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.
Well, score another one for police — why was not the fake caller prosecuted after his very first crime?
Ah, well, that changes everything. If a crime is committed for a noble cause, the criminal becomes a hero...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"I didn't kill anyone because I didn't pull the trigger"
Wow. No, you just fooled a bunch of heavily armed people into thinking they were going to be confronting an armed and dangerous person who had already killed one person. No way could you have POSSIBLY predicted that situation could potentially lead to a death.
This idiot should be locked away for a very, very long time to think about what he did.
On a separate note - the cops need to be royally reamed. They know swatting is a thing, they know getting the address wrong is a thing... yet they roll up and without any confirmation of what's going on they shoot the guy who answers the door. FFS, no hostage-taking murderer with a gun is going to open up the front door to the police without a hostage in front of them anyway.
10:1 the shooter had bad trigger discipline. Odds are even better that what blame the cops can't avoid will be so thinly distributed that pretty much no punishment results despite the fact they killed one of the people they're charged with protecting.
The killing today in Colorado of a sheriff's deputy responding to a domestic violence call highlights the challenge faced by law enforcement officers.
I see from his twitter feed that this jackoff has also taken credit for calling in bomb threats to FCC hearings where people were giving testimony in favor of Net Neutrality.
He's your basic alt-right gamergate shit-poster, but this time he got someone killed. I wonder what his Slashdot handle is.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"Hangin's too good for 'im. Burnin's too good for 'im. He should be chopped into tinesy-winesy pieces and buried alive." Pesky "cruel and unusual" clause.
The cop who shot and the swatter should share a general populaiton cell for 20+ years for complicity in the murder.
Swatter obviously created a dangerous situation, but this danger was exacerbated by the typical behavior of American cops.
Cops were supposed to be professionals. Instead, they were trigger-happy to save their sorry hides and murdered an innocent man. The cop who shot has blood on his hands and should never be forgiven or seen as anything but a murderer.
The emergency dispatcher who didn't ask the right questions to determine if it was a prank is also somewhat negligent. The call was to the city hall, not 9-1-1, and described a different home than where the murder took place.
He begs to be made an example of, and it should be done pour encourager les autres.
We cannot have that in civil society.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I've read of how some of the responding officers are so adrenaline filled and under trained for the high alert event that they suddenly get involved with that they get..., "over-zealous". That officer never should have had his finger on the trigger, but instead on the trigger guard. Fatal results ensue, unfortunately. Prosecute the swatter, re-train all the officers.
I don't like advertising this guys channel but as its relevant here is an interview a youtuber called Keemstar did with SWauTistic hours before he was arrested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The fact that this guy can openly admit to this so carelessly and not be afraid of repercussions already shows a complete breakdown of American due process and the justice system.
Examples are going to be made of everyone. The kid who did the Swatting. The kid who paid for the swatters services. And the unfortunate cop who pulled the trigger. 4 lives minimum, ruined.
I don't think the laws are very well suited to deal with this in the harshness needed. This sort of aligns with a bartender knowingly serving someone who kills someone in a dui. No, he wasn't driving, but he certainly set things in motion.
Typically in these cases the family ends up taking them to civil court as well. I don't see the book being thrown at this guy, although the fact he seems to have done this across state lines may give the feds quite a bit more ammo.
2 Tell them the address of someone you don't like
3 Let them call in the police
Now the police do the murdering, the swatter gets jailed for calling the police, you walk free.
I'd say 100 years for starters for calling in a false threat.
The problem is you can't have police go into these things too soft either. Just today there was an incident in Colorado with a domestic disturbance where several officers (and some bystanders) got shot. So really we need to make sure that (A) if someone calls in a fake threat they WILL be caught, and (B) we punish the hell out of swatters. I'm talking "Lets bring back gladiatorial combat" level punishment since no punishment is too harsh for these slime.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The felony murder rule is:
When a person commits a felony, and as a result someone dies, it's murder.
A classic example would be a robbery. John and Rob plan to rob a convenience store. Rob shots the clerk. John claims "I didn't mean for anyone to get shot - I was just doing an armed robbery". John is guilty of felony murder because a) he was committing a felony and b) it resulted in death. There is a presumption that you know felonies are dangerous, and that you shouldn't commit felonies. So although John didn't WANT someone to die, he was criminally reckless by committing armed robbery, which he knew *could* result in death.
Another, perhaps more interesting example:
John and Rob plan an armed robbery of a convenience store. When they pull out their guns, an armed civilian behind them shots Rob, who later dies. John is once again guilty of felony murder. He didn't plan for Rob to die, but he did know that committing armed robbery could get someone killed.
because most of these articles fail to mention the fact that a police officer literally executed a person on sight without any real, tangible information or investigation into the situation. Police officers can now just blame someone else, or the circumstances, and walk free, and people don't react.
America is dumbening down at a frightening rate.
You don't SWAT someone because you are great friends with them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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
What about the cop that murdered a guy for only answering his door?
SWauTistic lied, to law enforcement. Causing some bad actor to go Rambo on someone undeserving. Iâ(TM)m thinking âoeMurder in the First Degree, with Special Circumstancesâ fits the event pretty close.
By other reports, swatter was in LA, CA and made interstate phone call to Kansas. Very likely committed several US Federal felonies (wire fraud, phone phreaking, making terroristic threat) that will trigger Federal Felony Murder. Kansas statute is far more limited. Rare for the Feds to go for the death penalty, but it is probably available.
Publicly took credit for bomb threats, swatted repeatedly, has now killed a man. And he gets paid to do some of these.
It sounds like it would probably take 10 minutes to track this guy down, and like he would of been on the FBI's radar long ago.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
We do need safer ways to respond to this for all parties. But you're not offering solutions, you're just making demands.
I thought I did look for solutions by proposing that we look at other countries where this problem isn't of the same magnitude.
One big difference is that cops many places don't go armed, and need approval to remove firearms from sealed boxes in their cars.
The flip side is that criminals shoot less at the police too, because they don't feel they have to to save their lives from an armed and trigger-happy cop.
The problem of lethal weapons being used as a first resort seems solvable. The willingness to solve it doesn't seem to be there.
Robots. Send a quadcopter. How much does it cost?
In our society we have much higher sense of human life value, that included policemen as well. Send a drone first, much closer look at the potential perp.
People portray the situation as black and white. "Pig cop killed innocent man". Watch the video. At that distance it could be that he is protecting his eyes from a high beam, but it also could be that he is preparing to shoot.
That's what this solution for - this type of uncertainty. Any further development from this situation would have decreased the uncertainty.
I suspect the solution to many our so-called political problems ("cop violence", "civilian violence") lies in the technical sphere, not in escalation of violence by incessant "occupies".
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
The indictments are already being prepared. His Twitter account alone mentions both Antifa and 'Swatting'. He was aware of the danger of killing someone. We WILL be taking him into custody.
Police in other countries don't seem to get shot quite as much, either,
At least part of that is that when the cops don't carry a gun, criminals have less incentive to shoot. They won't feel they have to in order not to get shot themselves.
An australian woman living in the USA was shot dead by a Police Officer she had notified about a noise disturbance nearby. She was shot dead by him.
In Australia, you don't expect the cops to shoot you, hence her unfortunate misplacement of trust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The person to charge is SWauTistic, not Rambo 2.0. But seeing that you are talking about the Sniper, they should take his gun away. There's more to being a Sniper, than being a Sniper.
Police shooting unarmed people is way too common. I think it's time that the free pass they get comes to an end, and that officers who pull the trigger end up going to prison.
I think that's the only way to make police officers STOP for 5 seconds, and not instinctively pick up their gun and kill someone. SWAT teams wearing bulletproof vests and wielding military-level firepower against unarmed people shouldn't immediately assume they're in a bad situation. If you're wearing a bulletproof vest, you won't die. The SWAT team is practically invincible compared to their target in most cases. Instead of a single shot, which in this case really seems like a mistake by a jumpy cop, SWAT teams could turn that guy into a stain on the front porch with all the firepower they have access to, So why are they afraid??
I don't know what goes on in police academy training, but I imagine it's something along the lines of everyone being a potential threat. There's nothing wrong with keeping an eye out for danger, but assuming everyone is going to kill you is going to make you more likely to shoot first. Do they even teach police to try to diffuse the situation, or is the immediate response to start firing?
The Kansas legislature listed which felonies are "inherently dangerous" for the purpose of this statute and I don't see it listed.
K.S.A. 21-3436
https://law.justia.com/codes/k...
However, the law says "these felonies are inherently dangerous", it does NOT say "no other felonies are inherently dangerous". One could argue that the list isn't exhaustive, and swating could also fall under the felony-murder rule.
The only innocent party is the guy who got shot and we should look at things from his perspective. The reality is some confused guy, who was probably hanging out with his family in some down time before new year, opened the front door and was confronted with a swat team with spotlights in his eyes and weapons pointed at him. He got killed at the front door of his house thinking put my hands up? ok. WTF is going on, oops my pants are falling down. It could have been anyone here.
Is anyone considering the guy who got shot in all this vitriol? What about his family who witnessed their son/brother shot at the front door? Do you think they care that some arrogant moron, with a tiny bit of social engineering was able to convince a police department to go out to someones house and shoot at them. Would you care *why* the police turned up to shoot you or that they shot you?
The thing we have to take away from all this is: Two wrongs don't make a right instead of wrestling with who is more culpable, the police who shot the man or the swatter who sent them there, consider that an an innocent person, completely uninvolved with the situation got killed. What is that but a complete failure of the system?
That's why swatting someone is like throwing a hand grenade, it might go off, the shrapnel may kill someone because police have guns pointed at you. Even if they don't it would be terrifying. He put the innocent guy in that situation, he is personally responsible for the cause and effect because he didn't say what could possibly go wrong. No doubt it is a crime, just not one defined by law. He should be punished however I'm not qualified to say how.
The police officer is also responsible in this chain of culpability. His Sargent is responsible for not keeping his officer calm and is captain is responsible for not ensuring the community they have a duty to protect and serve, was protected and served. It doesn't matter if you have a badge, it's still a crime to shot someone and at the very least it should be the end of the officer's career because he is not emotionally stable enough to handle a weapon and point it at people whilst his sargent and captain should at least be demoted. All these systems should exist.
Everyone lost, no one is more right or wrong, they're all culpable. If you want to know what it looks like when the system fails, there you have it. Everyone acted like assholes and assumed the guy they were pointing the weapon at was to.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I gotta say I'm a bit disappointed that no one has brought up the technological angle to this yet; that swatting is even possible is a huge problem.
It's past time that the flexibility being exploited in the telco lines be addressed. Given the technology involved and the number of companies that we're talking about, it's well within our abilities to prevent the masking of calls being sent to emergency #s. Even if we don't prevent that, we can give them a reliability score which might be all that's needed to eliminate swatting as a 'thing'.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
does "swatting" exists only in the USA? and how can this be even possible?...dispatch a trigger happy swat team to some1s house based off a phone call in 2017? really though... maybe if 90% ot Americans did not own 5+ guns ....
He's not necessarily wrong, it's just that in most of the civilised world we haven't reached the end yet.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Do they have the victim on bodycam video "reaching for his waistband" thus justifying the shooting, or is that just a lie the cops are going to tell every time they kill somebody now to make it sound justified? My understanding is that the cop had a body camera, but didn't turn it on before shooting someone... if you're not going to use it for hostage situations, when are you going to use it?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
“Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment...But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.”
Thomas Jefferson
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Bullshit. 70% of officers have NEVER fired their gun while on a call.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
But he also argues that filing a false police report should be reclassified as a felony in all states.
In reality Swatting is NOT filing a "false" police report.... it is so much more.... Swatting is filing a MALICIOUSLY-FALSE Police report with an intent to cause harm or disrupt or harass another person.
As such, the swatter should get additional charges against them based on their malicious actions --- in the case of calling in a false hostage situation, the Swatter should be charged with attempted murder, at least, And murder-related crimes if any deaths should result.
The person to charge is SWauTistic, not Rambo 2.0. But seeing that you are talking about the Sniper, they should take his gun away. There's more to being a Sniper, than being a Sniper.
I disagree. He ought to go to state prison. A small minority of police officers are way too trigger happy for everyone's good. If you or I did that, we would be hit with at least involuntary manslaughter. Even if we heard screams and gunshots. They heard none of those things. Since the person who pulled the trigger was a sniper he was, by definition, concealed and at long range (I believe it was 200 yards). There was absolutely no reason to shoot the man so rapidly and without consideration of what was going. Remember that the police have no obligation or responsibility for the lives of the people inside of the house. Their sole duty is to investigate and solve crime. We have entrusted them with a great responsibility. They need to take responsibility for their actions. I'd be willing to bet that the number of people who are killed without weapons would rapidly approach zero (though not reach it) if they were held responsible for a change. So many recent shootings have been egregiously unjustified. From the man who was shot while trying to crawl as instructed, the Australian woman who was shot by the police she called to investigate a noise, recent children / teenagers in the midwest, and this innocent and confused man. There are so many things the police could have done differently to prevent this. It's a travesty and the police need to be held to the same standards as any other person when it comes to the use of deadly force.
The guy will get caught for sure.
He got paid for making swat calls.
I am pretty sure that this money can be tracked.
Once the police have a client, they will find him.
http://www.stolk.org/tlctc
I find myself supportive of law enforcement that calms down the situation. There is ample evidence that supports this approach. I really question the motivation of anyone that puts a gun in the hands of person with any sign of PTSD. Could we be looking at Proud Ignorance with Death's Grin?
Who would ever want to be a cop then? Mistakes happen. Sometimes they shoot another cop.
This case, it appears he just shot the man without warning. They need to stop shooting for body mass, take out a leg or shoulder like they used to do. That man would still be alive today and would recover in about a month. So many other options.
You're kidding, right? Send in a bunch of heavily armed cops expecting to confront a guy that is armed and has already killed someone. What could go wrong?
Do yourself a big favor. Slap yourself about a dozen times real hard. If you still think nothing would happen, repeat until you do.
It amazes me that people want to defend the SWATter by essentially calling this a Prank Call while heaping hate on the police.
A prank call is "Mike Hunt". Calling 911 with the intent to provoke an armed police response to what they believe is a hostage situation with a fatality is not a prank call. If nothing happened it's still reckless endangerment because he intended to put the person at risk (although "intent" is not required, just disregard for the outcome), even if he did not desire the person's death. Since "deadly weapons" were involved, it's a felony in a lot (if not most) places.
You're missing his point. Cops do have the right of self-defense, but not at the expense of their primary duty, which is to protect non-cops from violence. Many (indeed, most) situations where cops have to use force to defend themselves are not ambiguous. But in those that are, it becomes a question of risk to the cop's life vs risk to the life of the other person (if they're innocent). It appears that the cops routinely choose to risk the other person's life in such situations, justifying it by claiming that they may have been in danger. I don't think that's reasonable - if, say, there's a 50% chance that the other person is actually dangerous, and 50% chance that they're not, it's not acceptable for the officer to shoot. And we've seen a bunch of police shootings where the chance that the person is dangerous is much less than that, and yet they ended up being shot because there was a very slim possibility they were a threat. Essentially, the cops prioritize their safety over the safety of those they supposedly "protect and serve". Why even have cops then?
That is actually how they do it in the UK and many other civilised countries.
Yes, swatting should be a felony (I'm surprised that it's not!)
However, in the case of SWauTistic, the charge should be negligent homicide.
Someone upthread mentioned Thailand where this was (is?) a serious problem. Traffic injury liability is capped if the victim dies, but not if they survive. There is a nonzero chance that a driver who strikes a pedestrian will intentionally back up over them to make sure they stay dead.