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."

30 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.

  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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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!

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.
    9. 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/...

    10. 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.

    11. Re:Guy allegedly does something stupid by Kaenneth · · Score: 4, Informative
  3. Longer sentences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Up to 5 years? That's it?

    1. 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
    2. 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.
  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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
  8. 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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.

  11. 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-...

  12. 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.
  13. 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.

  14. 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.
  15. 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.