3 ms·

A company tried to have a whistleblower swatted.

• Voloskaya 7y ago
  My question was what would lead us to believe (from those reports) that they did try to have him swatted versus someone actually concerned making the call. So your answer has 0 value.
• kjksf 7y ago
  For context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_headquarters_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_headquarters_shooting If Tesla security had credible information that a recently fired employee who has already damaged the company greatly by leaking information to the press, is inclined to shoot up the place, it would be monumental incompetence on their part if they didn't report this to the police. And it would be monumental incompetence on the part of the police if they didn't investigate it. BTW: this wasn't swatting. Swatting is making false, anonymous 911 calls about active, armed threat. It wasn't anonymous and it wasn't false. Tesla security presented the evidence to the police and the police (not the SWAT team) followed up on that. Let's give the police the benefit of the doubt and assume that they found the evidence credible enough to investigate it.
  • drewbug01 7y ago
    > it wasn't false. The police reports in the screenshot do not indicate that the police verified these claims. Rather, they suggest that they took the word of the security personnel from Tesla. It’s perfectly fine for the police to presume that information given is accurate until proven otherwise! However, it was false information. The police confirmed that the suspect wasn’t armed. The most charitable reading here is just that the Tesla employees were mistaken, but nothing here says that Tesla presented evidence; so it’s not exculpatory.