Internet Attacks? Why?
-
@ortallus said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
@thenomain You want accountability for the death of an innocent bystander, then hold accountable those that are guilty.
My turn: Have you even read my posts? I'm accusing you of being too emotionally involved to make rational responses defending your position.
If you can't give any examples of what the police did wrong
They killed an innocent, unarmed bystander.
You can say that there should be an investigation, but holding someone accountable pre-supposes guilt.
Does it?
ac·count·a·ble
əˈkoun(t)əb(ə)l
adjective- (of a person, organization, or institution) required or expected to justify actions or decisions; responsible.
No, it pretty much doesn't.
-
This is a snippet from an article regarding the shooting in Kansas:
In this case, Wichita local Andrew Finch, whose family members say did not play video games and was a father of two young boys, answered his door only to face down a SWAT team-level response. Allegedly, one officer immediately fired upon Finch, who later died at a hospital. It’s unclear why Finch, who is said not to have had a weapon on him, was fired upon. The Wichita Eagle reports that the police department is investigating the issue, which occurred late Thursday night.
Here's another account from a Kansas news site:
On Thursday, Deputy Wichita Police Chief Troy Livingston said a substation received a call that there was a hostage situation in a house in the 1000 block of West McCormick — and that someone had been shot in the head.
“That was the information we were working off of,” he said, explaining that officers went to the house ready for a hostage situation and they “got into position.”
“A male came to the front door,” Livingston said Thursday night. “As he came to the front door, one of our officers discharged his weapon.”
Livingston didn’t say if the man had a weapon when he came to the door, or what caused the officer to shoot the man.
Here's something apparently from the NYPD negotiation handbook regarding hostage-takers:
Crisis Negotiation Skills #1. “Talk to Me”
The NYPD HNT’s motto, “Talk to Me,” emphasizes communication as an essential police negotiation technique for their crisis negotiators, and for good reason. Opening up avenues of communication to your counterpart signals that you are ready to listen, an integral first step to building rapport between negotiating counterparts by “build[ing] trust…as well as display[ing] empathy,” which can lead to further mutual gains at the bargaining table as the negotiation progresses beyond the initial stages.
Do you see the first step? Is it "shoot at the suspect when he's coming to the door"?
No.
People, like you, think it is okay to shoot at the suspect before ascertaining the situation. It is not. In a hostage situation, you don't point and shoot. You just don't. There is no evidence that Finch had a gun; there is no evidence there were any hostages; and there is no evidence that anyone bothered trying to reach the occupants of that house prior to shooting.
Having personally trained police officers as a prosecutor, I can tell you, right now, that what happened is not how police officers are trained to deal with active hostage situations. At least, not in places that actually put time and effort into training their law enforcement officers.
Think about it for just a second.
Did anyone try to call Finch in the house? No.
Did anyone try to ask for Finch to come out with his hands up? No.
Did anyone use any of a large number of devices to scan the interior of the house? No.
So, how could they have known he was armed? That he had any hostages? If you know anything about procedures in hostage situations, it is that a breach is the last thing anyone wants to do, so you should make all reasonable efforts to make contact with the hostage-taker. And when that fails, then a breach may be necessary.
-
@ortallus said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
@lithium I'm so sick of that phrasing, "going in guns blazing".
That's not what happened. At all. So stop saying it, please.
THE GUY CAME TO THE FUCKING DOOR WHILE THEY WERE STILL SETTING UP.
Why is that so difficult for you people to read or understand?
Who's putting words in who's mouth now?
You really need to tone it the fuck down.
-
Do you understand English? By your own fucking definition, you're asking them to "justify" their actions.
That supposes that their actions are wrong.
What should the officers have done differently? You still haven't answered that, and until you can, your arguments hold no sway over me.
Was an innocent, unarmed bystander killed?
Yes.
Is that because of any action taken by the police that was out of line, unjustified, or against policy?
Not as has been reported by any media that I've been exposed to.
The guilty party is the angry caller who created the situation and gave the police the false information. Period.
@lithium said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
@ortallus said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
@lithium I'm so sick of that phrasing, "going in guns blazing".
That's not what happened. At all. So stop saying it, please.
THE GUY CAME TO THE FUCKING DOOR WHILE THEY WERE STILL SETTING UP.
Why is that so difficult for you people to read or understand?
Who's putting words in who's mouth now?
You really need to tone it the fuck down.
How fucking stupid and arrogant to you have to be to think that posting a direct quote from one of your own posts is putting words into your mouth?
-
@ortallus said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
YOU STUPID ARROGANT FUCKING CUNT. THAT IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST. ITS NOT PUTTING WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH IF YOU FUCKING TYPED IT YOU SHITHEAD BITCH.
Bye bye now.
-
@lithium said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
@ortallus said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
Bye bye now.
Troll.
-
@ortallus By that logic, I'm fully justified for shooting someone in the face as he opens the door to his house because I got a phone call saying Dude X from down the street has kidnapped and is raping my wife. I don't think that defense would hold up.
-
@ortallus said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
Do you understand English? By your own fucking definition, you're asking them to "justify" their actions.
That supposes that their actions are wrong.
I am asked to justify my correct actions to put people at ease that they were the correct action.
What should the officers have done differently? You still haven't answered that, and until you can, your arguments hold no sway over me.
I don't care what you think. You care what I think. Why, I have no idea.
Is that because of any action taken by the police that was out of line, unjustified, or against policy?
Not as has been reported by any media that I've been exposed to.
So you are calling me names based on your limited experience?
Uhhuh.
So you're challenging me to do the police's jobs, when you are not qualified to do the same?
Uhhuh.
The word we're looking for here is "hypocrite".
The guilty party is the angry caller who created the situation and gave the police the false information. Period.
Presumes that there is only one guilty party. This is not evident by what little either of us know. You are putting someone in the clear with too little information, while I am asking for proof of responsibility.
YOU STUPID ARROGANT FUCKING CUNT. THAT IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM YOUR OWN GODDAMN POST. ITS NOT PUTTING WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH IF YOU FUCKING TYPED IT YOU SHITHEAD BITCH.
Um... @Ganymede? Someone?
-
@zombiegenesis said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
@ortallus By that logic, I'm fully justified for shooting someone in the face as he opens the door to his house because I got a phone call saying Dude X from down the street has kidnapped and is raping my wife. I don't think that defense would hold up.
The report that I read said that the guy had reached for his waist. Apparently, @Ganymede has shown other information.
But the fact remains, to the other arguments Ganymede made:
The police didn't have TIME to call the house. They didn't have TIME to establish eyes. They didn't have time for anything except showing up and preparing defenses measures. Then the guy, who they had to believe was armed and dangerous, and suicidal (Otherwise SWAT Wouldn't have shown up to begin with) came to the door.
Given Ganymede's facts, I can acknowledge some wrong doing. But I still think -primary blame- needs to be placed on the caller. 100%.
Should an in-depth investigation be held concerning the shooting itself? Absolutely.
But the caller should be charged with negligent homicide, at the very least.
-
@zombiegenesis There is no reasoning with certain individuals, who cannot even accept the definition of words, when presented with the /definition/ of the word.
Unfortunately it is all to common these days and is how we get certain 'political' individuals in power.
Back on track: There's a lot of statistics out there, as to why cops are killing people, but in the end I think it comes down to fear. Cops are scared too because they are getting killed also. It doesn't make it right by any stretch of the word, cops are supposed to be /better/ than the average person, that's what makes them capable of serving and protecting.
Not sure if it's something along the lines of public education, back in the day public education used to not be so bad in the United States, now... not so much. Maybe Police Academies are getting hit the same. Or there's a /lot/ more ex-military in the forces, cuz in the army shoot first during hostile situation makes a lot more sense?
I don't know.
-
@ortallus said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
The police didn't have TIME to call the house. They didn't have TIME to establish eyes. They didn't have time for anything except showing up and preparing defenses measures. Then the guy, who they had to believe was armed and dangerous, and suicidal (Otherwise SWAT Wouldn't have shown up to begin with) came to the door.
To be fair, this is possible. Then again, the first step, again, is to get the hostage-taker to talk to you. The police chief said the matter is being investigated, so I think we're just speculating, but I find it unlikely that the police had no time to make a call between the time dispatch received the call, and a plan was made to intervene. And I think it more likely than not that SWAT was called because there were hostages involved, although SWAT also gets called in cases of the armed, dangerous, and suicidal.
@lithium said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
Back on track: There's a lot of statistics out there, as to why cops are killing people, but in the end I think it comes down to fear. Cops are scared too because they are getting killed also. It doesn't make it right by any stretch of the word, cops are supposed to be /better/ than the average person, that's what makes them capable of serving and protecting.
I think part of it is fear. I think the fear comes from poor overall training. International statistics show that countries with similar gun laws as the United States and high levels of gun ownership also have different philosophies when it comes to training police officers and firearms users.
-
@ganymede said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
I think part of it is fear. I think the fear comes from poor overall training.
This, I agree with, 100%, as well. Poor training really is at the heart of things.
-
And this is why police in more than a small handful of cities have requested that streamers come and 'register' with them, letting them know that they do stream and might someday be targeted by someone who might try to instigate a swatting. It turns a potentially scary and/or deadly situation into one where the police know about you and instead of sending SWAT out they'll send a patrol car instead and they'll come and check things out.
"Just leave me alone. I'm not myself. I'm falling apart, and I don't want you here." - ― Daniel Keyes, Flowers for Algernon
-
@apu I actually like that idea, and I know there's a lot of people who think 'Big Brother' is going to take over, but registries are not always a bad thing. They can be used to protect people as well, but just like any list, it's all in how it's used and by whom.
-
@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.
-
@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 your action have a high probability of being uncorrectable. -
@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?
-
@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.
-
@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. But given the situation he saw, and believed he was in, I can't entirely blame him, and I maintain that the fault for that situation rests solely on the fault of the caller.
-
@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.
