8 ms·

Several things need to be done. These idiots should be charged with something along the lines of conspiracy to commit murder. The phone system needs to be upd

Several things need to be done. These idiots should be charged with something along the lines of conspiracy to commit murder. The phone system needs to be updated to prevent apoofing of numbers. I know it jas its reasons for corporate exchanges and whatnot, but safety outweighs that. A Telco should be able to uniquely identify precisely who made a call. Along the way: no blocked numbers on caller ID. I dont answer a blocked number, anyway, but you shouldn't be able to hide.

sowbug 8y ago
We should also make it illegal to steal cell phones.
chrisseaton 8y ago
> should be charged with something along the lines of conspiracy to commit murder How do you prove the intent was to murder rather than to harass? You think you’re being clever by charging with something more serious, then the charge fails because really you just wanted what they really did to have a steeper punishment. > I dont answer a blocked number, anyway They don’t call you - it doesn’t matter what you’d do - they call the police, who have to answer the phone.
- danharaj 8y ago
  Because then they wouldn't be SWATting people then, they would, idk, order 10 pizzas to the place. Does this really need to be asked?
  - peteretep 8y ago
    ... yes? We have specific legal terms for death caused by actions where prosecutors don't think they can prove murder, and there's a reason for that
    - root_axis 8y ago
      A SWAT team is a heavily armed killsquad. I think conspiracy to murder is pretty apt.
      - peteretep 8y ago
        ... which is presumably at least one reason you’re not a prosecutor
        root_axis 8y ago
        Well that's a pretty snarky response but it is also devoid of substance.
        peteretep 8y ago
        How's it devoid of substance? The issue is about the fact that the legal system distinguishes between manslaughter and murder, has different burdens of proof for each, and you've come back and said "well in my opinion it's the same". And that's nice for your opinion, but if you worked in the legal system in any capacity you'd know that the two things are distinct, and the reason they're distinct is there's a difference in burden of proof, and that the layman's wild-ass opinion on things rarely factors in.
        root_axis 8y ago
        It's devoid of substance because it's a sarcastic and condescending quip about whether or not my comments qualify me as a prosecutor in your view. That's not the topic at hand and it's pretty obviously a low quality response meant to insult rather than address what I wrote. Anyway, I'll defer to your credentials as an experienced prosecutor, but it seems pretty reasonable to me that painting an individual as an imminent danger and directing a paramilitary kill squad to their location (resulting in their subsequent execution) is an intentional murder. Obviously, the courts will tease out all the pertinent details but I don't see any details that preclude that possibility.
- hurray_brt 8y ago
  > How do you the intent was to murder rather than to harass? Are you serious? If I want to harass someone I'll ring the doorbell and run, order 40 pizzas, throw toilet paper all over their house, etc. Police armed to the teeth is pretty obvious this isn't about harassment. If it is, you need help. https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/29/16830626/call-of-duty-swatting-prank-kansas-man-dead-police-shooting https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/29/16830626/call-of-duty-sw...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- masonic 8y ago
  How do you prove the intent was to murder rather than to harass? That's not their burden. The Felony Murder rule means that the person shares responsibility for the homicide.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    I thought to convict someone of conspiracy to murder, one of the conspirators had to commit the 'overt act' of murder? In this case all the accused are conspirators, but which one committed the overt act? Calling a false report to the police is not an overt act of murder is it? If this was a contract killing for example they'd be in conspiracy with the hitman, who was clearly the murderer. Who's the murderer in this case? The police officer isn't committing murder. I think if you charged with conspiracy to murder you risk facing a jury who says 'ok I get they conspired but which one do you think committed murder?'
aharrison 8y ago
I'm a little surprised you didn't mention anything about police being held accountable when responding with unreasonable force to anonymous tips. If we are going to start talking about fixing this issue, I'm not sure getting rid of blocked numbers is going to materially impact these outcomes. Likewise, what is your recommendation on eliminating the threat of burner phones?
- djsumdog 8y ago
  There's an audio clip of the 911 call posted on here. It wasn't an anonymous tip; the person on the phone pretended there was a situation/serious domestic dispute. The police should have still been more accountable, but let's get the context right.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    Sure, and that is a bad reason to go in guns blazing. It is even worse than if it was a hostage situation. It is even worse if the subject capitulated and went outside. What could they do, take aim at someone and then get shot? This is stupid trigger happy gangster style policing.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  The alternate side of officers using unreasonable force from a scam anonymous call is getting officers or members of the public killed from a real anonymous call. Police are going to be on high alert regardless, even if they think the call was a hoax
  - aharrison 8y ago
    You will note that I did not say "scam" anonymous call. I said "anonymous call" which includes both real and anonymous calls. Police officers should respond with force dictated by the circumstances of their situation, trained in such analysis, and held accountable to their decisions - both as individual officers and as departments. The source of the initial investigation should have little if any impact on the level of force used in the encounter.
fenomas 8y ago
Surely the robust solution is for police/swat teams to treat unverified threats differently? Any real world system needs to be able to handle faulty inputs. If this particular system wasn't so terrible at that, bad actors would have no reason to make the false reports in the first place.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  What happens when an unverified threat isn't considered quick enough, and the hostages are killed while the police are standing around outside taking a wait and see approach?
  - ClassyJacket 8y ago
    The fact that this only happens in America indicates that their approach is the wrong one. They could ask any other developed nation for advice.
    - scythe 8y ago
      Kirtaner, the owner of 420chan, was infamously swatted by g0shawk some years ago. He lives in Canada (and g0shawk is in Australia).
    - oh_sigh 8y ago
      Hostages are only taken by crazy people in America? I doubt that.
      - Hamuko 8y ago
        He's saying that swatting only happens in America. Which is pretty much the case.
        oh_sigh 8y ago
        Do other countries even have SWAT teams?
wnevets 8y ago
or we can just train our police force not to murder unarmed civilians
qwerty456127 8y ago
> The phone system needs to be updated to prevent apoofing of numbers. I know it jas its reasons for corporate exchanges and whatnot, but safety outweighs that. A Telco should be able to uniquely identify precisely who made a call. I would never (unless I have a serious reason to believe this can save a life) report a crime non-anonymously as I neither want to become a suspect (for many kinds of crimes this is possible) nor to be forced to participate in a court or anything like that as a witness.
- sigstoat 8y ago
  > nor to be forced to participate in a court or anything like that as a witness. indeed. lay witnesses are treated rather poorly.
- masonic 8y ago
  A Telco should be able to uniquely identify precisely who made a call It can, via ANI, when 911 is called (ANI for landline, another mechanism for mobile). Swatters, however, generally spoof Caller ID and call a general police switchboard or dispatch line directly. Police don't have the discretion to just ignore blocked numbers.
narrator 8y ago
I think the threat of getting 25 years in prison, as one of the guys got, ought to be enough of a deterrent to prevent this kind of stuff.
- reshie 8y ago
  it has always been illegal. the thing is these few jerks think they are anon and are in many cases(to extents). swatting too can happen from anywhere in the world. bringing them to justice will definitely make them think twice though.
rhizome 8y ago
>The phone system needs to be updated to prevent apoofing of numbers. I know it jas its reasons for corporate exchanges and whatnot, but safety outweighs that I've been agitating for something like this for a long time now, but really, I'm fine if CallerID can be spoofed, but I should be able to get the billing account for the line it's using. Phone companies as a rule resist giving out this information (which they've made available to law enforcement for a century).
hanging 8y ago
First responders need to be hardened against these simple redirection calls that don't come through 911 -- spoofing Caller ID is easy, but spoofing ANI is not.

sowbug 8y ago

We should also make it illegal to steal cell phones.

chrisseaton 8y ago

> should be charged with something along the lines of conspiracy to commit murder How do you prove the intent was to murder rather than to harass? You think you’re being clever by charging with something more serious, then the charge fails because really you just wanted what they really did to have a steeper punishment. > I dont answer a blocked number, anyway They don’t call you - it doesn’t matter what you’d do - they call the police, who have to answer the phone.

danharaj 8y ago
Because then they wouldn't be SWATting people then, they would, idk, order 10 pizzas to the place. Does this really need to be asked?
- peteretep 8y ago
  ... yes? We have specific legal terms for death caused by actions where prosecutors don't think they can prove murder, and there's a reason for that
  - root_axis 8y ago
    A SWAT team is a heavily armed killsquad. I think conspiracy to murder is pretty apt.
    - peteretep 8y ago
      ... which is presumably at least one reason you’re not a prosecutor
      - root_axis 8y ago
        Well that's a pretty snarky response but it is also devoid of substance.
        peteretep 8y ago
        How's it devoid of substance? The issue is about the fact that the legal system distinguishes between manslaughter and murder, has different burdens of proof for each, and you've come back and said "well in my opinion it's the same". And that's nice for your opinion, but if you worked in the legal system in any capacity you'd know that the two things are distinct, and the reason they're distinct is there's a difference in burden of proof, and that the layman's wild-ass opinion on things rarely factors in.
        root_axis 8y ago
        It's devoid of substance because it's a sarcastic and condescending quip about whether or not my comments qualify me as a prosecutor in your view. That's not the topic at hand and it's pretty obviously a low quality response meant to insult rather than address what I wrote. Anyway, I'll defer to your credentials as an experienced prosecutor, but it seems pretty reasonable to me that painting an individual as an imminent danger and directing a paramilitary kill squad to their location (resulting in their subsequent execution) is an intentional murder. Obviously, the courts will tease out all the pertinent details but I don't see any details that preclude that possibility.
hurray_brt 8y ago
> How do you the intent was to murder rather than to harass? Are you serious? If I want to harass someone I'll ring the doorbell and run, order 40 pizzas, throw toilet paper all over their house, etc. Police armed to the teeth is pretty obvious this isn't about harassment. If it is, you need help. https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/29/16830626/call-of-duty-swatting-prank-kansas-man-dead-police-shooting https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/29/16830626/call-of-duty-sw...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
masonic 8y ago
How do you prove the intent was to murder rather than to harass? That's not their burden. The Felony Murder rule means that the person shares responsibility for the homicide.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  I thought to convict someone of conspiracy to murder, one of the conspirators had to commit the 'overt act' of murder? In this case all the accused are conspirators, but which one committed the overt act? Calling a false report to the police is not an overt act of murder is it? If this was a contract killing for example they'd be in conspiracy with the hitman, who was clearly the murderer. Who's the murderer in this case? The police officer isn't committing murder. I think if you charged with conspiracy to murder you risk facing a jury who says 'ok I get they conspired but which one do you think committed murder?'

aharrison 8y ago

I'm a little surprised you didn't mention anything about police being held accountable when responding with unreasonable force to anonymous tips. If we are going to start talking about fixing this issue, I'm not sure getting rid of blocked numbers is going to materially impact these outcomes. Likewise, what is your recommendation on eliminating the threat of burner phones?

djsumdog 8y ago
There's an audio clip of the 911 call posted on here. It wasn't an anonymous tip; the person on the phone pretended there was a situation/serious domestic dispute. The police should have still been more accountable, but let's get the context right.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  Sure, and that is a bad reason to go in guns blazing. It is even worse than if it was a hostage situation. It is even worse if the subject capitulated and went outside. What could they do, take aim at someone and then get shot? This is stupid trigger happy gangster style policing.
oh_sigh 8y ago
The alternate side of officers using unreasonable force from a scam anonymous call is getting officers or members of the public killed from a real anonymous call. Police are going to be on high alert regardless, even if they think the call was a hoax
- aharrison 8y ago
  You will note that I did not say "scam" anonymous call. I said "anonymous call" which includes both real and anonymous calls. Police officers should respond with force dictated by the circumstances of their situation, trained in such analysis, and held accountable to their decisions - both as individual officers and as departments. The source of the initial investigation should have little if any impact on the level of force used in the encounter.

fenomas 8y ago

Surely the robust solution is for police/swat teams to treat unverified threats differently? Any real world system needs to be able to handle faulty inputs. If this particular system wasn't so terrible at that, bad actors would have no reason to make the false reports in the first place.

oh_sigh 8y ago
What happens when an unverified threat isn't considered quick enough, and the hostages are killed while the police are standing around outside taking a wait and see approach?
- ClassyJacket 8y ago
  The fact that this only happens in America indicates that their approach is the wrong one. They could ask any other developed nation for advice.
  - scythe 8y ago
    Kirtaner, the owner of 420chan, was infamously swatted by g0shawk some years ago. He lives in Canada (and g0shawk is in Australia).
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    Hostages are only taken by crazy people in America? I doubt that.
    - Hamuko 8y ago
      He's saying that swatting only happens in America. Which is pretty much the case.
      - oh_sigh 8y ago
        Do other countries even have SWAT teams?

wnevets 8y ago

or we can just train our police force not to murder unarmed civilians

qwerty456127 8y ago

> The phone system needs to be updated to prevent apoofing of numbers. I know it jas its reasons for corporate exchanges and whatnot, but safety outweighs that. A Telco should be able to uniquely identify precisely who made a call. I would never (unless I have a serious reason to believe this can save a life) report a crime non-anonymously as I neither want to become a suspect (for many kinds of crimes this is possible) nor to be forced to participate in a court or anything like that as a witness.

sigstoat 8y ago
> nor to be forced to participate in a court or anything like that as a witness. indeed. lay witnesses are treated rather poorly.
masonic 8y ago
A Telco should be able to uniquely identify precisely who made a call It can, via ANI, when 911 is called (ANI for landline, another mechanism for mobile). Swatters, however, generally spoof Caller ID and call a general police switchboard or dispatch line directly. Police don't have the discretion to just ignore blocked numbers.

narrator 8y ago

I think the threat of getting 25 years in prison, as one of the guys got, ought to be enough of a deterrent to prevent this kind of stuff.

reshie 8y ago
it has always been illegal. the thing is these few jerks think they are anon and are in many cases(to extents). swatting too can happen from anywhere in the world. bringing them to justice will definitely make them think twice though.

rhizome 8y ago

>The phone system needs to be updated to prevent apoofing of numbers. I know it jas its reasons for corporate exchanges and whatnot, but safety outweighs that I've been agitating for something like this for a long time now, but really, I'm fine if CallerID can be spoofed, but I should be able to get the billing account for the line it's using. Phone companies as a rule resist giving out this information (which they've made available to law enforcement for a century).

hanging 8y ago

First responders need to be hardened against these simple redirection calls that don't come through 911 -- spoofing Caller ID is easy, but spoofing ANI is not.