Hacker News Reader

Comment by PragmaticPulp | Hacker News Reader

> can we really blame them for doing fucked up shit without considering the consequences?

Absolutely. The incident was in 2020 and one of the suspects isn’t a minor as of 2021, so these aren’t exactly clueless children who are incapable of understanding that actions have consequences.

Swatting also isn’t a new concept with unknown consequences. These people are using swatting precisely because it has a track record of being extremely dangerous. They’re not breaking new ground, they’re looking at past events and choosing to repeat them.

These people shouldn’t get a free pass because they were almost-adults rather than legal adults at the time of the crime.

View on HN

> These people shouldn’t get a free pass because they were almost-adults rather than legal adults at the time of the crime.

I personally disagree with this. A specific age must be decided between children and adults - let's say 18 (depends on the country). What would be a good clear definition of "almost adults"? 17? In that case, just make the adult age 17. Then you'll get the exact same argument for 16 year old kids committing crimes.

There is no logical reason to consider children adults.

Ok, so let's write an entire article about punishing the kids, making it sound like a really harsh punishment should hit them and implying it is a shame that the other ones are untouchable, and not even once talk about how maybe the police are at fault for being at the whim of children on the Internet? That is ridiculous.

> and not even once talk about how maybe the police are at fault for being at the whim of children on the the Internet?

The police arrived at the home after reports of urgent violence. The homeowner exited the home with a gun in hand and the police de-escalated the situation without shots fired on either side.

What do you suggest they do differently in this case? They can’t just assume calls are false and ignore them.

What's the alternative response you expect police to have after being told a violent killer is on the loose at an address? There is very little they can do to vet the information, and time is critical. There is a reason they send SWAT and not a regular officer. The claim these kids make to illicit such an extreme response is usually a hostage situation or armed killer hiding out.

I've seen a decent amount of body cam footage of officers responding to calls. Not enough force or control over the situation can be a fatal mistake. Too much force and they're vilified by the media. They obviously can't ignore the call either.

Cops are getting crucified in the US on both sides. Why anyone would want to take in that duty in these times is beyond me.

> There is a reason they send SWAT and not a regular officer

None of the articles say they sent a SWAT team. It reads as though police officers simply responded to the call. I think the term “swatting” and the stock photos of a SWAT team are misleading a lot of commenters.

Swatting doesnt seem to be as big a thing in any other countries besides the US. There seems to be something peculiar to the US style of policing that makes swatting more dangerous.

I'm going to make an assumption that it is our citizens are more likely to be armed.

Police that serve in a disarmed populace don't have to worry about a suspect reaching into a wasteband or pocket and pulling a firearm. Cops in the US do. That single movement alone is enough to warrant a violent response by police engagement standards.

"What is the procedure for police in those countries when they receive an anonymous report of ongoing violent crime at a residence?"

Swatting is definitely a thing in Canada.

And the UK. From 2015: https://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tech/2015/08/swatting-uk-tr...

“In the only known UK arrest for swatting offences [..] all commited in the US.”

So… nah.

"Mumsnet founder Justine Roberts and her family were woken in the early hours of the morning last week by armed police at the door. Days later, more armed police arrived at the address of a Mumsnet user. In both cases, police had received calls claiming there was a gunman at the property. In both, said gunman did not exist."

Turns out you’re right, and “ Roberts and the Mumsnet user were the first known UK victims of "swatting"”. The first.

Although it still sounds like something very different from the real swatting, in that the police didn’t pose danger to inhabitants.

> There seems to be something peculiar to the US style of policing that makes swatting more dangerous.

Something peculiar about certain groups of US teens, too. Some of 'em seem totally convinced that they're immune to consequences as long as they're below a certain age…

In this case the person who called in the report was a minor from the UK. Back in April, someone from France swatted Ubisoft (https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/justice-et-faits-divers/2...).

We can do both, fortunately.

It takes no effort to yell "fire!" in a crowded venue. Some very easy things are very harmful, humans have to learn not to do them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com