
Call of Duty gaming community points to ‘swatting’ in Wichita police shooting - pjc50
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/12/kansas-man-killed-in-swatting-attack/
======
tptacek
Two things can obviously be true at the same time: that "police officers"† are
improperly keyed up as if they're shock troops preparing for a battle, and
that calling in a false report with the hope that it will provoke an armed
response is effectively an attempt at homicide.

To me, the (standard) overreaction by the police makes arguments minimizing
what the gamer did here even harder. Unless you live under a rock, you're
aware of the controversy about armed police response in the US. Surely this
gamer knew that, and called a fake report in anyways --- one involving an
active shooter and a hostage.

I'm with Ken "Popehat" White: what the gamer did here is homicide. We can
argue about the degree.

† _really, in almost all cases in the US, "assault officers", and we should
separate the two concepts, stop hiring new assault officers, and start hiring
a new class of less-armed police officers_

 _Later_

It turns out there's already a concept in US law that captures this:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-
heart_murder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder)

~~~
topmonk
> really, in almost all cases in the US, "assault officers", and we should
> separate the two concepts, stop hiring new assault officers, and start
> hiring a new class of less-armed police officers

The reason that cops are so nasty in the us is because there are so many guns.
It's a different environment than other Western countries, and calls for
different police tactics.

Unless guns are removed from the equation somebody is going to die. Either use
a heavy handed police force, and civilians will die, or use a police force
with a lighter touch and police will die.

~~~
derefr
Or,

1\. use _expendable_ police materiel to scout out the situation of a dispatch
in advance of sending in any actual police bodies (e.g. police drones with
fancy optics.)

2\. send people in heavily _armored_ rather than heavily _armed_. If you can
make your SWAT team immune to bullets (such as by, say, encasing them in an
Armoured Personnel Carrier), then they're not going to be feeling threatened
and shooting anyone.

#1 is pretty universally useful. You can figure out who has guns and who
doesn't.

#2 is more situational, because our best solution for heavy armor right
now—APCs—have no good way of entering your tenth-floor apartment. This is why
I'm constantly checking up on the progress of military robots and powered
armor: the more invincible you can make something, the _less_ it needs to
actually kill anybody to do its job. The ideal here is a combination of robot-
police and human-in-exosuit police that don't even need guns, because nothing
they are sent to deal with is ever really that dangerous to them.

~~~
topmonk
Here is a video of a cop getting shot while trying to apprehend a man on a
motorcycle (maybe NSFW):
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXqoYMOkuYc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXqoYMOkuYc)

The motorcyclist has a gun in his pocket, and shoots the cop without warning.

How will your proposed solutions are going to do anything in that situation?

Sorry to rant, but this attitude of an amateur thinking they know better than
all the professionals who have been doing their job for many years, and can
propose quick fixes that will solve everything, is ridiculous.

~~~
spaceseaman
I have a real hard time caring about cops' fears in such a scenario. Innocent
until proven guilty is a time-honored maxim of the U.S. justice system, and a
cop deciding to kill you completely invalidates that.

Is being a cop scary? Hell yeah and I feel bad for those folks, but if you
don't want to constantly be in fear of your life, get another job.

Put cops who murder innocent civilians in jail. End of story. This shouldn't
even be a debate in the U.S.

EDIT: Since I had the goal posts moved on me, I want to make it explicitly
clear that a cop should be allowed to kill in self-defense, just like any
other lawful citizen.

~~~
topmonk
> Innocent until proven guilty is a time-honored maxim of the U.S. justice
> system, and a cop deciding to kill you completely invalidates that.

Consider two civilians. If A shoots at B, and B shot back and killed A, should
B go to jail for murder?

Now just because B happens to be a cop, does he lose all his rights?

~~~
spaceseaman
> does he lose all his rights?

You've just created a pure strawman. Cops should never lose their rights! I am
not making such an argument, and I don't see how you got there from my points.
I would never argue such a claim.

The cases I'm talking about are not self-defense. They are like the story
above. If A murders B, and A is a cop, then A should go to jail regardless of
the fear A had in that situation. But this is not what happens in the United
States. Cops don't go to jail for shooting perfectly innocent people because
the cop can claim they were afraid for their life and _thought_ that B had a
gun.

If I'm a civilian, that defense doesn't fly. But if you're a cop, then it does
work. That is a flaw in our justice system that needs to be corrected because
a perfectly innocent man can be killed by the state and no repercussions are
felt.

The state should never be able to kill an innocent man. If they are shooting
at you, they aren't innocent. But if you think they have a gun (especially in
an open-carry state like Kansas or Texas) then they are innocent and should
not be killed.

EDIT: I am saddened by the downvotes. Does the state have the right to kill
innocent people if those people own a gun? Doesn't the second amendment
protect against this? I simply do not see the legitimate argument for allowing
such behavior. This just seems like rabid tribalism for police.

~~~
topmonk
I don't think I understand what scenario you're talking about. If you're
talking about the scenario I posted a video of, I think you are completely off
base.

If you're talking a cop straight-up murdering someone, and it getting covered
up, then, of course, that's wrong.

I think there is a lot of gray area between these two scenarios, however. I
also think if there was a ban on guns that would solve most of it.

~~~
spaceseaman
The scenario at hand in the OP, where a cop murders a completely innocent man
through mistake. I agree that a ban on guns would likely solve the problem in
the video that you posted.

My point was that your video seemed out of place since the actual issue is
that cops in the U.S. are held to a different standard for murder. If cops
were held to the same standard, then they could be held accountable for their
crimes and some of the public outrage would be alleviated.

If (for the sake of argument) the amount of guns in this country were
significantly decreased via a ban and the police still held to a different
standard, police would still be able to kill an innocent person out of fear
for their life. Racial biases could also cause a cop to be more fearful in a
situation and still kill an innocent person without consequence.

I also think that changing how police are prosecuted for crimes is much easier
than repealing the second amendment in the U.S. (although both would face
fierce opposition).

~~~
topmonk
> My point was that your video seemed out of place since the actual issue is
> that cops in the U.S. are held to a different standard for murder.

That video was part of a specific response refuting the idea that if the cops
just used drones and body armor, there wouldn't be a problem anymore. I did in
no way intend to imply it was a counterpoint to the main story. I don't know
why it's being perceived in that way.

> I also think that changing how police are prosecuted for crimes is much
> easier than repealing the second amendment in the U.S. (although both would
> face fierce opposition).

Yes, but that runs into the trade-off I was talking about. Either you have a
heavy handed, "shoot first, ask questions later" style police force, or one
with a lighter touch. In the first scenario, more civilians are killed. In the
second, more cops.

Only by banning guns can you reduce casualties on both sides.

~~~
myaso
How would take the guns out of circulation already? There are millions of them
out there and a whole tribe of diehards who will never give them up, and on
top of this an entire industry around it -- the amount of people that die from
this problem isn't worth the political capital and sustained decision maker
attention needed to push this through compared to everything else that could
be done using the same limited bandwidth.

------
johnpowell
My mom rented out a concrete slab in her backyard in August to a few guys
living in a RV. They have access to the garage which has water and a full
bathroom. And I ran electric and Ethernet to their RV.

They are not supposed to come into the main house without knocking. They do
not have keys.

It is like pulling teeth to get them to pay rent and utilities. They hit one
of the peoples car that lives inside the main house and refused to fix the
broken taillight. The part is 40 bucks and I can replace it. But they refuse.

And this has escalated over the last few weeks. The police have been called
three times over the RV guys behavior. I told my mom to get a restraining
order to get them out fast but for some reason refuses.

So the eviction process has started. And they were not happy. I was there the
other day and was getting the space heater in the bathroom going so the pipes
don't burst and overheard them saying that when they leave they should, "SWAT
the bitch".

And my mom rents out a room to a forty year old guy on disability that they
say has a mental capacity of a 12 year old. He is somewhat impulsive. If the
cops poured in he would not understand what is going on and would probably get
shot.

I went with my mom to the police station to tell them what I overheard. So
hopefully before they send a SWAT team a note pops up that they were warned
about this and it is probably false.

~~~
scoggs
I've thought similarly about people who are feeling the threat of being
swatted informing local authorities of the possibility but that presents
another problem. The police aren't going to 100% trust people calling in to
say, "Hey, if anybody calls you to say I'm doing something illegal I am
calling you to tell you right now that I'd never do anything like that!" and
it makes me feel that forewarning them might pose more problem than not. The
entire situation is sticky and grimy and I agree with Krebs that the
punishment for causing a swatting incident needs to be a felony in all 50
states.

~~~
sjg007
If you go to the station and give your id, make a statement and they verify
where you live and who you are?

~~~
simonh
Do they really have a process in place to check if addresses are on a 'do not
SWAT list' before sending in the cops? How is such a list maintained and
verified? Who approves changes to it? How long do addresses stay on it and
what's the process for removing them?

There is no such thing as a 'do not SWAT' list, and there is no such process
in place.

~~~
sjg007
Yes you might be surprised but the police keep notes/tabs on the community. If
you call something in or otherwise inform them you will be in the system which
would alert them.

~~~
scoggs
In the heat of the moment (police suddenly getting a dispatch for a murder /
hostage situation at a local residence) I hardly believe anyone involved is
going to have the time to thumb through notes like that. Maybe in a really
small rural community but I can't imagine there would be much chance of things
going properly in any sort of larger municipality or city.

~~~
ryanlol
The dispatcher will type in your address into their computer and will
_immediately_ see and read these notes.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Are these notes available as part of a freedom of information act request?
Because one should be able to have written verifications these notes exist for
when the inevitable breakdown in communication occurs and the note is not
passed along to first responders on the scene.

~~~
ryanlol
I would assume so.

Of course various dispatchers will be running different software so this may
not be universally supported, but these notes are a pretty basic feature.

------
methodover
A lot of people have been talking about the evil of this one individual kid,
or the irresponsibility of the police department, but there's another aspect
being glossed over here:

The first thing I thought when I read this article was, "Wow, the toxic Call
of Duty community finally killed someone."

I've been playing CoD WW2 online off and on since it came out last month. I
have been astounded by the behavior of many people in those games. Players
with racist and genocidal names who spout horrible things on chat about
minorities. Threats of real world physical and sexual violence. Homophobia and
misogyny. And of course just childish spamming and yelling and cheating and
complaining and other nonsense.

It is a terrible, terrible community.

It does not surprise me at all to see it escalate to actual real world
violence.

Yes, the kid who made this particular call should be punished. And the police
department needs to be held accountable too.

But the root of this problem is the CoD community, and to some extent the
gaming community at large. I don't know how to fix it, I don't know how you
get an entire community to start treating each other like human beings -- but
that's what needs to happen.

~~~
robotkilla
As much as I hate CoD and wish the issues you highlighted were limited to the
CoD community, they are not.

The behavior you described fits many if not most online, semi-anonymous,
young, male majority communities. CoD is just one community in that bucket.

Edit:

> I don't know how to fix it, I don't know how you get an entire community to
> start treating each other like human beings -- but that's what needs to
> happen.

Hang out around a group of young guys and you'll realize that the groups you
described are just an amplified reflection of IRL groups of similar makeup.

If you want to fix this type of behavior you have to change it at a much
deeper level than online gaming communities because its a mindset.

People do it mostly for the laughs - even the extreme idiotic shit like SWAT
calls... just like they do extreme idiotic shit IRL like fraternity
initiations that get people killed. IMO the stuff you're describing is
systemic.

~~~
methodover
I haven't seen the same level of vitriol in most other games. I also play
World of Warcraft (off an on, hop in every other year or so), Dota 2, Company
of Heroes 2, and a few other games. I'm also active in a couple different
gaming communities online. Yes, there are toxic players in each of those other
games but nothing as extreme or as densely-packed as in Call of Duty. (Dota 2
is probably the worst, but most of the toxicity is just complaining about
game-related issues. I've never seen physical threats or racism/genocidal
chat.)

~~~
robotkilla
I will say that BF1 in-game text chat on PC can get pretty bad (reminds me of
the old IRC days), however I don't see physical threats much (only one threat
in the last 4 years) -- however when I played halo 2 online it was constant
trash. Are your experiences with console or PC players?

~~~
methodover
PC, I don't play console games.

And like to be clear, I think you're right that it's a bigger problem than
CoD. Absolutely. The toxicity in the other games I play isn't okay either. It
hasn't been as extreme or concentrated as CoD, but it's definitely a problem
too.

------
jMyles
Although the toxicity that is a regular and observable part of the CoD
community is awful, I'm having trouble coming around to many of the comments
who view the caller as of equal responsibility as the police.

911 is an open API with no authentication. It cannot possibly prove guilt.
Therefore, in a society which values innocence absent proof of guilt, police
are bound to treat anyone they encounter by dint of information from 911 as
innocent.

Also, it is not unlawful to carry a firearm in the USA nor in Kansas.
Therefore, even if this person had been wielding a firearm, they are still to
be regarded as innocent.

I'm actually of the mind that it makes sense to _intentionally_ subject 911 to
incorrect information (like we do with the TSA) in order to audit and pentest
it.

We need a society where incorrect information given to open, authless APIs
never leads to anyone's death.

And in fact, in this case, the officer who fired a weapon is, to my way of
thinking, the only person at fault for this murder.

The caller is certainly an asshole and is even culpable for homicidal intent,
but I don't think that their conduct is tantamount to murder - more like
involuntary manslaughter. After all, with the exact same intent and the exact
same conduct, they can reasonably expect that the other party is killed only a
very small percentage of the time, and in every such case there is another
more directly culpable party.

I'm also concerned, despite solid reasoning from many other commenters here,
that any deference to the police officer in the form of pointing to mistaken
information is a roadblock to advocacy of police reform.

In short: when the state murders someone, it's the state's fault. It doesn't
make for a peaceful and just society to hold the state to the same low
standard we hold some idiot CoD player.

~~~
AgentME
Yeah, my first thought was "Anyone can summon cops to shoot me with just my
address?". Should society get a CVE entry for that?

If there was a magic button in the world that killed someone every time it was
pressed, I'd be much more concerned about getting rid of the button or
enacting societal change to keep the button under protection than I would care
about tracking down people that pressed the button. Sure, some degree of that
is good to discourage it too, but if the button remains out in the open, easy
to press, and pressed by more people than actually do get captured, then
something isn't right.

~~~
spondyl
On a side note, you might like a movie called The Box (2009).

Basically a couple receives a box with a button and pressing it will give them
$1 million but a stranger somewhere in the world will die at the same time.

I don't remember if it's any good but your scenario reminded me of it.

~~~
DCoder
There was also an episode of _The Twilight Zone_ with the same plot [0]. Based
on a short story by Richard Matheson.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button,_Button_(The_Twilight_Z...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button,_Button_\(The_Twilight_Zone\))

------
DrScump
Body cam video:

[http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192229414.html](http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192229414.html)

It appears that he was shot from _across the street_ as he raised an arm. It
sounded to me like an order was given to fire (or a voiced, mistaken
observation, like "gun!"), rather than a purely organic reaction by the
shooter to a specific provocation. In any event, it's unthinkable to me that
an uncorroberated "threat" like this, at that distance and with no observable,
immediate threat to others in the home, justified firing at that point.

~~~
tehwebguy
The psychopath swatter and the trigger happy cop both need to spend time in
prison. Perhaps they can share a cell?

~~~
matte_black
No need for the cop to be in jail.

~~~
tehwebguy
It's important, for society, to ensure the cop never kills again.

Unfortunately firing him is not enough -- he will almost immediately be able
to get another job carrying a badge and a gun unless he has a criminal record.

------
narrator
According to the article, allegedly two Call of Duty players were threatening
each other over a $2 bet. One call of duty member gives the other a fake
address when the other threatens to SWAT him. Police go to the fake address
and shoot somebody. Guy who got shot couldn't have possibly prevented the
situation and is ironically the least at fault of anybody involved.

~~~
tqkxzugoaupvwqr
I recently saw a comic/meme that portraits the situation in the US like this:
Waste your life inside playing computer games or go outside and get shot.

There is some sad truth in this comic as this case shows. Here, just opening
the door got him shot.

~~~
matte_black
That is not life in the US at all.

------
nimbius
“A male came to the front door,” Livingston said. “As he came to the front
door, one of our officers discharged his weapon.”

This has absolutely nothing to do with Call of Duty, full stop. The issue is
the threat de-escalation training used by the Kansas police and their
inability to safely and competently serve the general public. "hostage
situation" does not translate to "shoot to kill." The proper response is to
establish a perimeter, establish communication, and work to neutralize the
situation without a violent escalation.

~~~
pfarnsworth
A cop who perceives danger when there is absolutely none, and results in the
death of an innocent person, should be fired with prejudice.

~~~
computerex
I think he should face some jail time or community service or something. We
give these punishments for crimes of much more innocent nature. Taking
someone's life is pretty much one of the worst things a human can do.

------
dude01
I think there's enough blame to go around: 1) police send an entire SWAT team
because of ONE anonymous phone call, even though they should know by now that
people abuse that ability 2) the gamer guy who made the phone call.

Kind of reminds me of bomb threats -- how many people who actually place bombs
make a phone call first? It's almost like if a bomb threat is called in, you
can be sure there's no bomb. I remember my high school years ago kept getting
bomb call threats, and eventually started ignoring them, figuring it was a
student making the calls.

~~~
Carioca
I think the IRA usually warned of a bomb a few minutes before it going off, so
that it would cause a lot of inconvenience, a lot of material damage and
relatively little human casualties.

~~~
praptak
Not anonymously though. They had a system to authenticate their threats to the
police.

~~~
amorphid
I hadn't heard that. I googled 'ira ireland authenticating bomb threat' and
found this short read...

[http://articles.latimes.com/1997-04-19/news/mn-50393_1_code-...](http://articles.latimes.com/1997-04-19/news/mn-50393_1_code-
words)

I thought it was interesting to find the information via a 20 year old online
newspaper article, instead of a link to Wikipedia or some more recent rehash
of the information presented in the article.

------
rdl
Clearly the guy who made the false call committed murder and should be charged
as such. However, there should also be civil and possibly criminal liability
for the officer and department.

SWAT should be held to a far higher standard for weapons use when they have
time to show up at a location in force, in full gear, with superior training,
and take up a defensive position before starting the engagement, vs. what I'd
expect of a solo officer encountering a suspect on the street. If you're in
cover, with a team of other people also in cover, all behind rifles, wearing
level III or IV hard armor, with massively overwhelming force, immediate
medical support, and technology, you have time to wait to see if a furtive
movement into a waistband is pulling out a handgun. Even if someone is
reaching for a handgun, it's probably not going to be an aimed shot at the
4x3" or so of exposed target you're presenting at 10-25 yards, and you should
be able to take your shot in 0.2 seconds or so from seeing the cue. And yes,
this might increase the risk to SWAT officers by a small amount, but it's
already a very low risk, so even doubling that risk, if it halves the higher
risk to the public during SWAT callouts, is the correct choice. And it's
probably more like doubling a very tiny risk while 100x reduction in risk to
innocent people and halving risk to criminal suspects.

The whole justification of giving these teams massive amounts of weapons,
armor, and other equipment is so they'll have overwhelming force and will be
able to apply more discretion. We don't want the fight between police and bad
guys to every be anything close to "fair". It should be like an adult breaking
up a couple of children fighting, where the goal is to avoid injuring them.

There's a separate problem of SWAT being used for a lot of no-knock drug
warrants and other stupid things, but the solution there is to decriminalize
drugs and get rid of those searches.

------
clavalle
Common sense ways this could have been avoided:

1) Interview neighbors: "Did you hear a gunshot tonight?"

2) Get more info from the caller. "How do you know this detailed information
from inside the house?", "Where are you so we can talk to you face-to-face?",
"Can you describe the house?"

Anyone can call 911. It is an unreliable source of information by default. I
understand that the police want to act quickly in a dangerous situation but
there has to be some parallel fact checking happening that can suss out the
facts before someone gets killed.

~~~
HearMeRoar
I don’t understand how any of those points would help at all. Number 1 is
irrelevant and number 2 is easily handled. “Oh, neighbor didn’r hear a
gunshot? Well let’s put down the guns and knock on the door nicely instead”.
Come on now.

~~~
Momquist
> "Well let’s put down the guns and knock on the door nicely instead”

And why not? In the same situation in Europe, this is what would happen.
Regular cops would confirm the situation first. And it works. Units similar to
the SWAT do exist, but I've never heard of them being dispatched directly
after an anymous call.

"if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail...", and well, the
SWAT is pretty much a hammer in this kind of situation.

~~~
user5994461
If the call goes on for 20 minutes in great details on an ongoing hostage
situation with already multiple casualties, I certainly expect the European
SWAT to show up as soon as possible.

I'd personally be shocked if it were any difficult to get a hold of the GIGN,
the RAID, the DGSE, the GCHQ or the UK SWAT when necessary.

------
rabboRubble
Greeeeeeeeeat. So we can go down the rabbit hole of dissecting SWATting and
criminal culpability of those who SWAT, but I'm sitting here wondering how
safe we are in general.

Cops get addresses wrong on warrants and execute SWAT raids on the wrong
house. I recollect at least one innocent guy killed this way. Let's see what a
quick Google search turns up:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
watch/wp/2017/10/31/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
watch/wp/2017/10/31/botched-police-raid-roundup-miss-police-wont-release-
names-of-police-who-shot-innocent-man-toledo-cops-kill-dogs-after-allegedly-
raiding-wrong-home-5th-circuit-allows-lawsuit-for-botched-raid-in)

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-
nation/wp/2017/07/2...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-
nation/wp/2017/07/26/police-shot-and-killed-a-man-while-trying-to-serve-a-
warrant-at-the-wrong-house)

[https://www.vox.com/2014/10/29/7083371/swat-no-knock-
raids-p...](https://www.vox.com/2014/10/29/7083371/swat-no-knock-raids-police-
killed-civilians-dangerous-work-drugs)

If a person directs a dog to maul another person, the person is responsible
and the dog needs to be put down. If a person reports a hostage situation that
directs SWAT to raid a home where somebody dies, the person directing the
action must be accountable and the police who killed in error must be, at
minimum, removed from police work. A police officer who shoots an unarmed
person has positively proven their unsuitability for the work. I'd like to see
the officer charged with negligent homicide, but as case after case has shown,
the US public is unwilling to convict officers.

------
dralley
It looks like the police shined high beams in his eyes, causing him to
reflexively raise his arms to block the bright light. Another officer shot him
for raising his arms.

Screenshots: [https://imgur.com/a/gLFrv](https://imgur.com/a/gLFrv)

Once you know to look for it, it becomes obvious that this is what is
happening when watching the video.

Video:
[https://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192244734.htm...](https://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192244734.html)

I don't know whether the police can be 'legally' pinned with criminal
culpability here, but there is no doubt that they royally fucked up. No amount
of presence of mind on the part of this guy would have prevented an entirely
uncontrolled, reflexive action in response to them shining incredibly bright
HID lamps in his face.

------
IronWolve
Juries are told not to focus on the shooting, but to think if the officer
believed his life was in danger. If the officer thinks his life is in danger
its acceptable use of force under most department policies TO KILL YOU.

Most people in stressful situations do not follow orders well, people are not
trained to "jump" on yelled orders. Barking orders at a confused/drunk person
is the worst thing you can do. People are not trained to even think about
their hand location except while pulled over, hands on the steering wheel.

But, we also do have criminals who do go for weapons.

I guess we just need better training and to have cameras, because each
shooting is different, could be bad cop, bad training, bad situation or
justified, nobody knows.

~~~
mxfh
It says a lot that a supposedly professional's feelings doing his job are more
important than some uninvolved random persons life. Any warzone's ROE are
stricter than what US-cops are allowed to get away with.

------
jefe_
Seems one solution could be for officers to use loudspeaker to state why they
are outside, and give very specific protocols for safely exiting the
residence. Possibly offer a communication channel to dispute validity of their
arrival. I imagine they have the phone number of the land-line or cells within
a certain radius of the residence, along with social media profiles they could
examine to 'profile' participants in the situation and assess validity. You
can't have a system that solves the problem 100% and is immune to being gamed
by criminals, but with data and clear lines for communication it seems you
could pretty easily create a reliable 'safety net' for people caught up in
fraudulent 911 calls without exposing the responding officers to any risk.

~~~
burntwater
FWIW, I'm hearing-impaired (though not deaf) and I'm reasonably certain that
if I ever end up in a situation with cops pointing guns at me, for whatever
reason, I will end up dead.

 _Edit_ I'm responding to the point about using a loudspeaker, in case that
wasn't clear.

------
yardie
Another victim of swatting, John Crawford [0], because I’m getting tired of
the media saying this has been the first victim.

[0]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_John_Crawford_II...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_John_Crawford_III)

~~~
tehwebguy
I don't know if I'd call this a swatting but it is definitely a classic case
of Ohio police murdering black people.

1\. Cops didn't order a single verbal command before Officer Sean Williams
shot him to death -- first murder.

2\. A woman in the store had a heart attack and _died_ as a result of their
insane recklessness -- second murder.

BONUS: Knowing there was no gun they still interrogate his girlfriend in
custody for 90 minutes. At the end of the interrogation they let her know
Crawford died. Months later she dies in a car crash.

Zero charges for anyone involved. Everyone in the department should be facing
prison for not taking action against murderer Sean Williams, it was obvious he
was far too dangerous to wear a badge much less carry a weapon:

> Beavercreek police officer Sean Williams used force 10 times more than the
> staff average during his first eight years in the department. His 36
> “response to resistance” incidents from 2006 through 2013 does not include
> the Aug. 5, 2014 shooting death of John Crawford III at Walmart.[0]

He was not fired.

[0] [http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/crime--law/officer-
who...](http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/crime--law/officer-who-shot-
crawford-led-department-use-force/aBw3Il9c9CKB5uVAOVwC5J/)

------
arca_vorago
I just want to say I've cross trained SWAT and other LEA's, and other
countries militaries etc while I was in the military, and as a combat vet I
cannot express how scary some of these groups are due to realizing the makeup
of their teams. Lack of trigger control, lack of tactics, too little training,
and fragile egos combined with a "war" mindset results in this sort of thing.
The kicker is you would be amazed at how many of the swat guys I met were
noncombat pog's in the military who wiggle their way onto SWAT to make up for
their lack of combat oconus.

We need to be addressing these issues at the training and policy level, but
the thine blue line needs to be busted up first. I knew an old school LEO who
had done undercover and cartel work, and even he complained constantly to me
about the death of the concept of the "peace officer".

Police forces are way too eager to be in a war zone and they are going to keep
doing this shit until the public stops them, the ultimate irony is that most
of these incidents are because the war-wannabes are actually cowards who get
scared as shit at every blade of grass and end up emptying magazines for no
reason... Essentially SWAT is mostly just COD players who grew up but couldn't
handle war if they got what they think they wanted.

Its like they never heard of an OODA loop.

Oh, and let's not let this opportunity to talk about how much the cops protect
rich corporations and pillars of the community at the expense of everyone
else... Their pinkertonian origins make things like CIA working with them
against occupy wall street that much more disturbing.

Oh and one more thing. Many of the bad escalation of force policies and
training are because a huge amount of these guys get cross trained by
Israelis...and I'm just going to let the implications of that sink in.

~~~
tehwebguy
First paragraph got my upvote. Then I got to this part:

> Many of the bad escalation of force policies and training are because a huge
> amount of these guys get cross trained by Israelis...and I'm just going to
> let the implications of that sink in.

Wait what?

~~~
arca_vorago
Yeah, lots of your local leo, for some reason usually sheriffs, make trips to
Israel for training, or have them come to the US for it, and their methods are
much more "war" oriented than American ones should be.

------
phkahler
Why is callerID spoofing possible or legal? That's a rhetorical question BTW,
I don' think there is a legitimate use for that or even blocking it.

~~~
DrScump
Spoofing caller-ID is easy using VOIP (as phone scammers well know), but 911
does not use caller-ID per se. Landlines use ANI/ALI.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_9-1-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_9-1-1)

~~~
c22
This is why swatters often call non-emergency police numbers instead of 911.
In this case the swatter called Wichita's City Hall.

------
DoreenMichele
I haven't read all the comments here, but I am rather disturbed by the high
focus I have seen so far on the _police violence_ angle which largely glosses
over the horror of an individual abusively and maliciously dispatching
enormous power with a single prank call. That power is supposed to be
available as protection, not as your personal means to settle an incredibly
minor vendetta or whatever.

~~~
swords
It is absolutely disturbing that an individual would do that, but cops should
be held to a much higher standard of morals and responsibility than civilians.

~~~
DoreenMichele
I don't happen to think that expecting the police to be ever more perfect
while the ability of ordinary civilians to intentionally fool them climbs will
solve this problem.

------
a3n
"Los Angeles man arrested in ‘swatting’ call that preceded fatal police
shooting in Kansas" [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-arrest-man-
suspe...](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-arrest-man-suspected-
swatting-preceded-deadly-police-shooting-n833576)

------
bastawhiz
In all seriousness, this is the biggest reason that I don't use Twitch. I know
the risk is low, but all it takes is a single troll somewhere in the world to
find my CV or a WHOIS record.

~~~
always_good
Yeah, it's irresponsible to tell the truth in your WHOIS. That information is
a perfect start for launching a social engineering attack as well.

~~~
phit_
hope you don't live in Germany then [http://www.mth-
partner.de/wettbewerbsrecht-anwalt/cyber-law-...](http://www.mth-
partner.de/wettbewerbsrecht-anwalt/cyber-law-about-the-legal-requirements-e-g-
imprint-your-german-website-must-adhere-to/)

~~~
iagooar
You're not at risk of getting SWAT'ed in Germany, though.

------
brbrodude
Honestly, we can only wonder how much more will the US regress in it's
undeveloping. Remembered about the 'hypernormalization' Adam Curtis
documentary. So much fucked up stuff and people still try to find ways to
justify, to treat this status quo as sane, and by this I mean a lot of things,
not just the odd freak incident. Eh, sad..

------
ActsJuvenile
I am petrified of SWATting. I am in the Crypto world, and number of crazies /
anarchists I deal with is insane.

What steps can I take to protect my home from SWATting attacks?

~~~
orf
Move to a country that doesn't send storm troopers trained to kill you at the
slightest 'provocation' (and often without) based on a single phone call from
a blocked number, and then later exhonorate your killer?

------
kakarot
_“As he came to the front door, one of our officers discharged his weapon.”_

Oh... ok. So the takeaway is, when someone pounds on my door at 3AM, it's
safer just to not answer in case it's the police and an officer _discharges
his weapon_ (A lovely euphemism that shifts blame away from the officer).

In fact, any time you get a knock at the door, it's probably best you retreat
to the farthest corner of your house and lay down with your hands on your head
because that's basically the only way you can maximize your chances of not
getting blown away for responding like a rational human being.

------
CryoLogic
It says "department policy is to give the officer paid leave".

Maybe a reward for murder isn't the best solution.

~~~
froindt
It's not a reward. /u/thatsnotmynamesir details exactly why that's the policy.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/1s01lr/mos...](https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/1s01lr/most_common_myth/cdslvma/)

Sub-quote:

>Even then, the Administrative Leave isn't fun. The take your badge and gun
and you are basically on house arrest between the hours of 8am and 5pm on
weekdays. You cannot leave your home without permission of your superiors,
even it its just to go down the street to the bank or grocery store. You must
be available to come into the office immediately at any time for questioning,
polygraphs, or anything else involved in the investigation. Drink a beer?
That's consuming alcohol on duty, you're fired. So even when officers are
cleared of the charges and put back on the street, Admin. Leave still isn't
"paid vacation."

I encourage anyone to read the entire comment, as it explains much more about
the process. Given that the review process can reasonably multiple to many
weeks, it's not unreasonable for that time to be paid. If we're being honest,
most people are not in a good enough financial position to pay 1 or 2 mortgage
payments without any money coming in the door.

If it were unpaid time, why would I as a police officer want to volunteer to
serve in the parts of town which are more rough?

If someone accused an officer of sexual harassment, the response would
probably be the same - paid administrative leave. If 5 people came forward
with completely untrue complaints against an officer sequentially, they could
bankrupt the officer who literally did nothing wrong.

~~~
totalZero
A regular person who commits a murder will be sent to jail, even if he is
later exonerated. A cop goes home and continues to collect his income.

How is that not a reward?

~~~
froindt
For a regular person, the potential to _need_ to kill somebody isn't part of
their job duties. Of course there are _very_ limited times where it's
appropriate to do so.

~~~
totalZero
> the potential to need to kill somebody isn't part of their job duties

This is true. However, I interpret it as yet another reason why police should
be systemically held to a stricter standard for unjustified killings: they
know they are far more likely to get away with it, so the process of
investigation should be a deterrent in itself to counteract the low likelihood
of punishment.

Think about this case for a second. The chief gave no information about
whether the victim was carrying a weapon or threatened the officers. The
victim was surrounded by cops and yet there is no immediate clarity about
precisely what happened.

Cops are a fraternity, and they deal extensively with the justice system.
There are systemic benefits that they enjoy due to this. Many cops have gotten
away with murders that were documented on video, and witnessed by other cops.

To counter this, you have to construct parts of the system as a deterrent to
killing nonthreatening people. That may make the job more dangerous, but it's
better to put a trained officer in danger of being attacked, than to put an
innocent and clueless civilian in danger of being gunned down by a careless
SWAT team.

------
a3n
I hope the pranksters are charged with murder.

~~~
CraneWorm
What about the officer that shot the guy? What about the person responsible
for dispatching a whole assault team based on a single call?

~~~
a3n
The shooter will be investigated, and likely survive the investigation.

The pranksters are the root cause, the reason this house came under the
awareness of the cops at all.

~~~
pmorici
You really need to look at this as two separate incidents.

The police could end up at the wrong house for any number of reasons not all
of which are malicious. There is no excuse for the actions of the police
officer. The manner in which the SWAT team arrived at the house does not in
any way change the culpability of an officer for their actions.

The prankster also has culpability here since they did what they did with the
intent to cause harm and they should also be held accountable. To say the
prankster is the root cause though is non-sense. The root cause of the man's
death is the police's unprofessional handling of the incident.

------
albntomat0
Here are some statistics, to help put things in context.

There have been 976 people shot and killed by police this year. "Three out of
five of the people shot and killed by police were armed with a gun, while
fewer than 1 in 10 were unarmed." [0] Note that the category of armed with
something other than a gun seems very context dependent (being armed with a
knife or vehicle is a wide range of life threatening to someone armed with a
gun).

"As of Thursday, 128 officers have died in the line of duty this year, with 44
shot and killed." [1]

While this is not enough data to get a good false positive/false negative (is
there any data on how often SWAT responds appropriately? Talks down an armed,
threatening person or similar?), it gets us partially there. While all
incidents such as this one warrant a response, I feel that a societal response
needs to be based on how frequently this happens, in context with total number
of events (ie: 10% requires a much different response than 0.1%)

[0]: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-
shoo...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-
shootings-2017/) [1]: [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/12/28/number-
office...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/12/28/number-officers-
killed-2017-hits-nearly-50-year-low/984477001/)

------
eyeareque
It’s really sad but a lot of things went wrong here. I really hope the person
who called in the swatting goes to prison for murder. The person who gave the
wrong address, I think they should also get a prison sentence for what they
did. Giving an address to someone who they know is trying to do harm, should
be illegal, but I’m not sure which law would cover this. Finally, it’s sad how
things went with the cops. If cops fear for their life they are going to
protect themselves. They just want to go home to their families.

I have no numbers to back this statement up, but one would assume that cops
draw their weapons often, and of course we hear about the times when they have
to discharge them in stories like this one. I’m not saying all cops make
perfect decisions all the time and there are no bad apples in the force. But
I’d assume that cops just want to get home to their families safe every night.

------
myth_buster

      “A male came to the front door,” Livingston said. “As he came to the front door, one of our officers discharged his weapon.”
    
      Livingston didn’t say if the man, who was 28, had a weapon when he came to the door, or what caused the officer to shoot the man. Police don’t think the man fired at officers, but the incident is still under investigation, he said. The man, who has not been identified by police, died at a local hospital.
    

This seems quite unusual. Looking at details, Wichita KS has a population of
380K. Perhaps they don't see much of hostage situation and were ill prepared
for it. Would be interesting to see the results of investigation. Also there
were studies that looked at how stress could result in these kind of scenario.
IIRC, one of the triggers were being on a suicide watch/dispatch call.

------
RandomCSGeek
Can someone elaborate how response to hostage threat works in US?

Here in India, depending upon the situation, one of the security
forces(police, paramilitary, Army, special forces, swat, etc), or combination
of them, respond, and first cordon off the area.

Then, the alleged criminals/terrorists are asked through loudspeakers to
surrender. If they do, good. If they don't, and start shooting on security
forces/civilians, then they kill them. How does it work in US? Was this guy
not asked to surrender?

------
siliconc0w
Yeah I'm going to go with I'd rather chance dying in a incredibly low likely-
hood 'active shooter' situation than face possible death from prank phone
calls. The probability you are going to be in an active shooter situation *
the probability that a few minutes of investigation would make a difference in
your survival approaches zero.

------
pfarnsworth
When a police officer kills an unarmed man, the excuse of feeling endangered
should never be allowed, since the officer was never in danger. At the very
least, this police officer should be fired because they committed the ultimate
sin: incompetence in their job resulted in the death of a completely innocent
person.

I think we should take away this excuse from cops to kill innocent people with
a flimsy excuse like this. They should show actual danger before being allowed
to shoot people. Just feeling in danger should not give them any protection.
The Arizona cop who killed a man crawling on the ground is a prime example of
this. If it results in some cops hesitating and getting injured, then so be
it, that's what happens when this privilege is abused the way it has been over
the last 10 years. Better a few cops get injured that absolutely innocent or
unarmed people getting killed.

------
matt_the_bass
I was impressed by the civility of the comments on the BK site even given the
strong disagreement. That's refreshing!

------
yndoendo
Police should start using social engineering for fact finding. Simply call and
ask "Just confirming that "Supposed Hostage" placed an online order for 10
pizzas". Or something of that nature to listen in on background noise and
voice patterns.

------
coding123
I personally think his punishment should be long enough to be some kind of
deterrent to this, perhaps 10 years in jail?

Apparently there is something like 400 of these swatting incidents in a year.
So while it sucks that the person died, most of the blame does actually belong
to the swatting culture, not the police officer.

Think about it, 400 incidents in a year * 5 years this has been going on =
2000 high stress events involving 5 - 10 police officers = 10000 to 20000
police officers with weapons cocked and ready to fire at people.

So 1 out of 20000 police officers makes a mistake - yes its the culture that
caused this, and when this number hits 40000 or 100000 what will the body
count be?

------
sitkack
I'd love to know if the cop that pulled the trigger is ex-military.

Also, how did the cops "know" that the guy answering the door was the perp and
not a hostage?

------
smsm42
What I can't help thinking is that when in Las Vegas Paddock was shooting
people, it took the police more than an hour to get in (shooting started at
10:05pm, police entered Paddock's room at 11:20pm). But when the police sees a
regular citizen, unarmed, without any signs of anything bad going on except a
report on the phone made by unknown person, the person gets shot almost
instantly.

------
known
People in diverse communities "don't trust the local mayor, they don't trust
the local paper, they don't trust other people and they don't trust
institutions," writes Putnam
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_multiculturalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_multiculturalism)

------
clusmore
>Swatting needs to stop, and unfortunately as long as there are few
consequences for swatting someone, it will continue to be a potentially deadly
means for gaining e-fame and for settling childish and pointless ego
squabbles.

Penalties are hardly an effective deterrent to crime. As with all forms of
undesirable/antisocial behaviour, proper education would be far more
effective.

------
freeflight
Here is some food for thought: Look up the number of "deadly swatting
incidents" outside of North America, they don't exist. This is a phenomenon
which, in its severity, is pretty much exclusive to the USA, with some cases
also happening in Cannada, but that's about it.

Does that mean that police in other countries don't get fake calls? They also
get them, but they usually react to them in a somewhat more reasonable manner
which prevents the worst from happening.

The same doesn't seem to work for US police due to cultural differences
(abundance of firearms everywhere) and the resulting police mentality (better
shoot first than to get shot first).

In that regard, some of these "pro-gun ownership" and "guns are not the
problem" comments here are simply mind-boggling, still denying a problem
exists. A problem pretty much everybody recognizes as such, except for the
people who still think that their AR-15's will prevent the US from becoming
some fascist police state.

Not a week goes by where not another totally absurd case of irresponsible gun
owners end up getting somebody killed or hurt: Babysitters getting babies
killed [0], dogs shooting their owners [1], parents getting shot by their own
toddlers [2], heck even when people are meeting at church to discuss a
shooting spree, they end up shooting each other by accident [3] it's a
collection of absurdities that wouldn't be possible anywhere else, but in the
US it seems to be considered "normal".

At least that's the only way I can explain how some people still pretend there
isn't a problem. It becomes especially grating when these very same people use
countries with high ownership rates (and pretty strict regulations) to argue
for their case of "everybody should have a gun!", straight out of the NRA meme
book. Case in point: Citing Germany and Switzerland as examples for societies
where "high gun ownership and low crime" exists, while at the same time
completely ignoring the massive gun-regulation laws in said countries.
Similarly: Hitler could only take over because he banned all the guns, when in
fact he did the exact opposite to arm his SA thugs.

[0] [http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/23/justice/texas-
babysitter-g...](http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/23/justice/texas-babysitter-
gun-death/)

[1] [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/27/dog-
accidentally-...](http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/27/dog-accidentally-
shoots-owner-with-a-9mm-pistol-yes-you-read-that-correctly/)

[2] [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/toddler-shoots-
mom-...](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/toddler-shoots-mom-dead-
baby-diaper-cops-article-1.2023300)

[3] [http://abcnews.go.com/US/man-accidentally-shoots-wife-
church...](http://abcnews.go.com/US/man-accidentally-shoots-wife-church-
discussing-weapons-churches/story?id=51221000)

------
ChicagoBoy11
How on Earth do the gamers get the other player's actual physical location? Is
it IP? I thought that could get you close but not an exact address. And, more
importantly, what can people playing online do to prevent their address from
leaking?

~~~
nasredin
My guess:

Google the hopefully unique username.

Find the first and or last name (Facebook).

Find the state and or city.

If you have the name and the city you can find the address.

My friend's 11 year old is already in THE database.

If you search for his first and last name and city you get his parent's
address and home phone number.

Welcome to the Brave New World!

------
dirtyaura
Although swatting is horrible practice, the sign of the bigger problem is that
US police force is so trigger-happy that it is easy to trick them to kill
innocent people. I can’t imagine this happening regularly in most of Europe.

------
baud147258
Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, cops are lynched by a mob of blacks
and arab thugs for daring to respond to a call for help (Champigny in France
on New Year's eve).

It's a different part of the world...

------
droopybuns
How can Kansas justify funding their swat teams after this?

------
ggg9990
Kansas has felony murder and the death penalty, so let's home they find a way
to get the swatter executed. Will set a strong example for others.

~~~
jessaustin
We're talking about "gamers", right? Why wouldn't this "example" simply result
in innocents being framed as SWATters?

------
pooya13
Maybe the cops should not execute people after a phone call? It's kind of
weird that there are more blame for the negative action of someone who places
a prank call Than for someone who murders another human being. Just because
they wear different clothing?? By the way the reason they don't fix the issue
of trigger happy cops and the reason they send an entire SWAT team for a prank
call is simple. It is because it's good for business. (That is the business of
selling weapons)

------
codedokode
What if terrorists use this idea and start making hundreds of fake calls
everyday?

------
albeebe1
I'll be having a talk with my kids about the consequences of ‘swatting’

------
rileytg
why did post on arrest of the swatting dhole get only 2 votes?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16035079](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16035079)

------
sidcool
Why the cops shoot first and ask questions later?

------
dukeflukem
Can this be classed as murder for hire?

Edit: misunderstood the $1.5 bet was just the game not the SWAT

------
corndoge
Regardless of how it started, the article makes it sound like the man was shot
immediately upon exiting his front door. Will be interesting to see the body /
dash cam footage, so that we can have another 3 days of outrage over police
action in the US and then return to the status quo.

~~~
Raphmedia
All it takes is for that person to reach in its pockets or to carry a long
black stick for such an accident to happen. SWAT isn't regular police, they
are trained to deal with active shooters. If such a situation happen, you are
to exit with your hands in the air (when asked) and then get on the ground
without resisting as they restrain you. Anything else will put your life in
danger.

They came in with the following information: "a call that someone had an
argument with their mother, that the father had been shot in the head and the
shooter was holding his mother, brother and sister hostage."

It is my belief that those officers did nothing wrong. It was not a trigger
happy cop reacting badly to a traffic stop. It was officers that acted on
information that were planted by a malicious individual. The prankster is the
one that needs to go to jail for this.

\---

Edit:

Yes, the situation wasn't _right_. That doesn't mean that the officers on the
ground were in the wrong.

There is a more systematic issue going on, you can't put all the blame on the
door kickers.

Quoting @matt_wulfeck's comment on another comment thread as he made the same
point as I did but with better wording:

"Adrenaline and poor training lead to situations like this.

The department should be held responsible even though it was an individual who
made the fatal mistake.

As for the person who called in the swat team, it’s clearly murder."

~~~
jdanp
It's crazy that as a citizenry we allow our police to operate in this manner.
Kansas is a constitutional carry state, in which all adult citizens are
legally allowed to carry a pistol on their person without a permit.

Why should the presence of a firearm, or the reach for a pocket or "long black
stick", be a death sentence for a citizen? Why do we allow state actors to
behave in this way at all?

~~~
davidw
I know this sounds weird, but it's almost as if there were some kind of
correlation between a populace having a shitload of guns, and more gun deaths.

~~~
totalZero
Police everywhere have a shitload of guns.

Are you arguing that the police are more likely to kill people at random in
areas with higher amounts of gun ownership?

I'm not sure I follow you.

~~~
davidw
> Are you arguing that the police are more likely to kill people at random in
> areas with higher amounts of gun ownership?

Cops have to make split second decisions with their own lives on the line. In
a country where it's very likely that the person they're interacting with in a
tense situation could be armed with a gun, it's going to make them more likely
to shoot.

Perhaps not quite so relevant to this particular case, as the caller said the
person was armed, but I think this would have played out differently in a lot
of other countries.

~~~
totalZero
> this would have played out differently in a lot of other countries.

This is precisely why the USA needs to reform its approach to police use of
deadly force.

~~~
davidw
Sure, I think there's progress to be made, but the police - not wrongly - are
more worried about getting shot at than in most other countries.

~~~
totalZero
There are other countries with similarly high rates of gun ownership and
divergently lower rates of police firearm deaths.

The problem is in the police culture towards discharging a firearm, not the
greater ownership of guns. American society bears much of the blame for
lionizing cops instead of scrutinizing them.

Many cases of police officers killing innocent civilians involved civilians
who were either fleeing, submitting, or already subdued and pinned down. Cops
in the US tend to be exonerated for using deadly force, even when the victim
could not arguably have endangered others.

------
tzakrajs
The innocent victim was the absolute least suspicious target the SWAT team
would ever encounter and they couldn't even see it. They were blinded and
under the control of a social engineer. It's pretty awful and twisted that
someone would make the call, but who are these government assassins and how do
we stop them?

~~~
testvox
It's pretty insane that in our fear we have basically created a dial a murder
service for anyone to make use of.

~~~
goldenkey
I didn't ask for it - did you? Please be careful of the language you use when
asserting something belonging to society. 100% of the time, the tyranny of
police is not something the people ask for.

Dial-a-murder shouldn't be a thing - we need 100% body cam coverage and real
repercussions for law enforcement officers that kill innocent people. How do
we achieve this when the system is so corrupt?

------
dang
We changed the URL from
[http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192111974.html](http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192111974.html).
That one has the advantage of being the regional newspaper coverage, but the
Krebs article (found via
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16032329](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16032329))
seems a bit more substantive. If people object, I'm happy to change it back
later.

------
supreme_sublime
So I see many people in this thread talking about "improving police
procedures" a concrete example of that would be treating with suspicion any
call that comes through any means other than 911.

This person called a city government office, not through 911. Someone in the
city government copied the phone number to call back and had 911 call them
back. This should be incredibly suspicious. Why wouldn't the person just call
911? It seems to me some means like calling a local government is the only way
someone from outside of the area would be able to SWAT someone else.

------
macintux
The casual evil perpetrated by children (regardless of age) with no
concept/concern of consequences.

~~~
icebraining
To me, this is the equivalent of blaming a person when a fanatic kills in
response to some perceived offense to their belief system written by that
person.

There's absolutely no way that an anonymous call alone should lead to a death
except in a freak, extremely rare accident.

~~~
Zarath
Fault isn't a binary thing. It's the parent's fault for not raising their
children better, it's the children's fault for not knowing better, it's the
police's fault for shooting, it's everyone else's fault for perpetuating a
society in which this happens.

~~~
icebraining
Moral fault? Possibly, but minor. But I certainly don't think it should be a
legal fault - at most, a fine for wasting the police's time.

~~~
macintux
I'm sorry, wait, what? Swatting should be at most a fine? I hope I misread
that.

~~~
icebraining
Nope, you didn't.

~~~
macintux
This should be the legal equivalent of involuntary manslaughter. I certainly
hope that's how it is prosecuted.

~~~
icebraining
I agree with that - the cops should definitively be prosecuted under that
charge.

~~~
macintux
I honestly don't know how to respond to your level of moral apathy towards the
person who initiated a series of events that could predictably, and indeed
did, lead to the completely unnecessary death of an innocent person and
traumatization of a family and a police force and a city.

The police definitely share some blame, but swatting is absolutely abhorrent.
It is not a victimless crime, it is not a casual prank, it is unacceptable,
and your indifference is incomprehensible.

~~~
iagooar
You forget that in any normal - I repeat, NORMAL - country, police would not
have killed an innocent person no matter what.

I get sick when I think that one phone call and a random address can get
INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS killed. Is this the American idea of being the greatest
nation on earth?

