Serial Swatter Charged With Involuntary Manslaughter

Yes, because he hasn't himself killed anyone. I believe he is scum and deserves punishment, but I don't believe we need to send him to jail to control him, or kill him to prevent future incidents. I do believe that if he had proper supervision and his access to unlimited self-gratification was cut off, that he might develop into a better person. Or, he might kill himself or his guardians/supervision...but hopefully they'd recognize any sort of physical aggression before it got out of hand. Worst case, he could be required to wear a straitjacket, I guess.

So a mob boss that orders his hitman to kill someone is innocent because "he himself hasn't killed anyone"? What about a corrupt military officer that orders someone to kill a prisoner of war? I'm not trying to antagonize you, I'm just trying to understand your logic. I think if he called regular police on the guy and said something stupid like "I hate cops", maybe I could agree that it was more like a prank so give him a slap on the wrist, but the call was very specifically aimed to cause as much mayhem as possible with the intent for the police to kill someone.
 
So a mob boss that orders his hitman to kill someone is innocent because "he himself hasn't killed anyone"? What about a corrupt military officer that orders someone to kill a prisoner of war? I'm not trying to antagonize you, I'm just trying to understand your logic. I think if he called regular police on the guy and said something stupid like "I hate cops", maybe I could agree that it was more like a prank so give him a slap on the wrist, but the call was very specifically aimed to cause as much mayhem as possible with the intent for the police to kill someone.
You can't prove intent to kill that easily. And my point is that he hasn't shown any violent behavior (afaik), only malicious behavior, and I don't think sending him to jail will do much to change his behavior. Restricting his ability to play games, make calls, and access the internet for a couple decades, just might. And if he then begins showing violent behavior, we can consider prison.
 
No no no it isn't what happened. I saw the video, the man was already standing on his porch, not opening his door. He was standing there, the cops were telling him to raise his hands, he kept dropping them, and the last time he raised his hands he did it very quickly and his right arm is cocked out to the side like he was holding a weapon and one of the cops fired a single shot.

Now I am not saying the cop's reaction was appropriate, but misstating the situation in a clearly false manner is no help at all.

I actually wonder if the cop was right in shooting because of two things. The first, usually when a cop fires they really unload like an entire magazine because one shot doesn't always do the job and it would actually be easy to miss at that distance, from across the street. The other reason is even more telling, only one cop fired, usually if someone does something that justifies a deadly response, several cops open up together.

My gut reaction on this is that from this cop's angle he had a hard time seeing what the other cops saw. They saw the same threatening movement but realized there wasn't a gun and didn't fire, the cop that did fire most likely did so out of a keyed-up reaction and held up firing more because he realized that he shouldn't have shot, that he didn't control himself properly.

But what I know is that just because I see that video and I have my opinion about it, I'm not such a fool to think that I should be making a decision on this. It's not up to me because one, I wasn't there and that video is only part of the story, two, I'm not a cop on that police force so I am not trained and don't KNOW what was a proper reaction, and three, even if I was there and even if I was a cop on that force and had the training and knew the proper procedure for the situation, I'm not the person who is given the responsibility to decide this, that is on someone else to do, and live with, not me, and I think ... not you.
Thank you for posting the only comment in this entire thread worth reading. The rest fall somewhere between hang him from his toenails to hug him, it's all those thug cops. Your analysis is spot on, and I hope to see more rational discourse like this from others.
 
There's generally a reason we don't put victims on juries: Because they are incapable of being impartial.

And the argument wasn't whether he deserves to die for what he did (though he doesn't), but rather whether society should conclude that the man is irredeemable, and should therefore be put to death to PREVENT FUTURE CRIMES. Preemptive execution is a bit of a stretch, even among serious deathly penalty advocates.

Again, it's not his first time around the block and although the first time didn't result in a death, the second did and he still shows no sign of accepting that he had any responsibility for the man's death.
 
Isn't being technically correct the best kind of correct?

I'm sorry, I thought you were the one that championed "morally correct" and "ethically correct" and beat me up over my lack of humanity?

The anarchist thinks it's best to adhere to the letter of the law and not the spirit ?

Maybe I've had you all wrong :unsure:
 
Here's an idea: to those who want to rehabilitate this guy, undertake the responsibility for him. Totally. Don't put it on those of use who'd put him to death or throw away the key. You volunteer to house him. You feed him when he's hungry. I don't think he's employee material. You may think so. When he goes off the rails, you put up your house, your car, your future earnings, your LIFE...in his stead. Pledge your house against a surety bond for his behavior. Put your freedom on the line instead of his. Let him live in your house, eat at your table, sleep under your roof. Take him to your doctor. Pay for his bills. You do this. If he gets convicted of a crime, go to jail in his place. Give up your possessions for recompense. Send your children to jail for his crimes. Put yourself, and your family, between him and the rest of society.

If you're not willing to do that, then why do you think someone else should? Putting an animal back into society means that someone, who is most likely a stranger to you, will have to pay the price for your morality. Instead, you should step up.

That poor guy in Kansas, and his family? They had to pay because this piece of trash was released back into society. Too bad it wasn't someone who knew of him and thought he was rehabilitated.


Shit .... I only asked a guy to become a cop, a better cop than what he thinks these were :whistle:
 
I'm sorry, I thought you were the one that championed "morally correct" and "ethically correct" and beat me up over my lack of humanity?

The anarchist thinks it's best to adhere to the letter of the law and not the spirit ?

Maybe I've had you all wrong :unsure:

What's your point, exactly? You know I am incapable of doublethink. I see two wrongs where you only see one. They taught you good.
 
So a mob boss that orders his hitman to kill someone is innocent because "he himself hasn't killed anyone"? What about a corrupt military officer that orders someone to kill a prisoner of war? I'm not trying to antagonize you, I'm just trying to understand your logic. I think if he called regular police on the guy and said something stupid like "I hate cops", maybe I could agree that it was more like a prank so give him a slap on the wrist, but the call was very specifically aimed to cause as much mayhem as possible with the intent for the police to kill someone.

From a legal stand point, intent is actually pretty easy to to prove depending on the type. If I drop a brick from a balcony into a crowd of people, it might sound like you can't "know my intentions" but that doesn't matter because there is a difference between "basic intent" and "specific intent". In the case of dropping a brick, the person is said to have exhibited "basic intent" because obviously dropping a brick from a balcony into a crowd of people would cause bodily harm. Further, you have "direct" intent and "oblique" intent. Direct intent is an action that the accused knows or plans to have a specific outcome. Oblique intent is for someone who undertakes an action that might have an unintended consequence. MAYBE, and a big maybe, you could argue he didn't intend for anyone to get hurt but I would go back to the type of call he made. He didn't make a call to simply annoy the police into harassing the victim. He specifically made the police believe the victim was a deadly threat which, in my opinion, is direct intent.
 
So where do we disagree?

Let's explore.

In 1979, I was 19 years old driving home to my sister's birthday party. It was early evening in October, dark by 6PM, I was doing under 50 in a 55 and I couldn't see two kids, about 6 and 8, pushing their baby brother across the highway in a shopping cart until there was no chance I could miss them. Two lived, but the little girl bounced off my windshield and didn't have a chance.

She died, I killed her right? I was driving that car, no one else was behind the wheel.

I could tell you about the lights from the golf course that made it tougher to see them. We could discuss why they were there crossing a busy highway at night, children with no adult along. But none of that takes me away from behind that steering wheel.

Was that murder or was it something else? I was never charged with anything.

What's the difference between my vehicular homicide and this Officer's firearm homicide?

Both were homicides, the definition doesn't leave much wiggle room. But in those days, if a driver wasn't doing anything actually negligent, they called it an accident. No fault was or blame was leveled against me by the Law. Mom and Dad sued me, my insurance settled. I suppose they needed that, a way to blame someone else so they didn't have to face up to their own lack of involvement. An accident.

So the difference between you and I on this is you are jumping straight to murder. I figure there something more appropriate somewhere between "an accident" and some form of manslaughter.
 
Let's explore.

In 1979, I was 19 years old driving home to my sister's birthday party. It was early evening in October, dark by 6PM, I was doing under 50 in a 55 and I couldn't see two kids, about 6 and 8, pushing their baby brother across the highway in a shopping cart until there was no chance I could miss them. Two lived, but the little girl bounced off my windshield and didn't have a chance.

She died, I killed her right? I was driving that car, no one else was behind the wheel.

I could tell you about the lights from the golf course that made it tougher to see them. We could discuss why they were there crossing a busy highway at night, children with no adult along. But none of that takes me away from behind that steering wheel.

Was that murder or was it something else? I was never charged with anything.

What's the difference between my vehicular homicide and this Officer's firearm homicide?

Both were homicides, the definition doesn't leave much wiggle room. But in those days, if a driver wasn't doing anything actually negligent, they called it an accident. No fault was or blame was leveled against me by the Law. Mom and Dad sued me, my insurance settled. I suppose they needed that, a way to blame someone else so they didn't have to face up to their own lack of involvement. An accident.

So the difference between you and I on this is you are jumping straight to murder. I figure there something more appropriate somewhere between "an accident" and some form of manslaughter.

Actually people get charged with vehicular homicide for exactly what you are talking about. Most states have a sliding scale where at the bottom you didn't have intent, then higher scales for if you were intoxicated, and obviously the highest would be intent to use your vehicle as a deadly weapon (ie: 1st or 2nd degree manslaughter).
 
I would not give a reason for the cops to shoot me in the first place. But go on believing this guy did absolutely nothing that might have set a cop off.
Who said you? Could be your wife, GF, or kid who's not so perfect like Tsumi, who always bows down to his police master.
 
Who said you? Could be your wife, GF, or kid who's not so perfect like Tsumi, who always bows down to his police master.

Insults always lower the legitimacy of your message.

Would I be upset? Yes. However, I would not be so quick to assume the cop committed murder. That is all.
 
Insults always lower the legitimacy of your message.

Would I be upset? Yes. However, I would not be so quick to assume the cop committed murder. That is all.
I think I said Manslaughter.. And again, if I did exactly what the cop did (as a civilian) based on the exact same evidence, I'd be on my way to court and to jail and if cops thought there was a reasonable chance of going to jail, they'd be more cautious, but we now live ina world, where the prosecutors and courts generally give a pass to cops, not matter how unjustified the homicide is.
 
I think I said Manslaughter.. And again, if I did exactly what the cop did (as a civilian) based on the exact same evidence, I'd be on my way to court and to jail and if cops thought there was a reasonable chance of going to jail, they'd be more cautious, but we now live ina world, where the prosecutors and courts generally give a pass to cops, not matter how unjustified the homicide is.

Let the evidence play itself out first, then charge the cop if it was determined he did something wrong. I would not rush to put him in jail based on a short video that can be interpreted in many number of ways and without full understanding of the scenario.

As for a civilian... "I genuinely feared for my life" is a defense that is accepted. But a civilian wouldn't be charging into a suspected hostage situation. A civilian wouldn't be waiting outside of someone's home pointing a gun at their front door because they believed there was a hostage situation inside. A civilian that is not breaking any laws should only point a gun at a person in the circumstance that they believe their life to be in danger.

Of course, there are fringe cases where juries see things differently and don't accept the "fearing for life" defense, but who says we have a perfect judicial system? The fact that we have to rely on juries to make decisions shows how imperfect the judicial system is.
 
You can't prove intent to kill that easily. And my point is that he hasn't shown any violent behavior (afaik), only malicious behavior, and I don't think sending him to jail will do much to change his behavior.

No sympathy from me, he's a repeat offender and an asshole.

Personality disorders usually don't get better. This guy has proven repeatedly that he has no business living free in our society. People like this who repeatedly hurt and manipulate others through third parties are far worse than someone who snaps and commits a violent crime out of anger or whatever.
 
I saw the video. Cop should fry.

I saw the video too and, granted the PD almost certainly had their pick of body cameras and chose the one looked most threatening, the impression I came away with was that it would be hard to make it look more like the victim was bringing a pistol to bear with deadly intent. An incredibly unfortunate combination of reflexive movement and lighting.
 
I saw the video too and, granted the PD almost certainly had their pick of body cameras and chose the one looked most threatening, the impression I came away with was that it would be hard to make it look more like the victim was bringing a pistol to bear with deadly intent. An incredibly unfortunate combination of reflexive movement and lighting.

any cop that saw what that guy did as threatening shouldn't be a cop. The fact only one cop fired out of all of them shows most cops didn't feel threatened.. I think we need to change the law that gives cops a license to kill if they FEEL threatened.

The cops were far away from the guy, behind cover, and they created a chaotic situation. Cops created the scene which then they used as justification to kill the guy. This guy did nothing to create the situation that led to his death.
 
No sympathy from me, he's a repeat offender and an asshole.

Personality disorders usually don't get better. This guy has proven repeatedly that he has no business living free in our society. People like this who repeatedly hurt and manipulate others through third parties are far worse than someone who snaps and commits a violent crime out of anger or whatever.
I have none, myself. I just don't see how prison would be any better a place for him, either to rot or rehabilitate. What, you want him to have access to whatever he wants in prison? Because he will be able to manipulate and use others in prison as easily as outside, maybe more easily.
 
Actually people get charged with vehicular homicide for exactly what you are talking about. Most states have a sliding scale where at the bottom you didn't have intent, then higher scales for if you were intoxicated, and obviously the highest would be intent to use your vehicle as a deadly weapon (ie: 1st or 2nd degree manslaughter).

I think we all know this, but that wasn't quite what I was talking about though I suppose it does support it or add additional information related to it.

dgz called the cop's action in shooting Mr Finch murder, in fact, he said murderers so he is going to charge all present with murder. If I understand him correctly, he feels both the swatter and the cops are at fault in the man's death.

I took exception to his classification of the policeman's actions as murder. There was a homicide no doubt, a man died. The details available to us seem worthy of investigation if for no other reason than an innocent man was killed. But I find two aspects of the shooting as odd relative to how I remember other police shootings happening. I find it odd because only one officer fired, I'd say it's not damning because that officer was at the worst angle for viewing Mr Finches actions facing dead on, it's really hard to see if there is an actual gun from that angle. But then again, there was another officer right with him so..... The other thing that seems unusual was that the officer only fired one shot. Usually if an officer fires, it's several shots that are fired, sometimes an entire magazine and this is because they are trained to do this. So more investigating.

Someone here at work asked a question and I haven't checked to find out, "What weapon did the officer use?" His point is that if the officer used a rifle, a single shot would be far more understandable than with a handgun. It would also explain why a single shot was so lethal. It's not that a single shot from a handgun won't kill a man, but the odds are far greater with a rifle.
 
Insults always lower the legitimacy of your message.

Would I be upset? Yes. However, I would not be so quick to assume the cop committed murder. That is all.

I wouldn't even be upset. The cops show up at my house lights flashing I'm going to be curious, maybe concerned like WTF is going on around here. Once it became sureal and I come to realize they are looking at my house, then I'll be more concerned, but not angry, why would I be angry? I would be thinking that I should help them figure out that maybe they got something wrong. I've had the MPs called on me before, a neighbor said I was shooting a "high powered rifle". They knocked on my door, three of them one stacked right behind the other hands on weapons. I answered the door, they asked to come in, told me why they were there, I showed them my paintball gun "the high powered rifle", they immediately relaxed and we talked about it. After about 20 minutes a Sergeant radioed them and told them to bring me and my paintball gun down to the station so I got in the damned car with them and took a ride. Before we left though, my wife showed up with the kids, one hanging on each side of her skirt all crying cause the cops were taking daddy away. I calmed them down, told them not to worry, the MP was so re leaved he did two things they are not supposed to do, he didn't take my Military ID from me and he allowed me to ride up front and not in handcuffs.

Nothing at all bad actually happened to me other than a report. What I did wasn't smart but I didn't commit a crime. The cops responded to a situation almost as serious as the one this swatter reported, certainly one that sounded risky. Nilepez might call this "bowing down to my police masters" but I call it showing good common sense when dealing with people who have a hard job to do.

I also call it not getting my head blown off for stupid shit.
 
I think I said Manslaughter.. And again, if I did exactly what the cop did (as a civilian) based on the exact same evidence, I'd be on my way to court and to jail and if cops thought there was a reasonable chance of going to jail, they'd be more cautious, but we now live ina world, where the prosecutors and courts generally give a pass to cops, not matter how unjustified the homicide is.

This is wrong, your not a cop. This cop was present doing his duty, his job, he is in this position because it's his job that we pay him for.

Let's fix your comment "And again, if I, as a cop, did what this cop did, based on the evidence, I'd be in the same situation as this cop is, waiting for multiple investigations to determine if I was wrong or not....."

But they do have a reasonable risk of going to jail. It's just that your idea of what it reasonable is at the far end of the spectrum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Walter_Scott

Here are 13 that were convicted of murder;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_police_officers_convicted_of_murder


Mr Stinson's own research found 41 police officers were charged with murder or manslaughter between 2005 and 2011. In the same time period, the FBI recorded several thousand justifiable homicides.
 
Last edited:

Thank You, it does change things a little but not really.

What it does is eliminate the oddity of only one shot being fired. It does nothing to change the outcome of the investigation.

Of course rifles often have optics that can improve a shooters vision of a target. They can also work against the shooter. Optics, depending on conditions, can be a mixed bag.
 
Last edited:
Let's explore.

In 1979, I was 19 years old driving home to my sister's birthday party. It was early evening in October, dark by 6PM, I was doing under 50 in a 55 and I couldn't see two kids, about 6 and 8, pushing their baby brother across the highway in a shopping cart until there was no chance I could miss them. Two lived, but the little girl bounced off my windshield and didn't have a chance.

She died, I killed her right? I was driving that car, no one else was behind the wheel.

I could tell you about the lights from the golf course that made it tougher to see them. We could discuss why they were there crossing a busy highway at night, children with no adult along. But none of that takes me away from behind that steering wheel.

Was that murder or was it something else? I was never charged with anything.

What's the difference between my vehicular homicide and this Officer's firearm homicide?

Both were homicides, the definition doesn't leave much wiggle room. But in those days, if a driver wasn't doing anything actually negligent, they called it an accident. No fault was or blame was leveled against me by the Law. Mom and Dad sued me, my insurance settled. I suppose they needed that, a way to blame someone else so they didn't have to face up to their own lack of involvement. An accident.

So the difference between you and I on this is you are jumping straight to murder. I figure there something more appropriate somewhere between "an accident" and some form of manslaughter.

55-60 what, mph? on what kind of street? I am ready to judge
 
55-60 what, mph? on what kind of street? I am ready to judge

It was MPH.

I object, I haven''t been charged .......

Then again, not being charged is probably the only thing that has allowed me something like a normal happy life.

So on the one hand you can tell yourself that you weren't charged, you weren't found at fault.

But that doesn't erase what you saw and heard when you hit two kids, a boy rolling along your driver's side door taking the mirror off on the way by, the other a little girl bouncing off your windshield right in front of your face.

It's getting close to 40 years and it hasn't gone away yet.

People say I smile with my eyes which I think is a polite way of saying that I don't usually smile much at all.

Now if I sound like I'm feeling sorry for myself don't think too hard of me please. I haven't forgotten that girl who I never knew. I'm still angry at her parents. I still feel guilty over her.

I don't need church or God much ........ I know there is more than enough Hell right here on earth.

And so back to our swatter who doesn't show any remorse or feeling of responsibility for what he has done ...... if I were under selection for the jury, I wouldn't make a fair juror cause I don't think I have any pity in me for him.
 
This is wrong, your not a cop. This cop was present doing his duty, his job, he is in this position because it's his job that we pay him for.

Let's fix your comment "And again, if I, as a cop, did what this cop did, based on the evidence, I'd be in the same situation as this cop is, waiting for multiple investigations to determine if I was wrong or not....."

But they do have a reasonable risk of going to jail. It's just that your idea of what it reasonable is at the far end of the spectrum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Walter_Scott

Here are 13 that were convicted of murder;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_police_officers_convicted_of_murder


Ooh 13 (dating back over 100 years). Cops that shoot people must be shitting themselves :rolleyes:

Walter Scott went to jail, because there was a video of him shooting a man in the back and planting a gun. If the video didn't exist, nothing would have happened. There are plenty of cases where officers killed people and nothing happened. Eric Garner was killed for moving back and forth. The medical examiner determined it was a homicide and yet, amazingly, the DA actually presented a defense of the cop to a grand jury (not how Grand Juries typically work), because he didn't want to indict the cop. Mission Accomplished.

I can promise you if YOU did something like that, the DA wouldn't present a defense to the grand jury.
 
Ooh 13 (dating back over 100 years). Cops that shoot people must be shitting themselves :rolleyes:

Walter Scott went to jail, because there was a video of him shooting a man in the back and planting a gun. If the video didn't exist, nothing would have happened. There are plenty of cases where officers killed people and nothing happened. Eric Garner was killed for moving back and forth. The medical examiner determined it was a homicide and yet, amazingly, the DA actually presented a defense of the cop to a grand jury (not how Grand Juries typically work), because he didn't want to indict the cop. Mission Accomplished.

I can promise you if YOU did something like that, the DA wouldn't present a defense to the grand jury.

Eric Garner died because he resisted arrest while being 300 lbs overweight. If he hadn't held court on the sidewalk he'd still be alive. Cops have no duty to stop trying to arrest someone if that arrest attempt is met with resistance.

And he wasn't put in a fucking choke hold, either, just to nip that argument in the bud.
 
Eric Garner died because he resisted arrest while being 300 lbs overweight. If he hadn't held court on the sidewalk he'd still be alive. Cops have no duty to stop trying to arrest someone if that arrest attempt is met with resistance.

And he wasn't put in a fucking choke hold, either, just to nip that argument in the bud.
Apparently the ME felt differently, but hey, I'm sure you're a more experienced medical professional. Furthermore, that's irrelevant to the FACT that the DA actually convened a Grand Jury and proceded to put up a defense for the accused, which again, is not how grand juries work.
 
IMO there is something wrong, not the he isnt very nice, but un-sane, with this guy.

Being on trail and on bail did not get through to him to change his ways.

My guess based on limited info is this person is truly amoral and society needs to be protected from him.
 
I assume it is a good legal strategy though. Get in the news, often and wide spread, making it nearly impossible to get a "fair trial".
 
have seen too many shitheads like this get off with what amounts to a slap on the wrist. What I want to know is why this fucker was let anywhere near a computer or a telephone unsupervised. Clearly he has proven to society he is not capable of being trusted with them...

*"but but, what about his rights......."
It's people like that, that think he need certain rights, that's why.
 
He says whatever sentence he faces legally, for his role in the death of Andrew Finch, won't change what happened.

"Whether you hang me from a tree, or you give me 5, 10, 15 years… I don't think it will ever justify what happened."

Barriss faces involuntary manslaughter charges currently, that could become more severe depending on the investigation into the death of Finch.

When you see his comments, you start to get this picture that he really doesn't get the association between his own actions and the events that they brought about. He sees the shooting as an event that is not directly associated with his own actions even though it was indeed his intent to send the cops to someone's home under false premises. He thinks that his intent is all that matters, and that anything that happened that was not his intent, is not on him.

His "sentence/punishment" will not justify "what happened", (the police shooting of the victim). He sees the government putting him on trial and possibly convicting him to prison as an effort to justify their killing of the victim.

The man has serious mental problems, but I believe he is capable of standing trial. And I also think he should remain locked up until the day comes when he understands cause and effect and can learn to accept responsibility for his actions. He makes noises like he does, but it's without truly understanding what it's about.
 
Back
Top