
Federal prosecutors have filed new charges against swatter Tyler Barriss - theandrewbailey
https://www.wired.com/story/feds-hit-notorious-swatter-tyler-barriss-with-46-new-charges/
======
awakeasleep
This article really hits me as the sort of “propaganda” writers create through
blindly accepting the story of their culture rather than thinking about things
critically.

By that I mean the real story here is that the police dispatched a sniper to
execute someone without a trial. Blew them away as soon as he opened the door.

That shit is still the news! The facts of what happened here do not make sense
in our idea of America.

Yet Wired doesnt even make a passing reference to it.

Feels similar to the way the media reports on “identity theft” as if your
identity was the thing that was stolen, not that the bank had a security
breach and they're forcing you to pay for it- completely looking at the
situation backwards

~~~
watty
> Blew them away as soon as they opened the door.

Source?

My point was that "as soon as they opened the door" and "seconds later" are
not the same thing. Go watch the body cam or do some research. There were 7-10
seconds with commands being issued to Andrew and he did not comply. Absolutely
not his fault, I'm sure it was a very confusing situation. I'm simply pointing
out that if we are going to talk about it, let's face the facts and not make
bullshit up.

~~~
nkrisc
Here's a description of the events, including bodycam footage. Interpret as
you will. But he was shot within seconds of opening the door, that is not
disputed.

[https://www.kansas.com/news/local/article208812519.html](https://www.kansas.com/news/local/article208812519.html)

EDIT: I will add that I am not endorsing the comment that he was "blown away"
as soon as he opened the door, which has a very specific connotation.

------
Steltek
The news has a running meme along the lines of "absurd white person calls
police on black person". Many of these phone calls allege the victim is acting
violent, has a gun, etc.

Is it possible to bring "swatting" charges against these people? It seems the
only reason they don't end badly is because the caller is so obviously
defective that the police show up irritated and bored instead of ready to do
some hero stuff.

I get that the usual response is "We don't want to discourage people from
calling the police" but when you're trying to elicit a violent police response
against your victim, it seems it's in society's best interest to bring
charges.

~~~
tzs
They don't end violently probably because they are inherently much less
dangerous than swatting situations.

In a swatting situation, the person calling it in: (1) often claims to _be_
the criminal and includes threats, (2) reports that the crime is in progress,
often with people already harmed, (3) places the crime somewhere that will
make it hard for arriving officers to access the situation safely if it turns
out the report is real, (4) if it is real there is a good chance lethal force
will need to be used to save multiple innocent lives and there is a good
chance that decision will have to be made quickly.

In a "stranger with a gun is in the neighborhood situation", even one reported
as acting aggressive, (1) the caller is not claiming to be the person, (2)
they are not claiming anything criminal has happened yet, (3) they are usually
reporting the person outside where arriving police will be able to get a good
look at the situation quickly, (4) even if it is real and the person is there
to commit some crime, it's probably just an economic crime (break into a car,
at worst a mugging) and the person is not going to turn violent on the police
--the person almost certainly knows that the police won't have enough to
arrest him and so he will just have to answer a few questions and leave.

------
jstanley
So, wait, the guy who made a phone call is going to prison, but the guy who
murdered an innocent person has not faced any consequences?

Swatting is obviously wrong and there should be consequences, but it's not as
harmful as actually killing someone.

~~~
fossuser
Intent matters - in this case I’d argue the guy who made the call is more
responsible for the death than the guy who pulled the trigger.

~~~
Sharlin
Intent to kill with no _reasonable_ evidence that would justify any nontrivial
use of force is morally bankrupt. If that’s the new normal in the US, I don’t
know what to say. A prank call is a prank call, but the one given the power to
project lethal force is fully morally responsible for their decision to pull
the trigger. And if that was somehow within their standard rules of
engagement, so are their superiors.

~~~
darkerside
A prank call to summon emergency help is still a call to summon emergency
help. The intent to prank, the fact that you were "just kidding", has no
bearing on the outcome.

Yes, the fault ultimately lies with the person who pulls the trigger, but
there's a reason mob bosses are considered murderers when they may have never
physically killed someone. It's totally foreseeable that you are throwing an
innocent person into a hostile situation; in fact, that's the whole point.

~~~
Sharlin
Yeah, I didn’t mean to absolve the swatter. It’s clear that there should be
heavy deterrence for such behavior. But I’m not sure he _intended_ to have his
targets killed either.

~~~
masklinn
> But I’m not sure he intended to have his targets killed either.

Even assuming they did not, they still _knowingly_ involved their target in a
potentially lethal situation. It might carry a lighter sentence than literally
going to their target and killing them, but it _should_ carry a significantly
higher sentence than e.g. putting flaming shit under their target's doormat.

~~~
Sharlin
Yep, involuntary manslaughter, which was indeed among the charges.

------
gaff33
I always wonder what proportion of uncorroborated calls that trigger SWAT
raids are actually genuine. I'd have thought that live hostage taking is
extremely rare - even in the US. To the point where SWAT calls ought to
require corroboration or be presumed to be fake (extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence and all that...).

Is there any data available?

~~~
pc86
What corroborating phone calls would you expect from an armed hostage-taking
inside a private residence? Can you imagine the public backlash had this been
legitimate, the police did nothing, and the hostages were injured or executed?

~~~
gaff33
The problem is that we can't help the extreme case. We need to be realistic.
If we really wanted to prevent every hostage situation we could have a police
car parked on every intersection in the country 24/7 so that they are never
more than 15 seconds away from a call. Clearly this is ridiculous. We accept
that sometimes police take a few minutes to reach an emergency.

Equally we as a society need to be grown up and accept that sending a
specialist armed team to respond to an event that has been shown to happen
less often that people win the lottery is clearly unrealistic. Claims like
this can be handled by regular policing forces who can call upon backup if
necessary.

------
jokoon
Swatters are just mean trolls who exploit the paranoia of how the police
reacts to emergency calls. It's exactly like terrorism, you just scare people
about a non existent threat and expect to have forces and security applied
where it doesn't matter.

Blaming swatters is one thing, but questioning how swat teams respond to calls
should be put on the table.

You cannot only blame swatters.

------
jbb67
Good. Although I'd also very strongly question the extreme overreaction to
unverified allegations that make this kind of thing possible.

------
danielvf
The news here is just how prolific this guy was. He was calling in a bomb
threat or swatting every two or three days for months!

------
greencore
What about Swat officers that shot without any investigation?

~~~
watty
There was an investigation. It was concluded that the victim reached for his
waist (maybe to pull up pants) after being told not to. Very very difficult
situation for sure.

~~~
gameswithgo
no it isn't.

------
alphabettsy
There are quite a few stories about officers shooting someone when they were
at the wrong house. In this case they were called to this house, but why are
our police so quick to pull the trigger anyway? Can they never disengage and
reassess?

