6 ms·

> Barriss pretended there was a hostage situation at the Wichita house that previously belonged to Viner’s Call of Duty enemy. While this is terrible, police h

> Barriss pretended there was a hostage situation at the Wichita house that previously belonged to Viner’s Call of Duty enemy. While this is terrible, police have no choice but to operate under the assumption that the 911 call is in good faith. From what I read, the police seem to have been acting appropriately for a hostage situation. I would certainly be wary of ruses to make me drop my guard if I thought I was entering a hostage environment.

happytoexplain 8y ago
From what I read, the police seemed to have jumped to killing him far too quickly, and it's frankly a sickening embarrassment to civilization. I have nothing but respect for public servants who risk their lives, but their job is unfortunately to do just that: Risk their lives for the safety and freedom of the public. Not to unload deadly fire into anybody who's hand moves toward their pants. I understand if some people think there is simply no way to reasonably make a distinction in these "he's reaching for something" scenarios, but I respectfully disagree.
slededit 8y ago
They had him with his hands up and shot him. They claim he was going for his waste band but there was no gun there. Pulling up your pants is not a reason to get shot. Other jurisdictions don’t seem to have the same problem of shooting people who have already surrendered.
- obmelvin 8y ago
  I certainly believe there are plenty of things that can be improved in training. However, in a supposed hostage situation I would imagine it is quite tricky to know that this isn't a trick. How do you know this person isn't meant to disarm you and then someone else takes you hostage and now the situation is worse? EDIT: You are right, that was a poor example for this situation. I can't reply to you, but the only point I'm trying to make is that it is very easy to see this situation after the fact. But I would imagine it is next to impossible to verify some of these facts in real time with confidence.
  - slededit 8y ago
    I don’t see how that has any relevance to the situation where this man was shot. Police were arrayed out in front of the house and he came out the front door with his hands up. Somehow he was going to disarm every cop on the lawn? Back in reality the police shot a man who already surrendered and was unarmed. This would be a war crime on a battlefield, but the police are held to a lower standard.
pavel_lishin 8y ago
> police have no choice but to operate under the assumption that the 911 call is in good faith. You say that, but... they do. How many hostage calls are real, vs. fake? Why don't police approach all cars they pull over with their guns drawn?
- obmelvin 8y ago
  I don't think that is a fair comparison. In most situations there is no reason to presume danger when you pull over a car. If you are responding to a hostage call, well then you very well should assume it is a dangerous situation. > How many hostage calls are real, vs. fake? How do you propose verifying if a situation is real vs fake short of entering the premise prepared for a real situation?
  - cremp 8y ago
    Caller area code. For starters; he had to call a general, city line, to get the public (non-local, 10 digit) line for the dispatchers, so he could actually call the '911' (three digit) line. From what I gather, The area code itself is a give-away. If you say 'what about people who just moved, but haven't changed their number yet,' then I'd say that the dispatchers (should) be able to see if it was a honest 911 (three digit), or the public line (10 digit.)
    - schoen 8y ago
      The plea bargain says that he used VoIP to appear to be calling from the local area code (although I agree that the dispatchers could still be informed whether the call was placed by 911 or via a 10-digit emergency number—but currently VoIP subscribers might also be able to register their self-reported location, in which case a distant VoIP 911 call might conceivably look the same to a dispatcher as a nearby VoIP 911 call).
    - rhizome 8y ago
      Caller area code. Easily spoofed, and the phone company will laugh in your face if you ask them for the billing address of the person who called you at 10:37pm on Nov 12, 2018.
HarryHirsch 8y ago
They have hostage situations in other countries, and they do not shoot habitually shoot civilians there. In fact, they hardly fire a shot ever. In Britain, where police are routinely unarmed, there are 5 or 6 incidents a year when an officer discharges a firearm. In Germany police officers are armed, and they fire ~ 100 rounds/year. There's something very wrong with American police and their fire discipline.
- obmelvin 8y ago
  Yes, but sadly in America police need to assume a gun could be present in the home. It is a lot easier to not shoot your gun if you aren't worried about being shot yourself.
  - HarryHirsch 8y ago
    In the US, police shoot dead about 1000 civilians every year, and 40 or so police officers are shot in the line of duty. Consider that there are 325 million people living in the US, and 1 million are police officers. It's completely out of control.
    - tprnz 8y ago
      Of those 1000 civilians who were shot dead, how many of them were in immediate risk of harming others? Just saying "1000 civilians every year" as if policemen had simply assassinated them is dishonest to say the least.
      - rhizome 8y ago
        The police will tell you that 100% of the killed were about to harm others.
        HarryHirsch 8y ago
        Like those two women doing the newspaper delivery during the Dorner manhunt: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-no-charges-lapd-shooting-newspaper-delivery-women-dorner-manhunt-20160127-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-no-charges-lapd-...
nitwit005 8y ago
> While this is terrible, police have no choice but to operate under the assumption that the 911 call is in good faith. Even if there were a genuine hostage taker, shooting them on sight isn't the right thing to do. They usually succeed in talking them down.
caconym_ 8y ago
> police have no choice but to operate under the assumption that the 911 call is in good faith Why the hell not? Swatting is a well-known phenomenon, and even if that weren't true, killing somebody without a single shred of direct evidence that the situation calls for that level of response is insane. We absolutely have to do better. Police cannot (responsibly) put themselves in completely unknown situations and then start shooting to kill at the slightest suggestion of danger. It seems that police departments have started to respond to the threat of swatting with streamer whitelists and such. That's good. It's just a shame that someone apparently had to die for them to sit up and take this obvious problem seriously.
- gravy 8y ago
  The issue is that it's not isolated to just streamers. Given an infinite number of possibilities of how a situation can occur (and given an infinite number of GIVEN POSSIBILITIES by the "swatter") how do you solve the issue of putting together a response team in as little time as possible to respond to a threat while at the same time not undermining the idea that it could very well be a real threat? What I mean is, it's very easy to say that they can't put themselves in these completely unknown situations. Unfortunately that simply is the job of the response teams and often of local law enforcement. How do you verify quickly and accurately that a call is not a trap? How do you do so consistently -- that is, how do I know the NEXT call is NOT a trap? A streamer whitelist does no good if swatting can be done to anyone. I don't mean to assume that there aren't already answers to these questions, but to say that they are being irresponsible when dispatching officers and teams is making light of the issues.
  - caconym_ 8y ago
    > to say that they are being irresponsible when dispatching officers and teams is making light of the issues Are you implying that I said that? I said no such thing, anyway. I will say, again, that "police cannot (responsibly) put themselves in completely unknown situations and then start shooting to kill at the slightest suggestion of danger." Speaking of things I never said... I also didn't say streamer whitelists would completely fix this problem. It's a good start, and should help officers to go into these situations with more information. That makes everybody safer. Overall you've put a lot of words in my mouth and you seem to be implying this false dichotomy in which officers either "aren't taking the call seriously" or are justified in pulling the trigger on someone with zero direct evidence that they're actually in any danger. That dichotomy is bullshit.

happytoexplain 8y ago

From what I read, the police seemed to have jumped to killing him far too quickly, and it's frankly a sickening embarrassment to civilization. I have nothing but respect for public servants who risk their lives, but their job is unfortunately to do just that: Risk their lives for the safety and freedom of the public. Not to unload deadly fire into anybody who's hand moves toward their pants. I understand if some people think there is simply no way to reasonably make a distinction in these "he's reaching for something" scenarios, but I respectfully disagree.

slededit 8y ago

They had him with his hands up and shot him. They claim he was going for his waste band but there was no gun there. Pulling up your pants is not a reason to get shot. Other jurisdictions don’t seem to have the same problem of shooting people who have already surrendered.

obmelvin 8y ago
I certainly believe there are plenty of things that can be improved in training. However, in a supposed hostage situation I would imagine it is quite tricky to know that this isn't a trick. How do you know this person isn't meant to disarm you and then someone else takes you hostage and now the situation is worse? EDIT: You are right, that was a poor example for this situation. I can't reply to you, but the only point I'm trying to make is that it is very easy to see this situation after the fact. But I would imagine it is next to impossible to verify some of these facts in real time with confidence.
- slededit 8y ago
  I don’t see how that has any relevance to the situation where this man was shot. Police were arrayed out in front of the house and he came out the front door with his hands up. Somehow he was going to disarm every cop on the lawn? Back in reality the police shot a man who already surrendered and was unarmed. This would be a war crime on a battlefield, but the police are held to a lower standard.

pavel_lishin 8y ago

> police have no choice but to operate under the assumption that the 911 call is in good faith. You say that, but... they do. How many hostage calls are real, vs. fake? Why don't police approach all cars they pull over with their guns drawn?

obmelvin 8y ago
I don't think that is a fair comparison. In most situations there is no reason to presume danger when you pull over a car. If you are responding to a hostage call, well then you very well should assume it is a dangerous situation. > How many hostage calls are real, vs. fake? How do you propose verifying if a situation is real vs fake short of entering the premise prepared for a real situation?
- cremp 8y ago
  Caller area code. For starters; he had to call a general, city line, to get the public (non-local, 10 digit) line for the dispatchers, so he could actually call the '911' (three digit) line. From what I gather, The area code itself is a give-away. If you say 'what about people who just moved, but haven't changed their number yet,' then I'd say that the dispatchers (should) be able to see if it was a honest 911 (three digit), or the public line (10 digit.)
  - schoen 8y ago
    The plea bargain says that he used VoIP to appear to be calling from the local area code (although I agree that the dispatchers could still be informed whether the call was placed by 911 or via a 10-digit emergency number—but currently VoIP subscribers might also be able to register their self-reported location, in which case a distant VoIP 911 call might conceivably look the same to a dispatcher as a nearby VoIP 911 call).
  - rhizome 8y ago
    Caller area code. Easily spoofed, and the phone company will laugh in your face if you ask them for the billing address of the person who called you at 10:37pm on Nov 12, 2018.

HarryHirsch 8y ago

They have hostage situations in other countries, and they do not shoot habitually shoot civilians there. In fact, they hardly fire a shot ever. In Britain, where police are routinely unarmed, there are 5 or 6 incidents a year when an officer discharges a firearm. In Germany police officers are armed, and they fire ~ 100 rounds/year. There's something very wrong with American police and their fire discipline.

obmelvin 8y ago
Yes, but sadly in America police need to assume a gun could be present in the home. It is a lot easier to not shoot your gun if you aren't worried about being shot yourself.
- HarryHirsch 8y ago
  In the US, police shoot dead about 1000 civilians every year, and 40 or so police officers are shot in the line of duty. Consider that there are 325 million people living in the US, and 1 million are police officers. It's completely out of control.
  - tprnz 8y ago
    Of those 1000 civilians who were shot dead, how many of them were in immediate risk of harming others? Just saying "1000 civilians every year" as if policemen had simply assassinated them is dishonest to say the least.
    - rhizome 8y ago
      The police will tell you that 100% of the killed were about to harm others.
      - HarryHirsch 8y ago
        Like those two women doing the newspaper delivery during the Dorner manhunt: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-no-charges-lapd-shooting-newspaper-delivery-women-dorner-manhunt-20160127-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-no-charges-lapd-...

nitwit005 8y ago

> While this is terrible, police have no choice but to operate under the assumption that the 911 call is in good faith. Even if there were a genuine hostage taker, shooting them on sight isn't the right thing to do. They usually succeed in talking them down.

caconym_ 8y ago

> police have no choice but to operate under the assumption that the 911 call is in good faith Why the hell not? Swatting is a well-known phenomenon, and even if that weren't true, killing somebody without a single shred of direct evidence that the situation calls for that level of response is insane. We absolutely have to do better. Police cannot (responsibly) put themselves in completely unknown situations and then start shooting to kill at the slightest suggestion of danger. It seems that police departments have started to respond to the threat of swatting with streamer whitelists and such. That's good. It's just a shame that someone apparently had to die for them to sit up and take this obvious problem seriously.

gravy 8y ago
The issue is that it's not isolated to just streamers. Given an infinite number of possibilities of how a situation can occur (and given an infinite number of GIVEN POSSIBILITIES by the "swatter") how do you solve the issue of putting together a response team in as little time as possible to respond to a threat while at the same time not undermining the idea that it could very well be a real threat? What I mean is, it's very easy to say that they can't put themselves in these completely unknown situations. Unfortunately that simply is the job of the response teams and often of local law enforcement. How do you verify quickly and accurately that a call is not a trap? How do you do so consistently -- that is, how do I know the NEXT call is NOT a trap? A streamer whitelist does no good if swatting can be done to anyone. I don't mean to assume that there aren't already answers to these questions, but to say that they are being irresponsible when dispatching officers and teams is making light of the issues.
- caconym_ 8y ago
  > to say that they are being irresponsible when dispatching officers and teams is making light of the issues Are you implying that I said that? I said no such thing, anyway. I will say, again, that "police cannot (responsibly) put themselves in completely unknown situations and then start shooting to kill at the slightest suggestion of danger." Speaking of things I never said... I also didn't say streamer whitelists would completely fix this problem. It's a good start, and should help officers to go into these situations with more information. That makes everybody safer. Overall you've put a lot of words in my mouth and you seem to be implying this false dichotomy in which officers either "aren't taking the call seriously" or are justified in pulling the trigger on someone with zero direct evidence that they're actually in any danger. That dichotomy is bullshit.