SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Prosecutors seek 25 years in prison for deadly Kansas hoax
Federal prosecutors are seeking a 25-year prison sentence for a California man who made a hoax call that led police to fatally shoot a Kansas man following a dispute between online gamers.
[...] Barriss faces sentencing Friday in federal court in Wichita for making the false report resulting in a death. He has pleaded guilty to 51 charges related to fake calls and threats across the country.
The defense is seeking a 20-year prison sentence.
Sentencing is set for March 29.
Previously: Swatted: Police Kill Innocent Man in Kansas
Related: Gamers Use Police Hoax to Lash Out at Opponents
Swatter Just Prankster?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Swatter Who Caused a Death in Kansas Likely Faces at Least 20 Years in Prison
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 54 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
War hath no fury like a non-combatant.
-- Charles Edward Montague
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 02 2019, @01:28PM (6 children)
A crime? No. This type of crime? Yes.
The intent of swatting it to send heavily armed individuals, who anticipate encountering one or more armed and dangerous individuals, for the purpose of endangering the life of the unsuspecting victim. At the very least the effect of swatting is terrorizing the victim.
Is law enforcement over militarized? Yes. At the time they are responding to a reported violent or hostage situation, do you think law enforcement would rather be over armed than over powered? Yes. Does this lead to tragedy? Yes. Is this the expected and desired result of swatting? Yes.
So no, not all crimes are "terrorism". The vast, vast majority of crimes are not. But sending heavily armed individuals, who expect to encounter someone who intends to kill them, to descend upon someone as a prank with the hope and intent of that person being killed does qualify as "terrorism" in my book.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Saturday March 02 2019, @02:28PM (5 children)
You appear to subscribe to the 'guilty until proven innocent' school of thought. Terrorism is defined, as explained elsewhere, as the furtherance of a political aim. Now if you want to stretch that to anything that frightens people - which is what terror is, but that it isn't necessarily 'terrorism' - then someone creeping up behind you and shouting 'Boo' is possibly a form a terrorism too. Would you think it reasonable to shoot someone who did such a thing?
The individual who lost his life was minding his own business until the SWAT team turned up. The onus is upon them to apprehend the suspect, ascertain if a crime has been committed and only if a crime has been committed should he be treated as a criminal but even so reasonably and using minimum force. If the SWAT team had taken cover, as would be reasonable for them to do, they shouldn't have been much of a target for someone who might have been pulling a handgun from his waistband. He did not pose any current threat to those inside the house because he is now standing outside of it. He would not have been considered to have been a threat to SWAT because they shouldn't be standing up in plain view until the suspect has adopted a safe position e.g. lying face down with his arms outspread. And an innocent life would have been spared.
Until the fine people of the USA start complaining about this sort of behaviour then it will not change. Did the policeman have to justify his actions in court or was he assumed to have acted reasonably without any independent review?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 02 2019, @04:54PM
The police followed proper procedure. Move along, taxpayer!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 02 2019, @06:15PM (3 children)
You appear to subscribe to the 'willfully ignorant because it doesn't match my personal beliefs' school of thought. He plead guilty. He admitted what he did. He admitted doing it many, many times. And he admitted his reasons for doing it.
If you don't think this guy is guilty then what do you think he is, just one of those people who believe they can set something in motion and deny any responsibility or liability? Or maybe you believe that he believes what you believe?
I hope his 25+ years in prison are horrific and painful and so traumatic that he thinks it is a campaign to terrorize him just so you can tell him that his opinion doesn't align with yours.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday March 02 2019, @07:38PM (2 children)
We appear to be arguing at cross purposes - I'm arguing that the guy who was swatted shouldn't have been killed by the police. The guy who set it up is guilty, but not of pulling the trigger. That responsibility for taking his life rests solely with SWAT team.
My opening comment was:
However, you described the actions of the individual who has been found guilty as an act of terrorism. I take exception to that. It is a crime, and a serious, heinous crime at that, but it does not constitute 'terrorism' according to any current legally accepted definition. He did not plead guilty to charges of terrorism.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 03 2019, @07:35PM
Shared responsibility. The guy holding the weapon in his hand is AT LEAST 60% responsible. The guy who made the phone call bears the rest of the responsibility FOR THE KILLING. The caller bears full responsibility for the terror aspect, and for any minor or major injuries sustained as part of the police getting to the scene, and gaining access to the home. The decision to pull the trigger is the cop's decision, so he is more than half responsible. But - if the asshole hadn't made the phone call, no shooting would have ocurred. The caller is responsible for causing a death.
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Monday March 04 2019, @08:15PM
"The guy who set it up" threw a grenade without pulling the pin, and it bounces and the pin comes out and it explodes. Do we say: Oh dear, complete accident, so sorry? Or do we say: You threw a grenade, it was INTENDED to explode - in fact, your drill instructor would probably beat you silly for having failed to pull the pin - and the consequences are your responsibility.