Saturday, December 30, 2017

Police Shoot Innocent Man After Swatting Call

Police in Wichita, Kansas, shot and killed an unarmed man Thursday night at his home after they were called to the residence by a fake "swatting" caller claim to be an armed man was threatening his family. Andrew Finch, a 28-year-old man, was shot on his porch after police alleged that he moved an arm towards his waistband. The swatting call was allegedly made over an argument between two Call of Duty players. An address was exchanged in the chat and one player caused a swatting call to be made to that address. It was not the home of the player. Finch didn't play videogames, his family said.

Comments

Fry the swatter.

To me, this is no different than an air traffic controller knowingly directing an aircraft to do something that was going to result in the destruction of the aircraft. It does sound like they know who did it.

#1 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-30 11:10 AM

Guns keep us safe.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-30 11:22 AM

This ---- happens everyday.

#3 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-12-30 11:37 AM

#1 they also know the officers involved, who should face consequences.

#4 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-30 12:20 PM

I hope they somehow locate the criminals who set this tragedy up and also that the gun happy clown goes to prison.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-30 12:22 PM

A militarized police force was a goal and supported by both mainstream parties. FBI, ATF, DEA, Homeland security included. Apparently the USPS and Department of Education have weapons too.

#6 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-12-30 12:38 PM

Apparently the caught the guy

#7 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-12-30 12:46 PM

"A militarized police force was a goal and supported by both mainstream parties. FBI, ATF, DEA, Homeland security included. Apparently the USPS and Department of Education have weapons too.
#6 | POSTED BY VISITOR"

Sigh.
Because guns keep us safe.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-30 12:53 PM

"I hope they somehow locate the criminals who set this tragedy up and also that the gun happy clown goes to prison."

I read another account that indicated that the Officer shot the victim because he was ignoring the orders being given by the officers, and was doing things with his hands that appeared threatening. Under the conditions of the confrontation, It would not be surprising for the victim to be confused...after all, he had done absolutely nothing other than step out on his porch. In the Officer's defense. He had been told that he was going into a situation where one person had already been killed, and two more were at great risk of being killed.

When you dissect this situation in an attempt to figure out what could have been done differently, there's really no clear answer. The fact that the Officer was a 17 year veteran suggests that he wasn't likely trigger happy. If he was, it has yet to be presented.

#9 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-30 01:30 PM

The fact that the Officer was a 17 year veteran suggests that he wasn't likely trigger happy. If he was, it has yet to be presented.

Except for the fact that Officer Hair Trigger shot the dude as soon as his victim opened the door.

#10 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-12-30 01:33 PM

7 year veteran not 17

#11 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-12-30 01:41 PM

"When you dissect this situation in an attempt to figure out what could have been done differently, there's really no clear answer."

This doesn't happen in other modern countries.

Dissect that for us.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-30 02:26 PM

"When you dissect this situation in an attempt to figure out what could have been done differently, there's really no clear answer."

This doesn't happen in other modern countries.

Dissect that for us.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-30 02:26 PM

"If he was, it has yet to be presented."

He shot and killed an unarmed man. Nuf said. Nuf with the police apologists. They are trained better than that, he ignored his training and just killed the father of two.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-30 02:45 PM

"When you dissect this situation in an attempt to figure out what could have been done differently, there's really no clear answer."

America.

Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

Where Nothing Can Be Done.

#15 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-12-30 02:56 PM

Another one bites the dust.

#16 | Posted by fresno500 at 2017-12-30 04:34 PM

I say this every time but a police officer should not have the right to discharge his weapon if he doesn't see a gun.

#17 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-12-30 04:46 PM

"When you dissect this situation in an attempt to figure out what could have been done differently, there's really no clear answer."

America.

Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

Where Nothing Can Be Done.

#15 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-12-30 02:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yep. We throw up our hands and say, oh well. Can't do a thing about it!

Between this one and the one where the Alabama man shot and killed his own son thinking he was shooting a car thief, ugh. Two senseless deaths. We can fly to the moon, we can capture the energy of the sun, but here on earth, we can't stop killing one another with guns.

#18 | Posted by cbob at 2017-12-30 05:05 PM

"Where Nothing Can Be Done."

Sure there is. You could send officers into these situations unarmed. It would then be impossible for them to accidentally shoot someone.

#19 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-30 06:00 PM

Between this one and the one where the Alabama man shot and killed his own son thinking he was shooting a car thief, ugh. Two senseless deaths. We can fly to the moon, we can capture the energy of the sun, but here on earth, we can't stop killing one another with

don't forget the 6 year old gunned down when cops open fire on an unarmed drug addict, just last week I believe.

#20 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-12-30 06:26 PM

Sure there is. You could send officers into these situations unarmed. It would then be impossible for them to accidentally shoot someone.
#19 | Posted by madbomber

How bout this? Cops can only discharge their weapons when they SEE an actual threat NOT feel like there is a threat.

#21 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-12-30 06:27 PM

BTW there are 2 threads on this

#22 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-12-30 06:27 PM

"How bout this? Cops can only discharge their weapons when they SEE an actual threat NOT feel like there is a threat."

Like waiting until the gun is pointed at them?

#23 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-30 06:32 PM

"We can fly to the moon, we can capture the energy of the sun, but here on earth"

No.

Here in America.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-30 06:43 PM

"This doesn't happen in other modern countries.
Dissect that for us."

We don't live in a modern first world country. Maybe at the top of the developing world and sinking. Inertia is the only thing keeping us going at this point.

#25 | Posted by dibblda at 2017-12-30 06:44 PM

Sure there is. You could send officers into these situations unarmed. It would then be impossible for them to accidentally shoot someone.

#19 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-12-30 06:00 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Which would present great risk to the officers, because of your moronic gun toting culture.

#26 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-30 08:01 PM

Like waiting until the gun is pointed at them?

#23 | Posted by madbomber

Can we meet in the middle and at least require an object in a suspects hands?

It's far to easy for them to shoot and kill someone for "reaching for the waistband".

#27 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-30 08:27 PM

It's far to easy for them to shoot and kill someone for "reaching for the waistband".

Or an armpit. Or an ankle. Or pretty much anything. Holster manufacturers are pretty creative.

#28 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-12-30 09:03 PM

"How bout this? Cops can only discharge their weapons when they SEE an actual threat NOT feel like there is a threat."
Like waiting until the gun is pointed at them?
#23 | Posted by madbomber

This victim posed NO threat to the officers. They should not discharge their weapons until they KNOW there is a threat. Why is this so hard to understand?

#29 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-12-30 09:25 PM

This victim posed NO threat to the officers.

You know that now, in hindsight. But that is not the space in time in which the potential threat is judged.

They should not discharge their weapons until they KNOW there is a threat. Why is this so hard to understand?

Every use of force statute I've read, and they apply to cops and civilians alike, revolves around a theme of "reasonable belief" of a threat. In split second space in time you may not "KNOW" there is a threat until after you have been shot. No self defense law requires that degree of hesitation nor should it. Otherwise, why have one?

Imo, the break down in the reasonable belief standard is that cops, prosecutors and juries lean too far is giving cops the benefit of the doubt in questionable circumstances. Doubt that would probably never be given to a civilian in the same circumstance. It seems that slowly, glacially so, that extreme benefit of the doubt, which is not reasonable, is eroding.

#30 | Posted by et_al at 2017-12-30 10:21 PM

The problem is that there are way too many of these incidents happening. The police must rework their policies and the laws need to change. This should not be acceptable in any way. A 6 year old was killed a week ago from trigger happy cops. This needs to change. Police have to accept greater risks, sorry that is the simple fact of the matter. Innocents should not pay for nervous police.

#31 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-12-30 10:57 PM

If the police are so afraid to go to the door without opening fire on the first person they see, then why don't they stay behind the doors of their squad cars with their pistols drawn and use a megaphone and say, "Come out with your hands up! We've got you surrounded!"

They're not Iraqi insurgents or the ------- Taliban. It's Joe Blow half-drunk and groggy getting up from watching Dancing with the Stars.

#32 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-12-30 11:10 PM

#31 and 32

I don't disagree with either sentiment. Although, I hesitate with "laws need to change." In my view, application of current law by cops, prosecutors, judges and juries need to change from almost total deference to cops back to the intended "reasonableness" standard.

#33 | Posted by et_al at 2017-12-30 11:45 PM

"Which would present great risk to the officers, because of your moronic gun toting culture."

This guy didn't have a gun...everyone would have been perfectly safe.

"Can we meet in the middle and at least require an object in a suspects hands?"

We could. only in this case, the cops were sent into a situation where a gun was not necessarily the biggest threat. The Swatter had led the police to believe that the house had been doused in gasoline, in which case a cigarette lighter or a book of matches.

#34 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-31 11:17 AM

"The problem is that there are way too many of these incidents happening."

"I agree with you...but this is not a typical police shooting case."

The way you prevent this from happening again is to find the swatter, which I believe they have, and put a bullet through his head. Since that's not likely going to happen though, find a way to put him away. Forever.

#35 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-31 11:18 AM

"I don't disagree with either sentiment. Although, I hesitate with "laws need to change." In my view, application of current law by cops, prosecutors, judges and juries need to change from almost total deference to cops back to the intended "reasonableness" standard.

#33 | POSTED BY ET_AL"

There is another thread on DR indicating that " gay panic " is being eliminated as a defense against murder charges in Illinois ( I have to admit that I did not know such a defense even existed).

If, as seems to be the case, a class of defense can be eliminated, then I could make an argument for eliminating the reasonable belief defense in cases where in fact the victim is not armed. How can someone claim that an impossible act, being shot when no gun is present, is grounds for a violent and pre-emptive response?

Remove this defense under the law in these circumstances and I suspect, focusing only on law enforcement, that police officers would start to allow situations to develop and fewer people would be shot in error. Whilst an inevitable consequence of this would be that police officers have to let all situations develop, some of which will present a real threat from an armed individual and therefore increase risk for officers, my view is that this is how it should be. Officers, who volunteer for the job and should be both properly trained and equipped, should face a higher risk of being shot than an innocent citizen in his house at Christmas, even if he is reaching for his waistband.

#36 | Posted by Foreigner at 2017-12-31 11:35 AM

#2 | Posted by snoofy
Yea those guns drove themselves to the victims house and shot him.

#37 | Posted by Federalist at 2018-01-01 07:54 AM

Drudge Retort Headlines

White House Budget Director: Shutdown 'Kind of Cool' (66 comments)

Oxfam: World's Richest 1% Hoard 82% of the Wealth (48 comments)

Senate Votes to End Shut Down (39 comments)

When Trump's Foreign Policy Luck Runs Out (19 comments)

Opinion: Fix NFL PR Nightmare? Put a Woman in Charge (18 comments)

Patriots vs. Eagles (17 comments)

White House Answering Machine Message Lays Blame (15 comments)

Voters Disapprove of Trump, Doubt His Mental Stability (14 comments)

What Killed the Aztecs? After 500 Years, We May Know (14 comments)