Most active commenters
  • jrmg(4)

←back to thread

Teen behind hundreds of swatting attacks pleads guilty to federal charges

(www.wired.com)
242 points LinuxBender | 17 comments | 18 Nov 24 00:39 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
BLKNSLVR ◴[18 Nov 24 01:50 UTC] No.42169029[source]▶
I'm unwisely and unadvisedly wading into this half-cocked.

Swatting wouldn't even be a thing if <any number of logical things>

- Anonymous calls should be treated with high levels of suspicion as to their legitimacy

- First response training that's even moderately appropriate

- Situational awareness beyond what one's been informed by third parties

- Empathy for all humans

- Any kind of notion of that a scenario may not actually be as described by a single anonymous voice

A very (un)funny irony is that there are numerous stories I've read about domestic violence victims being arrested, as opposed to the attacker, which implies there's some level of suspicion in some circumstances about the information the police are being fed. Swatting, as a thing, indicates there's some kind of hero-pressure build-up that overrules any kind of <all the things I listed above> whereby that pressure has the possibility of impending release.

replies(5): >>42169059 #>>42169065 #>>42169237 #>>42169267 #>>42172756 #
stavros ◴[18 Nov 24 01:58 UTC] No.42169065[source]▶
It's a US cultural thing to either avoid blaming the police for anything, or make excuses for them. Brutal police behavior is seen as either acceptable, or what even desirable. I've seen reddit posts where a protester slightly taunts the police and gets pepper sprayed in the face, and all the commenters were gleefully saying things like "fuck around and find out", without even thinking that maybe there wasn't enough fucking around to warrant any finding out.

When you try and point this out, you're called various names, because apparently you either support the police 100%, or you're a criminal.

replies(6): >>42169146 #>>42169180 #>>42169204 #>>42169352 #>>42169696 #>>42169949 #
ClassyJacket[dead post] ◴[18 Nov 24 02:29 UTC] No.42169204[source]▶
[flagged]
1. jrmg ◴[18 Nov 24 02:34 UTC] No.42169240[source]▶
Around 1000 people per year, which I absolutely agree is terrible - but at the same time, the population is over 300,000,000 so it stretches the meaning of the word to call it ‘regular’.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de...

replies(5): >>42169329 #>>42169336 #>>42169423 #>>42169448 #>>42169622 #
2. ◴[18 Nov 24 02:55 UTC] No.42169329[source]▶
3. jmye ◴[18 Nov 24 02:56 UTC] No.42169336[source]▶
That’s more than two people per day. But sure, let’s nitpick the definition of “regular” because that’s absolutely the important issue, here.
replies(2): >>42169402 #>>42171939 #
4. jrmg ◴[18 Nov 24 03:09 UTC] No.42169402[source]▶
Perhaps I made my point a little tactlessly - what I meant to imply is that people shouldn’t live in fear of this. While it happens too often, it’s still extremely uncommon.
replies(1): >>42169436 #
5. jdietrich ◴[18 Nov 24 03:13 UTC] No.42169423[source]▶
It's an apples-to-oranges comparison for all sorts of reasons, but England and Wales has a population of about 60 million and averages about 3 fatal police shootings per year. From that perspective, 'regular' sounds like something of an understatement.

Swatting just isn't a thing here - our armed officers are trained completely differently and held to much stricter standards regarding the use of force. American police do have to deal with much more widespread gun ownership and higher rates of violent crime, but that's only one half of the equation.

Policing in the US is exceptionally fragmented across thousands of agencies, with no consistent standards of training and supervision. Even if there was a clear political mandate to reduce the number of police-involved shootings, there's no effective mechanism to change how policing is carried out on the ground.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/319246/police-fatal-shoo...

https://www.college.police.uk/about

replies(1): >>42169597 #
6. stavros ◴[18 Nov 24 03:16 UTC] No.42169436{3}[source]▶
The (bigger) problem is that that's the tip of a much larger police brutality iceberg. It's not like the police is 99.9% pleasant and helpful and then just murders the occasional person, the murders are indicative of a disturbing police culture.
7. Manuel_D ◴[18 Nov 24 03:19 UTC] No.42169448[source]▶
Of those 1000 people, the vast majority are armed and actively threatening either the public, the police officers themselves or both.
replies(1): >>42173217 #
8. monetus ◴[18 Nov 24 03:58 UTC] No.42169597[source]▶
Can I ask you about the political power of police? Is there an equivalent to our police union? My mayor is downright afraid of them.
replies(1): >>42172171 #
9. Rebelgecko ◴[18 Nov 24 04:03 UTC] No.42169622[source]▶
That stat includes all shootings, not just murders
replies(1): >>42169839 #
10. jrmg ◴[18 Nov 24 05:01 UTC] No.42169839[source]▶
I think many would argue that all deaths by shootings are murder - even if it’s in self defense, and perhaps especially if society grants more power, in the form of immunity, to one ‘side’.

I didn’t want to open that can of worms. Even the inclusive stat I cited is small enough to support the point I wanted to make.

replies(1): >>42174613 #
11. edanm ◴[18 Nov 24 12:58 UTC] No.42171939[source]▶
Agreeing on facts is always important, because if not, nothing else matters in a discussion.

We should never criticize people for actually bringing real numbers into a conversation to clarify things. I didn't know that statistic, and I suspect many "disagreements" are things where if the actual numbers and facts were known to all, they would actually agree.

replies(1): >>42180093 #
12. jdietrich ◴[18 Nov 24 13:37 UTC] No.42172171{3}[source]▶
Extremely limited. Police officers are not legally permitted to join a conventional trade union, because of the risk to public safety that would be posed by industrial action. Rank-and-file officers are represented by the Police Federation, which has many of the functions of a trade union but none of the legal recognition.

More broadly, the British police are a service, not a force. A British officer would never refer to a member of the public as a "civilian", because our police are civilians in uniform. They have powers granted to them by Parliament, but their right to use those powers comes from the consent of the public that they serve. It's a radically different attitude that colours every interaction between police and the public.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Federation_of_England_a...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

13. bcdtttt ◴[18 Nov 24 15:27 UTC] No.42173217[source]▶
According to the cops. The same cops who shoot people for having wallets and sticks. Same cops who beat Deaf people for not following verbal instructions. Same cops who shoot autistic folks.

Yeah, I don't think "armed" means "was an imminent threat to life" in the slightest. It's much more likely it's a cover your ass designation.

replies(1): >>42174001 #
14. Manuel_D ◴[18 Nov 24 16:31 UTC] No.42174001{3}[source]▶
No, according to third party police use of force tracking projects: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic...
15. Rebelgecko ◴[18 Nov 24 17:23 UTC] No.42174613{3}[source]▶
Why?
replies(1): >>42177818 #
16. jrmg ◴[18 Nov 24 22:31 UTC] No.42177818{4}[source]▶
You’re asking me to defend a position I don’t entirely agree with now, which is always dangerous…

I believe the argument is that deliberately killing another person is always wrong. It does’t matter if it’s in self defense - taking a life is such a morally abhorrent thing to do that it’s always indefensible. It’s always murder.

Some who wouldn’t go that far would still argue that for police to do it - people who are in a position of power, and who should know there are risks associated with the job of protecting society - is indefensible even if it would not be for a regular person.

Not my position - self defense if you know you’d otherwise die is, I think, morally justified. But I can see the argument.

17. jmye ◴[19 Nov 24 04:24 UTC] No.42180093{3}[source]▶
The criticism was not about “bringing facts”, it was about pedantically parsing word choices. Whether you think 2.5ish people per day is “regular” is irrelevant to the larger point.