FBI Forms National Database To Track and Prevent 'Swatting' (nbcnews.com) 71
According to NBC News, the FBI created a national online database in May to facilitate information sharing between hundreds of police departments and law enforcement agencies across the country pertaining to swatting incidents. From the report: No central agency has tracked swatting incidents or suspects in the U.S., so official statistics are not available. By 2019, there were an estimated 1,000 swatting incidents domestically each year, according to a report from the Anti-Defamation League, and each incident is estimated to cost at least $10,000 to affected communities, even before expenditures on follow-up work like investigations, property repairs and counseling. Swatting is increasingly enabled by technology that can be used to mask a caller's real voice, their phone number or IP address (also called "spoofing") or to make their false report sound more credible.
[Chief Scott Schubert with the bureau's Criminal Justice Information Services headquarters in Clarksburg, West Virginia] told NBC News that the FBI's new centralized database should help the agency "get that common picture of what's going on across our nation so we can learn from that." [...] While the earliest recorded case of swatting occurred in 2002, to this day, there is no specific law criminalizing swatting in the U.S., says John Jay's Shapiro. "Without a statute in place, there's no designated resources or training for investigating swatting incidents," she said. "And the 911 dispatchers do not have the resources and training they need to differentiate between actual emergencies and false reports."
Legally, the False Information and Hoaxes statute, also known as section 1038, is most frequently used to prosecute swatting. Other statutes can sometimes apply -- one pertaining to interstate threats involving explosives and another pertaining to interstate communications, which refers to extortion or threats to injure or kidnap somebody. "Too often, perpetrators are getting a slap on the wrist compared to the consequences suffered by their victims," Shapiro said.
[Chief Scott Schubert with the bureau's Criminal Justice Information Services headquarters in Clarksburg, West Virginia] told NBC News that the FBI's new centralized database should help the agency "get that common picture of what's going on across our nation so we can learn from that." [...] While the earliest recorded case of swatting occurred in 2002, to this day, there is no specific law criminalizing swatting in the U.S., says John Jay's Shapiro. "Without a statute in place, there's no designated resources or training for investigating swatting incidents," she said. "And the 911 dispatchers do not have the resources and training they need to differentiate between actual emergencies and false reports."
Legally, the False Information and Hoaxes statute, also known as section 1038, is most frequently used to prosecute swatting. Other statutes can sometimes apply -- one pertaining to interstate threats involving explosives and another pertaining to interstate communications, which refers to extortion or threats to injure or kidnap somebody. "Too often, perpetrators are getting a slap on the wrist compared to the consequences suffered by their victims," Shapiro said.
Re: (Score:2)
Every non-accidental killing is a form law enforcement, it's just a question of number of people who made the law to suit their need. Wherein "number of people" can be anywhere from over 330 million to one individual.
Instead of tracking the abuse (Score:2, Insightful)
It's infuriating how right wingers bang on about gov't over reach but are happy to give what can best be described as an occupational force access to military grade weapons. Neo-liberals aren't much better, and the left is completely ineffective with dumb slogans like "defund the police".
Re: (Score:2)
It means you're a fool (Score:1)
That is partially because your economic po
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, great. Blame every conservative-leaning individual for the entire Republican party's shortcomings. The problem with this view is it leaves no middle ground. "You're either for us or against us!"
I agree with some of the conservative ideals and some of the liberal ideals. I guess you could call me a centralist. If I agree with the conservatives on some things it doesn't mean I have to agree with their views on reproductive rights. If I agree with the liberals it doesn't mean I have to agree with t
Re: (Score:2)
Blame every conservative-leaning individual for the entire Republican party's shortcomings.
If you keep voting for the fascists, then you're a fascist, and you're responsible for fascism. It's not complicated. See, you either voted, or you didn't, and you either voted for the fascists, or you didn't. It's absolutely black and white.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that you, Drinkypoo, are directly responsible for the current state of fascism the US exists in thanks to the unprecedented merger of the corporate and the state that took place almost exclusively under Democrat administrations?
Re: (Score:3)
So you're saying that you, Drinkypoo, are directly responsible for the current state of fascism the US exists in thanks to the unprecedented merger of the corporate and the state that took place almost exclusively under Democrat administrations?
I am partly responsible, sure. Thing is, I'm not sure what else I was supposed to do. I was voting against people who wanted rights taken away immediately.
Re: (Score:1)
Honest question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations dude, you've just lost the thread completely. I don't know what's wrong with you, but try thinking again.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how often that excuse shows up and yet not only did it never happen, the exact opposite did happen and rights were immediately taken away by the people you claimed were our only hope of avoiding that.
It's almost as if that entire shtick were nothing but a deliberately dishonest attempt at manipulation and propaganda. Just like how democrats spent fifty years deliberately refusing to legislate on abortion and instead fearmongering over Roe v Wade, a court case that was such a train wreck even Justice G
Re: (Score:2)
Dumb take. GOP are fascists, yes. The DNC are also fascists.
We have a binary voting system right now and the only choices given to us are between two different flavors of fascist.
You're not conservative (Score:2)
As a resul
Re: (Score:2)
If 9 people sit down at a table with 1 Nazi without protest, there are 10 Nazis at the table.
I don't care who's saying that is, I like it.
Trump invited Nick Fuentes to share his table. No protest there.
Nazi.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean I'm not a true right winger?
No one is. No one is going to fit perfectly into a mold like that, everyone has their own idiosyncratic beliefs.
It's best not to think of yourself, or anyone else, in those kind of tribalistic terms.
Database won't prevent swatting (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure all the civilians will cooperate with this law, and there will be absolutely no tyranny involved in enforcing it.
There's a way to do that (Score:2, Insightful)
First. Equipment with main purpose to kill people should be forbidden to civilians. Period.
And there's a legal way to do that: make an amendment to the constitution.
That's your recourse. Do that, it's the legal way, it's what you have to do. Nothing else will suffice.
Since another amendment specifically allows ownership, everything you might try will be struck down. Everything. It's explicitly mentioned in the constitution, therefore it's a protected right. No law can override that. Nothing you do will affect it. It's not a possible outcome.
How can one not understand that?
You are a completely different person, with views that a
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There's a way to do that (Score:4, Interesting)
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Your first question is an example of an explicit violation. Your second is an example of something explicitly permitted. This is not a continuum, there is a hard line that has been clearly defined in the constitution. The government simply chooses to disregard it utterly just like they did with warrantless domestic spying.
Re: (Score:3)
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Your first question is an example of an explicit violation. Your second is an example of something explicitly permitted. This is not a continuum, there is a hard line that has been clearly defined in the constitution. The government simply chooses to disregard it utterly just like they did with warrantless domestic spying.
Interestingly, an originalist would likely say since the founders had laws in lace regulating firearms and ammunition, banning ownership, had militia laws concerning registration, that those actions are permissible today; since that shows what the original public meaning would have had at the time that it became law.
Re: (Score:2)
An originalist might then go on to argue that private citizens owned cannon and even armed ships, albeit rarely. But a better argument is that isn't really relevant to the question of what we should do about it today.
I do still think that if you want to dick with the 2a, you need a constitutional amendment to change it. And I really do think that it is an individual mandate to own generally any firearm, but I also think that's decreasingly relevant to preservation of freedom today. If I were going to pick m
Re: (Score:2)
An originalist might then go on to argue that private citizens owned cannon and even armed ships, albeit rarely. But a better argument is that isn't really relevant to the question of what we should do about it today.
Quite possibly, but I think the crux of the argument can be made around the intent with respect to regulation, not ownership; and whether or not they were considered military vs civilian weapons.
I do still think that if you want to dick with the 2a, you need a constitutional amendment to change it.
Certainly.
Re: (Score:2)
regulating firearms and ammunition
Yes, saying everyone who wasn't too young or too old needed to have them and be able to provide them or they'd get in trouble when called upon.
banning ownership
Requiring ownership. Under penalty of law.
had militia laws concerning registration
The exact opposite, it was explicitly declared repeatedly that all able bodied men constitute the militia.
since that shows what the original public meaning would have had at the time that it became law.
By your logic "well regulated" must be accepted to mean "suitably equipped and functioning adequately" rather than "subject to government legislation and restriction". Can't have it both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
regulating firearms and ammunition
Yes, saying everyone who wasn't too young or too old needed to have them and be able to provide them or they'd get in trouble when called upon.
banning ownership
Requiring ownership. Under penalty of law.
had militia laws concerning registration
The exact opposite, it was explicitly declared repeatedly that all able bodied men constitute the militia.
since that shows what the original public meaning would have had at the time that it became law.
By your logic "well regulated" must be accepted to mean "suitably equipped and functioning adequately" rather than "subject to government legislation and restriction". Can't have it both ways.
Not really, an originalist would argue the governments actions to regulate firearm ownership, ammunition, the right to carry, and banning ownership in some cases all point to the accepted meaning of the 2cd is that firearm ownership is subject to government regulation around ownership, storage and bearing; not that the 2cd conveys an unencumbered right to own any weapon you want with no government regulaation. It's clear they saw a role for government, and thus actions taken by government today would be in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I love how you start with violent criminal convictions and bring up machine guns and hand grenades in order to prime the reader and poison the well, then move on to mental illnesses, and then finally close with your actual target: "known to be members of or provide support to radical extremist groups".
You're attempting to equate machine guns and hand grenades in the hands of violent criminals with people voicing support for anything you want to slander as a "radical extremist group".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And there's a legal way to do that: make an amendment to the constitution.
Not necessary. The constitution clearly says the right to bear arms is only for a well-regulated militia. At least, that's one interpretation of the text. And this far-right MAGA supreme court has already set the precedent that its ok to "reinterpret" the constitution any way they choose to promote their political and religious ideology. So no, it doesn't need an amendment, just the right composition of justices.
Having guns is what keeps us free.
[citation needed]. Because not only does every other civilised nation have more freedom with
Re: There's a way to do that (Score:1)
The "well regulated militia" thing is a justification, not a limitation. The "militia" they were talking about anyone able to fight. "Well regulated" means "in good working order". If you don't believe me, go read what the founders wrote on arms.
Imagine if you could get out of a contract by redefining terms. That's what the anti-gun politicians are doing.
Re:There's a way to do that (Score:5, Insightful)
You were never raised in a free country, you didn't have free speech when you grew up, you don't understand the importance of rights.
I like this comment more than anything. It implies that the USA is the only great functional country in the world with happy people secure in their lives and persons. Yet reality can't be further from the truth.
Equating freedom with owning a weapon design exclusively to end someone's life is one of the most antisocial definitions of freedom there is.
Better still talking about historical context and applying it to North times is something that makes the USA more in common with Iran, Afghanistan and other true shitholes that place value off historical practices over those of a developing society. I personally suspect the 2nd would never have been written or passed had it been proposed at a time where the arms being discussed would allow a person to indiscriminately mow down literal hordes of people without them being able to react.
Real freedom comes from not having an absolute high chance of dying while living your daily life.
Re: (Score:2)
"North times" AI can write a frigging PhD dissertation but autocorrect fails the word "modern"
Re: (Score:1)
Ok originalist, you win. We'll honor the Constitution. Citizens may own any weapon existing in 1791 when the second amendment was ratified. Any musket, flintlock, arquebus, or other muzzle-loading weapon is permitted. The right to powder horns and tamping rods shall not be infringed.
Re: (Score:2)
Alright troll, you win. Your freedom of speech only applies to quill and parchment.
By the way automatic weapons existed at the time of the ratification.
Re: (Score:3)
Having guns is what keeps us free.
Here's the problem with that, it's increasingly false. There was a time when that might have worked, but it was before the broad deployment of FLIR. Now there's nowhere you can hide.
The time to rebel against the government with guns was the 1960s. The black panthers were showing the way, but the bulk of the gun owners hated those guys. They were on the wrong side.
I have guns. I believe in resisting fascism. But you can't do it with guns any more. That shit is over. They love it when you resist. They'll just
Re: (Score:2)
"we're not colonizers like England, France, Portugal, and the Dutch (of old) and Russia and Germany of last century"
The Native Americans would strongly disagree
"Having guns is what keeps us free"
Not as much as you think. The gubmint has weapons you can't win against with weapons you can purchase or can carry.
RPGs at a minimum is what you'd need & even then you're severely disadvantaged against attack helicopters which can track & kill you from further away than you can see them, possibly even hear t
Re: (Score:2)
First. Equipment with main purpose to kill people should be forbidden to civilians. Period. How can one not understand that?
Our founding fathers built into our Constitution the right of the people to own said equipment. If you want to limit that right, you need to amend the Constitution to do so, otherwise the courts can just overturn any and all laws written to instill limits on that right.
Re: Database won't prevent swatting (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
First. Equipment with main purpose to kill people should be forbidden to civilians.
Swatting is where the police go kill someone; the criminal civilian is just phoning in a fake report (which could be almost anything).
The obvious solution is to outlaw crime. That will stop those criminals. And we won't need the police and their bad bad guns, then, either.
And (Score:1)
Nothing useful has actually been done. Congrats. The FBI once again being useless.
How many countries have this problem? (Score:2)
We have a really awesome law for this (Score:3)
It's called >felony murder [cornell.edu]. Prosecutors don't use it nearly enough, but they should. The first caller who gets someone killed should be slapped with felony murder and get the book thrown at them, which IIRC under federal law felony murder can carry execution.
Re: (Score:1)
I'd be fine if the police are also found guilty of murder along with the SWATer.
The police aren't supposed to be mindless/dangerous weapons that the SWATer can easily abuse.
You're doing it wrong when your soldiers are less trigger happy than your cops and they get fired for that: https://www.npr.org/2016/12/08... [npr.org]
It's not like US soldiers are famous for being unwilling to shoot:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news... [aljazeera.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/me... [theguardian.com]
If your police force wasn't so full of murderous cowards SWATing w
Re: (Score:2)
No, you don't have a really awesome law for this.
Your post assumes the police are a dumb weapon to be workers by a murderer. A really awesome law would hold the people who do the killing, I.e. The police, responsible for manslaughter or murder. Because the police are people who have agency.
Troll? (Score:1)
Good point. Also why is "Troll" a downmod to begin with?
Seems sort of racist against trolls.
National vs local database (Score:2)
Maybe a local database would be better. If SWAT were sent to a certain house in the past and it was a false alarm, don't go 200% to the house again. How would a national database help?
Re: (Score:2)
Lies (Score:1)
Maybe (Score:2)
They should consider not swarming a home with a team of heavily armed ( and trigger happy ) police when the only evidence you're working with is a telephone call ( which are easily spoofed because telecoms won't fix that fucking problem ).
Obviously... (Score:2)
here is an idea (Score:2)
To the Police Everyone is Combative (Score:2)