Slashdot Mirror


Kansas 'Swat' Perpetrator Had Already Been To Prison For Fake Bomb Threats (go.com)

More details are emerging about an online gamer whose fake call to Kansas police led to a fatal shooting:
  • "After phoning in a false bomb threat to a Glendale, California TV station in 2015, Tyler Barriss threatened to kill his grandmother if she reported him, according to local reports and court documents." -- The Wichita Eagle
  • "The Glendale Police Department confirmed to ABC News that Tyler Barriss made about 20 calls to universities and media outlets throughout the country around the time he was arrested for a bomb threat to Los Angeles ABC station KABC in 2015... He was sentenced to two years and eight months in jail, court records show." -- ABC News
  • "Within months of his release in August, he had already become the target of a Los Angeles Police Department investigation into similar hoax calls... LAPD detectives were planning to meet with federal prosecutors to discuss their investigation..." -- The Los Angeles Times
  • The Wichita Eagle reports that even after the police had fatally shot the person SWauTistic was pretending to be, he continued his phone call with the 911 operator for another 16 minutes -- on a call which lasted over half an hour.
  • Brian Krebs reports that police may have been aided in their investigation by another reformed SWAT perpetrator -- adding that SWauTistic privately claimed to have already called in fake emergencies at approximately 100 schools and 10 homes.

Just last month SWauTistic's Twitter account showed him bragging about a bomb threat which caused the evacuation of a Dallas convention center, according to the Daily Beast -- after which SWauTistic encouraged his Twitter followers to also follow him on a second account, "just in case twitter suspends me for being a god." Later the 25-year-old tweeted that "if you can't pull off a swat without getting busted you're not a leet hacking God its that simple."

Barriss remains in jail in Los Angeles with no bond, though within three weeks he's expected to be extradited to Kansas for his next trial.


25 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Dumber by cirby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Better yet, don't make bomb threats.

  2. Re:Dumber by Sarten-X · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Better yet, just don't be a hazard to society.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  3. Police didn't care by jandrese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This guy thought he was a l33t hacker because the police hadn't caught him, but it seems like the first time they tried they were able to roll him up in a few hours. He's an idiot with a vastly inflated sense of self worth, and it got an innocent person killed.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  4. "sentenced to two years and eight months in jail" by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In 2015. So why isn't he still behind bars?

  5. Well, that's true by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We need laws which make it illegal for the cops to roll up on someone and execute them on the basis that someone claimed that there was a crime occurring at a specific address. In the best case, they are risking killing a hostage.

    Wait, you meant anti-SWATting laws? It's already illegal to do what he did. That didn't stop him. You think making it more illegal would have stopped him?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Well, that's true by shess · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We need laws which make it illegal for the cops to roll up on someone and execute them on the basis that someone claimed that there was a crime occurring at a specific address.

      They had the caller WHO THEY BELIEVED THEY WERE SHOOTING on the phone AT THE TIME THEY WERE SHOOTING HIM, and didn't bother to interact with him using the established communications channel AT ALL.

      There's a lot to find wrong about this scenario, but even if you grant all sorts of things like "hostage situations are scary", and "it was dark", the fact that they apparently did not use a tool that was in their hands the entire time makes the other things sound more like excuses than reasons.

    2. Re:Well, that's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They had the caller WHO THEY BELIEVED THEY WERE SHOOTING on the phone AT THE TIME THEY WERE SHOOTING HIM, and didn't bother to interact with him using the established communications channel AT ALL.

      At the end of the day, the police officer has a legal responsibility to say "do I see anything which says I need to discharge my weapon to protect the safety of myself or a citizen?".

      And, I'm sorry, but if you roll up on a place and can't reconcile what you've been told with what you can plainly see, a little restraint is required from you.

      What, exactly, was the kid who got shot doing when he got shot?

      Everything I've seen suggests a cop with an itchy trigger finger and ZERO confirmation of a damned thing. Sorry, but being a police office doesn't mean you get to shoot first and ask questions later.

      "A male came to the front door," Livingston said. "As he came to the front door, one of our officers discharged his weapon."

      Livingston didn't say if the man, who was 28, had a weapon when he came to the door, or what caused the officer to shoot the man.

      That's from the original news story here.

      That smacks of a cop who was pissing his pants or was just so excited to shoot he didn't wait. And that is a fucking criminal act.

      The actual shooting?? That's 100% on the cops.

  6. Re: Dumber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    We are nearly a year into his presidency and still we have not gone to nuclear war with anyone, mass deportations have not happened, people of color have not been killed en mass like dogs in the street, we haven't even yet had ironically run concentration camps... Instead we have the markets up, the economy is, unemployment sown, ISIS on the run and North Korea talking again... A threat to who the?

  7. Re:More proof we need more laws... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What we need to do is fix our stupidassed phone system so this type of thing is no longer possible. The fact that you can spoof CallerID is absurd.

  8. OK but how about the dead people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is all fine and good but maybe lets discuss the innocent civilians literally killed by police for no reason? Over-response much? "To protect?" LOL, you mean "target pratice?" Just look at the facts, being a police officer is one of the SAFEST jobs in America but because they have been brainwashed and have triggers on guns they are the MOST dangerous people in the world.

    These paranoid lunatics kill who knows how many regular innocent people and while some of it makes news, most of it is covered up.

    It's time to discuss whether a military response is necessary for common household domestic matters.

  9. Re:More proof we need more laws... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unfortunately research has shown that its not the severity of the punishment that deters individuals from perpetrating those crimes, its the certainty of being caught.

    This, in spades.

    The severity of the punishment should fit the crime, but beyond a certain level of severity, there is no additional deterrence. That is one of may reasons why the death penalty should be abolished.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  10. What the fuck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    What is wrong with this fucking community?

    All the modded up comments have ZERO fucks to do with this headline.

    You guys are all a bunch of fuck tards!

    Ohh and this guy, This 25 year old little pussy ass boy, deserves to be strung up and beaten to death. There is no room for his kind in this world.

  11. Re:Dumber by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Better yet, just don't be a hazard to society.

    Who is the hazard? The SWAT team went to a random address, based on an anonymous phone call, and killed the innocent occupant for basically no reason at all.

    Barriss should be held accountable. But he didn't "murder" anyone. The SWAT team did that.

  12. Can we go back to the actual killer? by mi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok, so this punk will get the punishment he richly deserved long before an innocent man was killed.

    Now, can we go back to punishing the actual killer — the cop, who pulled the trigger? Unlike certain Michael Brown, this victim really was raising his hands. Why was he shot at? Why will not you and me be shot at in the same situation?

    It sure seems like police are trying to throw all of the responsibility on the prankster, the better to protect one of their own... We should not allow that to happen.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Can we go back to the actual killer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It sure seems like police are trying to throw all of the responsibility on the prankster, the better to protect one of their own

      Yeah. It's hard not to think that the actual police office on the actual scene with the actual gun in his hand has to bear some responsibility for actually saying does any of what I actually see merit deadly force?

      From what I've seen, than answer would have to be no. I fail to see how this is a clean shoot, but maybe some of the details are eluding me.

    2. Re:Can we go back to the actual killer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't kid yourself, the actual killer was the member on the SWAT team that immediately fired on a person 150 feet away. The gamers and "swatter" are accomplices.

    3. Re:Can we go back to the actual killer? by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nice way to play that cop without actually being that cop.

      Nice hand waiving. I don't know about this municipality, but the remedial firearms safety course I took - when I was eight years old - stressed a few cardinal rules. One, never shoot at anything you don't want to kill. And two, always be sure of what it is that you are shooting at.

      By definition, this cop didn't know what he was shooting at, as the man complied with demands and was unarmed, but was dead seconds after walking outside of his door. Which means the cop had no business using a firearm, much less being a police officer with a firearm.

      This isn't a hard subject, no matter that some willfully obtuse people would like to pretend otherwise.

  13. Re:More proof we need more laws... by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This guy repeatedly, intentionally, with malice aforethought, put people's lives in danger. He may not have pulled the trigger, but IMO, he should still be found guilty of felony murder (in the first degree) and tried accordingly. Watching him get a lethal injection sentence *might* be enough to deter others who still think it's fun....

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  14. Re:More proof we need more laws... by stephanruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I, for one, am betting on AI being the best hope. Let AI watch conversations on games (where it is a private affair, mind you, not a constitutional issue), and start cracking down on overly-aggressive players before they can turn into hazards.

    Modded 5 insightful. Seriously? AI is already moderating Youtube comments. How well do you think that's going?

    And in games only? How do you plan on training the AI anyway? I can just imagine an AI sending a SWAT team to my place just because I said "Fred, Shoot that guy! Finish him off!" during a Call of Duty game.

  15. Don't put the mentally ill in prison by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There, they will get released after a while, unless they manage to do something really large. People like this one need to go under permanent supervision. At the same time, it can rightfully be said that this person is insane and hence prison is again not the right place, as punishment will accomplish exactly nothing. (Yes, I do understand that prison in the US is about revenge and economic incentives, not punishment. But unless the US stops using the mind-set of a stone-age primitive here, problems like this will not get solves and will continue to cause significant damage to society.)

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  16. Re:Dumber by easyTree · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps the police and swat should be forced to dogfood their service.

    Once per day, the home of the relative of a police/swat-team member should be swatted randomly. Pretty soon, procedures would change.

  17. Re: Dumber by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would relive that moment and ask myself why I felt I had to shoot a man who I would later learn was unarmed.

    I would assume you could then immediately answer that with "because I believed he was armed and did not want him to murder me or anyone else".

    Pretty short discussion, really.

  18. Re:Dumber by Calydor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How large a percentage of the US population is black? According to a quick Google search, around 13%.

    These are the kind of numbers we need for statistics to make sense. With 13% of the population making up 25% of a statistic, that percentage has a marked increase in chance/risk of whatever the statistic is made to show. In this case, risk of getting shot and killed.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  19. Re: Dumber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's easy to moralize when your life isn't on the line.

    At the distance and light conditions and view on the target we are talking about, the police officer's life wasn't on the line. Anybody thinking differently is severely unsuitable for doing police duty as they would be a danger to themselves and others.

  20. Re:Dumber by Nehmo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These are the kind of numbers we need for statistics to make sense. With 13% of the population making up 25% of a statistic, that percentage has a marked increase in chance/risk of whatever the statistic is made to show. In this case, risk of getting shot and killed.

    You are correct, if black people are 13% of the population and 25% of people killed by the police, that's not right. However, saying "the majority of people shot by police are black" is still untrue and gives a very wrong picture.

    Blacks get killed disproportionately more because they disproportionately behave in ways that give police the excuse to shoot. They commit more crime, drive more erratically, attempt to escape more, run more, talk back more, more often carry weapons, fight more, resist more, disobey more, and are simply more discourteous. The cops aren't racist. They kill plenty of Caucasians too.

    --
    (||) Nehmo (||)