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

71–80 of 118 posts

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

#71

Post by moshun »

rurdia wrote: post #62
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.

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.

The kind of people who don’t want to become police officers because they’re worried about being held accountable for their actions? Those are exactly the kind of people who should never be allowed become police officers. If we were really interested in Justice we’d build the system specifically to eliminate those kinds of people before they got anywhere near badge and a gun.

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

#72

Post by wl »

free_bip wrote: post #47
wl wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This guy needs to be compensated for his pain and suffering, his economic losses due to his disability, and for the care he'll need for the rest of his life. Jailing the people whose negligence is responsible for his injuries doesn't help him.

By that logic we shouldn't lock up murderers either. After all, it won't help the person who's already dead.

There's quite a bit more negligence going on here than a typical murder—unless you've got some information that the cops were out to intentionally harm the victim.

The public would probably be served by the shooters not carrying a badge anymore, but it doesn't take jail to accomplish that.

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

#73

Post by tverbeure »

utternerd wrote: post #67
tverbeure wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> he pulled out a gun" are not inconsequential.

Yes, you already mentioned that?

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

#74

Post by exabrial »

utternerd wrote: post #52
exabrial wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You are beyond wrong. Personal firearm ownership is a constitutionally protected right, just as protection from unreasonable search (as this was). Arming oneself when someone breaks into your house is beyond reasonable. Police should expect residents to be armed and shouldn't be breaking into residences. And please, stop blaming the victim.

It is factually accurate that he pulled out a weapon when police were responding to an active shooter call.

Which also, is literally not a crime. Don't blame the victim.

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

#75

Post by ProfessorLayton »

bartread wrote: post #63
ProfessorLayton wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I don't know and it's not the point of my comment? I'm only talking about how it aligns inscentives.

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

#76

Post by autoexec »

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.

There are arguments to be made about regulations and the problems we face because of the number of guns in this country, but as long as we have a right to own them the possession of one can't be used as an excuse to execute someone

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

#77

Post by happytoexplain »

utternerd wrote: post #52
exabrial wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You are beyond wrong. Personal firearm ownership is a constitutionally protected right, just as protection from unreasonable search (as this was). Arming oneself when someone breaks into your house is beyond reasonable. Police should expect residents to be armed and shouldn't be breaking into residences. And please, stop blaming the victim.

It is factually accurate that he pulled out a weapon when police were responding to an active shooter call.

Nobody is calling your facts wrong. They are criticizing your post. You wrote as if criticizing the victim for their decision to pull a gun. If you did not mean to do that, you should simply state that. If you did mean to do that, then you are ignoring what people are saying in favor of pretending they are denying the simple facts of your post. You are being evasive in both cases - whichever it is.

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

#78

Post by jerlam »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #53

Police agencies arent the only ones alone to take blame here, the judges who on a whim sign these warrants should face liability or be removed from their position if there are casualties as a result of a false report.

I don't think judges and warrants are involved in these swatting incidents.

The whole point of swatting is to make up a dangerous scenario where the threat to life is so high and immediate that the police are allowed to forgo many procedures and processes that would prevent accidental injury or death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance

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

#79

Post by krapp »

hamper653 wrote: post #60
utternerd wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is factually accurate that he pulled out a weapon when police were responding to an active shooter call.

Why are there so many guns in this God-forsaken country? Why did local cops respond to an active shooting call? Why did they enter the house, instead of waiting for a specially trained team? Why did the victim have a gun?

>Why are there so many guns in this God-forsaken country?

Surplus arms after World War 2 led to the creation of the gun industry in the US, and thanks to the Second Amendment and the power of the gun lobby, its relationship with the Republican Party, and decades of popular media making them cool, that's a guaranteed untouchable industry.

> Why did they enter the house, instead of waiting for a specially trained team?

What "specially trained team?" That was the specially trained team. They're specially trained to break down doors and shoot people.

Americans get the policing they vote for, and they consistently vote for tacticool cowboys with Punisher tattoos and against... anything less than more of that.

There is probably a relationship between this and the first question.

>Why did the victim have a gun?

Self defense, presumably, as is his Constitutional right.

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

#80

Post by lovich »

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.

At this point with how the police use their unions to support the lawlessness and casual violence the police engage in repeatedly, I think most precincts would benefit from pulling a Camden and firing all the fuckers to replace with actual competent officers who aren’t toeing the line of rebelling against the state or oppression of the people.

For reference for anyone who hadn’t heard of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camden_County_Police_Departmen...

Post reply on HN