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

31–40 of 86 posts

Re: The Serial Swatter

#31

Post by jMyles »

onewaystreet wrote: post #24
jMyles wrote: post #17

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 b…

SWAT is only called in when there is an imminent threat. The problem is that the swatters can make up whatever story they need to. There's no good way for the SWAT team to actually confirm the story without going in.

> There's no good way for the SWAT team to actually confirm the story without going in.

I don't think I agree, especially as communications technology matures.

On its face, this "hostage with gun to the head" story needs to be regarded with enormous skepticism, just because of how rare it actually is.

Re: The Serial Swatter

#32

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

cstross wrote: post #21
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'm kind of startled that this type of crime isn't prosecuted as attempted murder. (If I go out and try to hire a hit-man to kill someone, that's how the prosecuting authorities would deal with me. If I try and trick someone else who is armed into killing someone for me? That's a very short step from paying an assassin -- there's just less money involved. That the armed someone in question is a SWAT team doesn't clea…

Well, consider the percentage of police killings that are classified as murder... .1%? .01%? If someone is killed in a SWAT raid (swatting or otherwise) it's almost always written off as a police officer "justifiably fearing for their life". The officer that shot a sleeping 7 year old girl? Not murder (tried for manslaughter twice, two for two mistrials and then prosecutors dropped it). The officer that threw a flash-bang in a 1 year old boy's crib? Not attempted murder, no charges at all.

But to be less negative about it, the vast majority of swatting don't result in accidental police killings, probably for a variety of reasons including the higher concentration of well-trained, veteran officers as SWAT team members than in the police population at large, and the fact that the SWAT team almost certainly outnumbers their targets and all the cognitive effects that can have on the participants.

Re: The Serial Swatter

#33

Post by Frondo »

bigguy4u wrote: post #27

When you walk into an anonymous message board and the first thing you declare is your gender, you shouldn't be surprised when other people think you are attention whoring. Tits or gtfo is the perfect counter, since you want to a special snowflake, then we will treat you as your polar opposite - a generic bag of skin and meat worth nothing but a masturbation aid. Downvote all you like. The truth hurts doesn't it?

I will reply before your comment disappears into oblivion (which it will and should):

No, no, a thousand times no, because there is nothing wrong with being a woman.

Everyone's gender, man, woman, or however they see it, is part of what makes them a human being. It makes up a part of your identity whether you're conscious of it or not.

Announcing your gender is no more "attention whoring" (itself an awful, loaded phrase) than announcing that you're a student, that you're a teenager, that you're old, that you drive a Chevelle, whatever.

That people will attack you simply for being a woman reflects wholly on them, and how awful they are as people (or possibly, to be charitable, just immature and ignorant about the world).

Your defense of that is shameful, and you should take time to reflect on your world view, because it will not serve you well as you move through life.

Re: The Serial Swatter

#34

Post by dibujante »

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.

Well, flip the response around - respond low and then upgrade. It's possible that this would lead to less death overall. But it would also mean that any situation requiring escalation would probably indicate such through the death of a police officer. Would you want to be the sacrificial officer who knocks on the door to find out if the situation is worth escalating? The overall numbers might work out better in that case, but the whole "someone will definitely die" factor is a big psychological hurdle.

Re: The Serial Swatter

#35

Post by awalton »

onewaystreet wrote: post #24
jMyles wrote: post #17

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 b…

SWAT is only called in when there is an imminent threat. The problem is that the swatters can make up whatever story they need to. There's no good way for the SWAT team to actually confirm the story without going in.

When someone says they're robbing a bank, they send in the SWAT team, but the first thing they do is set a perimeter and try to make contact with the people inside.

Zero of these incidents that I've read about have tried to make any contact with people inside. They just break down the door and invade the house, guns drawn, smoke grenades in cribs, whatever it takes to make entry.

I have no idea why it isn't protocol to have a hostage negotiator ring the house, given that's how they'd respond to several other classes of incident, but my guess is that's what happens when you pay for BearCats and bullet-resist vests instead of councilors and negotiators.

Re: The Serial Swatter

#36

Post by DanBC »

onewaystreet wrote: post #18
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.

Where "stunned" means "shot and killed within 6 seconds of the officer arriving"?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34918231

Re: The Serial Swatter

#37

Post by mikeash »

dibujante wrote: post #34
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.

Well, flip the response around - respond low and then upgrade. It's possible that this would lead to less death overall. But it would also mean that any situation requiring escalation would probably indicate such through the death of a police officer. Would you want to be the sacrificial officer who knocks on the door to find out if the situation is worth escalating? The overall numbers might work out better in that…

I don't want to be a police officer at all, but for those who are, "put your life on the line for others" is pretty much the job description.

By all means, we should minimize their risk as much as is reasonable. But when you get to the end of what's reasonable, you have to accept that they're still going to be at risk, because that's what the job is.

Re: The Serial Swatter

#38

Post by jackgavigan »

> The F.B.I. doesn’t keep statistics on swatting incidents; a bureau spokeswoman says it is still working out which part of the F.B.I. should handle swatting investigations, because the crime ‘‘crosses so many of our delineated thresholds for who handles what.’’

This is pretty shocking. Speaks to an unreasonable level of bureaucracy and/or a lack of internal cooperation (not to mention common sense) at the FBI.

Re: The Serial Swatter

#39

Post by bigguy4u »

Frondo wrote: post #33
bigguy4u wrote: post #27

When you walk into an anonymous message board and the first thing you declare is your gender, you shouldn't be surprised when other people think you are attention whoring. Tits or gtfo is the perfect counter, since you want to a special snowflake, then we will treat you as your polar opposite - a generic bag of skin and meat worth nothing but a masturbation aid. Downvote all you like. The truth hurts doesn't it?

I will reply before your comment disappears into oblivion (which it will and should): No, no, a thousand times no, because there is nothing wrong with being a woman . Everyone's gender, man, woman, or however they see it, is part of what makes them a human being. It makes up a part of your identity whether you're conscious of it or not. Announcing your gender is no more "attention whoring" (itself an awful, loaded ph…

Nice straw man. If 4chan is made up of 99% females and I go in there and declare that I am male. I would expect nothing less.

The fact is, you think they are being specialed out because they are women, no, they are being attacked by trying curry favours because they are different. They are not being attacked for being different, they are attacked for exploiting their differences.

It is the same with people who use tripcodes to standout from the mob. The fact that you are no understanding of the 4chan dynamic and come here to lecture about 4chan culture is a bit rich.

Re: The Serial Swatter

#40

Post by knowaveragejoe »

Frondo wrote: post #33
bigguy4u wrote: post #27

When you walk into an anonymous message board and the first thing you declare is your gender, you shouldn't be surprised when other people think you are attention whoring. Tits or gtfo is the perfect counter, since you want to a special snowflake, then we will treat you as your polar opposite - a generic bag of skin and meat worth nothing but a masturbation aid. Downvote all you like. The truth hurts doesn't it?

I will reply before your comment disappears into oblivion (which it will and should): No, no, a thousand times no, because there is nothing wrong with being a woman . Everyone's gender, man, woman, or however they see it, is part of what makes them a human being. It makes up a part of your identity whether you're conscious of it or not. Announcing your gender is no more "attention whoring" (itself an awful, loaded ph…

I think what he's saying is that on an anonymous message board, there is no reason to bring gender into the conversation other than when it's explicitly relevant. Announcing or displaying your gender(or anything else about your identity) is to depart from the concept of anonymity. It doesn't make moral or ethical sense to me, but it does make logical sense. They see identity as a cry for being "special", and there's probably some serious immaturity at play in attacking that itself. Drag you down to their level of sameness, so to speak.
Post reply on HN