Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: U.S. Rep. Clark (Mass.D) SWATted.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153

    U.S. Rep. Clark (Mass.D) SWATted.

    U.S. Rep. Katherine Clark, Massachusetts Democrat, has promised to “double down” on her efforts to combat online abuse after she became a the victim of a cyber prank on Sunday night that ended with multiple police officers arriving at her home in search of an active shooter.
    [ ... ]
    Ms. Clark’s bill hasn’t moved out of committee since being introduced last year, but the congresswoman told the Boston Globe that Sunday night’s incident “will really cause me to double down” on her efforts.

    “No mother should have to answer the door to the police in the middle of the night and fear for her family’s safety simply because an anonymous person disagrees with her,” she said in a statement.
    [ ... ]
    If Ms. Clark’s act is passed, perpetrators could face life sentences in prison if a death occurs as the result of a swatting hoax, ...

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...n-online-hara/

    Who will the shooter be in a hoax SWATTING?
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Wrong question.

    Who is it that will be investigating to determine who shot the poor home owner?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Wrong question.

    Who is it that will be investigating to determine who shot the poor home owner?


    Is this a pop quiz?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    U.S. Rep. Katherine Clark, Massachusetts Democrat, has promised to “double down” on her efforts to combat online abuse after she became a the victim of a cyber prank on Sunday night that ended with multiple police officers arriving at her home in search of an active shooter.
    [ ... ]
    Ms. Clark’s bill hasn’t moved out of committee since being introduced last year, but the congresswoman told the Boston Globe that Sunday night’s incident “will really cause me to double down” on her efforts.

    “No mother should have to answer the door to the police in the middle of the night and fear for her family’s safety simply because an anonymous person disagrees with her,” she said in a statement.
    [ ... ]
    If Ms. Clark’s act is passed, perpetrators could face life sentences in prison if a death occurs as the result of a swatting hoax, ...

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...n-online-hara/

    Who will the shooter be in a hoax SWATTING?
    Great point! Since it is talking about a hoax, the bill has the hidden premise that police would shoot an innocent who either didn't offer legal justification to receive lethal force, or was repelling the perceived home invaders (SWAT). Or, one of the cops gets shot or killed by the homeowner repelling a perceived home invader. No penalty for the SWAT cop or team leader for the unjustified death. No call to reform the system.*




    *More than once, forum member User** has pointed out that the common law of England required warrants be served during daylight. This would pretty much erase the opportunity for a homeowner to mistake lawful lawmen for criminal home invaders. But, with the so-called War on Drugs, police convinced the courts that no-knock warrants and night-time raids were "reasonable". Thus, innocent people get killed and injured with unacceptable frequency. Whereas, if the courts had just insisted on the common law and police had just followed the common law, very little of this would have already occurred.

    **User is a criminal defense attorney. He's also a legal scholar--he reads the history of law.
    Last edited by Citizen; 02-06-2016 at 04:35 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    ... Innocent people get killed and injured with unacceptable regularity. Thank you.

    Unacceptable frequency implies a non-zero acceptable rate.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 02-06-2016 at 05:48 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •