Online "Swatting" Becomes a Hazard For Gamers Who Play Live On the Internet

HughPickens.com writes Nick Wingfield reports at the NYT that practical jokers who call in bogus reports of violence provoking huge police responses have set their sights on a new set of victims: video gamers who play live on the Internet, often in front of huge online audiences. Last month, several hundred people were watching Joshua Peters as he played RuneScape from his parents' home as video showed Peters suddenly leaving his computer when police officers appeared at the house and ordered him and his family at gunpoint to lie face down on the ground after some had called 911 claiming Peters had just shot his roommate. "With the live-streaming platforms, it amplifies the entire situation," says James Clayton Eubanks who says he has been swatted about a half-dozen times while he streamed his Call of Duty sessions. "Not only do they get to do this and cause this misery, they get to watch it unfold in front of thousands of people."

Game companies like Twitch have publicly said that swatting is dangerous, but that there is little else they can do to prevent the pranks. Tracking the culprits behind the pranks is difficult. While bomb scares and other hoaxes have been around for decades, making threats anonymously has never been so easy. Swatters use text messages and online phone services like Skype to relay their threats, employing techniques to make themselves hard to trace. They obtain personal addresses for their victims through property records and other public databases, or by tricking businesses or customer service representatives at a victim's Internet provider into revealing the information. Brandon Willson, a gamer known online as "Famed God," made up a murder to get police to go to an unsuspecting west suburban resident's home last year and ended up behind bars in Nevada awaiting extradition. As part of the investigation, police traveled to Las Vegas to help local police execute a search warrant at Willson's home. Computers seized there contained evidence of the swatting incident, as well as similar incidents across the country, prosecutors claim. Willson faces up to five years in prison if he is convicted on charges of computer tampering and one count each of intimidation, computer fraud, identity theft and disorderly conduct. His mother, Brenda Willson, says her son is innocent and does not smoke, drink or have tattoos. "He would never swat," she says.

Comments

Idiot Parents

[Anonymous Coward]

> His mother, Brenda Willson, says her son is innocent and does not smoke, drink or have tattoos. "He would never swat," she says.

With a mother as stupid as this, no wonder he's behaving like an asshole.

Re: Idiot Parents

[Jason Levine]

In defense of the mother:

1) When people are arrested, their friends, family, and neighbors routinely say "I can't believe he did that. He seemed like such a nice guy."

2) Parents naturally want to see the good in their children and will ignore any bad warning signs lest their kid be anything less than perfect. (Disclosure: I'm a father of two and while I think they are mostly good kids, they are far from perfect.)

Some people are just really good at hiding their misdeeds or limiting their wrongdoings to specific areas. (e.g. Calling 911 on people playing video games.)

Re:Idiot Parents

[Rick Zeman]

> His mother, Brenda Willson, says her son is innocent and does not smoke, drink or have tattoos. "He would never swat," she says.

With a mother as stupid as this, no wonder he's behaving like an asshole.

No kidding. Both nature and nurture are against him.

Re: Idiot Parents

[drinkypoo]

In defense of the mother:

She took the job. It's her responsibility. Stop making excuses.

Re: Idiot Parents

[Anonymous Coward]

The point isn't that his mother thinks he's innocent, it's that she thinks smoking, drinking and tattoos are in some way relevant to that judgement.

Re:Idiot Parents

[Anonymous Coward]

"He never even whacks off. Really!"

Re: Idiot Parents

[ranton]

Your statement, "she took the job" in no way refutes what Jason Levine just said.

The first guy said to give the parents a break because parenting is hard. The second guy said "she took the job", obviously implying you shouldn't have kids unless you are prepared to do a good job at that very hard job. Sounds like he was refuting exactly what the first poster said. Be careful about calling people stupid when you can't understand a very simple argument (regardless of whether or not you agree with it).

There are plenty of very tough jobs in this world. My job is a lot more difficult than raising my daughter is (although not a more important job than being a dad). But I can't just shrug and say my job is tough if I fail at work. I took a job where I knew the responsibilities and challenges were significant, both at home and work, so now it is my duty to do well at both.

That said, even the best of kids can make horrible mistakes, so you would need to know quite a bit about the home dynamic before immediately blaming the parents. From personal experience I would say these kids' parents are more than likely bad parents, but it would be idiotic for me to just assume they are. Even good kids can be convinced to do bad things through peer pressure, for instance.

Re: Idiot Parents

[zennyboy]

Precisely; I am a father of two. I believe I have done a very good job.

Just say one of my kids 'goes rogue' and... shoplifts. Does that suddenly mean I did a bad job?

Even if I did teach right from wrong from birth? At some age you have to understand children think for themselves, know right from wrong, and maybe just choose wrong.

I do not believe this should reflect on (me | us) as (a) parent(s)...

Re: Idiot Parents

[Strangely Familiar]

And you also have to account for friends and community. Friends make a huge difference. They made a huge difference in my life when I was growing up in how I turned out, and especially the mistakes I made. I am sure I was also a "bad influence" in several people's lives. So you can't always just look to the parents and family.

Re: Idiot Parents

[Jack Griffin]

In defense of the mother:

1) When people are arrested, their friends, family, and neighbors routinely say "I can't believe he did that. He seemed like such a nice guy."

I've noticed this a lot, and so told my parents that if I'm ever arrested and the media come asking you've got to say "yeah he was a real dick, I'm glad he got busted". It'd be worth it just for the reaction. I'm also a parent and have a list of stupid quotes ready just in case my kids get caught doing something stupid (we all do stupid things, but only some of us get caught). The media are fuckwits, they don't deserve to be taken seriously.

Re: Idiot Parents

[Paradise Pete]

Just say one of my kids 'goes rogue' and... shoplifts. Does that suddenly mean I did a bad job?

No, and you also might think "She would never do that." That doesn't make you an "idiot parent", despite what the OAC said.

Re: Idiot Parents

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mother did a terrible job at teaching you not to be a dick.

Everybody thinks they're smarter and would catch all this crazy stuff until it happens to them.

Re: Idiot Parents

[gl4ss]

the point is rather that the mother thinks that just keeping him from smoking, drinking and getting inked up means that he is not a swatter... ...ironically, when if he had been drinking and smoking with inked up friends, he probably would not have swatted or even thought of swatting some people on twitch.

sounds like the guy was really, really really fucking bored.

Re: Idiot Parents

[circletimessquare]

asocial transgressive behavior like swatting does not require alcohol consumption, nor any drug consumption. it's a function of personality, which is more a reflection on upbringing, family/ social problems

so the mother is more likely deflecting and avoiding blame for a behavior which is a reflection on her, and, grasping at straws, picks easy shallow bogeymen to blame instead rather than accept responsibility. which, as a psychological defense mechanism, is also reflected in her son's behavior: don't take a loss, push it out there and make someone else take a punishment for your failures

that being said, there is obviously a relationship between alcohol consumption and petty criminal behavior. especially among the young

people take drugs to become less inhibited. when less inhibited, they display faulty judgment. with faulty judgment, they do things which get them in trouble

so, the tattoos and the smoking: yeah, that's stupid

but inquiring as to whether he consumed alcohol regularly or not: completely relevant and valid

Re: Idiot Parents

[nedlohs]

Unless the person doing the "swatting" was somehow described by eye witnesses (given the nature of swatting that seems reasonably unlikely) as drunk, smoking, and with a tattoo then she is an idiot for somehow thinking those three traits have anything to with his guilt or innocence.

Re: Idiot Parents

[Anonymous Coward]

Even good kids can be convinced to do bad things through peer pressure, for instance.

The above is such a weak argument it is something I'd expect from a child.

As a teenager I knew people who stole cars. They tried everything to get me to
help them steal the cars, and I never did it. On the contrary I consistently gave them
a hard time about their thieving ways, and I believe that my repeated efforts to shame them
actually caused them to quit stealing cars. You see, some kids ARE able to resist peer pressure,
and not only that they may even be able to exert some pressure themselves in a positive direction.
I know this is true and possible because I did it.

Re:Idiot Parents

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot police. Taking a family down with guns is obviously the proper response to a phone tip.

Re: Idiot Parents

[Anonymous Coward]

asocial transgressive behavior like swatting does not require alcohol consumption, nor any drug consumption. it's a function of personality, which is more a reflection on upbringing, family/ social problems

so the mother is more likely deflecting and avoiding blame for a behavior which is a reflection on her, and, grasping at straws, picks easy shallow bogeymen to blame instead rather than accept responsibility. which, as a psychological defense mechanism, is also reflected in her son's behavior: don't take a loss, push it out there and make someone else take a punishment for your failures

that being said, there is obviously a relationship between alcohol consumption and petty criminal behavior. especially among the young

people take drugs to become less inhibited. when less inhibited, they display faulty judgment. with faulty judgment, they do things which get them in trouble

so, the tattoos and the smoking: yeah, that's stupid

but inquiring as to whether he consumed alcohol regularly or not: completely relevant and valid

I disagree pretty much entirely. The mother is simply displaying a failure of logic, in that she is assuming that because her child does not do Bad Thing A then it means the child cannot possibly do Bad Things B, C, and D.
Which is probably only party her fault, as she has most likely been told that by various Religious and Law Enforcement Groups. (see the Logical Fallacy known as the 'Gateway Drug' argument for an example)

I've known plenty of people who smoked and had alcohol problems but would never SWAT anybody, and people who have an absolute hatred of any sort of substance abuse who would SWAT their own mother for a quick laugh.
But to address you point more directly, the use of substances does often lead to less inhibited behavior, but in most cases it does NOT lead to behavior that you are not already somewhat pre-disposed to engage in. If you're not a thief, you're not going to steal just because you got drunk or high, just like you're not going to go kill someone unless you're already the type of person who would feel no qualms in doing so. The booze and etc. simply make you less likely to give a shit about getting caught, or alter your judgement enough to make you think you can get away with it when you probably won't.
I've been smashed drunk and stoned off my ass many times in situations where I could have stolen, raped, or even killed and never been caught. But I never even thought about doing those things, because I'm not a Thief, a Rapist, or a Murderer.

Re:Idiot Parents

[rebelwarlock]

> His mother, Brenda Willson, says her son is innocent and does not smoke, drink or have tattoos. "He would never swat," she says.

With a mother as stupid as this, no wonder he's behaving like an asshole.

Remember kids: not having tattoos renders you incapable of committing a crime. Tattoos are satan's personal transport to your butthole, or however we're saying crime happens nowadays. What a retarded way to defend someone's character.

Re: Idiot Parents

[circletimessquare]

you're not going to go kill someone unless you're already the type of person who would feel no qualms in doing so

dude: part of if not most of "that type of person" exists in the area of the brain you just dimmed with alcohol

inhibit the prefrontal cortex and we're all just powerful, violent monkeys underneath. there's no such thing as inhibiting executive function and moral, ethical, benevolent behavior still exist by magic

you can't blot out the part of the brain that governs morality and depend upon moral reasoning to still function

have you ever been around a room of drunk people in your life? more booze = more violence. you're really going to try to suggest otherwise?

we all need a release in life, but don't try to sell stupid and say there's no increase in violent behavior associated with alcohol use. that's just a profoundly willfully ignorant thing to say

Re: Idiot Parents

[CryoKeen]

Parents are 100% responsible for every decision a child ever makes in their entire life because reality never throws situations at people that changes the circumstances.

Re: Idiot Parents

[circletimessquare]

are trying to tell me is that alcohol consumption does not increase violent behavior?

i'm not sure what your problem is, but if you're trying to deny a simple truth, you obviously have some sort of a problem

i drink. i'm not a prude or a fearmonger. but i'm not a moron either: enjoy alcohol. in moderation. that's the whole point of drinking: escape your worries for a bit, relax with friends

but to make believe alcohol doesn't impair, judgment, morality, or reasoning (when that's the whole fucking point)?

if you want to ignore what happens in every fucking bar every fucking weekend (bad behavior and often violence)?

then you might be a dangerous douchebag

Re: Idiot Parents

[AvitarX]

I've been in plenty of rooms of drunken people. The only two times there were violence were the type of asshole that were prone to violence anyway. Angry drunks are usually angry sobers.

Re: Idiot Parents

[AvitarX]

Which isn't to say that you're entirely wrong, only that the shift for the typical decent person to get so animalistic makes them incapable of bad behavior because of other effects.

And some people are probably more inherently against "bad" actions than others. I'm sure that there's plenty of people that need their higher brain to over ride a feeling of disgust for certain things, that others need their higher brain to prevent (violence being an example of something that can be justified, but some people find absolutely repulsive, and others love), it takes all ttpea. (Literally, for the long term survival of a gene pool)

Re:Idiot Parents

[Fjandr]

SOP in the USA. SWAT is used overwhelmingly in cases they have no business being used in. A tiny, tiny minority of their deployments are actually for circumstances the teams were put together to confront (hostage & active shooter).

Re: Idiot Parents

[MeesterCat]

That is a remarkably silly and simplistic comment to make. A difficult or unruly teenager does not equate parents who take drugs/are alcoholics/are on benefits/are religious.

Re: Idiot Parents

[gl4ss]

twitch swatting is probably done by people who stay in the home too much, due to whatever circumstances(bossy mom, or whatever).

it gives them a chance at human interaction they can witness(on twitch) without leaving the house.

Re: Idiot Parents

[gnasher719]

are trying to tell me is that alcohol consumption does not increase violent behavior?

He doesn't say any such thing. He says that people who are violent when drunk tend to be violent anyway. The only difference is that when drunk, they care less about the consequences of their actions, so while a violent sober person would know that it's a bad idea to hit someone in front of witnesses, the same person when drunk doesn't care about the witnesses.

Re: Idiot Parents

[drinkypoo]

Parents are 100% responsible for every decision a child ever makes in their entire life because reality never throws situations at people that changes the circumstances.

Parents are 100% responsible for every decision they make which affects the life of a child. If you're not willing to take responsibility, don't have children. I don't have children (in spite of multiple opportunities) because I know that I don't have a proper family situation for the purpose. Specifically, my family has never given two shits about me. I can't properly raise a child in that environment, so I'm not having kids.

I was directly addressing the part where the mother is living in denial, though. Yes, it's common. No, it's not forgivable. If you shouldn't be raising kids, then don't lie to yourself and tell yourself otherwise just to satisfy your own selfish desire to procreate.

Outside of some exceptionally rare Batman-style childhoods, the vast majority of shitty people are produced by shitty parenting.

Re: Idiot Parents

[drinkypoo]

No, and you also might think "She would never do that." That doesn't make you an "idiot parent", despite what the OAC said.

Yes, that is precisely what it does. Living in that kind of denial only leads to providing a shitty upbringing. You can't believe that about your child unless you're not just completely in denial, and also completely disconnected from their life. That kind of thing usually happens because parents bullshit their children, children detect it, and lose all respect for their parents. Our modern world is primarily bullshit and if you give the official explanations, you're going to program your children for bullshit.

I got the opposite treatment, which is also no good. I was poorly socialized (manic-depressive mother, absentee sperm donor alcoholic father, nice pick mom! protip: don't meet potential fathers in bars) and it took me until my 20s for my nuts to drop (figuratively.) Everything was blamed on me. But what this kid has is nothing being blamed on him. He's a precious, special snowflake who could never do anything wrong. And the proof is that his mother is still claiming he couldn't be doing anything wrong while being confronted with the evidence. This almost certainly is not the first time. People tend to be true to form, even in a crisis situation. You're not seeing some unusual behavior here.

Now, if we extrapolate this same behavior over most of the country, you get what we have now, where everyone is shitty to everyone and nobody takes responsibility for anything.

Yes, yes I can blame the parents. They're the ones making shitty people. It's their job #1 to make people who you would want near you. Throwing up your hands and saying "parenting is hard" is not an acceptable response to finding out that it's a hard job. It's the response that my parents gave, and trust me, it's not the one you want them giving. It leads to doing a shit job, and it's not just the offspring that has to deal with the consequences. I was a ball of hate, much of it for myself, for more than half my life. If you don't think that has downstream consequences, look around. It's not uncommon, and it has had real-world outputs. Hurt people hurt people.

Re: Idiot Parents

[AmiMoJo]

If you do that the media will just blame you for being a bad parent who didn't show enough love, and for knowing that your kids were criminals and not ratting them out. Pretending to be surprised is a defence mechanism.

Re: Idiot Parents

[jittles]

I've noticed this a lot, and so told my parents that if I'm ever arrested and the media come asking you've got to say "yeah he was a real dick, I'm glad he got busted". It'd be worth it just for the reaction.

Until their media statement is used against you in court.

Re: Idiot Parents

[Eloking]

The media are fuckwits, they don't deserve to be taken seriously.

It's a little ironical to post this in a news website that utterly depend on the media. There's fuck up and awesome people in every profession, doesn't doesn't mean the whole lot is. Just avoid media that are know for sensationalism and misinformation or at last, find the least worst of the lot.

Re: Idiot Parents

[Anonymous Coward]

more like the guy was really a fucking idiot that happened to learn how to pull pranks with computers.

Re: Idiot Parents

[Jason Levine]

I wasn't saying "give parents a break because parenting is hard." I said that parents naturally want to see the good in their kids and not the bad. I do recognize when my children do something wrong and I will have serious discussions with them (backed up with punishment if need be) to explain why the action is wrong, what they should have done instead, and what the consequences of the action could have been. That being said, nobody wants to think they're doing a bad job at something. Especially when it comes to parenting. (We'll leave out those "parents" - and I use the term loosely - that don't seem to care about their kids and/or actively hurt their kids. Those people don't deserve the title "Parent.")

I hate to compare parenting to the Nigerian scams, but think of this as a similar principle. If you get hooked in a Nigerian scam, your options are to a) admit you were wrong and were fooled or b) keep believing that the whole thing is true and you weren't wrong. It can be very hard for people to admit that they were wrong/fooled so they persist with option B long past the time when any objective observer would say there was the slightest possibility that they would see any return.

Similarly, in parenting, there's a drive to think of yourself as a good parent and this means (in part) thinking that you've raised your kid right. If you raised your kid right, they should be able to make appropriate decisions about what to do and what not to do. So parents can easily fall into the trap of just assuming that their kid is turning out ok while not seeing warning signs of bad activity. It's a blind spot that parents can be tempted not to check.

The mother in the article likely fell into this trap and ignored warning signs. It doesn't mean she's a bad mother. The guy who was arrested was 19. Maybe he was very respectful to her, had a steady job, and just played some games online during his free time. To her direct observation, she wouldn't have seen anything wrong. As he was 19, I wouldn't expect her to supervise his every action, which means that bad behavior could be easily missed.

Parents have a big impact in their kids' lives, but we can only do so much. When our children get older, we just need to hope that the lessons we've imparted are stronger than any bad influences they are likely to encounter.

Re: Idiot Parents

[gl4ss]

swatters aren't violent people as such.

psychopaths sure, but not doing violence.

point is, what kind of a weekend boozer street fighter would bother with swatting? nobody.

Re: Idiot Parents

[Cederic]

Not everybody thinks that their darling child is incapable of being a criminal, or that all criminals drink, smoke and/or have tattoos.

Re: Idiot Parents

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

often this goes beyond just dialing 911. Swatters often set up free voip numbers to get into the right area code / prefix so 911 will accept the dispatch. You'd think by now everyone would realize it's difficult to hide those tracks...well, at least for people who swat others. Anon set up many VPN tunnels and voip servers for dissidents during the Arab Spring; but these idiots are probably high when they did it and have little clue how to cover their tracks.

Re: Idiot Parents

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

and there is probably social peer pressure too. The COD team with their headsets, "yeah do it"...

Re: Idiot Parents

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

because they'd be busy at a bar getting wasted instead of sitting around watching other people play computer games via their computer...

Re:Idiot Parents

[StrangeBrew]

Don't confuse stupidity with ignorance. Many parents do not understand computers or that they can be used for bullying with little effort and a great deal of anonymity. Her statement suggests that she saw no signs that he was making 'bad decisions', in other words falling in with the wrong crowd; likely oblivious to the whole concept that the wrong crowd might be having influence over an internet connection. One of the things I'll be struggling with in the future, as my son gets older, is just how much covert monitoring to do on my son's computer and how much to be open about. Trying to strike a balance between keeping him safe, keeping him honest, giving him enough leeway to make relatively harmless errors in judgement and keeping him from doing serious mental harm to others is going to be difficult. If I knew very little about computers I'd be screwed.

Re: Idiot Parents

[invid]

My job is a lot more difficult than raising my daughter is (although not a more important job than being a dad).

You haven't been through the teen years yet I take it.

Re: Idiot Parents

[rhazz]

I think this is really the point that the OP was making. This mother sounds like someone who has an extremely naive and narrow view of people around them. Granted this might be a cherry-picked quote to portray her as such.

Re: Idiot Parents

[eek_the_kat]

wow, don't have kids when you finally do grow up. and, maybe see a therapist.

Re: Idiot Parents

[Anonymous Coward]

He's John Gault....

Re: Idiot Parents

[nitehawk214]

Of course the mom would say things like this, it is natural. Though I would like to say that any parent that raises a kid that does stuff like this probably did not have good parentage.

What I do have an issue with is that someone thought it was newsworthy enough to include in the article. Who cares what his parents think? I want to know what the evidence is, and I want to know why more people like this are not being locked up.

Perhaps if he did smoke, drink and have tattoos he would have not done this, because he would have a life.

Re: Idiot Parents

[drinkypoo]

wow, don't have kids when you finally do grow up.

Part of growing up is making responsible decisions.

Re: Idiot Parents

[rahvin112]

And it will be used against you the moment you try to provide any character testimony.

"The defendant is so evil and capable of this action that his own parents on the announcement of his arrest proclaimed his guilt. The two people in the world that should love him unconditionally believe he's not only guilty but that he deserves whatever you the jury will do to him."

Playing such a tape in court would pretty much guarantee a conviction in most peoples mind.

Re: Idiot Parents

[iamhassi]

Raising kids is a lot like trying to influence your friends to do the right thing, you can tell them until youre blue in the face but at the end of the day they're going to do what they want. Are you 100% responsible for everything your friends do? Of course not, then why should parents be 100% responsible for everything their teenager does?

Swatting is not like killing or stealing or doing drugs, picking up a phone and making a prank phone call is not on the same level as grabbing a gun and killing someone even if that phone call could have the same consequences. So the people that say "the parents always say they're a good kid" maybe they are a good kid because they would never pick up a gun and kill someone but they might pick up a phone and make a prank phone call and they should be severely punished for it.

Re:Idiot Parents

[operagost]

It is ridiculous that everyone except law enforcement is trying to find a solution to this problem. Law enforcement IS the problem. Their "shoot first" policy based on any old anonymous tip is dangerous and tyrannical.

Re: Idiot Parents

[RavenLrD20k]

There's also the fact that she very likely was coached by her son's Lawyer/Public Defender to make that statement. Whether or not she really believes it, the public will never know...

...until she releases her book a year after the case is settled.

Re: Idiot Parents

[Stan92057]

"Swatting is not like killing or stealing or doing drugs,"

Tell that to the people who had guns pointed at them because of a Swatting. And im guessing you don't have any kids either? Its a serious crime buddy, nowhere near the level of a prank phone,call.

Re: Idiot Parents

[Rinikusu]

Sometimes, it's tough for parents to realize that yes, their kid is a fucking asshole.

Re: Idiot Parents

[pnutjam]

wow, that's below the belt, worse the youtube comments...

Re: Idiot Parents

[geekmux]

In defense of the mother:

1) When people are arrested, their friends, family, and neighbors routinely say "I can't believe he did that. He seemed like such a nice guy."

2) Parents naturally want to see the good in their children and will ignore any bad warning signs lest their kid be anything less than perfect. (Disclosure: I'm a father of two and while I think they are mostly good kids, they are far from perfect.)

Some people are just really good at hiding their misdeeds or limiting their wrongdoings to specific areas. (e.g. Calling 911 on people playing video games.)

In defense of common sense, I'm a bit more offended that Mom implies having tattoos automatically suggests a bad person in the same weird way that smoking or drinking does.

We're a bit beyond that stereotypical bullshit, aren't we? I suppose next you'll convince me not to worry, since only foul-mouthed sailors have tattoos.

Then again, with a mother this ignorant of their child's behavior, there's more than one mentality deadlocked in 1955...

Re: Idiot Parents

[Stan92057]

How many children do you have and are raising? Just curious.

Re: Idiot Parents

[allcoolnameswheretak]

That's bullshit. Admittedly, I used to think like that too. I thought that parents that do their job right will have their kids "under control". As long as you take care of them, educate them and show them right from wrong, they will all turn out all right.

Well, life showed me otherwise. I'm vastly different from my sister, even though we had the same upbringing. I know a guy who was an exemplary son until he suddenly completely broke with his parents and refuses to have contact with them, nobody knows why. His parents are great people and his sister turned out completely fine.

One of my uncles is a complete bastard whereas the rest of my aunts and uncles are great people...

There is only so much influence parents have over their children. Friends, life, the environment and their individual character also make a huge impact. Right now I'm thinking that parents can influence only about a third of a child's character. The other third is friends and environment and the rest is just pure, uncontrollable individuality.

Re: Idiot Parents

[Rich0]

Living in that kind of denial only leads to providing a shitty upbringing. You can't believe that about your child unless you're not just completely in denial, and also completely disconnected from their life.

That isn't always true. The NSA reads every text message and email sent on the planet and even they can't keep track of who all the bad guys are.

Maybe their kids just acted normally all the time, and they were a complete jerk when they weren't home/etc. Short of spying on them, there might not be any way to tell.

Re: Idiot Parents

[hackwrench]

And have you been to every bar every weekend. Are you not actually a train spotter?

Re: Idiot Parents

[drinkypoo]

So you should make a responsible decision to never have kids.

If your parents had taught you how to read, you'd know that's precisely what I've done. I hope you do the same, since a coward like you can teach only the wrong lessons.

P.S. I leave comments on Youtube, too. Go talk some shit there, next. I could use more targets.

Re: Idiot Parents

[Jack Griffin]

Maybe in your country, but our legal system is a little less medieval.

Re: Idiot Parents

[Jack Griffin]

I should say "popular media". I come to Slashdot for the comments. I find them far more insightful than the articles.

Re: Idiot Parents

[tehcyder]

In defense of the mother:

She took the job. It's her responsibility. Stop making excuses.

You're the one making excuses for the little fucking psychopath who (allegedly) did this.

If you want to treat children as helpless little snowflakes, and place all the blame for their actions on their parents, you would have to lock them up until they were 18 and never let them have friends or go to school (and certainly not allow them unsupervised internet access).

With freedom comes responsibility.

Re: Idiot Parents

[tehcyder]

Parenting is nothing like a job. You can try as hard as you like, but some kids will end up doing stupid and/or criminal things.

Children are human beings and have free will too.

Re: Idiot Parents

[tehcyder]

Just because you had a shitty upbringing doesn't mean that all kids who get into trouble did too.

Not all criminals come from deprived backgrounds, and not everyone from a deprived background becomes a criminal.

You don't seem to realise it, but you're the one trying to gloss over the kid's behaviour. The parents are doing what normal parents would be expected to do, which is to defend their child.

Re: Idiot Parents

[tehcyder]

The guy who was arrested was 19.

Oh for fuck's sake. Obviously I hadn't read TFA, so I assumed he was 12 or something.

19 is an adult. Blaming parents for the actions of a grown man is just pathetic. Despite what some people here seem to think, you can't expect to be treated as a grown up while simultaneously abdicating all responsibility for your actions.

Re: Idiot Parents

[tehcyder]

Swatting is not like killing or stealing or doing drugs, picking up a phone and making a prank phone call is not on the same level as grabbing a gun and killing someone

You tell yourself that when you're sitting in jail for a few years.

Re: Idiot Parents

[tehcyder]

the vast majority of shitty people are produced by shitty parenting

Some shitty people have shitty parents.

Some shitty people have non-shitty parents.

Some non-shitty people have shitty parents.

Some non-shitty people have non-shitty parents.

Your argument is similar to the "most criminals come from poor families, therefore most poor families are criminal" one which is both logically and morally bankrupt.

Re: Idiot Parents

[tehcyder]

swatters aren't violent people as such

Yes they are, they're just cowards too.

Re: Idiot Parents

[tehcyder]

In defense of the mother:

1) When people are arrested, their friends, family, and neighbors routinely say "I can't believe he did that. He seemed like such a nice guy."

I've noticed this a lot, and so told my parents that if I'm ever arrested and the media come asking you've got to say "yeah he was a real dick, I'm glad he got busted". It'd be worth it just for the reaction. I'm also a parent and have a list of stupid quotes ready just in case my kids get caught doing something stupid (we all do stupid things, but only some of us get caught). The media are fuckwits, they don't deserve to be taken seriously.

I know you think that's funny, but all it would achieve is to prejudice the police, court, media and public opinion against you. If that results in you (or your kid) being found guilty instead of innocent, or receiving a harsher punishment, who's the fuckwit then?

Re: Idiot Parents

[tehcyder]

Unless the person doing the "swatting" was somehow described by eye witnesses (given the nature of swatting that seems reasonably unlikely) as drunk, smoking, and with a tattoo then she is an idiot for somehow thinking those three traits have anything to with his guilt or innocence.

There seem to be a lot of tattooed teenage smokers and drinkers on slashdot taking this as some sort of personal insult.

Re: Idiot Parents

[tehcyder]

I'm a bit more offended that Mom implies having tattoos automatically suggests a bad person in the same weird way that smoking or drinking does.

They all suggest a (potential) lack of self control, that's all. Calm down.

Re:Idiot Parents

[jp10558]

I always knew more than my parents about computers and the Internet. I never thought I'd say this, but I was lucky to grow up in the 90s when the Internet was less trollish and in a small town where the bullying was "only" physical and ended when you went home as there was no "Social Media". I never thought I'd think bullying had gotten worse since I was in school, but here it is - it's worse now.

Re:Idiot Parents

[hucker75]

Don't you have a sense of humour? I haven't laughed as hard in ages, it was a brilliant practical joke.

Re: Idiot Parents

[drinkypoo]

Internet badass here. Everybody watch out.

Ah yes, now you'll imply that I was implying violence. What an amazing coward you are. Just come out and say it, if you can.

Re: Idiot Parents

[AMITAYUS]

This seems to be the biggest problem facing youth today. Parents that don't allow them to become responsible.

Re: Idiot Parents

[pupitetris]

Of course you are a father, you are on Slashdot!

Re: Idiot Parents

[stoatwblr]

"19 is an adult. Blaming parents for the actions of a grown man is just pathetic"

There are a number of such twits around. There's even a name for them: "Sociopaths"

The Internet makes it easier to pull this kind of thing and not get caught. Dumb sociopaths with a sadistic streak (most don't have this) take advantage of this.

Sociopaths are also good at manipulating those around them - most would never suspect that XYZ is one, and quite often XYZ has no clue he (usually he) is either.

Re: Idiot Parents

[stoatwblr]

"Just avoid media"

There, FTFY.

Seriously, the best line is "no comment" if you're ambushed. Media want 30 seconds of soundbite and if they can't get it they'll usually go away.

Re: Idiot Parents

[stoatwblr]

"I know you think that's funny, but all it would achieve is to prejudice the police, court, media and public opinion against you. "

If it is shown to prejudice the courts then your country is extremely fucked up.

Re: Idiot Parents

[Agent0013]

Maybe the real problem is the swat teams that are sooo eager to rush out and use all that fancy weaponry they get to play with! Perhaps we should blame the parents of the cops for all the police shooting that are occurring throughout this country.

Re: Idiot Parents

[Jason Levine]

Of course you are a father, you are on Slashdot!

I'm not sure how to take this (lack of tone in text can be a killer).

"Of course, you're a father" because everyone on Slashdot is a geek which means, by definition, we all live in our parents' basement and never see real women in person?

Or

"Of course, you're a father" because everyone on Slashdot is male and no mother would come here at all.

I'm not sure which I should be refuting (or neither). I don't think it's gotten to the point of "Of course, you're a father because everyone on Slashdot is a parent" yet. It would be interesting to see demographic data on how many Slashdotters were married/not married and had kids/didn't have kids. If only to help bust the "living in mom and dad's basement" stereotype.

Re: Idiot Parents

[Jack Griffin]

You for thinking that that counts for anything in a real court of law.

Re: Idiot Parents

[geekmux]

I'm a bit more offended that Mom implies having tattoos automatically suggests a bad person in the same weird way that smoking or drinking does.

They all suggest a (potential) lack of self control, that's all. Calm down.

Tattoos suggest a potential lack of self control? Because they only cost 99 cents on the value menu and only take 10 minutes to make in the drive-thru?

Give me a break. I've seen a far greater lack of self control coming from the bean suckers itching for their morning fix in the Starbucks line wrapped 'round the corner.

Am I defending my own lack of self control? No, not really. Kind of hard to do so when I don't have a single tattoo. Merely destroying pointless assumptions should I choose to get one at some point.

Re: Idiot Parents

[computererds]

And this was the funniest thing I've read on the internet since Monday at least :)

He's an Angel

[tinkerghost]

His mother, Brenda Willson, says her son is innocent and does not smoke, drink or have tattoos. "He would never swat," she says.

He's a perfect angel - his mother says so.

Re:He's an Angel

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Ah now, how sad would it be if his mum was condemning him too. While arguments can be made for and against unconditional love, more often than not it's helped people get back on their feet after they do really stupid things. It's not as though he's got a shortage of critics.

Re:He's an Angel

[Anonymous Coward]

Is swatting-framing a thing yet? Because this might be a case.

Re:He's an Angel

[garyisabusyguy]

Recognizing that you did something stupid is the first step towards recovery
If the mother is sheltering him from realizing it, then she is part of his problem(s)

Re: He's an Angel

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation: Experience in the world outside my mother's basement.

Re:He's an Angel

[Immerman]

Unconditional love can be a very good thing. Letting it blind you to the realities of the person you love is not - then your love is based on a lie, and sooner or later that's going to bite one or both of you in the ass. Probably harshely and repeatedly.

Re:He's an Angel

[Anonymous Coward]

So was Lucifer.

Re:He's an Angel

[tehcyder]

Unconditional love can be a very good thing. Letting it blind you to the realities of the person you love is not - then your love is based on a lie, and sooner or later that's going to bite one or both of you in the ass. Probably harshely and repeatedly.

I don't think you understand what unconditional love means. It means you love someone even though you know the reality. The mothers of murderers don't stop loving their children once they're convicted.

It doesn't mean theycondone their crimes, simply that they can't help loving them anyway.

Re:He's an Angel

[Immerman]

Assuming he's guilty, and that there were warning signs of such destructive behavior (and there usually are) "He would never swat" suggests willful blindness, not unconditional love. Admittedly perhaps she's just trying to cover his ass, but I've seen far more examples of people employing willful blindness to force their perception of a person into a form they can love, than actual unconditional love.

Skype should not be able to connect to 911

[Anonymous Coward]

Done and done.

Re:Skype should not be able to connect to 911

[JeffOwl]

Many people do not have home telephones. Cell phones can have dead batteries and/or poor coverage. What is a better alternative?

Tracking

[jeff13]

"Tracking the culprits behind the pranks is difficult."

Ummmmm, why?

Re:Tracking

[Fwipp]

"Tracking the culprits behind the pranks is difficult."

Ummmmm, why?

While bomb scares and other hoaxes have been around for decades, making threats anonymously has never been so easy. Swatters use text messages and online phone services like Skype to relay their threats, employing techniques to make themselves hard to trace.

Re:Tracking

[Anonymous Coward]

How about they not take anonymous calls like that so seriously?
I can only imagine what would happen if they took every anonymous post on the internet seriously.

Re:Tracking

[QuasiSteve]

How about they not take anonymous calls like that so seriously?

"An investigations\ by NBC reveal that the police department was alerted anonymously, with the caller informing them that the suspect possessed several types of firearms and had expressed their frustration with the victim numerous times. When asked about this apparent warning, the commissioner declined to comment. An officer working the case who spoke with NBC on the condition of anonymity revealed that they did not take the warning seriously, citing many cases in which police were sent to a location based on such warnings only to find that the warning was a hoax, leaving bills in property damage and unknown damages in lost time and personnel availability. A spokesperson for the family of the victim has stated the family's intent to sue the police department for gross negligence in this matter, and NBC has learned that the caller - later identified as the suspect's brother - is also seeking legal recourse."

'The boy who cried wolf' tends not to apply to law enforcement, because they get run through the wringer when they decide to ignore the boy.

Re:Tracking

[kindbud]

I feel strongly that there is a response in between ignoring anonymous calls, and roaring to the scene in full-on SWAT mode, busting down the door and giving everyone who is unlucky enough to be inside the worst day of their lives.

Re:Tracking

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be trivial if everything is being collected by either the carrier or government but what if it is rather trivial to bypass or spoof the carrier and the government is not actually collecting as much information as people claim? What of the carrier or government is collecting the information but the sheer amount of data makes it all but impossible to use in real time and is only useful long after the event takes place? It's claimed that the government has near god like powers when it comes to monitoring online activity while making it damn near impossible to remain anonymous online but if that is true why are there new examples of online mischief occurring on a daily basis? Or maybe the governments resources are limited and they can only handle addressing the most serious kinds of mischief related to national security?

Re:Tracking

[ldobehardcore]

That happy middle is called due diligence via police work. You don't send a swat team to do a detective's work, and that's exactly what more and more PDs are doing every day. It's a disgusting lack of intellectual effort on the part of the PDs, and exposes them for what they are: Soldier wannabes who are too cowardly to actually enlist.

Re:Tracking

[nikhilhs]

Our telecommunications infrastructure is not secure. The industry has had strong laws with long prison sentences attached, so they never felt the need to secure anything. There have been plenty of people who have hid their locations for years before the FBI tracked them down. That was pre-internet. Imagine how easy it is now when you can hide behind proxies and VPNs.

Re:Tracking

[Pseudonym]

How about they not take anonymous calls like that so seriously?

Because nobody wants to be the law enforcement agency which downplayed a real tipoff.

Since we're on the topic, how about they not turn themselves into paramilitary organisations in the first place? Calling out the SWAT team is a dangerous waste of money, partly because having a SWAT team is a dangerous waste of money in the vast majority of jurisdictions.

Re:Tracking

[N1AK]

There clearly is because the whole concept of SWATing doesn't seem to have made it to Europe. I can't help that's because we just don't seem to do the full on wanna-be military style raids as standard response to so many crimes.

So yes I agree completely that overusing extreme force is an issue and should be dealt with, it still doesn't mean that you shouldn't target the people trying to make the police use that force to SWAT someone. I find it hard to believe that in more than 50% of SWATing cases you couldn't put together an evidence chain strong enough to justify a warrant against a suspect for less than $10k, which would be a price well worth paying to vastly decrease the number of SWATings happening.

Re:Tracking

[QuasiSteve]

Oh yeah, absolutely - but you know there's gonna be people complaining about measured responses too :)

Re:Tracking

[CanHasDIY]

Yea, that's called an occupational hazard, not an excuse to not do your fucking job. Jesus, if underwater welders and fishermen (wo have far, far more life-threatening jobs than any LEO) were as whiny and pussified as cops, we'd have no oil or food.

Of course, if the detectives use their brains they can decrease their personal risk while still doing what they're paid to do. Of course that implies hiring people who actually have functioning brains... something many departments apparently have a policy against.

Re:Tracking

[Cederic]

There clearly is because the whole concept of SWATing doesn't seem to have made it to Europe. I can't help that's because we just don't seem to do the full on wanna-be military style raids as standard response to so many crimes.

Hmm. The standard anti-terror arrest approach in the UK is simultaneous forced entry into the houses of the suspects by armed police at around 5am.

If you're a terror suspect and you've had a good sleep, you're probably safe all day around here.

Re:Tracking

[N1AK]

No it isn't, though it does happen. I don't think anyone is suggesting that their aren't raids anywhere else in the world than America, what they are saying, and for some reason you're trying to re-direct away from, is that using armed raids as often as they do in the US is probably not a good idea.

Re:Tracking

[Cederic]

Perhaps your confusion as to my reason for trying to re-direct is because I'm not. You're reading far too much into what I posted.

If I were trying to divert attention I'd start commenting on common practices in Russia, North Korea and Brazil.

Re:Tracking

[sociocapitalist]

I feel strongly that there is a response in between ignoring anonymous calls, and roaring to the scene in full-on SWAT mode, busting down the door and giving everyone who is unlucky enough to be inside the worst day of their lives.

Yes but the cops do the latter because (a) they can and (b) they need to do somethingto justify all that ex-military shit they bought.

Re:Tracking

[dave420]

That's an anti-terror raid, not the result of an anonymous phone call about some lunatic in a house.

Re:Tracking

[rochrist]

I can only imagine what would happen the one time they chose to ignore a call and it turned out to be legitimate.

Re:Tracking

[kindbud]

Someone's going to use that to their advantage, one day

Pay attention: existing police policy is already being taken advantage of to grief innocent people for lulz.

Re:Tracking

[Cederic]

Well, yeah - I was highlighting that we do have that 'no notice' overwhelming force approach. I guess we use it more proportionately.

Re:Tracking

[stoatwblr]

"There clearly is because the whole concept of SWATing doesn't seem to have made it to Europe. "

European police believe in checking the area first. Going in "guns blazing" on an anonymous emergency call without validating the situation would result in serious criminal charges.

Apart from that there's the other issue I mentioned above - police have been lured into ambushes by such calls.

Unlike the USA, Europe _has_ had fascists on the streets in living memory and a long history of abuse of human rights in various countries right up to the very recent past. It's one of the reasons the freedoms europeans now have are never taken for granted.

Re:Tracking

[stoatwblr]

Those "no notice" raids are fairly meticulously planned for several weeks beforehand and the units responsible repeatedly train through scenarios. They also assemble, check the surroundings and get into place before beginning the raid.

The number of shots fired in such raids averages zero. That's the target and deviating from it results in hundreds of pages of paperwork explaining why someone felt it necessary to pull a trigger.

"smoking, drinking, or tattoos"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Brenda Willson, says her son is innocent and does not smoke, drink or have tattoos

WTF? What do smoking, drinking, and tattoos have to do with calling the freakin' SWAT in on some poor gamer? Is this some correlation I had previous not heard about?

Re:"smoking, drinking, or tattoos"?

[Registered Coward v2]

Brenda Willson, says her son is innocent and does not smoke, drink or have tattoos

WTF? What do smoking, drinking, and tattoos have to do with calling the freakin' SWAT in on some poor gamer? Is this some correlation I had previous not heard about?

SWAT: Smokes Whiskey and Tattoos

Re:"smoking, drinking, or tattoos"?

[Altrag]

Well, the people who go out partying with friends are obviously completely socially maladjusted whereas online gamers are all fine upstanding citizens. Just spend an hour on XBox Live and see for yourself!

Re:"smoking, drinking, or tattoos"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know it was possible to smoke whiskey, but I'm even more confused about how they'd manage to smoke tattoos. That sounds like some kind of Native American ritual.

Are you sure you got the acronym right? I think it's supposed to be Soldiers Without Army Training. :D

Re:"smoking, drinking, or tattoos"?

[tao]

I didn't know it was possible to smoke whiskey

Well, you're indeed correct; whisky is made through treating the malt with peat smoke. Whiskey, otoh, isn't.

Re:"smoking, drinking, or tattoos"?

[kesuki]

I wouldn't smoke whisky if i were you. it'll leave a nasty mark and burn away your tattoo.

Re:"smoking, drinking, or tattoos"?

[facetube]

Commas: critical, if only to avoid smoking your whiskey in lieu of drinking it.

Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[gnasher719]

Dear mother, smoking, drinking and having tattoos are not good traits, but they are not necessary for someone to be a nasty criminal.

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[Jahava]

Dear mother, smoking, drinking and having tattoos are not good traits, but they are not necessary for someone to be a nasty criminal.

Curious - what is necessarily wrong with those traits? Obviously, from the story, one can be quite devastatingly evil (causing an incident resulting in innocents at gunpoint) without them.

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[PPH]

There appears to be something really wrong with this kid if he doesn't engage in normal peer behavior.

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[Bengie]

Most people who do those do those to be "cool", not because they like to do them.

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[Baloroth]

Dear mother, smoking, drinking and having tattoos are not good traits, but they are not necessary for someone to be a nasty criminal.

Curious - what is necessarily wrong with those traits? Obviously, from the story, one can be quite devastatingly evil (causing an incident resulting in innocents at gunpoint) without them.

Smoking gives you cancer, drinking ruins your liver and can result in uncontrolled behavior (brawls, DUIs, etc), and tattoos basically ruin your chance at a lot of jobs. They're also all correlated somewhat with anti-social behavior (of various kinds) in general, which I think was the point the mother was relying on. "Because he lacks traits correlated with bad behavior, he must not have engaged in bad behavior." Obviously, this is faulty, but mothers often aren't rational when it comes to defending their kids.

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear mother, smoking, drinking and having tattoos are not good traits, but they are not necessary for someone to be a nasty criminal.

I would note that Whitey Bulger did not smoke, and prohibited his men from even eating french fries. (He nearly murdered an underling who dared to bring a McDonald's Extra Value Meal into their base.)

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[Anonymous Coward]

...they are not necessary for someone to be a nasty criminal.

That's right. Look at Dick Cheney. He has no tattoos either, and he's a nasty motherfucker.

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[markass530]

Unless it's a neck tattoo how would the employer even know?

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[Jahava]

Smoking gives you cancer, drinking ruins your liver and can result in uncontrolled behavior (brawls, DUIs, etc), and tattoos basically ruin your chance at a lot of jobs.

Your argument is that something is fundamentally bad if it can be harmful in excess or will be used as judgement against you. A basic application of this rule damns water and atheism.

They're also all correlated somewhat with anti-social behavior (of various kinds) in general, which I think was the point the mother was relying on. "Because he lacks traits correlated with bad behavior, he must not have engaged in bad behavior." Obviously, this is faulty, but mothers often aren't rational when it comes to defending their kids.

If the quote block isn't sufficient, I should clarify: I am commenting on gnasher719's statement, not the mother's.

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[markass530]

you've clearly never drank

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[Jack Griffin]

I know back in the day tattoos were saved for arms, back, chest etc, where you could cover them up if required. But this latest generation has a new kind of idiot. Having worked in the "youth fashion" segment recently, the more exposed the tattoo the cooler you are. These days it's neck, front back and behind the ear, hands and fingers and yes even on the face.
The logical flaw with tattoos is that they are a fashion item, and hence has to change from year to year to maintain relevance. But a tattoo is permanent, so the only way to change is to get more of them, in newer places that others don't have them. The end result is what we have now, highly visible markers that expose your limited strategic thinking capacity. You can get away with this if you're 20, not so much if you're 40. The flaw comes from the fact that a lot of those 20 year olds will actually be 40 one day, and probably without a decent career.

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[Anonymous Coward]

There appears to be something really wrong with this kid if he doesn't engage in normal peer behavior.

Wait, are you serious? I honestly can't tell. When I was a lad I never smoked, because I hated the smell and didn't want to fuck up my lungs/get cancer. I didn't drink that much because everywhere I looked, people took drinking to mean drinking to excess and acting like fucking idiots, and I didn't want to become one of them (not that I don't drink now, just not that much). I wasn't interested in getting any tattoos because of their permanence, and the fact that they tend to look like rubbish as you age and stupid tattoos can't be removed without clear scarring.

Apparently my desire at a younger age to try to think about the consequences of my action means there was something really wrong with me. If you're being serious of course.

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[Nyder]

Dear mother, smoking, drinking and having tattoos are not good traits, but they are not necessary for someone to be a nasty criminal.

Curious - what is necessarily wrong with those traits? Obviously, from the story, one can be quite devastatingly evil (causing an incident resulting in innocents at gunpoint) without them.

Smoking gives you cancer, drinking ruins your liver and can result in uncontrolled behavior (brawls, DUIs, etc), and tattoos basically ruin your chance at a lot of jobs. They're also all correlated somewhat with anti-social behavior (of various kinds) in general, which I think was the point the mother was relying on. "Because he lacks traits correlated with bad behavior, he must not have engaged in bad behavior." Obviously, this is faulty, but mothers often aren't rational when it comes to defending their kids.

Any job that can't accept me how I am isn't a job i want to work at.

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[frank_adrian314159]

Dude, if you're here, it's obvious what you think is cool couldn't be more wrong.

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[Altrag]

Or they'll find someone who will hire them based on their skills rather than their body art.

And then when they're 40, they'll be the ones doing the hiring. Its already not uncommon to see people with strange hair colors, tattoos, stretched earlobes, etc in various work environments, including interacting with the public. At least not where I'm from. In some places (particularly places like "trendy" clothing stores,) its getting hard to find an employee that doesn't have some form of body expression.

And that's great. As long as you're not doing something intentionally controversial like tattooing a swastika on your forehead, employers and customers alike need to stop giving a damn about anything other than the ability of the employee to do their job. The cashier with black hair who does a good job today can do just as good a job tomorrow if she dyes it pink.

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[nedlohs]

Any job that can't accept me how I am isn't a job i want to work at.

Good for you.

Lots of people work at jobs they don't want to work at because they would prefer to eat and have somewhere to live than to starve in the rain.

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[Noah Haders]

...they are not necessary for someone to be a nasty criminal.

That's right. Look at Dick Cheney. He has no tattoos either.

[citation needed]

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[Opportunist]

Well, I dunno... I never checked.

And there isn't enough money on this planet to make me.

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[mrbester]

There would be one but the person who was going to provide it got shot in a tragic hunting accident.

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[N1AK]

employers and customers alike need to stop giving a damn about anything other than the ability of the employee to do their job.

Yes, and the fact it is still something they need to do means that it is still common for things like visible tattoos to have some impact on careers; which undermines the rest of your post. Things will change, they have already changed hugely in a lot of places, but that doesn't make it the norm now.

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[Jack Griffin]

Says nerd on Slashdot...

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[Jack Griffin]

Or they'll find someone who will hire them based on their skills rather than their body art.

And then when they're 40, they'll be the ones doing the hiring.

That's fine if you intend on working in a cafe, bar or retail the rest of your life. Some people want more than that.

As long as you're not doing something intentionally controversial like tattooing a swastika on your forehead, employers and customers alike need to stop giving a damn about anything other than the ability of the employee to do their job. The cashier with black hair who does a good job today can do just as good a job tomorrow if she dyes it pink.

No but if you want a real job and earn some real money you might want to think about not limiting your opportunities

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[phorm]

And some places might. It still closes a lot of doors, because the broadcasted "I don't give a f*** what you think" or "look at me" attitude that certain types of body-modifications portray isn't exactly conducive to being a manageable employee/co-worker.

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[rahvin112]

There is a pretty simple rule in life that you figure out about the time you hit middle age. Anything you think is cool, actually isn't. More often than not cool means doing stupid and irresponsible stuff to prove you are daring and fun. It proves neither, takes a lot of years to realize that.

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[rahvin112]

If people stopped caring about body modification and tattoos they wouldn't be "cool" anymore.

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[dave420]

Projecting, much? :)

Unless you've performed an exhaustive survey, you are confusing your opinion with fact. It seems far more likely that the only reason you would do those (or other) things is to be cool and fit in with others...

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[tehcyder]

Unless it's a neck tattoo how would the employer even know?

They don't do interviews naked where you live?

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[tehcyder]

There is a pretty simple rule in life that you figure out about the time you hit middle age. Anything you think is cool, actually isn't. More often than not cool means doing stupid and irresponsible stuff to prove you are daring and fun. It proves neither, takes a lot of years to realize that.

YOLO dude.

>>>leaps off cliff

Re:Doesn't smoke or drink or have tattoos

[tehcyder]

Any job that can't accept me how I am isn't a job i want to work at.

Says every teenager who has never had to get a job to pay for their family's rent and food.

Fuck those guys

[the_humeister]

This isn't a prank. This is attempted murder by cop.

Also, the cops should better assess the situation before invading people's houses at gunpoint.

Re:Fuck those guys

[BradMajors]

The root of the problem is that police might kill someone based upon an anonymous tip.

Re:Fuck those guys

[sumdumass]

There been reports of them killing people when they got the wrong address too. Nothing has happened that I know of about this either so I am not too confident anything would be making them think twice on a tip.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Oligonicella]

Bull. Death is a distinct possibility. The guy planning the bank robbery in which a teller gets killed is just as guilty, morally and legally, as the trigger man.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Anonymous Coward]

This is attempted murder by cop.

You have a seriously flawed interpretation of "attempted murder".

I think "attempted murder" or maybe "aggravated assault" sounds about right.
This is the equivalent of cutting a person's brake lines or intentionally giving sugared soda to a diabetic
or giving peanut butter to someone you know is allergic.
They are calling in armed police into your house which likely causes property damage and all
it takes is for the person to panic and run or for one cop to be trigger happy and they are dead.

Now whether an armed posse should show up at a house without first substantiating the annonymous tip
is another question entirely, but siccing a firing squad on an innocent person with the hopes that they
accidently get shot should be considered attempted murder.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Dahamma]

It's not that flawed.

If the police HAD ended up killing someone over the incident it's very possible the person calling in the fake threat could be tried for murder, so if the police didn't end up killing anyone it could still be attempted murder. It's all about intent.

If there was no proof of malice or intent to have the person killed but he was, it would likely be manslaughter - and "attempted manslaughter" is pretty rare since if you didn't mean for someone to be killed and they weren't, it's probably not applicable.

Re:Fuck those guys

[sg_oneill]

There was one case where the cops shot the father of a swatting victim. I believe the person behind the swatting attack is doing some fairly serious time though.

Re:Fuck those guys

[aaronb1138]

The problem is that police would respond with that level of force based upon an anonymous tip.

The problem is more the police than the swatters. The swatters are malicious actors. The police are failing to perform as good actors by following through the least bit of due diligence in these situations. Before breaking down the door, they should at least have a seasoned, senior officer knock to see if anything seems odd first.

The problem is a police force filled with the same adrenaline junky types that call in the swatting. They see an opportunity to break a door down and going running around in full CQC gear and they lose their composure. If they were actually interested in public safety, that wouldn't be their first impulse reaction to a potential emergency situation, negotiation and diffusal would be.

Re:Fuck those guys

[recoiledsnake]

How could they better assess the situation inside a home?

Re:Fuck those guys

[Akaihiryuu]

This. This should be charged *at the very minimum* as attempted murder (if noone is hurt). If the police do kill someone as a result of it, then it should be charged as premeditated murder and treated accordingly under the law.

Re:Fuck those guys

[BarbaraHudson]

Cover the home, then phone them.

Re:Fuck those guys

[sexconker]

Knock on the door like a normal human being?

Re:Fuck those guys

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the cops doing some time for shooting a random innocent?

Re:Fuck those guys

[Mike610544]

Before breaking down the door, they should at least have a seasoned, senior officer knock to see if anything seems odd first.

They probably could respond more reasonably, but walking up to the door and knocking might be a bit reckless. What if it's not a false alarm and there's am unstable, armed murderer on the other side?

Re:Fuck those guys

[Damarkus13]

Yes. That is how they should be proceeding. Are you seriously arguing that they should be allowed to force entry and detain people at gunpoint simply because of an anonymous tip?

Re:Fuck those guys

[sg_oneill]

How about the cops doing some time for shooting a random innocent?

Theres definately an argument to be made for that.

With all that said, I sort of understand how it happens. If they get a phonecall saying someones berking out with a machine gun or whatever , they *have* to respond, and unfortunately this seems to be the consequences.

What I do wonder is why so many SWAT raids end in violence in the US when so many other countries just dont have that sort of problem. My guess is poor training.

Re: Fuck those guys

[Anonymous Coward]

They did knock on the door. They just used a 10 pound sledgehammer.

Oh wait, you said like a normal human being. My bad.

Re:Fuck those guys

[markass530]

are you serious? About a dozen different ways, they have heat sensors for example

Re:Fuck those guys

[Nutria]

Knowing the anti-authoritarian bent of many on /., I assumed (yes, I know) OP was bashing the cops instead of accusing the swatter of "attempted death by cop"

Re:Fuck those guys

[anagama]

They could always try a telephone or bullhorn and ask some questions including permission to enter.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably could respond more reasonably, but walking up to the door and knocking might be a bit reckless. What if it's not a false alarm and there's am unstable, armed murderer on the other side?

And what if it's an unstable terrists with antimatter bomb inside?? What THEN!?

For fucks sake people, *THINK*. If you don't know WTF is going on, what is the proper response? Tanks? Guns? This is suppose to be COMMUNITY PEACE OFFICERS. If you don't know WTF is going on, and there is NO indications from outside the house and the person involved is not someone with history of this stuff, you go to the door, and you ring the door bell. Most likely someone will answer the door and you'll resolve the situation right there and then.

Instead, militaristic police send SWAT because it is MONEY. They get to practice, get paid sweet bonuses and fuck the chump. He must have done something wrong to piss off someone anyway, right?

Proportional response based on credibility of the evidence. SWAT should be last resort in hostage situations. Not as a first use tool. Something is seriously fucked with US police that this is even a problem.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Gavagai80]

If a plainclothes officer knocks and pretends to be a Jehovah's Witness at first in order to access the situation, even unstable armed murderers do not have a history of shooting.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Jack Griffin]

What if it's the cops that kill the teller?

Re:Fuck those guys

[CrankyFool]

I'd guess that it's because the US is at the top of the list of "the person whose house you're about to invade is likely to be heavily armed."

I spent two weeks in the UK recently, with their largely-unarmed police force in full showing (mind you, I also walked by Buckingham Palace and Parliament, where I saw very heavily armed cops). They know that the vast majority of their citizenry is similarly unarmed.

Compare that to the US. I'm guessing SWAT officers are rather more trigger-twitchy because of that. I would be.

Re:Fuck those guys

[ckedge]

Personally I think 80% of the blame is with the telco companies who can't get their asses off the couch to agree on a more modern open communication protocol, who instead are still using POTS and it's caller-id cludges which allow anyone in the world to falsify a phone call.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Firethorn]

Under the felony murder rule, all the bank robbers are guilty of the murder of the teller.

Re:Fuck those guys

[TapeCutter]

What I do wonder is why so many SWAT raids end in violence in the US when so many other countries just dont have that sort of problem. My guess is poor training.

Other countries don't have that problem because we don't send a swat team to investigate a routine 911 call, we send a patrol car and knock on the fucking door. Sure we have swat teams, we send them in to end confirmed sieges because that is what a swat team is trained for. Also the knowledge that everyone and his dog is armed to the teeth in the US encourages the cops shoot first and make up excuses later. If you ask me the cop who shot the kid in Ferguson was a coward, he panicked because he was alone and and could not control a black kid who was bigger than him. The last people you want waving a gun around like John Wayne, are fucking cowards.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes a new loop hole: Cop wants someone dead. Cop makes an anonymously swatting call. Cop goes in knowing it's fake and kills the person he wants dead. Cop gets off free.

The police are the ones doing the shooting, not the caller. The cop always has final say if he should pull the trigger or not. Any cop shooting someone else should always be held accountable for that shooting. Most shootings are justified, some are not.

There are already laws against false reports. They should be strengthened.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Strangely Familiar]

Why charge it as "premeditated murder" when it is probably not? Manslaughter is a more appropriate charge. From Wikipedia: "Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, either express or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter, both of which involve criminal liability." This is a serious charge with serious punishments, and it better describes what happens when someone dies in a swatting.

Re:Fuck those guys

[pitchpipe]

This isn't a prank. This is attempted murder by cop.

Only in America.

Re:Fuck those guys

[schnell]

They could always try a telephone or bullhorn and ask some questions including permission to enter.

So let me get this straight. I have been kidnapped in my home by a lunatic who threatens to kill me if I try to call the police or escape. I manage to call 911 for help, and your suggestion is that the police call me back or ask permission to enter so that the kidnapper can make good on their threat to kill me.

Or... none of that happened and it's just a swatter dickbag!

How exactly do you propose that police differentiate between the two? This is why "swatting" is such a douchetastic offense that should be rewarded with hard time in pound-me-in-the-ass prison: like people wearing fake cop uniforms to prey on victims, it corrodes the (already strained) bond of trust between the people that need the police to protect them, the people who have to respond, and the people on the other end of that police response.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Falconhell]

Reality is a bitch huh, we don't allow the average moron in Australia to have guns either, thank goodness. Americans really are stupid when it comes to guns.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd guess that it's because the US is at the top of the list of "the person whose house you're about to invade is likely to be heavily armed."

And yet we didn't use to have a problem with cops breaking into innocent people's homes and killing them.

The problem isn't gun ownership in america, its cops putting their safety behind a hair-trigger. Somewhere along the way protecting and serving the public became secondary to protecting and serving the police themselves. When any risk is too much risk then (a) it is no surprise they kill innocent people and (b) they are in the wrong profession - especially since jobs like farmer and roofer carry a higher risk of being killed on the job.

Re:Fuck those guys

[recoiledsnake]

No answer. What do they do?

Or what if there is a real killer inside and kills a few people more while the police are calling instead of going inside?

Re:Fuck those guys

[nedlohs]

American police love to escalate conflict and to use their toys. There are also no consequences when they do so.

See random news reports for numerous examples. Eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... for a sheriff who makes jokes after a flashbang was tossed into a baby's crib with a baby in it because apparently that's not something important enough to be serious about.

Re:Fuck those guys

[nedlohs]

Then the robber is guilty under the felony murder rule.

In fact, if there were two robbers, and the teller happens to have a gun and shoots one of them then the other one is guilty under the felony murder rule.

If someone dies due to the commission of a felony those committing the crime are guilty of murder (assuming they get convicted etc).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... is a reasonably famous example.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Noah Haders]

I spent two weeks in the UK recently, with their largely-unarmed police force in full showing (mind you, I also walked by Buckingham Palace and Parliament, where I saw very heavily armed cops). They know that the vast majority of their citizenry is similarly unarmed.

You know, I was in Beijing for the past week, and noticed the same thing. Lots of cops, but no guns. There were many military around tie amen square, posted as guards.they all had nightsticks, riot shields. And in some cases staffs like Donatello. But no guns.

Re:Fuck those guys

[nedlohs]

If there was no intent it's likely going to be a murder charge. "faces up to five years in prison" probably means there's a felony charge in there somewhere. So the felony murder rule would trigger (both illinois and Nevada have one). There is no "attempted' in that of course, someone would have to get killed.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm disappointed at unweighted "what-ifs" in this thread.

i'm pretty sure that one can do data analysis on this sort of thing and determine the exact
likelihood of a swatting and of officer and innocent death/injury and work up ideas on
what works and what doesn't *based on data*. what a concept.
 

Re:Fuck those guys

[Opportunist]

Erh... maybe have him pose as something else. Shouldn't he try to DEescalate the situation, not infuriate the person inside further?

If you show up as a Jehovah's Witness at my doorstep, preferably at some godforsaken early time as they usually do, serves only to make me appear like the madman the caller alleged I'd be.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Opportunist]

Erh... so if the teller shoots my partner, I'm a murderer. The sensible thing for me is then to kill everyone involved. I am already a murderer. Multiplying a death sentence does not increase it, so the logical thing to do is to minimize the chance to get caught, and this involves eliminating every witness I possibly can.

That's kinda fucked up.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Opportunist]

How does this change the current situation?

Re:Fuck those guys

[emj]

as Scotland Yard pointed out [we need] CCTVs in our homes that we aren't able to turn off.

Like a service that let you publish personal video streams on the net. That would be awesome! Let's call it "Anti-Twitch", you from the twitchy triggering fingers of SWAT forces.

Re:Fuck those guys

[GNious]

A quick googling tells that pretending to be from Jehova's Witnesses might actually get you shot ...

Re:Fuck those guys

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be interesting to see how the courts would rule as to the applicability of felony murder.

On one hand, People v. Mattison states that "use of the second degree felony-murder rule was appropriate when the purpose of the predicate felony was independent of or collateral to an intent to cause injury that would result in death," which suggests that a death during a SWATting incident would not be felony murder since there is no intent to cause injury.

However, People v. Satchell states "the second degree felony-murder doctrine is triggered when a homicide occurs during the commission of a felony that is inherently dangerous to human life". People v. Burroughs defines a felony that is "inherently dangerous to human life" as "one that cannot be committed without creating a substantial risk that someone will be killed". Therefore, the felony murder rule would seem to apply since a police raid always carries lethal risks.

Source: https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/541a.html

Re:Fuck those guys

[Anonymous Coward]

No answer. What do they do?

Or what if there is a real killer inside and kills a few people more while the police are calling instead of going inside?

The cops aren't there to protect you, or save you from getting killed. They're there to make sure the guy doing the killing doesn't get away with it. If they really, truly think someone is armed and dangerous, they do NOT simply roll up to the door. They cover the entire area, cut off all possible escape paths, attempt to locate and identify where in the structure people are located. When they DO go inside, they go in SHOOTING... and their priority is NOT to save your life, it is to kill the shooter and protect their own lives in the process.
If you live, great, that's good press. If you die, then the public statement reads "We did our best, but that madman killed them anyhow".

When they get a random 911 call, and simply bust down the door without doing hardly ANY recon, it's reckless and sloppy. If there's a madman inside with a live hostage, that hostage is getting smoked immediately, not saved.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Richard_at_work]

Except there is "malice aforethought" here...

Re:Fuck those guys

[bickerdyke]

So let me get this straight. I have been kidnapped in my home by a lunatic who threatens to kill me if I try to call the police or escape. I manage to call 911 for help, and your suggestion is that the police call me back or ask permission to enter so that the kidnapper can make good on their threat to kill me.

1st That call wouldn't be anonymous.
2nd While I heard of hostage/siege situations on the news, in none of them were hostages shot at the first sight of a police officer. I know this is more anecdotal and secondhand, but even from the viewpoint of an armed madman, killing your negotiation material first thing is a very bad tactic.

it corrodes the (already strained) bond of trust between the people that need the police to protect them, the people who have to respond, and the people on the other end of that police response.

Yes. But if you have to be afraid of a swat team raiding your house and killing your 6 year old daughter because they got the wrong address (Detroit IIRC) or anonymous callers, THAT won't help rebuild that lost trust.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Solandri]

The problem is that police would respond with that level of force based upon an anonymous tip.

The problem is more the police than the swatters.

The problem is the media. I've seen hundreds of news stories where with 20/20 hindsight they'll say police received an anonymous tip regarding a [murder/bomb/bad thing] but failed to act on it. I have never seem them once mention the hundreds of incorrect or fake anonymous tips the police receive. The only time I've seen that mentioned is when the police (FBI, etc) mention it themselves during a live press conference.

Assuming a relatively constant percentage of the population who'll call in fake tips, the more effective your police force, the lower the ratio of real tips to fake ones. For the simple reason that when less crime occurs, the fewer real reports of crime you'll receive. Basically your signal is dropping so low that the noise begins to swamp it out. So ironically, the more effective your police force is, the more likely they are incorrectly dismiss a real anonymous tip as fake.. The media does society a great disservice by portraying an anonymous tip as a strong signal with no noise which the police should have acted on, when it was in fact a weak signal often indistinguishable from the noise.

This puts the police in a position where they feel they'll be raked over the coals if they ignore any anonymous call about something serious like a murder. And they will go all-out to respond to it, "just in case" it happens to be true, in order to avoid the media circus that'll result if it was true and they didn't respond.

The problem is a police force filled with the same adrenaline junky types that call in the swatting.

Yes that is a problem. But cooler heads would prevail and would overrule the adrenaline junkies if the media treated missed opportunities from anonymous tips more fairly, instead of exploiting them as an opportunity to take a cheap shot at the effectiveness of the police. Think of what goes through the police supervisor's head while deciding whether or not to approve the SWAT raid:

• They conduct the raid and it turns out to be fake. A little bad publicity, family inconvenienced for a day or two, everything goes back to normal.
• They conduct the raid and it turns out to be true. Media portrays them as heroes.
• They don't conduct the raid and it turns out to be false. Nobody ever hears about it.
• They don't conduct the raid and it turns out to be true. Media crucifies them. Supervisor loses his job.

There's little to lose and a lot to gain by doing the raid. While there's nothing to gain and a lot to lose by not doing the raid.

Re:Fuck those guys

[TheRaven64]

Step one, drive past the house - no sirens or lights, just see if there's anything odd. Step two, knock on a couple of the neighbours' doors - say that you've received a non-specific report of gunfire in the area, ask if they heard anything. Step three, from somewhere inconspicuous see if you can see in through the windows with binoculars. Step four, visit the nearest take-away and have someone in plain clothes take the food to the house pretending that they misread the number, look for signs of distress from the person answering the door. Step five, surround the house with armed officers at all exits and have someone in uniform knock on the front door and ask the person who answers to step outside - if they're refusing and showing signs of distress, then go in.

Or they could just forget all of their police training and pretend that their soldiers in enemy territory.

Re:Fuck those guys

[F.Ultra]

And how often does that happen in relation to there not beeing some unstable armed murderer on the other side?

It also feels like an uneeded escalation of force. If the armed perp knows/suspects that the police will storm in and kill every one inside he has no incentive to not shoot the police on sight. In other countries however where the police doesn't act like in the US these kinds of things mostly don't happen at all, the perp knows that the police won't shoot him dead unless he provokes it so there is an incentive to behave. Also sentencing plays a role here, if the perp knows that he fill face the same jail time regardless of if he kills some people or not he has no incentive to deescalate the situation. As I understand it you have some states in the US that have the same punishment for holding hostages as killing the hostages?

Re:Fuck those guys

[N1AK]

And there it is! That European smugness.

America the brave. Land of the free. God bless the USA. Leader of the free world. The American dream. Manifest destiny. American Exceptionalism.

America where it was controversial for a drama to include someone saying America wasn't the greatest country in the world.

But how dare those Europeans think they've made a better choice by now having the police routinely SWAT houses like they're playing at urban warfare!?

Re:Fuck those guys

[gnasher719]

That makes a new loop hole: Cop wants someone dead. Cop makes an anonymously swatting call. Cop goes in knowing it's fake and kills the person he wants dead. Cop gets off free.

It's not a "loop hole". "Loop hole" is the term for things that we assume or believe should be illegal, but due to the wording of the law they quite unexpectedly aren't.

What that cop in your example is doing, is premeditated murder. As any reasonable person would do, he will try to get away with it. Actually, I know of at least one cop who shot a person "in self defence" and later got convicted for premeditated murder.

Re:Fuck those guys

[gnasher719]

Why charge it as "premeditated murder" when it is probably not?

Clearly it is intentional. The phone call to the police was made intentional. The intention of the phone call was to create a dangerous situation. It is common sense that creating a merely dangerous situation could result in actual harm to a person. So there is an intentional action, and it is foreseeable that it could lead to the death of a person.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Jack Griffin]

What if it's a vigilante trying to stop the felony that kills the teller?

Re:Fuck those guys

[IamTheRealMike]

And there it is! That European smugness. I didn't expect to see it in this thread but I can't say I'm not surprised. Tells us again, for the millionth time, how your shit doesn't stink....

Yes, there are a lot of smug sounding Europeans posting on Slashdot when stories about the US doing something dumb crops up.

However, today is not one of those days. The OP talked about "other countries". The USA is practically alone in having a problem such as "swatting". It's not just Europe that lacks this issue - it's Australia, Canada, China, Russia, India ...

SWATing seems like a natural consequence of a heavily militarised society that worships soldiers and has decided it makes sense for everyone to be heavily armed all the time. If the rest of the world didn't point out that decisions have consequences, you guys might think it was normal.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Jack Griffin]

Does this even work if the crime doesn't involve a gun? If someone steals my milk from the work fridge can I then go shoot the guy on the desk next to me and blame the thief?
Or, in a country of gun nuts, if a robber robs a bank I'm in, can I shoot everyone in there and get off the hook?

This rule seems a bit flawed.

Re:Fuck those guys

[TapeCutter]

I am an Aussie ;)

Re:Fuck those guys

[jafiwam]

That makes a new loop hole: Cop wants someone dead. Cop makes an anonymously swatting call. Cop goes in knowing it's fake and kills the person he wants dead. Cop gets off free.

The police are the ones doing the shooting, not the caller. The cop always has final say if he should pull the trigger or not. Any cop shooting someone else should always be held accountable for that shooting. Most shootings are justified, some are not.

There are already laws against false reports. They should be strengthened.

Something similar to this actually played out recently.

The home owner ended up shooting and killing the right cop (the one with the grudge) and got off. Apparently the other cops didn't like the dead guy much so there wasn't a big rally to hang the innocent home owner.

Re:Fuck those guys

[AmiMoJo]

Even so, there are a lot of innocent people getting shot by the police in the UK. It happens with alarming regularity, especially now more of them are carrying tazer guns.

The problem seems to be that if you put a gun in someone's hand and then put them in a stressful situation where they are worried they might be injured they tend to use it. Much of the training that UK officers receive on fire arms re-enforces this. If you look at the training video they are taught to pull the trigger when someone armed with a knife who is stood >10m away raises it. The slightest perceived threat is justification enough to kill someone.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Strangely Familiar]

"Intent" is shorthand for the specific intent to end a human life. Not just any intent. It does not refer to intent to make a phone call, or intent to have the police show up with guns drawn, scaring the heck out of people. Perhaps the charge "assault with a deadly weapon" could be made, which is also a serious charge. Basically, the swat team is the deadly weapon, and the 911 call is the deliberate act of pointing the deadly weapon at the victim, putting them in fear of imminent offensive or harmful contact. I don't know, though. That might be stretching the definition too far. I am not a criminal attorney.

Re:Fuck those guys

[EdwardFurlong]

I used to watch one of those swat tv shows every now and them in the background. I was always surprised more often than not they showed up to an empty house, or in some cases the wrong house (for instance a house illegally converted into multiple apartments). It seems like they perform very little intel gathering. I have to think just about anything is safer than a no knock warrant in the middle of the night.

Re:Fuck those guys

[hoggoth]

I would first confirm that the visitor is actually a Jehovah's Witness before shooting him.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Cro Magnon]

They could always try a telephone or bullhorn and ask some questions including permission to enter.

So let me get this straight. I have been kidnapped in my home by a lunatic who threatens to kill me if I try to call the police or escape. I manage to call 911 for help, and your suggestion is that the police call me back or ask permission to enter so that the kidnapper can make good on their threat to kill me.

Or... none of that happened and it's just a swatter dickbag!

OTOH, if the police response to your call is to flatten the whole place with a bazooka, you wouldn't fare very well either.

Re:Fuck those guys

[BarbaraHudson]

In the case of a swatting, they're going to get an answer. Either when they phone, or when they take out the megaphones and start trying to get the attention of anyone inside.

If it's for real, then the first step should be to attempt negotiations with the perp. Make the perp realize that the hostage is way more valuable alive than dead.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Cederic]

I'm comfortable with the police knocking on my door.

I'm less comfortable with the police standing on my property then telling me to go back to bed when I open my door to find out what they're up to at 4am, especially when they're taking a personal interest in my car. But generally the police are welcome to knock on my door for a polite conversation.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Cederic]

Does it really intend a dangerous situation, or merely intend the comedy value of having armed police burst into a house on a live video stream?

There is inherent danger, but that doesn't make the danger the intent.

Re:Fuck those guys

[phorm]

It really is an interesting setup, especially in the U.S. where personal gun ownership is common. From a homeowner perspective, the commotion etc may lead one to believe that a robbery or home invasion is taking place (in which case, they're going to grab a gun). Meanwhile, the cops are coming in expecting an armed suspect, and now they've run into a guy with a gun. Bad situation on both sides.

And often enough the swatter *knows* that the victim has guns, which for them is just an increased opportunity to see some bad shit happen and fulfill their sick little desires.

Re:Fuck those guys

[chihowa]

Too bad the response isn't to just be a bit more reserved with the home invasions. The number of people who would shoot at a cop knocking on the door must be smaller than the number of people who would shoot at masked, often unannounced assailants storming their house.

Do the police in Europe regularly raid houses without any prior investigation?

Re:Fuck those guys

[N1AK]

Where the calls originate doesn't really change the discussion of whether police in one country are too heavy handed or not.

Re:Fuck those guys

[TheRaven64]

If people are actually being killed, then as soon as you get near the house you're likely to hear screams / gunshots. If they're just being threatened, then you have time to plan something that has a good chance of having the victims survive. Well-trained police forces don't rush in guns blazing.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Dragonslicer]

I think the bank robbers could still get charged with murder. They're committing a felony where deadly violence is a probable outcome.

Re:Fuck those guys

[dave420]

I think building your house from materials which would stop people from simply kicking in doors or walls or windows and gaining access, and getting a dog, is a far better way of defending your house. That way you can have a drink, be ill, be on the toilet, etc. without worrying your house is going to be invaded.

But guns are cool! guns guns guns guns guns! The cause of and solution to this problem! more guns for everyone! yaaay!

Re:Fuck those guys

[Firethorn]

Well, for one it's probably not technically a vigilante. If the crime is in progress and the bank robbers are threatening deadly force, then it's considered self defense to use deadly force to stop them. It's also still self defense to use said deadly force to protect others. I'm sorry, it's a bit of a hot button topic for me. I get a little annoyed when people call self defense vigilantism.

Anyways, in the case of self defense, where the shooter, could be a security guard, could be a customer or another teller, accidentally shoots and kills an innocent while trying to hit the robbers?

Felony murder rule still applies - the Robbers are still up on murder charges. Now the shooter? Might find himself up on manslaughter charges, but probably not. The case law isn't settled, I'm not aware of any self-defense shootings outside the home that have hit an innocent party.

Inside the home, shooting a relative or something? Generally not charged.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Kirth]

>What if it's not a false alarm and there's am unstable, armed murderer on the other side?

This is precisely the thinking that leads to swatting.

The chance this is a something a polite, normally armed patrol can't handle is actually somewhere close to zero. Even in the US. And in less insane countries, the only people that can call a SWAT team are actually the police. And they don't do it upon a call by a patrol, but only once some chief back at the station has decided it's needed.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Firethorn]

First, hot button topic for me, it's probably not a vigilante but somebody committing self defense. The difference is that the vigilante seeks out crime to punish, a self defense shooter just happened to be on the scene.

But the bank robbers would still be guilty of murder, because under the felony murder rule, when you commit a (violent) felony, you're responsible for all deaths stemming from your crime. Since the vigilante/self defense shooter wouldn't have shot at them and missed if they hadn't been robbing the bank, it's still on them.

Now, the shooter might or might not find himself up on manslaughter charges, but that's unlikely - despite it being very hard to find a similar case(a ccw permit holder shooting an innocent party by mistake), cops routinely get off with nothing for this.

Re:Fuck those guys

[nedlohs]

If stealing the milk is a felony. And the death was caused by the stealing of the milk then sure.

But that wouldn't be the case in your example, since it's not a result of the felony (and there's not a felony start with unless that's really expensive milk in most jurisdictions).

And no you can't shoot everyone in the bank unless you someone make it appear like that was all caused by the robbery - which is going to be rather difficult. And even then someone else getting charged doesn't mean you don't as well.

Re:Fuck those guys

[frisket]

My guess is poor training.

Maybe. I'd also hazard a guess at flawed recruitment practices: possibly some cops are none too bright, and probably shouldn't be cops. But then, the same can be said of judges, politicians, lawyers, CEOs, CIOs,...

Re:Fuck those guys

[F.Ultra]

Granted. But let's say that that you have an armed murderer in your house holding you at gunpoint. Would you rather that the police would be stampeding in or would you rather that they tried to negotiate with the murderer first?

If the negotiations would fail you still have the full stampede option left, the assailant should be very very unstable if he executed you just by spotting the police (has it even ever happened?).

Re:Fuck those guys

[tehcyder]

I would first confirm that the visitor is actually a Jehovah's Witness before shooting him.

You're not really getting the whole "crazed gunman" thing are you?

Re:Fuck those guys

[tehcyder]

Does it really intend a dangerous situation, or merely intend the comedy value of having armed police burst into a house on a live video stream?

There is inherent danger, but that doesn't make the danger the intent.

You have a psychopath's definition of comedy there.

Re:Fuck those guys

[Agent0013]

There are many more cases of the SWAT team going to a wrong address or having bad information for other reasons and shooting innocent people than there are of SWATTING. Giving hard time to people who commit SWATTING would not address the larger problem of police that are out of control and want to shoot everything that moves.

It in pretty regular that the dog will be shot no matter what the situation, even if the people there are all innocent bystanders. It has also happened that grenades have been thrown into baby cribs. It was a flash grenade, but it still killed the baby. And there are elderly people in bed killed when the SWAT team breaks down their door. There are even web sites that keep track of all the hostile and inappropriate actions by SWAT teams.

Re:Fuck those guys

[ebvwfbw]

...Also, the cops should better assess the situation before invading people's houses at gunpoint.

And pass up an opportunity to be Rambo and play with guns? They live for this stuff.
Calmly walking up to the door, ringing the bell and asking if there's a problem - well that's just not cool.

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

Search for education, and get mad. What bullcrap. Nobody seems interested in stopping them. They give police a bad name.

Re:Fuck those guys

[ToddInSF]

" If you ask me the cop who shot the kid in Ferguson was a coward, he panicked because he was alone and and could not control a black kid who was bigger than him. The last people you want waving a gun around like John Wayne, are fucking cowards."

He wasn't a "kid". The rest of your opinion is similarly fallacious/stupid.

What's the point of the NSA knowing everything?

[Dr. Spork]

This is one of those times when our government's all knowing, all access panopticon would actually be useful. Seriously, our cops can't trace the swatters?

Re:What's the point of the NSA knowing everything?

[Nutria]

our cops can't trace the swatters?

Maybe our government isn't the omniscient panopticon that Snowden fetishists think it is...

Re:What's the point of the NSA knowing everything?

[Anonymous Coward]

Swatting is just a risk to (small groups of) individuals. Hence it's not terrorism. Also the lack of political motivation.

Re:What's the point of the NSA knowing everything?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a big difference between having a haystack and finding a needle.

Besides, while NSA has a freaking huge one of the former, I doubt that these are the needles they are seeking.

Re:What's the point of the NSA knowing everything?

[Dr. Spork]

... I doubt that these are the needles they [the NSA] are seeking.

Yeah, but why not? This sort of thing obviously undercuts national security by tying up our cops, making them complicit in some asshole's prank, and causing potentially deadly danger. And compared to the effort and expense of mobilizing and deploying a freaking SWAT team, it is a comparative trifle for the NSA to answer a call from the cops asking for the malicious report to be traced to its source.

Re:What's the point of the NSA knowing everything?

[misexistentialist]

Or maybe the panopticon wasn't constructed for our benefit. Random SWAT raids are good training and also pacify the population. Probably even polls well

Re:What's the point of the NSA knowing everything?

[Jack Griffin]

Mod you up. We read a lot about all pervasive surveillance yet cops still can't solve simple crimes. From this fact alone we can gather that the technology is nowhere near as good as claimed.

Re:What's the point of the NSA knowing everything?

[ShaunC]

NSA isn't supposed to be collecting most domestic signals in the first fucking place. I'd rather not legitimize or excuse that behavior, I don't care who it might help track down.

Re:What's the point of the NSA knowing everything?

[Altrag]

They don't need to sift through a trillion emails hoping to spot J.Random Terrorist if someone calls them and tells them where to look.

And even if they wanted to, that would immediately bang into the issue of applying mass surveillance of Americans. I mean everyone knows its happening anyway but as long as they keep claiming its "accidental" they can retain plausible deniability.

Re:What's the point of the NSA knowing everything?

[Florian Weimer]

The NSA capabilities are still classified (leaks do not change that). Using classified capabilities for law enforcement purposes is difficult, both for operation reasons (you don't want to document publicly what is possible) and legal reasons (parallel construction is required to avoid disclosure).

Re:What's the point of the NSA knowing everything?

[GNious]

Or, that is what they want you to think!

/me puts on solid-silver hat

Re:What's the point of the NSA knowing everything?

[F.Ultra]

It's probably not "sexy" enough for the NSA to bother.

Re:What's the point of the NSA knowing everything?

[Jack Griffin]

Well unless they are intentionally allowing people to die in the streets just to keep a secret about a system they went to great lengths to acquire to reduce crime, then no.

Re:What's the point of the NSA knowing everything?

[houghi]

And perhaps they are not even in the US. If you can prank call somebody from within the US, how hard can it be to do that from any other country in the world?

Re:What's the point of the NSA knowing everything?

[AmiMoJo]

We know that Microsoft changed the way Skype works to make it possible for them to tap the line. They almost certainly log all the IP addresses involved in conversations. ISPs can convert the IP addresses into subscriber addresses. All that takes time of course, there has to be some legal process. Plus, the parts of the government that regularly do monitor Skype connections probably don't want to share their toys or dispel the myth that Skype is anonymous.

Of course, if the criminal had any sense they would have used Tor anyway, but many of them don't.

In other words the government probably can find out who it was, but isn't motivated to.

Re:What's the point of the NSA knowing everything?

[CrackerJackz]

Correct, the first rule of playing Global Thermonuclear War isn't "not playing" (in this case that ship has long ago sailed) its: "not showing your enemies what capabilities you have." That missing Malaysia airlines jet? You know at least 2 countries have realtime satellite data of nearly every square inch of earth, and could have tracked the image of the plane to where it crashed ... but did they? No. That would have displayed what resolution objects could have been identified at. Its fully possible that every Skype call, cell call, and land line ends up as a .wav file on some fansy-pants NSA storage cluster but it will be a cold day in heck before Joe Q Public Cop would have know of its existence, let alone be able to submit a request for use.

Re:What's the point of the NSA knowing everything?

[madhi19205]

Come on, how long is it going to take before some Pro-Choice nutbag start Swatting Doctors?

Honestly

[fermion]

I don't know what drinking, smoking, or having tattoos has to do with anything. Does he have a computer? Does he use it for mischief.

A couple cases of kids going to jail will limit the problem. Teenagers are always going to test limits, and some do so to the extent that the adult legal system is required to help motivate them not to cause problems for other people.

It was not so long ago that the telephone was a new thing, many parents were not raised with it, and did not really know how to manage it with the kids. Kids got into trouble, and laws were passed to help define what was good and bad behavior.

I know that adults say this all the time, but if we do not figure out how to play with our toys nicely, we are going to lose the privileged of unencumbered play.

From a personal point of view, from personal experience, in my opinion there is no punishment too great for someone who files false police reports, and that goes doubly so for those cowards who hide behind computers.

Re:Honestly

[duck_rifted]

This isn't just silly childish pranks. Property can be destroyed and people killed in SWAT raids. It has happened before.

These kids know what they're doing is illegal. So, it's not going to deter them when people go to jail for it. The only thing that will stop it is if the police ask for stream URLs and actually check before kicking in doors. You know, act like reasonable people. They can even check while the SWAT team gears up, so it doesn't cost precious time in the case of an actual emergency.

You can't compensate for SWAT-happy law enforcement eager for every little chance to kick in doors by putting away the people who give them that chance. The problem has to be fixed at both ends by punishing the people who do it and requiring that our officers operate as if they've got a shred of common sense. "Oh yeah? What's the Twitch handle?" How hard is that?

Re:Honestly

[sjames]

Checking out is one thing. Playing soldiers, kicking the door in, and shooting the first thing that doesn't cower before them is quite another.

Evidence suggests there is far too much of the latter going on.

They don't hesitate to use IR to look in trying to find drugs (at least not until the courts slapped them for it), perhaps they should use it in exigent circumstances like when getting ready to kick the door in and go in with guns blazing.

Re:Honestly

[dafoomie]

What you are suggesting the police should do is simply not practical. Who would they ask for a stream url? Do you want everyone running a stream to register with the local police? Do you want police to begin doubting every report or threat of imminent violence, endangering everyone who legitimately needs help?

When you get a call reporting an active shooter followed by gunshots you don't check twitch, you go. You bring the amount of force necessary to deal with what may be occurring but you use the minimum amount of force necessary to take control of the situation. That no one has died yet as a result of swatting suggests that they're largely doing their jobs. Whether or not they're responding to every situation, real or fictitious with excessive force is an entirely separate issue.

Jail IS a deterrent as these people have no expectation they will be caught and believe sentences would be light anyway. If they can become more proficient at finding these people, and sentences become more severe, it will absolutely reduce the number of incidents.

Re:Honestly

[Jack Griffin]

I don't know what drinking, smoking, or having tattoos has to do with anything.

Not sure about the drinking, but there is a strong correlation between smoking, tattoos and stupidity. If you've ever been in prison you'll noticed nearly every person in there has a tattoo. Whether you like it or not there is an association between the two.

Re:Honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

That no one has died yet as a result of swatting suggests that they're largely doing their jobs.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap
http://www.sott.net/article/266876-Swat-team-shoots-innocent-man-22-times-in-front-of-his-family-case-settled-in-the-millions
http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/misidentified-man-killed-when-swat-team-started-his-house-on-fire/
http://www.businessinsider.com/9-horrifying-botched-police-raids-2012-2?op=1
http://www.mintpressnews.com/video-swat-team-kills-innocent-man-drug-raid-found-just-2-marijuana/200738/
http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/A-costly-SWAT-raid-gone-wrong-4303215.php
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/swat-raid-casualties

Re:Honestly

[T.E.D.]

That no one has died yet as a result of swatting suggests that they're largely doing their jobs.

"No one"? Do the minorities they mistakenly kill count, or does it have to be some white middle-class dude with a twitch channel?

Re:Honestly

[tehcyder]

These kids know what they're doing is illegal. So, it's not going to deter them when people go to jail for it.

Are you seriously suggesting that jail has no deterrent effect whatsoever?

Re:Honestly

[tehcyder]

Not sure about the drinking, but there is a strong correlation between smoking, tattoos and stupidity.

I think it's more to do with lack of impulse control than simple stupidity.

It's why you can get high functioning alcoholics and drug addicts maintaining professional careers, at least in the short term: they can take enough of a breather to allow them to work.

Re:Honestly

[madhi19205]

If the kid was getting high, drunk, or laid he probably would not be doing that kind of shit.

Re:Honestly

[duck_rifted]

Yes. I am seriously suggesting that jail has no deterrent effect whatsoever. That's why the marijuana usage rates per capita have not changed at all since prohibition began. Deterrence theory was acted upon with policy before there was ever any evidence to support it, and to this day the only "evidence" I've ever seen has been abuse of statistics. The only reason that way of failing to do things has persisted for so long is that it makes money for jailers.

Re:Honestly

[duck_rifted]

I should expand upon this more explicitly. The only evidence ever produced to support deterrence theory has been statistical. Statistics and probability go hand in hand, and with them is entropy. This is simple. Let's count the ways that deterrence theory works and the ways that it fails.

Ways That It Works

1. An aversion to incarceration causes somebody to choose to avoid breaking the law.

Ways That It Fails

1. Somebody assumes they won't be caught. 2. Somebody considered incarcerations to be a cost of doing business. 3. Incarceration is comfortable to somebody. 4. Somebody believes they are not breaking the law. 5. Somebody believes a criminal act should not be criminal, and are willing to stand up for that belief. 6. Somebody knows that they will be incarcerated for something worse they've already done. 7. The consequences of not committing the crime would be worse than the incarceration. 8. The law in question is seldom enforced. 9. Somebody actually wants to be incarcerated. 10. Somebody has been exposed to an environment where a crime is regularly committed by others, without consequence.

There are at least nine more ways that deterrence theory fails than succeeds. For each of those ways, depending upon the actual crime in question, additional motivations, confusion, compulsions, etc further complicate these items such that on a crime by crime basis the individual act's details serve as a multiplier for the ways that deterrence theory fails. Meanwhile, there is still one and only one way that deterrence theory succeeds.

It's a failed policy. But it's a lucrative, failed, barbaric policy, so there are those who like to pretend otherwise. Rehabilitation, retribution, and separation from society are the only valid purposes for incarcerations. Any ideas about precrime law enforcement, to include deterrence theory, would be nice but are in reality nothing more than fantasies.

"prevent the pranks"

[Crashmarik]

Really the pranks. By that standard I suppose John Wayne Gacy was just an enthusiastic gardener.

Re:"prevent the pranks"

[duck_rifted]

Sure! And the Unibomber was just a year-round secret santa.

Re:The perps

[PPH]

The perps get such a kick out of watching this unfold on streaming video. I hope they put a webcam on their prison cell so we can all watch them for the next 5 years. Those that live by the sword ....

The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters

[Snotnose]

The problem is the police respond to everything with a huge over-reaction. They don't investigate, they don't use common sense, they just go in armed to the teeth ready to shoot anything that either moves or doesn't move fast enough and the hell with the consequences, as long as the consequences fall on the target, not the cops.

How the hell did we get such a militarized police force anyway?

Re:The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it really *is* the swatters this time. You can argue that the police are overreacting (but they'd get crucified if they underreacted to a legitimate report with people in danger) but it's the swatters.

Re:The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters

[Kevin Fishburne]

How the hell did we get such a militarized police force anyway?

Same old story...a few bad apples ruin it for the rest. They should just put gunshot detectors on light poles and be done with it. They use them in the military to detect the discharge vector using triangulation. Three mics and a Raspberry Pi running off the bulb's current, transmitting to reserved bandwidth on the nearest cell tower. Of course if they actually did this it would cost ONE MILLION DOLLARS per device...

Re:The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters

[Dutch Gun]

Swatters have been known to intentionally act irrational/hysterical, and put time pressure on the police. They could talk about how they're going to kill someone in the next hour, and perhaps talk about how they'll kill any police that they see as well. They may tell the police that if anyone tries to call them back or contacts them in any way, they'll kill a hostage.

This leaves the police in a quandary. In the case of the Columbine school shootings, the police were criticized for waiting too long before moving in, and subsequently changed their tactics. Now they're criticized for rushing in too soon.

We got a militarized police force when people started holing up in places with guns, sometimes taking hostages, sometimes just killing people randomly. You talk about how they "just go in armed to the teeth ready to shoot anything that either moves or doesn't move fast enough", yet to my knowledge, no one has actually died as a result of a swatting yet, despite *many* incidents. That demonstrates that those police teams in question are showing a significant level of restraint in what, to their knowledge, may be a life-and-death situation.

It's easy to criticize. It's a bit harder to actually figure out how to solve the problems.

Re:The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters

[Dahamma]

To include the somewhat overused quote from Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Problem is, (to paraphrase) people prefer security over freedom, and so are giving up the latter left and right these days. The problem is, honestly, for the vast majority they will have (somewhat) increased security with no noticeable loss of freedoms. People only realized how bad things have become if they are one of those small minority whose rights are violated, wrongly prosecuted, or killed.

Re:The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy. Its your easy access to firearms and hand guns.

Police don't know who has a gun, or how many guns, how much ammo etc etc etc.
Police get a report that at X address a gun was used
Police have to assume that a real gun was used at that address, and given the US Murder stats its a realistic appraisal of the situation
The Police also have friends and family they want to go home to, so they are NOT going to risk their lives needlessly
So, that is how you get there.

The Police are expected to go into situations the pubic runs from, so they are at a much higher risk.

So if you think US society is such that you have to carry a gun, well the police are even MORE entitled to treat every tip as hostile.

So, it comes down to
for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

You want "freedom" to own a gun, thats fine, but the police are then entitled to treat everyone as a potential killer.

Re:The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters

[sydbarrett74]

How the hell did we get such a militarized police force anyway?

Here's your answer.

Re:The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters

[Anonymous Coward]

Around 150 police officers die of gunshots every year. Police kill far more people with guns. Police propaganda has tricked you.

Re:The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters

[Fire_Wraith]

e got such a militarized police force thanks in large part to the "War on Terror." combined with the "War on Drugs." The former has provided far too much military gear to local police departments based on absurd overreactions to ridiculously rare events that hold an outsized power over the imagination of many people. The latter has provided the excuse to put many of these things to use on a regular basis.

Re:The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters

[brantondaveperson]

Some time around the same time that normal* police activity became referred to as a "war", I suspect.

* Not that I consider the current attitude towards drugs 'normal', but that's another story.

Re:The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters

[preaction]

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, that has happened, and since it was a real emergency, the police department is now being sued.

"An investigations by NBC reveal that the police department was alerted anonymously, with the caller informing them that the suspect possessed several types of firearms and had expressed their frustration with the victim numerous times. When asked about this apparent warning, the commissioner declined to comment. An officer working the case who spoke with NBC on the condition of anonymity revealed that they did not take the warning seriously, citing many cases in which police were sent to a location based on such warnings only to find that the warning was a hoax, leaving bills in property damage and unknown damages in lost time and personnel availability. A spokesperson for the family of the victim has stated the family's intent to sue the police department for gross negligence in this matter, and NBC has learned that the caller - later identified as the suspect's brother - is also seeking legal recourse."

Re:The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters

[Damarkus13]

And, just like the previous poster, you have provided no citation for this quote, and I can't seem to match it via multiple search engines. Even assuming it is true, I read this quote as more of a "some person is mentally unstable, has firearms, and has stated intentions to use them" complaint, rather than a "active shooter" call. Apple to (possibly imaginary) oranges.

Re:The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters

[Snotnose]

What you're saying is the problem lies with the lawyers. Which somehow doesn't surprise me.

Get swatted, cops shoot your dog, toss a flash bang into your baby's crib, and scare the crap out of everyone in the family? Grand Jury decides we're cool, no cops get prosecuted.

Get 911'd, cops look into it, figure there's a good chance it's a hoax, turns out it's not a hoax. Layers sue for millions and win.

Essentially, the average citizen and common sense loses in both cases.

Re:The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters

[Jack Griffin]

Swatters have been known to intentionally act irrational/hysterical, and put time pressure on the police. They could talk about how they're going to kill someone in the next hour, and perhaps talk about how they'll kill any police that they see as well. They may tell the police that if anyone tries to call them back or contacts them in any way, they'll kill a hostage.

This leaves the police in a quandary.

This is not a quandary, this a big red flag that it is a hoax. Real offender don't behave this way, I've never heard of any case where an armed offender has said such things. Don't call me back, and don't call my mother either, and count to 100 before you hang up this call, and when you come for me I want you to honk your horn 4 times or I'll kill a hostage. You really think that's how things work?

Police aren't that stupid, and anonymous tip never carries as much weight as a verified tip for just this reason.

Re:The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters

[Kevin Fishburne]

They do that here in DC. It gives them a "heads up" but not much else. Google "DC" and "Gunshot detectors" and get back with us won't you?

Well considering the context of my suggestion is a discussion on swatting, if the police receive an anonymous tip of gunshots but no gunshots were heard by neighbors or the detectors they can slow their roll a bit and not act like they're in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban. Didn't think I'd have to spell that out, AC, but so be it.

Re:The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters

[preaction]

And the suit, if there is one, will hopefully go nowhere. The police did exactly the right thing. But that doesn't matter: fear of a lawsuit is a powerful motivator.

Re:The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters

[Antique Geekmeister]

Like bust and boom economic cycles, it happens at least once in every political generation. The most radical of the hippies were a target of police abuse and harassment in my youth: Communists and socialists were harassed in the McCarthy era, and the Japanese-Americans were put in American concentration camps during WW II. So police used to control perceived native, political threats is not a new problem: the recent "war on terror" is merely the latest instance of the understandable, but dangerous, desire to turn police from public servants to the enforcers of martial law.

Re:The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters

[Kevin Fishburne]

Some cities already do this. But now you're also got audio recording devices everywhere. I'm surprised by the amount of people here wanting to erode everyone's privacy to increase the chances of finding the swatters. It's a classic example of a slippery slope. Now that we have this tech, lets apply it everywhere for the smallest benefit.

I'm not advocating for recording devices, audio or video, to be installed at every street corner. A device specifically engineered to detect gunshots is something else entirely. If it's streaming continuous audio that's passed through a speech recognition algorithm on a government supercomputer and scanned for red-flag keywords it is no longer a gunshot detector, it's a nightmare, and the same goes for facial recognition cameras, chip implants, barcode tattoos, NSA hijinks, etc. The problem with privacy loss isn't technology, it's an overbearing and intrusive government and an apathetic citizenry. Technology is ethically agnostic; politicians and voters not so much.

Re:The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters

[Pseudonym]

Of course if they actually did this it would cost ONE MILLION DOLLARS per device...

Unless it was military surplus gear, which is where the police get most of their "massive overkill" stuff. It'd be bargain basement prices, then.

Re: The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters

[zrobotics]

You do realize it's more dangerous to be a farmer than a police officer in the US? Stop propagating this bullshit that cops are on the front lines, EMS staff are in way more danger and nobody's wringing their hands about then.

He's such a good boy.

[Oligonicella]

They all are sweetie. They all are.

Re:Double Standard?

[pem]

That's the stupidest thing I've read today, and that's saying a lot.

Why do people suck so much?

[captnjohnny1618]

Ugh. People suck so hard. This type of shit bums me out so much. It's all I can do to not lose faith in people in my day-to-day interactions, and assclowns swatting people just kinda makes me want to move up on a mountain and start a farm.

Maybe I'll do that anyways...

Re:Double Standard?

[captnjohnny1618]

Are you implying that calling the police and reporting a false crime is free speech or have I misunderstood? Ever hear that phrase about yelling fire in a theater?

Re:The perps

[Dahamma]

Just give them a lifetime ban them from using computers along with house arrest. That would be a fate worse than death - living in their parents' basement with nothing to do.

Re:Actually game companies can fight this

[Dahamma]

If you have ever actually read posts of the Facebook followers of those sites, it's basically a bunch of morons (including many gamers) posting various anti-police rants and meme photos about killing cops.

The sites themselves do at least get valuable information and videos published about clear examples of police overreach and brutality - but the majority of commenters on these sites are the worst kind of trolls not helping reform anything, just promoting more violence (luckily, of course, they are just a bunch of dipshits hiding behind keyboards instead of actually acting on their impotent threats).

Not Too Far Off

[Kunedog]

The sad thing is that--after seeing the ridiculous smear campaigns in the gaming press against their own audience--I can only be about 80% sure that you're fucking with us.

Dog Murder by Internet Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Police cannot tell an anonymous report apart from a true emergency. Regardless, we need higher quality police force and to rollback policies put in place since drug prohibition began:

A California man is demanding police accountability after an officer fatally shot his service dog in the head.

Ian Anderson of San Diego told The Huffington Post he was sleeping in his home when officers pounded on his door at 5 a.m. Sunday over a domestic disturbance call. The 24-year-old man said police had the wrong house.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/17/cop-kills-burberry_n_6888326.html

Old news.

[buckfeta2014]

This has been going on for at least 2 years. I'm surprised it took SlashDice so long to figure that out.

Re:Old news.

[Gumbercules!!]

I thought the same thing. This seems like yesteryears news? It's still a real issue, sure - but it's certainly not "new".

I would like some stats

[EdwardFurlong]

How many calls like this end up being real vs fake? Of each category how many are from a throw away cell phone, Skype, etc? What I am getting at, is if the call seems really suspect, maybe a full on swat raid should not be done.

Re:Double Standard?

[preaction]

Since filing a false report is itself illegal, free speech does not apply, but to assume that it was applied here: What Charlie Hebdo did would be considered protected speech in the US.

The standard in the US is exactly "speech directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action".

It means you must:

* Incite someone to commit a specific crime (e.g. kill someone)
* At some specific time (imminent) (e.g. tomorrow)

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

Re:Double Standard?

[brantondaveperson]

The cops showing up at your "target's" door because you rang the cops and claimed they were waving a gun around, or whatever, is not an "indirect" result of your statement.

It's a direct, predictable, and intended result. This is why the appropriate punishment would be attempted murder.

That the police in the US are a dangerous force that may be abused in this manner is an entirely orthogonal issue.

Re:Double Standard?

[sexconker]

Free speech. If the indirect consequences matter, then we should be holding charlie hebdo responsible for getting several people killed.

You cannot have it both ways.

There's a difference between speech and the consequences of it, idiot.
There's no having it both ways here. Someone who swats someone is free to do so, and is free to do so until they die. They have an inalienable right to that speech. They do not have a free pass when someone is shot, when the cops decide to send him a bill for all the wasted time, when someone else couldn't get help because the cops were at the swatting victim's house, etc.

Five Years?

[sycodon]

Too easy.

10 to 20 with ten in a minimum security prison. Do again in in with the murderers.

If someone is killed as a result, then accessory to first degree. After all they did plan it...malice aforethought.

Re:Five Years?

[TheCarp]

If they kill someone as a result....shouldn't both parties be guilty? Seems like they are willing accomplices to me. They are the ones offering the service of sending a violent gang of thugs to someone's front door, a service that's largely not needed at all and really just a jobs program, and usually one run by a private company.

The primary use of swat teams is busting down doors over flowers, usually of unarmed people. They are not what they pretend to be except in the most rare of circumstances, circumstances more rare then their misuse.

They are at least as guilty as he is, if not more for setting up a situation that causes such predictable harm without any legitimate reason.

Re: Five Years?

[whopis]

It could be a felony murder case. Put simply, if you are committing a felony and as a result someone is killed - regardless of whether there was any intent - you can be charged with murder.

This leads to unusual situations. For example, if two people break into a house together and the home owner shoots and kills one of them, the second burglar may be charged with murder.

So, assuming that swatting is a felony, if it leads to a death, then the person responsible could be charged with felony murder.

Re:Five Years?

[sycodon]

Going only on what shows up in the news, a SWAT raid can end in the deaths of innocents and/or significant injuries.

Re:Five Years?

[Dragonslicer]

If they planned to cause harm by an action that a reasonable person would understand could cause death, then I think you can still be charged with murder. If you kill someone with a water balloon, you probably won't be charged with murder, since an average person wouldn't expect any serious injury from a water balloon. Sending in armed officers who are expecting a firefight, not so much.

Re:Double Standard?

[Oligonicella]

If you plan a bank robbery and a clerk is killed, even if you gave orders that it not happen, you are guilty of murder. Same here.

What's missing from this story?

[TapeCutter]

Why do Americans automatically accept that kicking the door down and holding everyone at gunpoint is a reasonable response to an anonymous 911 call?

Re:What's missing from this story?

[Altrag]

Because the PR hit for overreacting to a "threat" is far lower than the PR hit for failing to react to one (and even that's better than silently snuffing out a threat -- bad PR is better than no PR.)

Actually protecting the public isn't all that much of a concern. And for the most part, the public likes it that way because feeling safe is more immediately obvious than being safe. The former is defined by action (the police caught some bad guys!) whereas the latter is defined by inaction (nothing terrible happened to me today..)

Read up on security theater. I'm not sure that this would technically fall into that category, but its the same mentality nonetheless.

Re:What's missing from this story?

[Noah Haders]

Why do Americans automatically accept that kicking the door down and holding everyone at gunpoint is a reasonable response to an anonymous 911 call?

Yes. This is the question that no one asks. Why we tolerate a culture in which police are empowered to kick in doors all the time.

Re:What's missing from this story?

[thegarbz]

Because it's not just an anonymous 911 call anymore. These days it could be 9/11 all over again. Everyone could be a terrorist at any moment and we should react accordingly. /sarcasm. ... but is it really sarcasm?

Re:What's missing from this story?

[jonwil]

If you were a cop and you were sent to an address in response to a 911 call claiming that there was someone at that address with a dangerous weapon, would you walk up to the door and knock politely? I dont think so, you would want to stop the person inside from using any weapons they have on you before they have the chance to react.

Re:What's missing from this story?

[indeterminator]

Maybe call the house. Can be done while the patrol/SWAT is on their way, so doesn't slow down response. Explain what the situation is (reported crime in progress) and ask people inside the house to cooperate by coming out of the house. Also safer for the officers involved in case the inhabitants cooperate. In the case there was an actual crime going on, the suspect is now warned about imminent police arrival, but wouldn't he be expecting the police anyway?

Re:What's missing from this story?

[redscare2k4]

The thing I don't get is what kind of doors you guys have in USA. I want to believe that what you see in TV is just fiction and that doors don't go down with a kick, but even then...The average door in Europe is reinforced and it would take some ram hits before going down, and that assuming the door is not bolted. Heck, the police usually needs to call the firefighters to come with their heavy duty saws when they need to evict someone. So even if police were so reckless here to enter houses guns blazing (which they don't) they would have a pretty hard time doing so.

Re:What's missing from this story?

[laejoh]

Ah... a door repair man conspiracy plot!

Re:What's missing from this story?

[tburkhol]

If you were a cop and you were sent to an address in response to a 911 call claiming that there was someone at that address with a dangerous weapon, would you walk up to the door and knock politely?

Why not talk to them via bullhorn or phone without even approaching the house? It's going to take at least 15 minutes to assemble and deploy a SWAT team - don't you think any killing the guy has started will be done by then?

If you start with negotiation, you have at least some chance to let the adrenalin run out, get people thinking rationally about consequences, let the first pangs of guilt emerge. If you start with shocking and overwhelming force, you pretty much guarantee someone's going to get hurt. Police are supposed to be trained to deescalate situations. They may carry tools required to respond to an escalation, but they're supposed to be distinguishable from a lynch mob by their ability to remain calm and bring about peaceful resolutions. Failure of this training results in shooting of unarmed crazy people.

Re:What's missing from this story?

[tburkhol]

I want to believe that what you see in TV is just fiction and that doors don't go down with a kick, but even then...The average door in Europe is reinforced and it would take some ram hits before going down, and that assuming the door is not bolted.

The point of failure is usually the stud that holds the bolt. In typical US, wood-frame construction, this is a 2x4, with the bolt centered, leaving really just about 3 cm of pine wood holding the door closed. "Kick the door down" is also a euphemism for any form of forced entry, most likely a 40 (one man)-100 (two man) pound battering ram.

Re:What's missing from this story?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever listened to any of these SWAT calls? Generally they are orchestrated events where the perpetrator plays a bunch of sound effects (multiple gunshots, things breaking, people screaming) to persuade the authorities that this is a violent multiple murder and that they should respond with appropriate force.

Re:What's missing from this story?

[brxndxn]

I think this is the bigger problem. This.. and pretty much ignoring common sense across the board when it comes to any excuse to allowing the government to become more heavy-handed (and frankly, fascist). The media will report this like 'people doing the swatting' are the problem. But, bomb threats and other similar attempts at mayhem have been around since way before the Internet and the police used to respond to them in a sensible manner. I am not saying the police should ignore a 'swat' call - but I am saying they should have some common sense before they suit up 20 officers for warlike conditions and inject them with a 'spasmodic roid rage only-for-the-movies attitude.' I don't care what a random guy on the phone says - it does not mean the other party should forfeit all of their Constitutional rights and have their front door knocked down. In all of this, I would say the biggest problem is not knocking by the police. However, this all fits if you realize the purpose of police militarization and the ridiculously disproportionately expensive warrior on terror is to move us (the US) in a fascist direction since fascism benefits the people currently pay our lawmakers (ie.. the 1%).

Re:What's missing from this story?

[EdwardFurlong]

I am sure there is SOME other solution besides a full on swat raid. Especially is the source of the information is from some vague skype or text.

Re:What's missing from this story?

[EdwardFurlong]

If you want to go one step below a full swat raid, have the raid team deploy, walk up to the house, if they hear screaming, shooting, etc, go in. If not, knock on the door. Hide behind your armored vehicle. Come up with a new strategy.

Re:What's missing from this story?

[Gravis Zero]

Why do Americans automatically accept that kicking the door down and holding everyone at gunpoint is a reasonable response to an anonymous 911 call?

Yes. This is the question that no one asks. Why we tolerate a culture in which police are empowered to kick in doors all the time.

a) Hollywood/media makes guns glamorous
b) it doesn't affect us personally (until it does)
c) there are other issues that are affecting us
d) our leaders have no interest in the matter (with rare exception).
e) out political system is broken

basically, the status quo is really difficult to change because it's controlled by groups of people that only change when members of them die.

Re:What's missing from this story?

[Cederic]

I'm not sure whether my door frame would detach from the wall before the door was broken enough to get through. The hinges and deadlocks are strong enough that both are more likely than either those going though, even with 100lb of ram directed at them.

Re:What's missing from this story?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Because that discussion is unrelated to whether or not it's OK to SWAT someone.

It is true, that policing in this country is heavily militarized and with rampant abuses, but that doesn't change the fact that intentionally SWATing someone is fucking atrocious too.

Re:What's missing from this story?

[4pins]

The PR hit will be based on the outcome. In the U.S. the odds that the police: aren't expected, don't identify themselves, and bust down the door to encounter someone "well within their rights" who has a gun is quite possible. The police are in a tough spot when working from an anonymous tip. They need to demonstrate the best judgement possible.

Re:What's missing from this story?

[operagost]

No one thinks having guns pointed at you is glamorous.

Re:What's missing from this story?

[Bacon Bits]

Because when you get a call, anonymous or otherwise, that a shooting has happened, someone has been killed, and hostages have been taken and are being threatened, the police are not likely to send a beat cop to ring the bell with his hat in his hands.

I agree this is a symptom of the problem with the militarization of police, though. There needs to be a middle ground for an appropriate response that doesn't include a SWAT team.

Re:What's missing from this story?

[sociocapitalist]

Why do Americans automatically accept that kicking the door down and holding everyone at gunpoint is a reasonable response to an anonymous 911 call?

Since we grow up watching it on TV and thinking it's normal.

Don't laugh because your country's kids are watching the same shit now.

Re:What's missing from this story?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. I find it staggering that houses can be so insecure in the US. Our front door is 2m tall, 1m wide and made from some weird coppery alloy, and surrounded by an equally-intense metal frame, set into the foot-thick external stone wall.

Re:What's missing from this story?

[petermgreen]

dunno whereabout in europe you live but here in the UK it's still fairly common to see traditional doors/frames with only a single point lock and with the door hung so it opens inwards. A well-aimed kick, a handheld battering ram or a correctly placed crowbar will more than likely break the lock from the frame on such a door.

Re:What's missing from this story?

[tehcyder]

Why do Americans automatically accept that kicking the door down and holding everyone at gunpoint is a reasonable response to an anonymous 911 call?

Yes. This is the question that no one asks. Why we tolerate a culture in which police are empowered to kick in doors all the time.

Clearly it has nothing to do with the fact that, in the US, there is an extremely high probability that the person on the other side of the door is armed and best taken by surprise?

Re:What's missing from this story?

[tehcyder]

Because when you get a call, anonymous or otherwise, that a shooting has happened, someone has been killed, and hostages have been taken and are being threatened, the police are not likely to send a beat cop to ring the bell with his hat in his hands.

I agree this is a symptom of the problem with the militarization of police, though. There needs to be a middle ground for an appropriate response that doesn't include a SWAT team.

If you're going to have SWAT teams at all, surely a situation with shooting and hostages is precisely when you would call them out? I'm not sure what the middle ground would be.

Re:What's missing from this story?

[Agripa]

Immunity protects law enforcement from liability in the event that they shoot and/or kill anybody so they have no reason to limit aggression.

Re:What's missing from this story?

[stoatwblr]

"If you were a cop and you were sent to an address in response to a 911 call claiming that there was someone at that address with a dangerous weapon, would you walk up to the door and knock politely?"

SOP in this country is to arrive dark and scout the property/surroundings FIRST - and that's specifically because terrorists have used such calls to lure teams of police into ambushes.

Going in with lights+sirens and being blown sky-high is exactly what a domestic terrorist would love to see.

Re:What's missing from this story?

[visavillem]

Well, i live in Estonia. My apartment has a steel door with a steel frame bolted into the concrete. And it opens to the outside. I don't think it could be breached with a battering ram. You would need a heavy duty saw to cut the hinges and the deadbolt, or the frame bolts. Explosives, maybe, but no human powered device would be effective. This configuration is fairly common here, to discourage the break-ins.

Re:Double Standard?

[EmeraldBot]

Then i await the charges levied against charlie hebdo. But alas, the double standard of ideology cares not for justice.

Then answer me this: if someone shot you with a gun, would you be comfortable putting the gun in prison and letting the person go free?

Re:Double Standard?

[EmeraldBot]

Congress shall make no law abridging the right to free speech. Any law which does so is automatically void.

"Humans have a right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Notice, life comes first." - Jack McCoy

Free speech is an inalienable right, yes. However, when you use that to violate someone else's rights, that's where the line is drawn.

Re:Couldn't have happened.

[russotto]

It must be SO HARD being a white male!

It was until I got my Patriarchy Card. Not only does it allow me to commit rape, lynch blacks, and cut the line at Disney World, it also gets me 20% off at Applebees.

Re:Double Standard?

[EmeraldBot]

An inanimate object? Take some time to think of a cogent analogy.

What's the difference? The police is a tool that is used to enforce the law on behalf of the people (in theory, anyway). A gun is used to enforce your will as well; if you tell the gun to shoot, do you want it deciding that it doesn't agree with you?

Besides, you're avoiding my question; if, by your direct action and knowledge, you order someone's potential death, does that not make you as responsible as the people carrying it out?

Re:Double Standard?

[EmeraldBot]

You're not making any sense. I expected more than just redditors on slashdot.

If you don't see how intentionally creating a situation that is possible (maybe even likely) to result in someone's death is wrong, than I am very glad I do not know you as a person. Then again, since you presume to think I spend time on reddit just because I asked you a question (a conclusion that is both incorrect and not logically reached), I suppose I shouldn't be surprised if rational thought is difficult for you.

Re:Actually game companies can fight this

[Florian Weimer]

These companies can also share data with law enforcement that points to the perpetrators, helping to identify them. After all, the perpetrators will just move on to a new tactic if they can no longer abuse the police for their purposes.

TOS

[bl968]

Twitch should add this to their TOS

You should not give out personal information which may lead to your being identified, or contacted in person, by email or other means. If you chose to do so, then you also accept all accompanying risks. Aliases and the use of alternate identities, social media accounts, and email addresses are strongly encouraged.

Re:TOS

[tehcyder]

Twitch should add this to their TOS

You should not give out personal information which may lead to your being identified, or contacted in person, by email or other means. If you chose to do so, then you also accept all accompanying risks. Aliases and the use of alternate identities, social media accounts, and email addresses are strongly encouraged.

Yes, blaming the victim is always a good solution to a problem.

Idiot parent, hell half the world is below average

[TiggertheMad]

1) When people are arrested, their friends, family, and neighbors routinely say "I can't believe he did that. He seemed like such a nice guy."

To be fair, when have you seen a news report where a friend or neighbor said, 'Yeah, he was a dangerous nut job that should have been locked up years ago. it's a shame that the SWAT team didn't just kill him and save the state the trial cost'.

Swatting is an activity that the 'Internet' seems to think that it can get away with, because it is a novelty. Once Law enforcement accidentally kills a couple of young children by accident in a bumbled raid, you will get a couple of outraged senators who will make this a federal offense punishable with ten to twenty. The law is slow but it always catches up with society changes.

Re:The perps

[Opportunist]

You'll never get that past the 8th.

Police shouldn't go in that hot

[Karmashock]

Phoned/emailed warnings of someone with a gun should be taken with a grain of salt.

I had a friend that was playing with a pellet gun. A neighbor saw it and thought it was rifle or something. And even if it had been... so what? But it was a pellet gun.

This is Los Angeles... birth place of the SWAT team, so the police showed up with helicopters, dogs, and tactical teams.

Because of a kid playing with a pellet gun.

The police need to chill out on some reports. They also need to come down on people making false calls like the hammer of god. Link them over to the NSA if they have to... contact the ISPs... track it down to a person. If people know that those sorts of calls mean jail time they'll be less inclined to use the police as a weapon.

And his accomplice is....the police

[TheCarp]

The police who created all these unecessary swat teams for some extra cash and cooler toys to play with. There is just no need at all for so many of them, no need at all to have them available everywhere all the time. Its all just a jobs program, and usually one run by private interests (here in MA the MA police chiefs, a private org, both writes the opposition statements to marijuana legalization AND owns the swat teams that raid homes).

The primary reason for swat teams based on real calls, is going after hippies growing pot in their basements. Hardly a reason to endanger the entire community with a bunch of trigger happy yahoos who have no fear of prosecution even if they toss a flashbang in a baby's crib: http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/...

You know....as if they even need flashbangs in the first place to serve their no knock warrants on unarmed people with plants.

Advice for the mother

[Anonymous Coward]

Mamas don't let your aspies grow up to be neckbeards
Don't let em use teco on VT52's and awk
make em be janitors and mechanics and such.

Mamas don't let your aspies grow up to be neckbeards
they'll never leave home and they're always alone
even with the realdoll they love.

Re:Idiot parent, hell half the world is below aver

[jeremyp]

Is it not already illegal to call out a SWAT team for spurious reasons? It's dangerous for the object of the prank and it means the SWAT team is unavailable for real call outs.

I have a suggestion

[slashmydots]

Don't tell people where you live. There's no way to get someone's precise address without a court order based solely on their IP address.

Re:Idiot parent, hell half the world is below aver

[phorm]

'Yeah, he was a dangerous nut job that should have been locked up years ago. "

Not necessarily those words, but I have seen plenty of cases where the neighbour said
    "yeah he was a weird guy. He never visited his neighbours and did [suspicious thing x] and [suspicious thing y], but we just thought he was an odd duck. We never realized he had a bunch of people tied up in his basement!"

Re:Good son, bad Mom

[Cederic]

There are a range of possible responses, and full military invasion is perhaps not the appropriate choice following an anonymous call via an untraceable service.

Tattoos

[phorm]

The tattoo thing is interesting. There are actually a *lot* of tasteful tattoos out there, and I've seen them on everyone from McD's workers to upper-managers. In most cases, they're not in a "look at me" location but rather somewhere that isn't overtly visible when wearing normal clothing.

Then there are the people who are trying to be "unique", which often translates to "look at me." Those same people bitch about being "discriminated against" when they don't get the job etc that they want, somehow thinking that tattoos put on in a protected class for discriminations like race or sexual orientation, etc. Except, guess what, you don't get to choose whether you're gay, or black, you *DO* get to choose whether put prison tats on your face using printer ink. That's pretty much a public badge of stupidity right there, especially when your "art" is a style commonly used by prison inmates.

A have a buddy with a facial tattoo. He's had it a long time now. It's actually pretty cool looking, but it's an obvious impediment to certain types of employment (a more recent one being a senior's home). He recognises such as says "yeah they wouldn't hire me there because it would scare the sh** out of some of the little old ladies. It sucks but it was my choice to get the ink". It's a pretty refreshing viewpoint IMHO, because it seems to be getting increasingly rare for people to accept the consequences of their actions.

Such people are often enabled by parents in this article. I'm sure there were plenty of warning signs that he son is a prick and probably a bit of a nutbar, but she's shrugged it off with "at least he isn't getting drunk and tattooed" (a.k.a at least it's not visible).

Tracability

[phorm]

What I don't understand is this:

Apparently they have all this fancy surveillance, etc, yet they still can't identify swatters who endanger people's lives, or the tele-fraudsters (you have won one million airmiles) that make a million calls (seriously, my co-workers, buddies and I get these once a week, so the national average much be huge). This shouldn't be that hard to do with a warrant. Hell, I'd give permission to trace all calls against my phone for a month if it meant the "free vacation" robocall assholes got caught and prosecuted.

Re:Double Standard?

[SecurityGuy]

We have a thing called the Supreme Court which decides such things. They did make such a decision, and it is not "Any law which does so is automatically void."

Swatting in Europe

[CmdrTamale]

ISTR the French CRS have a bit of form.
--
Complex systems tend to produce complex responses to problems, which are not solutions.

Re:Idiot parent, hell half the world is below aver

[sudon't]

Once Law enforcement accidentally kills a couple of young children by accident in a bumbled raid, you will get a couple of outraged senators who will make this a federal offense punishable with ten to twenty.

I have news for you - a lot of innocent people have been killed or injured in bungled raids already, mostly over small-time drug busts. That fact you're not even aware of this belies your assertion. Google: "innocent killed SWAT"

Re:Idiot parent, hell half the world is below aver

[Rich0]

Is it not already illegal to call out a SWAT team for spurious reasons? It's dangerous for the object of the prank and it means the SWAT team is unavailable for real call outs.

Sure, but look at the list of charges in the summary. The guy could have gotten somebody shot, but the charges are all about computer crimes and whatever, probably because those were the most serious laws that they could get him for breaking.

Re: Responsibility

[hackwrench]

And where are you supposed to learn responsibility? They don't teach it in schools and they don't teach how to avoid being a parent when you aren't responsible, nor do they teach that you should avoid being a parent when you aren't responsible. Most people have only a vague notion of what responsibility is.

Re:The perps

[Dahamma]

That's ok, at long as the 8th got the joke ;)

Re:Actually game companies can fight this

[Dahamma]

There may be some stupid comments here, but the general discourse (as we are having now) is actually WAY above average for tech sites. And infinitely more intelligent than, say, the "CopBlock" Facebook page of which the comments are about 95% either images/memes of cops getting beat up or various statements related to killing cops.

And while I agree there is probably almost zero reason for a SWAT team going to a random anonymous tip, they are certainly needed for raiding known gang or drug operations. Basically, use appropriate force - when you think the criminals have automatic weapons, go in with automatic weapons. When the tip is anonymous and against a 22 year old with no criminal record, maybe a bit of discretion is in order.

Basically, the police don't seem to have any actual policies or playbooks for various situations (or if they do they ignore them), and instead are following the "let's use everything we have" strategy to way too many situations...

Re:Good son, bad Mom

[tehcyder]

There are a range of possible responses, and full military invasion is perhaps not the appropriate choice following an anonymous call via an untraceable service.

>>insert Bush/Iraq war joke here

Re:Idiot parent, hell half the world is below aver

[stoatwblr]

> To be fair, when have you seen a news report where a friend or neighbor said, 'Yeah, he was a dangerous nut job that should have been locked up years ago. it's a shame that the SWAT team didn't just kill him and save the state the trial cost'.

Yes I have, usually followed by a shitstorm targetting the media for broadcastng it - even if they were in the right and the nut was well semaphored in advance.

Re:Idiot parent, hell half the world is below aver

[stoatwblr]

"Sure, but look at the list of charges in the summary"

SWATting is attempted murder in most jurisidctions. I'm surprised he hasn't been charged with that.

Is he suffering from Affluenza?

Re:SWATting is a serious crime

[ebvwfbw]

Here's a thought, the police shouldn't be so militarized. More Sheriff Taylor, less Rambo.

Re:I APPLAUD SWATTING

[ebvwfbw]

more of this needs to be done to affect positive change within the justice system.

You're new here, aren't you? You'd think that would be the case. Only when bashing citizens. Like taking guns away from law abiding citizens and allowing criminals to have guns. The "remedy" to all of this needless swatting is more money and more swat teams and more violence. They'll use the number of calls they get and incidents to show the "need". Seen it over and over again.

The right way to do it is through the legislature. Call these guys on the carpet. Make the explain why they do the stupid stuff they do, and cut their budgets until they capitulate, or pass laws to stop them.

Police overreactions

[allo]

In europe, police would never order you to lie face down before they checked the situation, just because somebody reported something. They come and check what's happening and react in such a drastic way only if neccessary. Its the US of A with all its terror panic. And too liberal gun laws.