Tyler Barriss charged with involuntary manslaughter in Wichita swatting

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

there actually is, but it would involve listening, in its entirety, the horrible cringe worthy phone call he did. As he did say the right trigger words, murder, hostage, child, set fire, bomb etc these trigger words are words service people look for in an effort to ascertain the situation at hand and to evaluate threat to those in the house and to the officers.

knowing this mans past, we could say he knew what to say to create the worst of the worst situation possible.

He made a call as serious as possible to get the police to raid the house...that much is known...but you cannot prove that he intended the cops to execute the individual. The fact that a guy got killed is a tragic error in judgement from one police officer. In most of these SWATing cases...no one dies. The intent is just to get another person to shit their pants.

If the prosecutors push for more than involuntary manslaughter...they have to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that there was intent to get someone killed. If they can't prove that...he walks.

[Allerius]

probably because of stuff like



dont give you much time to react

Stuff like that is the "sacrifice" part of being a police officer. Having citizens with rights and freedoms means that sometimes law enforcement can get hurt. It's actually not a particularly big issue statistically either.

Otherwise you have to accept that someone can just make a call, say the right things, and cops will show up and kill you just in case. Is that really reasonable on any level?

[RobertoCarlos]

Stuff like that is the "sacrifice" part of being a police officer. Having citizens with rights and freedoms means that sometimes law enforcement can get hurt. It's actually not a particularly big issue statistically either.

Otherwise you have to accept that someone can just make a call, say the right things, and cops will show up and kill you just in case. Is that really reasonable on any level?

And maybe we shouldnt expect humans to just be a sacrifice when its called apon? Im sure it sounds nice at training camp and in the recruitment videos that you are saving lives. But in reality when you are getting shot at and adrenaline kicks in and that fight or flight response kicks in people might make mistakes and do the wrong thing? its almost like highly stressful jobs can make people do some crazy stuff.

The guy that got shot didnt know what was happening and didnt follow the commands he was given. It was a shitty situation for all involved and the blame should be put on the caller. Or should we just treat every potential kidnapping and murder call as just a prank bro and not give it its due respect?

[Bacabed]

He made a call as serious as possible to get the police to raid the house...that much is known...but you cannot prove that he intended the cops to execute the individual. The fact that a guy got killed is a tragic error in judgement from one police officer. In most of these SWATing cases...no one dies. The intent is just to get another person to shit their pants.

If the prosecutors push for more than involuntary manslaughter...they have to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that there was intent to get someone killed. If they can't prove that...he walks.

KSA §21-5403: Murder in the second degree is the killing of a human being: (a) intentionally; or (b) unintentionally but recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.

That's the second degree murder statute from Kansas. So, the prosecution doesn't have to prove intent, they can prove that his actions were reckless and manifested an extreme indifference to the value of human life. An argument could be made that calling a SWAT team on someone, telling them that hostages were taken and that one was murdered does show this. It's a bad argument, but you could make it (and it was probably made by the DA's office and rejected by the grand jury already).

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

KSA §21-5403: Murder in the second degree is the killing of a human being: (a) intentionally; or (b) unintentionally but recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.

That's the second degree murder statute from Kansas. So, the prosecution doesn't have to prove intent, they can prove that his actions were reckless and manifested an extreme indifference to the value of human life. An argument could be made that calling a SWAT team on someone, telling them that hostages were taken and that one was murdered does show this. It's a bad argument, but you could make it (and it was probably made by the DA's office and rejected by the grand jury already).

I doubt they would even try to make that argument. The "extreme indifference" part would be more like randomly firing a gun into a crowd than making a prank call. The guy is a son of a bitch sure...but I very much doubt he even considered the possibility that SWATing might lead to the death of an innocent person.

[Mormolyce]

The swatter should go to jail, the cop should go to jail.

There's so much stupid in this story.

The entire US justice system should go to jail keke.

[Jastall]

Good. That's pretty much exactly what he did.

[Bacabed]

I doubt they would even try to make that argument. The "extreme indifference" part would be more like randomly firing a gun into a crowd than making a prank call. The guy is a son of a bitch sure...but I very much doubt he even considered the possibility that SWATing might lead to the death of an innocent person.

The prosecution probably did make that argument to a grand jury but, because there's very little evidence to support it, they did not prevail. At grand jury the burden of proof is much lower than at trial (bear with me I'm having trouble finding Kansas specifically so I'll be using New York as I'm more familiar with our criminal justice system however they don't vary too much in this regard). In New York, under CPL § 190.65 you can indict when the evidence is legally sufficient to prove that the person being indicted did commit the offense they're being indicted for and that the evidence provides reasonable cause that the person committed that crime. The "legally sufficient" standard looks at the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and is not the same as the "beyond on a reasonable doubt" standard required at trial.

Also bear in mind that, at grand jury, the defense is not present pursuant to KSA § 22-3010 (that is Kansas procedure). So the defense doesn't have a chance to put on their defense. Back to the point I was trying to make: the prosecution probably went before the jury, provided the evidence that the guy called the cops, what he said, etc. and gave the jury their charges. In the charges the jury would be informed they must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (which can lead them to follow any inferences that the People argued, in this case that the evidence shows that the defendant showed extreme indifference to the value of human life) and the defense would have had no chance to have given a counter explanation that the defendant hadn't even been thinking about the possibility of human life being at stake in the first place. So, I'd say it is possible that the DA at least tried to get the defendant indicted for Murder in the Second Degree. They would have known they would fail at trial but it would give them a lot of leverage to get the guy to plead to involuntary manslaughter. Worst case, they'd go to trial for murder two with involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense for the jury to consider.

[Gaaz]

KSA §21-5403: Murder in the second degree is the killing of a human being: (a) intentionally; or (b) unintentionally but recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.

That's the second degree murder statute from Kansas. So, the prosecution doesn't have to prove intent, they can prove that his actions were reckless and manifested an extreme indifference to the value of human life. An argument could be made that calling a SWAT team on someone, telling them that hostages were taken and that one was murdered does show this. It's a bad argument, but you could make it (and it was probably made by the DA's office and rejected by the grand jury already).

As already discussed in the previous thread, there is zero chance of a second degree murder charge sticking. You have to prove the "extreme indifference". And that is impossible, because no one would expect police to shoot first and ask questions later. In 50 years of SWATting prank calls history, there has never been a documented case of a prank victim being not only killed, but even injured.

[Bacabed]

As already discussed in the previous thread, there is zero chance of a second degree murder charge sticking. You have to prove the "extreme indifference". And that is impossible, because no one would expect police to shoot first and ask questions later. In 50 years of SWATting prank calls history, there has never been a documented case of a prank victim being not only killed, but even injured.

I hadn't seen the previous thread. The only reason I brought it up (and now I think it was a bad idea because it seems to be starting hostility) is that people keep saying that a murder charge won't stick because intent can't be proven, I cited the law just to show that intent isn't the only way to get a murder conviction. Of course no jury would find the "extreme indifference" required but it just seemed like people were ignoring the possibility of convicting someone of murder without proving intent. I guess that was already hashed out in the other thread, my bad.

[kail]

About as accurate of a charge as it gets.

[Flame6]

Stuff like that is the "sacrifice" part of being a police officer. Having citizens with rights and freedoms means that sometimes law enforcement can get hurt. It's actually not a particularly big issue statistically either.

Otherwise you have to accept that someone can just make a call, say the right things, and cops will show up and kill you just in case. Is that really reasonable on any level?

Eh, I believe once you disobey an officer's reasonable demand (take your hands out of your pockets) then nearly any shooting is justified. I'm sure you'll hyperbole my statement, but most of these officer shootings start with someone refusing a very reasonable request.

[RobertoCarlos]

Eh, I believe once you disobey an officer's reasonable demand (take your hands out of your pockets) then nearly any shooting is justified. I'm sure you'll hyperbole my statement, but most of these officer shootings start with someone refusing a very reasonable request.

Did you even read my post? "The guy that got shot didnt know what was happening and didnt follow the commands he was given."

[Alvito]

I’m happy enough with the charge, and hopeing more swatters end up with criminal charges. These stupid pranks need to die out before more innocent people suffer

There some be a severe punishment for just swatting somebody. The death on the backside of this is bad, but the police share an awful lot of the responsibility for that too. With the way the laws work as you start blaming multiple people for the same thing the punishment for all often lessens a great deal.

[oxymoronic]

What happened was there were two people arguing online. One of them supplied a false address to the rager and said pretty much "Go ahead, do it." Said rager (I can't fuckin remember his name sorry) contacted Barriss with this false address and had him swat it. Which resulted in the death of Tyler Finch. One could argue that all three of them could be charged as responsible.

all 3 as in the swatter, the person that instigated and the police officer right? surely just getting into an argument alone is not justification for charges.

- - - Updated - - -

As already discussed in the previous thread, there is zero chance of a second degree murder charge sticking. You have to prove the "extreme indifference". And that is impossible, because no one would expect police to shoot first and ask questions later. In 50 years of SWATting prank calls history, there has never been a documented case of a prank victim being not only killed, but even injured.

source?

cause i know they get the wrong address and people have died as a result.

[Gaaz]

source?

cause i know they get the wrong address and people have died as a result.

I do not know what source you expect. There literally no mention in any news article, internet, newspaper, TV or any other, of any deadly injuries that came to a victim of SWATting as a result of a police action. Before that case that is. There was a broken nose a couple of years back if I remember correctly though. You can visit the wiki article, in the section which describes this in more detail. The only other serious injury ever recorded was a policeman getting wounded by an unsuspecting SWATting victim himself. If you have any other information regarding injuries during SWATting pranks, I am sure any news agency would be happy to publish it. I am sure people here would be grateful for the insight as well. So if you have any article about someone getting injured during a SWATting prank, share it.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

The prosecution probably did make that argument to a grand jury but, because there's very little evidence to support it, they did not prevail. At grand jury the burden of proof is much lower than at trial (bear with me I'm having trouble finding Kansas specifically so I'll be using New York as I'm more familiar with our criminal justice system however they don't vary too much in this regard). In New York, under CPL § 190.65 you can indict when the evidence is legally sufficient to prove that the person being indicted did commit the offense they're being indicted for and that the evidence provides reasonable cause that the person committed that crime. The "legally sufficient" standard looks at the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and is not the same as the "beyond on a reasonable doubt" standard required at trial.

Also bear in mind that, at grand jury, the defense is not present pursuant to KSA § 22-3010 (that is Kansas procedure). So the defense doesn't have a chance to put on their defense. Back to the point I was trying to make: the prosecution probably went before the jury, provided the evidence that the guy called the cops, what he said, etc. and gave the jury their charges. In the charges the jury would be informed they must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (which can lead them to follow any inferences that the People argued, in this case that the evidence shows that the defendant showed extreme indifference to the value of human life) and the defense would have had no chance to have given a counter explanation that the defendant hadn't even been thinking about the possibility of human life being at stake in the first place. So, I'd say it is possible that the DA at least tried to get the defendant indicted for Murder in the Second Degree. They would have known they would fail at trial but it would give them a lot of leverage to get the guy to plead to involuntary manslaughter. Worst case, they'd go to trial for murder two with involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense for the jury to consider.

Not sure why we're arguing here... in essence we agree. Either they took a Second Degree Charge to the grand jury and it got poo-pooed...or they never bothered taking it to the grand jury because they knew that it would get poo-pooed. Regardless, there is no case to be made for a Secondary Degree Murder Charge that would have a hope in hell of getting a conviction.

[Deleted]

What happened was there were two people arguing online. One of them supplied a false address to the rager and said pretty much "Go ahead, do it." Said rager (I can't fuckin remember his name sorry) contacted Barriss with this false address and had him swat it. Which resulted in the death of Tyler Finch. One could argue that all three of them could be charged as responsible.

I feel like as one of them is death. it would be pointless to charge him. Also saying" fuck you, i dare you to show up" is not really the same as "hire a proffesional swatter to call in so i die"
I think Barriss should get not just voluntary manslaugther but direct manslaugther, that is what can happend when you call in swat.
i also think the guy who hired Barriss should get arrested for the same, as he was the one who hired him

[Afrospinach]

He made up a whole bunch of bullshit to make it seem like there was extreme danger.

This is exactly my point, he set the scene to be highly inflammatory which is why I don't see manslaughter as being enough.

At least we can expect there to be little to no mitigation to his sentence thanks to his twitter outbursts and repeat offenses.

[Aphrel]

If i were a judge i would judge them as in any case where someone hires an assassin.
Youd want to get both the assasin and the one who hired him.

But more importantly: Why the fuck isnt the police Rules of engagement being looked over? Somebody walks out of his house and gets shot on the spot?! No threats no attack from the person. Not even a fucking word from the police... just shoot on sight.
Not even the military when evading a country has the right to do that.