People who do this should be charged with attempted murder. The caller intentionally gives a scenario where LEO must act, calculated and intentional. The caller is using LEO as a weapon. Best case scenario is that occupants are held at gun point. Worst cast victims end up dead. Caller can't claim they don't know right from wrong. Or that they didn't intend for it to get that serious. It was their intent all along.
The problem with this reasoning is that for it to fly you must also accept that LEO are darn incompetent which equals LEO intervention = death or a killing.
LEO are suppose to be trained and ABLE to handle such situations so that innocents that have done no wrong don't end up dead. I do believe right now LEOs are not handling such cases adequately but then swatting is relatively new and LEOs tend to take awhile to learn how to handle new situation properly and find proper RoE. This is another bag of worms though.
Typically if someone calls the cops on me and they come to my door I shouldn't reasonably expect to be shot dead, not if LEOs are doing their jobs properly and take the "serve and protect" motto like they should be.
Let me ask you this: how would you react if you are a small town police department and you get a call from a smooth-talking, emotionless, clearly sociopathic individual claiming to have killed someone with the intention of killing women and/or children currently being held hostage? For bonus points, they claim to have spread gasoline around the house to set it on fire.
This was the exact situation in the fatal swatting incident a month ago. This is a high pressure incident with lives at stake and an unstable individual. The LEO doesn't have time to find out if the resident of that house has a goddamn Twitch channel.
The one and only person at fault for these instances is the caller. End of story.
Sorry, but stats on police killings around the world compared to American police killings doesn't support your narrative.
To further illustrate the point: in 2015, 59 police killings were reported in the first 24 days of the year here in America. England and Wales, at that point, had only 59 reports of police killings in the last 24 years.
Fortnite is a 13+ game, his parents should not be allowing him to play it. Also how did they find his address, again parents should be making sure kids understand not to give details out. That's one of the reasons there is a 13+ age limit.
We are reaching the stage where there may be calls for players of certain games to register with the police so when they get a call saying its a drug den or whatever they do not overreact!
Regardless of all that a stiff sentence called for, but doubt they will be caught.
At 12 I was taking the dog out and my 4/10 and taking out rabbits. Sometimes I'd grab the 22 and take out ground hogs. So yea, these parents made such a horrible decision allowing their kid to play a 13+ rated game... Also, those are guidelines, not enforceable law...
Your personnel upbringing cannot be a guide to how everyone can or should behave. I think there have been some very young kids in the US who have gone on killing sprees, should we base what we can and cannot expect youngsters to be able to do on them?
I would say we cannot, but nor can we base them on your upbringing. As a society you have to determine what is best on the basis of shared responisbilty to each other. Below a certain age, that responisbilty is largely the parents.
It does not matter that the age rating is not enforceable by law, as it is up to parents to accept the responisbilty on the basis of what society has deemed correct. I should point out though that there are a number of laws about the neglect of children, and it is possible that some of these incidents may fall under their banner.
Ok, look, as much as I want to blame the parents as the next guy. In this situation, there was nothing the kid could do, nor is there anything that the parents could really do. Sure we can say, they could've prevented him from streaming, they could've done this and that. But those types of comments can be applicable in every swatting incident. As someone previously stated I dont know why the blame is being shifted on the parents. He's not the one who broke any laws.
I would even say that the target of focus was some vulnerable kid. Hell his parents could even own a home business and that information could've been anywhere. Doxxing is widely used on the internet for a reason. Obviously people will be *holes just to prove that they're superior in some sort of objectifying reason.
With the recent news of someone dying, you're right the parents will be held accountable if something should happen to the child, but he did everything legally apparently and had permission from his parents to play the game and stream. I dont know why you think that the Parents or Child should be held accountable when they're just following the guidelines.
Ok, look, as much as I want to blame the parents as the next guy. In this situation, there was nothing the kid could do, nor is there anything that the parents could really do. Sure we can say, they could've prevented him from streaming, they could've done this and that. But those types of comments can be applicable in every swatting incident. As someone previously stated I dont know why the blame is being shifted on the parents. He's not the one who broke any laws.
I would even say that the target of focus was some vulnerable kid. Hell his parents could even own a home business and that information could've been anywhere. Doxxing is widely used on the internet for a reason. Obviously people will be *holes just to prove that they're superior in some sort of objectifying reason.
With the recent news of someone dying, you're right the parents will be held accountable if something should happen to the child, but he did everything legally apparently and had permission from his parents to play the game and stream. I dont know why you think that the Parents or Child should be held accountable when they're just following the guidelines.
The game is 13+, he is 12 years old, the parents know what game he is playing, that's not "following the guidelines".
Ok, look, as much as I want to blame the parents as the next guy. In this situation, there was nothing the kid could do, nor is there anything that the parents could really do. Sure we can say, they could've prevented him from streaming, they could've done this and that. But those types of comments can be applicable in every swatting incident. As someone previously stated I dont know why the blame is being shifted on the parents. He's not the one who broke any laws.
I would even say that the target of focus was some vulnerable kid. Hell his parents could even own a home business and that information could've been anywhere. Doxxing is widely used on the internet for a reason. Obviously people will be *holes just to prove that they're superior in some sort of objectifying reason.
With the recent news of someone dying, you're right the parents will be held accountable if something should happen to the child, but he did everything legally apparently and had permission from his parents to play the game and stream. I dont know why you think that the Parents or Child should be held accountable when they're just following the guidelines.
The game is 13+, he is 12 years old, the parents know what game he is playing, that's not "following the guidelines".
Comes down to this. It doesn't bloody matter if the kid was 12 instead of 13 he is not responsible, nor are his parents, for the actions of the swatter period.
You keep going on like the 12 year old was out at the local seedy tavern for a night of drinking and run into problems....
I am all for everyone taking responsibility for their action or lack thereof BUT please lets use some dang common sense....
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
I must admit things like swatting, calling in, emailing, or posting death threats is something that is beyond me. OK, I can see being upset about something but that stuff is way over the line and some people have quit because they don't know how serious the person making the threats are.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Ok, look, as much as I want to blame the parents as the next guy. In this situation, there was nothing the kid could do, nor is there anything that the parents could really do. Sure we can say, they could've prevented him from streaming, they could've done this and that. But those types of comments can be applicable in every swatting incident. As someone previously stated I dont know why the blame is being shifted on the parents. He's not the one who broke any laws.
I would even say that the target of focus was some vulnerable kid. Hell his parents could even own a home business and that information could've been anywhere. Doxxing is widely used on the internet for a reason. Obviously people will be *holes just to prove that they're superior in some sort of objectifying reason.
With the recent news of someone dying, you're right the parents will be held accountable if something should happen to the child, but he did everything legally apparently and had permission from his parents to play the game and stream. I dont know why you think that the Parents or Child should be held accountable when they're just following the guidelines.
The game is 13+, he is 12 years old, the parents know what game he is playing, that's not "following the guidelines".
Comes down to this. It doesn't bloody matter if the kid was 12 instead of 13 he is not responsible, nor are his parents, for the actions of the swatter period.
You keep going on like the 12 year old was out at the local seedy tavern for a night of drinking and run into problems....
I am all for everyone taking responsibility for their action or lack thereof BUT please lets use some dang common sense....
Of course he is not responsible for what the swatter did, who is saying that? But if you put a child into a situation they may not be able to cope with expect problems. In this case he likely gave out personnel details, so they were able to find him.
So I would hope parents would use some dang common sense, see the age rating and say "Not till next year sorry." Now one year is no guarantee of anything, but if you don't follow that what are you following? Your infallible ability to know what your child is OK to do?
Ok, look, as much as I want to blame the parents as the next guy. In this situation, there was nothing the kid could do, nor is there anything that the parents could really do. Sure we can say, they could've prevented him from streaming, they could've done this and that. But those types of comments can be applicable in every swatting incident. As someone previously stated I dont know why the blame is being shifted on the parents. He's not the one who broke any laws.
I would even say that the target of focus was some vulnerable kid. Hell his parents could even own a home business and that information could've been anywhere. Doxxing is widely used on the internet for a reason. Obviously people will be *holes just to prove that they're superior in some sort of objectifying reason.
With the recent news of someone dying, you're right the parents will be held accountable if something should happen to the child, but he did everything legally apparently and had permission from his parents to play the game and stream. I dont know why you think that the Parents or Child should be held accountable when they're just following the guidelines.
The game is 13+, he is 12 years old, the parents know what game he is playing, that's not "following the guidelines".
Comes down to this. It doesn't bloody matter if the kid was 12 instead of 13 he is not responsible, nor are his parents, for the actions of the swatter period.
You keep going on like the 12 year old was out at the local seedy tavern for a night of drinking and run into problems....
I am all for everyone taking responsibility for their action or lack thereof BUT please lets use some dang common sense....
Of course he is not responsible for what the swatter did, who is saying that? But if you put a child into a situation they may not be able to cope with expect problems. In this case he likely gave out personnel details, so they were able to find him.
So I would hope parents would use some dang common sense, see the age rating and say "Not till next year sorry." Now one year is no guarantee of anything, but if you don't follow that what are you following? Your infallible ability to know what your child is OK to do?
How would the child have coped if he were one year older?
If he were playing a game that he was much too young for, then I might say you're right. But children don't have miraculous ability boosts on their birthdays and if he were 13 years old most likely he would have behaved exactly the same. Him being a bit too young was most likely irrelevant.
Also age recommendations are recommendations for a good reason. Children are individuals, and their guardians are supposed to use common sense and be a bit flexible about what their children is allowed to do and what he's not. Parents who are a couple of years flexible on age recommendations based on their own feelings are not ignoring guidelines, they are parenting.
People who do this should be charged with attempted murder. The caller intentionally gives a scenario where LEO must act, calculated and intentional. The caller is using LEO as a weapon. Best case scenario is that occupants are held at gun point. Worst cast victims end up dead. Caller can't claim they don't know right from wrong. Or that they didn't intend for it to get that serious. It was their intent all along.
The problem with this reasoning is that for it to fly you must also accept that LEO are darn incompetent which equals LEO intervention = death or a killing.
LEO are suppose to be trained and ABLE to handle such situations so that innocents that have done no wrong don't end up dead. I do believe right now LEOs are not handling such cases adequately but then swatting is relatively new and LEOs tend to take awhile to learn how to handle new situation properly and find proper RoE. This is another bag of worms though.
Typically if someone calls the cops on me and they come to my door I shouldn't reasonably expect to be shot dead, not if LEOs are doing their jobs properly and take the "serve and protect" motto like they should be.
Let me ask you this: how would you react if you are a small town police department and you get a call from a smooth-talking, emotionless, clearly sociopathic individual claiming to have killed someone with the intention of killing women and/or children currently being held hostage? For bonus points, they claim to have spread gasoline around the house to set it on fire.
This was the exact situation in the fatal swatting incident a month ago. This is a high pressure incident with lives at stake and an unstable individual. The LEO doesn't have time to find out if the resident of that house has a goddamn Twitch channel.
The one and only person at fault for these instances is the caller. End of story.
Sorry, but stats on police killings around the world compared to American police killings doesn't support your narrative.
To further illustrate the point: in 2015, 59 police killings were reported in the first 24 days of the year here in America. England and Wales, at that point, had only 59 reports of police killings in the last 24 years.
How do the stats of police being killed stack up around the world? Here in the US in 2018 thru Feb 21st 12 have died by gunfire.
46 total died by gunfire in 2017, vs the police killing 987 the same year.
Proportionally the police came way out on the short end it seems, and it should be no surprise police here take a far more aggressive stance, they have much more to fear with our open gun laws.
Have to look at the big picture when comparing stats around the world, and considering America isn't all that far from a "Purge " movie scenario its surprising the figures aren't worse.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
People who do this should be charged with attempted murder. The caller intentionally gives a scenario where LEO must act, calculated and intentional. The caller is using LEO as a weapon. Best case scenario is that occupants are held at gun point. Worst cast victims end up dead. Caller can't claim they don't know right from wrong. Or that they didn't intend for it to get that serious. It was their intent all along.
The problem with this reasoning is that for it to fly you must also accept that LEO are darn incompetent which equals LEO intervention = death or a killing.
LEO are suppose to be trained and ABLE to handle such situations so that innocents that have done no wrong don't end up dead. I do believe right now LEOs are not handling such cases adequately but then swatting is relatively new and LEOs tend to take awhile to learn how to handle new situation properly and find proper RoE. This is another bag of worms though.
Typically if someone calls the cops on me and they come to my door I shouldn't reasonably expect to be shot dead, not if LEOs are doing their jobs properly and take the "serve and protect" motto like they should be.
Let me ask you this: how would you react if you are a small town police department and you get a call from a smooth-talking, emotionless, clearly sociopathic individual claiming to have killed someone with the intention of killing women and/or children currently being held hostage? For bonus points, they claim to have spread gasoline around the house to set it on fire.
This was the exact situation in the fatal swatting incident a month ago. This is a high pressure incident with lives at stake and an unstable individual. The LEO doesn't have time to find out if the resident of that house has a goddamn Twitch channel.
The one and only person at fault for these instances is the caller. End of story.
Sorry, but stats on police killings around the world compared to American police killings doesn't support your narrative.
To further illustrate the point: in 2015, 59 police killings were reported in the first 24 days of the year here in America. England and Wales, at that point, had only 59 reports of police killings in the last 24 years.
How do the stats of police being killed stack up around the world? Here in the US in 2018 thru Feb 21st 12 have died by gunfire.
46 total died by gunfire in 2017, vs the police killing 987 the same year.
Proportionally the police came way out on the short end it seems, and it should be no surprise police here take a far more aggressive stance, they have much more to fear with our open gun laws.
Have to look at the big picture when comparing stats around the world, and considering America isn't all that far from a "Purge " movie scenario its surprising the figures aren't worse.
No doubt it's interconnected, but merely ignoring one egregious issue with our society does not mean we might as well ignore the other. That's the kind of thinking that ignored everything.
Gun control in the U.S. is a joke, and it shows. Police use of force in the U.S. is exaggerated because of it. Both are issues. And no amount of lax gun control laws warrants an officer firing upon a suspect after the suspect complied with orders and was face down, arms out.
Aside from Swatting needing to be punished severly, i have to say that kids shouldn't be on the internet.
When i was this kid's age i was playing local multiplayer (pve and pvp) with my real life friends and it was the best thing ever. And this kid is just 12 years old, he has enough free time to meet up with this friends and play games that way.
This kid's mom is in part responsible for not paying attention to what her kid was doing and the risks he was taking on the internet. Some parents are a bit to flexible with the wrong things.
Just my thoughts.
Victim blaming.
The kid is playing video game and somebody decided to punish him for it with commiting crime. And you say that it is partialy parents fault.
FFS>
No, they're not "victim blaming". The crime is a crime, that's a separate issue. The added notation is that the 12yr old child should not be STREAMING, LIVE, their self on the internet. Forget the video game and let's say the mother did approve of the child playing it (parental permission). Why is the kid streaming their underage face all over the internet while playing the game? Why are they doing that? They're not even allowed parental permission for under the age of 13yrs old, according to YouTube's Terms of Service.
12. Ability to Accept Terms of Service
You affirm that you are either more than 18 years of age, or an
emancipated minor, or possess legal parental or guardian consent, and
are fully able and competent to enter into the terms, conditions,
obligations, affirmations, representations, and warranties set forth in
these Terms of Service, and to abide by and comply with these Terms of
Service. In any case, you affirm that you are over the age of 13, as the
Service is not intended for children under 13. If you are under 13
years of age, then please do not use the Service. There are lots of
other great web sites for you. Talk to your parents about what sites are
appropriate for you.
So technically they should not be YouTube streaming at all and the channel should be taken down according to the Terms of Service.
The parent didn't read the Terms of Service when giving a generic "yes, you can" response, OR they fail to observe and maintain guidance over their child's activities. Either way there is a failure on part of the parents when it comes to this individual activity that the kid was doing. That is the problem with today's society is that parents are not taking accountability for the raising of their offspring as they should.
Edit: Also the the kid's Instangram account should be closed (they have similar TOS requiring a person to be a minimum of 13yr old to use the service) too.
Ok, look, as much as I want to blame the parents as the next guy. In this situation, there was nothing the kid could do, nor is there anything that the parents could really do. Sure we can say, they could've prevented him from streaming, they could've done this and that. But those types of comments can be applicable in every swatting incident. As someone previously stated I dont know why the blame is being shifted on the parents. He's not the one who broke any laws.
I would even say that the target of focus was some vulnerable kid. Hell his parents could even own a home business and that information could've been anywhere. Doxxing is widely used on the internet for a reason. Obviously people will be *holes just to prove that they're superior in some sort of objectifying reason.
With the recent news of someone dying, you're right the parents will be held accountable if something should happen to the child, but he did everything legally apparently and had permission from his parents to play the game and stream. I dont know why you think that the Parents or Child should be held accountable when they're just following the guidelines.
The game is 13+, he is 12 years old, the parents know what game he is playing, that's not "following the guidelines".
Comes down to this. It doesn't bloody matter if the kid was 12 instead of 13 he is not responsible, nor are his parents, for the actions of the swatter period.
You keep going on like the 12 year old was out at the local seedy tavern for a night of drinking and run into problems....
I am all for everyone taking responsibility for their action or lack thereof BUT please lets use some dang common sense....
Of course he is not responsible for what the swatter did, who is saying that? But if you put a child into a situation they may not be able to cope with expect problems. In this case he likely gave out personnel details, so they were able to find him.
So I would hope parents would use some dang common sense, see the age rating and say "Not till next year sorry." Now one year is no guarantee of anything, but if you don't follow that what are you following? Your infallible ability to know what your child is OK to do?
How would the child have coped if he were one year older?
If he were playing a game that he was much too young for, then I might say you're right. But children don't have miraculous ability boosts on their birthdays and if he were 13 years old most likely he would have behaved exactly the same. Him being a bit too young was most likely irrelevant.
Also age recommendations are recommendations for a good reason. Children are individuals, and their guardians are supposed to use common sense and be a bit flexible about what their children is allowed to do and what he's not. Parents who are a couple of years flexible on age recommendations based on their own feelings are not ignoring guidelines, they are parenting.
I did say one year guarantees nothing, but another way of looking at it is that its a quarter of the way to 16, so it probably means something.
I agree with the flexible approach that you then mention but we go back to what I said before, parents are not infallible, the common sense thing is to assume a child won't be ready before the norm.
I think it is worth pointing out the parents were wrong here, you can think your son can do this or that unsupervised, this shows what can happen. I would say anything to do with the internet is probably where parents are weakest in their knowledge, simply because it is moving so quickly.
In the end I agree with you it is for the parents to decide, but when they get it wrong that should be a wake up call, not just swept under the carpet.
Ok, look, as much as I want to blame the parents as the next guy. In this situation, there was nothing the kid could do, nor is there anything that the parents could really do. Sure we can say, they could've prevented him from streaming, they could've done this and that. But those types of comments can be applicable in every swatting incident. As someone previously stated I dont know why the blame is being shifted on the parents. He's not the one who broke any laws.
I would even say that the target of focus was some vulnerable kid. Hell his parents could even own a home business and that information could've been anywhere. Doxxing is widely used on the internet for a reason. Obviously people will be *holes just to prove that they're superior in some sort of objectifying reason.
With the recent news of someone dying, you're right the parents will be held accountable if something should happen to the child, but he did everything legally apparently and had permission from his parents to play the game and stream. I dont know why you think that the Parents or Child should be held accountable when they're just following the guidelines.
The game is 13+, he is 12 years old, the parents know what game he is playing, that's not "following the guidelines".
Comes down to this. It doesn't bloody matter if the kid was 12 instead of 13 he is not responsible, nor are his parents, for the actions of the swatter period.
You keep going on like the 12 year old was out at the local seedy tavern for a night of drinking and run into problems....
I am all for everyone taking responsibility for their action or lack thereof BUT please lets use some dang common sense....
Of course he is not responsible for what the swatter did, who is saying that? But if you put a child into a situation they may not be able to cope with expect problems. In this case he likely gave out personnel details, so they were able to find him.
So I would hope parents would use some dang common sense, see the age rating and say "Not till next year sorry." Now one year is no guarantee of anything, but if you don't follow that what are you following? Your infallible ability to know what your child is OK to do?
I don't doubt if he gave out personal info he has learned better that doesn't excuse or make right what the swatter did. It also doesn't make it "his fault". Dunno what generation you are from but there many parent out there that have no idea this can happen etc.
My problem is that you seem overly focused on the parents...I mean you are super focused on the fact he is 12... well so what? I tell you now this would have probably happened even if he was 13 since it appears the parents were not really up to date on the dangers of kids being online.
I think the point most of us are making is... sure the parent should know to watch what their kids are doing online, but lets be real not everyone knows wtf swatting is etc and sticking on the fact he is 12 would probably not have stopped this, so how about we focus on the one that's truly at cause here and that's the swatter.
As a parent I can tell you the age rating is not my main concern with video games but rather if it's online or not and what the community is like and the "Ratings" doesn't tell you fuck all about that and that is the main problem that occurred here.
Parents should know better than to rely on "society" to raise their kids or have a dang clue.
Again you act like they let him go out clubbing or to a rave.... playing "video games" regardless of rating generally does not get "kids" into situations they shouldn't have to handle.
In this case the parent just were not aware of the dangers of twitch or online gaming or that swatting was even possible most likely.
A couple of you are posting with a self righteous tone and acting all like social services should be called to check on this poor abused or neglected kid /s as if they don't have far bloody better cases to look at than some kid streaming on twitch or youtube or playing a 13+ game when they are 12..lol
Post edited by Asm0deus on
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Ok, look, as much as I want to blame the parents as the next guy. In this situation, there was nothing the kid could do, nor is there anything that the parents could really do. Sure we can say, they could've prevented him from streaming, they could've done this and that. But those types of comments can be applicable in every swatting incident. As someone previously stated I dont know why the blame is being shifted on the parents. He's not the one who broke any laws.
I would even say that the target of focus was some vulnerable kid. Hell his parents could even own a home business and that information could've been anywhere. Doxxing is widely used on the internet for a reason. Obviously people will be *holes just to prove that they're superior in some sort of objectifying reason.
With the recent news of someone dying, you're right the parents will be held accountable if something should happen to the child, but he did everything legally apparently and had permission from his parents to play the game and stream. I dont know why you think that the Parents or Child should be held accountable when they're just following the guidelines.
The game is 13+, he is 12 years old, the parents know what game he is playing, that's not "following the guidelines".
Comes down to this. It doesn't bloody matter if the kid was 12 instead of 13 he is not responsible, nor are his parents, for the actions of the swatter period.
You keep going on like the 12 year old was out at the local seedy tavern for a night of drinking and run into problems....
I am all for everyone taking responsibility for their action or lack thereof BUT please lets use some dang common sense....
Of course he is not responsible for what the swatter did, who is saying that? But if you put a child into a situation they may not be able to cope with expect problems. In this case he likely gave out personnel details, so they were able to find him.
So I would hope parents would use some dang common sense, see the age rating and say "Not till next year sorry." Now one year is no guarantee of anything, but if you don't follow that what are you following? Your infallible ability to know what your child is OK to do?
I don't doubt if he gave out personal info he has learned better that doesn't excuse or make right what the swatter did. It also doesn't make it "his fault". Dunno what generation you are from but there many parent out there that have no idea this can happen etc.
My problem is that you seem overly focused on the parents...I mean you are super focused on the fact he is 12... well so what? I tell you now this would have probably happened even if he was 13 since it appears the parents were not really up to date on the dangers of kids being online.
I think the point most of us are making is... sure the parent should know to watch what their kids are doing online, but lets be real not everyone knows wtf swatting is etc and sticking on the fact he is 12 would probably not have stopped this, so how about we focus on the one that's truly at cause here and that's the swatter.
As a parent I can tell you the age rating is not my main concern with video games but rather if it's online or not and what the community is like and the "Ratings" doesn't tell you fuck all about that and that is the main problem that occurred here.
Parents should know better than to rely on "society" to raise their kids or have a dang clue.
Again you act like they let him go out clubbing or to a rave.... playing "video games" regardless of rating generally does not get "kids" into situations they shouldn't have to handle.
In this case the parent just were not aware of the dangers of twitch or online gaming or that swatting was even possible most likely.
A couple of you are posting with a self righteous tone and acting all like social services should be called to check on this poor abused or neglected kid /s as if they don't have far bloody better cases to look at than some kid streaming on twitch or youtube or playing a 13+ game when they are 12..lol
I have not the time to go back, but where has anyone said it is his fault? In fact you said this last time and I said of course it is not his fault. Hopefully that's put that to bed.
You mention they may have not been aware of the dangers as it's the internet, I said "
I would say anything to do with the internet is probably where parents are weakest in their knowledge, simply because it is moving so quickly." So quite aware of that.
After this you conflate the views of various posters into an amalgam that does not exist, apparently we have "a self righteous tone and acting all like social services should be called."
I can see how some might see my tone, but the idea we want social services called? I can't see where on earth you get that from.
The only thing for me to answer here that I can see is you think my reaction would be more appropriate to him being let out to a rave or such. I am not trying to rate them on a scale for bad parenting or something, so they were not a "bit wrong" just wrong. If they had let him go to a rave I would have had a similar tone as I don't see a need for drama.
Clearly we disagree, as neither of us is going to call social services, I think we can leave it there.
People who do this should be charged with attempted murder. The caller intentionally gives a scenario where LEO must act, calculated and intentional. The caller is using LEO as a weapon. Best case scenario is that occupants are held at gun point. Worst cast victims end up dead. Caller can't claim they don't know right from wrong. Or that they didn't intend for it to get that serious. It was their intent all along.
The problem with this reasoning is that for it to fly you must also accept that LEO are darn incompetent which equals LEO intervention = death or a killing.
LEO are suppose to be trained and ABLE to handle such situations so that innocents that have done no wrong don't end up dead. I do believe right now LEOs are not handling such cases adequately but then swatting is relatively new and LEOs tend to take awhile to learn how to handle new situation properly and find proper RoE. This is another bag of worms though.
Typically if someone calls the cops on me and they come to my door I shouldn't reasonably expect to be shot dead, not if LEOs are doing their jobs properly and take the "serve and protect" motto like they should be.
Let me ask you this: how would you react if you are a small town police department and you get a call from a smooth-talking, emotionless, clearly sociopathic individual claiming to have killed someone with the intention of killing women and/or children currently being held hostage? For bonus points, they claim to have spread gasoline around the house to set it on fire.
This was the exact situation in the fatal swatting incident a month ago. This is a high pressure incident with lives at stake and an unstable individual. The LEO doesn't have time to find out if the resident of that house has a goddamn Twitch channel.
The one and only person at fault for these instances is the caller. End of story.
Sorry, but stats on police killings around the world compared to American police killings doesn't support your narrative.
To further illustrate the point: in 2015, 59 police killings were reported in the first 24 days of the year here in America. England and Wales, at that point, had only 59 reports of police killings in the last 24 years.
How do the stats of police being killed stack up around the world? Here in the US in 2018 thru Feb 21st 12 have died by gunfire.
46 total died by gunfire in 2017, vs the police killing 987 the same year.
Proportionally the police came way out on the short end it seems, and it should be no surprise police here take a far more aggressive stance, they have much more to fear with our open gun laws.
Have to look at the big picture when comparing stats around the world, and considering America isn't all that far from a "Purge " movie scenario its surprising the figures aren't worse.
No doubt it's interconnected, but merely ignoring one egregious issue with our society does not mean we might as well ignore the other. That's the kind of thinking that ignored everything.
Gun control in the U.S. is a joke, and it shows. Police use of force in the U.S. is exaggerated because of it. Both are issues. And no amount of lax gun control laws warrants an officer firing upon a suspect after the suspect complied with orders and was face down, arms out.
Agreed and my bet is very few police shootings occur in that specfic manner.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
People who do this should be charged with attempted murder. The caller intentionally gives a scenario where LEO must act, calculated and intentional. The caller is using LEO as a weapon. Best case scenario is that occupants are held at gun point. Worst cast victims end up dead. Caller can't claim they don't know right from wrong. Or that they didn't intend for it to get that serious. It was their intent all along.
The problem with this reasoning is that for it to fly you must also accept that LEO are darn incompetent which equals LEO intervention = death or a killing.
LEO are suppose to be trained and ABLE to handle such situations so that innocents that have done no wrong don't end up dead. I do believe right now LEOs are not handling such cases adequately but then swatting is relatively new and LEOs tend to take awhile to learn how to handle new situation properly and find proper RoE. This is another bag of worms though.
Typically if someone calls the cops on me and they come to my door I shouldn't reasonably expect to be shot dead, not if LEOs are doing their jobs properly and take the "serve and protect" motto like they should be.
Let me ask you this: how would you react if you are a small town police department and you get a call from a smooth-talking, emotionless, clearly sociopathic individual claiming to have killed someone with the intention of killing women and/or children currently being held hostage? For bonus points, they claim to have spread gasoline around the house to set it on fire.
This was the exact situation in the fatal swatting incident a month ago. This is a high pressure incident with lives at stake and an unstable individual. The LEO doesn't have time to find out if the resident of that house has a goddamn Twitch channel.
The one and only person at fault for these instances is the caller. End of story.
Sorry, but stats on police killings around the world compared to American police killings doesn't support your narrative.
To further illustrate the point: in 2015, 59 police killings were reported in the first 24 days of the year here in America. England and Wales, at that point, had only 59 reports of police killings in the last 24 years.
How do the stats of police being killed stack up around the world? Here in the US in 2018 thru Feb 21st 12 have died by gunfire.
46 total died by gunfire in 2017, vs the police killing 987 the same year.
Proportionally the police came way out on the short end it seems, and it should be no surprise police here take a far more aggressive stance, they have much more to fear with our open gun laws.
Have to look at the big picture when comparing stats around the world, and considering America isn't all that far from a "Purge " movie scenario its surprising the figures aren't worse.
No doubt it's interconnected, but merely ignoring one egregious issue with our society does not mean we might as well ignore the other. That's the kind of thinking that ignored everything.
Gun control in the U.S. is a joke, and it shows. Police use of force in the U.S. is exaggerated because of it. Both are issues. And no amount of lax gun control laws warrants an officer firing upon a suspect after the suspect complied with orders and was face down, arms out.
Agreed and my bet is very few police shootings occur in that specfic manner.
They do not. However, that situation was so clearly under control by the officers prior to firing that it should never have happened. It wouldn't have happened had it been our military troops in a warzone. It's against rules of engagement to murder a surrendering combatant who complies with the soldier's orders and lays face down, hands spread. They're a prisoner of war at that point. That's exactly how they taught us to take control of a suspected combatant or a surrendering one (assuming they're complying with our orders). Telling them to "crawl towards me" was NEVER, EVER part of that process.
So this idea that we're such a violent society that it should warrant unnecessarily violent responses from law enforcement holds little water in my mind.
Ok, look, as much as I want to blame the parents as the next guy. In this situation, there was nothing the kid could do, nor is there anything that the parents could really do. Sure we can say, they could've prevented him from streaming, they could've done this and that. But those types of comments can be applicable in every swatting incident. As someone previously stated I dont know why the blame is being shifted on the parents. He's not the one who broke any laws.
I would even say that the target of focus was some vulnerable kid. Hell his parents could even own a home business and that information could've been anywhere. Doxxing is widely used on the internet for a reason. Obviously people will be *holes just to prove that they're superior in some sort of objectifying reason.
With the recent news of someone dying, you're right the parents will be held accountable if something should happen to the child, but he did everything legally apparently and had permission from his parents to play the game and stream. I dont know why you think that the Parents or Child should be held accountable when they're just following the guidelines.
The game is 13+, he is 12 years old, the parents know what game he is playing, that's not "following the guidelines".
and if he was 13 or 14 it would have had no barring on what happened. the swatting is outside the control of the parents and the child. swatting a 13 year old is just as bad as swatting a 12 year old....I'm not really seeing your point here. the content of the game is rated 13+.... a real life swat unit breaking down your door isn't game content.
the rating is basically irrelevant in this case because it had nothing to do with the actual game. could have just as easily happened to a streamer playing an E for everyone game or someone of the "recommended" 13+
People who do this should be charged with attempted murder. The caller intentionally gives a scenario where LEO must act, calculated and intentional. The caller is using LEO as a weapon. Best case scenario is that occupants are held at gun point. Worst cast victims end up dead. Caller can't claim they don't know right from wrong. Or that they didn't intend for it to get that serious. It was their intent all along.
The problem with this reasoning is that for it to fly you must also accept that LEO are darn incompetent which equals LEO intervention = death or a killing.
LEO are suppose to be trained and ABLE to handle such situations so that innocents that have done no wrong don't end up dead. I do believe right now LEOs are not handling such cases adequately but then swatting is relatively new and LEOs tend to take awhile to learn how to handle new situation properly and find proper RoE. This is another bag of worms though.
Typically if someone calls the cops on me and they come to my door I shouldn't reasonably expect to be shot dead, not if LEOs are doing their jobs properly and take the "serve and protect" motto like they should be.
Let me ask you this: how would you react if you are a small town police department and you get a call from a smooth-talking, emotionless, clearly sociopathic individual claiming to have killed someone with the intention of killing women and/or children currently being held hostage? For bonus points, they claim to have spread gasoline around the house to set it on fire.
This was the exact situation in the fatal swatting incident a month ago. This is a high pressure incident with lives at stake and an unstable individual. The LEO doesn't have time to find out if the resident of that house has a goddamn Twitch channel.
The one and only person at fault for these instances is the caller. End of story.
Sorry, but stats on police killings around the world compared to American police killings doesn't support your narrative.
To further illustrate the point: in 2015, 59 police killings were reported in the first 24 days of the year here in America. England and Wales, at that point, had only 59 reports of police killings in the last 24 years.
How do the stats of police being killed stack up around the world? Here in the US in 2018 thru Feb 21st 12 have died by gunfire.
46 total died by gunfire in 2017, vs the police killing 987 the same year.
Proportionally the police came way out on the short end it seems, and it should be no surprise police here take a far more aggressive stance, they have much more to fear with our open gun laws.
Have to look at the big picture when comparing stats around the world, and considering America isn't all that far from a "Purge " movie scenario its surprising the figures aren't worse.
No doubt it's interconnected, but merely ignoring one egregious issue with our society does not mean we might as well ignore the other. That's the kind of thinking that ignored everything.
Gun control in the U.S. is a joke, and it shows. Police use of force in the U.S. is exaggerated because of it. Both are issues. And no amount of lax gun control laws warrants an officer firing upon a suspect after the suspect complied with orders and was face down, arms out.
Agreed and my bet is very few police shootings occur in that specfic manner.
They do not. However, that situation was so clearly under control by the officers prior to firing that it should never have happened. It wouldn't have happened had it been our military troops in a warzone. It's against rules of engagement to murder a surrendering combatant who complies with the soldier's orders and lays face down, hands spread. They're a prisoner of war at that point. That's exactly how they taught us to take control of a suspected combatant or a surrendering one (assuming they're complying with our orders). Telling them to "crawl towards me" was NEVER, EVER part of that process.
So this idea that we're such a violent society that it should warrant unnecessarily violent responses from law enforcement holds little water in my mind.
You might find this hard to believe, but I've met soldiers from 2 different wars who didn't always take prisoners if it wasn't convenient to do so.
Perhaps worse, I know a private contractor who is overseas now who says his firm often doesn't either.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
People who do this should be charged with attempted murder. The caller intentionally gives a scenario where LEO must act, calculated and intentional. The caller is using LEO as a weapon. Best case scenario is that occupants are held at gun point. Worst cast victims end up dead. Caller can't claim they don't know right from wrong. Or that they didn't intend for it to get that serious. It was their intent all along.
The problem with this reasoning is that for it to fly you must also accept that LEO are darn incompetent which equals LEO intervention = death or a killing.
LEO are suppose to be trained and ABLE to handle such situations so that innocents that have done no wrong don't end up dead. I do believe right now LEOs are not handling such cases adequately but then swatting is relatively new and LEOs tend to take awhile to learn how to handle new situation properly and find proper RoE. This is another bag of worms though.
Typically if someone calls the cops on me and they come to my door I shouldn't reasonably expect to be shot dead, not if LEOs are doing their jobs properly and take the "serve and protect" motto like they should be.
Let me ask you this: how would you react if you are a small town police department and you get a call from a smooth-talking, emotionless, clearly sociopathic individual claiming to have killed someone with the intention of killing women and/or children currently being held hostage? For bonus points, they claim to have spread gasoline around the house to set it on fire.
This was the exact situation in the fatal swatting incident a month ago. This is a high pressure incident with lives at stake and an unstable individual. The LEO doesn't have time to find out if the resident of that house has a goddamn Twitch channel.
The one and only person at fault for these instances is the caller. End of story.
Sorry, but stats on police killings around the world compared to American police killings doesn't support your narrative.
To further illustrate the point: in 2015, 59 police killings were reported in the first 24 days of the year here in America. England and Wales, at that point, had only 59 reports of police killings in the last 24 years.
How do the stats of police being killed stack up around the world? Here in the US in 2018 thru Feb 21st 12 have died by gunfire.
46 total died by gunfire in 2017, vs the police killing 987 the same year.
Proportionally the police came way out on the short end it seems, and it should be no surprise police here take a far more aggressive stance, they have much more to fear with our open gun laws.
Have to look at the big picture when comparing stats around the world, and considering America isn't all that far from a "Purge " movie scenario its surprising the figures aren't worse.
No doubt it's interconnected, but merely ignoring one egregious issue with our society does not mean we might as well ignore the other. That's the kind of thinking that ignored everything.
Gun control in the U.S. is a joke, and it shows. Police use of force in the U.S. is exaggerated because of it. Both are issues. And no amount of lax gun control laws warrants an officer firing upon a suspect after the suspect complied with orders and was face down, arms out.
Agreed and my bet is very few police shootings occur in that specfic manner.
They do not. However, that situation was so clearly under control by the officers prior to firing that it should never have happened. It wouldn't have happened had it been our military troops in a warzone. It's against rules of engagement to murder a surrendering combatant who complies with the soldier's orders and lays face down, hands spread. They're a prisoner of war at that point. That's exactly how they taught us to take control of a suspected combatant or a surrendering one (assuming they're complying with our orders). Telling them to "crawl towards me" was NEVER, EVER part of that process.
So this idea that we're such a violent society that it should warrant unnecessarily violent responses from law enforcement holds little water in my mind.
You might find this hard to believe, but I've met soldiers from 2 different wars who didn't always take prisoners if it wasn't convenient to do so.
Perhaps worse, I know a private contractor who is overseas now who says his firm often doesn't either.
War doesn't always follow the rulebook.
You are correct random internet person. It is hard to believe. But hey, I know Batman, so maybe you too have some connections.
We play in a toxic internet environment that magnifies what you have in you, either good or bad. This is why we can't have nice things. At some point legislation will be passed to require real names to be used on the internet.
Or we could take a cue from S. Korea and adopt a similar system. Their level of toxicness is astronomical lower than the west.
Fortnite is a 13+ game, his parents should not be allowing him to play it. Also how did they find his address, again parents should be making sure kids understand not to give details out. That's one of the reasons there is a 13+ age limit.
We are reaching the stage where there may be calls for players of certain games to register with the police so when they get a call saying its a drug den or whatever they do not overreact!
Regardless of all that a stiff sentence called for, but doubt they will be caught.
At 12 I was taking the dog out and my 4/10 and taking out rabbits. Sometimes I'd grab the 22 and take out ground hogs. So yea, these parents made such a horrible decision allowing their kid to play a 13+ rated game... Also, those are guidelines, not enforceable law...
So you killed little critters for fun as a kid? Jeffery Dahmer and John Gacy had similar upbringings.
People who do this should be charged with attempted murder. The caller intentionally gives a scenario where LEO must act, calculated and intentional. The caller is using LEO as a weapon. Best case scenario is that occupants are held at gun point. Worst cast victims end up dead. Caller can't claim they don't know right from wrong. Or that they didn't intend for it to get that serious. It was their intent all along.
The problem with this reasoning is that for it to fly you must also accept that LEO are darn incompetent which equals LEO intervention = death or a killing.
LEO are suppose to be trained and ABLE to handle such situations so that innocents that have done no wrong don't end up dead. I do believe right now LEOs are not handling such cases adequately but then swatting is relatively new and LEOs tend to take awhile to learn how to handle new situation properly and find proper RoE. This is another bag of worms though.
Typically if someone calls the cops on me and they come to my door I shouldn't reasonably expect to be shot dead, not if LEOs are doing their jobs properly and take the "serve and protect" motto like they should be.
Let me ask you this: how would you react if you are a small town police department and you get a call from a smooth-talking, emotionless, clearly sociopathic individual claiming to have killed someone with the intention of killing women and/or children currently being held hostage? For bonus points, they claim to have spread gasoline around the house to set it on fire.
This was the exact situation in the fatal swatting incident a month ago. This is a high pressure incident with lives at stake and an unstable individual. The LEO doesn't have time to find out if the resident of that house has a goddamn Twitch channel.
The one and only person at fault for these instances is the caller. End of story.
Sorry, but stats on police killings around the world compared to American police killings doesn't support your narrative.
To further illustrate the point: in 2015, 59 police killings were reported in the first 24 days of the year here in America. England and Wales, at that point, had only 59 reports of police killings in the last 24 years.
How do the stats of police being killed stack up around the world? Here in the US in 2018 thru Feb 21st 12 have died by gunfire.
46 total died by gunfire in 2017, vs the police killing 987 the same year.
Proportionally the police came way out on the short end it seems, and it should be no surprise police here take a far more aggressive stance, they have much more to fear with our open gun laws.
Have to look at the big picture when comparing stats around the world, and considering America isn't all that far from a "Purge " movie scenario its surprising the figures aren't worse.
No doubt it's interconnected, but merely ignoring one egregious issue with our society does not mean we might as well ignore the other. That's the kind of thinking that ignored everything.
Gun control in the U.S. is a joke, and it shows. Police use of force in the U.S. is exaggerated because of it. Both are issues. And no amount of lax gun control laws warrants an officer firing upon a suspect after the suspect complied with orders and was face down, arms out.
Agreed and my bet is very few police shootings occur in that specfic manner.
They do not. However, that situation was so clearly under control by the officers prior to firing that it should never have happened. It wouldn't have happened had it been our military troops in a warzone. It's against rules of engagement to murder a surrendering combatant who complies with the soldier's orders and lays face down, hands spread. They're a prisoner of war at that point. That's exactly how they taught us to take control of a suspected combatant or a surrendering one (assuming they're complying with our orders). Telling them to "crawl towards me" was NEVER, EVER part of that process.
So this idea that we're such a violent society that it should warrant unnecessarily violent responses from law enforcement holds little water in my mind.
You might find this hard to believe, but I've met soldiers from 2 different wars who didn't always take prisoners if it wasn't convenient to do so.
Perhaps worse, I know a private contractor who is overseas now who says his firm often doesn't either.
War doesn't always follow the rulebook.
You are correct random internet person. It is hard to believe. But hey, I know Batman, so maybe you too have some connections.
As a combat vet who spent 5 and a half years total between Iraq and Afghanistan. I'd say he isnt wrong. War is never black and white. I've seen emotion take control and the protocols of the Geneva Convention ignored by soldiers who lost friends and contractors who played by very different rules of engagement. This isn't usually the case, but it does happen.
Ok, look, as much as I want to blame the parents as the next guy. In this situation, there was nothing the kid could do, nor is there anything that the parents could really do. Sure we can say, they could've prevented him from streaming, they could've done this and that. But those types of comments can be applicable in every swatting incident. As someone previously stated I dont know why the blame is being shifted on the parents. He's not the one who broke any laws.
I would even say that the target of focus was some vulnerable kid. Hell his parents could even own a home business and that information could've been anywhere. Doxxing is widely used on the internet for a reason. Obviously people will be *holes just to prove that they're superior in some sort of objectifying reason.
With the recent news of someone dying, you're right the parents will be held accountable if something should happen to the child, but he did everything legally apparently and had permission from his parents to play the game and stream. I dont know why you think that the Parents or Child should be held accountable when they're just following the guidelines.
The game is 13+, he is 12 years old, the parents know what game he is playing, that's not "following the guidelines".
and if he was 13 or 14 it would have had no barring on what happened. the swatting is outside the control of the parents and the child. swatting a 13 year old is just as bad as swatting a 12 year old....I'm not really seeing your point here. the content of the game is rated 13+.... a real life swat unit breaking down your door isn't game content.
the rating is basically irrelevant in this case because it had nothing to do with the actual game. could have just as easily happened to a streamer playing an E for everyone game or someone of the "recommended" 13+
If he had not played until he was 13, he would more likely be aware not to give out real life details. A year in the life of a child makes a huge difference, 12 to 13 is not like 22 to 23. The rating for the game includes the "content" that it is online and that it is not "My Little Pony Online". I should also point out that Twitch has a 13+ age limit, which I don't think is a guideline in their eyes. You don't have to stream to get swatted, allowing that was a separate decision, one that opened him to even more risk. We don't know if he gave out details in game or during streaming.
The mother disregarded the ratings, but I don't think she was a "bad parent", she made a mistake which any parent can do.
Ok, look, as much as I want to blame the parents as the next guy. In this situation, there was nothing the kid could do, nor is there anything that the parents could really do. Sure we can say, they could've prevented him from streaming, they could've done this and that. But those types of comments can be applicable in every swatting incident. As someone previously stated I dont know why the blame is being shifted on the parents. He's not the one who broke any laws.
I would even say that the target of focus was some vulnerable kid. Hell his parents could even own a home business and that information could've been anywhere. Doxxing is widely used on the internet for a reason. Obviously people will be *holes just to prove that they're superior in some sort of objectifying reason.
With the recent news of someone dying, you're right the parents will be held accountable if something should happen to the child, but he did everything legally apparently and had permission from his parents to play the game and stream. I dont know why you think that the Parents or Child should be held accountable when they're just following the guidelines.
The game is 13+, he is 12 years old, the parents know what game he is playing, that's not "following the guidelines".
and if he was 13 or 14 it would have had no barring on what happened. the swatting is outside the control of the parents and the child. swatting a 13 year old is just as bad as swatting a 12 year old....I'm not really seeing your point here. the content of the game is rated 13+.... a real life swat unit breaking down your door isn't game content.
the rating is basically irrelevant in this case because it had nothing to do with the actual game. could have just as easily happened to a streamer playing an E for everyone game or someone of the "recommended" 13+
If he had not played until he was 13, he would more likely be aware not to give out real life details. A year in the life of a child makes a huge difference, 12 to 13 is not like 22 to 23. The rating for the game includes the "content" that it is online and that it is not "My Little Pony Online". I should also point out that Twitch has a 13+ age limit, which I don't think is a guideline in their eyes. You don't have to stream to get swatted, allowing that was a separate decision, one that opened him to even more risk. We don't know if he gave out details in game or during streaming.
The mother disregarded the ratings, but I don't think she was a "bad parent", she made a mistake which any parent can do.
Your behavior is equal to blaming a rape victim for her bad decisions that caused the rape. The criminal is the one to blame, not the victim.
Ok, look, as much as I want to blame the parents as the next guy. In this situation, there was nothing the kid could do, nor is there anything that the parents could really do. Sure we can say, they could've prevented him from streaming, they could've done this and that. But those types of comments can be applicable in every swatting incident. As someone previously stated I dont know why the blame is being shifted on the parents. He's not the one who broke any laws.
I would even say that the target of focus was some vulnerable kid. Hell his parents could even own a home business and that information could've been anywhere. Doxxing is widely used on the internet for a reason. Obviously people will be *holes just to prove that they're superior in some sort of objectifying reason.
With the recent news of someone dying, you're right the parents will be held accountable if something should happen to the child, but he did everything legally apparently and had permission from his parents to play the game and stream. I dont know why you think that the Parents or Child should be held accountable when they're just following the guidelines.
The game is 13+, he is 12 years old, the parents know what game he is playing, that's not "following the guidelines".
and if he was 13 or 14 it would have had no barring on what happened. the swatting is outside the control of the parents and the child. swatting a 13 year old is just as bad as swatting a 12 year old....I'm not really seeing your point here. the content of the game is rated 13+.... a real life swat unit breaking down your door isn't game content.
the rating is basically irrelevant in this case because it had nothing to do with the actual game. could have just as easily happened to a streamer playing an E for everyone game or someone of the "recommended" 13+
If he had not played until he was 13, he would more likely be aware not to give out real life details. A year in the life of a child makes a huge difference, 12 to 13 is not like 22 to 23. The rating for the game includes the "content" that it is online and that it is not "My Little Pony Online". I should also point out that Twitch has a 13+ age limit, which I don't think is a guideline in their eyes. You don't have to stream to get swatted, allowing that was a separate decision, one that opened him to even more risk. We don't know if he gave out details in game or during streaming.
The mother disregarded the ratings, but I don't think she was a "bad parent", she made a mistake which any parent can do.
Your behavior is equal to blaming a rape victim for her bad decisions that caused the rape. The criminal is the one to blame, not the victim.
You can conflate what I have said with unrelated topics and try to put a label on me all you want, but that does not make you right.
P.S I thought it might be useful to post You Tube's TOS:
"2.3 You may not use the Service and may not accept the Terms if (a) you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with YouTube"
Comments
To further illustrate the point: in 2015, 59 police killings were reported in the first 24 days of the year here in America. England and Wales, at that point, had only 59 reports of police killings in the last 24 years.
I would say we cannot, but nor can we base them on your upbringing. As a society you have to determine what is best on the basis of shared responisbilty to each other. Below a certain age, that responisbilty is largely the parents.
It does not matter that the age rating is not enforceable by law, as it is up to parents to accept the responisbilty on the basis of what society has deemed correct. I should point out though that there are a number of laws about the neglect of children, and it is possible that some of these incidents may fall under their banner.
The game is 13+, he is 12 years old, the parents know what game he is playing, that's not "following the guidelines".
You keep going on like the 12 year old was out at the local seedy tavern for a night of drinking and run into problems....
I am all for everyone taking responsibility for their action or lack thereof BUT please lets use some dang common sense....
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
So I would hope parents would use some dang common sense, see the age rating and say "Not till next year sorry." Now one year is no guarantee of anything, but if you don't follow that what are you following? Your infallible ability to know what your child is OK to do?
If he were playing a game that he was much too young for, then I might say you're right. But children don't have miraculous ability boosts on their birthdays and if he were 13 years old most likely he would have behaved exactly the same. Him being a bit too young was most likely irrelevant.
Also age recommendations are recommendations for a good reason. Children are individuals, and their guardians are supposed to use common sense and be a bit flexible about what their children is allowed to do and what he's not. Parents who are a couple of years flexible on age recommendations based on their own feelings are not ignoring guidelines, they are parenting.
46 total died by gunfire in 2017, vs the police killing 987 the same year.
Proportionally the police came way out on the short end it seems, and it should be no surprise police here take a far more aggressive stance, they have much more to fear with our open gun laws.
Have to look at the big picture when comparing stats around the world, and considering America isn't all that far from a "Purge " movie scenario its surprising the figures aren't worse.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Gun control in the U.S. is a joke, and it shows. Police use of force in the U.S. is exaggerated because of it. Both are issues. And no amount of lax gun control laws warrants an officer firing upon a suspect after the suspect complied with orders and was face down, arms out.
No, they're not "victim blaming". The crime is a crime, that's a separate issue. The added notation is that the 12yr old child should not be STREAMING, LIVE, their self on the internet. Forget the video game and let's say the mother did approve of the child playing it (parental permission). Why is the kid streaming their underage face all over the internet while playing the game? Why are they doing that? They're not even allowed parental permission for under the age of 13yrs old, according to YouTube's Terms of Service.
12. Ability to Accept Terms of Service
You affirm that you are either more than 18 years of age, or an emancipated minor, or possess legal parental or guardian consent, and are fully able and competent to enter into the terms, conditions, obligations, affirmations, representations, and warranties set forth in these Terms of Service, and to abide by and comply with these Terms of Service. In any case, you affirm that you are over the age of 13, as the Service is not intended for children under 13. If you are under 13 years of age, then please do not use the Service. There are lots of other great web sites for you. Talk to your parents about what sites are appropriate for you.
So technically they should not be YouTube streaming at all and the channel should be taken down according to the Terms of Service.
The parent didn't read the Terms of Service when giving a generic "yes, you can" response, OR they fail to observe and maintain guidance over their child's activities. Either way there is a failure on part of the parents when it comes to this individual activity that the kid was doing. That is the problem with today's society is that parents are not taking accountability for the raising of their offspring as they should.
Edit: Also the the kid's Instangram account should be closed (they have similar TOS requiring a person to be a minimum of 13yr old to use the service) too.
I agree with the flexible approach that you then mention but we go back to what I said before, parents are not infallible, the common sense thing is to assume a child won't be ready before the norm.
I think it is worth pointing out the parents were wrong here, you can think your son can do this or that unsupervised, this shows what can happen. I would say anything to do with the internet is probably where parents are weakest in their knowledge, simply because it is moving so quickly.
In the end I agree with you it is for the parents to decide, but when they get it wrong that should be a wake up call, not just swept under the carpet.
My problem is that you seem overly focused on the parents...I mean you are super focused on the fact he is 12... well so what? I tell you now this would have probably happened even if he was 13 since it appears the parents were not really up to date on the dangers of kids being online.
I think the point most of us are making is... sure the parent should know to watch what their kids are doing online, but lets be real not everyone knows wtf swatting is etc and sticking on the fact he is 12 would probably not have stopped this, so how about we focus on the one that's truly at cause here and that's the swatter.
As a parent I can tell you the age rating is not my main concern with video games but rather if it's online or not and what the community is like and the "Ratings" doesn't tell you fuck all about that and that is the main problem that occurred here.
Parents should know better than to rely on "society" to raise their kids or have a dang clue.
Again you act like they let him go out clubbing or to a rave.... playing "video games" regardless of rating generally does not get "kids" into situations they shouldn't have to handle.
In this case the parent just were not aware of the dangers of twitch or online gaming or that swatting was even possible most likely.
A couple of you are posting with a self righteous tone and acting all like social services should be called to check on this poor abused or neglected kid /s as if they don't have far bloody better cases to look at than some kid streaming on twitch or youtube or playing a 13+ game when they are 12..lol
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
You mention they may have not been aware of the dangers as it's the internet, I said "
After this you conflate the views of various posters into an amalgam that does not exist, apparently we have "a self righteous tone and acting all like social services should be called."
I can see how some might see my tone, but the idea we want social services called? I can't see where on earth you get that from.
The only thing for me to answer here that I can see is you think my reaction would be more appropriate to him being let out to a rave or such. I am not trying to rate them on a scale for bad parenting or something, so they were not a "bit wrong" just wrong. If they had let him go to a rave I would have had a similar tone as I don't see a need for drama.
Clearly we disagree, as neither of us is going to call social services, I think we can leave it there.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
So this idea that we're such a violent society that it should warrant unnecessarily violent responses from law enforcement holds little water in my mind.
and if he was 13 or 14 it would have had no barring on what happened. the swatting is outside the control of the parents and the child. swatting a 13 year old is just as bad as swatting a 12 year old....I'm not really seeing your point here. the content of the game is rated 13+.... a real life swat unit breaking down your door isn't game content.
the rating is basically irrelevant in this case because it had nothing to do with the actual game. could have just as easily happened to a streamer playing an E for everyone game or someone of the "recommended" 13+
Perhaps worse, I know a private contractor who is overseas now who says his firm often doesn't either.
War doesn't always follow the rulebook.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
But hey, I know Batman, so maybe you too have some connections.
If he had not played until he was 13, he would more likely be aware not to give out real life details. A year in the life of a child makes a huge difference, 12 to 13 is not like 22 to 23. The rating for the game includes the "content" that it is online and that it is not "My Little Pony Online". I should also point out that Twitch has a 13+ age limit, which I don't think is a guideline in their eyes. You don't have to stream to get swatted, allowing that was a separate decision, one that opened him to even more risk. We don't know if he gave out details in game or during streaming.
The mother disregarded the ratings, but I don't think she was a "bad parent", she made a mistake which any parent can do.
You can conflate what I have said with unrelated topics and try to put a label on me all you want, but that does not make you right.
P.S I thought it might be useful to post You Tube's TOS:
"2.3 You may not use the Service and may not accept the Terms if (a) you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with YouTube"