Man dies in a "swatting" prank

[dalekphalm]

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Your risk of an incident is a lot higher in a car though. Not that I mind if someone is caring a gun but it's not moronic to not do so, unlike a seat belt. And that's not even getting in to the much more difficult discussion of whether or not having the gun would have helped you at all, a seat belt will add protection by having it on where a gun has to be used in some way and I don't mean just firing it.

 

The protection added by carrying a gun is very often way over stated and no thought is actually put in to situations where you would never have gotten the chance to use it. Not saying you are implying it but the pro gun movement often comes off as implying having a gun is akin to an invulnerability device and everyone who has one is a potential hero in waiting. If you're in a bar having a drink and someone comes in and starts shooting odds are you're already shot or if someone is up close to you with a knife and wants to stab you your going to get stabbed before you can draw your gun.

 

There's no way to have a proper discussion about guns and actual issues around them when people just have to defend them so vehemently, like just ease up you're coming on too strong. Again not meaning you just generally. Not that there isn't the same from the anti gun people too but you can't always start off at full and utter defense mode.

Not to mention if everyone is carrying guns, it increases the risk that situations will escalate unnecessarily.

 

Hypothetical scenario:

You're at the bar, having a (non alcoholic) drink. A dude bursts through the door with a gun and starts shooting. You react by instinct and pull your own weapon and shoot/kill the man. But wait, the man was actually trying to shoot a person who pulled a knife, and was an "innocent bystander". You just committed manslaughter because you didn't even see the knife situation happening.

 

From an alternate view:

You walk into a bar, and immediately see a guy holding a knife to a waitresses neck. You pull your gun and start firing. You're then almost immediately shot - you don't know from where. You're now dead and have no idea why.

 

Yes these are extremes. And yes, you could just as likely save someones life. But it just goes to show, just because you have a gun, doesn't mean you have the smarts or a clear enough head to use it responsibly.

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

First off, if you're carrying a weapon and you're drinking, you're a moron.  Plain and simple.  Drinking and guns do not mix.  Of course, it's a different story entirely if someone is simply with another person who is drinking, which there are actual stories of crimes stopped in that very scenario.

 

Having said that, I don't believe anyone thinks guns are the be-all, end-all of self protection.  I consider it akin to AV software on your computer.  While it's important to have, the best defense is yourself and common sense.  Guns - like AV - is a layer of protection.  Just as computer security is all about layers, so too is self protection.

The difference here is a fundamental one though:

AV is (more or less) mandatory in 2017 computing. There exists plenty of malware that can infect your computer without ever going off the deep end into a sketchy website. Using common sense cannot guarantee a safe browsing experience anymore.

 

However, carrying a gun is not mandatory. It may help protect you. Or it may not. Or it may make a situation worse. I can live my entire life in Canada without ever needing to use a gun to protect myself - the risk of needing one is incredibly small. Sure a gun is another "layer of protection", but many of us think that layer is unnecessary.

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

The difference here is a fundamental one though:

AV is (more or less) mandatory in 2017 computing. There exists plenty of malware that can infect your computer without ever going off the deep end into a sketchy website. Using common sense cannot guarantee a safe browsing experience anymore.

What part of 'layers' did you not understand?  I said the best defense was common sense, I didn't say the only defense.

 

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

However, carrying a gun is not mandatory. It may help protect you. Or it may not. Or it may make a situation worse. I can live my entire life in Canada without ever needing to use a gun to protect myself - the risk of needing one is incredibly small. Sure a gun is another "layer of protection", but many of us think that layer is unnecessary.

"I can live my entire life in the US without ever needing to use a gun to protect myself - the risk of needing one is incredibly small"

 

I can say the exact same thing as you.  The likelihood that I would ever need to draw my weapon - much less discharge it - is nearly zero.  I'm more likely to be hit by a bus than to need to use my gun in self defense.  Again, it's about layers of protection.

[Jito463]

In any event, I've made my case as best I can, and I think the mods are getting tired of this conversation (based on a few posts they've made), so I'll rest my case.

[dalekphalm]

5 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

What part of 'layers' did you not understand?  I said the best defense was common sense, I didn't say the only defense.

 

"I can live my entire life in the US without ever needing to use a gun to protect myself - the risk of needing one is incredibly small"

 

I can say the exact same thing as you.  The likelihood that I would ever need to draw my weapon - much less discharge it - is nearly zero.  I'm more likely to be hit by a bus than to need to use my gun in self defense.  Again, it's about layers of protection.

Indeed - my point being that a gun is not a mandatory layer of protection (whereas AV is). Assuming you agree with that point, then we are not in disagreement.

 

I still personally think that everyone carrying guns will inevitably make a situation more complicated, and add higher risk to collateral damage and accidental discharges, etc.

 

Eg: A man pulls a gun and starts shooting. Another man pulls his gun and returns fire in self defence. Police walk in and see two dudes firing guns at each other.

 

To the cops, both are suspects using deadly weapons. The cops have no immediate way to tell who is the "good guy" in this situation, and both people with guns are likely to end up getting shot - especially if they don't notice the cops right away because of the loud gun fire.

 

I get the whole "It can take cops a long time to respond" thing, but to me personally, carrying a gun is not worth the risk of escalating a situation unnecessarily.

 

I don't even have an issue with gun ownership. I fully support it, given background checks and vetting (both for violent criminal pasts, and for mental health). Tons of people own guns in Canada, and there's a healthy hunting and sport-shooting/range-shooting community.

[leadeater]

50 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Having said that, I don't believe anyone thinks guns are the be-all, end-all of self protection.  I consider it akin to AV software on your computer.  While it's important to have, the best defense is yourself and common sense.  Guns - like AV - is a layer of protection.  Just as computer security is all about layers, so too is self protection.

Yea I know you don't I was just being more general with how people position their arguments, it's fairly common for great exaggeration from both side of the debate when realistically the day to day scenario is actually far more mundane so there should be no reason to stop people owning guns or carrying them but that doesn't mean there isn't scope to improve gun safety and with law changes that will for the most part have no effect on the majority of gun owners.

 

40 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

In any event, I've made my case as best I can, and I think the mods are getting tired of this conversation (based on a few posts they've made), so I'll rest my case.

Probably a good idea, little bit off topic realistically.

[dalekphalm]

I don't know if anyone has seen this yet, but I just watched an excellent analysis of the incident by an actual lawyer (Disclaimer: he specializes in Copyright Law):

 

According to Leonard (the lawyer), all three people involved could face charges:

1. The person who called in the swatting himself could face murder charges, along with a number of other less serious charges.

2. The person who hired the swatter could face criminal solicitation, and conspiracy to murder, among a number of other less serious charges.

3. And lastly, the target, the person who provided the false address, could face public endangerment charges.

 

He also noted that according to the official report, the victim did the following:

1. Was instructed to raise his hands, did so

2. lowered his hands to his waist, and then suddenly raised them again, in a motion that looked like his hands were pointing at the police.

 

Because of that, the officer is likely not liable in any legal manner. As far as the cop could see from his perspective, after raising his hands, the "suspect" then in a quick motion, brought his hands to his waist and then pointed them forwards.

 

If I were a cop, at the distances shown in the bodycam footage, I probably would have thought the same thing - a weapon is being brought to bear. According to the facts as I know them, I do not hold the police officer who shot the victim responsible for murder or incompetence.

 

Obviously the "suspect" (Read: Victim) had no idea what was going on. We'll never know why he lowered his hands after raising them. He was likely confused, nervous, and had no idea what was happening.

 

I seriously hope that all 3 involved parties (the swatter, the person who hired the swatter, and the target who gave the false address) get the book thrown at them, and face serious sentences.

[Sickshooter0]

On ‎12‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 10:53 PM, ARikozuM said:

That's what I would like to know. It comes down to mens rea, did the caller intend for this to be a consequence or result of his/her action?

That would be extremely difficult to prove one's intention. This probably wouldn't meet the burden of 1st or 2nd degree murder. More than likely involuntary manslaughter along with a stack of misdemeanor charges. 

[Zodiark1593]

6 minutes ago, Sickshooter0 said:

That would be extremely difficult to prove one's intention. This probably wouldn't meet the burden of 1st or 2nd degree murder. More than likely involuntary manslaughter along with a stack of misdemeanor charges. 

Actually, under the Felony Murder clause, one need not prove intent. If a person was killed in the commission, or as a result of a Felony, (accidental or even if one of the suspects comitting the felony dies) then all involved can be charged with that person's murder.

 

What prosecution would have to do is prove the suspects have committed a felony (which may be difficult due to differing state laws on false 911 calls). After that, pursuing a Felony Murder charge should be relatively easy.