Talk about going viral . . . This video show a Littleton, Colorado SWAT team swooping down on The Creatures streaming collective founder Jordan “Kootra” Mathewson. It’s added 1m views since yesterday. According to kotaku.com, someone called the cops and Mr. Mathewson after “an anonymous tip from someone claiming to have killed several of their co-workers and planted bombs inside the building where Mathewson resided.” Nope. Didn’t happen. But you can’t be too careful, can you? Or too aggressive, verbally speaking. F-bomb aside, this video will do nothing for defenders of police militarization and much for those who argue that po-po needs to ditch the MRAPaphilia and take a chill pill. Then again, what if it had been true?

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

126 COMMENTS

  1. Protect me not from life, liberty and that oh so evasive pursuit of happiness. Oppressed safety or freedom? Well I don’t wear a helmet on the toilet if that says anything.

  2. If it had been true the dead would still be dead and some if not all of the hostages would have been dead. By the looks of how they entered they already knew nothing was up but still had to cuff the guy at gunpoint and search his belongings while they hunted for any excuse to justify their dressing up and playing soldier.

    Extra points for the warrantless phone search.

    • Followed by extra points for moving the camera once they realized it was recording. If there was a crime, wouldn’t they want a video record?

      • How’s that go? “If you don’t have anything to hide, why do you object to our searching your vehicle/home?”

        If the Littleton police have nothing to hide during their SWAT raid, why did they disable the camera recording their actions?

        • I simply would not have told them they were being recorded. I promise you that if you had demanded they leave it on, they would probably have broken the camera before tasing you for resisting arrest.

      • I thought it was Mathewson who volunteered the information about the live streaming. My speakers are whack, even at full volume. Regardless, shouldn’t he have STFU?

        But here’s another thought. Didn’t the Department of Homeland Security produce a memo or critical finding paper about how returning American soldiers should be considered as potential terrorists? If that’s the case, when was the last time a group of heavily armed U.S. soldiers broke into your house or business, barking out orders for you to freeze, and get on the ground, and then be physically handcuffed like you were a dangerous criminal? Yah, me neither.

        Isn’t this the sort of behavior England was wreaking on their own subjects, and soon to be, our American Constitutional forefathers? How long will it be before the cops start black-bagging the heads of the detained?

    • Well, I disagree; This is one of the few times swat is needed. If had been a real mass shooting, the biggest complaint is that cops wait too long to engage the shooter. Personally, except for moving the camera and the warrantless phone search, no dogs were shot, the gamer wasn’t shot or brutalized once he surrendered and we got to see a Swat in progress. Better than I expected. Yeah, I do have low expectations for the actions of swat in these situations.

      But the problem being, swat is used for way to many times for non-hostage, non-mass shooting events.

      • I’m gonna split the difference. SWAT should have rolled, yes, but no dynamic entry without confirmation. There really is no excuse for this kind of terrifying assault where absolutely nothing illegal was happening. Try knocking on the door, asking to be admitted. If no further calls have been received about massive gunfire, murder and mayhem, slow down and resist making a fool of yourself.

        • +1 This is not the first time someone has been swatted. It’s waaaay past time to have developed, trained and put in place procedures to mitigate the potential deadly results of swatting. Your suggestions are a good start.

    • Webcam flip over is going a little far. They are in his residence, he is not in theirs. Their refusal to be videoed within his home is ridiculous. You know there is something wrong when they, being public servants – performing in their profession, refuse to be videoed.

      • It is more than them just flipping the camera. They made him tell them how to cut the feed entirely. You can hear him telling them how to exit the feed at the end.

    • Exactly. I would have said I don’t consent to a search of my phone or any other personal property. I would not have mentioned the streaming video either. That d**khead baldy asking why they were there…, I would have answered I don’t have a clue, and probably at some point thereafter invoked my right to silence and asked for an attorney. It seems clear to me that baldy is looking for the kid to self incriminate something, anything.

  3. I would be very, very careful about what we say on police militarization. In fact, I think that’s the wrong phrase for it. I think Obama’s push to look at police militarization will turn into military-style rifles will turn into backdoor gun control. “Why do the police need these rifles? Because the citizens have them, of course.” I suggest “Warrior Cop Disease.”

    • I don’t think many of the AI consider select fire weapons to be the essence of “police militarization,” especially when most of us think anyone should be able to own and carry select fire weapons.

      What’s objectionable are MRAPs, tracked vehicles and the use of SWAT for what was once routine police work.

  4. Wayyyyyyy too aggressive. An anonymous phone call should never be taken as fact. Possibly investigated, by sending an officer or two to ask questions, but not waving muzzles all over the place and shouting at people.

  5. Well, technically he was killing people and planting bombs. That is the whole point of the game he was playing. It almost seems like some nosy neighbor heard him playing, got really, really confused, and called the cops. Or some bored sh!twit did it for the lulz. And if it had been true? This is why the military does this thing called “reconnaissance”. It’s where you try to figure out what’s going on with a situation without giving away that that is what you are doing, because the last thing you want to do is burst in on a mad bomber and his hostages while he has a detonator in hand. But yeah, no, go kick in the door to some place you suspect is wired with explosives. I’m sure it will work out well for you and all involved.

    • I could be wrong, but I believe this is what kids do to prank each other when they’re losing. I’m pretty sure that is a crime and I’m even more sure no one will get charged for it.

      • They have to know what phone # it came from, right? Unless the number was blocked, which should be a clue.

        • according to the article I was reading on this yesterday, the 911 call came from an out of town landline number….

          if that’s not a red flag that it might be a hoax, I dunno what would be.

    • Heard the game? He has headphones on. This was deliberately done TO him by a rival or prankster.

      • Maybe not the game itself, but he could have been overheard talking in the headset, relaying info to teammates.
        Things like,” I just killed 3 CTs, WHOO”, or, “planting the bomb at site A, cover me,” Which could easily be overheard and misunderstood. Again, I’m just trying to give the benefit of the doubt here, showing that there is an innocuous explanation for the SWATting. Not that I would believe anybody under the age of 60 who tells me such an excuse.

    • I think it more likely it was a something more like the teen from Canada in the article below that was doing the swatting,

      “Most of the people involved in swatting and making bomb threats are young males under the age of 18 — the age when kids seem to have little appreciation for or care about the seriousness of their actions. According to the FBI, each swatting incident costs emergency responders approximately $10,000. Each hoax also unnecessarily endangers the lives of the responders and the public.” From this link: http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/05/teen-arrested-for-30-swattings-bomb-threats/

    • “911, what is your emergency?”

      “Ma’am, someone has made online statements that he has joined the terrorists, purchased an Accuracy International sniper rifle, and is carrying the bomb!”

      “…”

      “He’s also threatened to pwn bitch ass counter-terrorist noobs right in the face if they attempt to stop him.”

  6. If he had been disabled or taking some sort of drugs for an illness, those loud mouthed assholes would have shot him.

    Don’t ask how I know.

    The cops need to THINK. Are they that stupid that they abuse people because they can be overweight Rambos?

    Fear the police for they WILL kill you.

  8. What happens when someone tries to SWAT Bloomberg? Does his private security force repel invaders? I can’t imagine local yokel cops being allowed to shove him on the ground and handcuff him. Sooner or later this SWATTING thing is going to start getting a bunch of cops killed. Orwellian bullshit, if you ask me – look at us, we’re super cops.

  9. It seems to me that there is a technology solution to this problem. SWATing somebody generally means you are not in the same place, which means you called from either a cell phone or landline at an alternate location. In either case, the 911 operator should have the capability of locating where the phone call is coming from, and if it does not line up with the information being provided, should at least alert responding officers to the possibility that it is a false report.

    • CID spoofing software. There was an incident in NH earlier this year where somebody spoofed the CID of a politicians office and made ranting threats to another party. All tracing came back to that politicians office which was closed and locked at the time without a soul in it.

      The software is freely available. Pair it with Tor and you can send a hit squad after anyone you want with virtually no chance of ever being caught.

      CID, VOIP, Tor.

      • Lovely. Then perhaps a procedural fix? For anonymous calls you can send a team, but they don’t enter until they’ve had a chance to investigate further? It seems like entering a building without knowing anything about the situation is a bad idea anyway. What about a callback procedure? Find phone numbers associated with an address and try to call them to verify information. I have to believe that while a unit is responding a 911 operator would have time to do this.

        • Callback might not be a bad idea. I know 911 does that for hangups. But when you have all that stupid SWAT energy involved you get fanciful nonsense like the person answering must be under duress or coercion.

          Trouble is once in costume they’re like boulders rolling down a hill. Not much is going to stop them from causing harm and looking like idiots.

          Just last week a nice group made fools of themselves by stopping a wrong car, pulling everyone (kids included) out by gunpoint all while a dispatcher kept repeating “you have the wrong car! Suspects are escaping!”

        • How does that work with cell phones? My cell phone does not match up with where I live because the phone belongs to my employer.

          I do not disagree, if it is a anonymous call, maybe should go check it out first. Read the details of this particular case, it was in a building. If someone was shooting or there were bombs going off, there would, I don’t know, people would be outside, smoke would be billowing, someone else in a near by office would have heard something. Sometimes all it takes is a little common sense.

          What we have instead is vague reasons to respond with violence — because — just in case. IMHO, because there is no accountability and no liability to do what they do, they choose force — because — who is going to question them?

        • It’s ridiculously simple to locate a cell phone by looking up which cell tower the phone’s EIN is using.

      • So this is not quite the full story. When dealing with telephony caller ID there are a couple of different parameters. There’s the BTN (billing telephone number), which is tied to the account/location and cannot be set, and there is the ANI (Automatic Number Identification) that can be set for callerID on phone lines and trunks. Setting the CallerID on VoIP usually sets the ANI, but should NOT be able to alter the BTN.

        Last I heard 911 centers are supposed to be able to see the BTN, so this means either they are ignoring it, or the VoIP companies that allow callerID to be set are also altering the BTN for some reason.

        • ANI and Caller ID are different systems.

          ANI gives you the BTN.

          Caller ID is the CPN.

          CPN is easily spoofed. ANI is not easily spoofed.

          So basically if you make an outbound call with VOIP, the ANI is going to display whatever the bridge # is, whereas the CPN is going to be your VOIP number. The CPN is what is easily spoofed.

          Where it gets sloppy, is many systems are not designed to be very secure – they will use the CPN and if they cannot get it (*67, or signal was not transmitted), only then will they fall back to ANI.

          Since ANI is typically billed per-call and is very expensive to setup this makes sense for most businesses that probably don’t really care; but for something like a 911 call center it means that if the system pulls/displays the CPN (easily spoofed), then swatting is pretty trivial.

          I’m no expert on how 911 centers are designed, but I wouldn’t be surprised if many were done by lowest bidder and these considerations of security/spoofing were not factored into their requirements.

    • Hey Kyle! Good start, but how ’bout the cops respond to the location of the reporting phone, assuming the report is correct, but the guy must be so excited he reported his location wrong? Like, the 14-year-old explaining the SWAT team busting down Mom and Dad’s front door and covering them with a machine gun cuz funny?

  10. Thank heavens the SWAT guys got to go home safely at the end of their shift. Also a good thing young Jordan didn’t have any pets in the office with him that day. /sarc

    • Yeah, I was a little worried when I saw them burst into that office without their armored vehicle.

    • Actually, it probably IS a good thing he didn’t have any pets in the room with him. First sign of movement would have been taken as aggression and a distraction and the pet ‘neutralized’ with the current no tolerance mindset.

  11. I think the most damning part of this tape is the fact that the moment they found out they were being recorded they dropped everything and immediately cut the feed.

    I am not one to say this often, but there needs to be a law.

    Part 1 of the law states that every officer (and specifically every officer involved in an armed raid) must have a working body camera. The footage must be available to the public within 60 days after the arrest/event.

    Part 2 will make it a felony for any person (not just officer) to tamper with/disable/destroy ANY video feed of a crime/raid scene. Public posting of an unaltered video feed will be explicitly exempt from prosecution.

    • Gee, a “common sense gun safety law” that might even have some public benefit. And NO LE carveout. Betcha MDA ignores that.

  12. The issue here is SWATing, not police SWATification. How are the Police to know if it is real or not until they get there? SWATTers generally call in situations that are a legitimate use of SWAT capabilities. There should severe penalties for those who do it if and when you catch them and if someone dies in the process they should be charged with first degree murder.

  13. The response is appropriate the alleged threat at the location. A bomb threat and active shooter warrants a SWAT team.

    Inappropriate, however, is the level of aggression towards someone who is non-threatening. For all the officers know, they’re screaming at the victim of a horrible crime, increasing the traumatic stress the individual must suffer. Four officers shouting commands is intimidating, but the situation did not necessitate intimidation to reach the goal of compliance. Why be so intimidating when one person could have spoken with the suspect/victim/target in the video to reach the same end, compliance with commands?

    • One of things they teach you in Dod and IC force protection training is that you are going to be roughly handled by the hostage rescue team. How do they know if your “traumatized victim” is not a hostage taker feigning victim status? You should expect to be treated with suspicion until they sort things out.

      • Be that as it may, standing on a complying guy’s back and copping an attitude with him, as well as shutting off the camera, were things that were way out of line.

      • There is a huge gap between doctrine that is considered standard and acceptable in the LEO community and what is considered acceptable by the public at large. When something like this happens, it is the latter that matters. As such, it hardly matters what they teach you at “Dod and IC” when most people watching this video would believe that level of aggression was unwarranted.

        You can play “what ifs” all day long. I’m not sure if the prank caller called in an active shooter or a bomb threat, but what if he was actually a bomber with a dead man switch? Then dropping him to the ground would’ve blown everyone up, et cetera.

    • Geee, if there was an active shooter, ya think there might be a few real guns, spent cartridges, dead bodies, blood, gore, viscera, etc. I think the cops really knew that they were on the bunny trail.

  15. I don’t care if it had been true or not. Individual freedom is more important than socialist safety, and I would rather have dangerous freedom than safe slavery.

    Also if it had been true, I would prefer being blown up in a bomb that some criminal planted and leaving individual freedom to my children than being swatted and searched for bombs and having to continuously submit to having my freedoms thrown in the trash can. Individual freedom for the people is more important than my safety or my life.

    • You clearly do not understand what SWATing is. It is an attempt to get the police to murder someone. The SWATer is the criminal in this case and not the police.

      And in your world of the “citizen’s militia” death by SWATing is going to be far more likely

      • I agree. The anonymous caller is certainly at fault. However, it is clear you have already absolved the SWAT team of any accountability. The swat team are people. They are not machines. They are not robots following a predetermined program. They are public servants of the state with minds of their own. They should take into consideration that an anonymous call could be fake (or not fake). I however, do not see the same. Why should they possibly murder or infringe on the rights of those by means of a mere accusation? It is the SWATer’s fault for the call. It is the SWAT team’s fault for executing the will of SWATer. In my statement above, I indicate I would prefer being blown up for the sake of freedom. The SWAT team doesn’t not see it that way – they would prefer being safe and going home to their families – as long as everyone submits to their will and does what they say – everything will be peachy. That is exactly why a possible murder is possible. They don’t want to knock on the door. They want to bust in with guns in the residence’s face and shouting and f-bombs followed by unwarranted search of his phone and disabling the video surveillance. If you don’t see a problem with that – I can’t help you and don’t prefer any more debate.

        • I think you fail to understand that SWAT officers executing a seemingly legitimate SWAT mission are using verbal tactics designed to intimidate and enforce their will. Until they find out that it is a false alarm they have to assume that the threat is real. This event is not equivalent to SWAT breaking down someone’s door to serve a warrant to some non violent offender. It isn’t always about liberty vs slavery.

        • They ought to knock off the “verbal intimidation” tactics and change their demeanor once they have determined he was unarmed.

          He was already 100% compliant, so there was no need to be intimidating or rude. What purpose did that treatment serve?

        • tdiinva: What the responding officers did would not be out of line if the situation had been real. The issue is that the situation was *obviously not real* shortly after they entered the premises.

          That swat team walked into a normal work environment with people calmly working way at their desks/cubicles – at least until swat arrived. No blood. No bodies. No people traumatized or hiding. No smell of shot ammunition. Nada. And a few quick questions: is any one hurt? Have you heard any shots fired? By the time they got to the Creatures guy streaming they’d been swatted as much as the Creatures, and were just going through the motions – because that’s the procedure.

          If swatting was technically impossible to do without getting caught, officers could always respond as if the situation were always real knowing the perpetrators would be caught and punished. But now, law enforcement should know swatting is a real possibility in many swat calls and should have the procedures to better deal with it.

          As long as swatters can inflict the full force of a SWAT call on their victim – even when everything the swat team sees and hears tells them the call was bogus – there will remain an incentive to swat people.

        • @tdiinva:

          We understand the tactic very well. That is not the issue. The issue is that the general public is coming to the conclusion that the tactic is unacceptable. And that position of unacceptability is coming from the Left, Center and Right. From Cliven Bundy to the Ferguson unrest, people on all sides are beginning to push back.

          Whether it’s because too many innocent get hurt in these type of raids, a public revolt at the ballot box or the public returns violence for violence, law enforcement is going to lose on this. Law enforcement is losing the public trust and it is their responsibility to earn it back.

        • You forgot about the necessity of the SWAT team to shoot the Border Collie. I agree, the SWAT teams are out of control and are dangerous.

      • It is an attempt to get the police to murder someone. That is because the SWATer knows the SWAT team is out of control and cannot use intelligence and discretion.

  16. Can’t believe this is all the comments for this. The cop seems to think he killed it all with the camera; guess he didn’t realize there was audio also. Hard to hear.

  17. “…Then again, what if it had been true?”

    No. Absolutely wrong question to ask. Never ask that question again. Ever!

    Limiting someone’s freedom before, just in case, is never to be tolerated.

    Pre-Crime is not a thing.

    If it had been true, then we would have media covering the damage and Police investigating those responsible so they could (hopefully) be brought to justice.

    • When a police officer arrests someone holding a smoking gun over a dead body he has limited that person’s freedom without them being put through the due process of a trial just in case they’re guilty.

      When police get called by neighbors worried about someone not coming out and getting their mail and they see someone laying on the ground they may break in through a window “just in case” that person needs help.

      You’re not prepared to live in the world you preach.

      • “…When a police officer arrests someone holding a smoking gun ”

        They have probable cause.

        “.. and they see someone laying on the ground they may break in through a window “just in case””

        Because, again, they have probable cause.

        Sending out the heavy gear because of an anonymous tip does not make probable cause.

        Thank you for your concern but I am fully prepared to live in the world I preach.

      • In neither case do you end up with a dozen armored men with machine guns screaming at you. Apples and oranges. We can talk about your assumptions elsewhere, they are not applicable talking about SWAT raids.

  18. This happened to a different gamer so the police have his number on speed dial to make sure everything is okay.

  19. The moment they cut the video feed they’re admitting to doing something wrong, IMO. I’ve yet to meet a po-po doing something right that doesn’t want to get videotaped. Conversely, all po-po’s that are JBT’ing citizens are always “allergic” to any kind of recording device.

    • BS. Nobody wants to be videotaped except perhaps celebrities and 13 year old girls. But some police accept it as legal.

      • If I were in a line of work where my actions have legal repercussions and are regularly scrutinized and/or called into question, I would not only tolerate videotaping, I would DEMAND it.

        Unless, of course, I was regularly violating policy and breaking the law. Then I would do everything in my power to avoid it.

      • But some police accept it as legal.

        Unfortunately for the rest of the Police, it’s no longer their choice to make.

        • Says you. Until a cop goes to prison, or is at least fired, for confiscating/destroying a recording device, they have the power, they have the control, they have the guns, and they WILL do what they choose, whether they “have a choice” or not.

    • If this had panned out to be a real incident cutting the feed from a camera set up by the perps is reasonable. You don’t want the potential remaining hostiles having a live feed of your disposition. The over arching problem here is the repeated signs that this was a non incident being ignored. Besides the abuse suffered by innocent citizens it is insanely tactically flawed to proceed as they did when the mounting evidence indicated they were not properly informed. If I were a moderately clever terrorist minded individual witnessing such blind actions by the police would open a whole book of potential scenarios to attempt.

  22. As much as I hate to use the word, in a ‘tactical’ operation you may not want the bad guys using video to see where you are and what you’re doing. That may have been the reason for the video going bye.

    Or maybe someone was having a bad hair day.

  23. Turning the camera off &;the comments about “what do you think is funny about this” were way over the line. They had a crime *victim* handcuffed & copped an attitude. It wasn’t his fault or choice to be “swatted”, and laughing at the ridiculous posturing & costumes of the cops is a *natural* reaction of a law abiding citizen.

    • I can see why they were frustrated. They’d been swatted just like the guy they cuffed. And they were also probably frustrated that they had to follow procedure even though they figured out shortly after they arrived the call was bogus.

      They could have been a little more empathetic with their co-victim, the guy their procedures required that they victimize.

      • There is no incentive for them to empathize. There’s little to no accountability for their words and actions. Notice how important it was for them to get that live stream terminated. They knew there was no real danger. Officer Cool’s shades were neatly planted on his head in true Hollywood style. Tyrannical theater billed as protect and serve.

  24. Found it quite ironic that when the cops ask “what’s funny” the video game lady says “terrorists win” … Yeah, they really have, and its not funny. We’re running straight to a police state and that’s what the terrorists want: loss of freedoms for the West.

  25. This may be a dumb question, as I’m not real familiar with the ins and outs of phones. But my phone locks after 30 seconds, how were they able to access his phone beyond the lock screen? I know that a tech guy would be able to get into it, if it was logged as evidence, and a Search Warrant obtained. But Officer “If I point the camera at the desk it cuts the audio” doesn’t seem like he is the Dept. Tech Guy. Is there a backdoor built into phones for the police to be able to search them without consent?

    • “… But my phone locks after 30 seconds, how were they able to access his phone beyond the lock screen?”

      Not everyone uses a pin number to unlock their phone. Some just use a swipe in a certain direction, and some even use face recognition to unlock.

      I tried that face thing once, it recognized anybody with a mustache as me and everyone without a mustache as my wife. I don’t use it anymore.

  26. Another day, another excess. The police are digging their own graves, metaphorically speaking. At least for now. Sooner or later, those graves will be physical and not just metaphorical. It seems like the fools actually want people to distrust, fear and eventually hate them. Can they really be so detached from reality that they don’t see that the tide is turning?

    http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Man-who-shot-at-cops-acquitted-5608077.php

    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/02/08/texas-man-who-killed-police-officer-during-no-knock-raid-will-not-face-murder-charge-grand-jury-refuses-to-indict/

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118×175809

    http://thefreethoughtproject.com/man-charged-shooting-cops-wrong-house-inspection-exonerated-jury/

    It was excessive police behavior that brought about Ruby Ridge and Waco. That kind of behavior is escalating and I expect more Ruby Ridges and Wacos, soon. And then there will be more dead cops, and more dead children.

    • Sadly, I agree. I dont believe all cops are bad people. I believe most are altruistic, decent hard working folk who want to serve and make a difference. But there is a culture, that ideally should help you cope, to the inevitable burnout when you get inured and hardened by dealing with the lowest level of humanity most of the day. I’m sure that is well known and managed better in some departments than others.

      But sometimes that culture, becomes the problem- the code of silence. And I sense unions make it worse, just as collectivism taken too far becomes a problem, as we have seen in SEIU, and so on. So I hope the honest (?) union shop steward reading here, will chime in, without the party line and explain how that is not true, if I am wrong.

      I dont have the answer, but I sense the tide is turning also, and not in a good way- a long time newsreader, I have been watching and using social media for situational awareness, and as a side interest- information in emergency use.

      I see that as the internet and social media enables more information, faster, wider, by engaging and enabling the indivual, that is very powerful,

      but at the same time, anything involving high emotion combined with fast and anonymous information leads to digital mob rule- so we all need to consider, how to also enable thoughtful digestion of info, and truth tellilng, without PC filters, like at Ferguson, top down, or more people are going to jump to conclusions, and act on their bias’ and suspicions.

      No matter which tribe they belong to – Crips, Bloods, LAPD Blues. Its human nature, and I am not sure we humans are keeping up with how fast social media is twisting our nature…

      Bottomline- I would prefer the SWAT team doing a drug bust take the time to make a phone call. I dont care if some of it gets flushed down the toilet, or someone doesnt get a perfect bust. Thats far less expensive than an innocent home owner shot for an address mistake, or a little baby burned in a crib.

      And body cams and dash cams. The tech is there- if you are the good guys, why not show it for everyone?
      And I think all Americans get that, poor to rich, black white and other.
      Not pushing any narrative- just my two cents, and YMMV.

  27. I’m kind of amazed they pointed their rifles at him. It was obvious he was unarmed. Having their weapons at the ready I get but they pointed loaded guns at him. Or as it’s often called if done by you or me, ASSAULT. Imagine you heard something in your driveway and come out gun at the ready…and it’s a few police there for whatever reason…even if they are not on your property and you don’t even HAVE to be pointing it at them…but have a gun drawn in their presence…and you’re probably dead.

    I can’t legally point a gun at someone on my property who is trespassing until I have confirmation they are a threat(with weapon). Otherwise, despite them trespassing, I’m assaulting them or criminal threatening…or both. A guy in NH went to prison because he had a firearm drawn, not pointed at, near a trespasser whom he had told to leave his posted property. Yet the cops come in, point them at you. I’m just waiting for some rookie cop to be a bit jumpy or have a mechanical malfunction and discharge his weapon accidentally…but then again…accidental shootings are never accidents…they’re manslaughter…unless you’re a cop. I accidentally discharge a weapon and someone gets hurt, I got to jail…for lack of muzzle control. No so unless you’re a cop.

    Why do we allow cops to be above the law in so many ways?

    • They do it all the time. There’s on in NH right now where the po-po let one fly into a woman and they’re being really tight lipped about the circumstances.

      Searching police+accidental+discharge gets all sorts of fun results. Thankfully in most cases they only hurt themselves or other cops but occasionally one finds its way into you or me.

  28. I wonder if it would not be best to just do away with swat and the like and go back to an acceptable level loss in police forces increase the life insurance provided and the wages to make taking the job worth the risk a lot of the problem seem to me to be related to the whole what ever it takes to make sure every one goes home to their family at the end of the shift mind set… Life itself Is dangerous and perhaps we all need to go back to accepting that fact.

    • I know we need to do away with tactics and teams like this. Freedom cannot coexist with these actions by government. Freedom involves risk; plain and simple.

    • I’ve never heard anyone call an 870 a piece of crap before. I do believe him that Remington had him fix it though. Has anyone ever been shot during a Swatting? Seems likely.

  30. So what happens if the cops ask, “Are there any guns in here?” and you refuse to answer that question? I mean I know 5th amendment and all, but that sure would be intimidating (if you have guns I mean). From what I can see though, he offered to show the cops how to stop the streaming, they didn’t force him, unless there is something I missed.

  31. I think this has been alluded to already, but just to repeat- for any young guys reading –

    I’m an OFWG who has played enough COD and Battlefield to hear the choomers and wannabe gangbangers type talk in background. Some of it is just talk, but some of it is borderline- and you need to know …

    Guys, this is REALLY STUPID…not funny, and sooner or later someone is going to get killed, for a joke.
    A lady had a heart attack in Walmart when the cops came in after the guy with the air-rifle. What if the SWATTIEs checking local schools got spun up, and some kid got hurt, as a result of a Swatting gone bad?

    Dont take it from me – read what your buddies say:

    http://kotaku.com/internet-prank-goes-too-far-sends-schools-into-lockdow-1627719530

    • Guys, this is REALLY STUPID…not funny, and sooner or later someone is going to get killed

      This applies to cops also. Innocent people have already been murdered. There is no place in our free nation for this activity by civilian agents of government.

  33. Typical police. They don’t want any witnesses. And oh hell no to recordings of what they do.

  34. One more thought- and I really hate to think this way, but given how extensive this “joke” is, apparently
    (follow the reddit thread on this, from the link at youtube vid for more) and well known, with how to’s getting away with it, also well known in the gamer and tech community, then it seems realistic to think that the activity of SWATing, and the gamer community, could be gamed itself,

    by someone seeking to determine procedure, readiness, tactics, and vulnerabilities,
    a trial run, for example, for someone planning to do something that would require a large scale PD and SWAT response- terrorists, for example-

    Anyone remember the transformer yard shot up in San Jose awhile back? The contractors and SEALS brought in to evaluate the evidence characterized it as a targeting package for a multi-sniper trial run.

    Which makes fast lessons-learned, catch the bad guy, and how to use that as counter-intel for the Littleton SWAT folks even more important, or they and fusion centers elsehwere will be gamed in more ways than one…

    The downside of over-militarization is how much more training and practice is involved, including how to avoid being faked out, in more ways than one…maybe less $$$ on gear, and more on careful thinking, and smart consulting, would be wiser?

    Assymetrical threat, gents…think of your strengh as your weakness, how to’s…

  35. “But then what if it had been true?” Answer, It is called doing your homework, checking your sources and verifying your information, before saddeling up and and riding out with the lynch rope.

    • “Terrorists win”

      I wouldn’t have said win. I mean, they got to gear up but it was all for nothing…

    • Yes, they won. Citizens had their rights violated and lives turned inside out while the terrorists didn’t shed a drop of blood. Some terrorists even got paid.

  37. This is obviously trolls taking it too far. A lot of people mindlessly hate on people like Kootra. I wouldn’t take it too seriously, but you can never be careful. Hopefully they didn’t bust any of his recording hardware, or else his living just went down the drain.

  38. Although Police militarization is a con. This would be separate, the swat team that is meant to handle such threats as an office shooter and bomb planter should not be confused with those that retaliate to peaceful protests with military grade weapons. Personally I think it should go to show that they did not just plug holes into an old lady or anything. They got a tip from someone that shit was going down, not that some sweet old lady was sitting down to have some tea. If such a team was not available, how would we respond to the real disaster that, thankfully, wasn’t occurring in the video?

    • We would respond to disasters as people have done for thousands of years. We don’t need this kind of “help”. This stuff needs to stop in this country.

  39. I would be dead. I would have turned and trained my gun on them and they would have shot me DEAD.

    This absolutely disgusts me.

    • +1 It disgusts me too.

      I wish I could say that I’d have taken some with me. The reality is that I know I probably would’ve hesitated. I have empathy, even for jack booted government thugs. It’s surely a weakness in some of us that government counts on.

  40. This is unacceptable in the United States of America. I would rather see all SWAT tard teams disbanded other than have this happen again even once. So what if the call would’ve been genuine. Government actions like this cannot stand in a free society. /Rant on: Statists, YOU are one of the biggest threats to Liberty for supporting such potential for government abuse of power. I’m more concerned about statism than I am any Muslim terrorist group. If government didn’t routinely break into people’s houses, we would all know to shoot first. As it stands now, you never know if the thugs are agents of your own government. Relinquish your individual sovereignty if you must, cowards, but at least have the decency to do so in another country. You’re helping to extinguish the brightest light of Liberty that this planet has ever known. Get a fucking night light, teddy bear, and a special blankie if it helps. FFS. /rant off

Comments are closed.