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.

Comments

The adults of this civilization

[Anonymous Coward]

just made it very clear to the children of this civilization: DON'T SWAT PEOPLE

That is all.

Re:The adults of this civilization

[gravewax]

Just wait and watch. You will see an inundation of posts defending this guy and how he didn't do anything wrong and it is all the swat teams fault. The reality is if you arrange for loaded guns to be pointed at people eventually something WILL go disastrously wrong.

Re:The adults of this civilization

[ShanghaiBill]

You will see an inundation of posts defending this guy and how he didn't do anything wrong and it is all the swat teams fault.

Nobody is defending him. What he did was clearly wrong.

But what the SWAT team did was also clearly wrong. They gunned down an innocent person based on nothing but an anonymous phone call.

The prank caller isn't the only one who should be going to prison.

Re: The adults of this civilization

[meerling]

He has intentionally, and multiple times, sent armed men with a penchant for shooting first to go and invade some innocent persons home EXPECTING to find violent criminals!

So if someone throws molotov cocktails into peoples windows and somebody dies of smoke inhilation or is burned to death, or just maimed by fire (If you've seen what the scars from 3rd degree burns are like you'd understand why survivors of them are considered maimed) you think they should just have a few hundred hours of community service?

He was knowingly and intentionally putting many peoples lives at severe risk!

It's not like it's any secret that the police prefer to shoot first and lie about it later whenever they think their target has so much as a rubber band.

That scum is getting off light in my opinion.

Re:The adults of this civilization

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the police he was gunned down because he did a suspicious move - a move he was ordered not to do.

The cost was his life. That's a huge price to pay. So, you have to wonder why an innocent man would gamble on paying that price for no reason. There are a few possibilities. One is that the police are simply lying about how it went down: they went in amped up and scared for their own lives and someone took a shot before assessing the situation. One is that the guy just happened to be suicidal or a nihilist and didn't care about living or dying, so just decided to take the opportunity to die... this one seems to be pretty unlikely. Another is that the police barged in, guns drawn, with multiple officers screaming and yelling incomprehensibly and the guy didn't know what to do and, while one officer was yelling at him to stand still, and another was telling him to get against the wall, he got shot by whichever one of them he didn't obey. The next is similar, but rather than just failing to obey, he failed to understand that the black clad commandos bursting into his home with guns were police because their muffled screaming was, once again, incomprehensible in the very brief time he had to react, so he tried to run, or ask what was going on, or hide under something, or maybe even to to find a weapon to defend himself. I would say that one of the last two is very likely it.

The simple fact is that failure to obey a police officer is nonsense. Have you ever watched them try to direct traffic? When it's anything complex, it's generally a disaster. Partly because people just don't understand their signals all the time often because the hand signals get pretty lazy and vague after a while. I've seen plenty of raging cops screaming at people in cars who clearly simply couldn't understand their directions. I've been in the situation of not knowing what to do when a police officer stepped up next to my car (when it was already moving at about twenty five miles an hour) to give a hand signal that looked like maybe a stop. I didn't know if he meant me or just the traffic behind me. So, I stopped, but I couldn't stop instantaneously, so I ended up about thirty feet ahead of him with him standing behind my car, giving me a patented police officer death stare in the mirror. No signals, no words, no approaching my car, or turning to the traffic behind him, just standing there death glaring, apparently expecting me to understand what he was trying to communicate, if anything. After about thirty seconds I tried a little gas to see what he would do, and he just stood there staring. So I went ahead and drove off. But anyway, this seems to be how police officers communicate. They expect you to be telepathic and to know their commands even if they don't actually give them. One order over a scratching megaphone that no-one in a crowd can understand, and the order has been given, and they can start firing teargas if the crowd doesn't comply. For that matter, when they give an order to a crowd that's half a mile wide from the edge, they'll hold everyone in the crowd accountable for following the order that's been given. Give a public order at 5 PM, someone who didn't even arrive until six gets their head cracked for not obeying.

That's one of the fundamentals of the authoritarian viewpoint. It's self-centered. It's not just that their word is law. It's natural law. Once given, it's a force of nature that all matter must bend to. Everyone must have heard and understood, because only the authoritarians ego is real and everyone else is just an extension of that. This is a little hyperbolic, but seems like the only way to understand how incidents where the police are claiming that an innocent person decided to just throw their life away and disobey the orders of someone who is prepared to kill them if they do. If you'll recall, another popular refrain of the authoritarian set is that harsher and harsher punishments are required to make people compliant to the law. If they truly believe that h

Re:The adults of this civilization

[meerling]

He's not an easy fall guy, he's the guy who decided to use a seriously flawed system to knowingly put innocent lives in extreme risk for pocket change and giggles.
Both are messed up, and for different reasons.
By the way, the cop that murdered the guy got off scott free.
So as many people have pointed out, there's more than one person guilty, and that in no way reduces the culpability of anyone involved in this travesty, but of course, cops are almost never punished at all, even when you have the video evidence that they lied and murdered a harmless and innocent person. Too bad we don't have the video evidence for this, not that it would likely help obtain justice.

Re:The adults of this civilization

[Applehu Akbar]

You're fucked

Sorry folks, but the Brailsford case caused me lose every scrap of respect I once had for the police.

Re: The adults of this civilization

[ZorroXXX]

So what you are saying is that if someone disables the breaks on your car as a "prank", and you get killed because of that, they should not have to go to jail because it was just a prank, right?

Re:The adults of this civilization

[stealth_finger]

According to the police he was gunned down because he did a suspicious move - a move he was ordered not to do.

Unless that move involved lifting a gun of his own in a threatening manner then why shoot. Do you really think its ok for police to be able to murder anything they deem a POTENTIAL threat and then have to do no more than say that they felt threatened?

Re:The adults of this civilization

[Interfacer]

Actually, if you think that something like that (causing terror and potential life threatening harm) is for giggles, then yes, that makes you messed up.
'what does this button do' type of things are stupid and reckless.
'I know it is dangerous and traumatizing to the targets, but I really don't give a damn.' is messed up

And if it then results in death, then a long prison sentence IS warranted because he knew fully well what the end result of a swatting can be. It is really no different from playing Russian roulette with someone else's head. And he knew it.

Re: The adults of this civilization

[crypticedge]

It's not a prank call. It's filing a false police report with malicious intent to cause harm.

A prank call is asking someone if their refrigerator is running.

This guy made multiple bomb threats and tried to use the swat team to attack someone over being beaten in a video game. He deserves the prison time, and if anything 20 years is too low for the criminal maliciousness that he's displayed.

Re:The adults of this civilization

[crypticedge]

Sending armed invaders into anothers home over being beaten in a game isn't "for giggles", it's an act of terrorism.

Re: The adults of this civilization

[Nidi62]

On top of that, the cops already have their guns out and aimed. Unless the guy is a quick draw expert (and those people train for precise distances and angles), they have plenty of time to verify he is actually pulling a firearm and then shoot him before he can get a shot off in their direction. At best (worst), he gets a shot off that goes right into the ground.

Re:The adults of this civilization

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

But what the SWAT team did was also clearly wrong. They gunned down an innocent person based on nothing but an anonymous phone call.

The prank caller isn't the only one who should be going to prison.

I've come to the conclusion that here in the USA we'll almost never see police held accountable for this kind of thing. There was an episode of South Park where there were major hunting restrictions so to get around them, Jimbo and Ned said "It's coming right at us!" and shot any animal they wanted to. Cops can unfortunately do the same thing. All they have to do is say "I was scared for my life" in court and it seems like about 90% of the time they walk. I can promise you if the police in this case ever go to trial - and I said "if" - that they will just say they were scared and they'll probably walk. There's nothing I can do about juries. They seem inclined to just let the cops kill anybody they want to if they say they were scared.

That's great but...

[Lord Kano]

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

Re: That's great but...

[astrofurter]

"why in the hell aren't the police facing the same charges?"

Because cops are above the law, obviously.

Re: That's great but...

[meerling]

Because of the "Blue Shield".
In short, cops protect cops, and the prosecutors who decide what cases to prosecute are complicit in this conspiracy due to their working closely with the police and seeing them as their allies and aids.
After who's going to arrest the cops?

Re:That's great but...

[dwillden]

They were responding to a report of a dangerous armed individual. They went in ready for action. They have to. They go in half-assed and they die. Their job isn't to die, it's to deal with a supposedly armed and dangerous person who had as per the call, already killed someone. Also at the time SWATTING was still a new phenomenon, police depts. didn't have protocols in place to even assume it might be a hoax. This incident and a couple others have changed that. But at the time they had no reason to not believe the caller and had to treat the threat as very real.

Thus to protect their lives and the lives of innocents living around the home in question they had to go in ready to fire without hesitation. This is fully and entirely on the person who called in the report. The officer, by the very nature of the job had to be ready to fire in an instant, without hesitation. Unfortunately the victim did something that caused the offer's finger to move. The officer has to live with knowing it was an innocent man. But the blame is not on the officer who was just doing what he had to do based on the situation as he then knew it.

We frequently make the mistake of judging the actions of police officers based on information found out after the event. We fail to recognize that the officer isn't operating on our hyper-focused 20/20 look back after the facts have all been investigated. He's there on a call of a dangerous man who has already killed others. That's really all he has to go on, he has to be ready to react to that situation and that situation alone. If he goes in assuming anything else and the situation is exactly as reported, his hesitation could get other innocents killed.

ALL of the Blame and Guilt rests on the hoax caller, who based on his record of such calls should be facing far more than 20 years. Every call he made had this potential outcome, every single one. He deserves 20 for this one and 10 for every other call where the victim managed to not do something to draw fire.

Re: That's great but...

[dwillden]

No, it's because the officers had no reason to believe the situation was not what the caller said. They had to be ready to act in an instant to stop a madman bent on killing others. If the situation was as reported and they hesitate at the wrong moment innocents die. Their job is to try to stop that from happening and that requires split second decisions and reactions based on what was only determined AFTER THE FACT to be a false report.

The Officer will live with this guilt for the rest of his life. He didn't take the job to kill an innocent man, but to serve and protect the innocent. But he had to act on the information he had and the reactions of the real victim were such that he felt he needed to fire.

Blame the caller, he's the one at fault. He and only he is truly guilty in this tragic death.

Re: That's great but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Some noble points, if made with a bad attitude, but noble none the less.

What isn't happening here though is this:

but what people like you seem to want is open season on the people who selflessly defend us.

We're discussing an officer who shot an unarmed civilian here. The police have no more right to fire on a person than any of the rest of us do. 'he made a movement!' isn't a clear or present enough danger for me to fire on someone else, the same should apply to the authorities.

Gunning down an unarmed person isn't 'selflessly defending us'. It's overreacting to your own fear and it would land any of the rest of us in jail.

Re:That's great but...

[drinkypoo]

They were responding to a report of a dangerous armed individual.

If they assumed that the report was genuine, when we know they often are not, then the police are at fault.

They went in ready for action.

If the action they went in for was murder instead of conflict resolution, then the police are at fault.

They go in half-assed and they die.

They went in half-assed and murdered someone, and it was their fault.

Also at the time SWATTING was still a new phenomenon

No, it wasn't. It had already been going on for years and the term was already well-known in the news media. If the police can't be bothered to keep up with what is happening with the people they are supposed to be policing, then the police are at fault.

This incident and a couple others have changed that. But at the time they had no reason to not believe the caller and had to treat the threat as very real.

No, they didn't, and the fact that they treated the report as if it were true without doing any investigation is the reason they were at fault.

Even if swatting were not already a thing, lying is part of human nature and if they ignore that fact, it makes it their fault.

Thus to protect their lives and the lives of innocents living around the home in question they had to go in ready to fire without hesitation.

They went in ready to fire without hesitation, and consequently murdered a man, which is why it's their fault.

This is fully and entirely on the person who called in the report.

Only the false report is on his head. The shooting was committed by the officer, who pulled the trigger. That's why it's his fault.

Unfortunately the victim did something that caused the offer's finger to move.

This is where you really go fully insane. That's not how it works. The only link between the motion of the victim and the murderer pulling the trigger existed in the murderer's mind. That's why the police are at fault.

The officer has to live with knowing it was an innocent man.

No, he doesn't. He can also die. I'm not really calling for that, because I don't believe in the death penalty whether it's the law of the land or not. The only time it's acceptable to kill someone is when it's to prevent harm to another, and there's no better way to prevent it. That's why it's the fault of the police.

But the blame is not on the officer who was just doing what he had to do based on the situation as he then knew it.

The officer was in a covered, supported position across the street where he couldn't see what was happening in a dark doorway, and he opened fire when there was no clear and present danger to any persons, which is why he is at fault. The police created this situation by failing to cover his doorway with a sniper who could see into the doorway with his narrow optics, and who should have been the only person to even have a finger on a trigger. Those of us who actually know how to handle guns properly know that you don't put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot something. But cops have shit muzzle and trigger discipline on a level that would literally get them kicked out of a real military organization, not their toy soldiers in blue bullshit, and he was aiming the weapon at someone who was not a danger and had his finger on the trigger as well. That's negligence by any reasonable measurement, and that's why the police are at fault.

The very first time I got pulled over, literally for nothing, I had two cops point guns in my face with fingers on triggers. It's this kind of illegal and unethical behavior that leads to accidental police shootings, for which the police are at fault. And cops engage in it every day in this cou

Hi, both swatters and cops are bad. You're welcome

[OwP_Fabricated]

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.