Cop kills innocent man after "swatting" call...

Steve said:
I take it you do not find the shooters actions outrageous, What word would you use - reasonable? tolerable? something else? I do find the shooting outrageous and I see JoeBentley's outrage as a proper reaction.
Click to expand...

What part of "he should get manslaughter" indicates that I think his actions are ok in any way? Do you think that there are only two possible, extreme reactions to this topic?

Cl1mh4224rd said:
So is an insistence on retarding a conversation until it conforms to your personal standards.
Click to expand...

Someone suggested that the cop should be accused of deliberate murder. How does it "retard" the conversation to disagree? The implication is that I shouldn't disagree. But then what? We just focus on finding new and original ways to up the ante on the punishment the cops should get?

So far it's also been made clear that saying the caller should get charges "retards" the conversation. So what should we be allowed to discuss, here?

lionking said:
Spot on. Argumemnon appears to be plea bargaining to me.
Click to expand...

That doesn't even make any sense.
 
Last edited:
Nessie said:
I was referring to police college, which for Scotland is at Tulliallan. But, yes, too many cops are not very bright. The person who scored some of the lowest exam marks out of the group I joined with, is now the highest ranking officer.
Click to expand...


I am reminded of this quip;

"What do you call the guy who graduated at the bottom of his class in medical school."

"Doctor."
 
given that is almost impossible to convict a cop of murder or in most cases manslaughter

I propose a simple rule
shoot any unarmed citizen ever for any reason
that person never works as a armed law enforcement capacity anywhere ever again

as now in far too many cases the worst a cop gets for shooting a citizen
is a temporary loss of his current job
BUT IS FREE TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT AGAIN AS A COP IN ANOTHER CITY COUNTY OR STATE
THAT NEEDS TO STOP

SIMPLY STATE KILL ONE AND YOU ARE DONE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT
 
Nessie said:
A system which has proper training for cops and controllers, which adapts when flaws are exposed and removes flawed people, is a functioning system. Otherwise the system is also flawed.

The whole thing, system, cops, controller, hoaxer are all at fault.

The hoaxer is a criminal who exploits those flaws and initiates the incident leading to the death.

The killer is the cop who fired the shots.

The incompetant is the controller/police incident commander who failed to recognise the flaws in the report and the police approach to the call.

The system is flawed because it has not learned from Swatting calls and adapted.
Click to expand...

There's no incentive to do so.
 
nota said:
I propose a simple rule
shoot any unarmed citizen ever for any reason
that person never works as a armed law enforcement capacity anywhere ever again
Click to expand...

This sounds like common sense to me. The way things stand now, negligent cops are usually cleared of wrongdoing in a seemingly sham process and quietly shuffled away (or allowed to shuffle themselves away) to other jurisdictions, like pedophile priests.
 
Checkmite said:
This sounds like common sense to me. The way things stand now, negligent cops are usually cleared of wrongdoing in a seemingly sham process and quietly shuffled away (or allowed to shuffle themselves away) to other jurisdictions, like pedophile priests.
Click to expand...

I am warming to this concept. You shoot an unarmed citizen and clearly you have made an extraordinarily serious error in judgement, the magnitude of which calls into question your appropriateness to be a LEO. Plus most people would subsequently carry with them a large burden of guilt that would probably undermine their future job performance (and ironically those who would not feel this guilt are especially not suitable as LEOs).

Consider comparisons with other professions. Sure, an MD might make some small to moderate errors and legitimately expect to be retained at their job- diagnosing a rash or a cough wrong at first, or prescribing a drug that doesn't work well. Just as a cop will understandably make small to moderate errors. But if a doctor made an error of a magnitude comparable to a cop shooting an unarmed citizen, mistakingly removing the good rather than the bad kidney in a patient for example, it would be reasonable to expect that doctor to become an ex-doctor.
 
Rolfe said:
The wooden honour plaques lining the main corridors at Tulliallan seem to be dated quarterly. How long is the actual course and how often does a class graduate? What sort of subjects do you study? I know there's a mock-up courtroom there.
Click to expand...

I think it is now 18 weeks. I am sure two courses run at the same time, so one graduates every nine weeks. When I was there it was two sessions of ten weeks. The lessons are split between memorising as much road traffic law, criminal law and legal procedure (learning about the powers of arrest, detention, what is evidence etc). There is some physical education and some teaching to do with police systems (only the ones which are in use all over Scotland, whcih are not many). Then there are excercises where staff mock up scenarios and then their is a trial. There are some guest speakers such as from the firebrigade (who show the most gorry of pictures to prepare cops for the death and carnage we will see) and a PF.

I got 98% for one of my exams and was slagged rotten, so I toned it down and made sure I came second for the academic prize. Pathetic when you think about it, but that set the tone for the rest of my career.

And what does bi glic bi glic mean?
Click to expand...

I remember it as be wise, be wise, and the oyster catcher in the coat of arms is because their call sounds like bi glic bi glic.
 
Ah. One of the detectives now working in Operation Sandwood said to me that his main memory of Tulliallan was the cross-country runs through the woods, which he apparently hated.

Fortunately they don't make people coming for recorder-playing courses do that bit, though we can use the swimming pool if we want to.
 
Rolfe said:
Ah. One of the detectives now working in Operation Sandwood said to me that his main memory of Tulliallan was the cross-country runs through the woods, which he apparently hated.

Fortunately they don't make people coming for recorder-playing courses do that bit, though we can use the swimming pool if we want to.
Click to expand...

I enjoyed the PT, including rice crispy hill, so called because people would chuck up breakfast after a few runs up and down it.

Do tell, recorder playing courses....?! Do you mean the plastic flute I was taught to play (and still can play) Amazing Grace on, when I was in Primary 3.
 
The swatter has been charged in Kansas with involuntary manslaughter, false alert reporting, and obstructing police. He faces up to 11 years in prison. He's been charged with this before and did some prison time.

He recently did the same thing to a woman in Calgary, Canada where he said there was a shooting and family hostages. Almost the exact same story told by him to summon SWAT.

He says he doesn't do this for himself and instead does it for others for pay. Police are still trying to identify the two other gamers who were involved in this Wichita incident.
 
Information Analyst said:
It's about an alleged hostage situation, not "all gun homicides lumped together." What I want to know is how prevalent actual hostage situations are in the US that would reflect the apparent "so common we assume they're real" attitude espoused by Checkmite.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll take the 12 days of deafening silence since I posted the above as confirmation that, no, actual hostage situations are not "a daily occurrence" - or anything like it - even across the entirety of the United States.
 
ddt said:
I agree it's evil, and I don't think the baseline assumption should be that a state governor says something stupid and has not thought through the consequences.
Click to expand...
Of course she's thought through the consequences: Law and order credibility when she tries a presidential run. There are people who slurp this kind of **** right up and ask for seconds. Just look at the lame excuses offered in this thread for a police officer who violated in their entirety the procedures and standards that are supposed to prevent a cop from executing an unarmed citizen. And, unfortunately, it's not a simple Republican/Democrat issue. You can find many Democrats willing to excuse police brutailty when they feel the suspect is horrible enough. They're the type of people who actually believe that the national crime rate is worse than ever because they listen to politicians instead of facts.
 
William Parcher said:
The swatter has been charged in Kansas with involuntary manslaughter, false alert reporting, and obstructing police. He faces up to 11 years in prison. He's been charged with this before and did some prison time.

He recently did the same thing to a woman in Calgary, Canada where he said there was a shooting and family hostages. Almost the exact same story told by him to summon SWAT.

He says he doesn't do this for himself and instead does it for others for pay. Police are still trying to identify the two other gamers who were involved in this Wichita incident.
Click to expand...


Nice of him to bring that up. Maybe they'll be able to tack on a conspiracy charge or three.

Across state lines? That might get him some Fed time too.
 
Indeed. A conspiracy charge is practically a free topping in such an event, always good for a couple more years.
 
Family of man killed in "swatting" incident sues Wichita, Kansas

"Wichita leadership is trying to put all the blame on the young man in California who placed the swatting call," [Andrew M. Stroth, who is representing the family] said. "But let's be clear: the swatter did not shoot the bullet that killed Andy Finch. That was an officer working under the direction of the Wichita Police Department."

The lawsuit cites FBI crime statistics showing Wichita has a ratio of one shooting death for every 120 officers - a number that is 11 times greater than the national ratio and 12 times greater than the ratio in Chicago.​
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Family of man killed in "swatting" incident sues Wichita, Kansas

"Wichita leadership is trying to put all the blame on the young man in California who placed the swatting call," [Andrew M. Stroth, who is representing the family] said. "But let's be clear: the swatter did not shoot the bullet that killed Andy Finch. That was an officer working under the direction of the Wichita Police Department."

The lawsuit cites FBI crime statistics showing Wichita has a ratio of one shooting death for every 120 officers - a number that is 11 times greater than the national ratio and 12 times greater than the ratio in Chicago.​
Click to expand...

WHAT?
 
Information Analyst said:
OK, I'll take the 12 days of deafening silence since I posted the above as confirmation that, no, actual hostage situations are not "a daily occurrence" - or anything like it - even across the entirety of the United States.
Click to expand...

Below is a link to search results from Policemag.com for hostage situations

http://www.policemag.com/list/tag/hostage-situations.aspx

108 entries, some duplicates with better information from later reports.

My agency had many over the years, most resolved without fatalities.
 
casebro said:
They seem to be chronological. 7 in 2017, 11 in 2015.

So no, not a daily occurrence.
Click to expand...

It is no way a comprehensive list. In the S.F. Bay area in January of this year, we had a standoff in San Jose that was resolved peacefully and it was then determined that there was no hostage involved, and in November of last year SFPD faced an incident involving a man holding his family at gunpoint:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sf-police-rescue-wife-kids-hostage-situation-fatally-shoot-suspect

There are more than that, but those two I remember because they are good examples of how to approach the problem.

My swag is that during 15 years with my agency we had at least three hostage situations a year, most solved without the use lethal force.

Below is a local example that unfortunately didn't come to a good conclusion for all of the hostages:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2008/11...alker-was-responsible-for-san-mateo-shooting/

I know many of the officers involved and although they were able to save the children, the mother that they couldn't save is something that they'll carry forever.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Wichita Police Officer In Fatal 'Swatting' Prank Won't Face Charges
Click to expand...
"Bennett said he had to make a determination based on Kansas law and law handed down by the Supreme Court, which says that when determining if an officer acted reasonably, evidence has to be reviewed based on what the officer knew at the time of the shooting, not 20/20 hindsight, he said."
Click to expand...
Utter ********. Determining whether or not the suspect had a gun is a use of hindsight, not an abuse of it; since he didn't have a gun, there was no imminent threat to the lives of the officers present that would require lethal force.

Further, by this DA's logic, any criminal investigation is void since it's all "20/20 hindsight." He might as well have issued a press release with just a shrug emoji on it.

At least the police officer gets to remain unnamed and never has to face real consequences for his actions. They'll probably hold a private ceremony awarding him his "Legal Kill" medal.
 
We've been discussing felony murder in another thread. I wonder if the swatter gamer punk in this incident ought to be on the hook for murder.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Naturally, or he risks being swatted.

I wonder how long it will take before someone swats the judge?
Click to expand...
I would never advocate swatting anyone. I would, however, suggest that citizens of Wichita should begin any conversation with a police officer thusly: "Are you the scumbag who murdered an innocent, unarmed man for reaching for his pants?"
 
The civil lawsuit against the police will probably drag on for years unless it's quickly settled out of court with with no one accepting any blame. It may be a while or never before the public finds out which police officer was too chicken **** to hold fire from across the street.

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
The civil lawsuit against the police will probably drag on for years unless it's quickly settled out of court with with no one accepting any blame. It may be a while or never before the public finds out which police officer was too chicken **** to hold fire from across the street.

Ranb
Click to expand...
It seems like they pretty much have to settle. I don't think they can justify in court a decision to shoot that's essentially based on the content of a phone call. I would also hope that this DA gets a wake-up call/pink slip in his next election.
 
I wonder if the city be able to continue to shield the officer who killed the victim if the lawsuit goes to trial?

I really can't imagine how the family feels, but if I didn't need the money, I think I'd hold out for a trial and public exposure of the officers and officials involved who thought it was acceptable to let the officer get away with this.
 
Ranb said:
I wonder if the city be able to continue to shield the officer who killed the victim if the lawsuit goes to trial?
Click to expand...
They'd have to show a pretty compelling interest to a judge to keep him a) anonymous and b) from testifying in open court. As it is, he must have somebody powerful personally looking after him to keep his name off the record. If I was of a conspiratorial mindset, I might speculate that such a powerful person may also have had some influence in the DA's decision not to indict.
I really can't imagine how the family feels, but if I didn't need the money, I think I'd hold out for a trial and public exposure of the officers and officials involved who thought it was acceptable to let the officer get away with this.
Click to expand...
They have to be enraged. It would be horrible enough to have a family member shot by police while committing a crime. Having a family member shot by police for nothing must have made them insanely angry.

I suspect that if the public sentiment hadn't been shifted so decisively (and seemingly almost exclusively) toward blaming the scum involved in the phone call, there'd be pretty loud protests over this.
 
Ranb said:
I wonder if the city be able to continue to shield the officer who killed the victim if the lawsuit goes to trial?

I really can't imagine how the family feels, but if I didn't need the money, I think I'd hold out for a trial and public exposure of the officers and officials involved who thought it was acceptable to let the officer get away with this.
Click to expand...

I wonder what would happen if one of the family found out the officer's name that night & leaked it.
 
ddt said:
I agree it's evil, and I don't think the baseline assumption should be that a state governor says something stupid and has not thought through the consequences.
Click to expand...

If a president can then why not a governor???
 
Babbylonian said:
JoeMorgue said:
Wichita Police Officer In Fatal 'Swatting' Prank Won't Face Charges
Click to expand...
"Bennett said he had to make a determination based on Kansas law and law handed down by the Supreme Court, which says that when determining if an officer acted reasonably, evidence has to be reviewed based on what the officer knew at the time of the shooting, not 20/20 hindsight, he said."
Click to expand...
Utter ********. Determining whether or not the suspect had a gun is a use of hindsight, not an abuse of it; since he didn't have a gun, there was no imminent threat to the lives of the officers present that would require lethal force.

Further, by this DA's logic, any criminal investigation is void since it's all "20/20 hindsight." He might as well have issued a press release with just a shrug emoji on it.

At least the police officer gets to remain unnamed and never has to face real consequences for his actions. They'll probably hold a private ceremony awarding him his "Legal Kill" medal.
Click to expand...


It appears that the meaning of the terms "reasonable" and "reasonably" seem to be stretched beyond all rational recognition when it come to excusing the the out-of-control behavior of macho, Clint Eastwood-wannabe cops, who suddenly can be "reasonably" afraid for their life at the slightest provocation ...or even no provocation at all.

I wonder why such generous, even creative interpretations of otherwise normal terms are so available to murderous cops, but not to everyone else who finds themselves at trial.

("I didn't know he was a cop. I was afraid for my life when I shot him ten times in the back as he ran away. He looked like he was reaching for his pants."
 
I seem to recall when cops were rumored (and sometimes proven) to carry with them a throw-away gun that they could plant on their victims, avoiding the risk that the cop could be accused of having shot an unarmed person. "Unarmed? Wait a sec- there- armed! And he was going for the gun, right Dave?"

Apparently that was all unnecessary- now shooting an unarmed person is completely okay, as long as the cop can claim that something, anything the suspect did or didn't do made them think the suspect might have had a gun. Or another weapon. Or was behaving in any way that might be perceived as a threat to the cop. Unbelievable!

Interestingly, this special privilege of deciding on life or death that we have now fully given to cops when they are on the job appears to extend to their private lives. This is an older story, still ongoing, that I believe was discussed on the Forum in the past, but I cannot find the original thread. Based on the story, it appears that a cop is permitted to shoot and kill his girlfriend because she was planning to leave him, and other cops and the judicial system will band together to protect him:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/familys-battle-sheriff-prove-relative-killed/story?id=54429754
 
Giordano said:
Interestingly, this special privilege of deciding on life or death that we have now fully given to cops when they are on the job appears to extend to their private lives. This is an older story, still ongoing, that I believe was discussed on the Forum in the past, but I cannot find the original thread. Based on the story, it appears that a cop is permitted to shoot and kill his girlfriend because she was planning to leave him, and other cops and the judicial system will band together to protect him:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/familys-battle-sheriff-prove-relative-killed/story?id=54429754
Click to expand...
Police departments are bad, sheriff departments are worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom