Slashdot Mirror
FBI Arrests Three More Men Who Hired 'SWAT' Perpetrator (nbcnews.com)
"Three men allegedly conspired with admitted 'swatter' Tyler Barriss to make hoax reports of bombs and murders to police departments, high schools and a convention center across the United States, according to three indictments unsealed today," reports America's Department of Justice.
An anonymous reader quotes NBC News: The three people charged -- Neal Patel, 23, of Des Plaines, Illinois; Tyler Stewart, 19, of Gulf Breeze, Florida; and Logan Patten, 19, of Greenwood, Missouri -- are not accused in the "swatting" call allegedly made by another man that preceded the police shooting of Andrew Finch, a 28, in Wichita on Dec. 28, 2017. But they are accused of asking the suspect in the fatal Kansas case, Tyler Barriss, through Twitter direct messages to make false reports of bombs or threats of shootings that would trigger a law enforcement response and the evacuation of buildings against other targets, including a high school and a Dallas video game tournament....
Patel allegedly conspired with Barriss to make false reports to police in Milford, Connecticut, in December of 2017, and to make a false bomb threat targeting a video game convention in Dallas, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California in Los Angeles. Stewart is accused of conspiring with Barriss to make two false bomb threats about a high school in Gurnee, Illinois, in early December of 2017, and Patten is charged with hiring Barriss to "swat" people in Indiana and Ohio, also in December of 2017, and of scheming with Barriss to "swat" a high school in Missouri, according to prosecutors.
After this week's arrests, the three men each face up to 15 years in federal prison. Patel allegedly also used "unauthorized" credit cards to pay Barriss -- and now faces two more bank fraud charges which each carry up to 30 years in federal prison.
The article also notes that the 25-year-old who actually made the calls -- and the call which led to a fatal shooting in Wichita -- "has agreed to serve a sentence of between 20 and 25 years in federal prison." And the two gamers involved in the dispute which led to that shooting have also been criminally charged.
An anonymous reader quotes NBC News: The three people charged -- Neal Patel, 23, of Des Plaines, Illinois; Tyler Stewart, 19, of Gulf Breeze, Florida; and Logan Patten, 19, of Greenwood, Missouri -- are not accused in the "swatting" call allegedly made by another man that preceded the police shooting of Andrew Finch, a 28, in Wichita on Dec. 28, 2017. But they are accused of asking the suspect in the fatal Kansas case, Tyler Barriss, through Twitter direct messages to make false reports of bombs or threats of shootings that would trigger a law enforcement response and the evacuation of buildings against other targets, including a high school and a Dallas video game tournament....
Patel allegedly conspired with Barriss to make false reports to police in Milford, Connecticut, in December of 2017, and to make a false bomb threat targeting a video game convention in Dallas, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California in Los Angeles. Stewart is accused of conspiring with Barriss to make two false bomb threats about a high school in Gurnee, Illinois, in early December of 2017, and Patten is charged with hiring Barriss to "swat" people in Indiana and Ohio, also in December of 2017, and of scheming with Barriss to "swat" a high school in Missouri, according to prosecutors.
After this week's arrests, the three men each face up to 15 years in federal prison. Patel allegedly also used "unauthorized" credit cards to pay Barriss -- and now faces two more bank fraud charges which each carry up to 30 years in federal prison.
The article also notes that the 25-year-old who actually made the calls -- and the call which led to a fatal shooting in Wichita -- "has agreed to serve a sentence of between 20 and 25 years in federal prison." And the two gamers involved in the dispute which led to that shooting have also been criminally charged.
No it is not clueless bitch.
These little psychos need to be very publicly judged.
KILL YOURSELF NOW.
PP needs to commit Sudoku.
Have gnu, will travel.
That's a separate issue and has no bearing on these twerps doing jail time.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Being in a position of authority and murdering someone: wrist slap.
Showing the people how dangerous and out of control the authorities are: 20 years in prison.
This will really drive that point home:
Trumpâ(TM)s CFPB Fines a Man $1 For Swindling Veterans
This guy broke numerous laws while making predatory loans to veterans and, not only did he not get jail time, the amount of his fine was reduced to $1 when he said he couldn't afford it.
When poor people can't pay a traffic ticket or court fine, they go to jail. The wealthy and their cronies? They pay $1 and walk away.
Isn't putting someone in PRISON for 20 years just because they made a phone call pretty much the definition of censorship?
Congratulations, you win the Dumbest Comment Award on Slashdot today!
"Hey, I just wanted to rob a bank and those dirty cops denied me the right to express myself with a gun and a mask!"
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I'd call an ambulance -- cops hurt people, EMTs save lives.
No, I'm not "better than this." The cop who shot deserves to rot in prison or get the gas chamber.
30 Years in prison for using an unauthorized credit card. Explain how this is not a tyrannical government ?
here's a great video on the subject of police militarization.
TL;DW, the military has weapons meant for killing people and don't understand when/why not to use them.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
EMTs don't generally go into active shooter situations. It's not a good idea.
Manslaughter is very much a jailable offense under US law. Of course, the stinking cop won't go to prison, because Americans have a fetish for people who wear uniforms (cop or military, same trash basket).
You call it "just because they made a phone call"; most sane people call it first degree murder (with the attendant mens rea requirement).
You can debate if 20 years is enough punishment for a first-degree murder, but let's start with a correct premise.
If I may say, censorship is typically the prevention of free speech, and involves "prior restraint". In this case, it's punishment after the fact for fraudulent speech with foreseeably lethal consequences. Similarly, for the other fraudsters, it is not censorship. It's punishment for fraud.
No, it's not a dumb comment. A little naive maybe, but certainly not dumb.
He's right, it is censorship. The very definition of it, in fact.
No, it really is a dumb comment. Why?
The unrelated hypothetical situation that he asked about and you are now talking about is just that - an unrelated hypothetical situation.
Prison time for making a phone call *would be* censorship. Driving over the speed limit *would be* a traffic violation too.
The fact both of those are true means what exactly?
Neither have *anything* to do with the case at hand, the story, the article, the situation, or what is happening. Not one damn thing.
So why is anon up above bothering to point out this unrelated off topic bullshit?
Either out of ignorance of how the law works, which in shorthand is labeled as dumb, or they are intentionally spreading misinformation to confuse the issue, which is far worse than dumb as it is actively malicious and would be deserving of far worse labels than just "dumb"
No one is going to prison here for making a phone call.
They are going to prison because *their actions* resulted in the death of another person.
Attempting to kill someone, successful or not, is a crime. Talking about it or using the phone about it has no bearing on that fact, the talking about it wasn't the crime, and having talked about it or NOT talked about it wouldn't change anything regarding the actual crime. It really is completely irrelevant to the prison time even if anyone had claimed talking about it was illegal - which of course no one actually has done.
In fact absolutely NOTHING about what this kid has said or expressed has even been questioned as not legal. So it isn't even an interesting talking point!
"Breaking news! A thing that wasn't a crime was never mentioned in court!" No, that is just how things work and how they should work... and how they are working.
Notice they didn't bring up any traffic violations either? That's because even if there was a traffic violation that happened, it too wouldn't be involved, any more than censorship is if that was brought up. Which I can't stress enough - it wasn't ever brought up!
The GP anon's post was equally as dumb as if someone were to ask "Isn't 20 years in prison a bit much for a traffic violation?" and for exactly all the same reasons.
Worse, Roger Stone didn't have to put up a penny to get out on bond.
-a.e.mossberg
No.
Technically it is not censorship because censorship is the suppression of speech. Punishing someone because of the consequence of the speech is not suppression.
You could argue that it has a chilling effect on speech by others. However it is not *political* censorship. It is censorship in the sense that punishing defamation or criminal threats is "censorship".
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Censorship has a very specific definition. The government can easily infringe your first amendment rights through methods other than censorship. There can also be censorship that does not violate the first amendment.
Censorship is a system wherein censors view and edit speech before it can be seen by the public. You will never read or hear something that has been censored. The job of the censor is to block things the government doesn't want you to see or hear.
If someone gets it trouble after they say something, such as violating federal law by fraudulently pumping their stock price via posting material falae statements about the company they are the CEO of, they could make a first amendment argument (and probably lose). It's not censorship by definition because nobody prevented the speech.
Censorship:
The government edits the news broadcast before it is broadcast.
Not censorship, a different violation of freedom of speech:
The state of New York fines a broadcaster for being critical of Socialist House rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Is censorship, is not a violation of the first amendment:
Facebook blocks all posts mentioning Colin Powell.
Not censorship and not a violation of the first amendment:
People who conspire to call in false bomb threats get in trouble.
"Isn't putting someone in PRISON for 20 years just because they made a phone call pretty much the definition of censorship?"
No, they go to prison because they were too stupid to buy a throwaway phone with cash and send the SWAT team themselves before dumping the phone.
It is first-degree murder under the felony murder rule, which is recognized in some form or another by all fifty states, the federal government and just about every other government in the world. It works like this: If you plan to commit a felony, then commit that felony and, in the process of committing that felony or as a result of that felony, someone dies, you have committed first-degree murder. If you commit a felony on a whim (that is, you didn't plan to commit it ahead of time), and someone dies during the commission of the felony or as a result, then you have committed second-degree murder. That's how it works.
Now, let's look at the Tyler Barriss SWATting: Barriss talked with other people about making a fraudulent 911 call and then made that fraudulent 911 call. Making a fraudulent 911 call is a crime, and can be a felony under federal anti-terrorism laws. Since the 911 call-center was in Kansas, and Barriss was in California, federal law applies. Talking about it ahead of time is also called planning and is, of and in itself, a crime called conspiracy, which can be a felony. Since Barriss has been convicted of these crimes before*, they can and should be charged as felonies, and Barriss committed those felonies. Someone died as a result of those felonies. Thus, under the felony murder rule, Barriss has committed first-degree murder. Thought I'd let you know,
* Crimes which can be charged as either a felony or a misdemeanor, with no difference between elements of the crime, such as conspiracy, misuse of emergency systems, retail fraud, simple assault, etc, are typically charged as misdemeanors on the first (and sometimes, second) offense, and as felonies on subsequent offenses. This is how people get charged with felonies for minor things like shoplifting (aka retail fraud).
No, it's not a dumb comment. A little naive maybe, but certainly not dumb.
If that's "naive" I'd hate to see what someone has to say to qualify for "dumb".
He's right, it is censorship.
If putting people in prison for recklessly causing the death of another human being is "censorship", then I'm all for it.
No one ever said that free speech is without consequences. Yes, you CAN yell "fire" in a crowded theater, that's your right. And it's the government's right to prosecute you for it if your outburst, umm, sorry, if your free speech is deemed to have caused harm or damage.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Isn't putting someone in PRISON for 20 years just because they made a phone call pretty much the definition of censorship?
Whether a phone call should be criminalized purely depends on what the aim of the phone call was. If the call was, as in this case, to falsely invoke SWAt action, then hell yes.
I too think that the cop should have been tried for second-degree murder, as should the copsucking local prosecutor who refused to bring charges in this case.
Shaddap faggot people in stress situations make mistakes with consequences.
Blasting away at a person who does nothing more than open his own front door wondering what the hell is going on outside is bad police procedure that should have brought prosecution. As in, a mistake with consquences.
My cure for the police malpractice problem would be to take civil judgements for police malpractice straight out of the local police retirement fund, rather than billing the taxpayers. This would break the "blue wall" by motivating good cops to help get rid of bad cops.
Although threats of government retaliation is considered censorship, as is the even weaker "regulation by raised eyebrow", where government, empowered to license things, might decline if you speak unfavored things. Unofficially of course. 'Cause that would be illegal.
Anything that "chills speech" is censorship.
But free speech doesn't include fraud, deliberate lies to get someone's money. Or kill them.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
No it is not clueless bitch.
Boy, the modern rewrite of the Monty Python "I'd like to have an argument!" sketch is just terrible.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Isn't putting someone in PRISON for 20 years just because they made a phone call pretty much the definition of censorship?
You are an idiot.
KILL YOURSELF NOW.
By the way, protected speech as it is not an exhortation to imminent lawless action. Unlike swatting.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
State is normally 40% before eligible for parole. Fed is 85% before parole. So 8.5 years for every 10 in the sentence. He will be gone a while. And deservedly. Now if we could only get the trigger happy SWAT members some time to reflect on their actions also..
So there's a group of people in the gaming community who are just sub-human trash who don't give 1 shit about other people. Right, not exactly shocking given that community's history. But what's really fucking stupid is that cops are fucking dumb enough to go in and actually murder people when what has been described to them (hostages, etc) is clearly not happening. And people freaked out when Gillette politely asked men to be slightly better people.
A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills