Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Serial Swatter

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 86 posts

Re: The Serial Swatter

#11

Post by tacojuan »

caseysoftware wrote: post #7

> Around 6:30 a.m., her father jostled her awake and said she needed to come downstairs. When she got to the top of the steps, she saw her family’s living room ‘‘covered in cops.’’ There were at least five officers in riot gear, guns drawn. They had bulletproof vests and pads and helmets with visors. This line doesn't make sense. If officers showed up in SWAT/riot gear, they wouldn't let anyone leave their presence u…

If you watch enough swattings (most are streamed via twitch.tv and wind up on youtube) you'll see they typically have a sheriff follow the obviously unarmed, unharmed, and generally confused victims around the house.

Re: The Serial Swatter

#13

Post by karmacondon »

jgrahamc wrote: post #10

Many of the comments here about about the SWAT teams and militarization of the US police force, but the story I read is that this guy (and others) went after women gamers because of their gender. Just the other day a woman programmer told me of some of the threats and abuse she'd suffered essentially because she's a programmer, a woman and has a public profile. I find this so depressing.

My first thought in response to your comment was "Well, most jerks are men". But I was reading about Berkson's Paradox [1] earlier and I think it might apply here. There's probably an even distribution of bad behavior between both men and women, but the selection bias in programming and technology limits the sample so that it skews towards males who behave badly.

This doesn't add much to your comment, other than offering a potential explanation as to why women in technology can have a hard time. Unfortunately I don't see a solution to the problem either.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson%27s_paradox

Re: The Serial Swatter

#14

Post by caseysoftware »

tacojuan wrote: post #11
caseysoftware wrote: post #7

> Around 6:30 a.m., her father jostled her awake and said she needed to come downstairs. When she got to the top of the steps, she saw her family’s living room ‘‘covered in cops.’’ There were at least five officers in riot gear, guns drawn. They had bulletproof vests and pads and helmets with visors. This line doesn't make sense. If officers showed up in SWAT/riot gear, they wouldn't let anyone leave their presence u…

If you watch enough swattings (most are streamed via twitch.tv and wind up on youtube) you'll see they typically have a sheriff follow the obviously unarmed, unharmed, and generally confused victims around the house.

No, most are not streamed via Twitch. A tiny percentage are. In fact, we will never hear of most of them unless someone is killed.

Further, read the paragraph and my quoted portion again. She says her father woke her up and she didn't see cops until she saw into the living room.

Therefore, there was no sheriff with him.

Re: The Serial Swatter

#15

Post by diego_moita »

jgrahamc wrote: post #10

Many of the comments here about about the SWAT teams and militarization of the US police force, but the story I read is that this guy (and others) went after women gamers because of their gender. Just the other day a woman programmer told me of some of the threats and abuse she'd suffered essentially because she's a programmer, a woman and has a public profile. I find this so depressing.

This is also what I read.

What I found most disturbing there is the pattern of a fragile and weak person being abused and returning all that abuse into others that are weaker than him.

It reminds me an Israeli writer (Amos Oz, if I remember correctly) saying that many times the mind of the opressed is an mirrored inverted version of the mind of opressor.

Re: The Serial Swatter

#16

Post by iSnow »

jgrahamc wrote: post #10

Many of the comments here about about the SWAT teams and militarization of the US police force, but the story I read is that this guy (and others) went after women gamers because of their gender. Just the other day a woman programmer told me of some of the threats and abuse she'd suffered essentially because she's a programmer, a woman and has a public profile. I find this so depressing.

I am going out on a limb, I don't think the behavior in the article is "simply" misogyny like with the programmer you mention, i.e. attacking women in techy jobs, it's more like sexual harassment by guys who don't have a girlfriend but some technical skills (and no moral compass).

I believe it starts with 4Chan's "tits or GTFO" whenever a woman identifies as such. In the end, guys like this one try to extort as much nudes, porn or ultimately sex as they possibly can.

Re: The Serial Swatter

#17

Post by jMyles »

It seems to me that the fault lies entirely with the state. If it is violently intruding people's homes on the basis of this sort of report - which ends up being false - then obviously it needs to change the nature of what evidence can be regarded as sufficient cause to do this.

After all, say-so alone isn't supposed to be sufficient evidence to conduct a search. From the 4th amendment:

> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

(emphasis mine)

Re: The Serial Swatter

#18

Post by onewaystreet »

DanBC wrote: post #5

> and from a police point of view, it’s better to ‘‘respond high and then downgrade’’ They're saying increased risk of killing innocent people = ok, which is a sub-optimal approach when you look at the thousand or so people shot and killed by US police each year.

The argument for the "show of force" tactic is that a show of force can prevent the use of force because the suspect is too stunned to act.

Re: The Serial Swatter

#19

Post by sdoering »

Sorry to say that, but WTF?

Having read this account, I can hardly believe such people (creatures? idiots? Lost for words right now.) exist. Even knowing, this is a one in a million/billion case, I really do not understand how someone could do things like this. I totally understand how a system can be exploited. I even can acknowledge on an intellectual level the "hack" of the system. But playing with lives destroying innocent (mostly girls in this case, but the gender/age do not matter if people are terrorized imho) people, is clearly something I will never be able to understand.

And then only serving what - some 16 month in juvenile. Sorry, but that should not be right as well. This is no punishment, this does not deter others, imho.

And this does also not help the guy in any way. Why can't he be made tu at least also undergo therapy:

> His description of the pleasure he gets from causing humiliation and harm ... is suggestive of quite significant emerging psychopathic traits.

No, he will run free, nine month after his sentence.

Having written that much on him, I am still shaking my head in disbelieve.

Re: The Serial Swatter

#20

Post by onewaystreet »

caseysoftware wrote: post #7

> Around 6:30 a.m., her father jostled her awake and said she needed to come downstairs. When she got to the top of the steps, she saw her family’s living room ‘‘covered in cops.’’ There were at least five officers in riot gear, guns drawn. They had bulletproof vests and pads and helmets with visors. This line doesn't make sense. If officers showed up in SWAT/riot gear, they wouldn't let anyone leave their presence u…

The SWAT team likely rushed in, saw that there was no threat and then let the father go upstairs. And her account doesn't say if her father came up alone or not.
Post reply on HN