Forums / Discussion / General

He's now 20 years in prison for it and have 51 federal charges
-
If you dont know this guy, Tyler is the person who's infamous for making numerous death threats and fake SWAT calls in the past.
-
Perhaps this is the most longest jail sentence over fake Swattings and threats.
-
Previous thread I made back in December 2017
-
For an update from my previous thread turns out that Tyler was not even one of the two gamers. It was in fact recruited by one angry gamer and his friend to SWAT the other gamer, which got an innocent killed.
The two people who gave the address to Tyler are Viner and Gaskill.
-
Both pleaded not guilty to charges including conspiracy to obstruct justice, wire fraud and other counts. Viner has notified the court he intends to change that plea at a hearing scheduled for Wednesday. Gaskill's trial has been delayed to April 23 amid plea talks with federal prosecutors.

20 years is light for what he’s done, but if a quarter of his lifespan lost is the best that can be achieved then so be it
and given the backseat nature of his crimes, i expect at least a few years spent being traded around for cigarettes and good food as a prison bitch

How much prison time is the swat guy who shot an innocent man getting?

None, I think he is retired by now and the prosecutors declined to charge the swat guy since that the crimes Tyler did massively outweighs the swat guy.
-
I still agree in the past that the swat guy should at least hold 1 charge, but whatever anyways. My opinion might have changed after 2 years.

While I was hoping for life, it's good that they are treating swatting as the serious crime it is. Engineering a high tension scenario where it's easy to get someone killed and crying wolf to a profession that has to take everything 100% seriously or risk getting everyone killed needs to have the book thrown at as hard as possible.

>since that the crimes Tyler did massively outweighs the swat guy.

??? The swat guy shot and killed an innocent man.

And? Do I need to recap the stuff Tyler did? I listed it in the previous thread.

murder is definitely worse than false (or real) threats.

In this situation, it's different pooch. It's not the generic who's to blame. It's not the simple and generic "who caused more damage" situation.
-
Here's an example
-
If guy#1 told guy#2 that guy#3 is dangerous and has a hostage, but guy#1 lied everything about it. Guy#2 believes everything what guy#1 ends up accidentally killing guy#3 because guy#2 thinks guy#3 has a gun in the dark. Guy#1 proceeds to play the victim card to avoid the situation.

In conclusion, guy#1 manipulated guy#2 into accidentally killing guy#3 because he lied everything about it.
If guy#1 didn't tell guy#2 and just keep it to himself, guy#3 's life wouldn't have been lost.
-
Now, apply that example to the Tyler Barriss situation here.

>accidentally

no. It was not accidentally, it was negligently. There is a massive difference. Even if the caller's statements were 100% accurate it still would have been negligence. You can't just shoot someone because someone told you he was a threat.

While you're correct on the word negligence since I don't have a proper word to describe it. It's still incredibly a dumb way to blame the swat guy instead the one who led this whole situation.
-
Plus reports say that the guy puts his hands on his waistband, making the swat guys think he's pulling out a gun.
In a distance.
In the dark.

inb4 "the swat guys should have come closer to see clearly"

If I recall correctly, Tyler added in his fake SWAT call the person poured gasoline all over the front house, that's why the SWAT had to stay at a distance because they don't get burned to death.

"but the taser…"

The taser is out of range.

>instead the one who led this whole situation.

?? When did I ever suggest no blame should be put on the caller?

>making the swat guys think he's pulling out a gun.

So I can just shoot anyone who put their hands near their waistband as long as I say "I thought he had a gun"?

So we're having this discussion again? All right.

It's kinda unfair to expect no mistakes to be made by anyone, especially a profession where a split second decision can get yourself or innocents killed. Swat standoffs are already a high tension scenario, you can't expect someone to instantly interpret what an arm movement towards ones waste-band from thirty feet away in the dark means perfectly and with no misinterpretations in any scenario, much less one of such high stakes and tension.

This isn't a case like Tamir Rice where the officers were blatantly disregarding protocal and drove in guns a'blazin. The SWAT guys where doing everything correctly with the information they were given, false it may be, with nothing telling them that the house isn't rigged to explode with possible innocents inside and that the guy wasn't reaching for a gun or a trigger. They were fed false info and made a call based on that false info. The fact that it was a wrong call wasn't their fault, it was the info's fault, and where did that info come from?

This is 100% the caller's fault. He manipulated the police, intentionally, knowing they had to take his false info as fact, into killing an innocent man.

1. You literally said this pooch. It's not a federal charge, no jail time, just a single fine. And you said that the SWAT guy on jail for life. Sounds to me that you're leaving out Tyler and focusing all the blame on the SWAT guy. This is extremely suspicious of you to say that.

2. Let me copy and paste and bold the parts because you didn't read:
"
Plus reports say that the guy puts his hands on his waistband, making the swat guys think he's pulling out a gun.
In a distance.
In the dark (with lights).

inb4 "the swat guys should have come closer to see clearly (at the waistband)"

If I recall correctly, Tyler added in his fake SWAT call the person poured gasoline all over the front house, that's why the SWAT had to stay at a distance because they don't get burned to death.

"but the taser…"

The taser is out of range.
"

The SWAT guy testified in May 2018 that he was given no information when he arrived at the scene, including when Finch was given his first verbal command, when the 911 call ended, or whether officers at the scene were aware the caller was still on the phone with 911.

@Ryumaru Borike
>mistake

I already explain. This was not a mistake, this was negligence. Accidents aren't preventable, negligence is.

>you can't expect someone to instantly interpret what an arm movement towards ones waste-band from thirty feet away in the dark means

You are completely right. What I DO expect someone to do is not fire a weapon unless they can fully interpret the situation.

>where the officers were blatantly disregarding protocal and drove in guns a'blazin.

Thats exactly what happened. They just randomly started shooting.

> They were fed false info and made a call based on that false info. The fact that it was a wrong call wasn't their fault, it was the info's fault, and where did that info come from?

I already explained this too. The caller could have been 100% right about the guy and it would have made no difference at all with shooting the guy being a mistake. You do not shoot someone unless they are a CLEAR threat.

>1. You literally said this pooch.

soo… never. I have never said the caller should face no punishment.

>focusing all the blame on the SWAT guy.

Its the Swat's duty to assess the situation, not just shoot the first guy they see.
The guy could literally have been hitler, and I still would say the same thing. You do not shoot someone unless they are a clear threat.

@poochyena
But you never said it was Tyler Barriss's fault that caused this situation. You instead rambled on the SWAT and let Tyler go free.
-
"You do not shoot someone unless they are a clear threat"
Pooch are you a dumbass? Did you even pay attention on the whole context?

Straight from the wiki, it says:
"Barriss, identifying himself as "Brian", claimed that he was at a residence at 1033 West McCormick Street, had fatally shot his father, and was holding family members at gunpoint. He asked if police were coming to the house, saying he had already poured gasoline all over the house and threatening to set it on fire."
_
Tyler included that the person has a gun and taking hostage and the SWAT believed that false info, thinking that person has a gun.
Also, Tyler was pretending to be the one taking hostage, and explained it as threatening as possible. Making it sound like the person is ready to kill someone.
-
If you think this is a "cop killed black people" situation then you're deadass wrong, SWAT team and the triggerhappy cops are a huge fucking difference.

@poochyena

>I already explain. This was not a mistake, this was negligence. Accidents aren't preventable, negligence is.

Same difference, and it wasn't negligence, it was false info. The acted correctly according to their info. The info was just false.

>You are completely right. What I DO expect someone to do is not fire a weapon unless they can fully interpret the situation.

This is a fantasy and you are basically asking for police officers to drop like flies. They can't conduct a full investigation to completely know the situation if the house is thought to be rigged and people held hostage. They have to act based on the information given and they have to act before someone is killed. That doesn't mean wait until the suspect has pulled out their gun and shot a cop, that means acting when the suspect disregards orders and makes a threatening move. The police have to assume the suspect is armed and have to assume disobedience means threat. That's the nature of SWAT standoffs. Otherwise you are waiting until someone is dead to act.

>I already explained this too. The caller could have been 100% right about the guy and it would have made no difference at all with shooting the guy being a mistake. You do not shoot someone unless they are a CLEAR threat.

Given the info they had, he was a clear threat! According to the info, the house was rigged, their were hostages, he was disobeying orders and reaching for his waistband. Do you honestly expect the police to not shoot until they see the hostages, see the gasoline, and wait until the gun is pointed at them? You are expecting a fantasy.

>Its the Swat's duty to assess the situation, not just shoot the first guy they see.
The guy could literally have been hitler, and I still would say the same thing. You do not shoot someone unless they are a clear threat.

He did access the situation, and the guy, given the info given, was a clear threat. Again, everything is the fault of the false info.

You keep saying "clear threat" but you haven't defined what that means in this scenario. Were the SWAT guys supposed to wait until the suspect took the gun out? By then, he's firing, and SWAT guys are killed. Remember, swatting is a very low minority of cases these guys have to deal with. Most of the time, the threat is real, so they go into each situation under the assumption that their info is correct because they have to! They cannot wait until the suspect has actually started firing to assume the call was real because if they did, they'd lose an officer every other call and be left with no one. Waiting until you can clearly see the weapon and 100% identify it is not a luxury afforded to you in a combat situation.

They were 30 feet away, in the dark. There is no way for them to identify a weapon until it is used. This is why in every police interaction, the police order you to keep your hands where they can see them, because they cannot wait until they see the gun, because if they wait that long, they're dead. They have to act when the suspect makes a gun drawing motion because if you wait any longer than that and it's too late.

Given the info he was handed, the SWAT guy made no error. He pulled up to a hostage situation where the house was rigged to explode, the suspect was disregarding instruction and was reaching for his waistband. If this was real, no one would be giving the SWAT guy shit. Except for you I guess, because you expect perfection from the police.

poochyena said:

murder is definitely worse than false (or real) threats.

Intent is the key aspect of the crime. The SWAT officer didn't intend to kill or injury anyone that day, whereas all three of the dickheads fully intended to cause harm to someone. That's where the crime lies.

it was negligently…

I disagree. The police believed they were in a hostage situation with an armed assailant who had already murdered someone. In that situation, they have to make literal split second decisions. Sadly for Finch, he made movements that caused them to make those decisions.

@everyone
Don't shoot someone unless they are a clear threat
Someone saying someone is a threat does not make them a clear threat.
Someone could have just got done killing 50 people, but that does not make him a clear immediate threat.

>Were the SWAT guys supposed to wait until the suspect took the gun out?

Yes. Wait until a gun is clearly visible.

> By then, he's firing, and SWAT guys are killed.

Thats the risk they take. I don't want cops shooting anyone unless they are a clear threat.

1.refer to what Ryumaru Borike said about the clear threat part.

2. you do not understand the whole concept of SWATTTING.

3. I'm sorry ,if I read correctly, are you saying that even a person killed multiple people, it does not make him a "clear threat"? Even If he's actually guilty? Please tell me that you made a misspelling.

4 . Again they're 30 feet away in the dark. It's incredibly hard to distinguish if he's actually had a gun or not when he's making a gun hand movement. Ryumaru Borike already said that too. But you never listened anyways.

5. If that applies to every other SWAT activities, then a SWAT person could be injured or killed potentially. You do know that SWAT teams are also used to stop bank robberies too, not just only hostage situations?

>you do not understand the whole concept of SWATTTING.

Yes. An overwhelming majority end without death.

>I'm sorry ,if I read correctly, are you saying that even a person killed multiple people, it does not make him a "clear threat"?

Yes. Unless they are actively killing someone in that instance, they aren't an intimidate threat. Its not unusual at all for murderers to give up peacefully when surrounded by cops at their home.

>Again they're 30 feet away in the dark. It's incredibly hard to distinguish if he's actually had a gun or not when he's making a gun hand movement.

Right, its not clear; don't shoot.

>You do know that SWAT teams are also used to stop bank robberies too, not just only hostage situations?

yes

SWATing should be equal to premeditated attempted murder.

You're playing Russian roulette with that persons life, even if they don't get hurt large pets end up being killed most of the time and property damaged, along with wasting the cops time

You cannot be seriously asking for SWAT guys to be killed at every stand off just to account for the .1% of the time the call is fake. That is what you are asking. Waiting until the gun is out and identified is too late. By then, shots are fired. Every. Single. Time. We would literally run out of a police force due to them being killed if they actually had to wait that long.

>Thats the risk they take. I don't want cops shooting anyone unless they are a clear threat.

Again, a suspect whose disobeyed orders and is reaching for their waistband is a clear threat.

>Yes. Unless they are actively killing someone in that instance, they aren't an intimidate threat.

No, you are actually asking for the police to wait until there is a body count (which according to the info, there was) before taking action.

The police aren't martyrs. They shouldn't be asked to pointlessly throw away their lives every time they're called out just to account for the very rare fake calls. To actually ask for police to wait until one of them is killed to take action is insanity.

>just to account for the .1% of the time the call is fake.

for the 100th time, there is no relevance if it being real or fake when it comes to whether the shooting was justified.

>Waiting until the gun is out and identified is too late.

Ok, when should they be allowed to murder someone then? Just whenever they feel like it? At what point is it negligence?

>a suspect whose disobeyed orders

How was he disobeying orders?

>you are actually asking for the police to wait until there is a body count (which according to the info, there was) before taking action.

There are murderers who are alive and well sitting in prison. How do you think that happened?

-you're talking about the SWAT team that take the situation very seriously. False swat reports happened on Twitch too and look how the SWAT members act.

- refer to what Ryumaru Borike said again, you're not listening and still asking for fantasy once again.

-the man was briefly putting his hands up then puts his hands down and made a "gun draw movement" that made the SWAT team think he was pulling out a gun, that was disobeying orders Ryumaru Borike is talking about. It even says so on the wiki.

- that's because they put their hands up and didn't disobey the orders because they know they can't win against military grade weapons. Compared to this SWAT, it's different and it ends up entirely on the false info.

>asking for fantasy

How is it a fantasy? There are hundreds if not thousands of murderers sitting in jail right now who were never shot by police.

>and made a "gun draw movement"

That is so ridiculous. You could literally call any movement a "gun draw movement".

>that was disobeying orders Ryumaru Borike is talking about.

They asked him to walk forward and it looked like he had to adjust his pants. If he was unable to walk forward due to his pants sagging, what should he have done?

>for the 100th time, there is no relevance if it being real or fake when it comes to whether the shooting was justified.

Way to completely miss the point. The point is that the SWAT do not have the luxury to determine if the current situation is real or a prank, they have to treat it as real and that their info is correct, otherwise they cannot do their job.

>Ok, when should they be allowed to murder someone then? Just whenever they feel like it? At what point is it negligence?

They didn't shoot just cause they felt like it. They shot because they saw him reach for his waistband when ordered to keep his hands up. That's reason to assume hostile intent, since 99% of the time, that's what it is. The police simply cannot wait until they are under attack to return fire, that's simply not possible.

>There are murderers who are alive and well sitting in prison. How do you think that happened?

By being taken by surprise when they were unarmed and unable to fight. You can't seriously be asking that. Do you really, honestly think that all murderers are captured by a SWAT standoff? Most are ambushed by police and most give themselves up when they realize they are surrounded. It couldn't be farther away from what happened here. It's simply not comparable.

>How is it a fantasy?

You are asking for perfection, that is a fantasy. You are asking for police to wait until people are shot. That is a fantasy.

>There are hundreds if not thousands of murderers sitting in jail right now who were never shot by police.

Again, how is that relevant to the current topic? It's a false dichotomy, "some police managed to capture murderers without lethal force, so all police officers should be able to do the same, regardless of circumstance."

>That is so ridiculous. You could literally call any movement a "gun draw movement".

You really are just anti-police aren't you? You think the police are just looking for an excuse to shoot someone? No, you can't call any movement a gun draw movement, movement towards ones waistband is a gun draw movement.

>The point is that the SWAT do not have the luxury to determine if the current situation is real or a prank

Assessing the situation is kinda their job, not to just go in and start shooting.

>They shot because they saw him reach for his waistband when ordered to keep his hands up.

They asked him to walk forward. If his pants were sagging, what was he suppose to do?

>By being taken by surprise when they were unarmed and unable to fight.

Which is exactly what happened here.

>Do you really, honestly think that all murderers are captured by a SWAT standoff?

Yes, actually. Unless they turn themselves in.

> It's a false dichotomy, "some police managed to capture murderers without lethal force, so all police officers should be able to do the same, regardless of circumstance."

I'm just asking you what made this situation different to the others that required this guy to be shot.

>You really are just anti-police aren't you?

no.

>You think the police are just looking for an excuse to shoot someone?

This cop in particular, yes.

- they're making SPLIT SECOND DECISIONS since that they know it's a hostage situation, they think the hostages might die if they wait too long.
-You always go making up excuses on the "what if" to blame the SWAT guy. you dont put your hands down when there's military grade weapons held by highly trained SWAT members pointing at you.Same goes to the regular cops
- a standard cop can capture a murderer even they dont need SWAT members to help. SWAT member are involved if the threat is high that a standard cop cant handle. Not every murderer doesn't need the SWAT to be involved.
- Dont lie man
-ofc you always point the one to got the kill, you never payed attention who pulled the strings that caused the kill

- they're making SPLIT SECOND DECISIONS since that they know it's a hostage situation, they think the hostages might die if they wait too long.

Some hostage situations can take 8+ hours. They shot this guy a minute after he walks out the door.

>you dont put your hands down when there's military grade weapons held by highly trained SWAT members pointing at you.

Lights were shining in his eyes and they were far away. I doubt he could fully understand the situation.

- a standard cop can capture a murderer even they dont need SWAT members to help. SWAT member are involved if the threat is high that a standard cop cant handle.

I'd imagine swat would have better trigger control than a standard cop. Swat should be held at a even higher standard. Anyways, no, they don't just send a regular cop to apprehend a murderer. heck, they'll sometimes send the swat team in if you're simply a drug dealer.

- Dont lie man

I'm not lying.

>you never payed attention who pulled the strings that caused the kill

Because he is already in jail. What more is there to say about that guy?

- that because those are actual murderers, hoaxes takes about fast because there's no actual barricades or defenses.
And for the 10th time, they didn't shot him simply because he walked out, they shot him because he was disobeying orders to keep his hands up.
This is the only SWAT hoax I know that caused a death due to disobeying orders. None of the other SWAT hoaxes aside from this have died from what I know.

- again, you're making excuses on the guy to blame the SWAT guy. You're saying that the SWAT team should take down their light in the middle of the night. It's fantasy once again you're asking.

- by drug dealers, you mean drug raids. And from what I know, SWAT officers died from it.

- you said "jail for life" on the SWAT guy. Sure pooch m'kay.

-i was talking about our previous talk back in December 2017. Back then you never payed attention to Tyler but focused the blame on the SWAT guy on that thread too.

>Assessing the situation is kinda their job, not to just go in and start shooting.

They can't launch a full scale investigation into the situation before acting, they have to make a decision with the info they have. There was no way for them to know the situation was fake before hand.

>They asked him to walk forward. If his pants were sagging, what was he suppose to do?

Let his pants fall to the ground. You do not disobey a police officers order when then have their gun drawn on you. I've seen on plenty of cop shows where a suspects pants are falling down and they ask to adjust them and the cop says no. It's a good opportunity to draw a weapon. Modesty is the least of your concerns in such a scenario.

>Yes, actually. Unless they turn themselves in.

Then you're wrong, simple as that. You're just plain ignorant about how the world works.

>I'm just asking you what made this situation different to the others that required this guy to be shot.

The police were told the house was rigged to explode, this guy has hostages and has shot one and was reaching for his waistband. How many times do we have to explain this?

>no.

From past experience, I'm gonna call bullshit.

>This cop in particular, yes.

Why? Because he shot what he thought was a dangerous murderer with hostages and house rigged to explode because he reached for his waistband? I guess no cop can shoot someone without them being sadistic, no matter the situation, because a guy on the internet with all the hindsight in the world knew it wasn't necessary. You don't seem to realize how much of your opinion is based off of hindsight the cop did not have and could not possibly have.

>Some hostage situations can take 8+ hours. They shot this guy a minute after he walks out the door.

In those hostage scenarios, the suspect doesn't exit the door nor do they reach for their waistband when they do so.

>Lights were shining in his eyes and they were far away. I doubt he could fully understand the situation.

And that's the callers fault for engineering the scenario, not the police for doing what they need to do to see.

>Because he is already in jail. What more is there to say about that guy?

That he's the one at fault, that the cops were manipulated and the cop who shot probably is racked with guilt, seeing how he retired, and is not the one to blame for doing what any cop would do in the scenario.

@Sanakan_ht
>because those are actual murderers, hoaxes takes about fast because there's no actual barricades or defenses.

What do you mean by this? Here is a case that took 19 hours to finally settle https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1988/04/12/conn-fugitive-with-hostages-slain-by-fbi-in-sperryville-va/af6cb979-426a-41bd-a1f3-239e2986a1d6/?utm_term=.d0142468c627

>they shot him because he was disobeying orders to keep his hands up.

Why do you keep ignoring my question? If his pants were sagging, what was he suppose to do?
If they asked him to do a flip, but he failed the landing, is that reason enough to shoot him since he disobeyed the order?

>None of the other SWAT hoaxes aside from this have died from what I know.

Which just shows there was issues with how the swat handled this.

>You're saying that the SWAT team should take down their light in the middle of the night.

no.

>you never payed attention to Tyler

I specifically said he should face punishment too, just not as bad as a punishment as the murderer.

@Ryumaru Borike
>There was no way for them to know the situation was fake before hand.

So can you explain why all the other hoax swat raids don't end in murder? All the other hoax raids seems to quickly figure out its a hoax.

>Let his pants fall to the ground.

Ok, now he can't walk forward, disobeying the orders, and gets shot.
Not to mention how ridiculous that is to assert. Thats not the natural way someone would respond when being asked to walk forward. He has literally no reason to believe he will get shot for adjusting his pants.

>and they ask to adjust them and the cop says no.

Which was impossible in this case considering the distance between the individuals.

>How many times do we have to explain this?

All murderers are assumed armed and dangerous. This guy was no different. This man was assumed no more dangerous than any other murder suspect.

> Because he shot what he thought was a dangerous murderer with hostages and house rigged to explode because he reached for his waistband?

Yes. Thinking someone is dangerous is not reason to shoot someone.

> You don't seem to realize how much of your opinion is based off of hindsight the cop did not have and could not possibly have.

If you asked me before this event occured, I would have told you the same thing. A cop should not fire his weapon unless there is CLEAR danger to his life, not "suspected" danger.

>That he's the one at fault

Only partially.

-i was talking about the hoaxes such as the Twitch SWAT hoaxes, and you provided a link that leads an actual hostage situation that's not a hoax and the person is actually armed. And I don't see the word SWAT on that article. Just FBI.

- I dont answer questions that go with "What if" questions when the answer is right in front of you. Ryumaru Borike literally gave the reason why your 'pants question' is bs.
And what the fuck does the flip has to do with anything? SWAT member dont do that at all. That's literal fantasy you're asking once again pooch. Stop asking questions that SWAT obviously can't do.

- "since that the hoax caused one death from by SWAT false info that's also incredibly rare to happen = every single other SWAT handling could be a problem." Is that from what I getting from you?

-then what's to point of making an excuse of the lights and the distance since you don't have anything backup to say? They need lights to see the dark and they shout very loudly. Even 30 feet you could hear them clearly.

- when you mean punishment, you mean "get a fine" that's QUOTED BY YOU
And then rambled on how the SWAT member should get a jail for life because "he shot someone" but in truth it was false info caused by Tyler. That's the part where you stopped paying attention to Tyler.
-
For real, in the 2017 thread when I provided the crimes Tyler has done you never responded back. Nothing. You never admit your mistake in the thread. Just silent.