Two Plead Not Guilty in Swatting Death

rgMekanic

[H]ard|News
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
4,934
The swatting incident that left an innocent Kansas man dead in December 2017 has some new information today. The Associated Press is reporting that the 2 gamers who allegedly helped facilitate the swatting incident that sent police to the home of 28 year old Andrew Finch have plead not guilty.

Casey Viner and Shane Gaskill are charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice, wire fraud and other counts. Viner allegedly was angry with Gaskill over a game of Call of Duty WWII, and asked 25 year old Tyler Barriss (AKA SWAuTistic) to swat Gaskill at an address that he thought was Gaskill's. "Please try some s---. I’ll be waiting," Gaskill wrote in the direct messages cited in the indictment. Barriss is charged with a host of charges, including involuntary manslaughter.

Thanks to cageymaru for the story.

The indictment detailed an outgoing iMessage sent from Viner’s phone in which Viner allegedly wrote: "I was involved in someone’s death ... I got pissed off at him he got pissed at me .. he gave me his address and said pull up and I said I won’t be the one pulling up you’re getting swatted."
 

prime2515102

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 3, 2003
Messages
1,551
This is so redundant, but my God man, people are dumb as fuck... I mean, what kind of psyche would you have to have to even consider "swatting" in the first place? Is it supposed to be funny? I just don't get it. The majority of people have absolutely no control over instinct - just a bunch of animals that think they have intellectual capacity. And this is coming from somebody that isn't even close to the sharpest knife in the drawer.

At around age 16 people should be tested, very thoroughly, for the ability to function in society, and if they fail should be put in prison as a precaution. Seriously, are most people even capable of determining whether or not their decisions are based on logic or do they just not give a shit? I make some dumbass decisions based on instinct and pride, but damn... At least I can recognize it and learn from it. lol
 

mesyn191

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
2,983
At around age 16 people should be tested, very thoroughly, for the ability to function in society, and if they fail should be put in prison as a precaution.
Restricting rights based on testing has historically been a really reeeaally reeeeeeeeeeaalllllyyyy bad idea.

See the Literacy Tests that were given to black people during the Reconstruction/Jim Crow Era for an example of how bad it could possibly turn out.
 

risc

Handle with Kid Gloves
Joined
May 18, 2017
Messages
188
In my travels there have always been sturdy lamp posts, just saying.
 

prime2515102

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 3, 2003
Messages
1,551
Restricting rights based on testing has historically been a really reeeaally reeeeeeeeeeaalllllyyyy bad idea.

See the Literacy Tests that were given to black people during the Reconstruction/Jim Crow Era for an example of how bad it could possibly turn out.
I know, and I'm patently against such things, but I'm drunk so I don't care right now. lol
 

Nobu

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
4,615
Gaskill should get a severe slap on the wrist, minimum. He may not have intended to hurt anyone, and he wasn't the one who planned and initiated the swatting, but he did knowingly provide false info about a real address and goad him on.

Other dude deserves whatever gaskill gets times 10, or at least 5. Shits unacceptable. You just don't do that as a game. TP someone's house, maybe even saran wrap their car, but putting someone's life in jeopardy (even just potentially) is way past the line.
 

_l_

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
1,151
but my God man, people are dumb as fuck...
You're a "people" ... right? Well, you did receive an insight there (people are stunningly stupid really) but we often think it's everyone else and not us LOL
 

mesyn191

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
2,983
... and of course the cop that shot and killed the unarmed man gets away scot free...
Yeah he should've at least gotten suspended without pay for a few weeks since even if he thought there was a gun it turned out that he was dreaming on the job and there wasn't.
 

prime2515102

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 3, 2003
Messages
1,551
You're a "people" ... right? Well, you did receive an insight there (people are stunningly stupid really) but we often think it's everyone else and not us LOL
I never claimed to not be dumb as fuck... but if other people's stupidity upsets me, I assume I'm smarter... lol
 

risc

Handle with Kid Gloves
Joined
May 18, 2017
Messages
188
Gaskill should get a severe slap on the wrist, minimum. He may not have intended to hurt anyone, and he wasn't the one who planned and initiated the swatting, but he did knowingly provide false info about a real address and goad him on.

Other dude deserves whatever gaskill gets times 10, or at least 5. Shits unacceptable. You just don't do that as a game. TP someone's house, maybe even saran wrap their car, but putting someone's life in jeopardy (even just potentially) is way past the line.
I'm mad at you, and I want to send armed police on a false report that a life threatening situation is in progress.
I know that these people can use deadly force, that's what I want, or else I'd call a fake report to the fire department, an ambulance, or a pizza.

I call a guy who knows a guy that says he can hurt you, so I do it because that's what I want.

That's called a conspiracy, and the outcome is shared by all parties, and they should all pay for that man's death that they caused.
 

sparks

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 19, 2004
Messages
3,206
yes but they pleaded not guilty.
So case closed.
at least that is how the media sees it.
 

gamerk2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
1,786
I don't know, I think its more publicity that helps. People are less likely to commit crimes, if they feel they aren't going to get away with it.
Provably false. The odds of being caught and the punishments provided have never had any measurable effect on crime rates. Remember, the criminal always thinks they'll be the exception; the one to get away with it.
 

gamerk2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
1,786
... and of course the cop that shot and killed the unarmed man gets away scot free...
Because that's the way the law is written. So long as the standard continues to be "cops can discharge their firearm if they *feel* threatened or perceive a threat, even if such a threat has not yet been identified", then cops will continue to act this way. This is how they are taught to act.
 

gamerk2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
1,786
Gaskill should get a severe slap on the wrist, minimum. He may not have intended to hurt anyone, and he wasn't the one who planned and initiated the swatting, but he did knowingly provide false info about a real address and goad him on.

Other dude deserves whatever gaskill gets times 10, or at least 5. Shits unacceptable. You just don't do that as a game. TP someone's house, maybe even saran wrap their car, but putting someone's life in jeopardy (even just potentially) is way past the line.
Yeah, the guy who gave the false address should get hit in the wallet, but probably shouldn't get any punishment beyond that. The other guy should get the max punishment for whatever manslaughter goes for in their state of residence. The SWAT guy who fired the shots should get fired, but see my above post for why that won't happen.

If you were to assign blame, Gaskill gets 10%, the other guy 60%, the SWAT officer 30%.
 

spawn447

Gawd
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Messages
595
Because that's the way the law is written. So long as the standard continues to be "cops can discharge their firearm if they *feel* threatened or perceive a threat, even if such a threat has not yet been identified", then cops will continue to act this way. This is how they are taught to act.
He testified that he didn't see anything in Finch's hands when he shot at him. ( bet it was after making a deal )
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
26,621
Restricting rights based on testing has historically been a really reeeaally reeeeeeeeeeaalllllyyyy bad idea.

See the Literacy Tests that were given to black people during the Reconstruction/Jim Crow Era for an example of how bad it could possibly turn out.
Of course, the other side of this is that "Idiocracy" doesn't seem so far fetched. It's not always about race.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
26,621
Because that's the way the law is written. So long as the standard continues to be "cops can discharge their firearm if they *feel* threatened or perceive a threat, even if such a threat has not yet been identified", then cops will continue to act this way. This is how they are taught to act.
You should go try being a cop and see what it's like.
 

Nobu

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
4,615
I'm mad at you, and I want to send armed police on a false report that a life threatening situation is in progress.
I know that these people can use deadly force, that's what I want, or else I'd call a fake report to the fire department, an ambulance, or a pizza.

I call a guy who knows a guy that says he can hurt you, so I do it because that's what I want.

That's called a conspiracy, and the outcome is shared by all parties, and they should all pay for that man's death that they caused.
Except gaskill wasn't mad at the person who got swatted in the end, and didn't call anyone either. You'd have to prove that he wanted it to happen and wasn't expecting the other person to back off (not terribly difficult, but the logs support gaskill so you'd have to do it in court or by witness account). The other guy initiated the whole conflict, even dug up information and hired someone to get more. He's 100% guilty of at least manslaughter. Gaskill is guilty of at least involuntary manslaughter, more if you can prove he wanted it to happen or expected it to happen and did nothing.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
26,621
its a job , not something one is drafted into , isnt there an oath taken ? to serve and protect .
but yet He testified that he didn't see anything in Finch's hands when he shot at him.
I'm talking about making split second decisions with life or death implications with limited (best case) or wrong (worst case) information at your disposal. No cop goes out and says to themselves, "Let's see who I can shoot today."
 

Drakeniir

Weaksauce
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
103
They should make those Kids pay for the deployment of the officers and the psychiatrist the officer that shot the innocent man will no doubt require.
 

Nobu

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
4,615
Gaskill was actually one of the worst in this.

He knew the cops were going to be going to that address and could have interrupted it, or at least made the police aware its a possible prank. He chose to do nothing. He is just as guilty.
He's 19, he may not have even thought to tip the cops. You can say he should have, I'm not sure you can say he's more guilty than the other guy for not.
 

maxz01

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
166
You could kill them and harvest their organs and save lives with them. Or condemn them to medical and scientific experimentation slavery. Either one is better than the death penalty which I find to be a tremendous waste of human resources. Imagine how much progress we could make in science if we had slaves available instead of wasted those people with executions...
 

GlowingGhoul

Whines about Whiners
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Messages
445
Restricting rights based on testing has historically been a really reeeaally reeeeeeeeeeaalllllyyyy bad idea.

See the Literacy Tests that were given to black people during the Reconstruction/Jim Crow Era for an example of how bad it could possibly turn out.
The requirement of being literate in order to vote seems perfectly reasonable to me. Unless you think democracy would be improved by using pictures on ballots. That was a race neutral requirement according to the constitution of several states.

"Article 2, Section 6 of South Carolina's constitution of 1895 specified that, "The General Assembly may require each person to demonstrate a reasonably ability, except for physical disability, to read and write the English language as a condition to becoming entitled to vote."

The implementation was discriminatory in many instances, with authorities rigging the tests. That's where the problem was, in my opinion, not in the requirement to be able to actually read and comprehend the ballot.
 
Top