
Man behind fatal Call of Duty ‘swatting’ gets 20-year prison sentence - elorant
https://www.polygon.com/2019/3/29/18287168/call-of-duty-swatting-death-prison-sentence
======
Joe-Z
Well, I guess if you‘re in the US it is perfectly reasonable to expect police
(even „special tactics“ teams) to just immediately shoot people on the sole
base of a phone call and thus all of the responsibility lies on the caller.

Remember kids: Don‘t use emergency services, they might get someone killed.

~~~
gnode
I think it's reasonable anywhere to expect an emergency call to result in
prejudice, whether that's police being apprehensive with regard to a suspected
dangerous person, or firefighters being willing to break into a building they
believe someone to be unconscious in. Treating all emergency calls as false
until proven otherwise would put lives in danger, be it emergency responders
or the public.

The danger that hoaxes inherently present, and that ignoring potential hoaxes
also presents, means that hoaxers must be deterred.

~~~
Joe-Z
Your comment is of course much more reasonable than mine. I too would expect
police to show up or SWAT kick in a door if a terrorism threat was called on
someone. Blaming the murder of an innocent person on the hoaxer however seems
perverse.

This guy is sentenced to 20 years in prison for what he probably perceived as
a 'prank call' at the time. That's insane!

~~~
chillacy
If his idea of a harmless prank involves subjecting someone to that kind of
danger then I’m not so sure. Another fun prank: kidnap someone and hang them
on a cliff over a lethal fall, with a 80% chance they’ll survive.

~~~
ryanlol
I rather doubt even 0.1% of swattings result in deaths, how can you compare
that to a 80% chance of survival?

~~~
daniel-cussen
Citation needed. Without going any further SWAT--of what I've read, this was
back in 2011--shoots all dogs on sight, as soon as it enters the building, as
standard operating procedure.

------
leetbulb
> He also pleaded guilty to charges brought in the District of Columbia and
> California’s Central District related to hoax bomb threats. Those charges
> allege Barriss placed bomb calls to headquarters of the FBI and Federal
> Communications Commission, and to high schools, universities, shopping malls
> and TV stations to emergency numbers in 16 other states and Canada. In the
> California case, Barriss pleaded guilty to 46 counts.

[https://www.polygon.com/2018/11/15/18096749/call-of-duty-
swa...](https://www.polygon.com/2018/11/15/18096749/call-of-duty-swatting-
tyler-barriss-guilty)

"Barriss pleaded guilty to 46 counts" and who knows how many others not
presented in court. Surprised he wasn't banned access to electronic devices
and phones.

------
gnode
It's interesting that the charge was not simply first degree murder. Although
there may not have been an intention to kill, the victim was killed as the
result of an inherently dangerous crime, which may invoke the felony murder
rule.

The fact that he pleaded guilty suggests to me that the collection of lesser
charges were part of a plea bargain, with prosecutors not confident about
pioneering swatting as a murder case.

~~~
dragonwriter
> It's interesting that the charge was not simply first degree murder

Murder (including felony murder) itself (except in special contexts and
locations that don't apply here) is not a federal crime. This was a federal
prosecution.

~~~
gnode
Murder is a federal crime:
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111#a](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111#a)
Federal murder may be prosecuted separately and in addition to state murder,
without double jeopardy applying. The same is true for military jurisdiction.

The only issue is whether there is federal jurisdiction over the murder. As
the crime resulting in the killing was deemed to be within federal
jurisdiction, that would seem to imply such a murder was within federal
jurisdiction.

~~~
dragonwriter
You need to reread your own citation. Murder is defined in subsection (a) of
your cite, but the actual federally prosecutable crime is in subsection (b),
and is only when a murder is committed “Within the special maritime and
territorial jurisdiction of the United States”, itself defined at 18 USC § 7
[0]. The offense here did not occur in the special maritime and territorial
jursidiction of the United States.

[0]
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/7](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/7)

~~~
gnode
My understanding is that (b) only defines punishment for where federal
jurisdiction uniquely applies, and does not limit the jurisdiction to specific
locations. Particularly federal murder is applied to the murder of federal
officials everywhere.

[https://www.wklaw.com/10-ways-murder-becomes-a-federal-
crime...](https://www.wklaw.com/10-ways-murder-becomes-a-federal-crime/) Item
5 of this list states that the federal crime of bank robbery can be promoted
to federal murder under the same section I listed. This would suggest to me
that this killing could also be federal murder.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Particularly federal murder is applied to the murder of federal officials
> everywhere.

Yes, kind of; there is a separate provision for that, 18 USC § 1114, which
applies the punishments in 18 USC § 1111 (for murder), 18 USC § 1112 (for
manslaughter), and 18 USC § 1113 (for attempts at either murder or
manslaughter) to such acts committee against federal officials independent of
the jursidictional limitations in those statutes.

> Item 5 of this list states that the federal crime of bank robbery can be
> promoted to federal murder under the same section I listed.

Insofar as robbery is a qualifying offense under 18 USC 1111(a), that would
appear to be technically correct if the jurisdictional requirements in 18 USC
1111(b) were met, but is not actually the general felony murder rule, which
does not exist in federal law, but an analog covering only enumerated offenses
written directly into the 18 USC 1111(a) definition of murder and still only
applicable where 18 USC 1111(b) or some other statute provides a federal
punishment for murder. More importantly, for killings in the course of bank
robbery more generally, there is a separate provisions making that a capital
offense without reference to 18 USC § 1111, within the bank robbery law (18
USC § 2113), the killing (and hostage taking) provision is subsection (e);
that's mostly how felony-murder like rules are applied in federal criminal
law, by specific punishment for killing accompanying the predicate offense.

------
craftinator
And the peace officer that shot an unarmed man on his front porch... What of
him? Having seen the video of the incident, it's pretty damning. I've
conducted very basic house clearing training (Marine Combat Training, 1 month
long), and I still wouldn't have fired until I saw a clear hostile intent. Why
are our police using harsher escalation of force protocols than our military
uses? Can any LE who have seen the video chime in?

------
rasz
In other news, Man pulling a trigger gets promotion.

~~~
aaronarduino
Do you have a source to support that claim?

~~~
goranb
It's obviously facetious by the original poster, but the sentiment stands.
Anyone not recognizing the shift (or "externalization") of responsibility from
the police is purposefully blind to it.

