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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[OrangeTide]

And all made of polonium

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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[gtall]

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

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

[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?

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.

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

[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

[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.

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:Fake SWAT calls should be death penalty

[gweihir]

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