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."

85 of 331 comments (clear)

  1. 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: 2, Funny

      due to inflation we use quarters these days

    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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".

    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.
    14. 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.

    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.

    20. 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.

    21. 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.

    22. 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
    23. 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?
    24. 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?

    25. 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?

    26. 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.
    27. 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.
    28. 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.

    29. 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
    30. 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.

    31. 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.

    32. 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.

  2. "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"...

  3. 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.

  4. 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 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?

    2. 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.

  5. 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!!!
  6. 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 __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      With Donald Trump being the next POTUS.

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

    What have you got against Linus Torvalds?

  8. 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.

  9. 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
  10. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. 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.

  13. 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
  14. What was he charged with, anyway? by Sowelu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Because swatting sounds a lot like attempted murder to me.

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

    I work for nVidia.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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."

  19. 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!
  20. 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"
  21. 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.

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

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

  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. 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.

  26. 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
  27. 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.
  28. 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.

  29. 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).

  30. 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.

  31. 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.)

  32. 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.

  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. Re:To all you losers ... by rogoshen1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    (whack-a-doodle)

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. 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.

  40. 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

  41. 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
  42. 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.

  43. 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.

  44. 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)
  45. 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.

  46. 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.