Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Twitter United States Games

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:
  • 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.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jailed Kansas 'Swat' Perpetrator Sneaks Online, Threatens More 'Swats'

Comments Filter:
  • by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @10:45AM (#56436523) Homepage
    When cops investigate themselves it's always justified.
    • by msauve ( 701917 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @11:33AM (#56436715)
      "The officer who fired the shot, along with some others, thought Finch was reaching for a gun."

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You can't reach for a gun when there is no gun.

        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

      • by sphealey ( 2855 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @01:45PM (#56437225)

        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.

      • 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.

        • by msauve ( 701917 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @02:26PM (#56437413)
          Nope. They might with equal (un)reasonableness claim they thought he was reaching for a Beanie Baby. Every time you see someone putting a hand in their pocket, do you think they're going for a gun? If so, you're unreasonably paranoid. It's unreasonable because there was no evidence of a gun, and any assumption there might have been one was unsupported by facts, which are the basis of reason.
          • 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.

            • by msauve ( 701917 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @10:52PM (#56439393)
              So, any citizen has the exact same right of self defense - the right to use of deadly force when there is a reasonable belief of a significant threat.

              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?
        • by Type44Q ( 1233630 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @07:13PM (#56438767)

          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.

      • "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."

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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...

  • Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DewDude ( 537374 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @10:46AM (#56436525)
    My question is how has this person not violated Twitter's TOS and had his account suspended? The fact it wasn't disabled in the first place is as mind-boggling as how he was able to access it from jail. But hopefully this incident will be brought up at his trial so the judge can see how little remorse he has and that any remorsefulness shown in court is just perjury.
    • 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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, 2018 @10:52AM (#56436557)

    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.

  • by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @10:55AM (#56436575) Journal

    "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.

    • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @11:08AM (#56436621)
      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.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by mlyle ( 148697 )

        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: (Score:2, Troll)

        by jwhyche ( 6192 )

        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

        • " Cops do not wake up with the ideal, "Hey I'm going to go shoot someone." Yeah, but they do wake up with the ideal, "I'm gonna do whatever it takes today to make sure that I get home safe tonight".
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            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

          • by jwhyche ( 6192 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @12:28PM (#56436959) Homepage

            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.

            • by Kohath ( 38547 )

              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.

        • by Kohath ( 38547 )

          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)

          by jwhyche ( 6192 )

          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

          • by Kohath ( 38547 )

            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.

            • by jwhyche ( 6192 )

              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

              • by Kohath ( 38547 )

                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

                • by jwhyche ( 6192 )

                  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

            • The fact that people want to lawlessly and casually infringe Constitutional rights is more than reason enough to have an AR-15

              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.

              • by Kohath ( 38547 )

                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?

      • by Entrope ( 68843 )

        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.

    • by Khyber ( 864651 )

      "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]

      • So why were they even at the house? Those hostages that they were supposedly rescuing are members of the public, aren't they?

        • by Khyber ( 864651 )

          They are there to enforce the law, not protect the public. Serve and Protect is propaganda.

  • Fucking SWAT team (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lsllll ( 830002 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @11:14AM (#56436643)

    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."

    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.

    • by Kohath ( 38547 )

      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)

      by Graymalkin ( 13732 ) * on Saturday April 14, 2018 @12:35PM (#56436989)

      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.

    • 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?

      • by lsllll ( 830002 )
        lol. Way to come around the back and bite my sentence. I completely agree with you.
        • 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*

    • 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.

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      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

  • by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @11:26AM (#56436691)
    Is this kid a Trump?
  • by Uberbah ( 647458 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @11:39AM (#56436739)

    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."

    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.

  • Justice WILL have the last laugh here..Nuf said.
  • by LostMonk ( 1839248 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @11:53AM (#56436793)

    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

  • by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @12:03PM (#56436853)

    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.

    • 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.

    • by dryeo ( 100693 )

      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.

  • by malkavian ( 9512 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @12:19PM (#56436921)

    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.

    • Swatters are murderers AND cops are incompetent and overlimitarized. There - I fixed it for you.

    • by Kohath ( 38547 )

      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.

      • by sphealey ( 2855 )

        = = = The root cause is that police are dangerous and willing to shoot people without knowing what's going on. = = =

        "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.

        • by Kohath ( 38547 )

          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

          • by sphealey ( 2855 )

            = = = 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.

            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

            • by Kohath ( 38547 )

              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

              • by sphealey ( 2855 )

                = = = The SWATing call happened because the SWAT team existed. = = =

                Try "I shot him because the gun was just lying there Your Honor" in court and see how it works out for you.

                • by Kohath ( 38547 )

                  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? :(

    • because it's already established. There's nothing to debate there. This guy goes to jail for a long time and isn't let near the internet or any other anonymous communications when he gets out. Problem solved.

      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
  • ... to a SuperMax facility, that is.

  • 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.

  • just in case these home speaker things take off. The entire product was always very so-so. It lacks any reason to exist beyond listening to iTunes. It doesn't have much in the way of services to integrate into besides, well, google and Amazon.
  • 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!

  • Hi Tyler. Hope you're having a great time in prison. Tell Bubba we send our love.

Vitamin C deficiency is apauling.

Working...