Gamers Behind Fatal 'SWAT' Call Now Face Life In Prison (wlwt.com)

An anonymous reader writes: 18-year-old Casey Viner, who instigated the 911 call which led to a fatal shooting in Wichita (hiring Tyler Barriss to perform the actual call), is in big trouble. "If convicted on the 10 counts he faces, Viner could spend almost the rest of his life in prison and pay a $1,000,000 fine," reports a local Cincinnati news site. Ironically, Viner's father is a corporal with the county sheriff's department.

The 19-year-old intended target for the SWAT attack had supplied a real address in Wichita for a house where he used to live. But in an eerie coincidence, ten days before the fatal shooting in Wichita, Cincinnati police had responded to a similar SWAT call which had sent them to a house where Viner used to live. The local police said "the facts and circumstances and the verbiage were very, very similar."
25-year-old Tyler Barriss also faces a life sentence for false information which resulted in a death -- as well as several local charges. And Thursday a federal grand jury also indicted Barriss "for a threat that caused an evacuation of a high-profile FCC hearing" into net neutrality regulations just two weeks before the fatal Wichita shooting, "and another threat eight days later that targeted FBI headquarters."

Barriss's lawyer insists that his client wasn't responsible for the Wichita death, blaming instead a "gung-ho, crazy cop."

Comments

Great

[burtosis]

Good, now we just need to do something about swat teams busting in and shooting up the place when no one is armed or dangerous.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Medals for everyone!

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

There was no busting in and shooting. They weren't even SWAT, just regular beat cops. They shot him on his porch from across the street from behind their patrol car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0l6kwbglA4

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

What we might focus our energy on better instead is figure out how to use Al to show that Russians were medalling and remain to medal in US elections and affairs to this day.

Would you rather fix a small swatting problem or fix the world?

You win the gold MEDAL in the stupid olympics.

Re:Great

[execthis]

Agreed. The caller nor the person who hired him killed that boy. The cops did. The cops should be the ones facing jail for life, as should all others who've committed similar atrocities (such as the horrendous one in Arizona where the guy was laying prostrate on the floor unarmed).

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Which medal did you get?

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

The cops would not have even been there to potentially kill anyone, were it not for the initial crime of filing the false report. Start with every criminal act that contributes to a death, and prosecute them all.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, the fact the cop who shot this guy is getting away without repercussions is fucking insane.

Re:Great

[Kohath]

I think you mean metalling. Russians are always forging stuff.

Re:Great

[Kohath]

The cops would not have even been there to potentially kill anyone,

What difference does it make whether they were at that house killing that particular innocent guy or at a different house shooting someone else answering the door?

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

We all get the same medal. It's the only fair way.

Re:Great

[gweihir]

Sounds pretty much like a bunch of homicidal cowards vastly overestimating their understanding of the situation. Just the people you do _not_ want to see armed under any circumstances.

Re:Great

[turbidostato]

"The cops would not have even been there to potentially kill anyone, were it not for the initial crime of filing the false report."

You are right. And then, a "false report" punishment should be far, far away from live conviction and a million fine.

Do you know who may deserve live prison and a million fine? A killer -an offense that seems to fit much better to the cops that in fact killed somebody without a resemblance of menace to their, or others', integrity, than to the teenager.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were to crash my car into a power pole, and a whole city lost power, and people died in a hospital, did I kill those people in the hospital?

I think this case will test direct vs indirect guilt. There's not one person in this country that's not responsible for indirect death. Sell a gun to a kill who goes on a killing rampage? Why aren't you indirectly guilty? Pay your taxes and then the government goes overseas and kills a bunch of people? Indirectly guilty. Where does direct guilt fall? Typically when personal responsibility begins. In other words, was the SWAT team personally responsible for their actions?

Re:Great

[JaredOfEuropa]

That depends. Did the cop act on orders and according to procedure? Then you can't really fault him for acting the way he did. If he did violate procedures, then some punishment is definitely in order. In any case, it would be a good idea to review the applicable procedures.

But all that doesn't get the caller or the one who hired him off the hook. It should be clear to both of them that SWATting is not a harmless prank but creates a volatile situation where death or serious harm are outcomes which are not at all unlikely. Since this case did result in a death, they deserve serious jail time.

Re:Great

[murdocj]

So the person who intentionally put other people at risk bears no guilt?

Re:Great

[HiThere]

Ah, the "I was only following orders" defense. I believe that's been found invalid in an international court.

Re:Great

[ScentCone]

Bullshit. The cops were there because someone called 911 to report murders and an armed person threatening more. You really think that sets the stage for the same sort of response as "I think there's a raccoon on my roof" or "the neighbor kid stole my garden hose again" ?

Re:Great

[JaredOfEuropa]

Depends on the orders. If the orders are "you may open fire if the situation presents a clear and present danger in the form of an armed suspect, and you have an opportunity to remove that danger", then there's not going to be some Nuremberg trials about human rights violations.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, right after TV news tells us 9-11 was an inside job. Given the "news" wont even talk about Stefan Halper it stand to reason the same libtards are covering up this: AE911Truth org

Can't blame Trump, so sorry.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

We know about Russia. They have been doing that for over 50 years. They have messed with dozens of US elections, and it still does not matter.

Re:Great

[Ogive17]

It doesn't have to be the fault of one party or the other, both the caller and the officer who shot should be in trouble.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

When the Russian meddling was mostly just keeping Ted Kennedy re-elected it was not bad meddling.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Get rid of killer cops. "Protect and serve" not "Torture and murder!"

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. You're living in a fascist totalitarian police state. And the cops just imitate TV shows, where they are always righteous, and going "by the book" (aka not breaking the law, terrorizing, torturing and murdering) is uncool. Like Jack Bauer in 24. Or basically every other US police/TLA/military show.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends. Did the cop act on orders and according to procedure?

It's not a question of following orders & procedure, it's a question of following the law.

For normal people (ie, everyone except cops) you aren't allowed to shoot people except for some very specific circumstances (typically self-defense). Cops tend to have a bit more leeway in law (varies by jurisdiction).

In this case, the fake report was that there were unarmed hostages in addition to the shooter, so the police should have an appropriate amount of diligence before shooting people - is there a real threat?

Re: Great

[OrangeTide]

And all made of polonium

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

The old "He's COMING RIGHT FOR US defence."

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, do you think it's reasonable that the cops have to kill someone every time they show up to a serious call?

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey dumbass. You are so far off base with that non-logic you must be a liberal idiot.

Re:Great

[hairyfeet]

The guy was in fucking shorts and they were behind cop cars, so unless he walked out with a bazooka which I think even from that far away they could have saw? Yeah horseshit just more killer cops, more gangbangers in badges.

This is a serious issue we have in this country, too many gangbangers in blue that shoot first and then come up with a story later, see the cop dropping the taser after shooting a guy in the back, the multitude of cops shooting guys on the ground, there is really only one of two explanations...they want to kill or they are cowards, either answer means they shouldn't be fucking cops.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice to see everyone arguing against the officer is using such in-depth intellectual reasoning and not pulling stupid made up quotes out of their asses in lieu.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling the cops is not supposed to put anyone at risk! That is merely 'wasting police time'.

Criminals know it may end in a shootout, so they are likely to send a spare hostage to answer the door. A hostage is likely to run towards the cops under such circumstances, they won't be coming slowly in an orderly fashion.

So trigger-happy cops are out.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

What difference does it make whether they were at that house killing that particular innocent guy or at a different house shooting someone else answering the door?

Who we charge for giving them false information.

Contribute to a crime, do the time. You know this Kohath, it's your own argument, you made it Tuesday before last.

Now it's coming back to bite you, since it's criminalizing trolling, your favorite activity.

Re:Great

[Uberbah]

Did the cop act on orders and according to procedure? Then throw the trainers ass in the next prison cell for negligence along with the cop

Fixed

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Results matter. If the procedure results in innocent deaths, the procedure is faulty. Jesus, people.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

"Calling the cops is not supposed to put anyone at risk"

I don't understand what this means. Telling cops someone is armed and dangerous isn't putting them at risk? What the holy fuck is happening right now?

Re:Great

[serviscope_minor]

That depends. Did the cop act on orders and according to procedure? Then you can't really fault him

Yes you fucking can.

"I vas just following orders" has not ever been an excuse. Likewise the whole "cops don't kill people people kill people" thing doesn't work because the cop can never be considered a mere tool with no agency. The cop is a person.

But all that doesn't get the caller or the one who hired him off the hook.

Agreed, the caller, knowing the possible outcome of his actions is equally guilts. That does not make the cop in question any less so. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Re:Great

[Kohath]

What difference does it make whether they were at that house killing that particular innocent guy or at a different house shooting someone else answering the door?

Who we charge for giving them false information.

Never the officers who are the actual danger to the community.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

The sour grapes medal.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the victim was unarmed, there goes your argument.

Of course a "you may shoot on unarmed innocent people" order should also get the superior busted.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

The swatter knew cops kill people, swatters needs to be locked up for life. Same with women that abuse the police force!

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

That's actually possibly why the cops here in Australia are such legends. They can mostly assume that people are unarmed and don't even really carry guns anymore.

There are other benefits to gun control besides the obvious

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

What difference does it make whether they were at that house killing that particular innocent guy or at a different house shooting someone else answering the door?

Who we charge for giving them false information.

Contribute to a crime, do the time. You know this Kohath, it's your own argument, you made it Tuesday before last.

Now it's coming back to bite you, since it's criminalizing trolling, your favorite activity.

Never the officers who are the actual danger to the community.

Provably false claim on your part.

Of course, last week you were outside protesting the indignity of arresting cops like common criminals, and demanding that they be given medals instead.

Why do you troll so badly? Did you not pass your class in troll school?

 

Re:Great

[sjames]

That's not made up. That was Southpark.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

But the inside job was organised by russian state hackers working under papal orders!

Do your own research and think about it man!

Re: Great

[JaredOfEuropa]

My post was about whether or not the cops were following questionable orders. If instead the cop violated (reasonable) orders and shot at an urarmed victim while being too far away to properly assess the situation, then he should be punished. That was exactly the argument I made a few posts ago. Welcome to the conversation.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and killing the good damned DOG for no reason.

No wonder everyone hates cops.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Possible outcome?
It's a deliberate SWATting.
It's the desired and intended outcome.

If you want to prank someone send them a bag of dicks a day for a month.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as gamr byteboiz get put down ............. no loss.

Re:Great

[Kohath]

What difference does it make whether they were at that house killing that particular innocent guy or at a different house shooting someone else answering the door?

Who we charge for giving them false information.

Never the officers who are the actual danger to the community.

Provably false claim on your part.

In the first link, the officers weren't charged for assaulting a defenseless man laying on the ground. They got a 15 day suspension, not a criminal charge.

In the second link, the officer wasn't charged for "being a danger to her community". She falsified paperwork. She was charged for it though.

Paperwork means more to these guys than wanton violence against defenseless citizens.

Re:Great

[rea1l1]

"SWATting is not a harmless prank but creates a volatile situation where death or serious harm are outcomes which are not at all unlikely."

This is a serious problem and should not be the case. SWATting SHOULD be nothing more than a prank, if only the United States Police Forces weren't more on guard and over reactive than deployed United States military forces.

The police should have gone and checked out the situation carefully and comprehensively and noted that no danger to anyone at any point should occurred and that should've been the end of the ordeal.

The police of the USA show a completed disregard for human life - who are we to hold more responsible, the trained adult government officers who shot an innocent man on bad information or the fucked up kids looking up to them and likewise learning to hold a disregard for human life?

The kids aren't alright, but its the fault of the powers in charge promoting and protecting the US stasi. Would be nice to be a part of such a protected clique.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

What happened is that the man had a spotlight put on him, he had no idea what was going on, so he flinched. The cops were expecting an active shooter and reacted poorly. The cop is now going to be in counseling for life, because they never wished any such thing.

The idiot who calls himself SWAutistic or whatever it was shouldn't be allowed near a telephone again for the rest of his life.

Re:Great

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I'm pretty sure that Russian spies *can* medal in US elections. ;)

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

What difference does it make whether they were at that house killing that particular innocent guy or at a different house shooting someone else answering the door?

Who we charge for giving them false information.

Never the officers who are the actual danger to the community.

Provably false claim on your part.

In the first link, the officers weren't charged for assaulting a defenseless man laying on the ground.

Your words were, and I quote, "Never the officers who are the actual danger to the community." without such specification.

They got a 15 day suspension, not a criminal charge.

Again, you said never. Never is absolute. And all I need is them being charged which I can provide.

In the second link, the officer wasn't charged for "being a danger to her community".

You were seeking that particular charge, when we were previously discussing charges for giving false information without such requirements?

You really should have specified. It is so easy to disprove you though, it is what happens when you are a shoddy troll.

She falsified paperwork. She was charged for it though.

Exactly what we were talking about. Creating a danger to the community by giving false information.

Paperwork means more to these guys than wanton violence against defenseless citizens.

Yes, I see you're familiar with your history then, your personal history, that is.

I mean really, you do care more about the paperwork than the actual reality of your affairs. If it's not triple-stamped and cross-documented, you don't care.

Re:Great

[malkavian]

Uhh.. You're comparing someone in a charged situation with adrenaline running high to someone who manipulates a situation into being like that coldly and with malice aforethought?

The root cause of this is the ones that called the SWATting. Anything that arises from that is on their shoulders. When people get it through their thick skulls that playing with people's live for shits and giggles has massive repercussions, then perhaps the calls to SWAT will be valid calls, and the reactions that they have will be in an environment they're supposed to be in.

Best analogy I can think of for your stance is a state leader ordering the army in to invade another country, then lay the blame on the soldiers for going there, and "maybe the leader had something to do with it" if people got shot.

Re:Great

[serviscope_minor]

Uhh.. You're comparing someone in a charged situation with adrenaline running high to someone who manipulates a situation into being like that coldly and with malice aforethought?

Yep.

It's worse in fact. The job of the police is to protect people from criminals, not gun down an unarmed innocent while safely hunkered down behind a good obstacle.

The root cause of this is the ones that called the SWATting.

No the root cause is that gung-ho cops with a god complex make swatting possible in the first place.

Best analogy I can think of for your stance is a state leader ordering the army in to invade another country, then lay the blame on the soldiers for going there, and "maybe the leader had something to do with it" if people got shot.

That's a completely bogus analogy. The cops aren't collowing orders from some rando on the internet.

Re: Great

[malkavian]

Calling cops is definitely supposed to put people at risk. That's the point of it. At the very least, the cops will intervene in a situation to calm it down (putting themselves at risk), or when you tell them there's live fire, kidnapping and their opponents are armed and dangerous with firearms, then that's what they go in with context. Damn straight that's putting people at risk.

The alternative is that the police are supposed to treat every call of live fire as if they were approaching a jaywalker. Which would get cops killed. But that's ok, right? The person most likely to be calm and orderly is the person who has actually got the hostages, and considers themselves in charge.. And that's the likely situation, not the hostage magically escaping just as the cops get there.

If you want to stop a problem, you try and identify the root cause, and you stamp on it hard. The root cause was an irresponsible, sociopathic asshole who thinks it's fun to create dangerous situations because he finds it funny to mess with people's lives with no impact to him.
Given the multiple counts, and the expense of mobilisation of all the resources that have been incurred as a cost to the public purse, I think a million is probably a fair recompense plus a small punitive fine in there too.

The sentence, well, it's one life lost, and several devastated (including the cop, who will have to live with that for the rest of their life, and the family that lost a member etc.).

Root cause is the caller and the person who commissioned the call. Freedom needs responsibility if everyone is to be free.

Re: Great

[malkavian]

Looks like people have forgotten what the word "responsibility" means, and are too conditioned to using trite "blame someone else" excuses.

Re:Great

[drinkypoo]

Sounds pretty much like a bunch of homicidal cowards vastly overestimating their understanding of the situation. Just the people you do _not_ want to see armed under any circumstances.

Police are more likely to shoot someone wrongfully in an armed encounter than any other civilian (cops are civilians too, in spite of thinking they're army guys these days what with all their army equipment) ... sorry, no citation since I'm not at my desktop. They're also much more likely to shoot someone wrongfully if they are black than if they're white, citations for THAT are all I can even find when looking for the other citation I wanted. All in all, they're a bunch of racist dirtbags with shit muzzle and trigger control.

Re:Great

[drinkypoo]

That depends. Did the cop act on orders and according to procedure? Then you can't really fault him for acting the way he did.

Not only can't you (yes, yes I can) but he also wasn't acting on orders (no one told him to shoot) nor procedure — since there was no evidence of a threat, the procedure was not to shoot.

And no, nobody is interested in the claim that a 911 call is evidence of a threat. It isn't. It's evidence of a phone call.

Re:Great

[drinkypoo]

Depends on the orders. If the orders are "you may open fire if the situation presents a clear and present danger in the form of an armed suspect, and you have an opportunity to remove that danger",

Irrelevant since there was not a clear and present danger. If those were the orders, they were not followed, and you're defending someone who did not follow orders.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite, it's the cops job to enforce the law. Helping citizens is a by product and they are free to choose not too in the united states.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh ! Oh ! This line of defense was proven wrong since at least the Nuremberg trials...

Here, as a civil servant, we have the right and the duty to refuse unlawful or unconstitutional (it is seems really not the due process to shoot) or suspicious orders or procedures. We are protected by the law about that. BUT in exchange, we are personally responsible of every single act we do. Orders, procedures should never be above reason or basic human decency.

America is insane.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Cops aren't civilians.

civilian
[si-vil-yuhn]
noun
1. a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.

They are civil servants.

Re:Great

[apoc.famine]

I feel that the duty of cops is to protect and serve. I'm baffled why a cop being able to straight up murder someone because they're scared is a mark of honor and a good thing. It's fucking barbaric. It's neither protecting nor serving.

I want cops to shoot second. And yes, more cops will get shot at if they shoot second. But at the same time, 0 innocent people will get shot by cops. These people didn't choose to stand in the line of fire as their job, while the cops did. A random dude (ffs you or me!) answering the doorbell shouldn't have to be expected to act in a specific way so that cops won't murder him. To say that he/she should have a telepathic link with cops to know what actions they might take which would get them murdered is fucking madness.

Seems pretty reasonable to me that cops should get shot at while unarmed people should not get shot at by cops. If the cops don't want to get shot at, they can choose a different profession.

I have never been a threat to anyone. If some group would kill me for living my life? That group is my enemy. And unfortunately, cops currently fit that description. I live in a city where a drunk white guy (and I occasionally represent that) was shot dead by cops while his neighbors tried to talk the cops down.

To me, every cop that pulls the trigger who hasn't been attacked with a weapon (even fists/feet) that could cause injury/death is a straight up coward murderer, and should be put away for life. Nobody should die because some schmuck with a badge left his balls at home that day.

Re:Great

[thegarbz]

Did the cop act on orders and according to procedure?

The procedure covering this literally leaves the entire situation to be interpreted and executed by the cop in question. Not only is the "I was following orders" a cop-out excuse that has historically been proven to not be a defence, but in this case the order was literally to decide for ones self.

Stop making excuses for murderous trigger happy thugs.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet your against the second amendment

Re: Great

[Millennium]

This is a serious problem and should not be the case. SWATting SHOULD be nothing more than a prank, if only the United States Police Forces weren't more on guard and over reactive than deployed United States military forces

Even then, it should be considered a felony abuse of law enforcement resources, resulting in prison time on a first conviction. It is not harmless under any circumstances, and it should not be considered a mere "prank" by any reasonable person.

When you know that this kind of situation can result, and you disregard the risk to do it anyway just because it amuses you, you take on a share of the blame. The SWATter is no less a murderer than the triggerman, or anyone else who uses an assassin to do his dirty work.

Re: Great

[Zero__Kelvin]

You don't understand what the qualifier "on active duty" means I gather. They are civilians when not on duty.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you're against an education.

Re:Great

[Kjella]

You are right. And then, a "false report" punishment should be far, far away from live conviction and a million fine.

I disagree. If you caused this shit, it's on your head. Like, say your 911 call caused the police to respond with a high speed approach with lights and sirens. That's above and beyond the normal risk, taken because the police think it's averting or mitigating a bigger risk. Well shit happens, they crash and somebody dies. I don't care if it was a prank call and the police would have arrived, discerned there's no actual risk and backed down. You instigated it, you take the blame because someone died. It doesn't mean you were in a conspiracy with the driver or you planned/wanted it to happen, but it did.

The law isn't quite clear on this because it doesn't explicitly say if it values the actions or the consequences. Like, why is murder and attempted murder two different crimes if the only difference is incompetence. It's certainly possible to argue that if all you wanted to do was make a prank call then that's all you can be charged with. I disagree, if a drunk driver runs over people it doesn't matter that he didn't intend to do that, or rather it lowers it from murder to manslaughter. Anything you do with malice deserves to

Re: Great

[Alypius]

I really wish I had mod points for this. No one ever stops to consider the impact on the cop; they just think every officer is some sociopathic madman looking for any excuse to shoot someone.

Re: Great

[c6gunner]

So basically you just cited your asshole for both of those "facts" and called it good.

Re: Great

[c6gunner]

The law isn't quite clear on this because it doesn't explicitly say if it values the actions or the consequences.

It values both, which is why we have different degrees of homicide and different amounts of punishment. If you kill someone unintentionally it's a lesser offence than if you do it willfully.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Since this case did result in a death, they deserve serious jail time

... because the purpose of jail time is revenge.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel you're an idiot. At least we've got that narrowed down.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

How I wish you had to be in that fucking position...instead of quarterbacking from the safety of your keyboard.

Re:Great

[VeryFluffyBunny]

Calling the cops in the USA is like injecting a rabid dog with cocaine and releasing it in a busy public area.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

lol yeah, the second amendment sure protected the now dead guy. go gadget second amendment, what a boon to 'murkin society.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, right after video gaymerz and other swatterz.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

So it was made up then. Gotcha.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they both deserve a life sentence.

Re: Great

[c6gunner]

I want cops to shoot second.

Then you should volunteer to be a cop, and put your desire into action.

Re: Great

[c6gunner]

9/11 truthers are an inside job. They are clearly government funded trolls meant to distract us from the real conspiracies.

Re: Great

[ArmoredDragon]

And when they're responding to a call, like this one, they're on duty. Even so, I doubt this is the case. They're never really off duty in most jurisdictions, as they retain their policing powers while not on the clock, can carry their service pistol, can make arrests, etc.

When I was in the military, I was always on duty, even outside of my duty time. I was also required to provide a means that they could contact me if they needed to. I wouldn't be surprised if cops did the same.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

It is obvious that if the dead guy had a weapon to protect himself from the attackers, he would not have died.

Alone.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

If you did crash it on purpose, yes.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I wouldn't mix the two. When you're in the military, you're *in* the military. They own you. They can bypass the FDA and put untested chemicals in your food. If you don't show up for "work", you don't get fired - you get arrested, then court martialed.

Off-duty police are just that. Being off duty means they should not be actively engaged in policing. This means no conducting investigations, no traffic stops, no detainment or interrogation. They _can_ intercede to prevent commission of a crime taking place in plain view, but in most states so can *any civilian* and some permit use of deadly force if the crime is serious (eg felony, burglary in progress, etc). You can arrest people too, under the right circumstances. But surely you've heard of "citizen's arrest" before, esp if you're ex-mil.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you retarded?

Re: Great

[Pop69]

There;s your problem right there.

Cops are civilians whether they are on duty or off duty.

Re: Great

[AK Marc]

If the cop wasn't a homicidal maniac, he'd have waited. Cop training should be: "If you think you see a gun, and you'd be the target, take cover." Cops charge in to threats, expecting to see threats, then shoot anyone they see. That's been repeated thousands of times. The training is simply wrong.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

People who hate 'Murica sure do hate the Second Amendment.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

More Americans got shot in schools this year than in the deployed military, so maybe soldiers are less nervous than civilians.

Re: Great

[Zero__Kelvin]

If they were always on duty the phrase "off duty police officer" wouldn't exist now, would it?

Re: Great

[Zero__Kelvin]

You are a fucking idiot

Re: Great

[serviscope_minor]

Then you should volunteer to be a cop, and put your desire into action.

So basically if you don't want to be murdered by a cop you should volunteer to be one.

Bullshit!

How about taking a leaf out of the book of other countries where the cops aren't trigger happy goons.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

The root cause of this is the ones that called the SWATting. Anything that arises from that is on their shoulders

So by that measure, this fictional conversation would make total sense:

Cop A: Hey, someone called in a swat team on some address.
Cop B: Cool, they've just given us license to do whatever the fuck we want. After all, it's all on the caller's shoulders!

Re: Great

[c6gunner]

So basically if you don't want to be murdered by a cop you should volunteer to be one.

So, basically, you read my comment, and then pulled some retarded nonsequitur out of your ass.

Re:Great

[drinkypoo]

How I wish you had to be in that fucking position...instead of quarterbacking from the safety of your keyboard.

How I wish I had been there. I'd have kept my muzzle averted and my finger off the trigger unless I actually wanted to shoot someone, because I am a responsible gun owner who understands that the most important safety on the weapon is me.

Re: Great

[serviscope_minor]

So, basically, you read my comment,

Yes.

and then pulled some retarded nonsequitur out of your ass.

Nope, if your post leads trivially to absurd conclusions, then the fault isn't mine for nderstanding that, the fault is yours for writing something so patently absurd.

But sure cry and whine that you are adopting a position that leads to absurd conclusions. I'm sure that wil fix *everything*.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

And just think, the gun nuts that infest slashdot and every other online forum want EVERYONE to be armed just like those cops, so they can all "vastly overestimate their understanding of the situation".

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

What rubbish. Your comments are so stupid, they probably shouldn't be addressed ( you shouldn't argue with someone who isn't capable of forming a coherent thought). "The police should have gone and checked..." Yeah, I definitely hope that happens to you the next time you are in an emergency situation and require immediate (emergency) help. They and - we shouldn't confine ourselves to the police, should we? - any emergency response organization should comply with your oh so well thought out process. First assign a researcher who does an in depth background check - results should be available within 1 -2 months. Then an aerial surveillance and canvasing the neighbors - 1-2 days. Then phone calls to any phone which is or may be on premises. Evaluation of conversations: 3 days. At that point, the commanding officer should be briefed (3 hours) and a decision to respond or not, and if so then decide with what level of aggressiveness intervention should be made. A tactical commanding officer should be dispatched in order to verify that the situation at the scene is consistent with the researched profile (time to scene: 1 hr) before any attempt at actually trying to protect anyone is made. Wow. That's just so realistic, it is a wonder that no one has implemented it before now!!

Re:Great

[dk20]

approximately how many elections has the US meddled with?

US meddling = good
Russia meddling = bad?

How many brutal dictators has the US supported?

Re: Great

[dk20]

you mean like this cop in Toronto?

https://www.theglobeandmail.co...

the guy kept pulling a cell phone at the cop in the way you woudl pull a gun.. the cop did not shoot.

Re: Great

[Cederic]

I'm quite happy for the police officer to receive counselling while he's in prison.

Re: Great

[Cederic]

it's the cops job to enforce the law.

Which law was being enforced by shooting an unarmed innocent man in his own front door?

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

How I wish you had to be in that fucking position...instead of quarterbacking from the safety of your keyboard.

How I wish I had been there. I'd have kept my muzzle averted and my finger off the trigger unless I actually wanted to shoot someone, because I am a responsible gun owner who understands that the most important safety on the weapon is me.

More to the point, police officers get EXTENSIVE training to the effect that they NEED good backing before they can shoot. There needs to be something in the line of fire that can absorb bullets that miss or that pass through the target and continue into something you didn't intend to hit.

Hunters have to do this too, but it's especially important for police officers who might have to fire bullets in an urban setting. Even pistol rounds can go through the walls of a typical US wood framed house and hardly even slow down (things are simpler in Europe where many houses are brick - but even there the houses have windows).

The goal of having good backing for shots is to avoid the potential disaster of having a stray bullet kill an innocent third party, especially a child or a pregnant woman. Aside from the fact that this is something no moral human being ever wants to do, it's a public relations disaster for the police force and the government (even more so than the current situation).

The officer didn't have good backing for his shots. He wasn't following procedure, and he was completely breaking the rules. He easily could have killed a child or a pregnant woman with a bullet.

As you implied, the officer should never have put his finger on the trigger. For that matter, he is clearly one of those people that should never have been allowed to have a gun in the first place.

Re: Great

[c6gunner]

Nope, if your post leads trivially to absurd conclusions, then the fault isn't mine for nderstanding that, the fault is yours for writing something so patently absurd.

The thing is, any idiot can say that about any statement (obviously; one just did). Nothing in my comment in any way spoke or even hinted at your desire to be "murdered by a cop", and yet you somehow managed to dream it up with no prompting whatsoever. How in the hell is your overactive imagination my fault?

Re: Great

[serviscope_minor]

The thing is, any idiot can say that about any statement

Indeed, any idiot can see it! It takes a special kind of idiot to no be able to. Well, hey, at least you're special.

Re: Great

[Agripa]

Nah. You're living in a fascist totalitarian police state. And the cops just imitate TV shows, where they are always righteous, and going "by the book" (aka not breaking the law, terrorizing, torturing and murdering) is uncool. Like Jack Bauer in 24. Or basically every other US police/TLA/military show.

Which TV shows show ubiquitous civil assets forfeiture?

Re:Great

[Agripa]

Police are more likely to shoot someone wrongfully in an armed encounter than any other civilian (cops are civilians too, in spite of thinking they're army guys these days what with all their army equipment) ... sorry, no citation since I'm not at my desktop.

The statistics for civilian CCW carriers and cops bear this out. Cops are convicted of more felonies also.

The situation when lethal force is used is at least partially explained by situational awareness. Cops normally respond to a situation after being called while a civilian will have been there from the start and have a greater understanding of what is actually going on. That does not explain cops wildly shooting bystanders though.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're doing something illegal, then you're held responsible for any unintended consequences. Break into someone's house, accidentally scare them, even if you just turn tail and run, if they died from a heart attack, you're charged.

Re:Great

[Agripa]

The law isn't quite clear on this because it doesn't explicitly say if it values the actions or the consequences.

The felony murder rule applies if police kill an innocent bystander as the result of the commission of a felony. The swatter and the others have been charged with various felonies of course.

Re:Great

[Agripa]

That depends. Did the cop act on orders and according to procedure? Then you can't really fault him for acting the way he did. If he did violate procedures, then some punishment is definitely in order. In any case, it would be a good idea to review the applicable procedures.

That sure worked at Ruby Ridge. The punishment was promotion.

Re:Great

[Agripa]

Uhh.. You're comparing someone in a charged situation with adrenaline running high to someone who manipulates a situation into being like that coldly and with malice aforethought?

Police are trained to escalate and create exigent circumstances to justify any action they take.

Re: Great

[Agripa]

Not quite, it's the cops job to enforce the law. Helping citizens is a by product and they are free to choose not too in the united states.

You are confusing law enforcement and soldiers. The former enforce the law and the later enforce order. Which more closely resembles a SWAT response?

Re:Great

[Agripa]

The swatter knew cops kill people, swatters needs to be locked up for life. Same with women that abuse the police force!

Maybe the swatter was relying on Justice Scalia's observation about law enforcement's new professionalism. Police would never manipulate a situation and create exigent circumstances to allow them to kill innocent bystanders; that would not be professional.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

So, basically, you read my comment,

Yes.

and then pulled some retarded nonsequitur out of your ass.

Nope, if your post leads trivially to absurd conclusions, then the fault isn't mine for nderstanding that, the fault is yours for writing something so patently absurd.

But sure cry and whine that you are adopting a position that leads to absurd conclusions. I'm sure that wil fix *everything*.

You made shit up.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Every cop that wants a gun should have to be subject to a full barrage of beanbag rounds. Every cop that wants a taser should get shocked.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the resident fucktard again...

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

In most departments part of the qualification training to carry a taser includes experiencing being shot in the back with one.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

The cop is now going to be in counseling for life

Exactly. The cop still has his life. The same can not be said for the unarmed law-abiding citizen he murdered. Feeling bad about what he did just means there's still some humanity left in him, but that doesn't change the fact that he took a man's life. I'd be a lot more concerned if a police officer could kill someone like this and not feel remorse.

The person who made the phone call also deserves punishment. Nobody's saying he's innocent (except him and his defense, I guess). But that doesn't mean the person who pulled the trigger should get off without consequences. "Needing counseling" is not adequate punishment for murder, regardless of the degree.

Re:Great

[ausekilis]

Just how should the intentional misleading of the heavily armed/armored police force be considered a "prank"?

It's impossible for police to be everywhere at once - much less know enough detail to be able to spot a prank. The fact that there are terrible people out there that do unspeakable things to fellow citizens (or friends/family) is the whole reason SWAT exists. Every SWAT call wastes hundreds/thousands of taxpayer dollars. They go in with ONLY the knowledge of the phone call.

  What if someone really was threatening the lives of everyone else in the house?

How many hostages would need to die before it's okay for a cop to take the offender down?

How are the police supposed to be able to tell the difference *before* taking any actions?

A prank is ordering 2 dozen pizzas to an address. Telling police about a machete-wielding maniac that has already killed 6 people IS NOT.

Re: Great

[q4Fry]

Which TV shows show ubiquitous civil assets forfeiture?

The Wire did that in one of the early series. If memory serves, they gave the bloke a receipt and told him he could have the money back if he could prove it came from a legal source.

Re: Great

[Agripa]

Which TV shows show ubiquitous civil assets forfeiture?

The Wire did that in one of the early series. If memory serves, they gave the bloke a receipt and told him he could have the money back if he could prove it came from a legal source.

That was the only one which came to mind with the added benefit of the Baltimore cops recently having been revealed to be doing exactly that on a larger and more personal scale without the receipt part.

Re:Great

[turbidostato]

"The felony murder rule applies if police kill an innocent bystander as the result of the commission of a felony."

Which, no doubt is as legal as it takes (in USA, at least). Quite a different thing is the justice acumen of scapegoating the actions of an agent of the law (which should be not only law-abiding to the t but, even more, exemplar) to a third party. Yes, children have the tendency to deflect blame; adults shouldn't.

Re:Great

[lsllll]

From what I understand, they were a swat team, but that all being aside, in the call he says it's a one story house, but in the video it clearly shows a two story house. In the call she asks him his race, twice, which he just dismisses and doesn't answer. Sounds to me whoever made the call didn't know anything about the house or its occupants.

I know this is all hindsight, but come on!!!! So many guns trained on the victim and they couldn't wait until he pulled out a gun?

Re: Great

[lsllll]

In most departments part of the qualification training to carry a taser includes experiencing being shot in the back with one.

Citation please.

Cops have no responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

the situation at hand and whoever and whatever led up to it are responsible. Cops can legally kill anyone they want in the land of crazy and walk free.

Re:Cops have no responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

Just what I was stopping in to complain about. No charges for Officer Rapp? 50 people on scene and the only guy to fire was far away and hunkered down behind a truck with a rifle - how can that be passed off as "reasonable" fear?

http://thedailyhaze.com/office...

Re: Cops have no responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

It can. With the drugs (prescription or not) that such cops pop like candy.

Extreme paranoia and a massively overblown ego, for example, are common symptoms of cocaine. (And explain the entirety of the Content Mafia behavior, by the way.)

And the one who pulled the trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, the one who actually was supposed to having trained to properly handle the situation, instead of just shooting whoever answered the door? Will he be going to prison too?

Re:And the one who pulled the trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they are trained to kill in the name of safety...

Re:And the one who pulled the trigger?

[ArchieBunker]

Nah he will get a medal for bravery.

No punishment too severe

[Kohath]

These guys did the worst thing imaginable: they made law enforcement look bad.

If anyone condemning the SWATters stops to take a breath, the public might have time to consider the danger lurking in their communities, waiting for a call to go shoot some people.

It could be anyone, in any circumstance, at any time. There's nothing to prevent it happening to you or your family members. There's nothing to prevent the same people shooting more innocent people over and over, year after year. The shooters deny any responsibility for the shootings. They are accountable to no one.

Re:No punishment too severe

[DaMattster]

These guys did the worst thing imaginable: they made law enforcement look bad.

If anyone condemning the SWATters stops to take a breath, the public might have time to consider the danger lurking in their communities, waiting for a call to go shoot some people.

It could be anyone, in any circumstance, at any time. There's nothing to prevent it happening to you or your family members. There's nothing to prevent the same people shooting more innocent people over and over, year after year. The shooters deny any responsibility for the shootings. They are accountable to no one.

I cannot disagree even more. This was an incredibly stupid thing to do but there was no intention on the part of the SWATTERS to cause a death. Maybe they should catch an involuntary manslaughter charge but locking them up for the rest of their lives is something I would expect to happen in China or North Korea. The whole problem with people like you is that you are lock them and up and throw away the key type of person. I have no problem with these guys doing some hard time but certainly not nearing or at a life sentence. By advocating such a harsh sentence, you make all of the industries that profit from corrections more money at the tax payers expense.

Re:No punishment too severe

[Kohath]

Whoosh

Re:No punishment too severe

[mlyle]

> By advocating such a harsh sentence

He didn't? Read it more closely. He's highlighting the danger that the police's response to call like this poses.

I think everyone-- the people making the false call, and police's aggressive response to situations like this-- is responsible. I think it deserves a harsh penalty for the false reporters, because there's been such a pattern of behavior and such a flippant response after the death (the media interviews doubling down on swatting, etc, after his actions significantly contributed to someone's death are really something else)-- maybe not life in prison but a significant sentence.

Re:No punishment too severe

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed.
Should the young man get punished? Yes.
Should he have to pay the rest of his life for a trigger-happy law enforcement's actions? No way.

Trump wants to keep America safe - he should start right at home and get rid of the trigger happy law enforcement as a first step. Send those people to a war zone and let them be all tough over there instead of preying on soft targets at home.

Re:No punishment too severe

[dgatwood]

This was an incredibly stupid thing to do but there was no intention on the part of the SWATTERS to cause a death.

I'm not so sure. The lack of remorse tells me that at the very least, they didn't care if they caused a death, and they took an action that they knew or reasonably should have known could have directly caused a death. It's like picking up a gun, pointing it at someone, and pulling the trigger, then claiming that because you didn't know if the gun was loaded, it should be treated as an accident. Unless you're a five-year-old, that argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Unfortunately, many states still treat depraved indifference to human life as manslaughter. In many states, this would be second-degree murder, and you might even be able to argue for first. Either way, a life sentence is entirely appropriate, IMO.

Re:No punishment too severe

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. SWATTERS want to kill the person on the other end or they wouldn't make such calls. They'd send them pizzas or something.

Re:No punishment too severe

[HornWumpus]

Are you talking about the callers or the cops? Seriously, _everything_ you wrote is equally true for both.

Re:No punishment too severe

[geoskd]

If anyone condemning the SWATters stops to take a breath, the public might have time to consider the danger lurking in their communities, waiting for a call to go shoot some people.

This isn't an either/or situation. There is plenty of blame to go around. The 1 in 50 cop that fired the lethal shot when 95+% of his fellow officers had the sense to exercise some judgement. The serial Swatter who is just as guilty of murder for "pulling the trigger" on the loaded weapon that is the police force in this country.

This is exactly why I support the complete disarmament of police in this country. Once people know that the police are disarmed, they will not feel the overwhelming need to carry firepower into every petty criminal act. This is not even a new concept, there are plenty of police forces around the world that have disarmed front line police, and we can see pretty clearly that those forces have much lower incidences of officer related shootings (Going both ways). Those police are safer and so are the communities they police. Any officer who cannot understand how policing is done without deadly force does not have the right mindset to protect anyone from anything.

Re:No punishment too severe

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah they should be executed. Everyone is speaking out about cops lately so it's totally foreseeable this could happen. They got a man killed. They should be killed themselves. They are a menace.

Re:No punishment too severe

[gtall]

Ya, the inner city gangs and MS-13 will then have respect for law enforcement.

Re:No punishment too severe

[Anonymous Coward]

"These guys did the easiest thing imaginable: they made law enforcement look bad."
FTFY
You can't *make* law enforcement look bad; you can only highlight law enforcement making themselves look bad.

Re:No punishment too severe

[Anonymous Coward]

These guys did the worst thing imaginable: they made law enforcement look bad.

If anyone condemning the SWATters stops to take a breath, the public might have time to consider the danger lurking in their communities, waiting for a call to go shoot some people.

It could be anyone, in any circumstance, at any time. There's nothing to prevent it happening to you or your family members. There's nothing to prevent the same people shooting more innocent people over and over, year after year. The shooters deny any responsibility for the shootings. They are accountable to no one.

I cannot disagree even more. This was an incredibly stupid thing to do but there was no intention on the part of the SWATTERS to cause a death. Maybe they should catch an involuntary manslaughter charge but locking them up for the rest of their lives is something I would expect to happen in China or North Korea. The whole problem with people like you is that you are lock them and up and throw away the key type of person. I have no problem with these guys doing some hard time but certainly not nearing or at a life sentence. By advocating such a harsh sentence, you make all of the industries that profit from corrections more money at the tax payers expense.

Look up felony murder:

The concept of felony murder originates in the rule of transferred intent, which is older than the limit of legal memory. In its original form, the malicious intent inherent in the commission of any crime, however trivial, was considered to apply to any consequences of that crime, however unintended.

SWATTING someone is a crime. If that SWATTING goes bad and someone dies, the SWATTERS committed murder.

Period.

Re:No punishment too severe

[Anonymous Coward]

Criminals do not arm-in-perp because of armed cops. Criminals arm because ... they are perpetrating criminals.

Re:No punishment too severe

[malkavian]

I disagree, please explain your reasoning behind why you consider both to be ethically equivalent.

Re:No punishment too severe

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, way! A person died as a result of his "joke".

Re:No punishment too severe

[drinkypoo]

Ya, the inner city gangs and MS-13 will then have respect for law enforcement.

MS-13 was created by US policy, both foreign and domestic. They would not even exist without our bullshit War On Some Drugs Which Do Not Produce Massive Profit For Big Pharma. The inner city gangs were created by abusing minorities, just like the historical gangs of New York were created by a general atmosphere of lawlessness. If law enforcement weren't used to support terrible policies outright designed to harm people in order to guarantee profits for some already massively rich bastards, people actually would respect law enforcement.

Re:No punishment too severe

[drinkypoo]

I cannot disagree even more. This was an incredibly stupid thing to do but there was no intention on the part of the SWATTERS to cause a death.

I cannot disagree with you enough. The only reason anyone SWATs anyone is that it is dangerous, and the danger includes risk of premature death. That is in fact the entire point. You can't live in a country where you know the SWAT team flashbangs babies and then claim that you weren't trying to hurt anyone with a SWATting, period, the end.

The whole problem with people like you is that you are lock them and up and throw away the key type of person. I have no problem with these guys doing some hard time but certainly not nearing or at a life sentence.

There are literally people in prison for victimless crimes. As long as that is true, it is completely nonsensical not to imprison these monsters who care nothing for the lives of others, finding it amusing to place their lives in jeopardy. But I'll tell you what; once we get all of those people out of prison, we can talk about not putting people like this in. He's done this repeatedly, he got someone killed by abusing the system, and now you want him to have a pass on it? How many more people does he have to get killed before you'll support locking him up?

Re:No punishment too severe

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you Cathy Newman? I am a big fan of your work!

Re:No punishment too severe

[Anonymous Coward]

No- the police are professionals. They should not be murdering someone based on unsubstantiated information. Even in the military you don't murder your enemy before identifying them. Murdering innocent civilians in a time of war is a war crime for christ sake. Yet these cops are being held to a lower standard? Give me a break. The kid did something stupid. He didn't pull the trigger though. The cop did. Up to a year in prison may be warranted as it was serious and he did this repeatedly. However unless there was a charge prior I'm not sure a year is even warranted. You can't expect to hold someone to account when you haven't even enforced the law in the first place on there prior actions. If its a first time offense I say in spite of poor actions of the officer that resulted in someones death the sentence should be limited. Even a 3-6 month stint is going to be significant for a first time offender.

Re:No punishment too severe

[Peter P Peters]

Ya, the inner city gangs and MS-13 will then have respect for law enforcement.

Why don't other Western Democracies have these same level of problems?

Re:No punishment too severe

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not contradicting him. If you want to see what life without cops is like, go to Mexico.

I'd love to live in the happy land where nobody ever hurts other people, but we don't.

Re: No punishment too severe

[Anonymous Coward]

Transplant our high numbers of nigs and Mexicans and watch what happens to your country.

Re:No punishment too severe

[drinkypoo]

You're not contradicting him. If you want to see what life without cops is like, go to Mexico.

Wrong. Mexico has cops. If you want to see what life is like where police corruption is left unchecked, go to Mexico... or just stay here and wait a decade or two.

Re:No punishment too severe

[jabuzz]

Most legal jurisdictions would see "swatting" as reckless endangerment. That is they pursued a course of action that a reasonable person would recognize as putting someone is harms way. Again most legal jurisdictions around the world will if the reckless endangerment has lead to a death punish those responsible severely. This is usually seen as manslaughter, 2nd degree murder or a similar offence. The major exception is if you are driving a vehicle where the is for reasons I personally don't accept treated differently with lower sentences. Even then substantial custodial sentences can be accepted. That those involved in the swatting didn't see that coming is utterly irrelevant; ignorance of the law is no defense in front of the law is basic law 101 in 99% of legal jurisdictions around the world.

Whether the police officer who took the shot should also be prosecuted is an entirely separate matter. From what I have heard he needs locking up too for gross dereliction of duty. However as I said makes no difference to the swatters who are justly being pursued to the full extent of the law.

Re:No punishment too severe

[Dirk Becher]

>>> and they took an action that they knew or reasonably should have known could have directly caused a death

If you are really supposed to assume that calling the cops will likely result in them making an unjustified kill then you would have to make the same assumption for legitimate calls. Which would mean that calling the cops is basically vigilante justice.

Re:No punishment too severe

[Anonymous Coward]

Once people know that the police are disarmed, they will not feel the overwhelming need to carry firepower into every petty criminal act.

Because the only reason criminals carry weapons is fear of cops. They don't do it to kill rivals criminals, threaten innocent victims, or because it makes them feel cool as the other side of the pillow. Remember in the 90's when some bank robbers in hollywood used semi-auto rifles and the police only had pistols and shotguns? If the police were disarmed back then, the bank robbers would have been armed with pistols and shotguns.

Re:No punishment too severe

[Agripa]

These guys did the worst thing imaginable: they made law enforcement look bad.

Only in the sense that Rosie O'Donnell makes spoons and ice cream look bad. Law enforcement does not need any help to look bad.

Re:No punishment too severe

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't border Mexico, where beheading for fun and profit is a mainstay. Western societies with few problems are typically islands (literally or effectively due to geography) with a homogeneous culture. We can see some European countries sliding into "problem" territory by abandoning the latter by taking in more refugees than they can culturally process.

Laws only work if the general population believes in them.

Re: No punishment too severe

[Peter P Peters]

Transplant our high numbers of nigs and Mexicans and watch what happens to your country.

My country has higher levels of immigration than the US and we have higher quality of life and lower crime.

Re:No punishment too severe

[Peter P Peters]

They don't border Mexico, where beheading for fun and profit is a mainstay.

The problems in Mexico are mostly a result of US policy on drugs from the last 40 years coming back to bite. Western societies with few problems are typically islands

Canada has a higher immigration rate than the US, is neither an Island, nor does it have more 'problems'.

Rule #1: Don't name your kid Tyler.

[fahrbot-bot]

18-year-old Casey Viner, who instigated the 911 call which led to a fatal shooting in Wichita (hiring Tyler Barriss to perform the actual call), is in big trouble.

Seems like guys named Tyler are always doing other guys dirty work and getting them both into trouble.

Why not both?

[Vektuz]

Its quite possible for more than one person involved in the incident to have been in the wrong. All these articles are kind of strange as they try to spin it as "its either completely the cops fault or completely the SWATcaller's fault." It aint so.

Re:Why not both?

[gweihir]

First entirely sane posting, I think. The swatters did indeed try to inflict serious harm and accepted that there would be a killing. The cops did kill when there was zero need to and no good, solid evidence saying otherwise. I think a charge of voluntary manslaughter for both the shooter and the swatters would be pretty appropriate. The cops have to be held to a higher standard, of course, because they have training and special powers.

Re:Why not both?

[gman003]

Agreed.

Swatting is like an auto-immune disease, of a nation instead of a person. The parts that are supposed to protect us (immune system/police system) have become so aggressive and powerful that they can be easily tricked into acting against us.

When a person has an auto-immune disease, we treat them by both suppressing the immune system (bringing it back down to normal, safe levels) and by eliminating any foreign bodies that are triggering the response. When a nation has it, I think it is sensible to do the same - demilitarize the police force, improve training, make it so that fake police calls don't regularly end in dead innocents, but also go after the bad actors who are trying to take advantage of an over-aggressive police response.

Re:Why not both?

[serviscope_minor]

I thik we disagree on a lot but not this. There's plenty of blame to go around and there should be plenty of convictions to go around.

Re:Why not both?

[gweihir]

Indeed.

Re:Why not both?

[thegarbz]

its either completely the cops fault

Huh? Who so far has completely blamed the cops? The only posts I see conclusively directed at the cops are rebuttals to posts which give the cops complete innocence and make no assessment at all to the nature of the SWATer.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

Killing in a swatting is very rare (AFAIK this is the first time), so it is unlikely that they accepted that there would be a death. It had been indicated that the policeman will not face charges. I hope they improve teaching and processes.

fair judgement

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of what changes need to be done on the law enforcement side, this is the correct punishment for the swatters. What they did was completely uncalled for and shows a complete disrespect for other people.

What if some other location had a real threat, but the swat team was on a wild goose chase? As a result, someone who needed help did not get it?

Actions have consequences. They were asshats and now will be behind bars. The world is better off.

--XYZZY--

Re: fair judgement

[Anonymous Coward]

So what consequences do the cops actions have? Please tell us.

Re: fair judgement

[halivar]

Train dispatchers to stop trusting 911 calls and train cops to wait until they hear actual gun shots. Your self-defense is on you.

Re:fair judgement

[turbidostato]

"Regardless of what changes need to be done on the law enforcement side, this is the correct punishment for the swatters. What they did was completely uncalled for and shows a complete disrespect for other people."

Do you know what else is completely uncalled for and shows a complete disrespect for other people? Your comment.

Therefore you deserve paying life-time in prison and a million fine, right?

Uh... nope. You know why? Because there's that thingie called "proportionality". In your case, calling you "fucktard" is probably a penalty harsh enough to pay for your crimes.

Re: fair judgement

[gweihir]

Indeed. Cops must not be allowed to escalate to lethal until they have solid evidence it is needed. Otherwise they become a massive danger to everyone.

Re: fair judgement

[ScentCone]

Wait until they hear shots? So, if YOU called 911 to report that there was someone in your house trying to kill you, you'd want the cops to hold off trying to stop that armed person until AFTER the intruder shot you in the head? Are you even listening to yourself?

Re:fair judgement

[Kaenneth]

Their executions should be livestreamed on Twitch as a warning to future swatters.

Re: fair judgement

[HornWumpus]

Become?

Everybody needs to be reminded: In the USA, citizens and business lose three times as much stuff to cop theft (aka civil forfeiture) vs burglaries.

Further reminder: In the USA, many cases of shoplifting are counted as 'burglary', inflating that number a shitload. And the other side is only the open, offical cop theft, double it, at least, for 'informal cop theft'.

If cops want to know what happened to their respect? They did it to themselves, became the largest, best organized national theft gang.

Re: fair judgement

[fafalone]

I'd want them to get confirmation that was indeed the situation before kicking in the door and opening fire. Not doing that is exactly how innocent people get killed. Even if this was a real hostage situation, it could have just as easily been a hostage they killed.

Re: fair judgement

[rastos1]

You and burglar are standing in your living room facing each other. (you can now branch the scenario now depending whether there is any gun on none/one/both of you). The cops burst in the room. What do they do? Shoot everyone in sight? Or evaluate the situation first?

Just tell me what did have the cop on his mind: "A guy appears. He might he be very dangerous => shoot him dead" ? I really hope it does not work like that. Do you think that the cop thought he can see a gun? Or do you think that, the cop thought he can see the guy reaching for a gun? Or the cop thought he can see the guy putting his hands somewhere the cop can't see them?

Re: fair judgement

[serviscope_minor]

So, if YOU called 911 to report that there was someone in your house trying to kill you, you'd want the cops to hold off

Given that the alternative is more likely to get me killed than by the cops than the original person yes, I would very much rather then didn't just bustin and start spraying bullets indiscriminantly.

Re: fair judgement

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree there! Best argument for the 2nd amendment if there ever was one. Your personal self-defense is on you, not the cops. Stay armed, my friend.

Re: fair judgement

[Kohath]

So, if YOU called 911...

There would be a reasonable chance the cops would show up and end up shooting me.

Re:fair judgement

[Anonymous Coward]

There certainly is a thing called "proportionality". I have not protested or encouraged the courts in any way. All I've done is agree with a court ruling and for that I deserve life-time in prison? You, are the fucktard.

There is a reason free speech doesn't extend to yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. Certainly people should be intelligent enough to not stampede until they actually smell smoke or see some signs of fire, yet if folklore is to be believed, yelling fire would get you in trouble and more so if people get killed.

How is what the swatters done any different?

Re: fair judgement

[sjames]

So, if YOU called 911 to report that there was someone in your house trying to kill you, you'd want the cops to hold off trying to stop that armed person until AFTER the intruder shot you in the head?

I would like for them to at least make sure the person was armed. Otherwise, they're as likely to shoot me as the bad guy.

Surely, if you called 911 telling them someone was trying to kill you, you would prefer that the cops not help HIM?

Re: fair judgement

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you black? If not, I'll take those odds. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.

Re: fair judgement

[xvan]

Correct those numbers by racially profiling crime offenders and you'll see that there's no discrimination.
Now, if you had a statistic on innocent men shot by cops without resisting to authority you might have a claim there. Also, there is the point in that if you're a cop facing a black man on a suspicious action, you're more likely to get shot. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Re:fair judgement

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of what changes need to be done on the law enforcement side, this is the correct punishment for the swatters. What they did was completely uncalled for and shows a complete disrespect for other people.

It was a serious crime, yes. However, it's also well known that the part of the brain which governs impulse control is not fully developed until the mid twenties, a phenomenon to which many young men and those who remember being young men can readily attest. This young man may yet live for another 60 years and a lot can change in that time. If you believe that one of the goals in punishing crime is rehabilitation then surely this is a case where rehabilitation is worth a try. Perhaps after 10 years or so in prison this young man can be released, as an older, wiser and productive citizen, rehabilitated and ready to rejoin society. We already don't have enough young Americans to replace those who are aging and leaving the workforce and we need younger workers to pay taxes and produce in the economy. It stands to reason then that we ought to be doing what we can to avoid wasting young lives, like for instance locking up a young man who made some bad choices as a teenager for the remainder of his long life, perhaps 50 years or more. That's wasteful and unnecessary and I hope that's not what the judge decides in this case. That's my 2 cents, for what it's worth.

Re: fair judgement

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, you and the burglar might both have guns.

Re: fair judgement

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait until they hear shots? So, if YOU called 911 to report that there was someone in your house trying to kill you, you'd want the cops to hold off trying to stop that armed person until AFTER the intruder shot you in the head? Are you even listening to yourself?

Let's see, do I want to have the police shooting me in the head because they listened to an idiot like you who called them up and claimed there was somebody in my house trying to kill me? No, I do not want them listening to you, not at all, but least of all in ways that get me killed.

Especially because of how ironically stupid you are, that you don't remember that in the past you have openly declared that you need to be armed because you can't personally rely on the police in that instance and require a fully automatic rifle. Do you even read people's posts, or do you not even realize halivar is a sworn member of the NRA brotherhood?

Re: fair judgement

[Cederic]

On a per-police-interaction basis black americans are less likely to be shot by the police than white americans.

You want to reduce deaths of black people to the police, focus on reducing the need for police interactions with them.

Re:fair judgement

[Anonymous Coward]

If you believe that one of the goals in punishing crime is rehabilitation then surely this is a case where rehabilitation is worth a try.

Oh, I don't believe that at all and this is certainly not a case where a rehabilitation is worth a try. This was not some minor impulse of pocketing a piece of candy from a store - it was a complete disregard for human life. Even if someone did not get killed, a team of people were dispatched believing they were going into a hostile situation just because some prick got upset he was losing a video game? This person was well old enough to understand consequences, but their brain has failed to develop any social empathy or understanding that the world is more important than their imaginary game world - and yet you believe that will magically develop in the next couple years and this person will suddenly become a benefit to society instead of a drain - well, call me skeptical.

Re: fair judgement

[halivar]

I'm listening to all the other posters that say the officer should be punished. Obviously he was wrong to engage, and should have waited to if the guy shot someone.

I do I pronounce $1,000,000

[ls671]

From TFS:

and pay a $1,000,000 fine

I do I pronounce $1,000,000
1 decaMillion?

Re:I do I pronounce $1,000,000

[Anonymous Coward]

You would prefer "1,000,000 $"?
Hang in there, buddy. I'm sure they'll find a cure for autism soon.

Re:I do I pronounce $1,000,000

[Aighearach]

You're probably using punctuation for numbers incorrectly even for you own local system if you though that. ;)

article blocked by GDPR avoidance

[Anonymous Coward]

Visiting the wlwt website: "Sorry, this content is not available in your region."

Set a example put him away

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to stop some of this, you convict people that do it and set a strong example. This tragedy would have never happened without that moron calling in a false report. He should be 100% responsible for everything that happened because of it.

Pitbull analogy

[BenJeremy]

These guys sicced a pitbull (The police, geared up and anticipating an armed perp) on innocent victims.

They deserve life sentences just as they would if they were responsible for a vicious dog attack.

As for the cop? Most certainly he ALSO has culpability in this. Where that lies is more complicated. Militarizing our police is part of the problem, though... along with many other factors. A pit bull can't stop being a pit bull, though... a police officer can, however, stop being a police officer and putting people's lives in jeopardy by his gross negligence in handling a situation.

Re:Pitbull analogy

[gweihir]

The problem with the police is that as it is now, they become ElCheapo contract killers and a danger to everyone. That is in no way acceptable. If you kill without very good reason, you must face the music. And this must even be more true for a cop, who has training and special powers and hence must be held to a higher standard. Instead, as it is now, they can be almost sure to walk away without even get sacked from what would be called murder by any sane person. That does contribute to the problem. If you are not willing to occasionally risk your life to make sure you need to kill the other person before doing it, then do not become a cop. The job is very safe as it is, but some level of personal courage is needed and it seems more and more cops do lack that. And some just seem to be killers that finally found a way that allows them to get away with it.

Re:Pitbull analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

The police are not dogs. They are human beings who are supposed to have training and expertise. Your analogy is insane.

Re:Pitbull analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Help me out here... I think you're trying to avoid saying by analogy that we should put the police officer down?
(In real life the pit bull would be put down for killing an innocent person, even if he was just following his master's orders.)

Re:Pitbull analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

The police are not dogs. They are human beings who are supposed to have training and expertise. Your analogy is insane.

Although someone confusingly worded, that's precisely the GP's point. A pit bull can be trained to attack and kill without remorse because it's a dog. A human has a conscience and any amount of training* doesn't excuse the behavior of killing without remorse or conscience. That's why the talk of "training" and "following procedures" is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether the act of shooting the victim was reasonable.

* Sufficient amounts of physical and mental abuse can change that, but such would only hold them irresponsible for mental defect and require them to be remanded to long-term treatment at a mental institution. Meanwhile, if this wasn't the case, they'd be locked up and/or "put down" (at least in most States in the US) just like a dog would. Of course, this is one reason why the US prison system is so messed up, as it does treat people like animals when it's too inconvenient to actual deal with people who have issues that need resolved. It's little wonder that the US has such a harsh stance on ex Felons. We basically guarantee that a lot of them are going to be repeat offenders, so we just layer on the difficulty of having a normal life afterwards to virtually guarantee reoffending. It's funny how much this is so greatly backwards to a classic aspect of the US identity, the Wild West.

Re:Pitbull analogy

[SkOink]

If a pitbull owner looses his dog on somebody and the dog kills them, the pitbull owner is liable yes. But the dog is also almost certainly euthanized.

Re:Pitbull analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

99.99% of the time when someone writes “looses” on the Internet, it is a spelling mistake and they meant “loses”.

This is one of those 0.01% cases. Thank you on behalf of all pedants!

This is ridiculous...

[gchat]

I would expect such a ruling from a third world country, not from the US. Though Viner is an despicable idiot and made a false 911 call, I'm sure there's a law which punishes this kind of behavior. But in the end this is the only thing he did. Made a false 911 call and gave false information. THAT'S IT... Whatever happened next is the responsibility of all the parties involved in the raid ie. the police squads and the ... victims. This clearly looks like someone is trying to push the blame. The real problem is "How on hell did one person die from an idiots claims in an emergency call?"

Re:This is ridiculous...

[Kohath]

It’s really bad, and the public found out about it. Someone needs to be responsible and accountable.

The police are never responsible or accountable. So that leaves the SWATter. That's why the SWATter is facing life in prison.

Re:This is ridiculous...

[Anonymous Coward]

in the end this is the only thing he did. Made a false 911 call and gave false information. THAT'S IT

You should probably read about what actually happened. All three of them did a lot more than make a call and they all conspired to cover up what they'd done. That's why there are so many charges.

The life in prison headline is also deceptive. it assumes that they'll all get the maximum sentence and serve them consecutively, rather than concurrently, and that nobody will win an appeal or qualify for parole. It's not impossible that all those things would happen, but it's really unlikely.

Re:This is ridiculous...

[Anonymous Coward]

There should be a law: Manslaughter, I believe, is the correct terminology.

Re:This is ridiculous...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you drive a vehicle to a bank robbery as the getaway guy and your partners kill someone inside, you're also responsible for the murder. How in hell is what this jagoff did less culpible?

Re:This is ridiculous...

[Anonymous Coward]

>Though Viner is an despicable idiot and made a false 911 call, I'm sure there's a law which punishes this kind of behavior.
You're in luck! There are in fact harsher punishments for false police reports leading to injury or death.
>But in the end this is the only thing he did. Made a false 911 call and gave false information. THAT'S IT...
The fact that the police pulled the trigger doesn't mean he's off the hook, even when you type in ALL CAPS.

Re:This is ridiculous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you are not a lawyer. Foreseeable occurrences are indeed your responsibility when you commit a crime.

So when will 911 fix their holes?

[Anonymous Coward]

If a criminal can abuse 911 systems, when will the government fixes these holes?

Hell, the phone companies wont do anything to fix it? Why not? Because spammers pay lots of money to fake numbers, and telcos are making bank?

Re:Fake SWAT calls should be death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

FALSE.

The continuing occurrence of crimes that are currently subject to the death penalty proves that the death penalty has virtually no impact whatsoever.

Not appropriate punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not punish any false swatting with life in prison, even if nobody gets hurt?
And also punish with life in prison any cop who shot an unarmed person just opening the door of their house.

Those in charge should evaluate why overly trigger happy cop problem isn't present in Europe, but apparently is a huge problem in law-enforcement shithole that is USA?

Re:Fake SWAT calls should be death penalty

[gweihir]

You are incorrect, stupid and disconnected from reality. Well, just a typical "AC" in fact.

Socially, America is now third world.

[Anonymous Coward]

And we're working really hard on assuring both our technological means and our economic means reach third world status as well.

America needs less a golden shower trickle down and more a complete shakeup, whether from the bottom up, or the top down. Until that happens Americans culpability in turning their country into a third world nation will continue happening. Just because Russia's dickwaving contest changed from most powerful nation in the world to most shittiest doesn't mean we need to double down on beating them on all fronts.

County sheriff's son?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, Viner's father is a corporal with the county sheriff's department.

Probably thought daddy would try to get him off scot-free. Also, daddy probably tried to get him off scot-free.

Re:Fake SWAT calls should be death penalty

[geoskd]

The continuing occurrence of crimes that are currently subject to the death penalty proves that the death penalty has virtually no impact whatsoever.

Are you sure? What if the prevalence of capital crimes would be much higher without the death penalty?

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying, you have come to a very absolute conclusion, and it is only fitting that you should provide some evidence to support your claim.

That's fine

[Anonymous Coward]

If only we could turn this sentiment into capitol punishment to send a message that will withstand the Gamer Gater idiot narrative that in prison you can just sit in your cell and play vydia all day so SWAT till you reach Gamer Heaven!

Re:That's fine

[Cederic]

capitol

If I'd stopped reading at that obvious warning sign I could've been saved from the blatant stupidity that followed.

when are they gonna execute the murders though?

[Anonymous Coward]

there are LITERALLY MURDERERS RUNNING LOOSE!! Why won't anyone stop them?!

fuck slashdot
  Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. fucking piece of shit website. fucking kill yourselves.

someone please put out a bounty for the murderers

[Anonymous Coward]

dead or alive, they need to be off the streets before they kill again

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

MAGA! This is winning!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pimple face punks in mom's basement are going to face the music. Candy ass, pasty skin, beta males who can barely muster the energy to press the game controller buttons, are going to experience a painful anal. The are going to be reamed out by big black negro apes with IQs of 60. Swished around from cell to cell like a piece meat, bleeding from their rectums and crying for their mommas.

Re: Fake SWAT calls should be death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

The dead commit no further crimes, therefore the death penalty works. Those who do 15 years for murder, occationally kills again.

some actually accurate analogies

[Anonymous Coward]

The real analogy would be hear pushing someone off a cliff and then trying to claim you're not a murderer because you thought the height of the fall was survivable.

SWATTING someone is borderline sociopathic....

[Anonymous Coward]

...I don't about "wah he's only 19 wah". Anyone who would put another person's life at risk over fucking GAME needs to be removed from society. Zero fucks given for these little shits.

I blame the cop too

[mi]

wasn't responsible for the Wichita death, blaming instead a "gung-ho, crazy cop."

The jerks calling it should be punished — even if life in prison seems excessive — but the cop should not be allowed to just walk away either.

George Zimmermann went through hell, for example, and his shooting of Trayvon Martin was completely and perfectly justified.

Not mutually exclusive

[Hognoxious]

Barriss's lawyer insists that his client wasn't responsible for the Wichita death, blaming instead a "gung-ho, crazy cop."

I'm not seeing why it's an either-or situation.

Chuck 'em all in the same cell.

Re:Fake SWAT calls should be death penalty

[Hognoxious]

What if the prevalence of capital crimes would be much higher without the death penalty?

It's difficult to tell whether that's the case. You could get an approximation by comparing with other countries, but that's just crazy talk.

c6gunner has been readmitted

[Hognoxious]

Hell yes. Results, results, results! It's what makes capitalism great.

In countries where they don't have capitalism (like England, Bovril and Chiliconcarne) cops get paid the same no matter how many (or few) people they arbitrarily execute. Would you make more than a token effort under those circumstances?

Not all cops fall for this

[Anonymous Coward]

I was knocked out by a group/gang in Lake Mary FL, about a month before the Pulse nightclub shooting; reported the attack to Lake Mary PD/Seminole county PD.

Nothing happened to the gang. Cops needed witnesses.

Approached a few witness I had seen when it happened; "They didn't see a thing"

Went home to Orlando; three squad cars show up outside later that day.

Walked out in only shorts, no shirt or shoes.

Guns were drawn as soon as I stepped out.

Cops had been told I was "Al Qaeda" by one of the "Witnesses" (I am white, blond, not even tanned)

Didn't get shot.....

Ignorant analogy

[drinkypoo]

These guys sicced a pitbull (The police, geared up and anticipating an armed perp) on innocent victims.

Pit bulls aren't actually especially dangerous dogs, unless they are both bred and trained for fighting. Some are just more aggressive, hence the breeding; a small few are trained to fight, and that aggression is magnified. Why not call them Dobermans? They're the traditional dog to represent authority figures, and they were one of the other recent breeds which was maligned due to the popularity they were then "enjoying" as a guard and fighting dog.

These bad cops are not deliberately bred to be violent racists, but they are being raised into it, and then police forces deliberately hire them because they will fit into their violent, racist culture. Though, to be fair, racists seem most likely to breed with other racists...

Good. I hope they die in prison.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe next time the immature brats who think this bullshit is fine will learn their lesson and grow up. Sending heavily armed cops into a seemingly hostile situation and being surprised when someone gets killed explains a lot about how moronic and immature the video game culture has become. The cops were in the wrong for shooting first but they NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If you yell FIRE in a crowded theater and someone dies of a heart attack you don't get to blame them for having a heart condition. Grow up, these fucking "pranks" need to stop.

The police should get worse!

[bussdriver]

Highly trained heavily geared up professionals should not have itchy trigger fingers and need to at least get professional consequences!

People make mistakes on the job and big ones result in consequences including being fired. I'm not saying firing is required as an idiotic zero tolerance policy; especially when properly handled that employee may never make that mistake ever again. As a TEAM failure the whole team needs to feel the failure; more training and at least but a dock in PAY should be minimum. If your team fucks up you don't get bonuses or raises and are lucky to not get reassigned or laid off... if not fired if you are the reason the team failed.

When you are nearly invincible against typical weapons you can take the TIME to wait for that LARGE heavy 50 caliber to rise into view. It is cowardice or mental illness or a SYSTEM which promotes "extreme" caution with the exact opposite reasoning of innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, better training so you don't question breaking windows and entering from ALL sides and with eyes seeing his hands with the ability to communicate to the team. They often just smash in the door; maybe the back door too -- this is life or death stuff, they should break windows and using a drone to peak in windows should be cheap...

Blaming the victim for involuntary ass scratching (cell phone same thing) or pulling up loose clothes or sneezing is so unprofessional an excuse somebody NEEDS to be fired.

Finally, WTF are they using guns? It is a TEAM where the front guys can have beanbag guns and stun guns and heavier armor. the others can have the bazookas. This wasn't a known criminal or bad location... WTF do we have local prosecutors who must work with the police be the ones to look into their buddies? massive conflict of interest!! When CALLED IN by a tip, the police can prepare-- even if it slows them down a little; it's not like a squad car just happened to pass bye and couldn't wait.

Rubber bullets, Tasers, Gas, and other tech which doesn't get the attention it deserves would be used more if there was a real price to pulling out the guns.

The military even has higher standards than police

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad thing about this case and others like it is that we're not even holding these cops to the same standards that we hold the military to in times of war. You don't shoot someone until you have identified them. They are coming in here and blaming this misguided kid for what is shotty police work from supposedly professional police officers. The cops never take responsibility for there own failings and they should be held to account for there own mistakes. This is not to say that there should be no consequences- but life in prison? Heck no. Give me a break. The kid should be charged with a crime that has a maximum penalty of 1 year in prison.

The officers should have confirmed information prior to *KILLING* an innocent person. Shoot first ask questions later is morally repulsive. They are suppose to be saving lives and putting themselves in danger to do so not murdering innocent civilians based on unsubstantiated information. If they murder someone in the process without substantiating the facts of the situation they should be held to account for murder more so than an ordinary civilian who is defending themselves because they are SUPPOSED TO BE PROFESSIONALS and are being paid well to do a job. The idea that nobody would become an officer if there was liability is nonsense. There are states with different levels of liability for police officers and there are still police. But even if there were fewer police that doesn't mean you'd be any less safe anyway. Most of the work police do has nothing to do with investigating crime. In fact the rate at which police identify murders is appalling. The reality is most Americans are relatively safe and the leading causes of death can't be cured via the number of police. The only way to cure death is via biological scientific research.

Only 2 should be charged

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy that paid Buress and Buress. They are charging the third guy because he looks white, and you know you gotta find Whitney guilty for all crimes. It would be like if you were to pay a hit man to kill you estranged wife who moved away. If you called up your wife to ask where she was living and she gave you the incorrect address and the hit man killed the wrong person, would the state charge the wife in the murder. Apparently in this case they would. Fuck the World

Re:Only 2 should be charged

[Cederic]

Allegedly Gaskill (the intended victim) contacted the person that actually made the call and told them to delete all of the chat logs involved.

That demand to delete evidence relating to a crime is being treated as an attempt to obstruct the course of justice, which is itself illegal.

Stick him in an airtight room.

[Chas]

And throw away the room.

Want a great example of this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rambo: First Blood.

The entire movie is about police/sheriff corruption, incompetence, malice, and overstep leading to excessive violence. The difference between Rambo in that movie and the average civilian is they don't survive and the cops don't get punished, even if only by the perp. That movie covered military abuse of GIs, civilian disregard of GIs when they got home, and cop verbal and physical abuse of anybody they don't like.

And that movie came out 35+ years ago now. And *NOTHING* has changed. Not the mental health issues, not the treatment of vets, not the overstep of law enforcement against a perp, or of punishing someone who makes them look bad.

Spoiler Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

The appellate court throws out any convictions for the gamers. The caller, Barris, will get something for his false call, but nowhere near life imprisonment compounded by his previous conviction.

Too bad the spineless district attorney won't charge the actual trigger man hunkered behind a car over 100 feet away from the door of the victim with gun cocked, loaded, and aimed, but fearing for his life.

Moronic commenters on this site

[Anonymous Coward]

What the actual fuck people here blaming the cops. Police officers are people who dreamt to fight against crime and keeping the safety of community. Do you think their mind don't go crazy and they don't lose any sleep after shooting innocent person who they initially thought was a really dangerous criminal because of that stupid SWAT call? Morons

Re: Moronic commenters on this site

[Anonymous Coward]

For the moronic commenters: The office felt he had to shot the victim because he put his hands down and reached for his belt line.
(Source: KSN News Broadcast)

Re: Moronic commenters on this site

[Anonymous Coward]

And the SWAT caller is famous for repeatedly calling SWAT team with lies and fabricated story, just for his own entertainment and profit by displaying it on his stream. So you guys are happy to waste your tax money on that asshole, irresponsible teenager who is a shame to the first world country?

Re:Moronic commenters on this site

[Cederic]

Maybe because the police man murdered someone.

Why he was present there is due to illegal actions of others but doesn't excuse his own inability to make good judgements.

If he's feeling crazy about it then good. If he doesn't get prosecuted then I hope he goes too fucking crazy to stay in his job because right now he's a danger to the people of Wichita.

Blame isn't a limited resource.

[Anonymous Coward]

Barriss's lawyer insists that his client wasn't responsible for the Wichita death, blaming instead a "gung-ho, crazy cop."

There is no "instead". It's clear that Barriss kept stacking up on the chances of fatality by creating increasingly dangerous call scenarios. He was out to get someone killed sooner or later. That's why he is to blame for premeditated murder, even if his victim had a significant chance of survival. That doesn't mean that the trigger-happy cop primed by Barriss is not to blame for his own actions and likely in for it for second-degree murder.

Neither of the other's blame is in any manner a mitigating factor for either.

Re:Fake SWAT calls should be death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

It was.

So if you hire someone...

[Anonymous Coward]

...to kill someone and it gets done, the person who hired is innocent?

Canadian way

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/2018/arkell-incident-resolved-peacefully

Re:Canadian way

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the fundamental difference between Canadian and American law enforcement.

Up here, we care about and respect human life. Down there it's a different story. It's how they're trained from day one: "See a n*gger, pull the trigger!" (Ironically, this story is about an innocent white male being gunned down in cold blood. It's just that out of control)

EDIT: The fact that I can't even type in the "n-word" when it would be a perfectly valid usage really demonstrates how far this site has fallen. Fucking censoring cunts the lot of you. Take your lameness filter (really original) and insert it into your assholes.

What about the actual murderer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will the piece of shit who is actually directly responsible for this gruesome slaughter also be facing life in prison? American police murder several people every day (almost never justified, and I mean never) and always seem to get off with a literal slap on the wrist. Amongst all of the manufactured gun hysteria these days, this colossal body count somehow manages to go unnoticed by "the media."

Did 9/11 even happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never seen the supposed towed in person. I can't state with a fact they even existed. Now they were knocked down? Yeah I've seen video, but have you seen the stuff Hollywood puts out? That stuff looks very realistic. Since I wasn't there, it never happened.

GOOD! Lock em up.

[MerlTurkin]

If they didn't make the call this would have never happened. It's the "swat" assholes fault for calling in the false report. PERIOD. The cops had no idea that it was fake. Suck it libs.

Re: Fake SWAT calls should be death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off you boring sad twat.

You are a simplistic moron

[Anonymous Coward]

I wan't doctors to look after me.

Then you should be a doctor.

I want teachers to teach me

Then you should be a teacher.

I wan't lawyers to represent me

Then you should be a lawyer.

But I don't have time I'm already a doctor, teacher,policeman,soldier, etc.

Re:Fake SWAT calls should be death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Death penaly advocates: they're not just complete scumbags, they're also reality-denying morons.