Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

''Swatting" call turns deadly

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ''Swatting" call turns deadly

    Prank 'swatting' call turns deadly with fatal police shooting of man in Kansas.

    I had never heard of "swatting" until I saw this story.

    https://www.yahoo.com/gma/la-man-arr...?.tsrc=fauxdal

  • #2
    I saw this also. Could someone explain to me in this age of uber modern technology....Tracing phone calls, finding phone records, Being able to find internet addresses..........Why in the f*ck something this serious with lives at stake and the history of Swat teams going all wrong.........they could not take the time to actually see the phone call came from California and he is claiming he is in Kansas????

    Comment


    • #3
      It has been happening for a few years now.

      This sort of thing has become so bad that it seems that if you want to destroy somebody, just make an anonymous call that even the KGB would have scoffed at, and then sit back and watch the fun.
      The most trigger-happy maniacs seem to wind up in SWAT Teams-


      Watch this video. It shows an unarmed man in a motel hallway crawling on his knees as ordered, sobbing and pleading for his life. Slightly drunk, he tries his best to keep up with the cop's Simon Says game. But not well enough. The cop killed him anyway. At his trial he said he feared for his life . He was acquitted. He said he'd do it again the same way. There's no reason to doubt him.

      http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/08/ar...killing-man-cr


      Officer safety is not the highest mandate, nor does it justify killing the innocent for the merest twitch. If he'd murdered an illegal alien like this, they'd burn Mesa Arizona to the ground. Even so, for this event and others like it, where the presumption of guilt is equated with expendability, there are always unknowable consequences.
      Last edited by The Exorcist; 31 Dec 17, 03:06.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
        It has been happening for a few years now.

        This sort of thing has become so bad that it seems that if you want to destroy somebody, just make an anonymous call that even the KGB would have scoffed at, and then sit back and watch the fun.
        The most trigger-happy maniacs seem to wind up in SWAT Teams-


        Watch this video. It shows an unarmed man in a motel hallway crawling on his knees as ordered, sobbing and pleading for his life. Slightly drunk, he tries his best to keep up with the cop's Simon Says game. But not well enough. The cop killed him anyway. At his trial he said he feared for his life . He was acquitted. He said he'd do it again the same way. There's no reason to doubt him.

        http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/08/ar...killing-man-cr


        Officer safety is not the highest mandate, nor does it justify killing the innocent for the merest twitch. If he'd murdered an illegal alien like this, or anyone other than a white guy, they'd burn Mesa Arizona to the ground. Even so, for this event and others like it, where the presumption of guilt is equated with expendability, there are always unknowable consequences.
        You really want to bring race into this?
        "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
        - Benjamin Franklin

        The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

        Comment


        • #5
          The person that made the "prank" call ought to hang for felony murder.

          The police that fell for the "prank" ought to hang for killing a civilian without provocation.

          Somehow, we've come to the point where police in the US have looser ROE than we have for soldiers down range. Pure idiocy.

          Comment


          • #6
            The actual terms of the shooting seem like a perfect storm:

            1) Officers have crap information, and little of that. The information they're working on is that they're in that top 1% of emergency situations, which has their adrenaline at 11.

            2) The guy has no clue what's going on, because he was legitimately pranked by this A-hole.

            3) The guy fails to comply in literally the one way that would get him shot. If you've never had someone suddenly go for their waistband when you're already in a high stress situation, it's a serious "oh $hit" moment. Last time it happened with me, my sidearm was in my hand and pointed at the suspect and I never recall drawing. For someone sincerely thinking that they're staring at a hostage taker and murderer who is armed, it's perfectly reasonable to see where such a furtive movement followed by exactly what someone would do if they were drawing a firearm would finish generating the picture in someone's mind.



            Exo, I've looked at the unrelated shooting you're talking about, and it was a cluster F from start to finish. They did everything about as wrong as they could have managed to do. We don't have much information from this shooting, so we're getting tied up in the things that the officers couldn't have possibly known.

            To the question about 'why can't you just verify it?' Umm....4th Amendment. IF you'd like for me to be able to instantly check any number, verify your precise location, and so on and so forth without your consent, then please tell your congresscritters to make and pass an amendment alteration. For me to even request such information, it's a form, I have to show exigent circumstances or a search warrant, have communications send it up to the carrier (I have to know the carrier for the phone number), and then see IF they will oblige to send back a response. Last time I did it was on a guy who had just shot his wife multiple times with a rifle. Took a couple of hours before they started pinning his position down for us. When you've got what you sincerely believe is a hostage situation with an unstable armed subject, you simply don't have that much time to wait. Think of the reverse....if the officers had waited for 1-3 hours until they could confirm the story, and the guy had been a hostage taker and murderer, you'd have those officers drawn and quartered in the street for dithering while people died.

            @82. The person that made the call should be charged with 1st degree murder.

            And the ROE are and have always been the same. In fact the last time there was any USSC ruling on the ROE for LEOs in a deadly force encounter was in 1985. Before that, if I thought you had committed a felony and you were running, I could mow you down like Clyde Barrow. ROE for soldiers under moronic leadership has typically been "don't fire until fired upon" which is translated in "don't fire until you start taking casualties" (don't believe me, I was tuned in on a convo where a Chinook was being shot at by hajis and was seriously asked by higher if they felt the fire was "hostile or non hostile"). I'm not 20 years old anymore, and I'm not on calls with 1st Squad and a Corpsman, and Mortars and Cobras on call. I'm by myself with a pistol, and my QRF is another guy just like me about 10 minutes away. You want an uber-restrictive ROE, then find someone who's willing to commit suicide, or meet me at the courthouse and file a report after it's over. There's a difference between being willing to risk your life, and always having to take fire before you return it....when there's only one of you, that first bullet might just kill you....and there are plenty of criminals willing to gamble on that.
            Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
              It has been happening for a few years now.

              This sort of thing has become so bad that it seems that if you want to destroy somebody, just make an anonymous call that even the KGB would have scoffed at, and then sit back and watch the fun.
              The most trigger-happy maniacs seem to wind up in SWAT Teams-
              There was no tactical team involved. The officer who fired the fatal shot was a patrol officer. Ill-informed people leaping to conclusions based on bias and ignorance is a very large part of the problem.

              Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
              Watch this video. It shows an unarmed man in a motel hallway crawling on his knees as ordered, sobbing and pleading for his life. Slightly drunk, he tries his best to keep up with the cop's Simon Says game. But not well enough. The cop killed him anyway. At his trial he said he feared for his life . He was acquitted. He said he'd do it again the same way. There's no reason to doubt him.
              And again, ignorance. Sure, after the fact you know he's unarmed, but the officer at the time did not know that. This is not Hollywood, and there's no script.

              Only an idiot would think police commands are a game. They are based upon bitter experience. Subjects lie, they acted sacred, and they pull weapons and try to kill police officers.

              Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
              Officer safety is not the highest mandate,
              It is the highest mandate. Unless a third party involved, it is the only mandate.

              Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
              nor does it justify killing the innocent for the merest twitch.
              If he'd murdered an illegal alien like this, or anyone other than a white guy, they'd burn Mesa Arizona to the ground. Even so, for this event and others like it, where the presumption of guilt is equated with expendability, there are always unknowable consequences.
              Since your beef-free diet has impacted your education, I will help you stop looking so silly:

              In the USA your are innocent until proven guiltily in a court of law. The officer was cleared, so he is by every definition innocence, and there was no murder.

              Secondly the police have shot several illegals in the last few weeks without any cities burning. You need to lose that white fear of brown people.

              Thirdly, the Bill of Rights ensures the right to life. It doesn't just criminals, it says everyone.

              Fourth and last, in the USA the use of force by anyone must be judged on the basis of the event as perceived by the user of the force at the time the force was used. So the deceased actually being unarmed does not factor.

              All this had been explained to you many time. Many times I have suggested that you reach down and find the courage to do this job, and as usual yoiu can't measure up.
              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by jeffdoorgunnr View Post
                I saw this also. Could someone explain to me in this age of uber modern technology....Tracing phone calls, finding phone records, Being able to find internet addresses..........Why in the f*ck something this serious with lives at stake and the history of Swat teams going all wrong.........they could not take the time to actually see the phone call came from California and he is claiming he is in Kansas????
                Many cell phones do not display caller's location on 911 terminals.

                Secondly, if the phone is owned by a person who lives in California, it will often show that information, which does not mean that he is not in Kansas killing people.

                Thirdly, patrol officer shot him.

                Fourth, the shooting did not 'go wrong'. The officer fired based upon the subject's actions. He must, and will, be judged solely upon his perceptions at the time he pulled the trigger, just as you would be if you shot an intruder breaking into your home.

                When you have a hostage situation with one person dead, every second counts. These happen every week if not every day in the USA. There is only one very imperfect response available under the law and rules of finite resources.
                Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 82redleg View Post
                  The police that fell for the "prank" ought to hang for killing a civilian without provocation.
                  Stupid. They shot him because of what he did.

                  Originally posted by 82redleg View Post
                  Somehow, we've come to the point where police in the US have looser ROE than we have for soldiers down range. Pure idiocy.
                  Comparing the military to the police is pure idiocy. Soldiers are expendable; police are not.
                  Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    If the caller had some idea how to spoof his phone number (like many telemarketers do now) or he was using POI (Phone Over Internet) protocol to put his dialing location as local to Kansas the 911 operator might well have thought the call originated at the address the police responded to.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 82redleg View Post
                      The police that fell for the "prank" ought to hang for killing a civilian without provocation.
                      "Without provocation".

                      Somehow, we've come to the point where police in the US have looser ROE than we have for soldiers down range. Pure idiocy.
                      /facepalm

                      Once again, cops are human beings and have the right to take action to preserve their own lives as well.
                      The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I would like to point out that you now can take your phone number with you anywhere you go so that telephone area codes and prefixes no longer makes sense as they once did.

                        You can also disguise your phone number. A trend with telemarketers or scammers is to disguise their incoming call to you with your own area code and prefix to make you think it must be someone you know.
                        Flag: USA / Location: West Coast

                        Prayers.

                        BoRG

                        http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtsX_Z3CMU

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          A violent society leads to violent responses by the government.

                          The proposition being proposed suggests that we have the choice between dead cops and dead civilians. That is a logical conclusion that anyone who has contemplated the issue could reach. It doesn't matter so much if it is supported by the facts on the ground in any particular case. What is important is the fact that the police are by popular demand expected to take immediate action when a potentially violent individual is identified.
                          We hunt the hunters

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                            A violent society leads to violent responses by the government.

                            The proposition being proposed suggests that we have the choice between dead cops and dead civilians. That is a logical conclusion that anyone who has contemplated the issue could reach. It doesn't matter so much if it is supported by the facts on the ground in any particular case. What is important is the fact that the police are by popular demand expected to take immediate action when a potentially violent individual is identified.
                            In this sort of situation (subject with hostages) the response is CCR:

                            C: Contain. Make sure the shooter cannot exit and wreak havoc elsewhere, and extract civilians from structures within the line of fire.

                            C: Communicate. In the old days we would cut the land line and use a throw phone; these days we cannot isolate the shooter as easily. But in any case get a hostage negotiator talking with the actor.

                            R: Resolve. Get the surviving hostages out alive. The best way is to talk the shooter into letting them go. Next best is luring the shooter into view and dropping him. The worst option is to storm the structure and resolve the matter by brute force. The latter is only used when there is no other possible option, general when you heard a shot or shots from inside the house, or the shooter breaks commo after advising that he is going to kill the hostages.

                            The last one I did took six hours of stand-off, and ended with two officers wounded, one injured, and the hostage-taker and one hostage dead.

                            The decision process is agonizing; does whoever's talking to the shooter think they are making progress? Is he really making progress? Was that a shot? The tactical team is cooking in their gear (in summer) or freezing (in winter). Are we sure this floor plan is accurate? Where are the hostages in the house? If we go, do we go with gas or flash-bangs? If we use bangs, pole or toss?

                            On and on and on, for hours. Then if you have to go in the team comes out like a clown car, someone always loses their helmet, some piece of equipment fails, and someone gets hurt.

                            Then days of after-action reports and reviews as brass who weren't there want to know why X, Y, or Z wasn't done, tried, or implemented, and assh*les from outside come around saying if we had purchased the training in their magic (but untested) five-point plan it would have worked out without a single hitch. The Fire Chief blames the EMTs for slow extraction the wounded, the EMTS point out they are civilian contractors who aren't going in until the scene is secure, and the Chief of Police blames the Fire Department for refusing to move without body armor, and for a year nobody is on speaking terms.
                            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              That is pretty much the common sense view Arnold. The public losses their common sense whenever they hear the word police. It doesn't take much imagination to see that BLM is only an exaggeration of the way the rest of society sees the police.

                              Police of course only get the worst of the public's disdain for their government because they are the face of the government that the public actually interacts with. I have worked for a government agency that dealt with infrastructure and the same mental process of unreasonable demands for service appears universal. You can't have good government unless you have a reasonable population.

                              Here is my question. We all know that the reason that the police are ineffective is lack of public cooperation. At the same time any competent lawyer will advise you to never talk to the police?
                              We hunt the hunters

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X