Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue Apr 24 22:09:07 2018

Utopia Talk / Politics / Swatting prank results in death
Aeros
Member
Fri Dec 29 13:57:28
Trigger happy cops. But then they were told there was already a fatality/hostage situation with an armed suspect. So not surprising they were on edge. As for the manchild who made the call? 2nd Degree Murder sounds pretty likely.

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192111974.html

Call of Duty gaming community points to ‘swatting’ in deadly Wichita police shooting

Online gamers have said in multiple Twitter posts that the shooting of a man Thursday night by Wichita police was the result of a “swatting” prank involving two gamers.
RELATED STORY: Family says son killed by police in ‘swatting’ was unarmed, didn’t play video games

Swatting is an internet prank where someone makes a call to a police department with a false story of an ongoing crime – often with killing or hostages involved – in an attempt to draw a large number of police officers to a particular address.

The prank has gained traction across the country with online gamers. Those who try to cause the swatting incident will use caller ID spoofing or other techniques to disguise their number as being local. Or they call local non-emergency numbers instead of 911, according to 911.gov.

eputy Wichita Police Chief Troy Livingston said Thursday night that police were looking into whether the call that led to the shooting was a prank.

Livingston said the department received 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.

“That was the information we were working off of,” he said.

Wichita police say a man was fatally shot by an officer who was responding to a call about a homicide and hostage situation that turned out to be false.

Officers went to the 1000 block of McCormick, preparing for a hostage situation and they “got into position,” he said.

“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.

A family member identified that man who was shot by police as Andrew Finch. One of Finch’s cousins said Finch didn’t play video games.

“This call was little peculiar for us,” Livingston said. “(The call) went to a substation first, then it was relayed to dispatch, then dispatch gave it to us. We have a lot of information to go through.”

On Twitter, more than a dozen people who identified themselves as being in the gaming community told The Eagle that a feud between two Call of Duty players sparked one to initiate a “swatting” prank.

After news began to spread about what happened Thursday night, the people in the gaming community, through Twitter posts, pointed at two gamers.

“I DIDNT GET ANYONE KILLED BECAUSE I DIDNT DISCHARGE A WEAPON AND BEING A SWAT MEMBER ISNT MY PROFESSION,” said one gamer, who others said made the swatting call. His account was suspended overnight.

According to posts on Twitter, two gamers were arguing when one threatened to target the other with a swatting prank. The person who was the target of the swatting gave the other gamer a false address, which sent police to a nearby home instead of his own, according to Twitter posts.

The person who was to be the target of the prank sent a Tweet saying, “Someone tried to swat me and got an innocent man killed.”

Livingston, the deputy police chief, would only provide the block number of the home where the shooting occurred, not the specific address. Police were seen in the front yards of two houses across from each other at the corner of Seneca and McCormick.

Dexerto, a online news service focused on gaming and the Call of Duty game, reported the argument began over a $1 or $2 wager over the game.

“Normally this is a prank, but due to the high stress situation, sometimes it is closer to a death threat from a user trying to get cops to kill them,” one man told The Eagle in an email.

The officer who fired the shot — a seven-year veteran of the police department — will be placed on administrative paid leave, which is department policy.

Police expect to release more information later Friday.



Trolly McDick
Member
Fri Dec 29 13:59:47
Forseb should be coming in and 3..2..1... "DISBAND MUH POLEECE!"
Forwyn
Member
Fri Dec 29 14:01:24
"The person who was the target of the swatting gave the other gamer a false address, which sent police to a nearby home instead of his own, according to Twitter posts.

The person who was to be the target of the prank sent a Tweet saying, “Someone tried to swat me and got an innocent man killed.”

Damn dude, rekt
Forwyn
Member
Fri Dec 29 14:02:38
Nah, I don't have video of a guy surrendering.

Gonna be pretty lulzy if there is though. Some dude who had no idea why the cops were there, shot on his doorstep, based on an anonymous phone call.
Pillz
Member
Fri Dec 29 14:03:01
Entire situation is the fault of the police. Caller should not face charges relating to the homicide - but the cop should.

Police didn't manage to get confirmation of the situation, approached a violent hostage taker by knocking on the door, opened fire without cause or clear threat...

Only aeros thinks this is unavoidable
Aeros
Member
Fri Dec 29 14:30:52
If I made a fake call saying somebody was stealing shit out of a mailbox, then yeah, you don't expect the cops to go in guns blazing. But this brainiac said there was already one fatality and the rest were being held hostage by a man who had already killed and may do so again. The nature of his statements to police rise to a level that not only makes officers shooting a likely scenario, but also an outcome the prankster would know is likely. He may deny he never INTENDED someone to get killed, but that is not the way the law works here. What you intend is not as important as what actually happened.
Pillz
Member
Fri Dec 29 14:35:16
Cops approach hostage situation by knocking on the door and firing?

What if it were a hostage who opened the door?

Caller can't be held responsible for the complete lack of professionalism exhibited by the police involved.

Cops are not supposed to open fire on people randomly. They do, frequently, but shouldn't.
Paramount
Member
Fri Dec 29 14:40:15
If they got info that it was a hostage situation, why didn’t the police send a negotiator? They often try to make a phone call to a guy who is holding other people hostage, and then they try to convince him to release the hostage. I have seen movies on how they do this.

But here they send a cop to knock on the door and to shoot the first person who opens the door? rofl
Aeros
Member
Fri Dec 29 14:41:26
At best the caller would be facing Manslaughter charges instead of Murder charges. I think it will boil down to what was said in the lead up to the incident. If He said something along the lines of "I'll fucking kill you. Fucking call a SWAT team to your house and get you shot" or some such shit, then the Prosecution would absolutely nail him to the wall.
Forwyn
Member
Fri Dec 29 14:44:28
I'm still amazed at the perfect storm of shit here, including the fake address given by the targeted gamer.
Pillz
Member
Fri Dec 29 14:47:37
What if they'd had the wrong address? It's happened before.

Open the door, get shot by cop, family member opens fire on the door believing its a robbery or something..

So many possibilities here that didn't happen, but highlight the fact police failed spectacularly.

And knowing the justice system in the states, the intended target will get charged too for providing the address.

Also aeros, this is just one of hundreds of swattings to occur over the years and the first to result in death afaik?

Most swattings do involve claims of active shooters and hostages...
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Dec 29 14:49:59
sounds a lot like the gift option of Amazon Slay:

"Amazon Slay also features real-time text alerts that let you know exactly when one of our employees will be arriving at your home to take your life, or the life of a friend or relative if you choose the gift option.”
http://www...s-to-your-house-and-1819917496
The Children
Member
Fri Dec 29 15:03:27
but who made the call in the first place!!! becoz they have blood on there hands, they r the true murderers, not da police!
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Dec 29 15:08:32
things will be a little awkward between the intended target and his neighbors whose address he used
Forwyn
Member
Fri Dec 29 15:24:59
"What if they'd had the wrong address? It's happened before."

Well, they did in this case, technically.

I mean, they arrived at the SWATting address, but it was an uninvolved third party.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Fri Dec 29 16:13:54
http://twitter.com/ZooMaa/status/946630040447537152
Aeros
Member
Fri Dec 29 16:24:36
FBI now involved. I wonder what goes through the head of someone who knows with certainty they now have the undivided attention of the Government and that eventually men and suits are going to show up.
kargen
Member
Fri Dec 29 16:28:06
The person who made the call should be held accountable for everything that happened as a result of that call. Holding him responsible doesn't let others off the hook nor should it. If the officer took the shot when no viable threat was present then he should also be held accountable.

Any call such as this one should result in huge fines and jail time simply because the above has a chance of being the outcome. Even if SWAT shows up realizes there is no threat and the call was false there should be severe punishment. Paying the cost of the response should be just the beginning of what happens to the idiot that makes that call.
Cthulhu
Tentacle Rapist
Fri Dec 29 17:00:45
Entire situation is the fault of the police. Caller should not face charges relating to the homicide - but the cop should. '

Actually, he should, because the simple act of making a phony call to emergency services is a crime. At the very least, he should be nailed for that
Im better then you
2012 UP Football Champ
Fri Dec 29 17:06:13
The guy who gave the wrong address should also be charged with 3rd degree murder.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Dec 29 17:09:57
Clear and obvious murder charge for the pranker. Need more info for the cop.
Paramount
Member
Fri Dec 29 17:19:44
Phone calls doesn’t kill. People does. The cop needs to go to jail.
Aeros
Member
Fri Dec 29 17:30:14
i see negligent homicide for the guy who gave the address as his action set events in motion and manslaughter 1 for the pranker unless they get chat logs that indicate physical harm was intended. Getting a jury to convict on murder would be tough because the cop did pull the trigger but it is doable if there is provable malice.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Dec 29 17:30:20
if the call raises to felony levels he's responsible for any people the cops mow down
Pillz
Member
Fri Dec 29 17:42:36
Caller should face charges for the call, not the death.

Intended target shouldnt gave any action of obviously aeros wants him to get the chair

Cop should get the chair but aeros hopes he gets a raise.
Aeros
Member
Fri Dec 29 18:04:18
Examples must be made to deter future offenders. This is basic stuff. This type of pranknis dangerous and also costs taxpayers a shit ton.
Pillz
Member
Fri Dec 29 18:10:45
That's not how the justice system is supposed to work.

Caller committed a crime, he should be punished for it.

Not for the cops incompetence in carrying out his fucking job.

Target should not face any charges whatsoever. He didn't commit any crime.

If you want to make examples of folks, execute police officers who fail to properly carry out their duties. They are, after all, authority figures, paid by the state, and wielding tremendous power through their position. But you're response to a negligent homicide by an officer is to blame the people who sent him there....
Turtle Crawler
Admin
Fri Dec 29 20:40:53
The cops will have to pay for this, otherwise its just saying that once you get a phone call the cops can do whatever they fucking want.

That kind of liability makes no sense.

You aren't responsible for what the cops do after you tell them something.

But you are responsible if you commit a crime of a certain level (previous post said Felony), then everything after it is on you as well.
hood
Member
Fri Dec 29 21:08:31
"You aren't responsible for what the cops do after you tell them something."

Yes and no. Context matters. If you tell a cop "hey this fucknut at this address stole my bike" and the alleged thief ends up eating a bullet, no fucking way you should be responsible. But accusing said alleged thief of murder and kidnapping? With the foreknowledge that the response to that is going to be SWAT going in expecting armed resistance? Yeah, you should absolutely be responsible for that.

Of course, the cops who overreacted to an opened door should also be held responsible.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Fri Dec 29 21:13:39
More details now...

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192244734.html
Wrath of Orion
Member
Fri Dec 29 21:14:41
“Officers gave him 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.

“The male then turned towards the officers on the east side of the residence, lowered his hands to the waistband again, then suddenly pulled them back up towards those officers at the east.

“The officers on the north side of the street feared the male pulled a weapon from his waistband, retrieved a gun and was in the process of pointing it at the officers to the east. Fearing for those officers’ safety, the officer on the north side fired one round.”
Wrath of Orion
Member
Fri Dec 29 21:16:22
So, assuming that is true, not quite the same as shooting someone who was opening a knocked on door.
Pillz
Member
Fri Dec 29 21:35:09
That's an awfully big assumption. Took them a day to straighten their stories, more like.

And unless they see a weapon, they should not be firing. They're supposed to accept that the job has risks, not drop every person who moves the wrong way.

US police forces should be summarily disband At this point. Outsource your police work to Canada or Europe.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Fri Dec 29 21:38:54
Ok, retard.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Dec 29 21:40:18
there's some crappy body cam video at the WoO link

doesn't seem like sufficient cause to fire to me

that written description makes it sound like a lengthier interaction than it probably was, not clear how much occurs prior to video start but I'll guess not much or they'd be showing it to help their case
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Fri Dec 29 23:05:32

Where is your evidence?

tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Dec 29 23:33:23
this video
http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192229414.html
Aeros
Member
Sat Dec 30 00:09:32
"You aren't responsible for what the cops do after you tell them something."

I need to disagree for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, for law enforcement to function, reports to the emergency assistance line (911) need to be as accurate as possible. Law enforcement is dangerous work, and officers need to know what they are getting into. Is this your bog standard "someone stole my purse" or is it "someone is shooting up the whole place omg people are dying!" This information is critical as to what level of force law enforcement brings to restore order and they need to trust its accuracy.

Knowing that, it is impossible to create a scenario where we require police to allow for the possibility of pranks in a 911 call. This prankster informed the police that he had killed someone, was holding two more people at gunpoint, and to cap it off was suicidal. The prank call was custom made to insure law enforcement responded with maximum force. Lethal force.

One homicide already? Check.
Two hostages at risk of death? Check.
Possibly insane and self destructive? Check.

The idea that this report would not create a situation where someone could get killed is absurd. You cannot say it was all a joke. And as has been stated we cannot have people think the police can be a useful hit squad. So these clowns cannot be allowed to get off lightly.

At a minimum this rises to an easy charge of manslaughter in the first degree. The prankster willfully and maliciously created a situation where someone could get killed. If the prosecution is good, a case can be made for murder as the argument over the lost Call of Duty game creates malice aforethought and motive for murder. Especially if there is chag logs to indicate an intent to cause harm.
Aeros
Member
Sat Dec 30 00:14:20
Arrest made.

http://www...ichita-shooting-467049153.html

The Los Angeles Police Department confirms it's arrested 25-year-old Tyler Barriss, of Los Angeles, in connection with Thursday night's deadly "swatting" call in Wichita.

The LAPD says Barriss was arrested Friday afternoon.
Turtle Crawler
Admin
Sat Dec 30 00:27:00
I did say:

"But you are responsible if you commit a crime of a certain level (previous post said Felony), then everything after it is on you as well."
Turtle Crawler
Admin
Sat Dec 30 00:29:17
Yeah that doesn't look justified on the video either. It looks like the guy complying and being given multiple instructions.
Forwyn
Member
Sat Dec 30 01:26:04
hood correct here, context matters.

"Ok, retard."

The only retard is the one who takes the testimony of a small police agency as fact. Let's see a video.
Forwyn
Member
Sat Dec 30 01:46:57
Video viewed.

Shot fired at 7 seconds, from several dozen yards.

Cop should face charges as well. Innocent man gunned down on his doorstep.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Sat Dec 30 02:24:17
And Forwyn missed the point of my post. Good job on that.
Forwyn
Member
Sat Dec 30 02:27:33
What's the point here, exactly?

Pillz
Member Fri Dec 29 21:35:09
That's an awfully big assumption. Took them a day to straighten their stories, more like.

And unless they see a weapon, they should not be firing. They're supposed to accept that the job has risks, not drop every person who moves the wrong way.

Wrath of Orion
Member Fri Dec 29 21:38:54
Ok, retard.
Paramount
Member
Sat Dec 30 02:51:55
"The cops will have to pay for this, otherwise its just saying that once you get a phone call the cops can do whatever they fucking want."


That's like a horror movie... you know when the phone rings.... you die.
Forwyn
Member
Sat Dec 30 02:54:19
Trolly should be coming in and 3..2..1... "Didn't comply. #forsebbed"
Wrath of Orion
Member
Sat Dec 30 04:31:20
I like how you left out the most important part of that post - the part that makes it an obvious troll post. Which is what my response was addressing.
jergul
large member
Sat Dec 30 04:52:04
You actually need a USSC ruling.

There seems to be a huge gap between what is considered a justifiable homicide for civilians, and what is the case for law enforcement.
delude
Member
Sat Dec 30 07:22:02
Selective Forwyn: "What's the point here, exactly?"

Pillz: "US police forces should be summarily disband At this point. Outsource your police work to Canada or Europe. "

"Wrath of Orion
Member Fri Dec 29 21:38:54
Ok, retard. "

Wasn't hard to figure that one out...
Pillz
Member
Sat Dec 30 11:07:12
The lack of logical consistency here is staggering. WoO is almost as as much of a confused moron as Hot Rod
delude
Member
Sat Dec 30 11:28:25
^Says the guy who made the following; "US police forces should be summarily disband At this point. Outsource your police work to Canada or Europe."
Seb
Member
Sat Dec 30 11:45:25
Seems likely the police will face some culpability.

Isn't it the case that if, in committing a crime, you create circumstances where other crimes are committed you gain vicarious liability?

Forwyn
Member
Sat Dec 30 12:34:59
"I don't think it actually goes that far, but something clearly needs to be done."

That's not hard, unless you think this shooting was clean.
TJ
Member
Sat Dec 30 14:10:16
Depending on where you live and the extent of the deception, the criminal charge of filing a false police report can either be a misdemeanor or a felony. Cases that cause less inconvenience to police and other authorities tend to be classified as misdemeanors, while people who create greater confusion or harm by filing a false police report may face felony charges.

I imagine there will be a civil lawsuit case as well as other law consequences.
Aeros
Member
Sun Dec 31 09:03:12
This lawyer does a pretty good break down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayJMzadccuM&t=328s
Senor Marquez
Member
Sun Dec 31 09:17:40
I am the only "(((laywer)))" 'round 'ere.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Dec 31 11:56:04
He was all good until he started cucking about a "threat" to the officers.

Even if this had been a legitimate call, even if they weren't shooting a hostage, and this guy had a pistol, he was beyond effective pistol range, facing an armed host with rifles, cover, and the drop.
Trolly McDick
Member
Sun Dec 31 12:07:37
So the logic is if he had a gun, let him shoot and let the officers take the chance of being shot. And forwyn claimed he was in the military. lulzzzzzzz
Trolly McDick
Member
Sun Dec 31 12:08:43
also "effective pistol range." LOL! What a fucktard.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Dec 31 12:09:18
Yes, the logic is that when officers show up at a two-story house when they responded to a call about a one-story house, maybe they shouldn't immediately shoot a guy at rifle range while they spotlight him, on the off-chance he's going to snap up with a pistol and snipe someone from a football field away. lulzzzzzzzzz
Forwyn
Member
Sun Dec 31 12:10:39
The average effective range of a handgun is 30m. LOL! Fucktard,
Trolly McDick
Member
Sun Dec 31 12:11:42
http://www...olorado-shots-fired/index.html

forseb will claim officers did a good job to let themselves be shot.
Trolly McDick
Member
Sun Dec 31 12:12:14
LOL forseb has a hard time converting 30 meters LOL what a fucktard
Forwyn
Member
Sun Dec 31 12:13:25
He goes the copsucker again with totally unrelated stories, like the good little fucktard he is. "HURRRRR EFFECTIVE RANGE LOLZ"
Trolly McDick
Member
Sun Dec 31 12:13:58
So now we have on record forseb claiming, let a subject shoot first because 'effective pistol range' just take a chance. lulz to the max, forsebbed.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Dec 31 12:14:33
"Shoot first"

With what gun?
Trolly McDick
Member
Sun Dec 31 12:17:16
Because your logic and analytical abilities to assess a situation and then your poor deductive reasoning is laughable, hence why you get bombarded with other stories to demonstrate that with your current logic that all officers should just walk out in the opening because "effective pistol range." As you disregard the unknown factor that if a shoot is a novice, average, expert or not, which exponentially increases the chances and probabilities of officers getting shot.

That is why you are a fucktard, that is why I think you are full of shit regarding your military service. that is why I think you are just a piece of shit and full of shit person generally because you have the most asinine, unrealistic views about many, many scenarios.

You are undoubtedly a fucktard for life.
Trolly McDick
Member
Sun Dec 31 12:17:59
"With what gun? "

And here you go again, being a fucktard, you are the one that introduce the concept "if he had a gun" this is what we are running on now, right?

You stupid shit.
Trolly McDick
Member
Sun Dec 31 12:21:05
And here we go with forsebrod logic.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Dec 31 12:25:51
I "get bombarded" by a developing story about a cop getting shot, in an unknown situation, by an unknown gunman, at an unknown range.

Your ability to compare and contrast situations is startlingly bad.

"As you disregard the unknown factor that if a shoot is a novice, average, expert or not, which exponentially increases the chances and probabilities of officers getting shot."

That's what we're going with now. Jerry Miculek was facing down with the team from dozens of yards, and was prepping to off them all with crackshots.

"That is why you are a fucktard, that is why I think you are full of shit regarding your military service."

Because I think that cops should be held to a standard approaching that of the military, that if a squad of 11-Bs shot an Iraqi guy on the street without ascertaining his identity or intent, and shot him because he shielded his eyes against a several thousand lumen spotlight, they would face severe consequences?

Yeah, you roll with that, buddy.

"introduce the concept "if he had a gun""

Well, there's no "if". He didn't have a gun. He was a totally unrelated guy with a spotlight on him, shot seconds after he opened the door. Because muh tactics.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Sun Dec 31 12:30:32

Sad :,)

Trolly McDick
Member
Sun Dec 31 16:02:17
Yep, forsebrod logic indeed.

Yes, dipshit, he had no gun. But you are the on that introduce the concept about "if he had a gun" and "effective pistol range" furthering your ridiculous ideology that police should just openly approach it because they are not in "open effective pistol range."

forsebrod fucktard logic.
Trolly McDick
Member
Sun Dec 31 16:04:23
I should not be surprised by your deductive skills and other retarded reasoning and logic because of your prime example of completely selective using another person's post because you couldn't catch the reference of what they were referring.

What a forsebrod fucktard logic you have.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Dec 31 17:28:55
"introduce the concept about "if he had a gun""

The police introduced that, when they tried to defend their shooting of an unarmed man.

"effective pistol range"

That you continue to take issue with this belies your ignorance on the matter.

"police should just openly approach it"

Who said that?

No one that I can see.

They had cover, they had long rifles. No one is asking them to commit suicide to ensure the health and safety of a suspect, merely that they don't shoot people on their doorstep less than ten seconds after they open a door to screaming and spotlighting, on the mere suspicion of drawing a pistol, a hundred yards away.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Dec 31 17:29:57
The caller fit almost every one of these, including getting basic details of the house wrong.

http://www...Threat/pubdocs/SWATTING-WA.pdf

 The swatting call is the only incoming call to report an active shooter or ongoing
emergency situation. If a shooting has occurred or an active shooter scenario is unfolding,
multiple calls to dispatch from witnesses or victims are likely.
 The incoming telephone number is spoofed or blocked. Swatting calls using Voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP) services will appear as all zeros or nines, blocked, unavailable, or one of
the default Skype numbers: (661) 748-0240, (661) 748-0241, or (661) 748-0242.
 The swatting call is routed through a non-emergency dispatch line. Swatters using VOIP
services cannot dial 9-1-1 directly so instead they look up non-emergency lines of dispatch
operations.
 The caller’s tone and background noise is inconsistent with the claimed emergency or threat.
For example, the caller claims to have murdered a family member, coworkers, or innocent
bystanders, yet their demeanor is suspiciously calm, with minimal background noise.
 The caller can be heard typing or clicking a computer mouse in the background. Swatters
will conduct internet searches or use online mapping and geospatial tools during the call to
answer follow-up questions and provide exterior descriptions of buildings or residences.
 The caller is unable to answer follow-up questions requesting details such as their full
name, phone number, or current location. Swatting callers may attempt to provide
descriptions of interiors or exteriors of buildings gleaned from photos on social media or
internet searches.
 The caller mispronounces names such as city, street, or building names. Swatting calls are
commonly conducted by foreign perpetrators with thick accents who are unfamiliar with
the local areasthey target.
 The caller’s story changes or escalates throughout the course of questioning. When
challenged by follow-up questions or doubts that their claims are true or legitimate, the
swatting caller may intensifytheirthreator changekeydetailsoftheirstory.
 The caller uses specific gun names or terminology to identity their weapon. Swatting callers
often refer to weapons commonly depicted in video games,such as an AR-15 assault rifle.
 Gunshots or explosions heard in the background are inconsistent with other noise orsound
fake.
 Swatting callers may play recordings of gunshots or live firefights from video games or the
internet in order to sound as if they are shooting a weapon while on the call.
 The caller claimsto be armed orsuicidal and willing to shoot law enforcement.
Cthulhu
Tentacle Rapist
Sun Dec 31 17:31:50
US police forces should be summarily disband At this point. Outsource your police work to Canada or Europe.'

Lol! RCMP in the Bronx would be hilarious
Trolly McDick
Member
Mon Jan 01 06:49:31
"The police introduced that, when they tried to defend their shooting of an unarmed man. "

No, you did;

"Forwyn
Member
Sun Dec 31 11:56:04
He was all good until he started cucking about a "threat" to the officers.

***Even if this had been a legitimate call, even if they weren't shooting a hostage, and this guy had a pistol, he was beyond effective pistol range, facing an armed host with rifles, cover, and the drop."***

It was already established why the police were there based upon a high level call. The point is moot now, because you introduced something else; 'if he had a pistol it has only an effective range, police should just deal with it, they can just wait this this one out and take a chance on be shot because only effective pistol range.'

Summarily you are now staying that in any given situation that police should more adamantly take an more unnecessary risk of being shot because 'effective pistol range.'

"That you continue to take issue with this belies your ignorance on the matter. "

Absolutely not, because you're ridiculous idea that 'effective pistol range, police should take an unnecessary risk' is a pure example of ignorance as explained some posts ago as unknown factors about a potential shooter and what police have to take into account when it comes to an active shoot situation. You are play the 'card' that this would be some low level shooter. Yes, surely that could be a probability, but the police don't know that. For all they know they could be dealing with an expert marksman that has won many shooting tournaments. Which summarily would increase range with a pistol and marksmanship with any gun. Lesson from this, it is an unknown factor that police have to contend with. Not forsebrod logic of 'effective pistol range, police should be fine, take unnecessary risk and just wait it out or go out in the open.'

Fucktard.

"Who said that?

No one that I can see. "

Your inference.

"They had cover, they had long rifles. No one is asking them to commit suicide to ensure the health and safety of a suspect, merely that they don't shoot people on their doorstep less than ten seconds after they open a door to screaming and spotlighting, on the mere suspicion of drawing a pistol, a hundred yards away. "

Can you establish and show they were "100 yards away?" On that video, it does not appear to be "100 yards away." And if a person was a hundred yards away are you suggesting they couldn't hit a target 100 yards away?



Trolly McDick
Member
Mon Jan 01 06:54:18
Oh, also, just to reiterate even though I have asked you. In the video, that isn't 100 yards away you fucktard.

This is 100 yards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ds1BJMsasQI&t=1s

#forsebrodded. Kill, kill, kill yourself. Lulzzzzzy!
Forwyn
Member
Mon Jan 01 12:19:09
"No, you did;"

Sigh. Your retardation is incredible. I'm the first one to bring up a gun, hypothetically stating that he was shot for a semi-legitimate reason? So why was he shot?

"high level call."

Right, hostages, in a one-story house, based on a call placed on a non-emergency line. So they shot the first person who emerged from a two-story house.

"The point is moot now, because you introduced something else;"

Yeah, it's part of the equation. If you can't take a risk, don't sign up for the job. If you can't ascertain the identity or intent of some random fucking guy enjoying the holidays before popping him with a rifle from behind cover, because muh unnecessary risk, don't sign up for the job.

"He could have been Jerry Miculek/Jason Bourne doe, see, here's this video of a very talented and practiced shooter hitting at 100y"

*Everyone is impressed by his feats*
*Not average feats*
*Cops are supposed to pretend they're dealing with Jerry Miculek on every call and gun down dudes in PJs on their front doorstep while being spotlighted*

I see you dropped your rant about the CO shooting. What gives? A combat vet ambushing cops with a rifle no longer analogous enough to a guy standing on his porch shielding his eyes wondering what's going on?
Forwyn
Member
Mon Jan 01 12:21:35
Imagine being this much of a fucking coward, that you're sitting behind a vehicle in full ballistic gear with a rifle trained on a suspect/hostage/random fucking guy, and your excuse is that he could have been Jerry Miculek so I had to shoot him seconds after he popped his head out at the commotion and use the "didn't comply" bullshit excuse. Then, make the family members step over his bleeding out body for several minutes before rendering aid. Muh compliance. lawl
Trolly McDick
Member
Mon Jan 01 14:40:54
"Sigh. Your retardation is incredible. I'm the first one to bring up a gun, hypothetically stating that he was shot for a semi-legitimate reason? So why was he shot? "

Based upon the report and officer's perception. It is what they articulated. Not the argument for the moment. My focus is on the shift you made in regards to "if gun, effective pistol range, officer should take unnecessary risk."

Why are you trying to avoid that?

"Right, hostages, in a one-story house, based on a call placed on a non-emergency line. So they shot the first person who emerged from a two-story house. "

Yes, police shot a suspect in regards to a active shooter situation. Besides the point focusing on your account of police should now "if gun, effective pistol range, officer should take unnecessary risk."

"Yeah, it's part of the equation. If you can't take a risk, don't sign up for the job. If you can't ascertain the identity or intent of some random fucking guy enjoying the holidays before popping him with a rifle from behind cover, because muh unnecessary risk, don't sign up for the job. "

It is always a risk to respond to an hostage/active shoot situation. But, you are running on forsebrod logic, so whatever you say makes not logical fucking sense anyways because "effective pistol range, take unnecessary risk."

What happened to 100 yards? LOL

""He could have been Jerry Miculek/Jason Bourne doe, see, here's this video of a very talented and practiced shooter hitting at 100y"
*Everyone is impressed by his feats*
*Not average feats*
*Cops are supposed to pretend they're dealing with Jerry Miculek on every call and gun down dudes in PJs on their front doorstep while being spotlighted*"

call? hostages and active shooter.

assessment? unknown risks, but with forsebrod logic and 'effective pistol range' cops should take unnecessary risks. And furthering the notion with forsebrod logic cops must believe that everyone is just an average person and not pretend the potential adversarial situations do not exist now.

"I see you dropped your rant about the CO shooting. What gives? A combat vet ambushing cops with a rifle no longer analogous enough to a guy standing on his porch shielding his eyes wondering what's going on? "

Not dropped, made the point. Because you were most likely jizzing all over yourself knowing that cops got killed because of your extensive and knowledgeable subject about fire arms and police procedures and tactics.

what a fucktard.
Trolly McDick
Member
Mon Jan 01 14:42:42
"Imagine being this much of a fucking coward, that you're sitting behind a vehicle in full ballistic gear with a rifle trained on a suspect/hostage/random fucking guy, and your excuse is that he could have been Jerry Miculek so I had to shoot him seconds after he popped his head out at the commotion and use the "didn't comply" bullshit excuse. Then, make the family members step over his bleeding out body for several minutes before rendering aid. Muh compliance. lawl "

forsebrod logics:

'effective pistol range, go out in open in play'

'100 yards'

lulz imagine parading yourself as some type of expert and claim to be in the military and ultimately find out that they never handle a firearm and can't figure out the logistics of how they work.

What a punk ass bitch you are.
delude
Member
Mon Jan 01 14:47:54
"Imagine being this much of a fucking coward, that you're sitting behind a vehicle in full ballistic gear with a rifle trained on a suspect/hostage/random fucking guy, and your excuse is that he could have been Jerry Miculek so I had to shoot him seconds after he popped his head out at the commotion and use the "didn't comply" bullshit excuse. Then, make the family members step over his bleeding out body for several minutes before rendering aid. Muh compliance. lawl "

Yeah, imagine that. Imagine that the police had to respond to an active shooter situation with hostages and having prior knowledge that there has already been someone shot or a fatality would may cause a reasonable person or police officer to think there could be someone who has intent to kill more and the officers themselves. Imagine the perception, the situation that exists in regards to that. Imagine that police should just automatically run in guns blazing to risk hostages because forwyn thinks they are coward for making it a calculated use of force situation based upon the information that was given to the officers as they arrived on the scene.

I am sure forwyn never hid behind any ballistic shielded military vehicles in his duration playing army boy.

Forwyn
Member
Mon Jan 01 15:26:57
"My focus is on the shift you made in regards to "if gun, effective pistol range, officer should take unnecessary risk."

Why are you trying to avoid that?"

Why would I be avoiding it? They had the drop, cover, and long rifles. A man with a pistol at that range posed negligible risk to the officers. I'm not suggesting they should stand by until he empties a mag at them, I'm not even saying that they should wait for him to fire upon them. But yes, when he is not seen with a rifle, and the mere furtive movement blamed on a pistol draw is used as justification to shoot an unidentified man on a bogus call, we have a problem.

"Yes, police shot a suspect in regards to a active shooter situation."

This was not an active shooter situation, idiot.

"What happened to 100 yards? LOL"

If the crux of your argument is, "Well, it may have been slightly less than 100 yard, lulz forsebbed", you don't have mnuch of an argument at all.

The distance seen in the video is a similar distance cops in LA faced in the North Hollywood shootout. They fired over 500 rounds and failed to kill or even severely injure the perpetrators, until they obtained rifles. It is highly difficult to dispatch an armored target at that range, much less a target behind cover. Yes, you can find highly talented shooters who can hit a plate at that distance, but they are few and far between.

Yeah, under those circumstances, you can afford to identify your target. This is basic firearm safety.

"Not dropped, made the point."

You made no point. Some beat cops responded to an early morning call and got ambushed. This is far different from a SWAT team responding, surrounding the target behind cover with rifles.

You, naturally, linked the story before we even had these facts, because your simple brain goes "HURR DEAD COPS NEED MOAR TRIGGER HAPPY TO STOP DEAD COPS".

"Imagine that the police had to respond to an active shooter situation"

Imagine that, two retards in a row are unaware of what constitutes an active shooter situation.
Wikus van der Merwe
Member
Mon Jan 01 16:08:02
Badge bunnies.
nuff said.
delude
Member
Mon Jan 01 16:50:22
You're a moron. 'nuff said.
Senor Marquez
Member
Mon Jan 01 16:50:49
"Wikus van der Merwe
Member "

Hi Renzo!
delude
Member
Mon Jan 01 16:56:57
"This was not an active shooter situation, idiot."

"... that the father had been shot in the head and the shooter was holding his mother, brother and sister hostage."

I'm gonna say that the police were responding to an active shooter.
Forwyn
Member
Mon Jan 01 17:02:15
I'm gonna say your wrong, and virtually every modern police agency differentiates between active shooters and barricaded suspects, with or without hostages.

http://inf...net/LAactiveshootertactics.pdf

http://www.ncbrt.lsu.edu/images/news/tacticalmagazine.pdf
Forwyn
Member
Mon Jan 01 17:02:41
you're* unforgivable typo
delude
Member
Mon Jan 01 17:03:48
Would you prefer 'armed assailant' practically no matter the semantics you want to focus over which eludes to the fact that you have no point nor argument of substance. Police were responding to their knowledge, ultimately a shooter, who had hostages.
delude
Member
Mon Jan 01 17:08:37
You also even provide the link that describes swatting. Which regardless of the semantics, that you want to play the game of now. It would suffice to get points across. That police were responding to a shooter...

So sure, forwyn play your games.
Trolly McDick
Member
Mon Jan 01 17:14:23
"Why would I be avoiding it? They had the drop, cover, and long rifles. A man with a pistol at that range posed negligible risk to the officers. I'm not suggesting they should stand by until he empties a mag at them, I'm not even saying that they should wait for him to fire upon them. But yes, when he is not seen with a rifle, and the mere furtive movement blamed on a pistol draw is used as justification to shoot an unidentified man on a bogus call, we have a problem. "

That is all well and good. Now you agree that police shouldn't take unnecessary risks because of 'effect pistol range.' Progress, your concession is accepted.

"This was not an active shooter situation, idiot. "

Were police responding to a shooter or not?

"If the crux of your argument is, "Well, it may have been slightly less than 100 yard, lulz forsebbed", you don't have mnuch of an argument at all. "

You made a conclusion about the yardage. I asked you can you established, you cannot. I showed you otherwise. You're my bitch.

"The distance seen in the video is a similar distance cops in LA faced in the North Hollywood shootout. They fired over 500 rounds and failed to kill or even severely injure the perpetrators, until they obtained rifles. It is highly difficult to dispatch an armored target at that range, much less a target behind cover. Yes, you can find highly talented shooters who can hit a plate at that distance, but they are few and far between."

That's a great story. But just like you normally do, you completely missed the point.

"You made no point. Some beat cops responded to an early morning call and got ambushed. This is far different from a SWAT team responding, surrounding the target behind cover with rifles.

"You, naturally, linked the story before we even had these facts, because your simple brain goes "HURR DEAD COPS NEED MOAR TRIGGER HAPPY TO STOP DEAD COPS". "

You also argued that no one ever does these kinds of things(set up ambushes) to cops. Refer to your many posts and threads about cops and history of with your forsebrod logic.


forsebrodded indeed.



Forwyn
Member
Mon Jan 01 17:14:30
Different tactics, different situations.

Active shooter: Engage as quickly as possible to minimize, many agencies don't wait for backup anymore, first unit on-scene moves to engage shooter
Barricaded suspect: Surround, contain, assess, negotiate when possible

So here, the semantics are important. Cops never heard or witnessed shots fired, they had a single phone call with a faulty description of the residence, phoned in to the non-emergency dispatch line. Red flags abound, including no secondary calls from other callers to corroborate shots fired, even though the residence is surrounded by other residences and businesses.
delude
Member
Mon Jan 01 17:18:50
To their knowledge they are uncertain if it was faulty or not.

Trolly McDick
Member
Mon Jan 01 17:20:27
"Different tactics, different situations."

Forsebrod logic: "Effective pistol range, CHARGE!"

Forwyn
Member
Mon Jan 01 17:22:14
"Now you agree that police shouldn't take unnecessary risks because of 'effect pistol range.' Progress, your concession is accepted."

No concession here. Every fact is important. Suspect surrounded at rifle range, suspect has no rifle, effective range is important for determining threat level. Suspect posed minimal to zero threat.

"Were police responding to a shooter or not?"

You're as educated on this subject as you are of effective ranges of weapons.

"You made a conclusion about the yardage. I asked you can you established, you cannot. I showed you otherwise."

I made an estimate. You bitched about it, offered no secondary conclusion, and showed nothing otherwise.

"That's a great story. But just like you normally do, you completely missed the point."

I provided a corollary case to show that pistols do indeed have effective ranges, just as every other firearms have effective ranges. That's a very simple point. Now, we can go back and forth about how shooter skill, bullet grain, etc can modify these ranges, but they still very much exist.

"You also argued that no one ever does these kinds of things(set up ambushes) to cops."

No. You're a fucking idiot, and you have very bad strawmen. Ambushes happen all the time.

I've said things to the effect of, if a guy in a hotel room wants to ambush cops, he'll blast through the door with a 7.62, shoot them through the window, he won't sob and crawl and put on a show so he can crawlbush a full team in a hallway with a pistol tucked away in his falling-down gym shorts. Naturally, you get triggered and show a bunch of unrelated youtube videos on your first page google results of people pretending to be compliant then fleeing, or some combat vet gunning down patrolmen responding to a routine call.
Forwyn
Member
Mon Jan 01 17:25:06
"To their knowledge they are uncertain if it was faulty or not."

They can't determine how many buildings the story is that they're surrounding?
Forwyn
Member
Mon Jan 01 17:26:17
"Forsebrod logic: "Effective pistol range, CHARGE!"

Why would you charge into pistol range? You are a dumbass. The entire point is that a rifle beats carbine beats pistol, where range is concerned. Contain and assess.
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share