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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by EditorDavid on Saturday May 26, 2018 @05:34AM 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."

140 of 270 comments (clear)

Great by burtosis · 2018-05-26 05:37 · 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 Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-26 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  Medals for everyone!
2. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-26 05:45 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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
3. Re:Great by execthis · 2018-05-26 05:58 · 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).
4. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-26 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  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.
5. Re:Great by Kohath · 2018-05-26 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  I think you mean metalling. Russians are always forging stuff.
6. Re:Great by Kohath · 2018-05-26 06:16 · 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?
7. Re:Great by gweihir · 2018-05-26 06:30 · 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.
8. Re:Great by turbidostato · 2018-05-26 06:32 · 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.
9. Re:Great by JaredOfEuropa · 2018-05-26 06:39 · 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...
10. Re:Great by murdocj · 2018-05-26 06:46 · Score: 2
  
  So the person who intentionally put other people at risk bears no guilt?
11. Re:Great by JaredOfEuropa · 2018-05-26 06:52 · 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...
12. Re:Great by Ogive17 · 2018-05-26 07:00 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
13. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-26 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Get rid of killer cops. "Protect and serve" not "Torture and murder!"
14. Re: Great by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-26 07:21 · 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.
15. Re: Great by OrangeTide · 2018-05-26 07:31 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  And all made of polonium
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
16. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-26 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  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.
17. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-26 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  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.
18. Re:Great by serviscope_minor · 2018-05-26 08:37 · 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.
19. Re: Great by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-26 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  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.
20. Re:Great by sjames · 2018-05-26 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  That's not made up. That was Southpark.
21. Re: Great by JaredOfEuropa · 2018-05-26 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
22. Re:Great by Kohath · 2018-05-26 09:29 · Score: 2
  
  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.
23. Re:Great by rea1l1 · 2018-05-26 09:37 · 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.
24. Re: Great by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-26 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  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.
25. Re:Great by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2018-05-26 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure that Russian spies *can* medal in US elections. ;)
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
26. Re:Great by malkavian · 2018-05-26 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  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.
27. Re:Great by serviscope_minor · 2018-05-26 10:33 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
28. Re: Great by malkavian · 2018-05-26 10:36 · Score: 2
  
  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.
29. Re: Great by malkavian · 2018-05-26 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Looks like people have forgotten what the word "responsibility" means, and are too conditioned to using trite "blame someone else" excuses.
30. Re:Great by drinkypoo · 2018-05-26 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
31. Re:Great by drinkypoo · 2018-05-26 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
32. Re:Great by apoc.famine · 2018-05-26 11:31 · 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
33. Re:Great by thegarbz · 2018-05-26 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  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.
34. Re: Great by Millennium · 2018-05-26 12:24 · Score: 2
  
  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.
35. Re: Great by Zero__Kelvin · 2018-05-26 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  You don't understand what the qualifier "on active duty" means I gather. They are civilians when not on duty.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
36. Re:Great by Kjella · 2018-05-26 13:12 · Score: 2
  
  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
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
37. Re: Great by Alypius · 2018-05-26 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  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.
38. Re: Great by c6gunner · 2018-05-26 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  So basically you just cited your asshole for both of those "facts" and called it good.
39. Re: Great by c6gunner · 2018-05-26 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  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.
40. Re:Great by VeryFluffyBunny · 2018-05-26 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  Calling the cops in the USA is like injecting a rabid dog with cocaine and releasing it in a busy public area.
  
  --
  Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
41. Re: Great by c6gunner · 2018-05-26 15:59 · Score: 1
  
  9/11 truthers are an inside job. They are clearly government funded trolls meant to distract us from the real conspiracies.
42. Re: Great by ArmoredDragon · 2018-05-26 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  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.
43. Re: Great by Pop69 · 2018-05-26 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  There;s your problem right there.
  
  Cops are civilians whether they are on duty or off duty.
44. Re: Great by AK+Marc · 2018-05-26 22:09 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
45. Re: Great by Zero__Kelvin · 2018-05-27 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  If they were always on duty the phrase "off duty police officer" wouldn't exist now, would it?
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
46. Re: Great by Zero__Kelvin · 2018-05-27 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  You are a fucking idiot
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
47. Re: Great by serviscope_minor · 2018-05-27 00:58 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
48. Re: Great by c6gunner · 2018-05-27 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  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.
49. Re:Great by drinkypoo · 2018-05-27 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
50. Re: Great by serviscope_minor · 2018-05-27 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  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*.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
51. Re:Great by dk20 · 2018-05-27 03:19 · 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?
52. Re: Great by dk20 · 2018-05-27 03:23 · Score: 2
  
  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.
53. Re: Great by Cederic · 2018-05-27 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  I'm quite happy for the police officer to receive counselling while he's in prison.
54. Re: Great by Cederic · 2018-05-27 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  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?
55. Re: Great by c6gunner · 2018-05-27 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  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?
56. Re: Great by serviscope_minor · 2018-05-27 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
57. Re: Great by Agripa · 2018-05-27 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  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?
58. Re:Great by Agripa · 2018-05-27 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  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.
59. Re:Great by Agripa · 2018-05-27 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  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.
60. Re:Great by Agripa · 2018-05-27 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  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.
61. Re:Great by Agripa · 2018-05-27 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  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.
62. Re: Great by Agripa · 2018-05-27 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  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?
63. Re:Great by Agripa · 2018-05-27 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  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.
64. Re:Great by ausekilis · 2018-05-29 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  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.
65. Re: Great by q4Fry · 2018-05-29 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  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.
66. Re: Great by Agripa · 2018-05-29 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  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.
67. Re:Great by turbidostato · 2018-05-29 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  "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.
68. Re:Great by lsllll · 2018-05-29 17:47 · Score: 1
  
  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?
  
  --
  Is that a roll of dimes in your pocket or are you happy to see me?
69. Re: Great by lsllll · 2018-05-29 17:51 · Score: 1
  
  In most departments part of the qualification training to carry a taser includes experiencing being shot in the back with one.
  Citation please.
  
  --
  Is that a roll of dimes in your pocket or are you happy to see me?
Cops have no responsibility by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-26 05:38 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Cops have no responsibility by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-26 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  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...
And the one who pulled the trigger? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-26 05:42 · Score: 1

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?
1. Re:And the one who pulled the trigger? by ArchieBunker · 2018-05-26 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  Nah he will get a medal for bravery.
  
  --
  Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
No punishment too severe by Kohath · 2018-05-26 05:50 · 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 Kohath · 2018-05-26 06:07 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Whoosh
2. Re:No punishment too severe by mlyle · 2018-05-26 06:09 · 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.
3. Re:No punishment too severe by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-26 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  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.
4. Re:No punishment too severe by dgatwood · 2018-05-26 06:34 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
5. Re:No punishment too severe by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-26 06:37 · Score: 2
  
  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.
6. Re:No punishment too severe by HornWumpus · 2018-05-26 06:59 · Score: 2
  
  Are you talking about the callers or the cops? Seriously, _everything_ you wrote is equally true for both.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
7. Re:No punishment too severe by geoskd · 2018-05-26 07:04 · 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
8. Re:No punishment too severe by gtall · 2018-05-26 08:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Ya, the inner city gangs and MS-13 will then have respect for law enforcement.
9. Re:No punishment too severe by malkavian · 2018-05-26 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree, please explain your reasoning behind why you consider both to be ethically equivalent.
10. Re:No punishment too severe by drinkypoo · 2018-05-26 10:52 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
11. Re:No punishment too severe by drinkypoo · 2018-05-26 10:57 · Score: 2
  
  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?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
12. Re:No punishment too severe by Peter+P+Peters · 2018-05-26 16:44 · Score: 2
  
  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?
13. Re:No punishment too severe by drinkypoo · 2018-05-27 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
14. Re:No punishment too severe by jabuzz · 2018-05-27 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  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.
15. Re:No punishment too severe by Dirk+Becher · 2018-05-27 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  >>> 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.
16. Re:No punishment too severe by Agripa · 2018-05-27 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  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.
17. Re: No punishment too severe by Peter+P+Peters · 2018-05-29 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  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.
18. Re:No punishment too severe by Peter+P+Peters · 2018-05-29 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  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. by fahrbot-bot · 2018-05-26 05:55 · Score: 1

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.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Why not both? by Vektuz · 2018-05-26 05:55 · 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 · 2018-05-26 06:37 · 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 · 2018-05-26 07:41 · 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.
3. Re:Why not both? by serviscope_minor · 2018-05-26 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
4. Re:Why not both? by gweihir · 2018-05-26 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
5. Re:Why not both? by thegarbz · 2018-05-26 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  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.
fair judgement by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-26 05:56 · 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 Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-26 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  So what consequences do the cops actions have? Please tell us.
2. Re: fair judgement by halivar · 2018-05-26 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Train dispatchers to stop trusting 911 calls and train cops to wait until they hear actual gun shots. Your self-defense is on you.
3. Re:fair judgement by turbidostato · 2018-05-26 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  "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.
4. Re: fair judgement by gweihir · 2018-05-26 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
5. Re: fair judgement by ScentCone · 2018-05-26 06:54 · 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.
6. Re:fair judgement by Kaenneth · 2018-05-26 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Their executions should be livestreamed on Twitch as a warning to future swatters.
7. Re: fair judgement by HornWumpus · 2018-05-26 07:07 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
8. Re: fair judgement by fafalone · 2018-05-26 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  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.
9. Re: fair judgement by rastos1 · 2018-05-26 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  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?
10. Re: fair judgement by serviscope_minor · 2018-05-26 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
11. Re: fair judgement by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-26 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  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.
12. Re: fair judgement by Kohath · 2018-05-26 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  So, if YOU called 911...
  There would be a reasonable chance the cops would show up and end up shooting me.
13. Re: fair judgement by sjames · 2018-05-26 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  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?
14. Re: fair judgement by xvan · 2018-05-26 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  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...
15. Re: fair judgement by Cederic · 2018-05-27 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  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.
16. Re: fair judgement by halivar · 2018-05-29 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  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.
article blocked by GDPR avoidance by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-26 06:04 · Score: 1

Visiting the wlwt website: "Sorry, this content is not available in your region."
Pitbull analogy by BenJeremy · 2018-05-26 06:24 · 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.
1. Re:Pitbull analogy by gweihir · 2018-05-26 06:44 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
2. Re:Pitbull analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-26 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  The police are not dogs. They are human beings who are supposed to have training and expertise. Your analogy is insane.
3. Re:Pitbull analogy by SkOink · 2018-05-26 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  ---- I'll take you in a Hunt deathmatch any day.
Not appropriate punishment by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-26 06:32 · Score: 1

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 by gweihir · 2018-05-26 06:33 · Score: 2

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

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Re:This is ridiculous... by Kohath · 2018-05-26 06:41 · Score: 1

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:Fake SWAT calls should be death penalty by geoskd · 2018-05-26 06:53 · Score: 1

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.

--
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Re:This is ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-26 07:08 · Score: 1

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:I do I pronounce $1,000,000 by Aighearach · 2018-05-26 07:47 · Score: 1

You're probably using punctuation for numbers incorrectly even for you own local system if you though that. ;)
SWATTING someone is borderline sociopathic.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-26 08:32 · Score: 1

...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.
Not mutually exclusive by Hognoxious · 2018-05-26 08:40 · Score: 1

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.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Fake SWAT calls should be death penalty by Hognoxious · 2018-05-26 08:47 · Score: 1

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.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
c6gunner has been readmitted by Hognoxious · 2018-05-26 08:53 · Score: 1

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?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Ignorant analogy by drinkypoo · 2018-05-26 11:03 · Score: 1

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...

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The police should get worse! by bussdriver · 2018-05-26 12:06 · Score: 1

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.

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Stick him in an airtight room. by Chas · 2018-05-26 13:58 · Score: 1

And throw away the room.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Blame isn't a limited resource. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-27 02:44 · Score: 1

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:That's fine by Cederic · 2018-05-27 03:53 · Score: 1

capitol
If I'd stopped reading at that obvious warning sign I could've been saved from the blatant stupidity that followed.
Re:Only 2 should be charged by Cederic · 2018-05-27 04:16 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Moronic commenters on this site by Cederic · 2018-05-27 04:19 · Score: 1

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.
GOOD! Lock em up. by MerlTurkin · 2018-05-27 23:54 · Score: 1

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.