Slashdot Mirror
Man Pleads Guilty To Swatting Attack That Led To Death of Kansas Man (arstechnica.com)
Federal prosecutors in Kansas announced Tuesday that a 25-year-old Californian has admitted that he caused a Wichita man to be killed at the hands of local police during a swatting attack late last year. Ars Technica reports: According to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Kansas, Tyler Barriss pleaded guilty to making a false report resulting in a death, cyberstalking, and conspiracy. He also admitted that he was part of "dozens of similar crimes in which no one was injured." In May 2018, Barriss was indicted on county charges (manslaughter) and federal charges, which include cyberstalking and wire fraud, among many others. U.S. Attorney Stephen McAllister said in a Tuesday statement that Barriss would be sentenced to at least 20 years in prison. Barriss also was involved in calling in a bomb threat to the Federal Communications Commission in December 2017 to disrupt a vote on net neutrality rules. The 25-year-old Californian is scheduled to be sentenced on January 30, 2019, in federal court in Wichita.
just made it very clear to the children of this civilization: DON'T SWAT PEOPLE
That is all.
Is this just a US thing?
why in the hell aren't the police facing the same charges?
They are the ones who pulled the trigger(s) and ended this person's life.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The bomb threats to the FCC were done by Ajit Pai himself ?
Just goes to show hate makes you stupid.
This guy needs to be locked up!!
But not left alone, he should be made to suffer the same thing his victims have.. they need to use him as the swat team practise raid bunny!! And the only time off he gets is when they are raiding that other fuckwit that thought swatting is a good idea...
As soon as punishments become more inline with crimes then we might see some change..
And no more hiding this shit behind kids being kids they know people die cuz of this sort of thing therefore they know better!!!
Yep.
I have no sympathy for this parasite, he deserves ever minute of a 20-year sentence, but my very first thought was "coerced" when I read the headline.
There's no way this loud-mouth was going to plead guilty all by himself.
The US "justice" system has got plea-bargaining and coercion down to a fine art. It's wrong. It needs to change.
No sig today...
So the problem is the idiot who called the "death squad"? Not the actual people who went in shooting with out asking questions first?
Wasn't he bragging about all the swattings he's called in and saying he'd continue to make them? Or was that someone else? It isn't hard to believe he'd plead guilty after confessing and with easily traceable phone logs. His loud-mouth is exactly one of the main reasons he should plead guilty.
Heh. I think you're an idiot, but sure, get rid of plea bargains so that we can lock up these kinds of retards for life instead of having them plea for 20 years.
See how STUPID "ZIP" (Zach I. Patterson) CHIMP is (taking credit for what I solved before him) https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... (he needs to LEARN TO READ)!
I even SHOW ways to do it YOURSELF https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... (he couldn't).
Delphi/FreePascal/ObjectPascal HAS no issue w/ null-term'd string bufferoverflows - C does, C++ can UNLESS you do what I said 1st loser.
Tell us about CODE SIGNING (which has been STOLEN & ABUSED) https://www.helpnetsecurity.co... MY METHOD CAN'T BE (upmodded +2 INTERESTING in CODING FOR DEFCON no less) https://it.slashdot.org/commen...
"I'm a much better programmer than APK" - by Anonymous Coward ZIP on Monday October 08, 2018 @11:27PM (#57449082) FROM https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... yet nothing to show in programs. I can from registered /.ers liking/using/praising my work (& 100k users worldwide too). He can't.
LIAR ZIP says he has no account "I don't have an account, so I don't have mod points" https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
Yet LIAR ZIP says he downmods my posts (IMPOSSIBLE MINUS AN ACCOUNT on /.): "I down-modded a few of your post on other threads" - by Anonymous Coward "ZIP" on Thursday October 11, 2018 @11:31AM (#57461058) FROM https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...
KEEP PLAYING PUSSY GAMES IMPERSONATING ME YOU CHIMP - this comes out every time, lol!
APK
P.S.=> KEEP PLAYING PUSSY GAMES IMPERSONATING ME YOU CHIMP - this comes out every time, lol!... apk
c6gunner CAUGHT impersonating me (his name's the submitter signing "APK") https://linux.slashdot.org/com... & you ALTERED /.ers PRAISE of my work (not yours you don't even HAVE).
* ALL because he tried to INSULT me 2 posts parent prior to it & in the one before it I merely asked to PROVE he did better - he cannot (don't throw stones if you live in a GLASS HOUSE chump & RESPECT YOUR BETTERS (me)).
APK
P.S.=> KEEP PLAYING PUSSY GAMES IMPERSONATING ME YOU CHIMP - this comes out every time, lol!... apk
I was expecting a teenager, not a 25 year old. I guess the masses are asses, so people will always do stupid stuff.
If you stalinist assholes had to win a conviction in a legitimate trial by a jury of the defendant's peers, you wouldn't even be bringing this case.
Shiiiit, slaver bro, if you couldn't just force people to "confess" to whatever charges you pull out of your ass, you might have to start focusing on REAL criminals! Can you even imagine that?
What about the mother fuckers that actually shot the guy? They should have a longer sentence.
The guy was guilty as sin and admitted it to try and get less than the max sentence. What's the point in wasting time and money on a trial by jury to determine if someone did what they have admitted to doing?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
He publicly admitted doing this before, and iirc he also bragged about this one but even if he didn't, there was enough proof that he did this.
So he gets to choose: take a jury trial when there is absolutely no reasonable doubt, with enough evidence that he was a long term asshole, and possibly get a life sentence. Or take a plea deal and settle for 20.
In his case, taking the 20 was probably the best choice because a trial would in all likelihood have resulted in a guilty verdict and longer sentence.
If his confession was coerced any halfway competent attorney will have him out on the street in a minute. He did it, he confessed, and they confirmed it by his call logs.
And you have no idea what a Gulag is. Even if we do imprison too many people (That is changing with the elimination of mandatory minimums for minor drug possession). Our prisons are five star hotels compared to the Gulags..
The cops murdered that dude. White lives matter!
Give em hell, APK!
ALL HAIL APK!!!!
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
You might want to read up on how plea bargains work before you call him an idiot. Usually the plea bargain process works by charging somebody with trumped up charges to scare them. Then they'll offer you a "bargain" which would still be extremely severe under what the law could actually punish you for. You'll likely accept it, because okay, yeah, there's no way that stealing that candy bar could possibly be 1st degree murder, but that's what they've charged you with, and what if the jury convicts you for it? Juries do tend to be biased against the defendant.
(And yes, this was hyperbole, typically the 1st degree murder charges come for crimes that are obviously manslaughter, stealing a candy bar would probably be charged with felony theft).
You're right - who needs jury trials, anyways? That whole Sixth Amendment thing was a huge mistake. We can always trust cops to tell the whole truth, and we can totally trust prosecutors never to abuse their power. Everyone knows rubber stamp kangaroo courts and a really massive gulag 95% full of people who "confessed" are the hallmarks of legitimate government.
In short, who needs Freedom - free-dumb-shmee-dumb - when we could save a couple bucks AND fill up the gulag even faster!?
If it's such an open-and-shut case, why are you slavers soooooo afraid of a jury trial? Afraid maybe a jury wouldn't see it the way you do? Afraid maybe the jury would see the cop who actually shot the guy as the real murderer?
It's that simple.
The swatter is a piece of shit who should go to jail for basically sending a squad of armed police to someone's house on a false report.
The cops are pieces of shit because they have no fucking discipline and shoot people at the drop of a hat. People seem to have a really hard time understanding this but "Getting home to their family" is NOT the job of a cop.
If you choose to be a cop, you're an arm of the government. You have been invested with the coercive force of the government- you are far, far different from a regular civilian worker. Your job isn't to protect yourself first- it's to protect everyone else. That's the cost of your privileges. You are literally being paid to hesitate a moment longer to make sure you don't murder an innocent civilian because if they turn out to NOT be so innocent you are legally authorized to kill them if need be in a way that a civilian is not. If you get killed because of that hesitation, that's the fucking gig. Either deal with that possibility or don't be a cop.
For those of us not in Yankeeland and with English as a second language, this sounds as if the guy were doing something obnoxious with a flyswatter.
Jury trials are for when people plead innocent. A jury doesn't decide what happens to a person just if they are guilty or not (beyond reasonable doubt at least). When everyone agrees a person is guilty why does that need to go to a jury? Lying cops and aggressive prosecutors don't do juries any favours at all.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
if shots are being fired, hide (unless its a bank)
if no shots are heard and it looks more peaceful than a sunday picnic, break in and shoot someone in the face
don't forget the "Tough on Crime" voters. Most prosecutors have political ambitions (sorta like how most 7-11 clerks have musical ambitions). Prosecuting cops is bad optics. It'll bite you when you run for office.
If you want to hold police accountable you need to do away with Tough on Crime politics. It's a blind ideology that says anything that hurts criminals must be good. They're voters who don't think, they feel. You need to reach these voters and get them to consider the impacts of their voting decisions.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
https://www.star-telegram.com/...
You cannot make up a story to get someone else to shoot someone (who reasonably felt the need to). It is all about intent.
And I 100% guarantee that anti-police internet tough guys are the first motherfuckers to cry "where the fuck are the police" when they need them.
Just saying.
A YOutuber by the name of Beau of the Fifth Column has some great videos on reasonable gun control.
One of the videos talks about a 61 year old man who was shot by police who came to take his guns away after he was declared a risk to the community. The cops came at 5am. They did that because it's a military tactic. You're showing up while the target is waking up and likely to be disoriented. It's a tactic you use when you're showing up to kill your target.
And that's the problem. Police are using military tactics meant for lethal force without thinking about it. They adopted Military tactics because that's "Tough on Crime" without having the training or understanding of what those tactics _mean_. This is why you don't militarize your police.
For the record his solution was to have the police pull the guy over while he's out and about (similar to what was suggested for the leader of the Branch Dividians), take him to a hearing and have a hearing then and there to determine if he's a threat to the community. Seemed like an OK compromise.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
police are not government, theye are lex merchantoria.
They could easily up it to felony murder - depraved indifference, swatting fits its definition perfectly.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
...than one innocent. From star trek, of course: SISKO: You're damned right you should've checked. You knew there were civilian ships in the area. You fired at something you hadn't identified. You made a military decision to protect your ship and crew, but you're a Starfleet officer, Worf. We don't put civilians at risk or even potentially at risk to save ourselves. Sometimes that means we lose the battle and sometimes our lives. But if you can't make that choice, then you can't wear that uniform.
I find it interesting that soldiers are held to a higher standard than cops and failing to follow protocol can lead to war crimes whereas a cop murdering someone results in nothing because the cop was "afraid". Soldier have to identify a target as a combative whereas cops can simply shoot first and ask questions later for there own "safety". The way things are it make no sense to me. A professional should be trained and held to a higher standard than a homeowner defending his property. At the same time this problem of fake calls isn't new and the failure here is in the system. The blame is mostly on our government officials and how they are trained and react and that of law enforcement in general to such situations. I think a sentence for swatting and any related acts which constitute crimes during the commission of crimes of this level or of a lesser nature should not result in a prison sentence of more than 5 years. I think after a sentence has been served should an crime of this nature be committed again the same or slightly harsher sentence may be warranted. The death is on the police. The danger posed should have been minimal and so I don't feel I can reasonably hold this man responsible for the death.
While I don't think it was wise for this man to do what he did I do think he deserves a defense. We don't get down to the real problems if we simply lock up every perpetrator of crime without considering why people act the way they do and tailor our responses in proactive ways to said reasons. We need to prioritize helping the people doing the victimizing in many if not most cases if we want to reduce the harms. Everything from prank calls to thefts, drugs, and sex crimes.
I would argue that having victims under some circumstances is actually a good thing for a variety of reasons. There are people who benefit from the harms and those people shouldn't necessarily be looked at as evil and beyond reproach. Even someone who is willing to harm another to one degree or another for the benefit of themselves may outweigh the harm caused or otherwise create a positive reduction in the overall harm created by others in society. The alternative can be that more people get harmed to a greater degree and no benefits exist for either victim nor harmer by outlawing less harms for instance. Take pornography for example. Some may argue that pornography is harmful to the person or persons involved in its production. Lets assume this is true. Is it more harmful than rape? I doubt anybody thinks being a victim of porn where that porn is created by consensual adults creating pornography for commercial benefit to themselves is more harmful than being a victim of a violent rape. If pornography is harmful in this moralist view, but it reduces violent rapes substantially (and it does statistically) it makes sense to encourage a healthy porn industry even where one thinks the production of porn is creating a victim.
20 years, minimum
Ha ha!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Can he escape the penis or penises which will now be searching for a home in his tookas?
Actually, in some jurisdictions, juries do determine sentencing. But otherwise you're spot-on.
Astrofurter has obviously got some sort of personal issue happening here.
The stalinist asshole hasn't got a real argument, so he brings in an ad hominem. Look at this loser: he hates freedom, but he can't even explain why.