Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Disgusting. As others have said, three guys should be prosecuted for this: The guy that paid the swatter, the swatter, and the cop.

And this is news...how? Just another day in america where people have decided people getting shot is okay.

If there had been like 100 casualties in a day it might have been unusual. Now just the usual.

 djones520 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Is it not safe to answer your front door to police in the US without them shooting you in the head?

Apparently not.

Because a single incident now means the norm.

This is by no means a single incident and these stories are becoming more common. From the marine veteran in phoenix, the cops had the wrong house, stormed the house, and killed the vet. To the cops who got called to do a checkup on a grandpa who just got out of surgery and of course killing the guy they went to see if he was ok. and a few stories of the cops showing up and shooting the person who called for help.

according to the fbi, cops shoot two innocent people a day, because it's what they're trained to do.

I see a failure in policing here in this incident. Seems to me SWAT is being called in without investigation of the original claim of a man about to burn his house down with his family inside. SWAT should be a last resort after all other avenues have been explored. What needed to be called in was a negotiator/investigator. SWAT can be alerted and wait in the street until they are needed. In this case I think the actual guilty parties are - the caller and swatter need to be charged with arranging a murder (I think this is actually 1st degree murder charges) and the police department head in charge of releasing a swat team and giving them this kind of intel. Eventually with this kind of strategy someone innocent is going to get shot. The police shooter I think just needs to lose his job.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I see a failure in policing here in this incident. Seems to me SWAT is being called in without investigation of the original claim of a man about to burn his house down with his family inside. SWAT should be a last resort after all other avenues have been explored. What needed to be called in was a negotiator/investigator. SWAT can be alerted and wait in the street until they are needed. In this case I think the actual guilty parties are - the caller and swatter need to be charged with arranging a murder (I think this is actually 1st degree murder charges) and the police department head in charge of releasing a swat team and giving them this kind of intel. Eventually with this kind of strategy someone innocent is going to get shot. The police shooter I think just needs to lose his job.

How it the murder more the caller's fault than the officer's? They guy was unarmed and surrendering.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Do US police forces actually select and train their officers? Or do they just employ every thug that turns up?

As I understand it many jurisdictions actually have trouble getting officers. The entry pay isn't that good, the police themself spread horror stories about how dangerous their job is and every case like this probably makes another otherwise suited youngster decide he'll find a job where he won't be associated with shooting innocent citizens. So there are absolutely places that have to make do with whoever wants the job.

And they do have training, but a lot of it is focused on avoiding getting shot like officers used to get quite often thirty years back.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Oh my god, this story is so horrible. What kind of total idiot lets an internet dispute get out of hand this bad? Come on people, it was only $1,50 over a video game!

There was a proposed act called the Interstate Swatting act of 2015. The sponsor of the bill was, herself, Swatted, in retaliation. In case you don't believe me, here' RT's article on it so you know it's true....

https://www.rt.com/usa/331087-antiswatting-congresswoman-victim-hoax/


This is one of the reasons I don't post my current home address online, or pictures that include my house, because I don't want to deal with this gak. And, yes, there are people I have pissed off over the years THAT MUCH.

Swatting is attempt of murder by proxy and if successful the same as arraigning a hit job imo.

What gets me... is that why isn't the police union isn't all over this as it puts their guys in jeopardy.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I see a failure in policing here in this incident. Seems to me SWAT is being called in without investigation of the original claim of a man about to burn his house down with his family inside. SWAT should be a last resort after all other avenues have been explored. What needed to be called in was a negotiator/investigator. SWAT can be alerted and wait in the street until they are needed. In this case I think the actual guilty parties are - the caller and swatter need to be charged with arranging a murder (I think this is actually 1st degree murder charges) and the police department head in charge of releasing a swat team and giving them this kind of intel. Eventually with this kind of strategy someone innocent is going to get shot. The police shooter I think just needs to lose his job.

How it the murder more the caller's fault than the officer's? They guy was unarmed and surrendering.

I didn't read that he was surrendering. If that is the case he should also be charged.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I see a failure in policing here in this incident. Seems to me SWAT is being called in without investigation of the original claim of a man about to burn his house down with his family inside. SWAT should be a last resort after all other avenues have been explored. What needed to be called in was a negotiator/investigator. SWAT can be alerted and wait in the street until they are needed. In this case I think the actual guilty parties are - the caller and swatter need to be charged with arranging a murder (I think this is actually 1st degree murder charges) and the police department head in charge of releasing a swat team and giving them this kind of intel. Eventually with this kind of strategy someone innocent is going to get shot. The police shooter I think just needs to lose his job.

How it the murder more the caller's fault than the officer's? They guy was unarmed and surrendering.

I didn't read that he was surrendering. If that is the case he should also be charged.

The video was too blurry for me to make out but apparently the dude was coming out with his hands up but also kept putting them down by his sides and then one cop saw him put his hands down by his side and appear to move to shoot another cop, so in response fired a single shot that killed him.

But I can't really see what's going on in the video, so that's just based off the statement from the coppers.

This link also has the 911 call, haven't had a chance to listen to it yet.

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192244734.html

From the body cam footage, it looks like they shined a spotlight in his face, and when he raised his hands to shield his eyes, he was shot.

In the cops defense, the guy was coming right at him, and he just wanted to go home to his family, and he didn't plan to shoot anyone when he woke up that morning, and whatever other rote bs gets trotted out when this happens.

Do the police in Wichita have a standing "no quarter" order?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Seriously? For getting in an argument on the internet and then providing a fake address?

Player 1 seems enough steps removed from the death itself that I don't think you could or should be able to give him much more than a slap on the wrist.

Player 2, the Swatter and maybe the cops seem to be the responsible parties to me.

Honestly with how increasingly prominent stories of questionable shoots are, if I were a prosecutor I'd argue that calling a SWAT team on someone at the very least constitutes gross negligence for human life. I see no reason why the person who hired the Swatter and the Swatter themselves should be treated differently. They both knew what they were doing, and were both dumb enough to think no one would get hurt which is pretty ball fethed stupid.

I don't know how police are supposed to verify a call before they send officers to respond. Sending out a single squad car to respond to a reported active shooter or hostage incident is a good way to put officers in a situation they have no way of controlling, and put everyone at even more risk.

I don't think they should have sent regular patrol officers to a call like this at all. You don't just knock on the door of an alleged murderer who is holding a family at gunpoint, and you don't then give the suspect a chance to do anything stupid, or for yourself to be stupid. You establish total 360 degree security, get eyes on every nook and cranny, and then have a separate detainment team come in and arrest everyone until you can figure out who is who. No orders given except to get on the ground, no telling people to walk or move toward you, no chances for shenanigans. It's a much more gung-ho approach but it's much safer for everyone involved.

A lot of these officer-involved shootings happen with one or two police officers trying to control a situation that is impossible for them to control on their own. In the instance in another thread here where two officers responded to an active shooter call at a hotel and told the suspect to crawl toward them, that guy would not be dead if the cops involved weren't trying to bite off more than they could chew. You can't keep security on someone and detain them at the same time, especially if there is more than one person involved at the scene. You can do one or the other. If you have to tell a suspect to move toward you because you're trying to maintain security and detain them at the same time, you're an idiot. You tell them to get on the ground with their hands where you can see them, and not move. If you have to sit there with the suspect for 15 minutes until you can get some backup to come check them for weapons and detain them, that's what you do. If you can't provide security for yourself in the meantime, you shouldn't be there.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but cops responding to this kind of call need to use more force and more decisive action, because it's safer for everyone. It gives you room not to have to make the decision to shoot someone because you know you can't control the situation if the suspect gives you trouble. In all of these videos, you see cops acting indecisively and exercising poor command over the circumstances, and that's when people end up dead for no reason.

 LordofHats wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Seriously? For getting in an argument on the internet and then providing a fake address?

Player 1 seems enough steps removed from the death itself that I don't think you could or should be able to give him much more than a slap on the wrist.

Player 2, the Swatter and maybe the cops seem to be the responsible parties to me.

Honestly with how increasingly prominent stories of questionable shoots are, if I were a prosecutor I'd argue that calling a SWAT team on someone at the very least constitutes gross negligence for human life. I see no reason why the person who hired the Swatter and the Swatter themselves should be treated differently. They both knew what they were doing, and were both dumb enough to think no one would get hurt which is pretty ball fethed stupid.

"Player 1" in Aeneades description that I quoted was neither the swatter nor the person who called the swatter. They were the player that the swatter was trying to get swatted but gave a fake address.

You could argue that they were being negligent for giving a fake address to a random angry person on the internet, but that's really pushing it IMO.

 Luciferian wrote:
I don't know how police are supposed to verify a call before they send officers to respond. Sending out a single squad car to respond to a reported active shooter or hostage incident is a good way to put officers in a situation they have no way of controlling, and put everyone at even more risk.

Has anyone else reported a call to this address? Is it a reasonably populated area? Is the call coming from an out of state number?

There's quite a few ways that police can "verify a call" in this day and age.

I don't think they should have sent regular patrol officers to a call like this at all. You don't just knock on the door of an alleged murderer who is holding a family at gunpoint, and you don't then give the suspect a chance to do anything stupid, or for yourself to be stupid. You establish total 360 degree security, get eyes on every nook and cranny, and then have a separate detainment team come in and arrest everyone until you can figure out who is who. No orders given except to get on the ground, no telling people to walk or move toward you, no chances for shenanigans. It's a much more gung-ho approach but it's much safer for everyone involved.

A lot of these officer-involved shootings happen with one or two police officers trying to control a situation that is impossible for them to control on their own. In the instance in another thread here where two officers responded to an active shooter call at a hotel and told the suspect to crawl toward them, that guy would not be dead if the cops involved weren't trying to bite off more than they could chew. You can't keep security on someone and detain them at the same time, especially if there is more than one person involved at the scene. You can do one or the other. If you have to tell a suspect to move toward you because you're trying to maintain security and detain them at the same time, you're an idiot. You tell them to get on the ground with their hands where you can see them, and not move. If you have to sit there with the suspect for 15 minutes until you can get some backup to come check them for weapons and detain them, that's what you do. If you can't provide security for yourself in the meantime, you shouldn't be there.

The cops responding to the call at the hotel were SWAT.

So which is it, is it bad for patrol officers to be responding or is it bad for SWAT to be responding? Because in both cases--the officers involved are idiots.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but cops responding to this kind of call need to use more force and more decisive action, because it's safer for everyone. It gives you room not to have to make the decision to shoot someone because you know you can't control the situation if the suspect gives you trouble. In all of these videos, you see cops acting indecisively and exercising poor command over the circumstances, and that's when people end up dead for no reason.

Strictly speaking, that's not true. SOP for hostage situations is very much not "shock and awe" when it can be established that such a thing is happening...

But I guess that also depends on the departmental training, when/how it gets verified that an individual has hostages, etc etc.
The "more force and more decisive action" part is very much a last resort when we're talking about hostage situations.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Has anyone else reported a call to this address? Is it a reasonably populated area? Is the call coming from an out of state number?

There's quite a few ways that police can "verify a call" in this day and age.

Numbers can be spoofed. People move across state lines and keep the same cell number. There is no way to verify whether or not something is actually taking place without putting human eyes on it. Period.

The cops responding to the call at the hotel were SWAT.

So which is it, is it bad for patrol officers to be responding or is it bad for SWAT to be responding? Because in both cases--the officers involved are idiots.

It's bad for idiot officers to respond to a call where they can't possibly exercise command over the situation. Two SWAT officers are not a SWAT team. They can't control gak.

Strictly speaking, that's not true. SOP for hostage situations is very much not "shock and awe" when it can be established that such a thing is happening...

But I guess that also depends on the departmental training, when/how it gets verified that an individual has hostages, etc etc.
The "more force and more decisive action" part is very much a last resort when we're talking about hostage situations.

True, but what are they doing in the meantime? They're not engaging the suspect face to face and telling them to do the hokey pokey. They're cordoning off the area and standing off until they know what's going on, probably while a SWAT team prepares for the "shock and awe" part in case it comes to that. There is no in between. Half-measures get people killed.

As far as verifying the call, just get some independent stories aside from the random phone call. While SWAT is lining up to storm the building, maybe get some of the regular cops to knock on some doors of neighbours (or ring them up if the cops have easy enough access to phone numbers). Listen to hear if there's a ruckus in the house. It's night time, get some of those dark clad SWAT guys to peek in some windows and see what's going on.

I dunno, these are just suggestions, but "assault the house" seems like an incredibly good way of getting someone killed. What if you have the wrong house number? What if the person who called it in was simply mistaken? What if the person you're about to assault actually has an arsenal and is completely ready to repel an invasion? Hell, in the short time I lived in the USA I met several people who keep guns close to themselves in their homes or cars, unless you know exactly where they are in the house before you assault it you're just giving them time to get ready and either intentionally or accidentally shoot an officer.

If there are hostages and the people inside are armed then going in hot without proper recon sounds like a great way to get people killed.

Doing some investigative work beforehand may not be ideal and may carry its own risks, but the alternative of going in hard without proper recon sounds even worse to me.

If "swatting" is an even remotely common occurrence and this is how the cops handle it then I'm amazed more people aren't getting killed because of it (acknowledging that some people have been killed in ill conceived raids in recent times, but talking specifically about "swatting" related raids).

I'm not exactly saying they go from receiving a call to entering and clearing the house as a two-step process. Like I said, if they have to cordon off the area, get building plans for the house and talk to neighbors then they do that, but they do it from a stand off. There is no safe way to try to detain the suspect and enter the building without doing it for real, though. That's true for everyone, not just the officers.

Yeah, I would hope a competent police force is capable of more sophisticated tactics than just blindly storming a building.
What if someone boobytrapped his house? What if the guy is waiting in cover behind the door with a .50 cal? What if he has henchmen? Or what if he is just simply sitting on the couch watching TV with his kids? Are you going to shoot the kids too?
I do not often storm houses, but I would think this is all information you kinda should know beforehand if you don't want to die or make a horrifying mistake.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Has anyone else reported a call to this address? Is it a reasonably populated area? Is the call coming from an out of state number?

There's quite a few ways that police can "verify a call" in this day and age.

Numbers can be spoofed. People move across state lines and keep the same cell number. There is no way to verify whether or not something is actually taking place without putting human eyes on it. Period.

Numbers can be spoofed, but calling the number while on the phone with said number and getting an answer without hearing any ringing is a pretty surefire sign of spoofed numbers.
Cell numbers tend to have a different prefix to them compared to home landlines while still retaining the same area code.

Also, again, you can call a number while you're on the phone with said number.

The cops responding to the call at the hotel were SWAT.

So which is it, is it bad for patrol officers to be responding or is it bad for SWAT to be responding? Because in both cases--the officers involved are idiots.

It's bad for idiot officers to respond to a call where they can't possibly exercise command over the situation. Two SWAT officers are not a SWAT team. They can't control gak.

Strictly speaking, that's not true. SOP for hostage situations is very much not "shock and awe" when it can be established that such a thing is happening...

But I guess that also depends on the departmental training, when/how it gets verified that an individual has hostages, etc etc.
The "more force and more decisive action" part is very much a last resort when we're talking about hostage situations.

True, but what are they doing in the meantime? They're not engaging the suspect face to face and telling them to do the hokey pokey. They're cordoning off the area and standing off until they know what's going on, probably while a SWAT team prepares for the "shock and awe" part in case it comes to that. There is no in between. Half-measures get people killed.

You know what else gets people killed?

Full measures enacted by people who don't understand what they're talking about.

I have never been a cop, but I have entered and cleared buildings as an Infantryman. I assume that SWAT uses the same tactics, and if they don't, they should. Of course there is mission planning and reconnaissance, but the tactics for entering and clearing a building have been refined and tested over decades, and their whole purpose is to reduce unknown variables as close to zero as humanly possible. You don't enter a room unless you can put a pair of eyes on every corner of it at once. You don't kick in a door until you've checked it for traps. You don't let anyone in the building do anything other than get on the ground and not move, until they are checked for weapons and safely detained. Sometimes it's a very slow process that could take hours. But it is a process which doesn't allow for unnecessary risks, and that's the whole point.

Like I said, it seems counter-intuitive, but it's much safer for everyone involved than trying to get the suspect to pirouette in the driveway without having proper security established. If you can't see something, you can't know it. If you don't know whether someone is armed or not, you find out the right way, not by shooting them and checking the corpse or giving them the chance to draw on you.

One of the biggest mistakes that police make in this kind of officer-involved shooting is simply not having enough bodies on the scene. A handful of officers bumbling around in the driveway trying to have a face to face conversation with a suspect is much, much more dangerous than a SWAT unit with enough people to properly clear and provide security for an entire building. I understand that a lot of police departments don't have the resources for the equivalent of a company sized maneuver every time someone makes a call like this, but allowing just a couple or a few officers to respond on their own is a huge mistake.

Well, America, you know how to decrease the chances of such incidents happening.
Until you make such changes, you get the country you asked for.

Steelmage99 wrote:
Well, America, you know how to decrease the chances of such incidents happening.

Until you make such changes, you get the country you asked for.

What change do you recommend?

 whembly wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
Well, America, you know how to decrease the chances of such incidents happening.

Until you make such changes, you get the country you asked for.

What change do you recommend?

The victim should have shoot the cops claiming "Castre Doctrine"

3 off topic baity posts in a row is 3 more than this topic needed. We're done