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.
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 ...
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"?
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.
Okay, so one person has apparently been murdered
I think you have some problems understanding words like "apparently". What makes it apparent?
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!
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.
(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