In other news today...
-
@benjamin-hall said in In other news today...:
@rhywden said in In other news today...:
@pjh said in In other news today...:
@masonwheeler said in In other news today...:
Good. I hope he's charged with murder.
He won't be though. 'Making a false statement' is probably what it'll end up as.
Unless something useful came of the "Interstate Swatting Hoax Act of 2015".
Doesn't the US have something like "if you commit a crime and someone ends up dead even as an indirect effect of said crime you'll be charged with manslaughter in addition to the crime" on its books?
E.g. you shoplift and the mall guard shoots someone else by accident while trying to stop you.
That's called the felony murder rule and it's a state-by-state thing. So it really depends.
Both California and Kansas enact this doctrine. From your link it seems to depend on whether they follow the "proximate cause theory" or not.
-
@rhywden said in In other news today...:
@benjamin-hall said in In other news today...:
@rhywden said in In other news today...:
@pjh said in In other news today...:
@masonwheeler said in In other news today...:
Good. I hope he's charged with murder.
He won't be though. 'Making a false statement' is probably what it'll end up as.
Unless something useful came of the "Interstate Swatting Hoax Act of 2015".
Doesn't the US have something like "if you commit a crime and someone ends up dead even as an indirect effect of said crime you'll be charged with manslaughter in addition to the crime" on its books?
E.g. you shoplift and the mall guard shoots someone else by accident while trying to stop you.
That's called the felony murder rule and it's a state-by-state thing. So it really depends.
Both California and Kansas enact this doctrine. From your link it seems to depend on whether they follow the "proximate cause theory" or not.
Research posting. The complexities of each case are way beyond what I want to care about. I just hope there's enough consequences for this guy to give good incentives to other morons who are considering the same action.
-
@benjamin-hall said in In other news today...:
@rhywden said in In other news today...:
@pjh said in In other news today...:
@masonwheeler said in In other news today...:
Good. I hope he's charged with murder.
He won't be though. 'Making a false statement' is probably what it'll end up as.
Unless something useful came of the "Interstate Swatting Hoax Act of 2015".
Doesn't the US have something like "if you commit a crime and someone ends up dead even as an indirect effect of said crime you'll be charged with manslaughter in addition to the crime" on its books?
E.g. you shoplift and the mall guard shoots someone else by accident while trying to stop you.
That's called the felony murder rule and it's a state-by-state thing. So it really depends.
Making a false statement is not a felony in all jurisdictions. But yeah, I sure hope they can charge him with felony murder.
-
@karla yeah. Hence the "it's complicated" part. But yeah, nail this dude to the wall.
-
-
-
@rhywden
4 month old links are pretty recent by this thread's standards.
-
@r10pez10 Darn! I was sure this was going to be the year of the SPARC desktop!
-
@pjh said in In other news today...:
@masonwheeler said in In other news today...:
Good. I hope he's charged with murder.
He won't be though. 'Making a false statement' is probably what it'll end up as.
Unless something useful came of the "Interstate Swatting Hoax Act of 2015".
I'm no law-talking guy, but I feel like "doing a thing that you know has a high probability of getting someone killed" ought to be some category of crime.
-
@anonymous234 said in In other news today...:
@pjh said in In other news today...:
@masonwheeler said in In other news today...:
Good. I hope he's charged with murder.
He won't be though. 'Making a false statement' is probably what it'll end up as.
Unless something useful came of the "Interstate Swatting Hoax Act of 2015".
I'm no law-talking guy, but I feel like "doing a thing that you know has a high probability of getting someone killed" ought to be some category of crime.
That's usually something like "with reckless disregard" (so involuntary manslaughter). You took an unlawful act (making a false report) that resulted in the death of another. Looks like it's approximately a 20-40 month sentence, but there is wide variation.
-
Noted with added emphasis but no other comment:
This isn't the first time Barriss has landed in trouble over fake 911 calls. In 2015, he was slammed with federal charges after getting arrested for falsely claiming to have planted bombs at the offices of an ABC affiliate in Los Angeles.
-
-
@pjh In California, making a false report is ordinarily a misdemeanor, which would not trigger the felony murder rule. However, making a false report of an "emergency" can become a felony under circumstances such as these:
Any individual who reports, or causes any report to be made, to any city, county, city and county, or state department, district, agency, division, commission, or board, that an “emergency” exists, who knows that the report is false, and who knows or should know that the response to the report is likely to cause death or great bodily injury, and great bodily injury or death is sustained by any person as a result of the false report, is guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.
Of course, they could always throw in some cyber crime and domestic terrorism charges if they really want to put the screws to this worm. The interview indicated that the FBI was involved and they may decide to bring out the really big guns.
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
knows or should know that the response to the report is likely to cause death or great bodily injury
I agree this guy should get slammed hard, but to consider for a moment that arguments that would likely be presented to a jury, a reasonable person should know there is a risk of harm, but is the harm likely? One might argue that if the police follow the procedures they've been trained in, and if the victim behaves sensibly by cooperating (get your lawyer on their ass later, if necessary, but in the heat of the moment, do what the cop with the gun tells you to do), it really shouldn't be likely.
Such a defense might work this time. Of course, since such a false police report has, in fact, caused a death, any future pranksters should know that harm is likely, making the defense unavailable for them. Ideally, whether they might be able to get away with it will be irrelevant, because they will manage to use their handful of neurons to figure out how bad an idea it is and not do it. However, I'm afraid there are many people who lack even that minimal level of (un)common sense.
-
@hardwaregeek said in In other news today...:
One might argue that if the police follow the procedures they've been trained in
They are not on trial.
@hardwaregeek said in In other news today...:
and if the victim behaves sensibly by cooperating
He is not on trial.
@hardwaregeek said in In other news today...:
it really shouldn't be likely
"Shouldn't be" isn't isn't.
He sent a bunch of heavily-armed men to a situation which was deliberately calculated, by him, to put them on the highest alert, giving them the expectation of both meeting resistance and likely needing to use force. Police are commonly accused of shooting people without just cause under similar high-stress encounters, so is it not reasonable to say that it was likely to result in an innocent person being shot? And perhaps it's not certain that any given "swatting" will result in a casualty, but was it not inevitable that, sooner or later, one would result in a casualty?
-
@hardwaregeek said in In other news today...:
they will manage to use their handful of neurons to figure out how bad an idea it is and not do it.
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
They are not on trial.
He is not on trial.I did not say they were. However, defense attorneys often attempt to portray circumstances in a way to minimize their clients' culpability, including shifting the blame, or at least some of it, to other parties, and one would almost certainly present the jury with the argument that the harm resulting from the police response was possible but not "likely." I tend to side with the police in many of the publicized controversies, so I tend to assume unjustified violence is a lot less likely than a lot of people would, but even I wouldn't buy that argument; the accused definitely put the victim in a dangerous situation and should have known the situation was dangerous. I hope that whatever jury would actually hear the case wouldn't buy it either. However, I think it is likely — more likely than the harm caused by the police response — that an attorney would try to make that argument.
-
@rhywden said in In other news today...:
"Since when has the standard response in a potential hostage situation become: 'Send in the clowns!'?"
Maybe they need to rename Wichita to Keystone…
-
@hardwaregeek said in In other news today...:
However, I think it is likely — more likely than the harm caused by the police response — that an attorney would try to make that argument.
But that isn't to say that the jury would buy the argument. That's where it needs to go as the this sort of misrepresentation is most certainly very reckless…
-
@hardwaregeek said in In other news today...:
However, defense attorneys often attempt to portray circumstances in a way to minimize their clients' culpability, including shifting the blame, or at least some of it, to other parties
And prosecution attorneys attempt to ensure that irrelevant facts cannot be brought into the trial to muddy the waters.
one would almost certainly present the jury with the argument that the harm resulting from the police response was possible but not "likely."
To which my response would be that since the harm was possible, it was not only "likely" but inevitable that swatting should eventually produce this tragedy. The fact that it's not likely to happen often should not exonerate the person who does it, particularly in the eventual case when it does.
He knew, or should have known, of the inherent dangerousness of "swatting" someone, and should have known that it means that swatting people eventually will produce an innocent casualty. It is not a question of "if", but one of "when". Dropping bricks off a highway overpass should not be considered a less serious prank for the fact that it doesn't usually result in anyone's death.
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
The fact that it's not likely to happen often should not exonerate the person who does it
I think we're in violent agreement here. I never said it should, only that the attorney would probably argue that it should.
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
Dropping bricks off a highway overpass should not be considered a less serious prank for the fact that it doesn't usually result in anyone's death.
-
@dkf said in In other news today...:
Maybe they need to rename Wichita to Keystone…
That's where my ex-wife is planning to move.
-
-
-
-
@pjh
Freaking furries
-
-
@rhywden said in In other news today...:
@luhmann said in In other news today...:
@pjh
Freaking furriesHamilton was a furry?
I think she was a turtle?
-
@tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
@rhywden said in In other news today...:
@luhmann said in In other news today...:
@pjh
Freaking furriesHamilton was a furry?
I think she was a turtle?
In F1? Defenitly sounds like a furrie thing
-
I have a shorter practical guide:
- Don't
-
In case you didn't think that polar vortex was sensational enough, meteorologists present:
BOMB CYCLONE
-
@boomzilla Maybe it's slang, like it's a really good cyclone.
-
their bodies fused together in the jolt.
Ew.
-
@boomzilla Isn't that the literal translation of the Japanese name for the MM2 enemy character Air Man? /flrrd
-
@scholrlea I recognize the words you're using except that you misspeelled MMA.
-
-
@scholrlea That's more an X name, though. That's when they stopped having Man in their names.
-
@tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
I think she was a turtle?
No, the she-turtle was Venus de Milo.
-
@masonwheeler said in In other news today...:
@tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
I think she was a turtle?
No, the she-turtle was Venus de Milo.
Oh. Well, I should warn you I'm rather terrible at names.
-
Sadly, how much the dog was paid remains a mystery.
-
@pjh said in In other news today...:
Sadly, how much the dog was paid remains a mystery.
Humanitarianism at its finest.
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
BOMB CYCLONE
Was not scary enough.
BOMBOGENESIS
Not to be confused with bimbogenesis.
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
BOMBOGENESIS
I warned you, but did you listen? No! Now you have to live with this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/fashion/the-monocle-returns-as-a-fashion-accessory.html
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
Not to be confused with bimbogenesis.
Damn you, Tyris Flare!
Filed Under: Or would she be a Genesis Bimbo?
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
BOMBOGENESIS
It's 2018 they should be using XBomb One X by now.
-
@luhmann said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
BOMB CYCLONE
I'm waiting for the Tsar Bomb Cyclone
Oh. I prefer the term Armada Storm for those…
-
@hungrier "Bomb Cyclone" is what 3-D Man said. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/Maxinehunkel2.jpg
-
This post is deleted!
-
I'm not saying it's cold, but...
-