Support NeoGAF

[manfestival]

Previous thread here:
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/wrong-address-swatted-innocent-man-shot-dead.1460203/
TLDR; They had immediately arrested the guy that placed the call and the other two had no action at that time. Police also screwed up big time but they shrugged it off like a big oops.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-news-call-duty-swatting-death-kansas-20180613-story.html

Viner allegedly became upset at Gaskill while playing the popular online game. Authorities say he then asked 25-year-old Tyler Barriss of Los Angeles to "swat" Gaskill at an address that Gaskill had previously provided him. Swatting is a form of retaliation sometimes used by gamers, who call police and make a false report to send first responders to an online opponent's address.

A police officer responding to the call fatally shot the new resident Andrew Finch, 28, after he opened the door.

Viner and Gaskill have not been arrested and both were instead issued a summons to appear at Wednesday's hearing. They remain free on a $10,000 bond each and were ordered to find a job and not to play online video games or have contact with witnesses.

Barriss and Viner face federal charges of conspiracy to make false reports.

TLDR; The guys are living pretty cozy that lead to this. The whole handling of this is kinda a joke considering a man lost his life due to their stupidity. I can only really fault Viner and Barriss (the aggressors in this situation) and it is stupid that Gaskill gave the wrong address but it is also a normal move most people would do given the situation.

 

[Mr Hyde]

Swatting is probably the most fucked up thing you can do to get revenge for losing a game. It´s really sad to see people lose their lives over such a bullshit deed.

 

[Hendrick's]

How the hell do these cops just start shooting as soon as the door opens?

 

[demigod]

That's pretty shitty, Viner should be charged since he hired the guy to make the call.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

I'm not anti cop at all. But why is shooting on sight an accepted practice in law enforcement anyway?

To protect and serve. Who? When they get a call for a hostage situation or a dangerous lunatic with a gun in their house, wouldn't they try to end the situation without bloodshed first? How did they protect and serve by shooting as soon as someone answered the door? Makes zero sense to me.

Off topic, this is exactly why it's a head scratcher for me how a person can be anti cop and anti gun. I've known people who are. If I was anti cop I'd certainly be pro gun. Have to have some sort of protection from "bad people".

 

[Kenpachii]

Cop needs to go to jail
The judge needs to go to jail
That guy that called in on the cops need to go to jail

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

This is why I don't play CoD/Multi games.

 

[Spukc]

there is no winner in this shitfest

 

[Blam]

That guy that called in on the cops need to go to jail

Only this needs to happen. And to federal prison too. same place they wanna throw the pirates too.

 

[Hinedorf]

Ordered to find jobs and not play online video games? Must have some rich parents for bullshit charges like that, clearly murder is just a joke after all.

 

[GrayFoxRJ]

Who are these 2? Twitch streamers?

 

[oagboghi2]

Ordered to find a job? Are you fucking kidding me?

 

[Ar¢tos]

I find it ridiculous that cops shoot to kill in US, instead of shooting to immobilise like they do in EU (and only in last resort).

 

[Barakov]

This is absolutely ridiculous. Someone lost their life because of Bariss's and Viner's stupidity as well as the cop's over-zealousness. The cop at the very least needs to lose his job and Bariss and Viner need to face a stiff punishment. Sounds like they possible will.

As bad as this sounds, an example needs to be made here. That way people will know that there are heavy repercussions for doing something like this.

 

[GeekyDad]

How the hell do these cops just start shooting as soon as the door opens?

No shit. That's perhaps the craziest part of this type of scenario (that seems to be pretty common these days). This shouldn't be a fatal situation. Do cops use discretion at all anymore? Jesus Christ!

 

[Nikodemos]

How the hell do these cops just start shooting as soon as the door opens?

SWAT are called in situations where use of extreme force is warranted like organized attacks or siege/hostage situations.
Which is why swatting is so dangerous, since the agents have very twitchy trigger fingers.

Hope the fuckers get done in for attempted murder.

 

[Son_of_Zardoz]

Fuck. Them. All.

 

[Hendrick's]

SWAT are called in situations where use of extreme force is warranted like organized attacks or siege/hostage situations.

Based on some random phone call? You would think they assess the situation before lighting people up.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

I find it ridiculous that cops shoot to kill in US, instead of shooting to immobilise like they do in EU (and only in last resort).

Have you ever shot a weapon?

 

[Ar¢tos]

Have you ever shot a weapon?

No. What does that has to do with this issue?

 

[MrDanGuy]

I'm not anti cop at all. But why is shooting on sight an accepted practice in law enforcement anyway?

To protect and serve. Who? When they get a call for a hostage situation or a dangerous lunatic with a gun in their house, wouldn't they try to end the situation without bloodshed first? How did they protect and serve by shooting as soon as someone answered the door? Makes zero sense to me.

Off topic, this is exactly why it's a head scratcher for me how a person can be anti cop and anti gun. I've known people who are. If I was anti cop I'd certainly be pro gun. Have to have some sort of protection from "bad people".

It’s not accepted. They have rules of engagement. Whether or not the person makes the right choice based on the information they have is the issue.

 

[autoduelist]

No. What does that has to do with this issue?

Because fancy trick shots like disarming a bad guy by shooting him in the hand are for film only. Not only does this increase the risk that you miss entirely and the officer getting shot, but it increases the chance of errant bullets harming Innocents. This, among other reasons, are why police are trained to shoot for Center Mass. They're not supposed to be firing a gun in the first place unless they are trying to put someone dangerous down.

While there are rare cases in which shooting someone in the legs might make sense to those looking at it from a distance, shooting situations are life and death for everyone involved so training and policy must focus on what is the best option for most cases.

Even the UK, where the rule is shoot to incapacitated this also means Shooting Center Mass... Which will still kill, since since it's exactly the same policy as the US. Just because they call it by different name does not mean that they are supporting trick shots. You are just falling for wording.

Here's an article on the subject
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/17/shoot-to-kill-what-is-the-uks-policy

Relevant Quote from article
---------
The official policy says firearms officers “shoot to incapacitate”. They are trained to target the centre of the chest as the quickest way to “neutralise” a suspect, even though it is highly likely that this will kill.

The idea that officers will shoot to wound is dismissed because it is felt that it places the public and officers in too much danger.
---------

In fact, the article goes on to say that they are authorized for headshots if the suspect is wearing body armor. Given the rule of Engagement in both cases is to shoot Center Mass, I would argue America's policy of shoot-to-kill is simply more honestly worded than the UK's policy of shoot to incapacitate.

I find it ridiculous that cops shoot to kill in US, instead of shooting to immobilise like they do in EU (and only in last resort).

Do you still find America's policy ridiculous? Or are you still enamored by orwellian wordsmithing and prefer UK's policy? Perhaps if we renamed it shoot to knock down you'd be even happier?

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

No. What does that has to do with this issue?

Cops shoot to stop the perp not disable. They are trained that way and will aim for center of mass first then anything. For one hitting a moving object or something isn't as easy as CoD, there are no crosshairs or bullet time irl. Whoever lays down fire first and quickly usually lives. When people say "oh how come he didnt do a perfect shot in his arms and legs I wonder how they think this would work condidering what I just told you and how easy it would be for somebody to hit a artery, ect ect. Now I agree with you on the cop being at fault for shooting but we don't know what spooked him and in recent events he might have been on edge? Idk moral of the story is Multiplayer games kill.

 

[Ar¢tos]

Because fancy trick shots like disarming a bad guy by shooting him in the hand are for film only. Not only does this increase the risk that you miss entirely and the officer getting shot, but it increases the chance of errant bullets harming Innocents. This, among other reasons, are why police are trained to shoot for Center Mass. They're not supposed to be firing a gun in the first place unless they are trying to put someone dangerous down.

While there are rare cases in which shooting someone in the legs might make sense to those looking at it from a distance, shooting situations are life and death for everyone involved so training and policy must focus on what is the best option for most cases.

Even the UK, where the rule is shoot to incapacitated this also means Shooting Center Mass... Which will still kill, since since it's exactly the same policy as the US. Just because they call it by different name does not mean that they are supporting trick shots. You are just falling for wording.

Here's an article on the subject
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/17/shoot-to-kill-what-is-the-uks-policy

Relevant Quote from article
---------
The official policy says firearms officers “shoot to incapacitate”. They are trained to target the centre of the chest as the quickest way to “neutralise” a suspect, even though it is highly likely that this will kill.

The idea that officers will shoot to wound is dismissed because it is felt that it places the public and officers in too much danger.
---------

In fact, the article goes on to say that they are authorized for headshots if the suspect is wearing body armor. Given the rule of Engagement in both cases is to shoot Center Mass, I would argue America's policy of shoot-to-kill is simply more honestly worded than the UK's policy of shoot to incapacitate.



Do you still find America's policy ridiculous? Or are you still enamored by orwellian wordsmithing and prefer UK's policy? Perhaps if we renamed it shoot to knock down you'd be even happier?

In all honesty I find all America's legal system ridiculous. Its a big circus that elected their funniest clown as president.
Cop training in Europe is 3 years vs 21 weeks in US (5 months). Not only the cops are unexperienced and trigger happy, you can get guns easily making crime much more violent. I'm surprised there aren't guns vending machines in US yet, like in Borderlands.
Then when a cop kills an unarmed man because of a prank call he gets a slap in the hand instead of a murder charge, and the 2 idiots that made the call get a lecture and told to get a jobs instead of murder charges too... Something is not working there.

 

[autoduelist]

In all honesty I find all America's legal system ridiculous. Its a big circus that elected their funniest clown as president.
Cop training in Europe is 3 years vs 21 weeks in US (5 months). Not only the cops are unexperienced and trigger happy, you can get guns easily making crime much more violent. I'm surprised there aren't guns vending machines in US yet, like in Borderlands.
Then when a cop kills an unarmed man because of a prank call he gets a slap in the hand instead of a murder charge, and the 2 idiots that made the call get a lecture and told to get a jobs instead of murder charges too... Something is not working there.

So I thoroughly prove you wrong, and instead of apologizing and perhaps learning something you simply duck the question and switch topics and move goal posts. Zero respect given to those who prove zero respect deserved.

 

[ItsYaboi]

Because fancy trick shots like disarming a bad guy by shooting him in the hand are for film only. Not only does this increase the risk that you miss entirely and the officer getting shot, but it increases the chance of errant bullets harming Innocents. This, among other reasons, are why police are trained to shoot for Center Mass. They're not supposed to be firing a gun in the first place unless they are trying to put someone dangerous down.

While there are rare cases in which shooting someone in the legs might make sense to those looking at it from a distance, shooting situations are life and death for everyone involved so training and policy must focus on what is the best option for most cases.

Even the UK, where the rule is shoot to incapacitated this also means Shooting Center Mass... Which will still kill, since since it's exactly the same policy as the US. Just because they call it by different name does not mean that they are supporting trick shots. You are just falling for wording.

Here's an article on the subject
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/17/shoot-to-kill-what-is-the-uks-policy

Relevant Quote from article
---------
The official policy says firearms officers “shoot to incapacitate”. They are trained to target the centre of the chest as the quickest way to “neutralise” a suspect, even though it is highly likely that this will kill.

The idea that officers will shoot to wound is dismissed because it is felt that it places the public and officers in too much danger.
---------

In fact, the article goes on to say that they are authorized for headshots if the suspect is wearing body armor. Given the rule of Engagement in both cases is to shoot Center Mass, I would argue America's policy of shoot-to-kill is simply more honestly worded than the UK's policy of shoot to incapacitate.



Do you still find America's policy ridiculous? Or are you still enamored by orwellian wordsmithing and prefer UK's policy? Perhaps if we renamed it shoot to knock down you'd be even happier?

I think in general one could say US cops kill way to many people especially compared to european cops.

 

[Ar¢tos]

So I thoroughly prove you wrong, and instead of apologizing and perhaps learning something you simply duck the question and switch topics and move goal posts. Zero respect given to those who prove zero respect deserved.

You're a true internet hero!

 

[zackmorris]

I find it ridiculous that cops shoot to kill in US, instead of shooting to immobilise like they do in EU (and only in last resort).

There are so many things wrong with this statement.
First of all you are aware Europe is a continent, right? Police are not governed by the continent but the individual countries. Russia does not have the same rules for police training as France. So I'm not sure which country you are talking about. But in any case NO police force uses shooting as a means to immobilize. It's considered a lethal level of force, not matter how you use it. Shooting someone in the leg can be just as lethal as center mass. Im not even going to get into the logistics of trying to aim for a limb, but it just again goes to show that you have zero idea about what your talking about.

 

[autoduelist]

I think in general one could say US cops kill way to many people especially compared to european cops.

That's a completely different issue. He was arguing that was because of the shoot to kill policy versus shooting to incapacitate. I was pointing out that the policy was exactly the same. Furthermore, there would be a ton of problems if the policy was for police to, say, kneecap people.

There are a lot of reasons us cops kill more people than UK cops. Most obviously, more Americans will be armed. There are plenty of other issues, such as the awful militarization of police forces in recent decades. But again, I was responding to him claiming shoot-to-kill was ridiculous, and then using the exact same policy that was differently worded as if it was a better way.

Of course, rather than admit he was wrong, he simply double downed and proved that he wasn't worth talking to.