Slashdot Mirror


Kansas 'Swat' Perpetrator Will Now Plead Guilty To Dozens More Swat Incidents (nbcnews.com)

An anonymous reader quotes NBC News: The California man behind a years-long string of hoax 911 calls -- including one that ended in a Kansas man's death -- wants to plead guilty to all charges, court documents revealed. Tyler Rai Barriss, 25, intends to waive his right to trial and admit guilt to a 46-count federal indictment, according to a document he signed on Oct. 18 and was filed in U.S. District Court on Wednesday. Barriss faces up to life behind bars for his dozens of acts of "swatting" -- calling police to falsely report a serious crime, in hopes of drawing a massive response to the home of an unsuspecting target.... According to the court records, Barriss will admit to dozens of "swatting" incidents all over America between 2015 and the end of 2017, The false alarms connected to Barriss happened in Ohio, Nevada, Illinois, Indiana, Virginia, Texas, Arizona, Massachusetts, MIssouri, Maine, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Indiana, Michigan, Florida, Connecticut and New York.
Barriss performed SWATs if clients sent him $10 over PayPal -- occasionally demanding "upwards of $50," according to a new (possibly pay-walled) article on Wired. A Call of Duty player hired Barriss to SWAT a teammate who'd caused them to lose a $1.50 wager, but his intended target supplied a false address across town which resulted in the fatal police shooting.

Both gamers are now "awaiting trial on lesser charges," reports NBC.

101 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. swatting is really cruel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    you have to be plenty heartless do something like this without any remorse

    1. Re:swatting is really cruel by alvinrod · · Score: 3

      I think the more fucked up part was that he only charged $10. When it comes down to it, everyone eventually sets a dollar amount (whether they consciously believe they do or not) for the value of human life, but $10 is really lowballing it.

      Though, I suppose the guy who paid the $10 for the swatting over losing a $1.50 wager is even worse.

    2. Re:swatting is really cruel by hey! · · Score: 3, Funny

      Somebody's got to be on the left end of the emotional intelligence bell curve.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re: swatting is really cruel by cunina · · Score: 3, Funny

      They were hard-core gamers, though. Ten bucks might be about right.

    4. Re:swatting is really cruel by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      He never intended to kill. He was just an idiot who didn't realist the possibly consequences of his actions. So in his mind, $10 is the cost of ruining someone's evening.

    5. Re:swatting is really cruel by gtall · · Score: 1

      Hmmm...what about the people who give their own lives so that someone or others may live?

    6. Re:swatting is really cruel by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Somebody's got to be on the left end of the emotional intelligence bell curve.

      As a distribution sure but the real spacing is that you have "normal" stupid people and the genuinely retarded. Same on the EQ scale, you have the "normal" insensitive people and genuine psychopaths/sociopaths. You got serial killers and whatnot that's even further on the left end than this guy. Bottom 5% and bottom 1% can be very, very different things.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:swatting is really cruel by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Whether he intended to kill is an interesting psychological question. Many gamblers continue, not to _win_, but to _lose_. The same is true for many people engaged in dangerous or self destructive behavior.

    8. Re:swatting is really cruel by Iwastheone · · Score: 1

      Eh, $10? Around 40 years ago when I was starting out my adult life I read an early 'Florida Man" story where some guy was murdered for 25 cents, a quarter. Some person was robbed and killed for a quarter. I learned then that that's the price some have for taking a human life. Since then, nothing about man's inhumanity to man has surprised me.

    9. Re:swatting is really cruel by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He might not have wanted anyone to die, but you'd have to be pretty naive to argue that he attached a 0% probability to that actually happening. I did plenty of stupid shit in my youth that could have resulted in my death, but I don't think I ever thought there wasn't a chance of it happening, merely that it was just incredibly low or just an acceptable risk for the enjoyment and thrill I might get out of it.

      Even then, I don't think I could have jumped through the mental hoops necessary to rationalize calling a swat team on someone would have no chance at all of ending with someone being unjustly killed. Maybe you could argue that someone could be pissed off enough to do it as an act of exceptionally poor judgement in the heat of the moment, but this person was a dispassionate third party.

    10. Re:swatting is really cruel by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      Other swats have resulted in well publicized tragic outcomes before he made his. Bullshit he didn't know this.

    11. Re: swatting is really cruel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He tried his best to get hiz target killed. You should reqd the transcript of his call or listen to tbe recording. He did everything in his power to make the police believe the situation was urgent and about to blow up, killing hostages if the target was not stopped.

      That's not an innocence act. It is cold and very calculated.

    12. Re:swatting is really cruel by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      I think that you've nailed the human condition that matters in this case.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    13. Re:swatting is really cruel by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      It sounds to me like there was a revenge element in the case that you are talking about.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    14. Re: swatting is really cruel by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      So if you are an atheist you should never move to a new town to find work?

    15. Re:swatting is really cruel by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      I believe there is a huge difference between "I did plenty of stupid shit in my youth that could have resulted in ***MY*** death" (emphasis added) and doing something to put someone ELSE at risk.

  2. Good by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now arrest the fuckers who procured his services.

    --
    Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    1. Re:Good by Can'tNot · · Score: 1

      The summary specifically says, 'Both gamers are now "awaiting trial on lesser charges," reports NBC.'

      What gets me is: both? The intended victim is also awaiting trial? I'm sure there's some reason for that, I'm just curious.

    2. Re:Good by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

      > What gets me is: both? The intended victim is also awaiting
      > trial? I'm sure there's some reason for that, I'm just curious.

      Gamer A got mad at Gamer B. Gamer B gave out a false address. Gamer A then paid Barriss to do a fake 911 call to trigger a swat raid that killed an innocent resident at the wrong address. Both Gamer A (who paid for the 911 call) and Gamer B (who gave someone else's address) are being charged.

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    3. Re:Good by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The summary also talks about dozens of other incidents. Who ever procured his services for dozens of other potential murders should be arrested.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    4. Re:Good by fazig · · Score: 1

      Viner and Gaskill had been partners in a game of "Call of Duty" that day. When one particular session ended badly, both teammates blamed each other and Viner reached out online to Barriss and asked him to "swat" Gaskill, prosecutors said.

      Barriss then taunted Gaskill in a Twitter direct messages, before Gaskill challenged the California man to swat him, according to court records. Gaskill even gave Barriss the address to target: a home where Gaskill had once lived that was now occupied by Finch's family.

      "Gaskill practically begged him (Barriss) to come at him, 'Here’s everything you need, my address,'" Distrcit of Kansas U.S. Attorney's Office spokesman James Cross told NBC News on Friday. "Gaskill was letting him know he wasn't afraid of him."

      Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/u...


      This should answer your question. Viner and Gaskill are those two gamers that the article is talking about.
      If true, this means Gaskill was fully aware of the possibly lethal consequences for anyone who lived at that particular address. There could and ought to be a case against him as well.

    5. Re:Good by GrandCow · · Score: 1

      >Why would it be illegal to give out a fake address?

      Because someone died. They will have their case in court and may be exonerated, or they may be found partially at fault for someone dying.

      --
      "Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
    6. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From what I've read about the incident, Barriss was known in the gaming community (and by the intended victim) for SWATing for cash. He contacted the intended victim, told him he was going to SWAT him, and that's when the intended victim gave him the address (it was a real address, just not HIS address) and even dared him to do it. At the very least, that's reckless endangerment.

    7. Re:Good by Interfacer · · Score: 1

      If you can reasonably be assumed to have suspected that the address was going to be used in a malicious way, then giving it out would be reckless endangerment.

    8. Re:Good by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Wait, giving out wrong addresses is criminal now?

      That's gonna show those bitches that give me fake phone numbers, I'll sue!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re: Good by ememisya · · Score: 1

      Wow, it's like they're charging him hard enough for people to forget calling SWAT can be a death sentence in the U.S.A. There are videos on YouTube you can watch where just by the video you can tell if it's U.S.A. or not by how many people are slammed into the ground. It's like a Mongolian army of horsemen on call, they will burn your village down. That last one was the most interesting to me, because like a double-blind study neither the SWAT nor the victim knew what was going on yet he died anyways. The real question isn't how hard to hit this man to make an example of him, but rather why calling the officials is a death sentence.

  3. How fucked up is America to let this happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every time the police just shrugs and gets off free.

    "We didn't do anything. Someone said there was a situation at this address, so we just bust the door down and shot whoever was inside. It's not our fault"

    And the worst part is that you Americans just accept that this is the way it is and has to be. You just yell at the guy who made the phone call, but have nothing to say about the vaccuum-headed police and their inability to investigate or even think before firing their weapons.

    1. Re:How fucked up is America to let this happen? by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Be shot with WHAT? A dirty look? Unarmed citizen in the open vs squad of well armed body armored cops standing behind their cars.

      And he probably couldn't hear their instructions.

      Keep in mind, you may be the turkey the next time a squad of cops opens fire. It's not like you have to actually be doing anything even vaguely questionable to end up in their crosshairs.

    2. Re:How fucked up is America to let this happen? by sjames · · Score: 2

      When a normal law abiding person sees a bunch of cop cars show up, they wonder which of their neighbors is in trouble.

    3. Re:How fucked up is America to let this happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I love and respect the police, who often have an impossible job

      Everything seems impossible when you're an idiot

    4. Re:How fucked up is America to let this happen? by Opportunist · · Score: 1, Redundant

      I usually don't wish anyone anything ill, but I do want to see you in this situation, where you're sitting in the peace of your living room and suddenly all hell breaks loose, sirens blaring, people screaming at you through megaphones... and then I want to see you keep your cool and be all considerate and collected.

      People react not very rationally in high stress situations. You might have noticed that. Maybe being raided and having a swat team kick down your door is your daily routine, I don't know, but to most of us, it's not. It's a very unusual, very stressful situation that few of us have ever and hopefully will ever go through.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. The rest of the problem by Kohath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now fix the on-call violence delivery service. At least add:
    - accountability for police
    - mandatory fact-finding before believing whatever story a caller wants to tell
    - body cameras with recordings available to the public (maybe with some controls if you're scared of the public having access to the information for whatever reason)
    - specific trading requirements for SWAT teams, with presumed liability for failure to train
    - a duty for the police to make a genuine attempt protect the life and dignity of everyone they encounter

    1. Re:The rest of the problem by Kohath · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They should do a much better job. When they stop killing innocent people, that will be how we know they've improved training and procedures and their approach to the lives of people around them.

      When they stop stonewalling public accountability, we'll know they've finally realized their role is to serve the public rather than oversee us as if we were cattle to be milked for taxes and traffic fines.

    2. Re:The rest of the problem by quonset · · Score: 1

      Now fix the on-call violence delivery service.

      Had this criminal not placed a fake call to police, none of this would have happened, would it?

    3. Re:The rest of the problem by Kohath · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I actually do a perfect job at not killing innocent people.

      But your argument is irrelevant. Police serve the public. That means members of the public, like me and everyone else, are in charge. We decide. Police can serve under the rules that we decide or go get other jobs. Period.

    4. Re:The rest of the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When a violent crime is happening and lives are hanging in the balance, there's no time for your little checklist. Unfortunately, some lives will be lost when people don't follow the commands they are given. The cops in this case are the victim as well. Do you think they are happy with the outcome, do you think perhaps it weighs on them for the rest of their lives as well? The criminal is the guy who places the fake call. Put the blame where it belongs!

    5. Re:The rest of the problem by Kohath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Had this criminal not placed a fake call to police, none of this would have happened, would it?

      Same thing could be said if it was local street gangs doing drive-by shootings for hire. Are the gang members who actually do the shooting innocent?

    6. Re:The rest of the problem by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When a violent crime is happening and lives are hanging in the balance, there's no time for your little checklist.

      Plenty of time to gun down innocents though.

    7. Re:The rest of the problem by alexo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now fix the on-call violence delivery service. At least add:
      - accountability for police
      - mandatory fact-finding before believing whatever story a caller wants to tell
      - body cameras with recordings available to the public (maybe with some controls if you're scared of the public having access to the information for whatever reason)
      - specific trading requirements for SWAT teams, with presumed liability for failure to train
      - a duty for the police to make a genuine attempt protect the life and dignity of everyone they encounter

      I'll settle for just the first one, the rest are either included in it or will naturally follow.
      Unfortunately, it will never happen.

    8. Re:The rest of the problem by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Don't shoot the bad guys either. Then you won't figure out later you made a mistake. Protect the lives of everyone.

    9. Re:The rest of the problem by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, that's exactly the attitude that results in police killing innocents. Congratulations on illustrating it for everyone.

    10. Re:The rest of the problem by Kohath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Much simpler:

          - make prank callers suffer
      Make it really really not worth it. Put them in real jail for 10 years without possibility of early release. Show them crying and yelling "I didn't mean to!!!1111" on national TV. Make sure people get it.

      "Mandatory fact-finding" is nice and all, but if it can be difference between life and death for a victim. Police should act fast.

      Anyone willing to do 10 years, or anyone who thinks they'll get away with it (like this guy did, over and over and over again) can order up an assassination then.

      Violent crime is at historic, generational lows. Police should act carefully.

    11. Re:The rest of the problem by sjames · · Score: 1

      Says the guy who's been in thousands of gunfights (on his game console in the basement).

    12. Re:The rest of the problem by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's plenty of blame to go around. The person who deserves none though is the guy who was just looking to see what all the commotions was about and probably died wondering who the police were talking to and why they were in his neighborhood.

    13. Re: The rest of the problem by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Then everyone dies and the cops get called for not protecting people.

      "Then everyone dies" is a made up story. The Kansas shooting is an actual story of something that actually happened.

      The police already have no legal duty to provide police protection. The thing you are arguing against as a hypothetical is what we already have.

      [several sentence attempting to change the subject to me deleted]

      Nice try. It's not about me. Anything about me is beyond irrelevant.

      There are plenty of checks and balances in play (your other assertions that there arenâ(TM)t are incorrect).

      Yet police are still out there shooting innocent people (and shooting guilty people when those people are not a threat) and receiving zero punishment for it. So no, there aren't "plenty" of checks and balances.

      Yes, there is more of a benefit of doubt applies to armed response teams. That is because the psychology and statistical likelihoods of events occurring are well understood.

      Storytelling about what might happen.

      If a pattern emerges of wrong action, you bet someone will be pulled up and lose that benefit of doubt.

      But never punished. Even police officers who are judged unfit and fired just go to some other town's police force.

      Out of interest, what is your experience in the field of security/crisis operation?

      We have a government "by the people". That means everyone votes and our representatives make the rules. Self-interested "experts" don't decide, we decide.

      BTW: Slashdot doesn't support the character set your iPhone is using, so it makes a mess whenever you use apostrophes or quotation marks.

    14. Re:The rest of the problem by Kohath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let's task the police with protecting everyone's life so they get better at not killing innocents.

    15. Re:The rest of the problem by vbdasc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When a violent crime is happening and lives are hanging in the balance, there's no time for your little checklist.

      Actually, in this particular case there was plenty of time to think. In a hostage situation, you simply don't rush things. Unless you're incompetent police, that is.

      Unfortunately, some lives will be lost when people don't follow the commands they are given.

      What if the guy who is given commands happens to be deaf? A foreigner who doesn't understand the language? Slow-witted? Intoxicated? The police command just becomes a death sentence, according to your logic. It shouldn't be this way.

      The bottom line is, IMHO, that both Barriss and the police bear the bulk of responsibility for this unfortunate incident, and neither should be allowed to avoid paying the price.

    16. Re: The rest of the problem by Kohath · · Score: 3, Interesting

      America has more guns than people. You're not from here = you do not understand that.

      This is the excuse used to excuse police killing innocents, even though violent crime has been dropping for 25 years.

    17. Re: The rest of the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Prior army here; older and have mixed it up with foreign civilian populations. If the soldiers in my unit behaved like most urban police forces when dealing with civilians we'd be in fucking jail.

      To paraphrase a certain officer: the hands tell the story. Verified weapon in hands, disobeys command? Drop em... failure to stop drill if need be. No weapon in hands? Use other (non-lethal) means. Is it really that fucking hard? The so-called 'sniper' should have been terminated from the force. An unarmed person not complying even in this scenario doesn't warrant a round to the head.

      My problem with cops is two-fold: one, while the combat arms in the military sometimes draws extreme sports junkies, the cops tend to draw bullies. Secondly, their training is total SHIT, and I include PT, weapons training, and most importantly stress inoculation. Some of those guys attend a pansy-ass short course and are certified law enforcement, and some attend fucking community college to the same end. You need to starve, go without sleep (2 hours every 24 after critical skill acquisition is a good start), and learn how you react when shit is not ideal. A modern cop should: possess at least a relevant two year degree, have to endure a stressful bootcamp under the critical eye of successful police training cadre (successful as in they don't fuck up as in this case), and they should be paid accordingly. Failure to meet standards means you're out.

    18. Re:The rest of the problem by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      What's better, that a police officer is shot, or an innocent civilian is shot. If police don't want to protect the public then they should pick a different job.

    19. Re:The rest of the problem by Calydor · · Score: 1

      That the police officer is shot. Considering he's likely to wear body armor he is also less likely to die from any random gunshot compared to an unarmored innocent civilian.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    20. Re:The rest of the problem by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      It's easy to say that, but you have no idea how to do it. You have no idea what current procedures are, nor do you have any suggestions to improve them.
      It's easy to sit on the sidelines saying "DO BETTER", isn't it?

    21. Re:The rest of the problem by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You do a good job not killing innocent people because you aren't tasked with law enforcement duties.

      No, but the law enforcement personnel of other countries are so tasked, and they manage to get the job done with a *much* lower kill ratio.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    22. Re:The rest of the problem by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      That's amazingly (and tellingly) butthurt, even by Kohath standards.

      (Bring it on, I already posted in this thread and I got me some karmas to burn.)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    23. Re:The rest of the problem by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Especially in a hostage situation time is on YOUR side as the police. And if you know that it is a hostage situation, you must expect that the person answering the door is a hostage. The very first thing you have to verify is the identity of the person, If you find out that it's the hostage taker or if he tries to get back inside, you still have all the time in the world to shoot if you're so inclined.

      Usually it is not necessary, though. Hostage takers want something, else they would already do what they threaten to do. No need to take someone hostage if you only want to kill him.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    24. Re:The rest of the problem by Kohath · · Score: 2

      It's easy to say that, but you have no idea how to do it. You have no idea what current procedures are, nor do you have any suggestions to improve them.
      It's easy to sit on the sidelines saying "DO BETTER", isn't it?

      Do they want to do better? I haven't seen a change in their attitude that suggests they do. Usually people who want to do better don't claim there's nothing that needs changing.

      The obvious idea would be to score performance based on reviewing body camera recordings of police dealings with the public. Serve the public, score higher. Bully the public, score lower. Defuse a tense situation, score higher. Use violence without first trying to defuse a situation, score lower. It's not rocket science.

    25. Re: The rest of the problem by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Let's task the police with protecting everyone's life

      That is quite literally impossible.

      so they get better at not killing innocents.

      They're already very good at it; the problem is that jackasses like you expect them to be perfect. This is, again, impossible. May as well expect airliners to never crash.

    26. Re: The rest of the problem by Kohath · · Score: 1

      They're already very good at it; the problem is that jackasses like you expect them to be perfect. This is, again, impossible. May as well expect airliners to never crash.

      The last fatal US airline crash was in 2009, so they've already more-or-less achieved that.

  5. Doxing, Swatting, and Social Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Swatting is just one of the reasons why associating any online accounts you have with your real identity is a terrible idea. This happened because a guy lost a counterstrike match. Another teammate was mad at him, they got in an argument, the guy tried to dox him though his steam profile linked to a facebook page, and ended up getting a completely random person killed as a result. You put your real info on those social media pages, and that's the police kicking down your door and you getting killed. People ask "what do you have to hide". Apparently it's a bunch of jackbooted thugs kicking down your door at 11:30pm because some pathetic waste of flesh on the internet who was mad over losing a $1.50 bet decided to pay someone to anonymously call in a hostage situation.

  6. Re:...state-sanctioned hit squads... by blindseer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm all for the government having their warrantless search powers scaled back but I also don't want to live in a world where the police hesitate on responding to a 911 call for help because of getting too many prank calls. This is the old "cry wolf" parable on a modern world. The police had cause to come to the house, they had a call for help and the caller provided an address. This is in effect their warrant.

    You need to pick your battles better, this is not one which will gain much traction in painting the police as the "bad guy". This is all on the prank caller and I believe he deserves any punishment he gets, up to life in prison. He knew what he was doing, that it could result in people getting killed, did so repeatedly, and did so on the whim of a few bucks tossed his way.

    Any issues of warrantless searches have nothing to do with this case.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  7. When you're wrong, you're wrong. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Tyler Rai Barriss, 25, intends to waive his right to trial and admit guilt to a 46-count federal indictment, ...

    Forty-six counts? Apparently, this guy *really* misunderstood the slogan, "You're either SWAT or you're not."

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  8. Oh, no...no...no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is all on the prank caller....

    The cops didn't have to shoot an unarmed man from across the street as soon as he opened the door. There is no excuse for that kind of incompetence and stupidity. Their lives were never in danger. They didn't size up the scene properly. And they didn't verify their target - it could have easily been a hostage.

    It's all on the cops.

    1. Re:Oh, no...no...no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The cops were called there by someone claiming to be in need.

      So they shot the first guy who opened the door from across the street, without even attempting to verify their target.

      "Not on the cops", my ass. You're not supposed to open fire without verifying your target, ever. And that goes triple for the police. The police are not supposed to be cowboys who shoot first and ask questions later.

    2. Re:Oh, no...no...no by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So basically, if police gets called to a residence, you think they should have licence to kill literally anyone they come across, even the victim.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    3. Re:Oh, no...no...no by Calydor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Guy comes out. Looks confused. Starts turning - possibly to say something to someone in the house, I don't know. Cops open fire from across the street and from the partial cover of their police cars. Innocent man dies.

      If I am misrepresenting what happened please correct me.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    4. Re:Oh, no...no...no by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      Again, they were told it was a hostage situation. Who gets sent to the door? One of the hostages to be bait or a verbal relay to the BG inside.

      Had it been a real hostage situation we would be hearing a story of where police shot a hostage.

      There's really no way for the cops to look good in this situation.

  9. Re:...state-sanctioned hit squads... by knorthern+knight · · Score: 5, Informative

    > The police had cause to come to the house, they had a call for help
    > and the caller provided an address. This is in effect their warrant.

    Ex-bleeping-scuse me. Police knock on the door, a fat guy in shorts comes to answer it, and a police sniper scores a direct hit on the guy's head, killing him instantly. He was no threat to anybody. *EVEN IF THIS HAD BEEN A REAL HOSTAGE SITUATION*, the hostage taker is more likely to send a hostage to answer the door, than to answer it himself. The trigger-happy asshole who pulled the trigger is just as guilty as Barriss.

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  10. over an $1.50 bet some payed $10 to get back? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 3, Funny

    over an $1.50 bet some payed $10 to get back?
    Maybe over an $100 bet but $1.50???

    1. Re:over an $1.50 bet some payed $10 to get back? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

      Gotta keep it real, yo

    2. Re:over an $1.50 bet some payed $10 to get back? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's not about the money, it's about sending a message!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. I'm old.... by beheaderaswp · · Score: 3

    I remember a time when a gamer saved the life of an elderly gamer by calling an ambulance when he became delirious.

    That might have been in the first year of World of Warcraft. Maybe Dark Age of Camelot. It's been a long time.

    Gamer culture sure has changed,

    --
    Another consultant who stuck it out.

    "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
    1. Re:I'm old.... by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      No. It's just more exposed now. Hell, I can recall people getting into fairly dangerous fights over D&D.

      Flame wars have been around since internet day one (maybe month one). There have been dicks and mentally and socially challenged gamers since early games like WoW, FFS. There are also good people gaming, you just don't hear much about them because, well, they behave.

    2. Re:I'm old.... by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      That's because those of us who were gaming back then mostly grew up prior to the internet. We learned civility through human interaction.

      Today's games in their teens/twenties have been exposed to the internet their whole lives.

      As a society, we're fucked.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    3. Re:I'm old.... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Today he'd probably turn it into a YouTube video named "Listen to the death of this gamer!"

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. Re:...state-sanctioned hit squads... by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The police had cause to come to the house, they had a call for help and the caller provided an address.

    Absolutely. Then they had a call to wonder why the house didn't match the description, why the call didn't actually come in on 911, why the guy at the door seems confused, etc. Too bad they failed that one. Next up, they had the number one rule of shooting, VERIFY YOUR TARGET. They get an EPIC FAIL on that one.

    I don't think it's at all too much to ask that police think before they start shooting so they don't kill people minding their own business in their own homes.

  13. All I can say is GOOD!!! by Chas · · Score: 1

    This kind of shit isn't, and never, EVER should be acceptable.
    This kind of thing needs to be treated with a heavy hand.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  14. Gun control by blindseer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I see a lot of anger in the comments so far directed towards the police, not just the officers in this swat incident but generally. Well, think of this the next time there's another call to hand over all our guns to the government because, "you can just call the police". Well, someone did call the police and, if the comments here are to be believed, the police are incompetent, bloodthirsty, both, or worse.

    Is it too much to ask for both that we don't rely on the police for everything and when they do come that they are competent, intelligent, and well trained? Remember that the police come from the public. If the police officers never saw a gun until they arrive at the academy then they are going to be poorly trained on the proper use of a firearm. We cannot put the gun genie back in the bottle. Guns exist and the world is better for it.

    Let's not forget that, again according to comments here, there is an orangutan in the Oval Office tossing feces all over Twitter. You want him to have all the guns? Remember folks, don't create a government that you are not willing to give to your opposition because your friends might not always be in charge.

    Now, return to your cop bashing.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:Gun control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.

      Odd I live in a society where I don't need to be armed to be free, nor do I worry about police turning up believing I'm a terrible threat such that they'll shoot first and ask questions later.

    2. Re:Gun control by Kohath · · Score: 1

      For the record, I'm not cop bashing, I'm bashing their modern-day policies and attitudes. I want the police to adopt a new attitude of protecting life and serving the public.

    3. Re:Gun control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The reason American cops kill so many people is because they're terrified the targets will have guns.

      Do you know how many people are killed by British police? The number has been going up alarmingly, to 4 last year. Note, that's the total number of deaths of everyone, not just "innocent people". And that's in a very high density population.

      Accept gun control, and the police could start acting like they were in a civilised country.

    4. Re:Gun control by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      Countries where gun ownership is illegal or heavily controlled still manage to produce highly trained armed police officers with very good weapons handling abilities...

      The UK for example has a very well trained armed response program, and gun ownership here is very much an oddity. We also have an extremely well trained and professional army.

      You do not need an armed populace to produce a professional armed police force. What you do need to do is have the police force trained in weapons use - and you should be doing that from scratch regardless of whether your public is allowed to own guns or not.

    5. Re:Gun control by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Accept gun control, and there are still 300 million firearms in the country, half of which are in a small number of hands that aren't going to relinquish them short of house-to-house searches (which will be resisted with lethal force).

      Great idea for making cops feel safer there.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    6. Re:Gun control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot. It's not cop-bashing to demand that these heavily armed thugs stop murdering innocent people at the drop of a hat. Furthermore, your bullshit about police violence and gun control is disingenuous at best.Having millions of guns in circulation in society has not stopped this country's descent into tyranny over the last 20 years (NSA warrantless wiretapping, no fly lists, police militarization, TSA, mass incarceration and all the rest), mainly because fucks like you like those things - if you didn't you would have risen up in arms like you always say you will (LOL) or at very least voted the fuckers who fastened this on us out of office. So don't come to me with your bullshit, OK?

    7. Re:Gun control by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      I'm not saying anything about gun control other than to refute your rather ridiculous assertion that an armed police force *has* to come from an armed populace otherwise they are poorly trained.

      We have never had a gun culture in the UK and yet we have never had an issue training a drafted military force in times of war. Indeed, our police force and military is among the best trained in the world.

      Basically the rest of your post is the same old rant against gun control, and can be tuned out. I'm happy living in a country with gun control.

    8. Re:Gun control by gman003 · · Score: 1

      "Trained, uniformed police officers cannot be trusted with guns, therefore citizens should have access to guns with minimal limit or control". Textbook non sequitur - your conclusion does not follow your premise. Well, maybe it does if you also assume that a counter-government revolution is inevitable in the near future, but that's one HELL of a premise to smuggle in as an assumption.

      Part of the problem is that police have to assume everyone they interact with is potentially armed. They have to show up to the scene ready for someone to burst out the door with a technically-not-an-assault-rifle and fire a dozen rounds before the police would have any chance to respond. Every interaction between armed parties has a risk of devolving into a fight - and that risk persists even if one side is only potentially armed, because the other side can't know that.

      There is a lot of blame that should be placed on police departments. The departments, the institutions, mind, not the individuals - the problem is that the system does not purge itself of bad cops when they are shown to be bad, either incompetent (trigger-happy, ignorant of laws, careless) or malicious. Police need to hold themselves to a higher standard, not defend every bad cop in the name of the thin blue line.

      But even with ideal institutions, an environment where cops have to be ready for a shootout at a second's notice is an inherently dangerous one, one where small mistakes rapidly turn into big ones, with fatal consequences. And so it would further reduce casualties if we had some simple, robust gun control - because that means police, in turn, could reduce their own armaments and level of combat readiness to something less than "just shy of military" and "hair-trigger", respectively.

      I do believe it logically follows that if all parties are less armed, there are wider margins for recovery from errors before things get deadly.

    9. Re:Gun control by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, judging from Europe and how the police works there... maybe the police would still knock on doors if they could expect you to open the door instead of fire when they do?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Gun control by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying anything about gun control other than to refute your rather ridiculous assertion that an armed police force *has* to come from an armed populace otherwise they are poorly trained.

      That's not what I said, and I believe you know that's not what I said. Instead of making an argument against what I said you chose to argue against a straw man.

      We have never had a gun culture in the UK and yet we have never had an issue training a drafted military force in times of war. Indeed, our police force and military is among the best trained in the world.

      A nation without gun control is not wasting police resources in disarming the law abiding public. A nation that allows it's people to own firearms will always have more people to draw from that are already familiar with marksmanship than a nation that does not if there is a need to gather people quickly to fight a war. I have no doubt that UK has a well trained military, only that by disarming the public the military will always be at a disadvantage over nations that don't disarm the public.

      As an example of how an armed American public is better equipped to fight off a nation like the UK that does not allow for private ownership of arms I give a war fought by both nations about 240 years ago. It seems a bunch of farmers with hunting rifles beat what was likely the best trained military in the world at the time.

      Basically the rest of your post is the same old rant against gun control, and can be tuned out. I'm happy living in a country with gun control.

      In other words I speak the truth, it is irrefutable, and you cannot create any coherent argument against it.

      See, I can prop up straw men too. If you believe I can just be "tuned out" then why reply at all? If I'm getting flak then I must be close to the target.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    11. Re:Gun control by p.g.king · · Score: 1

      I haven't laughed so much in ages, please keep it up. Ignoring your ignorance of history of gun controls, that you believe a modern war would be fought based on volumes of troops on the ground shooting at each other is the best entertainment I've had all day. Even more entertaining that you think the public american's experience of firearms is in any way related to the situations and skills required to fight such a war is going to be a massive win. Deluded doesn't even start to describe that view.

    12. Re:Gun control by blindseer · · Score: 1

      So don't come to me with your bullshit, OK?

      You first.

      There will soon come a day when technology renders all gun control laws impossible to enforce, assuming we haven't crossed that line already. You can say that we'd be safer with gun control all you like but when people can just print a machine gun from plans downloaded off the internet there is nothing the government can do to disarm the people ever again.

      Sure, let's dispense with the bullshit. Any gun control law you can think of is meaningless in a time and place where people are as free, educated, and wealthy as Americans are today. If people want to have firearms then they will get them faster than any government could possibly take them away and melt them down into manhole covers. There is no such thing as "common sense gun control" any more because a machine that can mass produce firearms from scrap aluminum can be bought on the internet for a price less than many people spent on their TV set.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    13. Re:Gun control by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Even more entertaining that you think the public american's experience of firearms is in any way related to the situations and skills required to fight such a war is going to be a massive win.

      There's lots of veterans in the USA that are quite familiar with how a modern military fights. If the fit hits the shan then there's going to be plenty of people outside of the military quite capable of waging a war. A wise government will use such resources for its own defense against threats foreign and domestic. An unwise government would be one willing to try to disarm its own people.

      Laugh if you like, that won't change a thing.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    14. Re:Gun control by p.g.king · · Score: 1

      There's lots of veterans in the USA that are quite familiar with how a modern military fights.

      And your point is? This was a discussion about if having many others unskilled serves any useful purpose. Those who are sufficiently versed in the tactics and strategy of modern war (which maybe some of these veterans) will know having a few guns with a larger number of relatively untrained, undisciplined civilians is irrelevant to the way a modern military fights.

      You still see war as men running around pointing guns at each other. That's your problem. The grown men who run around playing pretend soldiers at the weekend, would have little or no impact on a real war.

      And the price you pay for this fantasy of was being these raging guns battles is that you are enslaved to guns, are events like this.

    15. Re:Gun control by alexo · · Score: 1

      I see a lot of anger in the comments so far directed towards the police, not just the officers in this swat incident but generally. Well, think of this the next time there's another call to hand over all our guns to the government because, "you can just call the police".

      Can you?

    16. Re:Gun control by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      First you have to win Congress, and the Senate, and the Presidency, and fill a couple Supreme Court seats currently held by "originalists".

      Then you can start making noise about enacting something that won't just get repealed the next time power changes hands.

      In the meantime, those you're worried about already have their guns. We should too. I'm even willing to give the ammosexuals money rather than buy new. (Not like money will mean much when lead starts flying.)

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  15. Re:...state-sanctioned hit squads... by dryeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The cop shot someone when the someone was not a threat. That should be a murder charge as shooting someone who is not a threat should not be tolerated.
    Had a case up here not long ago where the cop got acquitted of murder as the knife wielding person was a threat. The cop did get convicted of attempted murder for the 6 bullets he put in him after the 2 (3?) that killed the perp. There needs to be more consequences for people misusing and removing peoples freedom to live by misusing firearms.
    You want an armed society, the armed people better be responsible with those arms and in my experience, there are too many who aren't.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  16. false police reports by slothman32 · · Score: 1

    P.S. I put swat in quotes because the games isn't sending a swat, the police are.
    How come the "swatter" isn't charged only for filing a false report?
    The police shouldn't just take any report, anon or not, and assume it is real.
    The police shouldn't SWAT unless it is needed.
    Using the lives are at stake answer doesn't help because the police don't know that, they assume that.
    The weird part is that the gamers can ruin 2 lives, the person killed by the police and the cop who killed him - through remorse.
    He may not even be caught.

    --
    Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
  17. Phone number spoofing by DarylDerksen · · Score: 1

    We can find this guy, but they can't find and stop scam artists in India using the same tech?

  18. I hope this asshat rots in prison. by cshark · · Score: 1

    I don't really have anything to say beyond the subject line.

    --

    This signature has Super Cow Powers

  19. So when are they gonna charge the REAL killers? by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Which in this case beyond a shadow of a doubt are the COPS. They had a dozen guys in full Judge Dredd body armor, AND they were hiding behind their cop cars AND they had MULTIPLE NON LETHAL options from CS to taser to bean bag rounds, against a single dude in a pair of shorts...and they just unloaded on him.

    I'm sorry but it was a straight up execution, pure and simple. They CHOSE to go straight to lethal without even the slightest attempt at hostage negotiation (remember their big excuse is there were supposed to be hostages...so where was the standard hostage negotiation?) or using any of the multiple non lethal options that could have TRIVIALLY ended the situation with zero loss of life.....I'm sorry but they weren't a SWAT team, they were a hit squad.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  20. Re: ...state-sanctioned hit squads... by Your.Master · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Absolutely.

    I think an investigation into murder / manslaughter charges is warranted, but I could my way into a "not guilty" verdict, although I'm leaning guilty (to be clear: I think the SWATter bears more guilt because they had malicious intent, this cop was "just" criminally reckless but did not intend to hurt innocents).

    However, this person has demonstrated without any doubt that they cannot be trusted with the power of life and death. The default should be to permanently bar him from police duty and similar (like guard duty), and (I know this is somehow controversial in some parts) remove his right to carry firearms. And reversing either of those decisions should require an extraordinary demonstration of why he can now be trusted not to accidentally kill innocents.

  21. Re: STUPID americans by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    The solutions discovered anywhere else in the world don't apply to exceptional america.

    I don't think that an insanely high violent crime rate is a "solution", but you're welcome to have it and be as proud of it as you like. As for me I would much rather have a 1 in 10 million chance of being shot by a cop than a 1 in 100,000 chance of being stabbed to death in a robbery.

  22. I'm guessing the Swatter made a deal by huckamania · · Score: 1

    His pleading out means he was the first to turn. The other two will now have the full weight of law thrown at them and he will get a reduced sentence. Unfortunately that is the state of criminal justice in the USA. The person who is most responsible will get a better deal then the other two morons in the story, one of whom was the intended victim.