• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

This is new: Scammer uses SWATTING against would-be victim

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Wow, this is crazy.

TFred

Scammer takes a 'swat' at Culpeper man

Snip from article:

According to Culpeper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins, a resident on Carrico Mills Road got a call Friday from a scammer pretending to be an IRS agent. The caller told the resident that he owed thousands of dollars in back taxes and ordered him to bring the money to a specified address in Washington or be arrested.

Jenkins said the resident realized it was a scam and responded by saying that he would have to borrow the money from “a police officer friend.”

The scammer immediately hung up, but minutes later placed a call to 911 reporting a man with a gun at the victim’s residence. Five deputies and a canine responded to find nothing awry.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Scary.

Counter-measures? Just brainstorming here:

1. Hang up on the scammer and instantly call the police to report it. No delay. You would at least have a chance for dispatchers to recognize the same address.

2. Tell the caller you have the money, but the bank doesn't open until 9:00am. Make it a point to appear attentive about getting the right address. Promise to show up to set the IRS account to rights. Then instantly call the police.

3. Hmmmm. I wonder if this was a targeted situation, meaning I wonder if it wasn't really a scammer, but somebody who had a grudge against the victim, and decided to hit the victim with a double-whammy. As I understand it, scammers just want your bank account number or a phone check. I can't recall ever hearing of a scammer who wanted the victim to actually bring the money to a certain location.
 
Last edited:

Thaas4

Newbie
Joined
May 5, 2015
Messages
4
Location
Hampton, Va
This is becoming a very unsettling trend around the country, I've seen multiple stories about it and some have ended with in gunfire. Gun hating libs like using this method to cause problems for law abiding citizens. For instance I seen a case where a man was enjoying a ride on his motorcycle up in Nova and he was open carrying a pistol and entered a 711 to buy some cigs and a lady seen him with his pistol and called the police and said he just robbed the 711 so of course the police presence was heavy when they stopped him and found out he did not rob a store and was just enjoying a beautiful day on his bike. However that situation could have turned ugly.

My opinion is anyone who attempts to use this method as a "joke" or trying to make a point or whatever reason should be hunted down by police and charged with attempted murder


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
This is becoming a very unsettling trend around the country, I've seen multiple stories about it and some have ended with in gunfire. Gun hating libs like using this method to cause problems for law abiding citizens. For instance I seen a case where a man was enjoying a ride on his motorcycle up in Nova and he was open carrying a pistol and entered a 711 to buy some cigs and a lady seen him with his pistol and called the police and said he just robbed the 711 so of course the police presence was heavy when they stopped him and found out he did not rob a store and was just enjoying a beautiful day on his bike. However that situation could have turned ugly.

My opinion is anyone who attempts to use this method as a "joke" or trying to make a point or whatever reason should be hunted down by police and charged with attempted murder


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its a little less unsettling when you realize case law sets some standards against anonymous tips to police. Meaning, if the person gives their name and address, increasing their credibility according to case law, they are then identifiable for a false alarm. Alternatively, if the person does not identify himself, the police are more restricted in what they can do. I know that doesn't mean the police will restrict themselves. But, its something.

Google the term indicia of reliability.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Here in Utah a family has been the victim of so-called "SWATTING" multiple times.

This last time the police sensed something was amiss and responded carefully, but non violently. They determined the call was a hoax without busting down doors or other such violence. On the flip side, when he realized what was happening, the father went out front, very non-aggressively, and was able to talk to the responding officers.

These things put cops in a no win situation. Some number of 911 calls about hostage situations are real.

These fake calls need to be handled in the same category as terroristic (ie bomb) threats.

Charles
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Here in Utah a family has been the victim of so-called "SWATTING" multiple times.

This last time the police sensed something was amiss and responded carefully, but non violently. They determined the call was a hoax without busting down doors or other such violence. On the flip side, when he realized what was happening, the father went out front, very non-aggressively, and was able to talk to the responding officers.

These things put cops in a no win situation. Some number of 911 calls about hostage situations are real.

These fake calls need to be handled in the same category as terroristic (ie bomb) threats.

Charles

Since when is trying to get someone else in trouble the equivalent of terrorism with its inherent demand for political change? Where is the political demand in SWATTING?
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Since when is trying to get someone else in trouble the equivalent of terrorism with its inherent demand for political change? Where is the political demand in SWATTING?

Where is the political demand of someone claiming there is a bomb in a high school?

SWATting goes way beyond "trying to get someone else in trouble." It is using the police force to terrorize and potentially injure or kill another person. Property damage is very possible.

It is bearing of false witness for those who place any credence in the big 10. It is filing a false police report. It may well divert limited police resources away from other needs on the false premise of a higher priority need.

No, it isn't "trying to get someone else in trouble". It is attempted murder and imposition of terror.

Stop looking so much at who is posting and more at what is said. Your insistence on finding disagreement with me is starting to make you look really rather out of touch with reality.

SWATting is way more than "trying to get someone else in trouble."

Bringing up a supposedly anonymous donation is response to a perceived slight is really boorish conduct.

And thinking every disagreement is antagonism and disrespect is childish.

Charles
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Where is the political demand of someone claiming there is a bomb in a high school?

Exactly.

No political demand = not terror. Murderous threat, yes.

But, terrorism has long be used to refer to violence for political reasons. Munich Olympics 1972, the PLO, the Red Brigades, the IRA.

Bomb goes off and kills people without a political angle, then its just mass murder. Nutcase shoots up a movie theater without political angle, its just mass murder.

Just because government decided to redefine the term in the wake of 9-11 for brownie points with the electorate or to give itself new powers doesn't make it terrorism. For pete's sake, I've come across a few news stories where some guy was charged with making "terroristic threats" against his ex-wife or girlfriend. There was already a term for that: making threats. Just because government decided to stretch the term doesn't mean the rest of us have to go along with it. I've never seen a constitutional provision giving government the power to change the language.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
No political demand = not terror. Murderous threat, yes.

But, terrorism has long be used to refer to violence for political reasons. Munich Olympics 1972, the PLO, the Red Brigades, the IRA.

Bomb goes off and kills people without a political angle, then its just mass murder. Nutcase shoots up a movie theater without political angle, its just mass murder.

Oh, so you didn't really mean just "trying to get someone in trouble." What you really meant was "trying to get someone seriously injured or killed, filing a false police report, and bearing false witness."

So why did you write just "trying to get someone in trouble" rather than writing what you really meant?

Pick nits all you want. You might even have a few cases where the law was obviously misapplied.

But I recognize a difference between merely threatening to kill someone, and threatening to kill someone in a way that causes a larger scale panic or danger, that undermines trust in public institutions, or that diverts major public safety resources falsely.

I don't see where "terror" is defined in the constitution, so it is up to statute to determine how to define it. Kind of like how in many cases "assault" doesn't require any physical contact at all, that is "battery".

So keep picking nits or looking for non-material disagreement as you try to twist every thread into some kind of anti-government sermon. Or, try communicating.

Charles
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
When the Canadians started collecting data for their gun registry it was recommend that filling out registration forms for anti's and anti gun politicians. With false information about guns they might or might not own.

The registry was filled with bad information and was one of the reasons they did away with it.

The same with some 800 gun reporting systems they received a lot of bad reports and were done away with.

I would think the same might happen with certain government organizations if they would receive a large amount of bad information.

What information does one act on especially in smaller departments a lot of SWAT teems are made up from a small number of department members would get called out on over time. A called out is costly and time consuming to many false alarms really screws up the system in many ways.

When dealing with anti's and anti gun politicians one has to remember a double edged knife cuts both ways.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
These fake calls need to be handled in the same category as terroristic (ie bomb) threats.

Since when is trying to get someone else in trouble the equivalent of terrorism with its inherent demand for political change? Where is the political demand in SWATTING?
You're probably the only one who didn't get it, even though it is in plain English: "handled in the same category...".

What he is saying here is that SWATTING calls should be HANDLED in the same way that bomb threats are handled. Do you ever read the news reports about when bomb threats are called in to schools, malls, etc? They HUNT THEM DOWN and PROSECUTE them. That is what must happen to SWATTERS as well.

TFred
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by utbagpiper

These fake calls need to be handled in the same category as terroristic (ie bomb) threats.

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Citizen
Since when is trying to get someone else in trouble the equivalent of terrorism with its inherent demand for political change? Where is the political demand in SWATTING?
You're probably the only one who didn't get it, even though it is in plain English: "handled in the same category...".

What he is saying here is that SWATTING calls should be HANDLED in the same way that bomb threats are handled. Do you ever read the news reports about when bomb threats are called in to schools, malls, etc? They HUNT THEM DOWN and PROSECUTE them. That is what must happen to SWATTERS as well.

TFred
icon14.png
- the end result of swatting does frequently end with government (political) involvement.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
You're probably the only one who didn't get it, even though it is in plain English: "handled in the same category...".

What he is saying here is that SWATTING calls should be HANDLED in the same way that bomb threats are handled. Do you ever read the news reports about when bomb threats are called in to schools, malls, etc? They HUNT THEM DOWN and PROSECUTE them. That is what must happen to SWATTERS as well.

TFred

No, TFred, that's not what he said. His post is expressly says swatting calls should be handled the same [STRIKE]way[/STRIKE] category as terroristic threats. The bomb angle was an example. Here is what he wrote verbatim: "These fake calls need to be handled in the same category as terroristic (ie bomb) threats."

I took him to task over the terrorism angle. Not whether they should be hunted down and prosecuted.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
You're probably the only one who didn't get it, even though it is in plain English: "handled in the same category...".

What he is saying here is that SWATTING calls should be HANDLED in the same way that bomb threats are handled. Do you ever read the news reports about when bomb threats are called in to schools, malls, etc? They HUNT THEM DOWN and PROSECUTE them. That is what must happen to SWATTERS as well.

TFred

You jogged something for me, TFred. Thanks.

Since when did terrorists call in bomb threats? Outside of the movies, I cannot think of a single terrorist ever giving a warning that he was going to detonate a bomb at such-and-such place. And, that only makes sense. Terrorists who use bombs want maximum dead bodies. Why would they call ahead and reduced the number of dead bodies by giving warning?
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
No, TFred, that's not what he said. His post is expressly says swatting calls should be handled the same way as terroristic threats. The bomb angle was an example. Here is what he wrote verbatim: "These fake calls need to be handled in the same category as terroristic (ie bomb) threats."

I took him to task over the terrorism angle. Not whether they should be hunted down and prosecuted.
*shrug* I took Piper to be referencing "terroristic" in no sense beyond the terminology heard in news reports and to describe the way LEO hunt down with great prejudice anyone who would use telecommunications to make a false report to call out emergency services and disrupt citizens lives, and that SWATTERS should be subject to the same level for scrutiny and manhunting as someone who calls in say, a bomb threat.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
No, TFred, that's not what he said. His post is expressly says swatting calls should be handled the same way as terroristic threats. The bomb angle was an example. Here is what he wrote verbatim: "These fake calls need to be handled in the same category as terroristic (ie bomb) threats."

I took him to task over the terrorism angle. Not whether they should be hunted down and prosecuted.

Got it. "Same way" is synonymous with "same category." Sheesh.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
3. Hmmmm. I wonder if this was a targeted situation, meaning I wonder if it wasn't really a scammer, but somebody who had a grudge against the victim, and decided to hit the victim with a double-whammy. As I understand it, scammers just want your bank account number or a phone check. I can't recall ever hearing of a scammer who wanted the victim to actually bring the money to a certain location.

I've seen other cases of it. I've even seen cases where the scammer instructed the victims to bring the money to a police or government facility - outside, but at the facility nonetheless.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Got it. "Same way" is synonymous with "same category." Sheesh.

OK. I fixed it for you.

Personally, I don't see why one would categorize a crime in such-and-such a way if he didn't mean to handle it the same as other crimes in that category. While I can see a difference, I wouldn't have said that difference is a material difference for the purpose of the exact context and discussion. Especially, when the main point was conflating non-political acts with terrorism.

But, I don't mind changing that word for you.

Oh, by the way. Maybe you can correct TFred, too. He also made the way vs category imprecision in post #11.
 
Last edited:
Top