New Bill Could Lead to Potential Life Sentences For Guilty Swatters

[Sight Unseen]

Whatever time you get for "Attempted Murder" (if the victim survives) or Involuntary Manslaughter (if the victim is killed) is the appropriate amount of time. I get that you're trying to scare these people, but you're now bending the law and the reasonable consequences to prove a point. That's what fascists do.

It's Katherine Clarke's bill, what did you expect? She doesn't seem to have much sense of proportional response in many things...

 

[Vicarious Reality]

How can this even happen? Does the police just take a random dudes word for it and load their shotguns?

 

[Pseudonym]

A life sentence seems quite excessive. I am glad that lawmakers are doing something to make sure swatting is punished more often, though. I think prisontime is appropriate for deliberately endangering the lives of other people but I hope that in practice this doesn't result in life sentences but more in sentences of something like 1-5 years depending on the circumstances.

Then again, this is in the USA and I believe that harsh sentences are the norm over there. Not that this is a good thing but it makes this at least consistent with the general penal system over there. And swatting is really quite a vile thing to do.

 

[CrystalShadow]

This has been long overdo but I am a little off put by it carrying a life sentence even if the police mistakenly kill someone. It certainly warrants prison time but that seems a bit excessive to me. It is a serious issue but this seems to be going overboard.

Life sentence does seem excessive, but looking at it a different way, it is assault with a deadly weapon. If your pre-meditated assault with a deadly weapon results in a death, it's no different that a first degree murder.

I agree somewhat but I suppose it all comes down to intent. It would really be hard to classify it on the same lines as first degree murder since it would almost be impossible to prove that the person swatting was attempting to actually kill the other person. I suppose I am a bit naive and view it more as what a terrible person would consider a prank. It deserves a stiff punishment and I make no excuses for it considering how vile swatting is. My main issue though is I am having trouble swallowing the idea that most people who Swat want their victim to die.

Well, while it might seem like a prank, this is on the level of putting explosives in someone's mailbox.
Sure, you might not cause any serious harm, but on the other hand, you could kill several people easily, all in the name of a 'prank'.

Really, pranks where the risk of death or injury are very high should not be treated lightly.
It's one thing to have a bit of fun at another person's expense, but it is quite another to do something incredibly dangerous 'for fun'.
At best that shows the person doing it is incredibly irresponsible, at worst it suggests they are psychotic or something...

 

[alandavidson]

This has been long overdo but I am a little off put by it carrying a life sentence even if the police mistakenly kill someone. It certainly warrants prison time but that seems a bit excessive to me. It is a serious issue but this seems to be going overboard.

Life sentence does seem excessive, but looking at it a different way, it is assault with a deadly weapon. If your pre-meditated assault with a deadly weapon results in a death, it's no different that a first degree murder.

Exactly. People tend to think of weapons as just guns, knives, and swords, but in reality anything can be used as a weapon. In the combat world we call them "nonconventional weapons". Using the police as a nonconventional weapon is a premeditated attack, and legally is first-degree murder.

 

[EyeReaper]

Yeah, this seems a little unfair. All the poor guy is doing is sending a heavily armed, highly trained death squad to some other dude's house because he instalocked teemo on twitch or something.

No, I have no sympathy for Swatters,"Just dumb kids pulling a prank" is not justification for their actions. If they're going to blatantly disregard someone else's life like that, then I don't see why I should hold your life in regard as well.

 

[busterkeatonrules]

It's a problem, but i thinks something like 5-10 years is plenty sufficient. Life sentences seems completely disproportionate. I REALLY don't like the mindset that in order to solve crime we just up the punishment. There should be punishment, certainly, but let's at least try to be fair and rational about it.

This particular crime is incredibly easy to commit and extremely difficult to prevent. A really severe punishment is probably the best possible deterrent. Once it becomes publicly known that swatting can potentially get you sentenced as a straight-up murderer, the number of incidents will most likely take a nosedive overnight.

Who knows - it might even die out completely before anyone even needs to actually be sentenced!

 

[WindKnight]

This has been long overdo but I am a little off put by it carrying a life sentence even if the police mistakenly kill someone. It certainly warrants prison time but that seems a bit excessive to me. It is a serious issue but this seems to be going overboard.

Life sentence does seem excessive, but looking at it a different way, it is assault with a deadly weapon. If your pre-meditated assault with a deadly weapon results in a death, it's no different that a first degree murder.

I agree somewhat but I suppose it all comes down to intent. It would really be hard to classify it on the same lines as first degree murder since it would almost be impossible to prove that the person swatting was attempting to actually kill the other person. I suppose I am a bit naive and view it more as what a terrible person would consider a prank. It deserves a stiff punishment and I make no excuses for it considering how vile swatting is. My main issue though is I am having trouble swallowing the idea that most people who Swat want their victim to die.

Well, we've had someones pet dog killed in swatting, and the people thinking suck a result was 'hilarious' and a 'victory', so in some quarters there more than hint sociopathy at play, or at least the kinda of assholery that needs a harsh life lesson.

 

[9tailedflame]

It's a problem, but i thinks something like 5-10 years is plenty sufficient. Life sentences seems completely disproportionate. I REALLY don't like the mindset that in order to solve crime we just up the punishment. There should be punishment, certainly, but let's at least try to be fair and rational about it.

This particular crime is incredibly easy to commit and extremely difficult to prevent. A really severe punishment is probably the best possible deterrent. Once it becomes publicly known that swatting can potentially get you sentenced as a straight-up murderer, the number of incidents will most likely take a nosedive overnight.

Who knows - it might even die out completely before anyone even needs to actually be sentenced!

I hope so. Maybe once a few of these jackasses get caught, it'll scare the others off. I imagine it can't be that hard to track them down.

 

[FalloutJack]

It's a problem, but i thinks something like 5-10 years is plenty sufficient. Life sentences seems completely disproportionate. I REALLY don't like the mindset that in order to solve crime we just up the punishment. There should be punishment, certainly, but let's at least try to be fair and rational about it.

This particular crime is incredibly easy to commit and extremely difficult to prevent. A really severe punishment is probably the best possible deterrent. Once it becomes publicly known that swatting can potentially get you sentenced as a straight-up murderer, the number of incidents will most likely take a nosedive overnight.

Who knows - it might even die out completely before anyone even needs to actually be sentenced!

I hope so. Maybe once a few of these jackasses get caught, it'll scare the others off. I imagine it can't be that hard to track them down.

I agree. They're on the game when it happens. You can subpoena the records from the gaming establishment for who was on said game at the time and at play with the Swatted fellow. After all, online games track your progress and gameplay time, all the stats of who you killed and how you did it and everything else. It's an easy way to get some records, track down users, and knock on some Swatter's door. Oh, they'll pay for that, and they'll deserve it.

 

[RonHiler]

How's this then, a douche does the call in thing. The swat team shows up, the people are clearly unarmed at the home, and fully complaint. The situation is in complete control. The police then decide to rape and murder everyone in the house. You've given them a free pass to do that if they want to. You've given the cops the excuse to do literally anything they want, becuase you've shifted ALL (keyword all) of the blame to the caller. Even though the situation was under total control, any racist cop could shoot a house full of unarmed black people and get away with it because you gave them a perfect scapegoat. The cop took on responsibility once the situation was under control and the cop decided to take things farther.

Nice reductio ad absurdum. Obviously one expects the police to act in accordance with their training and in a professional manner (and yes, I know, this has not always been the case lately, and your point about the racist cop is well taken). If they fail to do so, then yeah, they should be held accountable for that. Even so, I'd give them quite a LOT of leeway before I'd start shifting the blame over to them. They wouldn't be there in the first place if it weren't for the aforementioned douche. In actual fact, if there was police misconduct, I'd tack on any charges against the police "in addition to" the charges against Mr. Douche, rather than "instead of".

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Considering that Swatting is practically attempted murder, I'm ok with this.

I'm not happy about it, but this was kinda needed. This is the equivalent of pointing a gun at someone for fun when you know the gun has a chance of shooting at random, and thus killing or maiming the person.

 

[Strazdas]

Harsh sentences for swatters is a good thing but life sentence is way too much. i basically agree with the bellow statement by ObsidianJones, it should be equivalent punishment to similar crimes. Attempted murder ranges from 5 to 15 years depending on state (around 10 for first degree (planned) attempted murder). Considering that this is sometimes more than actual murder where i live id say thats enough of a punishment for swatters.

Whatever time you get for "Attempted Murder" (if the victim survives) or Involuntary Manslaughter (if the victim is killed) is the appropriate amount of time. I get that you're trying to scare these people, but you're now bending the law and the reasonable consequences to prove a point. That's what fascists do.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds good to me. Something has to scare them off. Well, I'd go for 40 years or something, sentenced for life is even extreme to me.

you know what would scare them off? actually being able to catch them.

Good. Bill cant be passed through fast enough. Surprised that people find it harsh to give someone life sentence when their "joke" ends up in people killed.

considering we dont give actual murderers life sentences its not really surprising.

Not sure how it works in 'Murica, but over here there's this thing called reasonable force. If, for a reasonable police officer in their situation, they used appropriate force for what the threat was represented to be, then you can't really fault them, and it is 100% the fault of the person who made that call.
If they use excessive force for that situation, then they are liable for their actions.

wouldnt go in guns blazing without surveying the situation going on nothing but an unconfirmed, untraceable phone call be considered exeeding reasonable force? I mean you ram someones door and you see him sitting in front of PC and shooting him is considered reasonable force? in what world?

How can this even happen? Does the police just take a random dudes word for it and load their shotguns?

Yes, police has to react to all calls seriuosly because it is impossible to know which ones are fake.

 

[Riddle78]

I agree with every single point of this proposed law. If a Swatting results in death,it might as well be murder by proxy,same with injury. And since Swatting is a premeditated act,I'd say a life sentence is fitting. Everyone who thinks it's overkill is,quite frankly,too much of a bleeding heart. Remember; The certainty of severe punishment deters crime.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

I like the idea of cracking down on swatting, but I'd prefer a more reliable way of catching swatters and preventing it from working as opposed to longer sentences. If anyone doing it knew that they have a greater than not chance at getting a couple of years in prison over this, I doubt they'd be as eager to try it.

That being said, I'm not sure what sort of logistics would be involved in that, and if adopting such measures would result in less likelihood of responding to serious situations

 

[FalloutJack]

reliable way of catching swatters

I think I should address this.

folks, you have to let go of the notion that people over the phone whom you call are perfect people. They're trained, but they're not perfect. They're human. And if that human hears a voice that sounds serious enough or even scared enough, they will assume the call to be genuine because that makes sense. Now, they're trained to look for slip-ups, no doubt, because prank calls have been a thing for a long-ass time, but some emergency service skepticism has also led to people with legit concerns not getting help. The second-guessing can hurt. So, with that in mind, some people WILL be fooled, despite all the best efforts. They're not idiots. Other people are just that convincing sometimes. The bad thing is that that means this shit can't be wholey prevented. The GOOD thing is that this bill is a viable deterent, and that anybody who is that convincing while being a prankster eliminates the ambiguity of the crime. They did it, on purpose, no question.


Bam! Guilty! While being in space!

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

I think I should address this.

folks, you have to let go of the notion that people over the phone whom you call are perfect people. They're trained, but they're not perfect. They're human. And if that human hears a voice that sounds serious enough or even scared enough, they will assume the call to be genuine because that makes sense. Now, they're trained to look for slip-ups, no doubt, because prank calls have been a thing for a long-ass time, but some emergency service skepticism has also led to people with legit concerns not getting help. The second-guessing can hurt. So, with that in mind, some people WILL be fooled, despite all the best efforts. They're not idiots. Other people are just that convincing sometimes. The bad thing is that that means this shit can't be wholey prevented. The GOOD thing is that this bill is a viable deterent, and that anybody who is that convincing while being a prankster eliminates the ambiguity of the crime. They did it, on purpose, no question.

I'm thinking of something procedural, not just having people be more skeptical of calls.

For example, police can trace phone calls to get the location of the caller. There may be ways of getting around this, but if there are that would give you due cause to distrust the caller, and at least approach the situation more cautiously, keeping force in reserve. Usually the people doing this aren't at the location where the swatting is taking place, and not in any supposed immediate danger. How about sending an officer to meet up with them at the same time you investigate the situation? In real emergencies this sounds like it'd be a good idea, let alone fake ones. If the person doesn't show up and take a statement, call off the operation (if it hadn't started already).

I don't know how viable or even possible this would be in practice, hence why I said 'if', but something of this nature would be preferable to longer prison sentences. Most of the people who do this are young morons, and probably have no intention of anyone getting seriously injured from their "joke". Several years in prison would beat the severity of their actions into their heads, and given them a lot better chance of rehabilitation than twenty or more

 

[FalloutJack]

Facepalm. When will you learn that harsher sentences is not a deterrent to crime?

Learn why people commit crimes and fight the causes.

That line of logic only works when the cause can be seen as being 'worth it', in the sense of going black market to handle a need that can't be done officially, with pirates who can't be stomped out because they deliver quicker and better without hassle, or similar. This is not that. The reason is 'Young people are being dicks online for the sake of it'. There isn't anything more to it than that. It's outside the game-provider's ability to do anything about, because it's a phone call to interfere with somebody out of game. It has entirely to do with police personnel and a little dipshit sending them places. That's all. No great cause, no ambiguity, no gray area. You can't punish people by cutting off their emergency services and you can't prevent all the prank callers from fooling somebody on the other end if they're good enough. When it does happen, it's illegal and dangerous, and I have no sympathy for the sucker. The cause is dicks who create a dangerous situation to be dicks. Argue it if you like, but you don't have a 'simpler' way to fight the cause. Now, I'd appreciate it if you ease up on people.

I'm thinking of something procedural, not just having people be more skeptical of calls.

For example, police can trace phone calls to get the location of the caller. There may be ways of getting around this, but if there are that would give you due cause to distrust the caller, and at least approach the situation more cautiously, keeping force in reserve. Usually the people doing this aren't at the location where the swatting is taking place, and not in any supposed immediate danger. How about sending an officer to meet up with them at the same time you investigate the situation? In real emergencies this sounds like it'd be a good idea, let alone fake ones. If the person doesn't show up and take a statement, call off the operation (if it hadn't started already).

I don't know how viable or even possible this would be in practice, hence why I said 'if', but something of this nature would be preferable to longer prison sentences. Most of the people who do this are young morons, and probably have no intention of anyone getting seriously injured from their "joke". Several years in prison would beat the severity of their actions into their heads, and given them a lot better chance of rehabilitation than twenty or more

I don't know if that's 'better' or 'preventative', but it DOES make catching the sucker easier, maybe.

 

[BarkBarker]

10 years base that goes further upon further transgressions for me. Life is usually something with a lot of weight to it, ruining someone's life is heavy for sure but of such weight the punishment is an eternity locked away from society? Seems just a weee bit much.

 

[Lunar Templar]

good, this was long over due.

Life for getting some one killed due to a 'prank' seems fair to me. Especially since this 'prank' shows a gross indifference toward human life to begin with.