FBI Arrests Three More Men Who Hired 'SWAT' Perpetrator (nbcnews.com) 146
"Three men allegedly conspired with admitted 'swatter' Tyler Barriss to make hoax reports of bombs and murders to police departments, high schools and a convention center across the United States, according to three indictments unsealed today," reports America's Department of Justice.
An anonymous reader quotes NBC News: The three people charged -- Neal Patel, 23, of Des Plaines, Illinois; Tyler Stewart, 19, of Gulf Breeze, Florida; and Logan Patten, 19, of Greenwood, Missouri -- are not accused in the "swatting" call allegedly made by another man that preceded the police shooting of Andrew Finch, a 28, in Wichita on Dec. 28, 2017. But they are accused of asking the suspect in the fatal Kansas case, Tyler Barriss, through Twitter direct messages to make false reports of bombs or threats of shootings that would trigger a law enforcement response and the evacuation of buildings against other targets, including a high school and a Dallas video game tournament....
Patel allegedly conspired with Barriss to make false reports to police in Milford, Connecticut, in December of 2017, and to make a false bomb threat targeting a video game convention in Dallas, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California in Los Angeles. Stewart is accused of conspiring with Barriss to make two false bomb threats about a high school in Gurnee, Illinois, in early December of 2017, and Patten is charged with hiring Barriss to "swat" people in Indiana and Ohio, also in December of 2017, and of scheming with Barriss to "swat" a high school in Missouri, according to prosecutors.
After this week's arrests, the three men each face up to 15 years in federal prison. Patel allegedly also used "unauthorized" credit cards to pay Barriss -- and now faces two more bank fraud charges which each carry up to 30 years in federal prison.
The article also notes that the 25-year-old who actually made the calls -- and the call which led to a fatal shooting in Wichita -- "has agreed to serve a sentence of between 20 and 25 years in federal prison." And the two gamers involved in the dispute which led to that shooting have also been criminally charged.
An anonymous reader quotes NBC News: The three people charged -- Neal Patel, 23, of Des Plaines, Illinois; Tyler Stewart, 19, of Gulf Breeze, Florida; and Logan Patten, 19, of Greenwood, Missouri -- are not accused in the "swatting" call allegedly made by another man that preceded the police shooting of Andrew Finch, a 28, in Wichita on Dec. 28, 2017. But they are accused of asking the suspect in the fatal Kansas case, Tyler Barriss, through Twitter direct messages to make false reports of bombs or threats of shootings that would trigger a law enforcement response and the evacuation of buildings against other targets, including a high school and a Dallas video game tournament....
Patel allegedly conspired with Barriss to make false reports to police in Milford, Connecticut, in December of 2017, and to make a false bomb threat targeting a video game convention in Dallas, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California in Los Angeles. Stewart is accused of conspiring with Barriss to make two false bomb threats about a high school in Gurnee, Illinois, in early December of 2017, and Patten is charged with hiring Barriss to "swat" people in Indiana and Ohio, also in December of 2017, and of scheming with Barriss to "swat" a high school in Missouri, according to prosecutors.
After this week's arrests, the three men each face up to 15 years in federal prison. Patel allegedly also used "unauthorized" credit cards to pay Barriss -- and now faces two more bank fraud charges which each carry up to 30 years in federal prison.
The article also notes that the 25-year-old who actually made the calls -- and the call which led to a fatal shooting in Wichita -- "has agreed to serve a sentence of between 20 and 25 years in federal prison." And the two gamers involved in the dispute which led to that shooting have also been criminally charged.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This will really drive that point home:
Trumpâ(TM)s CFPB Fines a Man $1 For Swindling Veterans
This guy broke numerous laws while making predatory loans to veterans and, not only did he not get jail time, the amount of his fine was reduced to $1 when he said he couldn't afford it.
When poor people can't pay a traffic ticket or court fine, they go to jail. The wealthy and their cronies? They pay $1 and walk away.
Re: (Score:1)
Here's the non-fucked up link
https://theintercept.com/2019/... [theintercept.com]
Re: (Score:1)
This will really drive that point home:
Trumpâ(TM)s CFPB Fines a Man $1 For Swindling Veterans
This guy broke numerous laws while making predatory loans to veterans and, not only did he not get jail time, the amount of his fine was reduced to $1 when he said he couldn't afford it.
When poor people can't pay a traffic ticket or court fine, they go to jail. The wealthy and their cronies? They pay $1 and walk away.
The guy learned that trick in the Trump University class, "How to Avoid Paying for Things and Stuff."
Re: (Score:2)
Worse, Roger Stone didn't have to put up a penny to get out on bond.
Re: (Score:2)
State is normally 40% before eligible for parole. Fed is 85% before parole. So 8.5 years for every 10 in the sentence. He will be gone a while. And deservedly. Now if we could only get the trigger happy SWAT members some time to reflect on their actions also..
Good (Score:3)
These little psychos need to be very publicly judged.
Re: (Score:2)
They should spend all of their time on a prison bus, being ferried around to different schools where they explain how they fucked up. Just incarcerating them doesn't help much. What a gang of little shits, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Their sentences will serve as a good object lesson to others considering such foolishness. And I don't think you need to justify the proper application of justice, in any case. I'm perfectly happy allocating a small portion of my taxes to pay for their prosecution and subsequent incarceration.
Re: (Score:2)
"Their sentences will serve as a good object lesson to others considering such foolishness."
No, they won't. Most people will never even hear about them. Meanwhile, long prison sentences tend to create more crime. You don't think these guys will turn to crime to make a living when they get out, and find that they can't get a job?
". I'm perfectly happy allocating a small portion of my taxes to pay for their prosecution and subsequent incarceration."
Why are you happy to waste money? That's literally insane.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think you can really tell an
Re: (Score:3)
Does that do any good though? They already do this with other criminals and for other crimes, but that doesn't really seem to stop anyone.
How do you know it hasn't stopped anyone?
By definition we wouldn't know, because the crimes weren't committed.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, in this case, yes it does good. The thing is, "swatting" is a fairly new problem. There's still way too many little punks that see it as a low-risk, high-reward job, and that just entices them to continue doing it. It's just free money for those that haven't developed a moral compass yet, along with those that have already chosen to be evil. Laws serve many purposes, not just punishment. They also serve as a guide for "what your community has decided is NOT ok to do", as well as a deterrent for those that are considering doing it anyway. Right now there are dozens of other little punks around the country looking at this story and reconsidering whether or not they are going to continue to sway for hire, pay someone to swat people they don't like, phone in bomb threats to get a day off school, etc. And that's a good thing for the rest of the society that are having to suffer their presence.
That's where parents come in. Responsible parents neither want to see their kid locked up, nor want to go to jail FOR their kids, so again the laws serve as both a guide as to what to teach their kids, as well as a motivator to get them to drive the lesson home. "Some of them are just going to break the law anyway" is a terrible reason to avoid making a law. We only have laws because people were already doing something that hurt the public. It's like why we have to have "do not eat" on silica packets - it's because yes there really were people stupid enough to DO it. You can't fix all of the idiots of the world, you can only encourage them to behave reasonably by laying down the rules and demonstrating that they won't like what happens to them if they choose to do it anyway. Like you're saying, you can't force them to behave. And because many of them simply don't WANT to behave, you have to encourage them. With laws. Laws with teeth. Laws with punishments.
Of course no matter what laws you have and what punishments you have, there will still be a small minority that continue to be antisocial. Getting anywhere near 100% will require intolerable laws and unreasonable punishments. So you have to strike a good balance, which is tricky to do. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They should spend all of their time on a prison bus, being ferried around to different schools where they explain how they fucked up.
I like this idea.
They should be paraded in front of every class wearing full restraints, including leg and waist chains, while they explain exactly how stupid they were.
Tyler Barris got someone killed directly as a result of his mindless douchebag behavior, and he should spend the rest of his life paying for it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a half bad idea. We normally don't agree on much, but I can 100% get behind this. He has plenty of time he can visit every Junior High School and High School should be attended by these clowns and have the story told of how they got to spend the best years of their life in prison. Maybe give them 4 hours off their sentence for school attended.
Re: (Score:2)
These little psychos need to be very publicly judged.
Yep, and so do the bigger psychos in the SWAT team. If you set a rabid dog on someone then you're guilty of their murder. If the rabid dog is actually a person then you're every bit as guilty, but so is the rabid-dog person.
Re: (Score:2)
I must say, your post is level and reasonable with absolutely **no** prior agenda and prejudices. Right?
Full disclosure, I have an agenda that the police don't slaughter innocent citizens. And I'm prejusiced against the ones that do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be honest, that leaves a massive loop hole that allows the police to murder 90% of the population because we've all done something at some point.
That's a fair point. I certainly don't want the polics to be street judges.
Re: (Score:1)
These little psychos need to be very publicly judged.
No, they need to be judged by their peers. Nothing more, nothing less. Otherwise you see the same lying bullshit and witch hunting as what went on with the high schoolers from Covington. Trials by mobs have no place in a democracy, nor do kangaroo courts.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Fuck your hypocrisy you lazy bitch. (Score:2)
EMTs don't generally go into active shooter situations. It's not a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Shaddap faggot people in stress situations make mistakes with consequences.
Blasting away at a person who does nothing more than open his own front door wondering what the hell is going on outside is bad police procedure that should have brought prosecution. As in, a mistake with consquences.
My cure for the police malpractice problem would be to take civil judgements for police malpractice straight out of the local police retirement fund, rather than billing the taxpayers. This would break the "blue wall" by motivating good cops to help get rid of bad cops.
Re: (Score:2)
I too think that the cop should have been tried for second-degree murder, as should the copsucking local prosecutor who refused to bring charges in this case.
Authorities untouchable (Score:1, Insightful)
Being in a position of authority and murdering someone: wrist slap.
Showing the people how dangerous and out of control the authorities are: 20 years in prison.
Speaking of which (Score:4, Informative)
TL;DW, the military has weapons meant for killing people and don't understand when/why not to use them.
Re: (Score:1)
It's definitely a local problem. We're close to Newtown and our police have shown fast (assertive) response with full, appropriate restraint.
When cities stop being a community, all sorts of bad stuff happens.
Re: Authorities untouchable (Score:4, Insightful)
If you had the slightest bit of humanity in you, you might see the difference between someone fucking up while doing an insanely stresfull job, and someone intentionally creating a situation meant to cause harm. But you don't. You don't give a fuck about the people involved. It's all just politics to you.
Re: Authorities untouchable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Authorities untouchable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Pray tell, the stress of police work dealing with homicidally violent people equates to which other stressful jobs.
"Stressful" should excuse entirely avoidable killings of innocent people? How many?
Re: Authorities untouchable (Score:4, Insightful)
Define "entirely avoidable".
Every police killing is entirely avoidable if we just convince cops to die instead of shooting first. Is that what you mean by "entirely avoidable"? Or do you have some other objective universal metric you're applying here?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Many jobs are stressful. Most of them don't get the same free pass for killing/harming people as American cops and military do. Nope, not feeling sorry for the cop or empathy for him.
When was the last time you assisted in the arrest in domestic violence case, where one of the parties started attacking you with a knife? 'Cause that's shit happens more often then you think. Or ran into a burning building without respirator gear, or dove off a peer to rescue a kid drowning.
Sorry, the stress that you actively face as a cop is different then having a rack of servers going down. Sure you're more likely to be killed if you're working on a fishing boat, or as a logger. But you're not expect
Re: Authorities untouchable (Score:5, Insightful)
If you had the slightest bit of humanity in you, you might see the difference between someone fucking up while doing an insanely stresfull job, and someone intentionally creating a situation meant to cause harm.
Anyone else in the same "insanely stressful" situation fucking up in the same way would be facing a trial for killing a harmless guy standing on his porch. We have an absolute right to be safe from being murdered by government agents when we answer the door. If the job means risking murdering someone standing on his porch, then the entire occupation needs fundamental reform at the very least.
And if you guys want a show of humanity, then make it a policy to treat non-police with the same respect and humanity you'd like to experience yourself.
Being extremely defensive when you're clearly in the wrong doesn't help. Acting like accountability is an attack doesn't help.
Also, covering up for each other doesn't help. If you're not a criminal gang, stop behaving like a criminal gang.
You don't give a fuck about the people involved.
Do police give a fuck about non-police?
Re: (Score:2)
It's all just politics to you.
Also, let's forget the "politics" for a minute. What will it take to change things so police kill fewer innocent people? Got any ideas? Any interest in that at all?
Re: Authorities untouchable (Score:3)
Also, let's forget the "politics" for a minute. What will it take to change things so police kill fewer innocent people? Got any ideas? Any interest in that at all?
That's a loaded question. The number of innocent people killed by police annually is notoriously difficult to quantify, but whatever the exact number may be it's statistically inconsequential; on the same order as the number of people killed by farm animals every year (and yes, I can already see you getting ready to make a pig joke).
The real questions are how much further this number can be lowered, by which methods, and what you're willing to do in order to accomplish that goal. You may want to familiari
Re: (Score:2)
So no ideas then. Not much interest either. As expected. Non-police getting killed in police encounters don't matter as long as things go ok for the blue team.
Re: Authorities untouchable (Score:2)
Correct, no interest. If you propose a practical solution which doesn't cost billions and doesn't create more risk for cops, and I'll gladly back it. Otherwise the numbers simply aren't high enough to be of concern, and I'm not going to waste my time dreaming up solutions for a non-issue.
Re: Authorities untouchable (Score:2)
We have the number of deaths. We don't have the number of innocents killed, primarily because "innocent" itself is difficult to quantify and often pretty subjective. You are confusing two different things and then blaming the cops for your ignorance. Status quo.
Re: (Score:2)
The guy in Kansas just opened his front door.
I don't think blaming the victim will help.
Re: (Score:3)
The police aren't supposed to be a dial-a-murder service. If we want a dial-a-murder service, we can call up a street gang.
The cops made a judgement and it was a bad judgement, but no one with any sense is going to blame the cops for wanting to go home alive after their shift.
Police who think that's the only thing that matters should go home at the end of their shift and stay home. We don't need police who are ok with killing a few innocent people now and then as long as it turns out ok for the police.
This attitude is 100% of the problem: police care about police and not so much about the people they were hired to protect. Maybe the job wouldn't be so "st
Re: (Score:2)
My own total loss of the last shreds of respect I once had for the police came after seeing this video:
http://nymag.com/intelligencer... [nymag.com]
At least this perp was prosecuted, though a cabbagehead jury let him off. Te Wichita cop was not even prosecuted.
Re: Authorities untouchable (Score:2)
If you're the kind of person who loses all respect for hundreds of thousands of people based on the actions of one individual, you are clearly not a rational actor and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. You may as well be stating that you lost all respect for doctors after reading about Andrew Wakefield.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is not just that a few cops go bad. That happens in every line of business. It's that the working police culture protects bad actors, rather than isolating and exposing them. So few of those bad guys are even prosecuted, let alone convicted.
Re: Authorities untouchable (Score:2)
That's such a gross generalization that it should be beneath anyone other than a proud bigot. Again, you could say the same thing about doctors - or any profession you like - and be equally ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's actually really difficult for them to do. There aren't two types, there's a whole range. For guys in the middle, it's probably hard to tell whether they're basically good with some bad habits and weaknesses versus being basically bad but deceptive and socially skilled.
The good cops also probably don't want to be killed or left to die by the bad cops.
Ultimately, the culture and the leadership and the laws are the problems. None of them respect non-police. When the laws and politicians tell
Re: (Score:2)
Piss off bootlicker. Taxi driving is more dangerous than policing, but they don't get to murder freely.
If you can't do your job without the odd bit of murder, then don't fucking stay in that job.
Re: (Score:2)
This is nothing to do with making a difficult decision under stress. The officer was under no threat at all, neither was anyone else, and he had no reason to believe they were.
He chose to execute a defenceless & harmless person for the fun of it because he knew he could get away with it. He should do the taxpayer a favour and hang himself.
Re: (Score:2)
At the time when the shooting happened it was NOT CLEAR...
When the situation is NOT CLEAR, that's a good time to NOT SHOOT at people.
Re: (Score:2)
2 weeks after this swatting incident, a cop shot a 9 year old girl in the face while trying to kill the family dog in front of 4 children. After being explicitly told not to enter the home. This is not an isolated incident.
Come on, it's a stressful job! The officer went home at the end of the day. Isn't that all that matters?
You're really being mean by Monday-morning-quarterbacking the "9-year-old girl shot in the face" incident. I bet the girl's family made a big deal about it too.
Mistakes happen (when you open fire needlessly).
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a news story with a picture of the dog. Cute doggy:
https://www.kansas.com/news/lo... [kansas.com]
Here's the body cam video:
https://www.kansas.com/news/lo... [kansas.com]
Why walk through a dark house on high alert, ready to open fire, when there are 4 preteen children there? Keeping people safe — especially young children — should always be the priority. Does police training skip over that? It really makes you wonder.
Re: (Score:1)
If you had the slightest bit of humanity in you, you might see the difference between someone fucking up while doing an insanely stresfull job, and someone intentionally creating a situation meant to cause harm.
No, what it looked like to me is some trigger-happy fucktard using the wrong tool for a stressful job, because for whatever reason, the powers that be felt a human life was worth less than the cost of a robot/drone.
30 years for using an Unauthorized Credit Card. (Score:1)
30 Years in prison for using an unauthorized credit card. Explain how this is not a tyrannical government ?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's bank fraud. The statute also allows for fines of up to a million dollars. It would be excessive to put someone away for thirty years and fine him a million bucks if he defrauded the bank of a couple of hundred bucks, but it might be reasonable in the case of someone who spent years defrauding the bank and raked in millions.
Gamers are Pathetic, Cops are Morons (Score:1)
Re: Uh, goodbye (Score:1)
No it is not clueless bitch.
Re: (Score:2)
No it is not clueless bitch.
Boy, the modern rewrite of the Monty Python "I'd like to have an argument!" sketch is just terrible.
Re: (Score:2)
KILL YOURSELF NOW.
PP needs to commit Sudoku.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't putting someone in PRISON for 20 years just because they made a phone call pretty much the definition of censorship?
You are an idiot.
KILL YOURSELF NOW.
By the way, protected speech as it is not an exhortation to imminent lawless action. Unlike swatting.
Re:Uh, hello? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't putting someone in PRISON for 20 years just because they made a phone call pretty much the definition of censorship?
Congratulations, you win the Dumbest Comment Award on Slashdot today!
"Hey, I just wanted to rob a bank and those dirty cops denied me the right to express myself with a gun and a mask!"
Re: Uh, hello? (Score:1)
No, it's not a dumb comment. A little naive maybe, but certainly not dumb.
He's right, it is censorship. The very definition of it, in fact. Instead of calling him stupid you could have pointed out that some forms of censorship are ok, for various reasons. That might have led to an interesting discussion of how we determine which forms of censorships are ok, and under which circumstances. But that's too hard, I guess.
Re: Uh, hello? (Score:4, Informative)
If I may say, censorship is typically the prevention of free speech, and involves "prior restraint". In this case, it's punishment after the fact for fraudulent speech with foreseeably lethal consequences. Similarly, for the other fraudsters, it is not censorship. It's punishment for fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Although threats of government retaliation is considered censorship, as is the even weaker "regulation by raised eyebrow", where government, empowered to license things, might decline if you speak unfavored things. Unofficially of course. 'Cause that would be illegal.
Anything that "chills speech" is censorship.
But free speech doesn't include fraud, deliberate lies to get someone's money. Or kill them.
Re: (Score:1)
No, it's not a dumb comment. A little naive maybe, but certainly not dumb.
He's right, it is censorship. The very definition of it, in fact.
No, it really is a dumb comment. Why?
The unrelated hypothetical situation that he asked about and you are now talking about is just that - an unrelated hypothetical situation.
Prison time for making a phone call *would be* censorship. Driving over the speed limit *would be* a traffic violation too.
The fact both of those are true means what exactly?
Neither have *anything* to do with the case at hand, the story, the article, the situation, or what is happening. Not one damn thing.
So why is anon up above bot
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not a dumb comment. A little naive maybe, but certainly not dumb.
If that's "naive" I'd hate to see what someone has to say to qualify for "dumb".
He's right, it is censorship.
If putting people in prison for recklessly causing the death of another human being is "censorship", then I'm all for it.
No one ever said that free speech is without consequences. Yes, you CAN yell "fire" in a crowded theater, that's your right. And it's the government's right to prosecute you for it if your outburst, umm, sorry, if your free speech is deemed to have caused harm or damage.
Re: (Score:3)
You call it "just because they made a phone call"; most sane people call it first degree murder (with the attendant mens rea requirement).
You can debate if 20 years is enough punishment for a first-degree murder, but let's start with a correct premise.
Re:Uh, hello? (Score:4, Informative)
It is first-degree murder under the felony murder rule, which is recognized in some form or another by all fifty states, the federal government and just about every other government in the world. It works like this: If you plan to commit a felony, then commit that felony and, in the process of committing that felony or as a result of that felony, someone dies, you have committed first-degree murder. If you commit a felony on a whim (that is, you didn't plan to commit it ahead of time), and someone dies during the commission of the felony or as a result, then you have committed second-degree murder. That's how it works.
Now, let's look at the Tyler Barriss SWATting: Barriss talked with other people about making a fraudulent 911 call and then made that fraudulent 911 call. Making a fraudulent 911 call is a crime, and can be a felony under federal anti-terrorism laws. Since the 911 call-center was in Kansas, and Barriss was in California, federal law applies. Talking about it ahead of time is also called planning and is, of and in itself, a crime called conspiracy, which can be a felony. Since Barriss has been convicted of these crimes before*, they can and should be charged as felonies, and Barriss committed those felonies. Someone died as a result of those felonies. Thus, under the felony murder rule, Barriss has committed first-degree murder. Thought I'd let you know,
* Crimes which can be charged as either a felony or a misdemeanor, with no difference between elements of the crime, such as conspiracy, misuse of emergency systems, retail fraud, simple assault, etc, are typically charged as misdemeanors on the first (and sometimes, second) offense, and as felonies on subsequent offenses. This is how people get charged with felonies for minor things like shoplifting (aka retail fraud).
Re:Uh, hello? (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
Technically it is not censorship because censorship is the suppression of speech. Punishing someone because of the consequence of the speech is not suppression.
You could argue that it has a chilling effect on speech by others. However it is not *political* censorship. It is censorship in the sense that punishing defamation or criminal threats is "censorship".
Re: (Score:2)
"Isn't putting someone in PRISON for 20 years just because they made a phone call pretty much the definition of censorship?"
No, they go to prison because they were too stupid to buy a throwaway phone with cash and send the SWAT team themselves before dumping the phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't putting someone in PRISON for 20 years just because they made a phone call pretty much the definition of censorship?
Whether a phone call should be criminalized purely depends on what the aim of the phone call was. If the call was, as in this case, to falsely invoke SWAt action, then hell yes.
And not all violation of the 1st is censorship (Score:2)
Censorship has a very specific definition. The government can easily infringe your first amendment rights through methods other than censorship. There can also be censorship that does not violate the first amendment.
Censorship is a system wherein censors view and edit speech before it can be seen by the public. You will never read or hear something that has been censored. The job of the censor is to block things the government doesn't want you to see or hear.
If someone gets it trouble after they say someth