Amazon Ring cameras used in nationwide ‘swatting’ spree, US Justice Dept. says • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon Ring cameras used in nationwide ‘swatting’ spree, US Justice Dept. says

#271

Post by KMag » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 8:52 PM UTC

kneebonian wrote: post #128

themagician wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, "The only way to stop a bad guy from swatting you is a good guy with his own personal SWAT team."

Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stair…

There's evidence the framers of the Constitution intended for citizens to be able to own weapons that gave the federal government pause if the federal government decided to overstep its bounds.

Specifically, even in 1787 it was seeming likely that there was a good chance that at some point the federal government was going to abolish slavery by force, and the framers of the Constitution needed the southern states on board with the Constitution's stronger central government vs. the Articles of Confederation.

So, they probably intended weapons of some proportionate power compared to contemporary military weapons, but the ultimate underlying motivations are suspect.

On the other hand, I could imagine a world where in 1787 alcohol and/or marijuana were legal in some states and illegal in others and the framers were worried about federal troops imposing national drug policy on drugs that never crossed state lines. In that case, it seems more reasonable, which I guess lends respectability to their reasoning at a medium level of abstraction.

Re: Amazon Ring cameras used in nationwide ‘swatting’ spree, US Justice Dept. says

#272

Post by KMag » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 11:57 PM UTC

nawgz wrote: post #163

throwaway09223 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is inaccurate. I know many people on both sides of the gun debate and I don't know a single person who doesn't want police reform regarding no-knock raids. I don't know a single gun owner who supports the police in the Breonna Taylor incident. The overwhelmingly vast majority of "protect yourself from government tyranny" types want to massively curtail police powers.

> The overwhelmingly vast majority of "protect yourself from government tyranny" types want to massively curtail police powers I find this hard to believe. Back the blue, blue lives matter, thin blue line people are propagated by gun enthusiasts who use nice slogans like “government tyranny” to justify their positions in a shallow and emotional way. There’s no actual belief in government tyranny, otherwise they would…

You seem to be saying that if the majority of "back the blue" folks are gun enthusiasts, that means the majority of gun enthusiasts are "back the blue" folks. I'm not sure if either is true, but if it were, you still couldn't infer one from the other.

Re: Amazon Ring cameras used in nationwide ‘swatting’ spree, US Justice Dept. says

#273

Post by olliej » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 12:55 AM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #45

olliej wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. If I drive to a random house and start shooting at it, I don’t get to call that reckless endangerment. If I kill someone I sure as hell don’t get to call it an accident. It does not matter if you think how is police operate is unreasonable, what matters is that what they do is well known and established, and the outcome is foreseeable. Also, if your best defense is “this isn’t attempted murder, it’s just terroris…

Surely if the caller is getting charged with attempt to murder, then the SWAT doing the swatting should be charged with the same crime? How can the caller be more culpable than the one actually commiting the crime? This literally never happens in the history of crime.

What?

What you just said is "if someone falsely accuses another person of a crime, and the police arrest them, then the police are guilty of kidnapping", "if someone falsely reports a house fire and fire fighters break into the house to put it out, they are guilty of breaking and entering", etc.

Emergency services respond to the reported emergency, for SWAT that often involves an immediate threat to people's lives, so they come in with the expectation that they will need to use force. Now the increasing occurrence of swatting means that US swat teams should be aware of the possibility of false call outs, but they have to deal with "is this a case where me turning up results in someone killing their family if I don't stop them immediately, or is it a case where some dude on the internet doesn't like someone else?".

The whole point of a swatting is police are being told that the victim is has a gun and is threatening to kill people, which is effective because you get the same call when there is an actual person with a gun threatening to kill people.

Now US SWAT does have an issue (imo) that goes with US policing in general of putting safety of police/swat above anyone else, which is a real issue, but as everyone knows this it merely adds to the "you knew your actions had a significant likelihood of getting someone killed".

Re: Amazon Ring cameras used in nationwide ‘swatting’ spree, US Justice Dept. says

#274

Post by olliej » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 12:59 AM UTC

20after4 wrote: post #70

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely if the caller is getting charged with attempt to murder, then the SWAT doing the swatting should be charged with the same crime? How can the caller be more culpable than the one actually commiting the crime? This literally never happens in the history of crime.

Because cops are (mostly) above the law.

No.

I mean yes, cops are mostly above the law, and in the US they definitely murder enough (disproportionately PoC) people without consequences to be a problem.

But in this case police are being told their are people with guns threatening to kill people, which is exactly the case where police are ostensibly justified in using force.

Police killing a swatting victim is meaningfully difference from police making up a fake claims to get a warrant, breaking down a door without notice, and then shooting at anyone who moves, or pulling someone over, asking if they have a gun, and then shooting them if they say yes, etc

Re: Amazon Ring cameras used in nationwide ‘swatting’ spree, US Justice Dept. says

#275

Post by coeneedell » Thu, Dec 29, 2022, 5:22 PM UTC

thinking4real wrote: post #260

coeneedell wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this hypothetical we’re beyond negotiation anyway. I think I made this clear with the clause “in imminent danger of being killed”. If hostage negotiation were possible, that would not be imminent danger of being killed. I’m a member of a minority group that is currently experiencing an uptick in violence from the American public. I’m generally a good-natured person and tend not to make enemies. If someone is in my…

“I’m a member of a minority group that is currently experiencing an uptick in violence from the American public.” That’s horrible, it’s insane the lengths people will go to satiate their misperceived anger. What are the violent acts being committed?

https://www.adl.org/resources/tools-to-track-hate/antisemiti...