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

LAPD arrests man on suspicion of making deadly swatting call to Wichita police

kansas.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 864 posts

Re: LAPD arrests man on suspicion of making deadly swatting call to Wichita police

#431

Post by downandout »

ScottBurson wrote: post #401
downandout wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was my immediate reaction. My guess is that the blame and punishment will all be laser focused on the caller, in an attempt to avoid a public outcry for the actual shooter’s head. That cop shouldn’t be on administrative leave, he should be in jail for murder.

I do think the caller should be convicted of murder. I'm not sure exactly which charge would be most appropriate for someone who deliberately created a situation in which someone could be killed, and they were. Ah — from the Wikipedia page [0] it looks like felony murder is the right charge. It's certainly at least involuntary manslaughter. I do agree with you, though, that a close look should be taken at the shooter…

>I'm not completely sure, though, based on this article, that I would consider the officer culpable. Police are trained to react quickly and to protect one another.

If being trained to “react quickly” involves shooting people when they are not 100% sure the person has a weapon, then they are being trained to commit murder. That will likely be an aspect of the inevitable lawsuit against the police in this incident. But the mere fact that they were trained to commit murder does not absolve individual officers of criminal responsibility when they actually murder someone.

>Anyway I do hope you're not suggesting that the shooter's responsibility somehow mitigates that of the caller.

No, I’m not.

Re: LAPD arrests man on suspicion of making deadly swatting call to Wichita police

#432

Post by tomschlick »

dsego wrote: post #254

Do the police have to shoot to kill? Is it possible to aim somewhere else? Or shoot into the air? Also, I think in my country they are obligated to shout out "stop, I will shoot" or something to that effect.

Police don't shoot to kill. They shoot to stop the threat. That means aiming center mass (the chest) as it is the biggest target and the easiest to hit. Sometimes that means the person dies, but that's not the objective.

As someone who is very well versed in shooting, it would be insane to expect someone to hit a leg or arm of a suspect; especially with a pistol. That would lead to many stray rounds which stay lethal for up to a mile and can easily penetrate walls killing someone you did not intend to shoot.

Re: LAPD arrests man on suspicion of making deadly swatting call to Wichita police

#433

Post by sodosopa »

WhatIsDukkha wrote: post #100

What bothers me about these situations is just the entire idea of "SWAT" as practiced. You are a cop with 5+ other cops. You all pull your guns. Someone comes to the door, groggy in the middle of the night. They may or may not understand you are police. They may or may not believe you are the police. They are definitely confused/frightened/angry by your presence. We now begin the dice rolling process. Since every pol…

It seems like a distraction to focus on the SWAT team instead of the gamer at this point. Gamer pulled the trigger as soon as the call was made.

Re: LAPD arrests man on suspicion of making deadly swatting call to Wichita police

#434

Post by rhizome »

downandout wrote: post #431
ScottBurson wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think the caller should be convicted of murder. I'm not sure exactly which charge would be most appropriate for someone who deliberately created a situation in which someone could be killed, and they were. Ah — from the Wikipedia page [0] it looks like felony murder is the right charge. It's certainly at least involuntary manslaughter. I do agree with you, though, that a close look should be taken at the shooter…

>I'm not completely sure, though, based on this article, that I would consider the officer culpable. Police are trained to react quickly and to protect one another. If being trained to “react quickly” involves shooting people when they are not 100% sure the person has a weapon, then they are being trained to commit murder. That will likely be an aspect of the inevitable lawsuit against the police in this incident. Bu…

But the mere fact that they were trained to commit murder does not absolve individual officers of criminal responsibility when they actually murder someone.

It also has psychological repercussions, where anybody who's not cop nor family is expendable by default. What is it like for a cop trained in this way to visit a mall?

Re: LAPD arrests man on suspicion of making deadly swatting call to Wichita police

#435

Post by enraged_camel »

enraged_camel wrote: post #241
jeffdavis wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the appropriate response in this kind of situation?

Pray. Even if you aren’t religious. I’m not religious and I would definitely pray.

I'm laughing at the downvotes. The OP asked what to do if getting swatted and I offered a genuine opinion, apparently this isn't allowed on HN. ;)

Re: LAPD arrests man on suspicion of making deadly swatting call to Wichita police

#436

Post by tir »

sodosopa wrote: post #433
WhatIsDukkha wrote: post #100

What bothers me about these situations is just the entire idea of "SWAT" as practiced. You are a cop with 5+ other cops. You all pull your guns. Someone comes to the door, groggy in the middle of the night. They may or may not understand you are police. They may or may not believe you are the police. They are definitely confused/frightened/angry by your presence. We now begin the dice rolling process. Since every pol…

It seems like a distraction to focus on the SWAT team instead of the gamer at this point. Gamer pulled the trigger as soon as the call was made.

I think OPs point is you shouldn't be able to kill people by proxy with a simple phone call.

Re: LAPD arrests man on suspicion of making deadly swatting call to Wichita police

#437

Post by anigbrowl »

oh_sigh wrote: post #264
leesalminen wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don’t see how calling a phone number associated with that address and seeing who picks up could hurt anything. This phone call could’ve occurred while SWAT was deploying to the scene. They only could’ve gained by doing this.

If it was real, and the hostage taker picked up, he could say everything was fine. What do you do then? Calling seems like a good idea but I'm not sure it provides any actionable information.

You're making an amazing effort to dream up new worst-case scenarios that could justify the speediest, least hesitant response. Great imagination and creativity, but you're violating Occam's razor by multiplying entities, ie inventing new facts to rationalize an illogical position. Yeah, maybe the murder could have taken place and the neighbors would be unaware of it because it occurred in an almost soundproof basement, but how do you know the house even has a basement?

Sure, you want to get police into position as quickly as possible, but you can also direct other people to investigate at the same time. And instead of just yelling directions at the guy from a distance when he came to the door, they could have tried asking questions when he appeared.

I mean, you can just as easily imagine other non-threatening factors. What if it was real, but the person at the door was actually one of the hostages who had been released but was scared and disoriented? What if it was an innocent person who was deaf? Police in Oklahoma shot a deaf guy 3 months ago even though people were yelling at the officers to tell them he was deaf. Police know what swatting is, and it's a common enough term that newscasters can use it in a sentence these days, so why didn't they consider that possibility?

I realize you're trying to be objective, but almost every one of your posts on this subject actually depends on a logical fallacy.

Re: LAPD arrests man on suspicion of making deadly swatting call to Wichita police

#438

Post by jahnu »

sodosopa wrote: post #433
WhatIsDukkha wrote: post #100

What bothers me about these situations is just the entire idea of "SWAT" as practiced. You are a cop with 5+ other cops. You all pull your guns. Someone comes to the door, groggy in the middle of the night. They may or may not understand you are police. They may or may not believe you are the police. They are definitely confused/frightened/angry by your presence. We now begin the dice rolling process. Since every pol…

It seems like a distraction to focus on the SWAT team instead of the gamer at this point. Gamer pulled the trigger as soon as the call was made.

Are you suggesting that SWAT don't kill people, people kill people?

Re: LAPD arrests man on suspicion of making deadly swatting call to Wichita police

#439

Post by sodosopa »

downandout wrote: post #11
superflyguy wrote: post #7

Is the policeman who killed an unarmed man at his house going to be charged? Ideally this wouldn't be a rhetorical question. How long until the police give themselves the right to kill someone annoying by anonymously phoning in a warning then making sure they're amongst the ones who turn up?

This was my immediate reaction. My guess is that the blame and punishment will all be laser focused on the caller, in an attempt to avoid a public outcry for the actual shooter’s head. That cop shouldn’t be on administrative leave, he should be in jail for murder.

The gamer knowingly made a statement inciting violence at the victim. I would say that's more of the problem and should be categorized as the murderer. Being a shithead troll gamer shouldn't mean you are insulated from conviction over the officer.

Re: LAPD arrests man on suspicion of making deadly swatting call to Wichita police

#440

Post by anigbrowl »

meri_dian wrote: post #145
grey-area wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SWAT is usually only involved when it's clear there is an immediate and present danger. That is demonstrably false. For reference, start with this case.

Police were responding, in this case, to a call made by someone claiming to be armed and holding his family hostage. You do not assume a call is fraudulent in a situation like that. You assume the worst. What happened to the civilian is a tragedy. He should not have been killed. But the person most at fault here is the one who lied and called in SWAT in the first place.

You do not assume a call is fraudulent in a situation like that. You assume the worst.

How about not assuming anything until you have more information to go on? The fake caller is definitely at fault here, and so are the police.

Post reply on HN