Slashdot Mirror


Jailed Kansas 'Swat' Perpetrator Sneaks Online, Threatens More 'Swats' (kansas.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the Wichita Eagle: Tyler Barriss -- the man charged in a swatting hoax that led to the death of an innocent Wichita man -- apparently got access to the internet from jail for at least 28 minutes [last] Friday and threatened to swat again. "How am I on the Internet if I'm in jail? Oh, because I'm an eGod, that's how," a tweet posted at 9:05 a.m. said.
Other developments in the case:
  • Another tweet from the Barriss account 19 minutes later asked who was "talking shit," warning "your ass is about to get swatted." And nine minutes later his final tweet from jail bragged, "Y'all should see how much swag I got in here." The county sheriff's office blamed an outside vendor's improper software upgrade to an inmate kiosk, arguing that 14 inmates potentially had full internet access "for less than a few hours."
  • 25-year-old Barris is still in jail facing an 11-year prison sentence, noted a Twitter user who responded to the tweets. "This will play well at sentencing when you're pretending to be remorseful and asking the judge for mercy."
  • Meanwhile, the Wichita police officer who mistakenly fired the fatal shot that killed a 28-year-old father of two will not face charges. The district attorney concluded that several of the officers closest to victim Andrew Finch thought he reached down to pull up his pants, leaving his right arm hidden from the officers, the Wichita Eagle reports. "The officer who fired the shot, along with some others, thought Finch was reaching for a gun."
  • "This shooting should not have happened," said the district attorney. "But this officer's decision was made in the context of the false call." Finch was shot 10 seconds after opening his front door, and his family's civil case against the police department is still going forward.
  • Two other gamers involved in the shooting -- including one who allegedly hired Barriss over a $1.50 bet in the game Call of Duty -- have not been charged with a crime.

25 of 285 comments (clear)

  1. Cops investigating themselves by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When cops investigate themselves it's always justified.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Cops investigating themselves by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The officer who fired the shot, along with some others, thought Finch was reaching for a gun."

      Yep. Not possible. You can't reach for a gun when there is no gun. Use of deadly force is only justified when there is a reasonable belief of a significant threat. Without seeing a weapon, the belief is unreasonable. The officer should be in prison for manslaughter.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:Cops investigating themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can't reach for a gun when there is no gun.

      You have to understand, it's the evolution of the justified use of deadly force. First it was, a suspect has a gun pointed at a person. Then it was, a suspect has a gun in his hand pointed down/at no one. For a while it was, a suspect might have been reaching for his visible gun. Now it's, a suspect may have been reaching for a gun. In the future it will be, a suspect may have reached for a gun.

      Officers got to be careful. If it results in a few unpunished execution of innocent civilians, well that's just something society has to tolerate.

    3. Re: Cops investigating themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      oh sorry, dashcam on my cruiser must have been malfunctioning or lost at the station after downloading.

    4. Re:Cops investigating themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A hostage scene implies hostages. That means that if the cops shoot first and without verifying whether the target is a threat, they're likely to shoot the victims instead of the attacker.

      "We had to shoot the hostages to save the hostages."

    5. Re:Cops investigating themselves by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nope. They might with equal (un)reasonableness claim they thought he was reaching for a Beanie Baby. Every time you see someone putting a hand in their pocket, do you think they're going for a gun? If so, you're unreasonably paranoid. It's unreasonable because there was no evidence of a gun, and any assumption there might have been one was unsupported by facts, which are the basis of reason.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    6. Re: Cops investigating themselves by Type44Q · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it is reasonable to suspect someone reaching towards their wasteband to be potentially going for a gun

      It doesn't matter. If you carry a firearm for a living, you had better be cool, calm, collected... and skilled enough to be able to neutralize a threat when the presumed firearm appears in the suspect's hands and no fucking sooner.

    7. Re:Cops investigating themselves by msauve · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, any citizen has the exact same right of self defense - the right to use of deadly force when there is a reasonable belief of a significant threat.

      So, do you believe that you can shoot anyone you see in a dark alley who sticks their hand in their pocket, and then claim self-defense? How about if you see a cop reach for his weapon, clearly visible on his hip - can you shoot him because he presents a threat?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  2. Really? by DewDude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My question is how has this person not violated Twitter's TOS and had his account suspended? The fact it wasn't disabled in the first place is as mind-boggling as how he was able to access it from jail. But hopefully this incident will be brought up at his trial so the judge can see how little remorse he has and that any remorsefulness shown in court is just perjury.

    1. Re: Really? by haruchai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Swatting is attempted murder. It's time we treated it as such"

      And if someone who's unarmed is shot, the cops should be charged, too.
      http://www.kansas.com/news/loc...

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  3. Unless there's a video.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    of the actual shooting, not of cops standing around with their weapons drawn like posted, I'll have to assume the cops are lying.

      Because they are saying that with their weapons drawn, they are afraid that someone is fast enough to draw a gun from behind themselves and take them out?

    Seriously?

    No matter how you slice it, the cops overreacted.

  4. Any signs of changing the way police operates? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "This shooting should not have happened," said the district attorney. "But this officer's decision was made in the context of the false call."

    So not prosecuting the officer is probably the right decision, especially since he was (presumably) acting they way the department's training and guidelines suggest he should. But it seems to me that this death, and many others, indicate that those instructions are in serious need of an overhaul. And that in most cases officers need to wait and return fire rather than shoot first and answer any questions later. That puts them at risk, yes, but that's their damn job: to protect the public. And as long as the guy who got swatted didn't offer any violence and until there was crystal clear proof that he was about to get violent, he was not a criminal, not a "perp", but a member of the public. And his life should have come first.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    1. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There should be no more "I thought I saw a gun" shootings. They should not fire until they positively identify the subject is holding a gun. A knife? Then tasers only. You have body armor, you chose to be a cop. Your duty is to make sure other people go home safe before you do.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by mlyle · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Most body armor isn't very effective vs. a knife, and certainly doesn't cover most of your body, and you can cover a ridiculous distance with a knife before anyone has time to react. I support training cops to show a hell of a lot more restraint but I can't support asking people to fight back against a knife attack with a taser.

    3. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but I can't support asking people to fight back against a knife attack with a taser

      Sure you can, that's what they're for, along with mace and batons. Cop trainers need to stop terrorizing cop trainees into scared chickenshits who can't do their jobs without getting their guns off.

    4. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly! They should be waking up with the ideal "I'm going to do whatever it takes to make sure members of the public get home safe tonight". By making their lives more important than those of the general public, they have no incentive to not kill anybody who gets in their way.

      Can you imagine a nurse or EMT saying "I'm not taking care of that patient -- they might be contagious!"? Or a fireman saying "I'm not going into that building to save that person -- it's on fire!"?

      Honestly, even if you permit cops to be judge, jury and executioner so they're totally allowed to kill anybody who commits a crime, that still requires them to actually be able to determine who the criminal is. In this case they made no attempt to determine whether the man they shot was the hostage or criminal (neglecting the fact that there was no criminal or hostage).

      dom

    5. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by Uberbah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what? Even if that's true and not something you made up on the spot, you manage the exceptions, not manage to the exception. And how well would your superman be doing with a face full of mace on top of being tasered multiple times.

      Policies based on rarest pie-in-the-sky anecdotes are shitty policies.

    6. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by jwhyche · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know, I expected to get modded down. That is how it works with unpopular speech, and often the truth, here when the sjw get their panties in a wad. I was expecting it to be more along the line of flamebait. But that is fine. I have karma to burn. Since I'm on a roll here I'm going to piss off a few more of you so get your mod points ready.

      First the left. You want to ban everything. Someone says something that you don't like you feel its your duty to silence him. God forbid someone has an option that is different from yours. Here is a truth. If you feel you must silence someone at all cost then maybe they have something important to say. If your argument can't stand up to debate then you don't have an argument, you have dogma. This is CNN's mode of operation.

      You want to ban all fire arms and strip police of their abilities. Well that doesn't work and will never work. That wont' make the streets or you safer. What it will do is make it far worse because the criminals will not fear the cops any more.

      Now the right. If you don't want to hear the other side you don't silence them you just shout them down. Scream louder, so others can't hear what anyone else saying. Foxnews motto. Louder louder louder.

      Here is some tough news for all you that like to bang on your second amendment rights. You do not need a god damn machine gun. You do not need a fucking AR-15, AK-47, a bump stock or a god damn banana magazine with 50 rounds in it. Yeah, I've heard the argument "but a AR 15 is nothing more than a hunting rifle with a few cosmetic changes." Well guess what, you don't need a fucking semi automatic anything to hunt most game. An yes, I know what I'm talking. I grew up hunting. To hunt most common game you don't need anything but a bolt action rifle or a pump shotgun. In very few cases, like wild pig extermination, do you need a semi automatic anything.

      So there you go. That should piss off everyone. Mod me down. I have the karma!

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  5. Fucking SWAT team by lsllll · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Meanwhile, the Wichita police officer who mistakenly fired the fatal shot that killed a 28-year-old father of two will not face charges. The district attorney concluded that several of the officers closest to victim Andrew Finch thought he reached down to pull up his pants, leaving his right arm hidden from the officers, the Wichita Eagle reports. "The officer who fired the shot, along with some others, thought Finch was reaching for a gun."

    You are in a SWAT team. You have been trained for a gunfight. You're there, along with 20 of your buddies, ALL of your weapons drawn and in your hand and pointing to the guy who just walked out of his house and is clueless of WTF is happening. All you need to do is pull a trigger one or more times to take him down. "I thought he was reaching for a gun" is not a good defense. Wait until you actually SEE a fucking gun before you shoot the poor bastard. I can't believe he's not going to face charges for a reckless murder.

    --
    Is that a roll of dimes in your pocket or are you happy to see me?
    1. Re:Fucking SWAT team by Uberbah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What if he was following his training perfectly?

      I don't know about you, but when I had firearms safety training when I was six, one of the cardinal rules drilled into my head was "always be sure of what you are shooting at". This murderer obviously didn't as the man had no gun. If grown assed trainers aren't teaching remedial safety to cops, they should join them in prison for criminal negligence.

    2. Re:Fucking SWAT team by lsllll · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You miss the point. Even if he DID have a gun in his pocket, even if he reached for it, 20 cops with their guns drawn and pointed at him should not be shooting until they have 100% positive proof that he has a gun via a visual. They have the element of time on their side, the time it takes to take a gun out of a pocket, raise it, and shoot. Plus they're not supposed to hurt innocent civilians, so wouldn't you think they should err on the side of caution? After all, they swore to put their own lives (and their bullet-proof vests) on the line.

      --
      Is that a roll of dimes in your pocket or are you happy to see me?
  6. DA's need to be banned from police investigations by Uberbah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The district attorney concluded that several of the officers closest to victim Andrew Finch thought he reached down to pull up his pants, leaving his right arm hidden from the officers, the Wichita Eagle reports. "The officer who fired the shot, along with some others, thought Finch was reaching for a gun."

    Yet it wasn't the cops next to the guy who made the kill shot, it was one at distance, so this is bullshit on its face. DA's need to be banned from from investigating cops in their own jurisdiction as they work with said cops as part of their day job. The DOJ should go after cops for civil rights violations when local prosecutors drop the ball, like when they sent some of the officers who beat Rodney King to prison.

  7. Maybe some of those 2nd Amendment people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Should be exercising those rights on this officer and the DA who didn't charge him. Oh, right. The majority of them are apologists for these very officers, as long as they aren't liberals.

  8. And very little talk on the root cause. by malkavian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, loads of comments about "how cops are bad", but very little on the responsibility of the root cause that started this chain of events.
    A guy deliberately set up an armed response team to an address. From this point, the amount off things that can go badly wrong is staggering, not to mention the cost of performing the action itself in monetary terrms.
    In this case, something did go wrong, that would not have happened if the false callout had not been made. Everything stems from that malicious callout, therefore, everything that went wrong should be put on the shoulders of the malicious caller.
    The caller should be tried for "attempted murder" if a malicious swatting is made, or at least assault with a deadly weapon (as that's what SWAT teams carry, and it's definitely an assault if done maliciously).
    It's very easy to point a finger at a cop and say "Your fault", but unless you do the job, day in, day out, with your life at risk, and nearly every situation you face is life or death, then I take the voices as 'armchair experience'. Yes, training can always be improved, yes, odds can be shrunk, but in situations like this, risk cannot be eliminated. Thus you go for the root cause. Make the malicious caller responsible for all costs, all outcomes, and at least that assault with deadly weapon to boot. Every, single, malicious, call.
    Maybe then we'll see swattings "for fun" vanish. As long as people treat it as "just a kicks thing that went wrong", it'll keep on happening, and more deaths will ensue because of it.

  9. Re:Sorry? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even more self-destructive: making it obvious to your fellow inmates that their privileges are now severely restricted on account of your dumb stunt.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...