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."
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.
How about you charge the police officers who unjustifiably shot the victim to death with murder first?
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.
when sending cops to somebody's home counts as attempted murder? Britain and Canada don't have this problem,
Everything works in a context. With the realization that the US cops are trigger happy (partly justified because a lot more suspects are armed and dangerous), a swatting call has a decent chance to turn violent. Obviously, a similar attempt in Britain or Canada would be judged in the context of their society.
I'm Canadian. I hope nobody call the cops on me because yesterday I took some leftover KFC home and now I have two plastic sporks.
#DeleteFacebook
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 ...
This Washington Post story explains it the story better.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/06/14/two-rival-gamers-allegedly-involved-in-kansas-swatting-death-plead-not-guilty-in-federal-court/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4c37f1c30c49
But when Gaskill noticed that Barriss had started following him on Twitter, he realized what the Californian and Viner were plotting. Instead of backing down or running for help, Gaskill taunted the alleged swatter via direct message on Twitter.
“Please try some s–t ,” Gaskill allegedly messaged Barriss on Dec. 28, according to the indictment. “You’re gonna try and swat me its hilarious I’m waiting buddy.”
In one twist, police say that when Gaskill and Barriss were speaking over Twitter, Gaskill gave the alleged swatter an address he claimed was his own — 1033 W. McCormick
.
Gaskill became aware what Viner and Barriss were planning, but instead going to the police, he lied about living at a former address and then taunted Barriss to "Try something please kid". He encouraged Barris to carry out his threat knowing that innocent people could be hurt because of his deception. That's certainly prosecutable.
--
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?
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)
Besides a few libtards like me on /. bitching about it I've seen zero discussion about what got us to this point.
Way to out yourself as a fake liberal. Go back to /v/, creep.
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.
Of soliciting the hack? Of course. Next question?
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
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.
> 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?
No idea, I've never bought anything from that place but I had friends who ate there a decade ago. I just assumed they still gave plastic sporks in 2018 for the sake of my joke.
#DeleteFacebook
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 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
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!
Huh?
I'd send a policeman. Not a paramilitary death squad.
So they're being railroaded with vague catch-all charges, as a smokescreen to shield the murderous law enforcers from public scrutiny. Nice!
First of all, Britian and Canada aren't full of gun nuts, and guns we do have generally are used for either recreation, sport or hunting. From my interactions with Americans, it appears a lot of Americans use guns for a purpose other than those listed - namely, self-defense. Ignoring whether or not that is a valid purpose, that's a primary difference.
Heck, we don't have "Stand your Ground" laws, and the courts have agreed that you can only retaliate in a manner the situation dictates, so shooting a fleeing criminal in the back can land you manslaughter charges
Thus, the cops here rarely, even in hostage situations, are confronted with the firepower even the typical American seems to pack. And yes, even things like ballistic vests have to be registered.
And forget things like AR-15s and such - those are completely banned. As is concealed carry, and most handguns are highly restricted (typically must be locked "safe" until at the range).
That's what confuses most people in the world - because it seems in the US guns are literally everywhere, and everyone's got an AR-15 ready to shoot at anything that moves. Here those are generally illegal weapons so it's not necessary to bring out the heavy weapons and armor - the average hostage situation usually involves knives as the primary weapon.
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
Point of order: in Canada, a semi-automatic AR-15 is considered a 'restricted' firearm. Most handguns are also 'restricted.' The main difference between a 'restricted' firearm and an 'non-restricted' firearm such as a shotgun or non-AR-15 rifle are a) stricter storage and transport laws, and b) can only be fired at an approved range; not usable for hunting, shootable on public Crown Land, in your back yard if you have the space, and so on.
There's nothing preventing a licensed Canadian gun owner from using a handgun or AR-15 for home defense, other than the fact that you'll be charge with unsafe storage pretty much automatically, on the theory that if you had the firearm stored correctly, you'd be dead before you could get it out.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
(I hear in Britain the correct strategy is to claim the homeowner shot a burglar, then their version of SWAT will show up. Might've just been a joke, though.)
The British equivalent of SWAT is Specialist Firearms Command (usually referred to as SO19 in films and TV). They train specialist firearms officers, who receive extra training and must pass a battery of psychological tests before they are even accepted for training. There is an automatic investigation in the case of any firearm discharge by one of these officers.
SFC is almost never the first response. An unarmed officer will attempt to judge whether they need to be deployed. When they are deployed, they have been trained to avoid firing unless all other options have been exhausted. This training sometimes fails, but it seems to work a lot better than the US model of arming all of the police and giving them appallingly bad training.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
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.