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: Coordinators, Moderators

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Postby gfrlaser » Sat Jan 13, 2018 3:37 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/13/california-man-charged-in-kansas-for-call-duty-swatting-hoax-that-led-to-fatal-police-shooting.html

A California man accused of making a hoax call in connection to an online quarrel between two “Call of Duty” gamers that led to the fatal police shooting of an unarmed man in Kansas has been charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Tyler Barriss, 25, made his first court appearance in Kansas via video link from jail on Friday following his extradition from Los Angeles. The 25-year-old was also charged with giving false alarm and interference with a law enforcement officer. Bond was set at $500,000.
"The sins of the evil do not justify restricting the rights of the good"
User avatar
gfrlaser
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 2:10 pm
Location: Dayton, Ohio

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Postby catfish86 » Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:41 am

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/13/suspect-kansas-swatting-death-charged-involuntary-manslaughter

This article has some additional details.

The charge of involuntary manslaughter carries a sentence ranging 31 months to 136 months. That is 2 yrs 1 mo to 11 yrs 4 mos in human years and depends on criminal record. Not sure if history of doing the same thing prior without getting somebody killed counts for that.

Second tidbit:

Sedgwick County district attorney Marc Bennett told reporters following the brief hearing that he is still reviewing whether any charges will be filed against the police officer, and once he makes a determination that decision would be made public. He said he was awaiting a final autopsy report.


Seeing the released video it is hard to see what the guy is dong before being shot. At the end of the day, I believe there needs to be consequences for being wrong and shooting an unarmed man. Take into account a man with no reason to believe that law enforcement should be on his doorstep doesn't follow directions to a T...btw, I heard "show us your hands" and "walk this way" but nothing about keeping hands in the air. You are behind cover and in body armor, not that those are guarantees of no harm but you shouldn't be so jumpy as to shoot for no real reason.
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
catfish86
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:44 pm

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Postby DontTreadOnMe » Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:23 pm

Didn't take long for a 2nd example of death by swatting - this one from New Year's Day

Attorney provides more details on fatal officer-involved shooting in Walker County

Woman is in the process of getting a divorce.
Her mother-in-law (yes, the mother of her estranged soon-to-be ex-husband) calls 911 sometime before 3am and reports "that her daughter-in-law texted her and told her she was going to harm herself, her husband, and the children. And advised she does carry a firearm in her purse."
Police show up at about 3am and bang on the door.
They say they announced themselves.
The woman's 65-year old husband armed himself.
He was spotted with the gun while still in the home (the kitchen, not a doorway).
One of the deputies fired 3 shots and killed him.

I guess the deputy thought the 65 year old man could've been the "daughter-in-law" who was the alleged threat.
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 1616
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Postby qmti » Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:54 pm

Well, I'll say this. I live alone (widower) and out in the country. If someone is banging on my door a 3am in the morning, I'm not coming downstairs unarmed. By the time I get to the bottom of the steps they could be inside the house. They better have a bullhorn to announce who they are if THEY don't want to be shot.
qmti
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:18 pm

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Postby drc » Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:10 pm

another police killing of an unarmed person,

http://www.cleveland19.com/story/373386 ... d-motorist
drc
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:50 pm

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Postby Brian D. » Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:26 pm

drc wrote:another police killing of an unarmed person,

http://www.cleveland19.com/story/373386 ... d-motorist


This incident happened November 17, and "in the name of transparency", according to the police, dash cam video was released just yesterday. Color me a little skeptical or cynical, but that's too long.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
Brian D.
 
Posts: 14639
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Postby JediSkipdogg » Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:16 pm

Brian D. wrote:
drc wrote:another police killing of an unarmed person,

http://www.cleveland19.com/story/373386 ... d-motorist


This incident happened November 17, and "in the name of transparency", according to the police, dash cam video was released just yesterday. Color me a little skeptical or cynical, but that's too long.


Well...I think it is Cleveland PD that is currently under fire by its department for releasing that info and they could pay out big if union members find enough personal harm caused by it.

Technically, under Ohio sunshine laws it should not be released until the department either charges and has a win/loss or declines to charge the officers involved in the case.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com

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
JediSkipdogg
 
Posts: 10111
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Postby DontTreadOnMe » Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:26 pm

JediSkipdogg wrote:Technically, under Ohio sunshine laws it should not be released until the department either charges and has a win/loss or declines to charge the officers involved in the case.


That may be how the union sees it but the Ohio supreme court disagrees. Raw dash cam video is not generally considered investigatory work product and must be released in accordance with Ohio's sunshine laws (State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety, 148 Ohio St.3d 433, 2016-Ohio-7987).

In the end, we hold that decisions about whether an exception to
public-records disclosure applies to dash-cam recordings require a case-by-case
review to determine whether the requested recordings contain investigative work
product. Having reviewed the three recordings at issue here, we conclude that
respondents should have released all three recordings to the Enquirer upon request,
with the 90 seconds of post-Miranda questioning of Teofilo redacted as
investigatory work product.
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 1616
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Postby true_pair » Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:23 pm

Unreal!!!!!!!. So this guy gets rear ended by another car (article calls it a minor fender bender) and leaves the scene. He then gets cut off by police and approached with guns pointed at him and finally gets executed. WTF?????????????
"The great object is, that every man be armed"

-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788
User avatar
true_pair
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:13 pm
Location: Warren County Ohio

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Postby Brian D. » Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:25 pm

I remember that case, DTOM, and it factored into my earlier post.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
Brian D.
 
Posts: 14639
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Postby M-Quigley » Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:22 pm

JediSkipdogg wrote:
Brian D. wrote:
drc wrote:another police killing of an unarmed person,

http://www.cleveland19.com/story/373386 ... d-motorist


This incident happened November 17, and "in the name of transparency", according to the police, dash cam video was released just yesterday. Color me a little skeptical or cynical, but that's too long.


Well...I think it is Cleveland PD that is currently under fire by its department for releasing that info and they could pay out big if union members find enough personal harm caused by it.

Technically, under Ohio sunshine laws it should not be released until the department either charges and has a win/loss or declines to charge the officers involved in the case.


Cleveland P.D. released video of something that happened in Virginia? Or do you mean Cleveland PD released video of a different incident too early?
M-Quigley
 
Posts: 2826
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Postby JediSkipdogg » Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:15 pm

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
JediSkipdogg wrote:Technically, under Ohio sunshine laws it should not be released until the department either charges and has a win/loss or declines to charge the officers involved in the case.


That may be how the union sees it but the Ohio supreme court disagrees. Raw dash cam video is not generally considered investigatory work product and must be released in accordance with Ohio's sunshine laws (State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety, 148 Ohio St.3d 433, 2016-Ohio-7987).

In the end, we hold that decisions about whether an exception to
public-records disclosure applies to dash-cam recordings require a case-by-case
review to determine whether the requested recordings contain investigative work
product. Having reviewed the three recordings at issue here, we conclude that
respondents should have released all three recordings to the Enquirer upon request,
with the 90 seconds of post-Miranda questioning of Teofilo redacted as
investigatory work product.


Depending on the circumstances of the video. In the cases there, the defendants were charged with a crime. Under Ohio Sunshine law Confidential Law Enforcement Investigatory Records can be withheld if it would strongly disclose... (a) The identity of a suspect who has not been charged with the offense to which the record pertains, or of an information source or witness to whom confidentiality has been reasonably promised;

In the case you quoted, the suspect was charged. In the case of Cleveland, they are possibly still determining if charges are too be filed against the officers. If the prosecutor has decided to not indict, then it can and should be released. If the decision is still pending, then the video should not be released.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com

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
JediSkipdogg
 
Posts: 10111
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Postby DontTreadOnMe » Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:17 pm

JediSkipdogg wrote:Depending on the circumstances of the video. In the cases there, the defendants were charged with a crime. Under Ohio Sunshine law Confidential Law Enforcement Investigatory Records can be withheld if it would strongly disclose... (a) The identity of a suspect who has not been charged with the offense to which the record pertains, or of an information source or witness to whom confidentiality has been reasonably promised;

In the case you quoted, the suspect was charged. In the case of Cleveland, they are possibly still determining if charges are too be filed against the officers. If the prosecutor has decided to not indict, then it can and should be released. If the decision is still pending, then the video should not be released.


You're already assuming the videos constitute investigatory work product, but from what the Ohio SC said that's not generally the case. If CPD dash cams record automatically, then it probably isn't (except possibly for parts recording specific investigatory work such as questioning potential suspects/witnesses).
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 1616
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Postby DontTreadOnMe » Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:20 pm

Brian D. wrote:I remember that case, DTOM, and it factored into my earlier post.

It certainly does seem to often be the case that the speed at which video is released correlates to the likelihood of it supporting LE actions.
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 1616
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Postby JediSkipdogg » Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:46 pm

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
JediSkipdogg wrote:Depending on the circumstances of the video. In the cases there, the defendants were charged with a crime. Under Ohio Sunshine law Confidential Law Enforcement Investigatory Records can be withheld if it would strongly disclose... (a) The identity of a suspect who has not been charged with the offense to which the record pertains, or of an information source or witness to whom confidentiality has been reasonably promised;

In the case you quoted, the suspect was charged. In the case of Cleveland, they are possibly still determining if charges are too be filed against the officers. If the prosecutor has decided to not indict, then it can and should be released. If the decision is still pending, then the video should not be released.


You're already assuming the videos constitute investigatory work product, but from what the Ohio SC said that's not generally the case. If CPD dash cams record automatically, then it probably isn't (except possibly for parts recording specific investigatory work such as questioning potential suspects/witnesses).


The supreme court also weighed that the OSP was withholding the video because they claimed they needed it for court and the court process was part of the investigatory work exception. In the Cleveland case, it's being used to decide if criminal charges even occurred. Under public record law, those two are treated totally different. I can place your name in a police report as the suspect in a theft and withhold a ton of information from you and the public. The second I charge you and change you from suspect to arrested, the public record exemptions change greatly.

Also, OSP was arguing that (c) Specific confidential investigatory techniques or procedures or specific investigatory work product; applied in their case. They were not fighting over part (a) that I quoted above. They were claiming their methods of handling stuff on the side of the road was a confidential investigatory technique.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com

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
JediSkipdogg
 
Posts: 10111
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia

PreviousNext

Return to In The News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArmedAviator and 3 guests