Slashdot Mirror


Family of 'Swat' Victim Sues Kansas Police, Lawmakers Propose 40-Year Jail Terms (cbsnews.com)

An anonymous reader brings more updates about the 'Swat' call that led to a fatal police shooting: The gamer who dared another gamer to send police officers to his home had offered the address where he used to live, until his family was evicted in 2016. While he may also be charged for the fatal shooting that followed, the victim's family has now sued the city of Wichita as well as its police officers, with their attorney saying the city "is trying to put all the blame on the young man in California who placed the swatting call. But let's be clear: the swatter did not shoot the bullet that killed Andy Finch. That was an officer working under the direction of the Wichita Police Department."

The attorney points out that the 911 caller in California provided a description of the house which didn't match the actual house in Kansas, adding "How can Wichita police department officers not be trained to deal with this type of situation...? Prank calls are not new," according to CBS News. "The lawsuit cites FBI crime statistics showing Wichita has a ratio of one shooting death for every 120 officers -- a number that is 11 times greater than the national ratio and 12 times greater than the ratio in Chicago."

Meanwhle, Kansas lawmakers have introduced a new bill proposing a penalty of 10 to 40 years in prison if a swatting call ends in a person's death, which would also cause the offense to be prosecuted as murder.

One lawmaker argues that the bill is necessary because under the current system if a person phones in a swat call, "there's really no consequence for his actions."

27 of 291 comments (clear)

  1. Why only when there is a death? by klingens · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At the barest minimum, the swatter needs to pay the cost of the police action he caused, which will be probably a few thousand if not tens of thousands of dollars after the government accounting is done.
    Then making a false accusation and/or a false statement which could have caused other harm since the SWAT team wasn't available for real emergenicies.

    Make swatting immediately illegal with at least possible jailtime, with punitive damages and of course actual damages incurred by the police department. Then the civil suit from the victims.

    1. Re:Why only when there is a death? by tinkerton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do you call it a police action. Sounds like the police treated that civilian as an enemy combatant.

    2. Re:Why only when there is a death? by drewsup · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would go one more, If i call in a false fire alarm, and a fire truck, while lawfully going through a red light, accidentally hits a car who didnt hear the siren, killing the young family in the car, am I not ultimately responsible for their deaths? Anyone calling in a swatting should be responsible for not only any deaths, but the civil suits that will fly after.
      I am in no way excusing the excessive force used by the police, but the swat caller set in motion a chain of events that led to the whole murder.

  2. Fucking cops by DogDude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We need to get our police under fucking control. They're not heroes. They're not judge, jury or executioner. They're employees of our local governments. They need to be treated as such. The particular government employees who murdered this person need to be fired and prosecuted immediately.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Fucking cops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They have guns, you don't. They can use them with impunity, you can't. He who has the guns makes the rules.

    2. Re:Fucking cops by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We demand officers plunge headfirst into dire situations.

      Time to demand they stop doing that then. Understand a situation before getting involved and opening fire on people.

      Anyone can jump in and start just killing people. We don't need police for that. There are plenty of guys in the prisons who would be happy to do it instead.

    3. Re:Fucking cops by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Put your righteous indignation away, sweetheart.

      I, for one, will not. Remember that the SWAT raid did not occur at the swatter's intended target, but at a mistaken address where some random guy with no experience at being the target of a paramilitary raid just opened his front door and went, "Wha..?" Blasting away at such a person without checking to see whether he was an actual menace is criminal negligence not just on the part of one untrained donut muncher, but on the part of whoever trained this team. Indict them both and take away this town's SWAT toys for good.

    4. Re:Fucking cops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They received an anonymous call that someone had hostages, they showed up and a man walked out unarmed. They gunned him down. This is not a mistake in the heat of the moment, it's untrained unhinged heavily armed people not knowing what their job actually is.
      None of the other emergency services operate like this. If you call in a fake fire to someones house the fire department don't show up and "in the heat of the moment" burn it to the ground. If you call an EMT to someones property they don't make an "honest mistake" and administer a lethal dose of medication to a perfectly healthy individual who answers the door.

      These people aren't police officers. They're mob justice. Shoot first and think about the situation afterwards. The motto is "protect and serve" not "guns blazing."

    5. Re: Fucking cops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I mean imagine if it was a real hostage situation and the hostage was sent to open the door.

    6. Re:Fucking cops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Police are generally supporters of the right for civilians to legally bear arms. Conservatives and police know something you don't: that law abiding citizens and cops have nothing to fear from each other. Until some dolt calls in a threat that inside a house there is an armed, extremely dangerous person.

    7. Re:Fucking cops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The liberal dichotomy: I don't trust my fellow citizens being armed / I must trust the same police that I hate to round up and arrest all the citizens with guns.

    8. Re:Fucking cops by magzteel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      they showed up and a man walked out unarmed.

      That man moved his right hand up very quickly, starting from the waist. That would look to the cop like he was pulling a gun from his waist, and so he was shot. Next time you raise your hands, raise them extremely slowly, so as to prevent the cop from assuming you are pulling a weapon from your pants.

      I support law enforcement but this guy was killed for no reason. He was an innocent guy who opened his door to see what was going on outside. He sees a lot of lights and people are yelling at him. He may have been raising his hand to try to shield his eyes from all those lights so he could see what was going on.

      The fact that police work can be a dangerous job should not grant police the right to shoot first and ask questions later. They are in the wrong profession if they can't make correct decisions in the heat of the moment. There were multiple cops outside, only one fired. That cop shouldn't be an armed police officer. One innocent dead guy is one too many.

    9. Re:Fucking cops by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Based on the 911 call, he wasn't. He was a murderer who had already killed one, and was about to kill two more.

      And for all the cops knew, this was one of the hostages walking out the door.

      Based on the 911 call, he had a hand gun.

      A handgun no one saw. Don't know about Kansas cops, but I had firearms safety when I was eight and one of the cardinal rules was "always know what you are shooting at". Also the 911 all described a completely different house, a fact that none of the pathetic cop excuse makers will acknowledge.

      That detective should make intelligent decisions based on evaluating the situation.

      Decisions like "hey we're pretty damned safe since we're a hundred feet away and in cover".

      and the suspect raises his hands suddenly

      Empty hands two seconds after walking out his own door.

      What would you do, wait for him to shoot at you or shoot him first?

      See above on distance and cover. Even if that was an actual hostage taker, the cops chances of winning the Powerball on his way home would be greater than the suspect getting off a successful hip shot at that range.

      The procedure how SWAT approaches suspects should be altered such that police should carry bulletproof shields.

      They had shields.

      So blame senior police management who were responsible for the training and policies, not the cops.

      There was a little court case a while ago that settled the issue of "just following orders".

    10. Re:Fucking cops by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The answer to 'what would you do, wait for him to shoot at you, or shoot him first' is answered 'Yes, I'd wait for him to shoot us first; if we're back and in cover, and he isn't carrying a rifle, he's not going to be doing much damage to us. We, presumably, have done our jobs and cleared civilians out of the area. We can always shoot him later, but we can't unshoot him. And we have voluntarily chosen to not only go into the field of police work, but specifically into the specific subfield of SWAT or whatever; we know for a goddamn fact that we're putting our lives on the line (but not as much as we would if we worked at, say, a liquor store) and that does not give us the right to shoot a man for having the physiologic reaction of trying to shield his eyes from a sudden bright light.'

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  3. Re: Bad Precident? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So there is nothing between police officers getting away with being trigger-happy and no police at all?

    One might think that proper training and guidelines together with reasonable consequences for officers who abuse their powers might lead to a police force that dies a good job without needlessly murdering citizens.

  4. Re:Bad Precident? by Kohath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about a cop who wants to protect life and serve the people of his community rather than shoot them? Let’s hire cops like that.

    Learn what’s going on before opening fire on people. Or don't be police officers at all.

    We don’t need you to shoot us. We can shoot each other just fine. We need a police force to prevent violence and loss of life, not cause it.

  5. 40 years for the police officer ? by cats-paw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    we have a police violence problem. the victim was killed by the police and was unarmed. Well I think he was unarmed, apparently it's difficult to find that out. No matter, if he needed to be armed he would have been.

    by all means let's put the prankster in jail for life and let the officer who showed such incredibly poor judgment and a police department that is operating under almost amazing levels of incompetence skate away without even a slap on the wrist.

    This is not police thinking they were in a bad situation, this is a situation in which police think they need to handle every situation with a SWAT team.

    --
    Absolute statements are never true
    1. Re:40 years for the police officer ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      we have a police violence problem. the victim was killed by the police and was unarmed. Well I think he was unarmed, apparently it's difficult to find that out. No matter, if he needed to be armed he would have been.

      Indeed, there was a report just this week about police in Baltimore planting toy guns to justify shootings. That's the sort of thing that erodes confidence, and extends beyond mere violence, to a pattern of corruption.

      This is not police thinking they were in a bad situation, this is a situation in which police think they need to handle every situation with a SWAT team.

      To be fair, this isn't a case where that's evident. It is a problem, but don't use this to excuse it. Instead, quite rationally appreciate that while they were mislead into circumstances where they would appropriately deploy a SWAT team, the use of force was nonetheless not properly warranted, and treat the police officer appropriately. If they fired in violation of established protocols and training, then hold them accountable. If they were trained to shoot in such circumstances, hold their trainer accountable, because such protocols are clearly inappropriate and ill-advised.

  6. Re:Bad Precident? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How about a cop who wants to protect life and serve the people of his community rather than shoot them? Let’s hire cops like that.

    After 5 years of "Fight for the TEAM" there are never any such cops.
    Us v. Them all the way
    Republicans, mostly

  7. Re:Bad Precident? by bferrell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Those who are ready and willing to shoulder full responsibility for their actions. Meaning they think about what they do instead of acting as killing automatons with an "oh well" attitude.

  8. Any investigation of police must be independent by schwit1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every state government ought to have a group whose sole purpose in to investigate and prosecute suspected crimes by local police.

    We also need to outlaw qualified immunity.

  9. Re: Bad Precident? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't see why you Black Lives Matter types resort to the sort of racism that you've just displayed. Not only does it make you look like hypocrites, but it only serves to hurt your cause.

    Americans of any and all races do support convicting a police officer who does murder somebody else.

    The problem is that when it comes to these recent incidents involving the police, often the supposed "victim" wasn't innocent at all. What you wrongly call cases of "murder" end up being pretty clear-cut cases of the police acting in very reasonable self defense.

    Let's take the notable Michael Brown incident as an example. The media and those on the political left immediately portrayed Brown as a "victim", before all of the evidence came out. Then as the facts of the case became known, it became clearer and clearer that Brown was the aggressor. There was indisputable footage showing Brown violently attacking a cashier minutes before he encountered the police officer. Then it became clearer and clearer that Brown had launched physical attacks against the police officer, including at least one attempt to steal the officer's firearm, before the officer was put in the extremely difficult position of having to use deadly force to defend himself against Brown's aggressive physical attacks. The officer was not a "murderer". He merely defended himself from Brown's attacks.

    Time and time again we find that these incidents do involve the police being attacked with weapons, or the police officers involved otherwise having their lives put in imminent danger by a violent attacker.

    Ignoring the reality of these sad situations doesn't help your cause.

    Mislabeling very reasonable acts of self defense by the police as being "murder" doesn't help your cause.

    Making generalizations about people based on the color of their skin, like you just did, doesn't help your cause.

    Failing to acknowledge the problem of black-on-black violence in most major American cities doesn't help your cause. There have been single weekends in a city like Chicago where more blacks have been killed by other blacks, than there have been blacks killed by police officers (of any race) across the country in the preceding decade.

    For all of your talk about "justice", people like you seem to be the least inclined to do anything positive to actually achieve real justice.

  10. Re: Bad Precident? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Pretty sure he was saying that if it quacks like a duck, the police will shoot the duck if it is black. Rather correct. Do cops shoot white people too? Fuck yeah they do.

  11. Re: Bad Precident? by Kohath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only problem is leftists pretending that the shitbags are, "jus' a good boy on his way to church. He wus goin' to college next year!" when, in fact, he wus a violent drug-selling asshole who just brutalized the local deli owner, and tried to steal a cop's gun.

    Whether that’s true or false, we still don't need police officers to go murder that guy. The deli owner can do it just fine. Or the rival gangs. Or just any random guy walking by. Guns are cheap and easy to fire.

    We need police to prevent random violence and retaliation. Their purpose is to give a society an alternative means of dealing with problems. If the police are just another rival gang, then it's time for the public to stop sponsoring and supporting them.

  12. Re: Bad Precident? by Cryacin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One lawmaker argues that the bill is necessary because under the current system if a person phones in a swat call, "there's really no consequence for his actions."

    So in other words, the police themselves are saying, whatever you do, don't call the police. If you call the police, innocent people are likely to die.

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
  13. Re: Bad Precident? by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And yet there are huge numbers who do support the "it was self defense!" argument for police and citizens alike. Ie, George Zimmerman claims "stand your ground" as a defense even though he followed Trayvon Martin after police dispatcher told him not to, and is not even convicted of manslaughter.

    Maybe they don't support police murdering someone, but they also rephrase it as self defense, or a quick reaction based on police training, or that the suspect probably was guilty of something so that makes it ok.

  14. I lock someone in a cage with a hungry lion by Beeftopia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    * If I lock someone in a cage with a hungry lion - it's not I who killed them.
    * I release a cobra into someone's bed and it bites them - it's not I who killed them.
    * I chain someone to a pole in hyena country - it's not I who killed them.

    This is all true - but it ignores the context, which is that I put them into an extremely dangerous situation which led to their deaths.