The Serial Swatter
November 27, 2015 2:38 AM Subscribe
This is in the same category as the gamergate attempt to photoshop a Canadian Sikh's photograph into a Paris terrorists - these type of "jokes" can kill people.
posted by infini at 3:27 AM on November 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by infini at 3:27 AM on November 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
Back in the day...
"At first, the SWAT idea struck some officers as strange — wouldn’t the units scare residents and damage relationships with communities?"
posted by eviemath at 3:49 AM on November 27, 2015 [86 favorites]
"At first, the SWAT idea struck some officers as strange — wouldn’t the units scare residents and damage relationships with communities?"
posted by eviemath at 3:49 AM on November 27, 2015 [86 favorites]
Swatting isn’t an easy crime to charge; law enforcement is still developing a language for it. Is it a type of fraud? Identity theft? Cyberterrorism? Is it a prank?
It's attempted murder.
posted by PenDevil at 3:49 AM on November 27, 2015 [134 favorites]
It's attempted murder.
posted by PenDevil at 3:49 AM on November 27, 2015 [134 favorites]
Difficult but ideal solution: get rid of SWAT teams.
Easy but not ideal solution: teach people on SWAT teams about Swatting.
I bet some of these events result in drug arrests, too. I'm sure the cops are happy to be able to justify anything about this in the moment rather than think about their stormtrooperly existence.
posted by oceanjesse at 4:15 AM on November 27, 2015 [22 favorites]
Easy but not ideal solution: teach people on SWAT teams about Swatting.
I bet some of these events result in drug arrests, too. I'm sure the cops are happy to be able to justify anything about this in the moment rather than think about their stormtrooperly existence.
posted by oceanjesse at 4:15 AM on November 27, 2015 [22 favorites]
"At first, the SWAT idea struck some officers as strange — wouldn’t the units scare residents and damage relationships with communities?"
You think?
posted by Dip Flash at 5:15 AM on November 27, 2015
You think?
posted by Dip Flash at 5:15 AM on November 27, 2015
Swatting isn’t an easy crime to charge; law enforcement is still developing a language for it. Is it a type of fraud? Identity theft? Cyberterrorism? Is it a prank?
Whether or not it's a prank has no bearing on anything. Things that are illegal do not cease to be so if the action in question was also a prank. Why is this being held up like it's some sort of separate category? Yes, to the people conducting it it is a prank, but it is also reckless endangerment if not attempted murder, and an obstruction of justice if not fraud in that it relies on feeding the police misinformation.
posted by Dysk at 5:22 AM on November 27, 2015 [24 favorites]
Whether or not it's a prank has no bearing on anything. Things that are illegal do not cease to be so if the action in question was also a prank. Why is this being held up like it's some sort of separate category? Yes, to the people conducting it it is a prank, but it is also reckless endangerment if not attempted murder, and an obstruction of justice if not fraud in that it relies on feeding the police misinformation.
posted by Dysk at 5:22 AM on November 27, 2015 [24 favorites]
It wouldn't be hard to stop if a police home invasion required a warrant.
posted by srboisvert at 5:32 AM on November 27, 2015 [68 favorites]
posted by srboisvert at 5:32 AM on November 27, 2015 [68 favorites]
Do you not have any equivalent law to the wasting police time law in the US? Or just good old fashioned perverting the course of justice.
posted by dng at 5:33 AM on November 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by dng at 5:33 AM on November 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
Note that in the UK the typical sentence for perverting the course of justice is about 5 years in stir; maximum is life behind bars (although that's rare -- it would almost certainly require a homicide, in which case a separate and much less ambiguous murder conviction would be achievable).
But yes, I think SWATting should be treated as attempted murder.
(If I try to hire a hit-man to kill someone, it's attempted murder. If I try to get a hit-man to kill someone for free, it's still attempted murder, I'm just a cheapskate. The hit-man is a proxy for my own action. And in this context, so is the SWAT team.)
posted by cstross at 5:45 AM on November 27, 2015 [41 favorites]
But yes, I think SWATting should be treated as attempted murder.
(If I try to hire a hit-man to kill someone, it's attempted murder. If I try to get a hit-man to kill someone for free, it's still attempted murder, I'm just a cheapskate. The hit-man is a proxy for my own action. And in this context, so is the SWAT team.)
posted by cstross at 5:45 AM on November 27, 2015 [41 favorites]
The problem isn't finding the right law, it's finding the perpetrator. With call anonymizing and IP telephony, it can very quickly go outside of a local law enforcement agency's ability to track down. And, of course, there's the embarrassment, legal scare and lack of follow through on Internet threats that hinder it as well.
posted by Punkey at 5:53 AM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Punkey at 5:53 AM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
I bet some of these events result in drug arrests
Drugs, missing mattress tags, unlawful use of milk crates... none of us are truly innocent.
posted by Flashman at 5:56 AM on November 27, 2015 [34 favorites]
Drugs, missing mattress tags, unlawful use of milk crates... none of us are truly innocent.
posted by Flashman at 5:56 AM on November 27, 2015 [34 favorites]
Please, let's be sensible here. SWATting is very nasty, and people who do it deserve a long prison sentence. But what it *isn't* is attempted murder. You don't do your case any favours by pretending otherwise.
The fact that it is so disruptive makes me wonder whether US police forces ought to reconsider the use of SWAT teams generally. Turning up fully armed, with military equipment, on nothing more than a phone call is the sort of thing I associate with a police state dictatorship, not a democracy.
posted by salmacis at 6:23 AM on November 27, 2015 [23 favorites]
The fact that it is so disruptive makes me wonder whether US police forces ought to reconsider the use of SWAT teams generally. Turning up fully armed, with military equipment, on nothing more than a phone call is the sort of thing I associate with a police state dictatorship, not a democracy.
posted by salmacis at 6:23 AM on November 27, 2015 [23 favorites]
With call anonymizing and IP telephony, it can very quickly go outside of a local law enforcement agency's ability to track down.
Maybe the police should require more than an anonymous tip, especially if it is being delivered via anonymous channels, to escalate to deadly force. Of course, it would be nice if they also required more than an officer's vaguely defined "sense" to unleash deadly force, but let's not be silly.
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:25 AM on November 27, 2015 [15 favorites]
Maybe the police should require more than an anonymous tip, especially if it is being delivered via anonymous channels, to escalate to deadly force. Of course, it would be nice if they also required more than an officer's vaguely defined "sense" to unleash deadly force, but let's not be silly.
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:25 AM on November 27, 2015 [15 favorites]
Do you not have any equivalent law to the wasting police time law in the US? Or just good old fashioned perverting the course of justice.
posted by nom de poop at 6:32 AM on November 27, 2015 [8 favorites]
The Canadian police arrested the suspect on Dec. 5, four days after he tried to swat Hayli. Much of the case against him had been shipped up from Georgia. Prosecutors eventually charged him with 46 counts, including criminal harassment, public mischief and extortion; he pleaded guilty to 23 counts. (His Vancouver lawyer didn’t return phone calls.) [...] In July, a judge sentenced him to 16 months in youth jail, with credit for time served while awaiting trial. He is scheduled to be released in March, at age 18.I too feel like the problem is the negligence of the police. An anonymous phone call should not be enough to trigger these kinds of responses; a prank call to the cops probably should not be more than a misdemeanor because cops should not be so fucking violent and stupid. I'm tired of taking violence without accountability from the cops as a given.
posted by nom de poop at 6:32 AM on November 27, 2015 [8 favorites]
wouldn't this be solved much more quickly if important people (senators, judges, lawyers, whatever) were swatted more? not that i am inciting such a thing.
posted by andrewcooke at 6:34 AM on November 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by andrewcooke at 6:34 AM on November 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
Congratulations, andrewcooke, you just got yourself on a list..
posted by salmacis at 6:35 AM on November 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by salmacis at 6:35 AM on November 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
GenjiandProust: Maybe the police should require more than an anonymous tip, especially if it is being delivered via anonymous channels, to escalate to deadly force.
The problem is, the anonymous tip here isn't something like "I think they have drugs at this address, hehehehe", it's "holy shit there are armed invaders in my house please save us." It's the kind of thing where if you did wait for more information and it was real, people might die. And the US does have legitimate home invasions, hostage situations, mass shootings, etc., so it can be real.
The best solution I can think of is to fix the phone system so anonymized calling isn't possible, and aggressively seek out and prosecute people who do it.
posted by Mitrovarr at 6:35 AM on November 27, 2015 [20 favorites]
The problem is, the anonymous tip here isn't something like "I think they have drugs at this address, hehehehe", it's "holy shit there are armed invaders in my house please save us." It's the kind of thing where if you did wait for more information and it was real, people might die. And the US does have legitimate home invasions, hostage situations, mass shootings, etc., so it can be real.
The best solution I can think of is to fix the phone system so anonymized calling isn't possible, and aggressively seek out and prosecute people who do it.
posted by Mitrovarr at 6:35 AM on November 27, 2015 [20 favorites]
It's attempted murder
I appreciate what you mean, but that is a very difficult charge to convict someone on.
posted by thelonius at 6:36 AM on November 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
I appreciate what you mean, but that is a very difficult charge to convict someone on.
posted by thelonius at 6:36 AM on November 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
punkey: The problem isn't finding the right law, it's finding the perpetrator. With call anonymizing and IP telephony, it can very quickly go outside of a local law enforcement agency's ability to track down.
If the US is going to spend billions upon billions of dollars to build out a surveillance apparatus that's going to be the envy of the spook world, it doesn't look good to be stymied by a maladjusted Canadian teenager sitting behind seven proxies for teh lulz.
posted by dr_dank at 6:47 AM on November 27, 2015 [28 favorites]
If the US is going to spend billions upon billions of dollars to build out a surveillance apparatus that's going to be the envy of the spook world, it doesn't look good to be stymied by a maladjusted Canadian teenager sitting behind seven proxies for teh lulz.
posted by dr_dank at 6:47 AM on November 27, 2015 [28 favorites]
The problem is, the anonymous tip here isn't something like
Well, if that's the case, it would prevent a lot of really anonymous web hijinx (I seem to remember an earlier thread on swatting where at least one "tip" was delivered via anonymous email, which...). There is still the problem of disposable phones and the like, but the caller leaves more of a trail, which drastically increases their risk (of course young people are poor at assessing risk and long distance planning), so I am not sure even the threat of serious jail time is a very effective deterrent for people under 25 or so, but that's a more general problem.
As I said in a previous thread, one result of a swatting should be that the police department in question loses their SWAT team(s) and attendant funding and positions. This would make the police much more careful in deploying these resources without proper process.
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:49 AM on November 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well, if that's the case, it would prevent a lot of really anonymous web hijinx (I seem to remember an earlier thread on swatting where at least one "tip" was delivered via anonymous email, which...). There is still the problem of disposable phones and the like, but the caller leaves more of a trail, which drastically increases their risk (of course young people are poor at assessing risk and long distance planning), so I am not sure even the threat of serious jail time is a very effective deterrent for people under 25 or so, but that's a more general problem.
As I said in a previous thread, one result of a swatting should be that the police department in question loses their SWAT team(s) and attendant funding and positions. This would make the police much more careful in deploying these resources without proper process.
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:49 AM on November 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's attempted murder.
One of the difficulties with that is police will never admit the very real possibility they will shoot an innocent person in any given SWAT incident even if no crime has been committed. One wrong jumpy move from someone inside the house and bang bang bang.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:52 AM on November 27, 2015 [29 favorites]
One of the difficulties with that is police will never admit the very real possibility they will shoot an innocent person in any given SWAT incident even if no crime has been committed. One wrong jumpy move from someone inside the house and bang bang bang.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:52 AM on November 27, 2015 [29 favorites]
If it's a difficult charge, then Congress/Parliament can make it easier: call in a hoax SWAT strike and you get five years, period. There must be a heavy punishment or little shitty people are going to continue swatting.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:53 AM on November 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by five fresh fish at 6:53 AM on November 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
(on preview, scooped by Drinky Die)
To call swatting attempted murder would require the authorities to acknowledge the high risk of accidental death associated with deploying SWAT teams, which is unrealistic. It's much easier to create a new crime to charge people with (say, inappropriate use of the police apparatus) than to pull back on SWAT rules of engagement and possibly cut funding to police forces.
posted by cardboard at 6:53 AM on November 27, 2015 [9 favorites]
To call swatting attempted murder would require the authorities to acknowledge the high risk of accidental death associated with deploying SWAT teams, which is unrealistic. It's much easier to create a new crime to charge people with (say, inappropriate use of the police apparatus) than to pull back on SWAT rules of engagement and possibly cut funding to police forces.
posted by cardboard at 6:53 AM on November 27, 2015 [9 favorites]
Mod note: Couple comments removed; if you're looking for the BLM/4th precinct shootings, it's been discussed a bunch in this thread.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:17 AM on November 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:17 AM on November 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
SWATting is very nasty, and people who do it deserve a long prison sentence. But what it *isn't* is attempted murder.
Why do you think it came after the pizza orders in Obnoxious's arsenal of harassment? Because it's not just harassment. It is, at best, reckless and depraved indifference to human life. Swatters know damn well that their actions could easily lead to death. You might not be okay with calling that attempted murder, but don't try to concern-troll us with this "Gosh, I bet people would be more outraged at swatting if the anti-harassment forces weren't so negative about it..."
posted by Etrigan at 7:20 AM on November 27, 2015 [28 favorites]
Why do you think it came after the pizza orders in Obnoxious's arsenal of harassment? Because it's not just harassment. It is, at best, reckless and depraved indifference to human life. Swatters know damn well that their actions could easily lead to death. You might not be okay with calling that attempted murder, but don't try to concern-troll us with this "Gosh, I bet people would be more outraged at swatting if the anti-harassment forces weren't so negative about it..."
posted by Etrigan at 7:20 AM on November 27, 2015 [28 favorites]
If you don't like calling it attempted murder, then surely we can agree on reckless endangerment.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:24 AM on November 27, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:24 AM on November 27, 2015 [6 favorites]
Reckless endangerment is a much easier thing to argue. Though in this case, I count three times where the article cites him claiming he "would shoot any officers who showed up." That would point towards him trying to get the police to be more likely to shoot first if they think they are in danger.
posted by RobotHero at 7:49 AM on November 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by RobotHero at 7:49 AM on November 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
I understand the urge to call this attempted murder, because it reflects how upset we are and how horrible this is. But I would point out to you that calling for the hard, brutal fist of the law to be deployed as mercilessly and dramatically as possible and for the law to get stretched to facilitate this is how we get bullshit like SWAT teams in the first place.
Let's punish these assholes to the furthest extent allowed by law. Let's make new laws if we need to do so, so that this extent can more clearly reflect how awful these crimes are. But while IANAL, I'm pretty sure that a key component in an attempted murder charge is the intent for/expectation of the crime to result in the victim's death. That is literally never happening here. (And that is even putting aside the problem DrinkyDie pointed out about whether you could get the legal system to treat SWAT teams/police as a potentially reckless lethal force, which probably you can't.)
The law isn't supposed to be a flexible tool for dealing with rage and frustration. It's supposed to be measured and dispassionate. If the law isn't working for the purposes of punishing swatters, let's not stretch and distort our readings of the law, let's just add to it as needed.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:54 AM on November 27, 2015 [24 favorites]
Let's punish these assholes to the furthest extent allowed by law. Let's make new laws if we need to do so, so that this extent can more clearly reflect how awful these crimes are. But while IANAL, I'm pretty sure that a key component in an attempted murder charge is the intent for/expectation of the crime to result in the victim's death. That is literally never happening here. (And that is even putting aside the problem DrinkyDie pointed out about whether you could get the legal system to treat SWAT teams/police as a potentially reckless lethal force, which probably you can't.)
The law isn't supposed to be a flexible tool for dealing with rage and frustration. It's supposed to be measured and dispassionate. If the law isn't working for the purposes of punishing swatters, let's not stretch and distort our readings of the law, let's just add to it as needed.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:54 AM on November 27, 2015 [24 favorites]
Having had SWAT in my neighborhood for a legit mass shooting situation, I can't really say that a SWAT response is never warranted when the civilian populace is already armed to the teeth. (And the only casualties in that shooting were police officers.)
What there should be is heavy training for cops on internet based harassment. Every story I've seen on any facet of internet harassment bubbling over into real life, the cops are almost universally utterly clueless that this is even a thing. Like, they seem unable to even wrap their heads around it. Do they not read the damn news like the rest of us? They need training.
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:00 AM on November 27, 2015 [8 favorites]
What there should be is heavy training for cops on internet based harassment. Every story I've seen on any facet of internet harassment bubbling over into real life, the cops are almost universally utterly clueless that this is even a thing. Like, they seem unable to even wrap their heads around it. Do they not read the damn news like the rest of us? They need training.
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:00 AM on November 27, 2015 [8 favorites]
I'm pretty sure that a key component in an attempted murder charge is the intent for/expectation of the crime to result in the victim's death. That is literally never happening here.
How do we know that, though? There have been numerous instances of SWAT teams shooting wildly and crashing through doors - sometimes the wrong doors - and just shooting first, asking questions later. It's not impossible that this could be a desired outcome sometimes, even if not all the time.
But as others have said, you'd never get a court system to admit that SWAT teams count as a lethal weapon that can be dialled up.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 8:23 AM on November 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
How do we know that, though? There have been numerous instances of SWAT teams shooting wildly and crashing through doors - sometimes the wrong doors - and just shooting first, asking questions later. It's not impossible that this could be a desired outcome sometimes, even if not all the time.
But as others have said, you'd never get a court system to admit that SWAT teams count as a lethal weapon that can be dialled up.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 8:23 AM on November 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
A federal law introduced earlier this month would make malicious false reports resulting in a emergency response a felony, with a maximum sentence of life if the report results in a death. In the United States, false reports of terrorist activities is already a federal offense, but home invasion or extreme domestic violence was not covered, creating a loophole. With a lot of swatting happening interstate, it's evidently been something of a jurisdictional problem.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 8:56 AM on November 27, 2015 [33 favorites]
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 8:56 AM on November 27, 2015 [33 favorites]
It doesn't actually sound like the problem here was identifying "obnoxious" or tying him to his crimes. It sounds like the problem is partly getting authorities to take it seriously and partly that he's a kid who has had a hard life, and Canadian courts are understandably reluctant to throw the book at a minor who has been dealt a difficult hand in life.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:59 AM on November 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:59 AM on November 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
While I also hate the militarization of the police and strongly believe that something should be done about it. I think putting the onus on police departments to somehow respond differently is misplaced here. I mean, we can't even get police to not fucking shoot unarmed black men, so I'm not at all confident in their ability to grasp and decode the nuances involved with swatting and how to deal with it.
I think that this is an online harassment issue. There is precisely zero being done to deal with online harassment and abuse right now in most online areas, so young men can do whatever the hell they want without consequences. Even in the case in the article, the kid didn't start off with swatting. He started with ddos and other more (comparatively) minor things. He worked his way up to swatting. The problem is that no one takes online harassment and bullying seriously so it's allowed to escalate to much more serious things and then everyone wrings their hands, and say, well how are we supposed to deal with this. We deal with it by stopping harassment when it starts, which would cut the vast majority of trolls out of the game before they can even get started.
posted by triggerfinger at 9:10 AM on November 27, 2015 [6 favorites]
I think that this is an online harassment issue. There is precisely zero being done to deal with online harassment and abuse right now in most online areas, so young men can do whatever the hell they want without consequences. Even in the case in the article, the kid didn't start off with swatting. He started with ddos and other more (comparatively) minor things. He worked his way up to swatting. The problem is that no one takes online harassment and bullying seriously so it's allowed to escalate to much more serious things and then everyone wrings their hands, and say, well how are we supposed to deal with this. We deal with it by stopping harassment when it starts, which would cut the vast majority of trolls out of the game before they can even get started.
posted by triggerfinger at 9:10 AM on November 27, 2015 [6 favorites]
interactive map of botched SWAT and paramilitary police raids
Presumably not all inclusive, but a start.
posted by BWA at 9:18 AM on November 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
Presumably not all inclusive, but a start.
posted by BWA at 9:18 AM on November 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
I learned about the attempted murder thing after a friend was gutshot by a mugger. We were upset that the charge was not attempted murder, and the prosecutor told us that it depends on convincing a jury about the state of mind and intent of a defendent, not what their actions were, and that is just much more difficult.
I think that it would be better to pass laws targeted at the overt actions taken by swatting perpatrators, with heavy penalties. This shit is what prison is for, not drug crimes, imho.
posted by thelonius at 9:44 AM on November 27, 2015
I think that it would be better to pass laws targeted at the overt actions taken by swatting perpatrators, with heavy penalties. This shit is what prison is for, not drug crimes, imho.
posted by thelonius at 9:44 AM on November 27, 2015
How do we know that, though? There have been numerous instances of SWAT teams shooting wildly and crashing through doors - sometimes the wrong doors - and just shooting first, asking questions later. It's not impossible that this could be a desired outcome sometimes, even if not all the time.
Except the American legal system says that the standard of proof for convicting someone of a serious crime is that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed the crime, not that it's "not impossible" that they committed the crime.
Personally, I think that's one of the legal system's good points, and don't want to throw out that particular baby with the bathwater.
posted by firechicago at 10:18 AM on November 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Except the American legal system says that the standard of proof for convicting someone of a serious crime is that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed the crime, not that it's "not impossible" that they committed the crime.
Personally, I think that's one of the legal system's good points, and don't want to throw out that particular baby with the bathwater.
posted by firechicago at 10:18 AM on November 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
SWAT is the disease; "swatting" is the sympton.
posted by splitpeasoup at 10:22 AM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by splitpeasoup at 10:22 AM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm pretty sure that a key component in an attempted murder charge is the intent for/expectation of the crime to result in the victim's death. That is literally never happening here.
I disagree that this is not what is happening here. It's an attempt on someone's life, just using a low-probablility method. The attacker knows or should know that the situation he or she is creating may result in the use of deadly force.
It's shooting at someone with a very inaccurate gun, but you get as many shots as you want because the consequences of missing are nil. It's attempted murder.
posted by ctmf at 11:27 AM on November 27, 2015 [8 favorites]
I disagree that this is not what is happening here. It's an attempt on someone's life, just using a low-probablility method. The attacker knows or should know that the situation he or she is creating may result in the use of deadly force.
It's shooting at someone with a very inaccurate gun, but you get as many shots as you want because the consequences of missing are nil. It's attempted murder.
posted by ctmf at 11:27 AM on November 27, 2015 [8 favorites]
Turning up fully armed, with military equipment, on nothing more than a phone call is the sort of thing I associate with a police state dictatorship, not a democracy.
and there it is.
posted by j_curiouser at 11:34 AM on November 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
and there it is.
posted by j_curiouser at 11:34 AM on November 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
One other thing that always stands out to me in these stories is how many times the victims have to patiently explain to the cops what's happening.
Any cop who doesn't already know what swatting is, especially any cop on a SWAT tearm, sucks at their job. That's basic shit that is directly relevant to them.
posted by ernielundquist at 11:41 AM on November 27, 2015 [37 favorites]
Any cop who doesn't already know what swatting is, especially any cop on a SWAT tearm, sucks at their job. That's basic shit that is directly relevant to them.
posted by ernielundquist at 11:41 AM on November 27, 2015 [37 favorites]
I'm not sure it's always that they don't understand. I'm sure there's some psychological resistance to wanting to admit they've been tricked. Plus, you can't just uncritically take someone's word for it.* Criminals: Oh, it was just swatting, nothing to see here.
* twice in a row anyway, counting the uncorroborated phone call
posted by ctmf at 11:46 AM on November 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
* twice in a row anyway, counting the uncorroborated phone call
posted by ctmf at 11:46 AM on November 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
It's shooting at someone with a very inaccurate gun, but you get as many shots as you want
It's throwing a grenade in a small crowd, but the grenade only explodes 5% of the time. What would you charge that? What if there was no intent to kill, it was just for the intimidation factor and the LOLs? (But still a real grenade)
posted by ctmf at 11:49 AM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's throwing a grenade in a small crowd, but the grenade only explodes 5% of the time. What would you charge that? What if there was no intent to kill, it was just for the intimidation factor and the LOLs? (But still a real grenade)
posted by ctmf at 11:49 AM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
Even for those who feel it could be considered attempted murder, given the apparent dearth of district attorneys who feel the same way, new swatting specific laws are still probably the best option.
I do think we're all in 100% agreement that the fact that swatting could get someone killed and the perpetrators give zero fucks about that makes this more serious than most forms of internet harassment by a mile.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:02 PM on November 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
I do think we're all in 100% agreement that the fact that swatting could get someone killed and the perpetrators give zero fucks about that makes this more serious than most forms of internet harassment by a mile.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:02 PM on November 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
If we automatically prosecuted cops who shot innocent people and let the court sort 'em out while they waited in jail, I bet you police organizations would be all over the swatting thing. You'd think SWAT operators would already be furious that someone was tricking them into a situation where they might shoot someone. Apparently that's not enough when they'll just get to throw up their hands and say "whattaya gonna do?" when it happens.
posted by ctmf at 12:13 PM on November 27, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by ctmf at 12:13 PM on November 27, 2015 [6 favorites]
It's throwing a grenade in a small crowd, but the grenade only explodes 5% of the time. What would you charge that? What if there was no intent to kill, it was just for the intimidation factor and the LOLs? (But still a real grenade)
Well, the FBI hands over dummy bombs to targets in terrorism stings and charges them if they press the button even though they explode 0% of the time. It's the intent that matters, I believe. In the case of swatting, it's definitely intent to create a very dangerous situation and the people who do it are aware of this. "I was just a teenage edgelord doing it for the lols," is not something serious people see as a valid defense when real harm can happen if the behavior is ignored.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:42 PM on November 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
Well, the FBI hands over dummy bombs to targets in terrorism stings and charges them if they press the button even though they explode 0% of the time. It's the intent that matters, I believe. In the case of swatting, it's definitely intent to create a very dangerous situation and the people who do it are aware of this. "I was just a teenage edgelord doing it for the lols," is not something serious people see as a valid defense when real harm can happen if the behavior is ignored.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:42 PM on November 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
It's absolutely attempted murder. What's one of the first things that SWAT teams have been doing lately? Shooting people's dogs. What are people going to think when suddenly someone - who often didn't identify themselves - comes in shooting? The risk that somebody is going to die from one of these is not small. Fuck these monsters sideways.
posted by corb at 12:50 PM on November 27, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by corb at 12:50 PM on November 27, 2015 [14 favorites]
SWAT is the disease; "swatting" is the sympton.
If they didn't have swatting, they'd find something else as equally dangerous. The problem here is the freedom people have on the internet to be anonymous harassers. As long as you have TOR and the EFF enabling the behavior, the harassment is only going to get worse.
Frankly, we're going to be looking back on this in five years, longing for the days where harassers were only occasionally sending SWAT teams to people's doors.
posted by happyroach at 1:30 PM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
If they didn't have swatting, they'd find something else as equally dangerous. The problem here is the freedom people have on the internet to be anonymous harassers. As long as you have TOR and the EFF enabling the behavior, the harassment is only going to get worse.
Frankly, we're going to be looking back on this in five years, longing for the days where harassers were only occasionally sending SWAT teams to people's doors.
posted by happyroach at 1:30 PM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
Making it a felony deals with it pretty cleanly in states with a felony murder rule (basically if someone dies because of a felony you committed, it gets counted as murder). But I think maybe the feds don't have a felony murder rule.
I agree that charging swatters with attempted murder is probably not a good idea if you want to actually convict them.
posted by ryanrs at 1:45 PM on November 27, 2015
I agree that charging swatters with attempted murder is probably not a good idea if you want to actually convict them.
posted by ryanrs at 1:45 PM on November 27, 2015
As long as you have TOR and the EFF enabling the behavior
As I point out every time somebody says something like this, the Tor Project provides the tools (a complete list of exit node addresses) to identify Tor users bridging to the clearnet, which is to say the tools to block them. Since this is an all-or-nothing solution it's not very attractive to e.g. Twitter since they count use by political dissidents as a feather in their cap. I don't know that this defense applies to VoIP services though I also don't know for sure whether Tor is used in these attacks. Anyway I'm really not sure what the Tor people are supposed to do about this. The technology exists and they believe in it and they don't want anyone to be able to block people from using their software - but they play fairly nicely if you want to block their users from your site.
posted by atoxyl at 2:04 PM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
As I point out every time somebody says something like this, the Tor Project provides the tools (a complete list of exit node addresses) to identify Tor users bridging to the clearnet, which is to say the tools to block them. Since this is an all-or-nothing solution it's not very attractive to e.g. Twitter since they count use by political dissidents as a feather in their cap. I don't know that this defense applies to VoIP services though I also don't know for sure whether Tor is used in these attacks. Anyway I'm really not sure what the Tor people are supposed to do about this. The technology exists and they believe in it and they don't want anyone to be able to block people from using their software - but they play fairly nicely if you want to block their users from your site.
posted by atoxyl at 2:04 PM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
Which is to say it seems like this problem is best addressed at the level of a.) the police and b.) the telephone services and telephone system as a whole.
posted by atoxyl at 2:09 PM on November 27, 2015
posted by atoxyl at 2:09 PM on November 27, 2015
What there should be is heavy training for cops on internet based harassment.
I think this is a big part of the solution, yes. To be clear, I think the militarization of the police is abhorrent, and I'm not at all letting them off the hook for having such dangerous operating procedures. Nonetheless, it's hard not to point out that these are the same people who, when women bring them evidence of specific and persistent death threats online, respond with things like "maybe you should spend less time online" or "what's Twitter?".
In a perfect world, yeah, it'd be great to see SWAT teams disbanded or scaled back. In the meantime, though, a whole lot of public good would come from the police being taught that yes, seriously, the internet is just as "real life" as any physical place, and that harassment that happens there needs to be taken seriously.
posted by tocts at 2:14 PM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think this is a big part of the solution, yes. To be clear, I think the militarization of the police is abhorrent, and I'm not at all letting them off the hook for having such dangerous operating procedures. Nonetheless, it's hard not to point out that these are the same people who, when women bring them evidence of specific and persistent death threats online, respond with things like "maybe you should spend less time online" or "what's Twitter?".
In a perfect world, yeah, it'd be great to see SWAT teams disbanded or scaled back. In the meantime, though, a whole lot of public good would come from the police being taught that yes, seriously, the internet is just as "real life" as any physical place, and that harassment that happens there needs to be taken seriously.
posted by tocts at 2:14 PM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
You can't train someone who doesn't want to be trained. You can make them sit in a classroom annually and watch a powerpoint, sure. Until the status quo doesn't work for them, that won't work.
posted by ctmf at 2:23 PM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by ctmf at 2:23 PM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
Training is a big step. Imagine how it sounds to a grizzled old cop to be told that a girl who makes money for playing video games on the Internet is having somebody in another country (whom she never met) text bombing her phone and tricking the SWAT team into showing up with a convoluted interweb phone thingy.
The future is a weird place.
posted by dr_dank at 2:26 PM on November 27, 2015
The future is a weird place.
posted by dr_dank at 2:26 PM on November 27, 2015
"The psychiatric report noted that he had essentially no remorse: ‘‘His description of the pleasure he gets from causing humiliation and harm ... is suggestive of quite significant emerging psychopathic traits.’’
No remorse? Future serial killer or mass murderer.
posted by Gwynarra at 3:08 PM on November 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
No remorse? Future serial killer or mass murderer.
posted by Gwynarra at 3:08 PM on November 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
One of the hardest parts of the article to read for me is the cop who told one of the victims the second time she and her family were swatted that she should "just pick up a book" instead of using the internet. Incredibly, dangerously out of touch.
posted by flatluigi at 3:36 PM on November 27, 2015 [24 favorites]
posted by flatluigi at 3:36 PM on November 27, 2015 [24 favorites]
I think I said this before, here on the blue, but it bears repeating. Let's not forget that SWAT teams have been consistently breaking into innocent people's homes since their creation in the late 60's. SWAT teams are a projection of state power that have been used -in the name of public welfare and security- to keep certain "dangerous" (read: non-white people) segments of society in check.
Having lived through a wrongful/mistaken SWAT raid when I was in primary school, in the late 80s, it is painfully obvious that none of this would be news were it not for the fact that the people being SWATTED are white and middle class, and not the usual/normalized targets of state terror.
posted by nikoniko at 4:01 PM on November 27, 2015 [8 favorites]
Having lived through a wrongful/mistaken SWAT raid when I was in primary school, in the late 80s, it is painfully obvious that none of this would be news were it not for the fact that the people being SWATTED are white and middle class, and not the usual/normalized targets of state terror.
posted by nikoniko at 4:01 PM on November 27, 2015 [8 favorites]
(If I try to hire a hit-man to kill someone, it's attempted murder. If I try to get a hit-man to kill someone for free, it's still attempted murder, I'm just a cheapskate. The hit-man is a proxy for my own action. And in this context, so is the SWAT team.)
This is a pretty big ask. It requires admitting cops are likely to kill people for no particularly good reason. Which while that's generally accepted in communities like this one, is not a mainstream belief in most(white and non poor or left wing) communities offline.
Admitting that just having the cops show up with weapons is an incitement of violence is an indictment of the police. That's a pretty steep jump, especially for people including the cops themselves and their supporters who see cops as the people you call to figure out if a situation is even dangerous at all, not the ones who make it so.
I guess it's just that in actual not-progressive-net-discussion-space reality the "sending cops = attempted murder" view comes off as rather extreme and even Internet tough guy or "sjw". Like I agree with it but it's fairly unsaleable as is. It's verbatim something the current proto fascist blm shooter type KiA guys would say with derision as a made up example of "tumblr f***".
posted by emptythought at 4:08 PM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
This is a pretty big ask. It requires admitting cops are likely to kill people for no particularly good reason. Which while that's generally accepted in communities like this one, is not a mainstream belief in most(white and non poor or left wing) communities offline.
Admitting that just having the cops show up with weapons is an incitement of violence is an indictment of the police. That's a pretty steep jump, especially for people including the cops themselves and their supporters who see cops as the people you call to figure out if a situation is even dangerous at all, not the ones who make it so.
I guess it's just that in actual not-progressive-net-discussion-space reality the "sending cops = attempted murder" view comes off as rather extreme and even Internet tough guy or "sjw". Like I agree with it but it's fairly unsaleable as is. It's verbatim something the current proto fascist blm shooter type KiA guys would say with derision as a made up example of "tumblr f***".
posted by emptythought at 4:08 PM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
As an addendum to my comment above.
It is quite clear to me that a SWAT team has no place in a civilized society; whatever wrongs it may allegedly be trying to address are better rectified through sound policy and just governance, not to mention equitable distribution of resources and opportunity.
posted by nikoniko at 4:13 PM on November 27, 2015
It is quite clear to me that a SWAT team has no place in a civilized society; whatever wrongs it may allegedly be trying to address are better rectified through sound policy and just governance, not to mention equitable distribution of resources and opportunity.
posted by nikoniko at 4:13 PM on November 27, 2015
Have the cops ever shot/injured/killed anyone during a swatting? (I know they've shot innocent people on other raids, asking specifically about during swatting)
posted by ryanrs at 4:53 PM on November 27, 2015
posted by ryanrs at 4:53 PM on November 27, 2015
Future serial killer or mass murderer.
Or, you know, current serial something-else-er.
posted by atoxyl at 4:58 PM on November 27, 2015
Or, you know, current serial something-else-er.
posted by atoxyl at 4:58 PM on November 27, 2015
a kid in my family is infamous in games like Ark, where he goes around killing players who do things like say "Deez Nuts" and for other arbitrary reasons. It's not my job to supervise his play, so I don't know exactly what he's doing, but I do know that he's got quite a few enemies including a parent of a kid who is mad at my kid because my kid killed her kid in the game. now my kid sometimes sees the kid or the kid's parent off in the distance, ominously watching. A lot of people are pissed at my kid, because, according to hm, he's so good at the game, but who knows.
If he got swatted here we would just have a lot of terrified people and kitties.
If he got swatted at his mom's house, there would be a huge dog that would attack and surely be shot. There's a man there who is recovering from open-heart surgery. So yeah, that would be bad.
posted by angrycat at 5:45 PM on November 27, 2015
If he got swatted here we would just have a lot of terrified people and kitties.
If he got swatted at his mom's house, there would be a huge dog that would attack and surely be shot. There's a man there who is recovering from open-heart surgery. So yeah, that would be bad.
posted by angrycat at 5:45 PM on November 27, 2015
The distinction that people who call this attempted murder are not making is that between intent and recklessness. In a legal context, being aware that something might happen is not the same as intending that it does. You can only reasonably call this attempted murder when and if you can demonstrate that the subjective intention of the perpetrator was to kill.
As an analogy, headbutting someone as hard as you can is not, without an intent to kill, attempted murder, despite the risk of death, even if the perpetrator was aware of that risk. Functionally, swatting is the same.
posted by howfar at 5:52 PM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
As an analogy, headbutting someone as hard as you can is not, without an intent to kill, attempted murder, despite the risk of death, even if the perpetrator was aware of that risk. Functionally, swatting is the same.
posted by howfar at 5:52 PM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
Four cops were found guilty of second-degree murder via 19 bullets delivered to Amadou Diallo in what started out as a situation less tense and confrontational than a SWAT operation.
Seems like a similar enough situation to justify second-degree charges at least for whoever sets it up.
posted by Dashy at 6:12 PM on November 27, 2015
Seems like a similar enough situation to justify second-degree charges at least for whoever sets it up.
posted by Dashy at 6:12 PM on November 27, 2015
As an analogy, headbutting someone as hard as you can is not, without an intent to kill, attempted murder, despite the risk of death, even if the perpetrator was aware of that risk.
Yeah, I get that, I'm not trying to be dense. I just think swatting is so obviously something a reasonable person would expect could result in someone's death it's not the same as the head butting analogy. More like, if I shot at someone with an AR, and then claimed "well, but I'm such a bad shot I didn't expect to actually HIT him. I'm shocked and saddened that he got hit and died, but it was a freak accident, really." Would that work at all?
posted by ctmf at 6:52 PM on November 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I get that, I'm not trying to be dense. I just think swatting is so obviously something a reasonable person would expect could result in someone's death it's not the same as the head butting analogy. More like, if I shot at someone with an AR, and then claimed "well, but I'm such a bad shot I didn't expect to actually HIT him. I'm shocked and saddened that he got hit and died, but it was a freak accident, really." Would that work at all?
posted by ctmf at 6:52 PM on November 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
The problem is, [...] if you did wait for more information and it was real, people might die. And the US does have legitimate home invasions, hostage situations, mass shootings, etc., so it can be real.
This is true, but I consider the police more of a threat to my safety than criminals. I would rather eliminate SWAT teams and take my chances with the criminals. Having my home invaded by a couple desperate junkies would be a lot less scary than ten cops with AR-15s and kevlar who have been told I am a murderous psychopath.
We have much less crime now than we did back in the revolutionary days of the '60s or the crack epidemic of the '80s. Perhaps we needed SWAT back then but I don't think we do anymore.
posted by foobaz at 7:10 PM on November 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is true, but I consider the police more of a threat to my safety than criminals. I would rather eliminate SWAT teams and take my chances with the criminals. Having my home invaded by a couple desperate junkies would be a lot less scary than ten cops with AR-15s and kevlar who have been told I am a murderous psychopath.
We have much less crime now than we did back in the revolutionary days of the '60s or the crack epidemic of the '80s. Perhaps we needed SWAT back then but I don't think we do anymore.
posted by foobaz at 7:10 PM on November 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Four cops were found guilty of second-degree murder [...]
No they were not.
posted by TheGoodBlood at 8:09 PM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
No they were not.
posted by TheGoodBlood at 8:09 PM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
I have to say that I fundamentally disagree with the SWAT haters. I think today's events in Colorado Springs demonstrates the reality of this world. The SWAT implementation in some countries may be deeply flawed but the need for a professional SWAT force is a fact of modern human existence.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:05 PM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by five fresh fish at 9:05 PM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
Any cop who doesn't already know what swatting is, especially any cop on a SWAT tearm, sucks at their job.
Doctor: Ok sir, we got a call you're having a heart attack, so we're going to saw through your sternum and perform a median sternotom.
Guy in Barcalounger: Uh, I'm perfectly fine.
Doctor: Ok, sir, an anonymous phone call informed us you're dying, so we're going to take a look ourselves *starts saw*
Guy now out of Barcalounger: AAHHH!
Doctor: Ok, sir, stop resisting, we're professionals.
Finley estimates that he spent 1,000 hours on the case, an incredible amount of effort to catch one teenager. But the kid was exploiting an obvious flaw in the system.
So...therein lies the problem?
I dunno man, isn't the discussion academic?
The laws exist. There are a lot of jurisdictional issues though that need to be fixed.
He pleaded guilty to 23 counts (of criminal harassment, public mischief and extortion), most of the case against him came from Georgia.
So 1,000-odd hours of detective time to put a kid away for less than 16 months, for endangering lives. Yeah, big flaw there.
Dismantling SWAT, I'm not sure should be predicated on this. I don't think many beat cops respond well to school shootings, bank robberies, people armed with high powered weapons (a bolt action rifle is far more dangerous in a gunfight than a sidearm), domestic terrorism (the recent planned parenthood shooting), high risk warrants, etc.
I mean offhand the North Hollywood Shootout proved how effective 9mils and .38s are against body armor and fully automatic rifles.
But in that situation it took SWAT almost 20 minutes to arrive and they had to commandeer an armored car to evacuate civilians trapped by gunfire.
(Which is what the BearCats are supposed to be for).
So SWATs are supposed to react to those kinds of situations, is the idea. Not having the police have more firepower and more "special" weapons themselves.
Not that SWAT are done well everywhere. There are good ways to do it that would (and do) demilitarize police departments so they can do policing. Shared local resources, overlap, all that. Same way disaster response teams are run.
So, bomb squad? That go too?
Not trying to play devils advocate here. SWATs are supposed to be "Special." As in under specialized conditions, like the bomb squad or hostage negotiation, dive teams, etc.
Plenty of people figured out everyone wants to be "special" and sold them on "special" meaning lots of big guns and pouches and stuff and looking intimidating and all bad-ass in front of crowds of unarmed people.
Special went from special response to special intimidating. Last thing you need. Racism and other oppression aside, you keep putting a guy into situations where he outguns and intimidates everyone and feels invincible doing it, not only is he going to react that way all the time, he becomes a wet noodle the second someone calls him on it.
Then your cops become as useful as an insurance policy that won't pay off.
But I can only assume the gamers didn't mention to their police department that someone was threatening to swat them?
The internet companies half assed their social engineering security?
Amazon is not at fault for releasing account information, because the public sector has emergency response vectors that can be abused if they blow off their job?
Cell companies can't find either cheek of their ass with both hands?
Twitter...oh, well they have new rules that prohibit users from posting nude or sexual photos of other people, without their consent, so everything is different there now I guess.
Gee, communication would be a nice thing. Maybe clue in the police investigators that someone is getting jacked with and might be swatted? Nah. Gotta cover your ass, get more subscribers, pretend security is watertight.
The future is a weird place.
That's for damn sure. One answer is chucking one of those recon scout robots in the window instead of busting in doors. But then, 2 am, a window breaks and suddenly there's a little two wheeled robot in your house chasing your cat.
Probably better than having the living room ‘‘covered in cops.’ though.
Still, it'd be weird welcoming little police drones flying over your house to get rid of the peeping tom drones flying over your house.
I would rather eliminate SWAT teams and take my chances with the criminals.
This is what that looks like.
*shrug*
Wouldn't affect my lifestyle in the slightest. YMMV.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:21 PM on November 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
Doctor: Ok sir, we got a call you're having a heart attack, so we're going to saw through your sternum and perform a median sternotom.
Guy in Barcalounger: Uh, I'm perfectly fine.
Doctor: Ok, sir, an anonymous phone call informed us you're dying, so we're going to take a look ourselves *starts saw*
Guy now out of Barcalounger: AAHHH!
Doctor: Ok, sir, stop resisting, we're professionals.
Finley estimates that he spent 1,000 hours on the case, an incredible amount of effort to catch one teenager. But the kid was exploiting an obvious flaw in the system.
So...therein lies the problem?
I dunno man, isn't the discussion academic?
The laws exist. There are a lot of jurisdictional issues though that need to be fixed.
He pleaded guilty to 23 counts (of criminal harassment, public mischief and extortion), most of the case against him came from Georgia.
So 1,000-odd hours of detective time to put a kid away for less than 16 months, for endangering lives. Yeah, big flaw there.
Dismantling SWAT, I'm not sure should be predicated on this. I don't think many beat cops respond well to school shootings, bank robberies, people armed with high powered weapons (a bolt action rifle is far more dangerous in a gunfight than a sidearm), domestic terrorism (the recent planned parenthood shooting), high risk warrants, etc.
I mean offhand the North Hollywood Shootout proved how effective 9mils and .38s are against body armor and fully automatic rifles.
But in that situation it took SWAT almost 20 minutes to arrive and they had to commandeer an armored car to evacuate civilians trapped by gunfire.
(Which is what the BearCats are supposed to be for).
So SWATs are supposed to react to those kinds of situations, is the idea. Not having the police have more firepower and more "special" weapons themselves.
Not that SWAT are done well everywhere. There are good ways to do it that would (and do) demilitarize police departments so they can do policing. Shared local resources, overlap, all that. Same way disaster response teams are run.
So, bomb squad? That go too?
Not trying to play devils advocate here. SWATs are supposed to be "Special." As in under specialized conditions, like the bomb squad or hostage negotiation, dive teams, etc.
Plenty of people figured out everyone wants to be "special" and sold them on "special" meaning lots of big guns and pouches and stuff and looking intimidating and all bad-ass in front of crowds of unarmed people.
Special went from special response to special intimidating. Last thing you need. Racism and other oppression aside, you keep putting a guy into situations where he outguns and intimidates everyone and feels invincible doing it, not only is he going to react that way all the time, he becomes a wet noodle the second someone calls him on it.
Then your cops become as useful as an insurance policy that won't pay off.
But I can only assume the gamers didn't mention to their police department that someone was threatening to swat them?
The internet companies half assed their social engineering security?
Amazon is not at fault for releasing account information, because the public sector has emergency response vectors that can be abused if they blow off their job?
Cell companies can't find either cheek of their ass with both hands?
Twitter...oh, well they have new rules that prohibit users from posting nude or sexual photos of other people, without their consent, so everything is different there now I guess.
Gee, communication would be a nice thing. Maybe clue in the police investigators that someone is getting jacked with and might be swatted? Nah. Gotta cover your ass, get more subscribers, pretend security is watertight.
The future is a weird place.
That's for damn sure. One answer is chucking one of those recon scout robots in the window instead of busting in doors. But then, 2 am, a window breaks and suddenly there's a little two wheeled robot in your house chasing your cat.
Probably better than having the living room ‘‘covered in cops.’ though.
Still, it'd be weird welcoming little police drones flying over your house to get rid of the peeping tom drones flying over your house.
I would rather eliminate SWAT teams and take my chances with the criminals.
This is what that looks like.
*shrug*
Wouldn't affect my lifestyle in the slightest. YMMV.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:21 PM on November 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
SWAT teams may be an unfortunate fact of modern human existence in our militaristic neo-liberal capitalist and increasingly plutocratic republic, where a large segment of the government is attempting to create a failed state, however I have lived in, and traveled to many countries where SWAT teams are wholly unnecessary.
posted by nikoniko at 9:24 PM on November 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by nikoniko at 9:24 PM on November 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
The Honourable Judge P. Janzen:
"You have indicated that your aspirations are limited to living alone in a smallposted by meehawl at 10:38 PM on November 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
apartment, working in some kind of computer based job and ordering in pizza. That is the life of a loser."
something a reasonable person would expect could result in someone's death it's not the same as the head butting analogy.
A reasonable person would, similarly, expect that death could result from headbutting. People die from non-lethally intended headbutts*. All jurisdictions have spent a long time refining the concept of mens rea, and that relating to murder in particular. The situation does not, legally, have any novel features which distinguish it from any other reckless endangerment of life. People do all kinds of malicious things that could kill people. I am not aware of an English speaking jurisdiction where such awareness equates to attempted murder. An intent to kill is fundamental.
More like, if I shot at someone with an AR, and then claimed "well, but I'm such a bad shot I didn't expect to actually HIT him. I'm shocked and saddened that he got hit and died, but it was a freak accident, really." Would that work at all?
It would depend on whether it was true, or more realistically whether you could convince a court whether it was true. Were you trying to kill or not? That matters. You might not think it should, but what you describe is, technically, a viable defence to a murder charge.
Also, it seems odd to me to suggest that the perpetrator here must have known that death would result when nobody was actually killed during his massive spree of swatting. It seems possible that he never seriously thought that anyone would die, in light of the fact that no-one did die.
*note that, in the linked story, the perpetrator was initially charged with murder (equivalent to first degree murder in jurisdictions with sane homicide laws).
posted by howfar at 12:23 AM on November 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
A reasonable person would, similarly, expect that death could result from headbutting. People die from non-lethally intended headbutts*. All jurisdictions have spent a long time refining the concept of mens rea, and that relating to murder in particular. The situation does not, legally, have any novel features which distinguish it from any other reckless endangerment of life. People do all kinds of malicious things that could kill people. I am not aware of an English speaking jurisdiction where such awareness equates to attempted murder. An intent to kill is fundamental.
More like, if I shot at someone with an AR, and then claimed "well, but I'm such a bad shot I didn't expect to actually HIT him. I'm shocked and saddened that he got hit and died, but it was a freak accident, really." Would that work at all?
It would depend on whether it was true, or more realistically whether you could convince a court whether it was true. Were you trying to kill or not? That matters. You might not think it should, but what you describe is, technically, a viable defence to a murder charge.
Also, it seems odd to me to suggest that the perpetrator here must have known that death would result when nobody was actually killed during his massive spree of swatting. It seems possible that he never seriously thought that anyone would die, in light of the fact that no-one did die.
*note that, in the linked story, the perpetrator was initially charged with murder (equivalent to first degree murder in jurisdictions with sane homicide laws).
posted by howfar at 12:23 AM on November 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Also, it seems odd to me to suggest that the perpetrator here must have known that death would result when nobody was actually killed during his massive spree of swatting. It seems possible that he never seriously thought that anyone would die, in light of the fact that no-one did die.
One explanation for this could probably be due to the visible ethnicity of his victims.
posted by infini at 2:34 AM on November 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
One explanation for this could probably be due to the visible ethnicity of his victims.
posted by infini at 2:34 AM on November 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
As I point out every time somebody says something like this, the Tor Project provides the tools (a complete list of exit node addresses) to identify Tor users bridging to the clearnet, which is to say the tools to block them.
Why the hell is it everybody else's responsibility to deal with the anonymous harassers TOR enables? Why does Twitter, or Facebook, or anybody else have to deal with the crap coming from TOR? When it takes 1600 hours to track down a harasser who gets a couple months in jail, it's really disingenuous to blame the victims and the targets for the problem.
Gee, communication would be a nice thing.
So basically, it's everybody else's responsibility EXCEPT the agencies and people that provide cheap anonymous internet access.
"Oh hey, people are shooting up the town with the automatic weapons I provided. Why haven't the homeowners put in reinforced walls? Why hasn't the city built bulletproof shelters? tThat's really irresponsible!"
posted by happyroach at 2:41 AM on November 28, 2015
Why the hell is it everybody else's responsibility to deal with the anonymous harassers TOR enables? Why does Twitter, or Facebook, or anybody else have to deal with the crap coming from TOR? When it takes 1600 hours to track down a harasser who gets a couple months in jail, it's really disingenuous to blame the victims and the targets for the problem.
Gee, communication would be a nice thing.
So basically, it's everybody else's responsibility EXCEPT the agencies and people that provide cheap anonymous internet access.
"Oh hey, people are shooting up the town with the automatic weapons I provided. Why haven't the homeowners put in reinforced walls? Why hasn't the city built bulletproof shelters? tThat's really irresponsible!"
posted by happyroach at 2:41 AM on November 28, 2015
Interesting that instead of punishing the people who call in these terroristic attacks, people here would rather dismantle SWAT teams.
posted by mkelley at 4:42 AM on November 28, 2015
posted by mkelley at 4:42 AM on November 28, 2015
Interesting that instead of punishing the people who call in these terroristic attacks,
You can't just lie about the content of a thread within the same thread, you know? We all have scrollwheels here.
people here would rather dismantle SWAT teams.
If you think this sentiment dates back only to this thread you're not paying attention.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:39 AM on November 28, 2015 [9 favorites]
You can't just lie about the content of a thread within the same thread, you know? We all have scrollwheels here.
people here would rather dismantle SWAT teams.
If you think this sentiment dates back only to this thread you're not paying attention.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:39 AM on November 28, 2015 [9 favorites]
Interesting that instead of punishing the people who call in these terroristic attacks, people here would rather dismantle SWAT teams.
Yeah, I am totally in favor of both.
posted by hydropsyche at 6:22 AM on November 28, 2015 [9 favorites]
Yeah, I am totally in favor of both.
posted by hydropsyche at 6:22 AM on November 28, 2015 [9 favorites]
So basically, it's everybody else's responsibility EXCEPT the agencies and people that provide cheap anonymous internet access.
Apparently, that's where we are now, yeah.
I think including authorities in the loop that someone is getting harassed would be a good idea. If I'm Twitter or Amazon and there's fraud going on, I think there should be more tools to alert (public sector) investigators of fraud and harassment.
I'd like to see police departments rely more on investigative work and less on force responses, yeah.
Right now it's akin to someone pulling maliciously pulling a fire alarm in the 1950's. There's not much there in terms of forensic evidence like marking paint/dyes and fingerprinting or cameras.
That should change. And too if someone sees someone pull the alarm and there's no fire, they should mention it to the firefighters (staying within the analogy there).
posted by Smedleyman at 9:30 AM on November 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Apparently, that's where we are now, yeah.
I think including authorities in the loop that someone is getting harassed would be a good idea. If I'm Twitter or Amazon and there's fraud going on, I think there should be more tools to alert (public sector) investigators of fraud and harassment.
I'd like to see police departments rely more on investigative work and less on force responses, yeah.
Right now it's akin to someone pulling maliciously pulling a fire alarm in the 1950's. There's not much there in terms of forensic evidence like marking paint/dyes and fingerprinting or cameras.
That should change. And too if someone sees someone pull the alarm and there's no fire, they should mention it to the firefighters (staying within the analogy there).
posted by Smedleyman at 9:30 AM on November 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Everyone is missing the easy solution- SWAT him back. The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a SWAT team is a good guy with a SWAT team.
In all seriousness, I wonder how will this be handled if the next Obnoxious is in, say Russia or Jordan? This is an issue that goes international. I almost wonder if suing the city after the third SWAT incursion after multiple reassurances from everyone in the home that things are ok, would perhaps slow things down. Then again, cities end up paying out for police brutality often and that doesn't seem to change anything.
posted by Hactar at 10:17 AM on November 28, 2015
In all seriousness, I wonder how will this be handled if the next Obnoxious is in, say Russia or Jordan? This is an issue that goes international. I almost wonder if suing the city after the third SWAT incursion after multiple reassurances from everyone in the home that things are ok, would perhaps slow things down. Then again, cities end up paying out for police brutality often and that doesn't seem to change anything.
posted by Hactar at 10:17 AM on November 28, 2015
The problem isn't the anonymizers. The problem is inadequate police response. If police were tied into this shit, then the copious amount of personal preferences and info Obnoxious supplied his targets with would be more than enough to catch him. Or hell, a fake account run by a cop for purposes of drawing him out. The problem is that cops can't be bothered to try unless you tie it up with a pretty now for them.
posted by corb at 2:48 PM on November 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 2:48 PM on November 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Have the cops ever shot/injured/killed anyone during a swatting? (I know they've shot innocent people on other raids, asking specifically about during swatting)
From the article:
In 2011, a former Marine and Iraq war veteran named Jose Guerena was awakened by his wife, who thought she saw intruders outside their home in Arizona. Guerena picked up his AR-15 rifle, with the safety on, to protect his wife and family. SWAT officers entered the house, saw the gun and shot Guerena dozens of times, killing him. They were conducting a drug investigation. In 2010, during a military-style raid on a home in east Detroit, a police officer looking for a murder suspect accidentally shot and killed a 7-year-old girl while she slept.
posted by kisch mokusch at 4:12 PM on November 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
From the article:
In 2011, a former Marine and Iraq war veteran named Jose Guerena was awakened by his wife, who thought she saw intruders outside their home in Arizona. Guerena picked up his AR-15 rifle, with the safety on, to protect his wife and family. SWAT officers entered the house, saw the gun and shot Guerena dozens of times, killing him. They were conducting a drug investigation. In 2010, during a military-style raid on a home in east Detroit, a police officer looking for a murder suspect accidentally shot and killed a 7-year-old girl while she slept.
posted by kisch mokusch at 4:12 PM on November 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
In this case, the use of "swatting" as a verb is referring to this idea of calling in a hoax to provoke a SWAT raid from the police. Those can be good examples of how they have "shot innocent people on other raids" but it is not what ryanrs was asking specifically about.
posted by RobotHero at 5:01 PM on November 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by RobotHero at 5:01 PM on November 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
It appears that those were "legitimate" SWAT raids, though -- that is, not some asshole calling the cops and saying "I'm holding hostages and I'm gonna kill some cops!" The question was specifically whether swatting distinct from "all SWAT operations" has killed anyone.
posted by Etrigan at 5:03 PM on November 28, 2015
posted by Etrigan at 5:03 PM on November 28, 2015
Sorry, my misread.
posted by kisch mokusch at 6:09 PM on November 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by kisch mokusch at 6:09 PM on November 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
It also doesn't help that there's a combination of cops not giving much of a shit about harassment victims and also choosing to be ignorant of the internet- look at the response Obnoxious's victims got and compare to Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:37 PM on November 28, 2015
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:37 PM on November 28, 2015
So basically, it's everybody else's responsibility EXCEPT the agencies and people that provide cheap anonymous internet access.
Are you seriously asking what the legitimate reasons are for people to want to be anonymous on the Internet? The Internet in 2015? I mean you are free to disagree that the capability should exist but a.)it does, technologically speaking and b.) I personally can certainly see a lot of reasons it should. So what I would ask for the people who provide it is that they be good citizens and provide the ability to disallow anonymous users from communities where anonymity is inappropriate. And while I buy that they could provide better info about dealing with abuse when it comes down to it they do uphold that responsibility. Arguably VoIP services that allow anonymous location less 911 calls do not, though this may have to be sorted out with legislation.
posted by atoxyl at 10:54 PM on November 28, 2015
Are you seriously asking what the legitimate reasons are for people to want to be anonymous on the Internet? The Internet in 2015? I mean you are free to disagree that the capability should exist but a.)it does, technologically speaking and b.) I personally can certainly see a lot of reasons it should. So what I would ask for the people who provide it is that they be good citizens and provide the ability to disallow anonymous users from communities where anonymity is inappropriate. And while I buy that they could provide better info about dealing with abuse when it comes down to it they do uphold that responsibility. Arguably VoIP services that allow anonymous location less 911 calls do not, though this may have to be sorted out with legislation.
posted by atoxyl at 10:54 PM on November 28, 2015
Or I mean okay you aren't quite literally asking that but there really isn't in this case a way for the positive uses of Tor to exist without the negative uses. There is certainly some moral complexity on balance.
posted by atoxyl at 11:01 PM on November 28, 2015
posted by atoxyl at 11:01 PM on November 28, 2015
Reading the sentencing linked upthread: it makes sense that you’re not allowed to give a minor a very long prison sentence, annoying as it is in this case. I do wonder what sentence this judge would have given if Obnoxious were 18 instead of 16.
If you’ve swatted people forty times — if you’ve made forty separate phone calls and, in each one, told horrifying lies and uttered threats that the dispatcher had every reason to believe were true — then that’s at least a 20-year sentence in my eyes, with the extra stipulation that you’re not allowed to use the internet while you’re in prison. At least then maybe you’ll be hopelessly behind in ratfucking technology once you get out of jail.
The sentencing also mentions how difficult and expensive the trial would’ve been if Obnoxious had asserted his innocence, since they would’ve had to fly a bunch of Americans into Vancouver to give testimony. The next swatter may not be so cooperative.
posted by savetheclocktower at 5:39 PM on November 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
If you’ve swatted people forty times — if you’ve made forty separate phone calls and, in each one, told horrifying lies and uttered threats that the dispatcher had every reason to believe were true — then that’s at least a 20-year sentence in my eyes, with the extra stipulation that you’re not allowed to use the internet while you’re in prison. At least then maybe you’ll be hopelessly behind in ratfucking technology once you get out of jail.
The sentencing also mentions how difficult and expensive the trial would’ve been if Obnoxious had asserted his innocence, since they would’ve had to fly a bunch of Americans into Vancouver to give testimony. The next swatter may not be so cooperative.
posted by savetheclocktower at 5:39 PM on November 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
meehawl's link shows just how much was in the report from the psych team who interviewed this guy. It's strange that it didn't show up in the NYTimes story, and that the judge, who quotes it so extensively, seems to think that if the guy just applies himself he'll be happier. This guy is definitely a budding sociopath.
posted by OmieWise at 11:09 AM on November 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by OmieWise at 11:09 AM on November 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
I didn't get the sense the the judge genuinely figured that the guy would be happier and turn out ok if he just applied himself; my sense is that the judge was saying those things on the off chance that they might help prevent further swatting and harassment. From what I've seen of criminal judges, they have a remarkable knack for delivering convictions that seem to say "you can do it, and this sentence will help", and just as strong a knack for delivering acquittals that seem to say "I hope that the process of waiting for and going through a trial was punishing enough for you."
posted by kiwano at 11:58 AM on December 1, 2015
posted by kiwano at 11:58 AM on December 1, 2015
« Older From Indonesia, a Muslim Challenge to the Ideology... | Lives of Solitude Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by ryanrs at 3:10 AM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]