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.

27 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 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    8. 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.
    9. 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.

    10. 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. 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 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.

    2. 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)

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

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

  3. 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.

  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.
    1. 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. 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 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.

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

    This shit called spoofing numbers needs to be fixed.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.'"
  9. 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
  10. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. 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.