https://www.polygon.com/2019/3/29/18287168/call-of-duty-swatting-death-prison-sentence
20 years, so almost twice as much as what seemed possible.
20 years, so almost twice as much as what seemed possible.
Gamers/Streamers Swatting Megathread
- Thread starter FoRiZon
- 261 comments
- 14,408 views
- 7,142
- Massachusetts
- llClaude_Speedll
- BlazingSol05
If you're that sad of a person that you have to trick SWAT into raiding an innocent streamer's home or a gamer's home that pissed you off in a VIDEO GAME, likely injuring or even killing in the process, then you deserve a harsh punishment. End of story.
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
If you are acting maliciously out of spite, and those actions disrupt the lives of several, and the death of another, you accept the consequences. Better still, he pretty much pulled himself out of the gene pool. Which is a great bonus.
- 30,040
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Fortnite world champion is swatted mid-game
16 year old Kyle Giersdorf who recently won a $3 million Fortnite World Championship was luckily unharmed during the incident because one of the officers on the SWAT team lived nearby and recognised him.
I simply cannot, cannot, cannot understand what is in people's minds when they do this.
The best part of the story though? He went back after 10 minutes and still went on to win the game.
16 year old Kyle Giersdorf who recently won a $3 million Fortnite World Championship was luckily unharmed during the incident because one of the officers on the SWAT team lived nearby and recognised him.
I simply cannot, cannot, cannot understand what is in people's minds when they do this.
The best part of the story though? He went back after 10 minutes and still went on to win the game.
- 30,040
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
It's probably a severe given that the charge wasn't for "prank calling the police"but for conspiracy as well as falsifying police reports. In legalese, conspiracy is a severe thing to do. Or even if you take "I didn't think he would get shot" into account, you could say the same about lots of murders, thefts and beatings; not considering the worst-case consequence shouldn't detract from the stupidity of doing the crime or allowing the crime to occur in the first place.
I know what you mean but with every new bad socio-cultural "development" like this, swatting not being a thing until a few years ago, I guess they needed to set an example to deter others. But as you say yourself, people still do this even after the prison sentence for the other ones.
I don't know what you could do to actually nip this in the bud and make people realise what a stupid and potentially deadly thing it is to do.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,103
- Mile High City
Legalese doesn't change the fact that it was a prank call. A prank pizza delivery could result in a deadly accident in which the pizza delivery person dies en-route.
That's not how sentencing is supposed to work. The punishment is supposed to fit the crime.
I think the main thing... the most important thing... the one overarching absolutely paramount thing that we have to do is to make it not a deadly thing for the police to show up at your house. They shouldn't be shooting people just because they think they might have seen something that could have been a gun, or saw a movement that might have been going for a gun. Especially when they're in someone's home, and that person can legally be holding a gun in their home, even pointing it at intruders in their home.
Police are trained to cover their asses in the US when they should be trained to protect the innocent.
- 30,040
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
I absolutely agree with this.
It's tough; the perpetrator phoned the police and claimed that he'd killed one person and had two more hostage at the address. Doing something like that is extremely reckless, stupid and twisted. Both the police and the poor man who got shot had no idea what the true situation was.
There has to have been much more uncovered during the trial for it to be a 20 year sentence.
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
Its got to be said, there is quite a large difference between doing a fake order for pizza, and calling in a fake murder and hostage situation to the police. Further there was something like 51 charges he was convicted of. He admitted to having swatted a lot of people over the span of 2 years. He also called in a fake bomb threat at the FBI headquarters in DC. The fact this guy is getting any sympathy for a 20 year sentence, all things considered, is kinda ridiculous.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,103
- Mile High City
I still have sympathy. 20 years is a long time. I agree that there is a difference between a fake order for pizza and a fake hostage call. The fake hostage call should face stiff penalties. Even prison time. 20 years?
Under federal law in the US, drugging someone and raping them is punishable by a sentence of 15 years maximum. If you think 20 years is reasonable, you've lost sight of something.
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
Danoff
Premium
- 34,103
- Mile High City
Oh, it was only 12.5 years for that one call, and then another 7.5 years for that other one. And there were lots of related charges for the same incident. Totally changes every... nope, nothing.
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
That's fine, the guys directly responsible for taking a life. I wouldn't even call it involuntary manslaughter. That's enough for me. He sent a deadly weapon to a persons house and it killed that person. Given his story, and the results, 20 years is good as far as I care. At the end of the day, neither mine nor your opinion matters on the subject anyway. We weren't the jury and we weren't the judge.
- 87,808
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
In the UK, performing an act that you know is likely to cause someone's death would be murder. I think that in the USA it would be constructive manslaughter - committing a crime with malicious intent*, which results in death.
If you call the police falsely saying someone's at risk of death (a crime), and they show up to that address in fear of a threat and kill someone, your crime had the consequence of death - and you committed it knowing that consequence was likely.
Of course the problem with that is this:
*Prank-calling a pizza delivery wouldn't count as malicious intent, even if you are deliberately wasting their time and pizzas specifically.
If you call the police falsely saying someone's at risk of death (a crime), and they show up to that address in fear of a threat and kill someone, your crime had the consequence of death - and you committed it knowing that consequence was likely.
Of course the problem with that is this:
If cops weren't so willing to shoot first, there wouldn't be so many deaths (deaths from being shot by police outnumber deaths in spree-shootings by almost three to one).
*Prank-calling a pizza delivery wouldn't count as malicious intent, even if you are deliberately wasting their time and pizzas specifically.
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
Danoff
Premium
- 34,103
- Mile High City
No he's not. That wasn't his intent, and it wasn't his act. He lied to authorities and the authorities used poor judgment and took a life. The authorities took the life. First and foremost, prosecution should be against the cops that did the killing.
A police officer is not a deadly weapon. A police officer is a human being with choice, judgment, training, and even responsibility.
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
I dont think intent fully matters. A cop, or in this case, a swat team is absolutely a deadly weapon. They train to kill, they are armed to kill, and they went in expecting to be faced with a killer. The fact that the accused sent them there with that information, regardless of his intent, is akin to throwing a grenade on the floor with bit of thread to hold the pin in place. Your intent may not be for that string to break, but you threw that bad lad knowing that there was a chance that string was going to break. He made that call, told them there was murderer at the address. Even if the thought that they might shoot the dude didnt cross his mind (I find it doubtful) it was still a very very real risk. It still ended very much in an innocent person losing their life, and the accused actions were very much a predominant cause, the most predominant cause, as without the call in the first place, no one would be getting shot. And, in this case, it appears the law and justice system seems to agree. At the very least, he is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. A felony that carries a max sentence of 15 years. His intent was malicious, and he was an extreme repeat offender that pled guilty to 50 other counts across I believe 12 states. 20 years, if given even half a year for each of those counts, is a bargain. And, to that extent, the accused must have agreed and been looking at more time as I believe he took a plea bargain at that.
But, we clearly aren't going to see eye to eye. Which is fine. You think calling a fake pizza is a good comparison. So we obviously aren't viewing this at the same level. Doesnt matter, since we're weren't on the jury nor were we involved in sentencing. Bet the guy wishes you were the judge though.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,103
- Mile High City
Not fully, but it does matter.
They're human beings, trained to use judgment. If a cop or a swat team is a deadly weapon trained to kill and not use judgement, I want them locked up in prison.
No, it's akin to throwing a professional human being on the floor whose job it is to protect the innocent, use appropriate judgement, and assess the situation rationally. If police officers are unpinned grenades, they should be removed from society.
Edit:
Yours is such an untenable position. Cops and Swat are completely useless as simple weapons of murder. Even military soldiers have obligations to use judgement and protect the innocent. If your description were accurate, cops and swat are not just pointless, they're liabilities. Certainly you would never want one to show up in an emergency.
Last edited:
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
Danoff
Premium
- 34,103
- Mile High City
And whose responsibility is it to take responsibility for "today's climate"? If I call the cops to show up to a domestic dispute and they shoot people, should I have known that cops are crazy and liable to shoot people if they fear the presence of a gun? Should I have known that in "today's climate" cops are trained killers? Should I have known better than to call 911 for help from trained killers?
It's total nonsense.
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
In today's climate, maybe you should consider that fact, for sure others definitely are. A great deal of people in the lower income urban area's feel that way about calling cops. If the cops even respond, there is a good chance the response isnt going to be what they expect.
I mean, it's become quite clear the cops aren't going to be held to any standard. Rarely will a cop be put to task for shooting someone, and if it does go to court, the chances of the case being tossed out outweighs any chance of conviction on the order of an elephant compared to a mouse, regardless of actual circumstances.
But, even in a perfect world, and this still happened, I would still place an amount of blame on the caller. He made a false call with malicious intent that led to a death. To me, it's a case of involuntary manslaughter at the least. It fits the definition more than adequately.
Edit: quite frankly, ones intent does not make them immune to consequence for their action. Ignorance is no excuse. I am not expunging the cops of wrong doing, but I am not doing the same for the accused either.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 34,103
- Mile High City
Calling the cops is not an action which you need immunity from the consequences of. Their actions are not yours. Their actions are theirs. If you suggest that someone see a doctor, and the doctor botches a surgery on them, you are not responsible for the doctor. Likewise if you call the police for help, and they cause harm, you are not responsible for it since it wasn't your action.
- 11,949
- Marin County
I'm not sure these are as comparable as you suggest. This is a slippery subject, in my opinion.
Swatting is, I think, unarguably a malicious crime. It's absolutely more than a prank because the perpetrator is intending to expose the victim to at least the possibility of deadly force, not to mention a very high likelihood of property damage and emotional distress. A swat team response is aggressive by nature - just by being deployed the "threat" is considered to be active, substantial, and requiring of overwhelming force. For the swat team members (who have no way to suspect that it's a false alarm) its an offensive operation. I think when you think about it this way, swatting someone is effectively similar (obviously not the same) to ordering a military strike on a target. A normal police response, by comparison, such as a welfare check, is considerably less offensive and inherently peaceful.
I think, in the US, this is compounded by: A, the militarized police mentality; and B, the not-unlikely chance of a swat team being required to respond to a active shooter situation...which are pretty closely related problems - near-universal access to very effective firearms....but I digress
edit: Further thoughts. I think its worth considering the emotional damage/trauma to the Police, especially in the case of the death of an innocent person by their hand. Its their responsibility and oath to keep people safe - being duped into subverting this mission probably takes a serious psychological toll.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest Posts
-
-
Show Off your liveries in detail - Show & Shine
- Latest: Imbissbrunto
-
-
Gran Turismo 7 Livery Editor - General Discussion Thread
- Latest: Imbissbrunto
-
