Gamers Behind Fatal 'SWAT' Call Now Face Life In Prison (wlwt.com) 270
An anonymous reader writes:
18-year-old Casey Viner, who instigated the 911 call which led to a fatal shooting in Wichita (hiring Tyler Barriss to perform the actual call), is in big trouble. "If convicted on the 10 counts he faces, Viner could spend almost the rest of his life in prison and pay a $1,000,000 fine," reports a local Cincinnati news site. Ironically, Viner's father is a corporal with the county sheriff's department.
The 19-year-old intended target for the SWAT attack had supplied a real address in Wichita for a house where he used to live. But in an eerie coincidence, ten days before the fatal shooting in Wichita, Cincinnati police had responded to a similar SWAT call which had sent them to a house where Viner used to live. The local police said "the facts and circumstances and the verbiage were very, very similar."
25-year-old Tyler Barriss also faces a life sentence for false information which resulted in a death -- as well as several local charges. And Thursday a federal grand jury also indicted Barriss "for a threat that caused an evacuation of a high-profile FCC hearing" into net neutrality regulations just two weeks before the fatal Wichita shooting, "and another threat eight days later that targeted FBI headquarters."
Barriss's lawyer insists that his client wasn't responsible for the Wichita death, blaming instead a "gung-ho, crazy cop."
The 19-year-old intended target for the SWAT attack had supplied a real address in Wichita for a house where he used to live. But in an eerie coincidence, ten days before the fatal shooting in Wichita, Cincinnati police had responded to a similar SWAT call which had sent them to a house where Viner used to live. The local police said "the facts and circumstances and the verbiage were very, very similar."
25-year-old Tyler Barriss also faces a life sentence for false information which resulted in a death -- as well as several local charges. And Thursday a federal grand jury also indicted Barriss "for a threat that caused an evacuation of a high-profile FCC hearing" into net neutrality regulations just two weeks before the fatal Wichita shooting, "and another threat eight days later that targeted FBI headquarters."
Barriss's lawyer insists that his client wasn't responsible for the Wichita death, blaming instead a "gung-ho, crazy cop."
Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
There was no busting in and shooting. They weren't even SWAT, just regular beat cops. They shot him on his porch from across the street from behind their patrol car.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0l6kwbglA4 [youtube.com]
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds pretty much like a bunch of homicidal cowards vastly overestimating their understanding of the situation. Just the people you do _not_ want to see armed under any circumstances.
Re: Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah. You're living in a fascist totalitarian police state. And the cops just imitate TV shows, where they are always righteous, and going "by the book" (aka not breaking the law, terrorizing, torturing and murdering) is uncool. Like Jack Bauer in 24. Or basically every other US police/TLA/military show.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. You're living in a fascist totalitarian police state. And the cops just imitate TV shows, where they are always righteous, and going "by the book" (aka not breaking the law, terrorizing, torturing and murdering) is uncool. Like Jack Bauer in 24. Or basically every other US police/TLA/military show.
Which TV shows show ubiquitous civil assets forfeiture?
Re: Great (Score:2)
So basically you just cited your asshole for both of those "facts" and called it good.
Re: Great (Score:2)
And when they're responding to a call, like this one, they're on duty. Even so, I doubt this is the case. They're never really off duty in most jurisdictions, as they retain their policing powers while not on the clock, can carry their service pistol, can make arrests, etc.
When I was in the military, I was always on duty, even outside of my duty time. I was also required to provide a means that they could contact me if they needed to. I wouldn't be surprised if cops did the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Cops are civilians whether they are on duty or off duty.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. The caller nor the person who hired him killed that boy. The cops did. The cops should be the ones facing jail for life, as should all others who've committed similar atrocities (such as the horrendous one in Arizona where the guy was laying prostrate on the floor unarmed).
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
But all that doesn't get the caller or the one who hired him off the hook. It should be clear to both of them that SWATting is not a harmless prank but creates a volatile situation where death or serious harm are outcomes which are not at all unlikely. Since this case did result in a death, they deserve serious jail time.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
That depends. Did the cop act on orders and according to procedure? Then you can't really fault him
Yes you fucking can.
"I vas just following orders" has not ever been an excuse. Likewise the whole "cops don't kill people people kill people" thing doesn't work because the cop can never be considered a mere tool with no agency. The cop is a person.
But all that doesn't get the caller or the one who hired him off the hook.
Agreed, the caller, knowing the possible outcome of his actions is equally guilts. That does not make the cop in question any less so. There is plenty of blame to go around.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhh.. You're comparing someone in a charged situation with adrenaline running high to someone who manipulates a situation into being like that coldly and with malice aforethought?
The root cause of this is the ones that called the SWATting. Anything that arises from that is on their shoulders. When people get it through their thick skulls that playing with people's live for shits and giggles has massive repercussions, then perhaps the calls to SWAT will be valid calls, and the reactions that they have wil
Re: (Score:3)
Uhh.. You're comparing someone in a charged situation with adrenaline running high to someone who manipulates a situation into being like that coldly and with malice aforethought?
Yep.
It's worse in fact. The job of the police is to protect people from criminals, not gun down an unarmed innocent while safely hunkered down behind a good obstacle.
The root cause of this is the ones that called the SWATting.
No the root cause is that gung-ho cops with a god complex make swatting possible in the first place.
Best a
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
I feel that the duty of cops is to protect and serve. I'm baffled why a cop being able to straight up murder someone because they're scared is a mark of honor and a good thing. It's fucking barbaric. It's neither protecting nor serving.
I want cops to shoot second. And yes, more cops will get shot at if they shoot second. But at the same time, 0 innocent people will get shot by cops. These people didn't choose to stand in the line of fire as their job, while the cops did. A random dude (ffs you or me!) answering the doorbell shouldn't have to be expected to act in a specific way so that cops won't murder him. To say that he/she should have a telepathic link with cops to know what actions they might take which would get them murdered is fucking madness.
Seems pretty reasonable to me that cops should get shot at while unarmed people should not get shot at by cops. If the cops don't want to get shot at, they can choose a different profession.
I have never been a threat to anyone. If some group would kill me for living my life? That group is my enemy. And unfortunately, cops currently fit that description. I live in a city where a drunk white guy (and I occasionally represent that) was shot dead by cops while his neighbors tried to talk the cops down.
To me, every cop that pulls the trigger who hasn't been attacked with a weapon (even fists/feet) that could cause injury/death is a straight up coward murderer, and should be put away for life. Nobody should die because some schmuck with a badge left his balls at home that day.
Re: (Score:3)
Then you should volunteer to be a cop, and put your desire into action.
So basically if you don't want to be murdered by a cop you should volunteer to be one.
Bullshit!
How about taking a leaf out of the book of other countries where the cops aren't trigger happy goons.
Re: Great (Score:2)
So basically if you don't want to be murdered by a cop you should volunteer to be one.
So, basically, you read my comment, and then pulled some retarded nonsequitur out of your ass.
Re: (Score:3)
you mean like this cop in Toronto?
https://www.theglobeandmail.co... [theglobeandmail.com]
the guy kept pulling a cell phone at the cop in the way you woudl pull a gun.. the cop did not shoot.
Re: (Score:2)
So, basically, you read my comment,
Yes.
and then pulled some retarded nonsequitur out of your ass.
Nope, if your post leads trivially to absurd conclusions, then the fault isn't mine for nderstanding that, the fault is yours for writing something so patently absurd.
But sure cry and whine that you are adopting a position that leads to absurd conclusions. I'm sure that wil fix *everything*.
Re: Great (Score:2)
Nope, if your post leads trivially to absurd conclusions, then the fault isn't mine for nderstanding that, the fault is yours for writing something so patently absurd.
The thing is, any idiot can say that about any statement (obviously; one just did). Nothing in my comment in any way spoke or even hinted at your desire to be "murdered by a cop", and yet you somehow managed to dream it up with no prompting whatsoever. How in the hell is your overactive imagination my fault?
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, any idiot can say that about any statement
Indeed, any idiot can see it! It takes a special kind of idiot to no be able to. Well, hey, at least you're special.
Re: (Score:2)
it's the cops job to enforce the law.
Which law was being enforced by shooting an unarmed innocent man in his own front door?
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
"SWATting is not a harmless prank but creates a volatile situation where death or serious harm are outcomes which are not at all unlikely."
This is a serious problem and should not be the case. SWATting SHOULD be nothing more than a prank, if only the United States Police Forces weren't more on guard and over reactive than deployed United States military forces.
The police should have gone and checked out the situation carefully and comprehensively and noted that no danger to anyone at any point should occurred and that should've been the end of the ordeal.
The police of the USA show a completed disregard for human life - who are we to hold more responsible, the trained adult government officers who shot an innocent man on bad information or the fucked up kids looking up to them and likewise learning to hold a disregard for human life?
The kids aren't alright, but its the fault of the powers in charge promoting and protecting the US stasi. Would be nice to be a part of such a protected clique.
Re: Great (Score:3)
This is a serious problem and should not be the case. SWATting SHOULD be nothing more than a prank, if only the United States Police Forces weren't more on guard and over reactive than deployed United States military forces
Even then, it should be considered a felony abuse of law enforcement resources, resulting in prison time on a first conviction. It is not harmless under any circumstances, and it should not be considered a mere "prank" by any reasonable person.
When you know that this kind of situation can result, and you disregard the risk to do it anyway just because it amuses you, you take on a share of the blame. The SWATter is no less a murderer than the triggerman, or anyone else who uses an assassin to do his dirty wo
Re: (Score:2)
That depends. Did the cop act on orders and according to procedure? Then you can't really fault him for acting the way he did.
Not only can't you (yes, yes I can) but he also wasn't acting on orders (no one told him to shoot) nor procedure — since there was no evidence of a threat, the procedure was not to shoot.
And no, nobody is interested in the claim that a 911 call is evidence of a threat. It isn't. It's evidence of a phone call.
Re: (Score:2)
Did the cop act on orders and according to procedure?
The procedure covering this literally leaves the entire situation to be interpreted and executed by the cop in question. Not only is the "I was following orders" a cop-out excuse that has historically been proven to not be a defence, but in this case the order was literally to decide for ones self.
Stop making excuses for murderous trigger happy thugs.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the orders. If the orders are "you may open fire if the situation presents a clear and present danger in the form of an armed suspect, and you have an opportunity to remove that danger",
Irrelevant since there was not a clear and present danger. If those were the orders, they were not followed, and you're defending someone who did not follow orders.
Re: (Score:2)
How I wish you had to be in that fucking position...instead of quarterbacking from the safety of your keyboard.
How I wish I had been there. I'd have kept my muzzle averted and my finger off the trigger unless I actually wanted to shoot someone, because I am a responsible gun owner who understands that the most important safety on the weapon is me.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not made up. That was Southpark.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm quite happy for the police officer to receive counselling while he's in prison.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The cops would not have even been there to potentially kill anyone,
What difference does it make whether they were at that house killing that particular innocent guy or at a different house shooting someone else answering the door?
Re: (Score:3)
What difference does it make whether they were at that house killing that particular innocent guy or at a different house shooting someone else answering the door?
Who we charge for giving them false information.
Never the officers who are the actual danger to the community.
Provably [nytimes.com] false [theadvocate.com] claim on your part.
In the first link, the officers weren't charged for assaulting a defenseless man laying on the ground. They got a 15 day suspension, not a criminal charge.
In the second link, the officer wasn't charged for "being a danger to her community". She falsified paperwork. She was charged for it though.
Paperwork means more to these guys than wanton violence against defenseless citizens.
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
"The cops would not have even been there to potentially kill anyone, were it not for the initial crime of filing the false report."
You are right. And then, a "false report" punishment should be far, far away from live conviction and a million fine.
Do you know who may deserve live prison and a million fine? A killer -an offense that seems to fit much better to the cops that in fact killed somebody without a resemblance of menace to their, or others', integrity, than to the teenager.
Re: (Score:3)
You are right. And then, a "false report" punishment should be far, far away from live conviction and a million fine.
I disagree. If you caused this shit, it's on your head. Like, say your 911 call caused the police to respond with a high speed approach with lights and sirens. That's above and beyond the normal risk, taken because the police think it's averting or mitigating a bigger risk. Well shit happens, they crash and somebody dies. I don't care if it was a prank call and the police would have arrived, discerned there's no actual risk and backed down. You instigated it, you take the blame because someone died. It does
Re: Great (Score:2)
The law isn't quite clear on this because it doesn't explicitly say if it values the actions or the consequences.
It values both, which is why we have different degrees of homicide and different amounts of punishment. If you kill someone unintentionally it's a lesser offence than if you do it willfully.
c6gunner has been readmitted (Score:2)
Hell yes. Results, results, results! It's what makes capitalism great.
In countries where they don't have capitalism (like England, Bovril and Chiliconcarne) cops get paid the same no matter how many (or few) people they arbitrarily execute. Would you make more than a token effort under those circumstances?
The police should get worse! (Score:2)
Highly trained heavily geared up professionals should not have itchy trigger fingers and need to at least get professional consequences!
People make mistakes on the job and big ones result in consequences including being fired. I'm not saying firing is required as an idiotic zero tolerance policy; especially when properly handled that employee may never make that mistake ever again. As a TEAM failure the whole team needs to feel the failure; more training and at least but a dock in PAY should be minimum. If
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean metalling. Russians are always forging stuff.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
approximately how many elections has the US meddled with?
US meddling = good
Russia meddling = bad?
How many brutal dictators has the US supported?
Re: Great (Score:4, Informative)
And all made of polonium [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So the person who intentionally put other people at risk bears no guilt?
Re: (Score:3)
Calling cops is definitely supposed to put people at risk. That's the point of it. At the very least, the cops will intervene in a situation to calm it down (putting themselves at risk), or when you tell them there's live fire, kidnapping and their opponents are armed and dangerous with firearms, then that's what they go in with context. Damn straight that's putting people at risk.
The alternative is that the police are supposed to treat every call of live fire as if they were approaching a jaywalker. W
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like people have forgotten what the word "responsibility" means, and are too conditioned to using trite "blame someone else" excuses.
Re: Great (Score:2)
9/11 truthers are an inside job. They are clearly government funded trolls meant to distract us from the real conspiracies.
No punishment too severe (Score:5, Insightful)
These guys did the worst thing imaginable: they made law enforcement look bad.
If anyone condemning the SWATters stops to take a breath, the public might have time to consider the danger lurking in their communities, waiting for a call to go shoot some people.
It could be anyone, in any circumstance, at any time. There's nothing to prevent it happening to you or your family members. There's nothing to prevent the same people shooting more innocent people over and over, year after year. The shooters deny any responsibility for the shootings. They are accountable to no one.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No punishment too severe (Score:4, Insightful)
Ya, the inner city gangs and MS-13 will then have respect for law enforcement.
Re: (Score:3)
Ya, the inner city gangs and MS-13 will then have respect for law enforcement.
MS-13 was created by US policy, both foreign and domestic. They would not even exist without our bullshit War On Some Drugs Which Do Not Produce Massive Profit For Big Pharma. The inner city gangs were created by abusing minorities, just like the historical gangs of New York were created by a general atmosphere of lawlessness. If law enforcement weren't used to support terrible policies outright designed to harm people in order to guarantee profits for some already massively rich bastards, people actually w
Re: (Score:2)
You're not contradicting him. If you want to see what life without cops is like, go to Mexico.
Wrong. Mexico has cops. If you want to see what life is like where police corruption is left unchecked, go to Mexico... or just stay here and wait a decade or two.
Re: (Score:3)
Ya, the inner city gangs and MS-13 will then have respect for law enforcement.
Why don't other Western Democracies have these same level of problems?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Whoosh
Re:No punishment too severe (Score:5, Insightful)
> By advocating such a harsh sentence
He didn't? Read it more closely. He's highlighting the danger that the police's response to call like this poses.
I think everyone-- the people making the false call, and police's aggressive response to situations like this-- is responsible. I think it deserves a harsh penalty for the false reporters, because there's been such a pattern of behavior and such a flippant response after the death (the media interviews doubling down on swatting, etc, after his actions significantly contributed to someone's death are really something else)-- maybe not life in prison but a significant sentence.
Re:No punishment too severe (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not so sure. The lack of remorse tells me that at the very least, they didn't care if they caused a death, and they took an action that they knew or reasonably should have known could have directly caused a death. It's like picking up a gun, pointing it at someone, and pulling the trigger, then claiming that because you didn't know if the gun was loaded, it should be treated as an accident. Unless you're a five-year-old, that argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
Unfortunately, many states still treat depraved indifference to human life as manslaughter. In many states, this would be second-degree murder, and you might even be able to argue for first. Either way, a life sentence is entirely appropriate, IMO.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you talking about the callers or the cops? Seriously, _everything_ you wrote is equally true for both.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree, please explain your reasoning behind why you consider both to be ethically equivalent.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. SWATTERS want to kill the person on the other end or they wouldn't make such calls. They'd send them pizzas or something.
Re: (Score:3)
I cannot disagree even more. This was an incredibly stupid thing to do but there was no intention on the part of the SWATTERS to cause a death.
I cannot disagree with you enough. The only reason anyone SWATs anyone is that it is dangerous, and the danger includes risk of premature death. That is in fact the entire point. You can't live in a country where you know the SWAT team flashbangs babies and then claim that you weren't trying to hurt anyone with a SWATting, period, the end.
The whole problem with people like you is that you are lock them and up and throw away the key type of person. I have no problem with these guys doing some hard time but certainly not nearing or at a life sentence.
There are literally people in prison for victimless crimes. As long as that is true, it is completely nonsensical not to imprison these monsters who care nothing for the l
Re: (Score:2)
capitol
If I'd stopped reading at that obvious warning sign I could've been saved from the blatant stupidity that followed.
Re: (Score:2)
Most legal jurisdictions would see "swatting" as reckless endangerment. That is they pursued a course of action that a reasonable person would recognize as putting someone is harms way. Again most legal jurisdictions around the world will if the reckless endangerment has lead to a death punish those responsible severely. This is usually seen as manslaughter, 2nd degree murder or a similar offence. The major exception is if you are driving a vehicle where the is for reasons I personally don't accept treated
Rule #1: Don't name your kid Tyler. (Score:2)
18-year-old Casey Viner, who instigated the 911 call which led to a fatal shooting in Wichita (hiring Tyler Barriss to perform the actual call), is in big trouble.
Seems like guys named Tyler [wikipedia.org] are always doing other guys dirty work and getting them both into trouble.
Why not both? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why not both? (Score:5, Insightful)
First entirely sane posting, I think. The swatters did indeed try to inflict serious harm and accepted that there would be a killing. The cops did kill when there was zero need to and no good, solid evidence saying otherwise. I think a charge of voluntary manslaughter for both the shooter and the swatters would be pretty appropriate. The cops have to be held to a higher standard, of course, because they have training and special powers.
Re: (Score:2)
I thik we disagree on a lot but not this. There's plenty of blame to go around and there should be plenty of convictions to go around.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Re:Why not both? (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed.
Swatting is like an auto-immune disease, of a nation instead of a person. The parts that are supposed to protect us (immune system/police system) have become so aggressive and powerful that they can be easily tricked into acting against us.
When a person has an auto-immune disease, we treat them by both suppressing the immune system (bringing it back down to normal, safe levels) and by eliminating any foreign bodies that are triggering the response. When a nation has it, I think it is sensible to do the same - demilitarize the police force, improve training, make it so that fake police calls don't regularly end in dead innocents, but also go after the bad actors who are trying to take advantage of an over-aggressive police response.
Re: (Score:2)
its either completely the cops fault
Huh? Who so far has completely blamed the cops? The only posts I see conclusively directed at the cops are rebuttals to posts which give the cops complete innocence and make no assessment at all to the nature of the SWATer.
fair judgement (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of what changes need to be done on the law enforcement side, this is the correct punishment for the swatters. What they did was completely uncalled for and shows a complete disrespect for other people.
What if some other location had a real threat, but the swat team was on a wild goose chase? As a result, someone who needed help did not get it?
Actions have consequences. They were asshats and now will be behind bars. The world is better off.
--XYZZY--
Re: (Score:2)
"Regardless of what changes need to be done on the law enforcement side, this is the correct punishment for the swatters. What they did was completely uncalled for and shows a complete disrespect for other people."
Do you know what else is completely uncalled for and shows a complete disrespect for other people? Your comment.
Therefore you deserve paying life-time in prison and a million fine, right?
Uh... nope. You know why? Because there's that thingie called "proportionality". In your case, calling you
Re: (Score:2)
Their executions should be livestreamed on Twitch as a warning to future swatters.
Re: (Score:2)
Train dispatchers to stop trusting 911 calls and train cops to wait until they hear actual gun shots. Your self-defense is on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Cops must not be allowed to escalate to lethal until they have solid evidence it is needed. Otherwise they become a massive danger to everyone.
Re: (Score:3)
Become?
Everybody needs to be reminded: In the USA, citizens and business lose three times as much stuff to cop theft (aka civil forfeiture) vs burglaries.
Further reminder: In the USA, many cases of shoplifting are counted as 'burglary', inflating that number a shitload. And the other side is only the open, offical cop theft, double it, at least, for 'informal cop theft'.
If cops want to know what happened to their respect? They did it to themselves, became the largest, best organized national theft ga
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You and burglar are standing in your living room facing each other. (you can now branch the scenario now depending whether there is any gun on none/one/both of you). The cops burst in the room. What do they do? Shoot everyone in sight? Or evaluate the situation first?
Just tell me what did have the cop on his mind: "A guy appears. He might he be very dangerous => shoot him dead" ? I really hope it does not work like that. Do you think that the cop thought he can see a gun? Or do you think that, the cop th
Re: (Score:2)
So, if YOU called 911 to report that there was someone in your house trying to kill you, you'd want the cops to hold off
Given that the alternative is more likely to get me killed than by the cops than the original person yes, I would very much rather then didn't just bustin and start spraying bullets indiscriminantly.
Re: (Score:2)
So, if YOU called 911...
There would be a reasonable chance the cops would show up and end up shooting me.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, if you had a statistic on innocent men shot by cops without resisting to authority you might have a claim there. Also, there is the point in that if you're a cop facing a black man on a suspicious action, you're more likely to get shot. https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
On a per-police-interaction basis black americans are less likely to be shot by the police than white americans.
You want to reduce deaths of black people to the police, focus on reducing the need for police interactions with them.
Re: (Score:2)
So, if YOU called 911 to report that there was someone in your house trying to kill you, you'd want the cops to hold off trying to stop that armed person until AFTER the intruder shot you in the head?
I would like for them to at least make sure the person was armed. Otherwise, they're as likely to shoot me as the bad guy.
Surely, if you called 911 telling them someone was trying to kill you, you would prefer that the cops not help HIM?
Pitbull analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
These guys sicced a pitbull (The police, geared up and anticipating an armed perp) on innocent victims.
They deserve life sentences just as they would if they were responsible for a vicious dog attack.
As for the cop? Most certainly he ALSO has culpability in this. Where that lies is more complicated. Militarizing our police is part of the problem, though... along with many other factors. A pit bull can't stop being a pit bull, though... a police officer can, however, stop being a police officer and putting people's lives in jeopardy by his gross negligence in handling a situation.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with the police is that as it is now, they become ElCheapo contract killers and a danger to everyone. That is in no way acceptable. If you kill without very good reason, you must face the music. And this must even be more true for a cop, who has training and special powers and hence must be held to a higher standard. Instead, as it is now, they can be almost sure to walk away without even get sacked from what would be called murder by any sane person. That does contribute to the problem. If you
Re: (Score:2)
If a pitbull owner looses his dog on somebody and the dog kills them, the pitbull owner is liable yes. But the dog is also almost certainly euthanized.
Ignorant analogy (Score:2)
These guys sicced a pitbull (The police, geared up and anticipating an armed perp) on innocent victims.
Pit bulls aren't actually especially dangerous dogs, unless they are both bred and trained for fighting. Some are just more aggressive, hence the breeding; a small few are trained to fight, and that aggression is magnified. Why not call them Dobermans? They're the traditional dog to represent authority figures, and they were one of the other recent breeds which was maligned due to the popularity they were then "enjoying" as a guard and fighting dog.
These bad cops are not deliberately bred to be violent raci
Not mutually exclusive (Score:2)
I'm not seeing why it's an either-or situation.
Chuck 'em all in the same cell.
Stick him in an airtight room. (Score:2)
And throw away the room.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah he will get a medal for bravery.
Re: (Score:3)
You are incorrect, stupid and disconnected from reality. Well, just a typical "AC" in fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's difficult to tell whether that's the case. You could get an approximation by comparing with other countries, but that's just crazy talk.
Re: (Score:2)
It’s really bad, and the public found out about it. Someone needs to be responsible and accountable.
The police are never responsible or accountable. So that leaves the SWATter. That's why the SWATter is facing life in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably using punctuation for numbers incorrectly even for you own local system if you though that. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Allegedly Gaskill (the intended victim) contacted the person that actually made the call and told them to delete all of the chat logs involved.
That demand to delete evidence relating to a crime is being treated as an attempt to obstruct the course of justice, which is itself illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because the police man murdered someone.
Why he was present there is due to illegal actions of others but doesn't excuse his own inability to make good judgements.
If he's feeling crazy about it then good. If he doesn't get prosecuted then I hope he goes too fucking crazy to stay in his job because right now he's a danger to the people of Wichita.