Man killed by police after angry CoD gamer SWATs player for lost $1.50 wager match

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

I really shouldn't comment on this one, I'm a local journalist covering this incident because it happened in my hometown. But I'll just leave this interesting tidbit. For whatever its worth, just one week prior to this tragedy my news director interviewed our police chief. One of his comments sticks with me. He was speaking about the dangers in law enforcement and some of the things that makes it a difficult profession. He commented that; say a police officer pulls someone over and approaches the car. Then that officer sees a gun, on the passenger seat. Lying there, unsecured, within arms reach of the driver. The Chief then told us that we live in a state where it is illegal for that officer to ask the driver or anyone in the car any questions about the gun. The officer can't ask who owns the gun, if anyone has a concealed carry permit, why it is just sitting on the passenger seat... nothing. I remembered thinking at the time seems a small wonder the police haven't faced more incidents where they shoot first and kill a completely innocent person. And then this happened.

Kyrian007:
The Chief then told us that we live in a state where it is illegal for that officer to ask the driver or anyone in the car any questions about the gun. The officer can't ask who owns the gun, if anyone has a concealed carry permit, why it is just sitting on the passenger seat... nothing. I remembered thinking at the time seems a small wonder the police haven't faced more incidents where they shoot first and kill a completely innocent person. And then this happened.

Hey, as long as the gun manufacturers continue pulling in the profit margins they've grown accustomed to, what's a few dozen innocent lives per year?

Kyrian007:
I really shouldn't comment on this one, I'm a local journalist covering this incident because it happened in my hometown. But I'll just leave this interesting tidbit. For whatever its worth, just one week prior to this tragedy my news director interviewed our police chief. One of his comments sticks with me. He was speaking about the dangers in law enforcement and some of the things that makes it a difficult profession. He commented that; say a police officer pulls someone over and approaches the car. Then that officer sees a gun, on the passenger seat. Lying there, unsecured, within arms reach of the driver. The Chief then told us that we live in a state where it is illegal for that officer to ask the driver or anyone in the car any questions about the gun. The officer can't ask who owns the gun, if anyone has a concealed carry permit, why it is just sitting on the passenger seat... nothing. I remembered thinking at the time seems a small wonder the police haven't faced more incidents where they shoot first and kill a completely innocent person. And then this happened.

If you are a journalist (because as I understand after that interview you have looked that up?), could you cite the law that forbids a law enforcer to ask about potential life threat to people in public? You know the ones he is responsible for protecting and eliminating threats? Unsecured gun on passanger's seat is a mishandled gun that can fire a round i.e. if it tumbles down from the seat when car skids etc. The law or its interpretation sounds really absurd, so I'd love to see how it is framed in words.

On top of that, this has naught to do with the story in which only guns fired were the ones professionals held. I understand that constalnt life threat puts on a lot of pressure on officers on the streets (so i.e. the ones in 'bad neighborhoods' become more prone to use force because they constantly have to use it to protect themselves). However anti-terrorist teams should have been completely different breed, they're always under that pressure by default and job description even in countries in which carrying or even owning a gun is prohibited.

Did the victim pull out the gun? Did Police sent in recon first to investigate and verify the threat (what was the report from them i.e. they were unable to confirm or disprove so armed officers went in anyway)? Did the victim had criminal record or was 'known to any of the officers' (i.e. someone advised this course of action based on priorly obtained knowledge)? I'd ask these questions.

That tidbit you mention is important too, just not in the context of this crime. If the law is that bad it has to be changed and I suppose both law enforcers and people who own guns leaglly would support officer being able to enforce gun safety rules on the owner and possibility to verify misplaced gun ownership.

Jamcie Kerbizz:

Kyrian007:
I really shouldn't comment on this one, I'm a local journalist covering this incident because it happened in my hometown. But I'll just leave this interesting tidbit. For whatever its worth, just one week prior to this tragedy my news director interviewed our police chief. One of his comments sticks with me. He was speaking about the dangers in law enforcement and some of the things that makes it a difficult profession. He commented that; say a police officer pulls someone over and approaches the car. Then that officer sees a gun, on the passenger seat. Lying there, unsecured, within arms reach of the driver. The Chief then told us that we live in a state where it is illegal for that officer to ask the driver or anyone in the car any questions about the gun. The officer can't ask who owns the gun, if anyone has a concealed carry permit, why it is just sitting on the passenger seat... nothing. I remembered thinking at the time seems a small wonder the police haven't faced more incidents where they shoot first and kill a completely innocent person. And then this happened.

If you are a journalist (because as I understand after that interview you have looked that up?), could you cite the law that forbids a law enforcer to ask about potential life threat to people in public? You know the ones he is responsible for protecting and eliminating threats? Unsecured gun on passanger's seat is a mishandled gun that can fire a round i.e. if it tumbles down from the seat when car skids etc. The law or its interpretation sounds really absurd, so I'd love to see how it is framed in words.

On top of that, this has naught to do with the story in which only guns fired were the ones professionals held. I understand that constalnt life threat puts on a lot of pressure on officers on the streets (so i.e. the ones in 'bad neighberhoods' become more prone to use force because they constantly have to use it to protect themselves). However anti-terrorist teams should have been completely different breed, they're always under that pressure by default and job description even in countries in which carrying or even owning a gun is prohibited.

Did the victim pull out the gun? Did Police sent in recon first to investigate and verify the threat (what was the report from them i.e. they were unable to confirm or disprove so armed officers went in anyway)? Did the victim had criminal record or was 'known to any of the officers' (i.e. someone advised this course of action based on priorly obtained knowledge)? I'd ask these questions.

That tidbit you mention is important too, just not in the context of this crime. If the law is that bad it has to be changed and I suppose both law enforcers and people who own guns leaglly would support officer being able to enforce gun safety rules on the owner and possibility to verify misplaced gun ownership.

No, I could not cite the law off hand. I did not have to verify it, neither I nor my station made the claim... that was made by our Police Chief, whom we properly cited with the quote. I don't really have any reason to doubt him personally though.

And, did I not say that this was just an interesting tidbit? Something that coincidentally happened a week before the swatting incident that gave me pause. I never said it HAD aught to do with the specific situations in the story. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions and inferences where none were warranted. Your questions, these were questions that we didn't ask the chief in the interview (because the shooting hadn't happened yet, as I mentioned) but these were all also the questions first asked in hundreds of ways in the many police briefings and have been answered and reported on in local and national news coverage.

Also, I wouldn't disagree that officers being able to ask questions pertaining to a potentially mishandled firearm would be a decent idea. But knowing the prevalent political ideology of this region... I believe that most (and the political voting majority who vote for the people who make such laws) are against legislating any form of "gun safety rules" so the Chief's hands being tied by law isn't particularly surprising. It may not even be a State law, it could just as easily be a local US district court once ruled such questions were unconstitutional (illegal search and seizure) and with no contradicting precedent the pertinent law could be the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution. A county circuit judge is a friend, I'll ask him the next time we speak.

Kyrian007:

Jamcie Kerbizz:

Kyrian007:
I really shouldn't comment on this one, I'm a local journalist covering this incident because it happened in my hometown. But I'll just leave this interesting tidbit. For whatever its worth, just one week prior to this tragedy my news director interviewed our police chief. One of his comments sticks with me. He was speaking about the dangers in law enforcement and some of the things that makes it a difficult profession. He commented that; say a police officer pulls someone over and approaches the car. Then that officer sees a gun, on the passenger seat. Lying there, unsecured, within arms reach of the driver. The Chief then told us that we live in a state where it is illegal for that officer to ask the driver or anyone in the car any questions about the gun. The officer can't ask who owns the gun, if anyone has a concealed carry permit, why it is just sitting on the passenger seat... nothing. I remembered thinking at the time seems a small wonder the police haven't faced more incidents where they shoot first and kill a completely innocent person. And then this happened.

If you are a journalist (because as I understand after that interview you have looked that up?), could you cite the law that forbids a law enforcer to ask about potential life threat to people in public? You know the ones he is responsible for protecting and eliminating threats? Unsecured gun on passanger's seat is a mishandled gun that can fire a round i.e. if it tumbles down from the seat when car skids etc. The law or its interpretation sounds really absurd, so I'd love to see how it is framed in words.

On top of that, this has naught to do with the story in which only guns fired were the ones professionals held. I understand that constalnt life threat puts on a lot of pressure on officers on the streets (so i.e. the ones in 'bad neighberhoods' become more prone to use force because they constantly have to use it to protect themselves). However anti-terrorist teams should have been completely different breed, they're always under that pressure by default and job description even in countries in which carrying or even owning a gun is prohibited.

Did the victim pull out the gun? Did Police sent in recon first to investigate and verify the threat (what was the report from them i.e. they were unable to confirm or disprove so armed officers went in anyway)? Did the victim had criminal record or was 'known to any of the officers' (i.e. someone advised this course of action based on priorly obtained knowledge)? I'd ask these questions.

That tidbit you mention is important too, just not in the context of this crime. If the law is that bad it has to be changed and I suppose both law enforcers and people who own guns leaglly would support officer being able to enforce gun safety rules on the owner and possibility to verify misplaced gun ownership.

No, I could not cite the law off hand. I did not have to verify it, neither I nor my station made the claim... that was made by our Police Chief, whom we properly cited with the quote. I don't really have any reason to doubt him personally though.

And, did I not say that this was just an interesting tidbit? Something that coincidentally happened a week before the swatting incident that gave me pause. I never said it HAD aught to do with the specific situations in the story. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions and inferences where none were warranted. Your questions, these were questions that we didn't ask the chief in the interview (because the shooting hadn't happened yet, as I mentioned) but these were all also the questions first asked in hundreds of ways in the many police briefings and have been answered and reported on in local and national news coverage.

Also, I wouldn't disagree that officers being able to ask questions pertaining to a potentially mishandled firearm would be a decent idea. But knowing the prevalent political ideology of this region... I believe that most (and the political voting majority who vote for the people who make such laws) are against legislating any form of "gun safety rules" so the Chief's hands being tied by law isn't particularly surprising. It may not even be a State law, it could just as easily be a local US district court once ruled such questions were unconstitutional (illegal search and seizure) and with no contradicting precedent the pertinent law could be the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution. A county circuit judge is a friend, I'll ask him the next time we speak.

Cheers for reply.
I'd guess that it was a precedent setting such absurdity (but in the end the law must have been poorly written if such outcome was possible). Do authorities i.e. local authorities have no means to appeal to court of higher instance to change interpretation set by such case? I mean what's in the duties officers are obligated to fulfil aren't burden put on them in conflict with the means provided and set restriction. To me it's like setting out a scout but forbidding him to look and permit just to rely on what he hears and smells, doable but absurd.

Jamcie Kerbizz:
I'd guess that it was a precedent setting such absurdity (but in the end the law must have been poorly written if such outcome was possible). Do authorities i.e. local authorities have no means to appeal to court of higher instance to change interpretation set by such case? I mean what's in the duties officers are obligated to fulfil aren't burden put on them in conflict with the means provided and set restriction. To me it's like setting out a scout but forbidding him to look and permit just to rely on what he hears and smells, doable but absurd.

They do have the option to appeal, but appeals courts more often uphold lower court decisions than the alternative. And even to go that far, there has to be a court case to appeal at all. If such a decision wasn't successfully appealed when the case originally went to court, the police would then comply by making it Dept. policy not to ask about weapons. So the only way it could come up in court again is if an officer ignored policy, quite easily getting that officer fired for not following protocol even if the precedent was eventually overturned in court.

I'm guessing it is connected to our State being "open carry." We within the past 10 years or so enacted a 'concealed carry' law allowing "certified" individuals to carry a concealed handgun. The "certification" is either taking a short couple of hours class then a test and paying a couple hundred dollars... or just giving the guy at the gun store a couple of hundred extra and not having to bother with the class at all because they just "pass" you if you pay them extra. However, the "open carry" of firearms by anyone in the state is ok here except in places where private property owners restrict carry. Local governments can restrict carry in public buildings... but only if they buy and maintain metal detectors at all entrances. Most don't bother with the expense. Those laws haven't changed since the days of the wild west. Basically, there really aren't many legal restrictions on guns here at all. As long as you aren't a felon, don't take the gun onto private property without permission, and openly display it (unless you bought a concealed 'permit') a gun owner is in the clear.

Maybe that's why officers here tend to react as if everyone is armed, even when they aren't. Hell, there was an officer involved shooting 3 days after the swatting incident where an officer shot at a barking dog at a home where children were present in the room. The officer missed and a bullet fragment hit a 9-year-old girl in the face. It hasn't made national news because the girl had 'non-life threatening injuries'... but this is a city of less than a half million people. Yet somehow there were 2 completely innocent people shot by our police department in 3 days, one a juvenile and another fatally. No conclusions here, maybe that's just statistically normal and we have to accept it as a possibility. Or, maybe there are systemic problems in training. Or maybe laws have to be looked at and changed. I personally tend to believe that improvements can and should be made and every potential solution should at least be discussed. But the majority of the local population strongly believes that adding any gun restrictions, no matter how small or sensible, are off the table even before discussion even begins.

Man, good thing Jack Thompson isn't doing his schtick in the 2010's huh?

I mean can you imagine the fucking field day he'd have with this?

But hey it is nice to see that gaming culture has finally managed to devolve from proudly declaring 'we aren't the evil murderous sociopaths you see us as' to well, [i]becoming[i] the murderous sociopaths every pearl clutcher saw back in the 90's.

Seriously screw kid A for actually trying to get someone killed over COD and screw kid B for happily throwing some unrelated person into the mix.

This video that's been circulating everywhere is so dumb. He plays the recording of the 911 call as if it excuses what the police did. I left an angry comment.

Ezekiel:

This video that's been circulating everywhere is so dumb. He plays the recording of the 911 call as if it excuses what the police did. I left an angry comment.

Well it is Dramaalert.

Not that it makes any difference either way, but just to keep the thread updated on the latest I'm getting locally. The term swatting has been thrown around. But as we had suspected, the Sedgwick County DA's Office confirmed the officer who fired the fatal shot was not on the SWAT team and was not part of any special operations squad. The guys in my newsroom were guessing this because although we have special gang, drug, and swat team special operation units... they aren't generally the first on a scene. And according to the police timeline this happened pretty quickly.

All this means the officer is likely a patrol officer or patrol sergeant. The only practical difference between those two being a patrol officer would have to answer if his body camera footage was unavailable. Our sergeants on the other hand don't... because they don't have body cameras. The Police have not identified the officer, they won't comment during an ongoing investigation, and have said they are investigating internally as well as cooperating with investigations from by the FBI and KBI.

Which is kind of strange locally. Last year the WPD entered into an agreement with the Sedgwick County Sheriff's office agreeing that each would do an investigation of the other if the shooting involved an officer or deputy. Meaning there shouldn't be a WPD internal investigation... there should be a County Sheriff's investigation. We're thinking maybe that's what the spokesperson meant yesterday, and we are going to talk with the Sheriff today to confirm. We aren't expecting more than "we won't comment on an ongoing investigation..." but that's enough to confirm there is an investigation.

Well, to shed a little more light (and hopefully less heat), it seems the police have released some bodycam footage and the 9/11 call.

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192244734.html

The swatter killed this man, without a doubt. Police are not going into a normal situation. This isn't just a road-side check. They every reason to believe they are entering a hostile situation- gasoline on the floor and a handgun that has already killed the father. Not only that, but there are 400! swatting pranks per year. The fact that this is one of the few deaths related to this, speaks actually quite well of police training: once per day some absolute tool puts another person at risk, and we only get one or two deaths? 400 times swatters pulled the trigger in this Russian roulette game, and it only went off once.

When I first started reading about this, my gut reaction was 'trigger-happy cops'. From what they're saying, I don't think that anymore.

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."

They already gave him a gimme with one lowering of hands towards the waistband- the second time and a fast movement up towards fellow police officers with view obstructed? Yeah, unfortunately the police were going to open fire. Human error is the final thing that killed that man, but we don't all act perfectly all the time, so why were we in this scenario where a couple wrong moves would kill him? Swatting, plain and simple. If this story lines up, I'd back off on the police.

Putting aside the swatting for the moment, if you know that calling people has a significant chance of police killing innocent people...what do you do when something suspicious is going on, or maybe something criminal, but you don't want to risk a murder?

Falling:

They already gave him a gimme with one lowering of hands towards the waistband- the second time and a fast movement up towards fellow police officers with view obstructed? Yeah, unfortunately the police were going to open fire. Human error is the final thing that killed that man, but we don't all act perfectly all the time, so why were we in this scenario where a couple wrong moves would kill him? Swatting, plain and simple. If this story lines up, I'd back off on the police.

Yeah, no ... because such things are overwhelmingly unlikely to happen in other Western countries. And yes, even back when they were gun nuts and people had access to similar hardware. Sorry, but U.S. soldiers have better gun discipline than U.S. cops ... in a conflict zone.

For starters you'd likely be turfed just shooting a 'suspicious person' without actual visual identification of a weapon while on deployment.

It was actually a pretty common scene people shooting from concealed positions from, say, a modified car boot allowing a marksman to take potshots at patrols from a hidden position as a driver weaved through streets. Soldiers can't technically engage until PID is established (or they are given command decision to engage from seniority) because that would result in a shitload of collateral damage if not applied over an entire area that is actively patrolled.

Putting aside all the basic qualms like; "Does this person have intellectual problems? Are they intoxicated? Are they scared rather than simply being disobedient and not acquiescing to demands? Are they the actual culprit, not merely a hostage with a gun at their back to yell demands at the police?" Because sure as shit if I was facing U.S. cops in a situation like this, I'm going to use hostages to deliver my demands to back the fuck off if I don't have any remote communications with officers on the scene.

Someplace where I can have a bead on my 'negotiator' but outside police capacity to target me. See just how much the police want this to become international news...

Falling:
Well, to shed a little more light (and hopefully less heat), it seems the police have released some bodycam footage and the 9/11 call.

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192244734.html

The swatter killed this man, without a doubt. Police are not going into a normal situation. This isn't just a road-side check. They every reason to believe they are entering a hostile situation- gasoline on the floor and a handgun that has already killed the father. Not only that, but there are 400! swatting pranks per year. The fact that this is one of the few deaths related to this, speaks actually quite well of police training: once per day some absolute tool puts another person at risk, and we only get one or two deaths? 400 times swatters pulled the trigger in this Russian roulette game, and it only went off once.

When I first started reading about this, my gut reaction was 'trigger-happy cops'. From what they're saying, I don't think that anymore.

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.?

They already gave him a gimme with one lowering of hands towards the waistband- the second time and a fast movement up towards fellow police officers with view obstructed? Yeah, unfortunately the police were going to open fire. Human error is the final thing that killed that man, but we don't all act perfectly all the time, so why were we in this scenario where a couple wrong moves would kill him? Swatting, plain and simple. If this story lines up, I'd back off on the police.

Except every word you're using as evidence here was provided by the police with zero backing evidence. There is absolutely no reason to trust any police officer in this type of situation. The number of video-documented times where police have been shown to actively fabricate evidence, events, and whole scenarios in their reports, interviews, and press releases is astoundingly high. You're taking the word of someone with every incentive to lie to you about how innocent the shooters were and about what went down.

Thaluikhain:
Putting aside the swatting for the moment, if you know that calling people has a significant chance of police killing innocent people...what do you do when something suspicious is going on, or maybe something criminal, but you don't want to risk a murder?

If there isn't anyone else to call, then ask to yourself: would the victims of the crime in progress want the police involved?

Thaluikhain:
Putting aside the swatting for the moment, if you know that calling people has a significant chance of police killing innocent people...what do you do when something suspicious is going on, or maybe something criminal, but you don't want to risk a murder?

We still struggle with that question. There's still a significant percentage of Americans who think authoritarian brute force is the answer to everything.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here