Hello all,

 

I recently read online that a 15 year old boy in Louisiana was sentenced to 25 years to life in a federal prison for 2 counts of domestic terrorism. He had targeted a player on Battlefield 4 as he was persistently beating him. As a result, Horner obtained the gamer's information, IP and address details and then dialed the police and reported a murder/hostage situation at the gamer's home. Police SWAT units raided the home and shot and seriously injured the father of the livestreamer targeted before he was arrested. 

 

Following his arrest, Horner stood trial where the prosecuting attorney stated: There were no victims or any evidence that a shooting had taken place, Horner’s actions are pure evil, he is a menace to society and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

 

I personally believe that the actions of this teen are unacceptable and that his conviction will send out a message to other "swatters" and imply that the police are taking a zero tolerance attitude to this in the future. What do the rest of you think? Is it fair? Will this have any ramifications on future swatting?

 

Read the story online here: http://nationalreport.net/15-year-old-swatted-domestic-terrorism/

 

Edited September 1, 201411 yr by Strider

What a dumb jerk this kid is...I hope he gets charged and gets the 25 years, at least.

I'm pretty sure that entire website is fake, similar to The Onion, but I never heard of it before. Just read the "Headline:" things on the top of the screen. One of them is "President Obama to resign January 1st." An actual news company would have reported on that.

A taste of his own medicine perhaps?

 

What a moron.

Nothing to see here folks, move along.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Report

 

National Report (nationalreport.net) is a satirical news website. It is published by Allen Montgomery.^[1]

 

Read

I'm pretty sure that entire website is fake, similar to The Onion, but I never heard of it before. Just read the "Headline:" things on the top of the screen. One of them is "President Obama to resign January 1st." An actual news company would have reported on that.

 Good spot Willpv. The article may be speculated as fake, however while on the topic of swatting, well known gamer "Kootra" has been targeted. Hypothetically speaking, if the suspect was arrested, would you hand down a 25 years to life sentence?

 

 

Is swatting getting out of hand? Would a life sentence make the message sink in?

The penalty should be whatever the normal penalty for making a fake 911 call is in his state, plus whatever damage was caused because of the fake 911 call. 25 to life is ridiculous, and swatting is hardly an act of terrorism.

Edited September 1, 201411 yr by willpv23

Wasting police time is one thing, sending a patrol officer on a wild goose chase is ridiculous, but when you're sending trained and well equipped expensive SWAT units to someone's house as a result of dislike or a grudge against a gamer, it should be punished by a greater conviction. Although looking back, 25 years is excessive (I fucked up lel) but a serious sentence for offenders would discourage the crime.

Wasting police time is one thing, sending a patrol officer on a wild goose chase is ridiculous, but when you're sending trained and well equipped expensive SWAT units to someone's house as a result of dislike or a grudge against a gamer, it should be punished by a greater conviction. Although looking back, 25 years is excessive (I fucked up lel) but a serious sentence for offenders would discourage the crime.

In my opoioin they should get at least one to two years, plus probation.

Edited September 1, 201411 yr by Chester199

25 to life?? Holy shit! That's overkill big time! Did he murder somebody?? Jesus.  At most it should be a couple months in a juvenile detention center. 

 

Yeah, that website is satirical.

Protect your info better.

25 to life?? Holy shit! That's overkill big time! Did he murder somebody?? Jesus.  At most it should be a couple months in a juvenile detention center. 

 

Yeah, that website is satirical.

 Indeed. Slight error on my part, but oh well. Anyways, what is your view on the current swatting situation and law enforcement's approach?

< snip >

Edited June 23, 20241 yr by tobeymaguire

Now, if this actually happened, technically the kid would have shot the father multiple times. Technically. If the kid wouldn't have called, the father wouldn't have been shot.

 

Technically.

 

If this was real.

 

Technically.

Nope. Technically the kid would have shot the father zero times, because the meaning of the word "shot" does not include "caused to be shot". From a legal point of view, still no -- there's a big difference between making a phone call with the intent of harassing someone that results in a police officer shooting someone, and actually pointing a gun at someone and shooting them. The latter is pretty much an open-and-shut case of murder (if they die) or aggravated assault/attempted murder (if they don't); for the former, while it's forseeable that it *might* end with someone getting shot, it isn't terribly *likely* (keep in mind that SWAT is not supposed to enter a scene with guns blazing; if they're called to a hostage situation and there's no hostage situation, any outcome besides "no one gets hurt" means someone screwed up big-time).

Now, if this actually happened, technically the kid would have shot the father multiple times. Technically. If the kid wouldn't have called, the father wouldn't have been shot.

Technically.

If this was real.

Technically.

on the longest stretch, even the best defense attorney would have trouble getting a jury to connect the son and his father bering shot.

This really does bother me, how it can happen to anyone, anytime. These are one of the only reasons why I don't like online multiplayer games. I only like to play with people I know. One bad apple ruins them all in my opinion. 

Nope. Technically the kid would have shot the father zero times, because the meaning of the word "shot" does not include "caused to be shot". From a legal point of view, still no -- there's a big difference between making a phone call with the intent of harassing someone that results in a police officer shooting someone, and actually pointing a gun at someone and shooting them. The latter is pretty much an open-and-shut case of murder (if they die) or aggravated assault/attempted murder (if they don't); for the former, while it's forseeable that it *might* end with someone getting shot, it isn't terribly *likely* (keep in mind that SWAT is not supposed to enter a scene with guns blazing; if they're called to a hostage situation and there's no hostage situation, any outcome besides "no one gets hurt" means someone screwed up big-time).

 

From a legal point of view it's up for debate. If the D.A. believes the charges can be warranted, they'll file them. It's just as well if a prosecutor can prove that the defendant's actions caused the death of another being, whether directly or indirectly. Technically someone can legally be culpable for the crime even if they didn't directly kill anyone. Even now there's a case like this currently going on.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-charged-with-murder-after-stray-police-bullet-kills-woman/

on the longest stretch, even the best defense attorney would have trouble getting a jury to connect the son and his father bering shot.

A defense attorney would have a hard time indeed, getting a conviction being the opposite of his job.

From a legal point of view it's up for debate. If the D.A. believes the charges can be warranted, they'll file them. It's just as well if a prosecutor can prove that the defendant's actions caused the death of another being, whether directly or indirectly. Technically someone can legally be culpable for the crime even if they didn't directly kill anyone. Even now there's a case like this currently going on.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-charged-with-murder-after-stray-police-bullet-kills-woman/

Under some circumstances, you can be charged with murder for any death during a felony you commit, but there are typically limits on this: in most states, the felony must be on a specific list of felonies (including robbery, not including making a false report to police) or must be inherently dangerous (which does not consider the specifics of the case at all; a given felony is or is not "inherently dangerous" depending solely on statutory definition of the felony, which making a false report to police would not be); in many states, the death must be reasonably forseeable as a consequence of the felony (there's a case you could make that police should not open fire at all in a swatting incident); only some states apply felony murder to those killed by bystanders or police (in other states, only those killed by accomplices count); and the underlying felony cannot be a component of the death (if it'd be a lesser included offense to a murder charge, they can't charge felony murder; otherwise, there'd be no such thing as degrees of murder, because just about every homicide contains a felonious assault and so would otherwise count as felony murder). Lastly, Louisiana (where the fake story was set) requires proof of specific intent to kill *and* the felony being on an enumerated list; Louisiana doesn't use the common law, and traditional felony murder is a common-law rule.

Furthermore, felony murder only applies if there's a death: if no one dies, you cannot be held criminally liable for the police shooting someone. The only reason you can be liable for a death you didn't cause is that it's traditionally been that way, from back in the days where all felonies were extremely serious crimes punishable by death (as opposed to now, where felonies are just those things which have a maximum penalty of at least a year in prison). The same tradition didn't apply to assaults, and you're not criminally liable for police shooting someone unless the person dies, at which point the traditional rule kicks in. And it's still not technically the same as if you shot someone, because that would be the different crime of first-degree murder.

A defense attorney would have a hard time indeed, getting a conviction being the opposite of his job.

Under some circumstances, you can be charged with murder for any death during a felony you commit, but there are typically limits on this: in most states, the felony must be on a specific list of felonies (including robbery, not including making a false report to police) or must be inherently dangerous (which does not consider the specifics of the case at all; a given felony is or is not "inherently dangerous" depending solely on statutory definition of the felony, which making a false report to police would not be); in many states, the death must be reasonably forseeable as a consequence of the felony (there's a case you could make that police should not open fire at all in a swatting incident); only some states apply felony murder to those killed by bystanders or police (in other states, only those killed by accomplices count); and the underlying felony cannot be a component of the death (if it'd be a lesser included offense to a murder charge, they can't charge felony murder; otherwise, there'd be no such thing as degrees of murder, because just about every homicide contains a felonious assault and so would otherwise count as felony murder). Lastly, Louisiana (where the fake story was set) requires proof of specific intent to kill *and* the felony being on an enumerated list; Louisiana doesn't use the common law, and traditional felony murder is a common-law rule.

Furthermore, felony murder only applies if there's a death: if no one dies, you cannot be held criminally liable for the police shooting someone. The only reason you can be liable for a death you didn't cause is that it's traditionally been that way, from back in the days where all felonies were extremely serious crimes punishable by death (as opposed to now, where felonies are just those things which have a maximum penalty of at least a year in prison). The same tradition didn't apply to assaults, and you're not criminally liable for police shooting someone unless the person dies, at which point the traditional rule kicks in. And it's still not technically the same as if you shot someone, because that would be the different crime of first-degree murder.

 

While I understand what you're trying to say, I feel you are a bit misguided on "traditional" law. You can still be held criminally liable, even if no one dies, if your actions contributed to death OR injury of a bystander in the procession of a crime. While such cases are few and far between, with little case law on the particular circumstances, it does happen. The Grand Jury in New York indicted a man recently for felonious assault when two bystanders were injured when police opted to open fire on him after he reached into his pants.

 

Louisiana's legal system is little different from the rest of the U.S., the big difference being that Louisiana does not have to rely on precedent, and judges can rule based on their own interpretation of the law, however precedent usually guides LA rulings. It has no bearing on statutory interpretation of the law from the perspective of the attorney's office, and someone may still be charged if their actions directly or indirectly facilitated the injury or death of someone else, should it fit the statute.

While I understand what you're trying to say, I feel you are a bit misguided on "traditional" law. You can still be held criminally liable, even if no one dies, if your actions contributed to death OR injury of a bystander in the procession of a crime. While such cases are few and far between, with little case law on the particular circumstances, it does happen. The Grand Jury in New York indicted a man recently for felonious assault when two bystanders were injured when police opted to open fire on him after he reached into his pants.

Source? I may well be wrong about this.