snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > Police Blotter

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 08 January 2018, 01:40 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,392
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esprise Me View Post
I'm sure there's some training to this effect, but perhaps there needs to be more since it doesn't seem to be sticking.
I suspect that both the amount and the type of training varies from police department to police department. Some of them probably are doing the best possible job; as well as the best possible job of vetting candidates. Some of them, apparently, considerably less so.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08 January 2018, 02:12 PM
ChasFink's Avatar
ChasFink ChasFink is offline
 
Join Date: 09 December 2015
Location: Mineola, NY
Posts: 841
No

I'll start by making the following beliefs of mine very clear:
  1. Police officer is a very dangerous, very stressful, and often thankless job.
  2. Many police officers do receive training in deescalation.
  3. Most police officers do their job well, are not trigger happy, and are not likely to kill an innocent unarmed person.
  4. Unfortunately, sometimes a good cop will do the right thing in a situation, and an innocent person will die.
Now on to the case at hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blatherskite View Post
How are police officers trained to perceive a movement as threatening?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouse View Post
One of the things that bug me about all the “Cops shoot an unarmed person” stories is that when it hits the papers, the police and their defenders will say something like, “The other person was doing X and the Cop was so freaked out and had to make a snap decision.” Thing is, while I do not deny that law enforcement is a very high stress job that does take its toll, at the same time, cops are supposed to be trained to deal with intense situations.
We often hear that use of a firearm was justified in a situation because of the officer's fear. But even if something is justifiable, it is not always the best, or even the right thing to do. I believe it has been mentioned elsewhere on this forum that we often accept any fear a cop experiences as a justifying factor when we really should only consider reasonable fear under the circumstances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
There are a lot of reasons somebody might not instantly put their hands in the air and keep them there. They might be physically unable to move their arms that way, or physically unable to keep them there for very long. They might be deaf and not have heard the command. They might not speak English, and therefore not have understood the command. They might be of limited understanding, and not comprehend the situation. They might be losing their balance, and trying to keep from falling.
This, I think, is something that needs to be reinforced in training/retraining. While I don't know if any of these factors were in play here, It seems the man who was shot was somewhat overweight and not necessarily in tip top physical shape. Even if he was immediately about to get down on the ground - and I don't think he was thinking that way, given that he was just minding his business when the cops showed up in the neighborhood - he would almost certainly have lowered his hands to do so.
It is also important to remember that the only reason police were there was a phone call claiming to be from this house, and also saying there were innocent victims inside. Should they not assume this might be one of the innocents?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avril View Post
But I am saying, and I realize some may take offense at the idea, that I would rather the cop get shot than someone who had no choice about taking any such risks get shot for these flimsy reasons.
I'm with Avril here. While police should be concerned for their own safety (you won't have much of a force left if all your officers jump int the line of fire) that can't always be at the expense of the safety of the populace - including innocents and even suspects. If you choose to be a cop, that means you take on the possibility that you may have to expose yourself to risk in order to reduce risk to others.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08 January 2018, 04:15 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChasFink View Post
I'm with Avril here. While police should be concerned for their own safety (you won't have much of a force left if all your officers jump int the line of fire) that can't always be at the expense of the safety of the populace - including innocents and even suspects. If you choose to be a cop, that means you take on the possibility that you may have to expose yourself to risk in order to reduce risk to others.
Do you think that police currently are always concerned for their own safety at the expense of the safety of the populace? Do you think that people who choose to be police do not take on the responsibility of exposing themselves to risk in order to reduce risk to others?

A general question for anyone: I have been working on a project and not keeping up with the news. Is anyone besides the police who were involved in this incident defending it? The way the story of what happened and the reason for the shooting has changed, it doesn't seem like there is much there to defend.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08 January 2018, 04:38 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,108
Default

I don't think the issue is that people other than the police are defending it, I think the issue is that only the police are involved in the investigation and likely will be the only ones who know the result.

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/cri...193162039.html
Quote:
“The department has a long history of not releasing names of officers involved in shootings,” he said. “Any change in that practice requires negotiation with the labor contract and will have to be negotiated if that’s the case, or a state law change would trump that.”

Ramsay said an internal review will come after the criminal investigation.

“At the conclusion of the criminal investigation, we will also conduct a thorough review of the incident and do everything we can to prevent tragedies like this from happening again,” he said.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08 January 2018, 05:38 PM
ChasFink's Avatar
ChasFink ChasFink is offline
 
Join Date: 09 December 2015
Location: Mineola, NY
Posts: 841
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
Do you think that police currently are always concerned for their own safety at the expense of the safety of the populace? Do you think that people who choose to be police do not take on the responsibility of exposing themselves to risk in order to reduce risk to others?
As I said at the outset, I very much believe most police do put themselves at risk in order to reduce risk to others. My point was that that doesn't seem to be what happened here. While my information is limited, this is what appears to have happened:

Police respond to a 911 call from an self-professed perp who claims to be armed and to have doused a home with gasoline. There is no evidence that he is actually in the house he says he's in, but that assumption was made. Cops are across the street, far from the entrance, shielded somewhat by cars. Man comes to door; he may be the perp, he may not be. He's told to raise his hands; maybe he did. He moves his hands near his waistband.

In this situation, a cop with his gun drawn has to weigh the following: Is this the perp or an innocent family member? Does he have a gun? Is he actually reaching for that gun? If he is, is he likely to shoot at me (or anyone else for that matter) before I can actually see the gun and fire? If he does fire, is he likely to hit his target?

The distance, the doubt of identity, the moderate shielding, the likelihood that any gun he might have is probably small (i.e. not powerful/accurate) and the doubt that should surround the call itself tells me I shouldn't pull that trigger.

Of course, I don't have all the facts and YMMV, but that's the way I see it now.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08 January 2018, 05:47 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,162
Default

I was just trying to understand your use of "always" in that sentence. It seemed to go beyond an opinion about this particular shooting.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09 January 2018, 02:23 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,401
Mouse

I’m still wondering how this thing happened in the first place. The shooting was in Kansas, but the call came from LA, which is about a thousand miles away. How exactly did the Asshole wind up being connected with a police station in Kansas, rather than some place in LA, and why would the Kansas cops immediately take this Asshole at his word and not be like, “Okay so is the perp doing all this on Skype or do you have psychic powers capable of working over great distances?”
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09 January 2018, 01:00 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,430
Default

He didn't "wind up connected" to cops in Kansas, he called them on purpose. On the non-emergency line, AIUI, which does not automatically trace calls like a 911 line. And he described the events in the first person, IOW, he claimed to be the one holding people hostage.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09 January 2018, 02:41 PM
ChasFink's Avatar
ChasFink ChasFink is offline
 
Join Date: 09 December 2015
Location: Mineola, NY
Posts: 841
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
I was just trying to understand your use of "always" in that sentence. It seemed to go beyond an opinion about this particular shooting.
I thought I responded to this, but I don't see my response, so I'll do it again.

I was making a general statement: Sometimes concern for the cop's safety is paramount, sometimes it isn't. That's all I meant by "[police safety] can't always be at the expense of the safety of the populace."
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09 January 2018, 06:54 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouse View Post
I’m still wondering how this thing happened in the first place. The shooting was in Kansas, but the call came from LA, which is about a thousand miles away. How exactly did the Asshole wind up being connected with a police station in Kansas, rather than some place in LA, and why would the Kansas cops immediately take this Asshole at his word and not be like, “Okay so is the perp doing all this on Skype or do you have psychic powers capable of working over great distances?”
I don't think the details have been given out in this case, so we don't know what methods this guy used, but many times swatters use spoofing, which alters caller ID data, and with a cell phone, there is very little location data available, and it is sometimes possible to mask even that. (Although I think the main method has been shut down now). [Here's a post explaining why Lyft and Google maps can pinpoint your (smart)phone's location, but 911 can only tell your rough neighborhood, and that's when you are not actively trying to hide your location. https://www.networkworld.com/article...ml#tk.drr_mlt]

Dispatchers likely do need better training and procedures to help detect swatting calls. But from a basics standpoint, the caller was calling with a report of a dire situation of his own doing, and he gave "his" address. The dispatcher was likely thinking first and foremost of getting help to victims reported to be in grave danger. If they had checked the location data they had for the caller, which at best would be the location of the cell tower handling the call, and at worst would be spoofed or masked, it would have been important information to convey to police, for sure. Depending on what information was available, it might have prevented this, or it might have made no difference at all.

Last edited by erwins; 09 January 2018 at 07:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 10 January 2018, 01:25 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,401
Mouse

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lainie View Post
He didn't "wind up connected" to cops in Kansas, he called them on purpose. On the non-emergency line, AIUI, which does not automatically trace calls like a 911 line. And he described the events in the first person, IOW, he claimed to be the one holding people hostage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
I don't think the details have been given out in this case, so we don't know what methods this guy used, but many times swatters use spoofing, which alters caller ID data, and with a cell phone, there is very little location data available, and it is sometimes possible to mask even that. (Although I think the main method has been shut down now). [Here's a post explaining why Lyft and Google maps can pinpoint your (smart)phone's location, but 911 can only tell your rough neighborhood, and that's when you are not actively trying to hide your location. https://www.networkworld.com/article...ml#tk.drr_mlt]

Dispatchers likely do need better training and procedures to help detect swatting calls. But from a basics standpoint, the caller was calling with a report of a dire situation of his own doing, and he gave "his" address. The dispatcher was likely thinking first and foremost of getting help to victims reported to be in grave danger. If they had checked the location data they had for the caller, which at best would be the location of the cell tower handling the call, and at worst would be spoofed or masked, it would have been important information to convey to police, for sure. Depending on what information was available, it might have prevented this, or it might have made no difference at all.
Thanks, both of you. Learning is always good!

I still wonder why Asshole would choose some place in Kansas as opposed to some place nearer, but there probably isn't any deeper zen to it; Asshole is just an asshole.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10 January 2018, 01:32 AM
Beachlife!'s Avatar
Beachlife! Beachlife! is offline
 
Join Date: 22 June 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 28,534
Default

He knew the guy he was swatting, it wasn't a random choice. I don't think swatting is something that's usually done randomly.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10 January 2018, 02:15 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,603
Default

No, it is not correct that he knew the victim. Nor that he knew anything about him.
Quote:
Miruhcle gave a random address to Baperizer, who then contacted Barriss and provided him with the address given to swat Miruhcle. However, police are certain that Andrew Finch was not the intended target and had nothing to do with the bet. Finch was not a known gamer and had nothing to do with the Call of Duty match.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_W...ansas_swatting
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10 January 2018, 02:37 AM
Beachlife!'s Avatar
Beachlife! Beachlife! is offline
 
Join Date: 22 June 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 28,534
Default

My bad, i though Mouse was referring to the guy who made the call as the asshole, which he definitely was.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10 January 2018, 02:42 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,603
Default

Well, I should be a bit clearer too: AH did apparently think he 'knew' who he was swatting. I don't think anyone knows where the other guy (another AH, IMO) got the address.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10 January 2018, 02:48 AM
Beachlife!'s Avatar
Beachlife! Beachlife! is offline
 
Join Date: 22 June 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 28,534
Default

The link makes it clearer; one asshole gave the victim's address to the far bigger asshole who made the call thinking he was targeting the first asshole when he was really targeting the victim.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10 January 2018, 03:31 AM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,162
Default

And to make it more confusing, the guy who made the call was not one of the two Call of Duty players who were -- I don't know, having a beef? One of the COD players said he would swat the other. The second guy dared him to and gave out the victim's address rather than his own. Then guy 1 contacts the swatter and asks him to swat that address.

The one who made the call was known for swatting. I believe his handle was the uber-charming "swautistic."
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10 January 2018, 01:10 PM
Mochrie99's Avatar
Mochrie99 Mochrie99 is offline
 
Join Date: 26 April 2005
Location: Sarnia, Ontario
Posts: 463
Default

It looks like the same guy was also responsible for a swatting incident in Calgary, Alberta as well. Charming dude. What a NFBSKing ass.

U.S. man accused in Kansas ‘swatting’ death now charged in Calgary
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10 January 2018, 01:47 PM
ChasFink's Avatar
ChasFink ChasFink is offline
 
Join Date: 09 December 2015
Location: Mineola, NY
Posts: 841
Icon05

I don't know if anyone has brought this up yet, but can the swatter face murder, manslaughter, or similar charges since the death was a (predictably possible, if unlikely) result of his crime?
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10 January 2018, 02:24 PM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 26,206
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachlife! View Post
The link makes it clearer; one asshole gave the victim's address to the far bigger asshole who made the call thinking he was targeting the first asshole when he was really targeting the victim.
That's not quite what it says (if Wikipedia is accurate, but this seems to match the reports as well). The "background" section uses the gamer tags of the two guys who were arguing over the bet, Baperizer and Miruhcle.

Baperizer threatened to swat Miruhcle. Miruhcle (first asshole) then gave him a false address (apparently the random address of the victim) presumably to say "go on, I dare you". Baperizer (second asshole) did dare, and rang up the far bigger asshole who made the call. The guy who made the call thought he was targeting Miruhcle.

The victim wasn't any of the three assholes involved - he was somebody completely random. And the three assholes do ascend in their degree of assholery - in this account, Miruhcle (the intended victim but not the actual victim) didn't do anything other than give a random address when daring the other guy to swat him. Presumably he didn't think anything would come of it. Still a bit of an asshole thing to do, but he could easily just have said the first address that came to mind, and if not for the other two much bigger assholes, nobody would even have known.

(eta) If it turns out that Miruhcle did know the victim and so the address wasn't random, that makes him more of an asshole but still not as much as either of the other two, I'd say.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gamers send revenge police in dangerous "swatting" hoax Gutter Monkey Police Blotter 34 11 May 2014 09:56 PM
Don't Call This 12-Year-Old Concert Pianist a Prodigy A Turtle Named Mack Amusement Bark 1 01 October 2013 04:58 PM
Myrtle Beach police arrest 82-year-old man, 29-year-old woman on prostitution charges A Turtle Named Mack Police Blotter 2 06 September 2013 02:27 PM
Man tried to kill 9-year-old girl in Best Buy restroom snopes Police Blotter 0 29 August 2013 12:30 AM
Writer's Call to Kill Feral Cats Sparks Outcry snopes Wild Kingdom 11 30 March 2013 02:12 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.