Kansas Passes “Anti-Swatting” Bill in Wake of Andrew Finch Shooting

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The Andrew T. Finch anti-swatting bill is on the way to Governor Jeff Colyer’s desk for final approval after it passed the Kansas Senate this week. The legislation makes any false alarm or swatting call that results in death or extreme injury a level one felony, which carries a prison sentence between 10 and 41 years.

The new bill was drawn up after the tragic death Andrew Finch in December 2017. Finch, 28, was shot dead by a police officer outside his home after a fraudulent call was made regarding a supposed hostage situation at his residence. 25-year-old Los Angeles resident Tyler Barriss was later identified as the individual who made the call and was charged with involuntary manslaughter.
 
Seems appropriate. My understanding is the dumb kids who do this as a prank don't get the felony charge, but if you're in your 20s and do this maliciously with graphic details about killing family members and setting the house on fire, well if SWAT kills someone then you are getting a 10-40 year sentence for that.
 
Yes, instead of changing the procedure that gets people killed (which isn't the dumbass that calls), let's increase the severity of the charges against said dumbass.

Yes, because increasing that will fix anything.

Jesus almighty. You would have to be blind not to see the elephant in the room.
 
i'm wondering, is SWAT too trigger happy?

I can't imagine what Finch was doing to cause swat to shoot him.
Usually when cops bust in, you throw your hands up, or at least freeze still.
 
I honestly would have thought it already was.

Longer and longer sentences, death penalties, a lifetime of hard labour, and all the other populist, hard line bullshit that politicians sell just don't work. They never have. I have a much bigger problem with celebrating a tradition of failure than I do with changing shit just to try something new to see if it works. This is just more "hit 'em harder" bullshit, it's like fucking for virginity.
 
Kdawg said:
i'm wondering, is SWAT too trigger happy?

I can't imagine what Finch was doing to cause swat to shoot him.
Usually when cops bust in, you throw your hands up, or at least freeze still.
Click to expand...

generally no they aren't.. but it depends on the call it's self.. i think some of the problem lies in area's that don't have a dedicated swat teams. a lot of places just use special trained officers that maybe go on swat specific calls a couple times a year. i don't know much specific to the finch case but i could definitely see where a gamer gets swatted while using noise canceling headphones and never hearing them come in or just happen to be walking around the house right as they come in and not realizing who it is.. i mean hell i walk around my house with my wireless headphones when i'm on teamspeak/discord with friends which are noise canceling and i can't hear a damn thing going on around me.

either way i'm fine with this law going into place and quite frankly it should go federal, while sure you might be able to frame some one it's not as easy as you think.
 
This is stupid. Strict punishments don't do anything to deter crimes. If they did, America and it's mandatory minimum sentencing laws of 20+ years would make America have one of the lowest prison populations in the world, instead of being #1. We're even above Communist China, where apparently they're the ones that aren't free. Yet, the nations that have rehabilitation and maximum sentencing laws have the lowest prison populations and the lowest recidivism rates.
 
Comparing a generally homogenous population to a melting pot never works out all that well.

In any case, let's be real for a second. It is not about preventing others from committing the same crime, though there is some hope that at least some might remember what happened to the last guy that did this and refrain, it is about vengeance and insuring that particular POS is not able to do it again. Or at least not do it again for a very long time.
Sort of torn about the law myself. I consider swatting to be reckless endangerment if no one is hurt, and manslaughter if it results in death, and murder if there is evidence you wanted it to result in a death. I believe there are other laws that can be used, or tweaked, to cover this crime.
I am not fond of further complicating our legal system with new laws when old ones will work. Texting while driving is an example. I don't think we need a new law. Just apply current reckless driving laws if no one is hurt, and manslaughter if there is a death.
 
Gorankar said:
I am not fond of further complicating our legal system with new laws when old ones will work. Texting while driving is an example. I don't think we need a new law. Just apply current reckless driving laws if no one is hurt, and manslaughter if there is a death.
Click to expand...

Technology will complicate life regardless of law.
 
Chunder said:
This is stupid. Strict punishments don't do anything to deter crimes. If they did, America and it's mandatory minimum sentencing laws of 20+ years would make America have one of the lowest prison populations in the world, instead of being #1. We're even above Communist China, where apparently they're the ones that aren't free. Yet, the nations that have rehabilitation and maximum sentencing laws have the lowest prison populations and the lowest recidivism rates.
Click to expand...

They probably also have the fewest spoiled brats, the lowest number of "snowflakes and the lowest number of absentee father households.

The real problem is deadbeat parents and the parents who have bought into the "don't do anything that might hurt the child's psyche" a.k.a - don't discipline them and let them do whatever they wan't.
 
I'm super ok with this. Anyone that deliberately gets someone swatted needs to have the book thrown at them. A steep fine if no one gets hurt or severely injured, and jail time if someone dies. But with that must also come departmental policy change. Better training for the SWAT team, more accountability for their actions. Or just, y'know, get rid of cops altogether or change the name from "SWAT" to "mercenary police" since that's where they're going with the crazy militarization they have.
 
cyclone3d said:
They probably also have the fewest spoiled brats, the lowest number of "snowflakes and the lowest number of absentee father households.

The real problem is deadbeat parents and the parents who have bought into the "don't do anything that might hurt the child's psyche" a.k.a - don't discipline them and let them do whatever they wan't.
Click to expand...

Oh, Europe must be full of parents that beat their kids then. Must be why their prisons aren't as full as ours. Oh wait, they don't do any of that barbaric shit over there. Next.
 
It already is illegal. They just want to seem like they are doing something to cover up for the fact they killed someone.
 
Reality said:
Oh, Europe must be full of parents that beat their kids then. Must be why their prisons aren't as full as ours. Oh wait, they don't do any of that barbaric shit over there. Next.
Click to expand...

You do know that discipline is NOT beating and not necessarily even spanking in most circumstances right?
 
The police should not be so easy to fatally weaponize against someone via a prank call.
 
The militarisation of the US police forces and this obey or get tazed/die mentality you've allowed the cops to cultivate is the problem.

The Taliban won, fellers. You bombed the shit out of them but gave them what they wanted anyway - an authoritarian state where people are ruled by fear under duress.
 
theBrownLlama said:
only if you excise the native population from that of the immigrants ( 1st, 2nd generation )

for america, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/raceinc.html
Click to expand...

Well when the state actively looks for the easiest targets to put into the private for-profit prison system, it's no surprise that those graphs exist

Doesn't mean the US is similar to other countries when it comes to prison population, that's just hilarious to imply in public.
 
Reality said:
actually, I inferred from your statement that you were advocating FOR it
Click to expand...

Why.. because I used the word discipline? Or was it because the idiots that think they know everything think that disciplining is bad and will hurt a child's psyche?
 
prava said:
Yes, instead of changing the procedure that gets people killed (which isn't the dumbass that calls), let's increase the severity of the charges against said dumbass.

Yes, because increasing that will fix anything.

Jesus almighty. You would have to be blind not to see the elephant in the room.
Click to expand...

Yes, because clearly random kids on the internet are logically weighing the type of punishment they will get if they get caught.

Oh wait...they don't. So maybe stop the SWAT team from knocking down a land-owning (or renting) person's door who has constitutional rights to life and liberty - just shoot first and ask questions later. And so long as the answer to that question was, "I was skurred for mah life!" doesn't matter how egregious the officer's killing of an innocent person was, they'll get off scott free.
 
Jehuty said:
I'm super ok with this. Anyone that deliberately gets someone swatted needs to have the book thrown at them. A steep fine if no one gets hurt or severely injured, and jail time if someone dies. But with that must also come departmental policy change. Better training for the SWAT team, more accountability for their actions. Or just, y'know, get rid of cops altogether or change the name from "SWAT" to "mercenary police" since that's where they're going with the crazy militarization they have.
Click to expand...
I think I'd prefer both, the SWAT team should be sanctioned, and the caller punished severely. The first is a deterrant since this type of poor judgement is unacceptable. The second is justice. Punishing the caller doesn't prevent other callers from being stupid, but the the family deserves to have the ability to punish the dumbass for their loss. Hell, if I were swatted, you can be sure my ghost would be haunting both the asshole who shot me and the shithead that set me up, both deserve what they get. But holding the police accountable for their actions might save someone else so that's for the greater good (and something where I don't see civil fines to the department are adequate to make a long term impact. Afterwards, i'm sure they're privately patting each other on the back saying I would have done the same thing because my personal safety is more important than the victim's and the city's insurance foots the bill as a cost of doing business. If individual police believe they should be placing themselves before the public, they need to find another job, and our laws should encourage that).
 
Last edited:
Has anyone here been on the receiving end of a faulty SWAT invasion? Even if you have your hands up, are still and are repeatedly saying that you mean no threat things don't go well for you.
 
Kdawg said:
i'm wondering, is SWAT too trigger happy?
I can't imagine what Finch was doing to cause swat to shoot him.
Click to expand...

A 28-year-old man [Finch] opened the door of the home and was told to raise his hands and walk toward the officers -- a command he obeyed for "a very short time" until he moved his hands back down to his waist, police said.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/la-man-arrested-swatting-incident-led-police-killing/story?id=52057251

First rule of any police force is,
"The cop always goes home at the end of the day"

Don't you know that 'Failure to comply with a police officer's command is punishable by summary execution.'
 
dR.Jester said:
or you could just keep your damn hands up and comply with lawful police orders. Then you won't get your ass shot. Same goes for every other moron out there who fails to follow simple instructions.
Click to expand...

Don't you know that 'Failure to comply with a police officer's command is punishable by summary execution.'

Too bad if you are deaf, don't understand English, mentally ill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top