• 92 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by SunBroZak (1381 posts) -

Jordan "Kootra" Mathewson of The Creatures, a Youtube group centered around gaming, was recently "swatted" during a CS: GO livestream. "Swatting" for those that don't know, is a type of prank that involves someone who knows your location calling to report a fake emergency that forces a SWAT team to be dispatched and forcibly raiding your home.

Prior to this happening, I hadn't realized how easy it would be for someone to target a livestreamer or someone that puts their location out on the internet. It's a scary thought, especially given how a victim of this prank could end up hurt from the misunderstanding. No-one was hurt in this particular instance, but I don't believe they have caught the prankster that instigated it.

#2 Edited by Rafaelfc (1471 posts) -

Jesus, people's idiocy really knows no bounds.

#3 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3906 posts) -

It just happened to a Call of Duty streamer the other day as well, only he was busted for having pot, so some legitimate lasting harm came out of the situation. Our government really needs to pull their head out of their ass, realize that this is happening, and find a way to stop it. This is just a shameful abuse of power.

#4 Posted by Brendan (8174 posts) -

That's a really crappy way of using the internet!

#5 Edited by jArmAhead (341 posts) -

I would personally find this to be an excellent birthday gift, but that said, this is a super shitty thing to do and I hope those involved are being charged or at least fined. Wasting the time of elite peace keeping forces is a really shitty, dumb idea. It's not funny. What the fuck would you do if while they were busy dealing with a prank, they ended up being unable to respond in a timely manner to a real situation where SWAT would be needed and someone got killed?

Parents in this world are fucking idiots and need to smack some sense into kids so they don't grow up to do this.

#6 Posted by Jesus_Phish (1152 posts) -

Waiting for the day that this happens, the streamer is playing an FPS or something without headphones on, a cop hears gun fire and fires back. Not looking forward to it, but it's going to happen sooner or later unless people stop being dicks.

#7 Posted by CitizenCoffeeCake (656 posts) -

Waiting for the day that this happens, the streamer is playing an FPS or something without headphones on, a cop hears gun fire and fires back. Not looking forward to it, but it's going to happen sooner or later unless people stop being dicks.

It could have very easily happened in this case had the guy not been wearing headphones. Police had been told that he shot people in the building and had set explosives, SWAT would have come in hearing gunshots and "you have the bomb" and "terrorists win" and shit like that. The people who called in the threat are to blame but these guys (SWAT) acted like unprofessional jackasses as well.

#8 Posted by BBAlpert (1583 posts) -

How sad is the state of current affairs that one of my first reactions to this (after "oh good, nobody got hurt") is "thank goodness the streamer was a white guy, otherwise this would have gone WAY worse." I hate humanity sometimes.

Call me old fashioned, but in my day, when people on the internet had someone's address, they just buried the house in free FedEx boxes and complimentary copies of the Book of Mormon.

#9 Edited by Brodehouse (10140 posts) -

I love how easy it is to get police officers in full SWAT gear to launch an assault on a plain looking house.

Hmmm, Ed, we're clearing rooms in this place but it just seems like a normal ass house so far, oh wait, there's a skinny guy playing computer games, alright perfect, let's fucking get him, Ed. "GET ON THE FUCKING GROUND" *step on person* "DON'T YOU FUCKING MOVE, YOU HEAR ME BOY"

Is macho bullshit something that police are trained in, or is just a preferred part of the hiring process?

"wait, is that a camera pointed at us? let's just ... turn that off."

#10 Edited by Branthog (5598 posts) -

It's bizarre how someone gets shitty voicemails and emails and twitter messages and there's unending coverage about how the internet is harassing a certain group of people. Many people are harassed using SWAT-by-proxy which winds up with numerous loaded guns pointed at their heads and you barely see a flicker of coverage.

I'm not really trying to make a statement, here, but just observing how absurd it is in how we react to certain things and ignore others. More importantly, how quick we are to ascribe motivations to actions levies against certain demographics of harassment victims, while dismissing other actions (like having a police department smash into someone's house and engage in a life or death confrontation) as "just assholes on the internet seeking attention and to stir things up".

I wish a fraction of the attention that went into getting all aggro over insensitive twitter posts went to, you know, finding a way to deal with minding your own business and having a militarized police forced summoned upon you. The joke is going to backfire, eventually, and someone is going to wind up dead. There are enough innocent people killed from SWAT activities like no-knocks as it is.

Finally, if you absolutely have to be a shitface to someone on a stream like this, wouldn't calling a bunch of male strippers to show up and perform in cop uniforms be far more entertaining than calling actual cops? I'd rather have a boner go off in my face than an M4A1.

#11 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3906 posts) -

Streamer: "that's streaming right now" *points at camera*

Officer: *immediately points camera away from him*

Being camera shy is just a prerequisite for a police officer these days, isn't it? Other than that, these officers seemed pretty professional, though. It think it helped a LOT that the streamer realized he was being swatted before the police busted into his room by force with guns drawn. That's how it normally goes down, and it's obviously a terrifying experience.

#12 Posted by Corevi (5155 posts) -

Fuck the internet.

#13 Posted by AlexW00d (6450 posts) -

I can't tell who is dumber here, the dude who rang the cops or the cops themselves, holy fuck.

Online
#14 Posted by hermes (1611 posts) -

Isn't that illegal? I am assuming the 911 that got the call also has information about the prankster (at least phone number and location), and SWAT teams would not take kindly these kind of shenanigans.

#15 Edited by Corevi (5155 posts) -
@hermes said:

Isn't that illegal? I am assuming the 911 that got the call also has information about the prankster (at least phone number and location), and SWAT teams would not take kindly these kind of shenanigans.

If they used a burner phone, a payphone or Skype/Google Calling then no they wouldn't.

#16 Posted by TheKing (844 posts) -

I love how easy it is to get police officers in full SWAT gear to launch an assault on a plain looking house.

Hmmm, Ed, we're clearing rooms in this place but it just seems like a normal ass house so far, oh wait, there's a skinny guy playing computer games, alright perfect, let's fucking get him, Ed. "GET ON THE FUCKING GROUND" *step on person* "DON'T YOU FUCKING MOVE, YOU HEAR ME BOY"

Is macho bullshit something that police are trained in, or is just a preferred part of the hiring process?

The police get a phone call that there is a man in the house shooting people. What would you have them do? Politely knock on the door?

#17 Edited by Brodehouse (10140 posts) -

@theking said:
@brodehouse said:

I love how easy it is to get police officers in full SWAT gear to launch an assault on a plain looking house.

Hmmm, Ed, we're clearing rooms in this place but it just seems like a normal ass house so far, oh wait, there's a skinny guy playing computer games, alright perfect, let's fucking get him, Ed. "GET ON THE FUCKING GROUND" *step on person* "DON'T YOU FUCKING MOVE, YOU HEAR ME BOY"

Is macho bullshit something that police are trained in, or is just a preferred part of the hiring process?

The police get a phone call that there is a man in the house shooting people. What would you have them do? Politely knock on the door?

This is all a laugh to you because you don't imagine it would ever ever happen to you and you don't imagine things could ever go wrong for the people this happens to. I'm a little less okay being subject to armed and increasingly hostile and emotional police officers and their orders because someone doesn't like me and can use a telephone.

I don't know the exact nature of what the caller said was transpiring in the house, but wouldn't it be pretty obvious within about 5 fucking seconds that there's no one being held hostage or shot? Were they expecting the entire house would look plain, but the master bedroom is just loaded with bodies from hell to breakfast? There's no bodies, blood, shells, magazines, there's absolutely no evidence of an armed confrontation anywhere in this house, or in the room they just entered, but it's absolutely crucial that four men force an unresistant citizen to the floor and step on him, just in case. I don't think it's unreasonable to consider that they reason they do it that specific way is because they're loaded with adrenaline and enjoy manhandling people who can't legally resist them in any way.

#18 Edited by EXTomar (4951 posts) -

@theking said:
@brodehouse said:

I love how easy it is to get police officers in full SWAT gear to launch an assault on a plain looking house.

Hmmm, Ed, we're clearing rooms in this place but it just seems like a normal ass house so far, oh wait, there's a skinny guy playing computer games, alright perfect, let's fucking get him, Ed. "GET ON THE FUCKING GROUND" *step on person* "DON'T YOU FUCKING MOVE, YOU HEAR ME BOY"

Is macho bullshit something that police are trained in, or is just a preferred part of the hiring process?

The police get a phone call that there is a man in the house shooting people. What would you have them do? Politely knock on the door?

How about good old fashion Police Work? It doesn't Sherlock Holmes to figure out if there is or is not a man attacking people at that location before SWAT is rolled out.

#19 Posted by cmblasko (1354 posts) -

@branthog said:

It's bizarre how someone gets shitty voicemails and emails and twitter messages and there's unending coverage about how the internet is harassing a certain group of people. Many people are harassed using SWAT-by-proxy which winds up with numerous loaded guns pointed at their heads and you barely see a flicker of coverage.

"shitty voicemails and emails and twitter messages" is, unfortunately, severely downplaying what has actually happened.

I agree that these kinds of events should be reported on but they happen on a much less frequent basis than sexism and misogyny.

@theking said:
@brodehouse said:

I love how easy it is to get police officers in full SWAT gear to launch an assault on a plain looking house.

Hmmm, Ed, we're clearing rooms in this place but it just seems like a normal ass house so far, oh wait, there's a skinny guy playing computer games, alright perfect, let's fucking get him, Ed. "GET ON THE FUCKING GROUND" *step on person* "DON'T YOU FUCKING MOVE, YOU HEAR ME BOY"

Is macho bullshit something that police are trained in, or is just a preferred part of the hiring process?

The police get a phone call that there is a man in the house shooting people. What would you have them do? Politely knock on the door?

Or maybe something in the middle?

#20 Posted by Branthog (5598 posts) -

@hermes said:

Isn't that illegal? I am assuming the 911 that got the call also has information about the prankster (at least phone number and location), and SWAT teams would not take kindly these kind of shenanigans.

Sure, but there is essentially no way to track someone who isn't a total idiot. Swatting has happened many times to streamers (dozens, I believe) and countless more times to other people. Unfortunately, the police can't just pick and choose what shit to take serious and what not to. Can you imagine the liability of taking a report to be bullshit and not sending anyone or sending them there and not going in with the normal force and reaction they would under any other circumstance?

People just don't give a fuck. These are obnoxious twats who just want to cause a fucking catastrophe. They don't care if it's trolling a fat person, insulting someone's gender, harassing a gay or transgender person, raiding a website or group, or manipulating America's militarized police force into pointing rifles at your head. Anything that can potentially be riled up or provide fodder for entertainment will be exploited for such.

And.. unfortunately... I just can't see any reasonable way to avoid it. What are they going to do, require that you prove your identity to make a 911 call?

#21 Posted by CitizenCoffeeCake (656 posts) -

"shitty voicemails and emails and twitter messages" is, unfortunately, severely downplaying what has actually happened.

I agree that these kinds of events should be reported on but they happen on a much less frequent basis than sexism and misogyny.

@theking said:
@brodehouse said:

I love how easy it is to get police officers in full SWAT gear to launch an assault on a plain looking house.

Hmmm, Ed, we're clearing rooms in this place but it just seems like a normal ass house so far, oh wait, there's a skinny guy playing computer games, alright perfect, let's fucking get him, Ed. "GET ON THE FUCKING GROUND" *step on person* "DON'T YOU FUCKING MOVE, YOU HEAR ME BOY"

Is macho bullshit something that police are trained in, or is just a preferred part of the hiring process?

The police get a phone call that there is a man in the house shooting people. What would you have them do? Politely knock on the door?

Or maybe something in the middle?

The problem is that they all come in without announcing they are police and immediately start barking conflicting orders, hands up, hands on your head, hands behind your neck, don't move! Fuck those guys.

#22 Posted by Branthog (5598 posts) -

"shitty voicemails and emails and twitter messages" is, unfortunately, severely downplaying what has actually happened.

I agree that these kinds of events should be reported on but they happen on a much less frequent basis than sexism and misogyny.

@theking said:
@brodehouse said:

I love how easy it is to get police officers in full SWAT gear to launch an assault on a plain looking house.

Hmmm, Ed, we're clearing rooms in this place but it just seems like a normal ass house so far, oh wait, there's a skinny guy playing computer games, alright perfect, let's fucking get him, Ed. "GET ON THE FUCKING GROUND" *step on person* "DON'T YOU FUCKING MOVE, YOU HEAR ME BOY"

Is macho bullshit something that police are trained in, or is just a preferred part of the hiring process?

The police get a phone call that there is a man in the house shooting people. What would you have them do? Politely knock on the door?

Or maybe something in the middle?

The problem is that they all come in without announcing they are police and immediately start barking conflicting orders, hands up, hands on your head, hands behind your neck, don't move! Fuck those guys.

That happens all the time, even without an emergency. It's called a "no-knock warrant" and it has often resulted in the death of innocent people when SWAT had the wrong house, or when the homeowner rightfully felt they were defending their lives against an unidentified intruder and were gunned-down by the cops. No-knocks are becoming more frequently issued, too. Dangerous as fuck.

#23 Posted by SethPhotopoulos (5417 posts) -

It's scary how easy it is to get the swat on you even if there is a severe lack of evidence. Hell, people get attacked by swat only for them to figure out they got the wrong house. I think the problem stems from more than just a bunch of internet assholes.

#24 Edited by stryker1121 (1592 posts) -

@theking said:
@brodehouse said:

I love how easy it is to get police officers in full SWAT gear to launch an assault on a plain looking house.

Hmmm, Ed, we're clearing rooms in this place but it just seems like a normal ass house so far, oh wait, there's a skinny guy playing computer games, alright perfect, let's fucking get him, Ed. "GET ON THE FUCKING GROUND" *step on person* "DON'T YOU FUCKING MOVE, YOU HEAR ME BOY"

Is macho bullshit something that police are trained in, or is just a preferred part of the hiring process?

The police get a phone call that there is a man in the house shooting people. What would you have them do? Politely knock on the door?

This is all a laugh to you because you don't imagine it would ever ever happen to you and you don't imagine things could ever go wrong for the people this happens to. I'm a little less okay being subject to armed and increasingly hostile and emotional police officers and their orders because someone doesn't like me and can use a telephone.

I don't know the exact nature of what the caller said was transpiring in the house, but wouldn't it be pretty obvious within about 5 fucking seconds that there's no one being held hostage or shot? Were they expecting the entire house would look plain, but the master bedroom is just loaded with bodies from hell to breakfast? There's no bodies, blood, shells, magazines, there's absolutely no evidence of an armed confrontation anywhere in this house, or in the room they just entered, but it's absolutely crucial that four men force an unresistant citizen to the floor and step on him, just in case. I don't think it's unreasonable to consider that they reason they do it that specific way is because they're loaded with adrenaline and enjoy manhandling people who can't legally resist them in any way.

There could be bodies in the closet, the kid's desk could have a bomb under it. Yes these are ridiculous scenarios but when SWAT gets a call that people have been shot, and hey, any officers arriving on scene will be shot, too, there's going to be a procedure to follow even if everything looks peachy on the surface. Don't blame SWAT, blame the asshat perpetrating the hoax. You seem to be coming at this story from a decidedly anti-police viewpoint.

#25 Edited by Jack_Lafayette (3481 posts) -

And the immediate reaction upon the explanation of there being a camera in the room is to shut the camera off, of course. Why the hell has police training become so much about covering the department's ass?

#26 Edited by EXTomar (4951 posts) -

@stryker1121:

He also could be an clone built from the DNA of Elvis from Mars planning an alien invasion by body snatching pod people. Shall we send in the army because someone calls the police claiming it so?

And to note, it isn't a "anti-police viewpoint" to suggest they do basic and fundamental steps and investigations police work before rolling out with heavy equipment. It is seems like "common sense".

#27 Posted by Branthog (5598 posts) -

@cmblasko said:

@branthog said:

It's bizarre how someone gets shitty voicemails and emails and twitter messages and there's unending coverage about how the internet is harassing a certain group of people. Many people are harassed using SWAT-by-proxy which winds up with numerous loaded guns pointed at their heads and you barely see a flicker of coverage.

"shitty voicemails and emails and twitter messages" is, unfortunately, severely downplaying what has actually happened.

I agree that these kinds of events should be reported on but they happen on a much less frequent basis than sexism and misogyny.

So do school shootings and terrorist attacks, but there is ample and excessive coverage of those. Further, absolutely nothing anyone (such as infamous unnamed youtube-kickstarter-documentarian) has been the victim of due to the internet has resulted in a group of heavily armed been breaking down their doors and pointing rifles at them.

I'm, not dismissing the awful things that happen to certain vocal internet people who match certain demographics. I'm simply pointing out that there is almost nothing more violent and terrifying and harassing than having the fucking SWAT team break down your door and point guns at your face. And observing that if the demographic who are victims of SWAT were not young males, these incidents would be endlessly on the top of the news heap and a motivation other than "internet assholes being internet assholes" would be ascribed to them -- because we like to ascribe motivations to people that match our personal agendas, even if it's really just being shitheads being shitheads.

Also, it actually does happen a lot. Just two teenagers were responsible for 100 SWATting victims across 60 cities between 2002 and 2006 alone. And, I believe, there have been streaming gamers swatted in the dozens in the recent past. That's just gamers. Not counting other people who have been SWATted. For the most part, mainstream news sites seem to be willing to cover these. I almost never see it covered on major gaming sites, though, and can't recall ever hearing it discussed on any podcasts.

#28 Posted by stryker1121 (1592 posts) -

@extomar said:

@stryker1121:

He also could be an clone built from the DNA of Elvis from Mars planning an alien invasion by body snatching pod people. Shall we send in the police because someone calls the police claiming it so?

What's your point here?. THe hoaxer sent in a very real threat to the cops. How should the police have reacted in this situation?

#29 Edited by EXTomar (4951 posts) -

The point is that just like the internet, because someone calls the police saying "Something is happening!" doesn't mean anything is real. There was no "very real threat" at that location. This would have been discovered by doing some simple things.

To be clear, I am saying that the police should take these calls seriously but "seriously" doesn't mean busting out a heavily geared team with little or no "intelligence".

#30 Posted by Demoskinos (15188 posts) -

Fuck the assholes swatting people and fuck the police. Both are the worst.

#31 Posted by Budwyzer (635 posts) -

I love how easy it is to get police officers in full SWAT gear to launch an assault on a plain looking house.

Hmmm, Ed, we're clearing rooms in this place but it just seems like a normal ass house so far, oh wait, there's a skinny guy playing computer games, alright perfect, let's fucking get him, Ed. "GET ON THE FUCKING GROUND" *step on person* "DON'T YOU FUCKING MOVE, YOU HEAR ME BOY"

Is macho bullshit something that police are trained in, or is just a preferred part of the hiring process?

"wait, is that a camera pointed at us? let's just ... turn that off."

This isn't, as you put it, macho bullshit. Not normally, but yes this behavior is trained. This mentality is trained to keep those officers safe in a POTENTIALLY dangerous situation. Just because that person is sitting their playing a video game does not automatically mean that he's not a bad dude, and the officer can't assume that he is a nice person either. I bet plenty of drug dealers, pimps, gangsters, mobsters, mafioso's, terrorists, and just all around bad people all enjoy video games.

When someone is called to clear a property they have to go in with every expectation in their mind. Are there people in there? Is everyone an enemy? Is anyone an innocent bystander? Are there traps? Weapons? Captive victims? And the only way an officer, agent, soldier, whatever can clear that place effectively without losing the life of any innocents is to assume that each person they meet is a hostile and to deal with them accordingly.

So, they run across an unknown that was playing a game. Yeah, you yell at the top of your lungs for him to get his ass out of that chair, get his hands up, and plant his face on the floor. Why do you yell? Because loud noises disorient people. It's unexpected and generally makes them more compliant. If they are a hostile, with a weapon, then that disorientation will give the officer that extra half-second to make a judgement call that could mean the difference beween life or death for not only himself but his team and any innocents that they have gathered so far in their mission. If the person is not a hostile, then they get yelled at, have a gun pointed at them, and eventually get it all cleared up. Is it possibly a traumatic experience for this person? Probably. Is it the officer's fault? No. It is the fault of whatever asshole called the cops on what they know is an innocent person.

So maybe give these matters more than 2 seconds of thought?

#32 Posted by Branthog (5598 posts) -

@extomar said:

@stryker1121:

He also could be an clone built from the DNA of Elvis from Mars planning an alien invasion by body snatching pod people. Shall we send in the police because someone calls the police claiming it so?

What's your point here?. THe hoaxer sent in a very real threat to the cops. How should the police have reacted in this situation?

Since they have no way of discerning real from hoax, they should respond as they would any SWAT engagement. However, they should be a little less militarized at every engagement.

#33 Posted by Bones8677 (3283 posts) -

Whatever happened to just ordering a bunch of pizzas as a prank?

#34 Edited by EXTomar (4951 posts) -

@bones8677 said:

Whatever happened to just ordering a bunch of pizzas as a prank?

Evidently these guys respond just as fast or faster than the pizza guy.

#35 Posted by Branthog (5598 posts) -

@extomar said:

@bones8677 said:

Whatever happened to just ordering a bunch of pizzas as a prank?

Evidently these guys respond faster than the pizza guy.

Also, pizza places don't fall for that, anymore. Police do (by necessity, I suppose).

#36 Posted by BisonHero (7085 posts) -

Between this and the completely unprovoked DDoS attacks on various gaming networks, it bums me out that the teenage punks of the world who want to just waste people's time for their own amusement have finally found a handful of loopholes on the Internet that allow them to A) see the results of their actions, and B) mask their identity well enough that they may not get in any trouble.

#38 Posted by thomasnash (585 posts) -

And yet in Die Hard all John Mclane can get is Al Powell

#39 Posted by Shaka999 (501 posts) -

See, I'd love to start streaming myself, but when I keep reading shit like this I get more and more turned off from the idea.

#40 Edited by Brodehouse (10140 posts) -

@stryker1121 said:

There could be bodies in the closet, the kid's desk could have a bomb under it. Yes these are ridiculous scenarios but when SWAT gets a call that people have been shot, and hey, any officers arriving on scene will be shot, too, there's going to be a procedure to follow even if everything looks peachy on the surface. Don't blame SWAT, blame the asshat perpetrating the hoax. You seem to be coming at this story from a decidedly anti-police viewpoint.

No, I'm approaching this view from the perspective of the person on the stream and the treatment they should be subjected to. The 'asshat perpetrating the hoax' is not responsible for aggression and callous physical treatment. I would not like to suffer that treatment, and I'd like to point out how negative that treatment is without being called 'anti-police'.

We consider policing to be a noble profession that encapsulates both altruism and community safety, because of the assumption of risk they take on themselves. A cop had to assume the risk that in the defense of someone else, they could be injured or even killed. Excuse me if I have a problem with the assumption of risk now being placed entirely on regular citizens. We're told that police require all this equipment and a lot of slack when it comes to the rules in order to 'ensure officer safety', but anyone looking at this situation can immediately identify that all the risk is on the citizen. The police have entered and found an unarmed person, their tone suggests they're hostile and threatened, they're barking out contradictory orders that could very well carry the penalty of death for not following perfectly accurately, they're clad in armor and they have AR-15 rifles trained directly on the person; who is assuming all the risk in this police action?

edit: Keep in mind, the AR-15 rifle, while considered the most versatile and all-around best longarm rifle for personal defense, is also considered so dangerous and overwhelmingly powerful that most gun control advocates would not allow private citizens to own them. We have weapons that are considered so lethal that citizens cannot be trusted to own one, but it's a police staple at this point. That doesn't bother you in any way? That doesn't seem a little authoritarian to you?

Officers risking their lives until there's a proven threat is noble and admirable. It's restraint at one's own risk. What we have now is that regular citizens must risk their lives until they can prove to police that they're not a threat.

@budwyzer said:

When someone is called to clear a property they have to go in with every expectation in their mind. Are there people in there? Is everyone an enemy? Is anyone an innocent bystander? Are there traps? Weapons? Captive victims? And the only way an officer, agent, soldier, whatever can clear that place effectively without losing the life of any innocents is to assume that each person they meet is a hostile and to deal with them accordingly.

Assuming every person you meet inside a building is hostile is a great way to get innocent people shot. If we're more concerned with the safety of police officers than innocents, why even have the police officers respond to crimes? I don't believe that innocent people should have to assume greater risk than police officers. Even in an actual hostage scenario, the police assuming everyone is hostile means that the people being held hostage now have to worry about being shot by the hostage takers and the police.

So, they run across an unknown that was playing a game. Yeah, you yell at the top of your lungs for him to get his ass out of that chair, get his hands up, and plant his face on the floor. Why do you yell? Because loud noises disorient people. It's unexpected and generally makes them more compliant.

Loud noises disorient people. How are disoriented people more capable of following instructions than the average person? How does that make any sense? Especially when police refer to signs of disorientation like huddling or fleeing as excuses to treat people as hostile. They threw a flashbang at this homeless person, and when he rightfully panicked, they shot him dead. Maybe disorienting a target and threatening them with overwhelming force works to protect officer safety, but it certainly has not proven to protect the safety of the people being subjected to it.

If you meant to say that disoriented people are easier to overpower and force to comply, then yes, you'd be absolutely right. But being disoriented absolutely doesn't make anyone more capable of processing orders or information. It actually makes you less capable of processing information, especially when that information wants you to stand up and lie down at the same time.

If the person is not a hostile, then they get yelled at, have a gun pointed at them, and eventually get it all cleared up.

Or a high-strung emotional police officer loaded with adrenaline and fear for their own safety assumes everyone in the building is hostile and makes an erroneous judgment call based on a myriad of factors and that kid winds up dead.

However, they should be a little less militarized at every engagement.

The funny thing is, if they handled this in a more militarized sense, the kid would never have had a gun pointed at him.

#41 Edited by SomeJerk (3403 posts) -

@shaka999 said:

See, I'd love to start streaming myself, but when I keep reading shit like this I get more and more turned off from the idea.

Same here about using Twitch, the main thing is to have enough anonymity so that your address cannot be figured out but I like to be close and friendly with people. In this case the streamers were known to be at the venue.

I'm sticking to using nicovideo, languagebarriers like mad but so much nicer community :(

#42 Posted by ripelivejam (4926 posts) -

so are emergency services able to narrow down someone's location even if they're just given a city? this guy couldn't have put his full address up.

#43 Posted by groin (860 posts) -

so are emergency services able to narrow down someone's location even if they're just given a city? this guy couldn't have put his full address up.

The people that are responsible for the swatting know the guy's address. There's all kinds of social engineering tricks you can do to find out someone's personal info. People can also leak personal info on facebook, skype, etc. If you use the same username on every site you ever sign up on then it makes it a lot easier.

#44 Posted by Branthog (5598 posts) -

@groin said:

@ripelivejam said:

so are emergency services able to narrow down someone's location even if they're just given a city? this guy couldn't have put his full address up.

The people that are responsible for the swatting know the guy's address. There's all kinds of social engineering tricks you can do to find out someone's personal info. People can also leak personal info on facebook, skype, etc. If you use the same username on every site you ever sign up on then it makes it a lot easier.

If you know someone's name, it is trivial to find their address.

#45 Posted by UncleBenny (480 posts) -

Man, I wanna create a start-up for swatting, except that it's sexy strippers who would break into a guy's home dressed as swat team, and just as the swatter is losing their mind the swat team all strip to reveal... sexy fire fighters, hell yeah, you've just been... um... sexy firefighter'ed...

#46 Posted by KaneRobot (1862 posts) -

@budwyzer said:

@brodehouse said:

I love how easy it is to get police officers in full SWAT gear to launch an assault on a plain looking house.

Hmmm, Ed, we're clearing rooms in this place but it just seems like a normal ass house so far, oh wait, there's a skinny guy playing computer games, alright perfect, let's fucking get him, Ed. "GET ON THE FUCKING GROUND" *step on person* "DON'T YOU FUCKING MOVE, YOU HEAR ME BOY"

Is macho bullshit something that police are trained in, or is just a preferred part of the hiring process?

"wait, is that a camera pointed at us? let's just ... turn that off."

This isn't, as you put it, macho bullshit. Not normally, but yes this behavior is trained. This mentality is trained to keep those officers safe in a POTENTIALLY dangerous situation. Just because that person is sitting their playing a video game does not automatically mean that he's not a bad dude, and the officer can't assume that he is a nice person either. I bet plenty of drug dealers, pimps, gangsters, mobsters, mafioso's, terrorists, and just all around bad people all enjoy video games.

When someone is called to clear a property they have to go in with every expectation in their mind. Are there people in there? Is everyone an enemy? Is anyone an innocent bystander? Are there traps? Weapons? Captive victims? And the only way an officer, agent, soldier, whatever can clear that place effectively without losing the life of any innocents is to assume that each person they meet is a hostile and to deal with them accordingly.

So, they run across an unknown that was playing a game. Yeah, you yell at the top of your lungs for him to get his ass out of that chair, get his hands up, and plant his face on the floor. Why do you yell? Because loud noises disorient people. It's unexpected and generally makes them more compliant. If they are a hostile, with a weapon, then that disorientation will give the officer that extra half-second to make a judgement call that could mean the difference beween life or death for not only himself but his team and any innocents that they have gathered so far in their mission. If the person is not a hostile, then they get yelled at, have a gun pointed at them, and eventually get it all cleared up. Is it possibly a traumatic experience for this person? Probably. Is it the officer's fault? No. It is the fault of whatever asshole called the cops on what they know is an innocent person.

So maybe give these matters more than 2 seconds of thought?

Spot on on everything. Well said.

#47 Posted by SaturdayNightSpecials (2446 posts) -

So SWAT cops are about as shitty and megalomaniacal as the average patrol cop, good to know.

#48 Posted by churrific (486 posts) -

@brodehouse: I don't really know anything about how SWAT are trained for these situations, but I would assume that officer safety comes first because if they're injured or incapacitated, they won't be helping anyone anyway. Maybe it's not a perfect analogy, but as a lifeguard, you save yourself from drowning first, otherwise you're no help to the person in distress.

#49 Posted by Fallen189 (5052 posts) -

I'd hate to live in America if the police can kick their way into your home, scream in your face and verbally berrate you when you've done nothing wrong. I'm glad this sort of police abuse of power got caught on camera. Fuck me

#50 Posted by AndrewB (7691 posts) -

It's at least awesome that the guy was fully cooperative. That's the least you could do to alleviate the otherwise stupid situation everyone involved has been placed into.

On the one hand, yeah, it's totally ridiculous that this level of force is so easy to invoke. On the other hand, I hope you guys realize why taking every threat seriously is kind of necessary. The double-edged sword of people being scumbags on either end of the spectrum of crying wolf and posing a legitimate threat.