Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Crime

Netflix Airs Episode on Kansas 'Swat' Perpetrator, While Victim's Family Sues Policeman (kwch.com) 44

In June Netflix launched Web of Make Believe: Death, Lies, and the Internet, a true-crime series. It began with an episode documenting the 2017 death of a 28-year-old Kansas man named Andrew Finch after California gamer Tyler Barriss faked an emergency call from Finch's home to the Wichita, Kansas police department.

So where are they now? Barriss is now serving a 20-year prison sentence, Bustle reports. "Barriss, a resident of Los Angeles, California, pled guilty to a total of 51 charges, all having to do with hoax emergency calls he'd made, including the call that resulted in Finch's murder." Barriss received as 12-and-a-half year sentence for the Kansas call, and then another 8-and-a-half-year sentence for all the other illegal calls placed between 2015 and 2017 to 17 different U.S. states. "He also received another five years of supervised release in Washington, D.C., for phoning in bomb threats to the FBI and Federal Communications Commission in 2017."

And the 19-year-old who'd hired Barriss "received a 15-month prison sentence in 2019 after pleading guilty to obstruction of justice."

Meanwhile, Andrew Finch's surviving family members filed legal actions against the police department responsible for Finch's death. And while police officers normally receive "qualified immunity" protecting them from lawsuits over the performance of their duties, there was an update last month: An officer with the Wichita Police Department will face a civil trial in connection with the December 2017 swatting incident... Justin Rapp was the officer who shot the unarmed man. A U.S. appeals court sided with the Kansas district court in denying Officer Rapp qualified immunity in Finch's death. The court said a reasonable jury could believe Finch was unarmed and unthreatening when Rapp fired the shot that killed him.

Finch's family brought the excessive force civil suit. Sedgwick County District Attorney Marc Bennett declined to prosecute Rapp for fatally shooting Finch. The Wichita Police Department conclude Rapp didn't violate department policy....

Along with its conclusion that the civil case against Rapp can move forward, the appellate court also affirmed the district court's summary judgment on liability claims against the City of Wichita. This decision essentially maintained the city and the WPD as a whole weren't liable in Finch's death. The court of appeals dismissed arguments saying, in sum, "[the lawsuit from Finch's family] has failed to show any deliberately indifferent policies or customs that caused Rapp to use excessive lethal force."

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

Netflix Airs Episode on Kansas 'Swat' Perpetrator, While Victim's Family Sues Policeman

Comments Filter:
  • by aerogems ( 339274 ) on Saturday August 13, 2022 @01:53PM (#62786474)

    Until the cops shoot someone to death.

    IMO, 12-years seems a bit light given he literally robbed someone else of their entire future. Finch was ~30-years old, meaning he probably had at least a good 40-years of life ahead of him, at least, assuming average lifespans.

    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      he literally robbed someone else of their entire future.

      Only if you believe it's not the police department's fault for firing cops who don't "shoot first and ask questions later." [cnn.com]

      W. Edwards Deming taught us to blame the system, not the person. In this case, that means holding the police department liable for Finch's death, not the cop who pulled the trigger and not the man who called 911.

      • by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Saturday August 13, 2022 @02:30PM (#62786552)
        Fuck Bariss (who knew what the system was and abused it) and fuck the system AS WELL. In general, it's a shame that SWAT'ters and murderous cops can't spend time in the slammer together.
      • by xalqor ( 6762950 )

        W. Edwards Deming taught us to blame the system, not the person.

        It depends on the situation. Blaming the system isn't always right, because sometimes people are out of line, and blaming the person isn't always right because sometimes they're just doing what they were trained to do by the system. It's also possible for both to be at fault. We have to fix the problems where they are and not limit ourselves to blaming just one party.

        In this case, that means holding the police department liable for Finch's dea

        • and not the man who called 911.

          Why not that guy? Making a false report to the police is a crime.

          So prosecute him for making a false report. Done. Anything else is outside of his control, so it would be immoral to punish him for it.

          And again the judge disagrees with you.

          Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority. [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]

          • OK, so if he yelled fire in a theater and the result was one older man having a heart attack and another being trampled to death in the ensuing chaos - he's not responsible?

            Also bringing morality into this just opens up a can of opinions. His actions led directly to a man's death, if he hadn't acted that man would still be alive. It was in his control to not initially break the law. This is not an accident but in my opinion it is the same as involuntary or negligent manslaughter. In my moral opinion he g
            • OK, so if he yelled fire in a theater

              He should be prosecuted for inducing panic, or however the local law is worded.

              His actions led directly to a man's death...

              His action was only one link in a chain of mistakes that led to the man's untimely death. Saying the fact that his was the only illegal one makes him 100% responsible is another logical fallacy [cerebralistic.com], so don't say that.

          • Absolutely not. It is common sense that a fake 911 call, carefully designed to convince the police that there is a nutter with a gun and innocent people in danger, can end with the death of a person. The police officer who shot the victim did _not_ intend to kill an innocent person. The logical thing is a first degree murder charge for the person making the call, and manslaughter for the cop.
            • It is common sense that a fake 911 call, carefully designed to convince the police that there is a nutter with a gun and innocent people in danger, can end with the death of a person. The police officer who shot the victim did _not_ intend to kill an innocent person.

              Did the guy making the 911 call intend to kill an innocent person?

              Isn't it common sense that a police officer firing a gun at a person can end with the death of an innocent person?

              • Did the guy making the 911 call intend to kill an innocent person?

                He knew it was a possibility.

                If I walk into a public place blindfolded and fire a gun randomly what should I be charged with if somebody dies? Would it be an "accident" in your opinion?

                • If I walk into a public place blindfolded and fire a gun randomly what should I be charged with

                  That's not something a sane person does, so they should be put in a mental hospital.

                  • Stop moving the goalposts.

                    If I send SWAT teams to a dozen houses then somebody's probably going to get shot. Not many people would be surprised by that and I should be charged with murder if they do.

                    The SWAT teams are just a tool, no different than a gun or a knife.

              • Did the guy making the 911 call intend to kill an innocent person?

                I don't know, because I can't read his mind. IANAL, but I'd think that his actions could easily be described as depraved indifference" [wikipedia.org] which is considered the equivalence of a motive (e.g., "He knew that there was a good chance that the victim would die if he did it but didn't let that fact stop him. in a murder trial.") in the USA.
            • by vivian ( 156520 )

              The police officer might not have intended to kill an innocent person but he had no way to tell whether the person opening the door was innocent or guilty, and certainly had no authority to summarily execute them if they were guilty.
              For all he knew, even if it was a real active shooter situation, the shooter could have had an innocent victim open the door.
              Its cliche perhaps, but with great power comes great responsibility.
              The police, with all their powers to use physical and lethal violence have a responsib

          • by N1AK ( 864906 )
            You can call it immoral and that's your opinion, however the law has a long held position on people being responsible for the consequences of their actions even if those consequences exceed normal expectation. In this case the person organising a SWAT knows that the likely response is an armed police raid, harsh treatment, and temporary detention, they will also have known that the risk of a lethal outcome was significant. He chose to commit a crime and knew enough to be able to understand the potential con
            • You can call it immoral and that's your opinion, however the law has a long held position on...

              Appeal to legality. [cerebralistic.com]

              I and enough people that this principle hasn't changed, think...

              Bandwagon fallacy. [wikipedia.org]

              The biggest flaw with your logic is that you either have to make the punishment for doing something illegal and potentially dangerous extreme (like a false report intended to lead to armed police raiding a property having a 10+ year sentence regardless of if the raid even happened) OR you make doing incredibl

          • by xalqor ( 6762950 )

            My side note about the judge is valid because the judge is an expert on this subject and the judge's decision is a fact and available for review as evidence of how justice is done in this country.

            Your own main argument was a fallacious appeal to authority because W. Edwards Deming was an engineer who taught total quality management, which is irrelevant in a discussion about justice.

            Not every appeal to authority is fallacious. If you disagree, I wonder why you bothered giving a link to some website about log

        • by danda ( 11343 )

          just because "a policy or procedure" exists does not make said policy moral or just. Individuals committing violence or fraud against others should not be able to hide behind "policy" or "orders" or "just doing my job" in a just society.

          • by xalqor ( 6762950 )

            Of course. But we don't have all the information here so the people involved will be bringing their best evidence to court to show whether the cop was acting reasonably or not, whether the procedures he was following (or not following) are to blame, or whatever.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 )
      The cop pig who actually pulled the trigger should be sharing a cell with Bariss. Trigger-happy pigs who shoot to thrill need to be held to account.
      • Trigger-happy pigs who shoot to thrill need to be held to account.

        I agree, but you're begging the question [wikipedia.org] here. You're asserting the cop's motive for the shooting but not providing any evidence to support your claim. If there's any objective evidence to show that he was a thrill killer, I'd like to see it.
  • I smell a rat (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sjames ( 1099 ) on Saturday August 13, 2022 @02:28PM (#62786544) Homepage Journal

    The district court declined to hold the police department liable because:

    "[the lawsuit from Finch's family] has failed to show any deliberately indifferent policies or customs that caused Rapp to use excessive lethal force."

    At the same time, the police department declined to penalize the cop in any way claiming he didn't violate any department policies.

    That sounds a lot like an indifferent policy or custom to me.

    • Sounds like the lawyers from Finch's family should have tried harder.

      • Cops in the US can kill people more or less with impunity. I don't think the best lawyer in the world would have been able to make much headway (again, in the US and under US law). In most other countries it'd be a very different matter. For example here every time a cop draws a gun (which is very, very rare) there's a review afterwards to examine whether it was justified and to take corrective action (typically changing training in firearm use, so not charging anyone with anything) in the case of a prob
        • What are you talking about? They made a lot of headway, they got rid of the qualified immunity for the cop in this case.

    • by xalqor ( 6762950 )
      At the very least, it seems some of those policies and procedures need to be improved because they were not adequate to prevent this instance of an officer shooting when there wasn't an actual threat present.
    • by danda ( 11343 )

      ding! ding! ding!

    • by ebvwfbw ( 864834 )

      Maybe the policy is - The PD can shoot anyone at any time for no reason.

      IMHO There is no defending the cop. He murdered that man. The facts about it that I remember, I don't understand why they wouldn't charge him. They shouldn't want a cop just shooting a man standing in a doorway. It could have been a hostage, it could have been his mother, or brother. He shot with no confirmation that he was even at the right place. Sometimes a called in report will get the wrong address, even the wrong street. There was

  • by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve ( 949321 ) on Saturday August 13, 2022 @02:42PM (#62786580)
    I'm not a lawyer but I have lots of friends who are. While none of them have actually said this to me, by asking questions and putting information together I can tell you all why DAs typically don't prosecute cops in cases like this of possible excessive force. It's because police (this includes Sheriff's departments too) are the armed forces of lawyers and lawyers (DAs in this case) pay them back by not prosecuting them. Let's say you and I have a business dispute and I win a $10,000 judgement against you in court. Wanna get out of paying it? All you have to do is make it clear to your police department that you're going to shoot to kill if any officer attempts to enforce the judgement by taking your stuff and they will leave you alone and then "Sux to be you" to me who won the judgement. But you owe a lawyer $100? The police will be on you in a flash even if you make the same threat. It's a truly unholy alliance - cops collect debts for lawyers and lawyers pay them back by not prosecuting them.
    • All you have to do is make it clear to your police department that you're going to shoot to kill if any officer attempts to enforce the judgement

      How exactly are you going to make that clear to the police without committing a crime?

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday August 13, 2022 @03:45PM (#62786726)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I'm not a lawyer but I have lots of friends who are. While none of them have actually said this to me, by asking questions and putting information together I can tell you all why DAs typically don't prosecute cops in cases like this of possible excessive force. It's because police (this includes Sheriff's departments too) are the armed forces of lawyers and lawyers (DAs in this case) pay them back by not prosecuting them. Let's say you and I have a business dispute and I win a $10,000 judgement against you in court. Wanna get out of paying it? All you have to do is make it clear to your police department that you're going to shoot to kill if any officer attempts to enforce the judgement by taking your stuff and they will leave you alone and then "Sux to be you" to me who won the judgement. But you owe a lawyer $100? The police will be on you in a flash even if you make the same threat. It's a truly unholy alliance - cops collect debts for lawyers and lawyers pay them back by not prosecuting them.

      That sounds like a really convoluted and unconvincing explanation.

      Really, how many prosecutors get into private legal disputes, lose, and decide to default on the judgment??

      I think it's far more likely due to the fact that cops and prosecutors regularly work together on the same sides of criminal cases so tend to be somewhat friendly.

      Add to that the DAs depend on the cops to collect evidence for the cases they try, so there's a lot the cops can do to make the DAs life easier or more difficult just on the ba

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Could it not also be juries? In the UK they are very reluctant to convict cops. They tend to think of them as the good guys, out on the mean streets and justified in using extreme force because of all the violent criminals out there.

  • by danda ( 11343 ) on Saturday August 13, 2022 @03:40PM (#62786706)

    The killing of an unarmed person in their home didn't violate department policy. hmm.....

    The Wichita Police Department conclude Rapp didn't violate department policy....

    • by flink ( 18449 )

      Yeah, they should be held liable for having a policy that could lead to this outcome without some rule being violated.

    • The killing of an unarmed person in their home didn't violate department policy. hmm.....

      The Wichita Police Department conclude Rapp didn't violate department policy....

      The problem is they get what appears to be a credible 911 call about someone who is armed and dangerous and thus are predisposed to respond with force. That makes the situation ripe for a bad outcome, even in the best of circumstances. The person answering the door isn't expecting a SWAtT team and an initial reaction could be interpreted as dangerous by the cops. I'm not defending what happened, just that it is a complex situation set in motion by someone who thought they were just playing a game. Ideally

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Working...