6 ms·

Don't even try to blame this on the law enforcement.

no_one_ever 8y ago
Why not?
peterwwillis 8y ago
Ok then. Politicians? Citizens who don't force political change to prevent it? Over-militarization of law e.... oh, right, I'm not allowed to blame them.
- matte_black 8y ago
  You can start with the scumbags who placed the SWAT call. That's a good start don't you think.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    The problem is with stopping there. If these scumbags had tried this in, say, London, chances are the victim would still be alive today.
  - toopsss 8y ago
    What is with your agenda to not pin blame on the cops?
  - alkonaut 8y ago
    > You can start with the scumbags who placed the SWAT call. Let's just agree that someone having committed a crime doesn't mean the next person in the chain of events isn't responsible. People saying the cops should have done differently aren't in any way saying that the people placing the call aren't responsible. It's a false dichotomy.
    - macintux 8y ago
      > People saying the cops should have done differently aren't in any way saying that the people placing the call aren't responsible. Oh, yes, there are definitely those who believe the person making the call should get a fine for wasting police time at worst.
sontek 8y ago
The murder is definitely law enforcements fault. If they go in wanting to use deadly force without any proof that is on them. Of course the guys who made false claims should also be in trouble, but just because they were wrong, doesn't mean the law enforcement wasn't ALSO wrong.
- matte_black 8y ago
  Someone made a call saying someone was armed and dangerous and had already murdered at least one person. What more do you want? A picture? A video?
  - timmaah 8y ago
    A conviction
  - simlevesque 8y ago
    > What more do you want? A picture? A video? I want police officers to assess if there is any danger before shooting. The guy they shot was not even the guy who made the call, they had no proof that it was the same guy. I just want police officers to think about the current situation before shooting. If he had no weapon drawn, he was not a threat and there was no reason to shoot.
  - keepper 8y ago
    Evidence? Rules of engagement that don't immediately mean an innocent person winds up dead? Can you honestly not see this?
  - alkonaut 8y ago
    > What more do you want? A picture? A video? Direct observation of the threat. Period. > someone was armed and dangerous That's a rumor at that point (just like ANY call). They need to assess it themselves. Arriving at a scene and assuming anyone they see is this someone also seems pretty irresponsible.
  - snowwrestler 8y ago
    In the U.S. military, operating in a foreign country, the typical orders under similar intelligence are to go and evaluate the situation themselves to determine if there is really a threat, before opening fire. It seems crazy to me that soldiers operating in a theater of war are held to a higher standard for use of lethal force than officers of the law interacting with U.S. citizens.
ceejayoz 8y ago
Modern [edit: American] law enforcement training puts so much priority on the safety of officers that it results in the deaths of unarmed innocents in this manner. > The reality was that Finch was unarmed and that nearly every officer on the scene never saw him raise his hand with a gun in it. Several reported that they didn’t fire because they didn’t see a gun. At least one officer said that when he saw Finch dropping his hands to his waistband and pull them back up he remembered thinking, “that’s not a good idea. . . don’t be lifting, tugging at your waistband.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Warrior_Cop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Warrior_Cop is a good read. Another example of how horrifyingly bad this sort of "everyone's a threat" training is can be seen in the disturbing video of Daniel Shaver's execution. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/08/graphic-video-shows-daniel-shaver-sobbing-and-begging-officer-for-his-life-before-2016-shooting/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/0... It's hard to watch.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- weberc2 8y ago
  Maybe the training is calibrated correctly. Perhaps these deaths are an anomaly, but a different calibration that might save these lives would result in ten times as many officer deaths? Without frequency information, it’s hard to tell. And then there’s the ethical question of trading off between police and bystanders... Seems more nuanced than some in this thread want to admit.
  - rhacker 8y ago
    Well considering the estimate as of 2013 was 400 calls PER YEAR means there have probably been what, 5000 swatting calls total since it started? 1 Death is basically damn fucking LUCK.
- alkonaut 8y ago
  > Modern law enforcement training puts so much priority on the safety of officers that it results in the deaths of unarmed innocents in this manner. No it doesn't. But contemporary american law enforcement training sure appears to.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
simlevesque 8y ago
You can put the blame on multiple parties for the same crime. It's not 'this or that'.
alkonaut 8y ago
Blame doesn't "move" or "shift". It's a sequence of events with blame in each one. Saying the kids committed a crime doesn't in ANY WAY vindicate police shooting an unarmed person.
peterwwillis 8y ago
Here is the picture of where the cops were when they killed the guy: https://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/singleshot.png https://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/singl... The shooter claims the guy held up a gun. Obviously, he didn't. But assuming he DID: how did this cop get a 1-shot kill at that range without a scope? If he was using a scope, he could have seen there was no gun. If he wasn't using a scope, it's very unlikely at that range you could tell if someone was holding a gun up or a cell phone in the dark. The cop was even behind cover, and well across the street. "The reality was that Finch was unarmed and that nearly every officer on the scene never saw him raise his hand with a gun in it. Several reported that they didn’t fire because they didn’t see a gun." So, yeah, I'm totally fine with blaming the trigger-happy cop that killed this innocent father of 2. As it turns out, the cop will not be charged at all.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  That is really far away: 30 yards at least? Most target shooting enthusiasts couldn't have made that shot with a pistol. The victim certainly couldn't have, so the cops were never in danger. However as you can see at the bottom left corner of the picture, the cops are packing "assault weapons", so it's understandable that they could murder from that distance.
- alkonaut 8y ago
  > how did this cop get a 1-shot kill at that range without a scope? One cynical guess: it will happen eventually, and we didn't hear about the previous 99 times when a police officer shot out the porchlight next to some unarmed and confused man who pulls a sandwich. > The shooter claims the guy held up a gun. Remember that what he "sees" isn't what's there, it's what his brain tells him is there. And I'm willing to bet that police officers in the US who constantly see, fear, and think of people holding guns, will end up "seeing" guns a lot more times than there actually are guns there, and more so than officers in countries with much smaller gun threat [Citation needed :) ]. And if that's the case then that is just one more scary side effect of the US gun climate. > The cop was even behind cover, and well across the street. Which is why he (or anyone else from the look of it) wasn't in immediate danger and should probably be charged with the killing.
toopsss 8y ago
It was pretty much 99% law enforcements fault with a tiny bit the kids fault. If someone across state lines can call in a hoax and get someone killed then sorry but it’s pretty much on the LEA idiots.
- macintux 8y ago
  99% of the ill intent was the kid's fault. He sent people with guns to someone else's house and created a threat level that was bound to make police very cautious. I'm so sick of people defending the swatter. THERE IS NO DEFENSE. NONE.
  - alkonaut 8y ago
    I think you may be misreading what people are saying. I'm not seeing anyone defending the swatter. (I might have missed it of course). I'm arguing that the cop ALSO behaved in a way that is criminally incompetent. But blaming the officer isn't somehow saying the swatters aren't responsible. Blame and responsibility isn't shifted from one party to the other. Edit: > a tiny bit the kids fault. I DON'T agree with this: but what I disagree most with is the attempt to divide the responsibility. It doesn't need to be divided. Two crimes were commited. Treat them separately. The kid is 100% responsible for his action, and the cop is 100% responsible for his actions. It's pretty clear that without the actions of one, the person wouldn't have ended up dead. So why try to divide it?
    - macintux 8y ago
      I'm mostly still enraged at the apathetic attitude espoused in this thread from the original incident. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16031359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16031359
      - alkonaut 8y ago
        I'm actually pretty encouraged by reading that: just one idiot and several reasonable people. Feared I'd find a 50/50 debate going on there.

Why not?

Ok then. Politicians? Citizens who don't force political change to prevent it? Over-militarization of law e.... oh, right, I'm not allowed to blame them.

matte_black 8y ago
You can start with the scumbags who placed the SWAT call. That's a good start don't you think.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  The problem is with stopping there. If these scumbags had tried this in, say, London, chances are the victim would still be alive today.
- toopsss 8y ago
  What is with your agenda to not pin blame on the cops?
- alkonaut 8y ago
  > You can start with the scumbags who placed the SWAT call. Let's just agree that someone having committed a crime doesn't mean the next person in the chain of events isn't responsible. People saying the cops should have done differently aren't in any way saying that the people placing the call aren't responsible. It's a false dichotomy.
  - macintux 8y ago
    > People saying the cops should have done differently aren't in any way saying that the people placing the call aren't responsible. Oh, yes, there are definitely those who believe the person making the call should get a fine for wasting police time at worst.

sontek 8y ago

The murder is definitely law enforcements fault. If they go in wanting to use deadly force without any proof that is on them. Of course the guys who made false claims should also be in trouble, but just because they were wrong, doesn't mean the law enforcement wasn't ALSO wrong.

matte_black 8y ago
Someone made a call saying someone was armed and dangerous and had already murdered at least one person. What more do you want? A picture? A video?
- timmaah 8y ago
  A conviction
- simlevesque 8y ago
  > What more do you want? A picture? A video? I want police officers to assess if there is any danger before shooting. The guy they shot was not even the guy who made the call, they had no proof that it was the same guy. I just want police officers to think about the current situation before shooting. If he had no weapon drawn, he was not a threat and there was no reason to shoot.
- keepper 8y ago
  Evidence? Rules of engagement that don't immediately mean an innocent person winds up dead? Can you honestly not see this?
- alkonaut 8y ago
  > What more do you want? A picture? A video? Direct observation of the threat. Period. > someone was armed and dangerous That's a rumor at that point (just like ANY call). They need to assess it themselves. Arriving at a scene and assuming anyone they see is this someone also seems pretty irresponsible.
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  In the U.S. military, operating in a foreign country, the typical orders under similar intelligence are to go and evaluate the situation themselves to determine if there is really a threat, before opening fire. It seems crazy to me that soldiers operating in a theater of war are held to a higher standard for use of lethal force than officers of the law interacting with U.S. citizens.

ceejayoz 8y ago

Modern [edit: American] law enforcement training puts so much priority on the safety of officers that it results in the deaths of unarmed innocents in this manner. > The reality was that Finch was unarmed and that nearly every officer on the scene never saw him raise his hand with a gun in it. Several reported that they didn’t fire because they didn’t see a gun. At least one officer said that when he saw Finch dropping his hands to his waistband and pull them back up he remembered thinking, “that’s not a good idea. . . don’t be lifting, tugging at your waistband.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Warrior_Cop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Warrior_Cop is a good read. Another example of how horrifyingly bad this sort of "everyone's a threat" training is can be seen in the disturbing video of Daniel Shaver's execution. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/08/graphic-video-shows-daniel-shaver-sobbing-and-begging-officer-for-his-life-before-2016-shooting/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/0... It's hard to watch.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
weberc2 8y ago
Maybe the training is calibrated correctly. Perhaps these deaths are an anomaly, but a different calibration that might save these lives would result in ten times as many officer deaths? Without frequency information, it’s hard to tell. And then there’s the ethical question of trading off between police and bystanders... Seems more nuanced than some in this thread want to admit.
- rhacker 8y ago
  Well considering the estimate as of 2013 was 400 calls PER YEAR means there have probably been what, 5000 swatting calls total since it started? 1 Death is basically damn fucking LUCK.
alkonaut 8y ago
> Modern law enforcement training puts so much priority on the safety of officers that it results in the deaths of unarmed innocents in this manner. No it doesn't. But contemporary american law enforcement training sure appears to.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

simlevesque 8y ago

You can put the blame on multiple parties for the same crime. It's not 'this or that'.

alkonaut 8y ago

Blame doesn't "move" or "shift". It's a sequence of events with blame in each one. Saying the kids committed a crime doesn't in ANY WAY vindicate police shooting an unarmed person.

peterwwillis 8y ago

Here is the picture of where the cops were when they killed the guy: https://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/singleshot.png https://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/singl... The shooter claims the guy held up a gun. Obviously, he didn't. But assuming he DID: how did this cop get a 1-shot kill at that range without a scope? If he was using a scope, he could have seen there was no gun. If he wasn't using a scope, it's very unlikely at that range you could tell if someone was holding a gun up or a cell phone in the dark. The cop was even behind cover, and well across the street. "The reality was that Finch was unarmed and that nearly every officer on the scene never saw him raise his hand with a gun in it. Several reported that they didn’t fire because they didn’t see a gun." So, yeah, I'm totally fine with blaming the trigger-happy cop that killed this innocent father of 2. As it turns out, the cop will not be charged at all.

jessaustin 8y ago
That is really far away: 30 yards at least? Most target shooting enthusiasts couldn't have made that shot with a pistol. The victim certainly couldn't have, so the cops were never in danger. However as you can see at the bottom left corner of the picture, the cops are packing "assault weapons", so it's understandable that they could murder from that distance.
alkonaut 8y ago
> how did this cop get a 1-shot kill at that range without a scope? One cynical guess: it will happen eventually, and we didn't hear about the previous 99 times when a police officer shot out the porchlight next to some unarmed and confused man who pulls a sandwich. > The shooter claims the guy held up a gun. Remember that what he "sees" isn't what's there, it's what his brain tells him is there. And I'm willing to bet that police officers in the US who constantly see, fear, and think of people holding guns, will end up "seeing" guns a lot more times than there actually are guns there, and more so than officers in countries with much smaller gun threat [Citation needed :) ]. And if that's the case then that is just one more scary side effect of the US gun climate. > The cop was even behind cover, and well across the street. Which is why he (or anyone else from the look of it) wasn't in immediate danger and should probably be charged with the killing.

toopsss 8y ago

It was pretty much 99% law enforcements fault with a tiny bit the kids fault. If someone across state lines can call in a hoax and get someone killed then sorry but it’s pretty much on the LEA idiots.

macintux 8y ago
99% of the ill intent was the kid's fault. He sent people with guns to someone else's house and created a threat level that was bound to make police very cautious. I'm so sick of people defending the swatter. THERE IS NO DEFENSE. NONE.
- alkonaut 8y ago
  I think you may be misreading what people are saying. I'm not seeing anyone defending the swatter. (I might have missed it of course). I'm arguing that the cop ALSO behaved in a way that is criminally incompetent. But blaming the officer isn't somehow saying the swatters aren't responsible. Blame and responsibility isn't shifted from one party to the other. Edit: > a tiny bit the kids fault. I DON'T agree with this: but what I disagree most with is the attempt to divide the responsibility. It doesn't need to be divided. Two crimes were commited. Treat them separately. The kid is 100% responsible for his action, and the cop is 100% responsible for his actions. It's pretty clear that without the actions of one, the person wouldn't have ended up dead. So why try to divide it?
  - macintux 8y ago
    I'm mostly still enraged at the apathetic attitude espoused in this thread from the original incident. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16031359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16031359
    - alkonaut 8y ago
      I'm actually pretty encouraged by reading that: just one idiot and several reasonable people. Feared I'd find a 50/50 debate going on there.