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.
UPDATE (5/26/18): Both Barriss and Viner are now facing life in prison.
The charge is involuntary manslaughter.
From that link:
Three elements must be satisfied in order for someone to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter: Someone was killed as a result of the defendant's actions. The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life. The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.
The interesting bit is "The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life."
We're admitting that simply having the cops show up is so inherently dangerous that it constitutes a reckless disregard for human life.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Having exposed local police for bungling ineptitude in the face of a hostage crisis, it seems authorities have no choice but to find every potential crime they can think of to charge this kid with. This includes, beguilingly, arson?
Remember: this kid did not kill anyone. at best, he lied to police and should be tried for that. The real question is, what disciplinary action was taken against the officer or officers who fired on an unarmed man in his own home? Was a warrant issued to allow police to enter the premises? What steps were taken to de-escalate the hostage situation? did the police wait for a trained negotiator or attempt to make contact with the person?
Good people go to bed earlier.
I read the linked article. The Slashdot summary really sucks. It doesn't even mention the death or what swatting is. I had to read the article for that.
The police where told that the man had killed his father, was holding his mother and sibling hostage and had soaked the house in gasoline. The man was a dead man walking the moment police where called. With the information they had, they didn't have the luxury to take their time to fully access the situation.
I honestly support the civil lawsuit. It's easy to see in the video that the victim did nothing to deserve to die. But criminal standards are higher and I completely understand why the police had to act in the manner they did. It was not exactly presented to them in a "we can wait and see what happens" context.
The person who did the swat (sorry - new word for me so not sure how to use it properly) completely bears the responsibility of the victim's death and deserves the full weight of the law brought down on him. The fact that he did this before is shocking and it is amazing that no one else was hurt. One of the stories mentioned this happened in Canada but that the victim was warned and was able to call the police and give them the heads up that it was a false report.
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.
So if I would kill my father, hold my mother and siblings hostage and soak the house in gasoline, but then call the cops they would not shoot me?
As a European this is so wrong on so many levels.
I live in Brussels. We had a fucking terrorist attack at the airport. People where killed. At one moment the knew where they where and arrested them. They did not go in and killed everybody. These where known terrorists and they STILL did not just shoot them.
Yes, it might have been dangerous to go in. Yes, that could have meant that 3 people might have been killed. It STILL is no excuse to go all gun ho and start shooting. It was clear they had not all the information.
And if he wanted to kill his mother and kids, he would have done that already IF the information was correct.
Damn and fuck.
A huge part of the problem is that you (and many others) are ok with the fact that the police shot somebody. "Hey, not their fault." Well, it WAS their fault. They are not a tool, like a gun. You can not say, "The police does not kill people, people kill people." They are aware that people will lie to bring others into throuble. And it is even a bigger issue if they don't.
It reminds me of that video where some Swedish policemen in the NY tube held a person instead of beating him to pulp. And yes, criminals have guns in the rest of the world. It still does not mean that shooting is in any way the first option. It is the last option. The very last option. You stand outside and ask what is going on. And even when you go in, you STILL do not start shooting. This is not a video game. There is no respawn. "I had no other choice" is not good enough.
There are a multitude of things they could have done differently even if the information would have been correct.
The fact that "he was a dead man walking" is an issue. He should not be looked at it in that way.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
A reasonable person would expect they would verify claims before acting on them.
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. The perpetrator doesn't get shot only when they do not present a threat to either the police or bystanders/hostages.
SWAT doesn't go out of their way to verify there is a combat situation before acting, because "surprise" and "speed" is how they maximize the probability of a positive result. Either the caller is correctly reporting an imminently dangerous situation, or they are lying and putting their target under deadly threat. SWAT only has to demonstrate that they operated within their RoE.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
And in this case, the victims were bystanders. Try again.