Internet Attacks? Why?
-
@ortallus said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
@thatguythere said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
@ortallus said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
What should the officers have done differently? You still haven't answered that, and until you can, your arguments hold no sway over me.
How about the same thing I would expect any professional to do in any situation, determine what is actually happening before taking action.
This is doubly so when oyur action have a high probability of being uncorrectable.That wasn't an option, excepting perhaps that the officer who took the shot did react too quickly.
How is it that you're so 100% certain that there were no other options?
@ortallus said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
@roz said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
@ortallus said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
@zombiegenesis said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
@apu Oh man, that's a brilliant idea. My wife and I only stream occasionally but I think we'll still do that. Honestly, I'm more afraid of getting swatted and one of my dogs being shot than anything else. I'd be devastated if that happens.
Pretty sure that happened a couple times, didn't it?
He meant to his own dogs.
I know. What I'm saying is I'm pretty sure people have been swatted and their dogs were killed because of it.
Yeah, that's probably why he's worried about it happening to his own dogs.
-
Yeah, I read articles all the time about cops shooting dogs for "reasons". Swatting or not it happens too often, IMO, and I live in fear of it happening to any one of my dogs.
-
@roz said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
How is it that you're so 100% certain that there were no other options?
100%? No. I admit I have no way of being 100% positive there were no other options. I have to go on faith that the officers involved were doing their best to follow protocol, however, and that, as the articles read, police were still in the process of setting up and doing exactly the things that he's suggesting that they should have done, when the guy came to the door. Which eliminated the possibility of doing those things before the situation was reached.
Yeah, that's probably why he's worried about it happening to his own dogs.
Right. I was agreeing with him and supporting his belief that it was a real and present danger.
-
@ortallus
It should always be an option, we live in a time when I can get a good look at the situation of a house I have not lived in for 20 plus years because I remember the address.
Now I fully agree that the the caller should be prosecuted, the officer should definitely face a disciplinary hearing though not necessarily criminal prosecution, and the person who supplied the caller with the info to enable the call should also face prosecution. -
@thatguythere said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
@ortallus
It should always be an option, we live in a time when I can get a good look at the situation of a house I have not lived in for 20 plus years because I remember the address.
Now I fully agree that the the caller should be prosecuted, the officer should definitely face a disciplinary hearing though not necessarily criminal prosecution, and the person who supplied the caller with the info to enable the call should also face prosecution.I'm not entirely convinced on that last part. At least not major prosecution, unless it can be proved that he knew and intended harm on the person living at the address. For all he knew it could have been a made up/non-existent location.
Disciplinary hearing is fine. Investigation is fine. But people are out for that officer's blood without giving him any benefit of the doubt what-so-ever.
I think there are a lot more serious police shooting incidents every year, and people defend the cops. I normally don't. In this one? I'm unconvinced criminal charges or law suits are in order. That doesn't mean I can't BE convinced.
-
@ortallus
Going by what I heard which I am not sure are the full facts the caller was not actually the person who was playing against the person they attempted to swat, but was given the info by someone who was and made the call.
I would say giving the info for the purpose of having the swat take place would be worth prosecuting. If someone drives the car of a bank robbery but never goes inside or even has a weapon they can get popped for murder if the robbers inside shot someone. I would have the guy starting this chain face the same charge as the caller. You don't need intent to be guilty, there is depraved indifference which to me starting a swat in motion counts as.
I do have some empathy for the officer he messed up trying to do his job and I have seen nothing to lead me to believe he had malicious intent so I would leave him to a civil or procedural solution rather than a criminal one. -
@thatguythere Sounds like an Accessory charge to me.
-
@ortallus He didn't even need to know it was a real address, in my book. He pulled a 'come fight me, I'm here'. He literally invited violence to a location, and... yeah, not knowing what it would lead to isn't much of a defense, in my book.
-
@thatguythere said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
@ortallus
Going by what I heard which I am not sure are the full facts the caller was not actually the person who was playing against the person they attempted to swat, but was given the info by someone who was and made the call.
I would say giving the info for the purpose of having the swat take place would be worth prosecuting. If someone drives the car of a bank robbery but never goes inside or even has a weapon they can get popped for murder if the robbers inside shot someone. I would have the guy starting this chain face the same charge as the caller. You don't need intent to be guilty, there is depraved indifference which to me starting a swat in motion counts as.
I do have some empathy for the officer he messed up trying to do his job and I have seen nothing to lead me to believe he had malicious intent so I would leave him to a civil or procedural solution rather than a criminal one.So, my understanding:
Angry and other were fighting. Other gives address. Angry calls swat.
I've seen nothing to suggest other knew that Angry was going to swat him. Maybe Angry was saying he was going to come to his ass and beat him up, or send his cousin to do so, or something.
So that's what I meant when I said, "Unless evidence is shown that he knew and intended harm on the person at the address he gave...."
-
@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
@ortallus He didn't even need to know it was a real address, in my book. He pulled a 'come fight me, I'm here'. He literally invited violence to a location, and... yeah, not knowing what it would lead to isn't much of a defense, in my book.
I suppose that's fair. The legitimate thing to do would be to say, "You're an idiot, why would I give you an address?"
-
@thatguythere said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
I would say giving the info for the purpose of having the swat take place would be worth prosecuting.
... as involuntary manslaughter, at least.
I would have the guy starting this chain face the same charge as the caller. You don't need intent to be guilty, there is depraved indifference which to me starting a swat in motion counts as.
Intent isn't the issue here, if you're going for involuntary manslaughter. Depraved heart murder is stretching it. And I don't think felony murder is going to work here.
Aim for involuntary manslaughter.
I do have some empathy for the officer he messed up trying to do his job and I have seen nothing to lead me to believe he had malicious intent so I would leave him to a civil or procedural solution rather than a criminal one.
He and his department are definitely facing a civil lawsuit. That's a given.
@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
He didn't even need to know it was a real address, in my book. He pulled a 'come fight me, I'm here'. He literally invited violence to a location, and... yeah, not knowing what it would lead to isn't much of a defense, in my book.
Defense against what? The decedent doesn't need to put on a defense.
Calling the swat was intentional. That's all you need to show. If you put a bear trap in your background to catch a burglar and it ends up severing the leg of and killing a mailman, that can still be sufficient grounds for an involuntary manslaughter charge.
(Edit: re-reading your post, I think I mis-read it. Sorry. Agreeing with you, basically.)
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@ganymede The topic at hand is whether the person who the caller thought he was sending swat against, not the person he did call swat against, should face charges.
-
@ganymede said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
He didn't even need to know it was a real address, in my book. He pulled a 'come fight me, I'm here'. He literally invited violence to a location, and... yeah, not knowing what it would lead to isn't much of a defense, in my book.
Defense against what? The decedent doesn't need to put on a defense.
Calling the swat was intentional. That's all you need to show. If you put a bear trap in your background to catch a burglar and it ends up severing the leg of and killing a mailman, that can still be sufficient grounds for an involuntary manslaughter charge.
Not talking about the person who was shot.
An initial party pulled a 'come fight me bro, I'm at this location' -- and gave an address not his own. That person is one of the people I am saying should face a charge, despite not being the one who asked someone to SWAT that address.
Oh fucking well.
-
@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
An initial party pulled a 'come fight me bro, I'm at this location' -- and gave an address not his own. That person is one of the people I am saying should face a charge, despite not being the one who asked someone to SWAT that address.
Ah, I see. My mistake.
Yeah, no.
The facts don't show that Party A knew, should have known, or had any reason to know, that Party B would have Swatted Party C at the provided address. That's stretching it. Party B attempted to Swat Party A, and should be indicted for it, even though Party C was the ultimate victim.
I mean, unless Party A said something like: bro, I totally double-dog dare you to Swat me at this address. And I don't see that being the case here.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
A: "Come fight me bro, I'm at <not his address!>"
B: <contacts C> "Yo, SWAT this address! <provides address provided by A>"
<SWATs address>All three have a part of the responsibility here. A shouldn't be getting a pass.
Oh fucking well.
-
@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
A: "Come fight me bro, I'm at <not his address!>"
B: <contacts C> "Yo, SWAT this address! <provides address provided by A>"
<SWATs address>All three have a part of the responsibility here. A shouldn't be getting a pass.
The tiniest part? Perhaps. Criminal Mischief sort of minor part, though, not the accessory to involuntary manslaughter that people are calling for.
-
@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
All three have a part of the responsibility here. A shouldn't be getting a pass.
Why?
There's no evidence that A knew, should have known, or had reason to know that B would have called C to Swat Address. Even if there were some evidence, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A knew, should have known, or had reason to know that B would have called C to Swat Address.
I'm not seeing it in the actual facts, and have no reason to infer that.
Not even criminal mischief. Although "fighting words" can be the basis for a crime, the words, in this case, did not instigate a fight between B and A, or even B at Address.
I don't see it. Sorry.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@ganymede Inviting violence to someone else's address seems like it shouldn't be something that gets a pass, no matter what you expect to happen.
Oh fucking well.
-
@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
Inviting violence to someone else's address seems like it shouldn't be something that gets a pass, no matter what you expect to happen.
Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, an actor's expectations is the crux of his mens rea.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@ganymede I have no idea if that also applies in civil cases; 'suing the asshole into the ground for the remainder of his life' would be similarly appropriate.
'I didn't think he'd take me up on it' is seriously bullshit.
That instigating action should by no means be one that goes without serious consequences of some kind.
ETA: Actually... the very act of giving an address that isn't his would indicate that he understood there was a possibility someone could show up to deliver a beat-down.
Oh fucking well.
