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.

45 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

      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 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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
    8. 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.
    9. 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.

    10. 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
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

  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.

    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
  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 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.
    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 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.
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.
    9. 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.

    10. 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.
    11. 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=-
  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 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.
    3. 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.

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

    Is this kid a Trump?

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.
  13. 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...
  14. 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/
  15. 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.