SoylentNews

Swatter Who Caused a Death in Kansas Likely Faces at Least 20 Years in Prison

posted by janrinok on Saturday March 02 2019, @09:52AM   
from the triggered dept.

takyon writes:

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.

2017 Wichita swatting.

Previously: Swatted: Police Kill Innocent Man in Kansas

Related: Gamers Use Police Hoax to Lash Out at Opponents
Swatter Just Prankster?

---

Original Submission

• Re:crime != terrorism Re:crime != terrorism (Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday March 02 2019, @07:38PM (2 children)

  by janrinok (52) on Saturday March 02 2019, @07:38PM (#809214) Journal

  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:

  LEA should only open fire if they or the persons that they are defending are in imminent danger of being injured or killed by an armed individual. By armed, I mean somebody who has a weapon, bomb or other device intended to injure or kill someone else. Anything else is too much force. If the threat is not armed and is compliant then the police should be able to control him/her without the use of firearms.

  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.

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		2

• Re:crime != terrorism (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 03 2019, @07:35PM

  by Runaway1956 (2926) on Sunday March 03 2019, @07:35PM (#809509) Journal

  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.

  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.

  Parent

• Re:crime != terrorism (Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Monday March 04 2019, @08:15PM

  by DutchUncle (5370) on Monday March 04 2019, @08:15PM (#809954)

  "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.

  Parent