Hacker News new | more | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Three Men Charged in ‘Swatting’ Schemes (justice.gov)
71 points by anigbrowl 30 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 106 comments



The main perpetrator whom gave up his friends Tyler Rai Barriss actually did cause the death of someone in Kansas by "Swatting" them. He then was completely unapologetic. These new indictments are after he accepted a plea deal for 20-25 years in federal prison.

Here is his twitter: https://twitter.com/goredtutor36?lang=en. He boasted about swatting people and somehow got internet access in prison and posted his latest post.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-tyler-barriss-swat...


According to a police statement regarding the 2017 Wichita Swatting event:

"Officers gave [the victim] several verbal commands to put his hands up and walk towards them. The male complied for a very short time and then put his hands back down to his waist. The officers continued to give him verbal commands to put his hands up, and he lowered them again." [1]

I'm not well informed on the subject, but wouldn't equipping tactical teams with non-lethal weapons have prevented tragedies like this? The moment a team feels uneasy, they should feel free to stun the suspect. I know electroshock weapons have their own risks, but surely they aren't greater than firing a dude acting suspiciously with a live round from a Colt AR-15?

1. https://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192244734.htm...


They shot him from across the street, with poor visibility, from a semi concealed position for pulling up his pants. There are no non-lethal tools that would have worked at the distance they were at and the man would have had to have been a fantastic shot to pose a risk to the officers based on the distance.

In the video the officer who fires is to the left of the speaker. Caution you will see someone getting shot to death.

https://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192111974.htm...


This is just the audio of the swatter though, right?

I don't think there's any video of the actual incident is there?

Maybe the dude didn't understand what the big deal was and kept dropping his hands? Someone probably jumped the gun?

I wonder if that team had non-lethal weapons and just didn't get them out. If he didn't have a firearm, a beanbag rifle could have ended this much differently.


We have to get into the mindset that police reports are fundamentally untrustworthy sources of information.

We have enough evidence accumulated over the years to make it abundantly clear that police reports are primarily about constructing a narrative that absolves police of culpability and secondarily about describing the true nature of an event.

Police reports read individually all sound individually reasonable but read as a collective describe a world that is fantastical. For example, the number of young black men who were "reaching towards their waistbands" at the moment they get shot even though they were carrying no weapons simply beggars any rational explanation. Similarly, "put his hands back down to his waist" is another police magic phrase that is conveniently unfalsifiable and also absolves the shooting officer of any liability.


No, I disagree.

We need to change society back to the point where people are decent and don't fool around with public resources like cops.

First responders are life-saving. Mis-using them is seriously anti-social behavior. That's what needs to be changed.


A bunch of trigger happy folks with guns are not "first responders". Big difference between paramedics and folks who just want an excuse to shoot people.


>Maybe the dude didn't understand what the big deal was and kept dropping his hands? Someone probably jumped the gun?

or the cops lied about what happened. Wouldn't be the first time that has happened when a cop murdered an unarmed civilian.


Also remember the case of Oscar Grant, killed by a BART cop who had a taser but used his pistol instead. One of the arguments in court was that he grabbed the wrong weapon in the heat of the moment.


That would have been a possible explanation except that Grant was subdued and still by that point; there was no justifiable use for the Taser, either.


The first section is just the swatter audio, but if you scroll down you'll see the police reporting on the aftermath.


Raising you hand for a untrained person can become quite exhausting quite fast


Yep, there’s video. A Google search will turn it up.


There is a Use of Force Contiuuum, but reaching for one’s waistband can be a short circuit directly to the top. Police usually say it is too dangerous to wait until they’re sure you’re actually retrieving a gun. This comes up pretty frequently when police kill people (typically young black men) who turn out to have been unarmed.


In this particular case, however, the police were already in a safe position across the street and behind their vehicles. The decedent was standing in the doorway and posed no obvious, immediate threat to anyone at the time he was shot.

There is indeed a continuum, but this particular case was at the low end of the band.


At the end of the day, it seems to be that police killed an innocent person. There has to be a better way.


I hate plea deals. In the case of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), the guy who made the deal got very little time, was shitty and addicted to drugs. The people he ratted on had moved on, many trying to do legitimate activism.

I mean, I don't have a problem with the members serving time (doing good things doesn't make up for burning factories), but the guy with the plea deal shouldn't have got off.

I hope the guy that rolled gets at least 15 years of his sentence and doesn't get let off early. There's no reason he shouldn't serve the entire 25. This case lead to someone's death.


> He then was completely unapologetic.

I'm guesing the police was completely unapologetic as well.


The cop that pulled the trigger will have to live with it for the rest of his/her life.

Like all people, most cops are decent people. To assume otherwise is just wrong.

I personally know several cops. They are without exception excellent human beings. They work hard, with little pay, to serve the public.


Several things need to be done.

These idiots should be charged with something along the lines of conspiracy to commit murder.

The phone system needs to be updated to prevent apoofing of numbers. I know it jas its reasons for corporate exchanges and whatnot, but safety outweighs that. A Telco should be able to uniquely identify precisely who made a call.

Along the way: no blocked numbers on caller ID. I dont answer a blocked number, anyway, but you shouldn't be able to hide.


I'm a little surprised you didn't mention anything about police being held accountable when responding with unreasonable force to anonymous tips. If we are going to start talking about fixing this issue, I'm not sure getting rid of blocked numbers is going to materially impact these outcomes.

Likewise, what is your recommendation on eliminating the threat of burner phones?


Technically, in the US the police doesn't have to protect you (search "no duty to protect"). And "holding them accountable" much beyond the existing threshold will ensure they won't show up at all except to collect the body.


It sounds like you are saying that better police cannot exist. But it exists in every first world country except the US.


That's only because those countries aren't, in fact, the US. The US is a pretty violent country compared to just about any other first world country. The policing methods employed elsewhere are (IMO) unlikely to work here. It'd be hilarious to send London policemen to Chicago or Detroit and have them "deescalate" things with gangs there.


Well, Detroit and Chicago gangs exist inside minority communities, i.e. not the vast majority of America, including in this particular story. SWATing is not a problem in the hood.



Most police calls that are not from a victim amount to an anonymous call. They cannot be ignored.

I hate to say, but it's a slippery slope. Right now, you can't distinguish between a legit line and a spoof, or a burner.

But a burner still has a traceable number. Perhaps burners could be placed in a "low trust" zone when dialling emergency services. Such a classification could give 1st responders the caution they need.


> I hate to say, but it's a slippery slope

The underlying problem is that police should not jump to lethal force and have proper training to contain dangerous situation, not kill people who are crawling on the floor under their orders.

The problem is not distinguishing between a legit line and a spoof, it is having a police force that is not trigger happy who cowardly justify every killing with "I was scared for my life".

Police who are so easy to be "scared for life" should not be in the force, in the same way someone with pyrophobia should not be a firefighter.


> Police who are so easy to be "scared for life" should not be in the force, in the same way someone with pyrophobia should not be a firefighter.

I take your point, but at the same time, that's a very easy thing to say when it's not your life that is on the line. Unless you have first hand experience doing that kind of job, I would strongly advise a bit of restraint in being quite so judgemental.


I might be less judgmental if the police were ever willing to admit that they could have done anything differently.

IIRC, the victim in one swatting death was lying on the floor crying as two cops screamed contradictory orders at him, reached down to pull his pants up after crawling forward as instructed, and was shot dead. I might have been able to respect, at a bare minimum, a police response along the lines of "we need to review our procedures for this sort of situation." Instead the police chief gave a press conference about evil swatters and absolutely refused to accept any culpability at all.

As long as the cops keep ducking blame like a child with his hands over his ears, this shit is going to keep happening with every swatting.


First hand experience isn't needed to condemn the unnecessary murder of a completely innocent and terrified man. The police should not burst into the homes of innocent citizens and shoot them to death. Being scared is not a valid excuse.


That's a straw man. No one is arguing that that is ok.


The police force actually are.


Again, that's a different issue and separate from calling the Swat teams. The cops are told that murder has happened and a person that had "killed" his family member has zero to lose, so yeah, cops are afraid. The person that sees 20 armed cops or has a grenade thrown through his window will freak out and not act rationally. Recipe for disaster, all because someone made that call.

19 years old going to jail for 20-25 years...


I am no army general or special forces specialist but one has to wonder why is throwing a grenade or any other aggressive action is the first line of action for any highly tactical large team with arguably the world's most advanced tech?

The consequences of the situation is perhaps up-to-debate but that is missing the point, the SWAT teams shouldn't be acting reactionary and out of fear, they should be, well, tactical about the situation and not burst into homes and hotels like they're in war-zone doing a Search and Destroy.


Don't they have thermal cameras at the very least to take a peek inside? Marksmen who could take a look inside? Someone who can listen in?

Very sloppy operation if they just shot a guy standing in the open.


The call is the catalyst. The cops are the gullible, hyper-agressive actors that turn what should be a simple matter of communication into the 'justified' killing of an innocent.


I agree. In the video I saw the cops killed the person from it seemed like 100 yards away. He had opened the door and cops thought he was reaching for his gun. But the cops were or should have been behind a car or bulletproof thingy, no need to look for the lamest excuse to kill someone.


>I'm a little surprised you didn't mention anything about police being held accountable when responding with unreasonable force to anonymous tips

I think the logic behind this is that if the tip was correct then trying to talk it out/etc could end much worse for everyone involved. You have to remember that, to the best of the officer's knowledge, there is a live hostage in a building somewhere that needs to be saved by them


There is no "best of the officer's knowleedge", though. They have zero knowledge of the situation. They have an unsourced phone call. They know exactly that one person has made a claim on the phone and too often they don't bother looking past that and it is completely reckless.

I can't even conceive of the same thing happening in the military (been there, done that). "We got a call the enemy is in that build." "suit up, we'll go in." "how about we watch the building for a minute?" "Naw..."


At the end of the day you will always want to go home more than follow the law. Americas weapon laws put everyone postcall in a defacto civil war zone. In war zones the law, civil conventions and concepts collapse. Its your tribe vs the others. Quite frankly for this situation americas swats are remarkable civil.

Ps: the military has its own track record on fire first and then sort them out later. They blew up whole towns in Iraq for one sniper-with everyone on it. So bad example. The watch and wait often only happens in spy movies. In reality it's protect our boys preemptive at all costs. If one dies you have alot more to answer for then 40-50 locals die. Those can be labeled asymmetric after exitus. And quite frankly theire surviving relatives thirsty for revenge will cover your war crime up. One week later that sleepy town ruin is a Hotspot.


Ok. Worst case if they restrained themselves from killing the suspect is that one citizen is dead and they couldn't prevented it.

Actual outcome was that one citizen is dead because they murdered him. I don't see how much worse is first outcome when compared to the second one.


There's an audio clip of the 911 call posted on here. It wasn't an anonymous tip; the person on the phone pretended there was a situation/serious domestic dispute.

The police should have still been more accountable, but let's get the context right.


Sure, and that is a bad reason to go in guns blazing. It is even worse than if it was a hostage situation. It is even worse if the subject capitulated and went outside. What could they do, take aim at someone and then get shot?

This is stupid trigger happy gangster style policing.


The alternate side of officers using unreasonable force from a scam anonymous call is getting officers or members of the public killed from a real anonymous call.

Police are going to be on high alert regardless, even if they think the call was a hoax


You will note that I did not say "scam" anonymous call. I said "anonymous call" which includes both real and anonymous calls. Police officers should respond with force dictated by the circumstances of their situation, trained in such analysis, and held accountable to their decisions - both as individual officers and as departments. The source of the initial investigation should have little if any impact on the level of force used in the encounter.


Spot on. I believe the crux of the issue lies in the present bias toward officer safety, leading to an almost anything goes situation if the officer claims to have felt endangered. Which is quite ridiculous because the danger is always there. It's just not an acceptable reason to blast away.


They're paid hazard rates exactly because of the danger. They are not supposed to cause danger. It is completely unacceptable.

At least here which is not US there is no such problem.


I agree completely - my point was that police can't treat anonymous calls differently than real ones, because it is literally their lives(and the lives of the potential hostages) on the line. Unreasonable force is unreasonable force, regardless of how the officer was called into the situation.


>>I'm a little surprised you didn't mention anything about police being held accountable when responding with unreasonable force to anonymous tips.

Who says they aren't? They have rules, procedures etc., but when you tell police that x person killed his wife and is about to kill his two little children bad things are likely to happen.

Plus, both sides can be held accountable at the same time. The person that made the call can be responsible for everything that happens, even for the car accident cops get into while going there. More or less like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule


Surely the robust solution is for police/swat teams to treat unverified threats differently?

Any real world system needs to be able to handle faulty inputs. If this particular system wasn't so terrible at that, bad actors would have no reason to make the false reports in the first place.


How do you think they are going to verify a threat?

By showing up, right?

I'm not sure "verified" vs "unverified" is the important thing.

I do think U.S. police's approach in general is far too violent and it makes these things more dangerous.

That also means that anyone 'swatting' ought to know they are doing something dangerous and with high potential for violence, far from just a joke, it's an extremely immoral act.


> How do you think they are going to verify a threat? By showing up, right?

I don't follow your implication - obviously nobody's suggesting the police not show up.

The point is that swat teams should treat anonymous calls as potential crimes - and potential pranks or mistakes - until they have reason not to.

Systems need to be robust against bad inputs! If a system occasionally kills people when lied to, the solution is not to try and prevent people from lying to it - it's to improve the system.


Yes, the system needs to be improved, the way that police respond with indiscriminate violence as a first resort puts people in danger in many situations beyond these, and needs to be changed.

But I feel like some in this thread are calling for leniancy for 'swatters', perhaps because they've done it themselves or are friends with those who have. "the solution is not to try and prevent people from lying to it." No, it's that too. The police ARE a dangerous murderous gang, as long as that is true tricking them into responding to someone on false pretenses is a violent act, with potentially deadly consequences, a grossly immoral act.

If anyone thinks they can escape moral culpability for swatting because it's the police's fault -- even making that argument is explicitly recognizing that the police are a dangerous violent force, so if you sic them on someone you know what you are doing, you know the potential consequences. If you let your dangerous dog loose on purpose and it attacks someone, it's your fault and the dogs fault too. You have responsibility for your actions. Intentionally exposing someone to potential police violence is on the person who does it, even if the police ought not to be so easy to be used in that way, that person still used them in that way. And it's a horribly unethical thing to do.


> some in this thread are calling for leniancy for 'swatters'

Saying that swat teams need to safely deal with false reports is not in any way sympathizing with swatters. Of course swatting is bad - everyone knows that. But "get people to stop lying to police" is not an achievable goal; "get police to stop killing randoms because someone lied" is.

> perhaps because they've done it themselves or are friends with those who have.

This is out of line, surely.


What happens when an unverified threat isn't considered quick enough, and the hostages are killed while the police are standing around outside taking a wait and see approach?


The fact that this only happens in America indicates that their approach is the wrong one. They could ask any other developed nation for advice.


Kirtaner, the owner of 420chan, was infamously swatted by g0shawk some years ago. He lives in Canada (and g0shawk is in Australia).


Hostages are only taken by crazy people in America? I doubt that.


Of course not. It's just in other first world countries a regular police officer shows up first to assess any credible threat before further action is taken for a single anonymous call.


He's saying that swatting only happens in America. Which is pretty much the case.


Do other countries even have SWAT teams?


Other countries usually have police tactical response teams and/or separate paramilitary police forces to which high threat situations are escalated. The details, of course, differ considerably from country to country.


I feel like occasions where the police react too slowly and hostages get killed would make it into the news.

Instead we have stories about swatting.

Any policy needs to weigh the harm to actual hostages against the harm to victims of swatting and right now it seems like swatting victims are bearing the brunt of police action.

It is just my hunch that Hollywood has made us believe that crazy dangerous hostage situations happen far more often than they actually do and in reality, pranks are much more common.


That's a very silly thing to believe. Real hostage situations happen all the time, you just never noticed because "angry drunk waves gun around while wife and kids cower in the corner" is not exactly national news.


I appreciate this perspective, I definitely hadn’t considered all of the ways a hostage situation can arise.

A very quick Googling turned up an article that said that 85-90% of hostage situations are resolved nonviolently.

Another article said that police in the US receive something like 100,000,000 non-emergency calls (including pranks calls) in a year, so we’re probably talking at least tens of thousands of prank calls (not just swatting though, obviously).

Based on admittedly sensational news stories, violence seems to happen more often when people get swatted than it should and it doesn’t seem silly to think that overreacting to elaborate prank calls isn’t capable of causing harm that’s greater than the harm caused by underreacting to real calls.


>I feel like occasions where the police react too slowly and hostages get killed would make it into the news.

Here you go

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/03/15/pa...

I'm pretty sure that an experienced police easily recognizes when it is a serious dangerous stuff like the above, and when it is just a safe, for police, swatting where you can just go in with all guns blazing.


Swatting is a much more sensational story, even more so than a real SWAT-necessary situation. Odds are you have no ability to judge the relative frequency of pranks vs real swat calls, because only the pranks and extremely high profile real ones are reported on national news.


Has that happened, often?

This feels like the "We have to be allowed to torture terror suspects, because what if there's a bomb set to go off in an hour and the suspect won't reveal its location unless we torture him" argument. This kind of policy needs to be based on history, not hypotheticals.


"What happens when an unverified threat isn't considered quick enough, and the hostages are killed while the police are standing around outside taking a wait and see approach? "

When has this ever happened outside of movies?


> The phone system needs to be updated to prevent apoofing of numbers. I know it jas its reasons for corporate exchanges and whatnot, but safety outweighs that. A Telco should be able to uniquely identify precisely who made a call.

I would never (unless I have a serious reason to believe this can save a life) report a crime non-anonymously as I neither want to become a suspect (for many kinds of crimes this is possible) nor to be forced to participate in a court or anything like that as a witness.


> nor to be forced to participate in a court or anything like that as a witness.

indeed. lay witnesses are treated rather poorly.


  A Telco should be able to uniquely identify precisely who made a call
It can, via ANI, when 911 is called (ANI for landline, another mechanism for mobile).

Swatters, however, generally spoof Caller ID and call a general police switchboard or dispatch line directly. Police don't have the discretion to just ignore blocked numbers.


> should be charged with something along the lines of conspiracy to commit murder

How do you prove the intent was to murder rather than to harass?

You think you’re being clever by charging with something more serious, then the charge fails because really you just wanted what they really did to have a steeper punishment.

> I dont answer a blocked number, anyway

They don’t call you - it doesn’t matter what you’d do - they call the police, who have to answer the phone.


> How do you the intent was to murder rather than to harass?

Are you serious? If I want to harass someone I'll ring the doorbell and run, order 40 pizzas, throw toilet paper all over their house, etc. Police armed to the teeth is pretty obvious this isn't about harassment. If it is, you need help.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/29/16830626/call-of-duty-sw...


Because then they wouldn't be SWATting people then, they would, idk, order 10 pizzas to the place. Does this really need to be asked?


... yes? We have specific legal terms for death caused by actions where prosecutors don't think they can prove murder, and there's a reason for that


A SWAT team is a heavily armed killsquad. I think conspiracy to murder is pretty apt.


... which is presumably at least one reason you’re not a prosecutor


Well that's a pretty snarky response but it is also devoid of substance.


How's it devoid of substance? The issue is about the fact that the legal system distinguishes between manslaughter and murder, has different burdens of proof for each, and you've come back and said "well in my opinion it's the same". And that's nice for your opinion, but if you worked in the legal system in any capacity you'd know that the two things are distinct, and the reason they're distinct is there's a difference in burden of proof, and that the layman's wild-ass opinion on things rarely factors in.


It's devoid of substance because it's a sarcastic and condescending quip about whether or not my comments qualify me as a prosecutor in your view. That's not the topic at hand and it's pretty obviously a low quality response meant to insult rather than address what I wrote.

Anyway, I'll defer to your credentials as an experienced prosecutor, but it seems pretty reasonable to me that painting an individual as an imminent danger and directing a paramilitary kill squad to their location (resulting in their subsequent execution) is an intentional murder. Obviously, the courts will tease out all the pertinent details but I don't see any details that preclude that possibility.


> but it seems pretty reasonable to me that

It seems pretty reasonable to me that everyone should just give me all their money and I should get a pony. But nobody really cares about my opinion there because I am just making shit up, completely devoid of any factual basis.

> but I don't see any details that preclude that possibility

You are literally working off the linked article that says what charges the prosecutors decided they could probably make stick. Literally, faced with an expert opinion by someone with all the relevant facts, whose job it is to distinguish between these things, you are saying "I don't care because I have my own legal opinions based on my hopes and dreams".

This doesn't strike me as materially different from climate change denial or anti-vaxxing.


  How do you prove the intent was to murder rather than to harass?
That's not their burden. The Felony Murder rule means that the person shares responsibility for the homicide.


I thought to convict someone of conspiracy to murder, one of the conspirators had to commit the 'overt act' of murder?

In this case all the accused are conspirators, but which one committed the overt act? Calling a false report to the police is not an overt act of murder is it?

If this was a contract killing for example they'd be in conspiracy with the hitman, who was clearly the murderer. Who's the murderer in this case? The police officer isn't committing murder.

I think if you charged with conspiracy to murder you risk facing a jury who says 'ok I get they conspired but which one do you think committed murder?'


or we can just train our police force not to murder unarmed civilians


>The phone system needs to be updated to prevent apoofing of numbers. I know it jas its reasons for corporate exchanges and whatnot, but safety outweighs that

I've been agitating for something like this for a long time now, but really, I'm fine if CallerID can be spoofed, but I should be able to get the billing account for the line it's using. Phone companies as a rule resist giving out this information (which they've made available to law enforcement for a century).


First responders need to be hardened against these simple redirection calls that don't come through 911 -- spoofing Caller ID is easy, but spoofing ANI is not.


I think the threat of getting 25 years in prison, as one of the guys got, ought to be enough of a deterrent to prevent this kind of stuff.


it has always been illegal. the thing is these few jerks think they are anon and are in many cases(to extents). swatting too can happen from anywhere in the world. bringing them to justice will definitely make them think twice though.


We should also make it illegal to steal cell phones.


I've confronted these types of people many times in the past. They're usually quite childish. If anything, they probably thought it was humorous. Things like this happen all the time with content creators and it won't stop anytime soon. Many people contact authorities beforehand to whitelist their address but I'm unsure if it's effective.

I've also heard about pets that get murdered for having vicious tendencies in the victims household. How sad...


Shouldn’t local law enforcement do a little more triage before sending in paramilitaristic swat teams?

How many hostage situations actually happen in middle class boring suburbs such that a single unverified call turns into a full blown swat response?


And police must be given training in de-escalation. There are a lot of skilled hostage negotiators in the police, probably every team needs one. Getting rid of overpunishment for victimless crimes will go a long way in avoiding needless crises.


This conversation has been had on HN many times. Someone will come and say that they have to assume all reports are good faith and then someone else will counter that they're the ones using deadly force and should apply it as needed.

Endless loop debate.


I don't think it's unreasonable for SWAT teams to respond to a credible call. What is unreasonable is American LEOs, SWAT and otherwise, being too quick to use de-escalation equipment that works by firing lead projectiles.


I'd assume in any situation where a swat team is necessary, 5 minutes of triage would drastically decrease effectiveness.


Ok that still lands on the police force, as they're the one's to determine that a SWAT team is required.


Well, I can't argue with that. Everybody loves free murder delivery, right?


American police aren't trained in deescalation. Couple that with their militaristic training style and you have a tendency to be cowboys, rushing into battle in a blaze of glory.

It's further complicated by massive inequality in the country, which generates strong class differences, resentment, and ultimately an "us vs them" mentality.

And we haven't even gotten to the pervasive racism yet.

America is an adolescent state, born from extreme violence and trauma that hasn't subsided yet. Americans in general are a paranoid people due to their general personal insecurity (high inequality, classism, racism, tribalism, one sickness from financial ruin, etc). It's only natural that their police force and justice system develop in such a medieval retribution style.


Twitter names @internetlord @defeat @tragic and @spared

Those seem like some pretty high value names. Although internetlord and tragic don't look like what I'd expect a swatter's account to look like. They don't appear very popular or active so saying they're "known by" those names seems a little strange.

Also strange how much more valuable those look compared to the mastermind's twitter names swautistic and goredtutor36 .


swautistic is the most fitting name of the bunch.


Abusing the protection system like this should be life in prison. This is one of those things you don't fuck with. When you're 6 years old and call 911 because you don't know any better, that's one thing. These kids are 23 and 19, etc. and they understand the potential consequences of their actions, but they continued to act anyway.


A developer in the Bitcoin community got swatted. He wrote up an extremely detailed (and unrealistic IMO) guide on how to avoid it & stay private online as a public figure -

https://medium.com/s/story/a-modest-privacy-protection-propo...


I will say that there is a lot of pessimism in these threads which may be warranted, but it is good to see the judicial system beginning to take these people to task. Laws and regulations often move slower than we would like, especially when lives are at stake, but I remember years of this type of stuff going unpunished. This is a step in the right direction.


there are 2 problems i see with the swatting issue.

1] obvious, but the mentality of self elevated importance, and attachment of personal loss with a game [combatsimulator] that primes a person into an aggressive mentality.

2] there is no carrot and stick for LEO's. There is qualified immunity from prosecution, ideally this prevents a cop or other responder from being sued for adverse results, of acting "whithin legal authority" and "as a reasonable person"

The end result is No Consequences fro screwing up under the veil of legal authority and reasonable actions. This veil has been stretched so thin that it is starting to breakdown, as there are now LEO and other responders actually doing some prison time, vs 15 years ago when police were heavily militarized and 911 was fresh in our heads; when any degree of force was legitimate to intercept domestic threats.




Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: