Slashdot Mirror
Kansas Swatting Perpetrator 'SWauTistic' Interviewed on Twitter (krebsonsecurity.com)
"That kids house that I swatted is on the news," tweeted "SWauTistic" -- before he realized he'd gotten somebody killed. Security researcher Brian Krebs reveals what happened next.
When it became apparent that a man had been killed as a result of the swatting, Swautistic tweeted that he didn't get anyone killed because he didn't pull the trigger. Swautistic soon changed his Twitter handle to @GoredTutor36, but KrebsOnSecurity managed to obtain several weeks' worth of tweets from Swautistic before his account was renamed. Those tweets indicate that Swautistic is a serial swatter -- meaning he has claimed responsibility for a number of other recent false reports to the police. Among the recent hoaxes he's taken credit for include a false report of a bomb threat at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that disrupted a high-profile public meeting on the net neutrality debate. Swautistic also has claimed responsibility for a hoax bomb threat that forced the evacuation of the Dallas Convention Center, and another bomb threat at a high school in Panama City, Fla, among others.
After tweeting about the incident extensively Friday afternoon, KrebsOnSecurity was contacted by someone in control of the @GoredTutor36 Twitter account. GoredTutor36 said he's been the victim of swatting attempts himself, and that this was the reason he decided to start swatting others. He said the thrill of it "comes from having to hide from police via net connections." Asked about the FCC incident, @GoredTutor36 acknowledged it was his bomb threat. "Yep. Raped em," he wrote. "Bomb threats are more fun and cooler than swats in my opinion and I should have just stuck to that," he wrote. "But I began making $ doing some swat requests."
Krebs' article also links to a police briefing with playback from the 911 call. "There is no question that police officers and first responders across the country need a great deal more training to bring the number of police shootings way down..." Krebs argues. "Also, all police officers and dispatchers need to be trained on what swatting is, how to spot the signs of a hoax, and how to minimize the risk of anyone getting harmed when responding to reports about hostage situations or bomb threats."
But he also argues that filing a false police report should be reclassified as a felony in all states.
After tweeting about the incident extensively Friday afternoon, KrebsOnSecurity was contacted by someone in control of the @GoredTutor36 Twitter account. GoredTutor36 said he's been the victim of swatting attempts himself, and that this was the reason he decided to start swatting others. He said the thrill of it "comes from having to hide from police via net connections." Asked about the FCC incident, @GoredTutor36 acknowledged it was his bomb threat. "Yep. Raped em," he wrote. "Bomb threats are more fun and cooler than swats in my opinion and I should have just stuck to that," he wrote. "But I began making $ doing some swat requests."
Krebs' article also links to a police briefing with playback from the 911 call. "There is no question that police officers and first responders across the country need a great deal more training to bring the number of police shootings way down..." Krebs argues. "Also, all police officers and dispatchers need to be trained on what swatting is, how to spot the signs of a hoax, and how to minimize the risk of anyone getting harmed when responding to reports about hostage situations or bomb threats."
But he also argues that filing a false police report should be reclassified as a felony in all states.
Actually, as TFA points out, filing a false police report (which is esssentially what swatting is) *is* a felony in some juridictions but a misdemeanor in others. It's clearly a misdemeanor in California, but AFAICT can be either a misdemeanor *or* felony in Kansas depending on the severity. Since someone got killed, I'd guess this could fall into the felony category, in which case "Swautistic" could be going away for quite some time if prosecuted and found guilty in Kansas.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
This would more like "Reckless Endangerment".
Murder is when you kill someone with malice.
However, we do have shared responsibility for crimes committed as a result of another crime, so he could also be on the hook if they find the officer guilty of crimes.
Any police officer shooting an unarmed civilian should no longer be allowed to work as a police officer. At that point, they are an identified risk- like not having a fence around your pool. Any lawsuits against an officer who already killed another unarmed civilian are going to result in much larger judgements.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
We do, the only question here is whether the SWAT call itself is a felony, which is likely why Krebs calls for SWAT calls to be felonies everywhere. California also has 'depraved heart murder' which seems to fit the bill.
This actually sounds like depraved-heart murder, which the court treats as either manslaughter or second degree murder, depending on the state.
The simplest oversight that I caught was when the dispatch operator asked him if it was a one story or two story house. The caller said it was a one-story house, but footage from the scene shows police shooting a man in the doorway of a two-story house.
Nothing was done because law enforcement doesn't take SWATing seriously. It's just a "prank". Local police won't do anything, if they even can. The FBI just dumps your SWATing complains into the nearest dumpster - they're far more concerned with credit card fraud.
Maybe now that someone has died, police will realize this is a thing, that it is dangerous, and that the perpetrators need to have their asses kicked HARD.
I don't think it works like that. Crimes like this are reported to and investigated by local police. The FBI only becomes involved if the crime involves activities that cross state lines or if local police requests their involvements or use of FBI resources. It's only in movies where the FBI shows up, takes over an investigation and sidelines local police. Usually relations between the FBI and local police are quite cooperative in nature. If swatting reports get dumped in the trash by anybody it's local police and that certainly might earn them the interest of state police or even the FBI which would lead to questions being asked. This often boils down to that old American obsession with sates rights and the autonomy of states. In most other countries local police forces ignoring a problem like swatting would have some kind of national police knocking on their door pretty quickly, but in the US individual states have more latitude to do their own thing and thereby more latitude to mess things up (and often they get to mess things up pretty badly) before the federal government can step in and that extends to more areas than just policing. For example, I have severe problems imagining that a state government in Germany could have gotten away with systematically laying waste to it's state finances for as long as Sam Brownback has done with his 'Kansas experiment'.
We ask our friends and neighbors to help watch over town. As a society, we let the people arm themselves as a militia to fight the man "to not take away our freedom's", because "guns are the reason we have freedom", and all the other silly things that are said. We then ask the police to show up with kid gloves on, like somehow they have multiple lives.
If we aren't planning on violently overthrowing the government, then we should store our people killing guns at a safe community place where we all have the combination. In most countries, these places are called things like, The National Guard, or the Army. We could rename it so as to cater to those that don't like ideas that work globally to "American Armed Citizen Gun Storage for Freedom."
If we really do think that we need a violent revolution, then lets get it over with. Those that are in need, let your needs be known now, because this middle ground is killing a whole lot of innocents.
I've never seen anyone need a 15 round clip while hunting an Elk, Deer, Bear's or anything else in North America. I've never seen anyone use a hand-gun when hunting, but maybe pythons?
Our laws are so harsh in this country as it is, that everyone is an example when they get sentenced. Throwing someone in jail for 10 years or 20 years has zero rehabilitation difference if you're only considering them being a "better person" when they get out. I'd argue anything over 5 and you may as well throw away the key. Don't complain when you throw someone in jail, don't help them and then have to support them for the rest of their lives.
This kid and his friends need direct intervention. Anyone on that twitter account should receive a direct phone call from someone that sounds like authority and discuss with them why we don't do this to our fellow neighbors and friends online. That in itself would send a HUGE message...that we actually care about each other, that we treat each other appropriately and out of kindness, and that this is a large community of hundreds of millions, and that we are watching each others backs.
The kid himself needs to face some sort of sentence. He's young though, the news cycle is fast. Any "example" set by him will be quickly forgotten by the masses, only used by the court system to justify harsher sentences for everybody, people won't say "I won't do this cuz that guy got caught."
There is nothing more jolting to people that think they are getting away with things, than at least letting them know "we are paying attention to your vile behavior." Very few internet trolls would publicly do what they currently do. Outing people is a great way in terms of effectiveness and cost.
There are so many things that need to be fixed and addressed, and until they are, they're all hanging chad's in our society. Until we figure them out, these things are going to happen, people will say "more jail time", "more laws", but nothing changes when you don't change the way we deal with life.
--
Karma is a bitch
It doesn't lend the call any credence either.
I've never tried to talk down someone who has killed someone (or thinks they have) but I have talked down people having a psychotic break before. Also someone contemplating suicide. It's surprising how oriented they can seem to be as long as you stick to mundane things like what color is your house.