Gamers Involved In Fatal Wichita 'Swatting' Indicted On Federal Charges (kansas.com)

bricko shares a report from Kansas: A federal grand jury has indicted the man accused in Wichita's fatal swatting as well as the two gamers involved in the video game dispute that prompted the false emergency call. The 29-page indictment was unsealed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. It charges 25-year-old Tyler Barriss, who is facing state court charges including involuntary manslaughter, with false information and hoaxes, cyberstalking, threatening to kill another or damage property by fire, interstate threats, conspiracy and several counts of wire fraud, according to federal court records. One of the gamers -- 18-year-old Casey S. Viner of North College Hill, Ohio -- is charged with several counts of wire fraud, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice. The other gamer -- 19-year-old Shane M. Gaskill of Wichita -- is charged with several counts of obstruction of justice, wire fraud and conspiracy to obstruct justice.
UPDATE (5/26/18): Both Barriss and Viner are now facing life in prison.

Comments

Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Their actions caused someone's death.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[JMJimmy]

This could actually be a monumental case if the right legal team gets involved.

There is no denying their actions were wrong, however, there's a major question as to whether the police were criminally negligent by failing to properly assess the situation prior to storming the building. A reasonable person would expect they would verify claims before acting on them.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Alfred Nobel's ancestors should sue whoever is giving out Noble Peace Prizes for trademark infringement - transposing two letters will not protect them since the result is very likely to be confused for the real name.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[slashdot_commentator]

A reasonable person would expect they would verify claims before acting on them.

The law doesn't operate with an incontrovertible definition of "reasonable". SWAT teams operate on the notion of safety of bystanders first. They can only maximize their safety by killing the threat. The perpetrator doesn't get shot only when they do not present a threat to either the police or bystanders/hostages.

SWAT doesn't go out of their way to verify there is a combat situation before acting, because "surprise" and "speed" is how they maximize the probability of a positive result. Either the caller is correctly reporting an imminently dangerous situation, or they are lying and putting their target under deadly threat. SWAT only has to demonstrate that they operated within their RoE.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[JMJimmy]

That is a counter argument. Given how policing is done elsewhere in the world, with far fewer deaths, one could also argue that their metric for a "positive result" is flawed. It certainly wasn't a positive result for the individuals who were swatted.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Gr8Apes]

This could actually be a monumental case if the right legal team gets involved.

There is no denying their actions were wrong, however, there's a major question as to whether the police were criminally negligent by failing to properly assess the situation prior to storming the building. A reasonable person would expect they would verify claims before acting on them.

Oh, they should be fully prosecuted with maximum sentences for the things they actually did, which may be less than they're being charged with (manslaughter for the intended target that gave an address? I'm not sure that applies but haven't read the full charges as they aren't in any of the links). The police (re)action is irrelevant to how guilty these guys are for the charges listed. That said, that doesn't absolve the police and their actions. That's a separate issue that needs to be addressed independently. The only innocent people in this sad scenario are the victim and his family/friends.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[DutchUncle]

I agree with you - and it doesn't matter, because Americans know how the American police SWAT teams operate. If someone pulls the pin on a hand grenade, it is not a surprise when the grenade explodes. If someone calls in a report meeting various "imminent danger" criteria, it is not a surprise that the SWAT team goes in expecting the worst.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[omnichad]

And in this case, the victims were bystanders. Try again.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[jrumney]

Hopefully it doesn't come down to the court deciding between the two, and they can accept that both the prank callers and the police need to face up to the consequences of their actions here.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell can you argue for this in any free, civil society?! You're talking about operating within RoE? That is a military concept. The United States of America is NOT AN ACTIVE WAR ZONE.

Innocent people were killed for no reason but to satisfy the petty ego of a soulless idiot social engineering savant in Wichita. Not that it takes much social engineering prowess to fool the cops, anyhow. Just mention drugs or bombs, wow, that was hard. But I digress.

Is this going to have to happen to you, your family and your dog before you give a shit? I would much rather the laws be fixed before such a thing could legally happen to you (and don't you DARE split hairs on this, I'm obviously referring to how it would be legal for you to be shot, I'm not talking about the illegal act of falsely reporting a crime.) Nobody should have to suffer such a horrible terror from their own government.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[HornWumpus]

Ship has sailed, when they let the economists make up their own 'nobel' prize, it was over.

Soon: Nobel prizes for sociology, astrology, palm reading, scientology auditing and women's studies. They all need credibility as much as economics did/does.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Their actions caused someone's death.

Ah, and what about a person who calls the police for a real hostage situation with armed criminals, but gives the wrong address to the police who then proceed to kill an innocent person?
Who is responsible for the death there? Still the police.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[AmiMoJo]

Surprise and speed seems to also maximise the probability of killing innocent people.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

SWAT teams operate on the notion of safety of bystanders first. They can only maximize their safety by killing the threat.

A better approach would be not to shoot the bystanders.

Re: Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

When a situation dictates that SWAT be deployed, it is a combat situation and operates with military precision. Their job is to neutralize the threat and minimize the danger to bystanders.

When someone âoeswatsâ another, they put that person into harms way. The actions of the Swatters should not be tolerated.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[nedlohs]

It would be "interesting" to have the government's lawyers arguing that a reasonable person would expect the police to shoot the victim of a false emergency call. It seems pretty obviously true given media reports (yes the media focuses on the bad outcomes, but that is also the information a reasonable person has surely?).

Though of course, that isn't what the federal charges are. The obstruction of justice charges are what they always get you on and the other ones are all about the threats not the outcome.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Green Mountain Bot]

The law doesn't operate with an incontrovertible definition of "reasonable". SWAT teams operate on the notion of safety of bystanders first. They can only maximize their safety by killing the threat.

Shouldn't they determine that there actually is a threat before killing it? If there's no vetting by the police/SWAT, what you have is an on-call publicly funded hit service.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

A reasonable human being should expect that troglodyte basement dwellers won't try to get someone murdered by the police for lulz.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a counter argument. Given how policing is done elsewhere in the world, with far fewer deaths, one could also argue that their metric for a "positive result" is flawed. It certainly wasn't a positive result for the individuals who were swatted.

City officials should be under a microscope here, not the individual officers, IMO. What's the reason for having a SWAT team, what's their goal, and how is their success being measured.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Perv byteboi gamrz strike again. Must be foul basement air in parents cellar that swatches the weiner-dudes and makes them sociopaths. Mebby mass gamrboi arrests followed by mass neekap / knuckle-smashing parties would clear the air and set proper expectations. Folks who have no business typing would never type again.

Re: Good, throw the book at them!

[houghi]

Many examples of how other nations deal with armed people and confirmed terrorist prove that you are wrong.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[JMJimmy]

They were also charged with involuntary manslaughter.

As I said, there's no denying they were in the wrong and guilty of a crime but there's a big difference between the punishment for manslaughter and the other charges.

List of charges:
> involuntary manslaughter, false information and hoaxes, cyberstalking, threatening to kill another or damage property by fire, interstate threats, conspiracy and several counts of wire fraud - The Wichita Eagle

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Applehu Akbar]

I think that swatter and the SWAT team itself bear equal responsibility and be indicted on the same charges. It would be a good idea for the Justice Department to investigate the politicization of local prosecutors who give police an automatic pass on malpractice.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop using our IP then asshat. You can go back to living in a cave with no electricity. Pretty much everything good comes out of America.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[micahraleigh]

Free speech is killing people and the government dispatching death squads to kill people without investigations or trials are not causing anyone's death?

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[micahraleigh]

Robespierre is that you ?

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[JackieBrown]

(manslaughter for the intended target that gave an address? I'm not sure that applies but haven't read the full charges as they aren't in any of the links).

I don't understand that either. I read some of the surrounding articles but don't see why he is too blame. The only thing I can think of is that he could have warned the cops this was going to happen or not provided a fake address - assuming he knew that a swat was going to take place.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't invalidate the trend (that it reduces bystander fatalities). This is an outlier on the graph.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

listen up moron, in this case the victims were the target, identified as such by the SWATTERS!

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not once you publicly hang a couple of people like this waste of skin.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States of America is NOT AN ACTIVE WAR ZONE.

citation required.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

What if...
Both parties get punished for involuntary manslaughter?

Fire in theater anyone?

Re: Good, throw the book at them!

[Cederic]

When a situation dictates that SWAT be deployed, it is a combat situation

No, it's a police situation. There is a risk of harm.

That risk should not come from the fucking murdering cunts in police uniforms.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Cederic]

There was no threat.
The perpetrator wasn't even in the same fucking state.

SWAT doesn't go out of their way to verify there is a combat situation before acting, because "surprise" and "speed" is how they maximize the probability of

..murdering someone.

Of course they fucking verify whether there is a risk of harm. Or at least, they should.

SWAT only has to demonstrate that they operated within their RoE.

Then their RoE need to include "don't murder people". Or do you think I'm being unreasonable here?

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Calydor]

Calm down, mate.

Fact: SWATTER said he had hostages.
Fact: Standard tactic in a hostage situation is putting a hostage in front of you, possibly to negotiate with SWAT.
Fact: One person came out of the house, looked confused.
Fact: Police opened fire when he seemed to start turning around towards the door, possibly to communicate with someone inside.

Anyone with a lick of sense would judge that if there was a hostage situation, HE was the hostage.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[superdave80]

as to whether the police were criminally negligent by failing to properly assess the situation prior to storming the building.

Well, they didn't actually 'storm the building'. They just shot a random guy standing in his doorway, which I think is at least as criminally negligent as calling in a fake SWAT situation.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Xenographic]

There is good cause to say that the cop who shot that guy had poor trigger discipline. It would be better if he had trusted his cover instead of shooting when the innocent guy flinched after the spotlight was put on him.

That said, but for this idiot's SWAT call, he never would have been in that situation. It's just too bad he can't be indicted for felony murder, too. Fake SWAT calls absolutely should be felonies and when someone causes another's death by committing a felony, that's 'felony murder'.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[serviscope_minor]

The perpetrator doesn't get shot only

They didn't shoot the perpetator, they shot a complete innocent. The perps are up on charges now.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how many hostage situations have you actually been in?

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Gr8Apes]

I don't understand that either. I read some of the surrounding articles but don't see why he is too blame. The only thing I can think of is that he could have warned the cops this was going to happen or not provided a fake address - assuming he knew that a swat was going to take place.

I'm sure more detail with be provided at some point, but right now with what's available, I don't see how this guy is in any way shape or form to blame. He probably spit out some random sounding address of a street name he might be familiar with is my guess. Without further information it is all speculation.

Re: Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

"fucking murdering cunts" ?

I'm pretty sure you'll be at the top of the list of your neighbor's hit list if "The Purge" happens because nobody wants cops around any more. Wake up. Life is better with police than without.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

> A reasonable human being should expect that troglodyte basement dwellers won't try to get someone murdered by the police for lulz.

Tr: Gamers

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Kaenneth]

the term "malpractice" doesn't apply to police.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Applehu Akbar]

The term may not be in general use in the police context, but the idea is the same: violation of the professional standards and training that apply to a specified job.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[slashdot_commentator]

Or do you think I'm being unreasonable here?

Yes. You do not grasp the difficulty of never making a judgement error while interceding in a life & death situation. Cops are not omniscient. You cannot competently expect LEOs to always let themselves to be shot first in any situation. That is not their job responsibility and you will have a gross shortage of competent LEOs when you make suicide a requirement of their job.

The SWAT team believed they were going into an active shooting situation, and no, you don't knock on the door first and wait for someone to open the door. That alerts the shooter of the police presence, and that puts the hostages and police in deadly danger. The victim supposedly was not complying with officers orders to surrender. Potential murderers do not have a free pass to run away when confronted with a LEO demanding their surrender. As long as the (SWAT) LEO can properly demonstrate they were following their department's rules of engagement, there will be a legal bias in favor of the LEO. If the bystander makes a quick, suspicious move, that's grounds to be shot. (Of course, its the LEO's responsibility to makes sure they were following ROE when effecting the arrest. If they went off script when attempting the arrest, asking the detained to do something that could be misinterpreted as threatening, then the LEO is probably screwed if they shoot the victim.)

The tactics and procedures to immobilize/kill a possible shooter by police in America, is not much different from US soldiers overseas storming a building with hostiles with human shields. The only significant difference is that you give each person you confront the chance to surrender, but you don't give them extra chances to execute the first shot. The only people that you give an extra discretion before shooting are people where its obvious they can't be threats (toddlers, slow moving elderly, etc.). If you're young, stupid, and think you have the "right" to argue with a cop/soldier in a shooting situation, you're going to have a short life.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[slashdot_commentator]

Shouldn't they determine that there actually is a threat before killing it?

They only cease to be a threat when they're immobilized. (Handcuffed, searched for weapons, and removed from area.) There is no "presumption of innocence" when in an active shooting situation. Its "If you want to leave alive, obey my every order so I don't unintentionally sense the urgency to shoot you. That's how I determine you are not a threat to me."

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[slashdot_commentator]

How do you tell the difference between a bystander and a shooter pretending he's a bystander?

Re: Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are plenty on video, in fact this particular situation was all on video and released publicly. You have no point to make.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[slashdot_commentator]

How the hell can you argue for this in any free, civil society?! You're talking about operating within RoE? That is a military concept.

No, it is not. The concept has existed for over a century. It has been used by both military and police before WWII; its just wasn't historically called an RoE by police. You are under the mistaken impression that RoEs only tell you when you can shoot. They also specify when you are not approved to shoot. There are many disgusted Iraq vets that criticize their local police for having shoddier RoEs than the ones they were required to follow in the military, and in the military's case, they were more restrictive and put the soldier in greater danger.

Innocent people were killed for no reason but to satisfy the petty ego of a soulless idiot social engineering savant in Wichita.

No, the 911 dispatcher was fooled by the SWATter to believe there was a live fire situation at the home of the victim. When there's a live fire situation, they send in SWAT to "resolve" the situation, beat cops are instructed to "secure the perimeter" and wait for SWAT. Tactical (SWAT) are only sent in for shooting situations, from their point of view and the hostages, it is no different from an active war zone. The victim made the "mistake" of making the policeman think he was about to shoot at him (or get away with a gun). The police shooting the victim is considered an accident. The caller putting the victim in a shooting situation with police is the "depraved, negligent" manslaughterer here.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[slashdot_commentator]

And how do you differentiate a bystander from a psychopathic murderer (or terrorist) posing as a bystander? Can you produce a law enforcement/psychology textbook with procedures (i.e. RoE) that eliminates false positives in the field?

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[omnichad]

And how do you differentiate a bystander from a psychopathic murderer (or terrorist) posing as a bystander?

By their actions.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Cederic]

You do not grasp the difficulty of never making a judgement error while interceding in a life & death situation.

I expect errors. I accept errors. I don't accept cowardly fucks murdering civilians.

You cannot competently expect LEOs to always let themselves to be shot first in any situation.

I don't. But nobody was shooting at them in this situation.

The SWAT team believed they were going into an active shooting situation

Did they fuck. They believed they were responding to a reported incident. Basic next fucking step: Ascertain the situation.

no, you don't knock on the door first and wait for someone to open the door

Then why did they bundle up, turn on the lights and wait for someone to open the door?

Shit, even by your paranoid anti-citizen measures they fucked up.

That alerts the shooter

The only shooter was already alert, aware and just fucking begging to kill some poor unarmed sod the moment he obeyed police orders.

The victim supposedly was not complying with officers orders to surrender.

Have you seen the fucking video? Bunch of people yelling at him to put his hands up, he puts his hands up, he's murdered for putting them up too fast.

Exactly what was he meant to do to stay alive? Seriously, fucking tell me, because I have no idea at all. I can't see a single fucking action he could have taken while stood on his own fucking porch and stayed alive.

Potential murderers do not have a free pass to run away when confronted with a LEO demanding their surrender.

Actual murderers get a fucking slap on the back from the DA. But I notice you've just eliminated yet another option from the victim's attempts to stay alive.

As long as the (SWAT) LEO can properly demonstrate they were following their department's rules of engagement, there will be a legal bias in favor of the LEO.

You're the stupid cunt that thinks "don't murder people" is an unreasonable constraint within the rules of engagement. That tells me that staying within them should be no legal defence whatsoever.

If the bystander makes a quick, suspicious move

like obeying the police screaming at him

that's grounds to be shot

Putting your hands up is not a suspicious move. Obeying the police with alacrity is not a suspicious move. I ask you again, just what the fuck was this poor sod meant to do to stay alive?

(Of course, its the LEO's responsibility to makes sure they were following ROE when effecting the arrest. If they went off script when attempting the arrest, asking the detained to do something that could be misinterpreted as threatening, then the LEO is probably screwed if they shoot the victim.)

Then why isn't the murdering scum that fired the killing shot being prosecuted? The rules of engagement don't current include "feel free to fucking murder people" do they?

The tactics and procedures to immobilize/kill a possible shooter by police in America, is not much different from US soldiers overseas storming a building with hostiles with human shields.

Several issues here. One is that you're discussing very different scenarios, another is the extremely different level of threat involved, on top of that is the significant difference in training and (far from least) I think you'll find that US soldiers follow rules of engagement that involve not fucking shooting unarmed men.

The only significant difference is that you give each person you confront the chance to surrender, but you don't give them extra chances to execute the first shot.

Oh, I see. So murdering the man was to prevent him leaving the scene, buying a rifle, sourcing some

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Agripa]

I think that swatter and the SWAT team itself bear equal responsibility and be indicted on the same charges. It would be a good idea for the Justice Department to investigate the politicization of local prosecutors who give police an automatic pass on malpractice.

Maybe you should investigate the courts who gave police qualified immunity. Police are not liable for killing bystanders either.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Applehu Akbar]

Qualified immunity doesn't give the police carte blanche to just blast away without thinking about who they might be shooting at. Police action is more legally restricted than then actions civilians might take in self-defense cases, because police are bound by professional standards. When these standards are violated, prosecutors have a duty to act.

Re: Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a story where the police did, in fact, kill an innocent bystander in a situation of objectively no danger. Save your self righteousness for another audition. In this I've, lucre outs literally worse for all involved, and over for one

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[mjwx]

A reasonable person would expect they would verify claims before acting on them.

The law doesn't operate with an incontrovertible definition of "reasonable". SWAT teams operate on the notion of safety of bystanders first. They can only maximize their safety by killing the threat. The perpetrator doesn't get shot only when they do not present a threat to either the police or bystanders/hostages.

Doesn't seem like SWAT is doing a very good job of that. I think they need to start looking at how other first world nations handle hostage crisises and how most of them end without bloodshed. Going in guns blazing without properly ascertaining who the target is, what their capabilities are, how many hostages/victims are involved, what the targets situational awareness is and many other factors just ends up with innocent people killed or in the case of a properly organised criminal, dead cops.

This in no way excuses the so-called "Swatter" but that doesn't mean the police do not need a serious procedural overhaul. Both were culpable and the Swatter needs to see the inside of a prison.

I recently saw a comparison of US police budgets to UK ones. Obviously the UK budgets were dwarfed by US ones, but I have to question how much of that money simply goes into arming them like a Junta.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[nedlohs]

I said "federal charges", that's a state charge. Which is obvious if you don't remove the context that states that and misquote by removing the word "with" in order to make your out of context snippet read less obviously like it is out of context. The actual text:

> who is facing state court charges including involuntary manslaughter, with false information and hoaxes, cyberstalking, threatening to kill another or damage property by fire, interstate threats, conspiracy and several counts of wire fraud - The Wichita Eagle

I'm trying really hard to Hanlon's razor, the removing of the "with" in the middle is making it hard though.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[JMJimmy]

Whether it is state or federal is immaterial to the argument I was making.

As to the removal of "with", it was actually that I copied from 'false..' to ..'fraud' and decided after that I should include the manslaughter charge for clarity, despite having already mentioned it. The omission of 'with' was completely unintentional.

Re: Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

"murdering cunts in police uniforms."

Ok, now tell us how you REALLY feel about the Police.

I'd bet you're one of those "just shoot the gun out of his hand" types who've never fired a gun, let alone outside a range or at a person, never been in real danger, and never had to make a critical decision more difficult than "tall or venti for my love-day soy latte from Starbucks this morning."

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Green Mountain Bot]

Shouldn't they determine that there actually is a threat before killing it?

They only cease to be a threat when they're immobilized.

That assumes there's a threat in the first place. There absolutely was not in this case.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wiggum: *BLAM*
Lou: Uh, that wasn't a monster, Chief... that was the captain of the high school basketball team.
Wiggum: Yeah, well, he was turning into a monster, though.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Dread_ed]

Apparently, you shoot the fucking fuck out of them until they are dead, pull out your department issue "shooter" bingo card, then search the bullet hole riddled corpse, check off your bingo card, and see if you won.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Agripa]

Qualified immunity doesn't give the police carte blanche to just blast away without thinking about who they might be shooting at. Police action is more legally restricted than then actions civilians might take in self-defense cases, because police are bound by professional standards. When these standards are violated, prosecutors have a duty to act.

That is true however the courts have laid out exactly what police need to do to get away with it and police training takes this into account. That is why you see police videos with an officer straddling an unconscious suspect beating him to death while yelling "stop resisting me". It is why they are trained to yell unintelligible and conflicting orders at suspects to justify killing them. It is why they are trained to use the Reid Technique on simple traffic stops turning them into interrogations.

They are trained to create the exigent circumstances to justify any action they might take and why not? The courts laid out exactly what is necessary and legislators support it. Criminals are more honest; they do not expect the sanction of their victims.

Justice Scala's "increasing professionalism" is a joke. The only increasing professionalism is in violating civil rights and getting away with it. Civil rights which lack a remedy are not rights.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

SWAT doesn't go out of their way to verify there is a combat situation before acting, because "surprise" and "speed" is how they maximize the probability of a positive result.

The technical term for SWAT teams that do this is criminal conduct.

The team has a legal responsibility arising under the 9th Amendments (rights retained by the people) to confirm that there is an active shooting or hostage situation, that they are at the right address, and that they are engaging the right people.

Mistakes can happen - but this wasn't a situation involving a mistake, it was a situation involving criminal negligence. That shooting was absolutely not justified.

Had there been a real hostage situation, the police would have started by shooting the first hostage. Unbelievably stupid.

SWAT only has to demonstrate that they operated within their RoE.

That's completely and totally false.

In US law, law enforcement is not only required to comply with the laws written by federal, state, and local legislative groups, and with judicial precedent, they are also required to comply with any rights the people could choose to assert as being retained by them (9th Amendment), or reserved to them (10th Amendment). This is the US equivalent of the Nuremberg Precedent.

Any ROE that does not reflect this is completely invalid.

Rights retained by the people being retained by the people, it is not within the legal authority of ANY entity of government to take away such rights - not even the Supreme Court. Anything else would create a contradiction in the law - and that always violates the dual rights to ethical practice of law and ethical government. The judges of any federal court attempting to create a precedent or other ruling to the contrary violate their oaths to uphold the law, and the "good behaviour" requirement, the ruling is null and void, and the judges are immediately and permanently disqualified from government service under the authority of the 9th Amendment.

Further, it is not within the legal authority of government to grant immunity or pardon for violation of rights retained by the people, for if it could, there would be no such rights - another contradiction.

Shooting a defenceless person, not carrying a weapon, is a clear violation of fundamental rights.

In short, by the highest law in the land, the SWAT team broke the law, disqualified themselves from government, and committed manslaughter or murder. In failing to prosecute them, the district attorney made himself an accessory to that crime.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

SWAT doesn't go out of their way to verify there is a combat situation before acting, because "surprise" and "speed" is how they maximize the probability of a positive result.

That is complete and utter b.s.

Surprise and speed are only relevant once a hostage rescue team has decided to execute an assault. The video clearly shows that was NOT the case here. There were NO police officers anywhere near that door or entering the house. That was NOT an assault.

The cop panicked, and should be put before a jury to determine whether it was criminal negligence, manslaughter, murder, or something else. That's why we have trial by jury. This is required by rights arising under the 9th Amendment - the DA violated his oath to uphold the law.

The excuse offered by the DA for not prosecuting was entirely without merit. The police receive lots of false or misleading information - that's a normal part of the job. Verifying information is part of day-to-day police work. You don't show up at somebody's door, point guns at them, and start yelling at them when you haven't yet verified that you have the right house, let alone that anything inappropriate is going on. That is gross incompetence.

Further, whoever was selecting people for the SWAT team completely fell down on the job, as did whoever was training them. Neither of those people should have government jobs moving forward.

There are very few gunfights with police in the USA in any given year. The threat is vastly over-rated - the average US citizen is more likely to be killed on the highway in a vehicle accident (roughly 1 in 8,000) than the average police officer is to be killed in a gunfight (roughly 1 in 20,000). There is no justification for a police officer, accompanied by 19 of his buddies, to open fire in a long range situation, with no weapons present, having NOT verified that there was any real threat.

Re: Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot_commentator is a stupid sperm dump of hillbilly waste. Reading this mouth breathers reasoning is infuriating because you can tell heâ(TM)s getting off on the ability of cops to abuse their authority and be bad at their jobs since they are allowed too great a scope in some interactions (such as this one).

The reality is that any SWAT team member than canâ(TM)t handle basic decision making processes on threats theyâ(TM)ve encountered should be charged with murder with this kind of nonsense and kicked in the fucking teeth for being a dumb ass.

Iâ(TM)m tired of people making excuses for police actions where they made a poor choice in an obvious situation and it resulted in someoneâ(TM)s death. If youâ(TM)re not capable of basic intelligence along what a monkey could likely be trained to do, then you simply shouldnâ(TM)t be given a gun.

I understand, itâ(TM)s hard. Life is hard and being competent takes some real work. Failing at competence is unacceptable.

And yes, I did spend a good amount of time serving in the military pre-post 9/11.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[slashdot_commentator]

Any ROE that does not reflect this is completely invalid.

All properly designed RoEs are designed to conform to all laws, and are reviewed by department or contracted lawyers. When an officer operated within the guidelines of the RoE, and makes what can be considered a legally unacceptable kill, it means the people responsible for implementing the RoE are at fault. The purpose of the RoE is to define what is acceptable/unacceptable actions when dealing with a active shooting situation. It protects neither the bystanders or the cop.

Good luck in court with your 9th amendment interpretations, sovereign citizen...

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[slashdot_commentator]

That assumes there's a threat in the first place. There absolutely was not in this case.

Dummy, if there wasn't a presumed threat in the first place, they wouldn't be sending in a tactical team to shoot an armed killer. The police are not required to evaluate that there is a "valid" call before executing an intervention. They're asked to look for signs that its a bad call, and they're told to avoid shooting bystanders, but flawless, omniscient resolution of a hostage situation is not legally required from police. Legal culpability is based on following procedure, not evaluating guilt based on the results.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

SWAT stands for "Special Weapons And Tactics" all we got here were the weapons. That SWAT team murdered and innocent man, period.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Green Mountain Bot]

That assumes there's a threat in the first place. There absolutely was not in this case.

Dummy, if there wasn't a presumed threat in the first place ...

That presumption is what I'm questioning. There should not be a presumption that anonymous calls are credible - the police should confirm the situation before taking lethal action. You're saying that the police followed procedure, which is not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that those procedures are insufficient, and that this case is proof.

Also, you might want to make sure you understand the point you're addressing before you call the person making it names. You might look like an asshole otherwise.

Re:Good, throw the book at them!

[Anonymous Coward]

There should not be a presumption that anonymous calls are credible - the police should confirm the situation before taking lethal action.

All the idiots had to do was watch the house for a few minutes, maybe send someone around the back.

"We have a report of a disturbance..." (*chirp* *chirp* *chirp* ...)

Horse-fuck those morons

[Anonymous Coward]

And the overreacting police, too.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[bobbied]

And the overreacting police, too.

Given the situation and looking at it from the perspective of Wichita's police, I don't think they acted inappropriately.

It is really easy to use hindsight to accuse the police of acting wrongly when the outcome is something nobody wants. If one considers the situation, what the police where being told and what they observed, what happened was justified, even if it was unfortunate. From the perspective of the police, with the information they were provided by dispatch, the guy who got shot was an active threat. Based on the 911 call and the unfortunate actions of the victim, there wasn't much else the Police could reasonably do.

Don't fall into the 20/20 hindsight trap here. The police where rolling up on what they thought was an active shooter situation with hostages based on what they thought was a credible 911 call of an eyewitness. When the unfortunate guy opens the door, it goes from bad to worse and apparently an innocent movement was seen as a threat. It may seem a bit extreme in hindsight, but from the cop's perspective this is one of those dangerous situations that, like it or not, justifies the use of deadly force.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[magarity]

based on what they thought was a credible 911 call of an eyewitness

He wasn't even pretending to be a witness, which is only ever somewhat credible, in the fake call, he was pretending to be the guy who answered the door.

Re: Horse-fuck those morons

[Anonymous Coward]

You describe the police as hitmen. No thanks, their fault still.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[Anonymous Coward]

And the overreacting police, too.

Given the situation and looking at it from the perspective of Wichita's police, I don't think they acted inappropriately.

It is really easy to use hindsight to accuse the police of acting wrongly when the outcome is something nobody wants. If one considers the situation, what the police where being told and what they observed, what happened was justified, even if it was unfortunate. From the perspective of the police, with the information they were provided by dispatch, the guy who got shot was an active threat. Based on the 911 call and the unfortunate actions of the victim, there wasn't much else the Police could reasonably do.

Don't fall into the 20/20 hindsight trap here. The police where rolling up on what they thought was an active shooter situation with hostages based on what they thought was a credible 911 call of an eyewitness. When the unfortunate guy opens the door, it goes from bad to worse and apparently an innocent movement was seen as a threat. It may seem a bit extreme in hindsight, but from the cop's perspective this is one of those dangerous situations that, like it or not, justifies the use of deadly force.

Horseshit.

The police officers who killed the innocent person were 50+ yards/meters away and had cover.

There was NO ONE under immediate threat from a person WHO DIDN'T HAVE A VISIBLE WEAPON READY TO USE.

Worst possible case he could have pulled out a pistol. And then what? Take a few blind shots into the bright lights?

Would that have put the officers into some danger? Yes, but tough fucking shit - that's what they get paid to do.

And the poor guy did none of that anyway.

You don't fucking MURDER someone who NEVER DEMONSTRATED ANY ACTUAL CAPABILITY TO DO ANY HARM TO ANYONE.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[Anonymous Coward]

First you say they were good, then you say "apparently an innocent movement was seen as a threat".

That's called an OVERREACTION.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[Anonymous Coward]

from the cop's perspective this is one of those dangerous situations that, like it or not, justifies the use of deadly force.

Sounds like those cops need a new perspective. Their current approach is getting innocent, unsuspecting, unarmed people killed. Nothing about that sounds justified to me.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[green1]

If this is truly considered an appropriate police reaction, then the police need to start working to come up with a strategy to mitigate it, because this makes murder by cop extremely easy. If you want the responding officers to behave the way they did, then someone needs to come up with a better way of authenticating the information they are being provided, because the current situation is obviously not sustainable in the long term.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[slashdot_commentator]

If you're an LA policeman, you do...

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[Gr8Apes]

There is no hindsight required. The police were in the wrong, the whole way through. They had no reason to shoot. They did have reason to approach cautiously with a larger than normal presence. That doesn't give them the right to shoot someone if they sneeze no more than it does so on any street in any town anywhere.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[91degrees]

It's surprising how much leeway the US police have in this sort of situation. I'm sure this would be considered manslaughter, or even murder in most of Europe. In Europe, police are expected to consider other lives - including that of the suspect - to be pretty important. Mere perceived risk is not enough to justify lethal force.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. Yes, it's easy to overestimate what you could have done in hindsight but I do still think the police overreacted in this case.

First, that the call came anonymously should really be taken into account, especially in this age of swatting. You cannot take anonymous tips too seriously. You have to go into a situation constantly evaluating what you see with what you're expecting. In this case, they were told that there was a violent hostage situation but approached a perfectly dark and quiet house. That really should have been a red flag...

Secondly, an entire team of armed and armored officers were facing a guy in his pajamas. Did they really think he was hiding a firearm in his pajama pants? Is that consistent with what you see in... real life? Yes, the police do need to protect themselves but that doesn't mean the police need to be paranoid over their own safety. The safety of the alleged (and that's the key point here, until a trial happens, they are only alleged criminals) is important too! They have the safety of cover, armor, darkness and the alleged had a light in his face while wearing pajamas in a quiet house. Why would anyone be so eager to shoot?

Treating this as an unavoidable hazard of life will not help anyone...

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[houghi]

Even IF the call was completely accurate, then it STILL is not a good thing to go in shooting. Why? Because then you KNOW there are innocent people in there. Because there is ALWAYS the possibility that there is no reason to shoot. There is ALWAYS a possible better solution.

You need people who are qualified to asses the situation and determine if it is actually dangerous. A caller will NEVER be able to do that. Not even if he is inside.

So I say that even IF the situation was indeed as told on the phone, it STILL did not mean that the action was ok.
The fact that the police had a perspective where they thought this was a situation where deadly force was ok is by itself a problem.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[omnichad]

And this is how you get shot for "walking while black." Police should never 100% trust allegations that come in over a phone call. Never.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[lactose99]

So the mitigation in this case is charging the person who made the intentionally-fake report with manslaughter.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[Theaetetus]

Don't fall into the 20/20 hindsight trap here. The police where rolling up on what they thought was an active shooter situation with hostages based on what they thought was a credible 911 call of an eyewitness. When the unfortunate guy opens the door, it goes from bad to worse and apparently an innocent movement was seen as a threat. It may seem a bit extreme in hindsight, but from the cop's perspective this is one of those dangerous situations that, like it or not, justifies the use of deadly force.

Ah, but don't fall into the "whatever the police do must have been reasonable" trap either. As you note, the police rolled up on what they thought was an active shooter situation with hostages. When the door is opened and someone steps out, isn't it significantly more likely that it's one of the hostages? I mean, that's kinda the whole point of hostage situations.

Furthermore, from the video that was leaked, the cops were all behind cover. What was the danger that justified the use of deadly force? It appears that the only person who was actually in danger was the victim, and disregarding the fact that that danger was from the cops, at most, they should have assumed that the danger was the alleged hostage taker behind him.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[rahvin112]

The police officers who killed the innocent person were 50+ yards/meters away and had cover.

Do you have evidence of this?

The news story I read said the police were standing on the porch ready to breach when the door opened and the shooting officer and the guy that died were less than 10' away.

Re: Horse-fuck those morons

[houghi]

In Belgium the police people, their officers, their cief, their commissioner, the minister above it and several others would see at least the end of their carreer besides the manslaughter and murder thing.
Would not be the first time.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[Applehu Akbar]

Opening your front door and going "Wha-?" in response to a disturbance outside is not an action that justifies being gunned down without waiting to see if he was an actual threat.

Horse-fuck the SWAT team too.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[rahvin112]

Even if you can make the argument that police screwed up that doesn't excuse the actions or responsibility for what happened.

In the US if you cause a death through negligence or even accidentally you can be charged with the death, that's why there are things like manslaughter and negligent homicide. There should be no question at all that the people involved caused this. The thing is in the US at least if you are involved in a felony and someone dies you are responsible even if you didn't pull the trigger or directly cause the death.

It's a common law principle that you are responsible because if you hadn't committed the felony the death wouldn't have occurred, and there should be no argument in this case at least that the felony the gamers and caller committed resulted in a mans death. In the US that makes them responsible for what happened even if they didn't pull the trigger or couldn't foresee it happening. That's why you don't commit felonies.

In the US it's routine where a bank robbery occurs for the get-away driver to be charged with everything that happens even if it's something as simple as someone does something stupid like attacking the robbers and gets shot.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[micahraleigh]

TLDR version : "Trials are just nuisances that slow down the government, and occasional blemishes like lots of dead people are just right wing talking points."

Re: Horse-fuck those morons

[BKX]

There's video of the event. The cops were still on the street, easily thirty yards away.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget liability laws. Civil lawsuits drive a tremendous amount of law enforcement policy in the US. If the cops don't take action they can be sued to the tune of millions, if additional people die. They are in a no-win situation.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[bobbied]

So.. What exactly are you saying? That the police shouldn't pay any attention to 911 calls? Of course not.

Had the 911 call been accurate and the police didn't pay attention to it, or didn't go into the situation with the necessary caution and the house exploded killing multiple people, I'm guessing YOU would be the first to hold the police responsible.

Look, this is an imperfect world and there are times when you just don't have all the information you need but you have to make a decision NOW because people are going to get hurt or die. Police make such choices every day, life and death choices for both them and the people around them, good or bad. They do amazingly well, considering the complexity and dangers of what they do. Unfortunately, in this case, things didn't work out very well, but I don't blame the police for this, but the lying 911 caller.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[bobbied]

If this is truly considered an appropriate police reaction, then the police need to start working to come up with a strategy to mitigate it, because this makes murder by cop extremely easy. If you want the responding officers to behave the way they did, then someone needs to come up with a better way of authenticating the information they are being provided, because the current situation is obviously not sustainable in the long term.

Calling 911 and lying is illegal. So we charge them with manslaughter.

Also, Think about what you are saying. You want the police to not believe you when you call 911? Say some guy has broken into your house and is attacking your family, you call 911 and they don't take you seriously... You'd be yelling bloody murder that they where not aggressive and fast enough.

The outcome in this case was regrettable and if it's possible we need to think about what we can do to avoid such unfortunate consequences, but putting handcuffs on the police or making their job more dangerous is a non starter.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[bobbied]

No reason? Have you thought about the contents of the 911 call?

Had an armed crazy man, who already had shot one and threatened to shoot other hostages while setting up to set a fire to kill even more folks actually been true, nobody would have questioned what they did but you'd likely be miffed that they waited too long. They cannot win with you people.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[Anonymous Coward]

The police officers who killed the innocent person were 50+ yards/meters away and had cover.

Do you have evidence of this?

The news story I read said the police were standing on the porch ready to breach when the door opened and the shooting officer and the guy that died were less than 10' away.

Even IF true (and it's not, as others have posted there's video), so what?

He didn't have a visible weapon and therefore never demonstrated the ability to harm anyone even someone "just" 10 feet away from him.

Killing him was an extreme case of doing something like jailing you for driving on a revoked license when you don't even have a driver's license or even a car.

"Kill him! He MIGHT have a gun, even though he's blinded by bright lights and can't see anything, we're 50 yards away, have cover, and have him in the sights of multiple high-powered rifles!"

"But he moved SUDDENLY!!!"

So does every fucking squirrel on this planet. Are you trying to make the case that squirrels needs to be eradicated? Because mere SUDDEN MOVEMENT is dangerous?!?!?!

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[bobbied]

You act as if they went in and just started shooting before anything happened. This is NOT true.

The unfortunate facts are clear and the killed man's movements are the final step in a long series of events that got him shot. Yes, he was innocent and didn't fully understand what the issue was, but step though the whole series of events, looking closely at what the police on the scene where being told and what they had good reason to believe they where facing. This whole series of events where rapid paced.

Now, had the 911 call not happened and the encounter took place, nobody get's shot. Hat this man not stepped out on his porch so soon after the police arrived, disrupting the surveillance the police where doing to ascertain exactly what was going on, he would be alive today. Any number of things could have stopped this... But the police acted reasonably, given the events, the time line, what they where being told and what they knew.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[omnichad]

There is some middle ground between ignoring a call and going in guns blazing. If that's too much nuance for you, you're already a lost cause.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[thegarbz]

Given the situation and looking at it from the perspective of Wichita's police, I don't think they acted inappropriately.

By having normalised excessive response to these kinds of threats, you are part of the problem. This shit isn't accepted anywhere else in the western world.

Part of policing is to assess the threat, not listen to some dispatcher who said there may be a situation that was called in by some source, but actually go there and assess the threat.

Shit movie but very relevant to American police and everyone who justifies what happened here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[Anonymous Coward]

A caller will NEVER be able to do that. Not even if he is inside.

Not even a call from the person who already murdered his father and doused the house with gasoline?

Re: Horse-fuck those morons

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK their chief would get promoted to head the metropolitan police :-( thanks Cressida.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[Cederic]

Sure. Fucking sue me for not killing the unarmed innocent man. Go for it. I'll see you in court.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[Cederic]

That's not mitigation. That's scapegoating.

Try fixing the fucked up police force. Prosecute the murderer that pulled the trigger, prosecute the police service that employed him and prosecute whichever cunt wrote the training plan because they're all culpable.

Then maybe other police services in the US will adopt approaches that don't involve murdering innocent people that answer the door.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[Cederic]

Are you fucking dense? Where are the people complaining that the police responded, that the police provided an armed response, that the police immediately approached and surrounded the property, that the police knocked on the door, that the police shone bright lights in the face of the person that opened it or that the police shouted at him?

It's the subsequent murder that people are complaining about.

They cannot win with you people.

They're not trying to, they're just happily fucking murdering innocent people and getting away with it.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[Cederic]

Even if you can make the argument that police screwed up that doesn't excuse the actions or responsibility for what happened.

I haven't seen anybody suggest that the guy that made the false 911 call should avoid prosecution.

It's a common law principle that you are responsible because if you hadn't committed the felony the death wouldn't have occurred

Only in the US. In the UK a policeman murdering someone is guilty of murder even if a crime was going on at the same time*.

there should be no argument in this case at least that the felony the gamers and caller committed resulted in a mans death

The gamers that didn't make the call very much have an argument that they did not cause a man's death. I'll be fucking amazed if they plead guilty.

*unless he murders a Brazilian electrician, in which case he'll get away with it and his boss will be made Commissioner of the UK's largest police force.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[superdave80]

I don't think they acted inappropriately.

They just shot a guy that was in the doorway that had no weapon. If you consider THAT appropriate, then I shudder to think what you think a cop would have to do to be inappropriate.

The police where rolling up on what they thought was an active shooter situation with hostages

I think future SWAT procedure should include figuring out who is the shooter and who is the hostage, because for all that idiot cop knew he may have just shot a hostage.

Re: Horse-fuck those morons

[rahvin112]

I repeat do you have evidence of this, as I'd like to see it.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[superdave80]

threatened to shoot other hostages

Well, the cops did that anyways, because they wound up shooting an innocent man. How is that better?

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[superdave80]

But the police acted reasonably, ...

They shot a man in his doorway in his pajamas... in what they thought could be a hostage situation. How did that idiot cop know whether the guy was shooter or hostage?

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[rahvin112]

The gamers that didn't make the call very much have an argument that they did not cause a man's death. I'll be fucking amazed if they plead guilty.

*unless he murders a Brazilian electrician, in which case he'll get away with it and his boss will be made Commissioner of the UK's largest police force.

The gameres won't plead guilty, at least not right away, almost no one does in the US. The smart one in the group will turn on the others before trial for a reduced sentence. But they will be convicted, they engaged in a felony that resulted in the death of a man, they'll be lucky if they only get 10 years or less. You might no punish people in the UK for something like this but they will in the US just like they send getaway drivers to prison for second degree murder when one of the other bank robber kills someone. In fact, they charge the get-a-way driver with murder if one of the robbers is shot dead. When you commit a felony in the US you get charged for the actions of everything that happens as a result of that felony.

The gamers caused this, Barrasis might have made the 911 call and is equally responsible but the gamers put this whole thing in motion and they deserve to be responsible for everything that happened as a result of their actions.

Personally I think the cop who pulled the trigger should be fired and his law enforcement credentials revoked, but that isn't here or there with regard to the responsibility the gamers have.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[Cederic]

Well, given that Viner and Gaskill aren't being charged with manslaughter (or similar charges) they're not being held responsible for the death.

I think Gaskill is guilty of stupidity but even then not necessarily to criminal levels. It'll be interesting to see how this case progresses.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[Gr8Apes]

No reason? Have you thought about the contents of the 911 call?

Had an armed crazy man, who already had shot one and threatened to shoot other hostages while setting up to set a fire to kill even more folks actually been true, nobody would have questioned what they did but you'd likely be miffed that they waited too long. They cannot win with you people.

So I call your local PD and mention that a crazy armed bobbied is running around and has shot 1 kid and is holding 3 others hostage, etc, and it's ok if the police show up and kill you too? The police's first and foremost job is to protect the public, at least the last time I was dealing with one. That means showing up and establishing what's going on, not riding in on a racing bike and shooting up the place.

Re: Horse-fuck those morons

[buchanmilne]

"Had an armed crazy man, who already had shot one"

Did they get neighbours/witnesses to corroborate any one of these claims before shooting an unarmed man who was naturally confused by the sudden arrival of an army?

Re: Horse-fuck those morons

[bobbied]

"Had an armed crazy man, who already had shot one"

Did they get neighbours/witnesses to corroborate any one of these claims before shooting an unarmed man who was naturally confused by the sudden arrival of an army?

They thought they had one ON THE PHONE.

Turns out the guy who dialed 911 and was on the phone during the whole thing was making it all up, but we only know that in hindsight.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[HeckRuler]

Have you thought about the fact that "Swatting" has been a thing for over a decade? 10+ years of heavily armed professionals falling for the same ploy. 2011 had legislation about it. When legislation moves faster than you, then maybe you're failing to adapt to the new situation.

So, knowing full well that people will give false intel... Why would they continue their policies that get people killed?

They cannot win with you people

Incorrect. They can very easily win with us if they showed a modicum of restraint and stopped with the militarizing of police. But doing so would make them lose with others who would really rather prefer to stomp that jackboot on more necks. It's impossible to make everyone happy. I say we put it to a vote. Like we're a democracy or something. And you can bet your ass we both know which way that would go.

So why, in a democracy, would police employ unpopular tactics with a record of unfortunate fatalities (and a small mountain of dead dogs)?

Re: Horse-fuck those morons

[HeckRuler]

but we only know that in hindsight.

Isn't that kinda sad though? That 911 operators don't know the location of the phone call they're receiving? ....Shouldn't they already be able to do that?

In approximately 96 percent of the U.S., the enhanced 9-1-1 system automatically pairs caller numbers with a physical address.[1]

so.... were they just incompetent, or were they in that 4%?

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[Kaenneth]

You misspelled 'MURDER'.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[rahvin112]

This is the federal charges, the fed's can't charge someone on murder because murder isn't a federal crime, it's a state crime.

The murder charges will be at the state level. The Federal sentence will be in addition to the state charges. They are thowing the book at everyone involved in this with both state and federal charges.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[zugmeister]

Let's put it this way... Shooting and killing innocent people is a bad thing. It's what they are supposed to be stopping, not doing themselves. Any time the good guys do what they're supposed to keep the bad guys from doing, something has gone horribly wrong.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Well, it's not really the "appropriate" response, it is very common. Thus why "swatting" is such a phenomenon now, and has happened several times.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[green1]

I didn't say they shouldn't believe you, I said they should authenticate the information. There's a subtle difference. In this case the person claiming to be the attacker was calling from a different state than the place he claimed to be. That hole really needs to be fixed. Beyond that, authentication could mean simply having the responding cops open their eyes and ears before pulling the trigger.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[green1]

Well it's a good thing nobody ever does anything illegal than. Because we all know that charging the person after the fact is 100% effective at stopping them from doing it in the first place.

Prevention is not accomplished after the fact.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[houghi]

Especially not that person. He might not be telling the truth.

Re: Horse-fuck those morons

[buchanmilne]

They thought they had one ON THE PHONE.

I think you need a refresher on the meaning of the word 'corroborate'.

Turns out the guy who dialed 911 and was on the phone during the whole thing was making it all up, but we only know that in hindsight.

If they were talking on the phone with the 'guy' after he came out the door, without a phone visible in his hands (which they could apparently see well enough to know he didn't yet have a weapon), then they had sufficient evidence that this was a hoax call, or they shot him reaching for something, which would then logically be the phone ...

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[volmtech]

The police do not have to kill someone who "might' have a gun or sometimes even a person with a gun. I saw a video of a white man who was trying to commit suicide by cop. He was threatening to shoot himself. He was in his front yard and the house was surrounded by cops. The cop were all far back and behind cover. The man then pointed his gun out at the police and opened fire, so did the police. When they all ran out of ammunition the guy was still standing there with an empty gun. One cop simply walked up, took his gun away and arrested him. I can not believe thirty cops all missed, they had to have been shooting into the ground. Of course they must have been planing that and did not station a sniper.

Re:Horse-fuck those morons

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the situation and looking at it from the perspective of Wichita's police, I don't think they acted inappropriately.

It is really easy to use hindsight to accuse the police of acting wrongly when the outcome is something nobody wants. If one considers the situation, what the police where being told and what they observed, what happened was justified, even if it was unfortunate. From the perspective of the police, with the information they were provided by dispatch, the guy who got shot was an active threat. Based on the 911 call and the unfortunate actions of the victim, there wasn't much else the Police could reasonably do.

Don't fall into the 20/20 hindsight trap here. The police where rolling up on what they thought was an active shooter situation with hostages based on what they thought was a credible 911 call of an eyewitness. When the unfortunate guy opens the door, it goes from bad to worse and apparently an innocent movement was seen as a threat. It may seem a bit extreme in hindsight, but from the cop's perspective this is one of those dangerous situations that, like it or not, justifies the use of deadly force.

Don't fall into the trap of being overly generous as a result of ignorance. You've have perhaps been watching too many Hollywood movies. Real police work is different from that depicted by Hollywood.

The police receive huge amounts of false and misleading information on a daily basis. Verifying information before taking action is an everyday part of the job - and that didn't happen in this situation, a major screw-up. The police had a responsibility to confirm for themselves that there was a real situation, instead of jumping to (completely false) conclusions about what was going on.

Also, the police have a responsibility to differentiate between hostages and criminals and innocent bystanders in a hostage situation (or even a potential hostage situation). It's part of their training - especially for those on a SWAT team.

Further, the police get a LOT of training in making sure that they have what is called "good backing" before deciding to shoot. This means that they need to have something behind the target that will absorb the bullet, such as concrete, a brick wall, or a hillside. Even ordinary handgun rounds will easily penetrate multiple layers of household siding or drywall - shotgun and rifle rounds are far more dangerous in this respect. The police are trained to not fire in situations where they don't have good backing because a round could easily go through a wall or a window, potentially continue through multiple additional walls or windows, and eventually hit and kill a child or a pregnant woman (possibly in some other house). Killing an ordinary innocent adult is bad enough, nobody wants to kill a child or pregnant woman by mistake - so the "good backing" concept is stressed in police training.

The average person has a LOT of trouble hitting a man-sized (stationary!) target at even 25 feet on a range (in a low-stress situation!), let alone hitting a person at the distance where the police officers where located (and probably under partial cover). Realistically, the officers were far more likely to be killed on the drive home by some random motorist than by a bad guy with a gun at that range. Good officers understand this (often they've helped out at firearms training courses and seen this for themselves), and take responsibility to act accordingly: it shapes their behaviour.

These are individual responsibilities - with all that statement implies (that follows from the Nuremberg Precedent, which is applicable to US law under the 9th Amendment).

Accidents can happen in an assault scenario - but the video clearly shows this was not being handled as an assault situation: there are no police officers attempting to enter the house, or even anywhere close to the house.

This is probably a case of a mentally unstable police officer that screwed up - somebody that shouldn't have been there in the

swat = licence to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

So I call the police for X reason
Police are so shit they kill someone playing video games in their room
Police keep their jobs
I go to jail

_________

Re:swat = licence to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you deliberately and maliciously send armed police to someone's address having told the police they are a dangerous threat.

American police are shit and kill someone.

You go to jail.

Hopefully someone finally starts to sort out the cultural problem the US police has too.

Re:swat = licence to kill

[Layzej]

Hopefully someone finally starts to sort out the cultural problem the US police has too.

Indeed. Canadian police vs known terrorist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

US police vs unarmed man pleading for his life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Stark contrast.

Re:swat = licence to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

I yell "fire" in a packed room and people get trampled to death in a mass panic.

Not my fault at all, it was those shitty people who panicked and trampled the victims to death.

Re:swat = licence to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes you are absolutely correct. Oh, I am aware that some people trot that out as some sort of "free speech has limitations" argument, but I genuinely agree that what you said is correct. If simply yelling "FIRE" is enough to cause a panic like described, the problem IS NOT with the person who yelled "FIRE".

Re:swat = licence to kill

[gnick]

If simply yelling "FIRE" is enough to cause a panic like described...

"Yelling fire in a crowded theater" is a standard way of saying "inciting a panic." Maybe lighting off a couple of firecrackers and yelling "gun" would be more modern.

Re:swat = licence to kill

[dryeo]

Then there's the Toronto policeman convicted of attempted murder for the last 6 shots fired at the guy he'd already killed.
From http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

A jury has found Toronto police Const. James Forcillo guilty of attempted murder in the 2013 shooting death of Sammy Yatim.

Forcillo faced two charges related to the shooting death of 18-year-old Yatim on a streetcar in 2013, but was found not-guilty of second-degree murder.

The jury believed Forcillo was justified in firing the first three shots at Yatim, but not the second round of shots, and hence was guilty of attempted murder.

Re:swat = licence to kill

[slashdot_commentator]

...hopefully for a long time. Because you put the guy playing video games in imminent danger. If you support the 2A, you have to realize the deadly nature of firearms.

Re:swat = licence to kill

[houghi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Shooting a know terrorist in the leg.

Re:swat = licence to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that you know the expected end result you have shown intent in the eyes of the law are therefore guilty

Re:swat = licence to kill

[Layzej]

Probably the fact that there are consequences is some part of the reason Canadian police show greater restraint.

Re:swat = licence to kill

[slashdot_commentator]

You're totally culpable if there was not a fire. Its only not your fault if there actually was a fire.

Re:swat = licence to kill

[omnichad]

It's possible for multiple people to be fully at fault here.

Re:swat = licence to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

Police officers are supposed to be trained to handle these situations. If you yell "FIRE" in a packed room and one of the people in that room is a firefighter, I would expect that person to respond differently from a mass of civilians, since they have encountered fires before and are trained to handle them. Even if that just means exiting the building in a calm, orderly manner, I'd expect someone with that training to handle the situation more responsibly than the average panicked citizen. If the whole room is packed with nothing but firefighters, there should be no stampede for the door, since everyone in the room is well aware of how they should respond to the situation. Maybe they examine their surroundings and immediately recognize the hoax, maybe they work together to methodically clear the building, maybe they simply follow the posted emergency exit routes. But if they panic, all stampede for the same door, and trample a couple people in the process, they are bad firefighters because they've demonstrated an inability to keep their composure in the face of something that it's their job to deal with.

Similarly, police officers are supposed to be trained to handle these situations. If an ordinary civilian was handed a gun and told there are reports of an active shooter, there's no telling how they might respond. I would not fault that person if they responded the way police did in this case: they didn't have all the facts, they had to make a split-second decision, and they did whatever they felt they needed to do. Police officers should know better. A properly trained police officer should recognize the signs of a phony call. They should realize that the house they're at doesn't remotely match the description provided in the 911 call. They should understand how to properly take cover so as not to be ambushed by someone exiting the house. They should understand that normal human beings pull up their pants many, many times a day and generally don't even think about it. They should be able to tell the difference between someone putting their hands near their waist versus pulling a gun and aiming it at them. They should understand how disorienting it is for anyone (criminal or not) to open a door to a blinding spotlight in their face and police shouting orders through a bullhorn. They should know that if this is a real hostage situation, the person answering the door could be one of the hostages, and if they're not, that means the hostages are safe as long as the hostage-taker is standing in the doorway dealing with the police. And ultimately, they should not put their own lives above the lives of others by firing a volley of bullets into a house without knowing anything about who's inside and who else those bullets might hit. Any one of these things would have saved a life.

At best, the officers involved were poorly trained and unequipped to handle the situation they thought they were responding to (guns and body armor aren't the only things you need). Their inability to correctly assess the situation got someone killed, as has happened numerous times in the past. Poorly trained police officers are a danger to the general public, moreso than an average civilian with a concealed carry permit, because the cop thinks they know what's best, and they know they've got a police union that will back them up no matter what they do. That's how you end up with an off-duty cop pulling a gun on a man buying a pack of Mentos: the man had broken no laws, the off-duty officer put multiple lives at risk over a perceived petty theft that wasn't even real, and he is still an officer today. He should have known better, and anyone else would have been hit with multiple felonies for doing what he did, but he got away with it because police departments refuse to look inward and see their own flaws.

SWATting is only possible because police are complicit. It's not a new trend, and it's frankly embarrassing that police continue to fall for the same pranks over and over again. Punishi

Re:swat = licence to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh.

You're not a very bright one, are you?

Re:swat = licence to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

Newsflash: Police are only human too.

Re:swat = licence to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty fucking bad videos. Nazi/Stalinist culture-rapists ! Conservative that I am ... I'da popped-a-cap into that gestapo=cops face as my last just act.

Re:swat = licence to kill

[micahraleigh]

The CULTURAL problem .. ?

Denying right to trials is in the same territory as listening to bad music and faux pas?

Oh ... they must have felt so embarrassed !!

Re:swat = licence to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

Police are only human too.

Can you prove that beyond reasonable doubt? In America?

Though not!

Re:swat = licence to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

In the mid 90's the RCMP shut down the Angels/Mafia drug business and took it over themselves and have been running it ever since.

Without standards and accountability of law enforcement, democracy is meaningless.

Re:swat = licence to kill

[14erCleaner]

Perhaps Canadian police would show less restraint if their country was also awash in guns.

What about the cop?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, the one who pulled the trigger and committed a murder?

Re:What about the cop?

[JackieBrown]

I read the linked article. The Slashdot summary really sucks. It doesn't even mention the death or what swatting is. I had to read the article for that.

The police where told that the man had killed his father, was holding his mother and sibling hostage and had soaked the house in gasoline. The man was a dead man walking the moment police where called. With the information they had, they didn't have the luxury to take their time to fully access the situation.

I honestly support the civil lawsuit. It's easy to see in the video that the victim did nothing to deserve to die. But criminal standards are higher and I completely understand why the police had to act in the manner they did. It was not exactly presented to them in a "we can wait and see what happens" context.

The person who did the swat (sorry - new word for me so not sure how to use it properly) completely bears the responsibility of the victim's death and deserves the full weight of the law brought down on him. The fact that he did this before is shocking and it is amazing that no one else was hurt. One of the stories mentioned this happened in Canada but that the victim was warned and was able to call the police and give them the heads up that it was a false report.

Re: What about the cop?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cop doing his job. Gamer committed murder

Re:What about the cop?

[Lab Rat Jason]

This is an interesting problem... if you look at nearly ALL police shootings, they typically seem unjustified from the general public's perspective, but the cops always say "the officer was in fear for his life"... and therefore it is somehow justified. The problem is the way the laws are written and the way police are trained. If you ever get to see police training materials, police conventions, or even the daily emails from the department, they are all oriented around the basic concept of "every interaction could kill you so be hyper vigilant so you can come home to your kids tonight." This creates a scenario where police see what they've been trained to see: a threat on their life. This is how a naked guy running away down a rural highway can get shot for "being a threat" despite the 911 caller telling the dispatcher that the person is suffering from a mental condition.

One thing I know from personal experience is the way the media twists facts to make things look salacious. My brother was nearly killed in an avalanche, and the media reported that he was skiing out of bounds, when in fact he was never on resort property, he was back-country skiing with friends in forest service property. They also made it seem like the group had taken HUGE risks, when in fact they had been prepared, planned their route ahead of time, brought appropriate equipment, recognized the emerging risks, mitigated them with strategy, then executed a perfect self-rescue after the avalanche. But telling a great story about self-reliance and preparedness isn't on the media's agenda so they spin it the way they want... I mention all of this because I expect no less from the media with a police shooting. I suspect there are situational things that made the cop think the way he did. How well lit was the front porch? How clear was his view? What unrelated events prior in the day may have primed him to see what he saw as a threat? The media doesn't want to give you a clear picture of how the situation unfolded, they want to induce you to quickly pass judgement and move on to the next story.

It was certainly a homicide, but I'm not sure the intent rises to murder. I think it's a systemic problem throughout our entire police system. The police know how the law is written, so they train specifically to that loophole. If we tighten the loophole, fewer people can fit through. I'd love to see the laws change in that regard.

Re:What about the cop?

[Anonymous Coward]

they didn't have the luxury to take their time to fully access the situation
asses?

Re: What about the cop?

[Anonymous Coward]

So it is the job of police to act as hitmen so long as the right words are said. Got it.

I have a "rose" and it needs to be "pinned" to someone. Venu, do the needful.

Re:What about the cop?

[houghi]

So if I would kill my father, hold my mother and siblings hostage and soak the house in gasoline, but then call the cops they would not shoot me?
As a European this is so wrong on so many levels.

I live in Brussels. We had a fucking terrorist attack at the airport. People where killed. At one moment the knew where they where and arrested them. They did not go in and killed everybody. These where known terrorists and they STILL did not just shoot them.

Yes, it might have been dangerous to go in. Yes, that could have meant that 3 people might have been killed. It STILL is no excuse to go all gun ho and start shooting. It was clear they had not all the information.

And if he wanted to kill his mother and kids, he would have done that already IF the information was correct.

Damn and fuck.
A huge part of the problem is that you (and many others) are ok with the fact that the police shot somebody. "Hey, not their fault." Well, it WAS their fault. They are not a tool, like a gun. You can not say, "The police does not kill people, people kill people." They are aware that people will lie to bring others into throuble. And it is even a bigger issue if they don't.

It reminds me of that video where some Swedish policemen in the NY tube held a person instead of beating him to pulp. And yes, criminals have guns in the rest of the world. It still does not mean that shooting is in any way the first option. It is the last option. The very last option. You stand outside and ask what is going on. And even when you go in, you STILL do not start shooting. This is not a video game. There is no respawn. "I had no other choice" is not good enough.

There are a multitude of things they could have done differently even if the information would have been correct.
The fact that "he was a dead man walking" is an issue. He should not be looked at it in that way.

Re:What about the cop?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're excusing the police for killing a defenceless person who didn't even act threatening towards them by saying it's ok for them to trust any anonymous information they get as a tip and go in with guns blazing. Are you insane?

Re:What about the cop?

[Anonymous Coward]

But criminal standards are higher and I completely understand why the police had to act in the manner they did.

So you don't mind living in a world where any idiot with a telephone can "assassinate by cop" anyone? Because that's what happened here. I sure hope you don't live in the US, because that's where this kind of thing is going down with the trigger happy cops.

The cops deserve some serious liability here. You can't just bust into someones house and shoot people just because some idiot made a phone call.

Re:What about the cop?

[Anonymous Coward]

The person who did the swat (sorry - new word for me so not sure how to use it properly) completely bears the responsibility of the victim's death

No. The cops are the ones who shot him.

Re:What about the cop?

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not help when 99% of police just follow a script and lack logical reasoning skills.

Re:What about the cop?

[Anonymous Coward]

>had soaked the house in gasoline. The man was a dead man walking the moment police where called.

It is evident that when a house is soaked in gasoline the best way of action is to shoot in the direction of the house. No fire hazard involved at all.

Re:What about the cop?

[slashdot_commentator]

This is how a naked guy running away down a rural highway can get shot for "being a threat"

In most cases, the cop can't shoot. The naked guy has to "present himself as a threat" (to the person he's running towards) and then the cop can shoot the naked, unarmed man. Its a bad situation (for the shooter, even a cop) when the victim is shot in the back. The jury generally will only disregard its evident meaning when the victim is armed.

Re:What about the cop?

[phayes]

With a 6 figure /. uid you've been on /. for years during which swatting and indeed this particular case have been discussed dozens of times but you had to read the article to discover what swatting is?!?! Nope that doesn't stink of hyperbole or trolling _at_all_...

Re:What about the cop?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're the reason this is a fucking terrifying world to live in. Someone making allegations over the phone does not make you a "dead man walking" you horrifying person.

Re:What about the cop?

[Lab Rat Jason]

http://archive.sltrib.com/arti...

Re:What about the cop?

[Ichijo]

This is the best comment I've seen on Slashdot in a LONG time.

Re:What about the cop?

[Anonymous Coward]

Norway had a terrorist murder young adults and teenagers on an isolated island. They didn't gun him down, but got him apprehended and sentenced for life in a very public and transparent manner.

USA is just too much ruled by fear culture and domination, imprisoned by their stupid dream and slave labour, to see what's really going on in their country.

Re:What about the cop?

[JackieBrown]

They were not shooting the gun in the house....

A bullet isn't actually a flaming arrow or whatever you seem to think it is.

Re:What about the cop?

[JackieBrown]

Confession... I do allot of reading of Slashdot at work.

games.slashdot.org is blocked by the opendns filter we use.

I put that information in another post but I don't expect you to read all my posts. I'm only able to read this story because it wasn't posted on the game section of Slashdot.

If I was trolling, I wouldn't have bothered to list out what I read from the articles. I don't purposely troll but I imagine I'd be a pretty lazy troller.

Re:What about the cop?

[bungo]

Ok, you seem to have forgotten that the police raid that happened 4 days before the bombings, where there was a shoot out in Forest, with one terrorist dying, Belgian and French police getting injured, and a number of terrorists got away, who then went on to commit the attacks in the metro and at the airport.

I think the difference was that in the earlier raid, they were not expecting to find anyone and were confronted by armed terrorists. The later raids, the police had huge advantage in numbers and equipment.

You are still correct. In the comparable situation where the police had an overwhelming amount of force, the US police are scared and gun unarmed innocent people down, where the Belgian police showed bravery in the face of know terrorists.

Re:What about the cop?

[thegarbz]

or what swatting is.

We can't start every article with: "In the beginning there was nothing and then bang" followed by a complete history of the known universe, so writers make some assumptions. Those assumptions include:

a) Knowing a very real and well known and widely publicised problem plaguing the country the site is hosted in.
b) Assume that in general people are somewhat up to date with recent events.
c) Assume at the very least that a reader is a return customer and therefore is aware, of the many times we have discussed this case, along with several other such cases.

Re:What about the cop?

[thegarbz]

they didn't have the luxury to take their time

Why? Was there a time based bomb on site? In the scenario you described the big step one is take your time and slow the situation right down. You know, .... so you don't make any rash decisions. Normal hostage situations elsewhere in the world can take many hours, so why does this one require going in guns blazing?

But criminal standards are higher and I completely understand why the police had to act in the manner they did.

Congratulations, you normalised it and now you are part of the problem. Hope you feel good about yourself and that you don't get shot for seeing a police officer.

completely bears the responsibility of the victim's death

Only in your weird world. In the normal western world there is plenty of blame to go around. In the normal western world the police officer would be stood down pending investigation for firing his weapon in this situation, regardless of the fact that someone got injured / killed.

Re:What about the cop?

[thegarbz]

Reminds me of a show I saw in a waiting room where a police officer from the USA spent a few days with a police officer from ... a nordic country ... can't remember which one, and they compared what they would do in various real scenarios.

At one point they were called to a situation where a guy was threatening people with a gun. They asked the American what he would do: "Grab my gun, approach from the corner of the building where he had coverage and a clear shot, and then try to talk him down or if he thinks it's not working try and take a shot."

The ...nordic... police officer was speechless and proceeded to go out unarmed and walk over to the guy with the gun, spent about 15min talking him down after which he arrested him once the guy handed over his weapon. When the American asked why he didn't take a gun the answer was: "Too much paperwork if I have to take the gun out of the glovebox."

The way you approach a situation can drastically change a situation. American police may find themselves in a far safer line of work if they didn't present themselves as cold blooded killers to every scenario where they are deployed.

Re:What about the cop?

[thegarbz]

every interaction could kill you so be hyper vigilant

You missed the other side of the coin. American police see every interaction as a potential threat to their life so they approach it as such. Now every criminal sees every interaction with American police as something which could kill and you end up with a vicious spiral of both parties in fear which is never a good headspace to be in when a situation needs to be de-escallated.

Re:What about the cop?

[JackieBrown]

Well if you saw it in a show...

Re:What about the cop?

[Lab Rat Jason]

True... I can't find it now, but there is a video of a cop shooting a black guy at a gas station. The cop walks up and asks for his ID, and the guy is so eager/worried that he quickly turns and dives back into his truck to get the ID, be he does it so quickly that the cop takes it as a sign that the guy is going for a weapon. Both sides are primed for a negative experience.

Re:What about the cop?

[JackieBrown]

LOL

I'm sure more people have know what an "alexa device" is but we still managed to explain that.

https://yro.slashdot.org/story...

Why even have more than a headline if we are going to assume everything is known?

Re:What about the cop?

[Cederic]

They were not shooting the gun in the house....

Yes, they were.

Bullets can miss. When they miss, they hit whatever was behind the target. In this case, it was a house.

Bullets travel very quickly and consequently carry a lot of momentum. This means they're hard to stop, and as people aren't terribly solid this means that bullets frequently go through a person that they've hit, and also hit whatever was behind the person. In this case, it was a house.

A bullet isn't actually a flaming arrow or whatever you seem to think it is.

But (as discussed) bullets travel very quickly. If they hit something very solid they stop very quickly too. All that momentum mentioned a moment ago gets translated from kinetic energy into heat.

Lets play a game. Stand in some gasoline and apply heat, tell me what happens.

Re:What about the cop?

[Lab Rat Jason]

I should clarify: The guy was not a criminal... he was totally innocent of any wrongdoing. When I read your comment, you said *every criminal* and I internally read it as *every citizen*... I just don't want to imply the guy was guilty of anything.

Re:What about the cop?

[Agent0013]

I think it is more than just a show thing also. I would not want to follow any police orders, if they could involve them getting me shot. And not following orders is sure to get me shot. If I had the chance, I would shoot the cop first and claim fear of killer police and self-defense. Fuck them and all the shit they pull!

I can't say their PR is going to get any better when more and more people start feeling like I do.

Re:What about the cop?

[slashdot_commentator]

1) This was "sloppy" tazer use, not a firearm shooting.

2) I'm at peace with banning tazers, and letting people die from unintentional beatings from police. If the arrestee does not comply, police are expected to use force to subdue the arrestee. You don't think a blow to the body, head, or ribs with a nightstick can't cause unintentional death? There's a reason why police forces have moved to using tazers.

3) The problem here was the police department's arbitrary "use of force" policy, which is another term for RoE. They're designed to avoid sloppy use of deadly force, which greatly reduces the chance of death or maiming. Blame the police chief and the taxpayers who can't pony up money to follow (FBI) recommended guidelines and train/screen their officers.

Re:What about the cop?

[bingoUV]

Why even have more than a headline if we are going to assume everything is known?

So that we can proudly claim to not have read the article or summary. Duh. You have a lot to catch up on ;)

Just kidding, actually I agree with you.

Re:What about the cop?

[thegarbz]

I'm sure more people have know what an "alexa device" is but we still managed to explain that.

If you actually were a long term reader of Slashdot you'll realise our editors are nothing by AI scripts. Though not a good one trained by Google, but rather whatever the overlords put together in PHP on the weekend and trained by watching Idiocracy on repeat. :-)

Re:What about the cop?

[JThundley]

Sometimes the police shoot, sometimes they do absolutely nothing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAfUI_hETy0.

Stupid f'in kids.

[Anonymous Coward]

Throw them away for a long, long, long time. Maybe they will learn that there are repercussions to one's actions. Self absorbed pricks.

not enough

[sloth jr]

So everyone gets charged except for the cop that actually killed a man? That seems a huge lapse of justice.

Re:not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

It probably wasn't even presented to the grand jury.

Re:not enough

[kilfarsnar]

So everyone gets charged except for the cop that actually killed a man? That seems a huge lapse of justice.

I thought the same thing. It shows the degradation of respect for the rights of citizens that "swatting" is even a thing.

Re:not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

If you allow a cop to use a firearm and possibly kill a suspect by law, it wouldn't make sense to then call that killing automatically 'a huge lapse of justice'. Only when there's reason to believe the cop overstepped its legal boundaries it would make sense to charge the cop, which doesn't seem the case here.

You can't make something legal and then call it a 'lapse of justice' if you then allow it.

Re:not enough

[JackieBrown]

The police did their own review as well as a citizen review board. You have to read through several links to get to that. The information is in this article http://www.kansas.com/news/loc.... I can't access the game subsection on Slashdot at work so maybe the information is there as well.

We have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight here. You have to realize that if the situation describe over the phone was actual true, not taking the shot could have gotten an entire family killed.

Re:not enough

[Jhon]

The DA who investigated the shooting by the officer in question:

"Bennett said he had to make a determination based on Kansas law and law handed down by the Supreme Court, which says that when determining if an officer acted reasonably, evidence has to be reviewed based on what the officer knew at the time of the shooting, not 20/20 hindsight, he said."

Re:not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to realize that if the situation describe over the phone was actual true, not taking the shot could have gotten an entire family killed.

You have to realize that cops shooting people based entirely on hearsay is fucking retarded, and not an excuse.

Re:not enough

[Nidi62]

The DA who investigated the shooting by the officer in question:

"Bennett said he had to make a determination based on Kansas law and law handed down by the Supreme Court, which says that when determining if an officer acted reasonably, evidence has to be reviewed based on what the officer knew at the time of the shooting, not 20/20 hindsight, he said."

The cop certainly didn't know the victim was armed (since he wasn't) when he opened fire. That is the big problem with police these days. "I thought" or "I believed" has become enough justification and evidence for the use of lethal force, not "I knew". Police now put their safety before the safety of the public. If it had been a real hostage incident and the hostage taker had forced one of the hostages to answer the door the cop would have killed a hostage. Deadly force should not be used unless a civilian is in clear, imminent danger or the police have positively identified a weapon.

Re:not enough

[bobbied]

Because... The Cop, acting on his training and the information at hand, had every legal right to shoot what he reasonably perceived as a deadly threat to himself and others.

Don't let hindsight cloud your judgment. You must put yourself in the situation and understand the information the cops had. If you consider the 911 call credible and some guy pops out of the house and his hand moves to his waistband, what are you going to do? Do you stand there and get shot? Not even the police are required to do that.

Re:not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

There's something to be said here about giving the public the ability to call professional military on each other.

You either assume the public is truthful in their statements (every statement made) and hold the public accountable, or let a weapon loose to play judge, jury and executioner.

Or you tell everyone to open carry.

Your pick.

Re:not enough

[bobbied]

Because the use of force was justified in the situation presented to the cop at the time... Even though in hindsight we know the guy that got shot wasn't armed and hadn't intended to threaten anyone, at the time, given the information the cop had, shooting him was a reasonable action.

Re:not enough

[Nidi62]

If you consider the 911 call credible and some guy pops out of the house and his hand moves to his waistband, what are you going to do? Do you stand there and get shot?

You wait until you positively identify a weapon before using lethal force. If a police officer's reaction time is so bad that someone can grab an gun from their waistband and shoot them before the cop, who's weapon is already drawn!, can fire his own weapon, they probably shouldn't even be allowed to drive, much less be a cop. A cop's first duty is to ensure the safety of the public and yes, that includes the suspect as well. You run the risk of being shot when you put on the uniform. That's why they give you training and give you body armor. If you are afraid to take the risk, aren't willing to put the lives of everyone else before your own, don't sign up for the job.

Re:not enough

[Nidi62]

You have to realize that if the situation describe over the phone was actual true, not taking the shot could have gotten an entire family killed.

You have to realize that, since the police arrived with guns drawn, waiting an extra half second to see that the suspect was in fact armed or reaching for a gun would have saved his life while not endangering the potential hostages inside because the police could still have shot him before get could even get the gun aimed.

Re:not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

shoot them in the leg maybe? Immobilise them rather than murdering?

Re:not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Shooting to wound is not authorized and is, in fact, illegal ("maiming"). Not to mention that you only ever see such action in the movies or on TV because of the risks involved, e.g. missing, hitting someone/thing behind the target, still being able to return fire, etc.

Re:not enough

[JackieBrown]

Have you ever shot a gun before? It's not like on TV. You go for the largest point of the target.

Heck, read the story.

His hand was on his storm door when the shot was fired, and the bullet ricocheted into him, Bennett said.

There is no way this cop could have hit the leg.

Re:not enough

[CanHasDIY]

The police did their own review...

which pretty much always determines that the cop is a hero who did his job and followed orders

as well as a citizen review board.

Which tend to be made up of people who have close, personal ties to police officers.

Totally legit.

Re:not enough

[AmiMoJo]

Reading the description in the link you provided it seems that the heavily armed and armoured cops surrounded the front of his house. The victim opened the door to see what all the commotion was. The cops started screaming at him. The report uses that word, the cops use that word in their statements.

The victim seems unsure what is happening and looks around. They start screaming louder to put his hands up. He goes to put his hands up and gets shot.

That seems like a massive collective failure and an individual failure of the cop who shot him. I can't see how raising his hands could have presented an imminent threat to the fake hostages or the even the cop, and that's what they were telling him to do (in a very confused manner).

Re:not enough

[bobbied]

Dang man... You just want cops to die needlessly. Why don't we just take their guns away?

Look, cops have the right to defend themselves and go home to the wife and kids. This means that they MUST be allowed to use deadly force. The reality of policing is that it's a split second decision between going home and being buried. In dangerous situations the police are empowered to use deadly force to defend themselves, other officers and the general public and generally they save many from harm by using force. The unfortunate side effect is that there is a chance, however slim, that bad things will happen to innocent people.

The question you need to ask and answer is how your ill-conceived theories about how policing is done will affect both the police and the public. In my view, you *might* keep one or two innocents from harm from the police, but you will condemn an order of magnitude more people to being harmed because you tied the police down to some ridiculous PC driven rules of engagement that make no sense and make police's lives more complicated and dangerous.

Re:not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

So, hypothetically, what's to stop someone from making a call like this about your house and the same happening to you? You can't have police shoot unarmed people based on rumors & hearsay.. This isn't Judge Dredd where police get the license to kill whoever they think is guilty without reviewing any evidence.

Re:not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

So everyone gets charged except for the cop that actually killed a man? That seems a huge lapse of justice.

Welcome to the land of the free, home of the brave where people buy military style rifles because they're chicken-shits and want to prove their bravery by carrying said weapons everywhere they go.

Re:not enough

[Nidi62]

Dang man... You just want cops to die needlessly. Why don't we just take their guns away?

Look, cops have the right to defend themselves and go home to the wife and kids. This means that they MUST be allowed to use deadly force. The reality of policing is that it's a split second decision between going home and being buried. In dangerous situations the police are empowered to use deadly force to defend themselves, other officers and the general public and generally they save many from harm by using force. The unfortunate side effect is that there is a chance, however slim, that bad things will happen to innocent people.

The question you need to ask and answer is how your ill-conceived theories about how policing is done will affect both the police and the public. In my view, you *might* keep one or two innocents from harm from the police, but you will condemn an order of magnitude more people to being harmed because you tied the police down to some ridiculous PC driven rules of engagement that make no sense and make police's lives more complicated and dangerous.

No, I don't want them to die needlessly, and I want them to go home to their wife and kids if at all possible. What I am saying is, their duty is to first make sure WE, the American citizens that they serve, go home safe to our wives and children. As cliche as it sounds, their first duty is to "protect and serve", and that means running the risk of bodily injury or death every day to ensure the safety of others. There are plenty of cases where deadly force could be and should be authorized, but none of those cases should involve the words "might", "thought", or "maybe". Bad things happen to people because of other bad people, and they always will. You can't change that. What you can change is people needlessly dying at the hands of the people we have entrusted to protect them.

Re:not enough

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

So disregard the emergency status of hundreds of real situations because of the very occasional one that is a fraud?

I wonder what the net effect will be, saving-lives-wise?

Re:not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

I am the AC you are replying to, and I am sorry you are completely wrong.

If someone calls in a complaint on you the police should investigate first. The information is UNVERIFIED. You don't go in with guns blazing cause of some prank call.

Lets say one of your neighbors calls the cops saying they heard arguments and gunfire next door. Now lets say the police show up at your house by mistake, should they just unload their weapons at the first person that walks out??? Really?!?! You think thats a GOOD IDEA???

Now lets say someone doesn't like you. Maybe they think you've been stealing their newspaper. They call the cops on you specifically and say you threatened him with a gun. Should they come in blazing?

If you honestly think they should go in blazing, you are just about the biggest coward I have ever had the misfortune of meeting.

Re:not enough

[slashdot_commentator]

'Murica. Love it or leave it.

Re:not enough

[omnichad]

It's still better to live in a world where criminals are killing people than cops.

Re:not enough

[bobbied]

For the love of Pete.. THINK about what you are saying.

You are almost literally putting handcuffs on police with your rules of engagement. You are actually giving them LESS rights than your average person to defend themselves? Seriously?

I don't think you have any clue about the danger of what you are suggesting and you might want to find a friend who's a cop and talk to them about this. I've actually had discussions with multiple officers about this kind of thing and I can assure you your ideas are crazy.

The lives of our police are already in grave danger, your ideas only increases this danger by basically making it necessary for a confirmation of the intent of the suspect to use deadly force before they can defend themselves using deadly force. Your average person only needs the reasonable suspicion of danger to defend themselves. So you put cops at a big disadvantage with your idea, and many (not just cops) will die because of this.

Re:not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't see how raising his hands could have presented an imminent threat

Well, that's probably because you choose to not read other parts of the description. I'll quote and bold them for you

Finch opened his front door when he saw police lights outside and didnâ(TM)t know why, his mom, Lisa, told reporters the day after the shooting. Wichita police have said he was given commands to keep his hands raised, but say he reached toward his waistline multiple times.

When he reached his hands up suddenly, police say, a officer who was standing in a driveway across the street from Finch shot him.

Bennett reviewed more than 80 pieces of video evidence and interviewed every officer who was at Finch's house, including ones from the Sedgwick County Sheriff's Office. He said officers who were closer to Finch thought he reached down to pull up his pants. At one point, Finch's right arm was not visible to other officers.

The officer who fired the shot, along with some others, thought Finch was reaching for a gun, Bennett said.

It's not just the raising of hands. It's reaching for your waistline multiple times, one time having your arm invisible to the officers, and moving suddenly instead of slowly.

Re:not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Why isn't this a problem in other countries?
Do cops in america suck so badly that the only way they can make it through the day alive is by shooting everyone who looks at them funny?

Re:not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes shoot first and ask questions later. Completely justified /sarc

Re:not enough

[HornWumpus]

You think if you were behind cover with a scoped rifle and you shot an unarmed person from outside the effective range of a pistol you could just say: 'I didn't see his hand for a second, so I shot him.' and walk?

Nonsense. Not even if you suspected there was something violent going on.

Re:not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is unverified information enough to kill a person?

ITS UNVERIFIED.

Shoot don't let the cops listen to Alex Jones or read the onion, they might go out and start shooting random people.

Re:not enough

[bobbied]

If you think that your rules of engagement won't kill cops... You are wrong too.

So the question is, which set of rules cost the least number of lives... My argument is that yours will, both in the ranks of police AND in the civilian population at large because the criminals (the real ones) will get a whole lot more time to ply their trade while the officers are waiting to confirm the things you think they need to confirm.

You do need to discuss this with a couple of police officers who are facing this kind of thing every day. I suggest you listen to what they will tell you about your proposed rules.

Re:not enough

[Green Mountain Bot]

Maybe there's some middle ground between "every call is a fake" and "shoot someone any time there's a call".

Re:not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Complete bullshit, being a bartender is more dangerous than being a cop, cops are cowards plain and simple

Re:not enough

[Green Mountain Bot]

You have to realize that if the situation describe over the phone was actual true, not taking the shot could have gotten an entire family killed.

If they're not taking the time to determine if there's actually a threat, how can they determine that they're shooting the threat rather than the hostage?

Re:not enough

[apoc.famine]

Your average person only needs the reasonable suspicion of danger to defend themselves.

Which is also entirely bullshit, uncivilized, and the reason the US has so much more death and destroyed lives than most other civilized countries.

I'm baffled why you think being able to straight up murder someone because you're scared is a mark of honor and a good thing. It's fucking barbaric.

You are almost literally putting handcuffs on police with your rules of engagement.

And that is a good thing, right? Yep, more cops will get shot at if they shoot second. But at the same time, 0 innocent people will get shot by cops. These people didn't choose to stand in the line of fire as their job, while the police did. Seems pretty reasonable to me that cops should get shot at while unarmed people should not get shot at by cops. If the cops don't want to get shot at, they can choose a different profession.

On top of this, a whole pile of suspects who otherwise would have gotten shot or committed suicide by cop won't get wounded or die. And that's also a good thing, unless you're some inhumane savage. And the end result of this is probably a lot less death and violence all around.

And if someone shoots at a cop? That person is definitely fair game in my book. Cops can show up and feel free to shoot at the least provocation. I want the cops to do their job. Their job isn't murdering unarmed people, no matter how scared they might claim to be.

And yes, I very much support good training, health care, mental health care, medical benefits, salaries, and retirement for cops. They do a really tough job. But I don't support them shooting first 99.9% of the time. If other countries can figure out how to be civilized, we can too.

Re:not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, saying something retarded repeatedly doesn't make it true.

Re:not enough

[Green Mountain Bot]

While I think the state of policing in the US is at times (including this time) abhorrent, that's unrealistic for a couple reasons. For one, shooting for a leg is a tough shot, especially on a moving target. For another, a hit may very well not be enough to stop the person instantly. For another, there is no such thing as a "safe" place to get shot - blood loss will kill a person just as dead as a shot to a vital organ, it just takes a bit longer.

Re:not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Also important to avoid the shot traveling past the target without losing any energy.

Re:not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

which says that when determining if an officer acted reasonably, evidence has to be reviewed based on what the officer knew at the time of the shooting

At the time, the officer knew what had been reported. He also knew this had not been confirmed by anyone - so could be a crank call, could be a wrong address. Or could be some sort of misunderstanding.

There is also the chance that criminals flee a place, then the real homeowner come home - shortly before the police appear on the scene.

Re:not enough

[JackieBrown]

Good question and one of the questions they immediately asked (reported in the article) was something like "was that the assailant?"

I'm not saying the cop shouldn't be sued or even fired. But I do think that there was enough going on to not throw the cop in jail.

And I do think the ones that caused the situation deserve to be charged with involuntary manslaughter. Their actions are what set the whole thing in motion. The cop was not just sitting outside this guy's house for no reason.

Re:not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it was not reasonable "given the information the cop had". The cop had no reason to believe the story was true. And even if it was - how could he be sure the person answering the door is one of the "bad guys"?

In the rest of the world, they check. Look through windows (possibly using binoculars from some safe distance).

Then there are things like making a call - or using a megaphone to inform them the place is surrounded by police and that they have to come out or else.

Even in a real hostage situation, shoothing whoever opens the door doesn't save hostages. The door opener might be a hostage. Or there may be more than one bad guy - cops shoot one and the other(s) kill hostages in response. If they know they can't even go outside without being shot - might as well kill the hostages so the cops 'loose'.

Re:not enough

[JackieBrown]

So, hypothetically, what's to stop someone from making a call like this about your house and the same happening to you?

Hopefully the idea that they will be charged with murder like these kids.

Re:not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a startling lack of understanding of action vs. reaction. It would do you good to participate in use-of-force simulator at your local law enforcement agency and maybe read some studies on human reaction times.

Re:not enough

[Whorhay]

I trained to be a police officer for a few years before I ended up pursuing a different career. So I can't really say I ever knew what most police officers believed or felt. I can however say that the way "use of force" was taught it very much followed what you suggest. In that Officers should only respond with the minimum amount of force necessary. My teacher was a retired Sheriffs Deputy who had 30+ years of experience as a cop on the streets and leading the patrol division. Not only was he all about not shooting first, he also felt rehabilitation was more important than punishment.

We did training exercises that helped emphasize that you always had to be hyper vigilant when dealing with the public. Stuff like having the fattest guy in the class close a 21 foot gap from a standing start before another person could point their finger and say bang. So we trained to handle physical confrontations without the use of weapons. And in most cases it wasn't okay to say well I'll just draw my gun before a confrontation can start because doing so jumps you from the bottom of the use of force spectrum to the absolute top.

Re:not enough

[thegarbz]

Do you stand there and get shot?

I'm going to go with "Stand there and NOT get shot". This is neither the wild west, nor any other Clint Eastwood film.

Re:not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

That middle ground used to be called doing police work. Whether or not this militarization is done in the name of expediency or laziness is up for debate, but I for one do not like living in this society where I fear more from the police than from the criminals.
Maybe there is a middle ground for us citizens to decide how we would like ourselves policed--there could be votes and everything. I will even bring cake.

Re:not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like they are needed to protect you from overzealous policing.

Re:not enough

[HornWumpus]

Cops will be in favor of 'shoot first and ask questions later', duh.

Doesn't mean they get to. If they don't like their jobs, they can get an honest one.

Re:not enough

[Cederic]

"Put up your hands" Man puts up his hands. Bang.

Only in America and corrupt dictatorships would "He put his hands up too quickly" be considered a fucking excuse.

he reached toward his waistline multiple times

Where are your hands? At the end of your arms, at a guess. How long are your arms? If you don't hold your arms away from your body, where do they hang, while you're stood up? Where does that leave your hands?

Oh, wait. We should fucking shoot you on sight, you're clearly reaching towards your waistband, and you just argued that this is a lethal and immediate threat towards police.

Re:not enough

[Cederic]

Unless they're intelligent enough to make the 911 call anonymously, then not brag about it on the internet.

Shit, the US police don't know who just bought a shitty phone, dialled 911, ditched the phone and flew back to Europe. Meanwhile your son is dead because he answered the door instead of you.

Me, I'd rather the police in my country were a bit more fucking intelligent.

Re:not enough

[JackieBrown]

I have no love loss for the police.

I'd rather have the teacher's armed at schools than more perverted or bulling cops in the schools.

That doesn't mean I think they should go to jail every time there is a death due to an honest mistake. Lose their job, be sued, sure... but not jail time for doing what they though was right for the family they thought were inside the house soaking in gasoline next to their dead father.

Re:not enough

[Cederic]

I think that unless the rule of law applies to the police too, you have no rule of law.

In the UK that means the police must be genuinely in fear of imminent loss of life before they can use lethal force.

That's the standard the courts use too. It can feel very harsh at times, but it's a fuck of a lot better than the situation in the US right now.

Re:not enough

[Cederic]

Dang man... You just want cops to die needlessly.

How the fuck did you possibly draw that conclusion from what he said? Seriously, take me through the steps here because I don't see it.

Look, cops have the right to defend themselves and go home to the wife and kids. This means that they MUST be allowed to use deadly force.

Nobody has argued otherwise.

The unfortunate side effect is that there is a chance, however slim, that bad things will happen to innocent people.

There is. There is also a duty of care to minimise that chance.

There sure as fuck isn't an imperative to gun down innocent people just because a police man is too fucking stupid/cowardly/badly trained to properly assess and respond to a threat.

The question you need to ask and answer is how your ill-conceived theories about how policing is done will affect both the police and the public

It'll reduce violence against the police and (by the police) against the public. It'll save lives.

In my view, you *might* keep one or two innocents from harm from the police, but you will condemn an order of magnitude more people to being harmed

That's because your view is retarded, you lack the critical thinking skills needed to understand complexity, you lack the desire to fucking learn and you'd rather the police kill people than do their job properly.

some ridiculous PC driven rules of engagement

If you were thinking of challenging my previous statement, I'd like to use as evidence 'do not murder people' is in your view some ridiculous PC driven rule of engagement.

make no sense and make police's lives more complicated and dangerous

Strange, other countries adopt very different approaches to the US and enjoy far lower levels of violence towards and from the police.

Re:not enough

[Agent0013]

Well the way the cops get away with it now makes me want to kill them. So I don't see that as a good thing for them. How safe can it be when every law-abiding citizen out there hates the pigs enough to risk their life with a shot before they are going to die anyway. If following the orders from police ("Crawl toward me") can get you killed, and not obeying the orders will most likely get you killed, then you best option is to try to kill them first. And you have a nice argument in court also. I feared for my life (same argument the officer would make), and it was self-defense.

Re:not enough

[bobbied]

Dude, you are going to get yourself killed if you don't calm down..

Interacting with the cops isn't all that dangerous if you remember a couple of things:

First, they are not generally out trying to trump up a way to shoot folks and get away with it. The paperwork alone is deterrent enough for most people. The second to last thing a cop wants to do is draw their firearm (only dying on duty rates lower).

Second, all you need to do is COMPLY with any directions they are giving. IF you are obeying them, they are NOT going to shoot you in almost all conceivable situations. Don't be a threat, make it a point to NOT be a threat. Even if they are mistreating you, COMPLY and live to file an ethics complaint later. They usually just want to live and let live and on the rare occasions when an officer goes off the rails a bit, you will only help yourself by being compliant and respectful...

Now I'm a middle aged white guy but I'm over 6'6" so I'm kind of threatening. I've been pulled over at night and I have gone out of my way to not be a threat. One time I had a long jacket on that went to my knees and when I was asked for my drivers license, I had to step out of the car to get it. I asked for permission to get out. Turned around to face away from the officer, took out my wallet, showed him my hands and turned back around to hand him my license. When I turned around, the officer had his hand on his weapon and I don't blame him. Look at this from his point of view... Here's this guy, reaching behind his back and I cannot see what he's actually grabbing. Is he a crazy who's going to shoot me just because or some guy I just pulled over who just wants to go home too? Don't act like the crazy guy, don't do anything that might get you mistaken as a crazy cop killer, be respectful and compliant and you won't have any issues with being shot...

Re:not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

or just stay, get killed and it's no longer an issue if you love it or not

Re:not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

In 2015, 160 police officers were killed in the line of duty in the US. That compares with 937 construction workers - who are paid a fraction of what cops make and get a fraction of the benefits.

In terms of "deaths per 100,000", policing isn't even one of the 10 most dangerous jobs in America.

The question you need to ask yourself is, what standards are the police accountable to? Are you really OK with just giving them carte blanche to shoot whoever they like, whenever they feel the need? No? Then there must be some kind of rules of engagement, and it's completely legitimate to have a debate about what those should be.

In Canada, between 15 and 25 people per year are killed in encounters with the police. Last year, one police officer was killed in the line of duty. Just sayin'.

Re: not enough

[Agent0013]

That doesn't help the innocent guy who answered tha door. Nor the guy crawling his way to the cop as ordered. When do ue stop blaming the victim. Do girls have to stop being raped too? It's their fault, they looked too sexy. I have heard these lines before. And I'm a 6'1" white guy, so my hatred isn't from direct interactions. It's #rom the lack of accountability in the whole organization. The lawer for the mob is just as guilty of all the murdering, so every cop is a part of the biggest mob in history. They just stand out with a blue color and the weight of government force behind them.

Re:not enough

[apoc.famine]

That sounds awesome.

I wish every police force had that sort of training, and got it often. If you want to raise my taxes a bit and train the local cops better, I'm 100% in favor of that. The cost of lawsuits, insurance, and hospital bills are orders of magnitude higher than good training. I absolutely believe that good training is a money saver in the long run.

Re:not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

You think if you were behind cover with a scoped rifle and you shot an unarmed person from outside the effective range of a pistol you could just say: 'I didn't see his hand for a second, so I shot him.' and walk?

Nonsense. Not even if you suspected there was something violent going on.

Yeah, because police snipers just set themselves up in random places and shoot anyone whose hands they can't see.

I would suggest the issue lies with identifying a life threatening situation. Once someone has been identified as an imminent threat to other people then he forfeits his right to play "guess whether I'm scratching my butt or reaching for a loaded handgun" with the cops. This isn't a movie, the idea that there is time to make a correct decision identifying what someone is holding and then in the same split second shooting it out of their hands if it's a loaded gun but not firing if it's a toy so everyone walks away smiling is fantasy and lollipops but bears no resemblance to reality.

In regards to the article a serious investigation needs to happen to determine how SWAT was sent to something that wasn't confirmed. Once SWAT is sent their job is to neutralise the threat. I'm just surprised more people haven't been killed by this "swatting".

Re:not enough

[Agripa]

You think if you were behind cover with a scoped rifle and you shot an unarmed person from outside the effective range of a pistol you could just say: 'I didn't see his hand for a second, so I shot him.' and walk?

Nonsense. Not even if you suspected there was something violent going on.

But you are not a law enforcement officer with qualified immunity. That is exactly what they can do even if they create the exigent circumstances.

Re:not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Like AmiMojo, you seem to be oversimplifying what happened at best.

Here's the quote from the link again:

"Wichita police have said he was given commands to keep his hands raised, but say he reached toward his waistline multiple times."

He was told to keep his hands raised... and he didn't do that. That he was doing that reaching *muliple* times.

This isn't a simply him raising his hands once and getting shot. It also doesn't mean the police "immediately" saw him as a threat and shot.

There's also this line

"The officer who fired the shot, along with some others, thought Finch was reaching for a gun, Bennett said."

So the given reason was they thought he was reaching for a gun, not "he put his hands up too quickly". You aren't merely simplifying what happened, but a fabrication.

I sense you really care about this issue, but if you really care, I advise you to first understand what the facts are. You won't get much productive dialogue if the two sides cannot even agree on the facts.

That's great, now what about the police?

[eric2hill]

Shouldn't they ALSO be held accountable for showing up at a house and killing someone who WASN'T ARMED? Isn't that manslaughter? I hate the double-standard.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[Mashiki]

Police have the "reasonable belief" clause. That doesn't mean they can't be held accountable to internal policies, or state laws regarding the level of force that was used, or various police acts, or reviews of the incidents reviewed by external investigations and so on. You don't really ever hear about it because the media doesn't really care to report on it, but it happens all the time.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[bluefoxlucid]

Kind of. They're operating as expected; I'd place more of the blame on the institution of criminal justice which has created and maintained this approach to policing.

In other words: it's less the cops's fault as it is the legislature's, mayor's, and governor's.

Do note I'm running to be a legislator (in US Congress), so I may have a non-intuitive assessment of the situation.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nearly impossible to jail the cops for shooting someone. They've been tried multiple times, and it's almost never been successful. All the copper has to believe is that during the few seconds before he/she pulls the trigger, that their life is in danger. So as long as the cop is scared, they can shoot you.

We need changes in laws. I want these pigs in jail. It's way to easy for cops to get away with manslaughter.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[mi]

Police have the "reasonable belief" clause.

Citations, please?

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck in your run for Congress. We'll be fine, and I can lay claim that Yeah, I knew a bluefoxlucid, he was a Slashdotter, officer, but I do not know this congressman posting wiener pictures online, wasn't that guy admitted for treatment somewhere?

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't really ever hear about it because the media doesn't really care to report on it, but it happens all the time.

Nope. What happens is that the Police go out of their way to avoid accountability (even lying on their official documents), making false claims about a "War on Cops" and otherwise demanding that they be treated as the sacred and inviolable elites they see themselves as being. They won't deal with their internal corruption, their abuse of authority, or do anything to demonstrate their own commitment to the "standards" that they allegedly endorse.

They didn't even want to be recorded. And you know what the real secret, the one they won't tell you? They're making us pay for it. Literally billions in taxes to pay for their mistakes.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[mi]

In other words: it's less the cops's fault as it is the legislature's, mayor's, and governor's.

Imagine, for a second, some bright minds develop a robotic policeman — and it shoots someone in similar circumstances? Not even out of fear for its own "life", but simply because an opportunity to end a hostage-crisis presents itself...

Would you be out seeking excuses for the robot and its designers faced with vague and self-contradictory laws and public preferences, or will you organize and lead a march demanding immediate removal of such robots from the field and reinstating human policemen — because they can be trusted and expected to make human judgements?

Especially, when you need police union's endorsement to have any chance of winning your Democratic primary?

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[JackieBrown]

I read your page.

I'm more conservative and disagree with most of your stances but you must have said something I liked here since I friended you :)

Just curious, and you probably can't really go into detail, but how many of these issues are what you support versus what are mandated by your party? (I'm not saying you are selling out - more like "I don't feel strongly about this - or have no opinion - so I can toss my support to what the party says." I'm sure what core principals you have are non-negotiable so please don't think I am questioning your integrity. I just imagine being part of a political party (either party) carries some obligations for that party.)

I can tell you wrote most of it yourself just based on the wording and how detailed you were. Wish you the best of luck even if I hope you switch to red :)

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[Nidi62]

Kind of. They're operating as expected; I'd place more of the blame on the institution of criminal justice which has created and maintained this approach to policing. In other words: it's less the cops's fault as it is the legislature's, mayor's, and governor's.

No, it's the police's fault for fostering a militarized, "us vs them" approach. They encourage it because they want the Hummers, the surplus military weapons: they want to be "tacticool". Police in the US have a looser ROE than soldiers patrolling the streets of Iraq did, and they were in a war zone. Like I've being saying for a long time, police need to stop being law enforcement officers and go back to being peace officers.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[Anonymous Coward]

because they can be trusted and expected to make human judgements?

That's exactly why we have a justice system. Thanks for noticing.

It won't apply to robots for any time soon though, instead they get the scrapyard.

Especially, when you need police union's endorsement to have any chance of winning your Democratic primary?

You are confused about American politics.

Go back to Russia.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[Demena]

You do not need to change the law. We have the same law (roughly) in Australia. The difference is that other people decide whether the cop had a good reason to fear. A cop saying he panicked might get them off a murder charge but probably not manslaughter.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[DerekLyons]

You don't really ever hear about it because the media doesn't really care to report on it, but it happens all the time.

No, you don't hear about it - because it almost never happens. Only a tiny percentage of cops ever suffer negative consequences beyond slaps on the wrist for their murderous acts.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kinda playing fast and loose with the terms here. Standing Rules for the Use of Force (SRUF) is most certainly stricter than Rules of Engagment (ROE) because they have two different governing laws; one is the criminal justice system, the other is the Law of Armed Conflict. Yet there is truth in what you said, because President Obama implemented such restrictive conditions on top of the existing ROE that servicemembers effectively became enaged in "lawfare" where many platoon commanders were worried about what the lawyers would do if he returned fire without asking for permission first.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when are the police EVER held accountable to internal policies? Administrative leave with pay (read as: a vacation and a pat on the back).

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[Anonymous Coward]

He covered himself and his hostages with gasoline. Anything could have been a trigger.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[bluefoxlucid]

Would you be out seeking excuses for the robot and its designers faced with vague and self-contradictory laws and public preferences

The designers are professionals given policy by those commissioning the use of the robot. States don't go, "Well, the thing does X, I guess that's what it has to do;" they go, "Hey, we think this behavior is optimal for the public good. We'll buy your robot, but only if it can operate to these specifications."

Look at prisons in Norway. Look at prisons in Baltimore City. Now you tell me: who decides that prisons in Baltimore don't look like prisons in Norway? Who has the power to change that? Is it the prison guards? Do they decide that prisons are to be one cell, one bed, one inmate? Do they decide that the prison shall have a psychiatrist, a doctor, medical facilities, effective legal council, and educational facilities to provide a vocation? Do they decide when a prisoner is parolable? Of course not; these are all legislative decisions.

Our governors and legislators have spent the past two decades changing how our police force operates and altering our courts and prosecution strategies. The result? Huge waves of crime each time an O'Malley or Zirkin screws around with things. Occasionally, we get some sanity, and the crime rate goes down; and then it's an election year again, legislators and executives start passing laws mandating tougher policing and pushing police to bring a stronger, more forceful presence to the front, and we get more violence and more crime on the rise yet again.

This is what government is: you get elected to office and then everything is your fault because you can change everything.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[bluefoxlucid]

The Democratic Party happens to align well with my ideals. Parts of it, anyway; there are some serious ideological differences between the party's internal factions.

I've had the chance to think and develop positions on things I hadn't considered in a long time, and most of the Democratic Party's positions are fairly liberal and sensible. Things like individual rights and freedoms are inherently good--that spans topics like abortion, gay marriage, and worker's rights. I don't trust unions, but that's okay: I like unions and I support them, so long as the laws protect the worker from the employer, the union from the employer, the employer from the union, the worker from the union, and the union from the worker (the freerider problem is real, and irritating: your employer has a contract with a union; get over it, it's a private contract and a private business, and you sign on to all of their contracts when you sign on as an employee).

Of course you have people like Bernie, who claims he's a social democrat when he's really a democratic socialist (or a plain old socialist--he did want to make all hospitals Government-owned). I've begun building American Social Democracy based on Nordic Social Democracy--and unlike Social Democrats USA, whose principles are to build a platform of Social Democracy as a staging position for a future of Socialism, American Social Democracy explicitly opposes Socialization while encouraging Nationalization where appropriate.

To be more illustrative: Social Security nationalizes retirement pensions, and so you can buy into a 401(K) or a private defined benefit pension. Similarly, Germany nationalizes health insurance by purchasing through private insurers to guarantee all otherwise uninsured Germans have health insurance. I intend to nationalize health insurance with a Public Option, whereby Medicare provides the same sort of care that a (corrected) ACA-conforming plan would to anyone who doesn't have affordable care coverage, using a Federally operated fund, with rules of when and how premiums are billed (most notably, if your employer provides affordable care and you don't take it, you and your employer pay a tax equivalent to what you each would pay if you had bought the employer plan).

HR676 socializes health insurance by banning all private insurers from covering anything which Medicare covers. It attempts to socialize healthcare by forcing private hospitals and healthcare providers to become government-operated assets. This I oppose.

The Democratic Party has far too broad a span of ideals on the topic, with no general framework internally. It's filled with conservative capitalists and hard-left socialists; the great majority are somewhat middling liberals, though, and the inflow of progressives divides between a span of socialist-leaning minds and conservative libertarians who only sound liberal.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[bluefoxlucid]

And who provides the budget, the guidance, and the legal framework allowing and encouraging this?

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[mi]

So, you've dodged the question and switched topic. Why, you are ready to win your Democratic primary, congratulations!

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[JackieBrown]

This was very informative. Thank you for the response and best of luck to you.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[micahraleigh]

Revoke it.

Trials are more important.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[micahraleigh]

Hearsay == reasonable belief ?

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[Kjella]

Citations, please?

No idea what the grandparent is talking about, possibly the general principle that you can act on reasonable belief. Like if you point a replica gun at me, I can shoot you in self-defense even though you were actually incapable of shooting me. The real facts don't matter, just my perception of a threat. Cops in the US certainly have a lot of leeway to say they thought you posed a threat, so the use of lethal force was justified. In fact, if you're on a SWAT team it's damn near immunity because you're not calling in the SWAT team unless there is a reasonable belief that someone is in grave danger.

I can understand that the courts want to err on the side of the police, that you don't want cops on the street worrying whether this guy is threatening enough or is somebody far away in their comfy office chair going to decide in hindsight that this is actually murder. On the other hand, if you can't curb the aggression the cops are likely to go more and more in the "shoot first, ask questions later" direction because it's safe and easy for them. But I suppose criticizing anything in how the cops are equipped and trained or the specifics of this police action would probably look like an admission of guilt, so let's pick the easy option to pin it all on the swatters. Same procedure next swatting...

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[bluefoxlucid]

The topic is responsibility in our policing and correction system, particularly around the control of structural change--control held by executives and legislators.

The police are the way they are because the mayors, governors, and legislatures changed policy and made them that way. That's what's written above. You've asserted that the police are wholly-autonomous and policing in a nation or a city are not controlled by institutional policy, but rather by individual law enforcement officers's actions--which begs the question: what in the hell does government do?

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[mi]

you don't want cops on the street worrying whether this guy is threatening enough

Actually, I do want that.

criticizing anything in how the cops are equipped and trained or the specifics of this police action would probably look like an admission of guilt

The guilt seems obvious and the government should've considered admitting it — such as by trying the cop in question. Then, if the jury clears him — fine, he walks...

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[mi]

The topic is, whether a policeman can kill a citizen on the latter's property based on nothing but personal perception of "threat".

You've asserted that the police are wholly-autonomous

I made no such assertions — my point was, we expect policemen to follow their own human judgement. That judgement may be influenced by their training and policies, but at the end it is still theirs — unlike, perhaps, that of a hypothetical robocop, who is fully controlled by his programming.

You seem to imply, cops are mere weapons, using their brain only to aim better and avoid falling into open manholes. Given your stated political ambitions, I'm convinced, this opinion of yours is meant to appeal to individual officers, whose votes and endorsement you want, while targeting the current officials, whom you'd like to replace with your self.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[bluefoxlucid]

I made no such assertions — my point was, we expect policemen to follow their own human judgement. That judgement may be influenced by their training and policies, but at the end it is still theirs

These are conflicting statements. A person's judgment is influenced by training and policies. They're trained to expect--and use--maximum force, and to assume any sudden or unexpected movement could turn fatal in a fraction of a second. They're trained to take no chances. They're trained that it takes longer for your brain to assess if a thing is a toy or a gun than it takes to pull the trigger.

They're trained to aim for the center of mass, where they have the best chance of hitting instead of sending stray bullets, and where there are overlapping vital organs.

Ephedra and amphetamine get your norepinephrine levels up, get your adrenaline pumping, give you a dopamine rush. So does a war zone. They're going in under the premise of hostile combat, with twitchy fingers. It's like being on meth.

Human judgment is clouded by everything around it. People make mistakes. People justify their mistakes because they don't want to be bad people. People are told they did the right thing, and those mistakes are reinforced.

Your human judgment seems to be lacking: you're throwing an emotional argument where the guy behind the trigger must be solely, absolutely responsible for his every action--that everything in his life leading up to that moment means nothing, because every person would reason and react in exactly the same way if they just tried. What makes you this way?

Your argument, right now, is a result of distrust of politicians, of police, and of authority figures in general; you've learned that when you walk in that room, when one of them pulls out something, you immediately fire because it's probably a lie.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[SvnLyrBrto]

> Police have the "reasonable belief" clause.

Which need to go away immediately and forever. Leaving aside the question of whether the death penalty should exist at all; the standard for the state to execute a citizen is supposed to be "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that the executed. And that's only ever supposed to happen after the due process of a jury trial. Hopped up thugs with the delusion that real life should be a Judge Dredd comic where their word and whim is the law and that trials and juries are unnecessary have no business wearing a badge, or in the service of the public in any capacity.

While the caller is certainly an asshat who needs to be locked up; at the end of the day, he's not the one who made the decision to pull the trigger and shoot the victim. The shooting officer damn well *SHOULD* be locked away forever. And his superiors up the reporting chain should all be dishonorably discharged w/ any and all benefits forfeited.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[SvnLyrBrto]

> The real facts don't matter, just my perception of a
> threat.

And that's a huge problem and a legal standard that needs to be disposed of. How do you prove a perception or belief? Until and unless we evolve telepathy, or can build a mind-reading machine; claims of perception or belief in a supposed threat are impossible-to-prove garbage. And PROOF beyond a reasonable doubt, not belief of any kind, is supposed to be the legal standard before the state can judge someone guilty and punish him in any way. And I'd bloody well argue that for execution, the "beyond a reasonable doubt" part should go away... 100% incontrovertibly proven facts without the smallest shred of doubt, or GTFO.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[Mashiki]

No, you don't hear about it - because it almost never happens. Only a tiny percentage of cops ever suffer negative consequences beyond slaps on the wrist for their murderous acts.

Sure. There's one in every province in Canada. There's one in nearly every state in the US. Why don't you just go look through the cases listed on the front page and tell me how many times they show up in the media. I'll give you a hint, it's zero.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[Mashiki]

Here's the one from Canada. The US has something similar.

Protection of persons acting under authority

        25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

                (a) as a private person,

                (b) as a peace officer or public officer,

                (c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

                (d) by virtue of his office,

        is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.
        Marginal note:Idem

        (2) Where a person is required or authorized by law to execute a process or to carry out a sentence, that person or any person who assists him is, if that person acts in good faith, justified in executing the process or in carrying out the sentence notwithstanding that the process or sentence is defective or that it was issued or imposed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.
        Marginal note:When not protected

        (3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a person is not justified for the purposes of subsection (1) in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for the self-preservation of the person or the preservation of any one under that personâ(TM)s protection from death or grievous bodily harm.
        Marginal note:When protected

        (4) A peace officer, and every person lawfully assisting the peace officer, is justified in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to a person to be arrested, if

                (a) the peace officer is proceeding lawfully to arrest, with or without warrant, the person to be arrested;

                (b) the offence for which the person is to be arrested is one for which that person may be arrested without warrant;

                (c) the person to be arrested takes flight to avoid arrest;

                (d) the peace officer or other person using the force believes on reasonable grounds that the force is necessary for the purpose of protecting the peace officer, the person lawfully assisting the peace officer or any other person from imminent or future death or grievous bodily harm; and

                (e) the flight cannot be prevented by reasonable means in a less violent manner.
        Marginal note:Power in case of escape from penitentiary

        (5) A peace officer is justified in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm against an inmate who is escaping from a penitentiary within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, if

                (a) the peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that any of the inmates of the penitentiary poses a threat of death or grievous bodily harm to the peace officer or any other person; and

                (b) the escape cannot be prevented by reasonable means in a less violent manner.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[Mashiki]

Which need to go away immediately and forever. Leaving aside the question of whether the death penalty should exist at all; the standard for the state to execute a citizen is supposed to be "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that the executed. And that's only ever supposed to happen after the due process of a jury trial. Hopped up thugs with the delusion that real life should be a Judge Dredd comic where their word and whim is the law and that trials and juries are unnecessary have no business wearing a badge, or in the service of the public in any capacity.

So, when a police officer is responding to a call about someone shooting a school, you don't want them to respond and to use whatever methods necessary to stop the shooter? Your fundamental understanding of policing is so poor, that I recommend you get off your ass and go volunteer at your local service or office asap.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[Mashiki]

So when a police officer gets a call where a person is shooting up a restaurant, you don't want them to respond and use lethal force? You'd be happier until the person killing other people has simply run out of bullets? Or would you be happier that say in the US, in CC state that people can simply shoot the person in the first place?

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[Mashiki]

Policing is built on the belief that the person making the call is "acting in good faith." Which is why the person being charged for the death of another person isn't the police, but the person acting in bad faith. In this case, the punishment does not fit the crime and should be 2nd degree, 1st degree requires premeditation and they're unlikely to get that. In your world, if an elderly homeowner fell down a flight of stairs, the police wouldn't be able to break in to save them. Nor would they ever respond to active shooting because the person responding is unable to verify it.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[Mashiki]

"acting on good faith" == hearsay

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[mjwx]

Shouldn't they ALSO be held accountable for showing up at a house and killing someone who WASN'T ARMED? Isn't that manslaughter? I hate the double-standard.

Who's saying that?

Granted I'm not an American, I'm an Australian who lives in the UK, but even though the incident was not instigated by the police, if it happened over here the cops would definitely be stood down pending an investigation. Any officer who shot someone without determining if they were a threat or not based on an anonymous 999 call (our 911) would likely be drummed out of the force, maybe have charges (negligence and manslaughter) bought against them. The best case scenario would be a low level desk job for the rest of their lives.

However, the person making the anonymous 999 call would be seeing murder charges (in the UK, manslaughter == unintentional killing, murder == intentional killing).

However the UK is safe enough that most of our officers don't even carry a firearm. Currently there is a push by regional forces to get more officers to go for PFO (Police Firearm Officers) training because we don't have enough outside the major cities.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[eric2hill]

Who's saying that?

The district attorney declined to prosecute the officer.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[micahraleigh]

You don't understand.

In THIS case the person gunning people down IS THE POLICE.

Governments kill VASTLY more people than people unaffiliated with a government.

Revoke it and give some more specific boundaries than "reasonable belief".

But revoke it first.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[micahraleigh]

The phrase "acting on good faith" is a standard legal threshold for legitimacy.

Hearsay is an ordinary way of signaling circumstantial (i.e. insignificant) indication.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Police get away with MUCH worse than murder. One county away from where I live, the ENTIRE sheriff's office was recently busted by state investigators for running a child prostitution ring. It spanned the entire state, and there was ample evidence that most of the missing kids all over the state were abducted by sheriff officers and then shipped to other counties to avoid getting caught. There were hundreds of children abducted by police officers for sex slavery.

Naturally, none of this ever got to the media. Nobody asked why an entire county's sheriff's office resigned (no criminal charges, of course). The only reason I know is because I personally know one of the investigators that later got stationed in that county in order to clean things up. Not an arrest was made, and as far as I know, no trafficked children were rescued either.

I probably don't have to mention that this is an EXTREMELY conservative county, almost 100% Trump territory, because that's typically what one assumes in situations like this. But it is fairly relevant.

Re:That's great, now what about the police?

[DerekLyons]

There's one in every province in Canada. There's one in nearly every state in the US.

Which has precisely nothing to do with either your original statement, or my response.

Why don't you just go look through the cases listed on the front page and tell me how many times they show up in the media. I'll give you a hint, it's zero.

I don't know about your neck of the woods, but in mine - investigations of the police routinely show up in the media. But, again, that has nothing to do with either your statement or my response.

So, not even a nice try. Get back to me when you have sufficient grasp of the English language to understand what I wrote.

It's an interesting admission

[Weaselmancer]

The charge is involuntary manslaughter.

From that link:

Three elements must be satisfied in order for someone to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter: Someone was killed as a result of the defendant's actions. The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life. The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.

The interesting bit is "The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life."

We're admitting that simply having the cops show up is so inherently dangerous that it constitutes a reckless disregard for human life.

Re: It's an interesting admission

[Anonymous Coward]

No, weâ(TM)re saying that calling armed cops who have been told that there is an active danger at a location is inherently dangerous. Thatâ(TM)s a very different thing.

Re:It's an interesting admission

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you stupid fuck. We're saying the telling the police there is an active hostage situation with a hostage taker so twitchy he already 'accidentally' shot one of the hostages in the head is inherently dangerous.

Re:It's an interesting admission

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, when the cops show up having been told there is a life-or-death hostage situation with an armed crazy guy going on, then yes, it is inherently dangerous.

Re:It's an interesting admission

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because having SWAT show up expecting a hostage situation is totally the same as "simply having the cops show up."

Re:It's an interesting admission

[kilfarsnar]

No, you stupid fuck. We're saying the telling the police there is an active hostage situation with a hostage taker so twitchy he already 'accidentally' shot one of the hostages in the head is inherently dangerous.

This is an important factor. However, the police need to assess the situation on their own before taking action. That is part of their responsibility, and why they are supposedly trained in law enforcement.

Re:It's an interesting admission

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry. Did you just say that calling the police to inform them that you are armed, unstable, and just executed someone in the kitchen is the same thing as "simply having the cops show up"? Do you really think that's what happened here?

I am sure the Wichita police respond all day long to dozens of calls requiring the police to "show up" without ever using lethal force. The part "we're admitting is inherently dangerous" was not the dialing of the police department.

Re:It's an interesting admission

[Headw1nd]

As others have pointed out, this was not "simply having the cops show up", the defendant didn't call the cops and say "his neighbor" had weed and was playing their music too loud. Instead, the defendant made multiple false statements with the specific intent of exaggerating the threat in order to ensure the police responded with maximum force as quickly as possible. He deliberately tried to preempt any attempt by the police to negotiate or assess the situation through his portrayal of an armed suspect. While his intent wasn't to kill, he created a situation where he knew someone would be held by police at gunpoint, a dangerous situation where any misunderstanding could and did lead to death. Pretty much exactly as described in the charge.

Re: It's an interesting admission

[Anonymous Coward]

Downvoat all you want. You missed the point, rather intentionally I suspect. They are paid to handle dangerious situations without resorting to shooting first. Getting really sick and fucking tired of Police who refuse to descalate FIRST. They are SUPPOSED to assume everyone is lieing until proven otherwise.

Instead they all want to run around trying to be heros.

Swatting is retarded but so is a manslaughter charge. The obstruction charges are mind numbingly vague you can't possibly compare them. If anything it's reckless endangerment.

Re:It's an interesting admission

[Anonymous Coward]

We're admitting that simply having the cops show up is so inherently dangerous that it constitutes a reckless disregard for human life.

In other false equivalencies, simply sending text to the internet is the same as hacking the electrical grid.

Re:It's an interesting admission

[Anonymous Coward]

> We're admitting that simply having the cops show up is so inherently dangerous that it constitutes a reckless disregard for human life.

Getting the SWAT team called isn't "Simply having the cops show up"

Re: It's an interesting admission

[Anonymous Coward]

And, that cops will shoot unarmed people without a second thought.

Could it have been a hostage answering the door? Who knows, it moves the police shoots it. No thought required.

Re:It's an interesting admission

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, how full of shit you are. You removed the context of "called in an imminently lethal hostage situation" entirely.

Re:It's an interesting admission

[micahraleigh]

You are still presupposing the authorities are either too incompetent, too stupid, or too incapable to be held responsible for the outcome.

Maybe you are right and people need to start protecting themselves.

Re:It's an interesting admission

[SuiteSisterMary]

Which is why the correct answer is that both the party that created the situation has performed a criminal act, and the party that, when placed in that situation, acted wrongly, has also performed a criminal act.

Re: It's an interesting admission

[thegarbz]

A minor distinction. If the police suddenly become inherently dangerous simply because they get a call to go somewhere for some unconfirmed situation, it really is as bad as saying "cops show up is inherently dangerous".

Re:It's an interesting admission

[Weaselmancer]

However, the police need to assess the situation on their own before taking action. That is part of their responsibility, and why they are supposedly trained in law enforcement.

Yes, this. Thank you.

Apparently you can pick up a phone, being absolutely anybody and make up a story - and police will storm a building and shoot people. No questions asked. They won't verify anything, they won't assess the situation when they arrive on the scene, they will never consider it's a prank call - none of this. They will kick in a door and start shooting.

You can pick up a phone and make this happen in this country. That's a strange thing, isn't it?

Is the prank caller culpable? Certainly. But nobody ever looks at the police that show up. Nobody ever asks if they might need a little more training before kicking in doors and shooting people.

I wonder why that is?

To my way of thinking, the cops are every bit as wrong as the prank caller and possibly more so. You would hope that police officers would do better. Ostensibly their profession is to serve and protect, I'm told. Perhaps they might want to focus on that aspect of it a bit, rather than using Judge Dredd comic books as source material and blasting anything that moves for thrills.

The ruling of "involuntary manslaughter" to me is an admission that we know that a large enough percentage of the cops we have are ill prepared for their jobs, poorly trained and/or have the wrong temperament for the job, and therefore dangerous in and of themselves.

Re: It's an interesting admission

[SuiteSisterMary]

Look, all of human existence and society revolves around management of risk.

Driving is inherently dangerous, but that's a risk we've chosen to accept. Driving after dark is more dangerous, but again, a risk we've chosen to accept. Driving while tired? Now we're starting to get into 'yes, but you've made it more dangerous than it needed to be.' Driving while intoxicated? Now we're definitely into 'more dangerous than it needed to be, and you shouldn't have done that.'

Well, yes. Calling the cops on somebody is inherently dangerous. But not to the extent that it would involve 'a reckless disregard for human life.' Calling the cops on somebody and priming them for a hostage situation where you know, for a fact, there isn't one? That's not just reckless, that's knowing and willful.

Re: It's an interesting admission

[thegarbz]

Well, yes. Calling the cops on somebody is inherently dangerous. But not to the extent that it would involve 'a reckless disregard for human life.' Calling the cops on somebody and priming them for a hostage situation where you know, for a fact, there isn't one? That's not just reckless, that's knowing and willful.

The key point the GP and I were making was that no, it isn't knowing and wilful without the appreciation for the fact that interactions with police in America are inherently more risky than they are in the rest of the western world.

Yes everything is dangerous, so let's go to the sliding scale of risk and go back to the original GP's comment and re-word it:

We're admitting that simply having the cops show up is so much more inherently risky than in the rest of the world that it constitutes a reckless disregard for human life.

Re:It's an interesting admission

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. This is going to be an interesting test case.

The defense can argue that the defendant could not have foreseen that the police would be so reckless as to shoot an unarmed person. The prosecution would have to refute that argument and, depending on how they do that, it could have come interesting down-stream effects, including accused cop-killers claiming self-defense as police are known to be lethally dangerous.

Policing is so fucked up in this country but, then again, so is everything else.

Re: It's an interesting admission

[SuiteSisterMary]

The key point the GP and I were making was that no, it isn't knowing and wilful without the appreciation for the fact that interactions with police in America are inherently more risky than they are in the rest of the western world.

I disagree. I think that calling the cops, in any country, and telling them 'there's an active hostage situation with somebody already killed' is going to guarantee an aggressive and armed response.

Hell, a lot of European countries have traditionally responded with military units in that situation, or dedicated counter-terrorism teams.

Re: It's an interesting admission

[thegarbz]

I think that calling the cops, in any country, and telling them 'there's an active hostage situation with somebody already killed' is going to guarantee an aggressive and armed response.

No and yes. Armed yes, aggressive no.

Hell, a lot of European countries have traditionally responded with military units in that situation, or dedicated counter-terrorism teams.

Yep, look at what happens. The response is a careful and calculated one without trigger happy idiots even when actual terrorists are firing guns into the air. Hell in the most recent one a cop negotiated a hostage exchange with himself, freed some hostages and paid for it with his life. The exact opposite of aggressive and the exact opposite of inherently risky.

sounds like mockery of the state.

[nimbius]

Having exposed local police for bungling ineptitude in the face of a hostage crisis, it seems authorities have no choice but to find every potential crime they can think of to charge this kid with. This includes, beguilingly, arson?

Remember: this kid did not kill anyone. at best, he lied to police and should be tried for that. The real question is, what disciplinary action was taken against the officer or officers who fired on an unarmed man in his own home? Was a warrant issued to allow police to enter the premises? What steps were taken to de-escalate the hostage situation? did the police wait for a trained negotiator or attempt to make contact with the person?

Re:sounds like mockery of the state.

[Anonymous Coward]

right, but the Manson Familty cult members that actually went into the house and DID kill people were also sent to jail. As opposed tot the cop that shot the guy here who isn't even being charged.

Re:sounds like mockery of the state.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Having exposed local police for bungling ineptitude in the face of a hostage crisis

No, it's your bungling ineptitude to understand the law involved and what legal rights the police has.

> Remember: this kid did not kill anyone. at best, he lied to police and should be tried for that.

You seem to confuse 'murder' with 'killing'. If you cause someone's death by recklessness it's called manslaughter. That's different from murdering someone. Both are forms of 'killing'. Also check https://www.defenseattorneynh.com/blog/2017/09/whats-difference-between-manslaughter-and-negligent-homicide.shtml

> what disciplinary action was taken against the officer or officers who fired on an unarmed man in his own home?

It's legal to proceed with guns pulled on a armed hostage situation, even if it doesn't turn out to be the case. You can't take disciplinary action against officers that act within the law.

> Was a warrant issued to allow police to enter the premises?

There's no such thing as an 'entrance warrant'. There are 'search warrants' which is what you need to *search* a home. You don't need a warrant to *enter* premises, it's just that the owner is allowed to refuse access. In the case of an emergency (like the hostage situation) the police is allowed to overstep that refusal. So in any case there's no warranty needed.

> What steps were taken to de-escalate the hostage situation? did the police wait for a trained negotiator or attempt to make contact with the person?

Read the original report.

Re:sounds like mockery of the state.

[Jhon]

DA on the "cop that shot the guy":

"Bennett said he had to make a determination based on Kansas law and law handed down by the Supreme Court, which says that when determining if an officer acted reasonably, evidence has to be reviewed based on what the officer knew at the time of the shooting, not 20/20 hindsight, he said."

The police were acting on deliberately deceptive information provided by the gamer.

Re:sounds like mockery of the state.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't charge someone for acting within the law, which is what the cop did.

Re:sounds like mockery of the state.

[Anonymous Coward]

didnt realize shooting the first person you see in a hostage situation is considered "acting reasonably".
sure sounds like bullshit to me.

Re:sounds like mockery of the state.

[Anonymous Coward]

The police did exactly what we would want them to do if the reports had all been true.

Re:sounds like mockery of the state.

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. If I was in a hostage situation, I would want the police to identity the person at the door as the person that is a threat, and not 1 of the hostages before shooting them. If the police thought it was a hostage situation, wouldn't knowing your not killing a hostage before pulling the trigger by an expected course of action?

Re:sounds like mockery of the state.

[Anonymous Coward]

Liars exist. Liars to the police exist. False report exists. We expect the police to check if the report is a fabrication or not before acting recklessly.

Re:sounds like mockery of the state.

[Jhon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

When I look at the video, I see when ordered to "walk this way" by the police it LOOKS like the victim pointed his arms or moved his arms toward the police. I wasn't there and can't see through the officers eyes, but it looks like in the video he pointed something at the direction of the officers. Clearly this didn't happen, but again, we're going on 20/20 hindsight now.

"didnt realize shooting the first person you see in a hostage situation is considered "acting reasonably"."

Clearly, it's not. But when presented with a suspect who was reported as being armed he does something that looks like a "pointing something" gesture the police are going to react.

"sure sounds like bullshit to me."

Assuming the police just "shot the first person they see" sure sounds like bullshit to *ME*.

Re: sounds like mockery of the state.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just yesterday I rewatched an episode of Brain Games. In it, they showed conclusively that an 8 year old untrained girl could grab a balled up bill on a table 2.5 feet under her hand before an adult whos hand was only 1 foot away and in between her hand and the money (done with multiple different adults and she succeeded every time).

If the house we're doused internally with gasoline, as the call said, and the person at the door were grabbing a flare/match/lighter/gun/other-simple-ignition-source from their waistband to light it, it would have been physically impossible for the cops to stop them once they had verified the item. Not only would the "hostages" have died, the resulting fire could have killed dozens of people in the neighborhood, possibly spreading for blocks before being contained. The human eye-brain data lag is such that waiting to see what the person would have been too late.

I have been detained by officers when I had no idea what they were talking about. This was before the rash of police killings, so I had no reason to fear for my life at the time. I did get upset, and eventually indignant, about them shining a spotlight in my eyes for way longer than needed on a dark night. I still kept my hands visible and my language non-inflamitory. When confronted by armed Invaders, the victim needed to remain calm and move slowly until everything was cleared up.

The ironic thing is, had he survived it is unlikely he would have gotten justice. The nature of "anonymous" calls currently would have protected the real criminals in this case. Look at the other comments; how many people have ignored the fact that there would have been no police to make a judgement if the caller had any concern over what would happen to him? If I did a little research and found your address, should I get a pass on harassing you just because I use the cops to do it, or should I face criminal charges? And if a non-life-threatening harassment is not enough to warrant charges, what's to stop me from making the false calls repeatedly until the cops finally stop waisting their time on you, then use their lack of attention to more directly threaten you?

Am I happy that the man was killed by the police? No, but no one posting on this forum was there; we don't have any way to know what we would have done. We do know who is ultimately responsible for the death, and *ALL* of our anger should be directed at those who made the false call.

Re:sounds like mockery of the state.

[Anonymous Coward]

", Andrew Finch is reported by his mother Lisa Finch, who was at the scene, to have opened the front door "because he heard something." Mrs. Finch reports that her 28-year old son "screamed and then they shot him." CBS News reports that moments after Finch stepped onto his front porch, he was shot dead by a Wichita Police officer."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Wichita_swatting

Im not assuming anything. I'm actually reading regarding the eye witness report and what the news reported. Think first before attacking.

Re:sounds like mockery of the state.

[Jhon]

"Im not assuming anything. I'm actually reading regarding the eye witness report and what the news reported. Think first before attacking."

Police ordered him to "walk this way". It looked like he pointed something. It appears they *DID* think before attacking.

The statement of claimed they just shot the first person they say. That is clearly an assumption not supported by the video.

Why not do a quick look-see on the accuracy of eyewitness accounts, too. I'm not saying she's wrong -- I'm saying YOU are assuming, in spite of a video which doesn't show what she describes, is exactly what happened. It's quite possible both accounts are accurate -- but from different points of view. Please note that you can clearly hear the officer give an order, but you cannot hear a "scream" before the shot as described in his other's account.

But what the video shows CLEARLY is the police did *NOT* shoot the first person they saw. They gave an order and it LOOKED like he was pointing something. They shot a perceived threat that was reported to be armed and unstable.

Re:sounds like mockery of the state.

[Anonymous Coward]

let me put this another way. The house was surrounded. Lots of police with guns out. ONLY 1 shot! Why? If this was the correct course of action or the person in the door appeared to be a threat, there would have been shots from more offices, especially after the first 1 shot. Thats the training. Looks at those guys a number of years back that were shot 30-40 times for pulling a cell phone. It appeared to be a reasonable threat and the police unloaded.

This was 1 bullet from 1 gun from 1 out of a number of officers.
The guy fucked up!

Re:sounds like mockery of the state.

[Anonymous Coward]

actually I meant YOU should think before attacking, but it stands for police too. Maybe you should review that video as well. I see no gun or threatening action. If I was at the scene I wouldnt have known if that was the hostage taker or a hostage (let alone what it actually was).

The guy reacted without thinking from what I saw and what I saw seems to be shared by every other officer at the scene as there was 1 gun shot, not a rain of bullets.

Re:sounds like mockery of the state.

[Anonymous Coward]

"This was 1 bullet from 1 gun from 1 out of a number of officers. The guy fucked up!"

From on AC to another, you are ranting with nothing really to stand on. You are making assumptions with no insight. The officer did nothing against policy. He did nothing illegal. You are making assumptions about the other officers not shooting. All while making factual claims that someone "fucked up".

Put it any way you want. You are wrong.

Re:sounds like mockery of the state.

[micahraleigh]

No ! Even if they were true they should have investigated.

Re:sounds like mockery of the state.

[Whorhay]

I don't know about the law in Kansas but in some states if you commit a crime and that crime ends up precipitating another you can be found guilty of the second crime as well. Which is why getaway drivers for armed robberies can wind up being charged with murder and assault when those crimes are committed as part of the robbery. In this case several people conspired to commit a crime, making a false report to the police. That false report resulted in a death, for which they now share responsibility.

For the record I think the officer should also be facing charges, though of a reduced nature.

Re:sounds like mockery of the state.

[thegarbz]

evidence has to be reviewed based on what the officer knew at the time of the shooting

So if you know nothing, have proved nothing, and just shoot away you're good to go.

Re:sounds like mockery of the state.

[Jhon]

"So if you know nothing, have proved nothing, and just shoot away you're good to go."

I need to ask, are you stupid? Or do you just not care you are providing misleading statements?

1: What the officers knew: Someone sounding unstable called in claiming he had a gun, shot his father in the head, holding the gun on his mother and brother forcing them to stay in the closet and planning on setting the house on fire.
2: They ordered the guy to "walk this way" while waving him towards them (found out from another source).
3: Guy did a motion that any reasonable person would think appears to point something towards the officers.

What they knew was deliberately and deceptively provided by the evil "gamer" who was rightfully arrested.

If you are suggesting that our police and fire departments should send out some "verification" teams for every call then you are not only stupid, but crazy.

What we need is dramatically more severe penalties for calling 911 and lying about crimes (something that's ALREADY illegal). This guy is going to get a few years max -- when he really should go away for 20 easy.

Re: sounds like mockery of the state.

[Cederic]

If the house we're doused internally with gasoline, as the call said, and the person at the door were grabbing a flare/match/lighter/gun/other-simple-ignition-source from their waistband to light it, it would have been physically impossible for the cops to stop them once they had verified the item

Shooting them wouldn't prevent it either.

What, you think people go from alive to fully dead and decomposing the moment a bullet enters their body?

Re:sounds like mockery of the state.

[bingoUV]

Even if the phone call to SWAT were completely correct : the person that appears on the door could easily have been a hostage. Who was made to behave in these ways by the "terrorist". Having 2 motivations : escaping the bullet of the "terrorist" and indicating secretly his predicament to police - he behaved seemingly weirdly.

By "completely correct" I mean the SWAT caller could have not noticed a few hostages, or a new hostage could have been acquired after the call so SWAT could not have depended on only the list of hostages specified to them. But even if the content of the call to SWAT, if it were completely true, police still ended up potentially killing the hostage.

This determination that a person appearing may be a hostage and hence behaving weirdly - did not have to be taken in the field of potential fire. This could have been planned / discussed in advance and taught in all hostage training manuals of last 2000 years.

Re:sounds like mockery of the state.

[Anonymous Coward]

DA on the "cop that shot the guy":

"Bennett said he had to make a determination based on Kansas law and law handed down by the Supreme Court, which says that when determining if an officer acted reasonably, evidence has to be reviewed based on what the officer knew at the time of the shooting, not 20/20 hindsight, he said."

The police were acting on deliberately deceptive information provided by the gamer.

The police receive huge numbers of crank calls and other misleading information. Competent officers know not to trust this information - they verify everything they're told before taking action.

In short, the officer did NOT know there was a real threat, he was NOT acting on what he knew or should have known. He chose to kill an unarmed man that was no threat. It's not an accident, its a very serious crime - criminal negligence at a minimum - and it's insane that some people are trying to pretend this is not a crime committed by government officials (the fact that the dumb sociopathic kid also committed a crime is a separate issue).

In not prosecuting, the DA is accessory to the original crime - and it's not within the legal authority of government to give either the police officer OR the DA immunity. Both of these people belong in jail.

Re:Tell me why the police need guns?

[Hognoxious]

This is what happens when you arm the police idiots.

FTFY.

Jeez, the Wheels of Justice Sure Do Grind Slowly..

[thebryce]

...but they do grind.

Re:Tell me why the police need guns?

[LordWabbit2]

Because more than a 3rd of Americans are armed - makes it kind of mandatory to arm the police, otherwise they would get picked off like flies.

Why is the original target being charged?

[Anonymous Coward]

The article says that Shane Gaskill - the gamer who was targeted by the swat, but gave a false address - is being charged with "several counts of obstruction of justice, wire fraud and conspiracy to obstruct justice." Why?

Looks like Gaskill goaded Barriss through text messages, which would seem to fall under freedom of speech. But then "after news reports of Finch's shooting surfaced, Gaskill sent Barriss messages on Twitter" telling him to delete all record of it. This is probably why he's being charged, but why would be suddenly care so much about protecting the guy who tried to swat him?

Re: Why is the original target being charged?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pinhead knows the person who really opened the box wasnâ(TM)t the person who opened it. I mean, he murdered all of those people too, but gotta get that intent.

Re:Why is the original target being charged?

[Demena]

Because he (Gaskill) supplied the false address the Barriss sent the the SWAT team to investigate. At least the is what I got from it.

Re:Why is the original target being charged?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm also wondering why the 2 others who did not report the fake incident to the police were indicted. It all gets down to details. Did they do anything, or is it another case of over-prosecution. Like with police car chases. I wonder how many passengers who were involved because the driver fled the police end up being charged or in jail for being in the wrong place, the really wrong place at the wrong time.
Or, the passenger and driver had just robbed a daycare of diapers. Is the passenger a unwilling captive in a speeding car? Or, on the basis the passenger didn't jump out of the vehicle when it was going 70 mph makes them a willing participant. (Yes, that is absurd, but if you've paying attention you know that a lot of absurd prosecutions occur).
Some passengers are never charged. I would give odds that the color of a passenger's skin makes a difference.

Re:Tell me why the police need guns?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what happens when you arms the police, idiots.

When the American population is willing to disarm, we can talk about that.

Old news

[sjbe]

We're admitting that simply having the cops show up is so inherently dangerous that it constitutes a reckless disregard for human life.

Anyone in the US who does not have white skin already knew that.

Re:Old news

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, no. In 2017, 981 americans were killed by police. While it's true that 431 of these were white and only 214 were black- the white population makes up 61.3% of America and the black population is only 12.7%. Blacks are killed at much higher rate per capita- learn how to use statistics meaningfully.

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2017/

Re:Old news

[Anonymous Coward]

In absolute numbers, yes, but only because there are a lot more white people in this country. The ratio of black vs white death-by-cop is heavily skewed towards people of color.

Its like you conservative tards can't even do statistics properly

Re:Old news

[JackieBrown]

Ok - so what's the statistic of violent black crimes versus white crimes and the ratio of that with the general population?

Big problem is that the thug life is more glamorized in minority areas since they are usually more impoverished it is the easiest way to fell like you have power and control.

Re:Old news

[Cederic]

can't even do statistics properly

So what's the statistic for deaths to the police by race per interaction with the police?
What's the statistic for deaths to the police per 1000 criminal offences by race?

The ratio of black vs white death-by-cop is heavily skewed towards people of color.

Maybe, but when you start using statistics properly we'll find out.

Re:Tell me why the police need guns?

[Jhon]

"Because more than a 3rd of Americans are armed"

Actually, we're all armed. Only a third of us with guns. Knives can kill. Bats can kill. Rocks can kill.

Fun fact: Gun ownership is down from 50+ years ago.

Everyone?

[Powercntrl]

So everyone gets charged except for the cop that actually killed a man? That seems a huge lapse of justice.

Getting in trouble for goading someone into swatting you seems like a huge lapse of justice, too. Don't talk shit in online games, because some scumbag might get pissed at you and end up swatting the wrong person?

I get that the torches and pitchforks are out over this, but the faults lie with the lowlife who actually placed the false 911 call, and the police department for going in "guns blazing" without properly assessing the situation (hell, consumer grade video drones can fly miles from the operator - buy one, idiotic police department).

Re:Everyone?

[MitchDev]

Partially. Cops propensity to shoot first and ask questions later is just as much of a problem however.

Re:Everyone?

[Cederic]

I understand your point but just listing the charges doesn't really reveal what Gaskill (the intended SWATing victim) is believed to have done that's illegal.

If the alleged wire fraud is 'gave a false address' then I'd hope a jury would laugh it out of court. If the 'perverting the course of justice' was lying to investigators about events, then that may well be an appropriate charge.

I suspect the prosecutors are treating "Sure, go ahead, SWAT me. Here's my address" as illegal, and that's an interesting precedent to try and set - as someone else noted earlier, that's tantamount to officially admitting that the police can be used to assassinate people.

Re:Everyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cops are already thought of as assassins. I read an article from some young activist lawyer in SoHo New York who had the cops called on him because he was shouting into his phone past midnight in his thin-walled apartment building. From his point of view, his racist white neighbors tried to have him killed because they could hear his private conversation. Never mind he was being inconsiderate and refused to acknowledge all the banging on the walls they probably previously tried .. maybe they called the cops the first time because of skin color, sure ... but they didn't call the cops to have him killed. But that's how he's framing it in the article, looking into attempted murder charges to get back at his neighbors. So calling 911 == attempted murder. Already in play.

Re:Tell me why the police need guns?

[Anonymous Coward]

Police and soldiers are trained to manhandle miscreants. They can accidentally kill someone whether with a fire arm or their bare hands. When I was younger I could too and I probably still can. I'm a veteran, so what it boils down to is: Guns don't kill people - I kill people.

obstruction of justice = talked to cops

[sinij]

No matter what, don't ever talk to cops. When these are the only charges, you know someone got railroaded.

Re: obstruction of justice = talked to cops

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean "lied to cops" right? If they used their 5th amendment right they could have one less charge against them now. They thought they were so clever. Wtf is up with the trolls blaming the police for the whole thing? Actually the police behaved they were supposed to, thats why swatting is an evil crime.

Re: obstruction of justice = talked to cops

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily. Mueller's team is using this right now and it's how they railroaded General Flynn. These "process charges" rely on asking specific questions ("What time did you sit down to dinner on August 17, 2015?") multiple times over a span of weeks. If the answer changes even slightly, then you've "lied to the FBI."

Re: obstruction of justice = talked to cops

[micahraleigh]

Does your point stand without calling people trolls?

Regardless of the answer, you are behaving as if the answer is "no".

Re: obstruction of justice = talked to cops

[sinij]

Swatting should and was prosecuted. The rest of charges are completely unnecessary and are symptom of a big problem in a criminal justice system.

Standard mode of operation is that cops decide you are guilty, trap you into "lied to cops", then use the machine to force you to plead guilty. Even if you fight off original charge, that is, jury decides that no crime was committed, you are still have to deal with obstruction of justice charges that don't go away with original charge getting dismissed.

I'll never understand this civil suit thing

[Interfacer]

This is something I still don't understand. It is up to the criminal court to decide whether the officers dis something wrong or not. If they didn't, then it's strange that the next of kin can essentially get a do-over with lower standards of guilt. In Europe, at least in most countries I am aware of, only the state can bring homicide cases to the court. When that is done, it is done.

The US system allows someone to for example win a self defense case, only for the person who defended himself still to be fucked over in criminal court.

Re:I'll never understand this civil suit thing

[richardellisjr]

The criminal court just determines if a crime was committed and the punishment. It's possible for someone to be wronged without a crime being committed, that's where civil courts come in.

Re:I'll never understand this civil suit thing

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because you're confusing some things. There is no "do-over with lower standard of guilt" in criminal proceedings nor double jeopardy. Basically, you can be found innocent of committing a crime, but then the accused can sue you in civil court, and civil court may find that though you were not guilty at a criminal level, your actions may have enabled the crime and thus find you financially liable. Basically it goes from "are you guilty", to "are you liable". One sees you in prison, the other sees you having to write a check.

Re:I'll never understand this civil suit thing

[slashdot_commentator]

A US civil court has no power to effect criminal punishment upon a defendant. They cannot convict them of a felony, they cannot imprison them. A civil court can only seize assets of the defendant. That's why they're called civil courts.

The guy who wins a self defense case can only be charged as such in a criminal court. The person who defended himself in criminal court only demonstrated that the state could not prove the person is guilty of murder (beyond reasonable doubt). In civil court, the plaintiff only has to demonstrate the defendant is likely to be guilty. The civil court can only take away the defendant's money. (The double jeopardy doctrine only applies to criminally prosecuted crimes.)

Play stupid games

[PPH]

Win stupid prizes.

Re:Tell me why the police need guns?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who claims not to be armed is either lying or dangerously ignorant. Either way, keep them under watch.

Re:Tell me why the police need guns?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fun fact: Gun ownership is down from 50+ years ago.

Per person or per gun?
(also, [Citation Needed])

How did he get the address?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes the gamer hundreds of miles away.

How does a gamer get another gamers address? Did he give it out?

Why would you give strangers your address? I don't even let my sister know where I live.

Re:How did he get the address?

[JackieBrown]

In the article it states that the intended victim gave a false address. He's being charged as well probably for giving the false address and not warning the police.

So stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it possible to send a death squad to anyone's door by making a simple phone call?

Re:So stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

They merely offered a service.

Maybe the people on the receiving end should have been thankful society has provided this service which they paid for with their tax dollars.

Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

TRUMP caused the deaths of countless millions of Americans in the military overseas.

The quality of Trolling on Slashdot has dropped considerably with the influx of Millennials.

Re:Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed.

Re:Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually post-millenials, or "generation z," that's popping up now. Get with the times, grandpa.

Re:Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Your fault for raising stupid kids. Baby Boomers & Gen X'ers always tryna kick the can down the road and blame millennials even though it was their generation who failed to raise the millennials intelligently. Darn kids! Get off my lawn!! Every generation younger than me is wrong and stupid! And their music sucks!!!

Re:Fail

[stealth_finger]

TRUMP caused the deaths of countless millions of Americans in the military overseas.

The quality of Trolling on Slashdot has dropped considerably with the influx of Millennials.

The most shocking thing is more people have been killed in American schools than American personnel in combat zones

http://www.politifact.com/flor...

Re:Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

How old are you? early 20s-mid 30s? You're a millennial. Younger? I can give you a pass, but start growing up soon. Older? Get a job.

Re: Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Millenials have been raised by trolls, they know trolling is pointless so they use guns.
Deal with it.

Re:Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Great so all we have to do to prevent school shootings is to train all HS students as infantry and arm them with ballistic vests/helmets and M-4s.

Re:Fail

[Dread_ed]

It is only shocking if you fail to ascertain the scope of reality that is right in front of you. For instance, if you are by some convoluted logic consistently blaming inanimate objects for the rise of mass murders in our schools, you will miss the facts that are right in front of you.

The truth is much simpler. Our society, our cultures, our schools, as they currently exist, manufacture a small but apparently increasing number of children who choose to commit mass murder against their peers.

This is a fact. There is nothing shocking about it, unless you are unable to deal with reality as it is. That you find it shocking means you are disoriented to reality. Something about it doesn't sit right with you. You have one expectation of how things should be, and are surprised by that expectation not being true. In short, you are wrong, and in being wrong and trying to hold on to the wrong thoughts you have, you are emotional (shock is emotional in nature.)

As someone in shock, you are doing what panicked animals do, namely attempting to transmit the emotional content of your state to others. We don't need a stampede right now, but thank you for demonstrating you possesses inherited reflexive survival traits. Unfortunately, we need reason and objectivity right now. You are poison to the reason and objectivity of others in this state and as such you are incapable of properly apprehending the reality of the situation, much less discussing and reasoning about it objectively.

Your opinions and thoughts on this subject should be considered suspect until such time as you demonstrate understanding and steadiness in the face of reality. If you find that you are consistently shocked by the nature of reality you may want to seek help. It is indicative of someone who has deep seated incorrect assumptions about how things actually are.

In many people their incorrect assumptions are tied to their self worth, their sense of self. When their incorrect assumptions inevitably grind up against reality it contradicts their false identity and as a result activates their threat resolution programming. Anxiety is a common result. Depression is an even more common result. Sensationalism is another one. Over perception of threats is another issue. Aggression is yet another. Paralysis of reason and inability to use logic to overcome unwanted emotional responses is pretty much universal in this syndrome, as is a constant state of shock and/or outrage. None of these help with calm considered reason. They are all indicative of long term emotional overload, reinforcing habits designed to trigger these circuits in the brain, and possibly what I call "addiction to your own stress chemicals."

Don't worry, if you are exhibiting these problems you aren't alone. You're just like almost everyone in America. Especially those kids that shoot up their schools.

Re:Fail

[stealth_finger]

This right here is what's wrong with your society. But hey, if you're fine with it being safer in a warzone than a school then and think kids getting shot up is par for the course then good for you.

Re:Fail

[Dread_ed]

I never said I was fine with it. You dragged that out of your own mind.

I tried to address something at a higher level than you are capable of processing, and you returned an error.

It IS par for the course. It keeps happening. This is real. You aren't dreaming, though by your inability to accept reality I am convinced that you are living in a dream world.

Also, it is not more dangerous in a combat zone than in a school in the US. The fact that you cannot understand even this basic concept is more proof you are disoriented to reality.

You want proof of this statement? OK, lets get some parity then. Eliminate the differences, bring the two groups into conformity. Let's start small. Field 10 battalions in a hot zone. Keep them grouped up in tight proximity for 8 hours a day. Provide no cover, no support, and make sure none of them have weapons of any kind. Do this for 9 months out of the year. Then count the dead.

Now you may be thinking, "Who in their right mind would put soldiers in a dangerous position like that with no protection and without any way to defend themselves?"

I have been asking the same question about our school age children, ever since Columbine.

Once you accept that this is reality you can start to use logic and rational thought to approach the problem, instead of emotions. I posit that this is why you are in shock and also why you had no way of understanding what I wrote above.

Let me give you the starting point of my logic. You know that kid, the one that shot up the school? There, but for assorted and random privilege, go I.

If you can deal with the reality that our culture takes children and returns children who murder children, and then realize that if you were born into and lived the same circumstances as that killer you would be that killer, then you can start to figure out how to defeat the problem.

I already have it figured out. The only thing standing in my way are a bunch of panicked animals who pretend to be human and a bunch of selfish psychotics who are banking on more children getting killed so they can ride the stampede of panicked animals right to their selfish and destructive agendas.

Let's see if you can follow. What needs to happen first?

Re: Tell me why the police need guns?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thatâ(TM)s why I must buy more. Need to offset this less ownership thing.

Trump's toupee

[Anonymous Coward]

Yelling "toupee" at a press conference will soon have you serving time at Leavenworth. Free speech is dead.

Re:Trump's toupee

[Anonymous Coward]

what about "rug" or "hairpiece" or "wig"

Re:Trump's toupee

[Cederic]

Risk summary execution and go with "misplaced merkin".

Christ

[rsilvergun]

what a stupid waste of life. Everybody's. Guy who got shot. Cop who shot him (and has to live with killing an innocent man) and these jokers who called the swat because they're too dumb/crazy/psycho to consider the results.

Re:Jeez, the Wheels of Justice Sure Do Grind Slowl

[Anonymous Coward]

They still haven't caught the morons that wrote the law that states: "SWAT officers should blindly believe what 911 callers say happened." Without a detective on scene, you'll have trigger happy officers making all kind of stupid assumptions and killing innocent people.

bust the cops

[Anonymous Coward]

Why aren't the cops being charged? They're the ones that pulled the trigger

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

There are other options besides blowing them away

[Anonymous Coward]

Tazer, tear gas, stun guns..... Why is killing them the first thing they do.

Re: Tell me why the police need guns?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, just bought another pistol, Glock 43 for EDC. Fantastic little gun! I'm just waiting for my barrel to arrive so I'll have an AR for 3-gun competitions, although I'm thinking about changing it's name from "AR-15" to "MS-13" so Democrats will protect it.

Re:Tell me why the police need guns?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Because more than a 3rd of Americans are armed - makes it kind of mandatory to arm the police, otherwise they would get picked off like flies.

No, because most of us would never even consider shooting a cop, even if we were rather more heavily armed than we (occasionally) are.

Correct!

[Anonymous Coward]

Every generation younger than me is wrong and stupid! And their music sucks!!!

Especially the second part.

An appropriate outcome?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The fact that he did this before is shocking

How likely would that be to trigger something like indefinite psychiatric custody as a "proven danger to others"?

Re:Jeez, the Wheels of Justice Sure Do Grind Slowl

[Anonymous Coward]

They still haven't caught the morons that wrote the law that states: "SWAT officers should blindly believe what 911 callers say happened." Without a detective on scene, you'll have trigger happy officers making all kind of stupid assumptions and killing innocent people.

That's because he posted as AC

Both cop and the prankster should go behind bars.

[Anonymous Coward]

The way I see it the cop and the prankster share blame 50/50 and should both go behind bars, preferably in the same cell so they can have a few years to discuss what went wrong. In reality the blame will be shifted to the prankster alone because the cops have a licence to kill in this country. And why did they even drag the other gamers to court? How are they responsible for the one idiot?

Re:For those hating on the police

[Travelsonic]

Build a bridge and get over it.

With all due respect, this attitude is part of the problem. It's not "getting over" that it happens, and continuing to raise a stink, IMO at least, that will eventually (with any luck, at least) get attention drawn to whether or not people in a position of power are being prosecuted when they commit a wrong (both legal and moral), and get things changed over time.

cyberstalking? Wire Fraud?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't stalking imply at least more than 15 minutes? Which might be how long it took to look up the wrong address.
What exact 'wire fraud' action was there? Isn't that limited to financial transactions?
These 2 charges seem to be typical shotgun applying of charges instead of focusing on actual crime actions.
I've always wondered if it would help the overall process and society if the prosecutors were not able to drop charges or were penalized if they brought these types of bogus charges.
Don't get me wrong, the Swatter is criminally guilty of some-type-of-murder & so is the Police. Now the Prosecutor is also crossing the line by adding non-sensible charges.

Re:For those hating on the police

[Anonymous Coward]

the point is when it ultimately does happen though, how do you deal with it, and this is how we dealt with it, and no the cop does not deserve jail time, he is not a danger to the public, if anything he has learned alot through this interaction, and will probably in the future not be so cavalier

Why not terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is "swatting" still referred to as a "prank gone wrong" by media and not as terrorism? Where is the fundamental difference?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Swatting needs to be stopped

[Anonymous Coward]

..and charging, prosecuting and jailing the perpetrators is how you do that. Once a few of these guys are serving 30 year jail sentences I'm guessing the fun will wear off.

An IQ test for officers?

[Bitbeard]

Yet another example of a citzen getting shot at while obeying an officer's orders. He was told to put up his hands and got the blam, blam, blam for doing so.

I'm sure anyone with an IQ of at least 80 will realize when you ask someone for their license they're going to reach somewhere. So perhaps an IQ test for officers?

"Can you get out your license and insurance?" Blam blam blam
"Can I see your license please?" Blam blam blam

What is his name

[Anonymous Coward]

If the cop who actually did the murdering acted so above board and within the scope of the law why do they keep his name secret?

Re: SAD overcompensation from a has-been country

[Anonymous Coward]

The 1960s called, they want tgeir world-view back.

The USA us a proxy pawn of The House of Saud, The Jews, and China. Own your own debts and you mighg have a chance at a free country again, but as it is youre all little bitches living on borrowed money.

Good thing all those guns make USAmericans FREE!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'ld hate to think that dead guy wasnt FREE to love his guns like a good USAmerican!

Re:Tell me why the police need guns?

[Hognoxious]

You should like make a video or something - "How to talk to chicks". I bet you have tattoos and everything.

Don't project your self-ascribed abilities.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are so full of yourself and your self-ascribed ability to ascertain the authenticity of objects in a fraction of a second. Bet you think playing a twitch 1st person game makes you ready for the real world.

Re:Tell me why the police need guns?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're utilizing projection. **You** wouldn't consider shooting a cop. I"m presuming you also don't normally entertain breaking significant laws. Those copse are called upon to deal with are breaking said laws and they **would** consider shooting cops.

They deserve what they get...

[Shotgun]

I was at home in the garage with the door open. I was sandblasting some parts I was working on, so was incapacitated by having my hands stuck into the rubber gloves that are attached to the blasting box. With the air compressor rattling away, I couldn't really hear anything, and being deep into concentrating on what I was doing, I was not aware of my surroundings.

But, when the compressor reached pressure and shut itself down, I heard someone yell, "Don't move". Looking up, there were two policemen at the end of my driveway. One had a pistol drawn. The other had a rifle. Both were pointed at the ground, but ready to point a me. They moved closer, and I was very careful to explain what I was doing and made damn sure they understood how difficult it was for me to extract my hands before I moved an inch. They were very nervous and highly agitated, and I had no desire to do anything but diffuse the situation.

One of my son's middle school "friends" thought it was funny to play this "prank". The policemen allowed me to hear the message he left 911 where the little fucker claimed there was a shot out going on at my house, while he had a war game playing in the background. If I had not been in a VERY public place, in a VERY incapacitated predicament, the story could have been much different. I can't imagine how tense they would have been if the door had been closed. They would obviously been able to hear that something was going on inside, but I would not have been able to answer any knock or call to "come out with my hands up". As it was ( a peaceful summer afternoon), I got to show of my project and have a nice conversation, but I would have beat the snot out of that little shit if I could have gotten my hands on him.

Re:They deserve what they get...

[Anonymous Coward]

U.S. cops are taught to shoot first and figure it out later. Coming home safe at the end of their shift is their single biggest priority (well, after jacking up as much overtime as possible, that is).

U.S. cops are not protectors of society. They are an occupying army that, thanks to fears of terrorism, is being given the power, tools, and weapons to morph into something like the Stasi.

Sheriff Taylor ain't your friend no more, especially if you are poor, non-white, Muslim, etc.

Re:For those hating on the police

[Shotgun]

How would you react to being called out to a site with and active shooter, where you will be asked to stand in the line of fire? Having been in front of an officer's drawn weapon in a "swatting" situation, I can tell you I had empathy for them. They were extremely nervous, and why shouldn't they be? Now, you want to second guess them from the safety of you computer keyboard, and condemn their actions.

Re:Jeez, the Wheels of Justice Sure Do Grind Slowl

[micahraleigh]

Grind around the responsible parties

If it had been true

[Anonymous Coward]

So the "hostage taker" simply has a hostage open the door and......

I don't see that ending any better if the message had been true :O

Cops own safety seems to be well above any one else's now. Shoot and hope the situation was as expected?!?

And the actual shooter?

[superdave80]

Where are the charges for the actual shooter?

indict the damn cop!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The stupid trigger happy cop that pulled the trigger and killed the innocent man needs to go to prison for murder.

No finessing that.

I hate cops.

What about the cops

[Anonymous Coward]

The cops pulled the trigger on an innocent person, don't they get punished?

Re: SAD overcompensation from a has-been country

[Anonymous Coward]

The treasury owns most of the debt you idiot. Also the USD is the reserve currency. Deal with thst

Re:For those hating on the police

[Cederic]

the cop does not deserve jail time, he is not a danger to the public

I refer you to the evidence at hand.

Clearly a serious fucking danger to the public.

Can we livestream their executions?

[Kaenneth]

Could be the hottest thing on Twitch.