Patrick Sean Tomlinson / @stealthygeek / "Torque Wheeler" / @RealAutomanic / Kempesh / Padawan v2.5 - "Conservative" sci-fi author with TDS, armed "drunk with anger management issues" and terminated parental rights, actual tough guy, obese, paid Quasi, paid thousands to be repeatedly unbanned from Twitter

Melissa Sanchez said:
Credit to Snake on the onaforums for this masterpiece. We have the best artists, folks. How long before Pat gets his own Lolcow Cults forum?

View attachment 3533240
Click to expand...

This is now canon.

1658891915674.jpg
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Horrifying
Reactions: semitooth, GeldKampf, Blatant hypocrite and 65 others
Wow, Pat's really desperate to get in that bit about the pepperoni to both the police AND Twitter.

And they said they only searched his upper level. Not the ground floor or basement.

That seems very convenient how it's all played out. Almost like he knew things were getting hot and he needed to throw people off the scent, using his innocent fan following here online as a convenient scapegoat. How fucking dare you police, you better not come back here again! Not even if someone calls you and tells you they hear the screaming of children coming from my basement, or see ads online offering high quality cured meats for rock bottom prices! That's just the stalkers at it again! He really committed to the act, you could almost believe it.

This bastard is weaving a web of lies and deceit that will allow him to operate with impunity, and nobody is connecting the dots.

I'm sure everyone already knows, but regardless of what this really was, if you ever become aware of anyone who's swatting immediately report them and don't feel bad about it. It's not the same as "snitching" or running to the authorities over personal shit. Swatters screw up everything for everyone for nothing but personal gain, and remember that if they do it to other people and are allowed to get away with it they'll absolutely do it to you too.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: Broadside, Essay2414778, PedoSec and 24 others
I don't doubt he was swatted. Literally thousands of people follow pats antics, you take a group of 5000 people, there's gonna be at least one schizo, one retard, and one retarded schizo.

And while the video was fucking hilarious, whoever did hopefully knows better than to take credit for it. If the swatter is identified, they'll get their own thread.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Dumb
Reactions: Essay2414778, Marvin, PedoSec and 9 others
  • Like
Reactions: Essay2414778, Marvin, ConSluttant and 12 others
JJLiautaud said:
And on the evening of July 27 2022 after the great SWATting mystery; Fat returned to form and all was right with the world.
Click to expand...
I like how he specifically says that he doesnt have a GPA below 1.8. No specific numbers, no explanation, just that it's not below 1.8. And since he is Technicality Tomlinson, he means his GPA is 1.8. Which is still an embarrassingly low number.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Essay2414778, 306h4Ge5eJUJ, Neo-Nazi Rich Evans and 11 others
get-tar manajerk said:
Google already uses its location services for 'geo warrants' when a crime happens
Click to expand...
If you're using a burner phone or virtual number, it doesn't matter

get-tar manajerk said:
Amazon has speech recognition databases that include people who don't own an alexa or whatever the fuck but are picked up by their neighbours.
Click to expand...
If you are making a call as part of a federal crime, you should not be using your real voice anyway. Use a voice changer or TTS.

get-tar manajerk said:
Facebook sells its facial recognition data it gets from people tagging you in photos to security companies. Etc.
Click to expand...
If you're going to do something illegal in an area with cameras, wear as much face/head concealment as you can (thanks Corona-chan). If you do this, facial recognition will not be precise. Glowies acknowledge this, which is why they want to deploy alternate recognition systems like heat signature recognition.
Or, even simpler idea: don't make illegal calls on a phone in public. I will reiterate that you don't even need a burner phone (or a physical phone at all) to do this. It can all be done without even needing to leave your house by using virtual numbers and voice changers or TTS.
I don't want to derail this thread too much with opsec discussion, but I don't think these issues should be too concerning to someone employing basic safeguards.
Btw, plz don't actually SWAT lolcows.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Essay2414778, PedoSec, ConSluttant and 5 others
SomervilleDan said:
Nah, I'm still here. Not hiding.

I wish I could take credit for the audio, but that was weaponized autism from the rascals.
Click to expand...
I remember when I called you a faggot, then you got so butthurt you called me out on your dead gay podcast. Later I decided you were just doing a bit. Then even later I realized no, it wasn't a bit, you actually are just an overly sensitive butthurt faggot.

That said, the drunk Florida Jew was occasionally funny.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Feels
Reactions: Broadside, Baguette Child, Raging Euphoria and 13 others
Liber Pater said:
If you're going to do something illegal in an area with cameras, wear as much face/head concealment as you can (thanks Corona-chan).
Click to expand...
Nah, I'll be fine, but do you recommend picking up my late night Subway sandwich before or after I do the illegal thing with a couple foreign bodybuilders?
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Essay2414778, ConSluttant, TurboNAS and 16 others
In light of the possibility the visit by his friendly neighborhood officers was due to ShotSpotter, I thought it worth sharing the company responsible for this technology has refused to share how it works in court:

Chicago Reader said:
On Friday, an attorney representing ShotSpotter, a gunshot-detection technology company, made the unusual request that a judge in a criminal case hold the company in contempt of court to prevent ShotSpotter from being compelled to release documents about how it assesses gunshot alerts.

The case stems from a car stop made by Chicago police in November 2021 that culminated in the driver being arrested for a DUI. Attorneys from the Cook County Public Defender Office, contending the police pulled the man over solely based on a ShotSpotter alert, subpoenaed the company as a third party to find out whether that was the case.

Court documents show that a ShotSpotter alert was recorded on November 7, 2021, near the intersection of Hamlin and Lake Street, on the west side of Garfield Park. At least eight Chicago cops responded to the alert, and two of the responding officers arrested the defendant a few blocks away as he drove down Central Park Avenue, which bisects the park.

ShotSpotter alerts are triggered when one of the system’s acoustic sensors identifies a gunshot, and they often bring police—but the sensors can also incorrectly pick up fireworks and other noises as gunshots. The company employs analysts who review certain alerts in real time and make judgments about what the sensors are actually hearing. Analysts can also reclassify alerts retroactively, days or weeks after a firework has been incorrectly logged as a gunshot, for example.

The defense’s request included ShotSpotter analysts’ qualifications and training materials; any instances in which the company’s analysts reclassified alerts or the Chicago police asked ShotSpotter to do so; and the methods analysts use to reclassify alerts. The defense also requested ShotSpotter produce any data on sensors misidentifying gunfire or the location of alerts, as well as data on gunfire ShotSpotter failed to identify.

Rather than comply, attorneys for the company asked the judge to hold their client in “friendly” contempt of court.

Discovery orders such as these typically cannot be appealed before final judgment is issued. However, contempt-of-court sanctions for violating a discovery order can be appealed. The request for a so-called “friendly” contempt-of-court order is designed to allow ShotSpotter to effectively appeal the discovery order by appealing the contempt order.

“ShotSpotter is refusing to produce the documents needed to allow the court to decide whether it was reasonable of the police to pull over our client based solely on a ShotSpotter alert, a technology that has repeatedly been shown to be unreliable,” read a statement from the Cook County Defender Office. “Instead of standing by their service and welcoming an opportunity to have the quality of their technology subject to examination in open court, ShotSpotter is delaying a timely resolution of this case for our client.”

Matthew Crowl, an attorney representing ShotSpotter, did not respond to the Reader’s questions by press time.

The motion in this criminal case comes on the heels of an unrelated civil lawsuit filed against the city of Chicago last week by Lucy Parsons Labs and Northwestern University’s MacArthur Justice Center. That lawsuit accuses the Chicago Police Department of overreliance on a technology that the plaintiffs say rarely leads to evidence of gun crimes.

The lawsuit cites two cases—both unrelated to the one in which ShotSpotter was held in contempt—in which police made an arrest following the system’s gunshot alerts. In one case, a 65-year-old grandfather was held in Cook County Jail for nearly a year at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic before his case was dismissed due to insufficient evidence. In another, a 36-year-old man was locked up by cops responding to a ShotSpotter alert. The lawsuit seeks class-action status for anyone the police have stopped in Chicago because of a ShotSpotter alert. It also seeks to bar the city from using the technology.

The next hearing in the DUI case is scheduled for August 23.
Click to expand...

 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Essay2414778, ConSluttant, Neo-Nazi Rich Evans and 12 others
yourdadscumdumpster said:
In light of the possibility the visit by his friendly neighborhood officers was due to ShotSpotter, I thought it worth sharing the company responsible for this technology has refused to share how it works in court:



Click to expand...
Always a good sign when somebody asks "so how often do you fuck up?" and the response is "No, stalker, this constitutes telephone felony harassment. Do not contact this number again."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Essay2414778, Neo-Nazi Rich Evans, REGENDarySumanai and 10 others
Liber Pater said:
If you're using a burner phone or virtual number, it doesn't matter


If you are making a call as part of a federal crime, you should not be using your real voice anyway. Use a voice changer or TTS.


If you're going to do something illegal in an area with cameras, wear as much face/head concealment as you can (thanks Corona-chan). If you do this, facial recognition will not be precise. Glowies acknowledge this, which is why they want to deploy alternate recognition systems like heat signature recognition.
Or, even simpler idea: don't make illegal calls on a phone in public. I will reiterate that you don't even need a burner phone (or a physical phone at all) to do this. It can all be done without even needing to leave your house by using virtual numbers and voice changers or TTS.
I don't want to derail this thread too much with opsec discussion, but I don't think these issues should be too concerning to someone employing basic safeguards.
Btw, plz don't actually SWAT lolcows.
Click to expand...
This all makes sense. Of course it can be done, that's why so few of these people are caught. Calling your victim 2 weeks prior to warn them about your upcoming crime doesn't make any sense though.

I dunno how to feel anymore. Definitely not finding the audio as hilarious as I did when I thought this was all due to the shot spotter system thing.
 
  • Dumb
  • Like
Reactions: PedoSec, justhereforments, TreeFortRichardsTCell and 2 others
SomervilleDan said:
Work, shoot, bit, butthurt faggot, all of the above?
Click to expand...
If it's any consolation I forgive you now. I actually don't think you deserved to get roasted quite as hard as you were, although it felt kind of vindicating at the time.

Offering an internet olive branch and hand shake, we cool dude? I'm willing to be cool.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Broadside, Essay2414778, Baguette Child and 11 others
Well his version of events are surely to be trusted. He'll never pass an opportunity to take a complete humiliation and distort the event to make him the victimised hero of the story. The audio is right there and that did not sound like a big scary tough guy ready to hand me my teeth.

Free ballin' Rick in a bathrobe would be a hilarious sight for sure, albeit a disgusting one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neo-Nazi Rich Evans, REGENDarySumanai, Ophelia and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back