Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by EditorDavid on from the game-over dept.

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."

23 of 270 comments (clear)

  1. Great by burtosis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Great by execthis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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).

    2. Re:Great by Kohath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

    3. Re:Great by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Great by turbidostato · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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.

    5. Re:Great by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    6. Re:Great by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    7. Re: Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Great by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    9. Re: Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      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

    10. Re:Great by rea1l1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

    11. Re:Great by apoc.famine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    12. Re:Great by dk20 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      approximately how many elections has the US meddled with?

      US meddling = good
      Russia meddling = bad?

      How many brutal dictators has the US supported?

  2. No punishment too severe by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:No punishment too severe by mlyle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > 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.

    2. Re:No punishment too severe by geoskd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    3. Re:No punishment too severe by gtall · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  3. Why not both? by Vektuz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Why not both? by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Why not both? by gman003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  4. fair judgement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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--

    1. Re: fair judgement by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  5. Pitbull analogy by BenJeremy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.