely willing to just whip out their guns and point them at anybody who they feel like, and the courts let them get away with it. That's Bullshit, and of the worst variety- because they are in all reality already in the process of shooting you, and this is exactly how "accidental" shooting by the police happen. Which is another line of bullshit, because if you're pointing the weapon at someone it is NEVER an accidental discharge.

Re:Obstruction?

[bWareiWare.co.uk]

Telling people that the police are trying to bust them, or the location of speed traps, would responsible lead to them avoiding the police/location (not a crime), or potentially cause them to decrease any criminal activities they may otherwise have been undertaking. Spotting officers for an armed hostage taker could reasonably lead to him perpetrating additional crimes, such as shooting at said officers.

Re:Obstruction?

[Cederic]

I agree entirely it's a very different action, with very different consequences. I was merely responding to a suggestion that people may get prosecuted for pointing out a speed trap by highlighting that people in the UK already have been.

Personally I think encouraging people to obey the law should be legal, and informing people of speed traps has an outcome that they slow down and stop speeding, which is the professed purpose of those traps (in the UK), so it's aiding the police and not obstructing them.

However, aiding someone holding a hostage by feeding him intelligence regarding police activities feels like it should come under some sort of aiding and abetting law.

Re:Obstruction?

[AmiMoJo]

I have long wondered about this. You see guys firing their guns in the air in celebration, but those bullets have to come down somewhere and by that time they will be headed nose first towards the ground at terminal velocity.

It seems to be particularly popular with dictators and militia. Maybe it's like in the movies where you see the bad guys laughing about their evil plans before it cuts to another scene, except in this case as soon as the tape stops rolling everyone runs for cover or gets hit by a falling shower of lead...

Re:Obstruction?

[Broken scope]

Yes, and by the time they hit the ground, most of them don't go nearly as far.

Re:Obstruction?

[x6060]

Actually .338 lapua magnum, .300 min mag, .408 cheytac, and .416 barret (and many more) have higher velocities and will travel further than even the best .50 rounds.

Re:Obstruction?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Warning shots" still count as a shot towards the individual, and are NEVER justified. Even for a person legally carrying a firearm and acting in self defense, if it comes time to shoot, you're supposed to aim to hit.

I hope that comment of yours is the result of you limiting your statement entirely to the hostage situation but it doesn't read that way.

Otherwise if for instance you are accidentally trespassing, and strike a menacing figure by way of nature (default in a trespassing situation), you would then like it in the chest and face instead of me punching holes in the air? You insist on that?

And here I was thinking I had an unreasonably low measure of self-preservation :D

Sure situations differ, if you were inside housing you'd get instant death but accidental trespassing usually happens on the remaining 99.999% of landmass.

Maybe you've misunderstood "never point a gun at someone unless you're planning on shooting" (notice I don't write "aim").

I don't know US SWAT procedures and they're likely different (they seldom if ever guard anything) but your sentiments don't even apply to military situations such as NATO military police military jurisdiction live ammunition instructions where situation permitting one is instructed to order halt, fire a warning shot, and then shoot to disable before shooting to kill.

Those three steps take much less time than people would imagine and the fourth is final :)

Posting because most US gun owners (...and far too many US troops!) have sorely lacking gun safety and ownership knowledge and zero knowledge of (their own) military protocol.

P.S. That's a big part of why you have so many dead by shooting while many other countries have more guns per person than you and far less deaths.

Re:Obstruction?

[Tharsman]

If pursued, these helpful comment-leavers would more likely be charged as accomplices than just with "obstruction".

Re:Obstruction?

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys are American, am I right?

Criminal friends?

[Tukz]

I wonder if the friends can be prosecuted for aiding a criminal like that.

It's a metaphor.

[blair1q]

Isn't that what we're all doing by posting to /. from work?

Re:It's a metaphor.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Isn't that what we're all doing by posting to /. from work?

Yes, in the same way that closing one eye makes everything flat.

Re:It's a metaphor.

[magarity]

Isn't that what we're all doing by posting to /. from work?

Totally different - the article is about the hostage *taker* doing the posting.

Re:It's a metaphor.

[Anonymous Coward]

i.e. he was "at work"

Re:It's a metaphor.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that what we're all doing by posting to /. from work?

Totally different - the article is about the hostage *taker* doing the posting.

Uh no. That's exactly the same. The hostage *taker* is AT work. He's got hostages. And he posted to facebook.

How to Crowdsource An Escape

[WillAffleckUW]

Hey, everyone knows it's just a game, right?

Can you BELIEVE this Sim! Love the realistic graphics ...

Re:How to Crowdsource An Escape

[Anonymous Coward]

Street racers at least used to use code-words like that to communicate on message boards. That way they could brag about how they beat the other guy "in Gran Turismo."

Re:How to Crowdsource An Escape

[WillAffleckUW]

my top speed in the rolling hills of Eastern Washington for GTA: Spokane is 125 mph - yes, your limiter does kick in ...

Nothing new here.

[Verteiron]

AFK, hostage.

Re:Nothing new here.

[Schwhat]

It was probably a Windows 7 phone, you know...Designed to get you in and out - and back to life.

So much for shutting off power.

[sethstorm]

Looks like batteries and internet got around the cops.

Then again, will a hostage situation also require that phone networks go down too?

Re:So much for shutting off power.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since I am not a LEO (but work with them), I can say that this is something they all thing about. Now, they don't often cut the power anymore, but they do run what the LEO's I work with call a "Trap and Trace" (I know, wrong term, but that's what they call it), which kills the data/SMS connections and forwards all outbound calls to a special hostage negotiator phone number. It works pretty damn well all things considered. At one convention I attended a vendor demoed a local-area cell jammer, which the FBI rep in the room quickly pointed out wasn't permitted by Local and State LEO's to use, and that only the FBI had permission to use cellular jammers. So... most likely, the Hostage Negotiations team will use the fact that there are cell phones in the room to the advantage, and are really happy when a hostage dials 911 from their phone and leaves an open channel for the Negotiations team to listen in to the room.

Again, Posting AC because I like my friends.

Re:So much for shutting off power.

[Vrtigo1]

Haven't you ever read Rainbox Six? That was SOP for anywhere they deployed. They had a disk that they stuck in to the cell site equipment and it denied all calls except for those that were prefixed with the secret code. Of course, that assumes that they can magically get into any cell site on about 10 minutes notice (not the easiest thing to do if you've ever actually walked up to the base of one of the larger cell towers, first you have a barbed wire and sometimes electrified fence, then each carrier has their own little equipment hut which has about 5 different locks on the door). That's also assuming that every carrier uses equipment that would be compatible with the "blocking program", and it says nothing about data usage. I don't really see any way around that except for providing a list of allowed IMEI / IMSI numbers and turning data off for everyone else. Of course this is all in a perfect world where one person has the authority to summarily decide to turn off cell coverage without needing to get approval from anyone else, and somehow magically not get sued for doing so.

Re:So much for shutting off power.

[Anonymous Coward]

It works pretty damn well all things considered. At one convention I attended a vendor demoed a local-area cell jammer, which the FBI rep in the room quickly pointed out wasn't permitted by Local and State LEO's to use, and that only the FBI had permission to use cellular jammers.

The FBI doesn't have any say in the matter, it's a matter of FCC regulation and yes there are several state and local LE situations where cell jammers CAN be used. For example, I can use a cell jammer in my house 100% legally as long as I don't interfere with anything outside my property boundaries. i.e. if the jamming signal cannot be detected outside my property line it's all good. (don't forget there IS a height boundary as well, I don't remember exactly but I think it's somewhere around 50 feet above the ground surface)
Targeted jamming can also be used with the same restrictions.

When friends trust you more than the police...

[sethstorm]

...do not be surprised if they're willing to get rid of the surprise.

Hopefully none of them get charged with anything that sticks - since they'd only be making things worse off.

Re:When friends trust you more than the police...

[Dahamma]

This guy is no righteous vigilante, he's been convicted of domestic violence and assault, and was holding a woman at gunpoint.

Hopefully his friends get charged and convicted of obstruction. And if his hostage had been killed, they should have been charged with accessory to murder. Morons.

Re:When friends trust you more than the police...

[chaboud]

No. Disclosing tactical information that is publicly available (where people are standing in public) should *not* be a crime.

You do that, you put speed trap disclosures, video recording of cops, and the news all at risk. It doesn't matter that the guy was a phenomenal douchebag (along with, most likely, many of his friends). A mod of insightful means that most of slashdot is thinking a lot like the U.S. Supreme Court these days. Don't think about how you want the law to apply to this particular situation. Think about how it should apply in general.

Re:When friends trust you more than the police...

[gman003]

There's a difference between "hey, there's a cop here, don't break any laws", and "hey, there's a cop over here, start shooting".

Re:When friends trust you more than the police...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be curious how much of the information that his friends posted about was available by watching the news

Re:When friends trust you more than the police...

[Seedy2]

Disclosing information that is publicly available publicly is one thing; giving someone, in the process of committing a crime, information to help them, is a crime.

Re:When friends trust you more than the police...

[DriedClexler]

I'm sorry, no matter how bad that hostage taker is, that seems excessive. Imagine I'm coming over to my friends's apartment and I see a bunch of police around. I check facebook and my friend has an update, "in a bit of a bind lol".

Now, note that's a bit ambiguous -- maybe he means he's the target, maybe it just means he can't leave his pad because the police are going after someone nearby.

So I reply to his update with, "yeah, what's going on, man? There are SWAT dudes all over the front lot?"

Suddenly I'm an accessory to murder for "giving tactical information"??? WTF?

I know the real situation was a bit more damning for the captor, but what if I thought, "oh, this is just another joke of his, making fun of hostage operations" when he posts a picture of the "cute hostage babe lol".

At the very least, they should have to establish that the friends really knew what was going on.

Re:When friends trust you more than the police...

[metlin]

That's the problem with the law -- you cannot qualify "...in the process of committing a crime" because that implies intent (and someone could claim that they were misconstrued). So, the law would effectively framed such that giving someone information to help them is a crime, qualifying the nature of the information (but never the situation). And then, you're screwed.

Re:When friends trust you more than the police...

[nschubach]

Heck, I know I joke with my friends (who are not the criminal type) about them being watched by someone in the bushes. I can't pick out an exact time, but when they've "broken" minor laws and told me about it, I usually include the phrase: "The police just pulled up outside!" or something on that order.

Re:When friends trust you more than the police...

[Seedy2]

That's the problem with the law -- you cannot qualify "...in the process of committing a crime" because that implies intent (and someone could claim that they were misconstrued). So, the law would effectively framed such that giving someone information to help them is a crime, qualifying the nature of the information (but never the situation). And then, you're screwed.

are you some kind of lawyer?

I grant that some crimes are not apparent; but some crimes are blatantly obvious.
Obviously you should not be able to get convicted of helping in a crime if the person committing the crime is not convicted, but if the person is convicted of a crime and you helped them in carrying out the crime, then you should go to jail too.

i.e.If someone tells a man coming out of the back door of a bank carrying a large sack, "hey don't go that way, there are cops there" when he starts to leave, he is guilty of aiding the criminal.

I can see that posting on YOUR Facebook page shouldn't be actionable; but if you post information to a CRIMINAL's Facebook page or messages them information to help them in a crime they boast about on the same page as being in the act of committing, that should get them a nice cell next to the guy they helped.

Helping criminals commit crimes is a crime.

There is a difference between helping and not hindering. I am under no legal obligation to hinder a criminal, afaik.

It's up to the courts to determine the facts of the matter, the police should just arrest folks who appear to have broken the law.

p.s. do you understand there is a difference between "guilty of a crime" and "convicted of a crime".

Re:When friends trust you more than the police...

[Dahamma]

There is no reason to be hypothetical, and there was no ambiguity - why don't you RTFA first?

His friend REPLIED to his post about taking a hostage, for chrissakes! He had already bragged about shooting at the police, and claimed that police actions might jeopardize her life. The whole thing had been televised for hours, and the SWAT team was present. And his friend's comment was "gunner in the bushes, keep your head down".

Anyway, of course I agree they will have establish intent, but considering the situation described and that these guys literally left a message log of the exact information they were given and the timing of their replies - I think that's not a problem.

Re:When friends trust you more than the police...

[slashqwerty]

giving someone, in the process of committing a crime, information to help them, is a crime.

What crime is that? If I tell a hostage taker to put down his guns and turn himself in I am helping him but I don't think anyone would consider that a crime. If the police say, "we've got you surrounded", that is not a crime either. Letting the suspect know there is no escape is not so different from telling him to surrender.

Re:When friends trust you more than the police...

[Seedy2]

giving someone, in the process of committing a crime, information to help them, is a crime.

What crime is that?

Aiding and abetting.

If I tell a hostage taker to put down his guns and turn himself in I am helping him but I don't think anyone would consider that a crime.

Giving someone a command is not helping them, it's commanding them.

If the police say, "we've got you surrounded", that is not a crime either. Letting the suspect know there is no escape is not so different from telling him to surrender.

Telling them how to evade capture or otherwise helping them commit the crime is a crime though.
I'm not sure why you think those other things have anything to do with what I said.
Twisting my words around won't change the facts either.

Re:When friends trust you more than the police...

[insertwackynamehere]

I'm pretty sure that while a slashdotter can't write some law which covers every fringe case and iteration, the courts can make decisions on a case by case basis. This is why courts exist, because laws don't need to be overengineered so that deterministic solutions can be applied in a purely logic based way using only a machine. The law should have clear intent and do it's best to clarify the point in a non-vague manner but it is up to lawyers, individual situations, juries and judges to draw conclusions from all available information including law and circumstance. A law which disallows assisting with a crime fighting the legality of public information? Lawyers from each side will spin it and people (jurors, judges) will decide based on the case whether the friends were more assisting in a crime ("hey bro I know the cops are surrounding you here are some you can shoot at") or just saying "yo there are a lot of cops to the left of your office what the heck is going on?".

Attempted "suicide by police?" - the next FB feat

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

The "if I don't make it out of here alive" comment, the use of such a public forum, shooting at the cops and the eventual self-inflicted shot to the chest make me think he was trying "suicide by police".

$100 says that Facebook will shortly come out with an "emergency channel" that police and other emergency crews can use to "break in" and talk to anyone, regardless of friend status.

Preventing a murder-by-cop.

[sethstorm]

They saved that guy's life.

Now if he provoked a shot, then he's given up any good position whatsoever.

Re:Preventing a murder-by-cop.

[Anonymous Coward]

He a) took a hostage, and b) fired on cops. If SWAT shot him, at that point he deserved it.

Re:Preventing a murder-by-cop.

[Anonymous Coward]

a. She was just in the room with him. There's no evidence she was a hostage.

b. He fired on himself (he shot himself in the chest).

dom

Re:Preventing a murder-by-cop.

[barrtender]

a) From the article: "Got a cute 'Hostage' huh," Valdez wrote of the photographs. Not to mention other comments, but that should be enough.

b) Also from the article: "Well i was lettin this girl go but these dumb bastards made an attempt to come in after i told them not to, so i popped off a couple more shots and now were startin all over again it seems....."

my lawn

[digitalsushi]

Extrapolating from 1999 when I got on board here, in 2018 slashdot will be posting stories about Michael Jackson's alien love child. No mention of facebook.

Re:my lawn

[denobug]

In 2018 slashdot maybe too old to stay alive and /.er may be too old to bother to post anything.

Re:my lawn

[djdanlib]

The Javascript will still be just as awful, though.

Oblig. The Other Guys quote

[GodfatherofSoul]

Det #1: "At the crime scene L-O-L"
Det #2: "That's a good tweet!"

Re:Oblig. The Other Guys quote

[indecks]

indecks likes this (see others who liked this)

Re:Oblig. The Other Guys quote

[Americano]

Other People You May Know:

LAPD SWAT Team (2 Mutual Friends) [Add] [Ignore]

93rd MP Battalion (7 Mutual Friends) [Add] [Ignore]

NYPD 37th Precinct (4 Mutual Friends) [Add] [Ignore]

Re:Attempted "suicide by police?" - the next FB fe

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop

Re:Attempted "suicide by police?" - the next FB fe

[Shoten]

Suicide by cop is almost always done without an effective (as in real, or loaded) weapon. And more to the point, people who choose that route get the cops to shoot them, rather than shooting themselves; that's the whole point of it. So this is a little more of a case of really bad project planning and failing to do one's requirements analysis up front.

Re:Attempted "suicide by police?" - the next FB fe

[ThunderBird89]

$100 says that Facebook will shortly come out with an "emergency channel" that police and other emergency crews can use to "break in" and talk to anyone, regardless of friend status.

And would that be such a bad thing? At least if it comes to an emergency, which leaves you trapped somewhere (say, an earthquake traps you in the rubble), they can give you instructions, such as first aid, survival, and possibly even zero in on your position based on what you tell them you see and hear.

I'd say Facebook should have done that long ago.

Prison updates

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've got a cute boyfriend"

"Yesterday I dropped the soap in the shower. A heads up to everyone out there, don't pick up the soap if you drop it. Oh by the way I have a new boyfriend"

Re:Prison updates

[LanMan04]

"I've got a cute boyfriend"

"Yesterday I dropped the soap in the shower. A heads up to everyone out there, don't pick up the soap if you drop it. Oh by the way I have a new boyfriend"

Rape isn't funny or justified. Ever.

Re:Prison updates

[chaboud]

Except when it's implicitly part of any prison sentence, generally accepted by the public, and completely disregarded by the courts and prison systems. Then it's *halrious!*

I, for one, love that we pack our prisons with non-violent offenders, sprinkle in some 25-to-lifers, lock the cage doors, and let animal dominance rule the day. What could possibly go wrong?

/stupidity

Re:Prison updates

[Anonymous Coward]

When it's a psychotic asshole that likes to beat on women and shoot at the cops... it is. Both funny and justified. You like your human rights? Act like a fucking human being. It really is that simple.

10$ says he comes out of prison with his two front teeth missing.

Re:Prison updates

[Cederic]

We had this debate on Slashdot yesterday. Your side of the argument lost.

Re:Prison updates

[Anonymous Coward]

Rape is almost always funny, but very rarely justified. On very rare occasions it is the cure for AIDS.

Re:Prison updates

[GodfatherofSoul]

You, Sir, never saw the shower scene in Half Baked

Re:Prison updates

[Cito]

awe you don't want any surpise? i shall have to wait

Re:Prison updates

[flimflammer]

I can assure you rape is often very justified. In fact just this morning on my way to work I saw a bulldozer raping an uneven plot of land that would soon become a baseball field for minors in the area.

Re:Prison updates

[YrWrstNtmr]

Rape isn't funny or justified. Ever.

Just last week, I anally raped a dead chicken with a 1/2 full beer can. Then slowly roasted it over hot coals.
Justified, and tasty.

Re:Prison updates

[LanMan04]

Bzzt, but thanks for playing.

Human rights are for EVERYONE, otherwise you'll very quickly see the list of those who aren't entitled to them expand. It might eventually include you.

stuntaz!

[garyrich]

Am I the only one that thought that photo was one of the Icy Hot Stuntaz? Then looked at the article and that is actually him, way to represent playa

Who cares about the updates? The real news here...

[RussellSHarris]

Apparently having a stand-off with the police is a great way to make new friends!

In all, Valdez made six posts and added at least a dozen new friends.

Michael Jackson's Alien Love GRANDchild

[billstewart]

FTFY. Our alien overlord-wannabees will get some details right on their giant mecha robot imitation Michael Jackson, like the single glove and holding the grandchild out the window, but just because they've walked on the moon doesn't mean they'll be able to do the moonwalk credibly.

Re:Attempted "suicide by police?" - the next FB fe

[Riceballsan]

Hence why the person used the phrase "Trying", shooting himself may have been the fallback plan, since getting caught by the police will certainly make actually committing suicide significantly harder, less quick etc... and actually having an unloaded weapon I would imagine would between taking away a backup plan, and being less effective (cops are more likely to fire at you if you fire the first shot). But yes obviously whether attempted or not, he failed, but did not get the worse possible outcome (worse outcome being hurt in take-down and put on suicide watch in a cell)

Re:Who cares about the updates? The real news here

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the good old days it was a big deal to be on facebook, and only the "good" people from your clique were allowed in. Now anybody with a firearm and a hostage can get an account and make the news, and apparently they can make some friends. This is a counter example to the old refrain, "There is no such thing as bad publicity." Facebook is taking one more step toward ubiquity and hence just another place to hang your hat without much thought. As Yogi Berra said, "Nobody goes there anymore, it is too crowded."

This is one more message to the upper class, money dropping kids that Facebook is not the place for the cool kids anymore.

Re:Attempted "suicide by police?" - the next FB fe

[GameboyRMH]

Seems like a decent idea to me, on Facebook it would be the least of your privacy problems.

weird italics

[Anonymous Coward]

36-year-old Jason Valdez wouldn't let a little thing like a SWAT team keep him from updating his Facebook status.

What is Facebook? Is it something different from Facebook?

Re:weird italics

[Gizzmonic]

It's Facebook, but read in a Shatner voice.

Re:Attempted "suicide by police?" - the next FB fe

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this a privacy problem, pray?

Re:Attempted "suicide by police?" - the next FB fe

[mbkennel]

$100 they already offer this "emergency channel" except they sell it to corporates to check in on their drones, regardless of friend status.

I seem to remember somebody who worked in HR bragging about this very ability.

Already there.

[sethstorm]

That functionality exists, just not for cops - but for data mining.

Not obstruction

[Anonymous Coward]

Posters who supplied location of SWAT officers would be accomplices, not simple obstruction.

Re:Attempted "suicide by police?" - the next FB fe

[GameboyRMH]

Well from what I understand of Facebook privacy, you can set it to only allow people you have set as friends to see your profile. This feature would presumably allow law enforcement to override this requirement and talk to you. I suppose if this feature could access to the rest of your profile and only allows exclusive 2-way chat with law enforcement it would be fine.

what i love

[circletimessquare]

are the comments by people with a grudge to settle against the police (probably for their own bad behavior they won't own up to) try to use cases like this as a proxy for their grudge: the hostage taker is an innocent lamb whose actions are perfectly understandable, caused by the police, and the police are vicious thugs out to shoot random people any chance they get

Re:what i love

[Brett Buck]

It's societies fault.

Re:what i love

[Anonymous Coward]

random black people, yes

sometimes a mexican or two

Re:Attempted "suicide by police?" - the next FB fe

[modecx]

Hell, these days you don't even have to be a serious threat to anyone anywhere, you're liable to simply be shot dead if you're somewhat more threatening than a cuddly-wuddly pink bunny.

Supposing you are as meek as a newborn kitten--if one of the under trained, under qualified "I only got the job because of affirmative action" types picks the day you're held at gunpoint to have a negligent discharge, you're almost certianly going to die in a hail of bullets, whether or not you deserve it, or whether or not you're in proximity to something that goes "bang".

They'll even stop high-powered rounds these days

[Quila]

Take your 7.62mm AK round. Two rounds in that same diameter are very common for hunting: .308 Winchester (a.k.a. 7.62x51 NATO) and the .30-06 Springfield (a.k.a. 7.62x63). Both carry a heavier bullet with a higher velocity, and have far more impact energy (up to double).

While standard police armor will be easily penetrated by either, the modern military composite inserts will stop them, even a 30-06 with a steel penetrator core.

It's amazing how far armor has come, just 20 years ago an average hunting rifle could make it through any personal body armor. But it probably still can't save you from the magnum rounds, like a .300 Win Mag or a .338 Lapua Magnum.

Could end up a great Supreme Court case

[GodfatherofSoul]

Are his friends who pointed out the position of SWAT team members really obstructing justice? Do civilians have the right to report on any police actions they observe under the auspices of the 1st amendment?

I'd love to see this decided and define the bounds for silliness like ticketing people who flash headlights as they pass speed traps. Or, laws against video taping cops.

Posted his demands on Twitter too...

[pyneiii]

ExxonJuanValdez @UtahSWAT...I demand LOLerskates and OMGponies by 10 PM Sent from my iPhone

Re:Attempted "suicide by police?" - the next FB fe

[Anonymous Coward]

$100 says that Facebook will shortly come out with an "emergency channel" that police and other emergency crews can use to "break in" and talk to anyone, regardless of friend status.

Hopefully. Police should be prepared to use the forms of communication necessary to talk down hostage takers. If the most effective way to contact a welfare state bred piece of human debris like this guy is via facebook then get'em the hell in there.

Oh, was everyone supposed to give you kudos for pretending law enforcement has no place on your sacred interwebs?

Sorry. You may resume your regularly scheduled workplace slacking with my apologies. Enjoy your up-mods as well; when so many cubical trolls agree it has to be right!

Re:They'll even stop high-powered rounds these day

[x6060]

Well i think distance is going to be key for survivability with those rounds. Im not sure but im guessing with a Level IV+ plate at 1000+ yards, with an angled impact it would stop it, probably not a square shot though. (Also those rounds are likely to be encountered at the 1000+ yard distance, god help you if youre closer then that)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Who cares about the updates? The real news here

[natet]

Maybe they thought it was the new Mafia game.

Re:Who cares about the updates? The real news here

[spongman]

yeah, he really had his priorities straight.

He's taking hostages, shooting at cops, about to be taken out by a SWAT team, but he's working hard to increase his social network before he dies.

maybe if he paid a little more attention to the important things in life, like how ridiculous he looks in his pimp car, and what his poor mother must think about his reckless behavior; he might not have gotten himself in this situation in the first place.

the comedic elements are missing...

[Anonymous Coward]

I expected lots more snark from slashdot...

"Utah State Police Office #1143 would like to be your friend"

Re:Attempted "suicide by police?" - the next FB fe

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You're a bit of racist, aren't you? I bet you hate Obama.

History repeating itself all over

[tkalfigo]

Year: 1972
Location: Munich Olympic games
Act: terrorist attack with Israeli hostages

"...the Germans organized Operation Sunshine, which was a plan to storm the apartment building. The terrorists discovered the plan by watching television."

This is sad....

[Anonymous Coward]

If he had any decency, he would have shot him self in the head not the chest.
Now we to pick up the tab for his hospital bills.