Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the don't-do-the-crime-if-you-can't-do-the-time dept.

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.

8 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 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.

  2. 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
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.