Slashdot Mirror


Two More Gamers May Be Charged in Fatal Kansas 'SWAT' Shooting (kansas.com)

A newly-released affidavit reveals that money was at stake in a game of Call Of Duty: World War II which led to the fatal real-life police shooting of Andrew Finch. The Wichita Eagle reports: Investigators learned that Shane Gaskill, who lives in Wichita, was involved in an online video game with other people when he accidentally [virtually] shot and killed one of his teammates in the online game. The teammate who was killed in the game became "extremely upset" and began talking trash to Gaskill, the affidavit says. The dispute escalated until the teammate, who the document identifies as Casey Viner of North College Hill, Ohio, threatened via Twitter to "SWATT" Gaskill, according to the affidavit. Gaskill replied, "Please try some s---." He then posted the address...
Viner "is considered a suspect in several 'swatting' incidents in Cincinnati," reports the Los Angeles Times, adding that prosecutors are still deciding whether these two gamers should also face criminal charges.

Meanwhile, Kansas officials have been informed that the third gamer who actually made the phone call, 25-year-old Tyler Barriss, matches the voice on a fake 2015 bomb threat, and is already the subject of an open investigation by an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force.

170 comments

  1. the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is the guy who committed the [real] murder on an unarmed man going to be charged? Or is that workplace mistake?

    1. Re:the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a separate issue. He should be charged, as well at the person who made the call. Neither should be out of prison before they have gray hair.

    2. Re:the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, just paid vacation.

      After all, he was just doing his job as trained. The problem isn't that individual (not to say he should be excused), the problem is a system and a culture which both encourage violence.

    3. Re: the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People always say "no need to ruin a kid's life over this" but in this case...just execute them already.
      There is no chance they're innocent in any way.

    4. Re:the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since it's part of a police officer's job to enter situations known to be dangerous (as in, bad guys with guns who want to kill you or others), they get a bit of levity. There are mitigating factors that apply.

      The guy who posted the address...he clearly shares in the guilt. He knew that address belonged to someone (not himself, of course), and he knew the intent was to SWATT it. He will of course try some sort of "I didn't think he would actually do it" defense, which shouldn't fly since he was clearly protecting his own address for a reason.

    5. Re:the (actual) shooter by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly there are more then one problem here.
      1. Problem of people swatting others.
      2. The police jumping to a swat for these calls
      3. The action of the swat police who shot an unarmed man.
      4. The person who chose to swat them
      5. Taking games so seriously that such retribution is considered.
      6. The faults in the 911 to allow for anonymous false calls.

      There are a lot of problems going on here. However arresting the guy charged for one of them is a step. However the biggest fear is after they get the guy and charge the. Is case closed with all the other problems still in effect

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:the (actual) shooter by arse+maker · · Score: 1

      If you think the officer will go to jail over this you need to look at the seemingly constant stream of stories of police shootings of unarmed people being either not charged or acquitted.
      I would bet 1000 dollars he wont be convicted of anything. Probably wont even get fired.

    7. Re:the (actual) shooter by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 0

      A police officer is not likely to face prosecution, much less jail time, for an accidental killing unless they were guilty of _gross_ misconduct at the scene. Nor should they, it seems, based on what they could reasonably have believed when they entered the home.

      The audio of the 911 call is available at http://www.kansas.com/news/loc... . The call sounded like a confused man who had just shot one of his parents dead, with other live people in the house. That is a frightfully dangerous situation for everyone, officers and potential victims alike. For an officer on the scene, who is informed of one dead victim already and informed that the caller refuses to put down their weapon before police arrive, slow response puts many people at risk, including other potential victims in the house.

    8. Re:the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Amusing because you could say excatly the same thing about the swatter.

    9. Re:the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > he was just doing his job as trained
      Yank cops are actually trained these days?

    10. Re:the (actual) shooter by sandbagger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Would shooting someone who may have been a hostage without taking the time to find out who he was constitute gross misconduct?

      --
      ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
    11. Re:the (actual) shooter by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I don't care what the call sounded like. Are cops too stupid to use their own eyes and ears and what's between them? Or is it even worse than that?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They never entered the home you piece of shit you don't know anything about this story.

    13. Re:the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why wouldn't he? It's clearly a case where both are at fault.

    14. Re:the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Really, they should just listen to hear if the background music changes from peaceful to threatening. High stress situations with a lot of unknowns aren't always cut and dry.

    15. Re:the (actual) shooter by LWATCDR · · Score: 0

      The only hostages according to the phone call where his mother and sister. In other words women. The person that walked out was male.
      The police officer should probably not be a police officer any longer but no he will not get charged. It was reasonable for him to think that lives where at risk.
      I find the police hate to be really annoying. Let me explain the concept of intent to you. The officer was intending to save the lives of two hostages. The SWATTER was intending to put people lives at risk for the LOLs and $$$...

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    16. Re:the (actual) shooter by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      This kind of situation is precisely why good SWAT departments _practice_ telling friend from foe in training. How much time can an officer allocate for assessing targets on such a call? And how can they distinguish that?

    17. Re:the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He will of course try some sort of "I didn't think he would actually do it" defense, which shouldn't fly since he was clearly protecting his own address for a reason.

      Details always matter in such cases. It will likely depend to a large extent on whether he knew (or had reason to believe) that the individual would indeed swat him and was not just blowing smoke. Doing something bad, and saying something like "So kill me!" is not actually permission, nor is it commonly expected that someone would actually act upon that statement. Which any adult (or someone who will be charged as an adult) should know.

      What might be more interesting is if the person who initiated the swatting will try to make the "crime of passion" defense, in that dying in the game was such an emotional event he was justified in taking action in real life, and should receive a more lenient charge or sentence. Should the courts accept the concept that it is the game that matters? That immersive games are in fact more real than real life? If so, are the game manufacturers responsible for the swatting? That could get really interesting.

    18. Re:the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care what the call sounded like.

      You could have stopped there and gone back to your safe space.

    19. Re:the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are cops too stupid to use their own eyes and ears and what's between them?

      Yes.

    20. Re:the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Youth are trained to place swatting calls in America?

      Maybe there's something to this private school thing after all...

    21. Re:the (actual) shooter by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Are cops too stupid to use their own eyes and ears and what's between them?

      The gamer who made the swatting call was counting on them being so.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    22. Re: the (actual) shooter by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      How much time can an officer allocate for assessing targets on such a call?

      That very much depends on the target. Sometimes you have loads of time, sometimes you don't even have two seconds. The latter is inherently going to cause innocent casualties in some situations. It doesn't matter how good your judgement, training, or tactics are; there are going to be situations in which you are going to have to make a split second decision, and some subset of those decisions are going to be wrong.

      And then you'll end up on YouTube so that millions of morons can scream about how horrible cops are.

    23. Re:the (actual) shooter by moronoxyd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If we remove everything before and after, we have a person who is shouted at out of the blue and is told to do something. Most people would be surprised and not do what they are told.
      Taking the context away doesn't make the officers reaction any better.

      And the arguments from GP fall flat, too.
      Why would anybody assume that the situation is exactly as described by the caller? The caller could have lied (he's a self-proclaimed murderer, after all). He could have been wrong assuming that nobody but him and the hostages were in the house. Some neighbor might have come around asking if everything is alright between the call and the arrival of the officers..
      If the officers assumed they knew all about the situation just from the call they should be fired for incompetence.

    24. Re:the (actual) shooter by CaptainDork · · Score: 0

      You failed to remain within the boundaries I set.

      Don't do that.

      You get a redo.

      This time, work with the theory that everything that SWAT was told was true .

      The perp did not comply and did assume a threatening posture.

      Discuss.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    25. Re:the (actual) shooter by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Imminent threat to the guys behind bullet proof shields, heavily armed and wearing body armour?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    26. Re:the (actual) shooter by mi · · Score: 2

      The only hostages according to the phone call where his mother and sister. In other words women. The person that walked out was male.

      The victim was ordered to surrender and was raising his hands (unlike certain, ahem, Michael Brown). What possible reason was there for shooting him?

      Seriously, forget putting yourself in the victim's place — put yourself in the cop's place... And think, what could the victim have done differently to avoid being shot at? And if you can't blame him for anything, then you have to blame the shooter.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    27. Re:the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's a separate issue. He should be charged, as well at the person who made the call. Neither should be out of prison before they have gray hair.

      Yeah, we'll focus on your first comment here. There will be plenty of officers who will keep the spotlight on the caller and everyone else involved as they attempt to dismiss an action that ended a mans life as a "separate issue" until it is long forgotten by the public.

      I'll bet money the actions of SWAT get swept under the rug. Watch and see.

    28. Re:the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The perp did not comply and did assume a threatening posture.

      Given the SWAT team member was already aimed at the perp with his gun and literally only had to pull the trigger, I'd wait until the perp went form "threatening posture" to "actually has a gun out and was aiming it at someone" before pullng the trigger. Or, in the case that it's difficult/impossible to determine if he's got a gun (which implies a handgun or the like and he's not spending the several seconds to carefully line it up properly in front of him), wait until he actually fires because, oddly enough, given that everyone is several hundred feet away, there was about zero chance that any of the officers were seriously threatened even if he managed to fire several shots.

      Now let's change the scenario a little and have two armed police officers who were actually near the door who could have, you know, arrested him without guns being their only real option. Oh, right, can't change the situation. We have to presume SWAT was the rational answer and their approach right up to the bullet coming out of the gun was rational. Couldn't just be that a person coming out of a house with a bright light flashing in his eyes would, in a few seconds, not be 100% cooperative. We also know that everyone has guns in their waistband.

      *sigh* It's hard to argue simultaneously that SWATing is dangerous because there's a serious risk of death and that SWAT teams are actually a reasonable police force tool and not simple accidental death waiting to happen. If that's all SWAT is, then SWAT should be dismantled because there's something seriously wrong in having a whole police unit which by its nature will not deal with all the accidental deaths it causes regularly.

    29. Re:the (actual) shooter by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      that everything that SWAT was told was true .

      That's a bullshit theory. If it we were to stipulate, what you ask as to, we wouldn't need the courts, judges, and juries. If everything the police are told by anonymous callers — and repeat to each other — is truth, then kill/lock up everyone of the accused...

      Asking to model based on this "theory" of yours is like calculating a helicopter flight ignoring air-resistance... The proposed theory makes no sense.

      The perp did not comply

      The perpetrator of what?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    30. Re:the (actual) shooter by moronoxyd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This time, work with the theory that everything that SWAT was told was true .

      No, I'm not going to talk about a imaginary scenario that is intentionally tilted in favor of the cops. I'm talking about the situation as it developed in reality, which left an innocent man dead.

      The cops couldn't assume that they knew all about the situation, and they should have reacted accordingly, which would include the assumption that somebody innocent could come out of the door.

    31. Re:the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the guy who committed the [real] murder on an unarmed man going to be charged? Or is that workplace mistake?

      It amazes me how short sighted some people are. Then I get sad because the votes from these people are equal to mine. Fuck democracy when people like you exist.

    32. Re:the (actual) shooter by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      He reached for his waistband... Where a lot of people tend to put guns.
      What could he have done? Kept his hands up. But what could have prevented it?
      If the SWATTER never called the called the police setting the entire thing up.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    33. Re:the (actual) shooter by LWATCDR · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Why would anybody assume that the situation is exactly as described by the caller? "
      He had to assume the worst case which is pretty much what was described on the phone.

      I still do not get this police hate for this guy. The SWATTER committed an act with full malice. The police did not act with malice.

      The law is would have a reasonable person thought that lives where in danger. The answer is yes. Frankly the Swatter should get charged with murder but in the state it happened the act of calling in a false report is not on the list of felonies that qualify as a death occurred during. I really hope they add that. I think Swatting should carry a mandatory $500,000 fine and five years. It is not a victimless none violent crime.
       

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    34. Re:the (actual) shooter by sandbagger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >The man on the porch not only failed to comply, but struck a pose of imminent threat.

      No problem. Let's take a look at that. A man sees lights flashing outside and goes to his front door 'Hmmm, that's a bright light. What are they saying? I wonder who they're talking to.'

      You want the man who has no idea who has no idea that he's an actor in the drama to present a certain way, when a policeman who's in no immediate danger, 50 yards away and wearing armour, surrounded by colleagues, who've all been drilled, and are looking at him through scopes so they can see he's got no rifle, to be excused but the victim to shoulder contributory blame.

      No. Sorry. Not justified. Your rationale is both profoundly costly in the short run, and monstrously expensive in the long run.

      --
      ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
    35. Re: the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm the original AC who asked the question. It was an honest question. Even if the cop had justification to FEEL scared, so did the victim. Fact is he wasn't armed and he wasn't a threat. That is not justice. SWAT team had no proof of anything. They had "reports".

      I just very simply can't imagine acting ANY better for the police than the victim did prior to being shot. You come up to my door in the late PM with bright lights and I'm confused and dazed I'm bound to do something (accidentally) that probably gets me killed. That isn't right. Should baggy pajamas be banned?

      I literally live across the street from a county SWAT team member. His wife brought us dinner over after our kid was born. Nice people, sure. But he is a little weird. He is jumpy. He lives life by looking over his shoulder all the time. That guy should probably not be the one holding a gun at someone during conflict.

    36. Re: the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Exactly. Have you ever fired a real weapon? It's no joke and the armor and shield are not magical Star Trek shields. The bullet could have penetrated, could have gone through an unarmed area, could have deflected into someone else, could have been fired at a hostage or gone through the wall and hit a passing bystander.

      You mouth off a lot about things you know nothing about.

    37. Re: the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wait to see a weapon before firing a lethal shot. You worried the SWAT team didn't have tactical advantage of the situation? They did. They had every advantage one could have been afforded under this situation. And an innocent man is dead. Fail.

    38. Re:the (actual) shooter by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I find the police hate to be really annoying. Let me explain the concept of intent to you. The officer was intending to save the lives of two hostages.

      Given the frequency of wrong-address SWAT raids, from whatever cause, shouldn't the training include accounting for the possibility that the person opening the door has no idea that a raid is being directed against him? Maybe not riddling the front-door-opener with bullets until you have definite indication that he's the bad guy? Like a kidnapper would just open the door in response to a raid, anyway.

      I find the copsucking to be really annoying.

    39. Re: the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay,
      but i'll tell you what.
      to hell with their shoot first idea to save hypothetical lives, unseen.
      so the gumman shoots people unseen, unheard, and otherwise unobserved.
      Because the gunman set up the situation, it's still not the police's fault for "failing to save them". It's the gunman's fault!
      And it wouldn't be paraded around youtube, because it would just be a "terrible tragedy by a deranged killer".

      this as opposed to an unarmed man murdered on his doorstep by the police from a long distance, shouting nonsense, and flashing bright lights.

    40. Re:the (actual) shooter by mi · · Score: 1

      He reached for his waistband... Where a lot of people tend to put guns.

      Even more people keep their wallets there... For all you know, he more likely to be reaching for his ID. That all the other cops present held their fire is the best evidence possible, no threat could have been reasonably perceived. Unlike, perhaps, in the case of this unfortunate man.

      If the SWATTER never called the called the police setting the entire thing up.

      That a "swatting" prank took place is completely irrelevant. Even if there was a real hostage-taking taking place, firing a lethal shot in such circumstances was an outrage.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    41. Re:the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Discuss.

      Will you demand police obey the same rule? I walk around the corner and see a gun-carrying (obviously) cop, then shout "Put your hands in the air or I shoot". I am entitled to murder him for the slightest disobedience, right?

      Yes, police are in dangerous situations, that's why they have snipers and military gear. Yes, they have to end the situation quickly and save lives. No, the police don't have the all the facts. NO, the police may not shoot immediately. If you can't handle that contradiction, don't work in law enforcement.

    42. Re: the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Striking a pose from across the street is not an imminent threat.
      These cops must watch too much anime if they are afraid of poses.
      And if they thought they were up against the Genyuu Force they should know bullets just bounce off those guys.

    43. Re:the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Whose lives were in danger? Even if the guy at the door had a gun, it is unlikely he could have pulled it out, aimed and fired quick enough to kill any of the cops given the distance the cops were at, and that they presumably were wearing protective armor.

    44. Re: the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You just called a perfectly innocent man a "perp."

      Which perfectly sums up the most fundamental problem with American law enforcement, the presumption that anyone who is not a cop is a criminal. When officers are constantly and casually told that everyone is a threat, of course they have less compunction about pulling the trigger (or beating someone, or planting evidence etc. etc .).

      Any sane and reasonable police chief would remind their officers that they are "suspects," not "perps," and would make the use of the latter a fireable offense. What's even sicker is that the DAs I've worked with, all of whom shoild know better, are just as cavalier in throwing around the same language when talking with the cops.

    45. Re:the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's go one step further. Let's compare these likely well-payed future decent pension-receiving, highly trained and lethal police, and their obsession with never being in harm's way... with a volunteer firefighter that just ran into your burning home to save your cat, or your television. We need to reasses? Or go over a definition? Or just call a spade a spade? We need to understand what a bad-ass hero actually is, and what a coward actually is. The cowardly administrative rules of the police are giving the good guys, the real heros, that are willing to risk their lives to save another, that may be among the ranks of police, a new name: operational coward. They may be willing to die for you, but they are not allowed any more to risk their lives for anything or any reason. Why don't we care as much about firefighters (who no one will deny, are nearly all actual selfless heros)? If I was a firefighter, I would mock police.

    46. Re: the (actual) shooter by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Because the gunman set up the situation, it's still not the police's fault for "failing to save them". It's the gunman's fault!
      And it wouldn't be paraded around youtube, because it would just be a "terrible tragedy by a deranged killer".

      If police were more worried about PR than about enforcing the law and saving lives, then yes, this would be an excellent strategy. Better yet, they could just stay inside their police stations playing solitaire, and then we would have a whole lot of tragedies and zero police shootings.

    47. Re:the (actual) shooter by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The catch is they can not charge the criminal pranksters for the murder or anything associated with it because the idiot law enforcers went to the wrong address and they chose to murder someone at the wrong location, so pretty much a random killing. Sure those criminal prankster made the call and they should be penalised and fined for that call ie wasting public resources but they did not send anyone to the wrong address nor did they panic at that location and kill someone nor are the responsible for shit training and poor trainee selection, those are failings of the state and they should be the ones facing real penalties.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    48. Re:the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...After all, he was just doing his job as trained. ..

      aka "just following orders".

    49. Re:the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right and the populace at large agrees with you. Shit happens no matter how careful you are. Raging Slashdot cunts should get a fucking grip.

    50. Re:the (actual) shooter by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      If you think the officer will go to jail over this you need to look at the seemingly constant stream of stories of police shootings of unarmed people being either not charged or acquitted.
      I would bet 1000 dollars he wont be convicted of anything. Probably wont even get fired.

      I would treat this as the officer's lucky day. Any other killing and he'd be charged, but because it was a hoax, he should go free.

      This means the charge filters to the actual gamers themselves.

      You may think "but what about the cop? He'll just kill again!" Well, the cop got lucky. He killed, and was given a once-in-a-lifetime mulligan.after the fact. No way to tell if his next call he'll be so lucky to get off scot-free again , so he's smart, he'll transfer out of the location and keep his nose squeaky clean. Extremely lucky, lotto-winning opportunity he got.

      And yes, murder by proxy/cop should still filter down as a premeditated murder charge. Sorry, but if you're calling it like this, it is murder. It never was a joke, there's no "ha ha just kidding the cops aren't real". Then we can also start treating swatting that don't result in someone getting killed as attempted murders - why else would you call the cops on them? (Sorry, calling the cops eliminates the "it was just a joke". Let's treat it as a the non-joke everyone says it is).

    51. Re:the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The swat member did nothing wrong.

    52. Re:the (actual) shooter by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Would shooting someone who may have been a hostage without taking the time to find out who he was constitute gross misconduct?

      You're joking, right? The FBI does it all the time.

      https://www.click2houston.com/...

    53. Re:the (actual) shooter by Cederic · · Score: 1

      So prosecution the murdering shit that pulled the trigger and maybe his colleagues will demand some proper fucking training.

    54. Re:the (actual) shooter by Cederic · · Score: 1

      they get a bit of levity

      We all like a good giggle at work, but most of us don't fucking laugh about the poor innocent cunt we just murdered.

    55. Re:the (actual) shooter by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Then why the fuck is an innocent man dead?

      You and I have very fucking different definitions for 'wrong'.

    56. Re:the (actual) shooter by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Or we could charge the idiots that made the call and the bigger idiot that shot and killed an innocent man.

      No fucking mulligan, he didn't have to shoot, he chose to shoot and he needs to face prosecution for his illegal lethal assault.

    57. Re:the (actual) shooter by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I hope they charge Viner with the same crimes as Barriss, those two were in a conspiracy to swat that house and who actually made the call is of minor importance. I don't see Gaskill being charged with anything, if you taunt someone that's generally not a crime even if the taunted person injuries somebody else in the process of attacking you.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    58. Re:the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SWAT was across the street behind barricades and wearing ballistic armor, they were not under threat. Police also had suspicion that the call was bogus because it didn't come from the 911 emergency system, instead the call came into the non-emergency number of a local precinct.

    59. Re:the (actual) shooter by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      The faults in the 911 to allow for anonymous false calls

      According to what I read - and I've made no attempt to verify this - the 911 (emergency services call) system was not involved. Barriss called a conventional phone line, a hotline at city hall, and spoke to someone there who relayed his message to the police.

      It appears he didn't have an easy way to spoof a 911 call at the proper location, so that aspect of the system appears to have worked in this case. The problem was that it's too easy to socially-engineer an alternative - but that's a difficult problem to solve. You can't have random employees attempt to vet emergency calls, and telling a caller in distress to hang up and dial 911 isn't ideal either.

      The police should certainly exercise much more caution when the call comes from a suspect source like this - but then they should exercise a hell of a lot more caution in general.

    60. Re:the (actual) shooter by rhazz · · Score: 1

      wait until he actually fires because, oddly enough, given that everyone is several hundred feet away, there was about zero chance that any of the officers were seriously threatened even if he managed to fire several shots.

      I wonder about this one. My assumption is that the person who fired was near to the door, and fired because they thought themselves or their team was in danger. My question is - given what they presumed they were getting into (a threatening situation), why did they immediately put themselves in a position where they would likely have to defend themselves?

      It reminds me of that teenager flashing a fake gun at a park, and two officers show up to confront him. The driver of the patrol car stops the car less than 10 feet from the guy, and the cop in the passenger seat is now placed in a position where he's immediately vulnerable to the presumed armed individual and shoots him. I don't blame the cop who shot the kid, I blame the driver. But all the media coverage was about the shooter.

    61. Re:the (actual) shooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My assumption is that the person who fired was near to the door, and fired because they thought themselves or their team was in danger.

      "I thought he was reaching for a gun." when you don't even see a gun is a horrible excuse. Being near also makes it less of an excuse that you couldn't tell he didn't have a gun. Really, I can't think of a way to assume something defensible for the cop unless they actually found a gun on the guy and it was clear he was reaching for it/had it in his hand.

      I don't blame the cop who shot the kid, I blame the driver. But all the media coverage was about the shooter.

      I both agree and disagree. I still blame the cop who shot the kid because the circumstance of rushing right up beside him, screaming at him to drop the weapon, and then shooting him took all of two seconds, and then four minutes later another officer came to the scene and actually administered first aid. Maybe they were too busy arresting his sister who came rushing over ~2 minutes after the shooting? Of course, that gave them two minutes to have done something. Perhaps they were trying to come up with some excuse for why the driver drove so close and the partner basically immediately opened fire? So, yea, the driver wasn't blameless either. Clearly, though, the shooter was shooting to kill and neither cared if he died.

  2. Game switch... by Kormoran · · Score: 1

    ...from CoD WWII to GTA XXVI, prison VR3D odorama edition.

  3. You miss the point... by CRB9000 · · Score: 0

    ...there is not just a single crime here. There's more than enough blame to go around. However, your focus on just the police officer shows a cowardly support of the swatter that sent the officer to the man's door.

    1. Re:You miss the point... by arse+maker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They are both responsible for their own parts however there is one large difference: the swatter acted with malice. He intended harm.
        The officer was responding as part of his job, how he handled it is a separate part of this fucked up situation.

    2. Re:You miss the point... by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      It's unfortunate that the victim moved quickly when a testerone fueled SWAT team had their scopes and shaky spotlights trained on him... hell, he probably was sitting in his living room having an adult beverage and thought it was a joke of some sort.

      Still. The police involved will not be charged. There is no rioting or civil unrest to sacrifice an officer for.

      Additionally, this development offers up more folks to share the blame, shifting the focus in the conversation from flaws in police tactical exploits.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re:You miss the point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moved quickly? I don't think we watched the same video.

    4. Re:You miss the point... by GWXerog · · Score: 1

      That it not a spotlight. It's an edit to the video done in post to highlight the area of interest. Notice it moves exactly with the camera at times. Police spotlights are mounted on very sturdy arms, they don't shake like that.

    5. Re:You miss the point... by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The officer was responding as part of his job, how he handled it is a separate part of this fucked up situation.

      The only final, irrevocable, irreparable act in the entire situation is the officer aiming his weapon at the victim and pulling the trigger. This was the ultimate go/no-go, life or death decision, and it was made incorrectly. If we are not going to hold the shooter responsible, we might as well just send a robot to execute every suspect. The human is there to not pull the trigger.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:You miss the point... by quonset · · Score: 0

      If we are not going to hold the shooter responsible,

      Why should the shooter be held responsible when the ONLY reason he was there was because of the moronic snowflake who made the call in the first place? Had the snowflake not gone off the deep end because of a simple game and made the call, none of this would have happened.

      The only one responsible for this man's death is the coward who had done this same stunt several times before and gotten away with it.

    7. Re:You miss the point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The cop showed up *on scene* as his job and duty demanded.
      That he pulled the trigger and killed a completely innocent, unarmed man IS THE ONLY REASON WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS.

    8. Re:You miss the point... by misnohmer · · Score: 1

      So if someone yells "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and people get trampled to death while attempting to exit, you would let the yeller go and prosecute people whose shoeprints are found on the dead, correct?

    9. Re:You miss the point... by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh horseshit! They had more armor than fucking robocop, outnumbered the guy something like 20 to 1, he is a fat guy with nothing but a pair of shorts versus an entire fucking SWAT team and despite them having tasers and flashbangs and rubber bullets and riot shield and a dozen other NON LETHAL methods of taking someone down...their FIRST and only reaction is to shoot someone in the head? Really?

      And lets us not forget these dumbfucks were told it was a hostage situation....who answers the door when there is a gunman holding hostages? it sure as fuck ain't the gunman, nope he forces one of the HOSTAGES to answer the door as a shield! So even if they 100% believed what they were told by the dispatch that means this braintrust SHOT THE HOSTAGE, again despite having armor and shields and all those non lethal methods...now are you REALLY buying their line of bullshit, really?

      Those cops are killers, full stop. I wanna see a drug test on these cops, wouldn't be surprised if half of them are running on roid rage and just looking for a fight. In either case I don't give a shit if someone called and said Jigsaw was in that house holding hostages because there is NO way in hell you can spin this in any way, shape, or form to make their actions justified, none. They should be looking at murder two FULL STOP and anything else is nothing but a cover up.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    10. Re:You miss the point... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So if someone yells "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and people get trampled to death while attempting to exit, you would let the yeller go and prosecute people whose shoeprints are found on the dead, correct?

      No, I'd go after both, because both are shitheels. And that's exactly what I've advocated in arguments on this subject, time and again.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:You miss the point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that wasn't "irrevocable, irreparable". He might have missed, or hit a non-vital area, or the victim might have stumbled or stepped aside before the bullet hit him. It was sheer bad luck that the shot killed the victim. His gun might even have failed to fire.

      (I'm not trying to justify it. Obviously it was a bad call. But at the moment the cop pulled the trigger, the death wasn't certain - it merely became a lot more likely. But if that is our criterion, then we would also have to say that it also became a lot more likely when the SWAT team was sent in; when the phone call was made; and when the fuckwit gamer researched the wrong address for his intended target. If any one of those calls had been made differently, the victim would still be alive. What is the basis for singling out just one action as "irrevocable, irreparable"?)

    12. Re:You miss the point... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to justify it. Obviously it was a bad call. But at the moment the cop pulled the trigger, the death wasn't certain - it merely became a lot more likely.

      In this case, it was certain. And that's another issue. Cops have shit muzzle and trigger discipline. You are never supposed to point a gun at something until you are ready to kill it. That's how guns work. The most important safety is the person holding the gun not pointing it at things they don't mean to shoot.

      But if that is our criterion, then we would also have to say that it also became a lot more likely when the SWAT team was sent in;

      Yes. It did. But think about that for a minute. People swat people because SWAT teams have loose triggers. It's specifically because they are known to shoot people that they aren't supposed to shoot that swatting is "worth" doing in the first place. It's this war mentality that they're literally training cops to have. By teaching them that there is a war on cops when this is the safest time in history to be a cop in America, they are encouraging them to kill us in record numbers, which is in fact what is happening.

      What is the basis for singling out just one action as "irrevocable, irreparable"?

      To be fair, the whole SWAT team engaged in terrorist activity, which would likely have traumatized the victim even if none of them had shot him. That sort of experience can never be unlived. However, this experience can never be lived, because he is dead. Everything up to the point at which a SWAT team deployed around the victim's house was essentially harmless. It was the police escalation of the situation that caused harm.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:You miss the point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outside of Slashdot—a paranoid community of internet nerds—nobody gives a shit about your opinion time and time again. The officer was doing his job, you are now bitching about how he wasn’t doing it well enough from the safety of your home. Fuck off.

    14. Re:You miss the point... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Outside of Slashdotâ"a paranoid community of internet nerdsâ"nobody gives a shit about your opinion time and time again.

      This is inside of Slashdot, and I'm literally being asked for my opinion.

      The officer was doing his job, you are now bitching about how he wasnâ(TM)t doing it well enough from the safety of your home.

      What safety?

      Fuck off.

      If you don't want to interact with me, literally all you have to do is stop. I think you have a problem.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:You miss the point... by Cederic · · Score: 2

      Why should the shooter be held responsible when the ONLY reason he was there

      Because fuck the reason he was at the premises and look at the purpose of him being there. It's not to shoot innocent men.

      He should be held responsible because he fucking murdered someone.

    16. Re:You miss the point... by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      So if someone yells "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and people get trampled to death while attempting to exit, you would let the yeller go and prosecute people whose shoeprints are found on the dead, correct?

      Yes, exactly. The yeller caused a disruption and ruined the show, but isn't responsible for killing anyone. Those who trampled others in their haste to exit did that. This isn't a case of acting innocently on the basis of false information—trampling others is the wrong answer whether or not the fire is real.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    17. Re:You miss the point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wanted to revel in someone using 'loose' correctly...it's been too long since I've seen it.

  4. Caller ID, police attitudes, and punishment by StandardCell · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The three reasons that anyone keeps getting SWAT teams sent to them are the following three factors that must be addressed:

    1. Caller ID - it's broken. Unauthenticated caller ID and caller ID spoofing should be treated as a crime since scam artists continue to take over unprotected VoIP gateways. Nothing should be connected to the PSTN without a certificate issued by the PSTN provider, period. This way there's at least some traceability and requires someone to have come on premises or seriously violated the chain of trust far beyond the skiddie level that these little bastards engage in.

    2. Police attitudes - militarization of police is rampant with surplus war equipment like MRAPS, Hollywood movie style takedowns and insufficiently-vetted police officers with mental stability issues. Some modicum of rational assessment of a situation without automatically deploying people is necessary. Laser listening devices on windows, drones, or maybe just walking up to the door. It can't be break in, throw flashbangs and yell like a lunatic getting the innocent occupants to play Simon says until they can't comply and someone innocent gets shot any more.

    3. Punishment - this one is simple. You SWAT, you get twenty years for each instance consecutive. Someone dies because of a swatting, you're guilty of murder and you get life imprisonment. But wait, you say you have some kind of mental disability? Well no problem, you'll just be committed to a mental facility until your condition is eliminated without drugs. Oh, and are you a provider of a gateway to the PSTN or other services that connect to police and don't work to get this done? You lose your license to operate.

    So many people, including myself, are tired of this nonsense. Legislators, law enforcement and telecom companies need to start working together to prevent these things. Otherwise I say they should all be held complicit along with the perpetrators of SWAT incidents in the crimes. It is sheer lunacy that this hasn't been addressed at multiple levels yet.

    1. Re:Caller ID, police attitudes, and punishment by arse+maker · · Score: 1

      2: This seems to be the big problem. The police could have done one of seemingly countless things to avoid this. Asking someone to come outside with a fucking megaphone while you are behind a bullet proof shield seems fairly reasonable with 2 seconds of thought. Why does the military have stricter rules of engagement with non citizens than the police do with citizens?? Its crazy.

      3: Punishing someone doesn't stop it happening. Sure he should be punished but the events would still have happened.

    2. Re:Caller ID, police attitudes, and punishment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      3: Really? If any of these guys had been in jail for their previous SWATings or bomb threats, then Andrew Finch would still be alive.

      It took repeat murder attempts, also called SWATings, before they successfully killed someone - and they could have been stopped at any time by the police and the courts taking these criminals seriously and punishing them for their crimes.

    3. Re:Caller ID, police attitudes, and punishment by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      1. Wouldn't work. Any halfway-intelligent SWATer has a library of low-tech ways to make an untraceable call. There's a piece of archaic technology called a 'payphone' for a start. If that's not available, you just need a ladder - it's easy to climb a pole and hook into a random pair of wires up there. Besides, there are times when there are legitimate reasons for wanting to deliver an anonymous message.

      2. Is the real area where reform is needed.

      3. No threat of punishment will deter idiots. They think themselves untouchable.

    4. Re:Caller ID, police attitudes, and punishment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why does the military have stricter rules of engagement with non citizens than the police do with citizens?

      Because the police must act (almost) instantly, engaging the bad citizens and protecting the good citizens, (usually) simultaneously - for the military it is much simpler: if we not get engaged by the enemy in their own terms, we will engage the enemy in our own terms... hopefully avoiding friendly/neutral losses.

      I am a Greek. I have served (as a conscript - all Greek males must serve in the military) in the Greek Special Forces as a "free shooter" (a little less than a "sniper", and little more than a "designated shooter" - it's a Greek definition of the role), and had some training with other N.A.T.O. (including U.S.A.) "snippers". The reality is that the really good shooters are not in the military but in the police. This "one shoot, one kill" is usually unnecessary for the military sniper (our most valuable gun is our... radio!), but critically necessary for the police snipper (kill the bads AND save the goods).

      My conclusion is that the police acts in more stressed situations, while the military is much more relaxed (in their "engagements").

      * sorry for my not so good English

    5. Re:Caller ID, police attitudes, and punishment by PPH · · Score: 1

      seriously and punishing them for their crimes

      Didn't work. Evidently Barriss had spent two years in jail for making bomb threats. But he was released early to relieve prison overcrowding.

      It all comes down to the lack of responsibility on the part of state and local governments to contain their riff-raff. They need to pay for a large part of the damages here. And that payment needs to come out of the pockets or some of the pet projects in the liberal shitholes in CA. And when they ask where their new schools are or why their lights start to go off in the middle of air conditioning season, we'll just show them the new prison facilities they funded instead.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:Caller ID, police attitudes, and punishment by Kenneth+Stephen · · Score: 2

      1. Yes, no system is unbreakable. But the barrier of entry needs to be raised to rule out the halfway intelligent.
      2. No question reform is needed, but as has been pointed out by many posters in this story, the police lacked the intent to do harm. Its just like a gun / weapon. The gun lacks intent / motive. The person wielding the weapon has the far bigger share of the blame. Taking away the weapon will just cause the person with intent to reach for a different weapon.
      3. Threat of punishment may not deter all idiots. But (a) its a numbers game - it should deter enough that occurrences of these should reduce greatly. (b) actual punishment takes them out of the system where they could cause more incidents like this.

      --

      There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.

    7. Re:Caller ID, police attitudes, and punishment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first point is the biggest problem. If you listen to the call, the caller said that he is the SWAT victim, he just shot his dad in the head, and he was thinking about burning the house down. If your first point wasn't an issue, this could have been identified as a malicious prank and the caller could have been arrested. But because it is ambiguous, the authorities have to prepare for the situation that the caller described. This can lead to accidents happening like the unfortunate fatal killing of the innocent gamer.

    8. Re: Caller ID, police attitudes, and punishment by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The reality is that the really good shooters are not in the military but in the police.

      I served, and I also trained with police "SWAT" type teams; in my experience this isn't really true. Police snipers are quite good; I guess you could argue that they might be better than military snipers, but at that level "better" means differences which are largely insignificant, so I would say that the two are on-par.

      The rest of the cops I trained with were really nothing special; they train at short distances (200 meters or less) so, if anything, they seemed to be worse shooters than most of my guys.

      Their entry drills and tactics on the other hand were fantastic. We learned a lot from them.

    9. Re:Caller ID, police attitudes, and punishment by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It all comes down to the lack of responsibility on the part of state and local governments to contain their riff-raff.

      Much of our riff-raff moved here from out of state. Y'all can have them back. Also, if you only pursue the goal of locking up people who cause you problems, you're just going to have to keep locking people up. What about caring for their needs? We try to do that here in California, but it's difficult while we keep sending our tax money to the feds to be distributed to shithole states that hate us.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Caller ID, police attitudes, and punishment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't most of these swatters calling from completely different states? I would think that an out-of-state call about a domestic issue should have a pretty low level of confidence regarding accuracy, and should be conveyed as such to any investigating officers.

    11. Re:Caller ID, police attitudes, and punishment by arse+maker · · Score: 2

      Who were they protecting?

      "When police arrived, they shot and killed 28-year-old Andrew Finch after he exited the residence and reached toward his waistband."

      It sounds like from the reporting that they were defending themselves. Even if he had a gun, there was no hostages there.
      This is why I ask why police can shoot at someone first when generally the military have to be fired at first.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Surely the police should try their own citizens with more caution than non citizens (not that this really should matter but no country can justify treating their own citizens worse than non citizens)

    12. Re: Caller ID, police attitudes, and punishment by arse+maker · · Score: 2

      Its not the aiming of the officer that I think is subpar :)

    13. Re: Caller ID, police attitudes, and punishment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am the Greek (military) "snipper". My bad English don't allow me to write much detail in my comments, but i will try for few points you make (and mostly agree).

      We, in the Greek MILITARY (even in Special Forces), we train more... MILITARY! I mean that we don't emphasize our training for URBAN fields but for more (military conventional) RURAL environments. I understand (please correct me if i am wrong) that the USA military has become (in the last couple of decades) more "POLICE/anti-terrorist" (like the Israeli military?), because of the type of the enemy you are against, so you must train harder in this "shoot accurately, shoot far away" and/or "clear the buildings/area" . We Greek still train for the more (simple) military snipper role "go close enough, don't shoot unless they discover you, stay as much as you can, destroy the target if any exist, leave unnoticed". Also, yes, for long shots the military shooters are usually better - but police shooters are MUCH MORE CONFIDENT (it helps that they can train just in shooting, avoiding all the military "snipper" training other than shooting, which, at least in my case, a simple conscript, was the biggest part of my training).

      I repeat that i understand that especially in the USA, the military has became also a police/anti-terrorist force, so you train for those roles also, while i (a special forces guy) have not any experience in this kind of operations (just basic "entry drills" that are laughable in comparison to USA infantry...). BUT: if i ever become hostage in USA i still prefer a police snipper eliminating the bad guy holding a gun in my head!

      Anyway, take this comment not so serious because i am out of the military 2 decades now (and as a conscript i served for less than 2 years).

    14. Re:Caller ID, police attitudes, and punishment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Greek guy here. Well... i understand that people expect "more" (whatever that is), but... police "defending themselves" is the nececary condition for defending others also...

    15. Re:Caller ID, police attitudes, and punishment by PPH · · Score: 1

      What about caring for their needs?

      Don't care.

      And once all that 'out of state' riff-raff figures out that CA is no longer a deep pocket for GibsMeDats, they'll go back home.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    16. Re:Caller ID, police attitudes, and punishment by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What about caring for their needs?
      Don't care.

      That's why we can't have nice things. Share your wealth with them, or they will share their poverty with you.

      And once all that 'out of state' riff-raff figures out that CA is no longer a deep pocket for GibsMeDats, they'll go back home.

      Even if we stopped caring for people in California, the weather would still keep them here. You can sleep in a ditch and not freeze to death in much of this state.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re: Caller ID, police attitudes, and punishment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm in California. We don't take care of their criminal desires to prevent repeats once governor rainbow lets them all out.

      We do however provide free sex reassignment surgery, chemicals and therapy and a transfer to the women's ward for prisoners who woke up feeling like a woman that day because gender is non binary and fluid and they have a human right to be whatever gender they want everyday and it's my duty as a tax pay (sucker) to foot the bills.

      This has nothing to do with bullshit about which states pay more or less to the Feds. That's such a lame red herring and completely incalculable in a way that everyone could reasonably agree on.

    18. Re: Caller ID, police attitudes, and punishment by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I understand (please correct me if i am wrong) that the USA military has become (in the last couple of decades) more "POLICE/anti-terrorist" (like the Israeli military?), because of the type of the enemy you are against, so you must train harder in this "shoot accurately, shoot far away" and/or "clear the buildings/area" .

      I'm actually Canadian, but yes, we as well as the Americans do tend to focus quite a lot on training for urban combat these days. It's not the same as what police have to do - what you wrote earlier about us having a lot more luxury to just sit back and call in artlery is definitely true - but we do use very similar techniques when it comes to house clearing.

      You mentioned later in your comment that you've been out for about 2 decades which, I think, is the real difference between what you experienced and what's going on now. I started my service about 2 decades ago, and at that time we were almost entirely dealing with things like trench warfare, ambushes, advance to contact, etc. The stuff which you termed "MILITARY, more rural". We also did a bit of urban combat training plus some crowd control and aid to civil power stuff, but that was all an afterthought; the majority of our training was for fighting away from cities.

      The change in focus happened around 2002 / 2003 which is probably why you never saw it in the Greek military. I'm sure that these days your guys are also doing a lot more urban warfare training.

    19. Re:Caller ID, police attitudes, and punishment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Share your wealth with them, or they will share their poverty with you.

      We just stick them on a bus to So. Cal.

    20. Re:Caller ID, police attitudes, and punishment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well no problem, you'll just be committed to a mental facility until your condition is eliminated without drugs.

      Involuntary commitment to a locked hospital for mental incapacity in lieu of conviction of a crime and prison is effectively a sentence of life without possibility of parole in most cases. It doesn't matter whether they medicate you or not, you will never be released from that facility except by way of your natural death, which may be a long time coming since they have complete control over your diet, medical care and living situation and can force feed or otherwise maintain you against your will. The public still thinks that getting confined to a mental hospital is an easy sentence, but just ask the family of anyone who's been so confined and they will tell you that it's not. There are people who are still confined to those mental hospitals even decades after their prison sentences would have ended had they simply gone to trial, been convicted of the crime and served an ordinary prison sentence instead.

    21. Re:Caller ID, police attitudes, and punishment by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      We just stick them on a bus to So. Cal.

      What's really bananas is that California is still in the black even while we have to carry the rest of you like this.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re: Caller ID, police attitudes, and punishment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you are right mister Canadian (and in this "USA military new police/anti-terrorist roles" i should had also included British and Canadian - who, despite being famous for your gentle character... you are very good soldiers!). Yes, the Greek military now (in the past decade) includes more training in those "not so military roles" (especially crowd control) because of NATO requirements, but since we don't really participate with combat troops in conflict zones (other than the Balkans), this training is of low priority. My own training (2 decades ago) was almost exclusively in ambushes, amphibious operations, reconnaissance, and those kind of things, even if my small unit was the Greek small detachment of the NATO rapid deployment force, expected in theory to participate also in the beginning phases of "peace keeping" operations...

      In our defense, the bulk of the Greek military are conscripts like me, so of lower quality (as you surely understand - you can't train ordinary people to be "soldier" enough, even if you press them hard), and training (that in the last decade last only 9 months...) must be about the real national enemy: a neighbor Muslim country with 8 times our population and a big conventional military. Our professional special forces soldiers do more training in urban operations (often trained by... Canadians!), but still they don't really emphasize it as it is just for keeping NATO generals happy - i think you understand...

      Anyway, keep safe my friend (i am - the most dangerous thing i do now is crossing the road in the typical Greek way!)

    23. Re: Caller ID, police attitudes, and punishment by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      In our defense, the bulk of the Greek military are conscripts like me, so of lower quality (as you surely understand - you can't train ordinary people to be "soldier" enough, even if you press them hard), and training (that in the last decade last only 9 months...) must be about the real national enemy: a neighbor Muslim country with 8 times our population and a big conventional military.

      Yeah, I absolutely understand that. National priorities come first. It's unfortunate that Greece has to rely on conscripts to such an extent, but most NATO nations (including my own) have been underfunding their standing armies thanks to the safety blanket provided by the Yanks. I've worked with Brits, Aussies, Germans, French, Sweedes ... we all do very well with what we have, but if it ever came to a major war we just don't have the manpower or the equipment to do much without the US leading the way.

      but still they don't really emphasize it as it is just for keeping NATO generals happy - i think you understand...

      Yes, I'm quite familiar with the old "technically doing just barely enough to keep NATO happy" thing :)

      Anyway, keep safe my friend (i am - the most dangerous thing i do now is crossing the road in the typical Greek way!)

      Cheers!

    24. Re:Caller ID, police attitudes, and punishment by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Especially since Jerry Brown already bankrupted the state twice. I guess the third time really is the charm.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  5. Re: the (actual) shooter and hillary for prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    What makes you think that executing a child is justified?
     
    The brain does not solidify until the early 20's. There should be some lee-way like a 5 year prison sentence. An eye for an eye makes the world blind.

  6. What about the triggerman? by sandbagger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know, the one who actually shot an unidentified person.

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
    1. Re:What about the triggerman? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What if this is a conspiracy to commit murder? Would you SWAT your friend if he shot you in a video game? Sounds unlikely because players die thousands of times in these FPS games and it's no big deal. What if this is three people conspiring to murder someone using SWAT then lying that it was "nothing," a prank. Why should anyone believe liars? The SWATer, Bariss, is an expert liar as you can tell in his 911 call. The police believed him and killed someone.

      Bottom line: what solid evidence exists that this is a prank and not a conspiracy to harm some enemy? Is it manslaughter or attempted murder?

    2. Re:What about the triggerman? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He probably should lose his job. But face no jail time.

      The gamers should get 10 years+ for being cunts.

    3. Re:What about the triggerman? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But miss information was a direct contributor to how the police reacted. Yes the officer will dealt with but this does not excuse any of the rest.

    4. Re:What about the triggerman? by hey! · · Score: 2

      If you were to line up the people in order of their responsibility for the result, he'd be in the lineup, but at the back, behind the people responsible for his hiring and training him. Also the people responsible for militarizing the police force.

      SWAT was popularized in the 60s due to fear of political unrest by minorities. LA forrmed its squad -- immensely influential because of its impact on popular entertainment -- in the wake of the Watts riots. One of the earliest uses of SWAT was against peaceful demonstrations by the Latino farm workers. Fears of the civil rights movement accelerated the adoption of SWAT tactics. Which is not to say in an era of unprecedented private firearm ownership you don't need some kind of more highly armed response, but intimidation has always been one of the purposes of SWAT teams.

      If you build a tool for intimidation and leave it lying around, someone is going to use it. They are responsible for their own actions, but you are responsible for enabling them.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:What about the triggerman? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. Justice would be if he went down for manslaughter while the caller got felony (capital) murder.

      I doubt we'll see justice here though.

    6. Re:What about the triggerman? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a nice narrative, but SWAT's growth and more recent popularity is a result of an arms race, and not racism, mostly stemming from the North Hollywood Shootout.

      Believe it or not, the police don't seem to think they should be killed in the line of duty, and take actions to reduce the chance of that happening.

      People such as yourself take police for granted and demand far too much of them. If they fail to apprehend the criminals they are incompetent. If there is any hint of corruption they are all to blame. If you would think for a bit you'd determine that you cannot have government without corruption, and you cannot keep burning the brave and courageous among us (military, police, fire, rescue) and expect any good to come of it.

    7. Re:What about the triggerman? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Straw man much?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:What about the triggerman? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would be the motive? What are you basing this off of?

    9. Re:What about the triggerman? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, the one who actually shot an unidentified person.

      He fucked up on his job. Which had lethal consequences. That's all you can blame him for, and lethal consequences are in his job description. Now why the U.S. has jobs in Law Enforcement with the explicit requirement for killing people based on short judgment where applicants are also required not to have more than an average level of intelligence: that is a different and quite puzzling question, and one that the U.S. needs to address at some point of time.

    10. Re:What about the triggerman? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you were to line up the people in order of their responsibility for the result, he'd be in the lineup, but at the back, behind the people responsible for his hiring and training him. Also the people responsible for militarizing the police force.

      If that's true, then you might as well send drones to shoot people in the face. But wait, the guy behind the trigger is there to not pull the trigger when pulling the trigger is not warranted. If all we wanted was the trigger pulled, we could use a sentry gun.

      In my book, here's the order in which we should assign blame: #1 is the trigger man, he aimed the weapon and pulled the trigger. #2 is the swatter, he made the fraudulent phone call. #3 is the police industrial complex that encouraged the trigger man to have an itchy finger. And #4 is the dickbag who said "try something" and gave someone else's address. He incited violence and he effectively participated in aiming the weapon.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:What about the triggerman? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you expect that we only recruit people with above average intelligence for cop work? How fucking retarded are you?

    12. Re:What about the triggerman? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, the police don't seem to think they should be killed in the line of duty, and take actions to reduce the chance of that happening.

      I think you'll find that most of the populace agree with the police on this, and have no issue with them mitigating the risks they face.

      That doesn't excuse unnecessary use of force, unnecessary use of lethal force or fucking murdering a man stood in his own doorway following police instructions.

      If there is any hint of corruption they are all to blame.

      When the police stop tolerating the corruption amongst their own ranks people may stop believing their all corrupt.

    13. Re:What about the triggerman? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Get shot by a taser every day for a week.

      I bet if they did that then this nonsense would stop.

  7. Who is at fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is the focus on these gamers? Yes they are probably losers who have no life but that doesn't change the fact the SWAT team murdered this guy not some gamer or a phone call to police. This should ignite a debate about how the police continue to militarize and raid (often times the wrong place) people homes. What happened to police putting their life on the line to save innocents? This POS cop murdered an unarmed man because he wasn't willing to risk his life for innocents. The police are the problem. Give a monkey and hammer and inevitably he will beat another monkey to death with it.

    1. Re:Who is at fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is at fault? All the above, and pretty equally. Each and every on of them should be in prison.

    2. Re:Who is at fault? by GWXerog · · Score: 0

      Good lord you insufferable cunts piss me off. You pay attention to the last event in the lengthy sequence of bad actions that contribute to an incident and then lay your blame there, never fixing the root of the issue.

    3. Re:Who is at fault? by GWXerog · · Score: 2

      You cold also go for a national telephone system that's so broken you can place a 911 call and get a SWAT response despite being in a different state. Or that Barris had been *convicted* for fake bomb threats in the past but for some reason was released, not to mention being linked to numerous other SWATing incidents but for some reason was not charged or seriously investigated.

    4. Re:Who is at fault? by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 1

      Isn't the whole point of having police to enable law abiding people to live peacefully?
      And a man who asked for no more than to live peacefully is fucking dead.

      Go ahead, defend that.

      Do we have to accept the occasional error whereby somebody who has absolutely no idea what is going on is killed, or the occasional error whereby someone in an armed force who know exactly what is gong on is killed?

      Do we or do we not send soldiers to places in the full knowledge a good number of them won't come back?

      --
      No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
  8. Re: the (actual) shooter and hillary for prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The american prison system is one of the most insane in the world.

  9. Good news set an example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I welcome this and it will hopefully discourage others from doing such acts. Maybe they will come out of their parents basements are start living productive lives. Instead of trying to ruin lives.

  10. Re: the (actual) shooter and hillary for prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Swedish One is useless

  11. Go after phone companies too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This shit called spoofing numbers needs to be fixed.

  12. Calgary Incident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tyler Barriss: I believe this guy is also wanted in Calgary for a SWATTing incident in 2017.

  13. Re: the (actual) shooter and hillary for prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh bullshit. There's not a friggin' twenty year old who doesn't know SWATTing is a terrible thing. None except psychopaths like these people.

    As for "brain does not solidify until the early 20's". Again, bullshit. You are very purposefully conflating two very, very different things; the course of brain patterns and fucking intelligence and morals.

    It's telling that you think a twenty year old is a child. Besides, the bastard was twenty-five. Outside your fake protective shield.

  14. Re: the (actual) shooter and hillary for prison by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

    Agreed, and I'll add that if parents actually parented instead of using various gaming devices as surrogate babysitters then we might not have this problem.

  15. Re: the (actual) shooter and hillary for prison by GWXerog · · Score: 1

    Yeah, they tried that after he was convicted for SWATTing and fake bomb threats the first time.

  16. LOL by evanh · · Score: 1

    The SWAT team clearly has a major attitude problem as well.

    1. Re:LOL by arse+maker · · Score: 1

      Of course. This is a larger problem but the swatter part is unique to this case.
      Usually the police are shooting people because of mistaken reports of threats not imaginary (*insert laugh or cry*) :)

    2. Re:LOL by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      IMHO, they're not really swat. They're just a bunch of cops that think they know something about swat. They should need to serve a big city that actually gets calls. How do they handle them? That cop should have taken another 2 seconds and realize the guy wasn't even armed.

      Take the cop, tase him every day for a week. That should be his punishment.

  17. Let's not forget underfunding by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Here's a scary article for you. There are cops out there making $10.50/hr working part time. Less than a Wal-Mart Greeter. At those prices beggars can't be choosers and cops who've been fired for misconduct get hired by cash strapped departments who can't afford the $140k it takes to train up an officer. This is what happens when you slash taxes non-stop for 30 years. The government doesn't waste nearly as much money as people think. Sooner than later those cuts need to come from somewhere real.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  18. A false call to the police shouldn't cause death by drew_kime · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The systemic problem here is that it shouldn't be possible for a false call to the police to put someone's life at risk.

    I've got a teenage daughter who likes exploring abandoned buildings. (There are whole websites dedicated to this, and we're thinking about taking a trip to go on some of the tours at that link.) A couple of years ago she and a friend were picked up by the police as they were leaving one.

    When I went in to pick her up, an officer gave her a lecture about how dangerous it could be. "We could show up and think there are drug dealers or gang members in there and you could get shot."

    Hold on there! You're telling a teenager that something is dangerous, and it's not the drug dealers or gang members she should be worried about, but the police? On the one hand, thanks for the honesty. But Jesus Tap-dancing Christ don't you think that indicates a problem?

    --
    Nope, no sig
  19. Violent video games do not increase violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Slashdot posted the study the other day. This is unbelievable.

  20. Should Of Used 1060 west Addison Chicago il by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1060 west Addison Chicago il for the address

  21. Everyone involved should be eternally teamkilled by bigmacx · · Score: 1

    As a gamer, I hope their eventual probation or parole involves every gamer they come in contact with teamkilling them mercilessly and twich'ing every single instance.

  22. Not too surprising this is a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given our current political need to punish people over stupid/silly things, I am not surprised that we are doing this to eachother.

  23. Re: the (actual) shooter and hillary for prison by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    The brain does not solidify until the early 20's.

    In my experience, a person's brain solidifies when he gets a government job. When something like the swatting incident occurs, the owner of a solidified brain instinctually lashes out against everybody who was playing the game, regardless of whether they were actually involved in the swatting.

  24. Re: the (actual) shooter and hillary for prison by echnaton192 · · Score: 1

    I am against the death penalty. But your post is misinformed: The guy is 25 years old. Has multiple similar charges, spent time in prison.

    He is old enough to take responsibility and has been given enough chances. Throw the f...ing book at him. 10 to 20 years should cool him off.

    I do not agree with the US justice system to send people to prison for life that the US do not consider old enough to drink. I think that most of the punishments are way to hard even for older people.

    But a 25 year old f.cker that got someone killed by swatting so often that the slim chances became reality? AFTER he already spent time in prison for swatting without someone dying?

    Send him away. For a long time.

    And by the way: Fix your police.

  25. #1 rule of the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kind-of bullshit they're going after the guy who used a fake address. You have to be nuts to attach your real identity to an online profile on the internet. Especially if you're in an online gaming community full of shitheads that like to swat people.

  26. Re:Everyone involved should be eternally teamkille by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    As a gamer, I hope their eventual probation or parole involves every gamer they come in contact with teamkilling them mercilessly and twich'ing every single instance.

    Obviously these kids aren't mature enough to play multiplayer games, and should have that right taken away from them. It's not even in the constitution, and rights which are in there are taken away from people all the time.

    If these children can't play games without escalating to swatting, or giving someone else's address to a swatter because ha ha won't this be fun, then they shouldn't get to play games.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  27. Re: the (actual) shooter and hillary for prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Swedish one works...at least it tries to rehabilitate criminals and adjust them so that they function in society. Those who don't or refuse return to prison. This is why we don't need to have such a huge prison population. If you complain that the judges don't do enough, vote on individuals during election to the riksdag. Anyway, the focus is on rehabilitation not punishment and people working in these systems are not as naive as you probably are knowing nothing about it.

  28. And the caller is known to help people swat by Xylantiel · · Score: 1

    To complete the summary... The actual caller, Tyler Barriss from LA, had a history of helping people perform swattings, and so appears to have helped Casey Viner by calling in the swatting on the made-up but real address in Kansas where the guy ended up being killed. Given Barriss' apparent history, including bomb threats, *two dozen* swattings or hoax calls, he really should have already been in jail.

    While I agree with others that the action of the police are insane and should be punished, one should keep in mind that this is not just one swatting case. Out of hundreds or thousands of swatting incidents, one finally went totally bad.

    Also if you are surprised by this, you have no idea of how many people killed by the police in the U.S. Basically someone unarmed (white or black) is killed by police every few days. Yes every few DAYS. The only ones that make the news are the few that happen to have something novel about them or have a video, otherwise they just happen.

  29. Single shoot was fired! by TimSSG · · Score: 1

    The officer fired a single shoot.
    The officer likely fired accidentally because he used poor trigger control.
    No other shoots were fired; therefore, the other police did not see reason to fire.
    Even, the one officer that fired did not fire a second bullet.

    This is a case of poor firearm training in the area of trigger control!

    Tim S.

  30. Re: the (actual) shooter and hillary for prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Because they caused an actually productive member of society to be shot and killed?
    Over a video game?

    They aren't even smart enough to target their actual enemy...they were never going to be worth anything.
    Just drains on society.

  31. Re: the (actual) shooter and hillary for prison by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

    The brain does no such thing. Plasticity is a lifelong event that simply slows with age. Besides, that is a moot point because it only relates to how quickly your physical brain can learn new things and change habits, and the law isn't concerned with that, rather the law is concerned about whether you know that what you did was wrong at the time you did it. A 15 year old and a 30 year old have the same ability to know right from wrong. A reasonable person would easily be able to know that swatting would be wrong.

  32. Re: the (actual) shooter and hillary for prison by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

    There should be some lee-way like a 5 year prison sentence. An eye for an eye makes the world blind.

    If you're aiming for growth/redemption then five years in prison is about the worst thing you could do.

  33. Second LOL by evanh · · Score: 1

    There always has been prank calls. There always will be prank calls.

    The only people that need to verify the situation on the ground is the paid people doing the work on the ground. The more force projected the more it needs to be checked. Simply upping the anti is going backwards.

    Many people are in despair over the level of inhumanity being displayed by law enforcement. As someone here said, we may as well send the machines in. At least there is an excuse for being heartless then.

  34. Calling police is not for kidding around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Police has serious job, they're there to make sure all of you are safe from threats. They're out there doing training and stuff and be on guard (which is not easy, I tell you, it's not easy!), yet you're all here defending these unresponsible guys who spend their time playing games, and call the SWAT team all only because their virtual character is killed. That explain lot about you guys

  35. Re:A false call to the police shouldn't cause deat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your daughter will one day own many cats.

  36. Re:A false call to the police shouldn't cause deat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zinggggggggg

  37. Re:A false call to the police shouldn't cause deat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It indicates that the police have become terrified that the criminals they encounter on a daily basis are armed and extremely dangerous. That fear leads them to be very cautious, in an effort to return to their families each night. That ultimately leads to the kinds of mistakes that get innocent people killed.

    Change the system to allow the police to do their jobs safely, to get criminals off the street permanently. They'll have less deadly encounters with criminals which will make them feel safer, and less innocent people will be killed.

    It's a crazy, violent world right now.

  38. Re:A false call to the police shouldn't cause deat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it out of the question for your daughter to find a less retarded hobby before she gets mailed to death by a stray dog? You should be mature enough for the police not to have to give you parenting advice you should have been aware off when you were a teenager yourself. FFS.

  39. Hammer them by Assmasher · · Score: 1

    Ignoring the issue that cops seem to (a)see guns when there are none and (b)lie their asses off to cover up fellow officers misdeeds - motherf***ers that intentionally send a bunch of amped up, over militarized, SOCOM wannabes to someone's house deserve either attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder charges and sentences.

    It's so godd*** chickensh** and the odds are ridiculously high (again because of endemic police problems) that someone is going to get seriously injured or killed.

    --
    Loading...
  40. Re:A false call to the police shouldn't cause deat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the safest time in human history to be a cop. They're not in danger at all. They're just cowards.

  41. Re: the (actual) shooter and hillary for prison by jouassou · · Score: 1

    In other words, you think punishment is more important than rehabilitation?

  42. Gaskill is morally responsible, but criminally? by Nonesuch · · Score: 1

    While Shane Gaskill (the guy who gave out "his" address in the chat), is morally responsible, barring any evidence that he had a gripe with the people at that address it is a real stretch to suggest he could face criminal charges for his role in the events.

    OTOH, Gaskill is a resident of Wichita. Did he have a reason to choose that particular "fake" address in Wichita?

  43. Re: the (actual) shooter and hillary for prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If weâ(TM)re going to go with âoethe brain doesnâ(TM)t solidify until the 20sâ, weâ(TM)re gonna have to push back driving, age of consent, college (well, at least the âoeliving away from home partâ), etc, as well.

  44. Re: the (actual) shooter and hillary for prison by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    I can tell from reading about this guy. He's done it before, he doesn't care, he's a psychopath and a menace to society. You need to understand that if he ever gets out of jail he could kill *YOU*. Your Daughter, your 90 year old grandmother and he'll also be like - Meh, no biggy. The brain is where it is going to be already. I see it all the time with kids. How they act, those that will be successful and those that will be pond scum.

    Hang 'em. Hang 'em high.

    The cop deserves to be hit by a taser every day for a week. That'll teach him to just shoot.

  45. Re: the (actual) shooter and hillary for prison by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    A pretty good way to work the overly-excitable into a real froth of their hot-button issue of the moment is to ask them what they would consider a "success" to be.

    What should be measured, and how we expect the measures change over time as the institution became more successful?

    Then watch the frothing begin. Emotionally-charged nouns and verbs and adjectives with little or no objective meaning. Topic changes. Evasions. Personal insults.

    I've never actually killed any by remote apoplexy (that I know of), but that's not the goal.

    The goal is to get them to discredit their positions by getting them to behave badly while failing to answer simple, reasonable questions.

    Well, that's Plan B.

    Plan A is to get them to think about their positions. If not in the discussion (unlikely to happen), later.

    Hey! It can happen. Not with complete strangers. Yet. But one was pretty close; we met, once, on a float trip.

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  46. Re:A false call to the police shouldn't cause deat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't justify police procedures. They are wrong. In my country it's even worse.

    But you also need to have some common sense. It's like saying I like to explore dark mysterious alleys but don't mind rapists, robbers or murderers, just the police.

    I'll get another hobby.