Three Men Charged in ‘Swatting’ Schemes • Hacker News Board

Re: Three Men Charged in ‘Swatting’ Schemes

#91

Post by m0zg » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 11:28 AM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #88

m0zg wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically, in the US the police doesn't have to protect you (search "no duty to protect"). And "holding them accountable" much beyond the existing threshold will ensure they won't show up at all except to collect the body.

It sounds like you are saying that better police cannot exist. But it exists in every first world country except the US.

That's only because those countries aren't, in fact, the US. The US is a pretty violent country compared to just about any other first world country. The policing methods employed elsewhere are (IMO) unlikely to work here. It'd be hilarious to send London policemen to Chicago or Detroit and have them "deescalate" things with gangs there.

Re: Three Men Charged in ‘Swatting’ Schemes

#92

Post by fenomas » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 11:40 AM UTC

jrochkind1 wrote: post #14

fenomas wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely the robust solution is for police/swat teams to treat unverified threats differently? Any real world system needs to be able to handle faulty inputs. If this particular system wasn't so terrible at that, bad actors would have no reason to make the false reports in the first place.

How do you think they are going to verify a threat? By showing up, right? I'm not sure "verified" vs "unverified" is the important thing. I do think U.S. police's approach in general is far too violent and it makes these things more dangerous. That also means that anyone 'swatting' ought to know they are doing something dangerous and with high potential for violence, far from just a joke, it's an extremely immoral ac…

> How do you think they are going to verify a threat? By showing up, right?

I don't follow your implication - obviously nobody's suggesting the police not show up.

The point is that swat teams should treat anonymous calls as potential crimes - and potential pranks or mistakes - until they have reason not to.

Systems need to be robust against bad inputs! If a system occasionally kills people when lied to, the solution is not to try and prevent people from lying to it - it's to improve the system.

Re: Three Men Charged in ‘Swatting’ Schemes

#93

Post by chrisseaton » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 12:04 PM UTC

masonic wrote: post #85

chrisseaton wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> should be charged with something along the lines of conspiracy to commit murder How do you prove the intent was to murder rather than to harass? You think you’re being clever by charging with something more serious, then the charge fails because really you just wanted what they really did to have a steeper punishment. > I dont answer a blocked number, anyway They don’t call you - it doesn’t matter what you’d do - t…

How do you prove the intent was to murder rather than to harass? That's not their burden. The Felony Murder rule means that the person shares responsibility for the homicide.

I thought to convict someone of conspiracy to murder, one of the conspirators had to commit the 'overt act' of murder?

In this case all the accused are conspirators, but which one committed the overt act? Calling a false report to the police is not an overt act of murder is it?

If this was a contract killing for example they'd be in conspiracy with the hitman, who was clearly the murderer. Who's the murderer in this case? The police officer isn't committing murder.

I think if you charged with conspiracy to murder you risk facing a jury who says 'ok I get they conspired but which one do you think committed murder?'

Re: Three Men Charged in ‘Swatting’ Schemes

#94

Post by RickJWagner » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 12:52 PM UTC

shalmanese wrote: post #78

djsumdog wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just the audio of the swatter though, right? I don't think there's any video of the actual incident is there? Maybe the dude didn't understand what the big deal was and kept dropping his hands? Someone probably jumped the gun? I wonder if that team had non-lethal weapons and just didn't get them out. If he didn't have a firearm, a beanbag rifle could have ended this much differently.

We have to get into the mindset that police reports are fundamentally untrustworthy sources of information. We have enough evidence accumulated over the years to make it abundantly clear that police reports are primarily about constructing a narrative that absolves police of culpability and secondarily about describing the true nature of an event. Police reports read individually all sound individually reasonable but…

No, I disagree.

We need to change society back to the point where people are decent and don't fool around with public resources like cops.

First responders are life-saving. Mis-using them is seriously anti-social behavior. That's what needs to be changed.

Re: Three Men Charged in ‘Swatting’ Schemes

#95

Post by RickJWagner » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 12:55 PM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #89

specialp wrote: post #12

The main perpetrator whom gave up his friends Tyler Rai Barriss actually did cause the death of someone in Kansas by "Swatting" them. He then was completely unapologetic. These new indictments are after he accepted a plea deal for 20-25 years in federal prison. Here is his twitter: https://twitter.com/goredtutor36?lang=en . He boasted about swatting people and somehow got internet access in prison and posted his late…

> He then was completely unapologetic. I'm guesing the police was completely unapologetic as well.

The cop that pulled the trigger will have to live with it for the rest of his/her life.

Like all people, most cops are decent people. To assume otherwise is just wrong.

I personally know several cops. They are without exception excellent human beings. They work hard, with little pay, to serve the public.

Re: Three Men Charged in ‘Swatting’ Schemes

#96

Post by jrochkind1 » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 1:45 PM UTC

fenomas wrote: post #92

jrochkind1 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you think they are going to verify a threat? By showing up, right? I'm not sure "verified" vs "unverified" is the important thing. I do think U.S. police's approach in general is far too violent and it makes these things more dangerous. That also means that anyone 'swatting' ought to know they are doing something dangerous and with high potential for violence, far from just a joke, it's an extremely immoral ac…

> How do you think they are going to verify a threat? By showing up, right? I don't follow your implication - obviously nobody's suggesting the police not show up. The point is that swat teams should treat anonymous calls as potential crimes - and potential pranks or mistakes - until they have reason not to. Systems need to be robust against bad inputs! If a system occasionally kills people when lied to, the solution…

Yes, the system needs to be improved, the way that police respond with indiscriminate violence as a first resort puts people in danger in many situations beyond these, and needs to be changed.

But I feel like some in this thread are calling for leniancy for 'swatters', perhaps because they've done it themselves or are friends with those who have. "the solution is not to try and prevent people from lying to it." No, it's that too. The police ARE a dangerous murderous gang, as long as that is true tricking them into responding to someone on false pretenses is a violent act, with potentially deadly consequences, a grossly immoral act.

If anyone thinks they can escape moral culpability for swatting because it's the police's fault -- even making that argument is explicitly recognizing that the police are a dangerous violent force, so if you sic them on someone you know what you are doing, you know the potential consequences. If you let your dangerous dog loose on purpose and it attacks someone, it's your fault and the dogs fault too. You have responsibility for your actions. Intentionally exposing someone to potential police violence is on the person who does it, even if the police ought not to be so easy to be used in that way, that person still used them in that way. And it's a horribly unethical thing to do.

Re: Three Men Charged in ‘Swatting’ Schemes

#97

Post by usefulcat » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 2:02 PM UTC

root_axis wrote: post #59

usefulcat wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Police who are so easy to be "scared for life" should not be in the force, in the same way someone with pyrophobia should not be a firefighter. I take your point, but at the same time, that's a very easy thing to say when it's not your life that is on the line. Unless you have first hand experience doing that kind of job, I would strongly advise a bit of restraint in being quite so judgemental.

First hand experience isn't needed to condemn the unnecessary murder of a completely innocent and terrified man. The police should not burst into the homes of innocent citizens and shoot them to death. Being scared is not a valid excuse.

That's a straw man. No one is arguing that that is ok.

Re: Three Men Charged in ‘Swatting’ Schemes

#98

Post by wnevets » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 3:41 PM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #50

Memosyne wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to a police statement regarding the 2017 Wichita Swatting event: "Officers gave [the victim] several verbal commands to put his hands up and walk towards them. The male complied for a very short time and then put his hands back down to his waist. The officers continued to give him verbal commands to put his hands up, and he lowered them again." [1] I'm not well informed on the subject, but wouldn't equippin…

This is just the audio of the swatter though, right? I don't think there's any video of the actual incident is there? Maybe the dude didn't understand what the big deal was and kept dropping his hands? Someone probably jumped the gun? I wonder if that team had non-lethal weapons and just didn't get them out. If he didn't have a firearm, a beanbag rifle could have ended this much differently.

>Maybe the dude didn't understand what the big deal was and kept dropping his hands? Someone probably jumped the gun?

or the cops lied about what happened. Wouldn't be the first time that has happened when a cop murdered an unarmed civilian.

Re: Three Men Charged in ‘Swatting’ Schemes

#99

Post by fenomas » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 4:02 PM UTC

jrochkind1 wrote: post #96

fenomas wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you think they are going to verify a threat? By showing up, right? I don't follow your implication - obviously nobody's suggesting the police not show up. The point is that swat teams should treat anonymous calls as potential crimes - and potential pranks or mistakes - until they have reason not to. Systems need to be robust against bad inputs! If a system occasionally kills people when lied to, the solution…

Yes, the system needs to be improved, the way that police respond with indiscriminate violence as a first resort puts people in danger in many situations beyond these, and needs to be changed. But I feel like some in this thread are calling for leniancy for 'swatters', perhaps because they've done it themselves or are friends with those who have. "the solution is not to try and prevent people from lying to it." No, i…

> some in this thread are calling for leniancy for 'swatters'

Saying that swat teams need to safely deal with false reports is not in any way sympathizing with swatters. Of course swatting is bad - everyone knows that. But "get people to stop lying to police" is not an achievable goal; "get police to stop killing randoms because someone lied" is.

> perhaps because they've done it themselves or are friends with those who have.

This is out of line, surely.

Re: Three Men Charged in ‘Swatting’ Schemes

#100

Post by root_axis » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 6:01 PM UTC

peteretep wrote: post #77

root_axis wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's a pretty snarky response but it is also devoid of substance.

How's it devoid of substance? The issue is about the fact that the legal system distinguishes between manslaughter and murder, has different burdens of proof for each, and you've come back and said "well in my opinion it's the same". And that's nice for your opinion, but if you worked in the legal system in any capacity you'd know that the two things are distinct, and the reason they're distinct is there's a differen…

It's devoid of substance because it's a sarcastic and condescending quip about whether or not my comments qualify me as a prosecutor in your view. That's not the topic at hand and it's pretty obviously a low quality response meant to insult rather than address what I wrote.

Anyway, I'll defer to your credentials as an experienced prosecutor, but it seems pretty reasonable to me that painting an individual as an imminent danger and directing a paramilitary kill squad to their location (resulting in their subsequent execution) is an intentional murder. Obviously, the courts will tease out all the pertinent details but I don't see any details that preclude that possibility.