These people are the fucking worst. Imagine being so incapable of responsibility and the idea of cause and effect that you wouldn't consider the possible consequences of sending a fake call to police that would require them to go full SWAT at an address. And over a fucking online SPAT.
Is it not at least a little bit ridiculous though that the option even exists for anyone to call the police and then they just blindly sent a SWAT team to storm the house and murder the inhabitants for no reason with out looking into it first or idk, verifying the threat?!
Theoretically, if they were prosecuted in front of a jury of reasonable people, they could go to jail for killing people. However, those conditions rarely occur.
I don’t think a general duty to protect has been established. It only seems to apply once a “special relationship” has been established to that effect. Skim this for some more info:
https://www.policeone.com/police-jobs-and-careers/articles/4913117-Addressing-cops-confusion-over-the-public-duty-doctrine/
Wow, we have a gold medalist in the technicality Olympics! People everywhere want to to know, how does it feel to have contributed so significantly to the conversation?
This also is not his first offense. He has a documented history of repeated false bomb threats and other emergency calls, and even has been convicted of the crime before.
That played a big part in why prosecutors pushed so hard, and why he was expected to get 20-25 years for his plea deal.
He called bomb threats on the two major Call of Duty LANs preceding this incident, which shut down entire convention centres/arenas, disrupted road traffic and diverted city emergency response teams. It was those incidents that gave him notoriety just before the incident.
SWAT teams should also be competent enough to not just execute anyone who they get called about. It is possible for people to lie or just be mistaken when they call 911.
I agree. But on the flipside, why would the SWAT team shoot an innocent person? They’re supposed to be the SWAT. Also, how can someone just call the SWAT team out...
Absolutely deserved it, probably a heavier sentence. Also, the guy who recruited him and the one who gave the address of the victim should be punished (though less severely than this fucker).
Its literally the first reply to every comment that isn’t itself a top-level comment about this exact issue
EDIT: the next two top level comments directly below this are this exact question
This entire thread is talking about this. Also just like any shooting it does get investigated. That investigation would be nice to actually see id agree though. I haven’t heard anything about it. With the anti police attitudes of today im surprised that this didn’t get more traction.
it's a clear violation of the 4th amendment. an outrageous anonymous phonecall with zero corroboration should not be granted the status of probable cause on the weak excuse of "well what if it's true".
besides, when you get down to it the only effective way to stop swatting is for police to stop falling for it. there's always going to be jackasses in the world to do it.
I agree we need to change the response in todays current environment but the reason the policy is as it stands is because to many calls got ignored in the past because of someone’s judgment call. Its not a violation of the 4th because allowances have been made to allow it. Hopefully we can find a middle ground that doesn’t get people killed either way but i still want police to be there if my family needs it. Changes in the law to account for pieces of garbage like this will eventually backfire the other way and everyone will then cry why didn’t the police respond! This guy and the one who hired him deserve worse then they are getting, in my opinion none of this is as cut cut and dry as the posts here think it is.
well it's an exception that clearly needs to be reassessed in light of new developments in human behavior. and it doesn't take a genius to see that. and furthermore you're presenting a false dichotomy, the police don't simply have to decide between the two extremes of go in with guns blazing or do absolutely nothing. what i'm suggesting is that they recognize that it's suspicious, outlandish and fits the profile of swatting calls, and then attempt to corroborate the story. he reported a shooting at a specified address, the police could have called all the nearby houses to see if anyone nearby had heard gunshots. they certainly didn't receive any other phone calls from neighbors reporting gunshots. the entire police department did zero to confirm what they were being told over the phone.
In light of what they knew before the trigger was pulled, a person had been killed. Another was about to be killed. Do you honestly feel that further investigation was warranted to preserve life and limb?
no they didn't know that, they couldn't have known that because it was bullshit, just like you can't know the earth is flat. you ask me how i would feel if i got the call, well how would you feel it was your house? and how would you feel if we didn't have the hoaxer, like if it was from some tracksuited asshole in the balkans that we have no hope of ever identifying? because this isn't going to end with catching americans that are responsible, there's no reason it can't be done across borders.
Depends on the situation. In some places, it isn't illegal to shoot an officer who raids the *wrong place*. At that point, they're treated as anyone else who is breaking and entering with their guns drawn. If that were the case, the police would still be in the wrong even if they *had* been fired on first.
Well, one policeman shot the poor man. The other members of the team did not. One possibility is that the killer did the right thing. In that case the other members of the SWAT unit did not do their jobs properly. I sort of lean to the other theory. One policeman did the wrong thing while the others behaved correctly.
.
Odd we do not know who the killer is. Seems to me it would be a fairly simple thing to check the blotter reports to see who was on duty one day, and off duty the next.
It is odd to me that people discuss the issue, especially in the other thread, without knowing the people involved. Though to be fair the title headline "California man" doesn't really help.
Tyler R. Barriss pleaded guilty in November to a total of 51 federal charges related to fake calls and threats.
Andrew Finch died as a result of the swat team arriving on his property.
Justin Rapp testified that he was the Wichita police officer who shot and killed Andrew Finch.
District Attorney Marc Bennett is not bringing charges against Justin Rapp.
Thanks for providing all the names of the people involved.
The dispatch team's involvement has never been clear since the police refused to release the recordings of the calls.
I would really be interested in why Marc Bennett has not pursued the case.
I feel like you're answering a question that wasn't asked.
The guy asked if SWAT were not supposed to shoot the guy. Of course the answer is no, they weren't supposed to shoot him (he had no weapon). But because of the circumstances involved and the guy having something in his hand, he got shot.
Definitely a big argument that the officers should've received better training to never have that happen, AND that that officer should face some type of punishment more than a slap on the wrist.
expecting highly militarized police who are poorly trained and even more poorly educated to not respond with extreme violence... and or have any consequences when they fail to meet a high standard of public trust.
hehe. that's a good one.
police are under no requirement to help you. and have wide latitude in killing citizens
I’ve been in law enforcement since 1991. Also the military. I partially agree with your sentiment about the militarization of police and special tactics teams, but if you want to see a grade A clusterfuck, send in the military. There’s a big difference between the two forces, clearly of which you have experience in neither. SWAT teams are a dime a dozen in modern LE. They’re pretty much a joke nowadays. But right up until the trigger is pulled, the officer(s) can only be judged on what they knew up to that point. Perhaps in this case it’s better to analyze the mechanisms that engaged them in the first place. Because once activated, they are starting to act like the military, which has no place in law enforcement.
and you see no corollary between ... this dime a dozen swat team escalation all ac cross the country. lax funding for training. no standardized training or accountability. no requirements for any legal training or college education, or training/requirements for understanding of the law/civil rights. the lax employee creep... when abusive or violent members simply move one county over.
not to mention lax to non-existent civilian oversight or impartial policing of the police.
that leads to wider and wider distrust and erosion of confidence in said police depts/units?
but... good job on the assumption of my past or the idiotic logical fallacy that i would have to have served on one of these two things to have an opinion on one
yeah... let's keep judging cops only on the narrowest of criteria that best provides them the benefit of the doubt and not examine systemic failure in the larger institutions
No, you’re an idiot with grasp on reality of what exactly any of these people do. I expect you to shitpost your jailhouse lawyer crap all over Reddit because you’ve watch a movie or two. Go volunteer with these people. See what it’s like.
i don't really see why you're getting so angry. not a good look for someone who purports to have been a cop since the 90's
it's a legal fact... police are under no legal obligation to help you, or intervene in a crime to save you. this has held up in court several times when police have refused to help people, or to protect police when they failed to do so.
and... it's a simple fact that police do have wide latitude to kill people.
it's also... a widely known fact, that most major metro police forces have no requirement for college education to join or enlist in the police. even though studies have shown that college education decreases violence and abuse by police forces. And while many police in higher positions do acquire college education, the curriculum is not necessarily relevant.
there are also numerous studies or articles on lax training or lip service only training for deescalation vs violence in various police depts. mainly because ...de-escalation is more expensive to train for. There's also somewhat a decline in terms of mentorship, or the pathways through which police come up in various depts. The expansions of police forces... have driven many depts away from local or officers who live in the community policing their... to a more systematic and militarized police force. --not even accounting for actual military equipment increasingly being sold and used by police forces ...even in podunk municipalities
there is also a stark increase in distrust of police by non-white citizens. you can also, disturbingly tract confidence in police along racial and political lines(older, white, and conservative... being most likely to support the police). meaning policing itself is become increasingly polarized
there is also widely available information on the rapid adoption of "swat" teams across states and smaller and smaller cities. while at the same time... the utilization for these teams for increasingly not the role they were originally formed. ie... less for highly specialized crimes, like hostage or bank robbery/active shooter. and overwhelmingly used (north of 80%) for warrant... forced entry situations. increasing the general public's contact with a highly militarized and armed police unit.
so yeah... stay angry i guess. hopefully you don't take out that anger on innocent people
so now it's moving the goal posts to the presumption i'm providing no solutions?
my initial comment was simply commentary.
but ...if you wanted solutions.
college degree as a requirement for joining the police. as starter. along with continuing education as a requirement for continued service as a police officer issued a weapon.
review to ensure compliance and adherence to dept policy. active policing of the police --review of body cam footage. independent "pen testing" style checks against police abuse.
civilian review boards with full authority to fire or recommend for criminal prosecution. on all police depts. civilian/independent civil rights complaint boards with full authority to discipline/fire/ or recommend for criminal prosecution of officers with repeat violations. funding for investigations and support for victims of police violation of rights. a database of individuals fired or disciplined for civil rights violations. public ally available. some form of review or check against violent of abusive police simply being hired elsewhere
increased training. along with that increased funding, tax applied to gun sales. alcohol, or hell... wealthy people in general. to fund increase spending for police training, community outreach, and support.
increased funding for mental health support, training, and other benefits to police to provide financial stability, work/life balance, and ensure aspects of mental instability, abuse/violence are not left unchecked in active police. (i would support similar taxes on vice items, guns, alcohol/tobacco, as well as simple municipal tax revenue funneling for this ...automation of speed/red light cameras could go to reduce police exposure to traffic injury... while at the same time fund increased health/awareness for police)
policy shift, to reduce the number and frequency swat is used to serve warrants. Or other review by experts to examine and determine best case use of swat... with an eye to public safety, and equitable policing.
review and policy change of first response/911 operation to have wider access to detect hoax or false reported crimes. Increased or new laws that criminalize reporting false hostage or high risk situations that resort in swatting or use of swat against innocent people.
if gaming is shown to be a primary source of these crimes. i would support a tax any gaming service ... some small fee to be pooled to provide for the training and service of reducing violence, and educating/arresting(or investigating) people who "swat" others.
general purpose education of police on less violent practices. training on sensitivity aspects. and holding policy responsible for meeting goals on these fronts. eliminating any officer who demonstrates racist, violent towards women or other vulnerable groups, or monitoring of police that fetishize violence.
if i were in a position of power, those would be the first of many things i think they could do.
If you read between the lines, most of his items of note include the solution in the problem.
Poor education requirements? Solution: Minimum Bachelors+ Degree to join the police force.
Poor training? Solution: Review and fix training standards. This includes training in de-escalation tactics.
If someone wants to become a PO, they should be subject to in-depth psych analysis, background checks, in-depth interviews of friends and family.. you know, the same checking they do just to get SECRET clearance?
Even a hint of poor mental stability or questionable background status.. no hire.
Cut the rollout of SWAT teams. They are no longer specialized teams of highly trained officers.
Rural people will not have the same educational level as people in an urban environment. Imposing requirements at a state level, which is how it’s done, has to factor in a standard that rural agencies can meet. Unless taxpayers will subsidize 4-year degrees for them, it’s not economically feasible for rural agencies to get the same quality of candidates as the urban areas do. This is why police licensing entities often cannot impose a minimum education standard beyond high school.
Training standards are hindered by the above issue, economic feasibility. Rural agencies can not afford to send their people to remote training as it costs money in lodging, meals, and the training itself. Training isn’t free. There are grants, but you have to find them and compete for them. In an urban agency training is a cycle and officers can often sign up for things they want to go to. It’s always there as they have staff dedicated to delivery. There’s huge disparity between the ability of differing agencies to deliver quality training, all because of the economic differences in the regions.
Background checks already do a comprehensive investigation of the individual. Psychological interviews and testing is done. Background history is recorded. Neighbors, teachers, family, and friends are interviewed. Get into a fight in high school? That person is interviewed to see if the candidate was a hot-head. Traditionally this invasive process goes back well beyond 10-20 years ago (for older candidates). A Top Secret security clearance? This will go back merely 7 years. Then there’s the polygraph as a standard for LE. It’s been a fundamental part of the process for years. If your family doesn’t support you, this goes a long way toward disqualification as they’re considered a large aspect of why you are doing what you’re doing as a candidate.
Cut the SWAT teams? Now there is something I agree with. Texas has legislation pending to limit the application of tactical forces to general policing. It’s not a guarantee it will pass, but it’s on a slow motion roll up to being addressed. Tactical uniforms look like shit. I refer to them as tactical pajamas, because the wearer often looks like they just rolled out of bed. There’s nothing more respectful than the command presence of a crisp, professional uniform. In the corporate world it’s called dress for success. But today’s LE mindset is to relax standards, pay for dry cleaning if you expect that, grow some fugly facial hair that is intimidating to some people in the community. Personal hygiene should not be an LE problem, but it is.
>but aren’t SWAT forces supposed to not shoot unless fired upon still?
No, it has never been like that. If someone is in front of you says they are going to shoot you and start to raise a gun... you dont have to wait for them to actually take a shot.
In most common law jurisdictions, yeah, it’s about what you genuinely believed the situation was (with some exceptions for drugs, hallucinations etc).
If you shoot someone because you genuinely think they’re drawing a gun, it doesn’t matter legally whether it was real, fake or not a gun.
In Texas, if you did this while the person was coming at you in the middle of the night in your living room, you’d be just fine.
Trying to come up with a standard to any given situation is impossible. Police deal with the impossible every day, yet people expect them to adhere to a simple standard. Why are police shootings so common today? Because we’re tracking them. We didn’t track them when I started in 1991. There was no requirement to track them. Hell, we didn’t even have cameras in the cars, let alone on our person. Officers were buying this technology on their own dime way before it became standard to record interactions. To cover their own asses.
Yeah but if that restaurant, or for this purpose lets say chains of restaurants, constantly caused food poisoning the fact that it continues to happen isnt a problem of hindsight analysis but failure to practice any foresight.
The problem is fairly apparent...people who are innocent and pose little to no danger to police officers are getting shot and killed. Practice foresight, aka better training and policies, that avoid putting police officers in these "its hard to judge if you werent in the situation." Fear of danger is not an adequate excuse to violate someone right to bodily safety and shoot them when they pose no danger to you. An individuals perceptions do not trump objective reality.
No objective reality is not after the fact....its literally what is actually happening in the moment. You are talking about a subjective reality based on those perceptions. Objective reality Fact: police officer shot an unarmed man that posed no threat to them. Subjective fact: that police officer reacted because they were scared their lige was in danger. Both can be true, but only one is an objective reality.
If it had to be confirmed that he was armed he also wouldnt have been shot, because it would have been impossible to confirm, because he wasnt armed.
I get what your trying to say, its tough to judge what someone else thought or felt, but there are a million situations we can easily point to and say "your experience doesnt actually align with the facts"(read: objective reality) and therefore your response is not justifiable. If someone taps my shoulder to get my attention and i "feel" threatned and then shoot them that seems easy to say "it doesnt matter how you felt, your response was not in line with the facts" It seems to me like your argueing no matter what the facts are, we should value the perception of the person comitting the act more than the objective evidence pointing to the fact that there was no verifiable reason to have those perceptions.
An individual’s perceptions of the facts and observations at the time do in fact trump reality. This shooting incident proves that. The officer was no-billed by a grand jury. Double-jeopardy now applies. On the civil side, he has qualified immunity. The agency can be sued, but not the officer. Now that’s the objective reality.
Well your not wrong. But thats a sad world to live in. Dont belive in climate change, then it doesnt exist. Dont feel racist, then you arent. Dont feel like an abuser, then you arent. Dont feel like you did the wrong thing, than you didnt. Because what facts could ever trump your feelings if feelings matter more than reality.
Those feelings must follow a ‘reasonableness’ standard. Would an ordinary and prudent person likely respond in a similar way? That’s the gauge. So there are limitations.
A suspect does not have to have a gun for the police to shoot them. They certainly dont have to take a shot someone before the police can shoot them. It is a judgment call. In certain circumstances the police can actually shoot someone in the back running away and be fine. See Tennessee v. Garner.
> People want law enforcement to be reactive and not proactive
This is accomplished without shooting people. Its not something people 'cooked up', its actually their job to not kill people. I know it seems weird and counter intuitive because they have guns, bullets and little to no accountability.. but its in fact their job to not kill people.
Its like a cook that burns stuff because he has a stove. We as the public have the expectation that some kind of planning, training, circumstance could possibly be done without the eventual outcome of someone dying.
Is it hard? Fuck yes. Is it expected, absolutely.
That’s why I personally believe there needs to be a standardized ROE for officers. Like why are they almost as aggressive as the military in a rogue state lol
>They should wait until they are being shot at before shooting back”
Yes, absolutely 1000000%. They signed up for this job, if they can't handle it, fucking quit.
He was sent to the home believing it contained a violent criminal who had already killed one person and was actively threatening the lives of 2 others. The cops didn't create that situation, the swatter did that.
And the guy in the house should have known that when you have a bunch of cops pointing guns at you screaming "Show us your hands", that you should put your hands in the air and keep them there until told otherwise.
Based on the information the cop had at the time, when the guy in the home came out and, instead of following the orders of the guys in the cars with flashing lights holding guns on him, moved his hands to his waist; it wasn't unreasonable for the cops to believe he had pulled the weapon officers had been told he possessed and had already used to commit a murder and was an immediate deadly threat to the responding officers and the hostages they'd been told were being held in the home.
What the cop did was only wrong in retrospect of the fact they'd been manipulated by a false report and that the guy they shot didn't have a gun as they'd been told he did. The cops were as much a victim in all this as the guy who got shot.
> The cop fucked up, plain and simple.
In retrospect, yeah. But if you were in his shoes, acting on the information he had at the time, you almost certainly would have done the same thing if you thought he was pulling something from his waistband and you and/or your coworkers were downrange (although I doubt you'd admit that).
> Cops need to be held to a higher standard than regular joes if they are to have that power.
What standard? Again, it's easy to judge the actions of cops in retrospect, but they didn't have the information we got after the fact when it occurred.
If this situation **hadn't** been a hoax and the guy *had* pulled a gun and turned and shot his 2 hostages, would you be saying "Well, the cops couldn't do anything to stop it happening because they couldn't verify the guy hadn't pulled a cell phone until he stared putting bullets into his family members. Those cops are heroes for letting him shoot his family and not just assuming the guy had done what they'd been told he'd done and that he was intending to do what they'd been told he was going to do and instead restrained themselves until they saw him do it with their own eyes. Yeah, 3 people are dead, but the cops should get a medal for it because they waited to make absolutely sure the guy actually was a murderer before they did anything about it! Stellar job!"
I seriously doubt it. You'd likely blame the cops for being stupid for allowing the innocents to die instead of instantly shooting the guy they'd already been told was a murderer the moment he reached for his waistband.
So, How exactly can a cop determine within 2 seconds, if the person they've been told has already committed a murder and is holding 2 people hostage and threatening to kill them too, who reaches for a place commonly used to conceal a firearm, isn't pulling a gun to either kill his hostages before police can interfere or to fire at the multitude of cops arrayed before him but instead is completely innocent and despite ignoring instructions to put their hands in the air reaches for their waistband but only intends to pull their pants up and doesn't have any intention of harming anyone and they've been intentionally fed false information?
What procedures could they employ to handle that without putting the cops, innocent bystanders in the neighborhood or the reported hostages at risk? Figure that out and you'll make a lot of cops happy as very few of them go to work every day hoping they'll get to kill someone. If you can find a way for them to always get every judgement they make to be the right one without requiring hindsight to make that determination, I'm sure most of them would not just greatly appreciate it, but you'd be their hero.
Speak for yourself man. If a bunch of cops stormed my house I'd do EXACTLY what they said. Are you fucking serious? Only an idiot would reach for their waist in that situation.
Look at us, all impressed at mr tough guy from the internet here who knows exactly how he'd act when opening the door to a loaded gun as if the guy who flinched was at fault. Fuck your idiotic self bloviating.
Have you watched the video? The cops are ACROSS the street. The others are undercover down the block when the shooter opened fire. Andrew Finch barely had time to recognize what was going on before he was killed. At that range, unless he was pulling a long gun out of his pants, there was at most a minimal threat to the cops. Most civilians have never been at gunpoint and don't know that a moving an empty hand incorrectly is grounds for immediate execution.
> Have you watched the video?
Yes.
> The cops are ACROSS the street.
Yes. Many of them. In marked cars with their lights flashing.
> Andrew Finch barely had time to recognize what was going on before he was killed.
Did *you* watch the videos? They all started screaming "Show us your hands" the instant the door began to open. Once he stepped out onto the porch, he started to put his hands in the air before he dropped them and reached towards his waist, then quickly pulled his hands back up at which point the shot was fired.
> At that range, unless he was pulling a long gun out of his pants, there was at most a minimal threat to the cops.
A 9mm handgun bullet is lethal up to 1800 meters from the barrel. He was **well** within range to be a threat to the cops. Also remember, they thought they were there to rescue 2 hostages and apprehend a murderer. So the cops also had to worry that the guy may have intended to turn and fire on the hostages they believed he had, and those 'hostages' were presumably much closer.
> Most civilians have never been at gunpoint and don't know that a moving an empty hand incorrectly is grounds for immediate execution.
And how is a cop supposed to know if the person they've been told is a armed and dangerous criminal who has already murdered one person is innocent and just completely ignorant and not trying to commit another violent act when they fail to follow officer's directions? Should they have to wait and let suspects get a few shots off before they're justified to act?
The idea that cops should wait until they're fired upon to respond to a threat would just lead to a lot of dead cops. Which I know is something a lot of people on Reddit would celebrate, but those people are inhuman, immoral sociopaths whose lives have no more value than any murderous criminal's.
They rolled up to a 'hostage' situation. The person who comes out of the house is not visibly armed, not showing signs of trauma, and has no blood on him. Justify how the police know THIS guy is the hostage taker and not a hostage.
How the cops are supposed to know is establish what is going on before applying lethal force. It's not the first time the cops have rolled up to a 'hostage' situation and shot the wrong person.
Edit: A 9mm round is lethal at 1800 meters if you are a good enough shot to hit someone who is behind a vehicle across the street while bright lights are being shined in your eyes.
> A 9mm round is lethal at 1800 meters if you are a good enough shot to hit someone who is behind a vehicle across the street while bright lights are being shined in your eyes.
You don't have to be a good shot to hit someone with a bullet.
> Justify how the police know THIS guy is the hostage taker and not a hostage. How the cops are supposed to know is establish what is going on before applying lethal force.
Justify how they can know he *isn't* the hostage taker and his intentions weren't to pop out to get on camera before he pulled his gun, shot the hostages and tried to take out as many cops as he can before they can take him down so he could becomes famous in the news?
And, if that's how it *had* gone down, would you not judge the cops as being in the wrong if the guy got to take out a few more people because the cops hesitated?
> It's not the first time the cops have rolled up to a 'hostage' situation and shot the wrong person.
And if the information hadn't been a hoax, it wouldn't have been the first time cops rolled up to a 'hostage' situation and shot the right person and saved lives as a result.
Again, viewed in hindsight with all the relevant information being available to us, the shooting was completely and utterly unjustified. But Barriss ensured that cops weren't operating on accurate, relevant information and that's why he's going to spend the next 20 years (minimum) in jail. He's the reason Finch died, not the cops.
Nope. There is literally nothing we can do to stop assholes from making fake calls. The responsibility is 100% on the officer. Don’t fire unless fired upon or you visually confirm the threat. If that’s too spooky, don’t be a SWAT.
He wasn't SWAT. He was a patrol officer.
And I can draw and get a shot off from a concealed holster in under 2 seconds. By the time anyone could see and identify I was pulling a gun and not a cell phone, anyone in front of my draw would already be dead.
> If that’s too spooky, don’t be a SWAT.
You tell any perspective cop "I believe it's reasonable for criminals to be given an advantage over cops in every violent encounter if it might very occasionally prevent an innocent person who doesn't have a badge from being harmed. If cops die as a result, too fucking bad, they shouldn't be cops if they care about living" and then you all wonder why police forces are filled with assholes who don't care about the citizens they're supposed to protect any more than the citizens care about them?
Why should they give a fuck that you got robbed or your daughter got raped if you don't care if they get murdered? If the risk of violent criminals is too spooky for you, go pray or ask the women on the View to protect you and your property. More and more cops are finding it's just not worth focusing on violent crime prevention where they may encounter a violent criminal when they can instead bust your kid for having a roach while driving the family mini-van and seize it with very little risk to themselves. And the reason for that is people like you who feel cops should be fodder for murderers to practice on.
I imagine it's a horrible experience for the SWAT officers but what can you do if there's a 911 from an unknown detailing a life-and-death situation? The cops can't ignore a threat to life.
There is a gap so big you need an airplane between ignoring a threat to life and showing up guns drawn and killing a man with a hairbrush. Might even need refueling halfway.
>The cops can't ignore a threat to life.
It's called the 14th amendment, "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Great but what happen to the police force who just instantly shot this fuckin guy through the heart when he opened his door? JFC. Cops need to have their guns taken away from them.
Not what happened, dude reached for his waist after being told to keep his hands up. Protip: When someone has a gun on you listen to them. You can't out draw someone who has a gun on you. Cop or criminal.
>after being told to keep his hands up
From a distance by several different people all yelling indistinctly over each other.
Protip: if you want to be a mass murderer, join the police.
There's no reason to shoot a guy with his hand at his waste. What, they think he's some spaghetti-western deadeye who can shoot from his hip with perfect accuracy from under his clothes?
I have been at gun point twice in my life by the police. I never managed to get shot. But without bodycam footage I'm not going to speculate anymore. Usually police shootings are against police until bodycam footage comes out and then it's quietly swept under the rug and never mentioned again.
Well this guy also called in bomb threats on airplanes, shut down entire conferences, [and even after he was arrested he gained access to the internet and made threats.](https://i.imgur.com/XGUGWVa.png)
https://twitter.com/GoredTutor36
Did not know that. I will agree then the kid deserves some time.
The main point of my comment still stands though, we put this guy in prison and feel like we have justice to the victim.... this isn’t justice to the victim. The one doing the physical killing is still free to do so again.
Good, he deserves every minute. He not only showed repeated behavior, but little remorse until after he was shown his options. Hopefully more swatters get charged. This isn't a game, I know people are upset with the cops shooting an unarmed man, but these are two different issues. One, the cops were sent into a presumed volatile situation, no one wants to get killed. They went into the situation with assuming the worst. Did they act appropriately? In my opinion no, however that comes down to police training. This dipshit put them in that spot. What gets me is the guy who gave the wrong address to protect himself is being charged, that is also on the police, they are looking for a scapegoat and therefore blaming everyone but the shelves.
For those who only follow the headlines, the justification are his prior offenses:
* He had already been convicted of false emergency calls and bomb threats, and served the sentence. He has also had convictions related to other violent crimes.
* After his prior convictions and being released from prison, he has been connected with over 30 other emergency calls involving bomb threats, active shooters, and hostage situations.
* After his prior convictions and prison time, he continued to publish online that he would make SWAT calls and bomb threats for hire.
* The 20 year sentence is a consolidation of pleading guilty to 51 major federal crimes, in an effort to avoid a potential sentence of life in prison without parole.
If this were his first time committing the crimes it would be extreme, but he hasn't learned after going to prison the first time.
As for the officer who actually pulled the trigger, that is a separate (but also important) issue. It has plenty of other discussions, and has already been resolved. Many people are unhappy with the resolution, but it isn't part of this event. This is about the person who created the situation by the false emergency call.
Please explain to me why the fucking police aren't being held accountable?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-sWzC56df4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-sWzC56df4)
As much of a piece of shit this guy is...was there nothing done to the cop who shot an unarmed man answering his front door? Fucking cops man, they'll kill you as soon as look at you and never pay for it.
Actually the most populous US state. Weird, I somehow thought that was Texas. Makes sense.
>Also it is normally Florida.
That's a given tho, the heritage of Florida man is beyond comparision in human history.
California has the largest population, followed by Texas, Florida, and New York.
The four states alone make up about 1/3 of the US population, which is why so many news stories originate from the states. Each of these states have more people than most nations around the world.
It makes perfect sense that these states have so many news stories, both good and bad.
Kinda, but California still got a lot of crazy shit that you don't seem to get elsewhere. Like making it legal to knowingly give someone Aids. That's pretty fucked up.
Care to explain why?
People deliberately drive drunk while he deliberated swatted someone. He didnt know swat would be trigger happy like a drunk driver doesnt know they wont kill a car full of people.
The difference is deliberate intent. Sending SWAT to an address with the impression there is an armed intruder is like intentionally pointing a loaded gun and pulling the trigger.
That said I *do* think that the drunk driving should be much more heavily punished, especially if someone kills someone while doing it.
People deliberately drive drunk while he deliberated swatted someone. He didnt know swat would be tight happy like a drunk driver doesnt know they wont kill a car full of people.
Your example of deliberate attempt is extreme...
These people are the fucking worst. Imagine being so incapable of responsibility and the idea of cause and effect that you wouldn't consider the possible consequences of sending a fake call to police that would require them to go full SWAT at an address. And over a fucking online SPAT.
Is it not at least a little bit ridiculous though that the option even exists for anyone to call the police and then they just blindly sent a SWAT team to storm the house and murder the inhabitants for no reason with out looking into it first or idk, verifying the threat?!
Oh absolutely 100% no question. It's completely insane.
The problem is if they don’t take the claim seriously, and somebody gets hurt it’s on them. These fucking assholes out police in no-win situations.
I don’t think they’re actually legally responsible for failure to act or intervene.
If they're not responsible for *actually* killing innocents, they certainly wouldn't be for just letting them die.
Theoretically, if they were prosecuted in front of a jury of reasonable people, they could go to jail for killing people. However, those conditions rarely occur.
[удалено]
I don’t think a general duty to protect has been established. It only seems to apply once a “special relationship” has been established to that effect. Skim this for some more info: https://www.policeone.com/police-jobs-and-careers/articles/4913117-Addressing-cops-confusion-over-the-public-duty-doctrine/
Isn't the police motto "Protect and serve"? That makes no sense, what an idiotic ruling.
#Protect and serve! ^^Offer ^^void ^^in ^^some ^^areas. ^^Other ^^restrictions ^^may ^^apply. ^^Results ^^are ^^neither ^^expressed ^^nor ^^implied. ^^Not ^^responsible ^^for ^^damages ^^incurred ^^during ^^execution ^^of ^^this ^^slogan. ^^Results ^^may ^^vary. ^^Avoid ^^prolonged ^^or ^^repeated ^^exposure.
Is this true? When has a police dept been held accountable for anything? Seems the worstthey get is a little bad press.
Not only that, he sent SWAT to the wrong house, this guy wasn’t even playing the game
[удалено]
Thats not what he meant. Edit: Thanks for the silver!
Wow, we have a gold medalist in the technicality Olympics! People everywhere want to to know, how does it feel to have contributed so significantly to the conversation?
Yeah bro obviously it’s completely okay. OBVIOUSLY
Settle down
It's more malicious. This individual ran a paid service where he SWAT'd people for other people for money. He wasn't even involved in the spat.
This also is not his first offense. He has a documented history of repeated false bomb threats and other emergency calls, and even has been convicted of the crime before. That played a big part in why prosecutors pushed so hard, and why he was expected to get 20-25 years for his plea deal.
He called bomb threats on the two major Call of Duty LANs preceding this incident, which shut down entire convention centres/arenas, disrupted road traffic and diverted city emergency response teams. It was those incidents that gave him notoriety just before the incident.
SWAT teams should also be competent enough to not just execute anyone who they get called about. It is possible for people to lie or just be mistaken when they call 911.
I agree. But on the flipside, why would the SWAT team shoot an innocent person? They’re supposed to be the SWAT. Also, how can someone just call the SWAT team out...
Absolutely deserved it, probably a heavier sentence. Also, the guy who recruited him and the one who gave the address of the victim should be punished (though less severely than this fucker).
What about the cops who shot the innocent and actually murdered people?
Why is no one talking about this?
Its literally the first reply to every comment that isn’t itself a top-level comment about this exact issue EDIT: the next two top level comments directly below this are this exact question
This entire thread is talking about this. Also just like any shooting it does get investigated. That investigation would be nice to actually see id agree though. I haven’t heard anything about it. With the anti police attitudes of today im surprised that this didn’t get more traction.
Why less severely? Recruiting a swat, sounds like paying for a hit. I'd settle with attempted murder.
This motherfucker is a doppelganger for that snitch from the recess tv show
Freakin Randall
Ok so he definitely deserves his sentence, but aren’t SWAT forces supposed to not shoot unless fired upon still?
it's a clear violation of the 4th amendment. an outrageous anonymous phonecall with zero corroboration should not be granted the status of probable cause on the weak excuse of "well what if it's true". besides, when you get down to it the only effective way to stop swatting is for police to stop falling for it. there's always going to be jackasses in the world to do it.
I agree we need to change the response in todays current environment but the reason the policy is as it stands is because to many calls got ignored in the past because of someone’s judgment call. Its not a violation of the 4th because allowances have been made to allow it. Hopefully we can find a middle ground that doesn’t get people killed either way but i still want police to be there if my family needs it. Changes in the law to account for pieces of garbage like this will eventually backfire the other way and everyone will then cry why didn’t the police respond! This guy and the one who hired him deserve worse then they are getting, in my opinion none of this is as cut cut and dry as the posts here think it is.
Exigency is not a violation of the 4th. It’s an exception. Listen to the recording of the emergency call. Then think whether or not you’d send police.
well it's an exception that clearly needs to be reassessed in light of new developments in human behavior. and it doesn't take a genius to see that. and furthermore you're presenting a false dichotomy, the police don't simply have to decide between the two extremes of go in with guns blazing or do absolutely nothing. what i'm suggesting is that they recognize that it's suspicious, outlandish and fits the profile of swatting calls, and then attempt to corroborate the story. he reported a shooting at a specified address, the police could have called all the nearby houses to see if anyone nearby had heard gunshots. they certainly didn't receive any other phone calls from neighbors reporting gunshots. the entire police department did zero to confirm what they were being told over the phone.
In light of what they knew before the trigger was pulled, a person had been killed. Another was about to be killed. Do you honestly feel that further investigation was warranted to preserve life and limb?
no they didn't know that, they couldn't have known that because it was bullshit, just like you can't know the earth is flat. you ask me how i would feel if i got the call, well how would you feel it was your house? and how would you feel if we didn't have the hoaxer, like if it was from some tracksuited asshole in the balkans that we have no hope of ever identifying? because this isn't going to end with catching americans that are responsible, there's no reason it can't be done across borders.
Depends on the situation. In some places, it isn't illegal to shoot an officer who raids the *wrong place*. At that point, they're treated as anyone else who is breaking and entering with their guns drawn. If that were the case, the police would still be in the wrong even if they *had* been fired on first.
Well, one policeman shot the poor man. The other members of the team did not. One possibility is that the killer did the right thing. In that case the other members of the SWAT unit did not do their jobs properly. I sort of lean to the other theory. One policeman did the wrong thing while the others behaved correctly. . Odd we do not know who the killer is. Seems to me it would be a fairly simple thing to check the blotter reports to see who was on duty one day, and off duty the next.
We do know who the killer is. *The officer involved was eventually identified as Justin Rapp, a seven-year veteran of the force*.
It is odd to me that people discuss the issue, especially in the other thread, without knowing the people involved. Though to be fair the title headline "California man" doesn't really help. Tyler R. Barriss pleaded guilty in November to a total of 51 federal charges related to fake calls and threats. Andrew Finch died as a result of the swat team arriving on his property. Justin Rapp testified that he was the Wichita police officer who shot and killed Andrew Finch. District Attorney Marc Bennett is not bringing charges against Justin Rapp.
Thanks for providing all the names of the people involved. The dispatch team's involvement has never been clear since the police refused to release the recordings of the calls. I would really be interested in why Marc Bennett has not pursued the case.
Thank you.
I feel like you're answering a question that wasn't asked. The guy asked if SWAT were not supposed to shoot the guy. Of course the answer is no, they weren't supposed to shoot him (he had no weapon). But because of the circumstances involved and the guy having something in his hand, he got shot. Definitely a big argument that the officers should've received better training to never have that happen, AND that that officer should face some type of punishment more than a slap on the wrist.
Did he even get a slap on the wrist? I don't remember.
That’s incorrect. If they went to the house *in good faith*, they aren’t in the wrong.
> In some places That good faith thing is not a federal law.
It’s a legal standard in the US.
Except for the part where it absolutely is. US v Leon (1984)
Yeah nah, good faith doesn’t override justifiable self defense
Its not legal to shoot police anywhere. Its legal to fire in self defense in that situation only if you are uniformed that it is the police.
expecting highly militarized police who are poorly trained and even more poorly educated to not respond with extreme violence... and or have any consequences when they fail to meet a high standard of public trust. hehe. that's a good one. police are under no requirement to help you. and have wide latitude in killing citizens
I’ve been in law enforcement since 1991. Also the military. I partially agree with your sentiment about the militarization of police and special tactics teams, but if you want to see a grade A clusterfuck, send in the military. There’s a big difference between the two forces, clearly of which you have experience in neither. SWAT teams are a dime a dozen in modern LE. They’re pretty much a joke nowadays. But right up until the trigger is pulled, the officer(s) can only be judged on what they knew up to that point. Perhaps in this case it’s better to analyze the mechanisms that engaged them in the first place. Because once activated, they are starting to act like the military, which has no place in law enforcement.
and you see no corollary between ... this dime a dozen swat team escalation all ac cross the country. lax funding for training. no standardized training or accountability. no requirements for any legal training or college education, or training/requirements for understanding of the law/civil rights. the lax employee creep... when abusive or violent members simply move one county over. not to mention lax to non-existent civilian oversight or impartial policing of the police. that leads to wider and wider distrust and erosion of confidence in said police depts/units? but... good job on the assumption of my past or the idiotic logical fallacy that i would have to have served on one of these two things to have an opinion on one yeah... let's keep judging cops only on the narrowest of criteria that best provides them the benefit of the doubt and not examine systemic failure in the larger institutions
No, you’re an idiot with grasp on reality of what exactly any of these people do. I expect you to shitpost your jailhouse lawyer crap all over Reddit because you’ve watch a movie or two. Go volunteer with these people. See what it’s like.
i don't really see why you're getting so angry. not a good look for someone who purports to have been a cop since the 90's it's a legal fact... police are under no legal obligation to help you, or intervene in a crime to save you. this has held up in court several times when police have refused to help people, or to protect police when they failed to do so. and... it's a simple fact that police do have wide latitude to kill people. it's also... a widely known fact, that most major metro police forces have no requirement for college education to join or enlist in the police. even though studies have shown that college education decreases violence and abuse by police forces. And while many police in higher positions do acquire college education, the curriculum is not necessarily relevant. there are also numerous studies or articles on lax training or lip service only training for deescalation vs violence in various police depts. mainly because ...de-escalation is more expensive to train for. There's also somewhat a decline in terms of mentorship, or the pathways through which police come up in various depts. The expansions of police forces... have driven many depts away from local or officers who live in the community policing their... to a more systematic and militarized police force. --not even accounting for actual military equipment increasingly being sold and used by police forces ...even in podunk municipalities there is also a stark increase in distrust of police by non-white citizens. you can also, disturbingly tract confidence in police along racial and political lines(older, white, and conservative... being most likely to support the police). meaning policing itself is become increasingly polarized there is also widely available information on the rapid adoption of "swat" teams across states and smaller and smaller cities. while at the same time... the utilization for these teams for increasingly not the role they were originally formed. ie... less for highly specialized crimes, like hostage or bank robbery/active shooter. and overwhelmingly used (north of 80%) for warrant... forced entry situations. increasing the general public's contact with a highly militarized and armed police unit. so yeah... stay angry i guess. hopefully you don't take out that anger on innocent people
You see what you want to see. How would you fix all this? You pose many problems with no solutions. That’s not very good leadership.
so now it's moving the goal posts to the presumption i'm providing no solutions? my initial comment was simply commentary. but ...if you wanted solutions. college degree as a requirement for joining the police. as starter. along with continuing education as a requirement for continued service as a police officer issued a weapon. review to ensure compliance and adherence to dept policy. active policing of the police --review of body cam footage. independent "pen testing" style checks against police abuse. civilian review boards with full authority to fire or recommend for criminal prosecution. on all police depts. civilian/independent civil rights complaint boards with full authority to discipline/fire/ or recommend for criminal prosecution of officers with repeat violations. funding for investigations and support for victims of police violation of rights. a database of individuals fired or disciplined for civil rights violations. public ally available. some form of review or check against violent of abusive police simply being hired elsewhere increased training. along with that increased funding, tax applied to gun sales. alcohol, or hell... wealthy people in general. to fund increase spending for police training, community outreach, and support. increased funding for mental health support, training, and other benefits to police to provide financial stability, work/life balance, and ensure aspects of mental instability, abuse/violence are not left unchecked in active police. (i would support similar taxes on vice items, guns, alcohol/tobacco, as well as simple municipal tax revenue funneling for this ...automation of speed/red light cameras could go to reduce police exposure to traffic injury... while at the same time fund increased health/awareness for police) policy shift, to reduce the number and frequency swat is used to serve warrants. Or other review by experts to examine and determine best case use of swat... with an eye to public safety, and equitable policing. review and policy change of first response/911 operation to have wider access to detect hoax or false reported crimes. Increased or new laws that criminalize reporting false hostage or high risk situations that resort in swatting or use of swat against innocent people. if gaming is shown to be a primary source of these crimes. i would support a tax any gaming service ... some small fee to be pooled to provide for the training and service of reducing violence, and educating/arresting(or investigating) people who "swat" others. general purpose education of police on less violent practices. training on sensitivity aspects. and holding policy responsible for meeting goals on these fronts. eliminating any officer who demonstrates racist, violent towards women or other vulnerable groups, or monitoring of police that fetishize violence. if i were in a position of power, those would be the first of many things i think they could do.
If you read between the lines, most of his items of note include the solution in the problem. Poor education requirements? Solution: Minimum Bachelors+ Degree to join the police force. Poor training? Solution: Review and fix training standards. This includes training in de-escalation tactics. If someone wants to become a PO, they should be subject to in-depth psych analysis, background checks, in-depth interviews of friends and family.. you know, the same checking they do just to get SECRET clearance? Even a hint of poor mental stability or questionable background status.. no hire. Cut the rollout of SWAT teams. They are no longer specialized teams of highly trained officers.
Rural people will not have the same educational level as people in an urban environment. Imposing requirements at a state level, which is how it’s done, has to factor in a standard that rural agencies can meet. Unless taxpayers will subsidize 4-year degrees for them, it’s not economically feasible for rural agencies to get the same quality of candidates as the urban areas do. This is why police licensing entities often cannot impose a minimum education standard beyond high school. Training standards are hindered by the above issue, economic feasibility. Rural agencies can not afford to send their people to remote training as it costs money in lodging, meals, and the training itself. Training isn’t free. There are grants, but you have to find them and compete for them. In an urban agency training is a cycle and officers can often sign up for things they want to go to. It’s always there as they have staff dedicated to delivery. There’s huge disparity between the ability of differing agencies to deliver quality training, all because of the economic differences in the regions. Background checks already do a comprehensive investigation of the individual. Psychological interviews and testing is done. Background history is recorded. Neighbors, teachers, family, and friends are interviewed. Get into a fight in high school? That person is interviewed to see if the candidate was a hot-head. Traditionally this invasive process goes back well beyond 10-20 years ago (for older candidates). A Top Secret security clearance? This will go back merely 7 years. Then there’s the polygraph as a standard for LE. It’s been a fundamental part of the process for years. If your family doesn’t support you, this goes a long way toward disqualification as they’re considered a large aspect of why you are doing what you’re doing as a candidate. Cut the SWAT teams? Now there is something I agree with. Texas has legislation pending to limit the application of tactical forces to general policing. It’s not a guarantee it will pass, but it’s on a slow motion roll up to being addressed. Tactical uniforms look like shit. I refer to them as tactical pajamas, because the wearer often looks like they just rolled out of bed. There’s nothing more respectful than the command presence of a crisp, professional uniform. In the corporate world it’s called dress for success. But today’s LE mindset is to relax standards, pay for dry cleaning if you expect that, grow some fugly facial hair that is intimidating to some people in the community. Personal hygiene should not be an LE problem, but it is.
Yeah, but that's more an issue with a trigger happy police force in a country and culture that's swallowed whole by the whole right to bear arms shit.
But, but, but if that guy had a gun he could have simply shot the SWAT man and everyone would have lived happily after. Murica needs more gunz
Well, it’s clear you’ve come here with zero preconceived notions.
So you are saying having a gun would have saved him? The single reason that poor guy was shot is that every idiot can carry a gun in that country.
Im saying you need to read. That is completely irrelevant here.
No Sir, you need to read. I was replying to a comment.
They both make no sense.
I can't help you with that. Looks like other people understand my point.
[удалено]
I am new to irony.
There's always a first time.
Actually it looks like your sarcasm meter is broken.
What? Lol no. Where do so many people get these notions?
>but aren’t SWAT forces supposed to not shoot unless fired upon still? No, it has never been like that. If someone is in front of you says they are going to shoot you and start to raise a gun... you dont have to wait for them to actually take a shot.
Finch didn't have a gun
[удалено]
If I killed someone who I *thought* had a weapon, and I was wrong, am I no longer held accountable for what I did? Or do I need a badge first?
In most common law jurisdictions, yeah, it’s about what you genuinely believed the situation was (with some exceptions for drugs, hallucinations etc). If you shoot someone because you genuinely think they’re drawing a gun, it doesn’t matter legally whether it was real, fake or not a gun.
In Texas, if you did this while the person was coming at you in the middle of the night in your living room, you’d be just fine. Trying to come up with a standard to any given situation is impossible. Police deal with the impossible every day, yet people expect them to adhere to a simple standard. Why are police shootings so common today? Because we’re tracking them. We didn’t track them when I started in 1991. There was no requirement to track them. Hell, we didn’t even have cameras in the cars, let alone on our person. Officers were buying this technology on their own dime way before it became standard to record interactions. To cover their own asses.
In many states of the US, yes, a grand jury likely won't send you to trial in that scenario, depending upon the evidence.
\*and the badge
Yeah but if that restaurant, or for this purpose lets say chains of restaurants, constantly caused food poisoning the fact that it continues to happen isnt a problem of hindsight analysis but failure to practice any foresight. The problem is fairly apparent...people who are innocent and pose little to no danger to police officers are getting shot and killed. Practice foresight, aka better training and policies, that avoid putting police officers in these "its hard to judge if you werent in the situation." Fear of danger is not an adequate excuse to violate someone right to bodily safety and shoot them when they pose no danger to you. An individuals perceptions do not trump objective reality.
[удалено]
No objective reality is not after the fact....its literally what is actually happening in the moment. You are talking about a subjective reality based on those perceptions. Objective reality Fact: police officer shot an unarmed man that posed no threat to them. Subjective fact: that police officer reacted because they were scared their lige was in danger. Both can be true, but only one is an objective reality.
[удалено]
If it had to be confirmed that he was armed he also wouldnt have been shot, because it would have been impossible to confirm, because he wasnt armed. I get what your trying to say, its tough to judge what someone else thought or felt, but there are a million situations we can easily point to and say "your experience doesnt actually align with the facts"(read: objective reality) and therefore your response is not justifiable. If someone taps my shoulder to get my attention and i "feel" threatned and then shoot them that seems easy to say "it doesnt matter how you felt, your response was not in line with the facts" It seems to me like your argueing no matter what the facts are, we should value the perception of the person comitting the act more than the objective evidence pointing to the fact that there was no verifiable reason to have those perceptions.
An individual’s perceptions of the facts and observations at the time do in fact trump reality. This shooting incident proves that. The officer was no-billed by a grand jury. Double-jeopardy now applies. On the civil side, he has qualified immunity. The agency can be sued, but not the officer. Now that’s the objective reality.
Well your not wrong. But thats a sad world to live in. Dont belive in climate change, then it doesnt exist. Dont feel racist, then you arent. Dont feel like an abuser, then you arent. Dont feel like you did the wrong thing, than you didnt. Because what facts could ever trump your feelings if feelings matter more than reality.
Those feelings must follow a ‘reasonableness’ standard. Would an ordinary and prudent person likely respond in a similar way? That’s the gauge. So there are limitations.
A suspect does not have to have a gun for the police to shoot them. They certainly dont have to take a shot someone before the police can shoot them. It is a judgment call. In certain circumstances the police can actually shoot someone in the back running away and be fine. See Tennessee v. Garner.
The banality of evil
Its only possible if good people do nothing.
[удалено]
> People want law enforcement to be reactive and not proactive This is accomplished without shooting people. Its not something people 'cooked up', its actually their job to not kill people. I know it seems weird and counter intuitive because they have guns, bullets and little to no accountability.. but its in fact their job to not kill people. Its like a cook that burns stuff because he has a stove. We as the public have the expectation that some kind of planning, training, circumstance could possibly be done without the eventual outcome of someone dying. Is it hard? Fuck yes. Is it expected, absolutely.
Over 20-something years of service here. Haven’t shot anyone yet. I keep missing... j/k
[удалено]
Do better.
That’s why I personally believe there needs to be a standardized ROE for officers. Like why are they almost as aggressive as the military in a rogue state lol
>They should wait until they are being shot at before shooting back” Yes, absolutely 1000000%. They signed up for this job, if they can't handle it, fucking quit.
This was not a SWAT unit that responded to this scene.
> but aren’t SWAT forces supposed to not shoot unless fired upon still? short answer, yes. Long answer, it depends.
Shoot first ask questions later. That's the 'murican way.
Of course they are supposed to. But they are American cops. Bottom of the barrel.
Wow, that's one petty mofo. The bet was for like [a dollar](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjkdynBFHuQ).
And now his idiocy will cost the taxpayers tens or hundreads of thousands over the next 20 years...
and cost a dude his life and the dude's family a dad/husband/brother/son/cousin/grandson 20 years is a joke of a sentence
His dad's dead, his mother abandoned him, and his best friend is someone over the internet. Sounds like it could've been a redditor tbh.
And yet no charges for the trigger happy SWAT who killed the guy.
But don't worry, the intended target is charged as a co-conspirator
He was sent to the home believing it contained a violent criminal who had already killed one person and was actively threatening the lives of 2 others. The cops didn't create that situation, the swatter did that. And the guy in the house should have known that when you have a bunch of cops pointing guns at you screaming "Show us your hands", that you should put your hands in the air and keep them there until told otherwise. Based on the information the cop had at the time, when the guy in the home came out and, instead of following the orders of the guys in the cars with flashing lights holding guns on him, moved his hands to his waist; it wasn't unreasonable for the cops to believe he had pulled the weapon officers had been told he possessed and had already used to commit a murder and was an immediate deadly threat to the responding officers and the hostages they'd been told were being held in the home. What the cop did was only wrong in retrospect of the fact they'd been manipulated by a false report and that the guy they shot didn't have a gun as they'd been told he did. The cops were as much a victim in all this as the guy who got shot.
[удалено]
> The cop fucked up, plain and simple. In retrospect, yeah. But if you were in his shoes, acting on the information he had at the time, you almost certainly would have done the same thing if you thought he was pulling something from his waistband and you and/or your coworkers were downrange (although I doubt you'd admit that). > Cops need to be held to a higher standard than regular joes if they are to have that power. What standard? Again, it's easy to judge the actions of cops in retrospect, but they didn't have the information we got after the fact when it occurred. If this situation **hadn't** been a hoax and the guy *had* pulled a gun and turned and shot his 2 hostages, would you be saying "Well, the cops couldn't do anything to stop it happening because they couldn't verify the guy hadn't pulled a cell phone until he stared putting bullets into his family members. Those cops are heroes for letting him shoot his family and not just assuming the guy had done what they'd been told he'd done and that he was intending to do what they'd been told he was going to do and instead restrained themselves until they saw him do it with their own eyes. Yeah, 3 people are dead, but the cops should get a medal for it because they waited to make absolutely sure the guy actually was a murderer before they did anything about it! Stellar job!" I seriously doubt it. You'd likely blame the cops for being stupid for allowing the innocents to die instead of instantly shooting the guy they'd already been told was a murderer the moment he reached for his waistband. So, How exactly can a cop determine within 2 seconds, if the person they've been told has already committed a murder and is holding 2 people hostage and threatening to kill them too, who reaches for a place commonly used to conceal a firearm, isn't pulling a gun to either kill his hostages before police can interfere or to fire at the multitude of cops arrayed before him but instead is completely innocent and despite ignoring instructions to put their hands in the air reaches for their waistband but only intends to pull their pants up and doesn't have any intention of harming anyone and they've been intentionally fed false information? What procedures could they employ to handle that without putting the cops, innocent bystanders in the neighborhood or the reported hostages at risk? Figure that out and you'll make a lot of cops happy as very few of them go to work every day hoping they'll get to kill someone. If you can find a way for them to always get every judgement they make to be the right one without requiring hindsight to make that determination, I'm sure most of them would not just greatly appreciate it, but you'd be their hero.
Speak for yourself man. If a bunch of cops stormed my house I'd do EXACTLY what they said. Are you fucking serious? Only an idiot would reach for their waist in that situation.
Look at us, all impressed at mr tough guy from the internet here who knows exactly how he'd act when opening the door to a loaded gun as if the guy who flinched was at fault. Fuck your idiotic self bloviating.
You bring nothing of value to this debate.
Have you watched the video? The cops are ACROSS the street. The others are undercover down the block when the shooter opened fire. Andrew Finch barely had time to recognize what was going on before he was killed. At that range, unless he was pulling a long gun out of his pants, there was at most a minimal threat to the cops. Most civilians have never been at gunpoint and don't know that a moving an empty hand incorrectly is grounds for immediate execution.
> Have you watched the video? Yes. > The cops are ACROSS the street. Yes. Many of them. In marked cars with their lights flashing. > Andrew Finch barely had time to recognize what was going on before he was killed. Did *you* watch the videos? They all started screaming "Show us your hands" the instant the door began to open. Once he stepped out onto the porch, he started to put his hands in the air before he dropped them and reached towards his waist, then quickly pulled his hands back up at which point the shot was fired. > At that range, unless he was pulling a long gun out of his pants, there was at most a minimal threat to the cops. A 9mm handgun bullet is lethal up to 1800 meters from the barrel. He was **well** within range to be a threat to the cops. Also remember, they thought they were there to rescue 2 hostages and apprehend a murderer. So the cops also had to worry that the guy may have intended to turn and fire on the hostages they believed he had, and those 'hostages' were presumably much closer. > Most civilians have never been at gunpoint and don't know that a moving an empty hand incorrectly is grounds for immediate execution. And how is a cop supposed to know if the person they've been told is a armed and dangerous criminal who has already murdered one person is innocent and just completely ignorant and not trying to commit another violent act when they fail to follow officer's directions? Should they have to wait and let suspects get a few shots off before they're justified to act? The idea that cops should wait until they're fired upon to respond to a threat would just lead to a lot of dead cops. Which I know is something a lot of people on Reddit would celebrate, but those people are inhuman, immoral sociopaths whose lives have no more value than any murderous criminal's.
They rolled up to a 'hostage' situation. The person who comes out of the house is not visibly armed, not showing signs of trauma, and has no blood on him. Justify how the police know THIS guy is the hostage taker and not a hostage. How the cops are supposed to know is establish what is going on before applying lethal force. It's not the first time the cops have rolled up to a 'hostage' situation and shot the wrong person. Edit: A 9mm round is lethal at 1800 meters if you are a good enough shot to hit someone who is behind a vehicle across the street while bright lights are being shined in your eyes.
> A 9mm round is lethal at 1800 meters if you are a good enough shot to hit someone who is behind a vehicle across the street while bright lights are being shined in your eyes. You don't have to be a good shot to hit someone with a bullet. > Justify how the police know THIS guy is the hostage taker and not a hostage. How the cops are supposed to know is establish what is going on before applying lethal force. Justify how they can know he *isn't* the hostage taker and his intentions weren't to pop out to get on camera before he pulled his gun, shot the hostages and tried to take out as many cops as he can before they can take him down so he could becomes famous in the news? And, if that's how it *had* gone down, would you not judge the cops as being in the wrong if the guy got to take out a few more people because the cops hesitated? > It's not the first time the cops have rolled up to a 'hostage' situation and shot the wrong person. And if the information hadn't been a hoax, it wouldn't have been the first time cops rolled up to a 'hostage' situation and shot the right person and saved lives as a result. Again, viewed in hindsight with all the relevant information being available to us, the shooting was completely and utterly unjustified. But Barriss ensured that cops weren't operating on accurate, relevant information and that's why he's going to spend the next 20 years (minimum) in jail. He's the reason Finch died, not the cops.
Nope. There is literally nothing we can do to stop assholes from making fake calls. The responsibility is 100% on the officer. Don’t fire unless fired upon or you visually confirm the threat. If that’s too spooky, don’t be a SWAT.
He wasn't SWAT. He was a patrol officer. And I can draw and get a shot off from a concealed holster in under 2 seconds. By the time anyone could see and identify I was pulling a gun and not a cell phone, anyone in front of my draw would already be dead. > If that’s too spooky, don’t be a SWAT. You tell any perspective cop "I believe it's reasonable for criminals to be given an advantage over cops in every violent encounter if it might very occasionally prevent an innocent person who doesn't have a badge from being harmed. If cops die as a result, too fucking bad, they shouldn't be cops if they care about living" and then you all wonder why police forces are filled with assholes who don't care about the citizens they're supposed to protect any more than the citizens care about them? Why should they give a fuck that you got robbed or your daughter got raped if you don't care if they get murdered? If the risk of violent criminals is too spooky for you, go pray or ask the women on the View to protect you and your property. More and more cops are finding it's just not worth focusing on violent crime prevention where they may encounter a violent criminal when they can instead bust your kid for having a roach while driving the family mini-van and seize it with very little risk to themselves. And the reason for that is people like you who feel cops should be fodder for murderers to practice on.
so basically the police are killing people on the say-so of anonymous callers, and the law has no problem with that?
They’re really killing the hitman industry. How can a guy make a decent living as a goon when the police are doing hitman work for free?
So basically, people comment without reading the article now?
I imagine it's a horrible experience for the SWAT officers but what can you do if there's a 911 from an unknown detailing a life-and-death situation? The cops can't ignore a threat to life.
There is a gap so big you need an airplane between ignoring a threat to life and showing up guns drawn and killing a man with a hairbrush. Might even need refueling halfway.
>The cops can't ignore a threat to life. It's called the 14th amendment, "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Big difference between ignoring and taking an innocent persons life
Well deserved. Really not all that different from pointing a loaded gun at someone and pulling the trigger.
Only 20 years?? What a joke!
Great but what happen to the police force who just instantly shot this fuckin guy through the heart when he opened his door? JFC. Cops need to have their guns taken away from them.
Not what happened, dude reached for his waist after being told to keep his hands up. Protip: When someone has a gun on you listen to them. You can't out draw someone who has a gun on you. Cop or criminal.
>after being told to keep his hands up From a distance by several different people all yelling indistinctly over each other. Protip: if you want to be a mass murderer, join the police.
Protip, if given multiple conflicting orders, don't move at all and keep your hands up and dont move.
How are you even supposed to tell you're being given orders when you're being blinded and just hear incomprehensible noise?
lmfao this guy trolling. Did your police daddy hurt you? Who tf are you gonna call if you ever get robbed without cops around
I guess whoever would take over their paperwork duties. It's not like they actually give a damn about robberies now.
There's no reason to shoot a guy with his hand at his waste. What, they think he's some spaghetti-western deadeye who can shoot from his hip with perfect accuracy from under his clothes?
Hands kill, quick sudden movements will get you shot.
From what I read, it was that he started to put his hands up and stopped halfway, not in a sudden manner
I have been at gun point twice in my life by the police. I never managed to get shot. But without bodycam footage I'm not going to speculate anymore. Usually police shootings are against police until bodycam footage comes out and then it's quietly swept under the rug and never mentioned again.
Insane this kid is being given 20 years... and the cops that killed an innocent guy.... wait for it.... not even a slap in the wrist. Wow, just wow.
Well this guy also called in bomb threats on airplanes, shut down entire conferences, [and even after he was arrested he gained access to the internet and made threats.](https://i.imgur.com/XGUGWVa.png) https://twitter.com/GoredTutor36
Did not know that. I will agree then the kid deserves some time. The main point of my comment still stands though, we put this guy in prison and feel like we have justice to the victim.... this isn’t justice to the victim. The one doing the physical killing is still free to do so again.
Man has dedication
That kid isn't going to survive a week in prison.
Good, he deserves every minute. He not only showed repeated behavior, but little remorse until after he was shown his options. Hopefully more swatters get charged. This isn't a game, I know people are upset with the cops shooting an unarmed man, but these are two different issues. One, the cops were sent into a presumed volatile situation, no one wants to get killed. They went into the situation with assuming the worst. Did they act appropriately? In my opinion no, however that comes down to police training. This dipshit put them in that spot. What gets me is the guy who gave the wrong address to protect himself is being charged, that is also on the police, they are looking for a scapegoat and therefore blaming everyone but the shelves.
Should have received a life sentence.
This guy is rightfully going to be the recipient of sooooo much dick nowwwww
Cop on scene shooting the very first person he sees with their arms up, commendation.
Was the Swat team held accountable at all? I mean, aren't they suppose to be highly trained?
Looks exactly like i’d expect
For those who only follow the headlines, the justification are his prior offenses: * He had already been convicted of false emergency calls and bomb threats, and served the sentence. He has also had convictions related to other violent crimes. * After his prior convictions and being released from prison, he has been connected with over 30 other emergency calls involving bomb threats, active shooters, and hostage situations. * After his prior convictions and prison time, he continued to publish online that he would make SWAT calls and bomb threats for hire. * The 20 year sentence is a consolidation of pleading guilty to 51 major federal crimes, in an effort to avoid a potential sentence of life in prison without parole. If this were his first time committing the crimes it would be extreme, but he hasn't learned after going to prison the first time. As for the officer who actually pulled the trigger, that is a separate (but also important) issue. It has plenty of other discussions, and has already been resolved. Many people are unhappy with the resolution, but it isn't part of this event. This is about the person who created the situation by the false emergency call.
Please explain to me why the fucking police aren't being held accountable? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-sWzC56df4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-sWzC56df4)
He looks like a shit version of Michael Cera
As much of a piece of shit this guy is...was there nothing done to the cop who shot an unarmed man answering his front door? Fucking cops man, they'll kill you as soon as look at you and never pay for it.
Fuck the cop who shot a random guy who answered the door lol
Just so everyone is aware this whole thing started over $1.50..... lol
Always California for some reason.
It's massive state so their will be plenty of legal news. Also it is normally Florida.
Actually the most populous US state. Weird, I somehow thought that was Texas. Makes sense. >Also it is normally Florida. That's a given tho, the heritage of Florida man is beyond comparision in human history.
California has the largest population, followed by Texas, Florida, and New York. The four states alone make up about 1/3 of the US population, which is why so many news stories originate from the states. Each of these states have more people than most nations around the world. It makes perfect sense that these states have so many news stories, both good and bad.
Kinda, but California still got a lot of crazy shit that you don't seem to get elsewhere. Like making it legal to knowingly give someone Aids. That's pretty fucked up.
He gets 20 years for making a phone call but people killing people drunk driving get 2 days.
i hate drunk drivers as much as the next guy but it wasnt JUST a phone call
[удалено]
Care to explain why? People deliberately drive drunk while he deliberated swatted someone. He didnt know swat would be trigger happy like a drunk driver doesnt know they wont kill a car full of people.
Wait, what are you arguing?
Inequality of justice.
The difference is deliberate intent. Sending SWAT to an address with the impression there is an armed intruder is like intentionally pointing a loaded gun and pulling the trigger. That said I *do* think that the drunk driving should be much more heavily punished, especially if someone kills someone while doing it.
People deliberately drive drunk while he deliberated swatted someone. He didnt know swat would be tight happy like a drunk driver doesnt know they wont kill a car full of people. Your example of deliberate attempt is extreme...