Slashdot Mirror


Swatting 19-Year-Old Arrested in Las Vegas

Ars Technica reports that a Las Vegas teenager is in custody for multiple instances of swatting: Brandon Wilson, who goes by the online handle "Famed God," was arrested Thursday in Nevada and faces an extradition hearing to determine whether he should be sent to face hacking and other charges. Illinois prosecutors said there was evidence on his computers about the July 10 swatting incident, in which he allegedly reported a murder to Naperville's emergency 911 line. The SWAT team responded, but the call was a hoax. The Chicago-Sun Times said that, in addition to the Naperville incident, the suspect's computers held evidence "of similar incidents across the country."

77 of 327 comments (clear)

  1. news ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Err. That's good, right ? Police arresting bad people ?
    Not sure why this is news.

    1. Re:news ? by davester666 · · Score: 2

      If he were Muslim, he would be charged with a host of terrorist-related charges instead...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:news ? by fuzzywig · · Score: 3

      It's rare that anyone gets arrested for SWATing, that why this is news.

    3. Re:news ? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

      Err. That's good, right ? Police arresting bad people ?
      Not sure why this is news.

      It's news because it involves abuse of technology. Swatting is pretty heinous, especially since it can endanger an innocent person and is a gross misuse of police resources. All I can say is I'm glad they caught him, and if he's guilty he deserves to be locked up for a long time.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  2. Guy allegedly does something stupid by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He gets caught and will stand trial. Isn't this how the system is supposed to work? What's the problem here?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wish the same standards are followed when people report "someone suspicious" [one person holding a toy gun inside a Walmart was killed by police because someone called in; a small kid playing with a toy gun was killed by police because someone call in and also mentioned that it was 'likely a small kid with a toy gun']. It is scary to imagine how much social engineering is possible to get others into trouble.

      I wonder how things go if in future there is some "meta-swatting" involved? Someone hacks one person's computer to hack into other computers, and the police aren't tech savvy... Or someone uses an impressionable kid to work as a mule.

    2. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's the problem here?

      Who said there's a problem? Why does there have to be one for something to make the news?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by NoKaOi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He gets caught and will stand trial. Isn't this how the system is supposed to work? What's the problem here?

      Exactly, they busted somebody who deserved to be prosecuted. The problem here that when we read a headline (before reading the details) about law enforcement busting somebody, our default reaction is no longer, "good, they busted the bad guy," but rather, "there goes law enforcement abusing their power again, they probably didn't have a warrant and the guy is probably innocent."

      That says something about the state of nation.

    4. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by CharlieG · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually, my reaction was "good, knew someone was going to get caught one of these days"

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    5. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by Roger+Wilcox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that SWAT is prevalent enough that punks like the guy in the article can even pull this kind of prank. SWAT came into prominence in the 1970s, with ~500 SWAT deployments per year. Today, there are more than 50,000 SWAT deployments each year (that's more that 150 deployments every day) and mostly, they are used to round up non-violent people engaging in consensual crimes. There is no justification for using paramilitary police action on non-violent petty crime. It is ridiculous: picture an 8-man armored squad busting in on a teenager smoking weed in his parent's basement. There have been dozens of tragic incidents in which innocents have lost their lives due to this excessive use of force. I don't have a solution to this. Politicians appear to consider the issue a career-danger to themselves to address; seemingly nobody is moving anywhere fast to rectify this trend. However, it has clearly become a problem.

    6. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by SgtAaron · · Score: 5, Informative

      As a non-American, I don't really understand US gun culture very well, but: if there is a likelihood of someone brandishing a deadly weapon, wtf don't police come in with full body armour?

      The guy can be rushed, and if it turns out the gun's a toy / he wasn't going to use it, nobody dies - but if they're shot at, no big deal, and he faces justice.

      I understand that some weapons are so powerful that body armour won't help, but how common are they?

      Body armor is great at stopping shots to your chest, but come on. Sure, in Hollywood shots to a limb are shrugged off like they're bee stings, but that isn't how it is in real life. One of my favorites was in CSI: Miami, Horatio gets shot in the gut, but sticks his hand on the wound and walks around toting his pistol and saving the day.

      Gunshots are no joke. One to to your leg can cause lifelong disability. Or how about to one's face? Ouch. I would never want to rush an armed opponent in the hope that his shots will only hit my body armor.

    7. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Informative

      Gunshots are no joke. One to to your leg can cause lifelong disability. Or how about to one's face? Ouch. I would never want to rush an armed opponent in the hope that his shots will only hit my body armor.

      No kidding. Public media tends to overstate the effectiveness of body armor.

      Little primer people, and yes, I've worn body armor before, the lvl IV military stuff with plates.

      1. Over half of police killed by firearms WERE wearing body armor. It's not like the ancient stuff that provides whole body protection, you have a front piece and a back piece that protects your chest. A hit to the head, or in from the side, and you're still possibly dead.
      2. Police body armor is drastically lighter than the stuff I wore. A rifle round will generally go right through them, as will a shotgun slug* at close enough range.
      3. Part of being lighter, even being shot with a handgun will result in injuries, and they'll probably want to get you checked out in a hospital. But said shot can disable you and make you less able to fight back until the attacker manages to line up a shot to the head, neck(from which you'll bleed out or suffocate), or bypass the armor from the side.
      4. Are there other civilians around? if you have a perp that you're afraid is going to start shooting, the officer is more protected than the others still around.
      They used to call them 'second chances' - you already lost your first chance(don't get shot), they provide a 'second chance' at stopping the round from killing you.

      *results WILL vary depending on numerous factors that I won't get into here.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    8. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 3, Informative

      Another thing a lot of people don't realize. If you do get shot wearing a "bulletproof vest", it doesn't just make all of the energy of the bullet go poof. It will keep the bullet from penetrating and making a hole in you, at the cost of burns and sometimes broken bones for high powered rounds. I'd rather have a broken rib than a bullet in my chest though.

    9. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I understand that some weapons are so powerful that body armour won't help, but how common are they?

      Extremely, most any rifle. Body armor generally protects against pistols and shrapnel, but not rifles. Military body armor may include special ceramic plates that cover a small area and these can stop hunting rifles and what the average soldier carries.

    10. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, that's part 3: "even being shot with a handgun will result in injuries"

      I've heard it being described as 'being punched once, full force, in the chest by Mike Tyson"

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    11. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      are there no effective bulletproof visors?

      First most body armor is not bullet proof. The best one can hope for is bullet resistant. There are bullet resistant face shields but they are not perfect. Neck, arms and legs are still vulnerable. An shot that severs a large enough artery can mean death. A shot to a nerve or joint can mean permanent disability.

      ...SWAT team being called out,...

      Swat teams take time to assemble and reach the scene. In that time a lot of damage can be done. In the early days, school shootings had more casualties because they waited for SWAT to arrive. The police were pillared for being too cautious. Now they go in much quicker but with much less protection.

    12. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by SgtAaron · · Score: 4, Interesting

      1. Over half of police killed by firearms WERE wearing body armor. It's not like the ancient stuff that provides whole body protection, you have a front piece and a back piece that protects your chest. A hit to the head, or in from the side, and you're still possibly dead.
      2. Police body armor is drastically lighter than the stuff I wore. A rifle round will generally go right through them, as will a shotgun slug* at close enough range.

      Damn straight. This reminds me of a police action in Portland, OR, they entered a house and the guy had a high-power rifle with armor-piercing bullets. One female office was killed outright, one shot just above her kevlar vest, one just below. Another female office was shot twice, they went through her vest, but she survived after surgery. It was a mess. I remember it so well because the police chief was livid about the news helicopter coverage. Apparently the guy was watching the news and knew exactly where the officers were around his house and where they were entering.

      When I was in the Army in the '90's we were told our body armor was really only effective against shrapnel. Don't get hit by that big 7.62 AK round!

    13. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In these cases though...the police are (maliciously) informed beforehand that the people inside are 'armed and likely to shoot'.
      There really is no other choice for them but to show up and go all out.

    14. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by murdocj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uh... right... "excuse me, are you are crazed well armed nutjob? No? ok, great".
      See, that conversation is pretty useless.

    15. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by demonlapin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can you give an example of swat being used to apprehend a non-violent person?

      Sure. Sal Culosi. He's a long way from the only one, it's epidemic. Read pretty much anything by Radley Balko to learn more.

    16. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by meerling · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I see you have a lot of replies, but the short version is that effective full body armor, such as a full compliment of Dragonscale, is insanely expensive, while a box of handgun ammo is cheap. Combine that with swaggering cowards, a zero tolerance policy, as well as a lack of actual repercussions, and you end up with police based death squads who shoot first before even identifying if it's an actual threat.

    17. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      There was another one I'd heard about. I don't remember where. The police stormed a house, wearing body armor. The standard pose is elbow-up, holding a gun. The first person in the door, dropped by a shot in the right arm-pit, bypassing all armor. The second one down too, by then those behind were looking for where the shot was coming from. I think they got him shooting through the wall, but I don't remember the details. It was touted by a armor salesman looking to sell armor with shoulder protecting, that, along with a modified stance, should have saved the lives of the first two that day.

    18. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Think about the last time you used a hammer to drive a nail. You could probably put a nail through fairly thick piece of plexglass or sheet metal right? Anything strong enough to stop you would be rather heavy. Now think about how much more energy a gun can produce vs your arm with a hammer. Bomb guys might wear something strong enough to repel more powerful arms but you wouldn't want to wear that kind of suit when you need to move fast.

    19. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I believe the correct way the call starts is "Excuse me, but are you the person who just called us to say you're heavily armed and going to kill everyone in your home?"

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    20. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by ShaunC · · Score: 3, Informative

      Can you give an example of swat being used to apprehend a non-violent person?

      Here you are. Don't be offended if I don't wait for you to finish reading, it's going to take you a long while.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    21. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Informative

      There a dozens of examples of innocents losing their lives at http://www.cato.org/raidmap

      Don't like libertarian nutters, then how about some left wingers with basically the same story (and a book to sell of course): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    22. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by nedlohs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You asked for one. You've been given two. My lord you are fucktard.

    23. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by ckatko · · Score: 2

      Why does them being female matter?

    24. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by Kaenneth · · Score: 4, Informative
    25. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wait for it... I'm sure it's coming:

      "Still... that's only like 1800, nowhere near the 25,000 you were talking about."

    26. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      So why did you ask for AN example?

    27. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      Military grade body armor with ceramic plates may provide single-hit protection against such a round, with emphasis on "may."

      Nitpick: My plates were certified against three 7.62x51 AP rounds. Actual AP.

      Still, the plates were only big enough to protect 'most' of the chest, pretty much the heart/lungs from a shot coming from directly in front or behind me.

      Oh, and Senator Kennedy went on the record as wanting to ban ALL rounds capable of penetrating body armor, including rifle rounds. He mentioned .30-30 by name.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    28. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by dwywit · · Score: 2

      I'm glad I live in semi-rural Australia, and know all the local cops if not by name, then at least on waving and nodding terms.

      On the rare occasion I get pulled over, I say "gidday" and wait for him to say what's on his mind. If it's a random breath test, I follow instructions, and then I'm on my way. If I've been speeding, I 'fess up, and say "You got me, mate, I wasn't paying attention" - that once got me out of a '30km/h over the limit' ticket and fine with a warning. And our cops are armed with pistols and tasers.

      Seriously, make an effort to be nice to your local policemen/women - the return on investment can be considerable.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    29. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by anonymous_echidna · · Score: 2

      meerling was describing the implications of the system setup, as any engineer should, and used the term "Death squad" to describe the predicted outcome. It doesn't seem to be far off, as shooting people seems to be a startle reflex for US police. It's not like this in my country, and it doesn't need to be in yours either. The first two of the following links describe a baby and a toddler being shot by police. The third makes the point that when police are given military gear, they start behaving like soldiers, instead of the civilians that they are. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/he... http://www.salon.com/2014/06/2... http://www.popularmechanics.co...

      --
      In most times, most places, by most people, liars are considered contemptible. - Ursula Le Guin
    30. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Around my parts, they deployed the SWAT team because some drunk guy skipped out on a $50 taxi fare. *sigh* People argue it was justified because he later had a pellet gun, but they tend to forget that the pellet gun came to light after the SWAT team had been deployed. The end result of it was two police officers got shot...by other police officers. They originally claimed the guy that skipped out on the cab fare shot the officers, until they couldn't find any firearms in the area except their own and analysis of the bullets confirmed the bullets came from another officers firearm. Nobody died.

      So yeah, moral here is, they deploy SWAT too often, and it's dangerous for the police when SWAT is deployed unnecessarily, as they seem to then shoot each other.

    31. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by faedle · · Score: 2

      If we have a routine police practice that causes the death of an innocent doesn't it deserve a sober review? Shouldn't we as a society be asking ourselves if this is the way we want our CIVILIAN POLICE to react?

      I don't know what scares me more, the SWAT teams or the complacency in which we in the US treat having a highly militarized police force.

  3. He should have seen that coming. by Mal-2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Filing a false police report is criminal in and of itself, even if it doesn't result in an expensive, resource-wasting, and potentially injurious or deadly response from the police.

    Do it once, maybe you get away with it. Keep doing it, and you can [i]expect[/i] to get caught.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    1. Re: He should have seen that coming. by Threni · · Score: 2

      Do it once, the police keep a recording of the call. When they arrest anyone, take a voice recording of them and run it against all the recordings you have.

    2. Re:He should have seen that coming. by fermion · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I find that some kids are just well protected. They never have to really deal with the consequences of their actions. We have seen some high profile cases where a kid gets to college, do some stupid thing, hacking, drinking, sex, and because they have never had to deal with consequences they fall apart, even commit suicide. In this case, who knows what other trouble he has caused and how he has been protected from consequences.

      It is unfortunate the the law has to be called in because the kid did not have the guidance or the sense to stop anti social actions on his own.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  4. Longer sentences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Up to 5 years? That's it?

    1. Re:Longer sentences by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      Seriously. A week in the can could possibly scare the punk straight, a year will more likely turn him into a hardcore criminal.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    2. Re:Longer sentences by westlake · · Score: 2

      Up to 5 years? That's it?

      That depends on how many incidents can be traced back to him and in how many states --- each one of which may decide to press their own charges.

    3. Re:Longer sentences by plover · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is nothing short of attempted murder. He may have intended it as a prank, but putting a dozen adrenaline-fueled heavily armed cops in the house of someone who might not be expecting an armed intrusion, and who might be prepared for one, is throwing gas on a fire. People could die if any tiny little thing goes wrong.

      Nope, this is pure cowardly violence. Stuff this idiot in a cell for 20-25 years. Let some non-violent offenders out if you don't have room.

      --
      John
    4. Re:Longer sentences by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So now we know why the US has the most people in prison compared to any other country.

      To me the problem is that some kid can call in a SWAT team. And if this is the case, why would the SWAT team be that dangerous? Are they send in to be a killing team?
      If a dozen adrenaline-fueled heavily armed cops are a danger in killing innocent people, then they are badly trained.
      If these teams is like trowing gas on a fire, then they should not have been send in the first place.

      I understand that people in the US do not see it that way, but for me as a European, what I see police doing in the US would be police brutality and/or abuse of power/intimidation almost all of the time in Belgium.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  5. Swatting is much more serious than a "prank" by DutchUncle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The linked article uses the words "prank" and "prankster" multiple times. This is not ordering someone else a pizza; this is ordering someone else a large group of hair-trigger people carrying deadly weapons and expecting violence. People like this should be restrained or executed, not so much for what they have done, as for being the sort of people who would do it.

    1. Re:Swatting is much more serious than a "prank" by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      Restrained, yes, executed, no. Five years in prison was mentioned in the article. I think that sounds just about right. Oh, and no more online access for him for some period of time after release as part of his probation. Internet access can obviously be every bit as much a weapon as a firearm, and he's probably going to go right back and make trouble if he's allowed, unfortunately.

      I agree that in the article, they should talk about "perpetrators" or "culprits", not "pranksters". None of my pranks ever had the remotest possibility of someone accidentally getting killed by police weapons. One of these days, something is going to go very badly during a "prank" SWAT raid, and someone is going to die.

      Here's a question: Why are police not calling back the houses in question to ascertain if there's actually an incident occurring? I'd think this would be standard procedure by now, with all the swatting that's happened.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:Swatting is much more serious than a "prank" by arth1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The linked article uses the words "prank" and "prankster" multiple times. This is not ordering someone else a pizza; this is ordering someone else a large group of hair-trigger people carrying deadly weapons and expecting violence. People like this should be restrained or executed, not so much for what they have done, as for being the sort of people who would do it.

      By "people like this", I hope you mean the adrenaline crazed goons who slime their pants kicking in doors looking for someone to shoot.

    3. Re:Swatting is much more serious than a "prank" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      He's not violent

      He is, by proxy.

    4. Re:Swatting is much more serious than a "prank" by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      He's not violent,

      He tried to get someone killed for lols. How is that "non violent"?

  6. Re:Jail forever by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Agreed. Some things you don't fuck with. Like pulling the fire alarm for kicks or calling the cops on innocent people.

  7. Re:Attempted murder by proxy by bigdavex · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't think it's attempted murder. More like reckless endangerment.

    http://definitions.uslegal.com...

    Reckless endangerment is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. The accused person isn't required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions. The charge may occur in various contexts, such as, among others, domestic cases, car accidents, construction site accidents, testing sites, domestic/child abuse situations, and hospital abuse. State laws and penalties vary, so local laws should be consulted.

    --
    -Dave
  8. Re:Horse fuck this idiot by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My feeling on the subject is that deliberately making a false report to generate an armed SWAT response should be charged and prosecuted as premeditated murder. The same as if they went and shot the people themselves. And if there's a miracle and the officers realize the report is false before someone is shot, it should still be charged and prosecuted as attempted murder, as if the person making the report attempted to kill someone themselves. Intentionally using the police as a weapon is no different than killing someone yourself. I would like to see them get the death penalty in these cases.

  9. Re:Attempted murder by proxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I disagree. If the SWAT team are so badly trained, they shouldn't be there in the first place. They are responsible for all their actions, and if they're relying on a civilian stranger's report, they should assume it's as likely to be bullshit as true.

    That doesn't mean the "prankster" wasn't committing a very serious crime, ofc. But not attempted murder. The state must always be held fully responsible for its actions, no matter how good or bad the information on which it acts.

  10. Re:Attempted murder by proxy by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

    In most systems (including most of the US states), murder does indeed require intent. The charge for killing without prior intent is manslaughter. In most of the US states the appropriate charge in this case would probably be involuntary manslaughter, where your actions caused someone to die but you didn't have any intent, pre-existing or in the moment, to kill someone.

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

  11. Re:"computer hacking" the convenient catch-all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't care about the hacking, but he should be tortured for swatting.

  12. correct, bulletproof visor would weigh several pou by raymorris · · Score: 4, Informative

    >. Perhaps I underestimate the power of the average handgun. As for the face, are there no effective bulletproof visors?

    Remember the tip of the bullet is around 2mm or so. Imagine you have a stout nail. You place the nail against a piece of glass and hit it with a hammer, hard. You want glass thick enough to take that without breaking. There's not all that much POWER involved, but it's concentrated in a small area.

    Bullet-resistant Lexan is something like two inches thick, so not only is it heavy but it a curved piece would refract quite a bit. Think "coke bottle glasses" times ten. So you've got a flat piece of material hanging off your face blocking your peripheral vision and it weighs as maybe half as much as a gallon of milk. That's not I what I want to wear in a fight.

    The thing about guns and power levels is that to do their job they have to RELIABLY go through a leather jacket, the clothes underneath, three inches of fat and muscle, then somehow do enough damage to stop someone within seconds. That means that they MIGHT go through all kinds of things and still do enough damage that you die eventually.

  13. More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    is the question of why its so easy to get a large group of hair-triggered people carrying deadly weapons to violently storm someones house over nothing more than a single anonymous phone call.

    Really? Thats all it takes??? some teenager with a cellphone & your address?

    I think we need to do something about that.

  14. It's a small thing... by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ars Technica reports that a Las Vegas teenager is in custody for multiple instances of swatting.

    ... but to me a nineteen year old is not a "teenager."

    1. Re:It's a small thing... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      His age has the word "teen" in it, therefore he is a teenager, whether you feel it or not.

      Interesting fact: other languages don't have the "teen" suffix for 13-19, so in their culture, the stereotype of the "teenager" simply does not exist. There's no rebelliousness, rock music, sex, etc. There are just older children and younger adults, and sometimes these switch roles depending on the situation. But try telling an American that teenagers as a concept didn't exist before the 1950s...OH NO. Mustn't discard our mental blinders! Too much thinking that way.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  15. Re:"computer hacking" the convenient catch-all by roc97007 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Don't care about the hacking, but he should be tortured for swatting.

    No kidding. People could die from that. The days of the police sauntering in gun holstered saying "'ello 'ello what's all this then?" are flat gone, if they ever existed. If someone is bursting into your home with guns pointed, things can get lethal very quickly. Regardless of whether any crime was committed.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  16. Body Armor Explained and more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    To understand why there is not a full suit body armor, you have to understand what body armor actually is and what it does. A 'bullet-proof vest' is a multi-layered fabric composed of Kevlar and other fabrics, with a pocket in the center of the front and the back that mostly covers just the heart, and into this pocket goes a ceramic and steel composite plate. The fabric of the vest is designed to take the force of the bullet that hits it and spread it out. So instead of a massive amount of energy concentrated on a point around 2-9mm in size, it gets diffused into the surrounding layers of Kelvar (instead of your flesh). And even then, you still get hurt, very badly, because it cannot stop all of the kinetic force of the bullet, it jsut spreads it out over a large area of your body. Broken ribs, bruised and ruptured internal organs, even spinal injuries are common when getting shot in the vest and that's when it works and stops the bullet from going inside you!

    Why the plates then? Because the fabric mesh is often not enough to stop even handgun caliber rounds at close range. The plates are insurance, they will stop most small arms fire, though rifle rounds quickly overpower even full steel plates. Thus your heart is not likely to damaged in a firefight if you are wearing your vest. Its not foolproof at all and it definitely is not bullet proof.

    The giant bulky armored suits you see the explosives guys wearing? That's not bullet proof either and its the closest thing we've got. That suit is protection against a detonating device because the detonation is usually unshaped. Even it will at best stop small arms fire, still has vulnerable gaps, and its heavy, and extremely hot. Its utterly un-tactical. If you want to see it in action, there is footage out there of a bank robbery in California from the 90's I think where a couple of guys in them held off police for a long while, tore the cops up badly but they were finally taken down due to exhaustion, vulnerability and the fact they were just too slow to actually get away.

    The less than lethal devices in an officers arsenal are unreliable. Not in that they may misfire, though that is certainly true as well. Mace/CS Spray for example is a terrible weapon to rely on. Its a spray, in mist form or stream, that travels through the air to splash onto a target. It can splash back onto the officer at extremely close range. Heavy winds can make you miss your target, hit an innocent, your partner, other officers, and even yourself. Also, a certain (small)_ percentage of the population is flat out immune to it, and even if the target is not, its not debilitating, its just a massive irritant. Police train to work through the pain and distraction and civilians can too. Even alcohol can make a person not feel the sting, and that's a legal substance. Get into narcotics and its a crapshoot if it'll do anything at all other than make it more difficult to apprehend the target. (oh yeah, that stuff is liquid and gets on everything. good luck wrestling that dude to the ground and not getting it all over yourself if it didn't work.)

    Tasers. ugh. Boon and bane in a single device. Injuries from tasing are common as they cause an adult human being to freeze up tight and fall over from a standing position. The effect of them is very powerful, but not that difficult to recover from, especially if you are full of adrenaline. So they come with multiple charges to make him get on the ground again. But, the more juice you pump through someone, the more likely it is for side effects to arise. (like death) Getting hit with multiple tasers at once is not recommended if you want a living suspect, they have a limited range as well, but that range is better than Mace and is like a leash for a target, as long as the barbs are in and the device has a charge, it can zap him again if needed. They can miss the target, they can hit too far apart to be effective, heavy winter coats can stop them. They are not a great solution, but they are what we have now. And using a taser on someone pointing a gun at you or anyone else...all your muscles spasm when you get juiced, there is a high chance the firearm in the targets hand will discharge and injure or kill someone.

  17. Gibson Guitar SWAT raid ... by perpenso · · Score: 5, Informative

    Can you give an example of swat being used to apprehend a non-violent person?

    Gibson Guitars. Gibson imported wood guitar components that we legally harvested and legally exported. Eventually the US gov't admitted Gibson did nothing wrong. However to investigate Gibon's possible improper importation of wood a heavily armed SWAT raid was conducted to seize their paperwork and the wood in question.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/...

    1. Re:Gibson Guitar SWAT raid ... by nedlohs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It answers your "Can you give an example of swat being used to apprehend a non-violent person?" question.

      Why ask for AN example if you are just going to dismiss it as irrelevant. Do you have multiple personalities or something? Or just like moving goal posts?

    2. Re:Gibson Guitar SWAT raid ... by Kaenneth · · Score: 4, Informative

      “It was a scene right out of a Hollywood movie,” the Court’s ruling began. “Teams from the OCSO [Orange County Sheriff’s Office] descended... with some team members dressed in ballistic vests and masks, and with guns drawn, the deputies rushed into their target destinations, handcuffed the stunned occupants—and demanded to see their barbers’ licenses. The Orange County Sheriff’s Office was providing muscle for the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation’s [DBPR] administrative inspection of barbershops to discover licensing violations.”

      http://wap.alternet.org/civil-...

    3. Re:Gibson Guitar SWAT raid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      They can't take the risk the suspects will kill the hostages or, more precisely to the Gibson situation, flush all the evidence down the toilet. And, before you say "there's no way he could have flushed all that wood down a toilet", keep in mind the police have no idea how large someone's toilets are. They could have very powerful, high-speed "assault toilets" capable of flushing hundreds of cubic feet of possibly-illegal wood per second.

  18. You also forgot the Felony Murder rule by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    Swatting is most likely a felony in many states. If it causes death then the offender can be charged with murder under the rule.

  19. Re:"computer hacking" the convenient catch-all by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe cops should learn some restraint in their use of force?

    Hm. That's one possible outcome of swatting. If there are a few high profile innocent deaths as a result, policy may be changed to approach more cautiously. But they'd have to be really high profile, and we (and the media) would have to really rub their noses in it. I don't see it happening.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  20. Re:"computer hacking" the convenient catch-all by dcollins117 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Maybe cops should learn some restraint in their use of force?

    They clearly could use better training. I was reading in the newspaper about a cop shooting. It was recorded on video and shows the cop repeatedly shouting "Don't move!", "Put your hands up!" "Don't move!" over and over again. The guy put his hands up and the cop shot and killed him. The cop says he's not a fault because he told the victim not to move.

    There's another video on YouTube of a guy getting shot at a gas station after the cop shouts "Don't move!", "Show me your ID!", etc.The guy went to get his wallet and got shot because he moved.

    Perhaps the cops could be trained to not give contradictory commands? How does one put their hands up without moving? If I were cynical I'd wonder if these cops just felt like shooting someone and so gave contradictory commands to "justify" doing it.

  21. Re:"computer hacking" the convenient catch-all by Skylinux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your police is partially to blame as well.
    I live in Germany go try and SWAT me, good luck.

    --
    Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
  22. Am I the only one... by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 2

    ...who had no idea what "swatting" meant, until reading the linked article.

    Since when do we use unknown/uncommon words in headlines ?

  23. Re:"computer hacking" the convenient catch-all by bucket_brigade · · Score: 2

    There's zero chance of that happening. Coming in with as many heavy weapons and officers as possible is great for them since it reduces the risks in their work and is in general fun and easy. There have been tens of people shot during raids recently including little children. Try to do something about it and all the police unions will go mental about how you hate cops and want them dead. They almost always get away with it as far as legal repercussions go too. The only way for them to get in trouble is to do something against their training. But their training is "if you feel the slightest bit threatened shoot at the problem until it goes away" so that's not happening either.

  24. Was he arrested by a SWAT Team? by gatkinso · · Score: 2

    That would make it all the more sweet.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  25. Re:Top Kek by CronoCloud · · Score: 2

    I know, right? He "looks" like the sort of guy who uses his "autistic spectrum disorder" as an excuse when called on being a jerk, shouts homophobic epithets on Xbox Live and who is an example of the Internet Fuckwad Theory.

    Personally I think the neckbeard appearance is how guys like him show conformity with their community. He probably wears some kind of fedora, or cape, or something. In 30 years time he'll look like Alan Cox, or RMS, probably.

    Wasn't there some "Famedgod" a member of Anonymous who claimed responsibility for the Sony DDOS? Yep:

    http://www.dailydot.com/crime/...

  26. Re: "computer hacking" the convenient catch-all by galgon · · Score: 2

    So what would happen if someone calls 112 saying a shooting happened at your residence? A Police officer shows up and calmly knocks on the door? I am inclined to agree that the swatting response in the us is way overkill. But no or minimal response likely isn't the answer either.

  27. Re: "computer hacking" the convenient catch-all by slasher999 · · Score: 2

    Agreed, and while I doubt the prosecution team would be dumb enough to try and peruse this as a hacking case, based on what I've read if they do the "perp" deserves to get off scot-free. I'm tired of these catch all laws being used Constnatly where they don't apply because prosecutors are either too lazy or too ignorant to determine the actual crime.

  28. Re:"computer hacking" the convenient catch-all by Gallomimia · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is contradictory to the reduced IQ requirement. One man tried suing the police force for declining his application on the grounds that his IQ was too high. The supreme court upheld the force's decision. I believe that was a slashdot story around a year ago if anyone can post a link.

    --
    Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
  29. Re: "computer hacking" the convenient catch-all by mjwx · · Score: 4, Funny

    So what would happen if someone calls 112 saying a shooting happened at your residence? A Police officer shows up and calmly knocks on the door? I am inclined to agree that the swatting response in the us is way overkill. But no or minimal response likely isn't the answer either.

    Well first off, its Germany so not everyone is an armed nutcase. In fact most people will be very ordered and restrained.

    Secondly, there will be more than one police officer. They typically work in pairs.

    Thirdly, police officers in modern, functioning societies are trained to observe and measure up a situation before acting. So they'll take a look around and see that there's no need to call GSG 9.

    Finally, even if there were a gunman, the officers would attempt to contain the situation and seek a non violent solution using force as a last resort only instead of going in half cocked, shooting everything that moves after which, they check to see if there is anything black that didn't get shot in the initial barrage.

    Yep, those crazy Germans.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.