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.
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...
If you had the slightest bit of humanity in you, you might see the difference between someone fucking up while doing an insanely stresfull job, and someone intentionally creating a situation meant to cause harm. But you don't. You don't give a fuck about the people involved. It's all just politics to you.
Many jobs are stressful. Most of them don't get the same free pass for killing/harming people as American cops and military do. Nope, not feeling sorry for the cop or empathy for him.
Actually, in this case, yes it does good. The thing is, "swatting" is a fairly new problem. There's still way too many little punks that see it as a low-risk, high-reward job, and that just entices them to continue doing it. It's just free money for those that haven't developed a moral compass yet, along with those that have already chosen to be evil. Laws serve many purposes, not just punishment. They also serve as a guide for "what your community has decided is NOT ok to do", as well as a deterrent for those that are considering doing it anyway. Right now there are dozens of other little punks around the country looking at this story and reconsidering whether or not they are going to continue to sway for hire, pay someone to swat people they don't like, phone in bomb threats to get a day off school, etc. And that's a good thing for the rest of the society that are having to suffer their presence.
That's where parents come in. Responsible parents neither want to see their kid locked up, nor want to go to jail FOR their kids, so again the laws serve as both a guide as to what to teach their kids, as well as a motivator to get them to drive the lesson home. "Some of them are just going to break the law anyway" is a terrible reason to avoid making a law. We only have laws because people were already doing something that hurt the public. It's like why we have to have "do not eat" on silica packets - it's because yes there really were people stupid enough to DO it. You can't fix all of the idiots of the world, you can only encourage them to behave reasonably by laying down the rules and demonstrating that they won't like what happens to them if they choose to do it anyway. Like you're saying, you can't force them to behave. And because many of them simply don't WANT to behave, you have to encourage them. With laws. Laws with teeth. Laws with punishments.
Of course no matter what laws you have and what punishments you have, there will still be a small minority that continue to be antisocial. Getting anywhere near 100% will require intolerable laws and unreasonable punishments. So you have to strike a good balance, which is tricky to do. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
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.
If you had the slightest bit of humanity in you, you might see the difference between someone fucking up while doing an insanely stresfull job, and someone intentionally creating a situation meant to cause harm.
Anyone else in the same "insanely stressful" situation fucking up in the same way would be facing a trial for killing a harmless guy standing on his porch. We have an absolute right to be safe from being murdered by government agents when we answer the door. If the job means risking murdering someone standing on his porch, then the entire occupation needs fundamental reform at the very least.
And if you guys want a show of humanity, then make it a policy to treat non-police with the same respect and humanity you'd like to experience yourself.
Being extremely defensive when you're clearly in the wrong doesn't help. Acting like accountability is an attack doesn't help.
Also, covering up for each other doesn't help. If you're not a criminal gang, stop behaving like a criminal gang.
You don't give a fuck about the people involved.
Do police give a fuck about non-police?