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.

139 of 285 comments (clear)

  1. Sorry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Enjoy your multiple years in solitary confinement now.

    1. Re:Sorry? by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Making it obvious to jail staff that your prison privileges MUST be severely restricted for the rest of your stay seem pretty self-destructive to me. This guy needs to ask himself, "Was it worth it?"

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. 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...
    3. Re:Sorry? by gnick · · Score: 2

      This guy obviously has some self-destructive tendencies, as evidenced by the behavior that landed him where he is now. With some people, it's not that they don't know the consequences, it's that they've got their wires crossed and opt to self-destruct. Drug addicts opt for a quick high in the face of obvious self-destruction too. After a while, even the high goes away and only the hard-to-break habit of destroying yourself remains.

      He wasn't after the high; he was just clinging to a familiar method of self-destruction.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    4. Re: Sorry? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Please tell us you're not really that dense.

      He couldn't resist the urge to flaunt it, and got it taken away from all of them much faster than if he had. And they all know it, too.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    5. Re:Sorry? by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

      He's retarded, he don't care. He'll probably get a short jail sentence knowing our lame criminal penalty system.

    6. Re: Sorry? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Repeat after me: "doesn't." Of course, if your mother and father are also brother and sister, keep on using "don't;" it fits.

    7. Re: Sorry? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Now I get it--you're defending him.

      What a fucking waste of time and electrons.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    8. Re:Sorry? by rainer_d · · Score: 1

      They could make a BuzzFeed Video about it: "...worth it?"!

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    9. Re:Sorry? by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      yea that's probably where the universe would balance out in its own irrevokable way but tbh ... phones in jail ? who ever heard of THAT ? omg

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  2. 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

      Indeed. Even in regular everyday work, cops can make up any excuse they want and nobody can refute it.

      "Why'd you pull me over? I wasn't speeding, everything on my car works, plates, registration, etc.."
      "Oh, it looked like you were kind of weaving back there"
      Sure...

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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."

    6. Re:Cops investigating themselves by sphealey · · Score: 4, Informative

      What has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of the actions taken by the person who called police units armed for deadly force and falsely claimed that there was a hostage situation in progress. That person is responsible for his own actions and if his actions directly resulted in death or injury he is legally responsible for those under various criminal and civil laws as well.

    7. Re:Cops investigating themselves by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      This is not true. While the cops may be stretching the truth or outright lying, it is reasonable to suspect someone reaching towards their wasteband to be potentially going for a gun, especially one unseen on the other side of the body that cannot be seen, or a pocket, or a waistband, mayne covered by a shirt.

      More Monday morning quarterbacking. The error here is definitely the false swat and maybe the cops, but if so, not because of what you said.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    8. 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
    9. Re:Cops investigating themselves by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

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

      Yep. Not possible.

      All other points aside, you seem to have overlooked the word "thought."

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    10. Re:Cops investigating themselves by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Every time you see someone putting a hand in their pocket, do you think they're going for a gun?

      This is not "every time" though, is it? And many other times are not "every time." This is armed officers responding to a report of an armed man.

      There are times - and I'm not saying this was definitely one of them - when yes, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that someone reaching for a pocket is reaching for a gun.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    11. Re: Cops investigating themselves by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      In the near future, suspects "may show a future interest in obtaining the information necessary to obtain a firearm... or a butter knife."

    12. 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.

    13. Re: Cops investigating themselves by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      "Shoot the hostage."

      It worked for Kianu Reeves.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    14. Re:Cops investigating themselves by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The police are told that there's a hostage situation. Why would the hostage-taker come out and get shot, when it's just as easy to send a hostage? The information clearly implied that there were innocent victims there.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    15. 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
    16. Re:Cops investigating themselves by AC-x · · Score: 1

      "Look out, they're coming right for us!"

    17. Re:Cops investigating themselves by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      That's okay, the cops did too.

    18. Re:Cops investigating themselves by Marful · · Score: 1

      Except cops don't have to actually identify a threat, they can just pretend that there might be a threat.

      They can merely imagine that someone might have a gun, and then claim to be in fear of this imaginary gun that the person might (but is never verified to) have.

      In short, cops get to imagine all sorts of stuff, and then justify their actions based on their imagination. How this fucking flies in court is beyond me, but you (referring to the general American populace) stupid motherfuckers who end up on the jury keep letting this bullshit go because somehow, cops are all "heroes"...

      P.S. FUCK YOU to the Jurors that keep giving a pass to cops who do this bullshit.

    19. Re:Cops investigating themselves by Cederic · · Score: 1

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

      I don't think that's reasonable at all, but lets pretend you're a paranoid murdering police officer for a moment and agree: So you suspect someone may be potentially going for a gun.

      The correct course of action here is heightened alertness, not killing an innocent unarmed man.

      The US desperately needs the UK's ability to bring private prosecutions, so that the man's family can bring criminal charges against the murdering cunt that killed him.

    20. Re: Cops investigating themselves by Cederic · · Score: 1

      if you think a cop is going to risk his own life when dealing with some lowlife idiot

      The cop's life was not at risk, and he was not dealing with some lowlife idiot.

      He _is_ the lowlife idiot.

    21. Re: Cops investigating themselves by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      No wonder you like Type 44 Audis ... you are too stupid to afford a newer one.

      I'm struggling to come up with an explanation for your post... lead poisoning, perhaps?

    22. Re: Cops investigating themselves by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      some lowlife idiot

      That would be "innocent lowlife idiot" to you, moron.

    23. Re: Cops investigating themselves by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      1,100 fucking horsepower from a 2.2liter engine. That's over eight fucking horsepower per cubic inch. Let's see someone try that with your newer Audi...

    24. Re: Cops investigating themselves by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Oops; 1,100hp at the wheels... that's likely well over 1,500 crank horsepower (that's the one downside to the torsen center diff: quattro transmissios are quite a bit less efficient than conventional transmissions)...

  3. 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 Millennium · · Score: 1

      I'd honestly just rather see him piss off the wrong person and get himself put out of all our misery. Swatting is attempted murder. It's time we treated it as such.

    2. 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. Re: Really? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      No, it's only attempted murder if you can show that murder was the intent. In the case of swatting, the offender is merely an idiot. Not attempted murder. You could probably convince a court that it constitutes reckless endangerment though.

    4. Re: Really? by toddestan · · Score: 2

      I would argue it's felony murder. Even if he didn't intend for someone to get hurt, nevertheless someone died as a direct result of the crime he committed.

  4. No more internet for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Barring some legal entitlement to the internet that I am not aware of, this guy won't be using the internet for a long time.

    Oh, if his lawyers were trying to get him bail, their job just got a lot harder.

    1. Re: No more internet for you by James+McGuigan · · Score: 2

      Bail was already set at $500,000... which may have been slightly outside of his price range

  5. 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.

    1. Re:Unless there's a video.... by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      Not to mention that it's likely that a hostage-taker would make a hostage answer the door.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    2. Re:Unless there's a video.... by Cederic · · Score: 1
  6. LOL by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1, Troll

    Threatening to swat people on twitter is fine. You better not fucking suggest there are only two genders or you'll really be in trouble.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  7. 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 jwhyche · · Score: 2, Troll

      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.

      You are an idiot. Cops do not wake up with the ideal, "Hey I'm going to go shoot someone." An it isn't like the fucking movies where Dirty Harry kills a 100 people, eats a donut, and calls it a day. When a officer draws his side arm in the line of duty its a major event in his life, and not a good one. If he just happens to have to use it and kill someone then it is a event that will affect him all his life..

      Tasers are not the magic bullet to solve every police problem. Tasers are not effect against a target that actively evading and they are useless in a gun fight.

      By the time the cops "positively" identify they saw a gun it is usually to late. The subject has already dawn and opened fire. An not like in the movies gun fights are conducted by marksmen. In real life almost all gun fire is "spay an pray," where the subject just starts shooting in the general direction of the target.

      Over 90% of these shots miss and unlike in the movies missed bullets don't just vanish off set. The keep travelling till they hit something. An sometimes that something is a 9 year old little girl in her bed room doing her homework.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    4. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 1

      " Cops do not wake up with the ideal, "Hey I'm going to go shoot someone." Yeah, but they do wake up with the ideal, "I'm gonna do whatever it takes today to make sure that I get home safe tonight".

      --
      "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    5. 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.

    6. 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

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

      So what? So do you. I bet you don't include in that list shoot someone, and nether does most of anyone else. Same applies to cops.

      It's always bad when a cop takes someones life in the line of duty. Especially bad when it's someone innocent. But if you want to live in a society where everyone has a gun then you are going have shit happen.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    8. Re:Any signs of changing the way police operates? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "That puts them at risk, yes, but that's their damn job: to protect the public."

      The USSC disagrees: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/0...

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    9. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by Entrope · · Score: 2

      They already have solutions for that. For example, Baltimore police are now on trial for corruption, and according to testimony from one of them (plus independent evidence) part of that was carrying realistic toy guns to plant on people they shot.

    10. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      20 meters and behind a car is very effective vs. a knife. (Or even a gun.)

      Thanks for clarifying that you learned everything about guns from Hollywood and TV. Other than having the cars engine between you and whoever is shooting at you, you have no protectioneed from a bullet when behind a car. A door, or even two will do little to stop even a handgun round.

    11. 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.

    12. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Cops do not wake up with the ideal, "Hey I'm going to go shoot someone."

      No, that would be intent. Cops wake up with the ideal that police need to be protected, first, last, and always, and if that results in non-police getting killed, then that's acceptable. Even if the people killed are innocent. Even if police are only being protected from "potential" harm or fear of harm rather than actual harm.

      It's like our cities have been invaded by a foreign army who think of us as cattle to be milked for taxes and traffic fines.

    13. 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.
    14. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      If any non-police gunman had shot this guy, the shooter would be on trial for murder. Non-police gun owners know this, so they tend to be a lot more careful pulling the trigger.

    15. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by Kohath · · Score: 2

      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.

      Hunting is irrelevant. "Need" is irrelevant. Rights are rights. They do not depend on your opinion of what someone "needs" or your opinion of what they need it for. Free speech doesn't depend on you being happy with what someone says either.

      The fact that people want to lawlessly and casually infringe Constitutional rights is more than reason enough to have an AR-15. A lawless society ruled by lawless individuals is exactly the kind of society where citizens should be armed.

    16. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by jwhyche · · Score: 1

      Need should be relevant, and you don't need one.

      Rights are not limitless. But you know what? I'm would be more than happy to work with people on this issue.

      You don't need a AR 15 but just want one? That is fine. Lets see, you need a special license to own a machine gun. So I think a special license should be in order for a semi automatic rifle too. So there, you can have it but your going to get licensed for it.

      Well this would be if rational people would be willing actually try to work on the problem and stop screaming about it.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    17. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      but I can't support asking people to fight back against a knife attack with a taser.
      If the taser is already aimed at the attacker, why not?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    18. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      A non-police gunman wouldn't have been knocking at the guy's door in the first place.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    19. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Need should be relevant,

      But it isn't. You didn't need to write your comment, but regardless of that, the government can't censor it. See how need is irrelevant?

      Rights are not limitless.

      But they aren't subject to your whims either.

      ... if rational people would be willing actually try to work on the problem and stop screaming about it.

      What problem? The problem where the FBI and local law enforcement both get specific tips about a guy with a long, long history of violence and legal trouble going to shoot up a school and neither the FBI nor local law enforcement can be bothered to follow up?

      The problem where a shooter opens fire in a school with a law enforcement officer on the scene and the law enforcement officer hides instead of protecting people?

      When law enforcement is so utterly, completely useless, individual citizens need capable firearms to protect themselves.

    20. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      There was no reason for anyone to knock on his door.

    21. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      But if had been required to get a license for those weapons in the first place he might not have had them. An you still don't need one.

      An here is another problem you seem to be falling into. You seem to think because I want to enact common sense gun regulations, you think I want to take away all your gun rights. Not true. I've not said anything about pistols. I firmly stand by your gun rights to defend yourself. I have a C&C that is legal in 3 states. What so many left wingnuts want to think that polices job is to protect you. That is not their job. There job is law enforcement, not to protect your ass.

      Of course nobody wants to make sense. They all want the wild west or star trek. Which to make sure everyone knows, both are fiction.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    22. Re:Any signs of changing the way police operates? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      So why were they even at the house? Those hostages that they were supposedly rescuing are members of the public, aren't they?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    23. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      So? He's a distance away, and draws a knife. Yell at him "Stop and drop the weapon or I'll shoot!" Just make sure it's an exclusive or.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    24. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The fact that people want to lawlessly and casually infringe Constitutional rights is more than reason enough to have an AR-15

      It is literally impossible for me to deprive you of your Constitutional rights. I'm not working for any government. If agents of the government wanted to violate your Constitutional rights, the AR-15 isn't going to be of any more use than a stick of chewing gum.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    25. Re:Any signs of changing the way police operates? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      They are there to enforce the law, not protect the public. Serve and Protect is propaganda.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    26. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      If agents of the government wanted to violate your Constitutional rights, the AR-15 isn't going to be of any more use than a stick of chewing gum.

      Incorrect. It will make them think and rethink whether they really want to go ahead with that. Oppressing a well-armed population is a hell of a lot harder than oppressing an unarmed one.

      And ultimately, why would the guys on the ground risk it? They don't need to shoot it out with the local farmers or the owner of the hardware store for the benefit of some politician’s hate campaign. A war at home is a war near their home, where they live with their families. Why start one of those?

    27. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by Calydor · · Score: 2

      When he's closed half the distance and is shrugging off the taser, your partner who has a loaded gun ready pulls the trigger, because there is NOW impending threat. While the guy was standing in his doorway looking confused there was NO impending threat.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    28. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Well in that situation perhaps dropping the tazer and drawing the gun would be justified.

      I mean, you're a cop, there's going to be some element of danger in the job. Don't like it? Don't be a cop. You don't get to just start blowing people away in any situation where the risk to you is non-zero, no matter how small it is.

      Besides, a 9mm or a .40 S&W is not even guaranteed to take down a real tough guy charging at you while pumped up on adrenaline and meth without multiple rounds. So does that mean the cops should all carry military-style fully automatic rifles and shoot at anything that moves? You have to draw the line somewhere.

    29. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      It's different if "react" means "draw gun from the holster, release safety, aim". When you are already aiming at the target, the distance they can cover with a knife before you can pull the trigger is ridiculously short.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    30. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Oppressing a well-armed population is easier in some ways. It's easier to shoot an armed person than an unarmed person.

      Nor would it be a war. It would be isolated actions, since you can't get the population as a whole to do anything in particular. The authorities wouldn't necessarily come in shooting, but they'd win on their own schedule.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    31. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      The oppressors would lose on their own schedule. Occupying armies get tired after a year or three. The people defending Constitutional government would win by not submitting to oppression.

    32. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm going to suggest that you look up what happened in Yugoslavia in WWII if you're going to talk about occupying armies. For one thing, the only resistance organization consistently opposing the occupiers was Communist, just as it was in Greece. For another thing, the occupying armies stayed from the invasions in 1941 to the eviction in 1944.

      So, most of the population did submit to oppression, including many of those who were nominally working against it.

      In the case of civil unrest, it wouldn't be the army, primarily, but rather the police forces. The Army would only intervene if necessary, and it probably wouldn't be necessary. There are highly abusive police forces in the US that don't face significant armed resistance.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    33. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Europe is not the US. Forces seeking an end to Constitutional government would not fare well here.

      There are highly abusive police forces in the US that don't face significant armed resistance.

      That's not really analogous. People can escape to other cities or take other actions to mitigate abusive police. Ending Constitutional government is not something that can be undone, and national borders are harder to escape. Also, ending Constitutional government has no limiting principle — making it an existential threat, so resistance motivation would be very high. And the other side would not be able to maintain their own motivation.

      But that's enough talk from me about something that won't happen. I think an armed populace makes it less likely. It's ok with me if you don't agree.

    34. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Agree.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    35. Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Forces seeking an end to Constitutional government would not fare well here.

      That's a matter of ballots, not bullets. Unconstitutional government, in one form or another, does have a lot of support in the US.

      Moreover, I was talking about armies that march into another country, set up shop, and are harsh, demanding, and arbitrary in their dealings with the people there. That's going to attract more opposition than proposed unconstitutional governance. Nazi or Communist armies are an existential threat, and have no limiting principles (except that it's hard on troops to kill large numbers of women and children).

      Ending unconstitutional government is something that can happen. It happens fairly frequently in history. Very few governments started with a constitution, and lots of them picked one up along the way. Governments will transition into and out of unconstitutional government.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  8. 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 Kohath · · Score: 1

      Wait until you actually SEE a fucking gun...

      The "I didn't know what was going on; I was afraid" defense is absolute and guaranteed to work. But only if the officer opens fire right away, without waiting to know anything about the situation.

      Look for this to happen more and more because that's what's being incentivized.

    3. Re:Fucking SWAT team by Graymalkin · · Score: 5, Informative

      In most cities the term "SWAT team" is waaaaay too broadly applied. When people hear "SWAT" they tend to think of a highly trained team of specialists with pinpoint marksmanship, nerves of steel, and balls (or ovaries) of solid brass.

      The reality is most "SWAT" teams are regular patrolmen assigned to SWAT duty as part of their career path. They aren't best of the best volunteers but trying to get promoted. Smaller cities can't afford grueling training so their SWAT terms get maybe a dozen training hours a month and those officers have regular patrol beats.

      So when SWAT responds to a call there's a good chance you're getting a bunch of operators with better than average but definitely not Delta levels of training that may have just come off a full patrol shift. The typical SWAT team has far less training than you'd probably want or expect them to have.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
    4. Re:Fucking SWAT team by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You are in a SWAT team. You have been trained for a gunfight.

      So what you're saying is that SWAT shouldn't exist and you should let normal police diffuse a situation rather than turning America into a warzone complete with that level of weaponry?

    5. Re:Fucking SWAT team by hey! · · Score: 1

      This is the problem with the SWAT response scenario: it's inherently dangerous. You can mitigate the danger with training, but you can never make it safe.

      Hold your thumb out at arm's length and note the size of your thumbnail. That's roughly half the angular area in which you have sufficient visual acuity to distinguish between a handgun and a coffee mug. The way you "see" a scene is that your fovea flits around your field of vision, filling in details to update the scene you have already constructed in your brain. If you go into a scene "knowing" that a person has a gun, you aren't instinctively going to double check. Your reptilian brain will be prioritizing possible signs that the person is about to use the gun you "know" is there.

      I don't think this can be "fixed" by training. You're fighting evolution. You've got to control the development of dangerous scenarios in the first place.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:Fucking SWAT team by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Firearms safety training that you receive as a civilian and as a police officer differ. Police are trained to shoot if they think that the assailant is reaching for a gun.

      Except he wasn't reaching for anything, which means the cop had no idea what he was shooting at - which was my point exactly.

    7. Re:Fucking SWAT team by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      They may be lying about the motions the man made, but discovering he had no gun afterwards does not imply a cop should psychically know this when the guy makes a motion towarss his waste.

      Perhaps the training could be improved. Perhaps the cop was lying. But magically knowing there isn't a gun in his pocket isn't a realistic condition, nor is risking one's life on the off chance the sudden movement is innocuous.

      There are plenty of videos where cops get shot because even with full training.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    8. Re:Fucking SWAT team by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      when the guy makes a motion towarss his waste

      Just letting your arms drop to your sides could be a "motion towards the waist". Every time you walk like a normal human being you are "making a motion towards the waist". This get-out-of-jail-free card needs to be torn up, permanently.

      If the person isn't actually reaching for an actual weapon, the cop doesn't know what he's shooting at. Negligent homicide, straight up.

      There are plenty of videos where cops get shot because even with full training.

      Which are shown incessantly to trainees, turning them into scared chickenshits who gun down innocent people for no reason. It needs to stop. This SWAT team was in force, in cover with ballistic shields. Even if this man had a gun, the chances of him getting off a hipshot are lower than the officers winning a Powerball.

    9. 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?
    10. Re:Fucking SWAT team by lsllll · · Score: 1

      lol. Way to come around the back and bite my sentence. I completely agree with you.

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

      Yes that wasn't directed at you but rather the general reading population. It's amazing how disproportional the power of SWAT teams are compared to the situations they are sent in to diffuse. *sigh*

    12. Re:Fucking SWAT team by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Then probably your father was a hunter or a drug lord or someone else who could go to jail for recklessly killing someone.

      Or....classes offered by local boy scouts or shooting range. But drug lord sounds much cooler.

    13. Re:Fucking SWAT team by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You have been trained for a gunfight.

      While true and necessary, it's also where the police in the US go very fucking wrong.

      Train to avoid a gunfight. Train how to de-escalate a situation. Train how to resolve a conflict without having shoot someone. Train how to interact with members of the public without murdering them.

      Also stop having elected DAs because it just looks like a situation rife with corruption.

    14. Re:Fucking SWAT team by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You're pretending the local boy scouts don't have full control of the local meth supply?

    15. Re:Fucking SWAT team by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      A Heisenberg merit badge would be bitchin

  9. Re:lol by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    That depends, is it cheaper or more expensive than a few SWAT raids?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  10. Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This guy is some kind of wizard. Jail can't hold him. He'll be out soon enough.

  11. That's some serious stupid by DogDude · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is this kid a Trump?

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  12. 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.

  13. Justice WILL have the last laugh by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    Justice WILL have the last laugh here..Nuf said.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
    1. Re: Justice WILL have the last laugh by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      The prison industry gets the last laugh.

  14. The mind boggles... by LostMonk · · Score: 2

    I'm hearing the echoes of a ringing triple facepalm all the way over here.

    One from the sentencing judge

    Two from his lawyer

    Three from his future self looking back at ruins of his life

  15. Re: Barriss sounds like Trump by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    "Depth," genius.

  16. As said before by quonset · · Score: 2

    This is why we have death penalty.. This punk already made continual threats to kill his grandmother, burn her house and kill her dogs, two different bomb threats to a tv station as well as caused the death of one person. Imagine what will happen if he gets out.

    He obviously believes the rules of society don't apply to them. Those rules should be harshly applied so he can't kill again.

    1. Re:As said before by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      He never actually intended to kill. He's not a murderer: He's an idiot. Reckless. Impulsive. Egotistical. But not a murderer.

      Ideally he might receive years of therapy. More realistically, he's going to spend years in prison. If he gets out, I don't imagine him staying out.

    2. Re:As said before by dryeo · · Score: 1

      True, we should just execute all mentally ill people, preferably in a cruel painful way as that'll teach them for being mentally ill and of course it is the Christian way.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    3. Re:As said before by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Most mentally ill people are no danger to other people. This clown was.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    4. Re:As said before by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      He never actually intended to kill. He's not a murderer: He's an idiot. Reckless. Impulsive. Egotistical. But not a murderer.

      Where I come from, it's murder if you do something where a reasonable person would assume that someone might die as a result, and you still do it. In some states in the USA you have "felony murder", where if A and B commit an armed robbery (where obviously someone might get killed as a result), and a police officer shoots A, then B will be guilty for "felony murder".

      It should be clear to everyone that when you sent a SWAT team to someone's home then someone might die. Whether this is due to police officers being reckless, or badly trained, or just a combination of good officers and bad luck, it's obvious that this might lead to someone dying. Any reasonable person knows that. So where I come from, if you do something that could reasonably kill someone, and you do it, it's murder.

  17. 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.

    1. Re:And very little talk on the root cause. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Swatters are murderers AND cops are incompetent and overlimitarized. There - I fixed it for you.

    2. Re:And very little talk on the root cause. by Kohath · · Score: 1

      The root cause is that police are dangerous and willing to shoot people without knowing what's going on. SWATing just points them in a particular direction.

      Until police lose their reckless indifference to non-police lives, non-police lives will continue to be at grave risk whenever police are present.

    3. Re:And very little talk on the root cause. by sphealey · · Score: 1

      = = = The root cause is that police are dangerous and willing to shoot people without knowing what's going on. = = =

      "root cause" - I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.

      Remind us why the police were at a house. Whether the right house or wrong house for the call they received doesn't matter - just remind us why they were on a response. Thanks.

    4. Re:And very little talk on the root cause. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are missing the fact that absolutely NO verification of any kind was done before knocking on a random door and shooting someone.
      Who was responsible for confirming that some random anonymous call had ANY credence?
      That is the ROOT cause of this situation.

    5. Re:And very little talk on the root cause. by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Remind us why the police were at a house.

      You train and equip a SWAT team, you end up using that SWAT team. For something. If not that night, then some other night. If not that house, some other house. If not a fake hostage situation, then serving a warrant for unpaid child support. Or whatever. The SWAT team exists, therefore someone eventually gets shot by them.

      Why a SWAT team? Because Kansas is boring. Voters watch too much TV news and too many TV dramas and mistake those stories as meaningful to their lives. Politicians need something to sell to voters and drama sells. (Now you're seeing the other side of it — dramatic stories where the police hurt the innocent.)

      The thing that needs to change is the police. Crime is way down. The need for aggressive police is way down. People are less and less tolerant of police abuse as they see the relative risk of becoming a crime victim fall versus the risk of being a victim of police.

    6. Re:And very little talk on the root cause. by sphealey · · Score: 1

      = = = You train and equip a SWAT team, you end up using that SWAT team. For something. If not that night, then some other night. If not that house, some other house.

      I asked you to remind us why a specific police detachment was on specific call that night. Not a general discussion of whether or not Kansas police departments are over-militarized. This matters, because if I were being held hostage by a hard right wing fanatic I would certainly want my local police to mobilize their SWAT team in hopes of rescuing me.

      So again, explain what the root cause of this specific incident in Kansas was.

    7. Re:And very little talk on the root cause. by Kohath · · Score: 1

      I asked you to remind us why a specific police detachment was on specific call that night. Not a general discussion of whether or not Kansas police departments are over-militarized.

      Are you the discussion police?

      This matters, because if I were being held hostage by a hard right wing fanatic I would certainly want my local police to mobilize their SWAT team in hopes of rescuing me.

      Make up some more ridiculous stories. What kind of police would you want if vampires had you caged up in their lair, saving you to drink your blood when they got hungry? How about if space aliens were probing you on the hood of your car? What are the right sort of police for that?

      So again, explain what the root cause of this specific incident in Kansas was.

      The SWATing call happened because the SWAT team existed. The SWATer knew exactly what to say to produce the specific type of police response he wanted. The existence of the SWAT team (and SWAT teams in general) made this happen. That's why SWATing is a thing at all.

    8. Re:And very little talk on the root cause. by sphealey · · Score: 1

      = = = The SWATing call happened because the SWAT team existed. = = =

      Try "I shot him because the gun was just lying there Your Honor" in court and see how it works out for you.

    9. Re:And very little talk on the root cause. by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Wow, great point. Especially because I'm totally a defense council on a legal team trying to get my client off.

      Man, how did I ever pass the Bar Exam? :(

  18. Fuck the SWAT team by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Highly trained heavily geared up professionals should not have itchy trigger fingers and need to at least get professional consequences!

    People make mistakes on the job and big ones result in consequences including being fired. I'm not saying firing is required as an idiotic zero tolerance policy; especially when properly handled that employee may never make that mistake ever again. As a TEAM failure the whole team needs to feel the failure; more training and at least but a dock in PAY should be minimum. If your team fucks up you don't get bonuses or raises and are lucky to not get reassigned or laid off... if not fired if you are the reason the team failed.

    When you are nearly invincible against most every likely handheld weapon you can take the TIME to wait for that LARGE heavy 50 caliber to rise into view. It is cowardice or mental illness or a SYSTEM which promotes "extreme" caution with the exact opposite reasoning of innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, better training so you don't question breaking windows and entering from ALL sides and eyes seeing his hands can communicate to the others. They often just smash in the door; maybe the back door too -- this is life or death stuff, they should break windows and using a drone to peak in windows should be cheap...

    Blaming the victim for involuntary ass scratching (cell phone same thing) or pulling up loose clothes or sneezing is so unprofessional an excuse somebody needs to be fired.

    Finally, WTF are they using guns? It is a TEAM where the front guys can have beanbag guns and stun guns and heavier armor. the others can have the bazookas. This wasn't a known criminal or bad location... WTF do we have local prosecutors who must work with the police be the ones to look into their buddies? massive conflict of interest!

  19. Way to go, genius... by hey! · · Score: 1

    ... to a SuperMax facility, that is.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  20. Re:Barriss sounds like Trump by tsqr · · Score: 1

    they are out of their debt, and have no idea of the gravit they are doing

    I believe you're out of your depth, buddy./p

  21. This man is a true patriot by edris90 · · Score: 1

    By maximizing how many mistakes please get for overzealous reaction, then highlights the likelihood the other Les cut-and-dry cases are also the result of police mismanagement and over sensitivity. How about the police start taking accountability for their actions say we fucked up it's our job to be sure beyond belief before we accidentally make things worse

  22. Re:DA's need to be banned from police investigatio by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    DA's don't investigate the cops.

    You're reinforcing my point here.

    In this case, the DA concluded that there would be a trivial defense of 'the cops thought he was reaching for a gun' with no real evidence showing otherwise, and declined to prosecute.

    Because of the incestious relationship between DA's and the cops they work with, just like I said. There was no, none, nada, zip sign this man was reaching for any weapon.

  23. Nobody's talking about root cause by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    because it's already established. There's nothing to debate there. This guy goes to jail for a long time and isn't let near the internet or any other anonymous communications when he gets out. Problem solved.

    We're still debating the cop's situation becuase he got off scott free when he obviously shouldn't have. At the least he should be fired and never allowed to work as a cop again. As it stands our "Tough on Crime" outlook and unwillingness to address gun violence has left cops above the law in most shootings.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  24. Inmate Kiosk by PPH · · Score: 1

    Botched software patch.

    If I were the prosecutor in Sedgewick County, I'd be looking very closely at who did the patch installation and who is in charge of managing these kiosks. Could be some of Bariss' gamer buddies.

    Drugs and other contraband frequently make it inside prisons by way of corrupt guards and other officials.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  25. WOW..... by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

    What a swat twat.

  26. It's just a shot across the bow at Amazon & Go by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    just in case these home speaker things take off. The entire product was always very so-so. It lacks any reason to exist beyond listening to iTunes. It doesn't have much in the way of services to integrate into besides, well, google and Amazon.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  27. Re: lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He is correct. Look at that Canadian farmer who shot one of the natives who was trying to steal stuff (again) from his property. The farmer was found innocent in court, but all you hear in the news is how the white man is evil, how another white man has shot a poor native out of racism, how the government should do something about racism. Bullshit. We all know it but you progressive hypocrites bathe in this disgusting cesspool of lies instead of addressing the real problems.

  28. Holy shit! That's GOTTA qualify for Peak Stupid! by Chas · · Score: 1

    What kind of idiot, SITTING IN PRISON for SWAT'ing, sneaks online and self-incriminates by promising MORE?

    His parents couldn't have dropped him on his head as a baby.
    They must have been spiking his stupid ass like a football!

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  29. Say hi to Bubba for us by Jayfar · · Score: 1

    Hi Tyler. Hope you're having a great time in prison. Tell Bubba we send our love.

  30. Re:DA's need to be banned from police investigatio by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you need to recall what Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt means?

    Reasonable doubt does not mean "guilty".

    It means the DA didn't waste time trying to prosecute a case he had no hope of winning. His job isn't to please you--it's to obtain convictions.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  31. Re:DA's need to be banned from police investigatio by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    But this *wasn't* some random guy. It was a guy who was there and who was armed for the express purpose of dealing with a violent situation in which at least one of multiple hostages had already been gravely wounded or killed.

    Context matters, and you cannot condemn someone for not having perfect knowledge, particularly in a scenario such as this one.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  32. Re:Take away the guns by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    If it is reasonable to believe that a person moving their hands towards their body is reaching for a gun, then there are too many guns. Time to round them up and ban them.

    No, time to make the cops be responsible for their actions. In Indiana you're allowed to shoot cops in self defense.
    https://www.zerohedge.com/news...

    Since they passed that law, law enforcement being so lax and blowing people away has stopped. They know they can be legally blown away. So the answer again is more guns, not less guns. More guns, less crime. Fewer guns, more crime. London has passed NYC in homicides because of their stupidity on this subject.

  33. Guy is a menace by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Seems we may have a psychopath. With any luck the judge sends him to a looney bin for a long time. They can keep him locked up a lot longer in a psyc ward.

  34. Re: lol by koomba · · Score: 1

    Hmm or how about the 14 year old kid who knocked on a neighborhood door to ask directions to school, because he had missed the bus? They of course were polite and more than happy to help the kid out...

    Oh wait, the kid was black so actually the woman started about how "your kind" is always trying to rob her, then the husband comes raging out the door with a shotgun and attempted to murder the kid. He only failed because he forgot to turn the safety off the first time he pulled the trigger, and so missed by time he actually got a shot off.

    Yeah that's a totally reasonable response to a14 year old kid knocking on your door asking for directions. There's no way race had anything to do with it...

  35. Re:DA's need to be banned from police investigatio by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you need to recall what Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt means?

    Perhaps you could read the definitions for non sequitur and red herring. No one said the DA is judge, jury and executioner, or whatever stupid thought was going through your head.

    It means the DA didn't waste time trying to prosecute a case he had no hope of winning.

    You sound like the Obamabots whining the reason their guy didn't prosecute a single banker because the DOJ couldn't win any of the cases - when the feds have a conviction rate over 90%.

    A murdering pig shot a man for no reason two seconds after he stepped out his front door. Manslaughter, straight up.

    But this *wasn't* some random guy. It was a guy who was there and who was armed for the express purpose of dealing with a violent situation in which at least one of multiple hostages had already been gravely wounded or killed.

    And for all the cop knew the man walking out the front door was a hostage.

    Context matters, and you cannot condemn someone for not having perfect knowledge, particularly in a scenario such as this one.

    Straw man. Cops get fake or misleading calls all. the. time. but can't go in shooting everyone on sight. So why all the desperate defenses of the indefensible here? You got family in the gestapo, or are you one of those kind of teabaggers?