SOCNET

Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > General Topics > Law Enforcement

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 31 December 2017, 09:56
havok88 havok88 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: US
Posts: 1,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdavid View Post
Once again, nothing will happen to the officer and all blame will be cast on the person calling in the swatting.
Just another killing where there isn't any good reason for the officer to fear for their life. No attack, gun or overwhelming force presented.

How many of these killings of unarmed Americans you'all figure is acceptable before changes are called for behind the blue line?
So many people still think its acceptable. Another forum Im on, a guy would rather take the side of an LEO in a bad shoot, just because the thin blue line bullshit, than listen to a non LEO ctiticize the actions of the officers. I was watching the news at work and they were talking about this, and someone said "well he should have kept his hands up". Most people truly dont even see that there is a problem, let alone be pissed off enough to want anything to change.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 31 December 2017, 10:11
Tracy's Avatar
Tracy Tracy is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Feb 1997
Location: West
Posts: 11,103
Was it a SWAT team that responded, or was it patrol officers responding? As far as I know, properly trained SWAT personnel still follow the Five T's: Time, Talk, Teargas, Trigger, Take down. The majority of actual SWAT call outs end quietly.

Was there a sniper or designated marksman with optics to observe the suspect for weapons or imprinting? The video released seemed to show good cover and good distance between the suspect and the LEOs. So what were the exigent circumstances to hasten things?

Arm waving near a waistband seems to be probable cause lately.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 31 December 2017, 11:36
GPC's Avatar
GPC GPC is offline
Bitter old man.
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: LOFD
Posts: 5,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobmueller View Post
Supposedly the user already admitted to the call on Twitter, before he closed his account. Kid says it's not his fault because he didn't pull the trigger.
What an asshole, typical millennial excuse.
__________________
Steel Rain Brings The Pain!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 31 December 2017, 13:11
cj the pj's Avatar
cj the pj cj the pj is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 159
Ok good - so now that were passing judgement on this cop - I will just go and say this looks like murder to me. If the cop is that far away and thinks he sees a guy reaching for a "weapon" you better wait to see the threat with that distance and time you have. because time and distance = security... but this cop pulls the trigger and magically it is a fake call. The citizen had no reason to expect he would have gotten shot and is like any other person who answers the door in the middle of night that wasn't doing anything wrong - they could be tired, drunk, agitated - what if they were a handicap person - what about an immigrant that no hablas the English... that in 2017 = death sentence. the gamer who called it in should be liable(perhaps by both states and the feds) - but they should be charging this cop just the same - and if they don't I think the civil case is going to be a hell of a party. The whole - "context" of the call going towards a justifiable homicide by police is garbage. I have had paramedic calls that by the time they get to you are 100000% percent wrong. Imagine if I just gave drugs to patients based on the context of the call and not actually what you saw when you arrived. These departments need to step up the training and scenario based responses to really get control of the trigger fingers.

"Callan said he doesn't think the officer will be charged if the evidence shows Finch "went for his waistband in a way that looked like he was going for a gun.""

- http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/31/us/swa...ons/index.html

Just remember to always say that someone was going for their waistline to justify murder - even if you are a mile away and whatever comes from the waistline cant hurt you before your whole team of 50 people can drop them while hiding behind vehicles and shields.
__________________
-BK
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 31 December 2017, 15:14
256's Avatar
256 256 is offline
Navigating
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by havok88 View Post
What is considered reasonable varies greatly depending on who you ask. Its complete bullshit that so many people want everyone to see things from the officers perspective, but never want to consider things from the victims perspective.

This just reinforces the idea that you shouldn't answer the door for police.
I firmly believe that there too little amounts of really bad situations for Police to get involved with. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, it just breeds complacency. When you’re complacent and find yourself exposed or threatened mistakes are going to happen. Unfortunately, Police Departments don’t have money to train like they need to. But that city, Village or township still needs someone to answer the “barking dog” complaint, but also be ready for the armed crackhead breaking into the house making the dog bark.

Police Officers have an obligation to serve the people. In my experience male Officers have a very hard time playing the servant role, which is exactly what they are paid for. It’s an issue I try to teach every new Officer that walks in the door. It’s a tough subject and I understand both sides of it.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 31 December 2017, 20:28
EchoFiveMike's Avatar
EchoFiveMike EchoFiveMike is offline
Make a desert and call it peace.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: back home, IVO chicago
Posts: 8,135
Domestic calls are a terrible use of taxpayer resources. 90+% of domestic calls involve no threat to the general public, it's just fucked up people who can't manage their lives. And what does that have to do with the taxpayers? Nada....until the $$ cop squad kicks down the door, shoots the shit outta everything, finds out it's all FUBAR, then the bottom of the class city lawyers come in and start exchanging fistfuls of taxpayer cash for settlements.

It's a form of feel good, white knight activism, and it's just more "niceness" being exploited. S/F...Ken M
__________________
"If you remember nothing else about what I’m about to consider here, remember this: the one and only reason politicians, bureaucrats, and policemen want to take your weapons away from you is so that they can do things to you that they couldn’t do if you still had your weapons."— L. Neil Smith
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 31 December 2017, 22:29
bobmueller bobmueller is offline
Did...did I do that?
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Green Country, Oklahoma
Posts: 1,484
I'm still trying to figure out why the guy went outside in the first place. The video I saw was just the last few seconds. Did they call him out on the PA?
__________________
This message is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 1 January 2018, 00:36
wildman43's Avatar
wildman43 wildman43 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: california
Posts: 1,736
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdavid View Post
Once again, nothing will happen to the officer and all blame will be cast on the person calling in the swatting.
Just another killing where there isn't any good reason for the officer to fear for their life. No attack, gun or overwhelming force presented.

How many of these killings of unarmed Americans you'all figure is acceptable before changes are called for behind the blue line?



I don't think anyone from SOCNET was there to see what happened.

Only What the News puts out.

We can all agree to disagree as to what happened.


These days all LEO's are on high alert, going to this type of call.

Just look at the CO shooting & killing of a Young LEO Killed to day an 3 wounded.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 1 January 2018, 10:45
Polypro's Avatar
Polypro Polypro is offline
BTDT
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: A Noisy Bar In Avalon
Posts: 12,753
If LE has an address, how long does it take to find out who lives there, and a contact phone number? How's about since "swatting" happens 400 times'ish a year, we maybe call someone inside, back? Not the number 911 see's on Caller ID (although I guess it wouldn't hurt) because of #spoofing, but the number on record that the Power company has or something?

I think this "I *thought* he was..." needs to change. I just think back to Iraq and all the funky "unkowns" doing weird shit, that didn't get shot.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 1 January 2018, 11:16
havok88 havok88 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: US
Posts: 1,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobmueller View Post
I'm still trying to figure out why the guy went outside in the first place. The video I saw was just the last few seconds. Did they call him out on the PA?
Could be any number of things. He could have simply seen lights or heard noise and walked out to see what was going on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildman43 View Post
[/B]

I don't think anyone from SOCNET was there to see what happened.

Only What the News puts out.

We can all agree to disagree as to what happened.


These days all LEO's are on high alert, going to this type of call.

Just look at the CO shooting & killing of a Young LEO Killed to day an 3 wounded.
Well the video of the shooting has been released, so we have somewhat of an idea. Sure there are still plenty of variables, but no matter how you spin it, they didn’t identify the target prior to shooting. You’re not actually thinking they could somehow be justified in this, right?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 1 January 2018, 11:20
sixgun's Avatar
sixgun sixgun is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The end of innocence
Posts: 2,405
At least the round did not miss the victim and travel inside and kill one of the kids - so we got that going for us...

IF this guy had been black...
__________________
"Gravity is a cruel mistress!"
NSDQ-SGDM
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 1 January 2018, 12:33
Chucko Chucko is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Hohenwald, TN.
Posts: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj the pj View Post
Ok good - so now that were passing judgement on this cop - I will just go and say this looks like murder to me. If the cop is that far away and thinks he sees a guy reaching for a "weapon" you better wait to see the threat with that distance and time you have. because time and distance = security... but this cop pulls the trigger and magically it is a fake call. The citizen had no reason to expect he would have gotten shot and is like any other person who answers the door in the middle of night that wasn't doing anything wrong - they could be tired, drunk, agitated - what if they were a handicap person - what about an immigrant that no hablas the English... that in 2017 = death sentence. the gamer who called it in should be liable(perhaps by both states and the feds) - but they should be charging this cop just the same - and if they don't I think the civil case is going to be a hell of a party. The whole - "context" of the call going towards a justifiable homicide by police is garbage. I have had paramedic calls that by the time they get to you are 100000% percent wrong. Imagine if I just gave drugs to patients based on the context of the call and not actually what you saw when you arrived. These departments need to step up the training and scenario based responses to really get control of the trigger fingers.

"Callan said he doesn't think the officer will be charged if the evidence shows Finch "went for his waistband in a way that looked like he was going for a gun.""

- http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/31/us/swa...ons/index.html

Just remember to always say that someone was going for their waistline to justify murder - even if you are a mile away and whatever comes from the waistline cant hurt you before your whole team of 50 people can drop them while hiding behind vehicles and shields.
That was my mindset the first time I saw the clip. I thought, damn, those cops are a couple hundred feet away. Why the urgency to fire especially when no weapon was seen.

Then I watched the clip partially again and couldn't tell if that was a squad car beside the house and if so that may have played into the response.

If the only interaction between the victim and the cops was what was on the video, I think the LEO screwed up. A guy comes out and there is no clear concise communication that I could tell. Considering the distance from the LEO and the vic, his
movements seems natural. If the LEO was in your face, freezing or hands up would be a more natural response. Maybe he decides to pull his pajamas up or pull his pants up, who knows? We probably will never figure this one out.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 1 January 2018, 13:28
meatpaws meatpaws is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Georgia
Posts: 71
Agreed that the distance to the threat didn’t seem to necessitate deadly force. I’ll even go out on a limb and suggest the situation at the time didn’t need any force.

I’m also tired of seeing bad looking uses of force and hearing the officer “feared for his life.” Someone here said policing is largely regional. The department servicing your residence might have very different policies from a neighboring department. How you interact with your local law enforcement can depend where you live.

I’ll be raising my son to respect the law, be respectful of the job that police have but realize that at any point he could be interacting with a calm, confident professional officer or a scared child with a badge and a gun. I have more confidence in a dick on a power trip than a nervous pussy who shouldn’t have graduated the academy.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 2 January 2018, 02:37
wildman43's Avatar
wildman43 wildman43 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: california
Posts: 1,736
H.R.4057 - Interstate Swatting Hoax Act114th Congress (2015-2016)
N THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NOVEMBER 18, 2015
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts (for herself and Mr. MEEHAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
________________________________________
A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to establish a criminal violation for using false communications with the intent to create an emergency response, and for other purposes

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The court, in imposing a sentence on a defendant convicted of an offense under subsection (a), shall order the defendant to reimburse any party for expenses for an emergency response necessitated by such offense.
“(2) LIABILITY.—A person ordered to make reimbursement under this subsection shall be jointly and severally liable for such expenses with each other person, if any, who is ordered to make reimbursement under this subsection for the same expenses.
“(3) CIVIL JUDGMENT.—An order of reimbursement under this subsection shall, for the purposes of enforcement, be treated as a civil judgment.
“(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
“(1) EMERGENCY RESPONSE.—The term ‘emergency response’ means any action taken by law enforcement personnel to immediately respond to an event that threatens or may reasonably be believed to threaten public health or safety.
“(2) LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.—The term ‘law enforcement agency’ means any public agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State charged with policing functions.
“(3) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, each commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States, and each federally recognized Indian tribe.
“(4) TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM.—The term ‘telecommunications system’ means any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce.”.
(b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

“1041. False communications with the intent to cause an emergency response.”.

The web link below states what the individual could be charged with, Very interesting He can kiss his ass good by

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...FOc?li=BBnb7Kz

Last edited by wildman43; 2 January 2018 at 02:41. Reason: wording
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 2 January 2018, 11:35
Gray Rhyno's Avatar
Gray Rhyno Gray Rhyno is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NoVa
Posts: 9,219
Isn't it already illegal to call in a false police report? Do we really need ANOTHER law for this? It's like having laws forbidding texting & driving, when distracted driving is already illegal...
__________________
"The most HSLD stuff ever taught was the basics. So-called 'advanced training' is often no more than the very fluid and expert application of those basic skills." - SOTB
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 2 January 2018, 11:41
Agoge Agoge is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Shadow Gallery
Posts: 7,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Rhyno View Post
Isn't it already illegal to call in a false police report? Do we really need ANOTHER law for this? It's like having laws forbidding texting & driving, when distracted driving is already illegal...
They can write into the specific laws things that may not be contained in the lesser offense.

In this example, the false report offense is a misdemeanor charge often times. With a specific law addressing this issue specifically, they can add that if it causes certain actions to take place, i.e., a death...it could be a felony or adjusted to some type of homicide charge. It's main purpose is to hopefully convince those "people who would do it" who are on the fence about it to NOT do it. However, we all know how good that works.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 2 January 2018, 11:42
Gray Rhyno's Avatar
Gray Rhyno Gray Rhyno is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NoVa
Posts: 9,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agoge View Post
They can write into the specific laws things that may not be contained in the lesser offense.

In this example, the false report offense is a misdemeanor charge often times. With a specific law addressing this issue specifically, they can add that if it causes certain actions to take place, i.e., a death...it could be a felony or adjusted to some type of homicide charge. It's main purpose is to hopefully convince those "people who would do it" who are on the fence about it to NOT do it. However, we all know how good that works.
True, I just abhor the idea of more laws.
__________________
"The most HSLD stuff ever taught was the basics. So-called 'advanced training' is often no more than the very fluid and expert application of those basic skills." - SOTB
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 2 January 2018, 11:45
Agoge Agoge is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Shadow Gallery
Posts: 7,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Rhyno View Post
True, I just abhor the idea of more laws.
As do I. In my AO, we have six laws which are all misdemeanor thefts with the exact same penalty which could ALL be covered under our initial theft law. But, someone with enough stroke at the legislative level managed to get a law passed because they had a friend who had something stolen and felt they needed to have a specific law to cover them. It makes the "constituency" feel like something is being done for them.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 14 April 2018, 12:35
bobmueller bobmueller is offline
Did...did I do that?
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Green Country, Oklahoma
Posts: 1,484
Update: "Wichita police officer who fired fatal shot after swatting call won't face charges"

There's video from other angles that I hadn't seen before.

Family is obviously not happy, and has sued the department and the city.

I'd really like to see all of the involved CoD people charged, not just the guy who actually called 911. The other two people precipitated this, or at least the guy who asked for the swatting did.
__________________
This message is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 15 April 2018, 19:16
Fu King Lawyer Fu King Lawyer is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: ...
Posts: 1,120
Graham v Connor https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/
applies to any use of force, whether it be a Terry stop https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...92/1/case.html in which an officer only needs a [I]reasonable suspecion[I] to engage in a 4th Amendment momentary seizure of an individual -all the way up to deadly force. However, Tennessee v Garner https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...71/1/case.html adds several requirements for the use of deadly force, including the requirement that the officer have probable cause to believe death or serious bodily harm will result to the officers or others if the deadly force is not applied. The facts at the moment force was applied determine whether the use of force was justified and the DA is accurately citing Graham's mention of 20/20 hindsight.

I miss SOTB's comments on these issues.

Last edited by Fu King Lawyer; 15 April 2018 at 19:26.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:43.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
© SOCNET 1996-2018