FBI Arrests Three More Men Who Hired 'SWAT' Perpetrator (nbcnews.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI Arrests Three More Men Who Hired 'SWAT' Perpetrator (nbcnews.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Saturday January 26, 2019 @03:34AM from the game-over dept.

"Three men allegedly conspired with admitted 'swatter' Tyler Barriss to make hoax reports of bombs and murders to police departments, high schools and a convention center across the United States, according to three indictments unsealed today," reports America's Department of Justice.

An anonymous reader quotes NBC News: The three people charged -- Neal Patel, 23, of Des Plaines, Illinois; Tyler Stewart, 19, of Gulf Breeze, Florida; and Logan Patten, 19, of Greenwood, Missouri -- are not accused in the "swatting" call allegedly made by another man that preceded the police shooting of Andrew Finch, a 28, in Wichita on Dec. 28, 2017. But they are accused of asking the suspect in the fatal Kansas case, Tyler Barriss, through Twitter direct messages to make false reports of bombs or threats of shootings that would trigger a law enforcement response and the evacuation of buildings against other targets, including a high school and a Dallas video game tournament....

Patel allegedly conspired with Barriss to make false reports to police in Milford, Connecticut, in December of 2017, and to make a false bomb threat targeting a video game convention in Dallas, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California in Los Angeles. Stewart is accused of conspiring with Barriss to make two false bomb threats about a high school in Gurnee, Illinois, in early December of 2017, and Patten is charged with hiring Barriss to "swat" people in Indiana and Ohio, also in December of 2017, and of scheming with Barriss to "swat" a high school in Missouri, according to prosecutors.
After this week's arrests, the three men each face up to 15 years in federal prison. Patel allegedly also used "unauthorized" credit cards to pay Barriss -- and now faces two more bank fraud charges which each carry up to 30 years in federal prison.

The article also notes that the 25-year-old who actually made the calls -- and the call which led to a fatal shooting in Wichita -- "has agreed to serve a sentence of between 20 and 25 years in federal prison." And the two gamers involved in the dispute which led to that shooting have also been criminally charged.

146 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Uh, hello? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 03:35 · Score: -1

Isn't putting someone in PRISON for 20 years just because they made a phone call pretty much the definition of censorship?
1. Re:Uh, hello? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't putting someone in PRISON for 20 years just because they made a phone call pretty much the definition of censorship?
  You are an idiot.
  KILL YOURSELF NOW.
2. Re:Uh, hello? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 04:09 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  Freedom of speech does not give you the freedom to say something that will result in harm.
  Example of censorship is Youtube banning conservative channels because they don't agree with the truth.
3. Re:Uh, hello? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  Actually freedom of speech is freedom of speech. And your example is made up, no conservative channels have been banned from YouTube for merely "disagreeing with the truth" (which has to be the weirdest euphemism I've heard for "lying"!), however some groups - that coincidentally happened to be right wing - have been banned for causing harm, namely to victims of mass shootings by spreading lies about them that caused their safety to be threatened.
  You couldn't have given a worse example. How is giving false information to a professional worse than giving false information to a mass audience of mentally unstable people?
4. Re: Uh, hello? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  Oh I have a feeling given merely a cursorial amount of time that many and much worse examples could be found
5. Re:Uh, hello? by PPH · 2019-01-26 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  KILL YOURSELF NOW.
  PP needs to commit Sudoku.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
6. Re:Uh, hello? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  "Actually freedom of speech is freedom of speech." - ACTUALLY you're a moron. The 1st is a limited right, balanced with other rights and rights of other people. Freedom of speech is actually part of a package, weighed by SCOTUS, who interprets the law in terms of where absolutes are and where they are not. They have decided that threats are not a right. In addition, in airports or on planes there's a whole additional FAA restriction which has been upheld many, many times. Don't believe me, that's fine - go up to your nearest cop and threaten their life, or say "bomb, I'm going to bomb this airport!" as loud as you can in one. I would love to see the look on your punk ass retard Libertarian face as you are educated by reality with extreme prejudice about your rights.
7. Re:Uh, hello? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 05:14 · Score: -1
  
  Maybe if you 'conservative' fuckwads weren't delivering thinly veiled (and sometimes blatantly obvious) white supremacist neo-Nazi propaganda, you'd have better luck not getting kicked off YouTube.
8. Re:Uh, hello? by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2019-01-26 05:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Isn't putting someone in PRISON for 20 years just because they made a phone call pretty much the definition of censorship?
  Congratulations, you win the Dumbest Comment Award on Slashdot today!
  "Hey, I just wanted to rob a bank and those dirty cops denied me the right to express myself with a gun and a mask!"
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
9. Re: Uh, hello? by c6gunner · 2019-01-26 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  No, it's not a dumb comment. A little naive maybe, but certainly not dumb.
  He's right, it is censorship. The very definition of it, in fact. Instead of calling him stupid you could have pointed out that some forms of censorship are ok, for various reasons. That might have led to an interesting discussion of how we determine which forms of censorships are ok, and under which circumstances. But that's too hard, I guess.
10. Re:Uh, hello? by novakyu · 2019-01-26 06:21 · Score: 2
  
  You call it "just because they made a phone call"; most sane people call it first degree murder (with the attendant mens rea requirement).
  You can debate if 20 years is enough punishment for a first-degree murder, but let's start with a correct premise.
11. Re: Uh, hello? by Antique+Geekmeister · 2019-01-26 06:27 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If I may say, censorship is typically the prevention of free speech, and involves "prior restraint". In this case, it's punishment after the fact for fraudulent speech with foreseeably lethal consequences. Similarly, for the other fraudsters, it is not censorship. It's punishment for fraud.
12. Re: Uh, hello? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's not a dumb comment. A little naive maybe, but certainly not dumb.
  He's right, it is censorship. The very definition of it, in fact.
  
  No, it really is a dumb comment. Why?
  The unrelated hypothetical situation that he asked about and you are now talking about is just that - an unrelated hypothetical situation.
  Prison time for making a phone call *would be* censorship. Driving over the speed limit *would be* a traffic violation too.
  The fact both of those are true means what exactly?
  Neither have *anything* to do with the case at hand, the story, the article, the situation, or what is happening. Not one damn thing.
  So why is anon up above bothering to point out this unrelated off topic bullshit?
  Either out of ignorance of how the law works, which in shorthand is labeled as dumb, or they are intentionally spreading misinformation to confuse the issue, which is far worse than dumb as it is actively malicious and would be deserving of far worse labels than just "dumb"
  No one is going to prison here for making a phone call.
  They are going to prison because *their actions* resulted in the death of another person.
  Attempting to kill someone, successful or not, is a crime. Talking about it or using the phone about it has no bearing on that fact, the talking about it wasn't the crime, and having talked about it or NOT talked about it wouldn't change anything regarding the actual crime. It really is completely irrelevant to the prison time even if anyone had claimed talking about it was illegal - which of course no one actually has done.
  In fact absolutely NOTHING about what this kid has said or expressed has even been questioned as not legal. So it isn't even an interesting talking point!
  "Breaking news! A thing that wasn't a crime was never mentioned in court!" No, that is just how things work and how they should work... and how they are working.
  Notice they didn't bring up any traffic violations either? That's because even if there was a traffic violation that happened, it too wouldn't be involved, any more than censorship is if that was brought up. Which I can't stress enough - it wasn't ever brought up!
  The GP anon's post was equally as dumb as if someone were to ask "Isn't 20 years in prison a bit much for a traffic violation?" and for exactly all the same reasons.
13. Re: Uh, hello? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  If it's censorship, then everything is censorship. If everything is censorship then the term is meaningless.
14. Re:Uh, hello? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 06:58 · Score: 0
  
  It's not first degree murder, we have no way to knowing - and can probably doubt - that the aim was to get anyone killed. SWAT teams shouldn't be killing anyone unless they see a clear and present threat, and people who call the police should not need to think to themselves "Wait, if I call the cops, is this situation likely to result in a death"?
  It was an abuse of the emergency system, sure. The person making the call should have reasonably known there was a small chance their victim would be outright executed by trigger happy lawless law enforcement based upon the history of SWAT teams. But the notion it was a deliberate attempt to kill someone rather than do something dangerous that could result in death? This is no different to speeding up when you see a pedestrian crossing the road to scare them.
15. Re:Uh, hello? by hey! · 2019-01-26 07:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No.
  Technically it is not censorship because censorship is the suppression of speech. Punishing someone because of the consequence of the speech is not suppression.
  You could argue that it has a chilling effect on speech by others. However it is not *political* censorship. It is censorship in the sense that punishing defamation or criminal threats is "censorship".
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
16. Re:Uh, hello? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  You have reached a hitherto unknown level of stupid. Congratulations.
17. Re:Uh, hello? by nospam007 · 2019-01-26 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  "Isn't putting someone in PRISON for 20 years just because they made a phone call pretty much the definition of censorship?"
  No, they go to prison because they were too stupid to buy a throwaway phone with cash and send the SWAT team themselves before dumping the phone.
18. Re: Uh, hello? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 10:06 · Score: -1
  
  Racist. Putting a browns child in jail for making phone calls is textbook racism.
19. Re:Uh, hello? by BKX · 2019-01-26 11:40 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It is first-degree murder under the felony murder rule, which is recognized in some form or another by all fifty states, the federal government and just about every other government in the world. It works like this: If you plan to commit a felony, then commit that felony and, in the process of committing that felony or as a result of that felony, someone dies, you have committed first-degree murder. If you commit a felony on a whim (that is, you didn't plan to commit it ahead of time), and someone dies during the commission of the felony or as a result, then you have committed second-degree murder. That's how it works.
  Now, let's look at the Tyler Barriss SWATting: Barriss talked with other people about making a fraudulent 911 call and then made that fraudulent 911 call. Making a fraudulent 911 call is a crime, and can be a felony under federal anti-terrorism laws. Since the 911 call-center was in Kansas, and Barriss was in California, federal law applies. Talking about it ahead of time is also called planning and is, of and in itself, a crime called conspiracy, which can be a felony. Since Barriss has been convicted of these crimes before*, they can and should be charged as felonies, and Barriss committed those felonies. Someone died as a result of those felonies. Thus, under the felony murder rule, Barriss has committed first-degree murder. Thought I'd let you know,
  * Crimes which can be charged as either a felony or a misdemeanor, with no difference between elements of the crime, such as conspiracy, misuse of emergency systems, retail fraud, simple assault, etc, are typically charged as misdemeanors on the first (and sometimes, second) offense, and as felonies on subsequent offenses. This is how people get charged with felonies for minor things like shoplifting (aka retail fraud).
20. Re: Uh, hello? by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2019-01-26 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's not a dumb comment. A little naive maybe, but certainly not dumb.
  If that's "naive" I'd hate to see what someone has to say to qualify for "dumb".
  He's right, it is censorship.
  If putting people in prison for recklessly causing the death of another human being is "censorship", then I'm all for it.
  No one ever said that free speech is without consequences. Yes, you CAN yell "fire" in a crowded theater, that's your right. And it's the government's right to prosecute you for it if your outburst, umm, sorry, if your free speech is deemed to have caused harm or damage.
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
21. Re:Uh, hello? by Applehu+Akbar · 2019-01-26 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't putting someone in PRISON for 20 years just because they made a phone call pretty much the definition of censorship?
  Whether a phone call should be criminalized purely depends on what the aim of the phone call was. If the call was, as in this case, to falsely invoke SWAt action, then hell yes.
22. Re: Uh, hello? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2019-01-26 22:24 · Score: 1
  
  Although threats of government retaliation is considered censorship, as is the even weaker "regulation by raised eyebrow", where government, empowered to license things, might decline if you speak unfavored things. Unofficially of course. 'Cause that would be illegal.
  Anything that "chills speech" is censorship.
  But free speech doesn't include fraud, deliberate lies to get someone's money. Or kill them.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
23. Re:Uh, hello? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2019-01-26 22:33 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't putting someone in PRISON for 20 years just because they made a phone call pretty much the definition of censorship?
  You are an idiot.
  KILL YOURSELF NOW.
  By the way, protected speech as it is not an exhortation to imminent lawless action. Unlike swatting.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
24. Re: Uh, hello? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-27 02:03 · Score: 0
  
  The said "brown child" (btw he's a legal ADULT, and whether you're intentional or not you're throwing around the word "child" to inflame some sense of outrage, and it's intellectual dishonestly on your part) caused a death and has been put to justice for making someone killed.
  I'm not sure what "textbook racism" you want to refer to (ahh the new made-up words on monthly basis), but if you want to call this unremorseful psychopath "a victim of racism", as a non-white I'd wager that you're way more racist than most people I've seen -
  Why, is a "black kid" different from kids of other races, that makes them less intelligent or incapable of handling basic society, that coerce normal people (white or otherwise) to treat the more leniently such that they shouldn't go to jail for a making illegal call that killed someone? Even in modern, humane society, we reserve that kind of "special treatment" only to mentally deranged or "special needs". Strictly speaking, you're exercising an extreme form of discrimination against blacks with low expectations.
25. Re:Uh, hello? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-27 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  By the power vested to the President of the United States under the Friendly Understood Citizen Keeping Younglings Obsessively Unaware act, you are under arrest for the speech you just uttered. Congratulations, you just played yourself by permitting exceptions to the First Amendment.
26. Re:Uh, hello? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-27 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  Your speech resulted in harm, specifically your harm because I just punched you in the face, but harm non-the-less.
  
  Congratulations, you just played yourself.
27. Re:Uh, hello? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-27 09:55 · Score: 0
  
  He's in prison because he was involved in murdering someone.
  Also "Tyler" isn't a real name. Anyone with that name is automatically a faggot.
28. Re:Uh, hello? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-27 13:26 · Score: 0
  
  It was murder, i.e. a deliberate killing by a cop of a peaceful person who simply opened the door. After all, the dirty cop intentionally pulled the trigger, and that makes him a murderer.
29. Re: Uh, hello? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-28 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  No ones stopping them from doing it, you can SWAT all you want. You just have to face the consequences, Censorship is stopping you from doing something. Accountability is accepting your punishment for breaking the law.
Re: Uh, goodbye by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 03:37 · Score: 1

No it is not clueless bitch.
Re: Uh, goodbye by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 03:52 · Score: 0

Thats hot
2008 justice by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 03:52 · Score: 0

Soo unauthoriZed use of a credit card up to 30 years in prison, crashing th global economy in 2008 and millions loosing their homes and life savings some fractional percent of profits as fines..sounds legit. We are all equal, however some are more equal than others.
1. Re:2008 justice by GrumpySteen · 2019-01-26 05:22 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  This will really drive that point home:
  Trumpâ(TM)s CFPB Fines a Man $1 For Swindling Veterans
  This guy broke numerous laws while making predatory loans to veterans and, not only did he not get jail time, the amount of his fine was reduced to $1 when he said he couldn't afford it.
  When poor people can't pay a traffic ticket or court fine, they go to jail. The wealthy and their cronies? They pay $1 and walk away.
2. Re:2008 justice by GrumpySteen · 2019-01-26 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  Here's the non-fucked up link
  https://theintercept.com/2019/...
3. Re:2008 justice by fahrbot-bot · 2019-01-26 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  This will really drive that point home:
  Trumpâ(TM)s CFPB Fines a Man $1 For Swindling Veterans
  This guy broke numerous laws while making predatory loans to veterans and, not only did he not get jail time, the amount of his fine was reduced to $1 when he said he couldn't afford it.
  When poor people can't pay a traffic ticket or court fine, they go to jail. The wealthy and their cronies? They pay $1 and walk away.
  The guy learned that trick in the Trump University class, "How to Avoid Paying for Things and Stuff."
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
4. Re:2008 justice by inicom · 2019-01-26 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  Worse, Roger Stone didn't have to put up a penny to get out on bond.
  
  --
  -a.e.mossberg
5. Re:2008 justice by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-28 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  Worse, Roger Stone didn't have to put up a penny to get out on bond.
  I got out of jail on a personal assurance bond too and I'm just a peon. The entire purpose of a bond is to make sure someone shows up in court. When Roger Stone shows up in court, will you admit you are an angry idiot and the judge made the right choice? No. Of course not.
Federal charges mean real time. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 04:09 · Score: 0

Since Barriss was charged under Federal law, that means he'll do something close to his sentence. So possibly 17-20 years. Many times sentences are overly harsh, but in this case I don't think it is. This little shit did this all the time, and even after he was arrested and got someone killed he had little or no remorse or took any responsibility.
Rot in jail, Tyler!
1. Re:Federal charges mean real time. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  Don't you just like it when the law catches up with these shit for brains kids who think they are anonymous keyboard warriors and for arranging and colluding for these law enforcement actions and now all of a sudden the law has put it's hand on their shoulder and said "You're nicked!" Now their entire life is ruinied and will spend many years now having to hook into the prison gang culture and having to watch out when they are in the showers picking up the soap.
2. Re:Federal charges mean real time. by Highdude702 · 2019-01-27 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  State is normally 40% before eligible for parole. Fed is 85% before parole. So 8.5 years for every 10 in the sentence. He will be gone a while. And deservedly. Now if we could only get the trigger happy SWAT members some time to reflect on their actions also..
Good by Revek · 2019-01-26 04:11 · Score: 2

These little psychos need to be very publicly judged.
1. Re:Good by drinkypoo · 2019-01-26 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  They should spend all of their time on a prison bus, being ferried around to different schools where they explain how they fucked up. Just incarcerating them doesn't help much. What a gang of little shits, though.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
2. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 04:35 · Score: 0
  
  I think prison will do these little bitches good. Heck, I'd make it hard labor.
3. Re:Good by Dutch+Gun · 2019-01-26 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  Their sentences will serve as a good object lesson to others considering such foolishness. And I don't think you need to justify the proper application of justice, in any case. I'm perfectly happy allocating a small portion of my taxes to pay for their prosecution and subsequent incarceration.
  
  --
  Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
4. Re:Good by alvinrod · 2019-01-26 04:40 · Score: 2
  
  Does that do any good though? They already do this with other criminals and for other crimes, but that doesn't really seem to stop anyone. To some degree, telling high school kids not to do something is going to have the opposite effect. I remember one of my friends in high school saying that after having to sit through some D.A.R.E. type presentation, that he wanted to smoke a joint just to spite them. Apparently, he may not have been the only one that felt that way.
  
  I don't think you can really tell an adolescent anything that they don't want to hear. Part of growing up and becoming an adult is building up independence and pushing back against authority. I believe that if we want to see better outcomes, we have to provide a more controlled environment to let youth make little mistakes and help correct them. That's obviously a lot harder than it sounds, and maybe impossible without spawning some Orwellian hell, but sending some idiot around to speak to high school classes about the evils of swatting isn't going to do much more about stopping it than someone telling my friend and I that weed wasn't cool.
5. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  Or just have them drop the soap a few times
6. Re:Good by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2019-01-26 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  They should spend all of their time on a prison bus, being ferried around to different schools where they explain how they fucked up.
  I like this idea.
  They should be paraded in front of every class wearing full restraints, including leg and waist chains, while they explain exactly how stupid they were.
  Tyler Barris got someone killed directly as a result of his mindless douchebag behavior, and he should spend the rest of his life paying for it.
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
7. Re:Good by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2019-01-26 05:29 · Score: 2
  
  Does that do any good though? They already do this with other criminals and for other crimes, but that doesn't really seem to stop anyone.
  
  How do you know it hasn't stopped anyone?
  By definition we wouldn't know, because the crimes weren't committed.
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
8. Re:Good by serviscope_minor · 2019-01-26 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  These little psychos need to be very publicly judged.
  Yep, and so do the bigger psychos in the SWAT team. If you set a rabid dog on someone then you're guilty of their murder. If the rabid dog is actually a person then you're every bit as guilty, but so is the rabid-dog person.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
9. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 07:08 · Score: 0
  
  I must say, your post is level and reasonable with absolutely **no** prior agenda and prejudices. Right?
10. Re:Good by v1 · 2019-01-26 07:10 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Does that do any good though?
  Actually, in this case, yes it does good. The thing is, "swatting" is a fairly new problem. There's still way too many little punks that see it as a low-risk, high-reward job, and that just entices them to continue doing it. It's just free money for those that haven't developed a moral compass yet, along with those that have already chosen to be evil. Laws serve many purposes, not just punishment. They also serve as a guide for "what your community has decided is NOT ok to do", as well as a deterrent for those that are considering doing it anyway. Right now there are dozens of other little punks around the country looking at this story and reconsidering whether or not they are going to continue to sway for hire, pay someone to swat people they don't like, phone in bomb threats to get a day off school, etc. And that's a good thing for the rest of the society that are having to suffer their presence.
  
  I don't think you can really tell an adolescent anything that they don't want to hear. Part of growing up and becoming an adult is building up independence and pushing back against authority.
  
  That's where parents come in. Responsible parents neither want to see their kid locked up, nor want to go to jail FOR their kids, so again the laws serve as both a guide as to what to teach their kids, as well as a motivator to get them to drive the lesson home. "Some of them are just going to break the law anyway" is a terrible reason to avoid making a law. We only have laws because people were already doing something that hurt the public. It's like why we have to have "do not eat" on silica packets - it's because yes there really were people stupid enough to DO it. You can't fix all of the idiots of the world, you can only encourage them to behave reasonably by laying down the rules and demonstrating that they won't like what happens to them if they choose to do it anyway. Like you're saying, you can't force them to behave. And because many of them simply don't WANT to behave, you have to encourage them. With laws. Laws with teeth. Laws with punishments.
  Of course no matter what laws you have and what punishments you have, there will still be a small minority that continue to be antisocial. Getting anywhere near 100% will require intolerable laws and unreasonable punishments. So you have to strike a good balance, which is tricky to do. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
  
  --
  I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
11. Re:Good by Mashiki · 2019-01-26 07:46 · Score: 0
  
  These little psychos need to be very publicly judged.
  No, they need to be judged by their peers. Nothing more, nothing less. Otherwise you see the same lying bullshit and witch hunting as what went on with the high schoolers from Covington. Trials by mobs have no place in a democracy, nor do kangaroo courts.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
12. Re:Good by Ryanrule · 2019-01-26 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  See, I was thinking castrated with a dull knife. Using friction.
13. Re:Good by serviscope_minor · 2019-01-26 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  I must say, your post is level and reasonable with absolutely **no** prior agenda and prejudices. Right?
  Full disclosure, I have an agenda that the police don't slaughter innocent citizens. And I'm prejusiced against the ones that do.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
14. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 12:18 · Score: 0
  
  US cops kill more people each year than UK criminals. Aren't you proud?
15. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 15:02 · Score: 0
  
  See, I was thinking castrated with a dull knife. Using friction.
  Piano wire over a pulley to a heavy weight. They are welcome to hold up the weight as long as they want.
16. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 15:29 · Score: 0
  
  US cops kill more people each year than UK criminals. Aren't you proud?
  Of course they do, dumbass! The UK criminals are in - wait for it! - the UK!
  And it's not nice of you to imply they're not people.
17. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 17:48 · Score: 0
  
  US cops kill more people each year than UK criminals. Aren't you proud?
  .
  And many of those killed NEEDED to be killed.
  My hat is off to the police for ridding the world of scum.
18. Re:Good by Highdude702 · 2019-01-27 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  That's not a half bad idea. We normally don't agree on much, but I can 100% get behind this. He has plenty of time he can visit every Junior High School and High School should be attended by these clowns and have the story told of how they got to spend the best years of their life in prison. Maybe give them 4 hours off their sentence for school attended.
19. Re:Good by squiggleslash · 2019-01-27 01:33 · Score: 2
  
  I don't know how DARE is received in the US, but in the UK the anti-drugs campaigns were ineffectual for the most part because even 10 year olds know most of the claims being made about drugs are lies. We didn't know must of the stuff about Heroin, which was the big evil at the time, was bullshit, but we definitely knew that pot wasn't the terrible drug the people who visited our schools made it out to be.
  Obviously it's going to be different if the person in front of you says "I lied to a SWAT team, and they killed someone."
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
20. Re:Good by drinkypoo · 2019-01-27 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  "Their sentences will serve as a good object lesson to others considering such foolishness."
  No, they won't. Most people will never even hear about them. Meanwhile, long prison sentences tend to create more crime. You don't think these guys will turn to crime to make a living when they get out, and find that they can't get a job?
  ". I'm perfectly happy allocating a small portion of my taxes to pay for their prosecution and subsequent incarceration."
  Why are you happy to waste money? That's literally insane.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
21. Re:Good by squiggleslash · 2019-01-27 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  I have an agenda that the police don't slaughter innocent citizens.
  
  I'd be honest, that leaves a massive loop hole that allows the police to murder 90% of the population because we've all done something at some point. My agenda is that the police shouldn't be slaughtering anyone unless there really is no alternative because someone will (not might, will, or at least almost certainly will) be killed if they don't.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
22. Re:Good by serviscope_minor · 2019-01-27 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be honest, that leaves a massive loop hole that allows the police to murder 90% of the population because we've all done something at some point.
  That's a fair point. I certainly don't want the polics to be street judges.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
Cop scum... by b0s0z0ku · 2019-01-26 04:34 · Score: -1, Troll

And the scumbag cop who actually did the shooting walks away scot-free. Ah well, one can hope that he'll get hit by a drunk driver during a traffic stop and end up quadriplegic for life.
1. Re:Cop scum... by Ogive17 · 2019-01-26 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  That's a separate issue and has no bearing on these twerps doing jail time.
  
  --
  "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
2. Re:Cop scum... by Applehu+Akbar · 2019-01-26 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  I too think that the cop should have been tried for second-degree murder, as should the copsucking local prosecutor who refused to bring charges in this case.
LED by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 04:39 · Score: 0

And the two gamers involved in the dispute which led to that shooting have also been criminally charged.
So it's the dispute that LED to the shooting? LED???? Thank god you italicized that, otherwise we might not have realized that the dispute LED to the shooting instead of, uh...something else to the shooting. Christ, is your head full of bees or something
Even more ironic... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 04:52 · Score: 0

Murderers and rapists are getting lighten sentences than them, as well as guys who defraud and destroy millions of Americans financial security through securities fraud or ponzi schemes.
America really has its priorities ass backwards on the charges and punishments side of things.
Authorities untouchable by Kohath · 2019-01-26 05:01 · Score: 1, Insightful

Being in a position of authority and murdering someone: wrist slap.
Showing the people how dangerous and out of control the authorities are: 20 years in prison.
1. Re:Authorities untouchable by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  Its not about 'showing the people how dangerous and out of control the authorities are'. Its about using that knowledge against someone and conspiring to do so. You are right though, the authorities are as much at fault here as anyone.
2. Re: Authorities untouchable by c6gunner · 2019-01-26 06:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If you had the slightest bit of humanity in you, you might see the difference between someone fucking up while doing an insanely stresfull job, and someone intentionally creating a situation meant to cause harm. But you don't. You don't give a fuck about the people involved. It's all just politics to you.
3. Re: Authorities untouchable by b0s0z0ku · 2019-01-26 06:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Many jobs are stressful. Most of them don't get the same free pass for killing/harming people as American cops and military do. Nope, not feeling sorry for the cop or empathy for him.
4. Re: Authorities untouchable by Oligonicella · 2019-01-26 07:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Pray tell, the stress of police work dealing with homicidally violent people equates to which other stressful jobs.
5. Re: Authorities untouchable by Kohath · 2019-01-26 07:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If you had the slightest bit of humanity in you, you might see the difference between someone fucking up while doing an insanely stresfull job, and someone intentionally creating a situation meant to cause harm.
  Anyone else in the same "insanely stressful" situation fucking up in the same way would be facing a trial for killing a harmless guy standing on his porch. We have an absolute right to be safe from being murdered by government agents when we answer the door. If the job means risking murdering someone standing on his porch, then the entire occupation needs fundamental reform at the very least.
  And if you guys want a show of humanity, then make it a policy to treat non-police with the same respect and humanity you'd like to experience yourself.
  Being extremely defensive when you're clearly in the wrong doesn't help. Acting like accountability is an attack doesn't help.
  Also, covering up for each other doesn't help. If you're not a criminal gang, stop behaving like a criminal gang.
  
  You don't give a fuck about the people involved.
  Do police give a fuck about non-police?
6. Re: Authorities untouchable by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  garbage collectors are much more likely to die or be injured than police. Police in other civilized countries don't need to kill those they protect near as often. your argument is bogus
7. Re: Authorities untouchable by Kohath · 2019-01-26 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Pray tell, the stress of police work dealing with homicidally violent people equates to which other stressful jobs.
  "Stressful" should excuse entirely avoidable killings of innocent people? How many?
8. Re: Authorities untouchable by Mashiki · 2019-01-26 07:54 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Many jobs are stressful. Most of them don't get the same free pass for killing/harming people as American cops and military do. Nope, not feeling sorry for the cop or empathy for him.
  When was the last time you assisted in the arrest in domestic violence case, where one of the parties started attacking you with a knife? 'Cause that's shit happens more often then you think. Or ran into a burning building without respirator gear, or dove off a peer to rescue a kid drowning.
  Sorry, the stress that you actively face as a cop is different then having a rack of servers going down. Sure you're more likely to be killed if you're working on a fishing boat, or as a logger. But you're not expected to put your life on the line to do your job, you can refuse. You don't get that option as a cop.
  The US has it's own problems regarding policing, and it has more to do with it's organizational structure then anything else. If you really want to change how the police are, go be one and work from the bottom up. This isn't even getting into the various things that say the black communities(and their leaders) demanded from governments and police to deal with crime, drugs, and so on. That they now blame on the police.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
9. Re: Authorities untouchable by Kohath · 2019-01-26 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  It's all just politics to you.
  Also, let's forget the "politics" for a minute. What will it take to change things so police kill fewer innocent people? Got any ideas? Any interest in that at all?
10. Re: Authorities untouchable by serviscope_minor · 2019-01-26 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Piss off bootlicker. Taxi driving is more dangerous than policing, but they don't get to murder freely.
  If you can't do your job without the odd bit of murder, then don't fucking stay in that job.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
11. Re: Authorities untouchable by Hognoxious · 2019-01-26 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  This is nothing to do with making a difficult decision under stress. The officer was under no threat at all, neither was anyone else, and he had no reason to believe they were.
  He chose to execute a defenceless & harmless person for the fun of it because he knew he could get away with it. He should do the taxpayer a favour and hang himself.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
12. Re: Authorities untouchable by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  What will it take to change things so police kill fewer innocent people?
  .
  When people behave in a civilized and sensible manner while they are dealing with the police and even more so if the police are arresting them,
  the odds that the police will kill them are vanishingly small, approaching a probability of zero.
  I've been arrested a half dozen times. I was always polite and cooperative and I never raised my voice or made any gestures which could be construed as threatening. I also did everything the cops told me to do, right away. And you know, not once did ANY of those cops even pull their weapons. The cops are not running around looking for people to kill, the cops are enforcing the law. And that IS the bottom line.
13. Re: Authorities untouchable by Kohath · 2019-01-26 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  The guy in Kansas just opened his front door.
  I don't think blaming the victim will help.
14. Re: Authorities untouchable by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 12:25 · Score: 0
  
  The guy in Kansas just opened his front door.
  .
  NO, the guy in Kansas did not "just open his front door".
  The police were led to believe the guy in Kansas was a very dangerous person, by the phony calls. And THAT is why the police shot the guy.
  The guy in Kansas did not deserve to die, and absent the phony call the guy in Kansas would not have been killed by the police. If you expect the police to wait until someone kills one or more of them before they take action when they believe they are on a scene which involves extreme danger, you're living in a dream world where your only neighbors are idiots like you. The REAL WORLD is not like your dream world where it's so easy to engage in "Monday-morning quarterbacking". In the REAL world, sometimes decisions must be made in a split second, and sometimes mistakes are made and those mistakes can have consequences. The cops made a judgement and it was a bad judgement, but no one with any sense is going to blame the cops for wanting to go home alive after their shift.
  Idiots like you pass judgement on people who put their lives on the line when you are too much of a coward to ever put yourself at risk.
  So your "judgement" doesn't mean anything to anyone other than jerkoffs like you who don't do anything other than talk shit on the internet.
15. Re: Authorities untouchable by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 12:32 · Score: 0
  
  The officer was under no threat at all ...
  -
  At the time when the shooting happened it was NOT CLEAR whether the police were under no threat.
  Fools like you make judgements as though the same amount of information was available at the time of the shooting, but this proves nothing except how truly stupid you are.
  I spit in your face metaphorically, you stupid cunt.
16. Re: Authorities untouchable by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 13:22 · Score: 0
  
  Not the same a.c., but I personally live in Wichita. Been here my whole life. The police here are excessively militant. Their number 1 priority is saving the department money. Use tear gas? Nope. Bystanders could sue. Cheaper to kill. Bean bags/ rubber bullets? Nope. Could ricochet and damage property. They're even getting rid of the big flashlights in favor of gun barrel lights cause the batteries are cheaper. 2 weeks after this swatting incident, a cop shot a 9 year old girl in the face while trying to kill the family dog in front of 4 children. After being explicitly told not to enter the home. This is not an isolated incident.
17. Re: Authorities untouchable by Kohath · 2019-01-26 13:53 · Score: 2
  
  The police aren't supposed to be a dial-a-murder service. If we want a dial-a-murder service, we can call up a street gang.
  
  The cops made a judgement and it was a bad judgement, but no one with any sense is going to blame the cops for wanting to go home alive after their shift.
  Police who think that's the only thing that matters should go home at the end of their shift and stay home. We don't need police who are ok with killing a few innocent people now and then as long as it turns out ok for the police.
  This attitude is 100% of the problem: police care about police and not so much about the people they were hired to protect. Maybe the job wouldn't be so "stressful" if police helped people instead of helping themselves and their greedy political bosses.
  Voters need to demand police go back to "protect and serve".
18. Re: Authorities untouchable by Applehu+Akbar · 2019-01-26 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  My own total loss of the last shreds of respect I once had for the police came after seeing this video:
  http://nymag.com/intelligencer...
  At least this perp was prosecuted, though a cabbagehead jury let him off. Te Wichita cop was not even prosecuted.
19. Re: Authorities untouchable by Kohath · 2019-01-26 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  2 weeks after this swatting incident, a cop shot a 9 year old girl in the face while trying to kill the family dog in front of 4 children. After being explicitly told not to enter the home. This is not an isolated incident.
  Come on, it's a stressful job! The officer went home at the end of the day. Isn't that all that matters?
  You're really being mean by Monday-morning-quarterbacking the "9-year-old girl shot in the face" incident. I bet the girl's family made a big deal about it too.
  Mistakes happen (when you open fire needlessly).
20. Re: Authorities untouchable by Kohath · 2019-01-26 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  At the time when the shooting happened it was NOT CLEAR...
  When the situation is NOT CLEAR, that's a good time to NOT SHOOT at people.
21. Re: Authorities untouchable by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 14:30 · Score: 0
  
  At the time when the shooting happened it was NOT CLEAR...
  When the situation is NOT CLEAR, that's a good time to NOT SHOOT at people.
  It's a god damned shame the cops didn't shoot YOU, you pathetic stupid faggot.
22. Re: Authorities untouchable by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 14:37 · Score: 0
  
  > you might see the difference between someone fucking up while doing an insanely stresfull job, and someone intentionally creating a situation meant to cause harm.
  Nope. Don't see a difference if that harm is foreseeable.
  In point of fact, why do we even need PD's, with sniper rifles, grenades?
23. Re: Authorities untouchable by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 15:35 · Score: 0
  
  Good cops need to round up the bad cops. Bad cops are a part of the reason it's dangerous being a cop.
24. Re: Authorities untouchable by Powercntrl · 2019-01-26 20:01 · Score: 1
  
  If you had the slightest bit of humanity in you, you might see the difference between someone fucking up while doing an insanely stresfull job, and someone intentionally creating a situation meant to cause harm.
  No, what it looked like to me is some trigger-happy fucktard using the wrong tool for a stressful job, because for whatever reason, the powers that be felt a human life was worth less than the cost of a robot/drone.
  
  --
  
  ---
  DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
25. Re: Authorities untouchable by Kohath · 2019-01-27 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  I think that's actually really difficult for them to do. There aren't two types, there's a whole range. For guys in the middle, it's probably hard to tell whether they're basically good with some bad habits and weaknesses versus being basically bad but deceptive and socially skilled.
  The good cops also probably don't want to be killed or left to die by the bad cops.
  Ultimately, the culture and the leadership and the laws are the problems. None of them respect non-police. When the laws and politicians tell police to bully random people for money and bully groups of people to enforce a social rank order, that reinforces already present bad personality tendencies.
  I don't think the police can solve the problem. Voters need to solve it.
  But local police can improve things and stop making it worse by being so ridiculously defensive in cases where the police are clearly in the wrong. No one on either side respects that.
26. Re: Authorities untouchable by Kohath · 2019-01-27 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Here's a news story with a picture of the dog. Cute doggy:
  https://www.kansas.com/news/lo...
  Here's the body cam video:
  https://www.kansas.com/news/lo...
  Why walk through a dark house on high alert, ready to open fire, when there are 4 preteen children there? Keeping people safe — especially young children — should always be the priority. Does police training skip over that? It really makes you wonder.
27. Re: Authorities untouchable by c6gunner · 2019-01-27 13:47 · Score: 2
  
  Also, let's forget the "politics" for a minute. What will it take to change things so police kill fewer innocent people? Got any ideas? Any interest in that at all?
  That's a loaded question. The number of innocent people killed by police annually is notoriously difficult to quantify, but whatever the exact number may be it's statistically inconsequential; on the same order as the number of people killed by farm animals every year (and yes, I can already see you getting ready to make a pig joke).
  The real questions are how much further this number can be lowered, by which methods, and what you're willing to do in order to accomplish that goal. You may want to familiarize yourself with the concept of diminishing returns. If your concern is saving innocent lives, there are far more lives to be saved by further lowering crime rates than there are by reducing police shootings. Put your energy where it can do the most good.
28. Re: Authorities untouchable by c6gunner · 2019-01-27 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  If you're the kind of person who loses all respect for hundreds of thousands of people based on the actions of one individual, you are clearly not a rational actor and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. You may as well be stating that you lost all respect for doctors after reading about Andrew Wakefield.
29. Re: Authorities untouchable by Kohath · 2019-01-27 17:14 · Score: 1
  
  So no ideas then. Not much interest either. As expected. Non-police getting killed in police encounters don't matter as long as things go ok for the blue team.
30. Re: Authorities untouchable by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-27 18:18 · Score: 0
  
  Those hundreds of thousands of people, given their blue uniform, are aides and abettors to those premeditated murders, and the murderers that have killed. These murderer-cops are still free, and have even retained their dirty cop jobs.
31. Re: Authorities untouchable by Applehu+Akbar · 2019-01-27 22:25 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is not just that a few cops go bad. That happens in every line of business. It's that the working police culture protects bad actors, rather than isolating and exposing them. So few of those bad guys are even prosecuted, let alone convicted.
32. Re: Authorities untouchable by c6gunner · 2019-01-28 00:09 · Score: 1
  
  Correct, no interest. If you propose a practical solution which doesn't cost billions and doesn't create more risk for cops, and I'll gladly back it. Otherwise the numbers simply aren't high enough to be of concern, and I'm not going to waste my time dreaming up solutions for a non-issue.
33. Re: Authorities untouchable by c6gunner · 2019-01-28 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  That's such a gross generalization that it should be beneath anyone other than a proud bigot. Again, you could say the same thing about doctors - or any profession you like - and be equally ridiculous.
34. Re: Authorities untouchable by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-28 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  "The number of innocent people killed by police annually is notoriously difficult to quantify". This is indicative of the worth the police give to it. They kill so many it's impossible to count. I understand that it's hard to identify those that were a legitimate threat but that's no excuse for not having the number of deaths directly caused by the police. A paper in my country calculated that it's about 1000 a year for the last few years. It's not that it's difficult, it's that no one is even trying to count them.
35. Re: Authorities untouchable by c6gunner · 2019-01-28 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  We have the number of deaths. We don't have the number of innocents killed, primarily because "innocent" itself is difficult to quantify and often pretty subjective. You are confusing two different things and then blaming the cops for your ignorance. Status quo.
36. Re: Authorities untouchable by c6gunner · 2019-01-28 06:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Define "entirely avoidable".
  Every police killing is entirely avoidable if we just convince cops to die instead of shooting first. Is that what you mean by "entirely avoidable"? Or do you have some other objective universal metric you're applying here?
37. Re: Authorities untouchable by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-28 11:33 · Score: 0
  
  Lol. Its like I tell people, the only gang to be afraid of here is the police. There are more incidents too. They pull guns at the slightest excuse. Like not having flashlights anymore. Gotta pull the gun to have light.
38. Re: Authorities untouchable by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-28 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  Just yesterday, a 55 year old man was shot by a sheriffs officer here in wichita. No details released on that yet. Another data point, though.
Re: Uh, goodbye by Charbroiled++PENIS · 2019-01-26 05:06 · Score: 0

But not as hot as a CHARBROILED PENIS!
Ok, you TRY live minus law enforcement... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 05:08 · Score: -1

See subject: Give you an example you may not understand being a suburban punk snowflake - try that where I LIVE (You'd be eaten alive). Police are the ONLY BARRIER (that's legal that is) in the way of DRUG GANGS mowing people down.
* Law enforcement IS necessary (or utter chaos would erupt & minus guns, which LIBERALS seem SO KEEN ON DOING taking them FROM you as a normal citizen, you'd be @ the mercy of MOBS, period...)
APK
P.S.=> Yes, there ARE dirty cops & FOR SURE there are DIRTY POLITICIANS/LAWMAKERS (in the employ of corporate OR otherwise wealthy collectives OR individuals (George Soros)) - THIS ONE is evidenced by TED BUNDY who said "I finally found a group I related to" in his bio (see it on Netflix now - PERHAPS THAT EXPLAINS MUCH on PSYCHOPATHS there who will run over ANYONE in the way of their TWISTED 'agendas' like "The NEW NORMAL" bs) & those in the MEDIA too (The "great programmer of minds of the cattle herd & tracker of their sentiments") - EACH PAID OFF to do the bidding of their 'masters' & to direct YOUR MIND (minus YOU the crowd, they have no 'armies') to THEIR way of 'thinking' - WAKE UP (OR are you just one of THEIR LACKEYS too?)... apk
1. Re:Ok, you TRY live minus law enforcement... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  Go back to watching Fox 'News' so you can get your daily fix of fear and outrage.
Fuck your hypocrisy you lazy bitch. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 05:31 · Score: 0

Shaddap faggot people in stress situations make mistakes with consequences. You yourself had made false statements in defense of your passion for "clean, perfectly safe always" nuclear power, you lying cunt.
At least the cop is doing a job to the best of their ability unlike you, lazy fuckwit. And I say that as someone who generally LIKES you. Clue in. Did you cry about the cop shooting the black kid in the back 16 times as he ran?
Fuck your hypocrisy you lazy bitch. Get shot and call the cops, they'll still come to save your petulant punk ass risking their own lives as if you deserved it.
1. Re:Fuck your hypocrisy you lazy bitch. by b0s0z0ku · 2019-01-26 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  I'd call an ambulance -- cops hurt people, EMTs save lives.
2. Re:Fuck your hypocrisy you lazy bitch. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  EMT's aren't great at stopping .45 caliber slugs. When there's a first response the actual situation is not known. Guns are more common than people in this country. To pretend nobody makes a mistake and they're "murderers"? Honestly.
  Fuck your dishonesty, you know what you're doing. You are better than this.
3. Re:Fuck your hypocrisy you lazy bitch. by b0s0z0ku · 2019-01-26 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  No, I'm not "better than this." The cop who shot deserves to rot in prison or get the gas chamber.
4. Re: Fuck your hypocrisy you lazy bitch. by c6gunner · 2019-01-26 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  EMTs don't generally go into active shooter situations. It's not a good idea.
5. Re:Fuck your hypocrisy you lazy bitch. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  Nope, not under our laws, but maybe you do for being so fucking willfully dumb, since we're making up new ones based on your over-active emotions, you bitch?
6. Re:Fuck your hypocrisy you lazy bitch. by b0s0z0ku · 2019-01-26 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Manslaughter is very much a jailable offense under US law. Of course, the stinking cop won't go to prison, because Americans have a fetish for people who wear uniforms (cop or military, same trash basket).
7. Re:Fuck your hypocrisy you lazy bitch. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  I used to work ambulance. If there had been any kind of fight, and I mean *any* kind of fight, I wanted police there as well. I didn't always get them: Trying to stay calm and cool to defuse a followup fight that would lead to more injured people was hard. And it was a thousand times harder when anyone was armed. Never dealt with a gun still on site, but *cars*!!!! Man, when some fool wanted to get back on the road with a tone of metal on wheels and I had to make fast decision about whether to pay attention to my patient or go take their keys, I *hated* that: Didn't throw them away, didn't try to keep them, just bent an angle into his car key.
  I carried a good pair of needle-nose pliers at the time. I *wish* I could remember the brand, they used to bring their trucks to garages and I happened to drop in when I saw the truck. Gave away the last of those tools more than 10 years ago to people I loved who'd started doing real mechanical work. The surgical shears and tools in the average "professional" toolkit bent like I was Uri Geller holding a spoon. The tips on the forceps wouldn't clamp welll, and the scissors were a joke. Give me a good pair of needle-nose pliers with the wire cutter for when I need it, and I was a much happier man.
8. Re:Fuck your hypocrisy you lazy bitch. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 07:11 · Score: 0
  
  Manslaughter is not a "gas chamber" crime, first off. So you're contradicting yourself with these square pegs and round holes. Cops do get a lighter punishment in general, that's a problem I agree.
  You aren't solving it by assuming gross negligence where you have not proven it. You're making yourself seem dumber even than your all-facts-irrelevant defense of all things nuclear.
  Having sworn an oath myself, worn the uniform, and never even being accused of wrongdoing nor associated with anyone who ever did, or even seen that personally, I think it's obvious you have issues with authority.
  I used to, then I grew up and realized authority is there for a reason, and beating my head against the wall wasn't going to make it a better wall. Specifics and specific fixes do.
9. Re:Fuck your hypocrisy you lazy bitch. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  Well, your first sentence was correct anyway.
10. Re:Fuck your hypocrisy you lazy bitch. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 07:20 · Score: -1
  
  Fuck you for your service. Shame you didn't die or end up crippled in the line of duty, you piece of shit.
11. Re:Fuck your hypocrisy you lazy bitch. by Applehu+Akbar · 2019-01-26 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  Shaddap faggot people in stress situations make mistakes with consequences.
  Blasting away at a person who does nothing more than open his own front door wondering what the hell is going on outside is bad police procedure that should have brought prosecution. As in, a mistake with consquences.
  My cure for the police malpractice problem would be to take civil judgements for police malpractice straight out of the local police retirement fund, rather than billing the taxpayers. This would break the "blue wall" by motivating good cops to help get rid of bad cops.
12. Re:Fuck your hypocrisy you lazy bitch. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-27 12:51 · Score: 0
  
  The murderer-cops (like the one in the swatting case), who always get scot-free, are making the few good cops look bad, and the public less caring about a good cop that somehow died when doing cop things. After all, it's impossible to tell who the good cops are anymore, if murderer-cops walk free. Think about that.
Such conviction "standing behind your words" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 05:44 · Score: 0

Such conviction "standing behind your words" (not) as you reply behind UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous coward ANTIFA BOY, lol!
* :)
APK
P.S.=> Keep wearing that mask, lol - you're SUCH a 'superhero' lol, not... apk
30 years for using an Unauthorized Credit Card. by supercell · 2019-01-26 05:52 · Score: 1

Patel allegedly also used "unauthorized" credit cards to pay Barriss -- and now faces two more bank fraud charges which each carry up to 30 years in federal prison.
30 Years in prison for using an unauthorized credit card. Explain how this is not a tyrannical government ?
1. Re:30 years for using an Unauthorized Credit Card. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  Patel allegedly also used "unauthorized" credit cards to pay Barriss -- and now faces two more bank fraud charges which each carry up to 30 years in federal prison.
  30 Years in prison for using an unauthorized credit card. Explain how this is not a tyrannical government ?
  Because he knew exactly what was doing when he used the card and now he's on the receiving end. He wasn't using it to commit larceny, he was using it to cause physical harm and possibly death because he was well aware of police behavior. Its called karma.
2. Re:30 years for using an Unauthorized Credit Card. by hey! · 2019-01-26 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it's bank fraud. The statute also allows for fines of up to a million dollars. It would be excessive to put someone away for thirty years and fine him a million bucks if he defrauded the bank of a couple of hundred bucks, but it might be reasonable in the case of someone who spent years defrauding the bank and raked in millions.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
3. Re:30 years for using an Unauthorized Credit Card. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 11:16 · Score: 0
  
  Have you ever had your identity stolen?
  Have you ever had to deal with the consequences of that and spend months trying to get your life back on track?
  Fuck those people, and fuck anyone who would try to defend them from a 'tyrannical government'.
4. Re:30 years for using an Unauthorized Credit Card. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 13:32 · Score: 0
  
  "Up to" refers to the maximum sentence, not the minimum. The actual sentence is determined by the judge according to the severity of the crime and other factors, but cannot exceed 30 years - in this case the accused is not likely to get anywhere remotely near maximum sentence for the bank fraud charge. The other charges are more severe, however.
Speaking of which by rsilvergun · 2019-01-26 05:56 · Score: 3, Informative

here's a great video on the subject of police militarization.

TL;DW, the military has weapons meant for killing people and don't understand when/why not to use them.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re: Speaking of which by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 07:16 · Score: 0
  
  Actually the military has much stricter rules of engagement and is far better at following them.
2. Re: Speaking of which by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  I'm pretty sure that's what she meant - that the police now have military weapons but not military policy or discipline.
  It's rsilvergun, somebody on TV probably mentioned the orange man while she was typing and gave her a mini seizure.
3. Re: Speaking of which by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 12:24 · Score: 0
  
  You just gave me a seizure, asshole.
4. Re:Speaking of which by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-28 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  It's definitely a local problem. We're close to Newtown and our police have shown fast (assertive) response with full, appropriate restraint.
  When cities stop being a community, all sorts of bad stuff happens.
LEARN THE DEFINITION OF MURDER KOHATH RETARD by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 06:16 · Score: 0

Christ on a surfboard this Kohath troll is fucking stupid lol. I hereby authorize police to shoot the faggot center mass until empty. Take out the lying faggot trash.
Karma's a bitch by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 06:28 · Score: 0

Karma's a bitch. The monsters knew exactly how aggressive the legal system was, they abused it and now they're on the receiving end.
1. Re:Karma's a bitch by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  Amen brother. I hope the word gets out that this kind of thing is wrong and not what civilized people do.
And not all violation of the 1st is censorship by raymorris · 2019-01-26 07:19 · Score: 1

Censorship has a very specific definition. The government can easily infringe your first amendment rights through methods other than censorship. There can also be censorship that does not violate the first amendment.
Censorship is a system wherein censors view and edit speech before it can be seen by the public. You will never read or hear something that has been censored. The job of the censor is to block things the government doesn't want you to see or hear.
If someone gets it trouble after they say something, such as violating federal law by fraudulently pumping their stock price via posting material falae statements about the company they are the CEO of, they could make a first amendment argument (and probably lose). It's not censorship by definition because nobody prevented the speech.
Censorship:
The government edits the news broadcast before it is broadcast.
Not censorship, a different violation of freedom of speech:
The state of New York fines a broadcaster for being critical of Socialist House rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Is censorship, is not a violation of the first amendment:
Facebook blocks all posts mentioning Colin Powell.
Not censorship and not a violation of the first amendment:
People who conspire to call in false bomb threats get in trouble.
We're retarded and act on hearsay by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 07:40 · Score: -1

Now it's your problem
Barriss by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 08:35 · Score: 0

you mean Barriss Offee is involved in this, too?
cop that pulled trigger walks free by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 10:14 · Score: 0

The fucking cop is guilty of homicide at least. Shot an unarmed man with no provocation.
Asshole cop needs to do time and make reparations to the victims family.
Ok, you TRY live minus law enforcement... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 12:14 · Score: 0

See subject: A personal example you may not understand being a suburban punk snowflake - try that where I LIVE (You'd be eaten alive). Police are the ONLY BARRIER (that's legal that is) in the way of DRUG GANGS mowing people down.
* Law enforcement IS necessary (or utter chaos would erupt & minus guns, which LIBERALS seem SO KEEN ON DOING taking them FROM you as a normal citizen, you'd be @ the mercy of MOBS, period...)
APK
P.S.=> Yes, there ARE dirty cops & FOR SURE there are DIRTY POLITICIANS/LAWMAKERS (in the employ of corporate OR otherwise wealthy collectives OR individuals (George Soros)) - THIS ONE is evidenced by TED BUNDY who said:
"I finally found a group I related to" in "POLITICALLY CORRECT DILDOS" in his bio
(See it on Netflix now - PERHAPS THAT EXPLAINS MUCH on PSYCHOPATHS there who will run over ANYONE in the way of their TWISTED 'agendas' like "The NEW NORMAL" bs) & those in the MEDIA too (The "great programmer of minds of the cattle herd & tracker of their sentiments") - EACH PAID OFF to do the bidding of their 'masters' & to direct YOUR MIND (minus YOU the crowd, they have no 'armies') to THEIR way of 'thinking' - WAKE UP (OR are you just one of THEIR LACKEYS too?)... apk
Re: Uh, goodbye by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2019-01-26 22:29 · Score: 1

No it is not clueless bitch.
Boy, the modern rewrite of the Monty Python "I'd like to have an argument!" sketch is just terrible.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Gamers are Pathetic, Cops are Morons by uem-Tux · 2019-01-27 03:28 · Score: 1

So there's a group of people in the gaming community who are just sub-human trash who don't give 1 shit about other people. Right, not exactly shocking given that community's history. But what's really fucking stupid is that cops are fucking dumb enough to go in and actually murder people when what has been described to them (hostages, etc) is clearly not happening. And people freaked out when Gillette politely asked men to be slightly better people.

--
A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills
killins too good by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-27 06:33 · Score: 0

Killins too good for fag gaymerz.