6 ms·

Man seeks millions after being shot by police in game-related swatting incident

75 points by anigbrowl 3mo ago

getstowly 3mo ago
I don't understand why more police agencies aren't being super careful with this stuff, especially if they're being sent to a house / location where no other crimes have been reported. It would be one thing if you have a call to a house that's had domestic violence calls, other shootings, etc. Instead, they're just getting a call and thinking, "Oh no! Danger!" and running in, guns blazing. I love the protection from the police but sometimes I'm afraid they don't think intelligently and instead just react.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- hamper653 3mo ago
  Some protection!
  - cyanregiment 3mo ago
    In San Francisco the cop cars don't say "To serve and protect" they say "Safety with respect" lmfao cuts to 6 cops beating a guy with clubs
    - helterskelter 3mo ago
      IIRC "To serve and protect" was originally from a movie. Cops don't have a duty to protect you, and there in fact many cases of a cop not intervening during a violent crime due to concerns for their own safety, even when the asailant only had a knife.
      - infinite_spin 3mo ago
        > "To Serve and Protect," is a phrase made famous by the Los Angeles Police Department and adopted, in various forms, by law enforcement agencies across the United States. https://www.policemag.com/articles/to-serve-and-protect-v2 https://www.policemag.com/articles/to-serve-and-protect-v2 > In February 1955, the Los Angeles Police Department, through the pages of the internally produced BEAT magazine, conducted a contest for a motto for the police academy. The conditions of the contest stated that: “The motto should be one that in a few words would express some or all the ideals to which the Los Angeles police service is dedicated. It is possible that the winning motto might someday be adopted as the official motto of the Department.” > The winning entry was the motto, “To Protect and to Serve” submitted by Officer Joseph S. Dorobek. > On November 4, 1963, the Los Angeles City Council passed the necessary ordinance and the credo has now been placed alongside the City Seal on the Department’s patrol cars. https://www.lapdonline.org/lapd-motto/ https://www.lapdonline.org/lapd-motto/ I don't know what film you're referring to, but it's been a motto since the 50's, and made official since the 60's.
        helterskelter 3mo ago
        Huh, yeah you're right. I swear I remember hearing about this on an NPR radio piece about how police really don't need to do anything to protect you.
        greedo 3mo ago
        Police are under no legal obligation to protect you.
        deleted 3mo ago
        [deleted]
    - atmavatar 3mo ago
      That's because the Supreme Court has ruled that police have no constitutional duty to protect citizens. Special note: that includes cases where protective orders like restraining orders are concerned. The Castle Rock v. Gonzales ruling specifically states that police have no obligation to enforce them.
      - throwway120385 3mo ago
        We could easily create a duty at the state or local level if we wanted to. The US Constitution is pretty silent on a lot of issues that are remanded to the states.
    - dvdyzag 3mo ago
      They got rid of the clubs since Rodney thing in the 90s. They were much safer IMHO. Bruised but alive!
      - cyanregiment 3mo ago
        A mere concuss is never sus! Maybe a little blood and puss. Don’t be a wuss![1] [1] This rhyme only works in certain dialects of British English. For most English speakers, it won’t. It’s a bit like that Nickelback song Never Made It As A Wise Man when he rhymes “story” with “sorry”. Nickelback didn’t realize he developed a moat, an uncompetitive advantage, and nobody would be able to sing his wonderful songs. Nobody, except him.
- stavros 3mo ago
  They aren't being super careful because there's no cost to being careless.
- jrflowers 3mo ago
  A lot of police departments in the US pay to send their officers to seminars where speakers tell them that they’re Literally Warriors. Cops with Punisher tattoos aren’t being ironic, they think about finishing a shift of playing Temple Run on their phones like catching the last helicopter out of Saigon.
  - atmavatar 3mo ago
    This is currently down-voted to gray for me, but it's a pretty well-documented phenomenon. To anyone unfamiliar with the concept of warrior cops, it may behoove you to start with the following Harvard Law Review article: https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-128/law-enforcements-warrior-problem/ https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-128/law-enforcements-...
- WarmWash 3mo ago
  There is something like 50 million police-public encounters annually. Stuff like this is exceedingly rare. So while Pima PD should be held responsible, and those cops should face criminal charges, it's logically non-nonsensical for this to make you terrified of police (or the other 5-10 similar stories annually). I mean cars are genocidal military dictators by comparison. The downstream effect of this is people doing incredibly rash and stupid things because they think the cops are just going to start blasting them during a traffic stop ("I need to shot them/run away because I am dead anyway").
  - vkou 3mo ago
    There are hundreds of billions of person-to-person encounters annually and almost all of them end just fine, yet people feel the need to: 1. Come up with a beautiful story about how they need to have guns to defend themselves. 2. Come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who improperly uses violence in such encounters. Encountering a cop is one of the most dangerous 'mundane' things that can happen to you. ~One in 50,000 encounters ends with someone dead. Going on 50,000 drives is unlikely to send you to the morgue.
    - WarmWash 3mo ago
      You need to control for situations where the person on the other side is trying to kill the police. It's something like 1000 people killed by police annually, but it's childishly dishonest (or ignorant) to ignore that ~995 of those are people actively trying to kill the police. I wouldn't call shooting out your back window because you're getting pulled over "mundane". Also, if each drive is ~20 miles, you have around a 1% chance of dying. That's 500x greater than even the dishonest 1 in 50k stat. Just further driving my point home for me, thanks.
- AngryData 3mo ago
  Why would they? What downside do they face? Cops get paid bonuses for raiding houses, they get bonuses for seizing money and valuable goods, they get bonuses for charging people with crimes. While they face almost zero consequences for abusing and extorting people, can lie with impunity, and often even get away with straight up cold blooded murder. Corruption within their organization is almost completely ignored and they hire people based on how sociopathic and unempathetic they are and enforce those traits in "training" even more because harsh draconian enforcement brings in the largest amount of money for cops and courts. Unless you live in a community where the median income is $200K+, the primary funding for cops is through charging people with the easy crimes that they can't afford lawyers to fight, often drugs because they have massively inflated fines and fees. And the next best source of funding they have is special grants and programs which are often doles out based on how "dangerous" an area is, and killing "criminals" makes an area seem more dangerous and deserving of special funds and recognition and fancy armaments and killing toys.
- genocidicbunny 3mo ago
  A lot of them _want_ to be able to go in guns blazing and not having to be careful. They're living out a Warrior fantasy.
  - ASalazarMX 3mo ago
    Many people have fantasies like that, where a thief (hopefully without a gun) invades their home, and they use their gun collection to heroically "neutralize" the invader and defend their kingdom without legal consequences. These are the kind of people who shoud be strongly filtered out from jobs that require carrying firearms. They could enlist as infantry in whatever invasion USA is doing that year, but they're actually scared of guns if they can fire back.
    - genocidicbunny 3mo ago
      > They could enlist as infantry in whatever invasion USA is doing that year, but they're actually scared of guns if they can fire back. The irony is that soldiers in the US military are usually better trained than the cops, and aren't going to magdump when an acorn hits their patrol car.
    - brador 3mo ago
      If you just hire cowards or regular people you end up with uvalde. You need crazy people who run into gunfire sometimes. The best police force is a mixed bag of talents and skills.
- Suppafly 3mo ago
  >I don't understand why more police agencies aren't being super careful with this stuff Honestly, having been on a jury, police seem super intellectually uncurious and I suspect that is true at all levels. Since they mostly end up with not being responsible legally, they really don't care.
- Markoff 3mo ago
  you had me until "I love the protection from the police" my whole life police done nothing else than harassed me by their various actions instead of improving my life and making it safer so I would love some protection from the police, but all I am getting is harassment
phendrenad2 3mo ago
Time to start a new company, Swatly.ai, which listens in on 911 calls and warns police if they may be responding to a SWATting attempt. Working on integrating into their firearms so they won't fire unless the AI thinks it's load-bearing.
- argee 3mo ago
  More sensibly, their insurance could just toss a clause in and charge higher premiums to cover for this, while adding some conditions to help prevent it.
- efnx 3mo ago
  And then on the side they sell "metadata" to insurance companies and anyone else willing to pay...
efnx 3mo ago
They need to get sued _hard_ and lose millions, as well as have cops put in jail before real change happens. I feel sorry for this kid but he's doing the right thing.
- elevation 3mo ago
  > cops put in jail Right. The real justice comes from treating this incident like you would if there were no municipal coffers at play, and simply punish criminals for criminal action.
  - atmavatar 3mo ago
    Real justice when it comes to swatting is multi-faceted. Sure, the person making the bogus call to police should suffer some consequences vis a vis jail time. However, swatting only works because police regularly take a shoot first and ask questions later stance. They go from an anonymous tip about an ongoing crime at an address to shooting up said address in short order without any effort to verify a crime is actually taking place, perhaps in no small part due to the fact that qualified immunity ensures they'll never see any consequences for any property damage and/or casualties which occur as a result. I'd liken it to initiating a gang hit, except at least in the gang hit, the gang members responsible for carrying it out have a chance at facing some accountability. Cops need to face the possibility of (at minimum) termination and even jail time for recklessly endangering civilians, and cop training needs to be fundamentally changed to eliminate this "us vs. them" mentality seen in so many of those in blue.
    - user43928 3mo ago
      I am as horrified by the outcome here as the next person, but what exactly do you imagine police should do when responding to a call about an active shooter where they encounter a suspect armed with a handgun?
      - eth0up 3mo ago
        Identify themselves as LE, and of course physically represent as such, unambiguously, then demand the person put down the firearm. "Active Shooter" has no meaning just because the word is used. Also consider what everyone long forgot and few pay attention to; officers are paid, not volunteers. Risk is part of the job. You cannot shoot everything you think might be a threat. One can also question the quality of the system that handles emergency calls, or that responds to them. There are lots of guns in America. And lots of people who can say the words "active shooter". And often enough, phones and other objects are conveniently interpreted as guns, so I am not convinced that is the most important variable. Did he point it at the officers? If so, were the officers in proper uniform? Now, if I were to answer your question, I would say it first depends on circumstances. I have encountered many people with guns. But if I was and active officer and encountered someone with a gun, I would do my best so that the encounter was arranged in a manner that gave me some advantage and at least a second or two to think before acting. Sometimes, mistakes are made though, and they always will be made. But the fact someone had a gun is no excuse.
keeganpoppen 3mo ago
whoa. feel bad for the people of tuscon, because they didn't do anything wrong, but holy shit this case looks absolutely awful for the city and i hope they lose. big.
- kulahan 3mo ago
  Don’t feel bad for them. It’s not something to feel bad about. We pay taxes specifically for instances including when something goes wrong. Feel mad if this is a pattern and the citizens don’t do anything about it.
tokai 3mo ago
It really seems like something that could be fixed with proper training and protocol, when police forces the world over don't have this issue.
- seki285 3mo ago
  It's a problem elsewhere too, albeit less violent, you just don't hear about it. https://www.tomshardware.com/software/linux/linux-dev-swatted-live-during-a-development-video-stream https://www.tomshardware.com/software/linux/linux-dev-swatte...
  - morbicer 3mo ago
    Less violent goes a long way.
kaikai 3mo ago
There needs to be insurance for police, just like there is for doctors. Once an individual cop has repeated judgements against them they won’t be insurable, instead of the current result of them moving to a different city.
- mzhaase 3mo ago
  How about firing them and sending them to jail?
  - bartread 3mo ago
    I like your way better. I like your way a lot better. A: It’s actual justice, and B: Otherwise it just becomes another way for insurance companies to make money - in this case by charging swingeing fees that will come out of public coffers.
    - ProfessorLayton 3mo ago
      > Otherwise it just becomes another way for insurance companies to make money - in this case by charging swingeing fees that will come out of public coffers. I believe doctors pay out of pocket (At least the ones that setup their own private practice do), so it would incentivize them to keep costs low so they can pocket the money.
      - bartread 3mo ago
        What’s the salary difference between doctors and cops of similar experience levels on average in the US?
        ProfessorLayton 3mo ago
        I don't know and it's not the point of my comment? I'm only talking about how it aligns inscentives.
        3mo ago
utternerd 3mo ago
It explicitly said in the article that he pulled out a gun. He shouldn't have been swatted, obviously. That said, if you pull out a gun when police are responding to what they believe is an active shooter, the chances of you being shot are extremely high. Additionally consider what would have happened if this had been an active shooting and they simply disregarded the phone call.
- clovoak 3mo ago
  I suspect he pulled it out because he heard someone breaking into his house.
  - nomel 3mo ago
    From TFA: > Melendez did grab a "legal, registered" gun once he heard the glass shatter, Sethi said, but he ducked behind a partially closed door. > He believed someone connected to the hackers was breaking in, Sethi added.
- autoexec 3mo ago
  > It explicitly said in the article that he pulled out a gun. A gun that he legally owned and had every right to have on his person as an unknown individual was breaking into his home. If police don't identify themselves they should expect an armed population to meet them with guns in hand. It's their responsibility to assess the situation, understand who the occupants are, and respond appropriately. Smashing a bedroom window with a shovel and then "indiscriminately" firing into it is not a reasonable response.
  - utternerd 3mo ago
    Good to see HN has changed their tune on gun ownership and defense. Until we see bodycam footage we're all basing our opinions entirely on what his lawyer is saying. Video will come out with a FOIA, but everyone will have moved on.
    - deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
SlowFalcon 3mo ago
This happened to me in 2021 minus the being shot part. Called local PD to inform them; still had a full police response, luckily was renovating house but still.
alex1138 3mo ago
SWATing is a very common thing so police depts should be aware there's always a risk of it happening Take the call seriously, but be prepared it's not what you think it is, especially if you see a shocked gamer sitting at their computer monitor with no apparent hostages
giancarlostoro 3mo ago
Police agencies arent the only ones alone to take blame here, the judges who on a whim sign these warrants should face liability or be removed from their position if there are casualties as a result of a false report.
- jerlam 3mo ago
  I don't think judges and warrants are involved in these swatting incidents. The whole point of swatting is to make up a dangerous scenario where the threat to life is so high and immediate that the police are allowed to forgo many procedures and processes that would prevent accidental injury or death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance
  - giancarlostoro 3mo ago
    This sounds like an exception to the third amendment that should be reconsidered if police don't improve their approach to these types of calls. If you cannot prove before you send a whole military to a house that what is claimed in a phone call is actually happening in a residential home, then you should not go in guns blazing.
    - jerlam 3mo ago
      I assume you meant the fourth amendment, which is the search and seizure one.
      - giancarlostoro 3mo ago
        Yeah I typod, I was saying fourth in my head too.
gammalost 3mo ago
[dead]
NotGMan 3mo ago
The need to find out who did the swatting and give him life in jail.
- OutOfHere 3mo ago
  That creates the reverse problem, whereby someone can eventually get framed for it. Just fix the real problem which is the disproportionate police response.
OutOfHere 3mo ago
176M is not enough for such an atrocity. It needs to be at least 10x more, i.e. 1.76B.
insane_dreamer 3mo ago
> Melendez did grab a "legal, registered" gun once he heard the glass shatter, Sethi said, but he ducked behind a partially closed door. It's horrible what happened to this boy, and the police should be sued/charged, but this is (yet another) reason why you're better off _not_ having a gun in your house. (You're statistically more likely to die from a gun in your own household than someone else's.)
6stringmerc 3mo ago
While I was incarcerated on a bogus Felony charge, a Corrections Officer made a false report to a neighboring Police Department that I had been “bragging about Swatting people” in that city. Totally false claim. Got a visit from Detectives while in my cell. They recorded the whole thing. The Thin Blue Line is real. I’ve moved on with my life. Mostly because there’s no way to hold them accountable so why try?

75 points by anigbrowl 3mo ago

I don't understand why more police agencies aren't being super careful with this stuff, especially if they're being sent to a house / location where no other crimes have been reported. It would be one thing if you have a call to a house that's had domestic violence calls, other shootings, etc. Instead, they're just getting a call and thinking, "Oh no! Danger!" and running in, guns blazing. I love the protection from the police but sometimes I'm afraid they don't think intelligently and instead just react.

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
hamper653 3mo ago
Some protection!
- cyanregiment 3mo ago
  In San Francisco the cop cars don't say "To serve and protect" they say "Safety with respect" lmfao cuts to 6 cops beating a guy with clubs
  - helterskelter 3mo ago
    IIRC "To serve and protect" was originally from a movie. Cops don't have a duty to protect you, and there in fact many cases of a cop not intervening during a violent crime due to concerns for their own safety, even when the asailant only had a knife.
    - infinite_spin 3mo ago
      > "To Serve and Protect," is a phrase made famous by the Los Angeles Police Department and adopted, in various forms, by law enforcement agencies across the United States. https://www.policemag.com/articles/to-serve-and-protect-v2 https://www.policemag.com/articles/to-serve-and-protect-v2 > In February 1955, the Los Angeles Police Department, through the pages of the internally produced BEAT magazine, conducted a contest for a motto for the police academy. The conditions of the contest stated that: “The motto should be one that in a few words would express some or all the ideals to which the Los Angeles police service is dedicated. It is possible that the winning motto might someday be adopted as the official motto of the Department.” > The winning entry was the motto, “To Protect and to Serve” submitted by Officer Joseph S. Dorobek. > On November 4, 1963, the Los Angeles City Council passed the necessary ordinance and the credo has now been placed alongside the City Seal on the Department’s patrol cars. https://www.lapdonline.org/lapd-motto/ https://www.lapdonline.org/lapd-motto/ I don't know what film you're referring to, but it's been a motto since the 50's, and made official since the 60's.
      - helterskelter 3mo ago
        Huh, yeah you're right. I swear I remember hearing about this on an NPR radio piece about how police really don't need to do anything to protect you.
        greedo 3mo ago
        Police are under no legal obligation to protect you.
        deleted 3mo ago
        [deleted]
  - atmavatar 3mo ago
    That's because the Supreme Court has ruled that police have no constitutional duty to protect citizens. Special note: that includes cases where protective orders like restraining orders are concerned. The Castle Rock v. Gonzales ruling specifically states that police have no obligation to enforce them.
    - throwway120385 3mo ago
      We could easily create a duty at the state or local level if we wanted to. The US Constitution is pretty silent on a lot of issues that are remanded to the states.
  - dvdyzag 3mo ago
    They got rid of the clubs since Rodney thing in the 90s. They were much safer IMHO. Bruised but alive!
    - cyanregiment 3mo ago
      A mere concuss is never sus! Maybe a little blood and puss. Don’t be a wuss![1] [1] This rhyme only works in certain dialects of British English. For most English speakers, it won’t. It’s a bit like that Nickelback song Never Made It As A Wise Man when he rhymes “story” with “sorry”. Nickelback didn’t realize he developed a moat, an uncompetitive advantage, and nobody would be able to sing his wonderful songs. Nobody, except him.
stavros 3mo ago
They aren't being super careful because there's no cost to being careless.
jrflowers 3mo ago
A lot of police departments in the US pay to send their officers to seminars where speakers tell them that they’re Literally Warriors. Cops with Punisher tattoos aren’t being ironic, they think about finishing a shift of playing Temple Run on their phones like catching the last helicopter out of Saigon.
- atmavatar 3mo ago
  This is currently down-voted to gray for me, but it's a pretty well-documented phenomenon. To anyone unfamiliar with the concept of warrior cops, it may behoove you to start with the following Harvard Law Review article: https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-128/law-enforcements-warrior-problem/ https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-128/law-enforcements-...
WarmWash 3mo ago
There is something like 50 million police-public encounters annually. Stuff like this is exceedingly rare. So while Pima PD should be held responsible, and those cops should face criminal charges, it's logically non-nonsensical for this to make you terrified of police (or the other 5-10 similar stories annually). I mean cars are genocidal military dictators by comparison. The downstream effect of this is people doing incredibly rash and stupid things because they think the cops are just going to start blasting them during a traffic stop ("I need to shot them/run away because I am dead anyway").
- vkou 3mo ago
  There are hundreds of billions of person-to-person encounters annually and almost all of them end just fine, yet people feel the need to: 1. Come up with a beautiful story about how they need to have guns to defend themselves. 2. Come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who improperly uses violence in such encounters. Encountering a cop is one of the most dangerous 'mundane' things that can happen to you. ~One in 50,000 encounters ends with someone dead. Going on 50,000 drives is unlikely to send you to the morgue.
  - WarmWash 3mo ago
    You need to control for situations where the person on the other side is trying to kill the police. It's something like 1000 people killed by police annually, but it's childishly dishonest (or ignorant) to ignore that ~995 of those are people actively trying to kill the police. I wouldn't call shooting out your back window because you're getting pulled over "mundane". Also, if each drive is ~20 miles, you have around a 1% chance of dying. That's 500x greater than even the dishonest 1 in 50k stat. Just further driving my point home for me, thanks.
AngryData 3mo ago
Why would they? What downside do they face? Cops get paid bonuses for raiding houses, they get bonuses for seizing money and valuable goods, they get bonuses for charging people with crimes. While they face almost zero consequences for abusing and extorting people, can lie with impunity, and often even get away with straight up cold blooded murder. Corruption within their organization is almost completely ignored and they hire people based on how sociopathic and unempathetic they are and enforce those traits in "training" even more because harsh draconian enforcement brings in the largest amount of money for cops and courts. Unless you live in a community where the median income is $200K+, the primary funding for cops is through charging people with the easy crimes that they can't afford lawyers to fight, often drugs because they have massively inflated fines and fees. And the next best source of funding they have is special grants and programs which are often doles out based on how "dangerous" an area is, and killing "criminals" makes an area seem more dangerous and deserving of special funds and recognition and fancy armaments and killing toys.
genocidicbunny 3mo ago
A lot of them _want_ to be able to go in guns blazing and not having to be careful. They're living out a Warrior fantasy.
- ASalazarMX 3mo ago
  Many people have fantasies like that, where a thief (hopefully without a gun) invades their home, and they use their gun collection to heroically "neutralize" the invader and defend their kingdom without legal consequences. These are the kind of people who shoud be strongly filtered out from jobs that require carrying firearms. They could enlist as infantry in whatever invasion USA is doing that year, but they're actually scared of guns if they can fire back.
  - genocidicbunny 3mo ago
    > They could enlist as infantry in whatever invasion USA is doing that year, but they're actually scared of guns if they can fire back. The irony is that soldiers in the US military are usually better trained than the cops, and aren't going to magdump when an acorn hits their patrol car.
  - brador 3mo ago
    If you just hire cowards or regular people you end up with uvalde. You need crazy people who run into gunfire sometimes. The best police force is a mixed bag of talents and skills.
Suppafly 3mo ago
>I don't understand why more police agencies aren't being super careful with this stuff Honestly, having been on a jury, police seem super intellectually uncurious and I suspect that is true at all levels. Since they mostly end up with not being responsible legally, they really don't care.
Markoff 3mo ago
you had me until "I love the protection from the police" my whole life police done nothing else than harassed me by their various actions instead of improving my life and making it safer so I would love some protection from the police, but all I am getting is harassment

phendrenad2 3mo ago

Time to start a new company, Swatly.ai, which listens in on 911 calls and warns police if they may be responding to a SWATting attempt. Working on integrating into their firearms so they won't fire unless the AI thinks it's load-bearing.

argee 3mo ago
More sensibly, their insurance could just toss a clause in and charge higher premiums to cover for this, while adding some conditions to help prevent it.
efnx 3mo ago
And then on the side they sell "metadata" to insurance companies and anyone else willing to pay...

efnx 3mo ago

They need to get sued _hard_ and lose millions, as well as have cops put in jail before real change happens. I feel sorry for this kid but he's doing the right thing.

elevation 3mo ago
> cops put in jail Right. The real justice comes from treating this incident like you would if there were no municipal coffers at play, and simply punish criminals for criminal action.
- atmavatar 3mo ago
  Real justice when it comes to swatting is multi-faceted. Sure, the person making the bogus call to police should suffer some consequences vis a vis jail time. However, swatting only works because police regularly take a shoot first and ask questions later stance. They go from an anonymous tip about an ongoing crime at an address to shooting up said address in short order without any effort to verify a crime is actually taking place, perhaps in no small part due to the fact that qualified immunity ensures they'll never see any consequences for any property damage and/or casualties which occur as a result. I'd liken it to initiating a gang hit, except at least in the gang hit, the gang members responsible for carrying it out have a chance at facing some accountability. Cops need to face the possibility of (at minimum) termination and even jail time for recklessly endangering civilians, and cop training needs to be fundamentally changed to eliminate this "us vs. them" mentality seen in so many of those in blue.
  - user43928 3mo ago
    I am as horrified by the outcome here as the next person, but what exactly do you imagine police should do when responding to a call about an active shooter where they encounter a suspect armed with a handgun?
    - eth0up 3mo ago
      Identify themselves as LE, and of course physically represent as such, unambiguously, then demand the person put down the firearm. "Active Shooter" has no meaning just because the word is used. Also consider what everyone long forgot and few pay attention to; officers are paid, not volunteers. Risk is part of the job. You cannot shoot everything you think might be a threat. One can also question the quality of the system that handles emergency calls, or that responds to them. There are lots of guns in America. And lots of people who can say the words "active shooter". And often enough, phones and other objects are conveniently interpreted as guns, so I am not convinced that is the most important variable. Did he point it at the officers? If so, were the officers in proper uniform? Now, if I were to answer your question, I would say it first depends on circumstances. I have encountered many people with guns. But if I was and active officer and encountered someone with a gun, I would do my best so that the encounter was arranged in a manner that gave me some advantage and at least a second or two to think before acting. Sometimes, mistakes are made though, and they always will be made. But the fact someone had a gun is no excuse.

keeganpoppen 3mo ago

whoa. feel bad for the people of tuscon, because they didn't do anything wrong, but holy shit this case looks absolutely awful for the city and i hope they lose. big.

kulahan 3mo ago
Don’t feel bad for them. It’s not something to feel bad about. We pay taxes specifically for instances including when something goes wrong. Feel mad if this is a pattern and the citizens don’t do anything about it.

tokai 3mo ago

It really seems like something that could be fixed with proper training and protocol, when police forces the world over don't have this issue.

seki285 3mo ago
It's a problem elsewhere too, albeit less violent, you just don't hear about it. https://www.tomshardware.com/software/linux/linux-dev-swatted-live-during-a-development-video-stream https://www.tomshardware.com/software/linux/linux-dev-swatte...
- morbicer 3mo ago
  Less violent goes a long way.

kaikai 3mo ago

There needs to be insurance for police, just like there is for doctors. Once an individual cop has repeated judgements against them they won’t be insurable, instead of the current result of them moving to a different city.

mzhaase 3mo ago
How about firing them and sending them to jail?
- bartread 3mo ago
  I like your way better. I like your way a lot better. A: It’s actual justice, and B: Otherwise it just becomes another way for insurance companies to make money - in this case by charging swingeing fees that will come out of public coffers.
  - ProfessorLayton 3mo ago
    > Otherwise it just becomes another way for insurance companies to make money - in this case by charging swingeing fees that will come out of public coffers. I believe doctors pay out of pocket (At least the ones that setup their own private practice do), so it would incentivize them to keep costs low so they can pocket the money.
    - bartread 3mo ago
      What’s the salary difference between doctors and cops of similar experience levels on average in the US?
      - ProfessorLayton 3mo ago
        I don't know and it's not the point of my comment? I'm only talking about how it aligns inscentives.
        3mo ago

utternerd 3mo ago

It explicitly said in the article that he pulled out a gun. He shouldn't have been swatted, obviously. That said, if you pull out a gun when police are responding to what they believe is an active shooter, the chances of you being shot are extremely high. Additionally consider what would have happened if this had been an active shooting and they simply disregarded the phone call.

clovoak 3mo ago
I suspect he pulled it out because he heard someone breaking into his house.
- nomel 3mo ago
  From TFA: > Melendez did grab a "legal, registered" gun once he heard the glass shatter, Sethi said, but he ducked behind a partially closed door. > He believed someone connected to the hackers was breaking in, Sethi added.
autoexec 3mo ago
> It explicitly said in the article that he pulled out a gun. A gun that he legally owned and had every right to have on his person as an unknown individual was breaking into his home. If police don't identify themselves they should expect an armed population to meet them with guns in hand. It's their responsibility to assess the situation, understand who the occupants are, and respond appropriately. Smashing a bedroom window with a shovel and then "indiscriminately" firing into it is not a reasonable response.
- utternerd 3mo ago
  Good to see HN has changed their tune on gun ownership and defense. Until we see bodycam footage we're all basing our opinions entirely on what his lawyer is saying. Video will come out with a FOIA, but everyone will have moved on.
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]

SlowFalcon 3mo ago

This happened to me in 2021 minus the being shot part. Called local PD to inform them; still had a full police response, luckily was renovating house but still.

alex1138 3mo ago

SWATing is a very common thing so police depts should be aware there's always a risk of it happening Take the call seriously, but be prepared it's not what you think it is, especially if you see a shocked gamer sitting at their computer monitor with no apparent hostages

giancarlostoro 3mo ago

Police agencies arent the only ones alone to take blame here, the judges who on a whim sign these warrants should face liability or be removed from their position if there are casualties as a result of a false report.

jerlam 3mo ago
I don't think judges and warrants are involved in these swatting incidents. The whole point of swatting is to make up a dangerous scenario where the threat to life is so high and immediate that the police are allowed to forgo many procedures and processes that would prevent accidental injury or death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance
- giancarlostoro 3mo ago
  This sounds like an exception to the third amendment that should be reconsidered if police don't improve their approach to these types of calls. If you cannot prove before you send a whole military to a house that what is claimed in a phone call is actually happening in a residential home, then you should not go in guns blazing.
  - jerlam 3mo ago
    I assume you meant the fourth amendment, which is the search and seizure one.
    - giancarlostoro 3mo ago
      Yeah I typod, I was saying fourth in my head too.

gammalost 3mo ago

[dead]

NotGMan 3mo ago

The need to find out who did the swatting and give him life in jail.

OutOfHere 3mo ago
That creates the reverse problem, whereby someone can eventually get framed for it. Just fix the real problem which is the disproportionate police response.

OutOfHere 3mo ago

176M is not enough for such an atrocity. It needs to be at least 10x more, i.e. 1.76B.

insane_dreamer 3mo ago

> Melendez did grab a "legal, registered" gun once he heard the glass shatter, Sethi said, but he ducked behind a partially closed door. It's horrible what happened to this boy, and the police should be sued/charged, but this is (yet another) reason why you're better off _not_ having a gun in your house. (You're statistically more likely to die from a gun in your own household than someone else's.)

6stringmerc 3mo ago

While I was incarcerated on a bogus Felony charge, a Corrections Officer made a false report to a neighboring Police Department that I had been “bragging about Swatting people” in that city. Totally false claim. Got a visit from Detectives while in my cell. They recorded the whole thing. The Thin Blue Line is real. I’ve moved on with my life. Mostly because there’s no way to hold them accountable so why try?