Scary SWAT situation

[yesit'sloaded]

I'm pretty sure that if the founding fathers knew that prison today means sexual assault, it would be covered by some sort of amendment in the bill of rights or something. Cruel or unusual..........................

 

[Big Boomer]

well, I would have been one dead homeowner. Once if I had sensed someone snooping around out back I would have been heavily armed inside and as soon as a breach was made I would have opened fire.

Unfortunately so would about 20 MP5's

 

[Zoogster]

That is a new one. Wouldn't you actually have to be shot for it to be assault, otherwise isn't it just brandishing or threatening? If I point a gun at someone I have not assaulted them, if I fire it becomes assault with a deadly weapon. So how was the victim assaulted? I understand there was law breaking involved in the false 911 call, but you could claim the kid had no control over what SWAT would do. I'm not trying to defend the guy, but how do they figure an assault charge?

Assault is the implied threat. Battery is actualy doing the act.
Raising your fist like you are going to hit me would be an assault. Hitting me would be a battery. It is the same for weapons. Pointing a firearm at someone is assault with a deadly weapon in CA, a felony. Even if you do not fire the firearm, rob them, or do any other crime.

Learning this online rather than in court is probably a smart lesson for you Detering a crime or keeping yourself from becoming a victim by pulling a gun is actualy a felony if a crime has not been commited. For example if someone is following you in an alley, speeding up when you speed up, finaly catches up, obviously following or pursuing you, and you pull a gun you just committed a felony. The same goes for the woman walking to her home and some guy comes up while she is opening the door, and she pulls a gun, an action I have even seen displayed online as proper use of force. Or perhaps 4 obvious gang members come up to you and surround you in a circle, yet have not yet voiced any threats or pulled any weapons. Technicaly they have broken no laws, and maybe they are just asking for directions. Pulling a gun out would be a felony act.
Until a criminal act is commited then pulling a firearm on someone is a felony.
It does not matter that one may be unable to do that if they actualy wait to be victimized. It is the law. Some places call it aggravated assault, also a felony.

Brandishing is pulling the arm out just to look at it, play with it, show it to a friend etc in public.
Once it is used to imply even an unvoiced threat it is assault with a deadly weapon. For example if you got in an argument with someone, and then placed your hand on the gun on your hip without ever taking it out, that would be using that firearm to intimidate the person you are upset with, an unvoiced threat to use it. That would also be assault with a deadly weapon, a felony, even if it was legal to have it and you never pulled it out.
The same goes for a bat, a crowbar, or any other non firearm weapon.

That is why you shut up and wait for your lawyer. You may think you are telling the cops something perfectly legal you did to keep from being a victim and actualy confessing to a felony crime even though you had no criminal intent.

Now all that said I do think it is ridiculous they can charge him for specific actions done by other people at another location even if he caused them to go there. That is total BS. He is guilty of crimes, assaulting someone with weapons that neither him nor an accomplice ever had possession of is not one of them. For the end result of the situation, he is responsible, not for the individual actions though.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Brandishing is pulling the arm out just to look at it, play with it, show it to a friend etc in public.
Once it is used to imply even an unvoiced threat it is assault with a deadly weapon.

Or you could move to Texas where such a thing is specifically NOT deadly force if used as a "threat of deadly force" to deter attack in a situation where you are already justified in using force NOT deadly force.

Gotta be careful with this one even in Texas, but there is a statute covering a very specific circumstance.

9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of
force is justified when the use of force is justified by this
chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or
serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as
long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the
use of deadly force.

 

[Zoogster]

Or you could move to Texas where such a thing is specifically NOT deadly force if used as a "threat of deadly force" to deter attack in a situation where you are already justified in using force NOT deadly force.

True, but in my examples even the use of force is not justified. If several men surround you and you know it is not for a good reason, but they have yet to do anything, then even punching them is not justified yet. So no force is yet justified even if common sense dictates the time to act is NOW. The same goes for a person being followed while alone like the alley example i gave. Or a woman who sees a man out of place quickly closing distance.
No use of force is not yet allowed, even kicking or punching someone merely approaching even if common sense and the situation dictates it is not for a good reason..is still not warranted. So no force is yet legaly justifed. The law is not designed with such situations in mind, it aims to be black and white uniformly, yet the situation makes the same actions in various situations legit or not legit. So they are not well covered by the law.
So a guy quickly approaching you at night in a strange out of place location makes sense, but a guy approaching in a crowded place would not warrant preventative action. Yet the law sees no distinction between the two. Only the people involved do.


Now in Texas the responding personel or later the prosecutor or even a jury will be much more likely to not charge you or find you innocent, but it is not because no crime was commited, simply due to discretion and common sense. So it is still a grey area that you really on the discretion of others involved to justify your actions.

 

[MZ5]

Along with reporters not knowing much about the things they report on, neither do lots of other people. For example, cracking is the proper term for malicious 'entry' into a computer system. Hacking is not malicious but is about altering a system to improve it.

Separately, I wonder what all of you that don't think this person should be charged for the actions he directly, willfully caused think about charging a person who hires an assassin. Should they not be charged with anything because only the assassin is responsible for his actions?

 

[TexasRifleman]

True, but in my examples even the use of force is not justified. If several men surround you and you know it is not for a good reason, but they have yet to do anything, then even punching them is not justified yet.

Gets fuzzy there. The one and only time I drew my carry weapon was in exactly that situation and the Dallas police were more than kind and polite upon hearing my explanation and sent me on my way.

Very situational I guess.

 

[Zoogster]

Separately, I wonder what all of you that don't think this person should be charged for the actions he directly, willfully caused think about charging a person who hires an assassin. Should they not be charged with anything because only the assassin is responsible for his actions?

The guy would be responsible for end result of the assassin, not for the NFA violation of the assassin's weapon (unless of course he helped to obtain it.)

The officers in the course of thier SWAT duties point guns at people legaly in the course of thier job. So technicaly they are not even commiting a crime while doing so, or at least common thought is that they are allowed to do so.
So how can someone be held responsible for a crime that is not a crime?
He is guilty of several crimes, but an officer pointing a gun at a potential threat is generaly not considered a crime, so he is not an accomplice to a crime. For that to be the case the officer would need to be charged for the crime of using his assault weapon in an illegal manner. Even that would be a stretch though.

The guy is guilty of several things, and can be charged with other felonies already. Making things up because it is such an insulting crime is wrong.
Yes you can twist and twist and say he is guilty of assault with an assault weapon (got to love CA) but then I guess he is also guilty of breaking in. Guilty of using chemical weapons for the tear gas employed (if it was.) Guilty of explosive violations if a flash grenade was used. Guilty of high capacity magazine violations the officers had to carry responding. Guilty of the illegal parking done by the SWAT van. Guilty of the noise and ordinance violations for all the noise created. Guilty of conspiracy to commit murder because the officers thought and "conspired" about how to kill the armed man they expected to find if necessary. Guilty of home invasion.
The list could go on forever. He is guilty of some crimes, but he should be charged with crimes he actualy commited himself, and then the end result of the action he caused to happen.

 

[cpttango30]

I tell you what I would be talking to a laywer right now if I were that home owner. I would be sueing the pants off that kid and his parents.

I do not think you can hold the police responsiabal for anything as they acted on a 911 call. Is that not what they are there for?

 

[bsf]

I do not think the punishment for this jack*** can be too harsh. If I were the victim I would want the little punk's head on a platter. Preferably, I would want to put it there. This prank was beyond dangerous and a huge waste of taxpayer money.

 

[Cougfan2]

I'm starting to think that not only is public caning cheaper and more effective, I think it's probably far less brutal than time in a prison.

+1 Sometimes public humiliation, if even minor (maybe not caning, but having them stand on a street corner for a week with a sandwich sign detailing what an a**bag they are), would do more good than incarceration.

I swatted my son's bottom only a very few times when he was growing up and to this day he acknowledges that I was right to do so. The public humiliatation is often more effective than the pain of corporal punishment.

 

[jaholder1971]

Throw the little B@st@rd in prison. Let the kid's cellmate Bubba pimp him out for cigarettes. He nearly cost an innocent man his life defending his home and wasted thousands of dollars of your tax money responding to his hack.

The Founding Fathers would have likely called for this kid's death.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

prison nowadays means having your teeth knocked out and raped in the a**. There doesn't seem to be an in between. I don't think we should throw non-violent offenders in with those who will commit far worse crimes on them than they themselves ever committed.


really? could you verify that in some way?
though a dweeb like this kid probably would need punk city to be safe

 

[nitestocker]

the way this government is going he will probably get his hands slapped and given a great job by Hillery

 

[noops]

So,

There seem to be some people with real knowledge of the law here. Now answer me this:

Say the homeowner is a gun owner, grabs an AR and shoots a cop. the homeowner, it doesn't seem, would have done anything wrong. Is that the case?

I'm in no way advocating violence against police, but wondering about the mindset. Lot's of noise, possibly a no knock, homeowner hasn't done anything illegal and is reasonably in fear for his life...

Noops

 

[yesit'sloaded]

I'm going to take a guess and say the homeowner ends up dead and it all becomes a giant FUBAR moment for all involved. Since it's in Kali. I don't know if the cops would get in trouble, but someone would get sued.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

I would not shoot because it is kinda hard not to notice a helicopter 200ft overhead, 20 sirens near you and someone yelling at the top of their lungs "Police open up", that and the amount of lights too.

 

[glockman19]

I would not shoot because it is kinda hard not to notice a helicopter 200ft overhead, 20 sirens near you and someone yelling at the top of their lungs "Police open up", that and the amount of lights too.

Funny you said that. A few nights ago there was just that situation at my house. The helicopter was above lighting up my back yard. The first thing I didi was atm myself to see what was happening. NO Police entry into the property but I knew there was something going on and felt the need to protect myself & my family should comeone be hiding in the yard or try to make entry into the house.

After about 20 min the helicopter went away & I went back to sleep.

 

[MinnMooney]

Ellis is expected to appear in an Orange County courtroom Monday to face charges of computer access and fraud, false imprisonment by violence, falsely reporting a crime and assault with an assault weapon by proxy.

This is not only a stretch but a dangerous way to be able to charge people. The charge of hacking should have various degrees of severity and his charge should be right up there toward the top. The punishment could be the same as what they're trying for but the charge would be more realistic & apropo.

I find it pretty scary the way that a person can be charged ump-teen times for a single act.

P>S> This dude needs to feel the full weight of justice. Time in jail and pay back to the county and victims.

 

[Zoogster]

I find it pretty scary the way that a person can be charged ump-teen times for a single act.

Yeah it is getting pretty bad. People think of a crime, design statutes and laws for punishing that crime. Spend generations adjusting the punishment up and down.
Then they have the punishment that society has chosen, and go through a period were suddenly they don't feel it is enough, but rather than democraticly change the punishment if society decides that is what it wants, they just tack on multiple charges to arrive at the amount of punishment they feel is suitable.
If a crime is labeled with 5 years, feeling it should be worth 20 and giving them several crimes for a single act to accomplish that is crooked and deceptive. If society feels it should be worth 20, then they should change it to 20.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

Come on Zoogster. You know it's all a game by the time you get to the DA's office.
They load the defendant up with charges so they can appear zealous to anyone who is looking and so they can play the plea game but still wind up with an acceptable conviction.
In addition to computer trespass and 50 other charges, I wouldn't be surprised to see attempted murder of Mr. B. with an argument that the cracker knew he was putting the lives of the homeowners in peril when he put SWAT into motion.

By the time it gets to the DA's office, it's more political than justice.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Say the homeowner is a gun owner, grabs an AR and shoots a cop. the homeowner, it doesn't seem, would have done anything wrong. Is that the case?

It would be a lengthy court battle I assume, challenging whether or not 911 calls are "probable cause". I don't know if that has been done before or not.

If they can get a court to say that any 911 call is probable cause, even if there is a small percentage that are fake, then you'd be toast.

Problem is, even if you were dead to rights, you'd still be dead.

 

[jaholder1971]

This is not only a stretch but a dangerous way to be able to charge people. The charge of hacking should have various degrees of severity and his charge should be right up there toward the top. The punishment could be the same as what they're trying for but the charge would be more realistic & apropo.

I find it pretty scary the way that a person can be charged ump-teen times for a single act

I disagree.

Computer hackers are hard to find, but once they are they need to be identified and the book tossed at them.

His actions violated the rights of an innocent man who was wrongly handcuffed, searched and detained at gunpoint. I cannot blame the police for doing what they did but it did violate his rights thanks to this punk.

He's getting every charge he'd have gotten if it were him putting the gun to the guy's head and handcuffing him. GOOD!

 

[vtoddball]

This kid deserves a hefty punishment, but all of you calling for his head on a platter better step back and keep in mind that the more flexibility you give the government to go after jack**ses like him, the more flexibility you're giving them to come after you.

I'd love to see him get the appropriate punishment, but I'd rather see him go free than see the law twisted to make it happen. There are plenty of things to nail him with without having to stretch any laws. It sets a bad precedent. Not saying that's necessarily happening here, just a response to some of the calls on this thread for harsh punishments.

 

[Soybomb]

Other law enforcement agencies have seen similar breaches into their 911 systems as part of a trend picked up by computer hackers in the nation called “SWATting”, Barnes said.

God I hate the media and their scary new terms of what all the kids are doing.

The kid probably used some voice over IP line to show his victims caller ID information instead of the real info.

Are there any voip providers that allow their users to spoof an ani? Most will let you set your cid field to whatever you like but that isn't what a 911 op would see.

Computer hackers are hard to find, but once they are they need to be identified and the book tossed at them.

I think you're all trying to group them into overly punished angels or people that need to be beaten to within an inch of their life and aren't considering the entire spectrum of computer crime. Why can't there be both? The person that breaks into a computer and installs an irc bot to trade porn or sets up a 0 day ftp server probably shouldn't get much of a punishment. Putting that kid in jail for years isn't going to protect the public and will only waste your money. The person that takes emergency crew away from other services and has the swat team going into a residence has put many lives in harms way and shown a disregard for the safety of others. His punishment probably should be more severe.