Skip to comments.The 911 Call and 80+ Members of Congress
Posted on 06/12/2012 7:49:58 AM PDT by iowamark
As most of you know, my family was swatted on May 27, 2012.
The police, at the time, told me they were responding to a 911 call about an accidental shooting.
I now have the 911 call. It turns out that the call was not about an accidental shooting. The caller said I had shot my wife, she was dead on the floor in front of me, and I was going off to shoot someone else.
You can hear the call yourself right here. What I did not know that Sunday night as the Sheriffs Deputy pulled into the driveway is that the sheriffs dispatcher called out on the radio to take the house, meaning to block off any avenues of exit. There were more police officers present than I saw.
On Friday night, I spent an hour talking about this on the radio. You can listen to that here. Lee Stranahan joined me and we both are of the opinion that the voice on this 911 call is the same voice as the other calls, including into Lees show.
Last week, Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) asked the Attorney General to get the FBI to look into the matter. Its clear the incident happened across state lines and also that only the FBI has the technical resources to be able to trace the call.
Today, more than 80 members of the United States House of Representatives are also sending a letter to Attorney General Holder asking for an investigation.
Below the fold, Ive put both the letter and the names of the signers. My wife and I would like to thank Senator Chambliss and the members of both the House and Senate who have decided to pursue this matter.
The Honorable Eric Holder
U.S. Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 5111
Washington, D.C. 20530-0009
Dear Attorney General Holder:
We write you concerning the growing threat of SWAT-ting and its costly ramifications. These crimes occur when individuals call emergency dispatchers under the guise of another persons name with fraudulent claims, causing local law enforcement to swarm the home of innocent Americans. SWAT-ting first arose in 2002, but as technology and the Internet has expanded, the dangers of SWAT-ting are also on the rise.
Investigators have concluded that the majority of SWAT-ting cases utilize voice over Internet (VOIP) connections between the suspects computer and a distant telephone network, and then dialing 911. This enables the suspect to falsify their identifying information, such as their telephone number and address, and make it nearly impossible for emergency dispatchers to identify or track the true origin of the call, or even pin-point calls from VOIP connections.
Some of these calls involve embellished schemes, including armed suspects and hostages, and in some instances, the caller claims that he has just killed someone. Moreover, the caller knowingly uses the identifying information of another person, who is usually an adversary of the caller. This elaborate hoax is all done with the goal of having law enforcement swarm the home of the callers foe, which only incites fear in and tarnishes the reputation of an innocent person.
Even worse, SWAT-ting is quickly becoming a scare tactic used against political bloggers, essentially stifling those bloggers First Amendment rights. Just last month, a popular blogger in the state of Georgia, Erick Erickson, became the latest victim of SWAT-ting. During the Ericksons family dinner, sheriffs deputies were dispatched to Ericksons home after receiving a 911 call reporting an accidental shooting that appeared to have come from Ericksons address. Fortunately, Erickson previously alerted police to SWAT-ting tactics; however, numerous similar scenarios have ended with guiltless victims held at gunpoint.
While none of the SWAT-ting victims have incurred physical harm from these hate filled ploys, we are gravely concerned that future victims may not find themselves so lucky. Plus, when law enforcement officers are responding to SWAT-ting claims, resources are diverted from those truly in needall of this because of differences in political ideology.
Differences of opinion should enrich our lives, not divide us. Each American has the right to freely express his or her ideas and should not be subject to fear tactics like SWAT-ting, which run counter to the liberty that forms the bedrock of our great nation. These crimes are not to be tolerated and necessitate thorough examination at every level.
We urge you to hold true to those promises and work to ensure that criminals using fear in hopes to preventing others from exercising their First Amendment rights are held to the highest standard of the law. To this end, we implore you to thoroughly review each of these cases, determine whether any federal laws have been breached, and prosecute those crimes accordingly.
Tom Graves (R-GA)
Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
Jim Jordan (R-OH)
Trent Franks (R-AZ)
Andy Harris (R-MD)
Steve Southerland (R-FL)
Joe Walsh (R-IL)
Paul Broun (R-GA)
Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA)
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
Morgan Griffith (R-VA)
Chip Cravaack (R-MN)
Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
Phil Gingrey (R-GA)
Dan Burton (R-IN)
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)
Leonard Lance (R-NJ)
Jeff Duncan (R-SC)
Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA)
Daniel Webster (R-FL)
Allen West (R-FL)
Dennis Ross (R-FL)
Richard Nugent (R-FL)
Ben Quayle (R-AZ)
Tom Rooney (R-FL)
Todd Rokita (R-IN)
Renee Ellmers (R-NC)
David Reichert (R-WA)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
Mary Bono Mack (R-CA)
Adam Kinzinger (R-IL)
Cory Gardner (R-CO)
Michael Grimm (R-NY)
Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY)
Don Manzullo (R-IL)
Bob Turner (R-NY)
Jon Runyan (R-NJ)
Don Young (R-AK)
Mike Kelly (R-PA)
Tom Marino (R-PA)
Lamar Smith (R-TX)
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE)
John Kline (R-MN)
Mo Brooks (R-AL)
Austin Scott (R-GA)
Pete Olson (R-TX)
Scott DesJarlais (R-TN)
Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)
Ted Poe (R-TX)
Patrick McHenry (R-NC)
Alan Nunnelee (R-MS)
Candice Miller (R-MI)
Mark Amodei (R-NV)
Kenny Marchant (R-TX)
Sue Myrick (R-NC)
Todd Akin (R-MO)
Randy Forbes (R-VA)
Paul Gosar (R-AZ)
Diane Black (R-TN)
Jeff Landry (R-LA)
Steve Stivers (R-OH)
Randy Hultgren (R-IL)
Mike Pompeo (R-KS)
David Schweikert (R-AZ)
Bill Posey (R-FL)
Steve Chabot (R-OH)
Quico Canseco (R-TX)
Bill Johnson (R-IL)
Pete Sessions (R-TX)
Tim Griffin (R-AR)
Walter B. Jones (R-NC)
Lynn Jenkins (R-KS)
Billy Long (R-MO)
Steve Scalise (R-LA)
Stephen Fincher (R-TN)
Jack Kingston (R-GA)
Scott Rigell (R-VA)
Tom Price (R-GA)
Robert Hurt (R-VA)
Nothing to see here. Move along.
I find it very telling that not 1 effing democrat signed on to this.
Must be because they approve of the practice. Damn them all to hell.
The calls originate from Administration proxies? Holder will only be interested in this if prominent leftists have been targeted by the callers. If the targets are conservative commentators or bloggers, then the harassment serves the Administration goal to curtail or shutdown conservative voices.
It is a good thing no one has been SHOT yet!
A bunch of police responding to a call like that are NOT the most level headed.... They have their own life they are afraid of losing, and think they are responding to a person that has already killed someone
WHile not advocating for such, I find it likely that some Dem members will have this happen to them.
The victims are not Holder's people. Case closed. might be good to know what 'rats were approached to add to the petition, but then refused to sign on...
And THOSE calls will be the ones investigated -— and then they will try to blame ALL the calls on that person!!!
When these calls come into 911 cannot they see that the call is coming from a different location than the address to where they are being dispatched?
That alone should tell them that something is fishy.
It’s clear that it is the liberals who are so crazy they cannot tolerate any one who is opposed to their views. They are the one’s who are violent and thing harming people is the way to win the argument. Their ideas can’t persuade so they resort to name calling, racism, shouting down their opponents, and finally violence. These 911 calls are clearly intended to cause death by police. They are not simple pranks.
If the perp uses a cell phone in the vicinity of the address of the targeted home?
“When these calls come into 911 cannot they see that the call is coming from a different location than the address to where they are being dispatched?”
My understanding is that the people behind this are using sophisticated technology to hide their true location - so it appears that the call is coming from a cell phone, which generally doesn’t have 911 enhanced capabilities. That’s why the members of Congress are asking for an investigation. The FBI could track where these calls are originating and they would have the authority to arrest and prosecute the people doing it.
My old brain isn’t working very well, but there was a story on FR about some long-time radical leftist who is suspected of being behind many of these “swattings”. Why hasn’t he been arrested?
If your Congressman/woman has not signed this letter, it would be appropriate to ask them why.
I was disappointed that Rep Vern Buchanan (FL) had not signed. So I sent a quick email asking why.
We need to keep pressuring the GOP to get a spine.
Thanks for the clarification.
Ah, I found it! The guy’s name is Brett Kimberlin, and conservatives who write about him find themselves the target of a “swatting”.
Oh...silence = consent, I guess. Democrat members of Con-gress APPROVE of the 'swatting' tactic.
Remove them in November.
Let's be honest. SWAT teams have become nothing but a dangerous menace of society. Use of SWAT teams, military style uniforms, military weapons, and military tactics need to be outlawed.
Only the FBI needs such a unit and even then deployment should be strictly limited.
We had better get a handle on the police. They are far more dangerous today than any criminal element.
The simple solution is to get back to the old methods of being a public peace officer with a revolver, a radio, and a brain, and put an end to "Military Police".
Actually, spoofing a specific number is easy in most Voice over IP phone systems. If you set the system to deliver the NPA-XX-XXXX of a residential line, the E911 center will get a pop up screen from their database that shows the service address of that number.
Everything then proceeds from the assumption that the number that was delivered by the phone system is indeed the one their database hass associated with the address. Hence the cops roll with no doubts cluttering their tiny neanderthal brains.
Sorry, should be NPA-NXX-XXXX
More vile and outrageous conduct from the left. My prediction? Holder will do absolutely nothing about this.
“Hence the cops roll with no doubts cluttering their tiny neanderthal brains.”
Excuse me, but that comment was totally unnecessary and unwarranted! Cops are husbands, dads, sons and brothers (or moms, sisters, etc) and when they “roll” on a suspected domestic violence call, they are laying their lives on the line and hoping to return to their families!
Keep it civil or keep it to yourself!
No Dems supported the call because they know this is a liberal tactic, used only against conservatives.
Liberals have no values, thus, nothing to live up to.
Conservatives have values, thus, they are held to ridicule when they fall short.
“Its been a tough job. It is one that takes a lot out of you. Some raised concerns as to whether I was tough enough for this job. I think that people will hopefully see that Ive done this job in a way that is consistent with our values.
Gee, we don't have eyes or ears? What a ^*#@#^
Values? Your definition of ‘values’ ain't worth squat.
It's just a matter of time, though...
My congressman’s name is not on the list. I’m going to ask him WHY!
They can’t see any address at all and the rules they work under require police to be dispatched. Because they just possibly might be legitimate the police must assume they are about to get shot at. Added to that is the responders’ thrill at getting to practice their murder and mayhem training.
Unfortunately, there are a number of knee-jerk cop haters here on FR (as well as some "LEOs are never wrong" types).
Amen! It’s apparent a lot of cops are trigger happy. If they can’t shoot a person they’ll shoot the dog.
I also thought the dispatcher could look up the phone number of the address then call to see who answers.
Liberals, inherently, support using the government to steal money from people because they are too cowardly to try to steal it themselves,
so it’s a small step to using the government to kill people that they are too cowardly to try to kill themselves.
That’s how the LEOs are set up. They were set up by similar techniques at Waco. This gets the process started, and then if one of them gets shot by a home defender it’s on.
Thought control via language. Reframe a person and situation semantically. Call a man who openly states his preference not to live around a demographic group who are statistically inclined toward violence and crime a “white separatist”. Then call his cabin a “compound”. Then tell the LEOs that he is very dangerous.
They serve and protect THEMSELVES. They shoot his dog, 14 year old son, and his wife (.308 to the head) while she’s holding an infant.
It’s really too easy, isn’t it?
This could happen to anyone. It’s truly frightening.
Excuse me, but that comment was totally unnecessary and unwarranted! Cops are husbands, dads, sons and brothers (or moms, sisters, etc) and when they roll on a suspected domestic violence call, they are laying their lives on the line and hoping to return to their families!
Keep it civil or keep it to yourself!
I'm sorry but you are wrong. Cops voluntarily took a job that on rare occasion is dangerous, BUT, they are servants to the community. The community does not serve them. They are trained to defuse situations not to escalate them but often they are the escalators.
One of my sons is a cop, I tell him the same thing I am saying here. Cops are NOT ABOVE THE LAW. Cops are not BETTER THAN THOSE THEY SERVE. Cops do have moms, sisters and brothers but then again so do those they serve. In most cases cops investigate crimes that have already happened, there is no hurry that requires them to shoot someone, there is no reason not to assess the facts prior to shooting a gun.
For some reason cops are not taught to shoot to wound but to shoot to kill. I think making cops the judge jury and executioner is wrong. They need to use tasers more and guns less.
Sometimes a cops job is hard, mostly it is not. The cops get paid for what they do and if they don't want to do it right and PROTECT and SERVE they need to get a different job.
I’ve been amazed over the years at how even our own conservative types here go from one extreme to the other on law enforcement issues. Knee-jerk cop haters vs. LEO’s are never wrong - Could be a new reality TV show. I would never watch it though, television cuts into my range time too much.
Anyone who instructs others to “shoot to wound” is an incompetent danger to himself and others. Real life does not work that way.
There is shoot to stop (end the threat) or shoot to kill (warfare).
Around here I see WAY more revenue collectors than cops. Even though they both wear the same uniform.
This is one more reason why the 'Rats have to be beaten soundly at the polls in November.
Furthermore, Erick Erickson might consider suing the local police department under the Civil Rights statutes of the US Code for violations of his and his family's federal constitutional rights.
The police are being ‘used’ for the leftist agendas.
Saying they have tiny neanderthal brains is uncalled for.
It’s the people doing this and the people who are letting it happen that are in question.
My God, this is what we have come to???
I will be contacting my locals about this, I have the loudest mouth in Western New York.
I know quite well what a cop’s job is....and while there are certainly some bad apples, most do understand that their duty is to SERVE and protect. My specific comment was directed at the person who chose to make a completely uncalled for remark inferring that all cops are simply idiots with badges and guns - that is the kind of stereotypical name-calling for which the Left is famous! My point was that we, as conservatives, should deal with facts and reality and not resort to unnecessary personal attacks.
As for your remarks about “shoot to wound, not to kill”, that is simply a Hollywood style answer that doesn’t generally work well in real life. It sounds like you have personal issues with police officers, which must make for some pretty interesting family get-togethers with your son!
I saw nothing wrong with JAKraig's post. I can understand your objection to Zippo44's post, but not to JAKraig's. There have been too many stories regarding overzealous police in the last few years for many of us to have been unaffected in our perception of law enforcement.
Kneejerk cop tuchuslekker. Your reaction tells me your bedwetting cop offspring is probably under investigation by internal affairs for shooting someone’s chihuahua, which would explain your overreaction. Lighten up, and warn your punk popo kid not to take an LEO gig in Texas.
No Dems? Not ONE???
As for your remarks about shoot to wound, not to kill, that is simply a Hollywood style answer that doesnt generally work well in real life.
My issue is that one innocent person killed by a mistake in an address or “thinking” a person was going for a gun is too many. When a man doing nothing wrong gets shot 18 times by too many cops it does not make sense.
Over and over on this forum we hear of how a gun owner shot an intruder and the perp is in the hospital recovering facing several charges. You NEVER hear of a cop shoot out ending with the perp in the hospital because they do all they can to KILL the threat, it is just too much. I’m all for bad guys going to hell but if you aren’t absolutely sure with good reason it is wrong.
Cops are a necessary evil of society, but cops don’t have to be evil. Until the latest generation cops in England didn’t even carry guns. When you lose someone close to you because of a mistake you will understand.
The majority of time put in by cops is giving traffic citations and making reports of crimes committed. My son says their number one concern is that they go home after the shift. Going home is good but not killing innocents it important and should be AT LEAST as important but isn’t. Too often the officer has to say I’m sorry I killed your son, father or whatever, I thought he had a gun. It should NEVER happen.
I do not have any immediate family members who are police officers,(evidently you didn't read the replies to your post clearly enough to recognize that I'm not the one who stated I had a son who is a cop). I do have several friends who either have been or currently are cops. I do not automatically defend everyone who wears a badge but I do appreciate the numerous ones who go and do a dangerous job in a crazy world.
My original comments to you stand - there was no reason for you to make ad hominem attacks calling all police officers Neanderthals. Feel free to make your points but please don't resort to unnecessary personal attacks, especially if you are calling yourself a Christian!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.