6 ms·

I don't think it needs to be an either or. I would like to see this swatter executed and I would like to see major police tactics reform.

jMyles 9y ago
> I don't think it needs to be an either or. In principle, I certainly agree. But in the reality of contemporary American politics, I think that sometimes we need to make decisions about which path to take. Is it a problem that anybody that knows an address can summon a heavily armed, often poorly trained, sometimes mentally ill group of people to break into a home at that address? Or is it a problem that, given the above, people are actually doing it? I want to suggest that we do actually need to choose one or the other in this situation, and that the answer is flatly the former.
cantrip 9y ago
> I would like to see this swatter executed Swatting is an abhorrent practice but if a society does execute people (and I don't think that they ever should) you absolutely do not execute them for swatting.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  Ok, let's use the cumulative time rule as per felonies. This should add up to about 800 years incarceration.
  - izacus 9y ago
    You would jail someone for life for a prank call... when policemen are running around shooting innocent people?
    - jMyles 9y ago
      I too find this reaction very, very difficult to understand. There is an incredible urge to lower the standard for behavior for agents of the state to that of idiot kids using racial slurs on CoD.
    - actsasbuffoon 9y ago
      A prank call is asking someone if their refrigerator is running, then telling them they better go catch it. Swatting involves having people with guns break into someone’s house and possibly kill them. Swatting isn’t a prank; it’s attempted murder.
      - jMyles 9y ago
        The difference isn't in the attack, for which we normally hold the attacker responsible, but in the vulnerability and volatility of the attack surface, for which society is responsible in this case. I think that the maximal culpability for the caller's crime is in the realm of irresponsible disclosure.
        triangleman 9y ago
        Can you explain that? Or follow it through to a conclusion, like what actual crime do you think was committed here?
      - izacus 9y ago
        No, actually it's exactly the same thing - or should be in a civilized country. Where policemen (the actual murderers in this case) don't execute unarmed innocent people. "The bug" is the fact that American police kills innocent people that have done nothing wrong. Of course the caller should be fined for abusing a critical service, but the root cause of this murder isn't in the phone call - it's US police killing innocent people in alarming number of cases. Blaming it on the caller completely ignores all other police killings that have happened without a swatter. Unless you're trying to say that being able to call up men that murder someone is a feature desired in your country?
        zimpenfish 9y ago
        > but the root cause of this murder isn't in the phone call If you know there's a strong possibility (and in the US, this is the case) that your phone call could result in someone's death - and calling in a fake hostage/murder to trigger a SWAT response certainly qualifies - you are part of the root cause, definitely. > Blaming it on the caller completely ignores all other police killings that have happened without a swatter. This is ridiculous whataboutism.
- 5555624 9y ago
  Even if the swatting results in the death of an innocent person? That's the point with Barriss, as this incident resulted in the death of an innocent man. Cretins might enjoy calling in fake reports of hostage situations and watching the police reaction.; but, when people die, the situation and penalty are different. The penalties for driving drunk and killing someone are harsher than a simple DUI.
  - cantrip 9y ago
    Yes, even if the swatting results in the death of an innocent person. > The penalties for driving drunk and killing someone are harsher than a simple DUI. The penalties are harsher because they are different crimes. That's not an argument for executing prank callers.
  - kylemuir 9y ago
    > The penalties for driving drunk and killing someone are harsher than a simple DUI. Even in this example, drunk drivers who kill aren't executed. I definitely agree the punishment on this particular individual should be stronger but executing him? That's taking it a bit far. A long jail stint (and some growing up) would likely stop this particular individual from ever repeating their actions again. Executions should be reserved for those who are truly beyond rehabilitation IMO.
blattimwind 9y ago
> I would like to see this swatter executed You certainly don't low-ball your punishment desires.
- ggg9990 9y ago
  I don't. I think that execution should be the default punishment for murder and other forms of intentional homicide, barring exceptional circumstances which I don't see here.
  - jMyles 9y ago
    > other forms of intentional homicide, barring exceptional circumstances Presumably then capital punishment, itself an example of intentional homicide, is among these "exceptional" circumstances?
    - ggg9990 9y ago
      No, I don't think that a jail sentence is morally equivalent to abduction, and I don't think that a DUI is morally equivalent to thievery.
      - jMyles 9y ago
        I... didn't ask those things?
        ggg9990 9y ago
        To rephrase... I don't think that the comparison between capital punishment and murder is worth the calories it takes to type, just like a comparison between a speeding ticket and armed robbery.
        acct1771 9y ago
        If the person dying is innocent, the end result is the same. Thoughts?
empath75 9y ago
You can't have major police tactics reform without a reform of gun laws to go around with it. Police have to assume that there is a possibility that anyone that they interact with is armed to the teeth. I'm not sure you can reasonably ask police to unilaterally disarm and still expect them to be able to handle mass shootings when they do occur.
- jMyles 9y ago
  > Police have to assume that there is a possibility that anyone that they interact with is armed to the teeth. I've never understood this argument. I assume that some 10-30% (depending on where I am in the country) of people around me are carrying a concealed weapon, and yet I don't react with such recklessness. We are all surrounded by guns all the time; in what way are police disproportionately vulnerable as a result?
  - wang_li 9y ago
    The police are -- more or less by definition -- interacting with people in an adversarial way. Add on top of that the fact that if the police are being called to intercede then the situation is one in which social mores have broken down. If we put police in the circumstances you describe, the number of people randomly walking down the street who were shot by a police officer also randomly walking down the street was 0 last year.
- mieseratte 9y ago
  > You can't have major police tactics reform without a reform of gun laws to go around with it. Police have to assume that there is a possibility that anyone that they interact with is armed to the teeth. Alternatively, you can treat extraordinary claims with some level of skepticism. I've had the joy of being swatted. I got a knock on the door, a few M4's in my face, cuffed and pinned against a wall, and then later an apology from the officers. All told, it was handled reasonably well in that I wasn't shot... Still, you'd think having a few cops knock on the door and go "Hey, so funny story..." and assessing the situation from there, hell even with a few storm troopers behind 'em, would be a reasonable enough approach. Unfortunately the officers were fully keyed up and ready for a fight, so I had to deal with a bunch of adrenaline junkies playing Operator for an evening. It kills me how many combat vets I know who had to work under stricter ROEs than street cops in a country that supposedly has a distrust of government and a hatred of tyranny.

jMyles 9y ago

> I don't think it needs to be an either or. In principle, I certainly agree. But in the reality of contemporary American politics, I think that sometimes we need to make decisions about which path to take. Is it a problem that anybody that knows an address can summon a heavily armed, often poorly trained, sometimes mentally ill group of people to break into a home at that address? Or is it a problem that, given the above, people are actually doing it? I want to suggest that we do actually need to choose one or the other in this situation, and that the answer is flatly the former.

cantrip 9y ago

> I would like to see this swatter executed Swatting is an abhorrent practice but if a society does execute people (and I don't think that they ever should) you absolutely do not execute them for swatting.

AstralStorm 9y ago
Ok, let's use the cumulative time rule as per felonies. This should add up to about 800 years incarceration.
- izacus 9y ago
  You would jail someone for life for a prank call... when policemen are running around shooting innocent people?
  - jMyles 9y ago
    I too find this reaction very, very difficult to understand. There is an incredible urge to lower the standard for behavior for agents of the state to that of idiot kids using racial slurs on CoD.
  - actsasbuffoon 9y ago
    A prank call is asking someone if their refrigerator is running, then telling them they better go catch it. Swatting involves having people with guns break into someone’s house and possibly kill them. Swatting isn’t a prank; it’s attempted murder.
    - jMyles 9y ago
      The difference isn't in the attack, for which we normally hold the attacker responsible, but in the vulnerability and volatility of the attack surface, for which society is responsible in this case. I think that the maximal culpability for the caller's crime is in the realm of irresponsible disclosure.
      - triangleman 9y ago
        Can you explain that? Or follow it through to a conclusion, like what actual crime do you think was committed here?
    - izacus 9y ago
      No, actually it's exactly the same thing - or should be in a civilized country. Where policemen (the actual murderers in this case) don't execute unarmed innocent people. "The bug" is the fact that American police kills innocent people that have done nothing wrong. Of course the caller should be fined for abusing a critical service, but the root cause of this murder isn't in the phone call - it's US police killing innocent people in alarming number of cases. Blaming it on the caller completely ignores all other police killings that have happened without a swatter. Unless you're trying to say that being able to call up men that murder someone is a feature desired in your country?
      - zimpenfish 9y ago
        > but the root cause of this murder isn't in the phone call If you know there's a strong possibility (and in the US, this is the case) that your phone call could result in someone's death - and calling in a fake hostage/murder to trigger a SWAT response certainly qualifies - you are part of the root cause, definitely. > Blaming it on the caller completely ignores all other police killings that have happened without a swatter. This is ridiculous whataboutism.
5555624 9y ago
Even if the swatting results in the death of an innocent person? That's the point with Barriss, as this incident resulted in the death of an innocent man. Cretins might enjoy calling in fake reports of hostage situations and watching the police reaction.; but, when people die, the situation and penalty are different. The penalties for driving drunk and killing someone are harsher than a simple DUI.
- cantrip 9y ago
  Yes, even if the swatting results in the death of an innocent person. > The penalties for driving drunk and killing someone are harsher than a simple DUI. The penalties are harsher because they are different crimes. That's not an argument for executing prank callers.
- kylemuir 9y ago
  > The penalties for driving drunk and killing someone are harsher than a simple DUI. Even in this example, drunk drivers who kill aren't executed. I definitely agree the punishment on this particular individual should be stronger but executing him? That's taking it a bit far. A long jail stint (and some growing up) would likely stop this particular individual from ever repeating their actions again. Executions should be reserved for those who are truly beyond rehabilitation IMO.

blattimwind 9y ago

> I would like to see this swatter executed You certainly don't low-ball your punishment desires.

ggg9990 9y ago
I don't. I think that execution should be the default punishment for murder and other forms of intentional homicide, barring exceptional circumstances which I don't see here.
- jMyles 9y ago
  > other forms of intentional homicide, barring exceptional circumstances Presumably then capital punishment, itself an example of intentional homicide, is among these "exceptional" circumstances?
  - ggg9990 9y ago
    No, I don't think that a jail sentence is morally equivalent to abduction, and I don't think that a DUI is morally equivalent to thievery.
    - jMyles 9y ago
      I... didn't ask those things?
      - ggg9990 9y ago
        To rephrase... I don't think that the comparison between capital punishment and murder is worth the calories it takes to type, just like a comparison between a speeding ticket and armed robbery.
        acct1771 9y ago
        If the person dying is innocent, the end result is the same. Thoughts?

empath75 9y ago

You can't have major police tactics reform without a reform of gun laws to go around with it. Police have to assume that there is a possibility that anyone that they interact with is armed to the teeth. I'm not sure you can reasonably ask police to unilaterally disarm and still expect them to be able to handle mass shootings when they do occur.

jMyles 9y ago
> Police have to assume that there is a possibility that anyone that they interact with is armed to the teeth. I've never understood this argument. I assume that some 10-30% (depending on where I am in the country) of people around me are carrying a concealed weapon, and yet I don't react with such recklessness. We are all surrounded by guns all the time; in what way are police disproportionately vulnerable as a result?
- wang_li 9y ago
  The police are -- more or less by definition -- interacting with people in an adversarial way. Add on top of that the fact that if the police are being called to intercede then the situation is one in which social mores have broken down. If we put police in the circumstances you describe, the number of people randomly walking down the street who were shot by a police officer also randomly walking down the street was 0 last year.
mieseratte 9y ago
> You can't have major police tactics reform without a reform of gun laws to go around with it. Police have to assume that there is a possibility that anyone that they interact with is armed to the teeth. Alternatively, you can treat extraordinary claims with some level of skepticism. I've had the joy of being swatted. I got a knock on the door, a few M4's in my face, cuffed and pinned against a wall, and then later an apology from the officers. All told, it was handled reasonably well in that I wasn't shot... Still, you'd think having a few cops knock on the door and go "Hey, so funny story..." and assessing the situation from there, hell even with a few storm troopers behind 'em, would be a reasonable enough approach. Unfortunately the officers were fully keyed up and ready for a fight, so I had to deal with a bunch of adrenaline junkies playing Operator for an evening. It kills me how many combat vets I know who had to work under stricter ROEs than street cops in a country that supposedly has a distrust of government and a hatred of tyranny.