quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:

quote:

When it's an officer killed there is extreme indignation. Yet when it's another innocent person, it's "eh".

When an officer is killed, we feel like we know important things about his or her values, which we share, so there is a very real sense of loss. That is someone "like us." Like our friends. It feels personal.

But "just somebody," however innocent, like the man in that video, is for a lot of people an abstraction, like the outline of a human figure, but not flesh and blood with a beating heart. "Well, oops. Gosh, that's too bad, but it happens. Above all, let's be sure to support the police."

But the man in that video, Andrew Finch, had a life to live, and his life was part of the lives of others, who are devastated. He was the father of two young boys.

Just as we are all responsible for what we do, whoever shot him needs to be held responsible for taking his life.

You make a lot of sense. How many lives will be damaged because of of a stupid self-serving prank followed by a stupid self-serving pull of the trigger.

I don't ever want to hear this was a "good shoot" or "within department policy." Regardless of the circumstances leading to it, when a person who didn't need shooting is shot, it is neither.

quote:

Originally posted by Edmond:

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
And that is the problem. Despite the claims that it's not an "us vs. them" issue, it clearly is. One group is not being treated equally to the other. I believe it is horrible when an innocent life is taken. I believe it's horrible when it's a police officer's life, or the life of some guy minding his business and playing a video game.

Yet many here do not act as if it's equal. When it's an officer killed there is extreme indignation. Yet when it's another innocent person, it's "eh". I don't understand. Against a bad guy an Officer's safety is certainly more important than the offender's. But when it comes to other innocent persons, shouldn't the safety of that person be equally as important? Shouldn't their life be equally as valuable?

It is an "us vs. them" issue when cops call people "civilians" when they are likely civilians themselves.

Concealed carry across state lines for police when citizens can't. That's a different set of rules there.

Using tax payer funded vehicles, uniforms and training to work off duty. That's a different set of rules there. I don't "think" military is allowed to be "off duty" while wearing government clothing, using government equipment and work for personal gain.

Does anyone else remember community based policing when you knew the officers and they knew you (on good terms)?

I agree 100% on the misuse of the word "Civilian."

Normally, some knothead will quote the Webster Dictionary's definition of "Civilian" where is says, " one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force," without any knowledge whatsoever of the etymology of the word Civilian.

Odd, these same people usually disagree with the Webster definition of the word "Liberal." Then the conversation usually goes something like, "but you don't understand, an LEO (or firefighter) is different," and then cite some part of the LEO or firefighter job that makes it different.

Hint 1: If you don't have a Geneva Conventions Identification Card, then you too are a civilian.

Hint 2: There are historical reasons why non-military LEO's are civilians. Do some reading.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

Originally posted by Edmond:

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
And that is the problem. Despite the claims that it's not an "us vs. them" issue, it clearly is. One group is not being treated equally to the other. I believe it is horrible when an innocent life is taken. I believe it's horrible when it's a police officer's life, or the life of some guy minding his business and playing a video game.

Yet many here do not act as if it's equal. When it's an officer killed there is extreme indignation. Yet when it's another innocent person, it's "eh". I don't understand. Against a bad guy an Officer's safety is certainly more important than the offender's. But when it comes to other innocent persons, shouldn't the safety of that person be equally as important? Shouldn't their life be equally as valuable?

It is an "us vs. them" issue when cops call people "civilians" when they are likely civilians themselves.

Concealed carry across state lines for police when citizens can't. That's a different set of rules there.

Using tax payer funded vehicles, uniforms and training to work off duty. That's a different set of rules there. I don't "think" military is allowed to be "off duty" while wearing government clothing, using government equipment and work for personal gain.

Does anyone else remember community based policing when you knew the officers and they knew you (on good terms)?

I agree 100% on the misuse of the word "Civilian."

Normally, some knothead will quote the Webster Dictionary's definition of "Civilian" where is says, " one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force," without any knowledge whatsoever of the etymology of the word Civilian.

Odd, these same people usually disagree with the Webster definition of the word "Liberal." Then the conversation usually goes something like, "but you don't understand, an LEO (or firefighter) is different," and then cite some part of the LEO or firefighter job that makes it different.

Hint 1: If you don't have a Geneva Conventions Identification Card, then you too are a civilian.

Hint 2: There are historical reasons why non-military LEO's are civilians. Do some reading.

Asshat, i think you missed the point of my post. Lots of ex military in law enforcemnt and the leo’s using the term “civilian” are likely the ex military guys. -knothead

I think it's stupid when military people use the term civilian unless it's a work related issue. "How do I address so and so at that office?" To me, that's asking if he should be addressed as Sergeant, Sir or Mr. insert his last name here.

When military people call people civilians for the sake of calling them civilians, that's creating an us vs. them attitude as well.

There's no question the asshole who started this should burn. I don't think anyone here disputes that. But do the police just take a call at face value? I doubt it.

quote:

I think it's stupid when military people use the term civilian unless it's a work related issue

Why? They are most definitely different. On or off duty, at work or not, someone in the military is not a civilian. That won't happen until their contract ends. As long as they are under contract they are not a civilian, so what is wrong with that term?

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:

quote:

I think it's stupid when military people use the term civilian unless it's a work related issue

Why? They are most definitely different. On or off duty, at work or not, someone in the military is not a civilian. That won't happen until their contract ends. As long as they are under contract they are not a civilian, so what is wrong with that term?

Exactly. Someone in the Military can't just give 2 weeks notice and quit without facing a lot of trouble when they are deployed to someplace they'd rather not go.

quote:

Originally posted by gw3971:
Asshat, i think you missed the point of my post. Lots of ex military in law enforcemnt and the leo’s using the term “civilian” are likely the ex military guys. -knothead

Guys, no need for the namecalling.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:

quote:

Originally posted by gw3971:
Asshat, i think you missed the point of my post. Lots of ex military in law enforcemnt and the leo’s using the term “civilian” are likely the ex military guys. -knothead

Guys, no need for the namecalling.

Understood sir. My apologies gentlemen.

I used to work with some IT guys at a company who called the non-technical employees many names. "Civilians" was probably the most polite.

I read an article at work, which I can not find on the home computer at the moment. It gave a little more details on how this went down.

The address is on an E-W street and the house would be located on the N side of the street, front door facing S. There were officers on the south, east, and west. The victim stepped out of the house, facing south. At some point he turned towards the east or west reached towards his waist and then brought his hands up quickly. That is when the officer,who could not see both of the victims hands fired.

Again I can't find the same article here at the house, but will find it on the work computer and paste a link later.

quote:

Originally posted by B92F:
< snip >
... the officer,who could not see both of the victims hands fired.
< snip >

If that is correct, that officer should be arranging his affairs so that while he is in prison, he won't have that source of worry.

Here is a link to the article I talked about earlier. The house is actually on the south side facing north.

http://www.kansas.com/news/loc...rticle192244734.html

As for Sig2340's comment above, I refer you to this quote from the article.

“Officers gave him several verbal commands to put his hands up and walk towards them. The male complied for a very short time and then put his hands back down to his waist. The officers continued to give him verbal commands to put his hands up, and he lowered them again.
“The male then turned towards the officers on the east side of the residence, lowered his hands to the waistband again, then suddenly pulled them back up towards those officers at the east.
“The officers on the north side of the street feared the male pulled a weapon from his waistband, retrieved a gun and was in the process of pointing it at the officers to the east. Fearing for those officers’ safety, the officer on the north side fired one round.”

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
I don't ever want to hear this was a "good shoot" or "within department policy." Regardless of the circumstances leading to it, when a person who didn't need shooting is shot, it is neither.

This is the foundation that we should all be working from.

quote:

Originally posted by dkv:

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
I don't ever want to hear this was a "good shoot" or "within department policy." Regardless of the circumstances leading to it, when a person who didn't need shooting is shot, it is neither.

This is the foundation that we should all be working from.

Agreed. And as some have commented, it seems that after a bad shoot, the immediate officer response is that they feared for their safety (or others safety).

quote:

Fearing for those officers’ safety, the officer on the north side fired one round.”

Look out! He's coming right for us!

https://krebsonsecurity.com/20...00-schools-10-homes/

Serial Swatter “SWAuTistic” Bragged He Hit 100 Schools, 10 Homes

The individual who allegedly made a fake emergency call to Kansas police last week that summoned them to shoot and kill an unarmed local man has claimed credit for raising dozens of these dangerous false alarms — calling in bogus hostage situations and bomb threats at roughly 100 schools and at least 10 residences.

On Friday authorities in Los Angeles arrested 25-year-old Tyler Raj Barriss, thought to be known online as “SWAuTistic.” As noted in last week’s story, SWAuTistic is an admitted serial swatter, and was even convicted in 2016 for calling in a bomb threat to an ABC affiliate in Los Angeles. The Associated Press reports that Barriss was sentenced to two years in prison for that stunt, but was released in January 2017.

In his public tweets (most of which are no longer available but were collected by KrebsOnSecurity), SWAuTistic claimed credit for bomb threats against a convention center in Dallas and a high school in Florida, as well as an incident that disrupted a much-watched meeting at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in November.

But privately — to a small circle of friends and associates — SWAuTistic bragged about perpetrating dozens of swatting incidents and bomb threats over the years.

Within a few hours of the swatting incident in Kansas, investigators searching for clues about the person who made the phony emergency call may have gotten some unsolicited help from an unlikely source: Eric “Cosmo the God” Taylor, a talented young hacker who pleaded guilty to being part of a group that swatted multiple celebrities and public figures — as well as my home in 2013.

Taylor is now trying to turn his life around, and is in the process of starting his own cybersecurity consultancy. In a posting on Twitter at 6:21 p.m. ET Dec. 29, Taylor personally offered a reward of $7,777 in Bitcoin for information about the real-life identity of SWAuTistic.

In short order, several people who claimed to have known SWAuTistic responded by coming forward publicly and privately with Barriss’s name and approximate location, sharing copies of private messages and even selfies that were allegedly shared with them at one point by Barriss.

In one private online conversation, SWAuTistic can be seen bragging about his escapades, claiming to have called in fake emergencies at approximately 100 schools and 10 homes.

SWAuTistic sought an interview with KrebsOnSecurity on the afternoon of Dec. 29, in which he said he routinely faked hostage and bomb threat situations to emergency centers across the country in exchange for money.

“Bomb threats are more fun and cooler than swats in my opinion and I should have just stuck to that,” SWAuTistic said. “But I began making $ doing some swat requests.”

By approximately 8:30 p.m. ET that same day, Taylor’s bounty had turned up what looked like a positive ID on SWAuTistic. However, KrebsOnSecurity opted not to publish the information until Barriss was formally arrested and charged, which appears to have happened sometime between 10 p.m. ET Dec. 29 and 1 a.m. on Dec. 30.

The arrest came just hours after SWAuTistic allegedly called the Wichita police claiming he was a local man who’d just shot his father in the head and was holding the rest of his family hostage. According to his acquaintances, SWAuTistic made the call after being taunted by a fellow gamer in the popular computer game Call of Duty. The taunter dared SWAuTistic to swat him, but then gave someone else’s address in Kansas as his own instead.

Wichita Police arrived at the address provided by SWAuTistic and surrounded the home. A young man emerged from the doorway and was ordered to put his hands up. Police said one of the officers on the scene fired a single shot — supposedly after the man reached toward his waist. Grainy bodycam footage of the shooting is available here (the video is preceded by the emergency call that summoned the police).

The man shot and killed by police was unarmed. He has been identified as 28-year-old Andrew Finch, a father of two. Family members say he was not involved in gaming, and had no party to the dispute that got him killed.

According to the Wichita Eagle, the officer who fired the fatal shot is a seven-year veteran with the Wichita department. He has been placed on administrative leave pending an internal investigation.

Earlier reporting here and elsewhere inadvertently mischaracterized SWAuTistic’s call to the Wichita police as a 911 call. We now know that the perpetrator called in to an emergency line for Wichita City Hall and spoke with someone there who took down the caller’s phone number. After that, 911 dispatch operators were alerted and called the number SWAuTistic had given.

This is notable because the lack of a 911 call in such a situation should have been a red flag indicating the caller was not phoning from a local number (otherwise the caller presumably would have just dialed 911).

The FBI estimates that some 400 swatting incidents occur each year across the country. Each incident costs first responders approximately $10,000, and diverts important resources away from actual emergencies.

If that [expletive deleted] got one iota of remuneration for his action, I hope Kansas charges him with murder for hire under the felony murder rule.

Here are some rather horrifying swats that were caught on live streams.

quote:

Originally posted in the article that BamaJeepster posted:


Taylor is now trying to turn his life around...

Oh God, not this shit again. Maybe he just needs a hug.

If you haven't read it, I would recommend reading On Killing by David Grossman

We train soldiers (and police) to react, via psychological conditioning, to threats. This conditioning is intended to bypass the cerebral cortex where we do our deliberate thinking.

Checking this out, there doesn't seem to be a massive increase (or decrease) in LEO deaths.

http://www.nleomf.org/facts/of...ities-data/year.html

it may not reflect per capita or number of officers at work in a given year, but I am not seeing a major flux in deaths. Just eyeballing it, seems to be within one or two SD.

Maybe we shouldn't be training police with the same/similar methods as we do the military?