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.
Their actions caused someone's death.
So I call the police for X reason
Police are so shit they kill someone playing video games in their room
Police keep their jobs
I go to jail
_________
So everyone gets charged except for the cop that actually killed a man? That seems a huge lapse of justice.
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
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.
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.
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.
No matter what, don't ever talk to cops. When these are the only charges, you know someone got railroaded.
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
This is an interesting problem... if you look at nearly ALL police shootings, they typically seem unjustified from the general public's perspective, but the cops always say "the officer was in fear for his life"... and therefore it is somehow justified. The problem is the way the laws are written and the way police are trained. If you ever get to see police training materials, police conventions, or even the daily emails from the department, they are all oriented around the basic concept of "every interaction could kill you so be hyper vigilant so you can come home to your kids tonight." This creates a scenario where police see what they've been trained to see: a threat on their life. This is how a naked guy running away down a rural highway can get shot for "being a threat" despite the 911 caller telling the dispatcher that the person is suffering from a mental condition.
One thing I know from personal experience is the way the media twists facts to make things look salacious. My brother was nearly killed in an avalanche, and the media reported that he was skiing out of bounds, when in fact he was never on resort property, he was back-country skiing with friends in forest service property. They also made it seem like the group had taken HUGE risks, when in fact they had been prepared, planned their route ahead of time, brought appropriate equipment, recognized the emerging risks, mitigated them with strategy, then executed a perfect self-rescue after the avalanche. But telling a great story about self-reliance and preparedness isn't on the media's agenda so they spin it the way they want... I mention all of this because I expect no less from the media with a police shooting. I suspect there are situational things that made the cop think the way he did. How well lit was the front porch? How clear was his view? What unrelated events prior in the day may have primed him to see what he saw as a threat? The media doesn't want to give you a clear picture of how the situation unfolded, they want to induce you to quickly pass judgement and move on to the next story.
It was certainly a homicide, but I'm not sure the intent rises to murder. I think it's a systemic problem throughout our entire police system. The police know how the law is written, so they train specifically to that loophole. If we tighten the loophole, fewer people can fit through. I'd love to see the laws change in that regard.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
based on what they thought was a credible 911 call of an eyewitness
He wasn't even pretending to be a witness, which is only ever somewhat credible, in the fake call, he was pretending to be the guy who answered the door.
You describe the police as hitmen. No thanks, their fault still.
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.
TRUMP caused the deaths of countless millions of Americans in the military overseas.
The quality of Trolling on Slashdot has dropped considerably with the influx of Millennials.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A US civil court has no power to effect criminal punishment upon a defendant. They cannot convict them of a felony, they cannot imprison them. A civil court can only seize assets of the defendant. That's why they're called civil courts.
The guy who wins a self defense case can only be charged as such in a criminal court. The person who defended himself in criminal court only demonstrated that the state could not prove the person is guilty of murder (beyond reasonable doubt). In civil court, the plaintiff only has to demonstrate the defendant is likely to be guilty. The civil court can only take away the defendant's money. (The double jeopardy doctrine only applies to criminally prosecuted crimes.)
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
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.
Ok, you seem to have forgotten that the police raid that happened 4 days before the bombings, where there was a shoot out in Forest, with one terrorist dying, Belgian and French police getting injured, and a number of terrorists got away, who then went on to commit the attacks in the metro and at the airport.
I think the difference was that in the earlier raid, they were not expecting to find anyone and were confronted by armed terrorists. The later raids, the police had huge advantage in numbers and equipment.
You are still correct. In the comparable situation where the police had an overwhelming amount of force, the US police are scared and gun unarmed innocent people down, where the Belgian police showed bravery in the face of know terrorists.
"The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
There is some middle ground between ignoring a call and going in guns blazing. If that's too much nuance for you, you're already a lost cause.
I was at home in the garage with the door open. I was sandblasting some parts I was working on, so was incapacitated by having my hands stuck into the rubber gloves that are attached to the blasting box. With the air compressor rattling away, I couldn't really hear anything, and being deep into concentrating on what I was doing, I was not aware of my surroundings.
But, when the compressor reached pressure and shut itself down, I heard someone yell, "Don't move". Looking up, there were two policemen at the end of my driveway. One had a pistol drawn. The other had a rifle. Both were pointed at the ground, but ready to point a me. They moved closer, and I was very careful to explain what I was doing and made damn sure they understood how difficult it was for me to extract my hands before I moved an inch. They were very nervous and highly agitated, and I had no desire to do anything but diffuse the situation.
One of my son's middle school "friends" thought it was funny to play this "prank". The policemen allowed me to hear the message he left 911 where the little fucker claimed there was a shot out going on at my house, while he had a war game playing in the background. If I had not been in a VERY public place, in a VERY incapacitated predicament, the story could have been much different. I can't imagine how tense they would have been if the door had been closed. They would obviously been able to hear that something was going on inside, but I would not have been able to answer any knock or call to "come out with my hands up". As it was ( a peaceful summer afternoon), I got to show of my project and have a nice conversation, but I would have beat the snot out of that little shit if I could have gotten my hands on him.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
That's not mitigation. That's scapegoating.
Try fixing the fucked up police force. Prosecute the murderer that pulled the trigger, prosecute the police service that employed him and prosecute whichever cunt wrote the training plan because they're all culpable.
Then maybe other police services in the US will adopt approaches that don't involve murdering innocent people that answer the door.
threatened to shoot other hostages
Well, the cops did that anyways, because they wound up shooting an innocent man. How is that better?