Slashdot Mirror
Two Teenaged Gamers Plead 'Not Guilty' For Fatal Kansas Swatting Death (reuters.com)
Two more men entered pleas in federal court for their roles in a SWAT call that led to a fatal police shooting in Kansas: not guilty. An anonymous reader quotes Reuters:
Shane Gaskill, 19, of Wichita, Kansas, and Casey Viner, 18, from a suburb of Cincinnati, pleaded not guilty on Wednesday and remained free on $10,000 bond, court records showed. Both of the suspects live with their parents, local media reported. In the so-called "swatting" incident, in which someone falsely reports an emergency requiring a police response, Viner got upset at Gaskill over a video game they played online, federal prosecutors said, and Viner contacted a known "swatter"...and asked him to make the false report to police at an address that had been provided by Gaskill. Viner did not know that Gaskill no longer lived at the address, but Gaskill knew, prosecutors said.
After media reports of the shooting, Gaskill urged [swatter Tyler] Barriss to delete their communications and Viner wiped his phone, according to the indictment... Barriss and Viner face federal charges of conspiracy and several counts of wire fraud. Viner and Gaskill were charged with obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice, and Gaskill was also charged with wire fraud and additional counts of obstruction of justice.
In a jailhouse interview in January, Barriss told a local news team that "Whether you hang me from a tree, or you give me 5, 10, 15 years... I don't think it will ever justify what happened... I hope no one ever does it, ever again. I hope it's something that ceases to exist."
In April, while still in jail, Barriss gained access to the internet then posted "All right, now who was talking shit? >:) Your ass is about to get swatted."
After media reports of the shooting, Gaskill urged [swatter Tyler] Barriss to delete their communications and Viner wiped his phone, according to the indictment... Barriss and Viner face federal charges of conspiracy and several counts of wire fraud. Viner and Gaskill were charged with obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice, and Gaskill was also charged with wire fraud and additional counts of obstruction of justice.
In a jailhouse interview in January, Barriss told a local news team that "Whether you hang me from a tree, or you give me 5, 10, 15 years... I don't think it will ever justify what happened... I hope no one ever does it, ever again. I hope it's something that ceases to exist."
In April, while still in jail, Barriss gained access to the internet then posted "All right, now who was talking shit? >:) Your ass is about to get swatted."
to having big DAMN balls
He said he would do it again, voluntarily, while in prison for it. He knows it can lead to death because that's why he is behind bars yet he says he will not stop. He has no remorse and is trying to keep swatting from inside prison.
Go directly to jail. Do not pass 'Go'. Do not collect $200.
How about you charge the police officers who unjustifiably shot the victim to death with murder first?
It reads like Gaskill was supposed to be the victim, Viner was the "client", Barriss was the hitman, and the police was the "gun". Gaskill deflected the expected swatting from himself by providing an address that he no longer lived at, felt guilty about that deflection after the swatting and tried to hide it. And that's enough to get you prosecuted?
EditorDavid is misnamed.
NonEditiorDavid would be closer.
when sending cops to somebody's home counts as attempted murder? Britain and Canada don't have this problem, btw. A bunch of Youtubers from those countries were genuinely confused by the concept of swatting. It just wouldn't work in their countries.
/. bitching about it I've seen zero discussion about what got us to this point. Maybe if we wouldn't be so stupidly Tough on Crime folks wouldn't treat talking to the police like a death sentence.
Yeah, these guys should get prosecuted. They knew what they were doing was dangerous. But I'm pissed off that the entire debate has been around how badly these guys should be punished. Besides a few libtards like me on
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This Gaskill guy was the intended victim of the swatting, but he gave a false address. He's so far detached from the actual crime that I don't think he should be charged with anything and shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of other people.
He's being charged with wire fraud and obstruction of justice, which seem to be the standard charges for people who haven't actually done anything. It's amazing how often you see these charges used.
âoeNeed to delete everything,â he messaged, the indictment said. âoeThis is a murder case now. ⦠This isnâ(TM)t a joke.â
He wiped his phone and told the other people involved to do the same - while saying "this is a murder case". Intentionally destroying evidence in murder case, knowing it's a murder case, sounds like obstruction of justice.
He's being charged with obstruction of justice.
He apparently not being charged for taunting the guy after the swat threat, saying oh yeah just try to swat me. My address is ...
--
Barrios told the emergency operator that he had killed his father and âoewas holding his mother and brother at gunpoint.â Barriss allegedly gave the operator the West McCormick address. The caller then âoeinformed the dispatcher that he was considering lighting the house on fire before committing suicide,â the indictment stated.
--
So you've got one victim dead already, or perhaps the gather isn't quite dead and could still be saved. Two more victims are being held hostage. The perpetrator intends to kill everyone, including himself.
> stop sending swat teams as first response
Would you perhaps send a crossing guard to handle hostage situations? Maybe a meter maid? Who would you send to a hostage situation when the perp has already starting killing people?
The two who just pleaded not guilty (Viner and Gaskill) aren't being charged for the death or even complicity in the death in any way. They're being charged with wire fraud, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy.
Only Barriss is being charged for the death. Viner's being charged with conspiracy and wire fraud for hiring Barriss to perform the SWATting, also obstruction of justice and conspiracy for wiping his phone. Gaskill's being charged with obstruction and conspiracy effectively just for telling Barriss to wipe his phone. Not sure why he's being charged with wire fraud, but I suppose prosecutors try to hit them with everything and see what sticks.
Something strange is going on in the US. The info given here and the linked site is probably distorted as well, because I cannot imagine police killing an unarmed man and then blaming some pranksters for that. (Maybe they can be blamed in this case, something like one percent blame)
Your mistake is assuming that there IS a hostage situation. It's one of many possibilities. First response must be to find out whether something is going on, and if so, what.
A swat team is what you send in if and only if you need someone taken down, not to determine whether it's needed. That's not their job, and they are exceptionally bad at it.
So when the guy who calls the police claims to have killed one hostage already and is talking about burning down the building before committing suicide, the default response should be "I don't believe you"? This does not strike me as a good idea.
So when the guy who calls the police claims to have killed one hostage already and is talking about burning down the building before committing suicide, the default response should be "I don't believe you"?
The default response should be that they have understood what he said, and try to get a negotiator involved before hanging up.
At this point, they have a tip that needs to be investigated with urgency. They should not make assumptions that it's either true or false, but determine whether it is. And that determination should never be made by anyone holding a weapon or battering ram. Their job is to take people down, not to determine whether they themselves are wasteful.
If the trial court convicts these two dipshits, I'm sure it will be appealed and overturned by the appellate court.
The trigger-happy cop, though? The twisted DA says he performed adequately.
Each time a story comes up about how technologists ought to move to the midwest, where homes are affordable compared to the tech hot spots, remember it's not just about the cost of living. It would be shocking if a cop acted in the same manner in my area and the DA said "Nah, it was justified." We would have a new DA.
You're talking past him. He *has* no threshold for bringing in officers to deal with a murderous situation other than having witnessed the last hostage executed.
> that determination should never be made by anyone holding a weapon
Okay, so one person has apparently been murdered and the perp says two more are about to. The perp says he's probably going to kill everyone - including himself. Your suggestion is to send in people who do NOT have weapon, to check to see if the dead is in fact dead? Then when the person you sent radios in "I've been shot!", you don't believe him. Presumably you send in two more unarmed people to see if he has really been shot?
Not to left these gamers off the hook, but what about the officer who actually killed the guy for no good reason?
Jesus you are a dumb fuck.
So you shoot the first person to come to the door? Because there's no chance a hostage taker would ever send a hostage with a message for the police rather than making himself an exposed target?
So you've got one victim dead already, or perhaps the gather isn't quite dead and could still be saved. Two more victims are being held hostage. The perpetrator intends to kill everyone, including himself.
So the police come in and shoot the first person they see, which has a pretty high chance of being one of the hostages. I guess if the police kill all the hostages then there's no hostage situation.
So when the guy who calls the police claims to have killed one hostage already and is talking about burning down the building before committing suicide, the default response should be "I don't believe you"? This does not strike me as a good idea.
Infinitely better than running in guns blazing and literally getting people killed. But like in every stupid discussion on slashdot there's a happy medium that exists between doing nothing and fucking showing the site with bullets.
Perhaps you aren't aware, but being armed doesn't mean you randomly shoot people. I've been armed every day for years and never shoot anyone. I *almost* had to put a stop to an armed robbery at a store, but fortunately that wasn't necessary.
The proposal which I responded to said sending armed officers to the scene is the wrong response to a 911 call reporting a hostage situation with one person already killed. GGP wasn't entirely clear whether he though 911 should ignore such situations entirely, or send unarmed people look through the house. Why exactly such a proposal is mod +5 is beyond me. Are people REALLY spending so much time in fantasy "rainbows and unicorns" echo chambers that they think the proper response to an active shooter situation is to sing a folk song?
Nice things like a paramilitary police force.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Fatal deaths are the worst.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
I think police is at fault..... these guys were pranking people maybe trying to scare them... It would be hard to prove the intent was to get the person killed... at best i would think police would had checked before shooting
The SWAT team was quite good in this case. They held their fire. It was the additional cops they brought on the scene who panicked and shot the unarmed person.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I'd send a policeman. Not a paramilitary death squad.
Both of them should be banned from using computers for life as minimum we should even consider death row for these maggots
Perhaps there should be a small radio-controlled explosive mounted around the neck of all cops.
That way you could send out an emergency auto-destruct command, in case you deploy them in the wrong direction by mistake.
blink
[ CANCEL MISSION ]
blink
if you're in jail waiting trial for an offence and you very clearly and publicly show ZERO remorse for your crimes, the only justice is to drop you live into a vat of acid, on national television.
Seriously folks: Back In The Day HANGINGS were PUBLIC for very good reasons
Dead people don't become repeat offenders, and when the word on the street is "remember Jimmy, he was boiled in oil on national television for his crimes" that's a fairly significant deterrent.
People commit crimes for three very specific reasons (1) they'll never catch me (2) They'll never prove it (3) I'll get a good lawyer, will be back on the street in no time
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
There was no hostage situation! What's your answer to hoax hostage calls? Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out?
Did you forget to read even the subject line before replying?
Sending armed, trained people to an apparent hostage situation doesn't mean âshooting people who haven't committed any crimesâ. It means being prepared in case the perp (who says he has already murdered one person) has to be shot.
The proposed solution was to send *unarmed* people into the building to check it out.
Should be: 2 Adult Men, aged 19 and 18...
Teenagers? In the sense that "teen" happens to be in the number... Grown ass men that knew they were sending armed police to a residence? Yup.