Argument Over a Call of Duty Leads to a Deadly Swatting Incident

  • 148 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for waahahah
waahahah

2462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#51 waahahah
Member since 2014 • 2462 Posts

@kod said:
@waahahah said:
@kod said:

No, the excuse is that he had a bb gun in his hand when he opened the door, of course no one but the people who don't want to be responsible for murdering a child are saying this. but hey, even if we pretend it was a bb gun or hell, real gun, its not illegal to answer your door holding a gun. But we all know it was not a gun.

Brandishing a weapon is potentially illegal...

BB gun, in your own house, is not.

Of course again, we all know this is was a wii controller he held.

Actually... a bb gun can be considered brandishing a weapon... if you put the wii mote in your pocket and did the trope of pointing it at someone in your pocket... is assault with a deadly weapon... Do you know laws? Like you don't need a real weapon for brandishing/assualt charges...

For the most part thats why BB guns REQUIRE coloring on the barrel... and certain BB guns you need a license for depending on the state (specifically the ones that shoot pellets for small game hunting)

Avatar image for Chutebox
Chutebox

50495

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#52 Chutebox  Online
Member since 2007 • 50495 Posts

They arrested the dude.

It sucks, but given the info cops had about the situation, I'm not surprised they shot when dude reached down

Avatar image for Diddies
Diddies

2415

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#53 Diddies
Member since 2007 • 2415 Posts

@kingtito said:
@dxmcat said:
@kingtito said:
@dxmcat said:
@kingtito said:

What we do know is it was a fake call for swat to go out since there wasn't a murder or kidnapping situation. So what's more plausible that he had a Wii mote controller or a gun? There is no way the cops saw a gun. This seems to be another case of trigger happy cops.

Please apply your critical thinking skills. No one gets shot for answering a door. There is little to zero actual detailed information yet all you asshats are jumping to conclusions.

Everything that is wrong in America begins with you being uninformed ass hats not thinking. This is why someone is always guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion. Cause the public are fucking morons.

So you know the entire story? I'm going by what's reported here. What research have YOU done. This entire thread is speculation on what happen. The only asshat here seems to be you since you're taking this personal like the cops were your friends. Go take your tears somewhere else son. No one cares what you think or say

Get a clue dipshit. You were not there, nor was I. All you have to go off of is the info that is spoonfed to you. Put your thinking cap on. My post said nothing about taking either side. Its obvious that there is extremely little detailed information. You obviously have an agenda since you tried to call me out like the cops are my friends, I did not take sides. I said the information was extremely limited and everyone is jumping to conclusions, just like you did with my post.

Thx.

I'm not the one crying about people offering their opinions on what happened. What we know is the call was a hoax. Going by that alone we could assume the guy WASN'T carrying a gun when he opened the door unless you think that he just happen to be showing off or cleaning one at that exact time. What we also know is cops have and do kill people by accident or because they're scared. That's a fact.

Perhaps you shouldn't take this threads so serious when someone offers an opinion because I don't recall anyone saying anything about it being a fact. Tissues are incoming

Since you have no experience in the field, you have no expertise on the subject so you have no knowledge on the procedures of police interaction or calls of a murder/kidnapping/warrants/etc. Also neither one of us were there and neither one of us knows what the kid had. I was a police officer for a few years before I joined the private sector to make a ton more money. When you receive calls like this, you are loaded up ready to go because you receive information of someone who is very hostile and aggressive. However, I have had many interactions of just knocking on someone's door and a kid being scared and home alone grabbing a weapon because they do not know who it is or scared. I fortunately never shot anyone, but did serve numerous no-knock search warrants so I have been in some rocky situations. I am not saying this is what happened with the kid as you or I do not know, but if the police say there was a BB gun then there definitely was a BB gun recovered as evidence. Whether the kid was holding when he answered the door we do not know. Also one cannot tell in a split second if the gun is lethal such as a BB gun or not.

And making the statement that police are trigger happy is really absurd and stupid to say. Please go do research on this topic before saying something so stupid. If this is a topic you really want to argue, I will destroy you will facts on situations where police shootings occurred with subjects with weapons. This is something you don't want to get into as you have no expertise so your opinion doesn't matter as you aren't an expert or ever been in the field.

Avatar image for EG101
EG101

2091

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#54 EG101
Member since 2007 • 2091 Posts

@waahahah said:
@EG101 said:
@Gatygun said:

It's not there fault cop shoots this guy. cops fault. So no murder charges are not in place for these guys. However the cop should be charged for murder tho. zero reason to shoot somebody ever dead.

However they should both be charged for whatever stands for swatting other people.

This^^^

The Officer should be charged with Murder.

The Swatters should be charged with the Swatting charges. They should both be Parma banned from using on line Gaming Services plus any jail time required by law for pranking law enforcement.

Cops work in the realm of probability and they have to move fast, especially a swat team. The reason someone died is not the cops fault, they entered a situation that was misreported and expected someone's life to be in danger as well as a potential threat to their own life. When the person came to the door didn't know the situation, and the cop was expecting a dangerous situation... Swatters should be charged with negligent homicide. The cops readiness and judgment depends on This siaccurate reporting of a crime.

This is why Cops will continue to get away with Murder all over the U.S.A., because people will always defend them even when they are wrong.

Maybe if you were related to the victim you would feel differently.

Avatar image for Gatygun
Gatygun

2709

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#55  Edited By Gatygun
Member since 2010 • 2709 Posts

@waahahah said:
@EG101 said:
@Gatygun said:

It's not there fault cop shoots this guy. cops fault. So no murder charges are not in place for these guys. However the cop should be charged for murder tho. zero reason to shoot somebody ever dead.

However they should both be charged for whatever stands for swatting other people.

This^^^

The Officer should be charged with Murder.

The Swatters should be charged with the Swatting charges. They should both be Parma banned from using on line Gaming Services plus any jail time required by law for pranking law enforcement.

Cops work in the realm of probability and they have to move fast, especially a swat team. The reason someone died is not the cops fault, they entered a situation that was misreported and expected someone's life to be in danger as well as a potential threat to their own life. When the person came to the door didn't know the situation, and the cop was expecting a dangerous situation... Swatters should be charged with negligent homicide. The cops readiness and judgment depends on accurate reporting of a crime.

Doesn't change the fact that the cop killed him, not the guy that got picked up.

If the cop can't deal with the pressure, the shouldn't be in that team to start with not that guys problem.

Zero reason to kill a person no matter what, you disable them or defuse the situation.

Avatar image for onesiphorus
onesiphorus

5234

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

#56 onesiphorus
Member since 2014 • 5234 Posts

This is why Cops will continue to get away with Murder all over the U.S.A., because people will always defend them even when they are wrong.

Maybe if you were related to the victim you would feel differently.

What is with the defaming anti-police rhetoric here? It looks like the words of Black Lives Matter.

Avatar image for kod
KOD

2754

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#57  Edited By KOD
Member since 2016 • 2754 Posts

@waahahah said:
@kod said:
@waahahah said:
@kod said:

No, the excuse is that he had a bb gun in his hand when he opened the door, of course no one but the people who don't want to be responsible for murdering a child are saying this. but hey, even if we pretend it was a bb gun or hell, real gun, its not illegal to answer your door holding a gun. But we all know it was not a gun.

Brandishing a weapon is potentially illegal...

BB gun, in your own house, is not.

Of course again, we all know this is was a wii controller he held.

Actually... a bb gun can be considered brandishing a weapon... if you put the wii mote in your pocket and did the trope of pointing it at someone in your pocket... is assault with a deadly weapon... Do you know laws? Like you don't need a real weapon for brandishing/assualt charges...

For the most part thats why BB guns REQUIRE coloring on the barrel... and certain BB guns you need a license for depending on the state (specifically the ones that shoot pellets for small game hunting)

That's not bb guns, thats toy guns (including airsoft) that require coloring on the barrel.

As for the "brandishing" thing, most states don't apply this to within someones household or property because of 2nd amendment and castle laws.

Now, back to the incident of the wii controller shooting... this kid lived in Georgia, so im going to let you guess what state laws say about if its legal and acceptable to open your door holding a firearm. Again... Georgia. If you don't know Georgia, people's guns have guns.

Avatar image for waahahah
waahahah

2462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#58 waahahah
Member since 2014 • 2462 Posts
@EG101 said:

This is why Cops will continue to get away with Murder all over the U.S.A., because people will always defend them even when they are wrong.

Maybe if you were related to the victim you would feel differently.

Maybe you don't understand how probability works or what might be considered dangerous. They can be wrong but not criminally charged. Mistakes happen and this will likely be justifiable on the side of the cop because the information he was working with permitted quick response with force.

Whats criminal about this case is a call placed to 911 emergency center that provided false information to get an armed force to someone's house, and ready for violence and potential threat to innocent lives. Whats justifiable homicide is a response force misjudged a situation due to false information.

@Gatygun said:

Doesn't change the fact that the cop killed him, not the guy that got picked up.

If the cop can't deal with the pressure, the shouldn't be in that team to start with not that guys problem.

And depending on other circumstances it may not matter who physically killed him. We know that fact. We also know the cops showed up with guns out ready to respond with force do to a false report that was intended to get cops there with guns out ready to respond with force.

Like KOD doesn't seem to understand assault/brandishing weapon laws... the perception of a threat is what matters when it comes to justifiable homicide. In this case the perception of the threat was completely based on the swatter, and the response with force is 100% the result of the swatter... the criminal act of purposefully falsifying information that led to the death of a person would 100% be on the swatter.

Zero reason to kill a person no matter what, you disable them or defuse the situation.

Your clearly don't know how probability works. 100% of situations won't work that way. And even if you trained perfectly you'll perform 70% or less of that given a live situation. And even then the act of disabling them on ANY level risks life... forcing someone to the ground is a violent act and easily escalates if they resist.

Seriously go train for 2 years, then spend a day inviting people off the street to resist being subdued...

Avatar image for waahahah
waahahah

2462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#59 waahahah
Member since 2014 • 2462 Posts

@kod said:

That's not bb guns, thats toy guns (including airsoft) that require coloring on the barrel.

As for the "brandishing" thing, most states don't apply this to within someones household or property because of 2nd amendment and castle laws.

Now, back to the incident of the wii controller shooting... this kid lived in Georgia, so im going to let you guess what state laws say about if its legal and acceptable to open your door holding a firearm. Again... Georgia. If you don't know Georgia, people's guns have guns.

Brandising would still apply to even castle laws. Because you can't just greet people at the door threatening them unless you have a good reason too. If you were to lets say startle someone and they had a heart attack and died and weren't there illegally you could be charged or even held responsible in civil. Basically you can't unless they are threatening you. It's different if you open the door and have a gun holstered on you... but if its a wii mote you probably have it in your hand.

So regarding the wii controller. Doesn't matter. The cops understanding of the situation is based on false information, their judgement is based on the perceived threat.

Avatar image for EG101
EG101

2091

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#60 EG101
Member since 2007 • 2091 Posts

@waahahah said:
@EG101 said:

This is why Cops will continue to get away with Murder all over the U.S.A., because people will always defend them even when they are wrong.

Maybe if you were related to the victim you would feel differently.

Maybe you don't understand how probability works or what might be considered dangerous. They can be wrong but not criminally charged. Mistakes happen and this will likely be justifiable on the side of the cop because the information he was working with permitted quick response with force.

Whats criminal about this case is a call placed to 911 emergency center that provided false information to get an armed force to someone's house, and ready for violence and potential threat to innocent lives. Whats justifiable homicide is a response force misjudged a situation due to false information.

@Gatygun said:

Doesn't change the fact that the cop killed him, not the guy that got picked up.

If the cop can't deal with the pressure, the shouldn't be in that team to start with not that guys problem.

And depending on other circumstances it may not matter who physically killed him. We know that fact. We also know the cops showed up with guns out ready to respond with force do to a false report that was intended to get cops there with guns out ready to respond with force.

Like KOD doesn't seem to understand assault/brandishing weapon laws... the perception of a threat is what matters when it comes to justifiable homicide. In this case the perception of the threat was completely based on the swatter, and the response with force is 100% the result of the swatter... the criminal act of purposefully falsifying information that led to the death of a person would 100% be on the swatter.

Zero reason to kill a person no matter what, you disable them or defuse the situation.

Your clearly don't know how probability works. 100% of situations won't work that way. And even if you trained perfectly you'll perform 70% or less of that given a live situation. And even then the act of disabling them on ANY level risks life... forcing someone to the ground is a violent act and easily escalates if they resist.

Seriously go train for 2 years, then spend a day inviting people off the street to resist being subdued...

Sorry but I disagree with your assessment.

One person was playing a bad joke and the other was Murdering an innocent person. Playing a bad joke is not the same as murdering someone and should NEVER be used as an excuse for someone to commit a Crime and have a different person take the blame for it.

Should Law Enforcement go around killing everyone that's falsely accused of a crime??

If your answer is NO than Law Enforcement is wrong on this one too.

Avatar image for kod
KOD

2754

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#61  Edited By KOD
Member since 2016 • 2754 Posts

@waahahah said:
@kod said:

That's not bb guns, thats toy guns (including airsoft) that require coloring on the barrel.

As for the "brandishing" thing, most states don't apply this to within someones household or property because of 2nd amendment and castle laws.

Now, back to the incident of the wii controller shooting... this kid lived in Georgia, so im going to let you guess what state laws say about if its legal and acceptable to open your door holding a firearm. Again... Georgia. If you don't know Georgia, people's guns have guns.

Brandising would still apply to even castle laws. Because you can't just greet people at the door threatening them unless you have a good reason too. If you were to lets say startle someone and they had a heart attack and died and weren't there illegally you could be charged or even held responsible in civil. Basically you can't unless they are threatening you. It's different if you open the door and have a gun holstered on you... but if its a wii mote you probably have it in your hand.

I ensured i had this right so i looked it up before posting this. It depends on the state, but the majority of states do not consider it brandishing within your house because its a conflict of rights. Basically, probably half the coastal states have some kind of law regarding this, the rest of America does not. i will also add the fact that this was an open carry state which allows for "brandishing" (until you point it at someone), so again, perfectly acceptable.

@waahahah said:

So regarding the wii controller. Doesn't matter. The cops understanding of the situation is based on false information, their judgement is based on the perceived threat.

And the problem is they were wrong with that perceived threat. "A perceived threat" does not justify a murder.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
DragonfireXZ95

26641

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#62 DragonfireXZ95
Member since 2005 • 26641 Posts

@Chutebox said:

They arrested the dude.

It sucks, but given the info cops had about the situation, I'm not surprised they shot when dude reached down

Nah, it's not the guy's fault he reached down. He was completely innocent of any wrongdoing, and he should not be treated like a criminal upon first meeting. The cop was completely in the wrong for opening fire like that.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
DragonfireXZ95

26641

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#63 DragonfireXZ95
Member since 2005 • 26641 Posts

@EG101 said:
@waahahah said:
@EG101 said:

This is why Cops will continue to get away with Murder all over the U.S.A., because people will always defend them even when they are wrong.

Maybe if you were related to the victim you would feel differently.

Maybe you don't understand how probability works or what might be considered dangerous. They can be wrong but not criminally charged. Mistakes happen and this will likely be justifiable on the side of the cop because the information he was working with permitted quick response with force.

Whats criminal about this case is a call placed to 911 emergency center that provided false information to get an armed force to someone's house, and ready for violence and potential threat to innocent lives. Whats justifiable homicide is a response force misjudged a situation due to false information.

@Gatygun said:

Doesn't change the fact that the cop killed him, not the guy that got picked up.

If the cop can't deal with the pressure, the shouldn't be in that team to start with not that guys problem.

And depending on other circumstances it may not matter who physically killed him. We know that fact. We also know the cops showed up with guns out ready to respond with force do to a false report that was intended to get cops there with guns out ready to respond with force.

Like KOD doesn't seem to understand assault/brandishing weapon laws... the perception of a threat is what matters when it comes to justifiable homicide. In this case the perception of the threat was completely based on the swatter, and the response with force is 100% the result of the swatter... the criminal act of purposefully falsifying information that led to the death of a person would 100% be on the swatter.

Zero reason to kill a person no matter what, you disable them or defuse the situation.

Your clearly don't know how probability works. 100% of situations won't work that way. And even if you trained perfectly you'll perform 70% or less of that given a live situation. And even then the act of disabling them on ANY level risks life... forcing someone to the ground is a violent act and easily escalates if they resist.

Seriously go train for 2 years, then spend a day inviting people off the street to resist being subdued...

Sorry but I disagree with your assessment.

One person was playing a bad joke and the other was Murdering an innocent person. Playing a bad joke is not the same as murdering someone and should NEVER be used as an excuse for someone to commit a Crime and have a different person take the blame for it.

Should Law Enforcement go around killing everyone that's falsely accused of a crime??

If your answer is NO than Law Enforcement is wrong on this one too.

Right, if that were the case, you could stake a claim about literally anyone and they'll automatically be considered guilty. Stick someone in full body armor and helmet and put them near a car door outside and use a megaphone to shout in, or basically anything other than "shoot first and ask questions later".

Avatar image for dxmcat
dxmcat

3385

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#64  Edited By dxmcat
Member since 2007 • 3385 Posts

@Diddies said:I am not saying this is what happened with the kid as you or I do not know

Exactly. Its a speculation thread. And again, shouldnt be in system wars

Avatar image for waahahah
waahahah

2462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#65 waahahah
Member since 2014 • 2462 Posts

@EG101 said:

Sorry but I disagree with your assessment.

One person was playing a bad joke and the other was Murdering an innocent person. Playing a bad joke is not the same as murdering someone and should NEVER be used as an excuse for someone to commit a Crime and have a different person take the blame for it.

Should Law Enforcement go around killing everyone that's falsely accused of a crime??

Its not just my assessment.

One person was playing a bad joke and the other was Murdering an innocent person. Playing a bad joke is not the same as murdering someone and should NEVER be used as an excuse for someone to commit a Crime and have a different person take the blame for it.

The difference is the intent and understanding of a situation.

You fundamentally don't seem to understand how laws work. Like someone accidentally murdering someone because of a prank is still justifiable homicide. If you were to play a prank on someone, Like this, or in this case if a cop were to shoot one of these idiots all the pranksters would likely be charged with murder... Or Pranks like these if someone pulled a gun and shot them... it would be justifiable homicide and... likely the others would be held accountable for his death.

The bad joke is WHY someone died, its WHY the cop misjudged a situation, its WHY the cops thought the situation was dangerous.

Should Law Enforcement go around killing everyone that's falsely accused of a crime??

No but this is a false equivalency. There wasn't just an accusation of someone committing a crime, but a crime in progress where someone's life may be in danger where the cops responded appropriately to the information provided.

Otherwise cops will investigate and then get an arrest warrant if someone is just accused of a crime.

If your answer is NO than Law Enforcement is wrong on this one too.

Yah the answer is no. But that's because that's not what happens and cops don't do that. Swatting sets up extreme circumstances to send armed men to a house because there is an imminent threat to life.

Avatar image for waahahah
waahahah

2462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#66 waahahah
Member since 2014 • 2462 Posts

@kod said:

I ensured i had this right so i looked it up before posting this. It depends on the state, but the majority of states do not consider it brandishing within your house because its a conflict of rights. Basically, probably half the coastal states have some kind of law regarding this, the rest of America does not. i will also add the fact that this was an open carry state which allows for "brandishing" (until you point it at someone), so again, perfectly acceptable.

It's not, you can have a weapon but the concept of brandishing a weapon is using the presence of a weapon to potentially deter a threatening situation. Its basically unlawful if the situation is non threatening. Just because its in your house doesn't give you the right to threaten or brandish weapons on people indiscriminately. And you pointing it at someone would be assault, which is why there is a distinction between brandishing vs assault.

If your hand isn't on a weapon when opening the door it would really be hard to say brandishing a weapon. But if someone is holding a black Wii mote, in a split second reaction it could be mistaken for a barrel..

And the problem is they were wrong with that perceived threat. "A perceived threat" does not justify a murder.

Look up the definition of justifiable homicide. Because that's exactly what it means. Its based on a perceived threat, if someone believes their or another person's life is in imminent danger they can justifiably use force. In the case of swatting, police have reason to believe someone's life is in danger. And remember cops plan first then react to developing circumstances when a swat team shows up.

Avatar image for Micropixel
Micropixel

1383

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#67  Edited By Micropixel
Member since 2005 • 1383 Posts

I heard about it this morning. Swatting has been a thing for years now but authorities and News outlets still don't seem to know what it is or how to approach it. It's sad. Pranks like these, during a time where Police Officers are now highly trigger-happy and looking for reasons to shoot anyone, are bound to end up exactly like this. It was only a matter of time. In this case, the person who died wasn't even involved in the gaming dispute. He was completely innocent.

Police need to learn what Swatting is and come up with a playbook for indentifying it. As you can see in the video, very little police work was done in this case. The 911 call itself sounded completely bogus. Neighbors were not questioned on the scene and there were no reports of gunshots from anyone in the immediate area before the 911 call was made. Hell, the officer who shot him was all the way across the effing street.

Horrible Police work. Horrible Swatting prank. Whoever is responsible should be thrown into a deep dark hole full of hungry Lions.

My condolences to the family.

Loading Video...
Avatar image for EG101
EG101

2091

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#68  Edited By EG101
Member since 2007 • 2091 Posts

@waahahah said:
@EG101 said:

Sorry but I disagree with your assessment.

One person was playing a bad joke and the other was Murdering an innocent person. Playing a bad joke is not the same as murdering someone and should NEVER be used as an excuse for someone to commit a Crime and have a different person take the blame for it.

Should Law Enforcement go around killing everyone that's falsely accused of a crime??

Its not just my assessment.

One person was playing a bad joke and the other was Murdering an innocent person. Playing a bad joke is not the same as murdering someone and should NEVER be used as an excuse for someone to commit a Crime and have a different person take the blame for it.

The difference is the intent and understanding of a situation.

You fundamentally don't seem to understand how laws work. Like someone accidentally murdering someone because of a prank is still justifiable homicide. If you were to play a prank on someone, Like this, or in this case if a cop were to shoot one of these idiots all the pranksters would likely be charged with murder... Or Pranks like these if someone pulled a gun and shot them... it would be justifiable homicide and... likely the others would be held accountable for his death.

The bad joke is WHY someone died, its WHY the cop misjudged a situation, its WHY the cops thought the situation was dangerous.

Should Law Enforcement go around killing everyone that's falsely accused of a crime??

No but this is a false equivalency. There wasn't just an accusation of someone committing a crime, but a crime in progress where someone's life may be in danger where the cops responded appropriately to the information provided.

Otherwise cops will investigate and then get an arrest warrant if someone is just accused of a crime.

If your answer is NO than Law Enforcement is wrong on this one too.

Yah the answer is no. But that's because that's not what happens and cops don't do that. Swatting sets up extreme circumstances to send armed men to a house because there is an imminent threat to life.

You are correct in your assumption that I'm not educated in Law but that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on the matter.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Doesn't matter what the Excuse is imo. The officer killed an innocent man that had nothing to do with it and therefore should be charged or at least forced to resign.

Law Enforcement at the very least should have vetted the witness.

Avatar image for waahahah
waahahah

2462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#69 waahahah
Member since 2014 • 2462 Posts
@DragonfireXZ95 said:

Nah, it's not the guy's fault he reached down. He was completely innocent of any wrongdoing, and he should not be treated like a criminal upon first meeting. The cop was completely in the wrong for opening fire like that.

He was innocent and the cops shouldn't have been there in a state of readiness for extreme circumstances. It doesn't sound like the cop casually knocked on the door to say hello.

Avatar image for waahahah
waahahah

2462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#70 waahahah
Member since 2014 • 2462 Posts

@EG101 said:

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Doesn't matter what the Excuse is imo. The cops killed an innocent man that had nothing to do with it and therefore should be charged or at least forced to resign.

Why wasn't the witness vetted? Law Enforcement at the very least should have vetted the witness.

Its a time sensitive scenario..

And the first thing to do is show up, when the guy came to the door someone panicked in shot him. The cops were doing their job and reacted appropriately. The guy didn't know they were surrounding his house in force and came to the door. There was no way for either side to know the correct information when they responded.

We can disagree but your wrong. You can't expect cops to have clairvoyance and the potential threat is the most important thing in a scenario like this.

@Micropixel said:

I heard about it this morning. Swatting has been a thing for years now but authorities and News outlets still don't seem to know what it is or how to approach it. It's sad. Pranks like these, during a time where Police Officers are now highly trigger-happy and looking for reasons to shoot anyone, are bound to end up exactly like this. It was only a matter of time. In this case, the person who died wasn't even involved in the gaming dispute. He was completely innocent.

Police need to learn what Swatting is and come up with a playbook for indentifying it. As you can see in the video, very little police work was done in this case. The 911 call itself sounded completely bogus. Neighbors were not questioned on the scene and there were no reports of gunshots from anyone in the immediate area before the 911 call was made. Hell, the officer who shot him was all the way across the effing street.

Horrible Police work. Horrible Swatting prank. Whoever is responsible should be thrown into a deep dark hole full of hungry Lions.

My condolences to the family.

How do you approach a lie exactly? You either take the chance someone is lying and fail to respond appropriately.. or your respond to the information provided and hope to deescalate the situation. Especially in a time sensitive scenario where.. someone is threatening to kill people and set the house on fire..

Either way it appears what the cops did was correct. They showed up and surrounded the house first but the guy came to the door, it was just unexpected and sad. Police know what swatting is but its likely impossible to determine without... showing up and attempting to investigate. Citizens can do their part too knowing swatting is a possibility... if cops show up and surround your house and point weapons at it, maybe don't open the door to figure out whats going on or make sure your hands are up to show your disarmed.

Avatar image for kod
KOD

2754

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#71 KOD
Member since 2016 • 2754 Posts

@waahahah said:
@kod said:

I ensured i had this right so i looked it up before posting this. It depends on the state, but the majority of states do not consider it brandishing within your house because its a conflict of rights. Basically, probably half the coastal states have some kind of law regarding this, the rest of America does not. i will also add the fact that this was an open carry state which allows for "brandishing" (until you point it at someone), so again, perfectly acceptable.

It's not, you can have a weapon but the concept of brandishing a weapon is using the presence of a weapon to potentially deter a threatening situation. Its basically unlawful if the situation is non threatening. Just because its in your house doesn't give you the right to threaten or brandish weapons on people indiscriminately. And you pointing it at someone would be assault, which is why there is a distinction between brandishing vs assault.

If your hand isn't on a weapon when opening the door it would really be hard to say brandishing a weapon. But if someone is holding a black Wii mote, in a split second reaction it could be mistaken for a barrel..

And the problem is they were wrong with that perceived threat. "A perceived threat" does not justify a murder.

Look up the definition of justifiable homicide. Because that's exactly what it means. Its based on a perceived threat, if someone believes their or another person's life is in imminent danger they can justifiably use force. In the case of swatting, police have reason to believe someone's life is in danger. And remember cops plan first then react to developing circumstances when a swat team shows up.

You're just telling me what you feel is correct and i can tell you have not look up this issue. States are still passing legislation to clarify what brandishing is because of this conflict of rights. And of the states that have passed legislation to clarify this conflict of rights... KS, FL, MI, AZ, NM, CN, NV and im sure there's a few more who have passed laws. All but CN say that in your house, there is no such thing as brandishing. Because of the 2014 expenditure on "gun rights", this has been a big is sue for most states, and most states are still working through it. The states that have not passed any laws regarding this subject are still conflicted with these laws because its again, as a lawyer stated and as i repeated, a conflict of rights.

@waahahah said:

Look up the definition of justifiable homicide. Because that's exactly what it means. Its based on a perceived threat, if someone believes their or another person's life is in imminent danger they can justifiably use force. In the case of swatting, police have reason to believe someone's life is in danger. And remember cops plan first then react to developing circumstances when a swat team shows up.

So again, you're not even close to being accurate. Justifiable homicide is not an exact charge, it carries a subset of actual charges. These charges also vary by state, but for a citizen who should hold less responsibility toward the law (unlike a cop), this would probably be considered reckless homicide. Its a bit iffy because police have responsibilities that citizens do not. One of these, the main one, is to be able to evaluate a situation and take appropriate action to best protect innocent civilians at the potential cost of the officers life (its they oath they take and why we are supposed to admire pigs). Can we say that was done here? No, it clearly was not.

Avatar image for EG101
EG101

2091

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#72 EG101
Member since 2007 • 2091 Posts

@waahahah said:
@EG101 said:

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Doesn't matter what the Excuse is imo. The cops killed an innocent man that had nothing to do with it and therefore should be charged or at least forced to resign.

Why wasn't the witness vetted? Law Enforcement at the very least should have vetted the witness.

Its a time sensitive scenario..

And the first thing to do is show up, when the guy came to the door someone panicked in shot him. The cops were doing their job and reacted appropriately. The guy didn't know they were surrounding his house in force and came to the door. There was no way for either side to know the correct information when they responded.

We can disagree but your wrong. You can't expect cops to have clairvoyance and the potential threat is the most important thing in a scenario like this.

@Micropixel said:

I heard about it this morning. Swatting has been a thing for years now but authorities and News outlets still don't seem to know what it is or how to approach it. It's sad. Pranks like these, during a time where Police Officers are now highly trigger-happy and looking for reasons to shoot anyone, are bound to end up exactly like this. It was only a matter of time. In this case, the person who died wasn't even involved in the gaming dispute. He was completely innocent.

Police need to learn what Swatting is and come up with a playbook for indentifying it. As you can see in the video, very little police work was done in this case. The 911 call itself sounded completely bogus. Neighbors were not questioned on the scene and there were no reports of gunshots from anyone in the immediate area before the 911 call was made. Hell, the officer who shot him was all the way across the effing street.

Horrible Police work. Horrible Swatting prank. Whoever is responsible should be thrown into a deep dark hole full of hungry Lions.

My condolences to the family.

How do you approach a lie exactly? You either take the chance someone is lying and fail to respond appropriately.. or your respond to the information provided and hope to deescalate the situation. Especially in a time sensitive scenario where.. someone is threatening to kill people and set the house on fire..

Either way it appears what the cops did was correct. They showed up and surrounded the house first but the guy came to the door, it was just unexpected and sad. Police know what swatting is but its likely impossible to determine without... showing up and attempting to investigate. Citizens can do their part too knowing swatting is a possibility... if cops show up and surround your house and point weapons at it, maybe don't open the door to figure out whats going on or make sure your hands are up to show your disarmed.

No I'm not wrong and Killing an innocent person was NOT correct.

Avatar image for Micropixel
Micropixel

1383

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#73  Edited By Micropixel
Member since 2005 • 1383 Posts

@waahahah said:
@EG101 said:

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Doesn't matter what the Excuse is imo. The cops killed an innocent man that had nothing to do with it and therefore should be charged or at least forced to resign.

Why wasn't the witness vetted? Law Enforcement at the very least should have vetted the witness.

Its a time sensitive scenario..

And the first thing to do is show up, when the guy came to the door someone panicked in shot him. The cops were doing their job and reacted appropriately. The guy didn't know they were surrounding his house in force and came to the door. There was no way for either side to know the correct information when they responded.

We can disagree but your wrong. You can't expect cops to have clairvoyance and the potential threat is the most important thing in a scenario like this.

@Micropixel said:

I heard about it this morning. Swatting has been a thing for years now but authorities and News outlets still don't seem to know what it is or how to approach it. It's sad. Pranks like these, during a time where Police Officers are now highly trigger-happy and looking for reasons to shoot anyone, are bound to end up exactly like this. It was only a matter of time. In this case, the person who died wasn't even involved in the gaming dispute. He was completely innocent.

Police need to learn what Swatting is and come up with a playbook for indentifying it. As you can see in the video, very little police work was done in this case. The 911 call itself sounded completely bogus. Neighbors were not questioned on the scene and there were no reports of gunshots from anyone in the immediate area before the 911 call was made. Hell, the officer who shot him was all the way across the effing street.

Horrible Police work. Horrible Swatting prank. Whoever is responsible should be thrown into a deep dark hole full of hungry Lions.

My condolences to the family.

How do you approach a lie exactly? You either take the chance someone is lying and fail to respond appropriately.. or your respond to the information provided and hope to deescalate the situation. Especially in a time sensitive scenario where.. someone is threatening to kill people and set the house on fire..

Either way it appears what the cops did was correct. They showed up and surrounded the house first but the guy came to the door, it was just unexpected and sad. Police know what swatting is but its likely impossible to determine without... showing up and attempting to investigate. Citizens can do their part too knowing swatting is a possibility... if cops show up and surround your house and point weapons at it, maybe don't open the door to figure out whats going on or make sure your hands are up to show your disarmed.

You could start by learning from all the things that went wrong here:

1. Recognizing that the 911 call was made in California to a Police station in Kansas. 911 dispatch didn't catch the discrepancy and neither did the Kansas Police Department.

2. There were no other calls made from the surrounding neighborhood regarding any gunshots, suspicious activity or other disturbances, despite the 911 caller claiming he had already shot his father, taken the rest of his family as hostages and poured gasoline all over the house. The first and only disturbances reported by neighbors and witnesses were all committed by the Police/Swat Team on site.

3. The Police fired upon the victim from across the street as soon as the doors were opened. No warnings at all, with a house full of witnesses.

4. Swatting has been an actual thing for at least a good 6+ years. It's happened enough times throughout the country that most Police facilities should know what it is and have training available for their officers to better identify it.

In my opinion, this could have, and should have, been handled better.

Avatar image for Chutebox
Chutebox

50495

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#74 Chutebox  Online
Member since 2007 • 50495 Posts

@DragonfireXZ95: I didn't say it was his fault

Avatar image for uitravioience
UItravioIence

2995

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#75 UItravioIence
Member since 2016 • 2995 Posts

There's a channel on youtube called Drama Alert and the host actually got an interview with the guy who did the swatting. That dude has zero remorse for what his actions caused. Total garbage human being. Good news is that the Internet is wonderful and managed to find out who he was and the swatter has since been arrested!

Avatar image for superbuuman
superbuuman

6400

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#76 superbuuman
Member since 2010 • 6400 Posts

@uitravioience said:

There's a channel on youtube called Drama Alert and the host actually got an interview with the guy who did the swatting. That dude has zero remorse for what his actions caused. Total garbage human being. Good news is that the Internet is wonderful and managed to find out who he was and the swatter has since been arrested!

Hopefully charge to the maximum sentence by law...especially when dude showed no remorse.

Avatar image for uitravioience
UItravioIence

2995

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#77 UItravioIence
Member since 2016 • 2995 Posts

@superbuuman: he's already been arrested once for swatting. I think after this latest one involving an innocent person losing their life, it's safe to say this guy isn't getting out of jail any time soon.

Avatar image for kingtito
kingtito

11775

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#78 kingtito
Member since 2003 • 11775 Posts

@Diddies said:
@kingtito said:
@dxmcat said:
@kingtito said:
@dxmcat said:

Please apply your critical thinking skills. No one gets shot for answering a door. There is little to zero actual detailed information yet all you asshats are jumping to conclusions.

Everything that is wrong in America begins with you being uninformed ass hats not thinking. This is why someone is always guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion. Cause the public are fucking morons.

So you know the entire story? I'm going by what's reported here. What research have YOU done. This entire thread is speculation on what happen. The only asshat here seems to be you since you're taking this personal like the cops were your friends. Go take your tears somewhere else son. No one cares what you think or say

Get a clue dipshit. You were not there, nor was I. All you have to go off of is the info that is spoonfed to you. Put your thinking cap on. My post said nothing about taking either side. Its obvious that there is extremely little detailed information. You obviously have an agenda since you tried to call me out like the cops are my friends, I did not take sides. I said the information was extremely limited and everyone is jumping to conclusions, just like you did with my post.

Thx.

I'm not the one crying about people offering their opinions on what happened. What we know is the call was a hoax. Going by that alone we could assume the guy WASN'T carrying a gun when he opened the door unless you think that he just happen to be showing off or cleaning one at that exact time. What we also know is cops have and do kill people by accident or because they're scared. That's a fact.

Perhaps you shouldn't take this threads so serious when someone offers an opinion because I don't recall anyone saying anything about it being a fact. Tissues are incoming

Since you have no experience in the field, you have no expertise on the subject so you have no knowledge on the procedures of police interaction or calls of a murder/kidnapping/warrants/etc. Also neither one of us were there and neither one of us knows what the kid had. I was a police officer for a few years before I joined the private sector to make a ton more money. When you receive calls like this, you are loaded up ready to go because you receive information of someone who is very hostile and aggressive. However, I have had many interactions of just knocking on someone's door and a kid being scared and home alone grabbing a weapon because they do not know who it is or scared. I fortunately never shot anyone, but did serve numerous no-knock search warrants so I have been in some rocky situations. I am not saying this is what happened with the kid as you or I do not know, but if the police say there was a BB gun then there definitely was a BB gun recovered as evidence. Whether the kid was holding when he answered the door we do not know. Also one cannot tell in a split second if the gun is lethal such as a BB gun or not.

If this is a topic you really want to argue, I will destroy you will facts on situations where police shootings occurred with subjects with weapons. This is something you don't want to get into as you have no expertise so your opinion doesn't matter as you aren't an expert or ever been in the field.

But you do?

And there you have it. You're biased so it doesn't really matter what you have to say after that. You're going to take the side of the police officer which is a common theme in the police force.

"loaded up and ready to go" ready to pull the trigger at the slightest hint of anything even if the suspect isn't carrying a gun. It's happened before and it can happen again.

Trigger happy cops called to a hoax and someone gets shot...hmmm yeah sounds fishy to me.

You can take your tears else where dude. Nothing you say is going to prove what happened BUT since you were a former cop I can say you're biased. I'll grab some tissues for you on your way out

Avatar image for kingtito
kingtito

11775

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#79 kingtito
Member since 2003 • 11775 Posts

Bottom line is cops came to an innocent mans house and shot him after he opened the door. They didn't vet the situation, they didn't attempt to contact the supposed murderer with reported hostages. They killed an innocent man with NO weapon in his hands. Cops are shooting 1st and asking questions later which is why we're seeing people be murdered all over the country. What's worse is they're getting away with it because we have people like the apologist in this very thread. Always making excuses and justifying murder because they're in uniform.

It's disgusting and the exact reason we have people kneeling and protesting all over the country.

Avatar image for waahahah
waahahah

2462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#80 waahahah
Member since 2014 • 2462 Posts

@kod said:

You're just telling me what you feel is correct and i can tell you have not look up this issue. States are still passing legislation to clarify what brandishing is because of this conflict of rights. And of the states that have passed legislation to clarify this conflict of rights... KS, FL, MI, AZ, NM, CN, NV and im sure there's a few more who have passed laws. All but CN say that in your house, there is no such thing as brandishing. Because of the 2014 expenditure on "gun rights", this has been a big is sue for most states, and most states are still working through it. The states that have not passed any laws regarding this subject are still conflicted with these laws because its again, as a lawyer stated and as i repeated, a conflict of rights.

I agree its difficult to determine, but its not a conflict of rights. You have a right to protect yourself. Brandishing is generally NOT determined by location. You do not have the right to wave a gun around in your own home and scare people that pass by. You have a right to protect yourself in your own home, it still requires an imminent threat. Like an intruder you tend to have a right to shoot... you don't have right to shoot at someone knocking on your door.

And since there is a gray area in the brandishing a weapons... it would be considered really stupid to be holding a weapon in view when opening a door. Not just because of brandishing but because of the reaction of the person at your door.

So again, you're not even close to being accurate. Justifiable homicide is not an exact charge, it carries a subset of actual charges. Its a bit iffy because police have responsibilities that citizens do not. These charges also vary by state, but for a citizen who should hold less responsibility toward the law (unlike a cop), this would probably be considered reckless homicide

Justifiable homicide do not carry charges... its basically saying the use of deadly force was justified because there was a believable imminent threat to life. The standard for believably may change from state to state.

The reckless homicide would be caused by the swatter though.

Its a bit iffy because police have responsibilities that citizens do not.

They enforce the law, and are responsible for protecting life/property and responding to potential threats... which they have protocols they follow establishing a presence, securing and area then investigating...

One of these, the main one, is to be able to evaluate a situation and take appropriate action to best protect innocent civilians at the potential cost of the officers life (its they oath they take and why we are supposed to admire pigs). Can we say that was done here? No, it clearly was not.

What could they have done differently? Exactly what? They get a call saying some guy is going to potentially kill multiple people... they show up in force like they are supposed to. They secure the perimeter to get ready for an armed response like they are supposed to... THEN they can proceed to investigate and make contact... but then something unexpected happens and someone opens the door. Its real easy to make justifiable mistakes in this case, based on the working knowledge of the situation and the time it takes to investigate and coordinate more details as they come in.

Avatar image for Micropixel
Micropixel

1383

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#81  Edited By Micropixel
Member since 2005 • 1383 Posts

Un-f**king-believable.... Just watch this, guys.

Loading Video...
Avatar image for waahahah
waahahah

2462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#82 waahahah
Member since 2014 • 2462 Posts

@EG101 said:

No I'm not wrong and Killing an innocent person was NOT correct.

Thats not what we are discussing, its who's responsible for the death given the circumstances. We can all agree that killing someone is wrong... but it happens, and due to circumstances it may be non criminal.

@kingtito said:

Bottom line is cops came to an innocent mans house and shot him after he opened the door. They didn't vet the situation, they didn't attempt to contact the supposed murderer with reported hostages. They killed an innocent man with NO weapon in his hands. Cops are shooting 1st and asking questions later which is why we're seeing people be murdered all over the country. What's worse is they're getting away with it because we have people like the apologist in this very thread. Always making excuses and justifying murder because they're in uniform.

It's disgusting and the exact reason we have people kneeling and protesting all over the country.

Yes they followed protocol and reacted to something out of the ordinary...

Also the vast majority of homicides by cops and up being justifiable or excusable.

@Micropixel said:

You could start by learning from all the things that went wrong here:

1. Recognizing that the 911 call was made in California to a Police station in Kansas. 911 dispatch didn't catch the discrepancy and neither did the Kansas Police Department.

Yah they should probably upgrade their call centers to have caller ID. But something tells me it wasn't that simple... if you make a call in California to 911 you'll get a local emergency dispatch. He would have to circumvent that to get a specific dispatch center. This wouldn't be a normal thing dispatchers have to check for.

2. There were no other calls made from the surrounding neighborhood regarding any gunshots, suspicious activity or other disturbances, despite the 911 caller claiming he had already shot his father, taken the rest of his family as hostages and poured gasoline all over the house. The first and only disturbances reported by neighbors and witnesses were all committed by the Police/Swat Team on site.

Thats not evidence that nothing has happened. Some communities don't call the cops so they don't have a problem with over reporting. Or that many people might not recognize a single shot depending on the weapon.

3. The Police fired upon the victim from across the street as soon as the doors were opened. No warnings at all, with a house full of witnesses.

And? There was also reports that the man was armed and threatening the lives of 2 people. This wouldn't necessarily be criminal or incompetence given the extreme circumstances the cops believed as they started securing the area.

4. Swatting has been an actual thing for at least a good 6+ years. It's happened enough times throughout the country that most Police facilities should know what it is and have training available for their officers to better identify it.

If you can put some training on the table to be able to recognize real threats over the phone be my guest.

In my opinion, this could have, and should have, been handled better.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Avatar image for kingtito
kingtito

11775

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#83 kingtito
Member since 2003 • 11775 Posts

@waahahah: Right, showing up to an innocent mans house without properly vetting the situation and shooting the man within seconds of opening the door. Yeah, that's exactly what cops have been doing and normal rational people would call that murder. The man did absolutely NOTHING wrong and still got murdered. How you can sit there and justify it is beyond me but we do have a nation full of trump supporters....guess I know where you fall.

Avatar image for waahahah
waahahah

2462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#84  Edited By waahahah
Member since 2014 • 2462 Posts

@kingtito said:

@waahahah: Right, showing up to an innocent mans house without properly vetting the situation and shooting the man within seconds of opening the door. Yeah, that's exactly what cops have been doing and normal rational people would call that murder. The man did absolutely NOTHING wrong and still got murdered. How you can sit there and justify it is beyond me but we do have a nation full of trump supporters....guess I know where you fall.

I'm not trying to 'justify' it as something thats ok. I'm justifying it as something that happened because the cops were led to believe people were in danger and showed up ready to respond to violence. There first order of business is generally securing an area to be able to investigate. Mistakes happen. Its unfortunate but no police force will ever be perfect. And there will always be deaths at the hands of any force. From simple arrests causing someone to get injured or someone like Craig Gardner that ended up dead due to health complications during the struggle, or someone unknowingly opening the door to armed force and startles them and gets shot. It just happens... its going to happen... and so long as there are criminals and non non compliant civilians it will continue to happen.

And to properly vet the situation... they show up.. point guns at the house to respond to the potential threat of someone opening the door and firing on them.. some comes are ready to respond if necessary, others are trying to gather more information.

We might be able to improve the situation with better training but it will never be solved. Again we are working in probabilities... Someone I train with that works with police, and trained navy seals, and even I've worked with a few police officers in his seminars... told me something that is pretty enlightening. I asked him on his thoughts about excessive force and he said... all force is excessive. Even a month of two non training you end up significantly less effective... so in the case of cops.. we teach them high probably actions because those are the things they'll rely on day to day. The vast majority of nuance with any regard to conflict is basically thrown out the window.

Avatar image for Baconstrip78
Baconstrip78

1851

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#85 Baconstrip78
Member since 2013 • 1851 Posts

Not surprising. The online video gaming community is toxic stew of sexless, bitter, immature men and lifelong underachievers with nothing productive to do with their time than fritter hours away on gaming.

Avatar image for kod
KOD

2754

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#86  Edited By KOD
Member since 2016 • 2754 Posts

@waahahah said:

I agree its difficult to determine, but its not a conflict of rights. You have a right to protect yourself. Brandishing is generally NOT determined by location. You do not have the right to wave a gun around in your own home and scare people that pass by. You have a right to protect yourself in your own home, it still requires an imminent threat. Like an intruder you tend to have a right to shoot... you don't have right to shoot at someone knocking on your door.

Justifiable homicide do not carry charges... its basically saying the use of deadly force was justified because there was a believable imminent threat to life. The standard for believably may change from state to state.

1. Again, this is not my term. Its the term posed by lawyers and judges dealing with this legislation and situations, you might want to look into this before speaking on it because it seems you are clueless to what is going on. You also seem to be unaware of the legal definitions for "brandishing" that create this conflict. Brandishing does not simply mean "pointing a gun at someone".And also, that is not how its being used in the argument youre making in this case.

2. Yes, a justifiable homicide absolutely can and often does carry charges.

Avatar image for waahahah
waahahah

2462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#87  Edited By waahahah
Member since 2014 • 2462 Posts

@kod said:
@waahahah said:

I agree its difficult to determine, but its not a conflict of rights. You have a right to protect yourself. Brandishing is generally NOT determined by location. You do not have the right to wave a gun around in your own home and scare people that pass by. You have a right to protect yourself in your own home, it still requires an imminent threat. Like an intruder you tend to have a right to shoot... you don't have right to shoot at someone knocking on your door.

Justifiable homicide do not carry charges... its basically saying the use of deadly force was justified because there was a believable imminent threat to life. The standard for believably may change from state to state.

1. Again, this is not my term. Its the term posed by lawyers and judges dealing with this legislation and situations, you might want to look into this before speaking on it because it seems you are clueless to what is going on. You also seem to be unaware of the legal definitions for "brandishing" that create this conflict. Brandishing does not simply mean "pointing a gun at someone".And also, that is not how its being used in the argument youre making in this case.

2. Yes, a justifiable homicide absolutely can and often does carry charges.

No justifiable homicide is not a criminal offense in the US. And places where it is like the UK... its usually pardoned althought that might not be true any more. They separated Justifiable and Excusable but I don't know what the difference is.

What you might be mistaking is other charges that are brought up in criminal court like reckless homicide and the defendant tries to prove it was actually justifiable.

Avatar image for kod
KOD

2754

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#88 KOD
Member since 2016 • 2754 Posts

@waahahah said:

No justifiable homicide is not a criminal offense in the US. And places where it is like the UK... its usually pardoned and does not go to trial.

What you might be mistaking is other charges that are brought up in criminal court like reckless homicide and the defendant tries to prove it was actually justifiable.

You're confusing excusable homicide with justifiable homicide.

With Justifiable homicide you can still face a wide range of charges, including many manslaughter.

Deeming something a justifiable homicide does not make you free from death related charges.

Avatar image for Micropixel
Micropixel

1383

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#89 Micropixel
Member since 2005 • 1383 Posts

@waahahah said:

@Micropixel said:

You could start by learning from all the things that went wrong here:

1. Recognizing that the 911 call was made in California to a Police station in Kansas. 911 dispatch didn't catch the discrepancy and neither did the Kansas Police Department.

Yah they should probably upgrade their call centers to have caller ID. But something tells me it wasn't that simple... if you make a call in California to 911 you'll get a local emergency dispatch. He would have to circumvent that to get a specific dispatch center. This wouldn't be a normal thing dispatchers have to check for.

^ That could be true, but there are currently no details about how 911 dispatch vetted the call.

2. There were no other calls made from the surrounding neighborhood regarding any gunshots, suspicious activity or other disturbances, despite the 911 caller claiming he had already shot his father, taken the rest of his family as hostages and poured gasoline all over the house. The first and only disturbances reported by neighbors and witnesses were all committed by the Police/Swat Team on site.

Thats not evidence that nothing has happened. Some communities don't call the cops so they don't have a problem with over reporting. Or that many people might not recognize a single shot depending on the weapon.

^ Actually, in this case, it WAS evidence that nothing had happened and there was no situation. At least not until SWAT showed up on a bogus call.

3. The Police fired upon the victim from across the street as soon as the doors were opened. No warnings at all, with a house full of witnesses.

And? There was also reports that the man was armed and threatening the lives of 2 people. This wouldn't necessarily be criminal or incompetence given the extreme circumstances the cops believed as they started securing the area.

^ And those reports turned out to be wrong, didn't they?

4. Swatting has been an actual thing for at least a good 6+ years. It's happened enough times throughout the country that most Police facilities should know what it is and have training available for their officers to better identify it.

If you can put some training on the table to be able to recognize real threats over the phone be my guest.

^ You don't need me to draw up a plan for you. There are plenty of resources currently available to change, upgrade and even train Officers for better handling incidents like these. The only reason it hasn't happened yet is because until today, no one has ever been killed in a Swatting Prank. But now that that's changed, now that we have liability coming down on the department that will more than likely result in lawsuits, you will start to see changes made towards better vetting of information, identification and other procedures to properly handle this kind of situation to protect innocent lives.

In my opinion, this could have, and should have, been handled better.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

^ So is education.

Avatar image for EG101
EG101

2091

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#90 EG101
Member since 2007 • 2091 Posts

@kingtito said:

@waahahah: Right, showing up to an innocent mans house without properly vetting the situation and shooting the man within seconds of opening the door. Yeah, that's exactly what cops have been doing and normal rational people would call that murder. The man did absolutely NOTHING wrong and still got murdered. How you can sit there and justify it is beyond me but we do have a nation full of trump supporters....guess I know where you fall.

No need to Politicize this tragedy. Everyone with any sense knows that the Officer that pulled that trigger is at Fault here. I can't fully blame the idiot that Swatted them. Law Enforcement did not do their job and that is why another innocent man is dead. Get ready for Law Enforcement to try to blame someone else for their error. It's what they always do.

I remember in my town when a young man was killed because he was throwing a football to someone and it accidentally hit a Patrol Car. Officer Lavotti got out of his Patrol car and Proceeded to Strangle the person that threw the ball. When the guy couldn't breathe he then had an Asthma attack and died on the spot. Officer Lavotti had no business choking this guy but Lavotti thought it would be ok for him to do so. After a trial Lavotti did no time and even got to keep his job. Absolutely Disgusting

Avatar image for waahahah
waahahah

2462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#91  Edited By waahahah
Member since 2014 • 2462 Posts

@kod said:
@waahahah said:

No justifiable homicide is not a criminal offense in the US. And places where it is like the UK... its usually pardoned and does not go to trial.

What you might be mistaking is other charges that are brought up in criminal court like reckless homicide and the defendant tries to prove it was actually justifiable.

You're confusing excusable homicide with justifiable homicide.

With Justifiable homicide you can still face a wide range of charges, including many manslaughter.

Deeming something a justifiable homicide does not make you free from death related charges.

I'm not, excusable homicide is different.

Again your mistaken being charged with manslaughter as a result of justifiable homicide. If your charged with manslaughter because you shot someone in your own home... you want to prove it was self defense and justifiable homicide. If its determined to be justifiable before it ever goes to trial.. you wouldn't be charged with manslaughter...

Manslaughter would be under felonious homicide... non-felonious consists of justifiable and excusable.

Avatar image for kod
KOD

2754

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#92 KOD
Member since 2016 • 2754 Posts

@waahahah said:

I'm not, excusable homicide is different.

Again your mistaken being charged with manslaughter as a result of justifiable homicide. If your charged with manslaughter because you shot someone in your own home... you want to prove it was self defense and justifiable homicide. If its determined to be justifiable before it ever goes to trial.. you wouldn't be charged with manslaughter...

Manslaughter would be under felonious homicide... non-felonious consists of justifiable and excusable.

No, im not confusing anything. Unlike you i looked all of this up before responding.

Avatar image for waahahah
waahahah

2462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#93 waahahah
Member since 2014 • 2462 Posts

@Micropixel said:
@waahahah said:

Yah they should probably upgrade their call centers to have caller ID. But something tells me it wasn't that simple... if you make a call in California to 911 you'll get a local emergency dispatch. He would have to circumvent that to get a specific dispatch center. This wouldn't be a normal thing dispatchers have to check for.
^ That could be true, but there are currently no details about how 911 dispatch vetted the call.

Right... so we can't really make that determination.. what they had available to them probably couldn't verify that information... and its not like a large percentage of calls are false.. so why would there be any doubt?

Thats not evidence that nothing has happened. Some communities don't call the cops so they don't have a problem with over reporting. Or that many people might not recognize a single shot depending on the weapon.

^ Actually, in this case, it WAS evidence that nothing had happened and there was no situation. At least not until SWAT showed up on a bogus call.

Actually no... that's evidence that it wasn't widely reported which... since the hoaxer didn't say what kind of kind I don't think... a 22 fired in doors once might not be cause for concern... and maybe his immediate neighbors weren't home.. or had a loud tv on, or didn't care, or didn't know what the sound was. We know now where that evidence fits in the context of... hindsight.

And? There was also reports that the man was armed and threatening the lives of 2 people. This wouldn't necessarily be criminal or incompetence given the extreme circumstances the cops believed as they started securing the area.

^ And those reports turned out to be wrong, didn't they?

The power of hindsight!

If you can put some training on the table to be able to recognize real threats over the phone be my guest.

^ You don't need me to draw up a plan for you. There are plenty of resources currently available to change, upgrade and even train Officers for better handling incidents like these. The only reason it hasn't happened yet is because until today, no one has ever been killed in a Swatting Prank. But now that that's changed, now that we have liability coming down on the department that will more than likely result in lawsuits, you will start to see changes made towards better vetting of information, identification and other procedures to properly handle this kind of situation to protect innocent lives.

There isn't though, if you don't know its a prank call then you have to take it seriously... the one thing they can do is flag calls that aren't local. But the swatter is a known 'hacker' based on one of the videos posted.. so it could be pretty easy to trick. Like I can sign up for a temporary google phone number based in Kansas...

And its not like this is something that is happening on a mass scale. We know because the news generally circulates in gaming communities... but I can't imagine that this is a high priority for them considering that even IF its a fake report.. they still have to treat it like its real until they can determine its fake because the alternatively they would be accused of not doing their jobs if they got a report that they deemed fake.

So what are you proposing to fix the problem with the dispatch system you don't know about? Or determining if someone is lying over the phone. If they had that tech they could just start calling everyone and asking them if they are criminals or plan to commit a crime... no need for hindsight!

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

^ So is education.

You can't educate people on an ongoing situation if you don't know all the details or were purposefully mislead... this is a stupid comment. That's why hindsight is more important.

Avatar image for Diddies
Diddies

2415

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#94 Diddies
Member since 2007 • 2415 Posts

@kingtito: here we go again with you being stupid and ignorant on this topic. Yes I was a police officer, does that make me biased? No. I have yet to put anyone at blame because I want facts from the case. You are biased against cops as it seems like you hate them and keep using slang terms for them and immediately jump to conclusions before all the evidence is in. This is showing you being biased and your hatred for law enforcement and me waiting until more comes out. And yes when I say come loaded ready to go, you think that means trigger happy. This shows you are a complete idiot again. Loaded and ready to go means to are there for any plausible threats you may face especially during a possible kidnapping/murder or whatever. Sounds like you would bring a stick to a gun fight. Seriously, you have no expertise or any experience in the field and your opinion is actually pointless. And your reply because you have been getting demolished in this thread over and over again is to say someone is crying. See how dumb and unfortunate your life is.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
DragonfireXZ95

26641

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#95 DragonfireXZ95
Member since 2005 • 26641 Posts

@Chutebox said:

@DragonfireXZ95: I didn't say it was his fault

Oh, maybe I misinterpreted it. You said you weren't surprised when they shot as his hand was down, me thinking that you were implying that he shouldn't have reached down and it was his fault that he got shot.

Avatar image for Chutebox
Chutebox

50495

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#96 Chutebox  Online
Member since 2007 • 50495 Posts

@DragonfireXZ95: Nah, I just meant cops were probably on edge because of the type of call they had.

Avatar image for quadknight
QuadKnight

12916

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#97  Edited By QuadKnight
Member since 2015 • 12916 Posts

Cops here are too trigger happy. I understand why they would be on heightened alert but how difficult is it to wait to see a gun first before pulling the trigger?

Cops here are not being trained well at all. Too many sissies with badges and guns, and they are giving the entire police force a bad reputation.

It has reached the point I'd rather handle a threat by myself than call them. There needs to be a complete overhaul to the training and recruitment of police officers in the US. I'm all in support of the good and well trained cops putting their lives on the line but the crappy ones out there are just devaluing the work and sacrifice of the good ones.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
DragonfireXZ95

26641

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#98 DragonfireXZ95
Member since 2005 • 26641 Posts

@Chutebox said:

@DragonfireXZ95: Nah, I just meant cops were probably on edge because of the type of call they had.

Yeah, pussy cops. It's a trend we have in the good ol' USA.

Avatar image for EG101
EG101

2091

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#99  Edited By EG101
Member since 2007 • 2091 Posts

@onesiphorus said:

This is why Cops will continue to get away with Murder all over the U.S.A., because people will always defend them even when they are wrong.

Maybe if you were related to the victim you would feel differently.

What is with the defaming anti-police rhetoric here? It looks like the words of Black Lives Matter.

It's not defamation if it's true ;-/

Also my comments are directed at bad officers that are trigger happy not the good ones which the vast majority of the officers are.

I'm not even Black and give No ***** about the political crap. Cops killing innocents needs to stop no matter the persons race. FYI, the guy that was killed here is a white guy.