Gamers/Streamers Swatting Megathread

[Sanji Himura]

The Swatter, Barriss, faced a courtroom a few days ago. The above video is courtesy of Richard Lewis.

 

[Johnnypenso]

As I predicted last week, the swatter was charged with involuntary manslaughter.
http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/13/us/swatting-suspect-kansas-police-shooting/index.html

He's also charged for in another swatting incident in Calgary:
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...tting-case-also-faces-charges-in-calgary.html

 

[Rallywagon]

I agree with the involuntary manslaughter charge. I think this is exactly the sort of situation for such a charge. Given the prevalence of such an event, it has its own name after all, i dont think the intent was to get the streamer killed. I think any jurisdiction that has cause, be felonies for false reporting ir what have you, should all have the ability to charge the perp as such.
That said, if it can be proven unequivocally that the perps intent or hope was that the victim was shot, I could get behind a murder charge. Dont care of it was just to maim. If they wanted bodily harm then i agree with a murder charge. But, i feel that intent needs to be proven.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I agree with the involuntary manslaughter charge. I think this is exactly the sort of situation for such a charge. Given the prevalence of such an event, it has its own name after all, i dont think the intent was to get the streamer killed. I think any jurisdiction that has cause, be felonies for false reporting ir what have you, should all have the ability to charge the perp as such.
That said, if it can be proven unequivocally that the perps intent or hope was that the victim was shot, I could get behind a murder charge. Dont care of it was just to maim. If they wanted bodily harm then i agree with a murder charge. But, i feel that intent needs to be proven.

What streamer did he get killed? The guy shot and killed wasn't a streamer, he had nothing to do with the incident between the online dispute.

"Given the prevalence of such event, it has its own name after all.." What does this mean? Are you talking about the event and action of Swatting? If so, swatting isn't a legal term, it's yet again internet/gaming jargon for false reporting to emergency operators, to achieve getting them to act on said false reporting. It's been picked up by law agencies to explain the action beyond that it breaks down into legal criminality like as said false reporting

As for the Murder charge, involuntary manslaughter is murder, and is murder done where an action or direct involvement of an action leads to the death of a person without intent to do so. Thus I think legally this is exactly what happened and exactly what he should be charged for Murder of a man, due to a dispute of $1.50 stakes CoD match.

 

[Rallywagon]

What streamer did he get killed? The guy shot and killed wasn't a streamer, he had nothing to do with the incident between the online dispute.

Im sorry, is this not the event that JP was just talking about? https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/13/16888710/barris-swatting-death-charges
While not completely what the typical swatting incident involves since streaming wasnt involved, I certainly believe it to count as such since every other key aspect was the same.

"Given the prevalence of such event, it has its own name after all.." What does this mean? Are you talking about the event and action of Swatting? If so, swatting isn't a legal term, it's yet again internet/gaming jargon for false reporting to emergency operators, to achieve getting them to act on said false reporting. It's been picked up by law agencies to explain the action beyond that it breaks down into legal criminality like as said false reporting

well then, good thing i didnt say it was a legal term then, aye. It has certainly gained a name "on the streets" as it were though.

As for the Murder charge, involuntary manslaughter is murder, and is murder done where an action or direct involvement of an action leads to the death of a person without intent to do so. Thus I think legally this is exactly what happened and exactly what he should be charged for Murder of a man, due to a dispute of $1.50 stakes CoD match.

Except there is a difference, both in practice and by law. That difference being intent, which is a pretty big difference.

 

[TexRex]

i dont think the intent was to get the streamer killed.

What streamer did he get killed? The guy shot and killed wasn't a streamer, he had nothing to do with the incident between the online dispute.

He was present at the address given by the targeted streamer. The intent may or may not have been the targeted streamer's death, but actions were directed toward said targeted streamer; the targeted streamer not being present at the address is entirely separate.

That last bit is what motivates my hope that the targeted streamer doesn't go unpunished, because the fact that he opted to provide a fake address demonstrates he had reason to believe something would happen as a result and he didn't want to be the recipient. He could have avoided being targeted by not providing any information--unless the individual with malicious intent acquired said information using other methods, in which case the targeted streamer would not be culpable--and come off looking scared, which is apparently worse than endangering others.

 

[Sanji Himura]

He could have avoided being targeted by not providing any information--unless the individual with malicious intent acquired said information using other methods, in which case the targeted streamer would not be culpable--and come off looking scared, which is apparently worse than endangering others.

In all honesty, I would have to believe that Barris was egging him on here. I posted part of the twitter log that Barris and the intended target had a couple of pages back, but the fact of the matter is that the intended target knew or did not know that the swatting is coming is somewhat irrelevant at this point due to the competitive nature of COD.

 

[polysmut]

There are a lot of words with thought behind them being written here but the one clear thing, to me, is that somebody shot somebody. Whoever pulled that trigger would be the concentration of the debrief if I was running it. Admittedly, I'm not an expert in US law.

 

[LeMansAid]

I can only assume you're intentionally simplifying. I'm not surprised.

Rather, I see no reason to intentionally complicate.

I wouldn't mind you explaining what you meant by the "I'm not surprised" bit.

There are a lot of words with thought behind them being written here but the one clear thing, to me, is that somebody shot somebody. Whoever pulled that trigger would be the concentration of the debrief if I was running it. Admittedly, I'm not an expert in US law.

Yep, otherwise law enforcement can be considered a rudderless weapon to be used and abused at will.

Like I said earlier is this thread, it is not a "but for...." case. Meaning, this is not where say a dodgy builder botches a build, the owner of the house borrows money from their brother to get it fixed, who ends up taking out a loan with a bank. Bank sues brother, brother sues house owner, house owner sues builder. The weight of culpability there is in the "but for..." direction. The bank needs to be made whole by the brother, the brother whole by the house owner, and the house owner whole by the builder.

Unless we're going to go against age old "If so and so told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?" lesson, the weight in this SWAT case needs to be opposite to the builder example. The address giver did something immoral but breached no human right, the one who first received the address did something immoral but breached no human right, the one that made the call could be considered to have breached a human right by proxy, and the one that pulled the trigger breached a human right directly. Charges should be laid accordingly, with the first two in the clear in the eyes of the law.

* Immoral by my standards - which absolutely should not be made into law. The emotional nonsense sprayed around in this thread shows exactly why "morality" should play no role in lawmaking.

 

[Johnnypenso]

There are a lot of words with thought behind them being written here but the one clear thing, to me, is that somebody shot somebody. Whoever pulled that trigger would be the concentration of the debrief if I was running it. Admittedly, I'm not an expert in US law.

English common law also allows for a charge of involuntary manslaughter even if you don't intend to cause death or serious injury but you caused the death of another through recklessness or criminal negligence. It's entirely possible both the police officer who fired the shot and the person who instigated the swatting could face punishment of some kind, it doesn't have to be one or the other.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Im sorry, is this not the event that JP was just talking about? https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/13/16888710/barris-swatting-death-charges
While not completely what the typical swatting incident involves since streaming wasnt involved, I certainly believe it to count as such since every other key aspect was the same.

Perhaps you didn't get that portion of the quote you've just responded too, or read the article fully. However, what I'm talking about is what JP was talking about and you just linked it as well. The Kansas man that died had nothing to do with this event. One of the people involved gave the swatter a false address that lead to the man's home who was killed. The swatter called in a false reporter to that home, which is why an innocent man who had nothing to do with this dispute was killed.

In your original post you said "...i dont think the intent was to get the streamer killed." So what I said above and here is that no streamer died.

I'm not trying to dispute typical or atypical swatting events. The act in general is a false and misuse of emergency respondents, that put lives at risk of both the unsuspected person being swatted and the police themselves.

Except there is a difference, both in practice and by law. That difference being intent, which is a pretty big difference.

No, that's why there is voluntary and involuntary, the difference is intent. The intent wasn't to have anyone killed however the illegal action of false reporting led to the death of an innocent person. In practice and in Law this is what Involuntary manslaughter is and is considered an act of murder, but is denoted differently from other more punishable acts of murder.

What I think you're trying to imply is one of the more punishable acts of murder like second degree murder could be possible. However, only if it is without a doubt proven that the swatter was going for that effect.

He was present at the address given by the targeted streamer. The intent may or may not have been the targeted streamer's death, but actions were directed toward said targeted streamer; the targeted streamer not being present at the address is entirely separate.

That last bit is what motivates my hope that the targeted streamer doesn't go unpunished, because the fact that he opted to provide a fake address demonstrates he had reason to believe something would happen as a result and he didn't want to be the recipient. He could have avoided being targeted by not providing any information--unless the individual with malicious intent acquired said information using other methods, in which case the targeted streamer would not be culpable--and come off looking scared, which is apparently worse than endangering others.

I'm confused, my post is simple. There were two streamers who were playing CoD, and made a stakes game. After said game they got in a dispute and took to twitter with it as well. The streamer who didn't do the swatting gave a fake address, which the swatter used. The address led to an innocent man who from all news given had not affiliation with any of the two streamers and he himself didn't stream nor was what could be considered an active gamer by family.

Now as for the Targeted streamer, I agree he should be punished. Should it be as great as the swatter, perhaps not. However, there was no reason to give an address in the first place to this person who enacted the false reporting/swatting. Fake or real, there was no reason and one hasn't been given as to why he did give one. I feel part of it has to do with aspect of the gaming community, but overall it wasn't necessary and if he hadn't we wouldn't be talking about this.

 

[Rallywagon]

Perhaps you didn't get that portion of the quote you've just responded too, or read the article fully. However, what I'm talking about is what JP was talking about and you just linked it as well. The Kansas man that died had nothing to do with this event. One of the people involved gave the swatter a false address that lead to the man's home who was killed. The swatter called in a false reporter to that home, which is why an innocent man who had nothing to do with this dispute was killed.

In your original post you said "...i dont think the intent was to get the streamer killed." So what I said above and here is that no streamer died.

I'm not trying to dispute typical or atypical swatting events. The act in general is a false and misuse of emergency respondents, that put lives at risk of both the unsuspected person being swatted and the police themselves.



No, that's why there is voluntary and involuntary, the difference is intent. The intent wasn't to have anyone killed however the illegal action of false reporting led to the death of an innocent person. In practice and in Law this is what Involuntary manslaughter is and is considered an act of murder, but is denoted differently from other more punishable acts of murder.

What I think you're trying to imply is one of the more punishable acts of murder like second degree murder could be possible. However, only if it is without a doubt proven that the swatter was going for that effect.



I'm confused, my post is simple. There were two streamers who were playing CoD, and made a stakes game. After said game they got in a dispute and took to twitter with it as well. The streamer who didn't do the swatting gave a fake address, which the swatter used. The address led to an innocent man who from all news given had not affiliation with any of the two streamers and he himself didn't stream nor was what could be considered and active gamer by family.

Now as for the Targeted streamer, I agree he should be punished. Should it be as great as the swatter, perhaps not. However, there was no reason to give an address in the first place to this person who enacted the false reporting/swatting. Fake or real, there was no reason and one hasn't been given as to why he did give one. I feel part of it has to do with aspect of the gaming community, but overall it wasn't necessary and if he hadn't we wouldn't be talking about this.

I'll give you the first point. I had misread your post, and thought you were disputing the idea that this was a swatting event. Not that the victim wasnt a streamer. My mistake.
Your second point I am not conceding. I think the actual word you are looking for is homicide. Involuntary manslaughter and murder are both acts of homicide. Murder requires intent. Involuntary manslaughter is unintended homicide. Murder and involuntary manslaughter are not the same.

 

[mustafur]

1. Did the person who gave a fake address think his life was in danger if he gave the address.

2. If he refused to give the address does he think the swatter has the ability to find his address.

These are the real questions.

Keep in mind:

This person could of been killed had he given the correct address, he also didn't force the person to do the swatting so he can't be responsible, he also didn't shoot the bullet.

 

[Rallywagon]

1. Did the person who gave a fake address think his life was in danger if he gave the address.

2. If he refused to give the address does he think the swatter has the ability to find his address.

These are the real questions.

Keep in mind:

This person could of been killed had he given the correct address, he also didn't force the person to do the swatting so he can't be responsible, he also didn't shoot the bullet.

1. Probably not. I dont think, up to this point, anyone has been killed during a swatting event. I doubt someone actually being seriously injured is a forefront consideration when someone swats another.
2. If he had a name and a general area to look, probably. There are websites where you can pull up known residences of people.

I am curious the relationship between the victim and the "hirer."

 

[TexRex]

I'm confused, my post is simple.

It is; I'm confused as to how the question

What streamer did he get killed?

applies.

The quoted post to which that question pertains includes no mention of a streamer actually getting killed. The issue, and what is mentioned, is intent.

The intent behind the act of SWATting, I presume--I'm not inclined to engage in the activity, so I can't be absolutely sure--is disruption. If this is the case, as I believe it is, the perpetrator targeted an individual with the intent of creating a significant degree of disruption at the expense of the governing body (re: taxpayers), not themselves.

This [expected] disruption could be as little as a show of force and all the attention that comes with it, or as much as property damage and heavily armed officers of the law in one's dwelling. During the execution of this disruption, however, an individual (Andrew Finch)--the intent was for another streamer to be the recipient--was shot and killed.

I don't believe I'm confused as to the events, but if I am, please inform me.

 

[Rallywagon]

It is; I'm confused as to how the question applies.

The quoted post to which that question pertains includes no mention of a streamer actually getting killed. The issue, and what is mentioned, is intent.

The intent behind the act of SWATting, I presume--I'm not inclined to engage in the activity, so I can't be absolutely sure--is disruption. If this is the case, as I believe it is, the perpetrator targeted an individual with the intent of creating a significant degree of disruption at the expense of the governing body (re: taxpayers), not themselves.

This [expected] disruption could be as little as a show of force and all the attention that comes with it, or as much as property damage and heavily armed officers of the law in one's dwelling. During the execution of this disruption, however, an individual (Andrew Finch)--the intent was for another streamer to be the recipient--was shot and killed.

I don't believe I'm confused as to the events, but if I am, please inform me.

It came, i believe, because I misunderstood the circumstances and thought the victim was swatted on stream.

 

[TexRex]

It came, i believe, because I misunderstood the circumstances and thought the victim was swatted on stream.

You may have misunderstood that, and mad props to @LMSCorvetteGT2 for his ability to tap into your consciousness if that's the case, but, as far as I can tell, you didn't actually convey that misunderstanding in the questioned text. I've been over that post with a fine-toothed comb just to ensure I haven't made an ass of myself (in this situation, anyway), and you state point-blank that you "dont think the intent was to get the streamer killed."* The streamer doesn't have to not be killed for the intent to not be there (now I am confused...good grief ).

*I suppose this sentiment can be interpreted a couple of ways, with the focus ("intent" or "streamer") determining the interpretation. Because the streamer didn't get killed, I'm inclined to put emphasis on intent.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'll give you the first point. I had misread your post, and thought you were disputing the idea that this was a swatting event. Not that the victim wasnt a streamer. My mistake.
Your second point I am not conceding. I think the actual word you are looking for is homicide. Involuntary manslaughter and murder are both acts of homicide. Murder requires intent. Involuntary manslaughter is unintended homicide. Murder and involuntary manslaughter are not the same.

That's fine there are several levels of murder in the U.S. though, or where you're labeled as a killer and sent to prison. It stems from 1st degree murder to involuntary manslaughter. All of which are legally defined as a form of homicide. Homicide being the act of killing another person be it on purpose, without intent, in defense, out of remorse and such. No one is saying Murder one is the same and involuntary manslaughter, what is being said is that legally they are seen as killers by the actions they took. The swatter did a reckless thing and thus by doing such, he without intent was liable for the death of another human being.

It is; I'm confused as to how the question applies.

The quoted post to which that question pertains includes no mention of a streamer actually getting killed. The issue, and what is mentioned, is intent.

The intent behind the act of SWATting, I presume--I'm not inclined to engage in the activity, so I can't be absolutely sure--is disruption. If this is the case, as I believe it is, the perpetrator targeted an individual with the intent of creating a significant degree of disruption at the expense of the governing body (re: taxpayers), not themselves.

This [expected] disruption could be as little as a show of force and all the attention that comes with it, or as much as property damage and heavily armed officers of the law in one's dwelling. During the execution of this disruption, however, an individual (Andrew Finch)--the intent was for another streamer to be the recipient--was shot and killed.

I don't believe I'm confused as to the events, but if I am, please inform me.

It applies because a streamer didn't get killed, if this was a person just questioning the plausibility between the streamer or the actual victim and how that then is used to punish the swatter as you have done in a post below, I could understand your point. He didn't do this, what he did is claimed the streamer was killed, and even went as far to say he in fact misread (which is fine) the article. I'm just trying to make sure as people discussing this we understand the facts as they are. I'm simply trying to make sure he understands that the streamer who gave the address was not harmed and was no where near (from what I've read) the address given.

No one said you were confused, I responded simply to rallywagon's mix up, and the post I responded to you on initially was more so in regards to the situation and where I think the streamer giving the false address should fall into this punishment wise. As for intent of the swatter sure, you could argue that but I think it's such a "new" (not really) trend to the main stream public, that trying to argue it in court especially California may be hard. Thus it is probably easier to do an involuntary manslaughter charge and get the maximum out of that. I think most people who have actively swatted have done so to cause more of disruption than harm, that doesn't make it any better but it does make it harder to argue an intent to see someone killed or maimed.

You may have misunderstood that, and mad props to @LMSCorvetteGT2 for his ability to tap into your consciousness if that's the case, but, as far as I can tell, you didn't actually convey that misunderstanding in the questioned text. I've been over that post with a fine-toothed comb just to ensure I haven't made an ass of myself (in this situation, anyway), and you state point-blank that you "dont think the intent was to get the streamer killed."* The streamer doesn't have to not be killed for the intent to not be there (now I am confused...good grief ).

*I suppose this sentiment can be interpreted a couple of ways, with the focus ("intent" or "streamer") determining the interpretation. Because the streamer didn't get killed, I'm inclined to put emphasis on intent.

No what you've said makes perfect sense to me. The intent could have been for the swatter to have the fellow streamer harmed by said swatting, and thus intent, which would ideally have transference to the actual victim in the end. Be it the streamer or sadly the man in Kansas who was ultimately killed, the action and intent behind it (if exists) are one in the same no matter who ended up being the victim in the end.

 

[TexRex]

what he did is claimed the streamer was killed

Assuming the referred-to "he" is the third person participating in the last several posts, I have to say that I didn't get that impression at all from the post that I've referred to. If he made this assertion in an earlier post, well, it seems I've jumped into the middle of a conversation and any of my confusion regarding the assertion is my own fault.

If that initial assumption (regarding the "he") is correct, responding to the above is unnecessary--the horse is dead, so let's stop beating it.

the fact of the matter is that the intended target knew or did not know that the swatting is coming is somewhat irrelevant at this point due to the competitive nature of COD.

I'm inclined to believe that the competitive nature of the game is all the more reason to assume the targeted individual knew he was indeed going to be targeted. If one is embroiled in a heated argument, a prompt to reveal personal information isn't likely motivated by a desire to send over a tin of snickerdoodles.

The targeted individual made the choice to call what may or may not have been a bluff, but instead of providing his own information because he considered the possibility it may not be a bluff, provided the information of someone he [as far as I know] didn't know. Because he didn't decline to provide any information, he allowed action to be carried out. The fact that he chose to give false information demonstrates ample opportunity, regardless of the game's competitive nature--I'm still not sure what this has to do with anything--to decide not to provide information.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

1. Did the person who gave a fake address think his life was in danger if he gave the address.

2. If he refused to give the address does he think the swatter has the ability to find his address.

These are the real questions.

Keep in mind:

This person could of been killed had he given the correct address, he also didn't force the person to do the swatting so he can't be responsible, he also didn't shoot the bullet.

There is a third possibility, two massive egos (not all that shocking in the gaming community) who were unwilling to budge, one said he do something to the other and that other took him up on it and gave a fake address. It may be much easier for the streamer to claim wolf, and ease out of this entire situation since all he did was give an address.

I tend to believe he didn't have to give an address, most people who do this type of stuff tend to phish or social engineer their way to a correct address, to trace something like an address online, isn't that simple. I've had people claim they'll find me over being mad about losing a game online, still waiting.

Assuming the referred-to "he" is the third person participating in the last several posts, I have to say that I didn't get that impression at all from the post that I've referred to. If he made this assertion in an earlier post, well, it seems I've jumped into the middle of a conversation and any of my confusion regarding the assertion is my own fault.

If that initial assumption (regarding the "he") is correct, responding to the above is unnecessary--the horse is dead, so let's stop beating it.

I and the other user were just clearing up confusion, as well as posting beyond that. Indeed he himself said there was confusion and thus agreed with my first point and we've cleared it up. I'm guessing the conversation beyond the event itself, and the possible ramifications of such were missed by you in my original posts?

 

[TexRex]

we've cleared it up

Good enough for me.

I've had people claim they'll find me over being mad about losing a game online, still waiting.

I was hosting a lobby on GT6 and had someone mad about my refusal to enable SRF proceed to interfere with others' gameplay by poorly navigating the track in reverse. Upon politely advising the individual either cease the behavior and accept the settings remain unchanged or be removed from the session, the chat box filled with censored expletives, threats revolving around claims of being a member of the hacker group Anonymous and good old fashioned "@@@@@@@@@@" spam.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The targeted individual made the choice to call what may or may not have been a bluff, but instead of providing his own information because he considered the possibility it may not be a bluff, provided the information of someone he [as far as I know] didn't know. Because he didn't decline to provide any information, he allowed action to be carried out. The fact that he chose to give false information demonstrates ample opportunity, regardless of the game's competitive nature--I'm still not sure what this has to do with anything--to decide not to provide information.

You're assuming what was in the targeted individual's mind. Assuming he didn't expressly state it one way or the other, there's no evidence that he assumed it was or was not a bluff. His lawyer will likely claim that he never considered the fact that it was real and just threw out the address because he didn't want his own real address posted on the internet or simply thought the guy was just full of crap and gave out a made up address under the assumption the guy was just shooting his mouth off and it turned out to be a real address.

 

[Rallywagon]

That's fine there are several levels of murder in the U.S. though, or where you're labeled as a killer and sent to prison. It stems from 1st degree murder to involuntary manslaughter. All of which are legally defined as a form of homicide. Homicide being the act of killing another person be it on purpose, without intent, in defense, out of remorse and such. No one is saying Murder one is the same and involuntary manslaughter, what is being said is that legally they are seen as killers by the actions they took. The swatter did a reckless thing and thus by doing such, he without intent was liable for the death of another human being.

Actually, you said exactly that... "As for the Murder charge, involuntary manslaughter is murder, and is murder done where an action or direct involvement of an action leads to the death of a person without intent to do so. Thus I think legally this is exactly what happened and exactly what he should be charged for Murder of a man, due to a dispute of $1.50 stakes CoD match."
I mean, i could be wrong, but Im fairly certain "involuntary manslaughter is murder" means exactly what it says....

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Actually, you said exactly that... "As for the Murder charge, involuntary manslaughter is murder, and is murder done where an action or direct involvement of an action leads to the death of a person without intent to do so. Thus I think legally this is exactly what happened and exactly what he should be charged for Murder of a man, due to a dispute of $1.50 stakes CoD match."
I mean, i could be wrong, but Im fairly certain "involuntary manslaughter is murder" means exactly what it says....

Murder as in homicide, is what I meant to say. Sorry for the mix up.

I was trying to distinguish murder one, as in 1st degree murder and that of involuntary manslaughter. Both are acts of homicide, both get you labeled a killer just of varying degree if found guilty. And my point is that is what happened here, action of a person trying falsely report a crime of another led to an innocent man getting killed, thus his by virtue is responsible for said death and to me is a killer.

 

[Dotini]

Similar crime? Five years sentence? Is this even real?


Kane Gamble, 18, has pleaded guilty to a string of charges

 

[Rallywagon]

Not similar. Far from it in fact. Given your propensity for aliens, I'm not surprised to see you quoting the sun.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Not similar. Far from it in fact. Given your propensity for aliens, I'm not surprised to see you quoting the sun.

Completely different....errrr..

The information Gamble gathered was later used to carry out a “swatting” attack on John Holdren, a science and technology adviser to US President Barack Obama, resulting in armed officers being sent to Mr Holdren's family home.

Here's a more palatable link for the especially sensitive: BBC

 

[UKMikey]

Similar crime? Five years sentence? Is this even real?

Kane Gamble, 18, has pleaded guilty to a string of charges

I suspect it's difficult to sentence someone as an adult for crimes committed when he was 15/16. I guess the US could always apply for extradition from the UK if they want to throw the book at him harder?

 

[Sanji Himura]

I'm inclined to believe that the competitive nature of the game is all the more reason to assume the targeted individual knew he was indeed going to be targeted. If one is embroiled in a heated argument, a prompt to reveal personal information isn't likely motivated by a desire to send over a tin of snickerdoodles.

The targeted individual made the choice to call what may or may not have been a bluff, but instead of providing his own information because he considered the possibility it may not be a bluff, provided the information of someone he [as far as I know] didn't know. Because he didn't decline to provide any information, he allowed action to be carried out. The fact that he chose to give false information demonstrates ample opportunity, regardless of the game's competitive nature--I'm still not sure what this has to do with anything--to decide not to provide information.

Assumes facts not in evidence. I am pretty sure that Barris would have carried out the attack on his next twitch stream anyways, given the fact that he was hired by the other player in the dispute (according to Keemstar and other more reputable sources such as Richard Lewis, and SidAlpha).

Also given the fact that police in Kansas are not really interested in the players themselves, I can safely assume that the COD game in question has become irrelevant to the motive behind the swatting that killed Finch.

 

[Johnnypenso]

https://nypost.com/2018/04/13/officer-who-shot-and-killed-man-in-swatting-prank-will-not-be-charged/

The Kansas police officer who fired the shot that killed a man during a 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 may have been armed with a weapon.