Jailed Kansas 'Swat' Perpetrator Sneaks Online, Threatens More 'Swats' (kansas.com) 285
An anonymous reader quotes the Wichita Eagle:
Tyler Barriss -- the man charged in a swatting hoax that led to the death of an innocent Wichita man -- apparently got access to the internet from jail for at least 28 minutes [last] Friday and threatened to swat again. "How am I on the Internet if I'm in jail? Oh, because I'm an eGod, that's how," a tweet posted at 9:05 a.m. said.
Other developments in the case:
Other developments in the case:
- Another tweet from the Barriss account 19 minutes later asked who was "talking shit," warning "your ass is about to get swatted." And nine minutes later his final tweet from jail bragged, "Y'all should see how much swag I got in here." The county sheriff's office blamed an outside vendor's improper software upgrade to an inmate kiosk, arguing that 14 inmates potentially had full internet access "for less than a few hours."
- 25-year-old Barris is still in jail facing an 11-year prison sentence, noted a Twitter user who responded to the tweets. "This will play well at sentencing when you're pretending to be remorseful and asking the judge for mercy."
- Meanwhile, the Wichita police officer who mistakenly fired the fatal shot that killed a 28-year-old father of two will not face charges. The district attorney concluded that several of the officers closest to victim Andrew Finch thought he reached down to pull up his pants, leaving his right arm hidden from the officers, the Wichita Eagle reports. "The officer who fired the shot, along with some others, thought Finch was reaching for a gun."
- "This shooting should not have happened," said the district attorney. "But this officer's decision was made in the context of the false call." Finch was shot 10 seconds after opening his front door, and his family's civil case against the police department is still going forward.
- Two other gamers involved in the shooting -- including one who allegedly hired Barriss over a $1.50 bet in the game Call of Duty -- have not been charged with a crime.
Cops investigating themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cops investigating themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. Not possible. You can't reach for a gun when there is no gun. Use of deadly force is only justified when there is a reasonable belief of a significant threat. Without seeing a weapon, the belief is unreasonable. The officer should be in prison for manslaughter.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You have to understand, it's the evolution of the justified use of deadly force. First it was, a suspect has a gun pointed at a person. Then it was, a suspect has a gun in his hand pointed down/at no one. For a while it was, a suspect might have been reaching for his visible gun. Now it's, a suspect may have been reaching for a gun. In the future it will be, a suspect may have reached for a gun.
Officers got to be careful. If it results in a few unpunished
Re: Cops investigating themselves (Score:2)
Re:Cops investigating themselves (Score:5, Informative)
What has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of the actions taken by the person who called police units armed for deadly force and falsely claimed that there was a hostage situation in progress. That person is responsible for his own actions and if his actions directly resulted in death or injury he is legally responsible for those under various criminal and civil laws as well.
Re: (Score:3)
This is not true. While the cops may be stretching the truth or outright lying, it is reasonable to suspect someone reaching towards their wasteband to be potentially going for a gun, especially one unseen on the other side of the body that cannot be seen, or a pocket, or a waistband, mayne covered by a shirt.
More Monday morning quarterbacking. The error here is definitely the false swat and maybe the cops, but if so, not because of what you said.
Re:Cops investigating themselves (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Every time you see someone putting a hand in their pocket, do you think they're going for a gun?
This is not "every time" though, is it? And many other times are not "every time." This is armed officers responding to a report of an armed man.
There are times - and I'm not saying this was definitely one of them - when yes, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that someone reaching for a pocket is reaching for a gun.
Re:Cops investigating themselves (Score:4, Insightful)
So, do you believe that you can shoot anyone you see in a dark alley who sticks their hand in their pocket, and then claim self-defense? How about if you see a cop reach for his weapon, clearly visible on his hip - can you shoot him because he presents a threat?
Re: Cops investigating themselves (Score:4, Insightful)
it is reasonable to suspect someone reaching towards their wasteband to be potentially going for a gun
It doesn't matter. If you carry a firearm for a living, you had better be cool, calm, collected... and skilled enough to be able to neutralize a threat when the presumed firearm appears in the suspect's hands and no fucking sooner.
Re: (Score:3)
"The officer who fired the shot, along with some others, thought Finch was reaching for a gun."
Yep. Not possible.
All other points aside, you seem to have overlooked the word "thought."
Re: Cops investigating themselves (Score:2)
"Shoot the hostage."
It worked for Kianu Reeves.
Re: (Score:2)
"Look out, they're coming right for us!"
Re: (Score:2)
The police are told that there's a hostage situation. Why would the hostage-taker come out and get shot, when it's just as easy to send a hostage? The information clearly implied that there were innocent victims there.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Even in regular everyday work, cops can make up any excuse they want and nobody can refute it.
"Why'd you pull me over? I wasn't speeding, everything on my car works, plates, registration, etc.."
"Oh, it looked like you were kind of weaving back there"
Sure...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
oh sorry, dashcam on my cruiser must have been malfunctioning or lost at the station after downloading.
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
LOL (Score:2, Troll)
Threatening to swat people on twitter is fine. You better not fucking suggest there are only two genders or you'll really be in trouble.
Re: Really? (Score:2)
I'd honestly just rather see him piss off the wrong person and get himself put out of all our misery. Swatting is attempted murder. It's time we treated it as such.
Re: Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Swatting is attempted murder. It's time we treated it as such"
And if someone who's unarmed is shot, the cops should be charged, too.
http://www.kansas.com/news/loc... [kansas.com]
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's only attempted murder if you can show that murder was the intent. In the case of swatting, the offender is merely an idiot. Not attempted murder. You could probably convince a court that it constitutes reckless endangerment though.
Re: (Score:3)
I would argue it's felony murder. Even if he didn't intend for someone to get hurt, nevertheless someone died as a direct result of the crime he committed.
Unless there's a video.... (Score:5, Insightful)
of the actual shooting, not of cops standing around with their weapons drawn like posted, I'll have to assume the cops are lying.
Because they are saying that with their weapons drawn, they are afraid that someone is fast enough to draw a gun from behind themselves and take them out?
Seriously?
No matter how you slice it, the cops overreacted.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention that it's likely that a hostage-taker would make a hostage answer the door.
Any signs of changing the way police operates? (Score:5, Insightful)
"This shooting should not have happened," said the district attorney. "But this officer's decision was made in the context of the false call."
So not prosecuting the officer is probably the right decision, especially since he was (presumably) acting they way the department's training and guidelines suggest he should. But it seems to me that this death, and many others, indicate that those instructions are in serious need of an overhaul. And that in most cases officers need to wait and return fire rather than shoot first and answer any questions later. That puts them at risk, yes, but that's their damn job: to protect the public. And as long as the guy who got swatted didn't offer any violence and until there was crystal clear proof that he was about to get violent, he was not a criminal, not a "perp", but a member of the public. And his life should have come first.
Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Most body armor isn't very effective vs. a knife, and certainly doesn't cover most of your body, and you can cover a ridiculous distance with a knife before anyone has time to react. I support training cops to show a hell of a lot more restraint but I can't support asking people to fight back against a knife attack with a taser.
Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure you can, [youtube.com] that's what they're for, along with mace and batons. Cop trainers need to stop terrorizing cop trainees into scared chickenshits who can't do their jobs without getting their guns off.
Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? Even if that's true and not something you made up on the spot, you manage the exceptions, not manage to the exception. And how well would your superman be doing with a face full of mace on top of being tasered multiple times.
Policies based on rarest pie-in-the-sky anecdotes are shitty policies.
Re: (Score:3)
When he's closed half the distance and is shrugging off the taser, your partner who has a loaded gun ready pulls the trigger, because there is NOW impending threat. While the guy was standing in his doorway looking confused there was NO impending threat.
Re: (Score:2)
but I can't support asking people to fight back against a knife attack with a taser.
If the taser is already aimed at the attacker, why not?
Re: (Score:2)
So? He's a distance away, and draws a knife. Yell at him "Stop and drop the weapon or I'll shoot!" Just make sure it's an exclusive or.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
There should be no more "I thought I saw a gun" shootings. They should not fire until they positively identify the subject is holding a gun. A knife? Then tasers only. You have body armor, you chose to be a cop. Your duty is to make sure other people go home safe before you do.
You are an idiot. Cops do not wake up with the ideal, "Hey I'm going to go shoot someone." An it isn't like the fucking movies where Dirty Harry kills a 100 people, eats a donut, and calls it a day. When a officer draws his side arm in the line of duty its a major event in his life, and not a good one. If he just happens to have to use it and kill someone then it is a event that will affect him all his life..
Tasers are not the magic bullet to solve every police problem. Tasers are not effect aga
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly! They should be waking up with the ideal "I'm going to do whatever it takes to make sure members of the public get home safe tonight". By making their lives more important than those of the general public, they have no incentive to not kill anybody who gets in their way.
Can you imagine a nurse or EMT saying "I'm not taking care of that patient -- they might be contagious!"? Or a fireman saying "I'm not going into that building to save that person -- it's on fire!"?
Honestly, even if you permit cops t
Re: Any signs of changing the way police operates? (Score:4, Informative)
So what? So do you. I bet you don't include in that list shoot someone, and nether does most of anyone else. Same applies to cops.
It's always bad when a cop takes someones life in the line of duty. Especially bad when it's someone innocent. But if you want to live in a society where everyone has a gun then you are going have shit happen.
Re: (Score:2)
If any non-police gunman had shot this guy, the shooter would be on trial for murder. Non-police gun owners know this, so they tend to be a lot more careful pulling the trigger.
Re: (Score:2)
A non-police gunman wouldn't have been knocking at the guy's door in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
There was no reason for anyone to knock on his door.
Re: (Score:2)
Cops do not wake up with the ideal, "Hey I'm going to go shoot someone."
No, that would be intent. Cops wake up with the ideal that police need to be protected, first, last, and always, and if that results in non-police getting killed, then that's acceptable. Even if the people killed are innocent. Even if police are only being protected from "potential" harm or fear of harm rather than actual harm.
It's like our cities have been invaded by a foreign army who think of us as cattle to be milked for taxes and traffic fines.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, I expected to get modded down. That is how it works with unpopular speech, and often the truth, here when the sjw get their panties in a wad. I was expecting it to be more along the line of flamebait. But that is fine. I have karma to burn. Since I'm on a roll here I'm going to piss off a few more of you so get your mod points ready.
First the left. You want to ban everything. Someone says something that you don't like you feel its your duty to silence him. God forbid someone has an option
Re: (Score:3)
An yes, I know what I'm talking. I grew up hunting. To hunt most common game you don't need anything but a bolt action rifle or a pump shotgun. In very few cases, like wild pig extermination, do you need a semi automatic anything.
Hunting is irrelevant. "Need" is irrelevant. Rights are rights. They do not depend on your opinion of what someone "needs" or your opinion of what they need it for. Free speech doesn't depend on you being happy with what someone says either.
The fact that people want to lawlessly and casually infringe Constitutional rights is more than reason enough to have an AR-15. A lawless society ruled by lawless individuals is exactly the kind of society where citizens should be armed.
Re: (Score:2)
Need should be relevant, and you don't need one.
Rights are not limitless. But you know what? I'm would be more than happy to work with people on this issue.
You don't need a AR 15 but just want one? That is fine. Lets see, you need a special license to own a machine gun. So I think a special license should be in order for a semi automatic rifle too. So there, you can have it but your going to get licensed for it.
Well this would be if rational people would be willing actually try to work on the pr
Re: (Score:2)
Need should be relevant,
But it isn't. You didn't need to write your comment, but regardless of that, the government can't censor it. See how need is irrelevant?
Rights are not limitless.
But they aren't subject to your whims either.
... if rational people would be willing actually try to work on the problem and stop screaming about it.
What problem? The problem where the FBI and local law enforcement both get specific tips about a guy with a long, long history of violence and legal trouble going to shoot up a school and neither the FBI nor local law enforcement can be bothered to follow up?
The problem where a shooter opens fire in a school with a law enforce
Re: (Score:3)
But if had been required to get a license for those weapons in the first place he might not have had them. An you still don't need one.
An here is another problem you seem to be falling into. You seem to think because I want to enact common sense gun regulations, you think I want to take away all your gun rights. Not true. I've not said anything about pistols. I firmly stand by your gun rights to defend yourself. I have a C&C that is legal in 3 states. What so many left wingnuts want to think t
Re: (Score:2)
It is literally impossible for me to deprive you of your Constitutional rights. I'm not working for any government. If agents of the government wanted to violate your Constitutional rights, the AR-15 isn't going to be of any more use than a stick of chewing gum.
Re: (Score:2)
If agents of the government wanted to violate your Constitutional rights, the AR-15 isn't going to be of any more use than a stick of chewing gum.
Incorrect. It will make them think and rethink whether they really want to go ahead with that. Oppressing a well-armed population is a hell of a lot harder than oppressing an unarmed one.
And ultimately, why would the guys on the ground risk it? They don't need to shoot it out with the local farmers or the owner of the hardware store for the benefit of some politician’s hate campaign. A war at home is a war near their home, where they live with their families. Why start one of those?
Re: (Score:3)
They already have solutions for that. For example, Baltimore police are now on trial for corruption, and according to testimony from one of them (plus independent evidence) part of that was carrying realistic toy guns to plant on people they shot.
Re: (Score:2)
"That puts them at risk, yes, but that's their damn job: to protect the public."
The USSC disagrees: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/0... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So why were they even at the house? Those hostages that they were supposedly rescuing are members of the public, aren't they?
Re: (Score:2)
They are there to enforce the law, not protect the public. Serve and Protect is propaganda.
Fucking SWAT team (Score:5, Insightful)
You are in a SWAT team. You have been trained for a gunfight. You're there, along with 20 of your buddies, ALL of your weapons drawn and in your hand and pointing to the guy who just walked out of his house and is clueless of WTF is happening. All you need to do is pull a trigger one or more times to take him down. "I thought he was reaching for a gun" is not a good defense. Wait until you actually SEE a fucking gun before you shoot the poor bastard. I can't believe he's not going to face charges for a reckless murder.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait until you actually SEE a fucking gun...
The "I didn't know what was going on; I was afraid" defense is absolute and guaranteed to work. But only if the officer opens fire right away, without waiting to know anything about the situation.
Look for this to happen more and more because that's what's being incentivized.
Re:Fucking SWAT team (Score:5, Informative)
In most cities the term "SWAT team" is waaaaay too broadly applied. When people hear "SWAT" they tend to think of a highly trained team of specialists with pinpoint marksmanship, nerves of steel, and balls (or ovaries) of solid brass.
The reality is most "SWAT" teams are regular patrolmen assigned to SWAT duty as part of their career path. They aren't best of the best volunteers but trying to get promoted. Smaller cities can't afford grueling training so their SWAT terms get maybe a dozen training hours a month and those officers have regular patrol beats.
So when SWAT responds to a call there's a good chance you're getting a bunch of operators with better than average but definitely not Delta levels of training that may have just come off a full patrol shift. The typical SWAT team has far less training than you'd probably want or expect them to have.
Re: (Score:2)
You are in a SWAT team. You have been trained for a gunfight.
So what you're saying is that SWAT shouldn't exist and you should let normal police diffuse a situation rather than turning America into a warzone complete with that level of weaponry?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes that wasn't directed at you but rather the general reading population. It's amazing how disproportional the power of SWAT teams are compared to the situations they are sent in to diffuse. *sigh*
Fuck the SWAT team (Score:2)
Highly trained heavily geared up professionals should not have itchy trigger fingers and need to at least get professional consequences!
People make mistakes on the job and big ones result in consequences including being fired. I'm not saying firing is required as an idiotic zero tolerance policy; especially when properly handled that employee may never make that mistake ever again. As a TEAM failure the whole team needs to feel the failure; more training and at least but a dock in PAY should be minimum.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the problem with the SWAT response scenario: it's inherently dangerous. You can mitigate the danger with training, but you can never make it safe.
Hold your thumb out at arm's length and note the size of your thumbnail. That's roughly half the angular area in which you have sufficient visual acuity to distinguish between a handgun and a coffee mug. The way you "see" a scene is that your fovea flits around your field of vision, filling in details to update the scene you have already constructed in
Re:Fucking SWAT team (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but when I had firearms safety training when I was six, one of the cardinal rules drilled into my head was "always be sure of what you are shooting at". This murderer obviously didn't as the man had no gun. If grown assed trainers aren't teaching remedial safety to cops, they should join them in prison for criminal negligence.
Re: (Score:2)
They may be lying about the motions the man made, but discovering he had no gun afterwards does not imply a cop should psychically know this when the guy makes a motion towarss his waste.
Perhaps the training could be improved. Perhaps the cop was lying. But magically knowing there isn't a gun in his pocket isn't a realistic condition, nor is risking one's life on the off chance the sudden movement is innocuous.
There are plenty of videos where cops get shot because even with full training.
Re: (Score:3)
Just letting your arms drop to your sides could be a "motion towards the waist". Every time you walk like a normal human being you are "making a motion towards the waist". This get-out-of-jail-free card needs to be torn up, permanently.
If the person isn't actually reaching for an actual weapon, the cop doesn't know what he's shooting at. Negligent homicide, straight up.
Which are show
Re:Fucking SWAT team (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Except he wasn't reaching for anything, which means the cop had no idea what he was shooting at - which was my point exactly.
That's some serious stupid (Score:4, Funny)
DA's need to be banned from police investigations (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet it wasn't the cops next to the guy who made the kill shot, it was one at distance, so this is bullshit on its face. DA's need to be banned from from investigating cops in their own jurisdiction as they work with said cops as part of their day job. The DOJ should go after cops for civil rights violations when local prosecutors drop the ball, like when they sent some of the officers who beat Rodney King to prison.
Re: (Score:2)
You're reinforcing my point here.
Because of the incestious relationship between DA's and the cops they work with, just like I said. There was no, none, nada, zip sign this man was reaching for any weapon.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you need to recall what Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt means?
Reasonable doubt does not mean "guilty".
It means the DA didn't waste time trying to prosecute a case he had no hope of winning. His job isn't to please you--it's to obtain convictions.
Justice WILL have the last laugh (Score:2)
Re: Justice WILL have the last laugh (Score:2)
The mind boggles... (Score:3)
I'm hearing the echoes of a ringing triple facepalm all the way over here.
One from the sentencing judge
Two from his lawyer
Three from his future self looking back at ruins of his life
As said before (Score:3)
This is why we have death penalty.. This punk already made continual threats to kill his grandmother, burn her house and kill her dogs, two different bomb threats to a tv station as well as caused the death of one person. Imagine what will happen if he gets out.
He obviously believes the rules of society don't apply to them. Those rules should be harshly applied so he can't kill again.
Re: (Score:2)
He never actually intended to kill. He's not a murderer: He's an idiot. Reckless. Impulsive. Egotistical. But not a murderer.
Ideally he might receive years of therapy. More realistically, he's going to spend years in prison. If he gets out, I don't imagine him staying out.
Re: (Score:2)
True, we should just execute all mentally ill people, preferably in a cruel painful way as that'll teach them for being mentally ill and of course it is the Christian way.
Re: (Score:2)
Most mentally ill people are no danger to other people. This clown was.
And very little talk on the root cause. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, loads of comments about "how cops are bad", but very little on the responsibility of the root cause that started this chain of events.
A guy deliberately set up an armed response team to an address. From this point, the amount off things that can go badly wrong is staggering, not to mention the cost of performing the action itself in monetary terrms.
In this case, something did go wrong, that would not have happened if the false callout had not been made. Everything stems from that malicious callout, therefore, everything that went wrong should be put on the shoulders of the malicious caller.
The caller should be tried for "attempted murder" if a malicious swatting is made, or at least assault with a deadly weapon (as that's what SWAT teams carry, and it's definitely an assault if done maliciously).
It's very easy to point a finger at a cop and say "Your fault", but unless you do the job, day in, day out, with your life at risk, and nearly every situation you face is life or death, then I take the voices as 'armchair experience'. Yes, training can always be improved, yes, odds can be shrunk, but in situations like this, risk cannot be eliminated. Thus you go for the root cause. Make the malicious caller responsible for all costs, all outcomes, and at least that assault with deadly weapon to boot. Every, single, malicious, call.
Maybe then we'll see swattings "for fun" vanish. As long as people treat it as "just a kicks thing that went wrong", it'll keep on happening, and more deaths will ensue because of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Swatters are murderers AND cops are incompetent and overlimitarized. There - I fixed it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
The root cause is that police are dangerous and willing to shoot people without knowing what's going on. SWATing just points them in a particular direction.
Until police lose their reckless indifference to non-police lives, non-police lives will continue to be at grave risk whenever police are present.
Re: (Score:2)
"root cause" - I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.
Remind us why the police were at a house. Whether the right house or wrong house for the call they received doesn't matter - just remind us why they were on a response. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Remind us why the police were at a house.
You train and equip a SWAT team, you end up using that SWAT team. For something. If not that night, then some other night. If not that house, some other house. If not a fake hostage situation, then serving a warrant for unpaid child support. Or whatever. The SWAT team exists, therefore someone eventually gets shot by them.
Why a SWAT team? Because Kansas is boring. Voters watch too much TV news and too many TV dramas and mistake those stories as meaningful to their lives. Politicians need something to
Re: (Score:2)
I asked you to remind us why a specific police detachment was on specific call that night. Not a general discussion of whether or not Kansas police departments are over-militarized. This matters, because if I were being held hostage by a hard right wing fanatic I would certainly want my local police to mobilize their SWAT team in hopes of re
Re: (Score:2)
I asked you to remind us why a specific police detachment was on specific call that night. Not a general discussion of whether or not Kansas police departments are over-militarized.
Are you the discussion police?
This matters, because if I were being held hostage by a hard right wing fanatic I would certainly want my local police to mobilize their SWAT team in hopes of rescuing me.
Make up some more ridiculous stories. What kind of police would you want if vampires had you caged up in their lair, saving you to drink your blood when they got hungry? How about if space aliens were probing you on the hood of your car? What are the right sort of police for that?
So again, explain what the root cause of this specific incident in Kansas was.
The SWATing call happened because the SWAT team existed. The SWATer knew exactly what to say to produce the specific type of police response he wanted. The existence of the SWAT team (and SWAT tea
Re: (Score:2)
Try "I shot him because the gun was just lying there Your Honor" in court and see how it works out for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, great point. Especially because I'm totally a defense council on a legal team trying to get my client off.
Man, how did I ever pass the Bar Exam? :(
Nobody's talking about root cause (Score:3)
We're still debating the cop's situation becuase he got off scott free when he obviously shouldn't have. At the least he should be fired and never allowed to work as a cop again. As it stands our "Tough on Crime" outlook and unwillingness to address gun violence has left cops above the law in most s
Way to go, genius... (Score:2)
... to a SuperMax facility, that is.
Inmate Kiosk (Score:2)
Botched software patch.
If I were the prosecutor in Sedgewick County, I'd be looking very closely at who did the patch installation and who is in charge of managing these kiosks. Could be some of Bariss' gamer buddies.
Drugs and other contraband frequently make it inside prisons by way of corrupt guards and other officials.
It's just a shot across the bow at Amazon & Go (Score:2)
Holy shit! That's GOTTA qualify for Peak Stupid! (Score:2)
What kind of idiot, SITTING IN PRISON for SWAT'ing, sneaks online and self-incriminates by promising MORE?
His parents couldn't have dropped him on his head as a baby.
They must have been spiking his stupid ass like a football!
Say hi to Bubba for us (Score:2)
Hi Tyler. Hope you're having a great time in prison. Tell Bubba we send our love.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No more internet for you (Score:3)
Bail was already set at $500,000... which may have been slightly outside of his price range
Re: Barriss sounds like Trump (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they are out of their debt, and have no idea of the gravit they are doing
I believe you're out of your depth, buddy./p
Re:Sorry? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sorry? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This guy obviously has some self-destructive tendencies, as evidenced by the behavior that landed him where he is now. With some people, it's not that they don't know the consequences, it's that they've got their wires crossed and opt to self-destruct. Drug addicts opt for a quick high in the face of obvious self-destruction too. After a while, even the high goes away and only the hard-to-break habit of destroying yourself remains.
He wasn't after the high; he was just clinging to a familiar method of self-d
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell us you're not really that dense.
He couldn't resist the urge to flaunt it, and got it taken away from all of them much faster than if he had. And they all know it, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Now I get it--you're defending him.
What a fucking waste of time and electrons.
Re: Sorry? (Score:2)