Hacker News Reader

Yeah, my first thought was "Anyone can summon cops to shoot me with just my address?". Should society get a CVE entry for that?

If there was a magic button in the world that killed someone every time it was pressed, I'd be much more concerned about getting rid of the button or enacting societal change to keep the button under protection than I would care about tracking down people that pressed the button. Sure, some degree of that is good to discourage it too, but if the button remains out in the open, easy to press, and pressed by more people than actually do get captured, then something isn't right.

Beautifully stated - this is a pithy remix of the exact thought that drove my comment.

On a side note, you might like a movie called The Box (2009).

Basically a couple receives a box with a button and pressing it will give them $1 million but a stranger somewhere in the world will die at the same time.

I don't remember if it's any good but your scenario reminded me of it.

There was also an episode of The Twilight Zone with the same plot [0]. Based on a short story by Richard Matheson.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button,_Button_(The_Twilight_Z...

Something that I haven't seen much comment on is that the fact this call was false is somewhat irrelevant to the failure of the police here.

Even if this had been a real hostage situation, that absolutely required the presence of SWAT - they still shot an unarmed man by the front door - in a real situation that's a hostage.

Dealing with a house full of only innocent people is objectively simpler than one with a mix of innocent people and bad guys even if you don't know which you'll face when you open the door.

But laying this at the door of one man is not much help - there's no deterrent needed here just better systems/training.

> Something that I haven't seen much comment on is that the fact this call was false is somewhat irrelevant to the failure of the police here.

Agreed: this is the real takeaway. The phone call is a distraction.

Given that it is common knowledge that american police officers shoot first and ask questions later[1], intentionally sending them to a residence under the false pretext that there is a dangerous murderer actively killing people at the location should be at least second degree murder + some type of "fraud with intent to harm".[2]

It is crimes like this that make me think we've got to break down the walls protecting anonymity on the internet -- which makes me sad, because I've always kind of liked anonymity on the internet...

[1]which is entirely wrong and should absolutely be stopped and as a nation we need to have a real conversation about this...

[2]I'm not a legal expert, I just have a functioning sense of morality...

I agree with you 100%. Also because this is the first death, we have pretty much narrowed in on what the probability of someone dying is. I'm surprised it went this far. Sadly, because of how awful human beings are, I suspect the number of swatting incidents will only go up and be harder (much harder) to trace.

I live in Wichita and watched the police debriefing including the 911 call.

The caller spent upwards of 20 minutes on the phone with the police describing a homicide scene with the intent of misleading the police to cause this type of reaction.

He could not have known the murder would take place, but the intent was obvious.

If this is true the caller has to be tried for murder

This is a well communicated argument.

In the same vein, if a database is breached and personal information leaked, I think most people here would agree it is the company/system at fault, rather than some scapegoat programmer/sys-admin.

I can't believe the amount of deflection/justification in the comments section here. A police officer showed up to a house and shot an innocent person. They either shot a hostage (if they believed the threat to be real) which is unacceptable, or they shot an innocent bystander (if they believed the threat is not real).

This is a process failure, as is evident by how "SWATing" is a known/common thing.

> I'm actually of the mind that it makes sense to intentionally subject 911 to incorrect information (like we do with the TSA) in order to audit and pentest it.

This is a good example of moral hazard. The risk is born not by the first responders, but by the people they affect.

But can't you say that about any simulated attack routine? Or is this a special case in your mind because 911 is a service typically run by the state?

If it's the latter, then I want to suggest that this is a strong indicator that emergency services are better built in a manner where the state is unable to substantially influence their particulars.

I can't find the link but this isn't the first time that someone has wrongly called the police on a household where one of the innocent occupants was killed. The person making the call was charged with manslaughter I believe, so that person is being held liable.

That is because there is intention behind the action, that has caused the death of another.

It is the same as shouting fire in a crowded movie theater, which again is for the intent to cause potential harm.

So the person making the call in this case when they are identified will 100% be charged with a rather serious crime.

There are probably other charges that the person can be brought up, but most likely there will be something manslaughter related.

> And in fact, in this case, the officer who fired a weapon is, to my way of thinking, the only person at fault for this murder.

You seem to be completely disagreeing with this statement when you later agree that "The caller is certainly an asshole and is even culpable for homicidal intent" and "when the state murders someone, it's the state's fault"

Who hired the police officer? Who makes the standards for police training?

Who is the "CoD swatting community"? Who is the ACTUAL person that called in this specific swatting?

Also... We need a society where incorrect information given to open, authless APIs never leads to anyone's death.

What the heck? Imagine this scenario: 911 What's your emergency?

Caller) I'm wearing blue jacket & red hat in Terminal 2B at the airport and will detonate a bomb killing everyone at the airport in 10 minutes.

Can you suggest to me how this ends well? Is it real? Is it fake? You have 10 minutes to make a decision here. Are you going to have your officers walk in without guns to make sure no one accidentally gets killed?

> You seem to be completely disagreeing with this statement when you later agree that "The caller is certainly an asshole and is even culpable for homicidal intent" and "when the state murders someone, it's the state's fault"

I'm saying that, even though this person had homicidal intent, they did not commit murder - the police officer did that part.

> Caller) I'm wearing blue jacket & red hat in Terminal 2B at the airport and will detonate a bomb killing everyone at the airport in 10 minutes.

> Can you suggest to me how this ends well? Is it real? Is it fake? You have 10 minutes to make a decision here. Are you going to have your officers walk in without guns to make sure no one accidentally gets killed?

I don't think that Hollywood-inspired hypotheticals have any place in the architecture of an emergency response system.

Incidents like the one you describe are rare enough not to need any specialized protocol at all, so a more general protocol of investigation and verification applies. In an age where cameras are everywhere - including in the pocket of every person in Terminal 2B - a great deal of investigation and verification can happen in 60 seconds.

> The caller is certainly an asshole and is even culpable for homicidal intent, but I don't think that their conduct is tantamount to murder - more like involuntary manslaughter.

The difference between second degree murder and manslaughter is intent. If he's culpable for "homicidal intent" then he's committed murder.

Probably better was for me to phrase is as "criminal negligence" I suppose.

But to me it's more like in the legal category of assisted suicide (which has clear intent to kill, but is charged as manslaughter): The person played an "assistive" role in ensuring that the circumstances for homicide came to pass, did not themselves make the decisions that led to the homicide.

In the case of assisted suicide, the actual perpetrator is the patient (whom, to my eyes, has committed to affront to justice) while, in this case, the actual perpetrator is the police officer.

In both cases, the "assistant" is culpable for some form of manslaughter, but not murder.

Assuming the SWAT call itself was a felony, there's something called 'felony murder' which could apply here. The way felony murder works is essentially that if you commit a felony and someone is killed as a result, you're on the hook for that murder.

We can multitask. Swatting is a problem that needs fixing. But also people abusing it is a problem, and applying meaningful consequences can help significantly in that regard. The "idiot CoD player" knew what they were doing, and should face a jury for it, while at the same time we can push to reduce the risk of anyone doing anything similar in the future.

Note, even if swatting was 100% safe, it's still would be a serious criminally false report, and consequences would help dissuade abuse.

> 911 is an open API with no authentication. It cannot possibly prove guilt. Therefore, in a society which values innocence absent proof of guilt, police are bound to treat anyone they encounter by dint of information from 911 as innocent.

No, "innocence absent proof of guilt" is a courtroom standard. Police encountering suspects do not apply the same standards of evidence as a courtroom.

Every component of the framework of individual rights in common law societies, including but not limited to trial by jury, a speedy trial, public proceedings, and prohibitions on excessive bail are all designed to ensure that the state can't capriciously violate the rights of innocent people.

Although, like all legal principles, its application is entertained and applied in a court room, it is pervasive throughout every component of the mechanisms by which the power of the state is restricted.

That the presumption of innocence is a legal right (you use the phrase "courtroom standard" - fine) and not the SOP of a civilian police force serves to lengthen its reach, not shorten it.

...and to the degree that this principle is about restraining the moments at which the state may encroach upon rights to lawful findings of guilt: shooting someone at their front door is about as violative of an innocent person's rights as I can imagine state conduct being.

Granted that the innocent should not be shot. I don't think you'll find anyone to take the other side of that argument. Nonetheless, the question of "proving" guilt does not even enter into the consideration when the police are initially encountering a suspect. At that point it is about restoring order (making sure everyone is safe) and beginning to gather evidence. The notion "proof" having relevance in the initial police encounter with a civilian is the portion of the comment I was reacting to.

Most people that police encounter (like the victim in this story) are not suspects. They are just people. It's actually part of the problem that (many) police consider "not-police" to all be suspects when on a call.