Page 1 of 1

Congress considers banning Swatting.

PostPosted: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 08:22:51
by Ironbear

Re: Congress considers banning Swatting.

PostPosted: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 09:40:21
by WRW
'Cause, now that they have a police force they have to have their own laws to justify increasing the size of their force.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image

Re: Congress considers banning Swatting.

PostPosted: Tue, 03 May 2016 18:46:22
by wittmeba
Too subjective for such strong opposing notions.

Re: Congress considers banning Swatting.

PostPosted: Wed, 04 May 2016 00:09:52
by grumpyMSG
I initially thought it would best be best left to the states, but perhaps federal legislation would be in order involving cases that crossed state lines. For example gamers in Florida getting somebody in Tennessee swatted. 20 years sounds excessive, unless somebody is injured, then treat it similar to involuntary manslaughter/ DUI. I think a fine, make the individual pay for any damages caused by LEO (for example a breached front door or any medical cost incurred by the victim) and pay for the deployment cost of the SWAT team. I have heard of a general rule of 4X costs being used for civil settlements, that sounds reasonable. Go with 2X the costs for the law enforcement department involved. That will encourage prosecution.

For example:
Police break down front door and pepper spray an individual. It costs $500 to replace and install front door similar to old one. Individual had to be taken to hospital cost $1000 for his treatment. ($500 + $1000) X4, individual receives $6000. Police had to bring in overtime for 5 officers for 4 hours @ $30/hour (time and a half for $20/hr), (20 X $30) X 2, department receives $1200. To encourage avoiding such incidents and encourage prosecution, department would have to pay for repairs and medical treatment.

Re: Congress considers banning Swatting.

PostPosted: Wed, 04 May 2016 13:11:16
by Reverenddel
Personally? I think jail time for false-SWATting would be a GREAT idea!

Until you put some "teeth" into a law, people ignore it.

Re: Congress considers banning Swatting.

PostPosted: Wed, 04 May 2016 16:27:15
by grumpyMSG
Reverenddel wrote:Personally? I think jail time for false-SWATting would be a GREAT idea!

Until you put some "teeth" into a law, people ignore it.


I agree, 30 to 45 days and make it not suspendable would be great, 20 years seems excessive unless there is a fatality/ injury.

Re: Congress considers banning Swatting.

PostPosted: Wed, 04 May 2016 17:56:53
by MarcSpaz
I have been able to fake caller ID signals since I was 15 and I am comfortably into my 40's today. I have tried repeatedly to get several global service providers to use encryption. I even gave them a solution for free. It was a random key system that was only valid for a single call so it couldn't be cloned, even if you reversed the encryption. They said the overhead was too high and they refuse to implement it.

When you have a world wide industry vulnerability in your system for 25 years, that is so easy to hack that a teen with zero technical training can leverage it for malicious intent, the industry just doesn't give a damn.

This could have been prevented for decades and could stop today if the tones were encrypted.

Re: Congress considers banning Swatting.

PostPosted: Sat, 07 May 2016 00:25:50
by WRW
Yeah, I can see false reporting using interstate phone lines as a federal offense, but only that and only an appropriate penalty for that. Pretty much a misdemeanor offense.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image

Re: Congress considers banning Swatting.

PostPosted: Sat, 07 May 2016 07:39:26
by SHMIV
Is it only a misdemeanor?

Consider the wrongful harassment of the swatting victim and the value of the victims time that is wasted over this nonsense.

Consider the time wasted by the 911 operater, and the value of that time. Consider the value of the phone line.

Consider the wasted time, and its value, for each responding officer. Then consider the wear and tear on each responding vehicle, plus fuel costs. Consider, too, that a report will have to be written, so don't forget the time spent on that, and it's value, plus the cost of the resources involved in that. Likely, some superior officer or two will probably waste some time reviewing the report. So, we'll consider those time values, too.

Once upon a time, theft of over $100 was considered a Grand Larceny, which is a felony. I don't know what it is now, and I don't care enough to look. But, add up all the values above (no clue how to do that; too tired to care enough to figure it out ), and compare it to the Grand Larceny minimum. I expect that the cost of wasted time and resources would probably be greater than the minimum amount to qualify for a Grand Larceny.

Also, in the swatting "game", there is a certain amount of reckless endangerment involved.

Considering swatting to be a felony seems reasonable to me. But, the voice on the 911 recording should definitely match the voice of the accused swatter. I'd hate for some asshat to hook a buttset up to a phone box on someones house, and get that resident erroneously charged and convicted.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image

Re: Congress considers banning Swatting.

PostPosted: Sat, 07 May 2016 10:00:31
by WRW
SHMIV wrote:Is it only a misdemeanor?

Consider the wrongful harassment of the swatting victim and the value of the victims time that is wasted over this nonsense.

Consider the time wasted by the 911 operater, and the value of that time. Consider the value of the phone line.

Consider the wasted time, and its value, for each responding officer. Then consider the wear and tear on each responding vehicle, plus fuel costs. Consider, too, that a report will have to be written, so don't forget the time spent on that, and it's value, plus the cost of the resources involved in that. Likely, some superior officer or two will probably waste some time reviewing the report. So, we'll consider those time values, too.

Once upon a time, theft of over $100 was considered a Grand Larceny, which is a felony. I don't know what it is now, and I don't care enough to look. But, add up all the values above (no clue how to do that; too tired to care enough to figure it out ), and compare it to the Grand Larceny minimum. I expect that the cost of wasted time and resources would probably be greater than the minimum amount to qualify for a Grand Larceny.

Also, in the swatting "game", there is a certain amount of reckless endangerment involved.

Considering swatting to be a felony seems reasonable to me. But, the voice on the 911 recording should definitely match the voice of the accused swatter. I'd hate for some asshat to hook a buttset up to a phone box on someones house, and get that resident erroneously charged and convicted.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image


$200, or $5 taken from a person, or theft of a firearm of any value. Seems a little low to me for felony charges, but that is just me.

A lot of your values added to reach your dollar amounts are for current expenditures. The dispatcher is on duty. The officer is on duty and if he is in a car that car is getting mileage put on it. Etc, etc.

The reckless endangerment would pretty much be an unquantifiable variable. One department might send two officers to check on it, another might call out the National Guard.

I don't think much of "Bearing false witness against your neighbor". I also don't think much of Federal involvement in State level crimes.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image

Re: Congress considers banning Swatting.

PostPosted: Sat, 07 May 2016 22:16:45
by SHMIV
True enough. But the intent in malicious in nature. It is an attempt to coerce citizens, by use of a publicly funded government force, into giving up a federally protected Constitutional right.

And, while I agree that the Federal Government ought to stay removed from State level business, I don't have much problem with labeling swatting as a felony. Does swatting constitute Federal involvement? Well, you could make the case that it does. But, I'd be inclined to say let the States handle it.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image

Re: Congress considers banning Swatting.

PostPosted: Sun, 08 May 2016 00:28:48
by WRW
Felony for second offense might be sufficient deterrent, once they find out what loss of a year plus fines and fees means. The penalty could be increased at a later time if that is found to not be the case.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image

Re: Congress considers banning Swatting.

PostPosted: Sun, 08 May 2016 01:35:31
by SHMIV
I would be agreeable to that, assuming that the first offense amounts to nothing more than an inconvenience.

Of course, if the swatting results in a swat team rolling up to someones home and storming in through broken doors and windows, that amounts to more than just an inconvenience. In that case, that's resulted in an unwarranted home invasion and property damage. That should be a felony.

However, if all that happens is a traffic stop and a conversation with a couple of officers, that's an inconvenience, and I'd be OK with a misdemeanor charge the first time around.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image