Man Pleads Guilty To Swatting Attack That Led To Death of Kansas Man (arstechnica.com) 283
Federal prosecutors in Kansas announced Tuesday that a 25-year-old Californian has admitted that he caused a Wichita man to be killed at the hands of local police during a swatting attack late last year. Ars Technica reports: According to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Kansas, Tyler Barriss pleaded guilty to making a false report resulting in a death, cyberstalking, and conspiracy. He also admitted that he was part of "dozens of similar crimes in which no one was injured." In May 2018, Barriss was indicted on county charges (manslaughter) and federal charges, which include cyberstalking and wire fraud, among many others. U.S. Attorney Stephen McAllister said in a Tuesday statement that Barriss would be sentenced to at least 20 years in prison. Barriss also was involved in calling in a bomb threat to the Federal Communications Commission in December 2017 to disrupt a vote on net neutrality rules. The 25-year-old Californian is scheduled to be sentenced on January 30, 2019, in federal court in Wichita.
The adults of this civilization (Score:3, Insightful)
just made it very clear to the children of this civilization: DON'T SWAT PEOPLE
That is all.
Re:The adults of this civilization (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The adults of this civilization (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The adults of this civilization (Score:5, Interesting)
Anonymous call? Long distance call? Caller seems to know details that they shouldn't have? No proven history of priors for the address? No proven history of priors for the resident(s), if known? Kids in the house? Is it Stupid O'clock meaning people might not be thinking too clearly, let alone when someone hammers on their front door with guns? If the answer to any of those kind of questions are "yes" (and AFAIK in this case *all* of the above were except maybe the two on priors), then the responders need to act with a little more discretion than just assuming any vague switch they don't like is a justification to unload a weapon on centre mass. In this specific case you can maybe blame lack of training/poor information and cut them a *little* slack for that, but that horse has now bolted and the publicity here should have both prompted a review of police procedures and given potential swatters food for thought lest they become the next Tyler Barriss. The next time this happens (and I'm pretty sure it will), then it it shouldn't just be the swatter that gets the face the courts; those that mistakenly pulled the trigger *and* those responsible for the training that led them to do so need their time in court/jail as well.
Military equipment and tactics w/o the training (Score:2)
One of the videos talks about a 61 year old man who was shot by police who came to take his guns away after he was declared a risk to the community. The cops came at 5am. They did that because it's a military tactic. You're showing up while the target is waking up and likely to be disoriented. It's a tactic you use when you're showing up to kill your target.
And that's the problem. Police are using mili
Re:The adults of this civilization (Score:5, Insightful)
You will see an inundation of posts defending this guy and how he didn't do anything wrong and it is all the swat teams fault.
Nobody is defending him. What he did was clearly wrong.
But what the SWAT team did was also clearly wrong. They gunned down an innocent person based on nothing but an anonymous phone call.
The prank caller isn't the only one who should be going to prison.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The DA is never going to create bad blood by going after a member of the force unless the force casts them out first. They have to work with them every day. Its politics.
And that's why the DAs are as much at fault for the state of justice in America as the police themselves. Lots of people are forgetting to hold them accountable. Thanks for the reminder.
Re: (Score:2)
That too is a problem. Maybe there needs to be an independent DA for this sort of thing. Or it needs to be handled by a federal prosecutor.
Re:The adults of this civilization (Score:5, Insightful)
But what the SWAT team did was also clearly wrong. They gunned down an innocent person based on nothing but an anonymous phone call.
The prank caller isn't the only one who should be going to prison.
I've come to the conclusion that here in the USA we'll almost never see police held accountable for this kind of thing. There was an episode of South Park where there were major hunting restrictions so to get around them, Jimbo and Ned said "It's coming right at us!" and shot any animal they wanted to. Cops can unfortunately do the same thing. All they have to do is say "I was scared for my life" in court and it seems like about 90% of the time they walk. I can promise you if the police in this case ever go to trial - and I said "if" - that they will just say they were scared and they'll probably walk. There's nothing I can do about juries. They seem inclined to just let the cops kill anybody they want to if they say they were scared.
Re: The adults of this civilization (Score:5, Insightful)
So if someone throws molotov cocktails into peoples windows and somebody dies of smoke inhilation or is burned to death, or just maimed by fire (If you've seen what the scars from 3rd degree burns are like you'd understand why survivors of them are considered maimed) you think they should just have a few hundred hours of community service?
He was knowingly and intentionally putting many peoples lives at severe risk!
It's not like it's any secret that the police prefer to shoot first and lie about it later whenever they think their target has so much as a rubber band.
That scum is getting off light in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
That scum is getting off light in my opinion.
I always thought that "slow time" torture mechanism from Black Mirror was the most effective way to punish.
There's a reason people stuck in their heads sometimes commit suicide. Imagine not even being able to do that, for what seems like forever.
Re: (Score:2)
He was knowingly and intentionally putting many peoples lives at severe risk!
Right, because the cops are trigger happy. That's the only reason SWATting is inherently dangerous.
It's not like it's any secret that the police prefer to shoot first and lie about it later whenever they think their target has so much as a rubber band.
And you don't see that as the biggest problem here? Just living a life where that is true is a horrible stressor and itself contributes to the likelihood that someone would attempt something like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because the cops are trigger happy. That's the only reason SWATting is inherently dangerous.
The cops are absolutely at fault. Or arguably the entire law enforcement system. But the caller knew that very well, and intentionally sent trigger-happy thugs to an innocent person's house. He is absolutely culpable.
And you don't see that as the biggest problem here? Just living a life where that is true is a horrible stressor and itself contributes to the likelihood that someone would attempt something like this.
Of course, and that needs to get fixed. But that doesn't mean that it's somehow okay to abuse the broken system to get some people shot.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, and that needs to get fixed. But that doesn't mean that it's somehow okay to abuse the broken system to get some people shot.
I absolutely do not wish to absolve the caller of his responsibility for attempted murder by SWAT team. I only wish to hold the culpable parts of the system responsible for their actions, up to and including the shooter themself.
Re: The adults of this civilization (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a prank call. It's filing a false police report with malicious intent to cause harm.
A prank call is asking someone if their refrigerator is running.
This guy made multiple bomb threats and tried to use the swat team to attack someone over being beaten in a video game. He deserves the prison time, and if anything 20 years is too low for the criminal maliciousness that he's displayed.
Re: (Score:3)
A deadly prank that got someone killed. Intentionally. He didn't send some actors dressed as cops, he sent real cops with guns and reason to believe they would have to shoot someone. That is murder. It doesn't matter that someone else was holding the gun. Hiring a hitman as a prank is also going to get you sent to prison.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The adults of this civilization (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the police he was gunned down because he did a suspicious move - a move he was ordered not to do.
The cost was his life. That's a huge price to pay. So, you have to wonder why an innocent man would gamble on paying that price for no reason. There are a few possibilities. One is that the police are simply lying about how it went down: they went in amped up and scared for their own lives and someone took a shot before assessing the situation. One is that the guy just happened to be suicidal or a nihilist and didn't care about living or dying, so just decided to take the opportunity to die... this one seems to be pretty unlikely. Another is that the police barged in, guns drawn, with multiple officers screaming and yelling incomprehensibly and the guy didn't know what to do and, while one officer was yelling at him to stand still, and another was telling him to get against the wall, he got shot by whichever one of them he didn't obey. The next is similar, but rather than just failing to obey, he failed to understand that the black clad commandos bursting into his home with guns were police because their muffled screaming was, once again, incomprehensible in the very brief time he had to react, so he tried to run, or ask what was going on, or hide under something, or maybe even to to find a weapon to defend himself. I would say that one of the last two is very likely it.
The simple fact is that failure to obey a police officer is nonsense. Have you ever watched them try to direct traffic? When it's anything complex, it's generally a disaster. Partly because people just don't understand their signals all the time often because the hand signals get pretty lazy and vague after a while. I've seen plenty of raging cops screaming at people in cars who clearly simply couldn't understand their directions. I've been in the situation of not knowing what to do when a police officer stepped up next to my car (when it was already moving at about twenty five miles an hour) to give a hand signal that looked like maybe a stop. I didn't know if he meant me or just the traffic behind me. So, I stopped, but I couldn't stop instantaneously, so I ended up about thirty feet ahead of him with him standing behind my car, giving me a patented police officer death stare in the mirror. No signals, no words, no approaching my car, or turning to the traffic behind him, just standing there death glaring, apparently expecting me to understand what he was trying to communicate, if anything. After about thirty seconds I tried a little gas to see what he would do, and he just stood there staring. So I went ahead and drove off. But anyway, this seems to be how police officers communicate. They expect you to be telepathic and to know their commands even if they don't actually give them. One order over a scratching megaphone that no-one in a crowd can understand, and the order has been given, and they can start firing teargas if the crowd doesn't comply. For that matter, when they give an order to a crowd that's half a mile wide from the edge, they'll hold everyone in the crowd accountable for following the order that's been given. Give a public order at 5 PM, someone who didn't even arrive until six gets their head cracked for not obeying.
That's one of the fundamentals of the authoritarian viewpoint. It's self-centered. It's not just that their word is law. It's natural law. Once given, it's a force of nature that all matter must bend to. Everyone must have heard and understood, because only the authoritarians ego is real and everyone else is just an extension of that. This is a little hyperbolic, but seems like the only way to understand how incidents where the police are claiming that an innocent person decided to just throw their life away and disobey the orders of someone who is prepared to kill them if they do. If you'll recall, another popular refrain of the authoritarian set is that harsher and harsher punishments are required to make people compliant to the law. If they truly believe that h
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The adults of this civilization (Score:5, Interesting)
But that's the thing, there was no potential threat. They had a phone call that falsely claimed there was a hostage situation going on, and they had a guy ho voluntarily came to open the door who they immediately pointed guns at and then opened fire when he twitched a little bit (unsurprisingly people are kinda nervous when they've done nothing wrong and go to open the door only to be faced with a squad of armed cops pointing guns and yelling orders). They hadn't done any kind of work to verify that the information given to them on the phone was accurate. Hell, even if it was accurate information they had no idea at that point if the guy who came to open the door was the perpetrator, and not a hostage that the perp made to open the door at gunpoint.They lacked any and all information to make the determination that this guy is a legitimate threat and not a civilian, yet they immediately and without any cause assumed him to be both armed and dangerous. That's not how competent police officers respond to a threat situation like this.
I can actually give some contrast, because over a decade ago here in Finland our (extended) family was the target of an attempted swatting by our then mentally unstable (an alcoholic and a schizophrenic off his meds) neighbor who called the cops during a large family party telling them that one of us had pointed a gun at them and threatened to kill them (none of us even owns a firearm). We had maybe 20 people around, including plenty of kids, I was around 17 at the time and was sitting in my room playing on the computer when I saw a couple of armed cops run past my window. I went to the backyard to see what the hell was going on and saw a handful of cops in tactical gear with weapons out but not pointed at anyone talking to my dad who had been barbecuing with our cousins. The female lead-officer told dad about the call, and also told him that they had been monitoring us for the past 30 minutes (I don't know where, but there's a large bridge crossing the railroad tracks a couple hundred meters from the house, I think they had guys up there with binoculars, or maybe just dudes in bushes on the other side of the street, maybe both) and that they'd come to the conclusion that we were not a threat and it was likely a prank call. Dad told them that the neighbor had a mental history and would occasionally yell stuff and insults at us, though he's never been violent, and also said that we don't have guns in the house but that the cops can come inside if they want to look for the gun that they will not find there. The lead officer responded with: 'there's no need sir, you have little kids in the house and there's no need to scare the.' They then checked the IDs of the adults around and left, but not before knocking on the neighbor's door and having a long talk with him about what this will mean for him. He eventually got a hefty fine for causing such a massive police operation (my brothers had went out as the cops were leaving and counted at least 6 cop cars (with 2 officers each) at a nearby parking lot, they'd come in fully prepared for a potential fire fight). I mean look at it from the cops' perspective: they knew none of us had a criminal record and there was no licensed firearm registered to anyone. They look at what's going on and they see a bunch of guys casually sipping on some beers, grilling and listening to music and a few smaller kids playing soccer in the yard. To top it all of, the neighbor who made the call was sitting on his porch (apparently wanting to witness us getting arrested and/or shot). It doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to deduce that this is not the kind of sight you'd expect to see after someone had supposedly been pointing a firearm at someone and angrily shouting death threats.
That's how you're supposed to handle a situation of this magnitude. You don't just go in an point the guns and then open fire at whichever guy you happen to see first because h
Re:The adults of this civilization (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the police he was gunned down because he did a suspicious move - a move he was ordered not to do.
Unless that move involved lifting a gun of his own in a threatening manner then why shoot. Do you really think its ok for police to be able to murder anything they deem a POTENTIAL threat and then have to do no more than say that they felt threatened?
Re: The adults of this civilization (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
According to the police he was gunned down because he did a suspicious move - a move he was ordered not to do.
The man was in his own dwelling, and the cops were stationed where he was in shadow and they couldn't see him clearly. There was no immediate danger since they were in cover and body armor.
Unless you can prove the police were lying
I can prove it right now, from here. The cops said the victim was where they couldn't see him clearly. You should never shoot anything you can't see, because of the danger of shooting something you're not intending to shoot — mostly, someone. Therefore, the cop who fired acted improperly.
Anyone who has even played a
Re:The adults of this civilization (Score:5, Insightful)
You're fucked [youtube.com]
Sorry folks, but the Brailsford case caused me lose every scrap of respect I once had for the police.
Re: (Score:3)
I lost all respect for the cops in third grade, I can still remember. During show and tell a girl told us the story of how the cops pulled her dad over for speeding while other people were literally going by him and told him "you were easier to catch". On average cops don't give one tenth of one fuck about doing their job well, they just want to get paid and go home. That's what you get when the bar to becoming a cop is so low.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The adults of this civilization (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Police ALWAYS lie. Everyone knows it.
Why is this marked -1? It is true. Cops have been literally caugh by their bodycams planting drugs on peoples property and been convicted for it!
Some of A are X, therefore all of A are X, right?
You might want to take a basic logic course.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't strike me as sufficient justification. Most western countries, this would be considered murder. Killing someone because of a small chance that they might be a danger rather than it being probably is insufficient grounds for lethal force. He was reaching for his waistband. Sure, there was a possibility that he had a gun, but until this is confirmed there is no justification to fire.
Whether you think it's a good thing or not, I'd say the chances of someone in the US having a gun is much higher than in most western countries.
Re: (Score:2)
And then there was that officer who was fired for not shooting someone he suspected was unarmed. I'm pretty sure the system is a big part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
did not stand up in a real court of law then
It has stood up in court countless times. Following orders is not an excuse when, in the eyes of the court, the accused should have known his actions were highly immoral, or in clear violation of the law or human rights. When things are a little less clear, "only following orders" most certainly weighs in on the court's decision. There is some room between "clearly permissible" and "nazi war crimes", you know.
Re: (Score:2)
The same way people were saying (Score:2, Offtopic)
The bomb threats to the FCC were done by Ajit Pai himself ?
Just goes to show hate makes you stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
I have absolutely no sympathy for this man, however I still would want the SWAT team investigated.
From what little info reached me, it does seem someone had a nervous trigger finger and that cannot be left to go on.
Re:The adults of this civilization (Score:5, Interesting)
Not sure you ment it that way but I fully agree with that!
There are. 50000 SWAT raids per year in the US. That's 50000 cases of terror and violence. A society with those statistics has deep systemic problems and is very close to fascism.
The point is not defending this guy, the problem is that there the system is structurally arranged to point loaded guns at people for the slightest reason and yeah this guy is an easy fall guy because he clearly did something wrong. But it's a diversion from the real problem.
Re:The adults of this civilization (Score:5, Insightful)
Both are messed up, and for different reasons.
By the way, the cop that murdered the guy got off scott free.
So as many people have pointed out, there's more than one person guilty, and that in no way reduces the culpability of anyone involved in this travesty, but of course, cops are almost never punished at all, even when you have the video evidence that they lied and murdered a harmless and innocent person. Too bad we don't have the video evidence for this, not that it would likely help obtain justice.
Re:The adults of this civilization (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, if you think that something like that (causing terror and potential life threatening harm) is for giggles, then yes, that makes you messed up.
'what does this button do' type of things are stupid and reckless.
'I know it is dangerous and traumatizing to the targets, but I really don't give a damn.' is messed up
And if it then results in death, then a long prison sentence IS warranted because he knew fully well what the end result of a swatting can be. It is really no different from playing Russian roulette with someone else's head. And he knew it.
Re:The adults of this civilization (Score:5, Insightful)
Sending armed invaders into anothers home over being beaten in a game isn't "for giggles", it's an act of terrorism.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that, by the look of things, anyone can "arrange for loaded guns to be pointed at people". AMERICA, FUCK YEAH
Re: (Score:2)
How is that close to fascism? This has to be one of the most overused and misunderstood words in past years.
If anything, the number of raids means we have a serious crime problem.
Re: The adults of this civilization (Score:2)
Re: The adults of this civilization (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The death is the SWAT team's fault, but if you invoke SWAT activity for no reason, the chances increase that one of the teams is going the bunch of amateur idiots who were called upon in Wichita.
Re: (Score:2)
all the swat teams fault.
They are the ones that pulled the trigger. I doubt that they will be looked at though. No doubt they wouldn't have been there if this guy hadn't called but you've got to look at the situation when they can be called and basically have a shoot first and ask questions later policy.
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is if you arrange for loaded guns to be pointed at people eventually something WILL go disastrously wrong.
Yes. And that's what the police in the USA are all about. It's all about arranging for loaded guns to be pointed at people. The very first time I got pulled over, literally for nothing (I was driving a cheap car late at night in Santa Cruz which is expensive and therefore I was suspicious!) two cops both pointed their guns right at my head, fingers on triggers. I was looking down two barrels before I was even 18.
SWATting doesn't happen in other developed nations because they don't have a shoot first attitud
Re: The adults of this civilization (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would it be a good analogy to compare it to putting a 2 ton boulder randomly on an interstate highway. Sure, it is the drivers fault that they ran into a 2 ton rock but creating such a dangerous situation should carry a heavy burden for the outcome.
Re:The adults of this civilization (Score:5, Interesting)
It can be more than one person's fault.
This guy who plead guilty is unquestionably at fault of "making a false report resulting in a death", and definitely was at fault for causing the death. And yet I see slashdot posts question it. He sent armed people to another man's house to harass him (although harassed the wrong man too). Accidents happen and it's criminally unreasonable to assume that this is a harmless prank.
The guy who took the shot also has some implication, and a mitigating circumstance. There should be a criminal investigation into him and maybe he gets off on the circumstance. But even if innocent he absolutely should not be allowed to have a job where he points guns at people anymore without a truly extraordinary reason, since he's proven to be incapable of doing it without accidentally killing innocents.
Then the training and hiring should at least be reviewed. Can we make systemic changes that reduces the risk of this? Eg. training of the shooter, hiring of the shooter, training of the dispatcher, etc.. Is this truly, tragically impossible to avoid / impractical to do so without vastly increasing the risk to other innocents?
Re:The adults of this civilization (Score:5, Interesting)
I've come to know several SWAT personnel for other, professional reasons. Most of them train frequently, and killing an innocent bystander is normally the end of their career, as much as it might be for ordinary officers.
Re: (Score:2)
is normally the end of their career, as much as it might be for ordinary officers.
So not at all in America given the arguement that everyone is a threat and out to get you.
Interesting phrasing though. If I killed an innocent bystander it wouldn't be my career that would be on the line.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And when it comes to specially trained officers, like S.W.A.T., they're always a little bit cocky, but have an overall respect for all human life, and are very reasonable people.
I have personal counter-evidence from a SWAT member (he had the little pin on his collar) who arrested me on false charges of vandalism, cuffed my hands behind my back and put me in the front of his cop car with my head against the airbag... which has enough force to break bones. Like necks. He was a multiple statutory rapist (who stole drugs from evidence and traded them for sex with underage girls) who had a very, very long history of abuse. He would regularly accuse suspects of resisting arrest so that h
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I should have just stated that I respect my local SWAT guys more than my local street cops.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite able to put my finger on it, but something tells me you're not American.
I don't think you were trolling, and I'm interested in understanding why you would think that someone from the United States would have trouble believing an unfortunate consequence could have more than one person at fault. What is the context of your understanding that leads to this remark?
My experience is that Americans understand that multiple people can be at fault. The idea of "contributory negligence" is certainly at work in the United States. Lawsuits frequently include multiple parties with the i
Re:The adults of this civilization (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, people should take responsibility for their part in a catastrophe, but that still doesn't mean that there can't be more than one person at fault.
Consider the following scenario:
Re: (Score:2)
It's both the officers and this guys fault. This guy deliberately set up the conflict, using false information that placed the officers in a state of heightened alert leading to them being overly sensitive to any changing factors.
That heightened sensitivity lead to them reacting to a situation in a way that if it were not for the call initiator they would have not reacted to, or even been present for. Therefore, this guy carries the majority of fault as he created the situation deliberately and with malice.
Re: (Score:2)
Many US cops are absolutely far too trigger-happy. However, if you intentionally make use of that in order to get someone killed, you're still intentionally trying to get someone killed. Cop and swatter are both at fault, but the cop committed manslaughter at worst, while the swatter committed murder.
Re: (Score:3)
It's definitely the thrower's.
But if the driver was impaired, speeding or whatever and that caused him to be unable to avoid it then it's the driver's fault too.
It's not either/or.
Re: (Score:2)
There's several people in this thread doing exactly that. It's disgusting.
Re: The adults of this civilization (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
just made it very clear to the children of this civilization: DON'T SWAT PEOPLE
That is all.
And this particular adult made it clear to the children that they won't ever learn anything. DON'T MURDER, RAPE OR ROB PEOPLE either but those are still abundant so what're you gonna do?
That's great but... (Score:5, Insightful)
why in the hell aren't the police facing the same charges?
They are the ones who pulled the trigger(s) and ended this person's life.
LK
Re: That's great but... (Score:2, Insightful)
"why in the hell aren't the police facing the same charges?"
Because cops are above the law, obviously.
Re: That's great but... (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, cops protect cops, and the prosecutors who decide what cases to prosecute are complicit in this conspiracy due to their working closely with the police and seeing them as their allies and aids.
After who's going to arrest the cops?
Re: That's great but... (Score:2)
"who's going to arrest the cops?"
The National Guard, if necessary.
Not just Blue Shield (Score:2)
If you want to hold police accountable you need to do away with Tough on Crime politics. It's a blind ideology that says anything that hurts criminals must be good. They're voters who don't think, they feel. You need to reach these voters and get them to consider the impacts of their voting dec
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Some noble points, if made with a bad attitude, but noble none the less.
What isn't happening here though is this:
but what people like you seem to want is open season on the people who selflessly defend us.
We're discussing an officer who shot an unarmed civilian here. The police have no more right to fire on a person than any of the rest of us do. 'he made a movement!' isn't a clear or present enough danger for me to fire on someone else, the same should apply to the authorities.
Gunning down an unarmed person isn't 'selflessly defending us'. It's overreacting to your own fear and it would land a
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Officer will live with this guilt for the rest of his life. He
Re: That's great but... (Score:5, Interesting)
There's enough blame to go around. Surely the trigger happy cop, who shot an unarmed civilian in his own home without provocation, is at least as much at fault a dumb punk kid who made a prank call.
I sure don't want a dangerous nut like that "protecting" my city. Police must be held to a higher standard than civilians. When cops literally get away with murder, no one is safe.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's because the officers had no reason to believe the situation was not what the caller said. They had to be ready to act in an instant to stop a madman bent on killing others. If the situation was as reported and they hesitate at the wrong moment innocents die. Their job is to try to stop that from happening and that requires split second decisions and reactions based on what was only determined AFTER THE FACT to be a false report.
Do you really think shoot first ask questions later is appropriate tactic for a police force?
Re: (Score:2)
SPECIAL TACTICS for that matter. SWAT is supposed to be trained for things normal cops aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
They had to be ready to act in an instant to stop a madman bent on killing others. ... justice!!
So while a cop rang the bell, and a few of them greeted the guy who opened the door, some other cop, 30m away, shot the guy who opened the door
The Officer will live with this guilt for the rest of his life. He didn't take the job to kill an innocent man, but to serve and protect the innocent.
You are well aware that from the outside view of things like this: only people who want to have the legal right to shoot ot
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
OH SHUT THE FUCK UP. A megaphone is way more than enough to get things sorted out.
Re:That's great but... (Score:4, Insightful)
They were responding to a report of a dangerous armed individual.
If they assumed that the report was genuine, when we know they often are not, then the police are at fault.
They went in ready for action.
If the action they went in for was murder instead of conflict resolution, then the police are at fault.
They go in half-assed and they die.
They went in half-assed and murdered someone, and it was their fault.
Also at the time SWATTING was still a new phenomenon
No, it wasn't. It had already been going on for years and the term was already well-known in the news media. If the police can't be bothered to keep up with what is happening with the people they are supposed to be policing, then the police are at fault.
This incident and a couple others have changed that. But at the time they had no reason to not believe the caller and had to treat the threat as very real.
No, they didn't, and the fact that they treated the report as if it were true without doing any investigation is the reason they were at fault.
Even if swatting were not already a thing, lying is part of human nature and if they ignore that fact, it makes it their fault.
Thus to protect their lives and the lives of innocents living around the home in question they had to go in ready to fire without hesitation.
They went in ready to fire without hesitation, and consequently murdered a man, which is why it's their fault.
This is fully and entirely on the person who called in the report.
Only the false report is on his head. The shooting was committed by the officer, who pulled the trigger. That's why it's his fault.
Unfortunately the victim did something that caused the offer's finger to move.
This is where you really go fully insane. That's not how it works. The only link between the motion of the victim and the murderer pulling the trigger existed in the murderer's mind. That's why the police are at fault.
The officer has to live with knowing it was an innocent man.
No, he doesn't. He can also die. I'm not really calling for that, because I don't believe in the death penalty whether it's the law of the land or not. The only time it's acceptable to kill someone is when it's to prevent harm to another, and there's no better way to prevent it. That's why it's the fault of the police.
But the blame is not on the officer who was just doing what he had to do based on the situation as he then knew it.
The officer was in a covered, supported position across the street where he couldn't see what was happening in a dark doorway, and he opened fire when there was no clear and present danger to any persons, which is why he is at fault. The police created this situation by failing to cover his doorway with a sniper who could see into the doorway with his narrow optics, and who should have been the only person to even have a finger on a trigger. Those of us who actually know how to handle guns properly know that you don't put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot something. But cops have shit muzzle and trigger discipline on a level that would literally get them kicked out of a real military organization, not their toy soldiers in blue bullshit, and he was aiming the weapon at someone who was not a danger and had his finger on the trigger as well. That's negligence by any reasonable measurement, and that's why the police are at fault.
The very first time I got pulled over, literally for nothing, I had two cops point guns in my face with fingers on triggers. It's this kind of illegal and unethical behavior that leads to accidental police shootings, for which the police are at fault. And cops engage in it every day in this cou
Re: (Score:2)
You absolutely nailed it. Too bad I already ran out of points.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A person that has just murdered someone and has a hostage is not going to casually answer the door in the first place. That cop would have just shot dead the hostage.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'd ask why they shot the first confused guy that opened the door, because if I was a hostage taker I'd send the hostage to answer the door.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't interview a dead suspect... you have no idea of his motivation, whether you have the full story, etc.
The US is one of the few countries that thinks that's a good thing.
With police-firearm-incidents rates something like double that of South Africa, it's not really surprising.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is you're a cop?
Re: That's great but... (Score:2)
I was expecting a teenager (Score:2)
Hi, both swatters and cops are bad. You're welcome (Score:5, Insightful)
It's that simple.
The swatter is a piece of shit who should go to jail for basically sending a squad of armed police to someone's house on a false report.
The cops are pieces of shit because they have no fucking discipline and shoot people at the drop of a hat. People seem to have a really hard time understanding this but "Getting home to their family" is NOT the job of a cop.
If you choose to be a cop, you're an arm of the government. You have been invested with the coercive force of the government- you are far, far different from a regular civilian worker. Your job isn't to protect yourself first- it's to protect everyone else. That's the cost of your privileges. You are literally being paid to hesitate a moment longer to make sure you don't murder an innocent civilian because if they turn out to NOT be so innocent you are legally authorized to kill them if need be in a way that a civilian is not. If you get killed because of that hesitation, that's the fucking gig. Either deal with that possibility or don't be a cop.
Why not murder 2? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So does the cop.
Actually, since it's about a year later, he's probably 26 now.
No idea how old the cop is, but he'd been a cop there for 7 years, so he's no stupid rookie that got scared and did something stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep.
I have no sympathy for this parasite, he deserves ever minute of a 20-year sentence, but my very first thought was "coerced" when I read the headline.
There's no way this loud-mouth was going to plead guilty all by himself.
The US "justice" system has got plea-bargaining and coercion down to a fine art. It's wrong. It needs to change.
Re: (Score:3)
He publicly admitted doing this before, and iirc he also bragged about this one but even if he didn't, there was enough proof that he did this.
So he gets to choose: take a jury trial when there is absolutely no reasonable doubt, with enough evidence that he was a long term asshole, and possibly get a life sentence. Or take a plea deal and settle for 20.
In his case, taking the 20 was probably the best choice because a trial would in all likelihood have resulted in a guilty verdict and longer sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right - who needs jury trials, anyways? That whole Sixth Amendment thing was a huge mistake. We can always trust cops to tell the whole truth, and we can totally trust prosecutors never to abuse their power. Everyone knows rubber stamp kangaroo courts and a really massive gulag 95% full of people who "confessed" are the hallmarks of legitimate government.
In short, who needs Freedom - free-dumb-shmee-dumb - when we could save a couple bucks AND fill up the gulag even faster!?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:US (Score:5, Interesting)
Other country's police forces don't just charge in, weapons drawn and start shooting people, no matter what the situation.
Hence, there's no real "fun" (if that's why people do it) in SWATting people in other countries. All that will happen is the person you "SWAT" will be investigated, then they'll trace the call back and an unarmed officer will be slapping you in handcuffs for trying to do it.
Seriously, the problem here is training of the person behind the gun. Every country in the world has armed police officers available. They are the ones that respond to armed incidents (or, even, the nearest unarmed officer gets there and assesses what they can before the cavalry arrive). They don't just go shooting people for no reason, and they don't get close enough that they feel at risk from the slightest flinch of the suspect.
Honestly, people in America should watch our equivalent of Cops and see quite how you do things. Literally, guys coming at officers with hammers and you still don't just gun them down. It's not "weakness". It takes a lot bigger man to just stand there, take abuse, risk physical injury and try to calm a guy down than to just pull a trigger "because you were a bit uncomfortable".
Death by policeman is rare outside the US.
Seriously:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
These countries are no different to the US in the incidents of nutters. The difference is in how many ordinary people are armed (and in some countries, everybody carries a weapon because they were all compulsarily conscripted), and how they are dealt with.
Seriously... the UK. 70 million people. NOT ONE DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY by shooting in 2012/13/14, despite 6000 armed officers, 10,000 incidents in that year. "Incidents where firearms were discharged"... 3 / 4 / 5.
Re:US (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, a HUGE difference between the US and my country is that normal police do not have to consider that every traffic stop or intervention could result in being shot at. Cops in the US are on a hair trigger because getting shot at is a very real possibility. In most Western european countries for example, cops do not walk up to a situation expecting to be shot at.
Re:US (Score:5, Interesting)
Switzerland and Finland have almost as high gun-ownership, no problem.
And, again, if the problem is that even the police are too scared of everyone having weapons, maybe it's time to stop being the most heavily-armed-citizens country by introducing some fecking gun control.
And you might also want to ask "Why are police at risk of people shooting them, when they just charge in and start shooting innocent people for no good reason and then get away with it?"
Re: US (Score:2)