Slashdot Mirror


Vancouver Area Teen Sentenced To 16 Months For Swatting

An anonymous reader writes: A 17-year-old from the Vancouver area in Canada has been sentenced to 16 months in youth custody and 8 months under supervision in the community after pleading guilty to 23 charges including criminal harassment, public mischief, extortion and uttering threats. The teenager was responsible for a number of swatting calls across the United States and Canada — mostly of female gamers. The judge told him, "It appears that when real life became too hard you retreated into the online world and became increasingly socially isolated. While you may think you enjoyed greater success in the online world, that success was an illusion. You were left with severely limited social skills and a significant educational deficit."

331 comments

  1. Kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was probably King Frosturd

  2. Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My sentence would have been life.

    A life of swatting.

    He'd know it's coming. Over and over again. He just would never know when. He'd be asleep at 3 AM, and BAM! Door kicked in, flashbangs detonated everywhere, guns pointed in his face.

    He'd find it hilarious, I'm sure, whilst everyone's favorite tacticool occifers would no doubt appreciate the training exercise.

    1. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by BenJeremy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I used to think that way. Over the years, I've mellowed. At least 10 in the provincial prison would be enough, but no less.

      Watch the "White Bear" episode from the excellent anthology series "Black Mirror" - it's probably a far more cruel thing to inflict a crime upon an individual, over and over, than deal with it in the most direct, blunt sense.

      The guy deserves harsh punishment, for sure. If the law put just 10% of the effort into catching these idiots that they do toward pursuing "copyright infringers" the world would be a far better place.

    2. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At very least, they could "swat" him at random times of the night while he's in youth custody. Kick in door, flash bangs, guns, wrestled to ground, all the usual. Except perhaps for the accidental shootings from overexcited police. Or maybe some of those too, if non-lethal, so he could understand the possible ramifications of his actions.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in the day we just used to take'em out back and beat'em with a sack of nickels. That should fix him good!

    4. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least sign such posts with your real name, so you won't ever accidentally end up on a jury either.

    5. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      due to inflation we use quarters these days

    6. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Over the years, I've mellowed. At least 10 in the provincial prison would be enough, but no less.

      You've mellowed but you think someone should forfeit 10 years of their life for essentially being an immature teenaged brat? That's roughly the amount of time you can expect to spend in prison for murder in Finland. I guess that's the difference between viewing imprisonment as a correction vs. a punishment. I wouldn't think the little turd should get a slap on the wrist but ten years seems a bit harsh unless there's some extenuating circumstance (someone died or was permanently disfigured) I don't know about. Isn't the objective to make the offender a productive member of society rather than a professional criminal?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what the check to see if he is still in cell and not just a fake head each 2 hours all night long.

    8. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't believe someone needs to die to warrant a bigger sentence. The fact is, this psychopath put many people in harms way and got their doors broken down and live guns pointed at them. The fact that nobody died is a miracle - certainly not attributable to this cretin's restraint but more to the restraint of the officers involved. It could easily have gone another way. Misuse of resources, false police reports, endangering lives - the guy deserves some real prison. After all, you aren't going to "correct" the behavior of a psychopath easily. You have to punish them enough that they don't do it again because of the potential punishment.

    9. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Oligonicella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Corrective"... A fool's dream. One flash-bang in a baby's crib or worse and this kid would have initiated a killing or severe maiming. Well beyond "brat".

    10. Re: Reasons I'm not a judge. by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      Sentences are also deterrents. His buds will know better, the id10ts trolling gamers will know better, less trouble all the way around.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    11. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The drawback is that nobody could afford a lifetime of adopting and training new dogs every week, not to mention teasing flashbang shrapnel out of your baby's skin.

    12. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a limit to how far "What might have been" goes in the criminal justice system. If you text while driving you might kill someone. That doesn't argue in favor of giving every distracted driver a sentence equivalent to what you'd get for manslaughter.

      I don't know the particulars of this case but as a general rule of thumb I would not be willing to throw in the towel on a 17 year old. The ostensible point of the criminal justice system is rehabilitation. That's the case even in the United States, which is probably the harshest Western country when it comes to criminal justice.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    13. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      While in the more enlightened Norwegian prison system, they use a sack of bills.

    14. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by ttucker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I guess that's the difference between viewing imprisonment as a correction vs. a punishment.

      In my book, the objective is to catch these guys consistently enough, and provide a serious enough sentence, that nobody else thinks it is a good idea.

    15. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever heard the word "deterrence"?

    16. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by ttucker · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's a limit to how far "What might have been" goes in the criminal justice system.

      In Arizona, there is a rather precise limit, and it is a serious crime. Saying that section B is relevant seriously questions the restraint and professionalism of the raiding police officers, but a class 1 misdemeanor has a 6 month maximum sentence.

      13-1201. Endangerment; classification
      A. A person commits endangerment by recklessly endangering another person with a substantial risk of imminent death or physical injury.
      B. Endangerment involving a substantial risk of imminent death is a class 6 felony. In all other cases, it is a class 1 misdemeanor.

    17. Re: Reasons I'm not a judge. by ttucker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Enforcement is a deterrent as well. When law enforcement has the capabilities to find these people, and district attorneys are willing to extradite people, this swatting thing will get much less popular.

    18. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Moral of the story: if you want to murder someone, do it in Finland.

    19. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by afidel · · Score: 2

      You've mellowed but you think someone should forfeit 10 years of their life for essentially being an immature teenaged brat? That's roughly the amount of time you can expect to spend in prison for murder in Finland.

      Well, it IS attempted homicide to call in a high pressure situation where even Canadian police officers will be armed and filled with adrenalin. You have to remember that we have situations like Tamir Rice where a 12 year old boy was fatally shot because someone called in a report of someone with a gun in a park and the dispatcher failed to pass on the fact that the called believed it might be a toy.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    20. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Pubstar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have to punish them enough that they don't do it again because of the potential punishment.

      You obviously aren't a parent. If the only thing they worry about is the potential punishment, they get better at hiding their actions. You need to correct behaviors and find out the underlying reasons WHY they are doing the things. The only thing punishment for punishment's sake teaches is that they need to be more careful about getting caught.

    21. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Informative

      It should be a serious crime. I haven't maintained otherwise. I just questioned that it should be a ten year prison sentence level of serious. That's over the top even by American standards of jurisprudence. In New York State, assuming no prior convictions, you need a class C felony to reach that kind of sentence. For perspective, class C felonies include robbery, burglary, criminal possession of a weapon, soliciting or supporting an act of terrorism, assault on a judge or first responder, or an attempt to commit a class B felony. There's some non-violent crimes in there too, primarily fraud that reaches a certain dollar amount.

      IANAL but the closest charge we would have here to fit swatting would probably be falsely reporting an incident in the third degree, which is a misdemeanor. A reading of the law would seem to support bumping it up to first degree if someone is killed as a result of the false report, which makes it a class D felony.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    22. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Homicide in common law jurisdictions (which includes Canada) requires the presence of mens rea, better known as intent. Can you get inside this kid's head and say that he wanted someone to die? Because that's the burden you'd need to meet to convict him of attempted homicide.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    23. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      what that kid did is evil, but even the judge said he's mentally ill. he doesn't need perdition, he needs fixing.

    24. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by afidel · · Score: 2

      Ok, then manslaughter or negligent homicide depending on the jurisdiction. You're still putting peoples lives is serious danger through your stupidity and if you're in the least bit intelligent and paying attention to your surroundings doing it knowingly.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    25. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you rob a convenience store(or probably a better example a bank) with an unloaded pistol you will probably get 10 years, regardless of criminal history.

      What this turd did was far more dangerous.

    26. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I think you're both right, kinda. I think you'd probably only have to do it twice, and he'd probably shit himself both times. And probably it would be better for society than putting him in one of our prisons.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You need to correct behaviors and find out the underlying reasons WHY they are doing the things.

      Except that parents have plenty of incentive not to find out, because it's their responsibility and probably their fault.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care what he deserves. I want to do something that will change his social behavior, which I think is (or should be) everyone's primary goal. Punishment is a traditional go-to but both studies and history suggest it's not terribly effective -- I'm not opposed to punishment in general but considering the cost both to us (do we deserve to participate in the intentional and aimless infliction of pain on another human?) and the punished and his loved ones I think we should at least check to be sure that it's accomplishing what we hope, particularly in cases where we do not intend to keep the punished separate from society for the rest of their lives.

    29. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While in the more enlightened Norwegian prison system, they use a sack of bills.

      You mean like these: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ad/Gloucester_Household_Bill-Line%2C_Cardiff_Castle.jpg/220px-Gloucester_Household_Bill-Line%2C_Cardiff_Castle.jpg?

      Nickels (or even quarters) would hurt less.

    30. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am a parent and while it is important to get to the bottom of bad behavior to keep it from happening again, you also need to be firm in enforcing punishments for bad behavior. Kids will naturally test the boundaries. If your reaction to bad behavior is only "Now, why are you doing this? Let's have a friendly chat about it", then your kids will walk all over you. Have firm (but fair) consequences for their actions followed up with discussions about what they did, why it was wrong, and how they should act in similar situations in the future.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    31. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe someone needs to die to warrant a bigger sentence. The fact is, this psychopath put many people in harms way and got their doors broken down and live guns pointed at them. The fact that nobody died is a miracle - certainly not attributable to this cretin's restraint but more to the restraint of the officers involved. It could easily have gone another way. Misuse of resources, false police reports, endangering lives - the guy deserves some real prison. After all, you aren't going to "correct" the behavior of a psychopath easily. You have to punish them enough that they don't do it again because of the potential punishment.

      We don't actually know that nobody died (nor seriously injured).
      Many innocent people have been killed in swat raids, and I doubt there is a complete list of all the swat incidents that he was responsible for. That is, I'm sure he did not self report on any that went bad.

    32. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      what the check to see if he is still in cell and not just a fake head each 2 hours all night long.

      ...the test being, prod the head with a nightstick until it makes a noise.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    33. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Pubstar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I completely agree. The point was that the mentality of "Lets make the punishment so bad, he will never want to do it again" without actually looking at the underlying problems will not fix the problems. On the flip side, only talking about problems and why they are bad will only show the kid that there are no repercussions for their actions. Its a fine art of balancing both of those. While I am not a parent myself, I live with a roommate that has a son. I'm the unofficial uncle, and since he has full time custody (mother is a drug addict, cant see her son), I'm often the one watching him when his dad is at work. I've had to deal with giving out punishments, and when I take the middle ground on these issues, things usually work out for the best for everyone.

    34. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Pubstar · · Score: 2

      Well, with how everyone deals with their problems now, they will probably blame someone else anyways.

    35. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Immature teenaged brats will often do things that are seriously screwed up and will get you serious jail time, for things that most people would agree with. But do it online and people will start defending these immature teenage brats as "kids will be kids". Swatting is like pointing a gun at someone and threatening them, then later claiming that it was ok because it was just a prank.

      Remember that for this kid has 23 charges filed, and got 16 months. Ten years may be high, I'd go with 5 years jail and 5 years mandatory psychiatric care. Yes his life may be ruined by this but he did the ruining to himself.

    36. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by leonardluen · · Score: 3, Informative

      i haven't seen Black mirror but i read the summary on wikipedia...

      if her memory is wiped and she doesn't remember it the next day then what really is the point in doing it again?

      she doesn't remember it, so it happening again to her isn't any additional punishment for her. to her every day is the first time. which means, really she has a one day sentence. and when/if they finally stop wiping her memory she will just wake up to find herself X days/years older and having only had this one really bad and confusing day.

    37. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      In my book, the objective is to catch these guys consistently enough, and provide a serious enough sentence, that nobody else thinks it is a good idea.

      I think this can't be stated enough. When it comes to punishment as a deterrent, consistency is of far greater concern than the amount.

      If the result of SWATTING was an immediate bucket of ice water over the head of the offender and his computer*, odds are nobody would do it twice, the word would spread, and most wouldn't do it even the first time.

      More so than a 1% catch rate all punished by a decade in prison.

      *destroying the computer, in this instance, even if it's in a case that would normally protect it sufficiently from a sudden deluge of ice water.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    38. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by causality · · Score: 2

      You need to correct behaviors and find out the underlying reasons WHY they are doing the things.

      Except that parents have plenty of incentive not to find out, because it's their responsibility and probably their fault.

      That only increases the urgency of finding out, if the person is really serious about being a parent. Children are supposed to have a life that's better than ours was; they are not supposed to inherit severe character flaws because we were too cowardly to deal with them.

      I do agree, though, that there are lots of self-centered (and often emotionally immature) people who really do fit the description you gave. That something might be uncomfortable, or require some effort, or *gasp* involve admitting that they were wrong and need to change, these things are enough to stop such people from doing the right thing no matter how important it may be, no matter how lasting the consequences are. It's even harder to raise a child and help them become an adult when the parent is not really an adult themselves.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    39. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Homicide in common law jurisdictions (which includes Canada) requires the presence of mens rea [wikipedia.org], better known as intent. Can you get inside this kid's head and say that he wanted someone to die? Because that's the burden you'd need to meet to convict him of attempted homicide.

      Felony murder rule would mean that if any of the SWAT officers pulled a trigger and killed somebody, the kid would be guilty of murder.

      Though I agree, it's probably a high bar for most prosecutors to reach for. Felony endangerment charges, reckless disregard for somebody's life, that's much more accessible.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    40. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      The point is that you can't get them for 'attempted'. If somebody is actually killed it would be somewhere between negligent homicide and murder. I can guarantee that inside the USA, if an officer is shot and killed(probably by another officer) during the event that he'd be charged with murder 1 of the officer when they find him. Probably as an adult and eligible for the death penalty. It would become a jurisdictional mess and probably go federal if his call crossed state lines.

      If nobody is killed - you don't have enough for attempted homicide, but you do have enough for Felony endangerment, among other charges like making a false report.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    41. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by BitterOak · · Score: 3

      I don't believe someone needs to die to warrant a bigger sentence. The fact is, this psychopath put many people in harms way and got their doors broken down and live guns pointed at them. The fact that nobody died is a miracle

      If the Swat team response to an unverified phone call is to put people's lives at such severe risk as you describe, the problem is with the police, not the teenage idiot who placed the fake calls.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    42. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by mrbester · · Score: 1

      "Pour encourager les autres" is being punitive for punitive's sake. It also doesn't work, or there'd be a lot less convicts on Death Row.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    43. Re: Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how do you know there aren't a lot less than there would have been otherwise?

    44. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Your.Master · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First of all, it's not clear to me that robbing a store with an unloaded pistol is necessarily less dangerous. Are there statistics on that?

      But for the sake of argument, I'll assume it is. In that case, it's not irrelevant that what this guy did is more dangerous, but that's not a sole determining factor either.

      The five main points of criminal justice: rehabilitation, incapacitation, deterrence, retribution, restitution.

      If we believe that teenagers are unlikely to ever again swat somebody after a month in jail (which I personally consider extremely likely), then that satisfies incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Restitution can never be fully satisfied because you can't truly un-SWAT somebody. It's only retribution that's left, and I reject that as a reason for high sentences.

      So the question is, even if this is more dangerous, is it also easier to fix the root problem?

    45. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Loopy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't believe someone needs to die to warrant a bigger sentence. The fact is, this psychopath put many people in harms way and got their doors broken down and live guns pointed at them. The fact that nobody died is a miracle

      If the Swat team response to an unverified phone call is to put people's lives at such severe risk as you describe, the problem is with the police, not the teenage idiot who placed the fake calls.

      Let's say you have a guy you know likes baseball. You wanna SWAT him, because you don't like his hairdo. You call the police and in a very convincing bit of acting, claim (very distraught voice) that he has already beaten his son to death with a baseball bat and is threatening to beat his wife to death, too.

      Or you know a guy that lives in South Carolina and has a Federal Firearms License, works at a shooting range, or just has a large collection of firearms, some on display over the mantle in view of the front windows/door. You call the police and again in a very convincing act, claim he is loading his guns and claiming he's going to head out in a few minutes to shoot up the capitol for taking down the confederate flag.

      In situations where minutes can matter in saving a potential victim's life, and where you cannot control things like that guy's son playing with a toy M-16 in the dark or the first guy teaching his wife swing motions with a bat in the front lobby, would you suppose things might get misinterpreted as an imminent life-threatening situation by the police where they must make a potentially terminal decision based on purposefully misrepresented (but believable) information?

      Here's the problem with that worldview: the police have to be right 100% of the time to fit your definition of "not evil," but you only have to be right once to claim they are evil, in a sort of pre-destined post-hoc-propter-hoc circle that just proves the GP's point. N'est-ce pas?

    46. Re: Reasons I'm not a judge. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Felony endangerment doesn't garner a 10 year sentence in any American State that I'm familiar with, much less in Canada. That's the whole point of this subthread, I was questioning the person that said "at least 10 years" for this offense. Adults wouldn't get ten years for doing it; a juvenile certainly won't.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    47. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      To be fair this was Canada. And while I'm not 100% up to speed on their police procedures; the impression I get from the news media that trickles down south of the border is that their police are not so much the thuggish, trigger-happy, militarized loonies that go into the house with guns blazing and dropping flash-bangs into babies' cribs (Yes, the police actually do that here in the US.) as our own.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    48. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Yes, but ...

      I'm not really convinced the prison reforms anyone. The evidence seems rather the opposite.

      Also, from what I've read changed behavior is more closely related to certainty of being caught than to severity of punishment. Severe punishment just makes victims feel better, and uninvolved people feel self-righteous.

      So make "swatting" require positive identification. Something that actually serves are reasonable identifation of the person placing the call. And be quite skeptical of anyone calling from a place where they cannot readily be extradited. A different state should require more evidence than local, and a different country a lot more evidence. The current system seems to be "an attractive nuisance".

      OTOH, you also need a real punishment, but something that won't ruin his life. My temptation is to first confiscate all his electronics, games, passwords, etc. and forbid his owning a credit card or bank account or phone, or anyone from supplying him with such for 4 years and also to recommend tatooing "asshole" across his forehead in large letters with ink that fades about 50%/year, but that second part is probably not a useful reaction. What, however, is?

      OTOH, if he were an adult I'd feel a much harsher punishment was appropriate.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    49. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by HiThere · · Score: 2

      If the police weren't, essentially, given a blank check then I'd say you had a point. Unfortunately, in a lot of places a policeman shooting someone in the back AND BEING CAUGHT isn't even cause for a reprimand.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    50. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by ttucker · · Score: 1

      I agree that the idea of a ten year sentence is totally absurd, particularly considering the class of crime that you would then need to compare it to (ie. people actually died).

      It is unfair to imply that justice in the USA is absurdly excessive... people are tried and sentenced in a court of law, and not Slashdot comments, for a reason. For the misdemeanor charge here there is not even a minimum sentence!

      In the case of this guy, there must have been circumstances surrounding his extended stay in prison. Something is unsettling about the wanton but brutal nature of the crime.

    51. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      The guy seems to also have extorted and bullied people and swatted those that didn't do as he said and he seems to have done this repeatedly. He is an adult after all, 1.25 year in prison with records that get sealed or expunged when he hits 18 seems to be too little for what he did (23 charges is just what they found out, I bet you there is at least a number more they didn't find). You get more years in prison for copying a few songs.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    52. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the Swat team response to an unverified phone call is to put people's lives at such severe risk as you describe, the problem is with the police, not the teenage idiot who placed the fake calls.

      Absolutely, totally wrong. Without the teenager's call, that Swat team would have stayed where they are, and nothing bad would have happened. With the phone call, here's a list of possible consequences, all of which are the teenagers fault:

      1. Swat team goes out, and figures out that nothing bad is going on, without frightening anyone. Waste of tax payers money.

      2. Exactly like 1, but then the Swat team isn't available when a real call comes in. As a consequence, people might lose their lives because nobody is coming to help them.

      3. Swat team goes out, under the assumption that the caller might be correct. The safest way to do this is to use so much force that nobody can fire a gun, while trying not to injure anyone. Result if everything goes right is a very, very unpleasant experience for the homeowner.

      4. Same as 3, but a bit of bad luck, and the home owner gets injured.

      5. Same as 3, but the homeowner is in a position that makes him look dangerous. For example, cleaning the guns in his collections, or sharpening a huge kitchen knife. With his wife is with him, crying because she just sliced a bunch of onions. Anything can happen.

      6. Home owner detects that there are potential intruders at his doors and gets his gun to fight them off in self defence. Bad things _will_ happen.

      All these scenarios apply even if you have a well-trained team that does its best to keep everyone secure.

    53. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Honestly, we've got enough people. Seriously. We don't need this one. Lock him up forever. The odds of this idiot becoming a net benefit to society are so much lower than the odds of him continuing his harm to society, that we should just be done with him.

    54. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It also doesn't work, or there'd be a lot less convicts on Death Row.

      Pretty much. I remember reading as study that deterrence effects are insignificant beyond 7 years of prison. IE there are a few crimes that somebody might willingly eat a 3 year sentence for that they wouldn't for 7 years. But any sentence beyond that will not deter one more person, so to hold somebody beyond that time it needs to be justified in that that one person is still too dangerous to be released.

      For the AC: Standard statistical methods have been unable to find any deterrence effect to the death penalty over life in prison, or even much reduced sentences. Turns out that all but a statistically insignificant number of potential murderers are deterred by the death penalty but not the prospect of life in prison. Indeed, most don't consider that they're likely to be caught at all.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    55. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Firethorn · · Score: 0

      The guy deserves harsh punishment, for sure. If the law put just 10% of the effort into catching these idiots that they do toward pursuing "copyright infringers" the world would be a far better place.

      I'm assuming when you say 'the law' you mean law enforcement, in which case I'm sorry, but I have to inform you that the difference between 10% and 100% of efforts redirected from copyright enforcement to going after swatters and such would make almost zero difference.

      'The law' is virtually blind to copyright violations - those are civil matters, you're not arrested, you're sued by the copyright holder.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    56. Re: Reasons I'm not a judge. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Felony endangerment doesn't garner a 10 year sentence in any American State that I'm familiar with, much less in Canada.

      I know this is the original thread topic, but there's a reason I didn't mention a 10 year sentence, that's why I agree with you that attempted murder charges would be unlikely. I then specified what I think they could get for it, though a lawyer would obviously be able to come up with more.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    57. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The teenage idiot that placed the call(s) is still guilty of abusing emergency services and wasting the time of all involved.

      I know this is /. and all, but don't try to spin this as "all teh evil gubmints fault". Citizens need to understand personal responsibility, and right from wrong. Just because you're a teen, does not mean you can do whatever you want and get away with it free of punishment. 5 years jail time is more than fair. Death if he does it again.

    58. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      We had to nuke the site from orbit to neutralise the shoplifter. Basically for swatting to work, law enforcement must be a bunch of fuck ups, end of story. There is no excuse for subjecting a whole community to that level of risk, crazed steroid freaks running around with fully automatic weapons, rounds chambered and safeties off.

      Yes, every time the police endanger the lives of citizens, let alone actually kill them, they have to be right 100% of the time, fail and jail. That should be the reality and it is in countries where the police have killed less people in a past fifty than US law enforcement has just in the past month.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    59. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      depends on the kid

      when i was young i stole money from my mother's purse.

      when my parents figured it out, they asked me to sit down and discuss this.

      it was the longest bath i ever took.

      i wasn't afraid of "punishment", i was afraid of something indescribable. How can I tell? Because i was never punished for it, but the feeling of fear never left.

      If the parent knows their kid well enough, they can choose the best course of action, which isn't necessarily punishment.

    60. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One year in jail, three years of house arrest, five years of probation, 300 hours of community service and 52 sessions of anger management should be good enough to straighten this punk out.

    61. Re: Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah you can figure out intent. He is calling the police and getting them to respond to what they believe is an active hostile situation.

      If he wanted to cause a disruption, he could claim there was a fire or the person just took a bunch of pills to kill themselves. Those sorts of claims would also get rapid response but without danger.

    62. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by ldobehardcore · · Score: 1

      SWATTing is soliciting an act of terrorism. Full stop. This kid is a terrorist, whether he meant to be or not.

      --
      Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
    63. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      If it fades 50% per year it never goes away. I can almost agree with that. We should bring back the scarlet A too.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    64. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      The victim had arms, two of them! You can not expect the officers to risk their own safety and the safety of other citizens by letting an armed man run amok in their territory!

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    65. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Your kids will keep acting antisocially even after you successfully communicate why their behavior is antisocial, and only won't continue acting antisocially if they know they'll personally be hurt?

      Guess you've got a sociopathic kid. Sorry about that.

    66. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that it is not beyond doubt but beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecutor need indeed only say the defendant did it. If there is enough evidence that the judge (or jury) believes his side over the other guy's side. In fact, that is what they do! They call it argument, they call it evidence (not proof, evidence), and do not find people innocent - they find them not guilty or not culpable depending on the charges being levied. The movies and the crazy bastards online need to spend more time talking to a lawyer. Seriously, they are jerks and it is their job to be. I can see why. Look at the justice system? It is full of psychopaths. However, rights and obligations are important to know. They are your duty, really. In civil court the burden of proof is not even that high. It is the preponderance of evidence I believe. It means you only have to be reasonably certain that the defendant likely committed the evidence which means that the government must prove that you are more likely to have committed the offense. Hell, go down and sit in at your district court for a day. You can usually do that, it is legal and your right. Your job kind of is to go. It is you who should watch the justice system and not the other way around.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    67. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes but the US has inflated penalties for the sake of "law n' order" political campaigns. Terry Childs got three years over a workplace disagreement so ten years for repeatedly wasting police time is par for the course.

    68. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by dbIII · · Score: 2

      The problem is with their masters who decided to go paramilitary for what should be a police matter instead.
      It's counterproductive because when there is the rare situation where an actual military response is desired you end up with half trained soldiers doing the job instead.

    69. Re: Reasons I'm not a judge. by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      Um.. So what you're saying is you have so little faith in the police that when they show up and nobody dies it's a"miracle "? I think we've got bigger problems than a few socially maladjusted teens

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    70. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by aberglas · · Score: 2

      +1. The crazy military response is the issue. Even if the issue is real, the SWAT is normally excessive. And it has crossed the pond to some extent here in Australia.

    71. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's the fact that he's 17, and you don't want to make the punishment so bad that "he will never want to or be able to do anything again". That's just stupid. This punishment is more likely to create a lifelong criminal than affect any kind of reform. And the message to other teenagers is even less effective.

    72. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they could have just not sent a specially trained heavily armed paramilitary force that is trained to use violence instead of intelligence to check out an unverified phone call. But that was not in any of your +5 insightful scenarios.

    73. Re: Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Congratulations, you have won a trip to Finland, the country of Santa Claus, the land of the 1000 lakes and the Moomins!"

    74. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The only reason this works at all is because of the complete lack of restraint of US police. It seems like given any excuse they like to go in guns blazing to shoot the family dog and permanently deafen a baby by chucking flashbangs in its cot.

      Yes, the problem is with the teenager, but there is a much, much bigger problem with the US police culture. The combination of military surplus, macho culture and a strong "us versus them" attitude leads to such problems.

      After all, why didn't the teenager call the Canadian police?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    75. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      the problem is with the police, not the teenage idiot who placed the fake calls.

      I disagree. There's wrongness to spread around both parties, though in the grand scheme of things the police one is more of a problem than dickish teenagers.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    76. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You and your world view and your country is full of shit.

      If the murder murders one more person it is very sad.

      But if the police kills an innocent, it is completely wrong.

      1. waste happens all the time
      2. You send all your whole police when one guy calls?
      3. The safest way would be to have a look first.
      4. Nobody gets injured when you look at them.
      5. Thats why you should not shoot just because one guy called.
      6. Potential intruders? Why not talk to them?

      So your police reaches for the guns if one guy calls and the homeowners reach for the guns when someone unknown is at their doors? You seem to really love gunfights.

    77. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by onepoint · · Score: 1

      Wow, valid points.
      I'm 48 so I think i might have mellowed a bit more
      Now 10 years of prison is a bit harsh,
      BUT
      3 month of some sort of prison life ( in the USA, jail is local, prison is where it's real bad ), secure but tough love
      3 month of jail, again secure but tough love
      1.5 years in some sort of outdoor, farming / labor jail type place. Where education with work ethic is taught
      3 years of community service with some sort discovered skill set that he discovers in himself and shares with the community should appropriate.
      and to physically meet each victim and apologize.

      I don't know if my beliefs in changing someone is valid, but given the opportunity to change a youths' life for the better might be the highest risk/reward I can think of.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    78. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      No it's not. Terrorism is activity meant to terrorize an entire population and/or influence the public policy of a Government. Falsely reporting an incident does not rise to the level of terrorism and when people keep using the 'T' word to cover all manner of crimes that aren't terrorism they undermine the meaning and impact of the word.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    79. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In most towns, an out of control police force can be corrected by kicking the shit out of the mayor. Or exposing him in some sordid activity he undoubtedly engages in. Better though, is to elect judges that aren't jack-booted fairies. Face it, cops are a fairly stupid bunch, so being outwitted by a 17 y/o is not surprising. The question is, what are you girly men going to do about it? Besides post some lame ass video from a cheap ass android phone.

    80. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      7. Equal opportunity type dispatcher calls phone number on caller id and asks - Hi, who are you?
      8. Local judiciary outlaws acts of war against non combatants.
      I know I'm being unreasonable for assuming you can force fascists to act human. So pardon me if I find a flaw in your stupid asinine rational reasoning, you nincompoops.

    81. Re: Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

    82. Re: Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Quite simply, we should follow the rule that extraordinary actions should require extraordinary evidence. Why is this so difficult for people to understand??? (While I was asking myself that question the answer came to me. It is cause of *all* of our problems in the United States, namely, economic disparity. Quite simply SWAT teams are there to protect the rich. In other words, they base their force on the total worth of the individuals rather than any actual risk, and we are all being lied to. We do not all have equal protection. Our *money* has equal protection.)

    83. Re: Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember reading as study that deterrence effects are insignificant beyond 7 years of prison. IE there are a few crimes that somebody might willingly eat a 3 year sentence for that they wouldn't for 7 years.

      That does not follow. Just because there is no deterrence effect after 7 years that does not mean all sentences less than 7 years are equal. I think of it more like an asymptote at 7 years and a nice smooth curve approaching that.

      Now, consider a murderer. I hardly think 7 years will have that much of an effect. I would give murderers 25 to life. Even then, it is not enough. Basically, they should not even be on the same scale as other crimes. Now, clearly, accidentally killing someone (say, in a vehicular accident) is completely different, but it may be very hard to determine whether or not it was an accident.

      The simple solution for murderers is immediate execution if there is no doubt of the crime and it was intentional. That would act as a deterrent that no amount of time in jail would. Of course, with the religious fairy tales we propagate, some may think they are automatically going to "go to heaven". So, the only solution is to give them a life sentence.

    84. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether or not you all realize it, your discussion really boils down to the C/S ratio, and what value is best for one or another purpose.

      The C/S, or carrot to stick ratio, is the proportion of society's response to a person or group's actions that are positive, (carrot,) versus negative, (stick) reinforcement, akin to the use of a carrot tied to the end of a stick used to induce a pack animal to forward motion with the promise either of getting the carrot dangling from the end of the stick, or of being beaten with the aforementioned stick, while the person holding the stick eats the carrot right in front of it.

      Or... something like that.

      There is another dimension to this though. In a sense, he's a hacker. The system he hacked, and showed fundamental security holes in, was the social system of emergency response to the threat of a person or group's violent behavior. In a sense, he's being punished for showing off the fact that our society has flaws in its makeup, like the one where if you report a psychotic waving a machete around, or a shotgun, or that a person has hostages and is threatening to kill them, you can make other people do something they wouldn't do if they knew the truth of the matter.

      I ask you all to consider and discuss how the treatment of this person by the court compares and contrasts with the harm often visited upon computer enthusiasts or security professionals who point out flaws or security holes in digital systems, only to be sued or jailed for their actions!

      Sure, it seems the subject here was malicious, but is he being punished SOLELY on the malicious basis of his (reportedly) largely misogynistic selection of targets? If he had not targeted mainly "girl gamers" but were just as malicious, would the punishment be the same?

      How much of the penalty's severity owes to the malicious nature of his actions, and how much of it may be an overreaction to his exposing of the aforementioned fundamental flaws in having the police slowly (?) devolving into a paramilitary organization?

      Can the judge's assessment of the "online world" as being a separate world hold any water, when in fact it's a SUBSET of the real world? In order for it to be truly a separate world, a world entirely apart, there would have to be NO consequences of any kind in one, for ANY event or events occurring in the other, and that's simply NOT the case. People have become "internet famous" which means people IN REAL LIFE knowing who they are, when without the digital medium, they probably wouldn't. Real world money is exchanged both THROUGH the medium, for purchases of real things in the real world using the online world as a conduit for the exchange, just as real money is used to buy things that only exist IN the medium, like online services, for example, or "in-game" or "in-world" purchases of things that have no real, tangible existence. Just so, online credits, (fake-world money,) are used to buy REAL things, which may then be delivered either electronically, (in the form of digital music, movies, programs or "apps", such as games, etc.,) or in what the judge would no-doubt term "the real world," as if the two are things apart.

      I think the judge erred at least in this respect, that she showed a lack of understanding or respect for the admittedly more artificial, but nevertheless REAL subset of the real-world that is online reality. Also, am I the only one who thinks her denigration of the online world as being not real, sounds suspiciously like BULLYING, as if she, the judge, by having opinions about the online subset of real life, and its denizens, was NOT impartial but instead was allowing her personal feelings to color her legal decision? Also, would the accused have received the same treatment from a MALE judge? Did gender play a part in this? Would a fellow man have gone easier on him, considering many of his victims were female? Or would a male judge in fact have been likely to be HARSHER because of an innate need to protect the "weaker" sex?

      Would she have

    85. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Terrorism is trying to get your way by terrifying other people. It is not, technically, limited to populations or governments. A bandit also qualifies as a terrorist.

      However, you are right in that it is getting over-used as a new "buzzword".

    86. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 1

      If the Swat team response to an unverified phone call is to put people's lives at such severe risk as you describe, the problem is with the police, not the teenage idiot who placed the fake calls.

      The issue is two-fold:

      1) 99.9+% of all calls that result in a 'SWAT' response are legit. The swat response might be overkill, but the call itself is honest and legitimate. Expecting police to prove that a call is real when the vast majority are real is going to be a far greater threat to peoples' lives and safety than taking such calls at face value.

      2) Police responses can be overkill. In some cases, police have been known to open fire before even asking people to drop their weapon.

      To blame police for the results of a swatting call is like pushing someone randomly into the street and then claiming that it's all the fault of the driver for not stopping in time. Although some blame may be assigned to the driver for not keenly watching for people darting onto the roadway, it was the push which caused the initial peril, and the impact was the completely foreseeable result of the push.

      --
      OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
    87. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The perp is 17. We're past that point.

      Make it harsh.

    88. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Pubstar · · Score: 1

      Without knowing more about him, age does not equate to a set emotional and mental maturity level.

    89. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is satire after all.

      The idea is that it is done to satisfy the desire for punishment/revenge of the public. It is not about her victim it is not about her.

      In her wiped/reformed) state she is innocent; so every day she is tortured again and again (eg cruel and unusual punishment).
      It is just a public spectacle; to satisfy the bloodthirsty public; so the people doing it to her are monsters.

    90. Re:Reasons I'm not a judge. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Webster defines terrorism (emphasis mine) as "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal"

      The FBI also requires a political bent: "Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping"

      Swatting is not terrorism, at least in this instance. Not by the definition of the word or as it is commonly applied by western law enforcement agencies. *shrug* Sometimes an asshat is just that, an asshat, with no deeper motivation than the desire to be a dickhead.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    91. Re: Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've just gained two pounds...

      Yes, there's no chance of justice. Biases are in control of us. Let then do battle and see where it leads us.

    92. Re: Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using 'end of story' does not end discussion and even if it did, absence of discussion does not imply agreement or correctness.

      Be like Tesla, expend your budget solely on product development; do not reduce efficiency by advertising.

    93. Re: Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Option n) Swat team responds to swatting call and is unavailable when the call from a competing swatter comes in; competing swatter enacts need rage - cuddly toys traumatized.

    94. Re: Reasons I'm not a judge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps when the government is able to distinguish right from wrong, mere citizens might learn by their example.

      One can only imagine the horrors perpetrated by the US government that aren't reported - given those that are.

    95. Re: Reasons I'm not a judge. by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Lol

    96. Re: Reasons I'm not a judge. by easyTree · · Score: 1

      So... SWAT have such momentum that they can't be stopped easily once in their flow?

    97. Re: Reasons I'm not a judge. by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Please; are they still calling it the justice system? How is schmoozing around a coffee machine making deals with other people's lives justice?

    98. Re: Reasons I'm not a judge. by easyTree · · Score: 1

      How do we distinguish between what you are calling intent to cause homicide and intent to cause serious upset/inconvenience using SWAT ?

  3. I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts too. by CaptSlaq · · Score: 1

    Please bear with me, I'm speaking from a US point of view.

    I don't want to completely condemn anyone to not being able to get a job because of a felony over being "a really stupid kid". Everyone has stupid moments, but most people can learn from them.

    I also don't want people who are un-rehabilitable released back into the general population.

    The number of times this kid swatted other people leads me to believe that he falls into the latter of the two groups.

    I do think that there are other side conversations about the militarization of SWAT teams that can be had as well, but that's not the focus of this story.

    TL:DR: There's a boatload of moving parts to this, but the punishment doesn't (in my mind) match the crime.

  4. "Warden, I believe I get one phone call." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Hello, 911?"
    Here we go again!

    1. Re:"Warden, I believe I get one phone call." by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 2

      Oh, my.... I'm hearing this in my brain as a parody of Ray Stevens' "It's Me Again, Margaret"...

  5. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    That's because you don't understand Canadian law. That is actually a fairly harsh term for a young offender in Canada.

    The other option would have been moving him to adult court. That's a pretty big uphill battle for the prosecution, as they would have to prove how society would be better served potentially throwing him in jail until 27.

    He's a stupid kid, and really needs to be treated as such.

  6. Remember kids... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Just because your mother allowed you to live in the basement until you were 50, you still need to get out into the big blue room with the bright light and interact with normal people who don't know about Slashdot.

  7. Reasonable by snsh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sounds like a very reasonable and level-headed judge, making him completely ineligible for appointment to a higher court.

    1. Re:Reasonable by Holi · · Score: 1

      It's Canada, so he may have a better chance up there. But I agree, south of the border he would be marginalized and probably end up in night court.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    2. Re:Reasonable by cliffjumper222 · · Score: 2

      Sounds like a very reasonable and level-headed judge, making him completely ineligible for appointment to a higher court.

      True, but Judge Patricia Janzen is a woman. Unless you were meaning the teen?

    3. Re:Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      level-headed judge, making him completely ineligible for appointment to a higher court.

      Article says

      [J]udge Patricia Janzen [...] noted a psychiatric and psychological assessment that she said

      Also this is Canada, our Supreme Court has been handing out reasonable decisions recently so the poor government is wondering what went wrong.

  8. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 2

    I do think that there are other side conversations about the militarization of SWAT teams that can be had as well, but that's not the focus of this story.

    Correct, but the militarization of SWAT and police in general SHOULD be the focus of the story. These little assholes wouldn't be swatting if it didn't evoke such a massive response from police.

    --
    THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
  9. Re:To all you losers ... by abuelos84 · · Score: 1

    "pillow biters"
    Muh Inclusiveness...

    --
    -- Counting backwards since 1984!
  10. This kid's a sociopath and sadist by ZorinLynx · · Score: 2

    That's the textbook definition; he delights in the suffering of others.

    He needs extensive mental evaluation and should probably be watched carefully once his sentence is up. These people are dangerous by their very nature.

    1. Re:This kid's a sociopath and sadist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's the textbook definition; he delights in the suffering of others.

      He needs extensive mental evaluation and should probably be watched carefully once his sentence is up. These people are dangerous by their very nature.

      I have some bad news. They run the place.

    2. Re:This kid's a sociopath and sadist by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Otherwise known as a narcissist.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:This kid's a sociopath and sadist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is not a narcissist, its impossible for him to love himself: he has a face that only a mother could love.

    4. Re:This kid's a sociopath and sadist by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      With Donald Trump being the next POTUS.

    5. Re:This kid's a sociopath and sadist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you work for a company whose owner hates you? Can't find another job? Sounds strange.

    6. Re:This kid's a sociopath and sadist by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Narcissists don't actually love themselves, but they're happy to try and convince you that they're the best thing to ever happen.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    7. Re:This kid's a sociopath and sadist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not many people that aren't a sociopath own a business, so it's nearly impossible to find a job where you're not working for someone that hates you. I expect this kid to start a business one day in his future. He seems like the type.

    8. Re:This kid's a sociopath and sadist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you not from the US? Here, nearly 99% of businesses are owned by Republicans. Their kind hates anyone that isn't a rich white old man, so it is nearly impossible to find a job in the US where you are not hated.

      Around 11% of US employees work for pretty much one of two gigantic Democrat-run businesses.

  11. Re:Finland is next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What have you got against Linus Torvalds?

  12. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, so when he turns 18, he will just make sure to cover his tracks by using a burner phone.

    Sad thing, even though the Canadians gave him a wrist slap, it is far worse here in the US. Here, the police here don't bother even going after swatters, and because of the different population dynamics (especially in hellholes like Chicago suburbs), you never know if the door-kickers are SWAT, or some gangbangers looking to "blood in" and execute everyone in the house to earn their "soldier" status.

  13. Re:To all you losers ... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So despite the tens or hundreds of millions of gamers out there gaming away merrily without ever swatting anyone, you seize on one clearly disturbed and deeply dysfunctional psycho as evidence that the shrill goose-stepping SJW brigade are somehow justified in their hysterics, let alone needed? No thanks brownshirt, go back to tumblr, the population there is ignorant enough to put up with your huffed out bullshit.

  14. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by ExekielS · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yea, Americans have NO conception of time whatsoever. Most of my countrymen would happily send somebody to prison for 10+ years for even minor offenses. Punch somebody while you are both drunk? 5 years. They have no idea how long 5 years, how insane a punishment is, how badly their lives will be permanently destroyed, how many friends and family they will lose, just how much time really costs somebody. 16 months during that developmental period is a HUGE chunk of his life. You can recover from a SWATing in a few weeks, months if it hit you particularly hard. But 16 months in jail is basically making sure the rest of his life is seriously restricted and damaged. But for that many swattings? Sure. It fits. I even thought this one was a little light.

    --
    ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
  15. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by qwijibo · · Score: 1

    Treating stupid kids as stupid kids is far better than the zero-tolerance approach often used.

    However, once they decide they want to commit adult crimes, they should have adult consequences. A felony conviction for swatting following someone for the rest of their life seems pretty fair.

  16. Re:To all you losers ... by ZorinLynx · · Score: 4, Informative

    "SJW" doesn't mean anybody who is for social justice. I'm for social justice! I want people to stop hating and harassing each other.

    "SJW" is the term for those who do bad things in the name of social justice. They harass and threaten people who don't tow their very narrow definition of what is right. They become confrontational and angry if you so much as suggest they might be wrong about someone.

    People who are for social justice? They're awesome.

    Social Justice Warriors? They can be as bad as the guy this article is about.

  17. No! It should be execution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Public execution recorded and shared across the interwebs. That way all know this fate could await them should they SWAT.

  18. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can recover from a SWATing in a few weeks...

    Unless you are fucking DEAD.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  19. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm Canadian, but cannot claim to speak for the country, only my own Canadian-derived viewpoints.

    I, too, do not want to see someone capable of being rehabilitated denied the opportunity for a better life (ie: job, hobbies, freedom, personal fulfillment).

    I, too, do not want people who are un-rehabilitable released back into the general population.

    I, however, feel that I must give the court-appointed psychologists the same level of initial trust that I would extend to the courts in judging this fairly. Since I'm not a psychologist, I would choose to depend on the above experts determinations of the offender's mental state post-treatment (as I am presuming from other past experiences in the Canadian legal system that the offender will be subject to such treatments) to determine his future freedoms and limitations. As such, I cannot prejudge his fitness at this point.

    I would agree there are many discussions that should be had about the relative militarization of the police.

    TL:DR: Article light on specifics to relative ability of treatment for the offender, so I must rely on the determination of the courts.

    PS: The commenting style is deliberate, but not intended as mocking. I mean to highlight the relatively small differences between sample USA and Canadian viewpoints that may aid a further discussion on the differences between the USA perception of justice and the Canadian viewpoint.

  20. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

    His problem isn't that he's a stupid kid, his problem is that he's a narcissist. That's a personality disorder, jail time isn't going to fix it. He needs to admit that he has a major personality problem (which, as it turns out, isn't all that common for a narcissist to do) and then seek help through therapy (also not all that common). If he doesn't take the steps necessary to back away from that cliff then no amount of jail will "rehabilitate" what is wrong with him.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  21. Republicans love to screw-over first time offender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They hate all of us and want us all put in prison. That is why their kind does this. They hate us.

  22. What was he charged with, anyway? by Sowelu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Because swatting sounds a lot like attempted murder to me.

    1. Re:What was he charged with, anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. It's a serious crime but that's like saying that because some people randomly die from a single punch to the head that everyone who punches someone in the head should be charged with attempted murder.

      Contrary to Internet lore, death by swatting is incredibly rare. That said - it's a serious crime and this little fucker deserves what he got.

  23. Re:Finland is next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I work for nVidia.

  24. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Correct, but the militarization of SWAT and police in general SHOULD be the focus of the story. These little assholes wouldn't be swatting if it didn't evoke such a massive response from police.

    Did you read the list of offenses this kid did? If you think he did all than just because SWAT teams react, and he is not the one that is primarily accountable.,., .well, I'll just have to assume you are the kid's mother.

  25. Not to mention... by roc97007 · · Score: 2

    ...You know all those accomplishments in the online world? They're NOT REAL. That's why it's On Line.

    I don't know all of the details, but 16 months seems like a slap on the wrist for a "prank" that can get people killed. Like, you know, in real life. For ever. No do-overs, no saved games.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:Not to mention... by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 2

      Jail time just makes criminals worse. This is fairly well established.

      What I want out of a jail sentence (as a Canadian) is rehabilitation and some path to them becoming a person in my society that shows up as a net benefit when all the accounting is done.

      There are bound to be some people that are irretrievable, but I'd like to take the chance on fixing them.

      I think swatting is insanely dangerous, and I'm not unaware that this was a crime mainly perpetrated against women. I'm a fairly ardent feminist and I think that detail of the case is pertinent. All the same, I have hopes that if we invest in his rehabilitation, maybe the person that exits the system will be better than the person that went in.

  26. Narcissists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He suffers from severe narcissism which describes more than half the people on Slashdot. Will except me! I'm awesome!

  27. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    You can recover from a SWATing in a few weeks, months if it hit you particularly hard. But 16 months in jail is basically making sure the rest of his life is seriously restricted and damaged.

    Really? Being the victim of SWATing seems like it could cause lifelong psychological damage - let alone the danger that you're sending HEAVILY ARMED people over to someone's house. I think 5 years would be a better sentence for him. Sounds like he's already pretty damaged anyway. "the judge noted a psychiatric and psychological assessment that she said painted a picture of a deeply troubled young person who is a high risk to reoffend. The report suggested the teen has minimized his crimes and blamed the victims, showed no remorse and was motivated in the pleasure the trouble he inflicted on his victims.The report described him as having an emerging narcissistic personality disorder."

  28. Not enough, more time needed. by TiggertheMad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    SWATTING isn't a light offence. When you do this there is a very real possibility that someone will end up dead because a cop gets excited, or a homeowner is armed and decides to start shooting. This should be treated as a very serious crime, and if anyone is killed, the person doing the swatting needs to get a murder one charge slapped on them.

    Moreover, this kid didn't do this once, but many times, demonstrating that this isn't a spur of the moment 'crime of passion', but that he possess a consistent and dangerous disregard for life. I am all for lighter sentencing for a lot of things, but this is something that you need to come down heavy on people for. Grafitti is stupid teenage hyjinx. SWATTING is really dangerous behavior.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Not enough, more time needed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the real face of Gamergate. Women-hating gamers who want to make women quit games.

  29. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Copid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm all for a massive reduction in police militarization and very nearly eliminating SWAT teams given how rarely they're used for what they were originally intended for. That being said, the problem with using this issue as a lever is that there will always be some fringe situation that calls for a swift armed reaction of some sort. These kids can literally say whatever they want, so there's always going to be a way to provoke a dangerous response as long as there's any conceivable situation that warrants that response. This is just one of those cases where there should be a panic button. It should be really difficult to hit and you should punish the living shit out of people who treat the panic button like it's a toy.

    --
    An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  30. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think both issue need to be addressed.

    The severity of punishment for calling in fake hostage situations should be sever to act as a deterrent, but considerably more important is effective enforcement. People have to think that if they do this they will get caught. Otherwise even a death sentance won't actually be an effective deterrent.

    Simultaneously, the police need to reign in SWAT protocols. It is completely unacceptable to be kicking in doors of innocent people, so much so that in the US it's even in the fucking Constitution that the cops need to get a warrant first. Now, figuring out how to desitngruish between genuine threats and fake ones without compromising respnce time in the real cases is a hard problem, but if the cops can't figure it out their only other choice should be to disband their SWAT teams.

  31. On the plus side by DrXym · · Score: 4, Funny

    16 months in prison will help him improve his social skills no end.

    1. Re:On the plus side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... among other skills. He'll learn not to drop the soap real quick.

    2. Re:On the plus side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will probably improve his oral skills as well.

    3. Re:On the plus side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who knows? Probably a dilated cloaca would give some meaning to his sorry excuse of a life.

  32. Re:To all you losers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Way to do the social justice movement some good by calling SJW opponents a homosexual pejorative.

  33. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Gryle · · Score: 2

    If you're going to "militarize" any part of the police force, the SWAT is the place to do it. Those teams exist specifically to deal with threats outside the normal tactical capabilities of law enforcement, which may include confrontations with well-armed gangs or home-grown crazies. In those instances, it make sense for the SWAT members (who are supposed to be trained to a level beyond your normal patrolman) to have a wider variety of options and hardware at there disposal.

    Now, the militarization of the regular police force is something else entirely. Patrolman Krupke doesn't need an automatic rifle with gee-whiz optics and an up-armored assault vehicle just to patrol the neighborhood beat.

    --
    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
  34. Re:To all you losers ... by Holi · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    And tens of millions of games don't agree with the gamergate idiots who support slut shaming, swatting, doxing and so on. I'm a gamer as well, have been since the days of Kings Quest on my PC jr and lode runner on my Apple IIe. I do not and will not support the antics of online bullies, thye give us all a bad name, thus I will stand up and call them out each and every time.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  35. More SJW Bullshit by PvtVoid · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Here come the SJWs again, oppressing male gamers! Feminazis get offended by anything.

    So a bunch of heavily armed people knocked down all the doors in your house, shot your dog, and handcuffed you and your family; quit being such a PC whiner.

    1. Re:More SJW Bullshit by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      In this context aren't you supposed to say "master-race whiner"?

    2. Re:More SJW Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I love about straw men is that they're so easy to knock down.

  36. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

    Correct, but the militarization of SWAT

    It was center stage for a bill Obama tried to pass recently (not sure if it passed as I didn't follow it)

    and police in general SHOULD be the focus of the story

    Both the offender and the authorities need to be the focus of the story. It's a two fold issue.

    You can keep blaming the ashes for making a mess but the fire is what made the ashes in the first place. It's like blaming gun manufacturers for mass shootings. I'm not suggesting the authorities are innocent but the source is still the source of the fire. The authorities could take a very hard stance on this and say that unidentified individuals cannot initiate a SWAT call. Is there statistically a downside to such a hard stance?

    Canadian SWAT isn't the same as US SWAT so there's 2 separate views of the same issue. Canadians still have a positive view of their authorities. It's not so much the case in the US.

    These little assholes wouldn't be swatting if it didn't evoke such a massive response from police.

    First off, he doesn't really know what the actual response is because he's not there to witness it. This kid has many other issues beside swatting so I doubt the lack of response from police would have changed his abuse behavior.

  37. Re:To all you losers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, there are absolutely people who use SJW for harassment.

    SJW the way you're using it is historically accurate, to the extent that the brief history of the term is history.

    Kind of like the way troll now means asshole when it used to be a specific kind of asshole.

    On that note, I'm pretty sure you got trolled (in the classic sense) by the GP. From one side of his mouth he brought up anti-SJW people out of nowhere, then from the other he talks of pillow biters and morons, which are the sort of terms that an SJW would avoid. He was fully successful with Intrepit imaginaut, partially successful with you, and I think abuelos caught on.

  38. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    i wrote this to be snarky, but thinking about it more, I think this makes a lot of sense. the damage of the swatting is not a broken door. It's the shattered feeling of safety you feel in your own home. you used to feel safe sitting on your couch playing videogames. Now, at a very fundamental level, that feeling is gone. This can take years to overcome.

    I hear this is similar to the damage from being raped. So... while it's illegal to sentence someone to be raped, for whatever reason it's not illegal to sentence him to a prison where everybody knows that people are raped every single day. America!

    So I think we all agree. Just one night, it happens a few times, then he's out and can lead a productive life. Everybody wins!

  39. Re:To all you losers ... by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The problem is like every cause its been taken over by the whack-a-doodles. Look at how MADD went from "We think you should call a cab when you've been drinking so you don't hurt anybody" (sensible and logical) to "Our ultimate goal is prohibition" (whack-a-doodle) or how PETA went from "We think food animals should be treated humanely" (sensible and logical) to "We'll call fish sea kittens and argue that germs should have the same rights as people!" (whack-a-doodle).

    For those that think gamergate is about misogyny, or that social justice hasn't been taken over by the whack-a-doodles? I invite you to play a little game called "stormfront or social justice" where they simply remove the group being targeted and you have to choose whether it was written by a SJW or by a white supremacist. Congrats if you get even 50% correct because THAT is how whack-a-doodle the so called social justice "movement" has become, complete with calls for this or that group to be exterminated, this or that group should have their rights taken away, shit that would have sounded right at home at any Klan rally simply by changing the group.

    So I'm sorry but "social justice" as a concept has been taken over, the sensible ones have been run out of the tent by ultra left wing racists that have total control of the platform.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  40. Good - Target Offenders, Not the Stereotype by eepok · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My only annoyance with the whole internet abuse counter-attack (Gamergate, etc.) is that those who were targeted by the abuse went and painted the entirety of the population of male gamers as sociopathic misogynists and giggled while the innocent were lumped in with that horrible stereotype.

    Just like pre-internet days, the nerds get abused for being nerds.

    This case is exactly what needs to be the standard response. (1) Someone reports abuse. (2) Investigation. (3) Abuser found. (4) Abuser tried and convicted. The end. No making a career based on accusing all male gamers or the entire video game industry or the entirety of "science" for the abuse of a few people perpetrated. Just report, investigate, find, convict, close the book.

    We don't need social martyrs, we need good police work and good courts.

    1. Re:Good - Target Offenders, Not the Stereotype by squiggleslash · · Score: 0

      those who were targeted by the abuse went and painted the entirety of the population of male gamers as sociopathic misogynists

      No. No they didn't. I've been watching this from the start and there was never any point where all male gamers were described by Sarkeesian, Quinn, Wu, Alexander, Harper, or any of their high profile supporters as "sociopathic misogynists" or anything close. Indeed, a huge proportion of their supporters, high profile or otherwise, are male players of games so that would be a pretty dumb thing for anyone to say.

      It might be what Gamergaters tell themselves the "LWs" say. But the Gamergaters also think that Leigh Alexander's article didn't put quotes around the word "Gamer" and was calling all people who played games obnoxious, rather than calling for game publishers to stop targeting a demographic that doesn't really exist. (It was virtually identical to what was written after "John Romero's About To Make You His Bitch" except this time was dealing with the actions of what, the day before, had been given the name Gamergate.) Gamergaters also tell themselves such things as "Sarkeesian once posted a review of Hitman", "Quinn gave favors to journalists in exchange for coverage", "Wu should shut up about sexism and start her own video game company", "The harassment doesn't exist and it's all been proven to be the victims setting up fake accounts to harass themselves", "No incidents of harassment have been reported to the police", "It's all about ethics in gaming journalism" and other such rather obviously false nonsense.

      I'd concern troll here about suggesting you actually learn a little about what you're attacking before attacking it, but to be honest, I think 90% of GG are well aware that they're spouting something with no resemblance to the real world. You have to be dishonest, or else have an amazing cognitive dissonance to claim simultaneously that "It's about ethics in gaming journalism" and then rarely, if ever, mention journalism, while venting your fury on "SJWs" in every post. Or to declare yourself impossible to criticize for sexism or racism because you have a few women and minority supporters - and then call that argument "Not your shield".

      But if you do belong to the 10% of Gamergaters who haven't read the rather entertaining 8chan threads where various Leaders of Gamergate "strategize" on how to derail those pesky "SJWs", and so lap up every word of it: No. What you have been told GG's targets have said is not what they actually have said. Same way that they're not actually journalists. Same way that they've never supported censorship. Same way they've never traded favors to journalists for positive coverage. Same way they've not actually posted the reviews of games you've been told they've posted.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Good - Target Offenders, Not the Stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck this guy. And fuck you MRA types trying to make martyrs out of yourselves for not committing acts of violence outside of your own pathetic heads.

    3. Re:Good - Target Offenders, Not the Stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #notallmalegamers

    4. Re:Good - Target Offenders, Not the Stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi Ghazi. Still mad about archive.today?

    5. Re:Good - Target Offenders, Not the Stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ) is that those who were targeted by the abuse went and painted the entirety of the population of male gamers as sociopathic misogynists

      Because you are. Geeks have institutionally permanent biases and privileges that work against women and minorities. As white cis hetro male geeks, most people here are simply born racist. Covering up the chronic problems by calling your culture "meritocratic" or "open minded" or "intellectual" is just a gloss of paint over the ugly beating heart of misogyny and bro-grammer rape culture that now saturates tech and sites like Slashdot.

      Tech is rife with racism and systemic abuse of women. The internet, which I remind everyone is created and run by geeks, is now the seventh circle of hell for women on a daily basis. Every woman from grannies to toddlers can expect torrents of abuse, pornography, misogyny and harassment. The hatred of women, bigotry and transphobia of tech are bubbling beyond control and incidents like Gamergate should have been a wake up call to everyone, but instead we just hear more thinly veiled Stormfront and MRA strawmen about how its "only a minority" or that "freeze peach must be protected".

      No. Hate speech is not free speech and companies have a responsibility to protect women from the escalating dangers on online communication. That means coming down hard on all of geek culture, from games to coding. We need to go beyond simply zero tolerance. We have to drag geek culture kicking and screaming into the 21st century. We need to lump everyone into the "toxic gamer" pile unless they explicitly stand up and loudly declare allegiance to the "radical" notion that women and trans-persons are human beings worthy of dignity.

      If you're not standing on those lines fighting the toxic patriarchy, then you are part of the problem. The silence from the games industry is screaming right now, all while Gamergaters freely practice internet terrorism on women in tech all across sites like Slashdot. Dice needs to take responsibility and shut these people down.

      We don't need social martyrs, we need good police work and good courts.

      The justice system is still decades behind, routinely treating women as property. Reform their will take decades and it will never be fast enough. We have to use social leverage, media influence, public shaming, and yes where appropriate loss of income to make people in tech and gaming stand up for social justice.

      But you're right about one thing. We don't need more martyrs like Zoe Quinn. We need to make more examples. All else is facade and illusion.

    6. Re:Good - Target Offenders, Not the Stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gamergaters also tell themselves such things as "Sarkeesian once posted a review of Hitman"

      What? This is undeniably true, unless you're trying to be weasel about it ("it wasn't actually Sarkeesian it was femfreq", "it wasn't a review", "it wasn't Hitman it was Hitman Absolution", etc) the same way people dismiss Grayson's positive coverage of Quinn's game by first changing the claim to be, specifically, a review, then denying there was a review.

    7. Re:Good - Target Offenders, Not the Stereotype by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      My only annoyance with the whole internet abuse counter-attack (Gamergate, etc.) is that those who were targeted by the abuse went and painted the entirety of the population of male gamers as sociopathic misogynists and giggled while the innocent were lumped in with that horrible stereotype.

      That's not quite right. If you go and read he articles it's clear that focus was on the vocal minority of gamers who were abusing people, and the fact that the "gamer" community was so weak and loose knit that it couldn't deal with them. Other nerd cultures deal with trolls in their own way, but gamer culture didn't.

      More over, those identifying themselves as part of the gamer subculture were becoming less relevant to games and the industry. The majority of players are casual, and half of them are women. They are not the ones who go on XBLive and scream homophoic and racist abuse into the microphone. Companies are looking to this wider audience because that's where the sales are.

      I'd love to see gamers clean up their community and become a positive force. Unfortunately instead of doing that they gave us GamerGate, a huge campaign of harassment and astroturfing, attacking the people who were pointing out the problems. Mean while game companies have been listening and slowly reacting. Many games now at least let you choose the gender of your character and allow same-sex couples. Even bra sizes have been toned down, e.g. on Mortal Kombat X. The industry, like players, is growing up.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Good - Target Offenders, Not the Stereotype by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      a huge campaign of harassment and astroturfing,

      Oh it was a huge campaign of harassment and astroturf alright...

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    9. Re:Good - Target Offenders, Not the Stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... that those who were targeted by the abuse went and painted the entirety of the population of male gamers as sociopathic misogynists and giggled while the innocent were lumped in with that horrible stereotype.

      You're complaining about lumping in the innocent with the guilty ... by lumping the innocent in with the guilty?

    10. Re:Good - Target Offenders, Not the Stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are offended by what an online gaming magazine publishes, just grow up, or turn the Internet off because you're not old enough. Problem solved.

  41. Re:Finland is next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What have you got against Linus Torvalds?

    He hasn't thrown nearly enough chairs at developers.

  42. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    for you anon and all the canadians out there, know this: your justice system rocks! your judges write clear and often pithy case rulings. not so in the US, where tehy can be booooring. I'm not saying anything on the outcomes, just how you get there.

  43. Do you know what your child is doing behind by Stan92057 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm 58 and grew up just outside of Phila and can remember the TV commercial, Do you know where your children are? Well I think those commercials should run again but just a little different. Do you know what your children are doing online behind that Closed bedroom doors? Just an Idea. My daughters has her PC in the main living room. No TVs or PC in bedrooms allowed.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
    1. Re: Do you know what your child is doing behind by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      You don't need to change a word. Where are they? On the Internet? Where?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    2. Re:Do you know what your child is doing behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I were your 17 year old son, I would have applied for emancipation papers and left your prison long ago.

    3. Re:Do you know what your child is doing behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My parents kept the PC in view and had a BIOS password. So I reset the BIOS, added a supervisor BIOS password, and spent almost all time when alone on the computer and worrying about getting caught. Basically that taught me to never trust them and how to lie better, all while increasing stress and getting less things done. Please don't make that mistake. It damaged our relationship and they never knew why. Educate your kids then trust them to do the right thing. I still downloaded and viewed porn too when the computer was in full view. You're not looking at the screen 100% of the time and I know when you're not looking.

      People live up to their expectations. If you trust her to make good decisions she well. If you treat her like a criminal she'll be one. After all, if you're being punished for something you might as well do the crime. At the very least, she'll question why the rule exists and that'll lead to wondering about what's being hidden and curiosity.

      I take it your kids don't have any cell phones or tables.

      I'm 28.

  44. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    >You can recover from a SWATing in a few weeks, months if it hit you particularly hard.

    Yeah, sure. Unless a friend or family member or pet gets shot/tazed/bludgeoned by the idiots who kick your door in. Unless your apartment/home is damaged enough to require immediate repairs or catches on fire because lolflashbangs. Unless someone is recording what happens on a cellphone and you get fired from your job because lolviralvideo paints you in way that could somehow by some asinine twisted logic paint them in a negative light.

    Or, you know, if you get shot to death in a hail of hundreds of rounds because you (naturally and correctly) reacted to your door getting kicked in by drawing a home defense firearm.

    Fuck that noise. This is too mild of a sentence for the crime, and that dude will most likely be doing the same shit again a few months after he gets out.

  45. Got a better idea for an even harsher punishment by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sentence him to live 16 months in Quebec.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  46. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Swatting means there is one party with guns drawn, and another party, likely surprised, with guns drawn, with a potential aggressive intruder in the house.

    Plain and simple, you have heard of suicide by cop? Well, this is homicide by cop. Hitting the wrong house has gotten police, as well as innocents killed.

    I really am beginning to dislike people who call swatting, "just fun and games". This isn't just running LOIC on the middle school's website because someone doesn't like a teacher. People do get shot and die in these encounters. Innocent people on all sides. Those 12 gauge, three-ball rounds, and .40 ACP hollow-point rounds are not toys.

    Making light of attempted murder is pretty low. Either one doesn't know enough to realize the death toll done by this, or one is on the side of the swatter, thinks it a sick joke.

  47. Re:To all you losers ... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And yet the ones trying to shame and abuse people are corrupt gaming journalists and similar dilettantes who get a hardon at the idea of changing gaming culture, even if that culture neither wants nor needs to be changed to match the fever swamps of neomarxist feminist ideology.

    I don't see tens of millions of gamers standing up against GG, all I see are a few mouthbreathing journo grads, opportunistic wasters and beardos with babies lying, getting caught out on their lies, and lying again in the hopes that the information age will just go away. The old maxim of lying big enough and often enough... ...no longer applies.

  48. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In many cases, the swatting calls involved a bomb threat, or a fake hostage taking, where the caller threatened to kill police or the specific target.

    In one case, he called in a bomb threat to Disneyland that shut the theme park down.

    In other instances, when the victims [mostly females] didn't acknowledge friend and follow requests or send him things that he wanted, such as photos, he would harass them and their families.

    and

    In her decision, the judge noted a psychiatric and psychological assessment that she said painted a picture of a deeply troubled young person who is a high risk to reoffend.

    The report suggested the teen has minimized his crimes and blamed the victims, showed no remorse and was motivated in the pleasure the trouble he inflicted on his victims.

    While police militarization and no-knock warrants are indeed a problem, solving it would make no difference in altering this kid's behavior. He's a criminal who apparently had no remorse for his actions. He's gonna offend again.

  49. Re:To all you losers ... by Xenkar · · Score: 1, Troll

    What I think is funny is how people use media terms like "white supremacist" rather than "white separatist" or "white nationalist".

    White supremacy as defined by the media is "White people wishing to enslave and rule over non-whites." Most white nationalists and white separatists want nothing to with non-whites. They want nations or towns with the fruits of their labor going to support people like them. They want their kind to exist beyond the current 300 year virtual extinction timeline for whites. They want to be able to go outside and walk at any time without being "randomly" attacked by bored urban youth.

    Now if you mean "white supremacists" as in whites thinking their kind are better, every race has that ideology. Whites just have the history to back it up.

  50. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by nedlohs · · Score: 2

    Swatting is nothing less than attempted murder. People have been killed in "wrong address" SWAT raids in the past which is effectively what this is to the people being targeted. Having armed people hyped up on adrenaline (and roided up in many cases - http://www.nj.com/news/index.s...) and expecting trouble force their way into someone's house can go badly in many obvious ways, a lot of which end up with the someone dead.

    Now this particular kid seems to have some large mental problems and years in prison is unlikely to help him a lot (though it will prevent him from killing someone via a SWAT raid because they didn't friend him on facebook for a those years).

  51. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is, though, that SWAT teams are being utilized in doing what should be a routine police work, like serving an arrest warrant on a known nonviolent drug offender. It's a game of budgetary use-it-or-lose-it and police departments are very reluctant to give up their toys.

  52. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by MrKrillls · · Score: 1

    That police forces are too often becoming quasi military is a real, huge, valid issue, and it concerns me, but it is not the issue here.

    --
    Don't step on the baby.
  53. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you cite a law anywhere in the US where a first offense physical assault is punishable by 5 years in prison? I dare ya!
     
    And when I say cite I mean cite. Not what you heard your brother's sister's uncle's borther-in-law's best-buddy-from-the-navy-20-years-ago's son supposedly got.

  54. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or have PTSD from nearly being made dead. People who claim that an armed paramilitary raid of your home is no big deal obviously haven't had it happen.

  55. swat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so he has been sentenced for swatting? not squatting? lol can someone send the swat team here to stop the heroine production? http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/09/us-managed-to-make-afghanistan-the-worlds-top-heroin-exporter/

  56. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1
  57. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Vermonter · · Score: 1

    Pretty sure his development is already screwed up.

  58. Bad system design by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It should not be possible to make 911 calls and spoof the source as somewhere else. I'm sure "swatting" never occurred as a potential threat to anyone when the 911 system was being built, but it's pretty dang obvious now, and the vulnerability needs to be closed before some idiot's use of it gets someone killed. (Or someone else killed... have there been any deaths caused by swatting? I wouldn't be surprised, but I don't recall one.)

    1. Re:Bad system design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should not be possible to make 911 calls and spoof the source as somewhere else. I'm sure "swatting" never occurred as a potential threat to anyone when the 911 system was being built, but it's pretty dang obvious now, and the vulnerability needs to be closed before some idiot's use of it gets someone killed. (Or someone else killed... have there been any deaths caused by swatting? I wouldn't be surprised, but I don't recall one.)

      Except that businesses use "spoofing" for legitimate reasons. I believe there was a slashdot post about this recently.

  59. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

    Such a backwards, awful point of view to have. In the US we have this concept of 'cruel and unusual punishment'. Inmates, while in the care of the state being raped in prison absolutely falls into that category -- the fact that our prison system tolerates that kind of behavior is terrible.

  60. wtf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >You were left with severely limited social skills and a significant educational deficit.

    What? Swatting aside, since when has limited social skills been a crime?

    1. Re:wtf? by nerdup · · Score: 1

      Yeah, aside from all the crimes this kid committed, what were his crimes?!

  61. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by MrKrillls · · Score: 2

    Were this a 30 or 40 YO, I'd say toss him into some place with high thick walls. For a very long time. But this is a kid, and kids are pliable enough to learn. Even kids as stupid as this one. Heck, kids who have got sucked into third world warlord conflicts, and who have committed horrendous crimes - in person - have been known to be capable of rehabilitation. This one may be too. I don't buy the throw away the key philosophy when it is a kid. Regardless, this is not a victimless crime. He should be directly under an adult responsible thumb for a very long time, be responsible for building a worthwhile life as the judge indicated, and as a condition of parole or release, not have access to computer or smart phone or even dumb phone, for a long time. He needs to live an analog life.

    --
    Don't step on the baby.
  62. To paraphrase the judge: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone in this room is now dumber after seeing your actions....you are awarded no points...and my god have mercy on your soul.

  63. Re:To all you losers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's just Pope Ratzo being a hypocrite again. He's even using the same lines and the same messed-up logic ("I hate you, therefore, you should be raped; I am righteous.") and obsessions (the Shadow Cabal Of Confederates Against SJWs)

  64. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Shakrai · · Score: 2

    I do think that there are other side conversations about the militarization of SWAT teams that can be had as well, but that's not the focus of this story.

    I don't think that's really at play here. Let's play devil's advocate and pretend the SWAT team had never been developed; now call the police and tell them that someone is in the process of murdering your neighbor. What do you suppose happens? They come to your neighbor's house with firearms drawn and immediately force entry into his home. They won't have all of the expensive tactical gear but do you think that's really going to alter the "experience" for your neighbor by any appreciable degree? Do you think there's much difference between looking at the business end of a .38 Special vs. an AR-15?

    The militarization of the police is a worrisome trend that I've discussed before but I don't think it has anything to do with swatting. If the police think that someone is in the process of being murdered they're going to respond quickly and aggressively. There's really no good solution here; I don't think you want the police to discount such reports.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  65. Re:To all you losers ... by rogoshen1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    (whack-a-doodle)

  66. More than swatting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
    It wasn't just swatting, FTFA:

    He flooded their social media accounts with spam, called and texted them at all hours, cancelled their utilities, posted their personal and financial information online and swatted them...Most of his crimes took place while he was on bail and under conditions not to use a computer or access the Internet.

  67. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

    You can recover from a SWATing in a few weeks, months if it hit you particularly hard.

    Tell that to the baby who essentially ate a flash grenade.

  68. Root Cause Analysis by jmactacular · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, this kid was wrong. But we should examine the root cause of how a kid can pick up a phone that essentially deploys a military unit. How is that response valid? Shouldn't they vet the situation more before deploying a military force?

    Examine the content and credibility of the phone call first. Maybe just knock on the door for a first check with conventional police officers. Only if they confirm a valid threat, with an active hostage situation, then you deploy a negotiator, and then if that fails, you consider deploying a force unit response.

    The ridiculous disproportionate response, from phone call right to military force, is what should be punished and the leaders who making these decisions are enabling and creating this problem.

    1. Re:Root Cause Analysis by swb · · Score: 2

      One question that pops to mind is "How often do intentional swatting calls NOT end up deploying a tactical strike team?"

      I have a hard time believing that every attempt at swatting ends up gaining the desired tactical response and instead results in a generic squad wiping the donut crumbs from their uniform and knocking on the door with a "is everyone OK?" response.

      Of course the unintended consequence the cops fear from not responding with a full-on tactical response is the newpaper headline that reads something like "panic 911 call ignored, family raped and killed for 12 hours in their own home". Given the "right" family, such a headline probably means the end of quite a few careers, lawsuits, etc.

    2. Re: Root Cause Analysis by rickb928 · · Score: 0

      You know nothing about the technology behind this, and you, um. What?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    3. Re:Root Cause Analysis by jklovanc · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't they vet the situation more before deploying a military force?

      If someone dies while the situation is being vetted, deployed, negotiated, etc the police will be blamed for not acting swiftly enough or with enough force.

      The police are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

  69. Re:To all you losers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The whole debate, as far as I'm concerned, is just two groups of bullies fighting for the right to be the bigger bully.

  70. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

    Really? Being the victim of SWATing seems like it could cause lifelong psychological damage - let alone the danger that you're sending HEAVILY ARMED people over to someone's house.

    I wouldn't put a specific term on SWATing, I'd just treat it as what it is - attempted murder. Unless it is successful. In that case it is murder.

  71. Re:To all you losers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you guys did more swatting and death threats to those who your "social justice" decided were unhuman than they did.

    but that's *fine*. 'cos *they* deserved it!

    just like this prick who swatted scores and loved it.

  72. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Noah+Haders · · Score: 0

    Meh. I got bigger problems to worry about than whether criminals keep their anal virginity.

  73. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I too am very interested in your closely held Canadian secret to recovering from death in such a short time period. In the rest of the world we haven't even figured out how to recover from death *at all*, let alone in weeks or months like you claim is possible.

    Stating that swatting isn't a big deal falls flat on both ends of the argument.

    In 2008 an investigation into no-knock swat raids showed that 80% of such raids in the previous 10 years were based on factually wrong information. Of the 146 no-knock raids during that year, only 49 or about 33% resulted in any charges what so ever, and of those 49 only 2 (TWO) resulted in a conviction and prison time.

    Of those two, one was due to the officers finding 50 grams of weed in the swatting victims home, while the original charges were that the person had shot hostages.
    The other of those two was the famous Marvin Louis Guy case, who is in prison for shoot three of the swat officers who invaded his home and shot at him and his wife first.
    The prosecution has sought the death penalty against him and is still on death row to this day.

    You are essentially saying that 16 months of jail time is TOO MUCH for being directly responsible for at least 23 instances of attempted murder.
    Being the direct cause of having loaded weapons pointed directly at another human being who did no harm or crime to anyone, where only the purest of chances resulted in missing, is something that should not be taken lightly.

    http://reason.com/archives/200...
    http://thefreethoughtproject.c...
    http://xbradtc.com/2014/08/08/...
    https://www.google.com/search?...

  74. Re:To all you losers ... by CronoCloud · · Score: 0

    who get a hardon at the idea of changing gaming culture, even if that culture neither wants nor needs to be changed to match the fever swamps of neomarxist feminist ideology.

    #define gaming culture. You do know that It's not just guys like you, playing LoL or CoD.

    No one is trying to change gaming culture, they're just trying to make the definition more broad, because gamers are a diverse group. But guys like you refuse to acknowledge that and try to make the term "gamer", exclusive, not inclusive.

  75. Re:To all you losers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm a gamer. I'm not a gamergater. One plays games. The other spends all of its time attacking women, feminists, and men who support them. Big difference.

    Gamergaters - stop pretending you speak for those who play games. You don't.

  76. Re: I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts t by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    I've rented apartments to several felons, mostly those convicted of violating protective orders. As in their separated wife made a booty call unexpectedly and then reported the incident. Jail. Also the three-timer DUIs. Those I actually love, they all have given me their pastor's name and the meetings they go to.

    They are all incredibly appreciative of a clean place to live, no BS.

    This kid might, maybe, petition for court for expungement in several years, but I doubt he can convince a judge he's just stupid kid.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  77. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Murder and attempted murder typically get you 20 years to life in the US, or lethal injection if you live in Texas. They don't give a shit what your prior history is for that.

    SWATing is not a physical assault, it is attempted murder. It is not a fist fight. It is best compared to blindly firing a gun into a crowd of people. You are not directly aiming at any one person, but your reckless disregard leads any reasonable person to expect great bodily harm or death may result. Try acting that out in an locale in the US and you will be looking at an attempted murder charge if you are lucky and no one dies.

    For my money, anyone over 13 years old is aware of their actions and if they are defective enough to SWAT once, let alone multiple times, they should be incarcerated indefinitely in a mental health facility and banned from any phone or internet connected devices for life. There are some people that need to be removed from society to protect everyone from their defective behavior.

  78. at least he got punished. by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, in Finland, a thug gleefully admits to more than 50,000 counts of criminal hacking, etc and get...2 years probation.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:at least he got punished. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should check which country Mojang is from actually.. (and Notch)

    2. Re:at least he got punished. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notch is from Sweden.

    3. Re:at least he got punished. by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected, but the "computer culture" of Sweden is pretty much the same as Finland, pirate parties and whatnot.

      I wonder where I got the idea Notch and mojang was Finnish? Ahhh, his father's a Finn, must have seen that on wikipedia.

  79. Re:To all you losers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, they have, in addition to threatening themselves for $

  80. Re:To all you losers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > "SJW" doesn't mean anybody who is for social justice.

    You might wanna update every conservative kid on the internet on this detail, because that's exactly how they use it. It's interchangeable with 'libertard' or 'communist'.

  81. Re: To all you losers ... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    *whoosh*

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  82. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by ErichTheRed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "For my money, anyone over 13 years old is aware of their actions and if they are defective enough to SWAT once, let alone multiple times, they should be incarcerated indefinitely in a mental health facility and banned from any phone or internet connected devices for life. "

    There are no more mental health facilities the way you're thinking of them. All the institutions closed in the 80s and 90s. Now, you pretty much need to be Hannibal Lechter to get a mental health inpatient bed; you need to be so dangerous to yourself or others that the only choice is to keep you locked up and attempt to treat you. Prison is the new asylum for most mid-level mentally ill people.

  83. That's basically a Black Mirror episode by swb · · Score: 1

    Where the woman has her memory wiped every day and wakes up to some kind of everyone-has-gone-nuts scenario and runs for her life in terror, over and over again. Everyone else is an actor or an audience member but her.

    1. Re:That's basically a Black Mirror episode by leonardluen · · Score: 1

      if her memory is wiped and she doesn't remember it the next day then what really is the point in doing it again?

      she doesn't remember it, so it happening again to her isn't any additional punishment for her. to her every day is the first time. which means, really she has a one day sentence. and when/if they finally stop wiping her memory she will just wake up to find herself X days/years older and having only had this one really bad and confusing day.

    2. Re:That's basically a Black Mirror episode by swb · · Score: 1

      I think it's revealed to her at the end that the terror episode is staged, so wiping her memory is necessary to make the stunt work again.

  84. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by msauve · · Score: 1
    "for you anon and all the canadians out there, know this: your justice system rocks! your judges write clear and often pithy case rulings"

    Yep, this in particular...

    You were left with severely limited social skills and a significant educational deficit.

    ...reminds me of Animal House - "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son."

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  85. Re: Republicans love to screw-over first time offe by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Not a lot of Republicans in Canada...

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  86. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure that I agree. Take those situations which truly merit an immediate armed reaction. Consider the harm that results from the delay required to confirm these situations somehow before going in. Compare that with the harm done by swatting. Is the death-or-two per year from swatting [1] larger or smaller than the possible deaths from waiting a minute or two [1] to chat with the neighbours for confirmation before breaking down the door on some vanishingly rare scenario [2]?

    [1] Caution: number extracted from rectal cavity. May not be accurate.

    [2] Ran out of numbers.

  87. Re:To all you losers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You realise that last sentence is 100% white supremacist, yes?

  88. bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yeah sure, he was forcing the police to kill people. Oh wait, if US cops weren't so careless with other people's lives SWATing wouldn't actually be that dangerous (and more of a nuisance) and most pranksters wouldn't be swatting (just like far fewer people are doing SWATing in countries where they actually have a higher quality police force).

    The real problem is your cops are too dangerous to others because they are too cowardly to put their lives on the line to serve and protect as they are supposed to as cops.

    Yes I'm a coward too, but at least I don't take public money to pretend to be a cop.

  89. The use SJW as a pejorative. by westlake · · Score: 2

    "SJW" doesn't mean anybody who is for social justice. I'm for social justice! I want people to stop hating and harassing each other.
    "SJW" is the term for those who do bad things in the name of social justice.

    I have tried to trace the use of SJW ("Social Justice Warrior") as a pejorative.

    It seems to be entirely a geek creation and all but unknown before 2011. But one that has proven very useful to the bloggers of the National Review and those farther to the right.

    Well as I'm sure you've figured out, ''sjw'' stands for social justice warrior. Back when I and a few others started this tumblr several years ago, ''sjw'' seemed, to us, to be more of a criticism on people who used social justice to further their own bigoted ends, push already marginalized people out of their own spaces, and dominate discussions with bigoted rhetoric.

    In the years since this blog died out, ''sjw'' came to stand for anyone who supports social justice, a favorite go-to insult for white male nerds/libertarians/redditors. This blog is now followed by people with that attitude, and still gets asks of that nature. Hence the (partial) reason why I no longer update, even though I've somewhat returned to tumblr.

    vice-ci7y asked

    Google Trends: social justice warrior

    1. Re:The use SJW as a pejorative. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > literally everyone using SJW is ultra-right wing
      > using SJW means you are a racist
      > using SJW means you are transphobic
      > using SJW means you hate women and should be castrated
      > there is no factual basis for the stereotype
      > social justice has only done good for the internets

    2. Re:The use SJW as a pejorative. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a mutation of an earlier classification of online forum troll: the keyboard warrior. That concept's existed for as long as discussion boards have, at least through the 1980s.

      Social justice warriors are essentially single-issue keyboard warriors, and that issue is social justice.

    3. Re:The use SJW as a pejorative. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's just a lame insult, like calling someone a Nazi because you don't like them. I mean, I've been called an SJW more than once, and I've never doxxed or harassed anyone.

      Prove me wrong MRAs, post a link to my "harassment". If you have issues with my behaviour, be specific about them so I can answer them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:The use SJW as a pejorative. by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      By your logic klansmen and neonazis aren't klansmen and neonazis because they're not actually lynching and gassing people anymore and simply advocating the ideology of the people who used to do that.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    5. Re:The use SJW as a pejorative. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      To qualify they have to share the ideology. I'm nothing like the mythical SJW so I conclude that it's an ill-defined term used to try to silence critics.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:The use SJW as a pejorative. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, I've been called an SJW more than once, and I've never doxxed or harassed anyone.

      Well, if doxxing and harassment refers to targeting specific individuals, I'll believe that you haven't. But targeting a group of people, you know like discrimination and hate speech, you're doing it right now

      Prove me wrong MRAs

      See? Right there. "MRAs". You preemptively label anybody who might disagree with you under this label. You're stereotyping "MRAs" the same way people who use "SJW" pejoratively: that they really aren't about literally men's rights, but attacking other people (i.e you)

      If you have issues with my behaviour

      You first. What's your beef with "MRAs"? Be specific, please.

  90. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by ExekielS · · Score: 1

    Hey, I'm definitely morally opposed to excess police use of force and militarization, it disgusts me on a very deep level. But that is the action of the SWAT team not doing their homework, not paying attention, going overboard, etc., not the person who called them. The fact that SWATting is even possible is horrifying and disgusting.

    --
    ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
  91. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by ExekielS · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually I have. My home was raided in June of 2010 because I was involved in a protest of Koch Industries. A boycott to be specific, but they accused me of being a part of a DDOS. I had PTSD for a while, but most of it was linked to my complete ignorance that our police and federal police were pretty much the most corrupt entity ever, and sadistically violent. So I'm well aware that it is a big deal, but I wouldn't send somebody to jail for swatting somebody for more than a month or two.

    --
    ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
  92. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canada is very forgiving to juveniles (Youth Criminal Justice Act). They cannot be identified, their records will be expunged after several years, and this should not haunt him the rest of his life. It is not the same in the United States.

  93. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by ExekielS · · Score: 1

    That is the SWAT team's disgusting militarization, abuse, horrible culture and corruption. The fact that a swatting is dangerous is a sign of illegality within our police culture and pure evil in our police culture, not in those who do something stupid and evil from a distance who don't personally see the effects.

    --
    ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
  94. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by ExekielS · · Score: 1

    Fair point.

    --
    ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
  95. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um.... it was the FBI who caught this kid to begin with, which means your assertion that police in the US don't go after swatters is completely untrue.

  96. Lenient for attempted murder by cop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bloody lenient. Swatting can potentially kill people.

    I suppose his victims should be glad they weren't black.

  97. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    It's a game of budgetary use-it-or-lose-it and police departments are very reluctant to give up their toys.

    How about they're not allowed to use any equipment that we're not allowed to own without extreme justification? All the normal cop gear is stuff we can have... did they make body armor illegal yet? But anyway.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  98. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But this is a kid, and kids are pliable enough to learn. Even kids as stupid as this one.

    You assume he is merely being stupid. It appears (from the evidence), that he's exhibited a long pattern of narcissistic psychopathic behaviour. This is a totally orthogonal axis of behaviours to simply being stupid.

  99. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by NonFerrousBueller · · Score: 1

    Well, yeah, ya do. There are a lot of people in (especially US) prisons who are there for non-violent crimes - embezzlement, drug possession, etc. To allow people to be subjected to rape dehumanises them. Jail is supposed to punish but it's also supposed to rehabilitate, something US prisons are notoriously shit at. You don't fix someone by raping them. Why spend all that money locking someone up if you're going to release them more broken than when you put them in?

  100. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by nedlohs · · Score: 2

    No. The reason swatting is dangerous is because of those things.But that is irrelevant to the person doing the swatting - they are employing that dangerous instrument the details of why it is dangerous don' t matter in the slightest.

    Just like if he was to shoot someone himself, the details of how and why a bullet damages a person is irrelevant to the crime itself.

    If he was to pay some bikers to break into the victims house and hold them at gunpoint for a while, the social and economic reasons for the existence biker gangs would also be irrelevant.

  101. Re:To all you losers ... by Pubstar · · Score: 2

    And tens of millions of games don't agree with the anti-gamergate idiots who support slut shaming, swatting, doxing and so on.

    FTFY. Keep up with the times. If you would even bother engaging with someone from GamerGate, you'd realize that most of them are just normal people that want to enjoy their hobby and not have it tainted by Neo-Puritan ideals being pushed by SJWs. The same SJWs that give zero fucks about ethics, such as Leigh "Fuck ethics, get money" Alexander.

  102. Re:To all you losers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if you remove context from a message it's hard to tell what it means. Thanks for that valuable life lesson. Let's try it with something with incredibly broad support: "Children are our future and deserve our love". Now replace "Children" with "Nazis". Man, that one change makes the whole message different.

    Have you considered that the problem might have to do with your ability to detect and evaluate the context of the message and not the message itself? Of course not -- narcissistic wack-a-doodles lack the skills to undertake that sort of introspection. We should reduce their numbers (through education). Please let us know when you're ready to take a few minutes to actually understand the human beings around you instead of merely assuming that you're the smartest person around and anyone who disagrees is wrong.

  103. Re:To all you losers ... by Pubstar · · Score: 1

    I love how people keep saying #GG is irrelevant, yet the games media and blogs cant stop talking about us

  104. Re:To all you losers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you're suggesting is that "separate but equal" is a sustainable social organizational strategy? I feel like there's pretty strong historical evidence against that concept. Why do you disagree?

    Also, who gets to decide what constitutes "white"? In order to set up any sort of exclusionary system there have to be membership criteria, and it's unclear to me what they would be in this case.

  105. Re: Republicans love to screw-over first time offe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not a lot of Republicans in Canada...

    They just call them Tories in Canada (aka Parti conservateur du Canada) and apparently there are quite a few of them...

  106. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by St.Creed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Until they day you get accused by someone, and put in prison while trying to prove your innocence. Or if it happens to someone else who only got freed after a year when their lawyer finally gets round to lodging an appeal. Or when it happens to your son or daughter who should have been fined for jaywalking, but had the misfortune of encountering a judge who gets paid by the privatized prison company for each new client. We're not just talking about criminals - which may include people stealing a slice of pizza and Charles Manson, so the word is pretty much meaningless to me - but also a lot of people who'd never be in prison in any other country in the world in the first place. The mentally ill, for instance. Or the retarded - who get locked up a lot.

    The prison system not just locks up criminals, it also creates criminals, and the more dehumanizing the treatment, the worse the monsters that come out. Even, or especially, if they were completely innocent to begin with. It has been a long standing observation that victims of torture (which is what we are discussing here) are more resilient to psychiatric damage if they were "guilty", i.e. worked for the resistance, or actually committed crimes. Not so the innocent - they get hit the hardest.

    Just today I read a story about a leading member of the Lords Resistance Army on trial for war crimes. He started out as an innocent boy that got kidnapped. And turned into a monster. He slaughtered a lot of people before they caught him.

    The prison system in the USA creates more monsters every day and thereby perpetuates itself to the point where it is both the biggest and most unsuccessful prison system in the world. It may also be the most expensive. So I would worry about prisoners undergoing torture. Because it's part of a huge problem the US society has to solve.

    --
    Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
  107. Adult Prison by buk110 · · Score: 1

    Throw him in big boy prison if he wants to be a tough guy swatting people. The kid got lucky that he's not 18. A few months in gen-pop being traded like a pack of Pokemon cards would teach him a valuable lesson

  108. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by St.Creed · · Score: 1

    If the police think that someone is in the process of being murdered they're going to respond quickly and aggressively.

    Fortunately I live in The Netherlands, where police will happily wait outside for backup while people inside are tortured to death(*). A much more reasonable response that prevents a lot of unnecessary deaths!

    (*) True story: http://www.mamjo.com/forum/ind... (Dutch)

    --
    Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
  109. He should have been sentenced to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    play 3 or 4 rounds of Russian Roulette.

    Every time he swatted, he exposed innocent civilians to the possibility of being shot by a police officer storming into their homes. Every time he swatted, he also exposed police officers to the possibility of being gunned-down by an innocent homeowner who happens to be armed and who thinks he and his family is being attacked by unknown assailants.

    It is more than appropriate to expose a person to the very real threat of imminent violent death in the guise of a game after that person has played the "game" of exposing others to the same sort of risk. I suspect this little dirt bag would, at a minimum, soil himself if so sentenced even though he probably laughed his butt off as he swatted his victims.

  110. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Gryle · · Score: 1

    Misuse of SWAT assets is a separate issue from militarization. The former is a procedural problem that city and state governments around the United States should be addressing. SWAT team members should be pushing back against being used for every stupid thing that comes to the mind of the police chief.

    --
    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
  111. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 1

    Correct, but the militarization of SWAT and police in general SHOULD be the focus of the story. These little assholes wouldn't be swatting if it didn't evoke such a massive response from police.

    Did you read the list of offenses this kid did? If you think he did all than just because SWAT teams react, and he is not the one that is primarily accountable.,., .well, I'll just have to assume you are the kid's mother.

    Hmm... *re-reads post* nope, at no time did I excuse this kid's actions. The point I was making (since you appear to fail at reading comprehension) is that swatting wouldn't exist if not for a relatively easy to exploit system. Sure, this little psychopath found other ways to inflict misery on others (hence the use of "little assholes") but the fact remains that something needs to be changed WRT griefing by police.

    I suspect that it won't be the police that reform it, either. Swatting gives them a good excuse to use all that military equipment.

    --
    THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
  112. Re:To all you losers ... by Pubstar · · Score: 1

    You do know that It's not just guys like you, playing LoL or CoD.

    Hah, LoL and CoD players are the most casuals of casuals.

    No one is trying to change gaming culture, they're just trying to make the definition more broad, because gamers are a diverse group.

    Have you even stopped to see how many people in games media calling for more PoCs in games where they wont work? How games need to gender bend known characters so that people would have more female options? How many more sites are now saying that excessive violence is bad?

    There are calls for changes to be made to the industry. Does it mean we want less diverse games? No. But we would like everyone to stop saying that everything is problematic, racist, sexist, etc.

    And one final thing - The spectacular failure that was Sunset shows that the games that people calling for hyper diversity are NOT the ones buying games. Go figure.

  113. Re:To all you losers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go back to /pol/ faggot. We might be anti-SJW, but that doesn't mean your shit's ever going to fly on Slashdot.

  114. Re:To all you losers ... by Pubstar · · Score: 1

    Randi Harper and Zoe Quinn /thread

  115. Re:To all you losers ... by St.Creed · · Score: 0

    Well said. You did upset one of the people with modpoints though.

    So I'll give my own take on this. GamerGaters or whatever moronic name you carry, you're just a bunch of stupid teens that spend too much time in your mom's basement. Get out and get some sunshine, and after a few years girls may look at you without getting scared, and then that whole childish attitude that's based in your own insecurity as a male, will just vanish. And you'll be a bit ashamed about yourself. But that's okay - we'll still be here and ready to welcome you back amongst the normal people.

    --
    Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
  116. Re:To all you losers ... by St.Creed · · Score: 1

    AND selling us all out to Russia. So I've heard. On some blogs.

    --
    Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
  117. Re:To all you losers ... by Xenkar · · Score: 1

    It only won't work if you don't think non-whites aren't competent enough to run their own towns. I think they can manage. They don't need whites to enforce our way of life on them. It is rather ethnocentric to expect failure from them.

    All white nations have been invaded by non-whites by varying degrees. Is one nation too much to ask for?

    As for who decides who is white, I'd say being a non-Jewish caucasian of European descent who doesn't want to be enriched by vibrant diversity is enough of a qualifier. Why not allow jewish whites? Well they have Israel and their privilege levels would go up too much if they also get into said non-Jewish white nation. Plus they've been behind every movement to bring vibrant diversity to white countries. There is no use putting a bandaid on a papercut when the carotid artery is gushing out blood.

  118. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by bledri · · Score: 1

    "For my money, anyone over 13 years old is aware of their actions and if they are defective enough to SWAT once, let alone multiple times, they should be incarcerated indefinitely in a mental health facility and banned from any phone or internet connected devices for life. "

    There are no more mental health facilities the way you're thinking of them. All the institutions closed in the 80s and 90s. Now, you pretty much need to be Hannibal Lechter to get a mental health inpatient bed; you need to be so dangerous to yourself or others that the only choice is to keep you locked up and attempt to treat you. Prison is the new asylum for most mid-level mentally ill people.

    You're right. But I think they just throw the "dangerous" ones in solitary, so nothing will get you into a mental health facility anymore. I put dangerous in scare quotes because anyone with a pulse can be put into solitary for what seem completely arbitrary reasons. On any given day, 80,000 US prisoners are in solitary. 25,000 are in long term solitary confinement. It's cruel, it drives normal humans insane and should be unconstitutional.

    --
    Some privacy policy Slashdot.
  119. Re:To all you losers ... by Xenkar · · Score: 1

    So long as even one person reads my message and gains some insight from it, it is worth the karma points that might be burned.

  120. That's because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    civilized human beings do not do these crimes, and people who do are not civilized.

    It's not that American have no sense of time... it's that many of us see it as a serious problem to infantilize people and a societal failure to embrace wonton childish abusive behavior. It's a relatively modern and stupid idea that there is such a thing as a "teenager" who has no responsibility. Young people through most of human history started having family responsibilities as soon as they were old enough to stand still and hold something. By the time a kid was something like 8 years old, he or she was expected to be somewhat responsible. By eighteen, large portions of the human race were married and making their own way in the world, even already being parents themselves. There is simply no reason why we must accept that modern society must tolerate dangerous irresponsible actions from people between the ages of 12 and 20, and excuse them while they rob, maim or kill other people.

    16 months in prison is NOTHING. Lop off the puke's grubby little hands which he clearly has found no other use for other than trying to get other people killed, and possible self-abuse. Even if he got nobody killed, he exposed people to that risk, multiple times, for his own amusement. Such a monster who satisfies his base evil desires by exposing innocent people to the risk of death deserves to have his life utterly destroyed....and if THAT is to the amusement of anybody else, like his cell mates, then he should certainly understand it and embrace it, right?

    Punch somebody while you are drunk? I'm fine with life in prison. First, you are a complete moron if you get drunk in the first place. Second, if you choose to get drunk you have accepted responsibility for anything you do while in that state. Third, if you show a propensity to get drunk and slug people then you might do it again at any time and therefore cannot be trusted around normal civilized human beings. Real mature adult human beings are responsible for their own acts and do not go around victimizing others. I have never been drunk, have never known any relative to get drunk, have no friends who I have ever seen drunk, this idea that it's OK or normal to get drunk is a completely alien concept, heaping an assault on top of that is all the more dysfunctional.

    I'm fine with mercy for a person who truly accidentally harms others while not intending to harm anybody; there should still be significant punishment so that the offender learns to be more careful and so the victim feels justice has been done.

    Severe punishments? Why do we think a perpetrator of an INTENTIONAL offense should suffer LESS than his victims? This only provides a green-light to further bad behavior.

  121. Re: I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts t by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    That has happened here too (Columbine being the most infamous example) but as "active shooters" have become a bigger perceived threat the training of North American law enforcement has shifted towards a more aggressive response. That's probably for the best, dead is forever, ruptured eardrums and broken doors can be repaired.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  122. Re:Got a better idea for an even harsher punishmen by Moof123 · · Score: 1

    That is cruel and unusual.

  123. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

    You clearly said that we should deflect focus from what this kid did and his punishment (which is the story), and by doing so we inevitably avoid the discussion of this kid's particularly offenses and punishment. To me, that reads like an accountability diversion. If you meant that we should ALSO focus on the swat teams IN ADDITION to this kids offenses, then you could have stated it that way.

  124. so... by buddyglass · · Score: 0

    In her decision, the judge noted a psychiatric and psychological assessment that she said painted a picture of a deeply troubled young person who is a high risk to reoffend. The report suggested the teen has minimized his crimes and blamed the victims, showed no remorse and was motivated in the pleasure the trouble he inflicted on his victims.

    So he's like most #gamergate folks. Got it.

  125. Re:To all you losers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    haha wow

    you sound really white

  126. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Body armor is legal but expensive for regular citizens with a couple exemptions. Some jurisdictions ban felons from owning body armor, which is interesting for some rap artists with records and active threats against them. I believe that in those cases they can appeal that rule.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  127. Re:To all you losers ... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    here's your definition: social justice warrior == anybody I disagree with and want to disparage.

  128. ah, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    if you put 'em down, they'll never do it again. Problem solved.

    Chimpanzees have a right to be stupid. Squirrels have a right to be silly. Human beings are different and have a duty to be responsible. Human beings are fully-capable of exercising self-control starting at a very young age (you can prove it by telling a little kid you'll give him or her something they really want if they can sit still and be quiet for five minutes). Swat boy was perfectly capable of not launching the police at his victims. He chose poorly. Execute him.

  129. Re:To all you losers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, nah, try looking at some of the tests. Here's a few examples:

    "[Ethnic group] in the Holocaust were not persecuted due to their race." Stormfront dismissing atrocities committed against Jews? Or SJW dismissing atrocities committed against Jews? Spoiler: the latter.

    "it’s time to make the [ethnic group] man and his bitch get the hell out of our communities and eradicate this bacteria in our culture. It's one of the reasons why interracial relationships with [ethnic group] people should be stopped." Stormfront calling for segregation? Or SJW calling for segregation? Spoiler: the latter.

    "Our grand-kids or great grand-kids will be looking back on this time of history and wonder what were we thinking. The "Dark Ages" of the [time period] centuries.
    Times are changing for the better. More people are waking up. More people are standing up. More people are questioning. It is only a matter of time before enough people stand up and do something." Not strictly fitting, but a bonus for those fond of telling others they're 'on the wrong side of history.' Spoiler: actually Stormfront this time.

    The goal is to point out idiots and the idiotic thinking that 'racism is okay when it's against [racial group],' because it's the same bullshit excuse some horrible people use to excuse their horrendous acts. The goal is to show that one extreme does not excuse another.

  130. Yeah, those terrible Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    actually think that decent law-abiding people should be protected from violent evil people who have just proven they cannot be trusted.

    Tell me, why is it morally-superior to unleash a proven bad guy onto society and enable yet another innocent person to be victimized? Is a second victim less of a victim? How about the third victim? Is it morally superior to let a felon out to re-victimize people for the seventh time (as was the case with the recent illegal alien felon who murdered a woman in San Francisco). Why is is morally superior to side with criminals instead of with the law-abiding peaceful citizenry????

  131. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    You get pithy case rulings in the USA as well, and boring ones in Canada. It's the exceptions that we hear about...

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  132. Re: Republicans love to screw-over first time off by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    CONSERVATIVE and REPUBLICAN are not synonyms, and haven't been for a while.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  133. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is Canadian SWAT anything like it is depicted in Flashpoint? They actually ask questions before shooting.

    If so that should be the minimum standard for any SWAT team.

    When I started watching it, I thought it was a parody, I didn't catch that it was actually set in Toronto until later in the pilot episode.

    US cops have long given up the pretence of "keep the peace".

    If it wasn't for that annoying, mousey power ranger, it would be a great show.

  134. Re: I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Couldn't agree more. Can't believe how thoughtless people can be. I would consider even a few months to be a fairly serious penalty. I know someone who was dealing with a minor larceny charge while on probation. Likely the judge would have given him a few months, but I bet he'd be out in 1wk - mo. Dude was seriously talking about how he couldn't go back to jail (he'd been in for a few days before). Like contemplating leaving the country or suicide levels of anxiety. I know he was over reacting, but try sitting in a small room all day, staring at the wall and imagine doing that for weeks, months, years. Prison is a more extreme punishment than people think, without even considering safety issues, because of the amount of time youre exposed to it. I'd almost compare it to Crucifixion although I know that's hyperbolic

  135. FTFY by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    They want to be able to go outside and walk at any time without being "randomly" attacked by bored urban non-white youth.

    You will still be attacked by bored urban white youth.?

  136. Re:Finland is next by ponraul · · Score: 1

    FREE JULIUS 2015.

  137. Re:To all you losers ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    You have a different definition of "gamer" to the one being used by the people you hate so much. When they say that there is a problem with "gamer" culture, they mean the hard core of arseholes who harass and abuse, and who get pissy when someone points out that games are an important part of our culture and so, like movies and books, have some responsibility to portray people in a way that doesn't suck.

    The do NOT mean all people who play games. In fact if you read a the original article that sparked this claim it's extremely obvious that the author is saying the vast majority of people playing games are not part of this "gamer" subculture where the problem is.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  138. Re:To all you losers ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    I don't see tens of millions of gamers standing up against GG

    I'm sure if you ask most people who play games if they are against misogyny and harassment, they will tell you that they are. Especially since half of them are female.

    Also, reviewing the GamerGate IRC logs, it seems that not only did Gaters not condemn swatting, they actually revelled in it.

    beardos with babies

    This is the deranged ranting of a person suffering from paranoia. Seek help. Seriously, I'm not joking.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  139. Re: I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ship him to the U.S. and he will fit right in with all the CEOs!

  140. Re:To all you losers ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Don't believe the hype. The accusations that "SJWs" have been harassing people are unfounded. When you ask for evidence all you get are some links to blogs making more accusations without evidence, or the odd tweet that isn't actually harassing anyone.

    For example, GGers accused "SJWs" of doxxing people. When I asked for evidence they sent a link to a tweet that was pointing out that a Twitter account belonged to a notorious troll who had already posted his own real name in association with another account that had been added to GGautoblocker, thus preventing him from harassing his victims. So the actual story is that a troll made a new account so he could carry on trolling, and someone pointed out that the new account was his. No home address, no phone number, just pointing out that association. Not doxxing by any reasonable standard, and certainly nothing compared to what GG has been doing.

    So don't believe it. SJWs are mythical creatures who don't exist. If you ever catch a glimpse of one, it's probably just a GG sockpuppet (a quick reverse image search on the profile picture usually confirms that). It's all part of the fake culture war that GG is waging, trying to present themselves as the victims while doing everything they claim is being done to them.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  141. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

    i see judges in Canada write in a much more appoachable style, while US judges stay at arms length. Here's a great example about a civil suit between neighbors. :http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2014/2014onsc3061/2014onsc3061.html

    I highly recommend you take a 5 min work break and read this. it's only a couple pages. pull quote:

    In my view, the parties do not need a judge; what they need is a rather stern kindergarten teacher. I say this with the greatest of respect, as both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are educated professionals who are successful in their work lives and are otherwise productive members of the community. Despite their many advantages in life, however, they are acting like children. And now that the matter has taken up an entire day in what is already a crowded motions court, they are doing so at the taxpayer’s expense.

  142. Re:To all you losers ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Holi, your email address isn't public, but mine is. Please contact me (mo jo at worl d3 dot net).

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  143. Re:To all you losers ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    We know exactly who the GamerGaters are. We know what they said on IRC, what they posted publicly on Twitter and 4/8chan. Gamergate isn't about ethics, it's about hate and harassment. That's a matter of public record. You are simply hoping that people are too lazy to check for themselves.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  144. Re:To all you losers ... by Pubstar · · Score: 1

    Good job siting a Wikipedia entry that has been hijacked and co-opted by one side of the discussion. People are banned for even trying to make the article slightly less bias. Any place that defends us is automatically tagged as not a reliable source. Basically GamerGate is about Ethics, and part of the problem is that the SJW cliques have invaded games media. So the war on SJWs that people see is actually directly tied to ethics. Due to the large amount of people that lean to SJ side of things, they never intended to make it fair for any other discussion to happen. Tons of sites have implemented Disclosure and Ethics policies after GG started. We got the FCC to look into Ars Technica's failure to disclose affiliate links. We are the watch dogs of the industry. You refuse to see that. Why? It's easier to paint us as one type of people and ignore the bigger issues at hand. Its easier for you guys to have a boogie man that you can make the reasons for all your pain and strife. When you throw everything back on us, it makes it easier to hide the side you agree with's transgressions and harassment.



    Do you even bother to go to where people that discus topics related to gamergate hang out? Mostly us talking about how shit games media is and laughing at McIntosh's last tweet. As for what is posted publicly on twitter, its been shown that less than 1% of all things posted under GamerGate are considered harassment. To assume anything better than shitposting happens on chans is the greatest folly. While some of the work is done on the chans, most of the organizations happened on Reddit prior to the "No Emailing Campaigns" rune.

    tl;dr - Wiki article is shit. The only reason why you agree with it as a source is confirmation bias. It cant be wrong if its what you think is really going on.

  145. Re:Finland is next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sound confused. America isn't from Finland. It's its own country, dickwad.

  146. Better yet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah! You must be from one of the western provinces of our charming utopia.

    Send him to Alberta, where all the Harper retards-like are.

    I hear they likes guns a lot too.

  147. Re:To all you losers ... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

    I'm sure if you ask most people who play games if they are against misogyny and harassment

    Therefore they should hate you like the black death. Oh I'm sorry, you thought you were on the right side of history? Women are far stronger than you have EVER given them credit for.

    This is the deranged ranting of a person suffering from paranoia. Seek help. Seriously, I'm not joking.

    Struck a nerve have we? Interesting.

  148. Re:To all you losers ... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 0

    You have a different definition of "gamer" to the one being used by the people you hate so much.

    You're a cunt. You're a grade-A cunt who deserves nothing more than to be publicly shamed and shat out onto the nearest thoroughfare. You have lied and lied and lied to further your bizarre and frankly paedophiliac agenda, and I for one have had a gutfull of your lying child molesting animal interfering rhetoric. You're done, you're finished, you're a living joke.

    Deal with it.

  149. Re:To all you losers ... by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

    You're either deliberately remaining ignorant or lying through your teeth then because SWATting and doxing are such routine tactics for SJWs that even the people behind Crash Override have done both. Then again considering SJWs, anti-gamergaters in particular, are also the people who have mailed people knives, syringes, and dead animals, made credible bomb threats, and specifically targeted women and minorities for the worst abuse like hacking their bank accounts or getting them fired after doxing them I'm not surprised at your ability to engage in doublethink.

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  150. Re:To all you losers ... by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

    See it's stuff like this that just helps prove everything people are saying about SJWs and then some. There's an absurd amount of evidence out there of SJWs doxing and even SWATting people but you just keep moving the goalposts further and further and further while outright denying it. You've gone so far off the deep end that you're claiming SJWs don't even exist anymore despite anyone being able to hop on tumblr or jezebel or feministcurrent and see them first hand.

    Threats to shoot them at home: https://twitter.com/FartToCont...
    Threats of rape at their work: https://twitter.com/GGfeminist...
    Forced to leave home due to threats: https://twitter.com/ForemanEri...
    Text messages: https://twitter.com/milky_cand...
    Phone calls threatening their family: http://i.imgur.com/892hZ1A.png
    Losing their jobs: https://twitter.com/FabioFacch...
    Losing their jobs: https://twitter.com/CodeusaSof...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
    Doxxing and threats: http://imgur.com/BNlLKcn
    Doxxing a child: http://i.imgur.com/jpRvb52.jpg
    Emails getting hacked: https://twitter.com/Ash_Effect...
    Income shut down: https://twitter.com/DanielleGi...
    Doxxed purely for supporting: https://twitter.com/coolguyqui...

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  151. Re:To all you losers ... by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

    It's not really "Stormfront or Socialjustice" anymore with how open and severe anti-semitism has gotten among SJWs, it's more like Stormfront AND Social Justice these days.

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  152. Re:To all you losers ... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 0

    Keep leaning on that report button pal. Sucks to be falsely accused eh. You're about to find out how much that sucks.

  153. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    I have one word for that judge's decision:

    Zing!

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  154. Re:Finland is next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FREE ORANGE JULIUS!

  155. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by green1 · · Score: 2

    Do you think he would have called them if he expected them to knock politely and have a simple conversation with the home owners?
    He knew what type of force would likely be used and called for that specific reason.

  156. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by green1 · · Score: 1

    Canadian SWAT teams (and police in general)are quite different from their American counterparts. However this kid called SWAT teams in both the US and Canada so some portion of his victims were Americans dealing with American SWAT teams.

  157. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by green1 · · Score: 1

    Flashpoint is fiction but it is based on the Toronto SWAT team. Canadian police are much different from the Americans however that doesn't mean that they always do things the way it's portrayed on flashpoint. As a general rule Canadian police are more likely to ask questions and observe a situation before rushing in guns blazing but that's never a guarantee

  158. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have a gun in your hand when SWAT smashes your door with a battering ram, its highly likely that you will not be given the opportunity to drop it, as you will be hitting the ground at approximately the same time due to multiple injections of 5.56 rounds.

    If you're lucky they will hit you with a flash-bang and you will drop it.

  159. Re:To all you losers ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    As usual all we see are links to unverifiable Twitter accounts, most likely sock puppets, and some imgur links that are also unverifiable. Why not link to the actual pastebin, for example? Images are trivial to take.

    The best part is that the first link is to a suspended account. You didn't even bother to check your copy/pasta before dumping it on us.

    Against that you have the GamerGate IRC logs, released by GamerGate themselves and confirmed by others who independently logged those channels. You have pages caches from 8chan, or you could just head over there right not and see it in action.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  160. Re:To all you losers ... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    What is it with them and the anti-semitism anyway? The amount of pure racist shit was just nuts but they were so openly "fuck the jews, holocaust denial" that they really do come off as a new sect of Stormfront. I could at least understand how racist towards blacks that they are (as it seems one VERY white section of SJW that believe anything a black can do to a white is justified, I even read an article being pushed on places like HuffPo pushing to ban hate crime laws NOT because adding time based on thoughts is wrong but because a group of blacks that dosed a 14 year old in gas and lit him on fire while saying "burn a YT for Treyvon!" might be charged with a hate crime without giving them the "historical racism" excuse) but where in the fuck did this extreme hatred for Jews come from?

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  161. Re:To all you losers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are right btw.

    I wonder.

    Have any SJWs swatted people?

    Nooooo.

  162. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does the "leading member of the Lords Resistance Army" being kidnapped as a kid and "turned into a monster" have anything at all to do with the modern prison system and how it "creates more monsters every day"?

    At some point you need to realize that everyone's got a sob story. Some of them turn into monsters through those experiences, some of them turn into Batman. People are people, and many attempts to "make them better" fail pretty hard. Anyone who thinks they can just wave their hands and make all the problems go away if only everyone would just do what they say is completely ignorant.

  163. Re:To all you losers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gaming culture?

    Grow up or log off please

  164. Not enough of a punishment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy caused a lot of serious grief to innocent people. I wish they were tougher on him.

  165. Why is spoofing the caller ID so easy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One big reason swatting happens is that it is so easy to spoof caller ID. There are companies that you can pay that will just set it to anything; that's one reason swatting happens so much.

    We should make technical changes in the phone system to make it hard or impossible to spoof caller id, while keeping the ability to have your caller id hidden.

    And we should also stop those companies from setting caller ID to anything you want as a paid service. You must have noticed that when you get the spam credit card calls that they often have bogus caller ID. We need to fix this system.

  166. There's a name for this kind of person... by iq145 · · Score: 1

    A vidiot

  167. Re:To all you losers ... by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

    As usual all we see are links to unverifiable Twitter accounts, most likely sock puppets, and some imgur links that are also unverifiable. Why not link to the actual pastebin, for example? Images are trivial to take.

    And did I not call it? Goalposts promptly moved. Absolutely everything inconvenient to you is "unverifiable" with claims of being part of some staggeringly vast global conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people for almost a whole year. Meanwhile the proven bullshit on your side is still god's purest truth.

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  168. Re:To all you losers ... by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

    I have no idea. People have always hated the jews. It's like this thing that just... happens...

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  169. Re:To all you losers ... by cwsumner · · Score: 1

    Any "cause" will attract "whack-a-doodles". The better the cause, the stronger the attraction.

    Those working for good causes should be on their guard for invasion and takeover by groups or individuals that only want publicity, power and money. It happens all of the time, look at the news reports with that in mind and you can see the effects.

    Sometimes the invaders are not even part of the group. They just infiltrate the area where demonstrations are being held. Area of the park or area of the Internet. And the resulting violence is blamed on the original group.

    Watch your back...

  170. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so you are saying that in the US your cruel and unusual punishment rules prevent you from sentencing people to US prisons?

    I don't think that's right

  171. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thank you for this

  172. Re:I don't think it's enough, but I have doubts to by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

    Which is why there are 2 different views of the issue.