Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Man Updates His Facebook Status During Hostage Stand-Off

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the SWAT-team-doesn't-like-this dept.

Crime 203

36-year-old Jason Valdez wouldn't let a little thing like a SWAT team keep him from updating his Facebook status. During a 16 hour hostage stand-off in an Utah motel, Valdez made sure to update his Facebook page with things like, "Got a cute 'Hostage' huh?" He even got help from friends who posted the location of SWAT members outside.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Obstruction? (4, Interesting)

LordStormes (1749242) | more than 3 years ago | (#36531658)

Love to see the "helpful" comment-leavers charged with obstruction of justice. Had this guy been a little more deranged, he could have easily picked off said cops given the positions given out by his buddies.

Re:Obstruction? (3)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 3 years ago | (#36531756)

Easily pick off a SWAT cop? Body armor, assault rifles, and shotguns may beg to differ.

Re:Obstruction? (2)

jdpars (1480913) | more than 3 years ago | (#36531804)

You haven't played the latest Call of Duty? Tells you just how to do it.

Re:Obstruction? (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532052)

Because video games are *such* an excellent guide to real life combat.

Re:Obstruction? (2)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532222)

Easily pick off a SWAT cop? Body armor, assault rifles, and shotguns may beg to differ.

You haven't played the latest Call of Duty? Tells you just how to do it.

Because video games are *such* an excellent guide to real life combat.

It's not Call of Duty this guy has been using to train, it's *this* hostage/kidnap simulator. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Obstruction? (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532088)

Body armor doesn't stop always stop rifle rounds.

Re:Obstruction? (5, Informative)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532400)

Correction: Body armor rarely stops rifle rounds. Most body armor will protect against pistol bullets, shotgun pellets, or artillery/grenade fragments. Even most military body armor is relatively useless against rifle rounds - police armor, definitely not. SWAT, perhaps, has armor that can stop an AK47 round (a rather slow-moving round for a rifle), but a common 5.56mm or 5.45mm will go right through it. And you can forget about any of the heavier rounds - there is NOTHING that will save you from a (civilian-legal in the US) .50BMG round, save being somewhere else while the shooting is going on.

Body armor's not magic. It can save you from a lot of stuff, the kind of stuff police and armies commonly encounter. Pistols - lightweight bullets, at relatively low velocity, and often designed to fragment on impact - are common and easy to protect from, since they have such low momentum to stop. Artillery kills mainly by fragments, which are also easily stopped. Same for grenades - movies and games massively understate the range on them: a fragmentation grenade can often kill someone half a football field away, if the tiny shards of metal fly in the right direction. But rifles? The most common light rifle round, 5.56x45mm, has 1800 joules of energy. The most common pistol round, 9x19mm, has 570-700 J, depending on make. That's a whole lot more energy to stop, and it's concentrated into a much smaller area (24mm^2 instead of 63mm^2).

Re:Obstruction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36532536)

a fragmentation grenade can often kill someone half a football field away

[citation needed]

Re:Obstruction? (0)

Cederic (9623) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532580)

Tell you what, acquire a grenade, throw it 50y on a football field and stand there until it explodes.

Don't duck.

Then come back here with your braindead pointless pathetic fucking [citatation] fucking [needed]

Re:Obstruction? (1)

x6060 (672364) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532910)

Well, actually the wounding potential of a grenade at 50 yards is very small. Not impossible, but not likely.

Re:Obstruction? (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36533114)

It can [wikipedia.org] , but certainly not likely. At those distances the frag pattern is so large, the likelihood of purposely hitting someone is tiny. But, random targets do get hit.

As a side note, with so many references readily available, people like you who are both too stupid to use Google and too lazy to even try, only validate just how bad humanity has become. The world at your finger tips and you're too stupid and lazy to use it.

Re:Obstruction? (0)

NineSprings (1060260) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532728)

Holy misinformation central... Wow. Check your sources friend-o.

Re:Obstruction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36532908)

Present better information yourself, dick-o.

Re:Obstruction? (1)

NineSprings (1060260) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532976)

Google is your friend, junior. It still works. Even in your parents basement. Put down your PS3 for a second, and look up SAPI, then ESAPI.

Re:Obstruction? (5, Informative)

x6060 (672364) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532782)

Hello, There are some good information and bad information in your post. 1. SOFT body armor will not stop rifle rounds. Kevlar is virtually worthless (alone) against rifle rounds. Soft armor (assuming Level IIIA here) will stop most rounds up to and including .44 Magnum (Excluding a few rounds like 5.7mm and 7.62x25) rounds that are FMJ or JHP and of normal velocities. They will NOT stop anything steel cored. 2. SWAT and the military both employ Hard armor as well as soft armor. These are typically either steel plates or ceramic plates. They will either be rated for single impact or multiple impact and whether they are assisted panels or not (If they need to be assisted it means you HAVE to have a soft vest on under the plate or it will NOT stop a rifle round). These plates tend to ONLY cover a small portion of your body though, usually just your vitals as the plates are typically only 10x8 inches in size. (and youll typically have one in front and back) 3. A 7.62x39 round (The round used in the AK47) is actually MUCH harder to stop then your typical 5.56x45 (assuming it is an XM193 round [not steel cored]) round. It is a heavier round that does NOT fragment, however the wounding characteristics are not that great. The majority of the US military uses a XM193 round that fragments on impact making it easier to stop. The Russian 5.45 round is kind of weird and not a very effective round as its wounding method is to yaw inside its target, which means the temporary and permanent crush cavities are not spectacular, though it is decent at penetrating armor. 4. Grenades and Artillery actually try to kill with the concussive force (thats why the range is stated as being shorter) and fragmentation is the secondary wounding method. (If its going to throw chunks of deadly metal everywhere then you might as well capitalize on it.)

Re:Obstruction? (1)

x6060 (672364) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532798)

Ack, sorry for the formatting.

Re:Obstruction? (4, Informative)

NineSprings (1060260) | more than 3 years ago | (#36533052)

Correction -- XM193 denotes a QC rejected M193 round, which is a 55 grain 5.56mm FMJ ball round. It is no longer issued in the majority of brnaches/units The most common 5.56 round now is the M855 green tip -- 62 grain FMJ round with a steel core. Now sounds like M855A1 is the next large scale (minor gain) switch.

Re:Obstruction? (1)

x6060 (672364) | more than 3 years ago | (#36533264)

Thank you for the correction. Its been a while since I dealt with the mil supply chain and Im still using M193 till this day.

Have the actually green lighted M855A1 round? Last I saw it was still at the proving grounds.

Re:Obstruction? (2)

Matheus (586080) | more than 3 years ago | (#36533086)

And this post (and parent) are *exactly why i like to read /.

In every situation you'll get a wonderful combination of crazy ranting lunatics AND people who actually know what they are talking about. About literally every topic, this is true.

Re:Obstruction? (1)

WankersRevenge (452399) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532974)

Very interesting post although you did manage to sidestep the most important question of them all - how many pizza boxes will it take to stop a rifle bullet?

Re:Obstruction? (1)

x6060 (672364) | more than 3 years ago | (#36533030)

Checkout the site Theboxotruth.com

They do lots of back yard ballistics testing. There is some really interesting stuff there.

Re:Obstruction? (2)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 3 years ago | (#36533008)

You don't even need to go all the way up to the .50BMG, any standard full power hunting round will do. Think things like .30-06, .308, .303, 7.62x54r, 300 Winchester magnum. Regular police body armor won't stop things like the .223 (5.56x45), 7.62x39, or .30-30 which are all fairly common hunting round for things up to white tail deer. Even S.W.A.T. armor would have issues with some of those especially with multiple shots fired. Add to the mix shotgun slugs which even if they are stopped by the armor (very unlikely if sabots are being used) will still cause serious damage. With this about all body armor is good against is are the common handgun rounds. The big handgun rounds offer power close to that of a rifle and would be almost* a hard for body armor to deal with. Luckily for law enforcement most criminals use handguns that are .38acp, 9mm, or .45acp as these are common for a semi auto pistol.

Re:Obstruction? (2)

x6060 (672364) | more than 3 years ago | (#36533126)

Yes, those rounds would be good against soft armor. But a Level IV ceramic plate could stop any of those rounds (with the exception of the .50 round)

My plates are rated to stop anything up to and including a 30.06 steel core (most people call it Armor Piercing, but that isnt technically correct) multiple times.

Re:Obstruction? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36533012)

I used to shoot a lot of AK47 rounds in the army (7.62×39mm) and we were told that they were superior against armor vests, contrary to what you stated above. Wikipedia puts the energy at just above 2 kJ so I think it would be safe to say that it would be even more useful against an armored opponent than the standard NATO round. I'm no expert but the images we were shown in the field first aid classes clearly showed shattered bones and dismembered legs from a single shot. Very different from your standard Hollywood representation.

Re:Obstruction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36532952)

Headshot!

Preventing a murder-by-cop. (0)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 3 years ago | (#36531818)

They saved that guy's life.

Now if he provoked a shot, then he's given up any good position whatsoever.

Re:Preventing a murder-by-cop. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36532128)

He a) took a hostage, and b) fired on cops. If SWAT shot him, at that point he deserved it.

Re:Preventing a murder-by-cop. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36532804)

a. She was just in the room with him. There's no evidence she was a hostage.

b. He fired on himself (he shot himself in the chest).

dom

Re:Obstruction? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36531856)

The article does mention that the police were considering that. It sounded like there was only one comment about the swat team being in the bushes. I guess it depends on whether the prosecutor thinks it's important to send a message.

It's worth noting that the article makes it sound like the guy shot himself in the chest to try to commit suicide. The police say they didn't fire their gun, but also said that he could face charges for "firing his handgun at police." I suppose he may have been shooting at the police, and they may not have fired back because of the "hostage" (girlfriend sounds like it would be more accurate). Is it possible though the police are saying by trying to commit suicide (pointing the gun at himself and firing) that's "firing his handgun at police"?

Re:Obstruction? (2)

caerwyn (38056) | more than 3 years ago | (#36531990)

He fired shots during the standoff, as he reported in one of the status updates.

Re:Obstruction? (1)

iksbob (947407) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532102)

The article made it sound like he was going to get his girlfriend out of the room at one point, but the police tried to use that as an opportunity to storm in. In response, he fired a couple of shots and retreated (with his girlfriend) back to the room. The question is whether those shots were directed at the police, or were just warning shots over their heads. Either way, the police are going to charge him with firing on them afterwards.
I suspect they were warning shots. If he had actually fired at them, I seriously doubt he would still be alive. Or maybe that was the idea, but the officers misaimed when the perp "shot himself in the chest".

Re:Obstruction? (4, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532312)

The question is whether those shots were directed at the police, or were just warning shots over their heads.

"Warning shots" still count as a shot towards the individual, and are NEVER justified. Even for a person legally carrying a firearm and acting in self defense, if it comes time to shoot, you're supposed to aim to hit. Warning shots even in such a situation will, at best, tend to draw an "Illegal discharge of a firearm." charge. Simple reason being that those bullets go somewhere. You are responsible for them. If you're not shooting at a specified target with intentions to hit it then you have no damned business putting those bullets into motion in the first place, as you've just upped the possibility greatly of striking an innocent bystander.

Re:Obstruction? (1)

Matheus (586080) | more than 3 years ago | (#36533178)

...and if you'd read parent more than what you quoted you would have gotten to the following quote "Either way, the police are going to charge him with firing on them afterwards."

The point parent was possibly trying to make (which is valid) is more of a moral / intent differentiation:

Depending on which comment you believe the guy was firing as a warning or in self-defense when they decided to charge. He was not firing in an attempt to kill an officer explicitly.

Depending on your personal beliefs you may not see that as being any different but in the eyes of most religions and a strict interpretation of the law they are quite different things. (For example: If he had hit an officer he would not be guilty of 1st Degree Murder. May even drop to 3rd or even switch over to Manslaughter.)

just sayin'...

Re:Obstruction? (2)

PickyH3D (680158) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532392)

You don't get to fire warning shorts toward someone and say it's something other than firing at them. To be a warning shot, it must have been shot in their direction. The danger with shooting a gun, in any direction, in a motel really shouldn't need to be explained to anyone.

Re:Obstruction? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532948)

Shots do not need to be fired at someone to warn them. You can quite clearly hear the report from any direction.

Re:Obstruction? (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532788)

I can't wait to see him invoke the "warning shot" defense.

"Your Honor, I fired shots to keep police away when they were trying to serve me with a felony warrant. But yo, check it out, they was just WARNING shots, I wasn't aiming at the police, just wanted to let them know that I didn't want them to come any closer."

When somebody's pointing a weapon in your direction and pulling the trigger, they're shooting at you. The fact that he has bad aim and was probably firing blind / wildly doesn't mean a thing, legally speaking. He still discharged his weapon at police, he still resisted arrest, and he still held someone - presumably against her will, unless she's going to now agree that she was his accomplice, rather than his hostage.

Re:Obstruction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36532148)

Um, shoot at the cops and then yourself?

According to the article which you claim to have read the guy posted he fired off a few rounds 90 minutes before they rushed him. Then he shot himself.

They're not claiming by shooting himself he fired his gun at police. Good Lord, learn to read.

Re:Obstruction? (1)

Biggseye (1520195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532230)

You are absolutely correct. Every person that gave him information during the stand off could and should be held accountable. There is no difference in this than if he was on the phone to people doing the same thing. Depending on the law in that state, if he had fired at any one, police or otherwise, the people supplying information could very well be charged with conspiracy to murder and attempted murder. These are very serious charges.

Re:Obstruction? (1)

NoSig (1919688) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532406)

What if the press were there with video cameras and he was watching his TV and thus obtained information about the location of police? Should the journalists then go to jail? Or is it only OK when a journalist does it? I'm not sure myself, but I do think the issue is not so simple as you make it out to be.

Re:Obstruction? (1)

LordStormes (1749242) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532748)

The cops can see when the news cameras are out there, and they generally keep them far enough out of the thick of things that their tactical positions can't be given away, for that very reason, unless they WANT the guy to know he's covered every which way as a negotiation tactic.

(my dad used to work in hostage situations as a cop)

Re:Obstruction? (1)

The Moof (859402) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532878)

What if the guy was across the street. What if he was on a 2-way radio instead of Facebook. What if we referred to him as a "spotter" instead of a "commenter"? Again, still not as black and white, but I'd say intent plays a huge roll in the legality of the situation. He was directly communicating with the hostage taker and trying to help him stay one step ahead of the police. I'd say that falls squarely under aiding and abetting.

Re:Obstruction? (2)

chaboud (231590) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532506)

I dunno. Then we start charging people for saying "hey, the police are trying to bust you" or "hey, there's a speed trap up ahead."

Sharing tactical information that can be publicly seen should *not* be a crime. It quickly turns into a complete police state (if it hasn't already). Disclosing the positions of police officers with no malice aforethought does not attempted murder make.

Re:Obstruction? (2)

Cederic (9623) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532732)

I dunno. Then we start charging people for saying "hey, the police are trying to bust you" or "hey, there's a speed trap up ahead."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343959/Driver-flashed-headlights-warn-motorists-speed-trap-fined.html [dailymail.co.uk]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/4569124.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Obstruction? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532994)

You might note the 'co.uk' part on those sites.

Last I checked, Utah was not in the UK.

Re:Obstruction? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#36533020)

You've heard the expression 'loose lips sink ships?' Well, leaking tactical information -during- the operation gets people killed. People doing their job, which is (supposedly) to protect and serve the public.

I agree that making it an outright crime is not a nice thing, but what else can you do!? Clearly you can't expect people to use their brains.

Re:Obstruction? (1)

PickyH3D (680158) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532540)

I hope that happens. Helping someone like this during an armed hostage taking should cause you to get charged with aiding and abetting. Not to mention the slew of other conspiracy charges that you brought up.

After all, the assistance put the woman's life in danger. What if he flipped out because of it and killed or otherwise hurt her? It absolutely put the SWAT officer's life in danger. Not to mention it probably served to elongate the whole ordeal.

Re:Obstruction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36532548)

I'd love to see you die in a fire. It's because of people like you wanting to put EVERY FUCKING BODY in jail that the US has such a huge, overcrowded prison system.

Re:Obstruction? (1)

LordStormes (1749242) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532710)

No, it's because the US sees fit to lock people up for victimless, harmless activities like smoking marijuana.

Re:Obstruction? (1)

Ogive17 (691899) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532836)

Not unless he is a trained sniper with enough cover and 1-way visibility to allow him to get off shots without anyone on the outside seeing him getting ready.

I really doubt "hey man, they are on the roof" is going to be very helpful, unless going through the roof was his escape route.

Re:Obstruction? (1)

LordStormes (1749242) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532892)

All you need is a good curtain in the window, man.

Re:Obstruction? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#36533044)

I really doubt "hey man, they are on the roof" is going to be very helpful, unless...

Actually, it is.

You then know they are on the roof, so now you know you -must- watch the stairs, where before you were uncertain. That can make all the difference, and get people killed. Another example: Hear a noise upstairs? Well, before you might be alarmed by it, depending on what you think you heard. Well, now they are really paying attention...

Re:Obstruction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36533202)

Obstruction of justice? That's a relatively minor charge compared to what they could be charged.

They could be charged as an accomplice to the crime.

Criminal friends? (1)

Tukz (664339) | more than 3 years ago | (#36531678)

I wonder if the friends can be prosecuted for aiding a criminal like that.

It's a metaphor. (3, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36531682)

Isn't that what we're all doing by posting to /. from work?

Re:It's a metaphor. (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532120)

Isn't that what we're all doing by posting to /. from work?

Yes, in the same way that closing one eye makes everything flat.

Re:It's a metaphor. (1)

magarity (164372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532356)

Isn't that what we're all doing by posting to /. from work?

Totally different - the article is about the hostage *taker* doing the posting.

How to Crowdsource An Escape (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 3 years ago | (#36531706)

Hey, everyone knows it's just a game, right?

Can you BELIEVE this Sim! Love the realistic graphics ...

Re:How to Crowdsource An Escape (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36532350)

Street racers at least used to use code-words like that to communicate on message boards. That way they could brag about how they beat the other guy "in Gran Turismo."

Re:How to Crowdsource An Escape (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532454)

my top speed in the rolling hills of Eastern Washington for GTA: Spokane is 125 mph - yes, your limiter does kick in ...

Nothing new here. (2)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 3 years ago | (#36531708)

AFK, hostage.

So much for shutting off power. (2)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 3 years ago | (#36531724)

Looks like batteries and internet got around the cops.

Then again, will a hostage situation also require that phone networks go down too?

Re:So much for shutting off power. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36532074)

Since I am not a LEO (but work with them), I can say that this is something they all thing about. Now, they don't often cut the power anymore, but they do run what the LEO's I work with call a "Trap and Trace" (I know, wrong term, but that's what they call it), which kills the data/SMS connections and forwards all outbound calls to a special hostage negotiator phone number. It works pretty damn well all things considered. At one convention I attended a vendor demoed a local-area cell jammer, which the FBI rep in the room quickly pointed out wasn't permitted by Local and State LEO's to use, and that only the FBI had permission to use cellular jammers. So... most likely, the Hostage Negotiations team will use the fact that there are cell phones in the room to the advantage, and are really happy when a hostage dials 911 from their phone and leaves an open channel for the Negotiations team to listen in to the room.

Again, Posting AC because I like my friends.

When friends trust you more than the police... (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 3 years ago | (#36531776)

...do not be surprised if they're willing to get rid of the surprise.

Hopefully none of them get charged with anything that sticks - since they'd only be making things worse off.

Re:When friends trust you more than the police... (4, Insightful)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532008)

This guy is no righteous vigilante, he's been convicted of domestic violence and assault, and was holding a woman at gunpoint.

Hopefully his friends get charged and convicted of obstruction. And if his hostage had been killed, they should have been charged with accessory to murder. Morons.

Re:When friends trust you more than the police... (1)

chaboud (231590) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532584)

No. Disclosing tactical information that is publicly available (where people are standing in public) should *not* be a crime.

You do that, you put speed trap disclosures, video recording of cops, and the news all at risk. It doesn't matter that the guy was a phenomenal douchebag (along with, most likely, many of his friends). A mod of insightful means that most of slashdot is thinking a lot like the U.S. Supreme Court these days. Don't think about how you want the law to apply to this particular situation. Think about how it should apply in general.

Re:When friends trust you more than the police... (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532594)

There's a difference between "hey, there's a cop here, don't break any laws", and "hey, there's a cop over here, start shooting".

Re:When friends trust you more than the police... (3, Insightful)

Seedy2 (126078) | more than 3 years ago | (#36533092)

Disclosing information that is publicly available publicly is one thing; giving someone, in the process of committing a crime, information to help them, is a crime.

Re:When friends trust you more than the police... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36532628)

I'd be curious how much of the information that his friends posted about was available by watching the news

Re:When friends trust you more than the police... (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 3 years ago | (#36533266)

I'm sorry, no matter how bad that hostage taker is, that seems excessive. Imagine I'm coming over to my friends's apartment and I see a bunch of police around. I check facebook and my friend has an update, "in a bit of a bind lol".

Now, note that's a bit ambiguous -- maybe he means he's the target, maybe it just means he can't leave his pad because the police are going after someone nearby.

So I reply to his update with, "yeah, what's going on, man? There are SWAT dudes all over the front lot?"

Suddenly I'm an accessory to murder for "giving tactical information"??? WTF?

I know the real situation was a bit more damning for the captor, but what if I thought, "oh, this is just another joke of his, making fun of hostage operations" when he posts a picture of the "cute hostage babe lol".

At the very least, they should have to establish that the friends really knew what was going on.

Attempted "suicide by police?" - the next FB feat (4, Interesting)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36531806)

The "if I don't make it out of here alive" comment, the use of such a public forum, shooting at the cops and the eventual self-inflicted shot to the chest make me think he was trying "suicide by police".

$100 says that Facebook will shortly come out with an "emergency channel" that police and other emergency crews can use to "break in" and talk to anyone, regardless of friend status.

Re:Attempted "suicide by police?" - the next FB fe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36531938)

Re:Attempted "suicide by police?" - the next FB fe (2)

Shoten (260439) | more than 3 years ago | (#36531958)

Suicide by cop is almost always done without an effective (as in real, or loaded) weapon. And more to the point, people who choose that route get the cops to shoot them, rather than shooting themselves; that's the whole point of it. So this is a little more of a case of really bad project planning and failing to do one's requirements analysis up front.

Re:Attempted "suicide by police?" - the next FB fe (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532298)

Hence why the person used the phrase "Trying", shooting himself may have been the fallback plan, since getting caught by the police will certainly make actually committing suicide significantly harder, less quick etc... and actually having an unloaded weapon I would imagine would between taking away a backup plan, and being less effective (cops are more likely to fire at you if you fire the first shot). But yes obviously whether attempted or not, he failed, but did not get the worse possible outcome (worse outcome being hurt in take-down and put on suicide watch in a cell)

Re:Attempted "suicide by police?" - the next FB fe (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36531996)

$100 says that Facebook will shortly come out with an "emergency channel" that police and other emergency crews can use to "break in" and talk to anyone, regardless of friend status.

And would that be such a bad thing? At least if it comes to an emergency, which leaves you trapped somewhere (say, an earthquake traps you in the rubble), they can give you instructions, such as first aid, survival, and possibly even zero in on your position based on what you tell them you see and hear.

I'd say Facebook should have done that long ago.

Re:Attempted "suicide by police?" - the next FB fe (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532420)

Seems like a decent idea to me, on Facebook it would be the least of your privacy problems.

Re:Attempted "suicide by police?" - the next FB fe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36532712)

Why is this a privacy problem, pray?

Re:Attempted "suicide by police?" - the next FB fe (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36533112)

Well from what I understand of Facebook privacy, you can set it to only allow people you have set as friends to see your profile. This feature would presumably allow law enforcement to override this requirement and talk to you. I suppose if this feature could access to the rest of your profile and only allows exclusive 2-way chat with law enforcement it would be fine.

Re:Attempted "suicide by police?" - the next FB fe (1)

mbkennel (97636) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532760)

$100 they already offer this "emergency channel" except they sell it to corporates to check in on their drones, regardless of friend status.

I seem to remember somebody who worked in HR bragging about this very ability.

Already there. (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532802)

That functionality exists, just not for cops - but for data mining.

my lawn (1)

digitalsushi (137809) | more than 3 years ago | (#36531826)

Extrapolating from 1999 when I got on board here, in 2018 slashdot will be posting stories about Michael Jackson's alien love child. No mention of facebook.

Re:my lawn (1)

denobug (753200) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532072)

In 2018 slashdot maybe too old to stay alive and /.er may be too old to bother to post anything.

Michael Jackson's Alien Love GRANDchild (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532292)

FTFY. Our alien overlord-wannabees will get some details right on their giant mecha robot imitation Michael Jackson, like the single glove and holding the grandchild out the window, but just because they've walked on the moon doesn't mean they'll be able to do the moonwalk credibly.

Re:my lawn (2)

djdanlib (732853) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532450)

The Javascript will still be just as awful, though.

Oblig. The Other Guys quote (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#36531898)

Det #1: "At the crime scene L-O-L"
Det #2: "That's a good tweet!"

Re:Oblig. The Other Guys quote (1)

indecks (1208854) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532090)

indecks likes this (see others who liked this)

Prison updates (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36532086)

"I've got a cute boyfriend"

"Yesterday I dropped the soap in the shower. A heads up to everyone out there, don't pick up the soap if you drop it. Oh by the way I have a new boyfriend"

Re:Prison updates (5, Insightful)

LanMan04 (790429) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532388)

"I've got a cute boyfriend"

"Yesterday I dropped the soap in the shower. A heads up to everyone out there, don't pick up the soap if you drop it. Oh by the way I have a new boyfriend"

Rape isn't funny or justified. Ever.

Re:Prison updates (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36532636)

Picture Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd. Tell me that ain't funny.

Re:Prison updates (3, Insightful)

chaboud (231590) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532650)

Except when it's implicitly part of any prison sentence, generally accepted by the public, and completely disregarded by the courts and prison systems. Then it's *halrious!*

I, for one, love that we pack our prisons with non-violent offenders, sprinkle in some 25-to-lifers, lock the cage doors, and let animal dominance rule the day. What could possibly go wrong?

/stupidity

Re:Prison updates (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36532794)

When it's a psychotic asshole that likes to beat on women and shoot at the cops... it is. Both funny and justified. You like your human rights? Act like a fucking human being. It really is that simple.

10$ says he comes out of prison with his two front teeth missing.

Re:Prison updates (0)

Cederic (9623) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532846)

We had this debate on Slashdot yesterday. Your side of the argument lost.

Re:Prison updates (0)

Cito (1725214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36533048)

Surprise Buttsechs is definitely justifiable, especially surprise buttsechs in prison.

Re:Prison updates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36533098)

Rape is almost always funny, but very rarely justified. On very rare occasions it is the cure for AIDS.

stuntaz! (0)

garyrich (30652) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532202)

Am I the only one that thought that photo was one of the Icy Hot Stuntaz? Then looked at the article and that is actually him, way to represent playa

Who cares about the updates? The real news here... (1)

RussellSHarris (1385323) | more than 3 years ago | (#36532208)

Apparently having a stand-off with the police is a great way to make new friends!

In all, Valdez made six posts and added at least a dozen new friends.

Re:Who cares about the updates? The real news here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36532376)

Back in the good old days it was a big deal to be on facebook, and only the "good" people from your clique were allowed in. Now anybody with a firearm and a hostage can get an account and make the news, and apparently they can make some friends. This is a counter example to the old refrain, "There is no such thing as bad publicity." Facebook is taking one more step toward ubiquity and hence just another place to hang your hat without much thought. As Yogi Berra said, "Nobody goes there anymore, it is too crowded."

This is one more message to the upper class, money dropping kids that Facebook is not the place for the cool kids anymore.

weird italics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36532556)

36-year-old Jason Valdez wouldn't let a little thing like a SWAT team keep him from updating his Facebook status.

What is Facebook? Is it something different from Facebook?

Re:weird italics (1)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 3 years ago | (#36533130)

It's Facebook, but read in a Shatner voice.

Not obstruction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36533016)

Posters who supplied location of SWAT officers would be accomplices, not simple obstruction.

what i love (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36533270)

are the comments by people with a grudge to settle against the police (probably for their own bad behavior they won't own up to) try to use cases like this as a proxy for their grudge: the hostage taker is an innocent lamb whose actions are perfectly understandable, caused by the police, and the police are vicious thugs out to shoot random people any chance they get

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?