←back to thread

Teen behind hundreds of swatting attacks pleads guilty to federal charges

(www.wired.com)
242 points LinuxBender | 1 comments | 18 Nov 24 00:39 UTC | HN request time: 0.746s | source
Show context
ToucanLoucan ◴[18 Nov 24 01:04 UTC] No.42168777[source]▶
Okay so like, genuinely not trying to do a "back in my day" fuckin thing here, but also: what the fuck is wrong with kids? Back when I was coming up, pranking at it's absolute worst was like, filling a dudes shoes with yogurt in the locker room, or like, putting plastic bugs in people's desks n shit. Why the fuck are teenagers trying to get each other murdered by cops!?
replies(15): >>42168818 #>>42168820 #>>42168863 #>>42168866 #>>42168926 #>>42168933 #>>42168944 #>>42168954 #>>42168966 #>>42168996 #>>42169064 #>>42172676 #>>42173109 #>>42174008 #>>42174338 #
mcherm ◴[18 Nov 24 01:30 UTC] No.42168933[source]▶
Fair question, but I would also like to ask "What the f** is wrong with cops?".

Receiving an anonymous call claiming some not-particularly-plausible threat at a particular location probably DOES deserve a police investigation. I see no reason why it impels police to drag people from their house in chains, threaten to shoot them, or actually shoot them.

If police responses were reasonable and proportionate to the plausibility of the threat then swatters would not be able to use them as a weapon.

replies(7): >>42168956 #>>42169000 #>>42169019 #>>42169178 #>>42172964 #>>42173231 #>>42174061 #
1. Ajedi32 ◴[18 Nov 24 15:07 UTC] No.42172964[source]▶
Yeah, it seems like they take the seriousness of the threat into account when determining the response, but not the plausibility of the threat.

If there's a 1% chance that the house contains a deranged gunman threatening to shoot his family and then himself, that probably shouldn't be met with the same response as a 30% chance of the same... There are probably a lot of situations where it's a tough call though.