@ortallus Re: closed registries: I wouldn't go for closed.
The kind of forced community notifications a person is moving into the area like the sex offender registry? No.
But a public national listing and something that would 100% always appear on a background check? Yes.
What they're doing has life-long consequences for their victim. It should for them, too.
@surreality Fair, I can get behind that.
Just remember though, people who can't get jobs because of a criminal history have criminal futures.
@ortallus There are jobs around, and specific programs to incentivize hiring people are other things in Sur's Ideal Way Things Should Be.
But then, I also remember one of the video stores where I worked, where we were required to have the local sex offenders posted on the wall of the back office so they employees would be aware.
I also remember the day the man featured on one of them as a repeat offender, and rapist of girls ages 3-8, came in to rent a pile of Disney Princess movies.
@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
@ortallus There are jobs around, and specific programs to incentivize hiring people are other things in Sur's Ideal Way Things Should Be.
But then, I also remember one of the video stores where I worked, where we were required to have the local sex offenders posted on the wall of the back office so they employees would be aware.
I also remember the day the man featured on one of them as a repeat offender, and rapist of girls ages 3-8, came in to rent a pile of Disney Princess movies.
Oh, I'm definitely not saying they don't serve a purpose. They're just a double edged sword.
I knew a guy during that 2 week stint I did who (or so he claimed) met a 17 year old in a bar. In. A. Bar. He was barely 21 himself. He went home with her, her parents found them, he landed on the sex offender registry for statutory rape. FOR LIFE.
@ortallus Yeah, and there are stories about that that are definitely unfair and unrealistic. If the information is present regarding the offense (and it tends to be in the notifications), people tend to be considerably more lenient, too, because common sense is still relevant.
@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
@ortallus Yeah, and there are stories about that that are definitely unfair and unrealistic. If the information is present regarding the offense (and it tends to be in the notifications), people tend to be considerably more lenient, too, because common sense is still relevant.
Yes and no. Same offense: I was arrested, but charges dropped, for a fist fight with my brother.
The actual charge? "domestic assault". My face was printed in one of those "Busted" magazines. Front page. I got a loooot of angry calls.
Though, granted, that only lists the charge and your mug shot, and doesn't have the details. But a lot of people don't care about finding the details. They see a face and a charge, and get the pitchforks.
Anyway, we've digressed quite a ways off topic. Sorry @Lithium
I am a parent of 3 teens who are very involved in online gaming, and who are obnoxious in the way teens are--as a result there's a group of about 20ish high schoolers that I have at my house or who roam around freely between several houses that I'm very familiar with, and I've known most of these kids since they were in jr high if not before that.
There are varying levels of parental supervision involved--but none of these guys would want to make the police show up at someone's door for "fun". Again, that's just a very specific subset of kids who frankly probably have more than just overinvestment in a game going on. Have they heard of it yes. I've overheard them talking about it in a "wow, what a sick fucker" sort of way.
Have I had to have conversations with them when I felt the trashtalking was getting out of hand or veering into insults that I wasn't sure they even knew what it meant? Yes. (And most of the time they had no idea). Have we had to have discussions about some of the memes that they repeat, and what they mean? Yeah. Young teens often do not have the background/life experience to realize some of the more subtle racism or misogyny that's there--and that people will judge them for, being rightly upset.
But doing something that is a no brainer for causing harm--like sending a group of armed people to the door of someone you only know through a game....that's not something, again, that most people even teens are going to do.
Get themselves killed by doing stupid shit like street surfing/diving headfirst into shallow water/other reckless stunts to themselves behavior? Yes. Kill people by inattentive driving? Yes.
Spending time sending a SWAT team to someone's door? That's beyond impulsivity there. I think the reason why it isn't cracked down on more is not that people think kids are just being kids, but because trying to deal with that sort of thing that crosses international or state borders is super complicated and many local agencies don't even know how to cope/where to start.
@mietze said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
Spending time sending a SWAT team to someone's door? That's beyond impulsivity there. I think the reason why it isn't cracked down on more is not that people think kids are just being kids, but because trying to deal with that sort of thing that crosses international or state borders is super complicated and many local agencies don't even know how to cope/where to start.
Which is why it needs to be a federal crime, investigated and dealt with by the FBI. Easy peasy.
Humorous post, though. 
@ortallus Welcome to MSB, where no topic stays on topic forever. It will derail and either get back on track, or stay derailed, either way gotten good discussion out of the topic.
In many juvenile cases, the delinquent's parents are responsible for restitution to the victims. A finding of delinquency also does not affect the estate or family of the decedent to pursue the parents, if they can show some serious dereliction of duty.
It's happened.
My issue? The police. Not the caller, the police. Everyone's looking to the caller in the other case, but no one's talking about how the police apparently did very little to confirm that a crime was taking place.
The purpose of the police is to serve and protect. Neither of those interests are being met where the police do not, from the start, investigate the scene and figure out what's actually happening.
“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 Due to your profession you're likely better informed than I am, but it always seems that we're only seeing the worst of what the police have to offer - the incidents in which someone gets hurt - which can obfuscate the majority of cases where things are properly investigated and handled by officers who aren't trigger happy, racist or just morons.
What I do blame the cops for is protecting their own when they're in the wrong. That's my real beef there... instead of isolating and making damn sure their own buddies who're breaking the law get treated to its full extent, there are persistent allegations they are instead doing everything they can to keep them out of trouble.
That's a goddamn no-no.
I didn’t mention that I hope like hell that the police get their pants sued off for shooting an entirely innocent kid, because I was trying to keep it to the original topic, but as we are here I hope that the police get their their pants sued off for shooting and killing an entirely innocent kid. I hope the policeman who did the shooting gets demoted at least.
As for why nobody is saying this is probably because most of us don’t know what the police are allowed to and supposed to do. The police up until very recent years have been very good at dodging responsibility for shootings all across America, and if you can’t trust the cops and lawyers and lawmakers, then who can you trust?
Swatting is not even being done by just kids--there was this case where a /British/ guy from overseas got a man swatted and shot by police in Kansas: https://tinyurl.com/kty6wof
And it's not just kids doing this, I don't think--they did it to Calebhart42 on twitch and he's not even that popular, by Twitch standards--he's just some dude who speedruns megaman x and final fantasy. What I think this is like tombstone mentality where nothing got done about it till people started dying. And lets face it, not to say anything bad about police, but you're going to eventually run into that one cop with the itchy trigger finger, like that one in Arizona: https://tinyurl.com/y7u4bc52 (that was the guy who had 'you're fucked' written on the side of his AR-15, which cops carry in AZ because I dunno, the south.)
We basically live in an age where people can reach right out over the internet to kill you. Probably good incentive to not put your personal details online.
@ganymede said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
My issue? The police. Not the caller, the police. Everyone's looking to the caller in the other case, but no one's talking about how the police apparently did very little to confirm that a crime was taking place.
The purpose of the police is to serve and protect. Neither of those interests are being met where the police do not, from the start, investigate the scene and figure out what's actually happening.
Okay, I've heard this argument before, and I'm sorry, but I think it's rubbish. If you'd read the articles as I had, maybe you'd agree, but maybe not. Here is what my perception of the story is:
Kid gets angry at other kid over online game. Angry yells at other, threatens other. Other blusters. Angry blusters. Other says, "Sure, come to my house then, here's my address". It's not his address, but the shooting victim's.
Angry calls the police and says, "I have shot one person. I have a gun held on two more people. I want to die."
First question: What do you think police procedure should be in this incident? Because as it stands, YOU HAVE TO TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY. Whether you have any sort of visual confirmation of a hostage or not, you err on the side of believing it's true, because if you dismiss it, someone definitely dies.Maybe multiple someones. Maybe multiple someones, and some cops.
Regardless of the above paragraph, people think that the victim was shot during a breach. This is inaccurate.
Police were just arriving outside the house of the victim and setting up. In large numbers. So victim comes to his door (speculation:) wondering what's going on? Why are there so many cops around?
(fact) Police shooter has already aimed his weapon at door (speculation:) entirely unbeknownst to victim. (fact:) Victim opens the door, and (claimed by cops:) at some point reaches for his waist. Who knows why this is? Maybe his pants were falling down. Maybe he had an itch. However, the officers, believing that they were at the home of a crazy man with a gun, took action.
So, please, explain to me where the cops were out of line? Should they have waited until they had visual on a gun? Maybe. But by then would it have been too late to stop the guy from shooting someone? The information they had, given to them by the caller, was that he was ready to die.
I'm very much against police brutality, and think a higher standard of police accountability for shootings is necessary. From what I've read, however, the police acted in the best manner they could in a shitty situation.
Now, why were they in the situation to begin with? Because of the caller.
So why the fuck would you blame the police, over the caller???????? The SWAT callers know what they're doing when they call to create a situation that the police MUST respond to. That's kind of the whole point, and why swatting works.
So, if you're so sure the police were in the wrong, what should they have done differently?
Would love to hear from @Thenomain on this too.
@duckula said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
We basically live in an age where people can reach right out over the internet to kill you. Probably good incentive to not put your personal details online.
And this, @Lithium, is why this topic came up on that other thread, because @Arkandel was saying that geography grants you safety.
Safety? Yes. Immunity? Not by a long shot.
@ortallus said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
So why the fuck would you blame the police, over the caller?
I would not.
Both are to blame.
The caller for filing false claims to the police.
The police are wrong for shooting an unarmed man.
Both must be held accountable.
What "accountable" is doesn't have to be the same. I am happy to let the courts decide what action deserves what punishment; this is a lot of their job. I believe both require punishment, and strongly believe both should be done so publicly, in the brightest light possible, to maintain or re-gain public trust.
@thenomain Okay, but did you read THE WHOLE post?
I'd like to see what you think should have been done different given the actual information and situation they had, as I described it.
@ortallus said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
@thenomain Okay, but did you read THE WHOLE post?
Yes. I am slightly insulted that you feel this statement constitutes an argument.
I'd like to see what you think should have been done different given the actual information and situation they had, as I described it.
I am not a policeman. I am not a lawyer. I am not a judge. I am not a lawmaker. I am a citizen, and as a citizen I would like to see accountability for the death of an innocent bystander.
This is something I said, and I will say it one more time because you are taking it as a challenge that everyone should be able to come to the same conclusion as you have.
I even handed you the benefit of the doubt that the courts may say no harm no foul. I am not answering your question in any other manner, in part because I've already answered your question twice. I am not the judge. I am not the jury. I am not even the man on the scene, who I'm sure made a very tough decision but making tough decisions is part of his job. Everyone who has a job where they make tough decisions is held accountable for them. I don't see the death of an innocent to be any different.
@ortallus The police should still verify every fucking thing before the go in guns blazing. The police have tools to get eyes and ears on a situation and if there is a live fire situation should be /clearing/ innocents, like the neighbors, etc.
So I am in agreement with @Thenomain here that /everyone/ needs to be accountable. Cops are killing unarmed people for pulling up their fucking pants.
Are all cops bad? No. I don't think every cop is a racist killer. Some are, sure, cuz cops are people too.
As for why I created /this/ thread, is because the whole topic didn't belong on Elsa's thread. Doesn't matter why it came up or how 
@thenomain You want accountability for the death of an innocent bystander, then hold accountable those that are guilty. If you can't give any examples of what the police did wrong, then you have no basis to blame them for being guilty.
You can say that there should be an investigation, but holding someone accountable pre-supposes guilt.
@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?
@ortallus Re: closed registries: I wouldn't go for closed.
The kind of forced community notifications a person is moving into the area like the sex offender registry? No.
But a public national listing and something that would 100% always appear on a background check? Yes.
What they're doing has life-long consequences for their victim. It should for them, too.
