Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Teneb]

I highly doubt anything will stick to the intended target of the swatting.

The cop who shot has some blame too, since he or she gunned down a completely unarmed, confused man.

[Dunamisdeos]

I'm not sure I blame the officer. A person went into extreme detail on the call with them, which was active at the time of the shot. The person calling them carefully constructed a situation where there was a violently insane man inside the house who had already murdered someone and was willing to kill again.

Then a person matching that guy;s description comes out of the house with no warning and ignores instructions makes motions towards his belt?

I think that the guy making the call made a specific attempt to create this exact situation.

[smjjames]

Yeah, commissioning the swatting isn't much different from commissioning a hitman in my opinion.

[Loud Whispers]

Goddamn, I forgot that- the guy who called the SWAT team was not a participant to the argument in the first place. That's a plausible argument for first degree murder right there, folks. Still, I'd shoot for second just to be safe.

There are four key actors to this:
1. The intended target of the swatting (miruhcle), who when threatened with COD teammate (Baperizer) over a lost $1.50 bet, gave a fake address that matched with the victim (news are suggesting by accident, but it's all speculation). This address belonged to Mr. Finch.
2. Cod teammate Baperizer then paid SWAuTistic to swat the intended target using the address of the victim.
3. SWAuTistic then began calling the police detailing how he shot his father in the head and was now holding his mother and brother hostage. This call detailed how he was pouring gasoline on the floor and getting ready to light it with a match, giving them the address of Mr. Finch.
4. The police freak the fuck out and send their dudes at once. What happens next is disputed, as police say they knocked on the door, Mrs. Finch says they did not, but what is certain is that when Mr. Finch opened the door, he was shot once by one of the police officers. This police officer says he fired because he saw the dude reach for his waistband and did not put his hands up, thereafter they took Mrs. Finch, her roommate and her granddaughter out of the house barefoot, (with all of them having witnessed the shooting), having all of them (including the granddaughter) step over their dead husband/grandfather, out in the cold where all of them were handcuffed. No guns were found in the home, and the hostage situation was a complete fabrication.

miruhcle I hope at least gets manslaughter, because he gave a real address (whether knowingly or accidentally) to someone malicious, goading them into launching an attack. The police officer shot Mr. Finch, SWAuTistic called the police, but Baperizer hired SWAuTistic.

Yeah, commissioning the swatting isn't much different from commissioning a hitman in my opinion.

Thus using this logic, it should be clear that Baperizer was the prime moron for embarking on this petty course of revenge, with SWAuTistic being the proverbial hitman. Where the police conduct factors in is another thing, because it could be justifiable to chalk it up to the confusion, nerves and nighttime raid causing a tragedy, but the subsequent detaining of what they believed were hostages...? What? The police story is just odd.

[scriver]

Yeah, the way I see it, the guy giving the game adress is at least guilty of "causing somebody's death", whatever that translates to juridically.

Also about whether this is the first time this has happened... I swear we have had this discussion before at some other point in time when something similar happened.

[Loud Whispers]

Yeah, the way I see it, the guy giving the game adress is at least guilty of "causing somebody's death", whatever that translates to juridically.
Also about whether this is the first time this has happened... I swear we have had this discussion before at some other point in time when something similar happened.

People have been physically wounded, and one even shot with a rubber bullet, but this is the first death I've heard of

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The SWATER is a murder and the cop is, of course, also a murderer. Hopefully we'll at least get one out of two dentists to recommend justice.

We live in a society where the police are so divested of responsibility they can be used as a semi-reliable assassination tool. Simultaneously given the status of flawless supermen and objects without wills of their own. My usual humor style doesn't work here, there's no hyperbole to reach for.

[EnigmaticHat]

I primarily blame the police.  You don't get to just call a SWAT team on someone for shiggles; I'd bet money at least half the assholes who've done this in the past constructed similarly scary scenarios.  Are we really going to be especially mad at the one guy who tossed a rock off a bridge, just because this time there happened to be someone under it?

If the SWAT want to tell me that an unarmed, unprepared man somehow freaked them out so much they shot him, they can show bodycam footage.  This is the same type of officer that routinely goes around shooting lapdogs who bark at them.  Far as I'm concerned, out of ordinary police, SWAT, and the army, SWAT are the least restrained out of all them.  Yet given the most intense policing responsibilities.  That's my takeaway here.  I already knew FPS players were toxic.  And that online gamers feed off of each other's awfulness.

The crime you guys are looking for is reckless endangerment.  They made decisions that directly caused a risk of physical harm to another.  They can't be charged with killing any level, because they didn't shoot the guy.  And an accidental killing by police isn't a crime*, so they can't be conspirators nor can they be accessories.  They didn't mind control that SWAT team, and between what's one step away from a counter-terrorist unit in most places and a couple of teenaged punks, I'm going to say the guys with the rifles are the adults in the room.

I mean think of it like this: its possible for a person to give a 911 call that sounds very bad, and be completely honest, then be wrong.  Old people hear things, sometimes people make idle threats or accidentally discharge guns in their own homes.  Hell, what if there had actually been a crazy person and the SWAT team busted down the wrong door?  The point is that this shit is always going to happen, and its the cops' job to restrain themselves.  Not ours.

Which like I realize I've written a wall of text defending these assholes and that wasn't my intent.  I just, this is America and I have strong feelings about this.  I lived in a neighborhood with a lot of Mexican residents once, and my roommate told me not to call the cops on a noise complaint because sometimes people get shot on noise complaints.  Swatting should be made its own crime with a larger penalty to discourage this trend, absolutely, but let's not kid ourselves on who's the killer here.

*although in a perfect good decent world it would be some kind of meaningful disciplinary action.

[Rolan7]

The SWATER is a murder and the cop is, of course, also a murderer. Hopefully we'll at least get one out of two dentists to recommend justice.

We live in a society where the police are so divested of responsibility they can be used as a semi-reliable assassination tool. Simultaneously given the status of flawless supermen and objects without wills of their own. My usual humor style doesn't work here, there's no hyperbole to reach for.

"Semi-reliable"
as in this is the first time it's ever worked that way

[Criptfeind]

Are we really going to be especially mad at the one guy who tossed a rock off a bridge, just because this time there happened to be someone under it?

Blame on police aside, I think not only should the answer to this be yes, but it actually is yes. That's just how justice works, intent is important but outcome can't be ignored. Like, a lot of drunk drivers never hit anyone and get away with it, but we still prosecute the ones that get caught.

As for Reckless endangerment: I have no idea about the legality of anything, but since it actually resulted in death, wouldn't it be... Well, Involuntary Manslaughter at the least? I'd think that Reckless endangerment would be an appropriate charge for swatting that doesn't end in a corpse.

[McTraveller]

If I was a prosecutor I'd try to find whatever the term is for someone who hires a hit, because that's effectively what this is. I'm pretty sure it's a murder charge, but I'm 100% sure I'm just making it up.

[hector13]

If I was a prosecutor I'd try to find whatever the term is for someone who hires a hit, because that's effectively what this is. I'm pretty sure it's a murder charge, but I'm 100% sure I'm just making it up.

I'm reasonably sure that's still first-degree murder. You intend to kill the person, you're just paying someone else to do it.

That's not what happened here, though.

[smjjames]

While I get enigmatichat's point about people making honest mistakes, it's all about the intent here. Sure, people do dumb things, but if you're 'swatting' someone, you aren't unintentionally doing it, you're doing it in a way that is intentional.

Also, I'm surprised there wasn't some sort of crackdown on the practice since it was mentioned that it happens as many as 400 times a year, that's a lot of people doing it even if they're a tiny minority of the entire gaming community.

Pretty sure the rock example was prosecuted (successfully) as second-degree murder, at least in the cases where they were deliberately hitting cars.

rock example? But yeah, it's still murder even if you order someone to do it.

If I was a prosecutor I'd try to find whatever the term is for someone who hires a hit, because that's effectively what this is. I'm pretty sure it's a murder charge, but I'm 100% sure I'm just making it up.

I'm reasonably sure that's still first-degree murder. You intend to kill the person, you're just paying someone else to do it.

That's not what happened here, though.

I'd guess the prosecutors would go by what the intent was, did the person who ordered it want the other player killed or did they just want to scare the shit out of them.

[SalmonGod]

Simultaneously given the status of flawless supermen and objects without wills of their own.

This is a powerful way of stating it, though.  Kudos.

"Police bravely face dangerous criminals for you every day so you can live in a safer world, you ingrateful prick!"  vs  "They're just following their training, and want to make it home at the end of the day.  It's not the officer who's wrong, it's their training."

My initial reaction was that I only hope the family gets a chance to spit in the faces of the gamers who requested/made the swatting calls.  Everyone knows I'm quite anti-police, but was going to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.  But EH's post turned me around.  It's true.  They should be the adults in the room. 

If a kid makes up a story that results in a parent recklessly hurting someone, is it the kid who's responsible, or the parent?  The parent is the one we'd expect to have a critical mind about things and be equipped to deal with a situation responsibly.  I have two kids and the older one's diabetic.  Imagine the younger one tells his mom that his brother didn't take his insulin after eating, when in fact he did.  Mom charges into the room and sticks a needle in him, without asking any questions or giving him any opportunity to speak.  My older son goes into hypoglycemic shock and dies.  I'd be pissed at both, but I'd blame my wife.

Yet we live in a world where people expect that telling law enforcement a bogus story has a good chance of being an effective way to hurt a target.  Even if nobody dies, it's likely to result at minimum in some bruises and a broken door.

At a glance, it looks like police in California are starting to gain access to surveillance drones.  I wonder if this team had access.  An actual legitimate and responsible use of surveillance technology could have defused the situation effortlessly.  If that or any other tool to look into the situation before charging in was available, then the blame for the outcome is very much on them.

[smjjames]

At a glance, it looks like police in California are starting to gain access to surveillance drones.  I wonder if this team had access.  An actual legitimate and responsible use of surveillance technology could have defused the situation effortlessly.  If that or any other tool to look into the situation before charging in was available, then the blame for the outcome is very much on them.

It's possible something like that could have helped defuse the situation, but it's going to remain a what-if since it wasn't used.