Slashdot Mirror
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.
UPDATE (5/26/18): Both Barriss and Viner are now facing life in prison.
Their actions caused someone's death.
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
_________
You know, the one who pulled the trigger and committed a murder?
Throw them away for a long, long, long time. Maybe they will learn that there are repercussions to one's actions. Self absorbed pricks.
So everyone gets charged except for the cop that actually killed a man? That seems a huge lapse of justice.
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.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
LOADING...
READY.
RUN
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.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
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?
Good people go to bed earlier.
...but they do grind.
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.
There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
"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.
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).
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
No matter what, don't ever talk to cops. When these are the only charges, you know someone got railroaded.
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.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
Win stupid prizes.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
You describe the police as hitmen. No thanks, their fault still.
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.
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.
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
If you're an LA policeman, you do...
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
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.
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.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
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.
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...
No, because most of us would never even consider shooting a cop, even if we were rather more heavily armed than we (occasionally) are.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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/
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.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
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.
So the mitigation in this case is charging the person who made the intentionally-fake report with manslaughter.
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
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.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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.
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.
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
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."
There's video of the event. The cops were still on the street, easily thirty yards away.
You should like make a video or something - "How to talk to chicks". I bet you have tattoos and everything.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
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.
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.
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?...
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.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Sure. Fucking sue me for not killing the unarmed innocent man. Go for it. I'll see you in court.
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.
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.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
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.
Grind around the responsible parties
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.
Where are the charges for the actual shooter?
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.
I repeat do you have evidence of this, as I'd like to see it.
threatened to shoot other hostages
Well, the cops did that anyways, because they wound up shooting an innocent man. How is that better?
Risk summary execution and go with "misplaced merkin".
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?
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.
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.
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.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
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.
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.
"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?
"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.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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)?
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%?
You misspelled 'MURDER'.
Could be the hottest thing on Twitch.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Especially not that person. He might not be telling the truth.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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 ...
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.