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

Man seeks millions after being shot by police in game-related swatting incident

tucsonsentinel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 118 posts

Re: Man seeks millions after being shot by police in game-related swatting incident

#61

Post by tverbeure »

utternerd wrote: post #56
tverbeure wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also says that he heard glass breaking, thought they were criminals, grabbed a gun and hid behind a door. If you’re going to mention the gun fact, why not provide the whole context?

I assumed everyone also read the article if they're commenting on it, but I fail to see what additional that context that adds; I can't imagine he was pulling it out because it was time to oil it. Police were responding to an active shooter call, and this guy pulled out a gun.

> I assumed everyone also read the article if they're commenting on it, ...

You must be new to The Internet. :-)

> I fail to see what additional that context that adds

You may not have intended it sound like that, but your comment felt like classic victim blaming, which is all too common in the cases of police incompetence.

Re: Man seeks millions after being shot by police in game-related swatting incident

#62

Post by rurdia »

bartread wrote: post #29
mzhaase wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about firing them and sending them to jail?

I like your way better. I like your way a lot better. A: It’s actual justice, and B: Otherwise it just becomes another way for insurance companies to make money - in this case by charging swingeing fees that will come out of public coffers.

Then no one would want to be a police officer.

Could also just give the death penalty for any attempted or successful swats (though finding the perpetrator might be difficult). And maybe improve legislation and technology related to it.

VPN service providers might be thrilled if using a VPN for gaming became mandated by law. Game developers less so if P2P becomes outlawed.

Re: Man seeks millions after being shot by police in game-related swatting incident

#63

Post by bartread »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #37
bartread wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like your way better. I like your way a lot better. A: It’s actual justice, and B: Otherwise it just becomes another way for insurance companies to make money - in this case by charging swingeing fees that will come out of public coffers.

> Otherwise it just becomes another way for insurance companies to make money - in this case by charging swingeing fees that will come out of public coffers. I believe doctors pay out of pocket (At least the ones that setup their own private practice do), so it would incentivize them to keep costs low so they can pocket the money.

What’s the salary difference between doctors and cops of similar experience levels on average in the US?

Re: Man seeks millions after being shot by police in game-related swatting incident

#64

Post by [deleted] »

utternerd wrote: post #50
autoexec wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It explicitly said in the article that he pulled out a gun. A gun that he legally owned and had every right to have on his person as an unknown individual was breaking into his home. If police don't identify themselves they should expect an armed population to meet them with guns in hand. It's their responsibility to assess the situation, understand who the occupants are, and respond appropriately. Smashing a bedro…

Good to see HN has changed their tune on gun ownership and defense. Until we see bodycam footage we're all basing our opinions entirely on what his lawyer is saying. Video will come out with a FOIA, but everyone will have moved on.

[deleted]

Re: Man seeks millions after being shot by police in game-related swatting incident

#65

Post by [deleted] »

greedo wrote: post #34
helterskelter wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, yeah you're right. I swear I remember hearing about this on an NPR radio piece about how police really don't need to do anything to protect you.

Police are under no legal obligation to protect you.

[deleted]

Re: Man seeks millions after being shot by police in game-related swatting incident

#66

Post by ASalazarMX »

genocidicbunny wrote: post #44
getstowly wrote: post #2

I don't understand why more police agencies aren't being super careful with this stuff, especially if they're being sent to a house / location where no other crimes have been reported. It would be one thing if you have a call to a house that's had domestic violence calls, other shootings, etc. Instead, they're just getting a call and thinking, "Oh no! Danger!" and running in, guns blazing. I love the protection from…

A lot of them _want_ to be able to go in guns blazing and not having to be careful. They're living out a Warrior fantasy.

Many people have fantasies like that, where a thief (hopefully without a gun) invades their home, and they use their gun collection to heroically "neutralize" the invader and defend their kingdom without legal consequences.

These are the kind of people who shoud be strongly filtered out from jobs that require carrying firearms. They could enlist as infantry in whatever invasion USA is doing that year, but they're actually scared of guns if they can fire back.

Re: Man seeks millions after being shot by police in game-related swatting incident

#67

Post by utternerd »

tverbeure wrote: post #61
utternerd wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assumed everyone also read the article if they're commenting on it, but I fail to see what additional that context that adds; I can't imagine he was pulling it out because it was time to oil it. Police were responding to an active shooter call, and this guy pulled out a gun.

> I assumed everyone also read the article if they're commenting on it, ... You must be new to The Internet. :-) > I fail to see what additional that context that adds You may not have intended it sound like that, but your comment felt like classic victim blaming, which is all too common in the cases of police incompetence.

Details matter, and details like "he pulled out a gun" are not inconsequential.

Re: Man seeks millions after being shot by police in game-related swatting incident

#69

Post by eth0up »

user43928 wrote: post #55
atmavatar wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real justice when it comes to swatting is multi-faceted. Sure, the person making the bogus call to police should suffer some consequences vis a vis jail time. However, swatting only works because police regularly take a shoot first and ask questions later stance. They go from an anonymous tip about an ongoing crime at an address to shooting up said address in short order without any effort to verify a crime is actual…

I am as horrified by the outcome here as the next person, but what exactly do you imagine police should do when responding to a call about an active shooter where they encounter a suspect armed with a handgun?

Identify themselves as LE, and of course physically represent as such, unambiguously, then demand the person put down the firearm. "Active Shooter" has no meaning just because the word is used. Also consider what everyone long forgot and few pay attention to; officers are paid, not volunteers. Risk is part of the job. You cannot shoot everything you think might be a threat. One can also question the quality of the system that handles emergency calls, or that responds to them. There are lots of guns in America. And lots of people who can say the words "active shooter". And often enough, phones and other objects are conveniently interpreted as guns, so I am not convinced that is the most important variable. Did he point it at the officers? If so, were the officers in proper uniform?

Now, if I were to answer your question, I would say it first depends on circumstances. I have encountered many people with guns. But if I was and active officer and encountered someone with a gun, I would do my best so that the encounter was arranged in a manner that gave me some advantage and at least a second or two to think before acting. Sometimes, mistakes are made though, and they always will be made. But the fact someone had a gun is no excuse.

Re: Man seeks millions after being shot by police in game-related swatting incident

#70

Post by happytoexplain »

utternerd wrote: post #56
tverbeure wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also says that he heard glass breaking, thought they were criminals, grabbed a gun and hid behind a door. If you’re going to mention the gun fact, why not provide the whole context?

I assumed everyone also read the article if they're commenting on it, but I fail to see what additional that context that adds; I can't imagine he was pulling it out because it was time to oil it. Police were responding to an active shooter call, and this guy pulled out a gun.

The implication of your original post is that he behaved negligently, when clearly the additional context shows that he did not. You're writing in bad faith.
Post reply on HN