Slashdot Mirror


Gamers Involved In Fatal Wichita 'Swatting' Indicted On Federal Charges (kansas.com)

bricko shares a report from Kansas: A federal grand jury has indicted the man accused in Wichita's fatal swatting as well as the two gamers involved in the video game dispute that prompted the false emergency call. The 29-page indictment was unsealed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. It charges 25-year-old Tyler Barriss, who is facing state court charges including involuntary manslaughter, with false information and hoaxes, cyberstalking, threatening to kill another or damage property by fire, interstate threats, conspiracy and several counts of wire fraud, according to federal court records. One of the gamers -- 18-year-old Casey S. Viner of North College Hill, Ohio -- is charged with several counts of wire fraud, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice. The other gamer -- 19-year-old Shane M. Gaskill of Wichita -- is charged with several counts of obstruction of justice, wire fraud and conspiracy to obstruct justice.
UPDATE (5/26/18): Both Barriss and Viner are now facing life in prison.

26 of 432 comments (clear)

  1. Good, throw the book at them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Their actions caused someone's death.

    1. Re:Good, throw the book at them! by JMJimmy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is a counter argument. Given how policing is done elsewhere in the world, with far fewer deaths, one could also argue that their metric for a "positive result" is flawed. It certainly wasn't a positive result for the individuals who were swatted.

    2. Re:Good, throw the book at them! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This could actually be a monumental case if the right legal team gets involved.

      There is no denying their actions were wrong, however, there's a major question as to whether the police were criminally negligent by failing to properly assess the situation prior to storming the building. A reasonable person would expect they would verify claims before acting on them.

      Oh, they should be fully prosecuted with maximum sentences for the things they actually did, which may be less than they're being charged with (manslaughter for the intended target that gave an address? I'm not sure that applies but haven't read the full charges as they aren't in any of the links). The police (re)action is irrelevant to how guilty these guys are for the charges listed. That said, that doesn't absolve the police and their actions. That's a separate issue that needs to be addressed independently. The only innocent people in this sad scenario are the victim and his family/friends.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    3. Re:Good, throw the book at them! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Surprise and speed seems to also maximise the probability of killing innocent people.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Good, throw the book at them! by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The law doesn't operate with an incontrovertible definition of "reasonable". SWAT teams operate on the notion of safety of bystanders first. They can only maximize their safety by killing the threat.

      Shouldn't they determine that there actually is a threat before killing it? If there's no vetting by the police/SWAT, what you have is an on-call publicly funded hit service.

    5. Re: Good, throw the book at them! by Cederic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When a situation dictates that SWAT be deployed, it is a combat situation

      No, it's a police situation. There is a risk of harm.

      That risk should not come from the fucking murdering cunts in police uniforms.

  2. not enough by sloth+jr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So everyone gets charged except for the cop that actually killed a man? That seems a huge lapse of justice.

    1. Re:not enough by JackieBrown · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The police did their own review as well as a citizen review board. You have to read through several links to get to that. The information is in this article http://www.kansas.com/news/loc.... I can't access the game subsection on Slashdot at work so maybe the information is there as well.

      We have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight here. You have to realize that if the situation describe over the phone was actual true, not taking the shot could have gotten an entire family killed.

    2. Re:not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have to realize that if the situation describe over the phone was actual true, not taking the shot could have gotten an entire family killed.

      You have to realize that cops shooting people based entirely on hearsay is fucking retarded, and not an excuse.

    3. Re:not enough by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you consider the 911 call credible and some guy pops out of the house and his hand moves to his waistband, what are you going to do? Do you stand there and get shot?

      You wait until you positively identify a weapon before using lethal force. If a police officer's reaction time is so bad that someone can grab an gun from their waistband and shoot them before the cop, who's weapon is already drawn!, can fire his own weapon, they probably shouldn't even be allowed to drive, much less be a cop. A cop's first duty is to ensure the safety of the public and yes, that includes the suspect as well. You run the risk of being shot when you put on the uniform. That's why they give you training and give you body armor. If you are afraid to take the risk, aren't willing to put the lives of everyone else before your own, don't sign up for the job.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  3. That's great, now what about the police? by eric2hill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Shouldn't they ALSO be held accountable for showing up at a house and killing someone who WASN'T ARMED? Isn't that manslaughter? I hate the double-standard.

    --
    LOAD "SIG",8,1
    LOADING...
    READY.
    RUN
    1. Re:That's great, now what about the police? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You don't really ever hear about it because the media doesn't really care to report on it, but it happens all the time.

      No, you don't hear about it - because it almost never happens. Only a tiny percentage of cops ever suffer negative consequences beyond slaps on the wrist for their murderous acts.

  4. Re: It's an interesting admission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, weâ(TM)re saying that calling armed cops who have been told that there is an active danger at a location is inherently dangerous. Thatâ(TM)s a very different thing.

  5. Re:swat = licence to kill by Layzej · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hopefully someone finally starts to sort out the cultural problem the US police has too.

    Indeed. Canadian police vs known terrorist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    US police vs unarmed man pleading for his life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Stark contrast.

  6. Re:swat = licence to kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I yell "fire" in a packed room and people get trampled to death in a mass panic.

    Not my fault at all, it was those shitty people who panicked and trampled the victims to death.

  7. Re:sounds like mockery of the state. by Jhon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    DA on the "cop that shot the guy":

    "Bennett said he had to make a determination based on Kansas law and law handed down by the Supreme Court, which says that when determining if an officer acted reasonably, evidence has to be reviewed based on what the officer knew at the time of the shooting, not 20/20 hindsight, he said."

    The police were acting on deliberately deceptive information provided by the gamer.

  8. Re:Horse-fuck those morons by bobbied · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And the overreacting police, too.

    Given the situation and looking at it from the perspective of Wichita's police, I don't think they acted inappropriately.

    It is really easy to use hindsight to accuse the police of acting wrongly when the outcome is something nobody wants. If one considers the situation, what the police where being told and what they observed, what happened was justified, even if it was unfortunate. From the perspective of the police, with the information they were provided by dispatch, the guy who got shot was an active threat. Based on the 911 call and the unfortunate actions of the victim, there wasn't much else the Police could reasonably do.

    Don't fall into the 20/20 hindsight trap here. The police where rolling up on what they thought was an active shooter situation with hostages based on what they thought was a credible 911 call of an eyewitness. When the unfortunate guy opens the door, it goes from bad to worse and apparently an innocent movement was seen as a threat. It may seem a bit extreme in hindsight, but from the cop's perspective this is one of those dangerous situations that, like it or not, justifies the use of deadly force.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  9. Re:Horse-fuck those morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And the overreacting police, too.

    Given the situation and looking at it from the perspective of Wichita's police, I don't think they acted inappropriately.

    It is really easy to use hindsight to accuse the police of acting wrongly when the outcome is something nobody wants. If one considers the situation, what the police where being told and what they observed, what happened was justified, even if it was unfortunate. From the perspective of the police, with the information they were provided by dispatch, the guy who got shot was an active threat. Based on the 911 call and the unfortunate actions of the victim, there wasn't much else the Police could reasonably do.

    Don't fall into the 20/20 hindsight trap here. The police where rolling up on what they thought was an active shooter situation with hostages based on what they thought was a credible 911 call of an eyewitness. When the unfortunate guy opens the door, it goes from bad to worse and apparently an innocent movement was seen as a threat. It may seem a bit extreme in hindsight, but from the cop's perspective this is one of those dangerous situations that, like it or not, justifies the use of deadly force.

    Horseshit.

    The police officers who killed the innocent person were 50+ yards/meters away and had cover.

    There was NO ONE under immediate threat from a person WHO DIDN'T HAVE A VISIBLE WEAPON READY TO USE.

    Worst possible case he could have pulled out a pistol. And then what? Take a few blind shots into the bright lights?

    Would that have put the officers into some danger? Yes, but tough fucking shit - that's what they get paid to do.

    And the poor guy did none of that anyway.

    You don't fucking MURDER someone who NEVER DEMONSTRATED ANY ACTUAL CAPABILITY TO DO ANY HARM TO ANYONE.

  10. Re:Horse-fuck those morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    from the cop's perspective this is one of those dangerous situations that, like it or not, justifies the use of deadly force.

    Sounds like those cops need a new perspective. Their current approach is getting innocent, unsuspecting, unarmed people killed. Nothing about that sounds justified to me.

  11. Re:Horse-fuck those morons by green1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If this is truly considered an appropriate police reaction, then the police need to start working to come up with a strategy to mitigate it, because this makes murder by cop extremely easy. If you want the responding officers to behave the way they did, then someone needs to come up with a better way of authenticating the information they are being provided, because the current situation is obviously not sustainable in the long term.

  12. Re:swat = licence to kill by dryeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Then there's the Toronto policeman convicted of attempted murder for the last 6 shots fired at the guy he'd already killed.
    From http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

    A jury has found Toronto police Const. James Forcillo guilty of attempted murder in the 2013 shooting death of Sammy Yatim.

    Forcillo faced two charges related to the shooting death of 18-year-old Yatim on a streetcar in 2013, but was found not-guilty of second-degree murder.

    The jury believed Forcillo was justified in firing the first three shots at Yatim, but not the second round of shots, and hence was guilty of attempted murder.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  13. Re:Horse-fuck those morons by Gr8Apes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is no hindsight required. The police were in the wrong, the whole way through. They had no reason to shoot. They did have reason to approach cautiously with a larger than normal presence. That doesn't give them the right to shoot someone if they sneeze no more than it does so on any street in any town anywhere.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  14. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Your fault for raising stupid kids. Baby Boomers & Gen X'ers always tryna kick the can down the road and blame millennials even though it was their generation who failed to raise the millennials intelligently. Darn kids! Get off my lawn!! Every generation younger than me is wrong and stupid! And their music sucks!!!

  15. Re:swat = licence to kill by Layzej · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Probably the fact that there are consequences is some part of the reason Canadian police show greater restraint.

  16. Re:Horse-fuck those morons by houghi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even IF the call was completely accurate, then it STILL is not a good thing to go in shooting. Why? Because then you KNOW there are innocent people in there. Because there is ALWAYS the possibility that there is no reason to shoot. There is ALWAYS a possible better solution.

    You need people who are qualified to asses the situation and determine if it is actually dangerous. A caller will NEVER be able to do that. Not even if he is inside.

    So I say that even IF the situation was indeed as told on the phone, it STILL did not mean that the action was ok.
    The fact that the police had a perspective where they thought this was a situation where deadly force was ok is by itself a problem.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  17. Re:Horse-fuck those morons by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Opening your front door and going "Wha-?" in response to a disturbance outside is not an action that justifies being gunned down without waiting to see if he was an actual threat.

    Horse-fuck the SWAT team too.