LAPD probes likely ‘swatting’ call after descending on home of Black Lives Matter activist

[essentialsaltes]

Los Angeles police are investigating what officials say was a dangerous hoax that led to heavily armed officers descending on the home of one of the city’s leading Black Lives Matter activists Wednesday morning.

Melina Abdullah, co-founder of BLM Los Angeles and a Cal State Los Angeles professor who has been at the forefront of recent protests decrying police violence, began streaming live video on Instagram from her home, showing armed officers staging outside.

“I don’t know why they are here,” she says. “They have guns pointed at my house. There’s a helicopter overhead. Nobody’s knocked at the door, but apparently they’ve made announcements for people to come out with our hands up. My children are in the house. My children are in the house. I don’t know what this is.”

Fortunately, no one was injured.

 

[tall73]

It is good no one was hurt. This swatting trend is dangerous, and wastes resources.

 

[tall73]

Most criminals probably say the same thing. They always seem surprised when the cops show up.

But in this case the police are the ones saying they suspect a swatting incident.

Do you think the police want to be called in to areas under false pretenses?

 

[grasping the after wind]

No, it is a civil rights organization.

Since when is wanting civil rights criminal?

It is a political organization with agenda that includes much more than civil rights and IMO is using civil rights as a shield because if someone accuses it of being more Marxist than anything else, they can, in turn, be accused of being against civil rights and therefore racist.

Blm is a criminal organization. Guilt by association.

Targeting someone to be the victim of swatting is morally bankrupt no matter what their political agenda might be. Being that hateful is repulsive. Justifying it is pathetic.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, it is a civil rights organization.

Since when is wanting civil rights criminal?

What civil rights are they asking for?

Defunding the police isn't a civil right.

 

[Ken-1122]

Los Angeles police are investigating what officials say was a dangerous hoax that led to heavily armed officers descending on the home of one of the city’s leading Black Lives Matter activists Wednesday morning.

Melina Abdullah, co-founder of BLM Los Angeles and a Cal State Los Angeles professor who has been at the forefront of recent protests decrying police violence, began streaming live video on Instagram from her home, showing armed officers staging outside.

“I don’t know why they are here,” she says. “They have guns pointed at my house. There’s a helicopter overhead. Nobody’s knocked at the door, but apparently they’ve made announcements for people to come out with our hands up. My children are in the house. My children are in the house. I don’t know what this is.”

Fortunately, no one was injured.

What is a swatting call?

 

[essentialsaltes]

What is a swatting call?

Someone calls in to the police falsely saying something like 'there is an armed madman holding people hostage at such and such address'. Police respond vigorously to the call, perhaps with a 'special weapons and tactics' SWAT team. At the least, the victim is rattled by a police intervention. At worst, someone gets anxious and people get dead.

 

[Paulos23]

What civil rights are they asking for?

Defunding the police isn't a civil right.

Not to be killed for a start. Not to have unwarranted force to be used against them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not to be killed for a start. Not to have unwarranted force to be used against them.

Perfect police that never make mistakes or do something wrong isn't a right. No one has ever had that...ever...in the entire history of mankind.

Try again.

 

[variant]

Perfect police that never make mistakes or do something wrong isn't a right. No one has ever had that...ever...in the entire history of mankind.

Try again.

If you ask people to do something to improve you are not asking for absolute perfection.

Much closer is definitely doable.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you ask people to do something to improve you are not asking for absolute perfection.

Much closer is definitely doable.

Well....shootings are up in most major cities, Chicago is getting looted in broad daylight, so whatever strategy they're pushing seems to have already failed miserably.

Perhaps they should consider their solutions are worse than the "problem".

 

[variant]

Well....shootings are up in most major cities, Chicago is getting looted in broad daylight, so whatever strategy they're pushing seems to have already failed miserably.

Perhaps they should consider their solutions are worse than the "problem".

Somehow, some way, they've figured out how to not shoot so many unarmed people in say western european countries without the social order breaking down.

I'm not sure why you seem to think our police need a certain amount of brutality and incompetence to get the job done. Neither are really required, and, recently, the brutality and incompetence seems to be doing more to fray the social order than uphold it.

Now, getting a heavily armed swat team to the door of someone whose politics you don't like. I'm pretty sure we can agree that there isn't a problem where that is a good solution.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Somehow, some way, they've figured out how to not shoot so many unarmed people in say western european countries without the social order breaking down.

Yeah...they don't kill cops there either.

I'm not sure why you seem to think our police need a certain amount of brutality and incompetence to get the job done. Neither are really required, and, recently, the brutality and incompetence seems to be doing more to fray the social order than uphold it.

Surely you agree cops have a right to defend themselves?

Now, getting a heavily armed swat team to the door of someone whose politics you don't like. I'm pretty sure we can agree that there isn't a problem where that is a good solution.

I agree....but honestly? Not the worst thing I've seen done in the name of politics these days.

 

[variant]

Surely you agree cops have a right to defend themselves?

I don't think we're talking about cops defending themselves. The current problems started when a cop defended themselves by leaning on someone for 8 min with a boot while they died.

I agree....but honestly? Not the worst thing I've seen done in the name of politics these days.

See, the fact that you feel you have to qualify that says a lot about you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't think we're talking about cops defending themselves.

Well they have to defend themselves...we can't ask them to take a bullet for 80k a year plus benefits.

Since they have to defend themselves...we are asking them to make split second life and death decisions.

They are human....sometimes those decisions will go wrong, either mistakenly or deliberately. I think it's reasonable to ask they are prosecuted when they break the law....but that won't eliminate killings by police.

See, the fact that you feel you have to qualify that says a lot about you.

I try to provide a reasonable perspective to those who clearly lack it.

 

[variant]

Well they have to defend themselves...we can't ask them to take a bullet for 80k a year plus benefits.

Since they have to defend themselves...we are asking them to make split second life and death decisions.

They are human....sometimes those decisions will go wrong, either mistakenly or deliberately. I think it's reasonable to ask they are prosecuted when they break the law....but that won't eliminate killings by police.

Split second decisions like putting a boot on someone till they die?

Again, other places do this better, and we should learn.

If cops only shot people when they were a good case could be made for their "split second" decision making being the only issue I doubt there would be any issue at all.

I try to provide a reasonable perspective to those who clearly lack it.

And in every case you defend only one side of the argument. And when that side does something clearly evil, you go into that thread, do your best to change the subject, and what you have to say on the subject is that it was "not the worst thing you've seen done in the name of politics".

Then you made the case that trying to reform police practices is harmful to public order.

I'm saying your song and dance is telling.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Split second decisions like putting a boot on someone till they die?

You talking about the cop being prosecuted for murder?

Again, other places do this better, and we should learn.

Again, those places cops don't have to worry about being murdered by the public.

If cops only shot people when they were a good case could be made for their "split second" decision making being the only issue I doubt there would be any issue at all.

Not true....demonstrably.

And in every case you defend only one side of the argument.

Also not true.

 

[variant]

You talking about the cop being prosecuted for murder?

In 2020 he is being prosecuted due to people not standing for it anymore.

In 2014?
Killing of Eric Garner - Wikipedia

But, your argument here is that we shouldn't be protesting how the police do business. People like the one terrorized in the OP are doing exactly that and it is getting some results.

Your take on it is that it isn't the worst thing you've seen done for political purposes.

Again, those places cops don't have to worry about being murdered by the public.

It doesn't happen by magic.

Not true....demonstrably.

I'm sure it doesn't to you, the person who jumps up and down to make sure that every time this happens it was never ever the cops fault.

But, I don't think you're the best judge of this.

Also not true.

Feel free to demonstrate. I'll accept links. I'm going from memory.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In 2020 he is being prosecuted due to people not standing for it anymore.

It's cute that people believe that.

In 2014?
Killing of Eric Garner - Wikipedia

Pretty big difference between dying on scene and dying later at a hospital.

It doesn't happen by magic.

We could stop having police respond to dangerous situations and let citizens kill each other....is that what you want?

I'm sure it doesn't to you, the person who jumps up and down to make sure that every time this happens it was never ever the cops fault.

I've blamed cops....you're wrong.

Feel free to demonstrate. I'll accept links.

Ever hear of Breonna Taylor?

 

[variant]

It's cute that people believe that.

Pretty big difference between dying on scene and dying later at a hospital.

They both died due to a choke hold, they both died on the scene, both holds were completely unnecessary, only one policeman was indicted.

We could stop having police respond to dangerous situations and let citizens kill each other....is that what you want?

I want them to do their job taking care only to kill when absolutely necessary.

Ever hear of Breonna Taylor?

Is that what it takes? Interesting. I must have missed your take on it.

Yeah, that one was pretty messed up.

But similarly to my earlier point, this doesn't happen everywhere. Police having a policy of well armed no knock warrants on drug possession charges has something to do with how deadly they are when they are wrong.

 

[Ana the Ist]

They both died due to a choke hold,

That doesn't make it the same...you're generalizing.

I want them to do their job taking care only to kill when absolutely necessary.

That an impossible and unrealistic standard.

They can't know it's absolutely necessary till after the fact in many cases.

Is that what it takes? Interesting. I must have missed your take on it.

Yeah, that one was pretty messed up.

Do you need me to repeat what you just said?

"If cops only shot people when they were a good case could be made for their "split second" decision making being the only issue I doubt there would be any issue at all."

Clearly a lot of people took issue with the case....even though cops had to make a very sudden decision to shoot.