If this a topic on a public forum. I am allowed to have an opinion and I am allowed to share that. If you have a problem with that I suggest you use the ignore option because I have no intention of changing my opinion nor of ceasing to share it.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Feds Hit LA Swatter With 46 More Charges
- Thread starter AlphaAtlas
- Start date
-
- Tags
- swatting
If this a topic on a public forum. I am allowed to have an opinion and I am allowed to share that. If you have a problem with that I suggest you use the ignore option because I have no intention of changing my opinion nor of ceasing to share it.
Pain and suffering aren't entirely part of the prison system. It's more about a person paying their debt to society and, if possible, learning to come back to society as a productive member. Whether or not the death penalty is a proper way for a person to pay that debt is debatable, but pain and suffering really has no part. If you want a prisoner to suffer the most effective torture is to shove them into solitary for decades on end.
D
Deleted member 243478
Guest
He certainly wont have any issues with constipation...
Good...
In my humble, humble opinion, people like this should be treated to a new type of prison facility. A bigger facility, where they get a private room, with a window even, and a television, maybe even a microwave or a rice cooker. Little stuff like that.
And by day they get to sort garbage for recycling. They only get to be here if they volunteer to work here. They only have to sort garbage for 8 hours, but the better they do, the more little shit they earn. Maybe they even get promoted to Quality Control. Maybe they get promoted to loader operator! Maybe we even put in a plant so they can turn soda bottles into polyester fiber.
You want them to break rocks? Screw that, there's plenty of stuff that needs doing. One city like Los Angeles makes more garbage than there are prisoners to sort it. Put 'em to work, everyone is happier.
And by day they get to sort garbage for recycling. They only get to be here if they volunteer to work here. They only have to sort garbage for 8 hours, but the better they do, the more little shit they earn. Maybe they even get promoted to Quality Control. Maybe they get promoted to loader operator! Maybe we even put in a plant so they can turn soda bottles into polyester fiber.
You want them to break rocks? Screw that, there's plenty of stuff that needs doing. One city like Los Angeles makes more garbage than there are prisoners to sort it. Put 'em to work, everyone is happier.
YeuEmMaiMai
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 34,165
since he intentionally started the actions that directly lead to the death of another person....
death penalty indeed
viscountalpha
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 2,618
Agreed. We tolerate too many sick individuals like this.
motomonkey
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,490
He has already spent 2 years in jail, if that didn't change his attitude nothing will, he's had a chance to change his ways already, and it's cost a man his life. You can't "Minority report" these criminals, obviously, but at least we can keep this oxygen thief from doing it again for a while.
I'm all about giving someone a chance to change, but this guy isn't some weed smoker that got locked up, wasting taxpayer money in the process, he's shown a callous disregard for human life repeatedly.
I haven't delved into the maximum penalties allowed in this guys case, but involuntary manslaughter typically is only a year to 5 years. that's it, for a malicious act for pay that killed a man. This countries legal system is so fucked, we lock up people for years for using a substance that should at most be a fine and community service, but this guy is odds are going to be walking the streets after parole in another 2 years tops.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
Crackinjahcs
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2018
- Messages
- 150
This guy chose to take these actions and is responsible for them and their outcomes. And don't forget, he was an adult, not some 13 year old punk kid (not that that would excuse the act). He is a repeat offender, and based on his comments, actions, and interviews he hasn't learned much. He has admitted to many of the crimes he is accused of. He is entitled to full due process of law, which based on the above, should be short.
Prison has the primary function of separating those who break the law from the rest of society. Rehabilitation is a noble goal but not a prison's primary function. I am all for attempting rehabilitation but separation from society, whether viewed as punishment or protection of others, must come first.
Prison has the primary function of separating those who break the law from the rest of society. Rehabilitation is a noble goal but not a prison's primary function. I am all for attempting rehabilitation but separation from society, whether viewed as punishment or protection of others, must come first.
BloodyIron
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 3,439
Well it seems to me then you are unqualified to identify whether a human being should be put to death or not, just like most of this thread. And this is why we don't let public opinion dictate the future of individuals. That's why there's courts and actual professionals to accurately identify whether a person can be rehabilitated or not.
It may come to surprise you, but killing them, changes nothing. You can't bring people back just by killing others. Vengeance is not a solution, it simply gives you endorphins and doesn't make the situation better in any way whatsoever. Except now yet another person is dead.
In a world of eye for an eye, everyone ends up blind.
It may come to surprise you, but killing them, changes nothing. You can't bring people back just by killing others. Vengeance is not a solution, it simply gives you endorphins and doesn't make the situation better in any way whatsoever. Except now yet another person is dead.
In a world of eye for an eye, everyone ends up blind.
And yet, you will not find any evidence of me calling for vengeance. Stop parroting other people's arguments and use what I have actually said in this thread to form something with more depth than a puddle of water.
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,758
Killing this guy can prevent him from swatting others and causing more deaths. He has been through the system already and shows no signs of being rehabilitated. Instead, he shows the exact opposite and wears his actions like a badge of honor.
dgingeri
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,830
Well, we have a choice: let him continue to do such things or lock him away to keep him from doing harm. Is there, realistically, any other way to handle him?
As was pointed out no. But you should be aware pleading guilty to a charge is WAIVING your RIGHT to a trial.
Nobody is qualified to decide on when someone dies. Thats not the point. Society has collectively decided that we MUST make those decisions and so unqualified as we are we do. The we being society through the justice system and our laws defining penalties.
But back to the point. The point was that incarceration was mean to pay a debt back to society for something you did wrong. It is punishment that, at least in theory, once you finish you are a trusted member of society again. As a society we have decided that some individuals have done something so heinous that they cannot or will not be able to reintegrate into society. Perhaps they killed a lot of people and showed no remorse and have stated they will do it again if given the chance. As a society we have determined that the best way to deal with that is to put the person down.
Yes thats sad. Yes we all wish there was a better way. But there isnt in some cases. The risks are simply too high. You dont keep a rabid dog alive by caging it up and hoping it never hurts anyone again or escapes. No you put it down. You remove the threat to society. The bar is so high because it really is an irreversible option and we want to make damn sure its our only choice...
Yes, see above.
Philosophical grounds are that any human is the product of an environment in which that organism develops within, so certainly individuals can not simply wash their hands of an aberrant consequence of the society we've built for ourselves.
Pragmatic grounds are that it's less expensive to house individuals, even for an entire lifetime, than executing them.
Those cost equations often fail to account for the risk associated with housing them for a lifetime. The risk to society that they escape. The damage they could cause to other inmates who may be able to rehabilitate. Etc etc.
While he is an adult by legal standards (with the caveat that the legal system has various "adult" definitions depending on the action: 18 for smoking, 21 for drinking, 25 for financial independence, etc.), science has a very clear definition that our legal system has yet to grapple with--the prefrontal cortex doesn't fully develop until around 25 years of age.
That portion of the brain controls one's impulsivity (it's the part of the brain we need working in order for cause/effect to be fully understood or for deterrence to have any chance of operating regardless of deterrence theory's other numerous deficiencies) isn't present in a male of this age. He literally can *not* fully comprehend the choices he made because he literally does not have the brain matter to carefully consider such factors.
motomonkey
He'll be in prison for the rest of his life.
kju1
We do take into account those risks when we calculate the costs of lifetime incarceration. A few posts back you didn't seem to even be aware of the existence of these studies so I think that your criticism of them is premature.
Those studies do not take into account those risks.
25 for financial independence? Where did you get that number from?
Yes, they do. I author some of them. As I wrote earlier, you didn't even know they existed until you asked for a citation a few posts back. Your criticism of them is premature, inaccurate, and pointless since you haven't even taken the time to read them. Not to mention, you merely listed a bunch of boogeyman notions rather than a grounded set of data.
Military benefits, federal student aid, and the American Care Act all define an adult child as fully independent at 25 (for military there are some benefits that extend to 27, FASFA delineates at the beginning of the year, while ACA delineates at the end of the year).
Insurance companies know this fact better than anyone else and follow the science rather than the law: if you're unmarried, under 25, and male you pay the highest rates because you are the most dangerous statistically. Science tells us why that is true.
I'm not sure how any of what I've written could possibly be news to anyone who is past their 20s in this country, especially if they pay for auto insurance or go to college and apply for loans.
Your claim to have written some of them is unverifiable. But fine, have it your way. I still believe the risk isnt worth the cost. I would rather spend millions making sure we execute someone for the right reason than to have ONE person die because that asshat got out and did it again. So if you really did author them what value did you put on that life that they could take? What value did you put on human life in general?
On the financially "adult" at 25 you are incorrect. Indeed in your own statement you disprove yourself by saying an"adult child". Those are not a legal definition of adult - they are a definition of what you can claim as a "dependent." A dependent can be a child or an adult. My 90 year old grandmother is legally a dependent because she is unable to make decisions for herself. She is not a child.
Having a higher insurance rate or bad credit (due to lack of history), or going to college does not make you a child. Those arguments are merit-less. Drinking, driving, marriage et all are all separate from and distinct from the age of majority. The legal definition, and the only one that matters, for adult is one who has reached the age of majority. The only federal definition for age of majority is in the 26th Amendment. Only two states define an age of majority that is different from 18 (Nebraska and Alabama).
We should blacklist him, like they did to Jon Hamm on Black Mirror!
It's time for you to start verifying your own facts. You constantly argue against people posting facts and demand citations when you refuse to do the minimal searching to back up your outlandish, and factually wrong, points.
I gave you easily verifiable definitions of various contexts within which define independence in a variety of ways. I did not provide an exhaustive list. A dependent is not a "child" or an "adult." You are wrong (again). One is either dependent upon another person or that person is independent under the law. The law does not cut across lines of "adult dependent," "adult independent," "child dependent," or "child independent." The law differentiates between someone who is dependent upon someone else or not.
As you noted, the voting age is 18 (the 26th Amendment doesn't say anything else. I encourage you to look it up and read it for yourself. That verification bit you're having difficulty with...). I'm not sure why you thought (incorrectly) citing the 26th Amendment would bolster your position, along with your anecdote about your grandmother's diminished capacity relegating her to your care because those are two *additional* examples of the law defining independence differently, which is what I claimed the law did.
The average "price tag" on a human life is a little over 1 million dollars in terms of lost productivity. You can verify this yourself by cross-referencing crime data with suicide data. Knock yourself out--I've already done the work.
I said that an <25 year old single male will pay a higher insurance rate for because they are statistically more likely to be more dangerous to society. I further stated that this position is supported by science showing us that the human brain's capacity to make long term decisions doesn't fully develop until after age 25.
That is not the same argument that paying higher insurance makes someone a child.
I didn't post anything about having bad credit.
Murderers have the lowest recidivism rate of released prisoners.
All three of those last points were fallacious arguments that you made but quickly repudiated by the facts. I encourage you to be better with your points so we can have a fact-based discussion.
I gave you easily verifiable definitions of various contexts within which define independence in a variety of ways. I did not provide an exhaustive list. A dependent is not a "child" or an "adult." You are wrong (again). One is either dependent upon another person or that person is independent under the law. The law does not cut across lines of "adult dependent," "adult independent," "child dependent," or "child independent." The law differentiates between someone who is dependent upon someone else or not.
As you noted, the voting age is 18 (the 26th Amendment doesn't say anything else. I encourage you to look it up and read it for yourself. That verification bit you're having difficulty with...). I'm not sure why you thought (incorrectly) citing the 26th Amendment would bolster your position, along with your anecdote about your grandmother's diminished capacity relegating her to your care because those are two *additional* examples of the law defining independence differently, which is what I claimed the law did.
The average "price tag" on a human life is a little over 1 million dollars in terms of lost productivity. You can verify this yourself by cross-referencing crime data with suicide data. Knock yourself out--I've already done the work.
I said that an <25 year old single male will pay a higher insurance rate for because they are statistically more likely to be more dangerous to society. I further stated that this position is supported by science showing us that the human brain's capacity to make long term decisions doesn't fully develop until after age 25.
That is not the same argument that paying higher insurance makes someone a child.
I didn't post anything about having bad credit.
Murderers have the lowest recidivism rate of released prisoners.
All three of those last points were fallacious arguments that you made but quickly repudiated by the facts. I encourage you to be better with your points so we can have a fact-based discussion.
No perhaps you should reread what I originally asked you: Where do you get the # that you aren't a legal adult until 25 (edit for clarity: financially)?
You responded with a slew of arguments such as military benefits, college loans, and car insurance. None of which *legally* define you as an adult.
Let me be more clear so as to avoid misinterpretations (intentional or otherwise): Under what law is the definition of adult 25 years for financial? Hell you win if you can find ANY current law that defines adult as 25 years of age. Because in your original statement you said "legal definition of adult". Ive posted the relevant section below with emphasis added (mine).
motomonkey
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,490
While I am fully aware of the standard definition of emotional and cognitive maturity these days, it by no means excuses criminal behavior. Most of us here at one time have been (or in the near future will be)
25. what percentage of us caused the death of another human being even indirectly?
As for his sentence, I seriously doubt he will be in prison for life. Historically it’s just not the case for involuntary manslaughter, I’ve seen offenders with 2nd degree murder convictions out after 15 years. This idiot will be out in time to celebrate his 30th birthday. Unless you are referring to his extremely high chance of recidivism, then I fully agree!
My response that started this convo was to someone suggesting that, since he's not some kid, he's fully developed and therefore subject to be thrown away. The science, however, tells us without any doubt that this 22 year old male's brain actually is physiologically closer to that hypothetical 13 year old kid than a 30 year old man. If that determination to throw him away is based on whether his brain chemistry is juvenile vs. adult (developing vs. developed) then it's important to understand that his brain is still in development stage, doesn't have the capacity to correctly differentiate right from wrong, and can't control impulses very well yet.
That does have implications for responsibility for one's crimes, but that's a conversation that society should and does have. It's certainly not for me to categorically rule out the fact that society may well determine that we don't care whether someone's brain is still developing, but I can say that in a system that hinges on deterrence and rational-choice it's imperative that we acknowledge those systems literally can not possibly work in a mind that isn't fully developed (and not even then as I can explain in the cases we need it most--murder).
Roughly a dozen states don't have minimum ages to try someone as an adult and some states have prosecuted children as young as 8. Some here will think that detestable and some will think it reasonable, but regardless of where you sit on that spectrum it's important to note the science behind the decision making if that factors into your determination of whether and how to prosecute people with under-developed or still developing brains.
I can't provide you a definitive answer as to why so few people commit these kinds of atrocities than the science would predict--that's been the subject of my discipline for roughly 300 years. Some theorize that all people would do these things if not for social conditions preventing it (cf. Emile Durkheim, functionalism, deep dark abyss of desire) and some theorize that no people would do these things if not for social conditions priming it (cf. Marx, conflict theory, species being) and a slew of theories in between those polar opposites. This thread and audience doesn't lend itself to discussing those things "in the weeds" as it were but "cf" means cross-reference so google those terms I provided if you're intellectually curious about them.
At last check-in, this kid had 49 separate state and federal criminal allegations. If you're so disillusioned with our legal system as to think this will net him only 8 years of prison time then this discussion is rather pointless anyway because that means this isn't a discussion about identifying an issue and solving it but rather a reason to vent against all things ill in society, and one of them being a so-called lenient CJ system.
Last edited:
Crackinjahcs
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2018
- Messages
- 150
At no point did I say Tyler Barriss was fully developed cognitively or that he should be "thrown away." As defined by our legal system he is an adult, and as a repeat offender he should have some insight into cause and effect and responsibility for choices and action. I am not aware of any evidence at this time that indicates he is developmentally or cognitively impaired (compared to others of his age group).
I have seen studies that reference the age of 25 for prefrontal cortex development. That does not change the fact that he exercised free will and chose to take the actions he did. As our legal system matures (at a glacial pace, IMHO) the development of our grey matter, and the age of the criminal may affect sentencing guidelines but they do not remove culpability for an action.
As to "thrown away" I stated he was entitled to due process of law, that prison was first and foremost to separate criminals from society, and that rehabilitation is a goal, if possible. I never said he should receive lethal injection, life in prison, or bread and water forever.
I do appreciate your posts and they have given me more food for thought on these types of issues.
ChoGGi
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- May 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,915
The little shit plead guilty.
entered a plea agreement today in federal court in Kansas that would send him to prison for 20 years or more
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ks/pr/california-man-pleads-guilty-deadly-wichita-swatting-case
entered a plea agreement today in federal court in Kansas that would send him to prison for 20 years or more
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ks/pr/california-man-pleads-guilty-deadly-wichita-swatting-case
I like what they did in a movie with the most violent proven offenders, Put 'em on an island with the means to grow food and no means to leave it and let them fight it out among themselves. (No Escape...I think it's called) Still would have their freedom and other than some air drops now and then they could fend for themselves. Or maybe wall off a city like Escape from New York. 
Now i know it would never happen but fun to think about.
The fact is that this guy went to prison and STILL committed crimes knowingly after he got out. Lock him up!
Now i know it would never happen but fun to think about.
The fact is that this guy went to prison and STILL committed crimes knowingly after he got out. Lock him up!