Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by EditorDavid on from the violence-and-video-games dept.

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.

18 of 170 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    8. 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.
    9. 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.
  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.'"
  8. 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
  9. 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.