Man dies in a "swatting" prank

[XenosTech]

Wow I missed a lot. In my opinion the officer is just an accessory in these situation, but they could have handled it better. There's other places on the body you can shoot that are effective at knocking down the target without killing them so you can assess the situation better. That way you keep your suspect alive and have fewer casualties regardless of if it is alleged that the hostages are dead.

[Wonderguy464712]

On 12/30/2017 at 4:42 AM, RorzNZ said:

Some people are just sad about video games. Swatting is just wierd. 

 

It’s actually so thick these pranks. Did you hear about the girl who shot her boyfriend with a Desert Eagle? Far out. 

well that was a "experiment" having a big book infront of your body and holding it there while both of your dumb asses dont do research and find out shit's not safe which is obvious a "thicc" book wont protect you. 

[Ezzy]

On 12/30/2017 at 6:03 AM, VegetableStu said:

too many times. "swatting" is a term for quite some time

 

 

For about a decade. StPeach (a Canadian female streamer) go swatted on xmas too.

 

I, for one, also blame people like KeemStar who make swatters and other scum feel like celebrities on their Youtube drama channels and posts. The only good thing to come out of him shedding light on the event, is that the family's GoFundMe gets noticed. Link below, it's verified too, AFAIK:

 

https://www.gofundme.com/funeral-expenses-for-andy-finch

[mynameisjuan]

8 hours ago, dizmo said:

You're looking at it in the wrong light. They didn't fire just to protect themselves, but others as well. If they get shot at, even if the bullets miss, they still have the potential to kill. The bullet has to end up somewhere. Lots of people are killed every year by misplaced drive by shots, stray bullets, etc.

 

It shouldn't be called a prank. In no way is this a prank. It's an act of terrorism.

 

Yeah to protect others in public, I know. This was in a house with a guy by himself. Only people to get shot would of been SWAT which are armored. I get police are trained to treat every situation like the worst and thats why people get shot. SWAT should of not been so quick to shoot due to the risk being much much lower. Also I was not the one classifying it as a prank.

8 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Most body armors, including everything available to SWAT, can't stop a second rifle cartridge if it lands roughly an inch away from the first one, many can't with two 9mm Luger rounds. Some can't stop a true 5.56 NATO round. Anyone with an American 180, or a fast trigger and a .22LR that holds 15+ rounds, can take down a SWAT member. Of all that, the only thing that SWAT isn't likely to encounter is the American 180, and only because it was a fully automatic weapon developed for the Police, to have a weapon that can chew through body armor with 10 well placed shots, on a platform with virtually no recoil, and a fire rate so fast that a light tap of the trigger sent 3 rounds down range.

 

Death is still very present to SWAT.

First the guy was shot reaching for his waste band, you expect him to pull out a rile or pistol large enough out his pants? SWAT are well trained. They have time to access the situation when someone is reaching for something, like waiting to actually see the gun and not firing on first move towards something. Also I would love to see someone in this situation pull a gun and place 10 well placed shots before SWAT could react. While a .22LR could be deadly, the chances of it killing a SWAT member is slim. 

 

In the end this is are most trained team to deal with situations. If they can handle subduing a person in public waving around a rifle in plain view, there is no fucking reason they needed to kill an innocent person with no weapon in a house with no potential victims. 

 

[leadeater]

55 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

Wow I missed a lot. In my opinion the officer is just an accessory in these situation, but they could have handled it better. There's other places on the body you can shoot that are effective at knocking down the target without killing them so you can assess the situation better. That way you keep your suspect alive and have fewer casualties regardless of if it is alleged that the hostages are dead.

They are trained to shoot at the biggest area of the body so they do not miss, problem with that obviously is that is where everything important is. Realistically there is no place to shoot anyone that is effective at stopping them that also isn't immediately life threatening  due to all limbs having major arteries (massive blood loss) or chest area having vital organs. There is one place that is worse than others though, lower body intestinal area because infection and death from it is so high risk.

 

If we don't want people dying from gun shot wounds by the police there is only two solutions to that: Police firing guns less often and something else quick, effective and medium to long range to replace the gun.

 

Oh and simply having less guns and bullets being fired in general would go a long way to having less gun deaths, I know radical non-US thinking I'll shut up now .

[XenosTech]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

They are trained to shoot at the biggest area of the body so they do not miss, problem with that obviously is that is where everything important is. Realistically there is no place to shoot anyone that is effective at stopping them that also isn't immediately life threatening  due to all limbs having major arteries (massive blood loss) or chest area having vital organs. There is one place that is worse than others though, lower body intestinal area because infection and death from it is so high risk.

 

If we don't want people dying from gun shot wounds by the police there is only two solutions to that: Police firing guns less often and something else quick, effective and medium to long range to replace the gun.

 

Oh and simply having less guns and bullets being fired in general would go a long way to having less gun deaths, I know radical non-US thinking I'll shut up now .

Well here police shoot at your joints instead of vital areas but then again we don't have a swat calls and we have a division that's between military and regular police but they are military trained, so they handle those kind of situations

[leadeater]

36 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Yeah to protect others in public, I know. This was in a house with a guy by himself. Only people to get shot would of been SWAT which are armored.

Wasn't his mother actually home? She's an eye witness from what I can tell and is disputing what happened, although her account is different to the body cam footage.

 

37 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

First the guy was shot reaching for his waste band, you expect him to pull out a rile or pistol large enough out his pants? SWAT are well trained. They have time to access the situation when someone is reaching for something, like waiting to actually see the gun and not firing on first move towards something. Also I would love to see someone in this situation pull a gun and place 10 well placed shots before SWAT could react. While a .22LR could be deadly, the chances of it killing a SWAT member is slim. 

 

In the end this is are most trained team to deal with situations. If they can handle subduing a person in public waving around a rifle in plain view, there is no fucking reason they needed to kill an innocent person with no weapon in a house with no potential victims.

Had it actually been a SWAT or some other kind of tactical response unit he probably wouldn't have gotten shot. There is more than just training to my thoughts on that, those units use ballistic shields to approach houses and they go in groups so you aren't going to get confused about what is going on and why the police is there. They'll also be much closer to the person to see their hands more easily.

 

I don't know about anyone else but seeing something like that when I open my front door would freak me the hell out, no idea what I'd actually do or at least no in the first few seconds. Mind you where I live it wouldn't happen anyway.

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

Well here police shoot at your joints instead of vital areas but then again we don't have a swat calls and we have a division that's between military and regular police but they are military trained, so they handle those kind of situations

You can do with that a rifle but not a hand gun though, not accurate enough. Also on that note the fact that the officer even hit the guy first shot from that distance is impressive.

[XenosTech]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

You can do with that a rifle but not a hand gun though, not accurate enough. Also on that note the fact that the officer even hit the guy first shot from that distance is impressive.

Even our regular police do that with pistols. Just a matter of how you're trained to discharge your weapon.

[Guest]

Am I the only that thinks the police officer responsible for the action should be fired or fined/arrested? No? Okay.

[leadeater]

Just now, XenosTech said:

Even our regular police do that with pistols. Just a matter of how you're trained to discharge your weapon.

That all depends on distance, if we use this case as an example then the distance is too far to shoot at anything other than the biggest thing possible. Although not knowing that much about guns the body cam footage doesn't sound like a pistol though.

 

Point is though pistols no matter the training are not accurate over longer distances. I still remember that time on mythbusters where range master missed the target multiple times, you can be shooting guns and training people almost every day and still miss where you're intending to hit. Does help to use the correct weapon as well.

[XenosTech]

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

That all depends on distance, if we use this case as an example then the distance is too far to shoot at anything other than the biggest thing possible. Although not knowing that much about guns the body cam footage doesn't sound like a pistol though.

 

Point is though pistols no matter the training are not accurate over longer distances. I still remember that time on mythbusters where range master missed the target multiple times, you can be shooting guns and training people almost every day and still miss where you're intending to hit. Does help to use the correct weapon as well.

Yeah that sounded like a rifle was used. To me at that range a pistol would have still been effective to hit a knee or shin. I could be wrong but it looks close enough to me.

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

Yeah that sounded like a rifle was used. To me at that range a pistol would have still been effective to hit a knee or shin. I could be wrong but it looks close enough to me.

How far do you think it was? Camera sucks big time. 20-30 meters?

[XenosTech]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

How far do you think it was? Camera sucks big time. 20-30 meters?

About that range I was thinking. Could be slightly more or less.

[Jito463]

On 12/29/2017 at 9:48 PM, RorzNZ said:

Yeah. Natural selection at its finest. USA needs gun education like I need to lose weight. 

USA has very good gun education, for those who actually take the time to learn.  There are 80 million registered gun owners in the US, 99.99% of them do not commit crimes or behave irresponsibly.

On 12/29/2017 at 9:52 PM, Unimaginative Name said:

If everyone mandatory gun education through their public schooling, there would be much less gun crime

While I'm all for gun education in school (good luck getting it past the liberal morons), most gun crime is not because of lack of education.  It's because of gang violence, which is a completely different issue.  Ironically (or perhaps not...), the vast majority of gun violence occurs in cities with the strictest gun control laws.

On 12/30/2017 at 12:08 AM, mate_mate91 said:

OMG, You, americans are so stupid!

Don't be that guy.  Seriously, don't.

On 12/30/2017 at 12:46 AM, johnukguy said:

American police are often poorly trained thugs

There are some poorly trained officers out there, but to characterize all police as "poorly trained thugs" is both a misnomer and a straw man.  Most officers are just people doing their jobs, and the vast majority do their jobs well.

On 12/30/2017 at 1:53 AM, Rattenmann said:

I really wonder how dull america got once it comes to weapons. I mean your police is killing innocent people left right and center. Meanwhile in europe we have less attacks on police, less killed innocents and death to weapons is near zero in most countries.

Gun violence may be lower, but violence in general isn't.  Statistics show that when guns are removed from a society, violence and criminal activity tends to increase.

On 12/30/2017 at 5:44 AM, Type 2501 said:

The point to take guns away from them is to give chance the police to handle the situation and avoid pulling the trigger untill there is no other choice.

Personally, I'd rather be armed (and am) so I can handle situations on the spot, rather than waiting 5-10 minutes and hope that help arrives in time to protect me.

22 hours ago, dizmo said:

How do you figure? The officer, in a violence prone country where gun ownership is extremely high, responds to a very violent call

The US isn't a "violence prone country".  Don't believe everything you see on TV.

2 hours ago, XenosTech said:

There's other places on the body you can shoot that are effective at knocking down the target without killing them

Good in theory, not so much in practice.  In a tense situation, adrenaline is pumping and it's harder to focus clearly.  The best chance of hitting a suspect is in center mass (the chest), which is why the police are trained to shoot for it.

[NumLock21]

17 hours ago, Cinnabar Sonar said:

2 likes?  Who the fuck liked this shit?!

Perhaps they like that post because of this piece of information, not that they support swatting.

[Selah]

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

You can do with that a rifle but not a hand gun though, not accurate enough. Also on that note the fact that the officer even hit the guy first shot from that distance is impressive.

the officer that shot was using a military issued m4. Not that impressive. You can see smoke come from the barrel on the bodycam footage.

 

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

Wasn't his mother actually home? She's an eye witness from what I can tell and is disputing what happened, although her account is different to the body cam footage.

 

Had it actually been a SWAT or some other kind of tactical response unit he probably wouldn't have gotten shot. There is more than just training to my thoughts on that, those units use ballistic shields to approach houses and they go in groups so you aren't going to get confused about what is going on and why the police is there. They'll also be much closer to the person to see their hands more easily.

 

I don't know about anyone else but seeing something like that when I open my front door would freak me the hell out, no idea what I'd actually do or at least no in the first few seconds. Mind you where I live it wouldn't happen anyway.

His mother, his father. A few cousins. I think sister as well?

It was a stacked house. All of them were handcuffed and forced to watch police wait till well after the ambulance died to be taken to the hospital. He was lying on the porch with his family not allowed to hold/touch/say goodbye for almost 20 minutes. In times of grief that will feel like hours.

 

GOOD GUY COPS.

 

14 hours ago, dizmo said:

Nice story. 

TY for conceding defeat. I now know to block you as you're not a person, simply a puppet. LATER!

[dizmo]

3 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

Yeah to protect others in public, I know. This was in a house with a guy by himself. Only people to get shot would of been SWAT which are armored. I get police are trained to treat every situation like the worst and thats why people get shot. SWAT should of not been so quick to shoot due to the risk being much much lower. Also I was not the one classifying it as a prank.

First the guy was shot reaching for his waste band, you expect him to pull out a rile or pistol large enough out his pants? SWAT are well trained. They have time to access the situation when someone is reaching for something, like waiting to actually see the gun and not firing on first move towards something. Also I would love to see someone in this situation pull a gun and place 10 well placed shots before SWAT could react. While a .22LR could be deadly, the chances of it killing a SWAT member is slim. 

 

In the end this is are most trained team to deal with situations. If they can handle subduing a person in public waving around a rifle in plain view, there is no fucking reason they needed to kill an innocent person with no weapon in a house with no potential victims.

He wasn't in the house, he was on the porch, and he was shot from a decent distance.

It wasn't SWAT that was on scene (but I think that's already been mentioned since). You can fit pretty high caliber guns into a waistband. There are other houses around. Bullets can go through walls and glass. It's unlikely, but the chances is still there.

2 hours ago, Goku-sama said:

Am I the only that thinks the police officer responsible for the action should be fired or fined/arrested? No? Okay.

Why? Deaths happen. It's a very unfortunate aspect of these kinds of situations. Would you rather innocent deaths due to the lack of action rise instead?

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

That all depends on distance, if we use this case as an example then the distance is too far to shoot at anything other than the biggest thing possible. Although not knowing that much about guns the body cam footage doesn't sound like a pistol though.

You can see the M4 off to the left in the video. I'm honestly a little surprised they were back that far, though I suppose that would be about what you'd want the perimeter to be.

2 hours ago, XenosTech said:

Yeah that sounded like a rifle was used. To me at that range a pistol would have still been effective to hit a knee or shin. I could be wrong but it looks close enough to me.

The issue I see there is that you can still shoot if you're knee or shin gets hit. Likely? Probably not, but it's still more likely than getting shot in the chest.

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

USA has very good gun education, for those who actually take the time to learn.  There are 80 million registered gun owners in the US, 99.99% of them do not commit crimes or behave irresponsibly.

 

The US isn't a "violence prone country".  Don't believe everything you see on TV.

I worded that poorly, it's more prone to gun violence. Which is true.

The murder rate per 100,000 is pretty high for a developed nation.

I also disagree slightly with your first statement, as registered gun owners largely aren't the problem. It's unregistered firearms that are the issue. I can only imagine how many of those there are.

 

[Crossbred]

“Acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended – (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."”

Thats the definition of domestic terrorism under the patriot act. Do y’all think the “organizers” could be punished for that?

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Why? Deaths happen. It's a very unfortunate aspect of these kinds of situations. Would you rather innocent deaths due to the lack of action rise instead?

Of course not, they are crucial for keeping each nation safe. What I wanted was more attentiveness and sense of apprehension from whoever did this "crime" (I get that in these situations, the speed of activity is essential for preventing tragedies).

 

For me the officer did his/her duty, but by the time his or her's duty was blinded by a lack of consideration of wether or not the person being targeted was armed or not is enough for me to find him/her just as guilty of the death of the citizen as the prankster.

 

There's no excuse for this, just incompetence and blindness. But I respect your point of view and I know the officer is not gonna get punished for his/hers wrong doing (sadly).

[Nena Trinity]

This is perfect proof that humankind is doomed.

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

The murder rate per 100,000 is pretty high for a developed nation.

That number is actually quite misleading.  When you break it down, it's really not very high at all.

 

The most recent numbers I found (from 2013) showed 33,636 deaths from firearms, we'll just round that to 34,000 for simplicity.  Over 21,000 were suicides.  Since suicidal people will find a way regardless, we can dismiss those from the total, leaving 13,000.  An unverified source I read reported 15% (of the total) were from police officers acting legitimately in the line of duty, which is another 5,100, leaving around 7,900.  Approximately 17% of the total are from criminal activity and gang violence, which is around 5,800.  That means roughly around 2,100 people are killed per year in something other than criminal acts, suicides or police shootings.  Considering our population is over 326 million, that's a pretty insignificant number*.  And of that number, nearly 800 were either accidental discharges (505) or "undetermined intent" (281), leaving around 1,300.

 

*Obligatory disclaimer: Note that I'm not saying the loss of life is insignificant, just that the number is compared to our total population.

 

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

I also disagree slightly with your first statement, as registered gun owners largely aren't the problem. It's unregistered firearms that are the issue. I can only imagine how many of those there are.

This is true; but I felt it was important to distinguish, since many who talk about gun control think the problem is related to people who buy guns (e.g. at gun shows), when the real issue is the black market guns in the hands of gangs and other criminals.

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, Goku-sama said:

Of course not, they are crucial for keeping each nation safe. What I wanted was more attentiveness and sense of apprehension from whoever did this "crime" (I get that in these situations, the speed of activity is essential for preventing tragedies).

 

For me the officer did his/her duty, but by the time his or her's duty was blinded by a lack of consideration of wether or not the person being targeted was armed or not is enough for me to find him/her just as guilty of the death of the citizen as the prankster.

 

There's no excuse for this, just incompetence and blindness. But I respect your point of view and I know the officer is not gonna get punished for his/hers wrong doing (sadly).

If anything, the officer that pulled the trigger would probably get Voluntary Manslaughter due to lack of malicious intent, which carries no minimum sentence.

 

The swatter(s) involved would be most likely held to a Criminally Negligent Manslaughter charge, where gross recklessness is displayed, that is, if making false 911 calls is not a felony. If making false 911 calls is considered a felony, the suspect(s) could very well be facing a Felony Murder charge.

[dizmo]

18 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

That number is actually quite misleading.  When you break it down, it's really not very high at all.

-snip-

*Obligatory disclaimer: Note that I'm not saying the loss of life is insignificant, just that the number is compared to our total population.

This is true; but I felt it was important to distinguish, since many who talk about gun control think the problem is related to people who buy guns (e.g. at gun shows), when the real issue is the black market guns in the hands of gangs and other criminals.

The murder rate is based on all homicides, not just gun related fatalities. This doesn't include suicides, and since it's based on the per 100,000, it's quite comparable to other counties. That's why the metric exists.

The number sans suicides is definitely high, but it's not part of this:

Spoiler

It's high. You can't argue stats like that.

Your math is a little off, 15% would come from the non suicide deaths, not the total. So 1,950 fewer. Not bad though, good to see that number is that high (the percentage that were killed by police, and yes I know, not all were warranted, but that's a different debate entirely).

Your population point is totally valid, but consider the two largest countries in the world; China (10,083 with 1 billion more people) and India (41,623 with 1 billion more people). Both are still lower per capita. I imagine that Chinese stat is wrong though, and it's likely more on par with India...though they are a lot more locked down so who knows.

 

I mean, I get what you're trying to say. That number is pretty low for the sheer number of people that live there. It is, however, more violent than other countries in a similar standing.

[AshleyAshes]

6 minutes ago, dizmo said:

The murder rate is based on all homicides, not just gun related fatalities. This doesn't include suicides, and since it's based on the per 100,000, it's quite comparable to other counties. That's why the metric exists.

Visuals!