
20 years for swatter who got a man killed - kaboro
https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/29/20-years-for-swatter-who-got-a-man-killed/
======
brucemoose
What is the infosec analogue to swatting? To me it seems part denial of
service attack (distracting resources with false event), and part
amplification attack (a small action triggers intense potentially violent
response)

The fact that it's possible for a child to trigger a "swat" where people can
and have died highlights a significant vulnerability in the procedures
currently used by police.

Why isn't more effort being put into making these processes safer for
civilians?

~~~
stcredzero
_Why isn 't more effort being put into making these processes safer for
civilians?_

I think the initial presumption, was that no one would be such a douchebag as
to make such crank calls. In today's world, this is obviously a bad
assumption. In today's world, we should _presume_ that people are going to
make such false assertions, and if there's a way someone can exploit an
unconfirmed assertion, someone, somewhere will.

This is also why trials in the media are bad, and why due process is
important.

As I suggested elsewhere, what if a plainclothes android could walk up, knock
on the door, and calmly ask questions? (While SWAT are out of sight and not
yet aiming their guns.) I think this isn't too far outside of our current
abilities. Uncanny valley would be reduced in this context. All you'd need is
a stone faced, but calm and pleasant demeanor. We already have walking robots,
but the walks would have to be humanized. (The Uncanny Valley would be in full
force for the body language part.)

EDIT: Actually, you could completely avoid the Uncanny Valley and even
eliminate the need for AI. Just make the bottom part from a Segway. The top
could be a literal teleoperated Muppet.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I think the initial presumption, was that no one would be such a douchebag
> as to make such crank calls. In today's world, this is obviously a bad
> assumption.

It's always been a bad assumption; deliberate harm up to and including murder
by deliberate false report to legal authorities is probably as old as legal
authorities, and if your jurisdiction has a crime of false reporting (and it's
pretty much guaranteed that it does) it's because the government is very much
aware that this is a thing.

If police response procedures don't account for that, it's not because they've
assumed it doesn't happen, it's because they've assumed that that when it
happens they will have someone else ready at hand to blame for ant adverse
effects, so that they have no need to mitigate them.

~~~
siruncledrew
Since phones and swat have been around for a while, how frequent of an
occurrence was swatting prior to 2010s?

Do we only hear about it more now due to more reporting, or is it actually a
recent trend?

------
ameister14
The officer who shot him has had no official consequences.

~~~
guessmyname
> _The officer who shot him has had no official consequences._

As someone who’s foreign to the US judicial system, why? _(genuinely asking)_

~~~
3JPLW
The people who would be responsible for prosecuting the officers are the same
people who prosecute everyone else in that jurisdiction. Through all those
other prosecutions, they tend to develop a strong working relationship with
the police force and are typically on the "same side." It's also very rare for
police to testify against their colleagues — as you might imagine.

That's not the only reason, nor is it always the case, but it's one of the big
ones.

------
cpt1138
I keep hearing this dismay at the cop not getting consequences. If we assume
comparative negligence and the cop that actually pulled the trigger is say 90%
responsible. Then are you arguing that that the cop should get 20 years for
responding to a shooter threat and killing someone that he thought was
reaching for a firearm and the kid that perpetrated the prank gets 2 years? Or
are you saying 100% cop that pulled the trigger and nothing for the kid that
pulled the prank?

~~~
danudey
How about 100% of one set of crimes for the person who put people's lives in
danger and also 100% for another crime that caused that person to lose their
life?

~~~
bazooka_penguin
And how would that look. Conspiracy to murder and murder?

~~~
stcredzero
The SWAT-ing should be considered attempted murder in 2019. The shooting
should be considered a police officer put into a tense situation, making a
split second life or death decision. He made the wrong call. He made a
mistake, and someone lost their life needlessly. I don't think he should be
culpable for murder, however. Murder is premeditated, by definition.

We should be looking at different procedures around hostage situations, with
the possibility of crank SWATing calls in mind. Putting people into these
situations needlessly, on the basis of just one anonymous report, without
checking and confirming the facts, isn't acting responsibly.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The SWAT-ing should be considered attempted murder in 2019

If there is no _specific intent_ to kill, that's as wrong in 2019 as any other
year. OTOH, it does seem to be the kind of act with extreme disregard to the
risk to human life that, where death does result, the “depraved indifference”
subtype of murder exists to address.

Even if not that, filing a false police report is a crime (depending on
jurisdiction and circumstances it may either be a felony or misdemeanor) and
the death is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of that, so either the
felony murder or misdemeanor manslaughter rule should apply.

~~~
stcredzero
_If there is no specific intent to kill, that 's as wrong in 2019 as any other
year. OTOH, it does seem to be the kind of act with extreme disregard to the
risk to human life that, where death does result, the “depraved indifference”
subtype of murder exists to address._

You are right about the lack of specific intent. In 2019, it should be
considered common knowledge that doing this sort of thing creates the
potential for loss of life. I would be just fine with 'the “depraved
indifference” subtype of murder.'

~~~
dragontamer
I'm not a lawyer (and I'm not the other guy, despite sharing "Dragon" in the
name).

The way the law was described to me, is that most crimes have approximately 3
levels:

* Criminal Negligence (Negligent Death / Involuntary Manslaughter)

* Criminal Recklessness (Manslaughter)

* Criminal Malice (Murder)

Things may get more detailed (Murder 1st degree usually has a "premeditated"
clause), but that's the general pattern. The argument is that a Police Officer
who shoots an innocent man would likely be either Criminally Negligent, or
maybe Criminally Reckless, in his job.

Negligence is obviously the lowest bar for a crime. It is clear that the
officer was negligent in confirming whether or not the suspect was reaching
for a gun (because the suspect in this case was unarmed).

Recklessness might be a case if the officer drew the gun too early. Hard for
me to say if this case fits the bar, especially because the prank caller would
have biased the officers.

We all understand that there was no malice in the behavior. But guess what? A
mother who leaves their underage child alone too long can be held criminally
negligent if the child gets hurt. As a society, we expect all citizens
(officers included) to do their job.

~~~
stcredzero
_As a society, we expect all citizens (officers included) to do their job._

I think the record shows, that putting officers into that situation too often
is a recipe for disaster. We shouldn't be using a force optimized for
"takedown of fortified gang hideouts" for domestic violence cases. We
shouldn't be letting pranksters deploy such forces.

~~~
dragontamer
I agree that its a problem in the first place, but as far as I'm aware, this
is the first swatting death in the USA.

So dozens of other officers were literally put into the same situation, but
also haven't killed the suspect. Furthermore, swatting is (unfortunately) more
common these days than it used to be, so officers need to keep that in mind
when they're called into these situations.

Indeed, in one of the other cases, the officers were under active fire and
STILL didn't kill the man: [http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/no-charges-man-who-
shot-police-ch...](http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/no-charges-man-who-shot-police-
chief-oklahoma)

So even IF the suspect had a gun, its likely legal for them to use it on
officers if they feel the need for self defense (if the officers enter
unexpectedly).

> We shouldn't be using a force optimized for "takedown of fortified gang
> hideouts" for domestic violence cases. We shouldn't be letting pranksters
> deploy such forces.

I mean... yeah. But USA has rather liberal gun laws. At a minimum, officers
entering a house unwelcomed need to be doing it with significant body armor,
and under the assumption that the suspects are armed.

Because its totally legal for people in their own homes to use guns on
intruders.

------
mnm1
And the police officer got life in jail. I'm just kidding he totally got off
with nothing but a paid vacation. This is the US, after all. Our cops are so
stupid, they'll kill anything they imagine might hurt them and the laws so
cruel and unjust, that we consider that perfectly fine. I'm sure that piece of
shit is having a great time right now and plenty of people will come to defend
him saying, how difficult his job is. Please. How difficult is it to not shoot
an unarmed man? Just how fucking difficult is that? Let's hear it.

~~~
RickJWagner
Watch a few of the 'what would you do?' videos that put you in the cops'
shoes.

It should be an eye opener.

~~~
mnm1
Do you have a specific link? The first one I pulled up was filled with
training where the cops were already ready to kill innocent people who had
their hands up. It was an eye opener indeed. The cops in that video were
obviously fearful assholes who would get innocent people killed at a regular
traffic stop for no reason. Anyone of them could be the asshole from this
story who shot an innocent man. Eye opener indeed.

------
averros
No punishment for the trigger-happy cop who actually killed the man. Or to the
idiots who made the police procedures deadly to the public.

------
RickJWagner
Repeat swatter? 20 years is absolutely justified.

------
stcredzero
When I see this headline, I think, "All well and good. SWAT-ing is essentially
attempted murder.

However, I find this part of the article biased:

 _It should not go unnoted here that Finch was unarmed and on his own doorstep
when police killed him — with an assault rifle — reportedly because “he was
reaching for his waistband.” Apparently the officer also “believed he saw a
gun come up in Mr Finch’s hands.” Well, which was it, up or down? Was he
reaching for the gun or raising it? Is it common for Wichita police to shoot
someone within seconds of them answering the door, without assessing the
situation — for instance, where the children are? As is sadly often the case
in such shootings, the police are entirely without credibility here, and the
officer involved seems to have faced no consequences._

1 - It's factually incorrect that Finch was shot by an "assault rifle." An
AR-15 isn't an assault rifle. (
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Wichita_swatting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Wichita_swatting)
)

2 - Given what we know about the reliability of witnesses, especially in
stressful situations, there isn't sufficient context in the article to come to
such a conclusion.

3 - From the Wikipedia entry: _Mrs. Finch reports that her 28-year old son
"screamed and then they shot him". Moments after Finch stepped onto his front
porch, police ordered him to put his hands up. According to officer testimony,
he began to do so and then stopped._

The officer may well have been reacting to the scream or to the way Finch was
moving.

That said, I have issues with police video simulation training, from what I've
seen of it. I saw a video of a simulator session where the "right answer" was
always to shoot. There were a sequence of scenarios, often looking innocuous,
but then escalating very quickly to shooting. Again, there was no variation of
whether the officer _should_ shoot. It was only a matter of when.

I've been watching the YouTube channel "Free Field Training" which is produced
by an Illinois police officer. His take on using a gun in police work, is that
a police officer might need to draw a weapon hundreds of times a year, but
should expect to fire it approximately zero times, with an error bar of
somewhere between 0 and 1. (Granted, the situation is different with SWAT.)

~~~
gus_massa
>> _It should not go unnoted here that Finch was unarmed and on his own
doorstep when police killed him_

> _The officer may well have been reacting to the scream or to the way Finch
> was moving._

Why is that important?

~~~
stcredzero
_Why is that important?_

If someone is going to draw a gun and fire on you, then you're a bit less than
1 second away from dying. If there was a scream, then the police officer was
put into a situation where he was led to believe there was a good chance of
this happening, then was subjected to an alarming stimulus, then had to make a
split second life or death decision.

The fact that the above scenario can happen, resulting from a crank phone
call, indicates there is something very, very wrong. Too much power is being
made available to the behest of unchecked assertions.

------
scarface74
No the swatter didn’t get the man kill. The trigger happy policemen did. They
should both be punished.

------
bluntfang
Are there any instances where SWAT has produced good consequences that can
justify this wanton police procedure?

~~~
stcredzero
What's wanton about it, is that as the response is currently formulated,
there's no _due process._ Make an accusation, and people are quickly put in
the sights of many, many guns.

If you put that power in the hands of potential pranksters, this sort of
outcome is what you get in our current world.

What if we could send an android to calmly knock on the front door and ask
questions?

~~~
jandrese
Bomb robots aren't unheard of. Sending a camera on wheels in to check out a
situation you are unsure of doesn't sound terrible to me.

Or hell, this is a great use for a camera drone. While I'm sure there's some
handwringing about tipping off the perps it really shouldn't be any worse than
a whole bunch of guys swarming the yard and surrounding the house. One of
those little racing drones with the good camera would seem to be perfect for
checking out the house before you send guys crashing through every window and
chucking flashbangs into rooms blind.

~~~
stcredzero
_Sending a camera on wheels in to check out a situation you are unsure of
doesn 't sound terrible to me...Or hell, this is a great use for a camera
drone_

I don't think it should be too _hardware_ -ish. The officer android from
"Detroit Become Human" would be just about right. (Without the coin juggling.)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD1pbWCJcKQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD1pbWCJcKQ)

~~~
jandrese
I'm not even talking about knocking on the door here. Just something that can
fly up to some open windows and see if it looks like a murder scene with
people huddling around terrified/blood everywhere/guns out or if the house is
full of people just chilling doing normal stuff.

SWAT tactics were seemingly designed around the assumption that the residence
is a fortified gang base with lookouts and the like. This means the SWAT teams
are going in blind because they don't want to alert the armed guards, but this
leads to situations where flashbangs get tossed into cribs with infants
because one of the cops transposed the street number of the house when calling
in the report. It's exactly the opposite of what you would thing responsible
policing should be.

~~~
stcredzero
_Just something that can fly up to some open windows and see if it looks like
a murder scene with people huddling around terrified /blood everywhere/guns
out or if the house is full of people just chilling doing normal stuff._

It would have to be a very quiet drone. I think we could build such devices.
(Not necessarily flying.)

 _SWAT tactics were seemingly designed around the assumption that the
residence is a fortified gang base with lookouts and the like. This means the
SWAT teams are going in blind because they don 't want to alert the armed
guards...It's exactly the opposite of what you would thing responsible
policing should be._

I think we as a society need to revisit this assumption. We really want to
avoid teams of armed, tense men running into a building with guns. Given a
large enough number of iterations of such events, an accidental shooting is
just a matter of when, not if.

I think those running fortified gang bases also want to avoid public hostage
scenarios. The fortified gang base assault mode should be reserved for
situations where there is solid intelligence, not on the call of some rando.

~~~
jandrese
I saw a demo for a drone that had these oddly shaped ducts around the fans.
They didn't necessarily make it quieter, but they directed the noise upwards.
The company was marketing them to birdwatchers, but I had a feeling the actual
clients would be different.

~~~
stcredzero
DEF CON 23 - Robinson and Mitchell - Knocking my neighbors kids cruddy drone
offline

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CzURm7OpAA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CzURm7OpAA)

------
CryptoPunk
>>The chance that police will escalate is highly unpredictable, though of
course being a person of color adds considerably to that risk, as a fraudulent
gun in the call will cause the police to hallucinate weapons with even greater
frequency than usual.

Is there any actual evidence for this? People shouldn't throw around
accusations of widespread racism so lightly.

