People who do this should be charged with attempted murder. The caller intentionally gives a scenario where LEO must act, calculated and intentional. The caller is using LEO as a weapon. Best case scenario is that occupants are held at gun point. Worst cast victims end up dead. Caller can't claim they don't know right from wrong. Or that they didn't intend for it to get that serious. It was their intent all along.
The problem with this reasoning is that for it to fly you must also accept that LEO are darn incompetent which equals LEO intervention = death or a killing.
LEO are suppose to be trained and ABLE to handle such situations so that innocents that have done no wrong don't end up dead. I do believe right now LEOs are not handling such cases adequately but then swatting is relatively new and LEOs tend to take awhile to learn how to handle new situation properly and find proper RoE. This is another bag of worms though.
Typically if someone calls the cops on me and they come to my door I shouldn't reasonably expect to be shot dead, not if LEOs are doing their jobs properly and take the "serve and protect" motto like they should be.
Let me ask you this: how would you react if you are a small town police department and you get a call from a smooth-talking, emotionless, clearly sociopathic individual claiming to have killed someone with the intention of killing women and/or children currently being held hostage? For bonus points, they claim to have spread gasoline around the house to set it on fire.
This was the exact situation in the fatal swatting incident a month ago. This is a high pressure incident with lives at stake and an unstable individual. The LEO doesn't have time to find out if the resident of that house has a goddamn Twitch channel.
The one and only person at fault for these instances is the caller. End of story.
Sorry, but stats on police killings around the world compared to American police killings doesn't support your narrative.
To further illustrate the point: in 2015, 59 police killings were reported in the first 24 days of the year here in America. England and Wales, at that point, had only 59 reports of police killings in the last 24 years.
How do the stats of police being killed stack up around the world? Here in the US in 2018 thru Feb 21st 12 have died by gunfire.
46 total died by gunfire in 2017, vs the police killing 987 the same year.
Proportionally the police came way out on the short end it seems, and it should be no surprise police here take a far more aggressive stance, they have much more to fear with our open gun laws.
Have to look at the big picture when comparing stats around the world, and considering America isn't all that far from a "Purge " movie scenario its surprising the figures aren't worse.
No doubt it's interconnected, but merely ignoring one egregious issue with our society does not mean we might as well ignore the other. That's the kind of thinking that ignored everything.
Gun control in the U.S. is a joke, and it shows. Police use of force in the U.S. is exaggerated because of it. Both are issues. And no amount of lax gun control laws warrants an officer firing upon a suspect after the suspect complied with orders and was face down, arms out.
Agreed and my bet is very few police shootings occur in that specfic manner.
They do not. However, that situation was so clearly under control by the officers prior to firing that it should never have happened. It wouldn't have happened had it been our military troops in a warzone. It's against rules of engagement to murder a surrendering combatant who complies with the soldier's orders and lays face down, hands spread. They're a prisoner of war at that point. That's exactly how they taught us to take control of a suspected combatant or a surrendering one (assuming they're complying with our orders). Telling them to "crawl towards me" was NEVER, EVER part of that process.
So this idea that we're such a violent society that it should warrant unnecessarily violent responses from law enforcement holds little water in my mind.
You might find this hard to believe, but I've met soldiers from 2 different wars who didn't always take prisoners if it wasn't convenient to do so.
Perhaps worse, I know a private contractor who is overseas now who says his firm often doesn't either.
War doesn't always follow the rulebook.
And none of that makes it right or okay. Nor does it affect my overall point: if the military in a warzone has obligation to treat a surrendering, CONFIRMED combatant in such a way, police have no real excuse for firing upon a FELLOW AMERICAN CITIZEN who is merely SUSPECTED of wrong-doing and is laying face down surrendering himself.
People who do this should be charged with attempted murder. The caller intentionally gives a scenario where LEO must act, calculated and intentional. The caller is using LEO as a weapon. Best case scenario is that occupants are held at gun point. Worst cast victims end up dead. Caller can't claim they don't know right from wrong. Or that they didn't intend for it to get that serious. It was their intent all along.
The problem with this reasoning is that for it to fly you must also accept that LEO are darn incompetent which equals LEO intervention = death or a killing.
LEO are suppose to be trained and ABLE to handle such situations so that innocents that have done no wrong don't end up dead. I do believe right now LEOs are not handling such cases adequately but then swatting is relatively new and LEOs tend to take awhile to learn how to handle new situation properly and find proper RoE. This is another bag of worms though.
Typically if someone calls the cops on me and they come to my door I shouldn't reasonably expect to be shot dead, not if LEOs are doing their jobs properly and take the "serve and protect" motto like they should be.
Let me ask you this: how would you react if you are a small town police department and you get a call from a smooth-talking, emotionless, clearly sociopathic individual claiming to have killed someone with the intention of killing women and/or children currently being held hostage? For bonus points, they claim to have spread gasoline around the house to set it on fire.
This was the exact situation in the fatal swatting incident a month ago. This is a high pressure incident with lives at stake and an unstable individual. The LEO doesn't have time to find out if the resident of that house has a goddamn Twitch channel.
The one and only person at fault for these instances is the caller. End of story.
Sorry, but stats on police killings around the world compared to American police killings doesn't support your narrative.
To further illustrate the point: in 2015, 59 police killings were reported in the first 24 days of the year here in America. England and Wales, at that point, had only 59 reports of police killings in the last 24 years.
How do the stats of police being killed stack up around the world? Here in the US in 2018 thru Feb 21st 12 have died by gunfire.
46 total died by gunfire in 2017, vs the police killing 987 the same year.
Proportionally the police came way out on the short end it seems, and it should be no surprise police here take a far more aggressive stance, they have much more to fear with our open gun laws.
Have to look at the big picture when comparing stats around the world, and considering America isn't all that far from a "Purge " movie scenario its surprising the figures aren't worse.
No doubt it's interconnected, but merely ignoring one egregious issue with our society does not mean we might as well ignore the other. That's the kind of thinking that ignored everything.
Gun control in the U.S. is a joke, and it shows. Police use of force in the U.S. is exaggerated because of it. Both are issues. And no amount of lax gun control laws warrants an officer firing upon a suspect after the suspect complied with orders and was face down, arms out.
Agreed and my bet is very few police shootings occur in that specfic manner.
They do not. However, that situation was so clearly under control by the officers prior to firing that it should never have happened. It wouldn't have happened had it been our military troops in a warzone. It's against rules of engagement to murder a surrendering combatant who complies with the soldier's orders and lays face down, hands spread. They're a prisoner of war at that point. That's exactly how they taught us to take control of a suspected combatant or a surrendering one (assuming they're complying with our orders). Telling them to "crawl towards me" was NEVER, EVER part of that process.
So this idea that we're such a violent society that it should warrant unnecessarily violent responses from law enforcement holds little water in my mind.
You might find this hard to believe, but I've met soldiers from 2 different wars who didn't always take prisoners if it wasn't convenient to do so.
Perhaps worse, I know a private contractor who is overseas now who says his firm often doesn't either.
War doesn't always follow the rulebook.
And none of that makes it right or okay. Nor does it affect my overall point: if the military in a warzone has obligation to treat a surrendering, CONFIRMED combatant in such a way, police have no real excuse for firing upon a FELLOW AMERICAN CITIZEN who is merely SUSPECTED of wrong-doing and is laying face down surrendering himself.
No excuse at all, I agree, but as I've taught my children if ever in such a situation be sure to listen carefully and do exactly what the police tell you to do.
We're way off topic btw, so at least should try to redirect to the OP.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
People who do this should be charged with attempted murder. The caller intentionally gives a scenario where LEO must act, calculated and intentional. The caller is using LEO as a weapon. Best case scenario is that occupants are held at gun point. Worst cast victims end up dead. Caller can't claim they don't know right from wrong. Or that they didn't intend for it to get that serious. It was their intent all along.
The problem with this reasoning is that for it to fly you must also accept that LEO are darn incompetent which equals LEO intervention = death or a killing.
LEO are suppose to be trained and ABLE to handle such situations so that innocents that have done no wrong don't end up dead. I do believe right now LEOs are not handling such cases adequately but then swatting is relatively new and LEOs tend to take awhile to learn how to handle new situation properly and find proper RoE. This is another bag of worms though.
Typically if someone calls the cops on me and they come to my door I shouldn't reasonably expect to be shot dead, not if LEOs are doing their jobs properly and take the "serve and protect" motto like they should be.
Let me ask you this: how would you react if you are a small town police department and you get a call from a smooth-talking, emotionless, clearly sociopathic individual claiming to have killed someone with the intention of killing women and/or children currently being held hostage? For bonus points, they claim to have spread gasoline around the house to set it on fire.
This was the exact situation in the fatal swatting incident a month ago. This is a high pressure incident with lives at stake and an unstable individual. The LEO doesn't have time to find out if the resident of that house has a goddamn Twitch channel.
The one and only person at fault for these instances is the caller. End of story.
Sorry, but stats on police killings around the world compared to American police killings doesn't support your narrative.
To further illustrate the point: in 2015, 59 police killings were reported in the first 24 days of the year here in America. England and Wales, at that point, had only 59 reports of police killings in the last 24 years.
How do the stats of police being killed stack up around the world? Here in the US in 2018 thru Feb 21st 12 have died by gunfire.
46 total died by gunfire in 2017, vs the police killing 987 the same year.
Proportionally the police came way out on the short end it seems, and it should be no surprise police here take a far more aggressive stance, they have much more to fear with our open gun laws.
Have to look at the big picture when comparing stats around the world, and considering America isn't all that far from a "Purge " movie scenario its surprising the figures aren't worse.
No doubt it's interconnected, but merely ignoring one egregious issue with our society does not mean we might as well ignore the other. That's the kind of thinking that ignored everything.
Gun control in the U.S. is a joke, and it shows. Police use of force in the U.S. is exaggerated because of it. Both are issues. And no amount of lax gun control laws warrants an officer firing upon a suspect after the suspect complied with orders and was face down, arms out.
Agreed and my bet is very few police shootings occur in that specfic manner.
They do not. However, that situation was so clearly under control by the officers prior to firing that it should never have happened. It wouldn't have happened had it been our military troops in a warzone. It's against rules of engagement to murder a surrendering combatant who complies with the soldier's orders and lays face down, hands spread. They're a prisoner of war at that point. That's exactly how they taught us to take control of a suspected combatant or a surrendering one (assuming they're complying with our orders). Telling them to "crawl towards me" was NEVER, EVER part of that process.
So this idea that we're such a violent society that it should warrant unnecessarily violent responses from law enforcement holds little water in my mind.
You might find this hard to believe, but I've met soldiers from 2 different wars who didn't always take prisoners if it wasn't convenient to do so.
Perhaps worse, I know a private contractor who is overseas now who says his firm often doesn't either.
War doesn't always follow the rulebook.
You are correct random internet person. It is hard to believe. But hey, I know Batman, so maybe you too have some connections.
Speaking of the Internet, great tool, try looking up "U.S. War Crimes" and you too can be enlightened on how the world really works sometimes.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I have not the time to go back, but where has anyone said it is his fault? In fact you said this last time and I said of course it is not his fault. Hopefully that's put that to bed.
You mention they may have not been aware of the dangers as it's the internet, I said "
I would say anything to do with the internet is probably where parents are weakest in their knowledge, simply because it is moving so quickly." So quite aware of that.
After this you conflate the views of various posters into an amalgam that does not exist, apparently we have "a self righteous tone and acting all like social services should be called."
I can see how some might see my tone, but the idea we want social services called? I can't see where on earth you get that from.
The only thing for me to answer here that I can see is you think my reaction would be more appropriate to him being let out to a rave or such. I am not trying to rate them on a scale for bad parenting or something, so they were not a "bit wrong" just wrong. If they had let him go to a rave I would have had a similar tone as I don't see a need for drama.
Clearly we disagree, as neither of us is going to call social services, I think we can leave it there.
.... Below a certain age, that responisbilty is largely the
parents.
It does not matter that the age rating is not
enforceable by law, as it is up to parents to accept the responisbilty
on the basis of what society has deemed correct. I should point out
though that there are a number of laws about the neglect of children,
and it is possible that some of these incidents may fall under their
banner.
I think, this is the one mostly that I feel comes across as tad self righteous and I think I am not the only one that read this post like this as you can see from some responses you got from others. Maybe that not how you intended it but I know I am not the only one that has read it this way. It kinda set the tone of your "voice" for the rest of you posts atleast for me.
If you had something along the lines of "well parents need to be more aware especially today of the danger online and their responsibility to protect against such danger etc etc" I would have simply clicked agree and not have quoted you.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
I have not the time to go back, but where has anyone said it is his fault? In fact you said this last time and I said of course it is not his fault. Hopefully that's put that to bed.
You mention they may have not been aware of the dangers as it's the internet, I said "
I would say anything to do with the internet is probably where parents are weakest in their knowledge, simply because it is moving so quickly." So quite aware of that.
After this you conflate the views of various posters into an amalgam that does not exist, apparently we have "a self righteous tone and acting all like social services should be called."
I can see how some might see my tone, but the idea we want social services called? I can't see where on earth you get that from.
The only thing for me to answer here that I can see is you think my reaction would be more appropriate to him being let out to a rave or such. I am not trying to rate them on a scale for bad parenting or something, so they were not a "bit wrong" just wrong. If they had let him go to a rave I would have had a similar tone as I don't see a need for drama.
Clearly we disagree, as neither of us is going to call social services, I think we can leave it there.
.... Below a certain age, that responisbilty is largely the
parents.
It does not matter that the age rating is not
enforceable by law, as it is up to parents to accept the responisbilty
on the basis of what society has deemed correct. I should point out
though that there are a number of laws about the neglect of children,
and it is possible that some of these incidents may fall under their
banner.
I think, this is the one mostly that I feel comes across as tad self righteous and I think I am not the only one that read this post like this as you can see from some responses you got from others. Maybe that not how you intended it but I know I am not the only one that has read it this way. It kinda set the tone of your "voice" for the rest of you posts atleast for me.
If you had something along the lines of "well parents need to be more aware especially today of the danger online and their responsibility to protect against such danger etc etc" I would have simply clicked agree and not have quoted you.
Comments
And none of that makes it right or okay. Nor does it affect my overall point: if the military in a warzone has obligation to treat a surrendering, CONFIRMED combatant in such a way, police have no real excuse for firing upon a FELLOW AMERICAN CITIZEN who is merely SUSPECTED of wrong-doing and is laying face down surrendering himself.
We're way off topic btw, so at least should try to redirect to the OP.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I think, this is the one mostly that I feel comes across as tad self righteous and I think I am not the only one that read this post like this as you can see from some responses you got from others. Maybe that not how you intended it but I know I am not the only one that has read it this way. It kinda set the tone of your "voice" for the rest of you posts atleast for me.
If you had something along the lines of "well parents need to be more aware especially today of the danger online and their responsibility to protect against such danger etc etc" I would have simply clicked agree and not have quoted you.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
I can sound like a gas bag, I know.