Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

A place for sharing news stories related to armed citizens, law enforcement & 2A/CCW topics.

Please note that when linking to an article you must cite the source URL and provide no more than a brief preview of the article to ensure fair-use standards are met.

NO DOCUMENT DUMPING.

Posts in violation of these rules are subject to immediate deletion without warning.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Post by DontTreadOnMe »

JediSkipdogg wrote:In the Cleveland case, it's being used to decide if criminal charges even occurred.
The court specifically spoke to that:
We therefore decline to adopt an interpretation of the investigative-
work-product exception that would shield from disclosure all dash-cam recordings
in their entirety merely because they contain potential evidence of criminal activity
that may aid in a subsequent prosecution.
The recordings either are investigatory product, or they're not. They don't transform from one to the other depending on the guilt or innocence of any invdividuals recorded by them.

I'll repeat part of the court's summary:
we hold that decisions about whether an exception to public-records disclosure applies to dash-cam recordings require a case-by-case review
Any policy or interpretation which holds that a recording is automatically exempt from public disclosure because charges may, but have not yet been, filed seems to clearly be in violation of the Court's ruling.
User avatar
JediSkipdogg
Posts: 10257
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia
Contact:

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Post by JediSkipdogg »

DontTreadOnMe wrote: Any policy or interpretation which holds that a recording is automatically exempt from public disclosure because charges may, but have not yet been, filed seems to clearly be in violation of the Court's ruling.
Again, you are looking at part 149.43(A)(2)(c) which is what the Supreme Court Case was about and I'm talking about 149.43(A)(2)(a) which has a totally different set of circumstances behind it. While State ex rel. Rocker v. Guernsey Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 126 Ohio St.3d 224, 2010-Ohio-3288 was cited in the case you are talking about, they stated it did not apply because the suspect was being charged anyways for his crime. State ex rel. Rocker v. Guernsey Cty. Sheriff’s Office allows items to be withheld that would reveal the identity of an uncharged suspect if a criminal report is started and it the release would likely cause that identity to be revealed. Pretty sure video would reveal the suspect.

You are trying to use case law for one case on another case when the items being argued are different. One deals with investigatory techniques and one deals with suspect identification.

Deters withheld the Ray Tensing video UNTIL he charged the suspect. The Enquirer, whom is the one noted in the OSP case, did not sue. One would think if they had clear case law they would have sued but they saw the exemption even though the suspect was already widely known.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Post by DontTreadOnMe »

You originally spoke that video cannot be released until a person is charged. That is an overly broad interpretation of the rules. If what you mean is that evidence is not to be released if it would identify an as-yet-unidentified suspect, okay (video can be redacted so that hardly justifies a failure to release video in general).

Still, if you're arguing that police officers who use force have a right under that statute to not be identified ... well I'd like to see a case specifically applying that statute to public employees acting in the public performance of their duties.
User avatar
JediSkipdogg
Posts: 10257
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia
Contact:

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Post by JediSkipdogg »

DontTreadOnMe wrote:You originally spoke that video cannot be released until a person is charged. That is an overly broad interpretation of the rules. If what you mean is that evidence is not to be released if it would identify an as-yet-unidentified suspect, okay (video can be redacted so that hardly justifies a failure to release video in general).

Still, if you're arguing that police officers who use force have a right under that statute to not be identified ... well I'd like to see a case specifically applying that statute to public employees acting in the public performance of their duties.
Well, we'll have to wait until the Cleveland ruling comes out.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
User avatar
Bruenor
Posts: 7306
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:03 pm
Location: Geneva, OH

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Post by Bruenor »

DA not filing criminal charges on the officer that fired the shot.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... olved.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Kansas police officer who fired the shot that killed a man during a 'Swatting' hoax emergency call will not face criminal charges, a prosecutor announced Thursday.

District Attorney Marc Bennett said there was reasonable concern at the time that Andrew Finch, 29, may have been armed with a weapon.

He said officers who were closer to Finch thought he reached down to pull up his pants. At one point, Finch's right arm was not visible to other officers.

The Wichita officer who fired the shot, along with some others, believed Finch was reaching for a gun, Bennett said.
'This shooting should not have happened,' Bennett said. 'But this officer's decision was made in the context of the false call. To charge 'officer number one' would require evidence, not 20/20 hindsight, that it was unreasonable for him to believe in that moment that the man who came to the door posed a risk to the officers near the house.'
Tyler Barriss, 25, of Los Angeles has been charged with involuntary manslaughter for allegedly making the deadly swatting call. He is scheduled for a preliminary hearing on May 22.
Μολὼν λαβέ

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

- Thomas Paine

"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."

- Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
catfish86
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2571
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:44 pm

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Post by catfish86 »

20/20 hindsight is not required to find this shooting unjustified. Having not observed a weapon, you don't even know that this is the supposed hostage taker. While one needs quick reflexes in dangerous situations, our streets are not free-fire zones. Another case of waive the badge and how heroic these officers are and the stress they are under. Excuse any mistake they make. While they are charging the person responsible for instigating the incident, not holding the officers accountable for THEIR decisions and actions is not excused by that.
God,
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can
and the Wisdom to know the difference.

Carrying a gun is a right, not a crime.

Gun control is racist.
WestonDon
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2680
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:30 pm
Location: Wood county

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Post by WestonDon »

catfish86 wrote:20/20 hindsight is not required to find this shooting unjustified. Having not observed a weapon, you don't even know that this is the supposed hostage taker. While one needs quick reflexes in dangerous situations, our streets are not free-fire zones. Another case of waive the badge and how heroic these officers are and the stress they are under. Excuse any mistake they make. While they are charging the person responsible for instigating the incident, not holding the officers accountable for THEIR decisions and actions is not excused by that.
I mostly agree with you however I would accept the verdict if he were to be found not guilty at trial since I wasn't there and I will never see all the evidence that would be presented to a judge or jury.
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
User avatar
catfish86
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2571
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:44 pm

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Post by catfish86 »

I would see where a jury might not convict but I think it should be charged. As my grandpa used to say, that cop took a bad hand and used it to its full potential.
God,
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can
and the Wisdom to know the difference.

Carrying a gun is a right, not a crime.

Gun control is racist.
User avatar
Bruenor
Posts: 7306
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:03 pm
Location: Geneva, OH

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Post by Bruenor »

Federal Charges filed against swatter

https://www.foxnews.com/us/swatting-sus ... rities-say" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A suspected "swatter" from California whose fake emergency call allegedly led to a Kansas man’s death last year faces 46 new federal charges for fake reports of bomb threats, shootings and other acts of violence, authorities said.

The charges were filed against Tyler Barriss, 25, of Los Angeles, on Wednesday in the Central District of California. Prosecutors allege Barris called in several false threats to law enforcement agencies between 2014 and 2017 from Los Angeles, the Wichita Eagle reported.

Barriss plans to plead guilty to the charges, according to a signed court document, the paper reported.

Earlier this year, Barriss was charged in connection with a Dec. 28 “swatting” incident in which he allegedly called a false threat to Wichita police that led to the shooting death of Andrew Finch, 28, by a responding officer.
Barriss is currently being held in Kansas. The suspect, who used the Twitter handle @SWAuTistic," told investigators that the Wichita swatting was the result of a dispute over a video game involving a $1.50 bet.
Μολὼν λαβέ

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

- Thomas Paine

"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."

- Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
catfish86
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2571
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:44 pm

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Post by catfish86 »

This guy was doing this on a regular basis. Anything short of a life sentence is an injustice. He should also be denied any phone or computer privileges while in prison.
God,
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can
and the Wisdom to know the difference.

Carrying a gun is a right, not a crime.

Gun control is racist.
Post Reply