Kansas 'Swat' Perpetrator Will Now Plead Guilty To Dozens More Swat Incidents (nbcnews.com) 196
An anonymous reader quotes NBC News:
The California man behind a years-long string of hoax 911 calls -- including one that ended in a Kansas man's death -- wants to plead guilty to all charges, court documents revealed. Tyler Rai Barriss, 25, intends to waive his right to trial and admit guilt to a 46-count federal indictment, according to a document he signed on Oct. 18 and was filed in U.S. District Court on Wednesday. Barriss faces up to life behind bars for his dozens of acts of "swatting" -- calling police to falsely report a serious crime, in hopes of drawing a massive response to the home of an unsuspecting target.... According to the court records, Barriss will admit to dozens of "swatting" incidents all over America between 2015 and the end of 2017, The false alarms connected to Barriss happened in Ohio, Nevada, Illinois, Indiana, Virginia, Texas, Arizona, Massachusetts, MIssouri, Maine, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Indiana, Michigan, Florida, Connecticut and New York.
Barriss performed SWATs if clients sent him $10 over PayPal -- occasionally demanding "upwards of $50," according to a new (possibly pay-walled) article on Wired. A Call of Duty player hired Barriss to SWAT a teammate who'd caused them to lose a $1.50 wager, but his intended target supplied a false address across town which resulted in the fatal police shooting.
Both gamers are now "awaiting trial on lesser charges," reports NBC.
Barriss performed SWATs if clients sent him $10 over PayPal -- occasionally demanding "upwards of $50," according to a new (possibly pay-walled) article on Wired. A Call of Duty player hired Barriss to SWAT a teammate who'd caused them to lose a $1.50 wager, but his intended target supplied a false address across town which resulted in the fatal police shooting.
Both gamers are now "awaiting trial on lesser charges," reports NBC.
swatting is really cruel (Score:1)
you have to be plenty heartless do something like this without any remorse
Re:swatting is really cruel (Score:4)
Though, I suppose the guy who paid the $10 for the swatting over losing a $1.50 wager is even worse.
Re: swatting is really cruel (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He never intended to kill. He was just an idiot who didn't realist the possibly consequences of his actions. So in his mind, $10 is the cost of ruining someone's evening.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether he intended to kill is an interesting psychological question. Many gamblers continue, not to _win_, but to _lose_. The same is true for many people engaged in dangerous or self destructive behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:swatting is really cruel (Score:4, Insightful)
Even then, I don't think I could have jumped through the mental hoops necessary to rationalize calling a swat team on someone would have no chance at all of ending with someone being unjustly killed. Maybe you could argue that someone could be pissed off enough to do it as an act of exceptionally poor judgement in the heat of the moment, but this person was a dispassionate third party.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm...what about the people who give their own lives so that someone or others may live?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:swatting is really cruel (Score:4, Funny)
Somebody's got to be on the left end of the emotional intelligence bell curve.
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody's got to be on the left end of the emotional intelligence bell curve.
As a distribution sure but the real spacing is that you have "normal" stupid people and the genuinely retarded. Same on the EQ scale, you have the "normal" insensitive people and genuine psychopaths/sociopaths. You got serial killers and whatnot that's even further on the left end than this guy. Bottom 5% and bottom 1% can be very, very different things.
Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
What gets me is: both? The intended victim is also awaiting trial? I'm sure there's some reason for that, I'm just curious.
Re: (Score:2)
> What gets me is: both? The intended victim is also awaiting
> trial? I'm sure there's some reason for that, I'm just curious.
Gamer A got mad at Gamer B. Gamer B gave out a false address. Gamer A then paid Barriss to do a fake 911 call to trigger a swat raid that killed an innocent resident at the wrong address. Both Gamer A (who paid for the 911 call) and Gamer B (who gave someone else's address) are being charged.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, giving out wrong addresses is criminal now?
That's gonna show those bitches that give me fake phone numbers, I'll sue!
Re: (Score:2)
Because someone died. They will have their case in court and may be exonerated, or they may be found partially at fault for someone dying.
Re: (Score:1)
From what I've read about the incident, Barriss was known in the gaming community (and by the intended victim) for SWATing for cash. He contacted the intended victim, told him he was going to SWAT him, and that's when the intended victim gave him the address (it was a real address, just not HIS address) and even dared him to do it. At the very least, that's reckless endangerment.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can reasonably be assumed to have suspected that the address was going to be used in a malicious way, then giving it out would be reckless endangerment.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How fucked up is America to let this happen? (Score:4, Insightful)
Every time the police just shrugs and gets off free.
"We didn't do anything. Someone said there was a situation at this address, so we just bust the door down and shot whoever was inside. It's not our fault"
And the worst part is that you Americans just accept that this is the way it is and has to be. You just yell at the guy who made the phone call, but have nothing to say about the vaccuum-headed police and their inability to investigate or even think before firing their weapons.
Re:How fucked up is America to let this happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
Be shot with WHAT? A dirty look? Unarmed citizen in the open vs squad of well armed body armored cops standing behind their cars.
And he probably couldn't hear their instructions.
Keep in mind, you may be the turkey the next time a squad of cops opens fire. It's not like you have to actually be doing anything even vaguely questionable to end up in their crosshairs.
Re: (Score:3)
When a normal law abiding person sees a bunch of cop cars show up, they wonder which of their neighbors is in trouble.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
I usually don't wish anyone anything ill, but I do want to see you in this situation, where you're sitting in the peace of your living room and suddenly all hell breaks loose, sirens blaring, people screaming at you through megaphones... and then I want to see you keep your cool and be all considerate and collected.
People react not very rationally in high stress situations. You might have noticed that. Maybe being raided and having a swat team kick down your door is your daily routine, I don't know, but to
The rest of the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Now fix the on-call violence delivery service. At least add:
- accountability for police
- mandatory fact-finding before believing whatever story a caller wants to tell
- body cameras with recordings available to the public (maybe with some controls if you're scared of the public having access to the information for whatever reason)
- specific trading requirements for SWAT teams, with presumed liability for failure to train
- a duty for the police to make a genuine attempt protect the life and dignity of everyone they encounter
Re: (Score:2)
Now fix the on-call violence delivery service.
Had this criminal not placed a fake call to police, none of this would have happened, would it?
Re:The rest of the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Had this criminal not placed a fake call to police, none of this would have happened, would it?
Same thing could be said if it was local street gangs doing drive-by shootings for hire. Are the gang members who actually do the shooting innocent?
Re: (Score:1)
When a violent crime is happening and lives are hanging in the balance, there's no time for your little checklist. Unfortunately, some lives will be lost when people don't follow the commands they are given. The cops in this case are the victim as well. Do you think they are happy with the outcome, do you think perhaps it weighs on them for the rest of their lives as well? The criminal is the guy who places the fake call. Put the blame where it belongs!
Re:The rest of the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
When a violent crime is happening and lives are hanging in the balance, there's no time for your little checklist.
Plenty of time to gun down innocents though.
Re:The rest of the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that's exactly the attitude that results in police killing innocents. Congratulations on illustrating it for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
What's better, that a police officer is shot, or an innocent civilian is shot. If police don't want to protect the public then they should pick a different job.
Re: (Score:2)
That the police officer is shot. Considering he's likely to wear body armor he is also less likely to die from any random gunshot compared to an unarmored innocent civilian.
Re:The rest of the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
There's plenty of blame to go around. The person who deserves none though is the guy who was just looking to see what all the commotions was about and probably died wondering who the police were talking to and why they were in his neighborhood.
Re:The rest of the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
When a violent crime is happening and lives are hanging in the balance, there's no time for your little checklist.
Actually, in this particular case there was plenty of time to think. In a hostage situation, you simply don't rush things. Unless you're incompetent police, that is.
Unfortunately, some lives will be lost when people don't follow the commands they are given.
What if the guy who is given commands happens to be deaf? A foreigner who doesn't understand the language? Slow-witted? Intoxicated? The police command just becomes a death sentence, according to your logic. It shouldn't be this way.
The bottom line is, IMHO, that both Barriss and the police bear the bulk of responsibility for this unfortunate incident, and neither should be allowed to avoid paying the price.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially in a hostage situation time is on YOUR side as the police. And if you know that it is a hostage situation, you must expect that the person answering the door is a hostage. The very first thing you have to verify is the identity of the person, If you find out that it's the hostage taker or if he tries to get back inside, you still have all the time in the world to shoot if you're so inclined.
Usually it is not necessary, though. Hostage takers want something, else they would already do what they th
Re:The rest of the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Now fix the on-call violence delivery service. At least add:
- accountability for police
- mandatory fact-finding before believing whatever story a caller wants to tell
- body cameras with recordings available to the public (maybe with some controls if you're scared of the public having access to the information for whatever reason)
- specific trading requirements for SWAT teams, with presumed liability for failure to train
- a duty for the police to make a genuine attempt protect the life and dignity of everyone they encounter
I'll settle for just the first one, the rest are either included in it or will naturally follow.
Unfortunately, it will never happen.
Re:The rest of the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
They should do a much better job. When they stop killing innocent people, that will be how we know they've improved training and procedures and their approach to the lives of people around them.
When they stop stonewalling public accountability, we'll know they've finally realized their role is to serve the public rather than oversee us as if we were cattle to be milked for taxes and traffic fines.
Re:The rest of the problem (Score:4, Interesting)
I actually do a perfect job at not killing innocent people.
But your argument is irrelevant. Police serve the public. That means members of the public, like me and everyone else, are in charge. We decide. Police can serve under the rules that we decide or go get other jobs. Period.
Re: (Score:1)
The public decides. Whether that decision is an informed one or a random one, it's our decision to make.
Re: The rest of the problem (Score:4, Interesting)
America has more guns than people. You're not from here = you do not understand that.
This is the excuse used to excuse police killing innocents, even though violent crime has been dropping for 25 years [statista.com].
Re:The rest of the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's task the police with protecting everyone's life so they get better at not killing innocents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's easy to say that, but you have no idea how to do it. You have no idea what current procedures are, nor do you have any suggestions to improve them.
It's easy to sit on the sidelines saying "DO BETTER", isn't it?
Do they want to do better? I haven't seen a change in their attitude that suggests they do. Usually people who want to do better don't claim there's nothing that needs changing.
The obvious idea would be to score performance based on reviewing body camera recordings of police dealings with the public. Serve the public, score higher. Bully the public, score lower. Defuse a tense situation, score higher. Use violence without first trying to defuse a situation, score lower. It's not rocket science.
Re: The rest of the problem (Score:2)
Let's task the police with protecting everyone's life
That is quite literally impossible.
so they get better at not killing innocents.
They're already very good at it; the problem is that jackasses like you expect them to be perfect. This is, again, impossible. May as well expect airliners to never crash.
Re: (Score:2)
They're already very good at it; the problem is that jackasses like you expect them to be perfect. This is, again, impossible. May as well expect airliners to never crash.
The last fatal US airline crash was in 2009 [fortune.com], so they've already more-or-less achieved that.
Re: (Score:2)
You do a good job not killing innocent people because you aren't tasked with law enforcement duties.
No, but the law enforcement personnel of other countries are so tasked, and they manage to get the job done with a *much* lower kill ratio [theguardian.com].
Re: (Score:1)
Let's start with looking around before opening fire on people. Even that is apparently considered too much to ask.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't shoot the bad guys either. Then you won't figure out later you made a mistake. Protect the lives of everyone.
Re: The rest of the problem (Score:1)
Then everyone dies and the cops get called for not protecting people. From the posts youâ(TM)ve made, my suspicion is that youâ(TM)ve not been prominent in roles with heavy risk evaluation, or the highly emotionally charged rescue/recovery situations. You show a deep lack of understanding of the complexities involved and have the habit of trying to reduce this to a univariate issue, which it most definitely isnâ(TM)t.
There are plenty of checks and balances in play (your other assertions that
Re: (Score:2)
Then everyone dies and the cops get called for not protecting people.
"Then everyone dies" is a made up story. The Kansas shooting is an actual story of something that actually happened.
The police already have no legal duty to provide police protection [nytimes.com]. The thing you are arguing against as a hypothetical is what we already have.
[several sentence attempting to change the subject to me deleted]
Nice try. It's not about me. Anything about me is beyond irrelevant.
There are plenty of checks and balances in play (your other assertions that there arenâ(TM)t are incorrect).
Yet police are still out there shooting innocent people (and shooting guilty people when those people are not a threat) and receiving zero punishment for it. So no, there aren't "
Re: (Score:2)
Says the guy who's been in thousands of gunfights (on his game console in the basement).
Re: (Score:1)
Wow. That's amazingly stupid even by PopeRatzo standards.
Re: (Score:2)
That's amazingly (and tellingly) butthurt, even by Kohath standards.
(Bring it on, I already posted in this thread and I got me some karmas to burn.)
Re:The rest of the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Much simpler:
- make prank callers suffer
Make it really really not worth it. Put them in real jail for 10 years without possibility of early release. Show them crying and yelling "I didn't mean to!!!1111" on national TV. Make sure people get it.
"Mandatory fact-finding" is nice and all, but if it can be difference between life and death for a victim. Police should act fast.
Anyone willing to do 10 years, or anyone who thinks they'll get away with it (like this guy did, over and over and over again) can order up an assassination then.
Violent crime is at historic, generational lows. Police should act carefully.
Doxing, Swatting, and Social Media (Score:5, Insightful)
Swatting is just one of the reasons why associating any online accounts you have with your real identity is a terrible idea. This happened because a guy lost a counterstrike match. Another teammate was mad at him, they got in an argument, the guy tried to dox him though his steam profile linked to a facebook page, and ended up getting a completely random person killed as a result. You put your real info on those social media pages, and that's the police kicking down your door and you getting killed. People ask "what do you have to hide". Apparently it's a bunch of jackbooted thugs kicking down your door at 11:30pm because some pathetic waste of flesh on the internet who was mad over losing a $1.50 bet decided to pay someone to anonymously call in a hostage situation.
When you're wrong, you're wrong. (Score:2)
Tyler Rai Barriss, 25, intends to waive his right to trial and admit guilt to a 46-count federal indictment, ...
Forty-six counts? Apparently, this guy *really* misunderstood the slogan, "You're either SWAT or you're not."
over an $1.50 bet some payed $10 to get back? (Score:4, Funny)
over an $1.50 bet some payed $10 to get back?
Maybe over an $100 bet but $1.50???
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about the money, it's about sending a message!
I'm old.... (Score:4)
I remember a time when a gamer saved the life of an elderly gamer by calling an ambulance when he became delirious.
That might have been in the first year of World of Warcraft. Maybe Dark Age of Camelot. It's been a long time.
Gamer culture sure has changed,
Re: (Score:2)
Flame wars have been around since internet day one (maybe month one). There have been dicks and mentally and socially challenged gamers since early games like WoW, FFS. There are also good people gaming, you just don't hear much about them because, well, they behave.
Re: (Score:2)
Today's games in their teens/twenties have been exposed to the internet their whole lives.
As a society, we're fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
Today he'd probably turn it into a YouTube video named "Listen to the death of this gamer!"
All I can say is GOOD!!! (Score:2)
This kind of shit isn't, and never, EVER should be acceptable.
This kind of thing needs to be treated with a heavy hand.
Gun control (Score:3, Insightful)
I see a lot of anger in the comments so far directed towards the police, not just the officers in this swat incident but generally. Well, think of this the next time there's another call to hand over all our guns to the government because, "you can just call the police". Well, someone did call the police and, if the comments here are to be believed, the police are incompetent, bloodthirsty, both, or worse.
Is it too much to ask for both that we don't rely on the police for everything and when they do come that they are competent, intelligent, and well trained? Remember that the police come from the public. If the police officers never saw a gun until they arrive at the academy then they are going to be poorly trained on the proper use of a firearm. We cannot put the gun genie back in the bottle. Guns exist and the world is better for it.
Let's not forget that, again according to comments here, there is an orangutan in the Oval Office tossing feces all over Twitter. You want him to have all the guns? Remember folks, don't create a government that you are not willing to give to your opposition because your friends might not always be in charge.
Now, return to your cop bashing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Odd I live in a society where I don't need to be armed to be free, nor do I worry about police turning up believing I'm a terrible threat such that they'll shoot first and ask questions later.
Re: (Score:2)
For the record, I'm not cop bashing, I'm bashing their modern-day policies and attitudes. I want the police to adopt a new attitude of protecting life and serving the public.
Re: (Score:3)
Countries where gun ownership is illegal or heavily controlled still manage to produce highly trained armed police officers with very good weapons handling abilities...
The UK for example has a very well trained armed response program, and gun ownership here is very much an oddity. We also have an extremely well trained and professional army.
You do not need an armed populace to produce a professional armed police force. What you do need to do is have the police force trained in weapons use - and you should
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not saying anything about gun control other than to refute your rather ridiculous assertion that an armed police force *has* to come from an armed populace otherwise they are poorly trained.
We have never had a gun culture in the UK and yet we have never had an issue training a drafted military force in times of war. Indeed, our police force and military is among the best trained in the world.
Basically the rest of your post is the same old rant against gun control, and can be tuned out. I'm happy living
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying anything about gun control other than to refute your rather ridiculous assertion that an armed police force *has* to come from an armed populace otherwise they are poorly trained.
That's not what I said, and I believe you know that's not what I said. Instead of making an argument against what I said you chose to argue against a straw man.
We have never had a gun culture in the UK and yet we have never had an issue training a drafted military force in times of war. Indeed, our police force and military is among the best trained in the world.
A nation without gun control is not wasting police resources in disarming the law abiding public. A nation that allows it's people to own firearms will always have more people to draw from that are already familiar with marksmanship than a nation that does not if there is a need to gather people quickly to fight a war. I have no doubt that UK has
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't laughed so much in ages, please keep it up. Ignoring your ignorance of history of gun controls, that you believe a modern war would be fought based on volumes of troops on the ground shooting at each other is the best entertainment I've had all day. Even more entertaining that you think the public american's experience of firearms is in any way related to the situations and skills required to fight such a war is going to be a massive win. Deluded doesn't even start to describe that view.
Re: (Score:2)
Even more entertaining that you think the public american's experience of firearms is in any way related to the situations and skills required to fight such a war is going to be a massive win.
There's lots of veterans in the USA that are quite familiar with how a modern military fights. If the fit hits the shan then there's going to be plenty of people outside of the military quite capable of waging a war. A wise government will use such resources for its own defense against threats foreign and domestic. An unwise government would be one willing to try to disarm its own people.
Laugh if you like, that won't change a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
There's lots of veterans in the USA that are quite familiar with how a modern military fights.
And your point is? This was a discussion about if having many others unskilled serves any useful purpose. Those who are sufficiently versed in the tactics and strategy of modern war (which maybe some of these veterans) will know having a few guns with a larger number of relatively untrained, undisciplined civilians is irrelevant to the way a modern military fights.
You still see war as men running around pointing guns at each other. That's your problem. The grown men who run around playing pretend soldiers
Re: (Score:2)
"Trained, uniformed police officers cannot be trusted with guns, therefore citizens should have access to guns with minimal limit or control". Textbook non sequitur - your conclusion does not follow your premise. Well, maybe it does if you also assume that a counter-government revolution is inevitable in the near future, but that's one HELL of a premise to smuggle in as an assumption.
Part of the problem is that police have to assume everyone they interact with is potentially armed. They have to show up to t
Re: (Score:2)
Well, judging from Europe and how the police works there... maybe the police would still knock on doors if they could expect you to open the door instead of fire when they do?
Re: (Score:2)
I see a lot of anger in the comments so far directed towards the police, not just the officers in this swat incident but generally. Well, think of this the next time there's another call to hand over all our guns to the government because, "you can just call the police".
Can you? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Accept gun control, and there are still 300 million firearms in the country, half of which are in a small number of hands that aren't going to relinquish them short of house-to-house searches (which will be resisted with lethal force).
Great idea for making cops feel safer there.
Re: (Score:2)
First you have to win Congress, and the Senate, and the Presidency, and fill a couple Supreme Court seats currently held by "originalists".
Then you can start making noise about enacting something that won't just get repealed the next time power changes hands.
In the meantime, those you're worried about already have their guns. We should too. I'm even willing to give the ammosexuals money rather than buy new. (Not like money will mean much when lead starts flying.)
Re: (Score:2)
So don't come to me with your bullshit, OK?
You first.
There will soon come a day when technology renders all gun control laws impossible to enforce, assuming we haven't crossed that line already. You can say that we'd be safer with gun control all you like but when people can just print a machine gun from plans downloaded off the internet there is nothing the government can do to disarm the people ever again.
Sure, let's dispense with the bullshit. Any gun control law you can think of is meaningless in a time and place where people are as free, educ
false police reports (Score:2)
P.S. I put swat in quotes because the games isn't sending a swat, the police are.
How come the "swatter" isn't charged only for filing a false report?
The police shouldn't just take any report, anon or not, and assume it is real.
The police shouldn't SWAT unless it is needed.
Using the lives are at stake answer doesn't help because the police don't know that, they assume that.
The weird part is that the gamers can ruin 2 lives, the person killed by the police and the cop who killed him - through remorse.
He may n
I hope this asshat rots in prison. (Score:2)
I don't really have anything to say beyond the subject line.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:...state-sanctioned hit squads... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm all for the government having their warrantless search powers scaled back but I also don't want to live in a world where the police hesitate on responding to a 911 call for help because of getting too many prank calls. This is the old "cry wolf" parable on a modern world. The police had cause to come to the house, they had a call for help and the caller provided an address. This is in effect their warrant.
You need to pick your battles better, this is not one which will gain much traction in painting the police as the "bad guy". This is all on the prank caller and I believe he deserves any punishment he gets, up to life in prison. He knew what he was doing, that it could result in people getting killed, did so repeatedly, and did so on the whim of a few bucks tossed his way.
Any issues of warrantless searches have nothing to do with this case.
Oh, no...no...no (Score:5, Informative)
This is all on the prank caller....
The cops didn't have to shoot an unarmed man from across the street as soon as he opened the door. There is no excuse for that kind of incompetence and stupidity. Their lives were never in danger. They didn't size up the scene properly. And they didn't verify their target - it could have easily been a hostage.
It's all on the cops.
Re: (Score:1)
The cops were called there by someone claiming to be in need.
So they shot the first guy who opened the door from across the street, without even attempting to verify their target.
"Not on the cops", my ass. You're not supposed to open fire without verifying your target, ever. And that goes triple for the police. The police are not supposed to be cowboys who shoot first and ask questions later.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Oh, no...no...no (Score:4, Insightful)
Guy comes out. Looks confused. Starts turning - possibly to say something to someone in the house, I don't know. Cops open fire from across the street and from the partial cover of their police cars. Innocent man dies.
If I am misrepresenting what happened please correct me.
Re:Oh, no...no...no (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Had it been a real hostage situation we would be hearing a story of where police shot a hostage.
There's really no way for the cops to look good in this situation.
Re:...state-sanctioned hit squads... (Score:5, Informative)
> The police had cause to come to the house, they had a call for help
> and the caller provided an address. This is in effect their warrant.
Ex-bleeping-scuse me. Police knock on the door, a fat guy in shorts comes to answer it, and a police sniper scores a direct hit on the guy's head, killing him instantly. He was no threat to anybody. *EVEN IF THIS HAD BEEN A REAL HOSTAGE SITUATION*, the hostage taker is more likely to send a hostage to answer the door, than to answer it himself. The trigger-happy asshole who pulled the trigger is just as guilty as Barriss.
Re:...state-sanctioned hit squads... (Score:5, Insightful)
The police had cause to come to the house, they had a call for help and the caller provided an address.
Absolutely. Then they had a call to wonder why the house didn't match the description, why the call didn't actually come in on 911, why the guy at the door seems confused, etc. Too bad they failed that one. Next up, they had the number one rule of shooting, VERIFY YOUR TARGET. They get an EPIC FAIL on that one.
I don't think it's at all too much to ask that police think before they start shooting so they don't kill people minding their own business in their own homes.
Re: ...state-sanctioned hit squads... (Score:4, Insightful)
Absolutely.
I think an investigation into murder / manslaughter charges is warranted, but I could my way into a "not guilty" verdict, although I'm leaning guilty (to be clear: I think the SWATter bears more guilt because they had malicious intent, this cop was "just" criminally reckless but did not intend to hurt innocents).
However, this person has demonstrated without any doubt that they cannot be trusted with the power of life and death. The default should be to permanently bar him from police duty and similar (like guard duty), and (I know this is somehow controversial in some parts) remove his right to carry firearms. And reversing either of those decisions should require an extraordinary demonstration of why he can now be trusted not to accidentally kill innocents.
Re:...state-sanctioned hit squads... (Score:5, Insightful)
The cop shot someone when the someone was not a threat. That should be a murder charge as shooting someone who is not a threat should not be tolerated.
Had a case up here not long ago where the cop got acquitted of murder as the knife wielding person was a threat. The cop did get convicted of attempted murder for the 6 bullets he put in him after the 2 (3?) that killed the perp. There needs to be more consequences for people misusing and removing peoples freedom to live by misusing firearms.
You want an armed society, the armed people better be responsible with those arms and in my experience, there are too many who aren't.
I'm guessing the Swatter made a deal (Score:2)
His pleading out means he was the first to turn. The other two will now have the full weight of law thrown at them and he will get a reduced sentence. Unfortunately that is the state of criminal justice in the USA. The person who is most responsible will get a better deal then the other two morons in the story, one of whom was the intended victim.
Re: STUPID americans (Score:2)
The solutions discovered anywhere else in the world don't apply to exceptional america.
I don't think that an insanely high violent crime rate is a "solution", but you're welcome to have it and be as proud of it as you like. As for me I would much rather have a 1 in 10 million chance of being shot by a cop than a 1 in 100,000 chance of being stabbed to death in a robbery.