Man killed by police after angry CoD gamer SWATs player for lost $1.50 wager match

Ironman126

Dark DM Overlord
Apr 7, 2010
658
0
0
Canadamus Prime said:
Ironman126 said:
A Call of Duty player.
Thanks that really clears things up. ...actually it kinda does.
I've played my fair share of online games and Call of Duty players are second only to League of Legends players in their toxic bullshit. It doesn't surprise me at all that some CoD dickhead would pull shit like this. Really, what surprises me is that it doesn't happen more often.

An American police force. 'Murica! Fuck yeah!

But seriously, a lot of our cops have a shoot first, ask questions never modus operandi. Once in a while, questions will be asked later. This kind of shit is far from confidence inspiring.
That's really stupid esp. in a situation like this. Again it's no wonder they have a bad rep.
It's a tough situation. There are a lot of guns in the US and there are effectively no restrictions on ownership. Cops here are twitchy, undisciplined, and scared. If you had the option of shooting someone who might have a gun or maybe getting shot yourself, I imagine that you'd prefer to become a murderer than risk becoming a corpse.

I'm not trying to justify the choice, of course, but I try to understand why it occurred.

Gamers still aren't exactly looked upon in a positive light in the media if I'm not mistaken. I suppose attention has shifted to other things now now though.
No doubt, but they're usually not in the business of getting real people killed.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,497
3,492
118
Samtemdo8 said:
And I have been told the example of Non Lethal weapons like Shotguns with Rubber Slugs and Tasers are not as effective to incapacitate a Suspect...
As others have said, less lethal, and as you say, less effective.

OTOH, they can still be useful under certain situations (the suspect is violent, but not armed). US police seem to be rather trigger happy with those as well, though.
 

RobertEHouse

Former Mad Man
Mar 29, 2012
152
0
0
Wintermute said:
You can't go to jail in America for prank calling the police?
Yes you can!

The laws differ slightly from state to state, but the legit of it is if a person calls the police or fire department with a point to deceive, they can be charged under state law. All states have these types of laws; the problem is that each state wrote their own so it's not unified. So in one state a person that pranks using 911 will be fined $200,000 plus a five year jail sentence. While in another state it a twelve year sentence and a $10,000 fine.

Since they called from one state to another to have the SWAT, this case will also fall under Federal jurisdiction. That also has its own laws in how it deals cases that cross state lines. In the end, this guy will not just be charged under federal law, which is more sever. He will more in likely be charge under the state's law which he made the call from. Meaning this guy will not just have to serve a federal sentence but a state sentence and have a massive fine to pay.
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
Thaluikhain said:
OTOH, they can still be useful under certain situations (the suspect is violent, but not armed). US police seem to be rather trigger happy with those as well, though.
This. There are plenty of situations that police officers can defuse with a can of pepper spray and a take down, that doesn't need them to pull their sidearm. When I worked the psychiatric intake it was a fairly common occurrence to have the police come in during the night shifts with psychotic people, people who were having a bad drug trip and similar who were loud and aggressive, occasionally violent but never posing enough threat to be an imminent lethal danger to someone else. Quite often these people would have been pepper sprayed (and would have the entire area around their eyes swollen for days afterwards), because it was a quick way to stop them from trying to attack the police officers who came to pick them up.
 

bastardofmelbourne

New member
Dec 11, 2012
1,038
0
0
Arnoxthe1 said:
Saelune said:
Me? I prefer punishing the people pulling the trigger.
You know what, I don't actually care all that much whether the team member is actually guilty or goes to jail or whatever. It's that you all AUTOMATICALLY assume that the cop in question was some asshole who deserves to be punished when you literally don't even know the first thing about him. Guilty until proven innocent doesn't fly well with me.
If a cop kills an innocent person, he has either committed a crime or made a very serious mistake. Either way, disciplinary action is necessary.

So, yes; the cop should be punished. Any cop who accidentally kills a completely innocent person - even if they do so after receiving false information from a prank call - should face disciplinary action. Not necessarily being sent to jail, but fired? Sure. Ordinary people get fired every day for making mistakes that are far less grave. Is a cop's job that important when you can't trust him to do it properly and safely?
 

RobertEHouse

Former Mad Man
Mar 29, 2012
152
0
0
Gethsemani said:
Thaluikhain said:
OTOH, they can still be useful under certain situations (the suspect is violent, but not armed). US police seem to be rather trigger happy with those as well, though.
This. There are plenty of situations that police officers can defuse with a can of pepper spray and a take down, that doesn't need them to pull their sidearm. When I worked the psychiatric intake it was a fairly common occurrence to have the police come in during the night shifts with psychotic people, people who were having a bad drug trip and similar who were loud and aggressive, occasionally violent but never posing enough threat to be an imminent lethal danger to someone else. Quite often these people would have been pepper sprayed (and would have the entire area around their eyes swollen for days afterwards), because it was a quick way to stop them from trying to attack the police officers who came to pick them up.
One thing people forget is SWAT is NOT the normal police department. SWAT is supposed to be only called if its the last resort as the Sh@t has hit the fan. That means heavy armor and military grade rifles, platoon tactics to stop a hostage situation from getting out of hand. Unlike the normal men in blue they are not the type to talk, as the situations they are normally placed into are times when talking is not a option.

SWAT uses lethal force all the time , while the regular guys in PD have options. That is why SWATTING someone is so horrible as it could lead to someone ending very much dead.
 

Cette

Member
Legacy
Dec 16, 2011
177
0
1
Country
US
Arnoxthe1 said:
Saelune said:
Me? I prefer punishing the people pulling the trigger.
Guilty until proven innocent doesn't fly well with me.
Ah yes you're correct shooting until proven innocent is in fact the moral high ground.

You see they can't charge with any crimes if you're dead so you come out ahead on the whole thing.
 

aprilmurphy444

New member
Dec 31, 2017
5
0
0
I quit my nine to five work and now I am making85 dollars hourly. ...How? I am freelancing online from my home! My old workwas bad for me ,so I was forced to try something new? Two yrs have passed sinceAnd I say it was the wisest decision i ever made! Here is what i do?dpp

........... ► http://www.Help80.Com
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,497
3,492
118
RobertEHouse said:
One thing people forget is SWAT is NOT the normal police department. SWAT is supposed to be only called if its the last resort as the Sh@t has hit the fan. That means heavy armor and military grade rifles, platoon tactics to stop a hostage situation from getting out of hand. Unlike the normal men in blue they are not the type to talk, as the situations they are normally placed into are times when talking is not a option.

SWAT uses lethal force all the time , while the regular guys in PD have options. That is why SWATTING someone is so horrible as it could lead to someone ending very much dead.
Lethal force is still a last resort for SWAT as well. For that matter, they are supposed to differentiate between threats and victims.

But yeah, they are only (supposed) to be used when things have gotten really bad.
 
Jan 27, 2011
3,740
0
0
Oh shit, on top of it all, it was a fake address?

The guy who called the swat team should get charged with at least second degree murder (I mean, seriously, considering how trigger-happy the cops are known to be in the US, I'm shocked a lethal event didn't happen sooner), and the guy who gave the fake address should probably be investigated for manslaughter for basically egging the guy on.

I hope they make an example of that little shit.

As for the Swat guy himself...At the very least he should redo basic training completely. I sympathize that swat is called in when "oh shit people are dying, we need maximum force to save lives, teh help us literally right this second!" and thus would likely be trained to shoot to kill the second someone looks like they're planning to reach for a gun...But it's still way too goddamn trigger happy.
 
Feb 26, 2014
668
0
0
Ezekiel said:
Captain Marvelous said:
Don't really want to defend the police, but it isn't as if they can walk up to the front door and ask if there's a hostage situation going on. They can't handle the situation with kiddy gloves just because of an anonymous tip. As far as they know, lives are at risk. One man has already been shot and a woman is being held captive in a closet.
There are windows all around the house they could have used to verify the situation. They wouldn't even have to put their faces in front of possible gunpoint. They can use mirrors and other tools. If they had looked into those windows, they could have seen that he was doing nothing at all. They could have also listened in. And if you're ready to kill at the slightest sign of threat, maybe you should come with more armor and a shotgun so that you don't have to be so twitchy. If this keeps, shouldn't that be a message that they need to change their procedure? Cops in America are frightening. I don't know if I would have been smart enough not to get shot in the face too in such a confusing, scary situation.
Assuming they had the chance and the equipment, maybe. But from what I understand, the man opened the door before they could make contact. Even if they had more protective armor, I don't think any officers are keen on taking any fire, so it'd have likely ended the same way.

The way I see it, the big mistake that was made, aside from the swatting, was the victim not keeping his hands up like the officers ordered. American citizens need to understand that when an officer gives an order it's in everyone's best interest to comply. When an officer approaches what they assume to be a hostile suspect, they're also scared for their lives. They don't want to kill you, but they don't want to die either. It's easy to picture them as trigger-happy, blood-thirsty, maniacs, but the reality is they're human and are just as afraid of death. If you're innocent, comply. It wont fix the problem, but at least the officer wont be able to say "I saw him reach for a gun"
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Captain Marvelous said:
Ezekiel said:
Captain Marvelous said:
Don't really want to defend the police, but it isn't as if they can walk up to the front door and ask if there's a hostage situation going on. They can't handle the situation with kiddy gloves just because of an anonymous tip. As far as they know, lives are at risk. One man has already been shot and a woman is being held captive in a closet.
There are windows all around the house they could have used to verify the situation. They wouldn't even have to put their faces in front of possible gunpoint. They can use mirrors and other tools. If they had looked into those windows, they could have seen that he was doing nothing at all. They could have also listened in. And if you're ready to kill at the slightest sign of threat, maybe you should come with more armor and a shotgun so that you don't have to be so twitchy. If this keeps, shouldn't that be a message that they need to change their procedure? Cops in America are frightening. I don't know if I would have been smart enough not to get shot in the face too in such a confusing, scary situation.
Assuming they had the chance and the equipment, maybe. But from what I understand, the man opened the door before they could make contact. Even if they had more protective armor, I don't think any officers are keen on taking any fire, so it'd have likely ended the same way.

The way I see it, the big mistake that was made, aside from the swatting, was the victim not keeping his hands up like the officers ordered. American citizens need to understand that when an officer gives an order it's in everyone's best interest to comply. When an officer approaches what they assume to be a hostile suspect, they're also scared for their lives. They don't want to kill you, but they don't want to die either. It's easy to picture them as trigger-happy, blood-thirsty, maniacs, but the reality is they're human and are just as afraid of death. If you're innocent, comply. It wont fix the problem, but at least the officer wont be able to say "I saw him reach for a gun"
Literal victim blaming.
 
Feb 26, 2014
668
0
0
Saelune said:
Captain Marvelous said:
Ezekiel said:
Captain Marvelous said:
Don't really want to defend the police, but it isn't as if they can walk up to the front door and ask if there's a hostage situation going on. They can't handle the situation with kiddy gloves just because of an anonymous tip. As far as they know, lives are at risk. One man has already been shot and a woman is being held captive in a closet.
There are windows all around the house they could have used to verify the situation. They wouldn't even have to put their faces in front of possible gunpoint. They can use mirrors and other tools. If they had looked into those windows, they could have seen that he was doing nothing at all. They could have also listened in. And if you're ready to kill at the slightest sign of threat, maybe you should come with more armor and a shotgun so that you don't have to be so twitchy. If this keeps, shouldn't that be a message that they need to change their procedure? Cops in America are frightening. I don't know if I would have been smart enough not to get shot in the face too in such a confusing, scary situation.
Assuming they had the chance and the equipment, maybe. But from what I understand, the man opened the door before they could make contact. Even if they had more protective armor, I don't think any officers are keen on taking any fire, so it'd have likely ended the same way.

The way I see it, the big mistake that was made, aside from the swatting, was the victim not keeping his hands up like the officers ordered. American citizens need to understand that when an officer gives an order it's in everyone's best interest to comply. When an officer approaches what they assume to be a hostile suspect, they're also scared for their lives. They don't want to kill you, but they don't want to die either. It's easy to picture them as trigger-happy, blood-thirsty, maniacs, but the reality is they're human and are just as afraid of death. If you're innocent, comply. It wont fix the problem, but at least the officer wont be able to say "I saw him reach for a gun"
Literal victim blaming.
Maybe it is. The truth of the matter is the suspect has a lot of input in how the situation ends. It's best for everyone involved for suspects to comply with officers. When the suspect reaches for their waist or ignores an officers orders then that's their input and they're partly to blame for the outcome.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,830
5,737
118
Country
United Kingdom
Captain Marvelous said:
Maybe it is. The truth of the matter is the suspect has a lot of input in how the situation ends. It's best for everyone involved for suspects to comply with officers. When the suspect reaches for their waist or ignores an officers orders then that's their input and they're partly to blame for the outcome.
Can any of us realistically claim to know how we would react if we expected it to be an ordinary day, and in a minute's time, we're faced with loaded guns and yelled instructions? No.

Shooting to kill is not an appropriate response in any way to an action as innocuous as touching one's waist. There cannot be said to be any reasonable expectation on the victim's part of what would happen, so no, they are not partly responsible. The killer is responsible.

As are those who created the situation, of course: the two players. All three should be charged.
 
Feb 26, 2014
668
0
0
Silvanus said:
Captain Marvelous said:
Maybe it is. The truth of the matter is the suspect has a lot of input in how the situation ends. It's best for everyone involved for suspects to comply with officers. When the suspect reaches for their waist or ignores an officers orders then that's their input and they're partly to blame for the outcome.
Can any of us realistically claim to know how we would react if we expected it to be an ordinary day, and in a minute's time, we're faced with loaded guns and yelled instructions? No.

Shooting to kill is not an appropriate response in any way to an action as innocuous as touching one's waist. There cannot be said to be any reasonable expectation on the victim's part of what would happen, so no, they are not partly responsible. The killer is responsible.

As are those who created the situation, of course: the two players. All three should be charged.
Officers are trained to shoot to stop and aim for center mass. This can be fatal, but their intention isn't to kill. shooting as a response is appropriate if the suspect is ordered to put their hands up, and do so, but then reach for their waist. Any reasonable person would assume he's reaching for a gun. The officer was doing what he was trained to do and did it right. No, he shouldn't be charged.
 

sanquin

New member
Jun 8, 2011
1,837
0
0
If at the very least the caller isn't charged with manslaughter and put in jail, and the other guy who egged him on to do it isn't charged with anything either, I will have lost hope in America as a whole. If injustice like this goes unpunished for the perpetrators, then there is no justice at all in America.

Other than that, I do think that the cop that shot needs to at the VERY least be fired. No one as trigger happy as him should be in the police force. Fuck you and your "I feared for the other cop's life" excuse. You know it's a bullshit story to get yourself out of trouble and so do we.
 
Feb 26, 2014
668
0
0
undeadsuitor said:
Captain Marvelous said:
Silvanus said:
Captain Marvelous said:
Maybe it is. The truth of the matter is the suspect has a lot of input in how the situation ends. It's best for everyone involved for suspects to comply with officers. When the suspect reaches for their waist or ignores an officers orders then that's their input and they're partly to blame for the outcome.
Can any of us realistically claim to know how we would react if we expected it to be an ordinary day, and in a minute's time, we're faced with loaded guns and yelled instructions? No.

Shooting to kill is not an appropriate response in any way to an action as innocuous as touching one's waist. There cannot be said to be any reasonable expectation on the victim's part of what would happen, so no, they are not partly responsible. The killer is responsible.

As are those who created the situation, of course: the two players. All three should be charged.
Officers are trained to shoot to stop and aim for center mass. This can be fatal, but their intention isn't to kill. shooting as a response is appropriate if the suspect is ordered to put their hands up, and do so, but then reach for their waist. Any reasonable person would assume he's reaching for a gun. The officer was doing what he was trained to do and did it right. No, he shouldn't be charged.

And therein lies the problem. Officer's are barely trained and what they are trained to do is Shoot First, Ask Ques- Shoot Second, Get the persons nam- Shoot third.

It's an awful combination of

1) give everyone in every household and school room a gun including kids so that the NRA and Conversative politicians can make money

2) mythologize police into omnipotent protectors

3) police are trained to shoot on sight if they believe someone has a gun, which is everyone, so they always shoot first

4) give police paid vacation when they fuck up until the media blitz died down tied into #2 since cops can do no wrong and are never fired

America's fucked up
Agreed. Something has to be done. Maybe change the way they're trained. Maybe put some funding toward more non-lethal means. But putting officers on trial for doing their jobs as they were trained is not the answer. It should be clear by now that the officers aren't the problem... sometimes. Anyway, I'm off. Happy New Year, all.
 
Nov 9, 2015
323
79
33
undeadsuitor said:
Iirc U.S. police are required to write a report everytime they draw their gun, and they face serious consequences if they do not have a legitimate reason. They won't draw a gun every time you reach for your waist, otherwise they can't get your driver and registration.