LAPD arrests man on suspicion of making deadly swatting call to Wichita police - <AUTHOR> http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192281169.html <comment><USER3> What bothers me about these situations is just the entire idea of "SWAT" as practiced.

You are a cop with 5+ other cops.

You all pull your guns.

Someone comes to the door, groggy in the middle of the night. They may or may not understand you are police. They may or may not believe you are the police.

They are definitely confused/frightened/angry by your presence.

We now begin the dice rolling process.

Since every police officer with a gun drawn is now a DECIDER they get a dice roll.

Every single millisecond, all these dice are rolled simultaneously for the entire arrest process as the "suspect" is ordered around like they haven't been since grade school gym class.

This process is designed to have a weapon be discharged.

<comment><USER4> SWAT is usually only involved when it's clear there is an immediate and present danger. So of course they are going to be ready with weapons drawn. Do you want them to just waltz into (probably) dangerous situations with their hands in their pockets whistling a tune?

Edit: The amount of willful ignorance displayed on HN regarding law enforcement is staggering. It's sad to see how many people here view police as the bad guys, and refuse to take a balanced view by empathizing with them and the danger they encounter on a daily basis.

<comment><USER5> There is just one way this _isn't_ a massive police screwup, and that's if the person SWATed reacted in a way that was (very) threatening, such as grabbing a gun, or something that is reasonable the police could believe was a gun.

My hunch here is that, just like you are suggesting, Swat teams are used incorrectly as first response in unconfirmed situations. No investigation by anyone has confirmed the threat.

At the end of the day, police officers just can't shoot unarmed people, no matter how stressful the situation.

<comment><USER6> What kind of investigation would you suggest take place before hand about a situation where there is supposedly a person with hostages who has already killed one?

<comment><USER7> A situation that doesn't include the "supposedly" qualification you make. A single anonymous source on a non-911 number without corroborating reports of gunfire is not sufficient cause to shoot a man on his porch.

Here's an idea -- fly a drone around the house and look in some windows. Knock on a neighbors door and ask if they heard a gunshot. Establish the identity of the reporter - how does the reporter know what is happening? Is the reporter physically proximate to the area?

<comment><USER6> > A single anonymous source on a non-911 number without corroborating reports > of gunfire is not sufficient cause to shoot a man on his porch.

No one is arguing that.

> Here's an idea -- fly a drone around the house and look in some windows. > Knock on a neighbors door and ask if they heard a gunshot.

That sounds great. Until there is an actual hostage situation, and police waste their time doing this and a hostage is killed, at which point people will be asking why they didn't kick the doors down if they knew someone was being held in there.

> Establish the identity of the reporter - how does the reporter know what is > happening? Is the reporter physically proximate to the area?

The reporter claimed to be the person who killed his father and was holding other people hostage. How would you confirm if the reporter was physically in the area? E911 includes location reporting, but this can be spoofed(I don't know if it was in the situation)

<comment><USER8> This isn't the movies, cops should never be kicking down the door in a hostage situation. They should be guarding the perimeter and trying to talk to the perpetrator.

<comment><USER6> I'm curious - how much training do you have in SWAT tactics? Where did you get it from?

Assuming it is zero, would you in whatever field you are in accept advice from someone who has zero experience in the field?

<comment><USER8> Do you think SWAT tactics are designed with minimizing civilian casualties? Or SWAT team casualties?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Coming from a country where the police spends more time developing people skills than doing gun practice, it never ceases to puzzle me how the solution to any situation appears to be to shoot anything that moves on the flimsiest of assumptions, then figure out what happened afterwards.

Now, I appreciate that the police in the US does face a population with more guns on hand than the Norwegian police does; this surely goes some way towards explaining their apparent eagerness to shoot first, then ask questions later.

However, what puzzles me most is this - if the police around here shot but one innocent, there'd be cries for resignations, perhaps even going all the way to the secretary of justice; we collectively would expect - nah, demand - <USER2> the police come up with policies and training which would make it less likely that another, similar incident would ever occur, &c.

So - the demonstrations following some police shootings aside, is there any significant push in the US to drive the police towards less lethal encounters with the public it is to serve and protect?

Say, requiring better people skills, more use of non-lethal weapons (and, if sufficiently effective non-lethal weapons do not yet exist - to have them developed), more passive safety for police officers (say, if you are wearing body armour which will stop a cal. 50-round, maybe you do not have to fire the first shot) etc?

<comment><USER10> I don't think it's reasonable or effective to entirely expect police to solve this problem. Here is the account from the article:

        Livingston said when the door opened, officers gave Finch commands to put his hands up and walk toward them. He complied for a "very short time" and put his hands back down. He raised them again, and then lowered them for a second time, Livingston said.

        "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," he said. "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."

From my perspective, they are describing a very threatening movement. Stuff that looks like that is how officers die. Asking them to not react when someone does that puts them in pretty serious danger. A sudden movement like that is how gunfights start.

It's tragic that it's also something a panicked innocent citizen might do! But that doesn't change the fact that it's a genuinely threatening thing to do.

I think probably the most effective way to solve the problem would be to make people better aware of what makes you appear threatening and non-threatening in a confrontation.

Some of us have been insulated from violence for so long that we don't know what it looks like. We have no reason to know that innocent sudden movements can just like dangerous sudden movements.

I'm not saying the guy's death is his fault. The whole thing is a tragic misunderstanding between good people. But I am saying he could have been educated to prevent it. I don't think it's realistic to ask police to solve the problem at great risk to themselves when regular people can solve it by learning that the best way to avoid misunderstandings and snap reactions is to move slowly and deliberately in any confrontation.

<comment><USER11> > the best way to avoid misunderstandings and snap reactions is to move slowly > and deliberately in any confrontation.

Excellent idea. Let's train/condition 300 million people exactly how they should behave in stressful and life-threatening situations, and put at least part of the blame on them for any deviation from "acceptable" behaviour when put in an unknown situations with guns pointing at them.

It would take far too much time and effort to modify police training and expectations.

Perhaps we should cut funding for some more arts and phys-ed programs in public schools, and start funding "police/violence readiness prep" classes in K-12.

<comment><USER10> I really do think teaching people how to be non-threatening would be one of the most effective methods of avoiding tragedy. I know you make light of educating large numbers of people, but there are a lot of things we all know about society in order to be safe. It seems to me that "sudden movements in tense situations provoke violent reaponses" isn't that hard of a thing to learn. Don't we teach people not to run from bears, for example?

I am not saying the guy's death is his fault. I am saying expecting policemen not to react to certain movements just because they _can_ be innocent is not a realistic expectation to place on them. It is safer for everyone if we all just stay calm, de-escalate, act deliberately, sort things out. Flapping around is a good way to look dangerous, and I just think things would be safer if people understood this.

<comment><USER12> What about mentally ill people? People on medication that make them groggy? People who are drunk in their own home? People who are exhausted from a huge week at work? Children? Elderly?

People cannot reasonably be expected to "stay calm" at a moments notice. That is completely unreasonable.

<comment><USER10> Special cases make bad rules. Seat belts make you safer... but not if your car gets crushed between two semis. That doesn't mean seat belts are pointless, just that they don't work in that case.

Moving deliberately and keeping your hands visible around police, particularly if they seem to think you're dangerous, is a good way to stay as safe as you can, and will put them less on edge in the encounter. You want that. In a dangerous situation, you want everyone as calm as possible.

Will it always work? Of course not. Maybe you're drunk or high. Maybe you're insane. Maybe you panicked in spite of yourself. Whatever. Hopefully in that situation one of the other protections will work for you.

Wear ya damn seatbelt. Not because it always works, but because sometimes it's the only thing that saves your life.

Safety is about tradeoffs and incremental improvements, not perfect solutions. If there really is a murderer in the house, we want police to be aggressive. If it's a hoax, we want them to be cautious. But expecting them to magically know which situation it is isn't a practical solution. Making it really obvious that you aren't a tactical threat is a practical way to make the situation saf _er_. ER!

Obviously the whole situation is super dangerous and the blame rests almost entirely with the hoaxer.

But with that said, I think it is practical and reasonable to talk about the best way to surrender safely and avoid a misunderstanding in a situation like that. It won't work in every case, but it should generally work and could improve the situation.

<comment><USER13> why do civilians have to make those tradeoffs and not police?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't see anyone here asking this: how many people are police killing who are not 100% innocent bystanders like in this case, but still didn't need to be killed? I mean, we're all outraged because they shot "some dude in his PJs" but doesn't that imply they must be shooting 10, 100x as many folks where we'd be thinking "well, he shouldn't have had a knife in his hand" or "he shouldn't have been high"?

Where I live, small town in the middle of the US, to my knowledge the cops have killed at least two people who were no real threat to them in the past few years. If that death density is consistent across the country there must be hundreds of events like this every year.

I get the impression somehow we've been brain washed into seeing this like unlucky folks being hit by a drunk driver.

<comment><USER15> > "well, he shouldn't have had a knife in his hand"

Right. German cops, for example, are trained to shoot people in the leg in that scenario. It happens quite frequently and successfully.

American cops seem like they're all on a hair trigger to kill at the slightest hint of danger, rather than as a last resort when they're truly threatened.

<comment><USER16> American police and military are trained to shoot for the largest target area, center of mass, as this is the least likely area to have unintentional results.

Some examples of unintentional results are: 1) Missing. 2) Hitting another person. 3) Maming, or otherwise causing grievous injury such as shooting in the leg and hitting an artery on accident when you didn't intend to kill the target.

<comment><USER17> The probability of killing someone when you hit them in the center of mass seems a lot higher than that of accidental hits to the femoral artery.

Also, surely you've noticed that when American cops shoot someone they usually go on to cuff them but don't make any attempt to administer first aid, so that quite a few people die from bleeding out. At least if you get shot in the leg you've got some chance of stemming the blood flow, plus it's a lot easier to put a tourniquet on that.

<comment><USER18> > The probability of killing someone when you hit them in the center of mass > seems a lot higher than that of accidental hits to the femoral artery.

It is, but American cops are not trained to shoot to incapacitate or warn. If they shoot it is to kill and that is why the target is the center of mass.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> My wife's family house was mistaken for a drug house years ago, it was around the block.

Police came in cuffing them and shot the family dog when it got aggressive trying to protect the yard, and noone in family being able to restrain him as they were in cuffs

This was in Canada.

This happened ~15 years ago, my wife still traumatized and never leaves pets outdoors. Their family has quite the disdain for police overall since..

Over use of police force happens everywhere, and just more known in these communication real-time times.

The guy who requested to take the "hit" out, definitely the guy who made the call, and I doubt but also the officer most of all should all be charged.

Hope they make an example of the guy making the false reports as he has history of doing it, and blew off the consequences of his joke.

I can't believe the police didn't verify the situation before escalating. Even if it was a real situation, the guy who had his life stolen could have been the hostage.

Police have made these mistakes without false information... I put the biggest blame on them, also important to not label all police officers the same as some are very upstanding citizens.

<comment><USER20> I couldn't agree more, and I'm sorry to hear about your wife's family.

Your thesis statement:

> Police have made these mistakes without false information... I put the > biggest blame on them, also important to not label all police officers the > same as some are very upstanding citizens.

Is exactly what I wish more people on this forum would read. There's so many people painting every cop with the brush of evil, or either excusing their mistakes/transgressions. The truth is always in between, and our tendency as humans to have knee-jerk reactions is not helpful at all to making real progress.

I wish I had more upvotes to give you.

<comment><USER21> Except that because of the 'Blue Shield', police are _rarely_ ever charged with any misdoing. A cop is never wrong, unless there is _more_ than a mountain of evidence against them, and that makes me see all police as complicit.

Those 'very upstanding citizens' are the same ones who sit by silently as _hundreds_ of unarmed Americans are shot each year by police.

<comment><USER20> > and that makes me see all police as complicit.

It took me about 5 seconds of Googling to prove you wrong:

[http://time.com/4503030/ohio-police-chief-tulsa- cops/](http://time.com/4503030/ohio-police-chief-tulsa-cops/)

[https://thegrapevine.theroot.com/black-female-police- officer...](https://thegrapevine.theroot.com/black-female-police-officer- speaks-out-against-killer-c-1790888677)

[http://www.cleveland19.com/story/36401439/retired-african- am...](http://www.cleveland19.com/story/36401439/retired-african-american- cops-speak-out-against-euclid-officer-involved-in-viral-arrest)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkJUVrNrV5Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkJUVrNrV5Q)

If I was mugged by a person of a particular race, and some people of that same race didn't speak out, would I be justified in seeing all members of that race as complicit?

<comment><USER22> He never said _all_ sit idly by. It's dangerous to assume a universal generalization that wasn't levied.

<comment><USER20> He did (I edited my response to clarify):

> and that makes me see all police as complicit.

<comment><USER22> Ah, I misread. My mistake.

<comment><USER20> Totally fine. I sometimes do read things that aren't there (even though I try hard not to), so it's never bad to double check

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I always grew up thinking that police had to wait until somebody _shot at them_ to shoot back.

It seems like "we thought he had a gun and he motioned towards his waist" has now replaced "he shot at us".

I really wish that the police had to adhere to the same laws as anybody else does. They are civilians after all.

If had a gun (I don't) and pointed it at somebody to intimidate them, even if they were trying to break into my house, I could get in trouble for "brandishing". Yet civilian police pull their guns out and point them at people all the time.

The can't believe that we allow these people can put themselves into a position where they're deciding if they're going to _kill you_ or not, and the mere press of a small lever on their hand _KILLS YOU_ and that this is just considered okay...

It's just absolutely ridiculous to me.

<comment><USER4> Police are not you or I in the context of social roles. They fulfill a particular function in society while on duty that you and I don't. They tend to deal with dangerous people.

People must do exactly as they're told when dealing with the police to minimize uncertainty and confusion.

An officer pulling a gun on someone is not equivalent in any way to a civilian doing the same thing. Officers are empowered by society to enforce the law so we don't have to. That necessitates displaying - and sometimes using - force.

If it's clear that someone presents an immediate mortal danger to others and refuses to comply with orders given to them then the police are justified in acting with force.

<comment><USER24> > If it's clear that someone presents an immediate mortal danger to others

Yeah, and that's where your argument hits a brick wall. Yes, if someone presents an immediate mortal danger, then force can be justified. If you see that video, he is reaching for the waistband of his pajamas and following directions.

Even in the event that he had a pistol stashed in the elastic of his pajamas, you have multiple officers who already are in the drawn position, ready to fire, whereas he has to pull it out, aim, etc.

You have a far lower bar for "clear presentation of immediate mortal danger" than most people here - and you seem to believe that's our failing, not yours.

> People must do exactly as they're told when dealing with the police to > minimize uncertainty and confusion.

You mean like the multiple incidents where we see two police officers yelling contradictory statements? "Hands behind your head, turn around!" "Get on your stomach!" and one of the officers believes he is in mortal danger because the suspect is, in effect, obeying the other officers instruction, and not his?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Is the policeman who killed an unarmed man at his house going to be charged? Ideally this wouldn't be a rhetorical question.

How long until the police give themselves the right to kill someone annoying by anonymously phoning in a warning then making sure they're amongst the ones who turn up?

<comment><USER26> This was my immediate reaction. My guess is that the blame and punishment will all be laser focused on the caller, in an attempt to avoid a public outcry for the actual shooter's head. That cop shouldn't be on administrative leave, he should be in jail for murder.

<comment><USER27> Should cops have to wait until they are actually being gunned down before they can use force to protect themselves? What happened was an absolute tragedy, and every measure should be taken to avoid anything like that ever happening again. The shooting was not justified, and cops need better training, non- lethal options must be expanded, penalties for this kind of "prank" must be made harsher. Everyone agrees on that. But to call the cop a murderer, as if he had executed someone he knew was innocent, just for fun, that's not right either. Cops face actual murdering psychos on a daily basis, and must be able to respond to how the situation looks at the time. Again, not trying to justify the shooting, but trying to encourage a more nuanced perspective.

<comment><USER28> Isn't it like that in many countries? Do not fire unless fired upon? It's also a common rule of engagement for many militaries deployed in Afganistan, Iraq or other 'dangerous places'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Having unfortunately seen a police body cam video of an obviously unarmed man being shot, and having read about this one, it seems to be a case of men hitching their trousers up because they aren't wearing a belt, being mistaken for reaching for a gun.

This is a normal thing, it's an unconscious thing, we do it without thinking so can't stop when told not to do it. People should not die because they're wearing loose fitting trousers.

Americans need to be doing more about their fellow citizens being murdered by the people supposed to protect them.

<comment><USER30> what are we supposed to do exactly?

<comment><USER31> Reduce the number of guns in the US.

People should still be able to own guns, but they should need a valid reason (such as hunting or farming). Shooting people (this includes self defence) should not qualify as a valid reason.

This is how it works in most developed nations with sometimes quite high rates of gun ownership (0.2+ per capita) but without the endemic gun violence of the US. It's worth noting that these sorts of restrictions effectively rule out ownership of handguns - and concealed handguns (real or imagined) seem to play a major role in most police shootings of innocent people in the US.

<comment><USER29> Agreed. If there were far fewer guns, Police wouldn't be assuming a concealed weapon anywhere near as much as they do now.

I think Police training needs to be changed significantly as well though. Training Police to de-escalate situations, and to deal with normal people who are scared, in danger, and unpredictable but not malicious - this is the significant majority.

Police in America seem to act like soldiers, and forget that the people in front of them deserve protection as much as everyone else, not least because they are innocent until proven guilty in a court.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I'm glad this person is an adult located in the U.S. Hopefully this makes for swift and severe justice.

I'm sad to learn the victim was the father of two children.

And I'm mad that police are shooting people, innocent or not, based on vague gestures that sorta, maybe, if you look at it from the right angle, looks a little threatening.

I said yesterday that, as a hearing-impaired person, if I'm ever in a position where police are pointing guns at me and shouting instructions, I expect I will be shot. I'm honestly not sure what I can do to prevent that.

<comment><USER10> > And I'm mad that police are shooting people, innocent or not, based on vague > gestures that sorta, maybe, if you look at it from the right angle, looks a > little threatening.

I can understand that, but I recommend caution when it comes to judgement. Combat is every bit as technical as system architecture, and I think it requires related experience to judge fairly. Movies prepare you to critique a fighter about as well as they prepare you to critique a system security posture. Which is to say, not at all.

The best way to understand why police react the way they do is get a little experience with the real thing: watch footage of actual confrontations. Here are some examples:

[https://youtu.be/uyEE_IpjstA](https://youtu.be/uyEE_IpjstA) [https://youtu.be/2mnTE85LYFU](https://youtu.be/2mnTE85LYFU) [https://youtu.be/p6mds5tDqDw](https://youtu.be/p6mds5tDqDw)

Combat is fast. When someone makes a sudden move, you have to react immediately or you will lose.

I'm mad that this went down the way it did, too, but from the description, it is very understandable. It is tragic that people with no combat background just don't understand what looks threatening and why. You'd no doubt consider it foolhardy to point an airsoft pistol at a policeman, but probably don't understand that a movement that could be a fast concealed weapon draw is just as threatening.

I do a little martial arts, and we train that if someone is hiding their hand, assume it contains a knife or gun. If you have your hand behind you or in your pocket and move it fast, I have to react as if it's an attack, as that's the only way to avoid it. It takes too long to identify a weapon.

Look at some videos of knife attacks, for example:

[https://youtu.be/dqnwsljTVt8](https://youtu.be/dqnwsljTVt8) [https://youtu.be/ts2LCbDQkeg](https://youtu.be/ts2LCbDQkeg)

They are fast and sudden. The only way you can hope to defend them is to assume a hand you don't see is about to hit you with a knife.

Which is why police are jumpy. This is the environment they work in and what they train for. If your day to day life involves no violence, your ideas about what's reasonable in that context don't come from applicable experience.

> I said yesterday that, as a hearing-impaired person, if I'm ever in a > position where police are pointing guns at me and shouting instructions, I > expect I will be shot. I'm honestly not sure what I can do to prevent that.

Move slowly. Keep your hands very visible and very obviously empty. Even if you can't hear the officer's commands, moving slowly and keeping your hands visible will keep you from appearing suddenly threatening, which should let you get the situation sorted out.

I can't help you if you run into a policeman who is a bully, but most of these tragedies are misunderstandings between good people. The very best way to avoid that is to do everything slowly and deliberately. Don't panic. Just move slowly and carefully. Pretend the cop is a dinosaur or something and sudden movement will provoke him.

<comment><USER33> >Pretend the cop is a dinosaur or something and sudden movement will provoke him.

It's really perverse that I have to train myself to deal safely with a purported practised officer of the law.

<comment><USER32> This. The burden should be on the few police to be trained well enough to recognize body language, not on the mass population to train how to avoid being shot.

<comment><USER10> I don't entirely agree. There are lots of situations you have to learn how to navigate safely in society. How to use a crosswalk. How to address a judge. How to prevent house fires.

I think putting the burden of citizen safety 100% on police is like putting the burden of pedestrian safety 100% on cars. Yeah, the driver has greater responsibility and is held to a higher standard of caution... but this sort of thing really is a lot more practical if people know to stay on sidewalks.

I for one want to have police in society, and I want them to be able to deal with very dangerous and violent people as safely as they can. I think needing to know how to safely surrender to them if they mistake me for a dangerous person is a reasonable price to pay.

I don't understand this whole "I shouldn't need to know" perspective. Of course you need to know. Police are part of society, and so we need to understand how to be around them.

<comment><USER33> >I think putting the burden of citizen safety 100% on police is like putting the burden of pedestrian safety 100% on cars. Yeah, the driver has greater responsibility and is held to a higher standard of caution... but this sort of thing really is a lot more practical if people know to stay on sidewalks.

This doesn't make any sense. Many pedestrians are drivers at other points in time. They have some idea of what to expect when they're on the other side of the coin. It's not a good analogy.

>don't understand this whole "I shouldn't need to know" perspective. Of course you need to know. Police are part of society, and so we need to understand how to be around them.

Of course one should know that it is a good idea to obey instructions from a police officer. Beyond that, it is difficult for the average person to figure out how to act appropriately in a stressful situation that could possibly end in death if some gesture is interpreted in an unexpected fashion by a trained officer. You cannot train the general populace to tackle something like this! At least not at any reasonable scale, especially when different police officers have different standards for what constitutes dangerous behavior. It is incumbent on authorities to make sure that they train their officers appropriately to behave in a way that deescalates interactions with the civilian population.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> At what point does the average citizen look at "SWAT death as an option for what could happen to me today" and think, 'well .. this is okay'?

I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but there has to be real moment of respect for the fact that Americans are living in a "dial-a-death" state of existence.

This is something that many, many social commentators have warned us of, over the decades: the signs of a Police State.

Sure, American. Most likely you are aware of the nature of law enforcement.

But for those of us observing things from places where such actions as this are a real, honest, facet of the past history: this shit is scary.

Like, come on. A rational society allows this?

Please fork, reboot, and continuously deploy these notions of freedom under the protection of violent force. This is a paradox which is delivering injustice, broad and wide, instead of narrow and thin. A moment of disgrace.

<comment><USER35> In what kind of society does someone call 911, pretending to be homocidal, telling them they are pointing a gun at their wife and child, that they poured gasoline throughout the house, and are going to burn it down?

The fact is there are people that really do this and someone needs to respond.

The other fact is that other people think it's funny, or a good way to get revenge on someone, by calling in a police force to invade their home.

<comment><USER33> Every society has assholes, monsters and others with perverted senses of humor. One very simple objective of a civilized society is to ensure that such people cannot exploit state sponsored violence to hurt people they don't like. The problem here is that the US system is seriously flawed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The principal issue is: why was an unarmed man shot on his doorstep by the police. This focus conveniently absolves the police of wrong doing; e.g. "if someone didn't call in a problem, no one would be dead".

<comment><USER37> Ostensibly because he reached for his waistband instead of immediately putting up his hands.

<comment><USER38> Having seen the video, it looked more like he was trying to shield his eyes from the light the police was shining directly at him _from across the street_. I don't know why this isn't reported more accurately, they shot the guy from what looks like a good 20-30 meters away.

<comment><USER39> Because they're already laying the groundwork that it was his fault, not the trigger happy cops.

<comment><USER37> Right, I said "ostensibly" above, but the cynic in me thinks, "the police got ahead of the narrative by saying he moved first". I don't really know what happened (other than a person got shot by the police when they absolutely should not have).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> "When confronted by a police officer, you must keep your hands up or on the drivers wheel at all times."

This seems to be the new reflex we must learn and practice? Perhaps the rule should be codified so that officers know they can't ask you to do anything else with your hands. People have been shot while complying with a request, ie, getting car registration from the glove compartment or moving closer to the officer by crawling. Just because one officer gives a command does not mean that another officer heard it.

Since this is a life or death sort of reflex, perhaps we must be teaching/practicing in elementary school and refreshers as part of drivers training.

<comment><USER40> You're totally right, however, things get really difficult when the police are barking difficult to follow orders at you. Just watch the Daniel Shaver video. The guy tried his best to comply and then was murdered for no reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> One thing with all of this which puzzles me as a non-American, how does the "acceptance" of people getting killed by the police fit together with the whole anti-gorvernment thing which seems fairly common in the US as well?

One would think that if one does not like the government, one would be extremely upset about the gouvernment randomly killing people. But for some reason this does not seem to be the case.

I guess similar things could be said about gun ownership/self-defence argument etc. I guess if one decides to shoot back at the police one is truly screwed?

<comment><USER42> _One thing with all of this which puzzles me as a non-American, how does the "acceptance" of people getting killed by the police fit together with the whole anti-gorvernment thing which seems fairly common in the US as well? One would think that if one does not like the government, one would be extremely upset about the gouvernment randomly killing people. But for some reason this does not seem to be the case._

It's a good question. As a half-American with something of a background in political science, let me offer the following.

The free market liberal ideas, mixed with a sort of pioneer spirit that historically existed here (and still in much of the rural areas of the U.S.), carry with it an arguably consistent ideology:

\- Independence from government in the realm of strong market regulations, price controls and so forth, particularly property rights.

\- A government whose role is to minimize taxation but to protect said property rights.

It's a logical fact that you can't protect property rights without violence, due to the unequal nature of property ownership and the class system that comes from it. Historically, police start to make an appearance in such societies, as it makes more sense to have the State perform this activity than have each individual hire or join their own private militias or pay protection money to some organization.

That's the best way I can think to explain this discrepancy, which to a European sounds totally contradictory. You say you don't like the State's influence, but when the State does the worst it can do, kill citizens, you do nothing?

It has to do with free market capitalism not existing without a state having basic functions: protection from external threats at the national level, and enforcement of property rights via a legal system and an enforcer of this legal system. I.e. Police.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Most of the comments have to do with the police interaction. My question is, what can be done to discourage swatting?

My reflex reaction is to give everyone involved long prison sentences, and some aggressive prosecution of other incidents, so that people tempted to engage in swatting are discouraged by some realistic chance of doing real prison time for doing something so reckless and stupid.

The guy who made the call was fairly unconcerned about the prospect of real punishment when he was interviewed a few hours before he was arrested.[1] His voice tone during the call was also fairly flat.[2]

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCHOI39nJPM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCHOI39nJPM) [2] [https://scallywagandvagabond.com/2017/12/tyler-raj- barriss-s...](https://scallywagandvagabond.com/2017/12/tyler-raj-barriss- swautistic-gamer-arrest-andrew-finch-swatting-prank/)

<comment><USER44> Normally I'd agree but the US already has the largest prison population in the world. By far. We are obsessed with long and lengthy prison sentences even for the most minuscule non-victim offenses i.e. 20 years for pot possession (meanwhile armed robbers get 3-5 years). Terms like "mandatory minimum" and "zero tolerance" get thrown around by politicians like it's candy to get themselves elected, with little to no regard from the general public on the monetary and psychological costs (although the private prison industry and the cottage industries around it stand to make big bucks).

A solution to all of this is to eliminate victimless crimes, hold police accountable when they mess up, and switch to more of a house arrest model for crimes like this. Force the prankster to pay restitution to the victim's family. Make him work it off with 1000s of hours of community service if needed. But let's quit crowding prisons at taxpayer expense.

<comment><USER45> What restitution can there be in this case? Nothing can compensate this person for the loss of their life, or the two children who will grow up without a father. The guy who made the false report had done so previously with a bomb threat, and showed no remorse. How can this person ever be trusted to rejoin society? How can the victims be restored by the justice system? Neither is realistic. Short of a death penalty, the only outcome is to put the guy in jail for a long time.

<comment><USER44> The point is that "jail" shouldn't be the default punishment for every criminal act. There are lots of ways you can punish people. Take away his ability to game for 20 years and make him pay one million to the family, worked off over a number of years. America is locking up people at an alarming rate, when alternative more cost-effective punishments are available.

I invite you to read about the problem of mass incarceration: [https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2017.html](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2017.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I will never, ever be able to accept that it is ok for the police to shoot a person who they do not see carrying a weapon. There is no circumstance in which you can say you feared for your life if you did not see a weapon. And if you legitimately did fear for your life when you didn't see a weapon then maybe you shouldn't be a police officer.

<comment><USER46> It doesn't take a weapon to kill someone. A rather infamous example in recent years is the death of Eric Gardner. Deadly force is deadly force—regardless of the form it comes in.

<comment><USER40> It takes a weapon to kill someone from 30+ feet away.

<comment><USER46> Well, if we're talking about this specific situation, the officer who did the shooting mistakenly thought he saw a weapon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Stories like this is going to make every encounter with a cop a lot more frightening for me.

As a teenager I was once yelled out by undercover cops that came out of no where. They yelled at me to "not put your hands in my pocket" or "put my hands up"... I really do not recall the exact words. I instinctively put my hands in my pocket. I couldn't help it, I do not think I even processed what they said. Luckily they didn't shoot but they were mad and warned that I could have been shot. I really do not understand how they expect people to understand them when they are yelling and surprise the sh!t out of you.

<comment><USER48> One of two times I've had police point their guns at me I was pulled over while driving my father's car. I opened the glove box when asked for license and registration and unbeknownst to me there was a Swiss army knife in there. Both officers unholstered their guns and the one at my window told me to slowly remove the knife from the glove box, but as soon as I touched it the other officer on the passenger side immediately yelled at me to "drop it!" Fortunately there were only two of them and after that they managed to get on the same page and avoid shooting me. The other time I was smoking marijuana from a pipe immediately after surviving a serious collision, I assume the guns were because they were mad they wouldn't be able to prove I was high during the accident (I wasn't).

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Since we're mostly debating the police action here, there's a short video available now of the fatal moment:

[http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192244734.html](http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192244734.html)

The victim really does make a fairly unfortunate movement right before he's shot. Still I'm hardly in a position to say how far this mitigates the shooter.

<comment><USER50> The only thing the man could've pulled was a pistol from his waistband. The police were across the streets behind cars already aiming guns at the guy. They should be trained to wait until the person actually raises the pistol to fire before discharging. At that distance and with the cover they had I don't see how the guy could fire a shot and hit a cop before they could. I don't see how anyone can argue the cop was in any danger even if the guy had a pistol. Unfortunately, the cop only has to say he felt threatened and he thought the guy had a gun and he'll get off on any charges.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Link to video of the shooting: [http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192244734.html](http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192244734.html)

Couple things are clear: 1\. Police took shelter behind cars, outside of handgun range, but within the range of their own rifles. 2\. The victim clearly didn't carry a rifle, or any weapon with a range that can threaten the police 3\. The police didn't know if the victim, who was being shouted at and shined at with high beam and confused, was the supposed hostage or hostage taker, and shot him anyways.

It's a fuckup, and the police should serve better.

</comment><comment><USER52> What if person who made a call is outside of US? Or we are unable to track it? Who are we going to blame then? The "911" seems like an open line for terrorists or some other nation to kill anybody they want... Or terrorize anybody they want...

</comment><comment><USER53> The USA have a truly messed up culture.

I wonder how it can be fixed. Some things seem to be going in the right direction, for example gun ownership is on the decline (from 47 % of households owning gun in 1971 to 31% in 2014 [http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun...](http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf) ) . However the number of guns keeps increasing, so it looks like some people are stockpiling. Nonetheless if gun ownership continues to decrease they will be marginalized.

At the same time, police is very violent and its militarization is a sad, messed up, joke.

And violent deaths in the USA are still an order of magnitude higher than those of other developed countries.

<comment><USER54> Americans are all about freedom and equality, but having a police force who can almost arbitrarily kill you and with little consequence sounds like neither. In fact, it's not very different from how the Chinese government can disappear or jail you without retribution if you criticize the CCP, although Americans will undoubtedly loathe the comparison. The Chinese system sounds worse because it's lawful evil if you will, but at least there's a simple if degrading mechanism to avoid being a casualty, while the chaotic evilness of the US system means you could be dead tomorrow by no fault of your own just like the father of two—no, sorry, the "male", better term to convey aggression and justify the shooting—in this story.

As you said, this is part of the American culture, and part of a circle of violence that includes NRA lobbying, widespread gun ownership, mass incarceration, macho cop culture, politically motivated toughness on crime, the War on Drugs, etc. This will take decades to unravel at best, so I'm not holding my breath, just like I'm not holding my breath for the CCP to allow free speech anytime soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Like Brian Krebs said yesterday on his blog -- it seems like the doctrine of felony murder should apply here.

<comment><USER56> And what would that make the US police forces look like? To me, as an European, it makes them look like a weapon, which you can conjure by a simple phone-call. It doesn't have to be like this.

<comment><USER57> (As another European) it's hard to see any alternative for regular people whose profession just happens to put their life at almost permanent risk, thanks to the attitude toward guns over there.

I'm not sure if in Europe we'd react any different -- if you called the police to report an in-progress shooting, I wouldn't be surprised if a similar trigger-happy result emerged

<comment><USER58> As a guy originally from Ukraine that as you can imagine has a fairly big problem with availability of weapons at the moment that police officer would go to jail. Having much stricter rules on when and how weapons can be used looks like a good thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> If this is a potential consequence of online gaming, then I don't want any of my children gaming online.

We all know that the police response to this issue is going to be inadequate. What I'm curious about is the gaming industry and community's response.

</comment><comment><USER60> The SWAT team should _never_ be the first line of defense, unless pre- authorized by a warrant. They should only be involved after escalation from a normal police patrol, and should _never_ be involved due to an anonymous tip.

</comment><comment><USER61> The immediate reaction seems to be that the police are too militarized or not disciplined enough, but it's not clear to me that these claims apply in this situation.

Police militarization is a real problem when it happens for non-violent crimes. But this was thought to be a serious hostage situation, and I'm not sure there were a lot of good options here.

</comment><comment><USER62> It seems like the police is trying to shift the blame 100% on the caller. He might be a terrible human being who deserves punishment, but indeed the sole responsibility lies with the police who pulled the trigger.

But yeah, instead of training for more people skills, let us give them more military-grade weapons.

</comment><comment><USER63> People do realize that it was a random address, not any of the call of duty players addresses'.

A random person was killed over this stupidity.

This is so enraging it's not even funny.

<comment><USER64> To clarify, the arrested individual sells a swatting "service" [1]. One of the CoD players hired him to swat the other over a twitter argument. The other CoD player taunted the swatter and gave him a random address [2]. The police showed up at the address and killed an unrelated person.

No parties involved are without blame.

[1] [http://archive.is/Ixezf#selection-6279.0-6288.0](http://archive.is/Ixezf#selection-6279.0-6288.0) [2] [https://i.imgur.com/n3Q53nL.png](https://i.imgur.com/n3Q53nL.png)

<comment><USER65> for $10 and $20!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Here is an interview with the person who claims to have made the call that prompted the swat:

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cCHOI39nJPM&feature=youtu.be](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cCHOI39nJPM&feature=youtu.be)

</comment><comment><USER67> Swatting should be considered domestic terrorism and not a prank. Just listening to the video describing the events and how many lies the caller provided to convince the police there was a hostage situation is sickening.

<comment><USER52> What when ISIS figure out this is the easiest way to terrorize people in US? What are we going to do then? Luckily the ISIS followers are not so smart... But North Korean intelligence might pull something like this on a much larger scale. And target specific individuals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> If you want to solve the issue of over-militarization of civilian police and SWAT, replace their guns with something safer but still effective at quickly subduing threats.

Carfentanil gas smart bullets with auto & manual per-shot dose control (handled by the launcher/gun device) could be equally effective and slightly less dangerous.

I imagine that the decrease in medical costs would vastly outweigh the increase in weaponry costs.

</comment><comment><USER69> I think of a lot of the replies here miss the point of why the police are in "such a hurry". Usually, they believe that the person has hostages that are in imminent danger. I'm sure there is a big component of macho gun buzz, but the fact that they're in a rush is an understandable component of the situation. That's why they don't sit in the car and try to have a chat with the "hostage taker".

Obviously, the fact that a random person can essentially order a taxpayer- funded death squad to an arbitrary home is a huge problem, and the people actually making those calls are only a small part of the problem.

The fact that these death squads are on the payroll sitting around bored waiting for "action" is an issue too.

However, I don't think it's as clear-cut as "don't kill anyone". I'd hate to be the guy with my life threatened while they cautiously announce their presence to my attacker.

What's missing is some basic "is there really a hostage situation going on here" step that I don't have the law enforcement knowledge to define.

<comment><USER24> > but the fact that they're in a rush is an understandable component of the > situation

Eh. If I'm taking my engine company to a structure fire, we walk, we don't run. If it's a rescue situation, I still do a 360 around the structure to identify additional hazards (while my crew is setting up). That's a situation with people in verified imminent threat to life danger.

We work a patient in cardiac arrest. We have checklists. Even with this imminent threat to the patient's life, we will still at pertinent times, stop, and review those lists.

Charging in gung ho causes more problems than it solves.

If the hostage (if they existed) is going to be dead 10 seconds later, they're probably going to be dead the first time the suspect hears SWAT enter.

Similar to a fire or MVA - "you getting there 10 seconds or 30 seconds earlier is going to save a life on so few occasions, if ever, for a much greater risk".

<comment><USER69> Great take. So, I'm a relatively smart guy who tries to be fair to all parties. I think it's unlikely that I'm the only person who has this misunderstanding about these situations. I wonder how you make this dialog scale?

Also, I wonder how much the "another man is the enemy" component adds to it? I wonder if you take the type of person drawn to law enforcement (or even worse, SWAT) and add the lizard brain fuel of "this is a life or death competition with another man", how many of these outcomes are even the result of conscious decisions.

How much of the wisdom from those restrictive high speed pursuit laws could be re-applied here? They seem to have figured out that the officer will choose the competitive course in the moment instead of the right course, at too high a cost.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Some interesting excerpts from [https://newrepublic.com/article/126473/american- cops-100-tim...](https://newrepublic.com/article/126473/american- cops-100-times-deadlier-finnish-police)

\- By contrast (to the US), national standards in most European countries conform to the European Convention on Human Rights, which impels its 47 signatories to permit only deadly force that is "absolutely necessary" to achieve a lawful purpose.

\- Killings excused under America's "reasonable belief" standards often violate Europe's "absolute necessity" standards.

\- In Europe, killing is considered unnecessary if alternatives exist. For example, national guidelines in Spain would have prescribed that Wilson incrementally pursue verbal warnings, warning shots, and shots at nonvital parts of the body before resorting to deadly force.

\- In the US, only eight states require verbal warnings (when possible), while warning and leg shots are typically prohibited.

</comment><comment><USER71> This guy is part of the culture / training problem:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/training-officers- to-s...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/training-officers-to-shoot- first-and-he-will-answer-questions-later.html)

 _When police officers shoot people under questionable circumstances, Dr. Lewinski is often there to defend their actions. Among the most influential voices on the subject, he has testified in or consulted in nearly 200 cases over the last decade or so and has helped justify countless shootings around the country._

 _His conclusions are consistent: The officer acted appropriately, even when shooting an unarmed person. Even when shooting someone in the back. Even when witness testimony, forensic evidence or video footage contradicts the officer's story._

</comment><comment><USER72> What I don't understand is (or rather do understand) - I know that it is freaking hard to hit anything with a handgun even at best conditions at 25m range, with two hand hold, preparation etc. Here there people are hidden behind cars, with hand rests for steady shooting, very big range for a handgun, in a dark and suspect is blinded with torches and not even in a shooting stance. Police of all people would know that they are 99.99% safe from any shooting he may do. This is pure bullshit from police side and clear abuse of power and it must be prosecuted accordingly.

PS: swatter is also an a55hole and a criminal of course (since he admitted doing it already).

</comment><comment><USER73> In the video, police shouted from across the street while the man peeked out from the side of his doorway. It is unclear whether he knew the commands were for him. And did the yeller have lawful authority to order him out of the house?

Hope my local department is better than that.

</comment><comment><USER74> I think I posted it here the last time some poor guy got gunned down by a swat team by mistake, but Radley Balko wrote a really good book about the history of how this kind of thing became commonplace in the states; Rise of the Warrior Cop. Fascinating read.

</comment><comment><USER67> Do the police have to shoot to kill? Is it possible to aim somewhere else? Or shoot into the air? Also, I think in my country they are obligated to shout out "stop, I will shoot" or something to that effect.

<comment><USER75> Police don't shoot to kill. They shoot to stop the threat. That means aiming center mass (the chest) as it is the biggest target and the easiest to hit. Sometimes that means the person dies, but that's not the objective.

As someone who is very well versed in shooting, it would be insane to expect someone to hit a leg or arm of a suspect; especially with a pistol. That would lead to many stray rounds which stay lethal for up to a mile and can easily penetrate walls killing someone you did not intend to shoot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> I am pretty cynical about humanity, but I don't understand why there aren't hundreds or thousands of swatting incidents per day, given the availability of anonymous communications, payment, and surplus of bad people in the world.

It seems like it would be trivial to set up a dark web service to SWAT on demand. For 0.1 Monero or whatever, place a credible spoofed SWAT call. Maybe hold payment in escrow and follow police radio or blotter to confirm they were deployed and then release payment, or just do a reputational system.

<comment><USER77> If terrorists were really organized, they would obviously use swatting... I wonder if police units can even detects fake hostage alerts...

<comment><USER76> Yeah, flooding 911 with legit-seeming calls for weeks would seem to be an effective DoS on the 911 system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> Maybe a naive question, but couldn't they just stay in armored vehicles that are bullet proofed and agree not to fire until they are fired upon?

</comment><comment><USER79> I see a lot of idealistic opinions about how it should be in regards to police violence but what can we actually do? Is there anything that people of this country can do to change this or is it just a waiting game to see where it's all headed?

Why isn't there an EFF for this sort of thing? I know there is the ACLU but at this point I feel like we need something solely for police violence.

<comment><USER17> You can join/support a radical organization (and you should) but the basic reason there isn't something like an EFF is money. Sure, the EFF goes to bat for consumers against government and giant corporations, but there really aren't that many of them.

In contrast, there are a _lot_ of law enforcement agencies, because there are 300 countries, many towns, most college campuses have their own police, most transit system s in cities have their own police, many federal agencies have their own police. The total is estimated to be about 18,000. If you use a narrower definition the total is still about 15,000.

That's a huge number for any single organization to keep track of or to hold accountable. Even if you just follow up on every single death with a law enforcement angle that's ~1000 homicides by police annually and ~4000 deaths in jails and prisons. That's a huge amount of data to collect and organize before you even begin to evaluate questions of avoidability or accountability.

Say it takes an hour just to receive information of a death, establish the identity of the person involved and the data and location and create a database record or standardized wiki page that can act as a stub for document submission and information collection. With ~100 deaths a week that's a full- time job for 3 people just to produce a barebones list, and I'm being really optimistic with the time estimates. Realistically it's probably 2 or 3 times as much.

[http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/jul/10/...](http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/jul/10/charles- ramsey/how-many-police-departments-are-us/)

Here's the report mentioned in the article, because it's no longer available at the original doj.gov link: [https://ric-zai- inc.com/Publications/cops-p341-pub.pdf](https://ric-zai- inc.com/Publications/cops-p341-pub.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> Swat teams need unarmed camera drones, who scan the situation ahead of them. Smash some windows for god sakes, but not people.ö

<comment><USER81> No, they need proper training.

Things like this don't occur all the time in other countries.

<comment><USER82> That and consequences.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> I'd like to know what the facts on the ground were that led to have an roe of shoot to kill. Something did go wrong with the process leading up to this clusterfuck. I hope it's identified and fixed. There _might_ be some change in wichita, but I'm not hopeful nationally.

</comment><comment><USER84> What about the guy who gave the false address? It seems that he is culpable too.

</comment><comment><USER85> When tasers were introduced, isn't this the exact problem they were here to solve? You use them instead of shooting to disable the suspect to de-escalate the same situations?

</comment><comment><USER86> Swatting exists because it's common knowledge that US SWAT teams are effectively military death squads in terms of both behavior and equipment.

</comment><comment><USER87> Why not just use a drone to investigate the situation before sending in human police officers?

</comment><comment><USER88> I think a machine learning assisted scene assessment could be more accurate in this scenario.

Considering AI is better at image processing than humans, finding whether the subject in the view point is carrying a weapon should be able to give the officers a second opinion when needed under these circumstances.

<comment><USER89> Classic HN. Let's throw some ML & AI & DL at it. Don't forget to take your TensorFlow with you.

<comment><USER88> Not trying to show any wit here. Considering that a mistake in identifying whether a weapon is held by a person ended in tragedy and that modern force are equipped with displays on their rifles; I asked whether ML based solutions can help.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER90> Just hope they sent the local SWAT team to make the arrest :-)

</comment><comment><USER91> Why are cops killing innocent, unarmed people?

</comment><comment><USER63> Edit: I didn't realize that it takes about 40 minutes for a tranquilizer to take effect, if they hit the target in the right spot.

I apologize for my stupidity.

<comment><USER92> Because life isn't a movie and there aren't tranquilizers that work reliably fast enough to avoid the other party shooting back?

<comment><USER93> Not to mention that the wrong dosage, or an interaction with something else in their system, makes a tranquilizer gun potentially as lethal as a regular handgun or a taser.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER94> Sad to see this in my home town :(

</comment><comment><USER89> It's so easy to spot American comments in this thread.

</comment><comment><USER95> I'm very sad and ashamed to voice such an evil idea but I think the only way to change US police into something resembling first world country law enforcement agency is to have mass anonymous random swatting campaign with dozens, perhaps hundreds of causalities.

<comment><USER17> Terrorism-as-object-lesson doesn't work and if anything is likely to have the opposite of the intended effect. Check out Erica Chenoweth's book on the subject (there's a link to the statistical data on this page): [http://www.ericachenoweth.com/research/wcrw/](http://www.ericachenoweth.com/research/wcrw/)

Now I don't actually agree with her in terms of nonviolence-as-optimal- political method because I feel it fails to account for social cost and essentially encourages organizing around martyrdom which leads to the most vulnerable members of society being used as a punching bag to effect political changes whose primary benefits will flow elsewhere, but that's getting into the weeds. It's still an important work in this field that should be studied carefully.

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> > Los Angeles police have arrested a 25-year-old man on suspicion of making > the swatting call that ended with a Wichita man being killed by police.

What crime are they charging him with? I don't think we have the right crime on the books for this at present.

The guy who phoned this in is a scumbag, no doubt.

But Andrew Finch's death is 100% on the cops who showed up. As we've seen time and time again, their selection process and training lead them to be hyper- aggressive.

Look at stories from just the last year where the cops show up and shoot someone's dog, or shoot the random lady in a nightgown, or shoot the guy running away, or shoot the guy who says he's not armed, or shoot the guy for not getting down on the pavement fast enough, or shoot the guy...

It's disturbing that in each of these cases the system protects the cops. At some point, and my preference would be soon, we need to work to dismantle and rebuild this system.

<comment><USER97> > What crime are they charging him with? I don't think we have the right crime > on the books for this at present.

As I read somewhere, the worst case scenario for him is murder under the rule of transferred intent, since making a false representation of this sort to the police (or other relevant authority) in Kansas is a felony.</comment></comment>


Seeing what lives in a puddle by making a closed ecosystem (2019) [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7iyPp3r9HI <comment><USER2> This is not pure rain water that he collects. It is collected from obviously contaminated sources and all those creatures actually come from the soil, not the rain. Let some tap water (that is guaranteed to have no life in it) sit in a jar for a few days to get rid of chlorine, and then add a little potting soil or some dirt and leaf litter in it and soon you'll have tones of algae, planaria, nematodes and protozoa swimming around. With rain water usually it's the same, it normally contains only very little sand and dirt and perhaps a few bacteria that it picked up in the air here and there, nothing else.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hmm.... I was expecting the video to be about what lived in rain water and only rain water. Instead the video is about whats living in puddles of collected rain water. Still very cool but a bit misleading.

</comment><comment><USER4> Misleading title. This is not rainwater, it is a puddle. There are all sorts of creatures living in the dirt.</comment>


A visual timeline of programming languages - <AUTHOR> http://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/timeline3/latest/embed/index.html?source=1KcZdsCI3G832QTfx3kCn8zcxi8jH2qFWttB-xuPjYTM&font=Default&lang=en&height=650 <comment><USER2> A timeline just isn't going to capture this.

Look at Garofalo's Genealogy of Pop/Rock poster or Gomley's History of Film poster for examples of timelines that more accurately reflect family influences.

If you establish domains like education, medical, military, business, engineering, gaming, hobbyists, etc., you could show more information on a vertical axis, such as MUMPS being almost exclusively used by hospital systems, or Lua being born from C and finding a niche in game scripting.

And by the end, I had a creepy, squicky feeling. It just felt like a rip of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_programming_langua...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_programming_languages). Check the "RecurVoice" thing at the end. It looks like wiki-advertising.

<comment><USER3> Yup, I also noticed the "RecurVoice" ad at the end.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Someone's been playing with Wikidata/Wikipedia!

As others have noted, this is a little incomplete (no Lisp) and seems to have some odd entries - the last item seems to be a voice-controlled business software package, not a language.

<comment><USER5> In this timeline, Common Lisp first appears when it was standardized. It should probably also mention its predecessor MACLISP.

<comment><USER6> For much more on Lisp of all varieties (including Common Lisp), see [http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/LISP/](http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/LISP/) .

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Thanks. Gives a nice overview of when things came about.

A few more that you might consider: CoffeeScript, TypeScript, BrightScript, Nim, Vala, XSL, awk, sed

Also, there is a nice list on Wikipedia for more: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages_by_type)

<comment><USER8> Not really. It has Scheme before Common Lisp which is fine but where is McCarthy's Lisp which was an ancestor of both of them? And Algol is not one language but several: Algol-60, Algol-68, Algol-W, ... And where is Turbo Pascal? There is so much mainstream stuff missing that it's hard to see any point in it; except perhaps an exercise in interactive grapics in which case the content is a kind of lorem ipsum.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> how opinionated.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_%28programming_language%2...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_%28programming_language%29)

</comment><comment><USER10> I really like this! But I expected to see some code samples or something next to each description because of the title.

</comment><comment> maze-le I especially like the image for Forth... Although a few code-samples would have ben nice here and there.

</comment><comment><USER11> [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MjXNThXAz_A/T29VMoFcBKI/AAAAAAAAAP...](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MjXNThXAz_A/T29VMoFcBKI/AAAAAAAAAPY/wkaZyLfYIlk/s1600/STORAGE1.png)

Why is that the picture for J?

</comment><comment><USER12> Scheme is the first Lisp?

<comment><USER13> They definitely missed Lisp.

<comment><USER14> And lambda calculus. And whatever Babbage's machine was programmed in.

<comment><USER15> It wasn't programmed because it was never built (in his time anyway). I am assuming you are talking about the Analytical Engine, rather than the Difference Engine, since the latter is not a Turing machine.

The method of programming was to be via punched cards, whose contents was roughly analogous to machine code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> liviu- Really neat.

My nitpick is that I wish the timeline data was a bit more granular — too many languages are put at the same mark due to being released in the same year. This is not a big problem when you go through the timeline sequentially as they still show up chronologically (I presume), but visually, it's less informative at a glance.

</comment><comment><USER16> Interestingly if you search for a term the information view is changed but not the time bar. Then if you click on another language it will show the wrong one. It seems that the view just jumps relative to the last selected mark on the bar.

</comment><comment><USER15> Lisp?!

</comment><comment><USER17> It would be cool if the images reflected somehow the language as it was created. The Smalltalk showing a Windows XP window and BASIC without line numbers seem wrong.

</comment><comment><USER18> Is it just me, or is Java not on the list?

<comment><USER19> Its there. 1995

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Didnt find Java in there. Big miss.

<comment><USER21> It's there, 1995.

<comment><USER16> Didn't find it either. JavaScript is not Java...

edit: Well it seems that this is a browser issue. In chrome I find ColdFusion, in Firefox it's Java instead.

<comment><USER21> In Chrome I see Java but not Coldfusion. Weird. [http://i.imgur.com/RjF1pOP.png](http://i.imgur.com/RjF1pOP.png)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Is beanshell actually a language ?

</comment><comment><USER23> Uh, that's a timeline.

How could the author use the words 'visual history' in the title without at all attempting to display the lineage of languages?

I expected a picture of a tree, or web--not a line.

<comment><USER24> I was expecting a history of visual programming languages - which would be much smaller. :-)

<comment><USER17> That's something to celebrate!</comment></comment></comment>


Intellectual honesty and html5 - <AUTHOR> http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/2010/06/intellectual-honesty-and-html5/

<comment><USER2> It's an Apple page promoting Apple's adoption of emerging standards. I've never before seen criticism of a browser vendor adopting standards _too fast_. In general, web developers normally wish browser vendors had magical resources to implement proposals the next day and be able to iterate them just as fast as the proposals iterate.

Apple _is_ at the forefront of standards adoptions, Safari's got some stuff that other browsers don't, and they want to show it off! What on earth is wrong with this? Firefox has better standards support? So what? Are we claiming Apple has a moral imperative to create demos of Firefox-only standards support?! Or, is it the even crazier claim that only the "best" product is allowed to promote itself? If you're selling Porsches and you say they're fast, is this offensive because Ferraris are faster? Good God.

I've also never before seen anyone so self-righteous about the use of the term html5; there's nothing about Apple's page which deserves special enmity for its "misuse" of this ambiguous term. In fact, I'm pretty sure in the future we'll see plenty of articles talking about html5, just as we have in the past, e.g., scribd converting from flash.

If you can't see how a company might find value in illustrating how quickly it implements emerging standards, I suggest you aren't thinking about it very hard. This page isn't about why web standards are important for cross-platform compatibility. Criticizing it for not demonstrating something which is not is purpose is awfully silly.

The outrage stirred up by the last couple of posts on this subject strikes me as follow-on to other perceived "evils" by Apple, and seems to be heavily biased rather than treating this issue on its own ethically distinct terms. But then, that's what people do.

<comment><USER3> If their page is entitled "web standards", it's probably a bad idea to restrict the page only to users of Safari. Especially when it shares a rendering engine with Chrome and a number of other browsers that could probably run the demos.

For the record, when Google created Chrome Experiments (which used HTML5-ish technologies), they let any browser attempt to run the experiments, but the performance (in some cases) suffered. Apple is doing exactly the opposite.

<comment><USER4> If you go to the developer page (here <http://developer.apple.com/safaridemos/> ) you can attempt to run the demos in any browser you fancy.

On the consumer accessible page Apple are requiring Safari because they can guarantee that the demos will work and they can guarantee they will have reasonable performance. And that's what's important. That's an advocacy page, a PR thing, not "look at this cool code we wrote". Presentation is everything.

In other words, different goals - different implementations.

<comment><USER5> Odd, when I go there in Firefox I can get to the pages but if I click View Demo on any of them (well, I tried the first 3) it still yells at me and tells me that I need Safari.

<comment><USER6> Chrome Dev 6, all of the demo, except number 5, works.

<comment><USER5> So they'll let you try to run them if you have a webkit based browser but that's it? Can anyone confirm that any non-webkit based browsers work?

<comment><USER7> Just tried three gecko-based browsers; none work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Refreshingly well written ("relaxed" is the word that came to mind).

He highlights a paragraph which apparently is the important bit (and it is) but this, for me, is the _really_ insightful statement (in the last section):

 _HTML5 is in a dangerous place since everyone wants to own it, but everyone is in a different place in terms of support or even what it means._

So true. This is the risk with HTML5 - it is becoming a buzzword for companies such as Apple to jump on and market with. Which isn't a bad thing; unless it is at the detriment of the standard.

<comment><USER9> I agree, a refreshing analysis. You're right in pointing out that line, but I think his highlighted paragraph (esp. the first few lines) provide some context for understanding/simplifying the conclusion.

 _The most important aspect of HTML5 isn't the new stuff like video and canvas (which Safari and Firefox have both been shipping for years) it's actually the honest-to-god promise of interoperability._

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Apple wants to show that you can do kick ass stuff on iPads, iPhones and Macs without any of that Flash crap (sort of paraphrasing Apple here, not necessarily my opinion).

That's probably their intention, not showcasing interoperability or openness. Those two words do their little buzzword duty and that's that. (I'm really not all that irate about that. It's a cheap shot at Flash but many – probably all – of the things Apple uses in their demo actually will be a interoperable and open standard in the near future and all those evil browser prefixes will be dropped.)

<comment><USER11> That would be a good theory if their page wasn't titled "HTML5 and web standards." There's not much room for interpretation in that.

I suspect that they simply let their desire to make the demos really impressive distract them from the original point of the demos. They could, I imagine them thinking, make some cool demos that would work in Chrome and Firefox and Safari, or they could make some even cooler demos that showed off things only available in Safari, and have a nice way to promote Safari to boot.

The problem is, once they did that, it went from a showcase of HTML5 standards to a showcase of proprietary Safari features that _might_ be standards eventually. Oops. I'm rarely critical of Apple, but this is one of those times that makes me wonder if anyone there had their brains turned on.

<comment><USER10> HTML5 and nice-sounding-buzzword.

That's something you can do. I don't think it's nice of them to throw around buzzwords while being so completely irony resistant, it's just that I don't think it's a reason to be greatly angered.

<comment><USER11> I'm not greatly angered and I doubt anyone else is. It just strikes me as stupid, that's all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's even worse than he says: try using Safari to visit the VR demo at <http://www.apple.com/html5/showcase/vr/> and you might be greeted with this:

      This demo requires a browser that supports CSS 3D
      transforms.

      To view this demo, you'll need Safari on Mac OS X Snow
      Leopard, Safari on iPhone OS, or the latest WebKit
      Nightly Build.

Here I am, some poor schmuck using Safari on regular Leopard, not Snow Leopard. Serves me right for being a few months out-of-date. (N.B. You'll never see a Snow Leopard on Safari—Snow Leopards live in Asia, not Africa.)

</comment><comment><USER13> This post is lovely.

I don't think it's realistic to get people to stop saying "HTML5" and start referring to all the little semi-standard pieces individually, so I'm really curious what this "intellectually honest" Mozilla messaging is going to look like.

</comment><comment><USER14> At last! Someone that puts on his pants and screams what every Mozilla developer already knew.

Marketing using the word "open" is the new fashion.

<comment><USER15> "Open" is always in fashion so long as marketers don't have to tell the truth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> And history repeats itself. "HTML5" is the new "AJAX".

<comment><USER17> And it couldn't come soon enough.

I see words like these as very useful inflection points; on one side of the curve, a developer that uses them without revealing a more nuanced understanding is a developer I should avoid.

And on the other side of the curve, it's a way for non-technical people to refer to a complex set of technologies they otherwise probably couldn't talk about (or spend money on).

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> If "HTML5" is a term used for different things for different people, what's the term used for "shiny CSS toys" like the Apple HTML5 page? CSS3? Because that's actually what I'm interested in. All the canvas and video support is fine and dandy, but the shiny stuff like built-in rounded corners, border images, gradients, transitions, and animations are killer features.

I have a feeling that we're going to have to define a whole bunch of terminology to move ahead. People are confusing the HTML5 "markup additions" to the HTML5 "javascript upgrade" to Apple's HTML5 "hey look Ma, no Flash and lots of shiny!" (And to be fair to Apple, even Chrome doesn't fully support Apple's CSS3 shiny 3D toys, so that's why they had a Safari Only "HTML5" demo.)

</comment><comment><USER19> History is clearly repeating itself with the proprietary "HTML5 extensions".

EDIT: To the downvoters, I'm sorry that you don't like the truth.

<comment><USER20> To be fair, all or almost all of the features Apple (and others) are showcasing _do_ have open specifications at various stages of standardization.

The bad thing about branding them collectively as some sort of "HTML5 standard" is when people start calling other browsers non-compliant with standards that aren't even stable targets yet. Or targeting one browser's draft implementation, without even checking to see which other browsers have comparable support.

This is a major problem for us on the Mobile Firefox team. Since a huge portion of mobile web pages are now targeting WebKit browsers only, it's hard for competing browsers to enter this space. Mobile Safari is the new IE (in the sense that we need to reverse-engineer its non-standard features like meta[name="viewport"] in order to compete with it).

<comment><USER21> Well the web needed a means of setting the viewport scale, and the one Apple came up with is as good as any.

Are you really insistent that you come op with your own "-moz-viewport" crap just because there isn't a draft standard? The vendor prefix bullshit of the last few years is going to be around for at least another decade, with every CSS3 property being set three goddamn times because the vendors will have shipped support for the prefixed version for several major releases before they think about blessing it. I wish y'all would only do that stuff in beta releases to keep it out of the wild.

Setting the viewport doesn't require anything like trampolining through VBScript, loading an ActiveX control, or calling a DirectX function via VML (all things I've had to do recently). MobileSafari is not the new IE.

Have fun being another legacy browser on a slow release cycle that can't ship a decent mobile browser.

<comment><USER20> _> Are you really insistent that you come op with your own "-moz-viewport" crap just because there isn't a draft standard?_

No, we're not insistent. We implemented WebKit's "viewport" meta tag. We can be pragmatic too.

I just wanted to point out one of the many of Safari features that Apple is promoting without writing any specs or standards, and the effect this has on the browser market. Others include touch events, link[rel="apple-X"], -webkit- text-size-adjust...

I agree the proliferation of vendor prefixes in the wild has bad effects, and we are feeling the pain of it too.

\----

 _> Have fun being another legacy browser on a slow release cycle that can't ship a decent mobile browser._

Thanks for the kind words. :) We know we're way behind the game on mobile, and the only thing we can do to fix it is ship great software. I think when you get a chance to see what you can do with add-ons for mobile Firefox, you'll be tempted to switch.

We're on a rough six-month release schedule: Fennec 1.0 shipped in January, Fennec 1.1 will ship this month, and we are targeting this October or November for Fennec 2.0. Look for our first 2.0 alpha release for Maemo and Android in a month or two.

[P.S. I see you're in Seattle too! Want to get together for coffee sometime? Email me if you do.]</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Is there really no FOSS equivalent to SAP? - <AUTHOR> One of my relatives is a SAP ERP marketing professional who is quite involved in SAP servicing and installations at client offices here in India. Whilst I'm a freelance developer who works mostly in FOSS tech, so naturally our interests clash!
Frankly, I'm quite surprised that how these big clients of the muggle world are willing to pay crores of rupees (that's still multiples of a hundred thousand USDs) to purchase a proprietary software. Whilst we have proven and secure stuff like linux, postgres, mysql, php, etc. just freely available in the FOSS world, who in their right minds would like to pay a fortune to buy a proprietary piece of crap which basically accomplishes the same thing?
Guy says that when a company here grows above a certain level and starts earning higher turnovers, they don't seem to mind software expenses too much, I guess it is the same as the usual Apple vs Android syndrome.
I tried to convert him a lot telling him about FOSS alternatives like SugarCRM, OpenBravo, ERPNext, etc. and suggested that he recommend these to his clients, instead. But he seems to be sold on the SAP "brand idea". Frankly, I cannot push further on this matter since I myself don't know much about a fully-integrated ERP system, as most of my freelance projects are just small Web/Android apps. But I do know that given the technology (LAMP, postgres, etc.), it shouldn't be a difficult thing to achieve. After all, SAP is just an over-bloated RDBMS that does some data-manipulation, however complex it might be, right? <comment><USER2> The bottom line with not tech industries is that they don't want to deal with IT implementations and it's risks. They're ok to spend huge money and go with popular software. That way if something goes wrong in implementation they can blame SAP. On other hand if own implementation goes wrong the VP/manager gets accountable. It's the risk blame game.

</comment><comment><USER3> SAP is just an over-bloated RDBMS that does some data-manipulation that you bet your business will work as it should, written by a bunch of German engineers with a track record of getting it right.

<comment><USER3> I'm reminded of what Philip Greenspun wrote back in 1997:

"Corporations have gotten burned so many times by buggy C/Fortran/COBOL programs that they aren't willing to take risks. They pay Oracle a huge ransom and suffer what is sometimes a factor of 1000 in reduced performance just so that they are sure to never lose a transaction."</comment></comment>