Gamers/Streamers Swatting Megathread

[Danoff]

Swatting is, I think, unarguably a malicious crime.

Agreed.

It's absolutely more than a prank because the perpetrator is intending to expose the victim to at least the possibility of deadly force,

I don't know what this means. Calling the police is always "the possibility of deadly force". You're still not responsible for police actions.

A swat team response is aggressive by nature - just by being deployed the "threat" is considered to be active, substantial, and requiring of overwhelming force.

...and they still have to use judgement.

For the swat team members (who have no way to suspect that it's a false alarm) its an offensive operation. I think when you think about it this way, swatting someone is effectively similar (obviously not the same) to ordering a military strike on a target.

That's completely absurd. A swat team is not a cruise missile. And if they were, we probably shouldn't be launching them in response to a random phone call. Also, they have every ability to suspect that it's a false alarm because swatting is (and was) well known to people who aren't even members of swat teams. Like me, and you. You'd think if you were actually in one that you'd know even better what swatting is.

They're not robots, they're human beings.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Agreed.



I don't know what this means. Calling the police is always "the possibility of deadly force". You're still not responsible for police actions.



...and they still have to use judgement.



That's completely absurd. A swat team is not a cruise missile. And if they were, we probably shouldn't be launching them in response to a random phone call. Also, they have every ability to suspect that it's a false alarm because swatting is (and was) well known to people who aren't even members of swat teams. Like me, and you. You'd think if you were actually in one that you'd know even better what swatting is.

They're not robots, they're human beings.

I'm trying to establish a scale of police-response deadliness. I think you would agree that a Swat team response has a higher likelihood of deadly force than a school resource officer checking in, no? If the intent of the swatting "prank" is to cause either destruction, death, harassment, or psychological/emotional trauma, the swatting perpetrator absolutely bears responsibility - and I can't think of another possible reason to do it. The whole point is to cause pain. And of course they are human beings - human beings are prone to make mistakes, especially under pressure or in high stress situations - this is what the swatting perp is counting on - itchy trigger fingers.

I think a leader of any swat-type operation has to weigh the safety of their own team against the possibility of the situation being false. If they show up under the impression that it is a "swatting" scenario, that is potentially a danger to them. I don't imagine its as easy you make it out to be to filter out the false alarms.

 

[Danoff]

I'm trying to establish a scale of police-response deadliness. I think you would agree that a Swat team response has a higher likelihood of deadly force than a school resource officer checking in, no? If the intent of the swatting "prank" is to cause either destruction, death, harassment, or psychological/emotional trauma, the swatting perpetrator absolutely bears responsibility

No one bears responsibility for the actions of another adult. You bear the responsibility for fraudulently supplying information to that adult. Their judgement is still their own.

I think a leader of any swat-type operation has to weigh the safety of their own team against the possibility of the situation being false. If they show up under the impression that it is a "swatting" scenario, that is potentially a danger to them. I don't imagine its as easy you make it out to be to filter out the false alarms.

Their primary job is to protect innocent people, not to protect themselves or their team.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

No one bears responsibility for the actions of another adult. You bear the responsibility for fraudulently supplying information to that adult. Their judgement is still their own.

Their primary job is to protect innocent people, not to protect themselves or their team.

To your first sentence: If you hire a hitman, you (legally) bear some responsibility for the actions of that hitman. (To be honest, I don't know the nuance or distinction between the crime of simply hiring a hitman and the success of the hitman, and I'm not inclined to google that at work ) Of course this is significantly different than calling the police but I believe that if you call the police with the intent of the responding police to hurt/kill/traumatize an innocent person, the caller should bear some of that responsibility. I think your argument is somewhat abstract in that it assumes that the responding police are infallible and exercise perfect judgement, whereas in reality, the perpetrator of the swatting prank can reasonably expect the possibility of a miscalculation or even just an over aggressive response.

I agree with you, abstractly, that police responding to a false report shouldn't result in the deaths of innocent people...but experience tells us that can't be counted on.

 

[Danoff]

To your first sentence: If you hire a hitman, you (legally) bear some responsibility for the actions of that hitman. (To be honest, I don't know the nuance or distinction between the crime of simply hiring a hitman and the success of the hitman, and I'm not inclined to google that at work ) Of course this is significantly different than calling the police

Paying someone to commit a crime for you (contract killing for example) is a crime and you are responsible for it.

This is a classic first year exam question in criminal law. Groom hires Hitman to kill Bride. How many crimes can be charged, and what is the likely outcome?

The first crime is conspiracy to commit murder. Whenever two or more people join together to commit a crime, the joining together is a crime of its own, usually a felony. So both G and H are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.

H is guilty of murder by direct intent. H intentionally took the life of another with no excuse or justification, such as insanity.

G is guilty of murder in two possible ways.

• The first is transfer of intent. Although G did not himself kill B, it was G’s intent that was the proximate cause of B’s death. Under the Model Penal Code, I would probably argue that hiring the hitman constituted the “prior act” necessary to constitute the crime.
• The second is a deviously circular argument for felony murder. Hiring someone to commit a crime is a felony. Conspiracy to commit a crime is a felony. Any felony that results in the death of another automatically escalates that death to first-degree murder.

So you can get four life sentences out of this: G and H are both guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, and are both guilty of first-degree murder.

You can see how this differs from fraudulently calling the police.

but I believe that if you call the police with the intent of the responding police to hurt/kill/traumatize an innocent person, the caller should bear some of that responsibility.

Yup, some.

I think your argument is somewhat abstract in that it assumes that the responding police are infallible and exercise perfect judgement,

Nope, just that they bear responsibility for their own judgment. And it is their job of course.

whereas in reality, the perpetrator of the swatting prank can reasonably expect the possibility of a miscalculation or even just an over aggressive response.

What does this mean exactly? I can reasonably expect the possibility of being in a car accident if I leave my house. I can reasonably expect the possibility of a pizza delivery person being in a car accident if I order a pizza.

I agree with you, abstractly, that police responding to a false report shouldn't result in the deaths of innocent people...but experience tells us that can't be counted on.

So police aren't cruise missiles, and calling them isn't murder.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

What does this mean exactly? I can reasonably expect the possibility of being in a car accident if I leave my house. I can reasonably expect the possibility of a pizza delivery person being in a car accident if I order a pizza.

From your quoted passage:

Although G did not himself kill B, it was G’s intent that was the proximate cause of B’s death

Isn't that quite similar to this discussion? It's all about intent.

It's a calibration issue. How much responsibility falls to the prankster? I'd argue more than the responding officers because of intent. Put another way: How unfair would it be for G to intend to kill B, using the proxy of the swat team, and the swat team bears more legal responsibility? The swat team would be (conceptually) guilty of doing their jobs poorly, sure, but I don't see how it could be interpreted as more than that. Logically then, if the caller faces less legal responsibility, it doesn't even rise to the standard of dereliction of duty (or whatever you want to call it). The caller has to be more responsible. To the point of classifying it as murder? I think less than that because I don't think it reaches those standards, but more than something like negligent manslaughter.

Yes, you can reasonably expect there is a possibility of your pizza delivery guy dying in a car accident. That's probably quite small though and it's also not your intent. You aren't hoping your Pizza delivery driver gets t-boned by Amtrak. But lets bring it back to swatting:

1. The caller is intending to inflict some sort of pain up to and including death on the victim
2. The caller can expect the officers to respond ready to deploy deadly force while also anticipating the fallibility of their judgement.

Those 2 things make it enormously different than ordering a Pizza with no further malicious intent.

 

[Danoff]

Isn't that quite similar to this discussion?

Not really. Swatting lacks an agreement to commit a crime (murder in this case), intent to commit the crime (murder), and consideration (payment) of the contract to commit the crime. So pretty much all of the important facts.

It's all about intent.

Not all.

It's a calibration issue. How much responsibility falls to the prankster?

Some. Particularly the bit that the prankster actually performed. In this case, rather than paying someone to commit murder, the prankster supplied fraudulent information to the police.

I'd argue more than the responding officers because of intent.

That entirely depends on the reasonableness of the officer's behavior. The amount that the prankster bears doesn't depend on it, but whether or not it is more depends on it. The prankster in this case is responsible for providing fraudulent information to the police. The prankster is not also responsible for the actions of the police (because the prankster did not pay the police, or conspire with the police to commit a crime). The police may be responsible for murder, or not responsible for anything depending on the scenario they faced at the scene and their own behavior at the scene.

Put another way: How unfair would it be for G to intend to kill B, using the proxy of the swat team, and the swat team bears more legal responsibility?

Not particularly unfair. Especially if the swat team conspired with the prankster to commit murder (which didn't happen here) and took payment for the job (which didn't happen here). How unfair would it be if I called 911 in an emergency and police came and shot someone innocent and suddenly I'm not responsible for the death of that person? Well... not unfair at all actually. Since I didn't commit murder.

The swat team would be (conceptually) guilty of doing their jobs poorly,

Possibly murder. If you want to call that doing your job "poorly", I guess that's one way to describe it.

Yes, you can reasonably expect there is a possibility of your pizza delivery guy dying in a car accident. That's probably quite small though and it's also not your intent. You aren't hoping your Pizza delivery driver gets t-boned by Amtrak. But lets bring it back to swatting:

Even if I am, ordering pizza in hopes of getting a delivery driver killed is not murder.

1. The caller is intending to inflict some sort of pain up to and including death on the victim

Don't think that's been established in this case. As far as I know, swatting is intended to cause the loss of the match.

2. The caller can expect the officers to respond ready to deploy deadly force while also anticipating the fallibility of their judgement.

Nope. I don't think it's reasonable to expect police to shoot innocent people.

Those 2 things make it enormously different than ordering a Pizza with no further malicious intent.

It is different, but the pizza example illustrates some problems with your argument.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Just thought this was worth posting. If I'm not mistaken, this is what he plead guilty to.

(1)In general.—Whoever engages in any conduct with intent to convey false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed and where such information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute a violation of chapter 2, 10, 11B, 39, 40, 44, 111, or 113B of this title, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), or section 46502, the second sentence of section 46504, section 46505(b)(3) or (c), section 46506 if homicide or attempted homicide is involved, or section 60123(b) of title 49, shall—

(A)
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;

(B)
if serious bodily injury results, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and

(C)
if death results, be fined under this title or imprisoned for any number of years up to life, or both.

I don't understand why the sentencing is so controversial. It seems pretty straight forward, and he could have received a longer sentence. So just by making the call, you could get 5 years. That seems reasonable consider the potential danger. If somebody does get hurt, you can get up to 20 years. If somebody dies, you could get life. Seems like he got off easy, comparatively.

Again from your passage above:

Any felony that results in the death of another automatically escalates that death to first-degree murder

edit: Interesting read here

"Some states use the “proximate cause” approach, which allows for felony murder when any death occurs as a result of the felony—even one caused by a victim, bystander, or police officer."

 

[Danoff]

I don't understand why the sentencing is so controversial. It seems pretty straight forward,

One needs to establish whether the police shooting was something that "resulted" from his fraudulent act and not an act of the police. I'm not sure that was a great plea bargain.

Again from your passage above:

"Results"

edit: Interesting read here

"Some states use the “proximate cause” approach, which allows for felony murder when any death occurs as a result of the felony—even one caused by a victim, bystander, or police officer."

"Result"

 

[Rallywagon]

One needs to establish whether the police shooting was something that "resulted" from his fraudulent act and not an act of the police. I'm not sure that was a great plea bargain.



"Results"



"Result"

Result and results. He committed a felony, that felony call resulted in a death. Also, given that, according to part a of the section quoted by Eunos has a sentence of up to 5 years, and he pled guilty to 51 counts, seems the plea was a really good deal.

 

[Danoff]

Result and results. He committed a felony, that felony call resulted in a death.

That's not clear to me. Death resulted from a firearm discharge by a member of a swat team. You need to establish the causal link between the felony and the swat team member's action. I'm not saying they're unrelated, but "related" is not the bar you need to hit.

Also, given that, according to part a of the section quoted by Eunos has a sentence of up to 5 years, and he pled guilty to 51 counts, seems the plea was a really good deal.

I don't think so. But if you think he was a murderer because of that call, then yes it was a good deal.

 

[Obelisk]

@Danoff
Dude. It's literally the way the law is written.

Quoting from Eunos.
"Some states use the “proximate cause” approach, which allows for felony murder when any death occurs as a result of the felony—even one caused by a victim, bystander, or police officer."

In the Tyler Barriss situation, Kansas follows the proximate cause approach. Since the death from the swatting was in Kansas, the crime was tried under Kansas law. Tyler called a false situation that dispatched the officers to the house of the victim - that's the initial felony offense. The end result was the death of the poor gentleman in Kansas, which is under the "proximate cause" in Kansas' laws. He may not have pulled the trigger, but he was directly responsible for causing the chain of events that resulted in the cause of death.

Are you trying to play devil's advocate, or is there something I'm missing in your logic? I can't fathom why you'd think Tyler isn't responsible for the killing in any way.

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff
Dude. It's literally the way the law is written.

Quoting from Eunos.
"Some states use the “proximate cause” approach, which allows for felony murder when any death occurs as a result of the felony—even one caused by a victim, bystander, or police officer."

In the Tyler Barriss situation, Kansas follows the proximate cause approach. Since the death from the swatting was in Kansas, the crime was tried under Kansas law. Tyler called a false situation that dispatched the officers to the house of the victim - that's the initial felony offense. The end result was the death of the poor gentleman in Kansas, which is under the "proximate cause" in Kansas' laws. He may not have pulled the trigger, but he was directly responsible for causing the chain of events that resulted in the cause of death.

Are you trying to play devil's advocate, or is there something I'm missing in your logic? I can't fathom why you'd think Tyler isn't responsible for the killing in any way.

Pretty sure I've been arguing the entire time that he deserves stiff penalties.

One needs to establish that it is "as a result of the felony". That's the problematic phrase. Here's a good description of "proximate cause" and why I don't put much stock in it as determining the righteousness of the sentencing [the added bold is mine]:

The doctrine of proximate cause is notoriously confusing. The doctrine is phrased in the language of causation, but in most of the cases in which proximate cause is actively litigated, there is not much real dispute that the defendant but-for caused the plaintiff's injury. The doctrine is actually used by judges in a somewhat arbitrary fashion to limit the scope of the defendant's liability to a subset of the total class of potential plaintiffs who may have suffered some harm from the defendant's actions.[15] For an understanding of the broader view of causation which proximate cause circumscribes, see butterfly effect.

For example, in the two famous Kinsman Transit cases from the 2nd Circuit (exercising admiralty jurisdiction over a New York incident), it was clear that mooring a boat improperly could lead to the risk of that boat drifting away and crashing into another boat, and that both boats could crash into a bridge, which collapsed and blocked the river, and in turn, the wreckage could flood the land adjacent to the river, as well as prevent any traffic from traversing the river until it had been cleared. But under proximate cause, the property owners adjacent to the river could sue (Kinsman I), but not the owners of the boats or cargoes which could not move until the river was reopened (Kinsman II).[16]

Therefore, in the final version of the Restatement (Third), Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm, published in 2010, the American Law Institute argued that proximate cause should be replaced with scope of liability. Chapter 6 of the Restatement is titled "Scope of Liability (Proximate Cause)." It begins with a special note explaining the Institute's decision to reframe the concept in terms of "scope of liability" because it does not involve true causation, and to also include "proximate cause" in the chapter title in parentheses to help judges and lawyers understand the connection between the old and new terminology. The Institute added that it "fervently hopes" the parenthetical will be unnecessary in a future fourth Restatement of Torts.[17]

 

[Obelisk]

That's what I get for not paying close enough attention to what's being said. I appreciate the respectful clarification there - I do agree there needs to be a better definition of proximate cause.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

More on proximate cause, which I think is interesting and/or applicable (from the same wiki)

There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate (or legal) cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but for" test: But for the action, the result would not have happened.[1] (For example, but for running the red light, the collision would not have occurred.) The action is a necessary condition, but may not be a sufficient condition, for the resulting injury. A few circumstances exist where the but for test is ineffective (see But-for test). Since but-for causation is very easy to show (but for stopping to tie your shoe, you would not have missed the train and would not have been mugged), a second test is used to determine if an action is close enough to a harm in a "chain of events" to be legally valid. This test is called proximate cause. Proximate cause is a key principle of Insurance and is concerned with how the loss or damage actually occurred. There are several competing theories of proximate cause (see Other factors). For an act to be deemed to cause a harm, both tests must be met; proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause-in-fact.

The formal Latin term for "but for" (cause-in-fact) causation, is sine qua non causation.[2]

....

Foreseeability[edit]
The most common test of proximate cause under the American legal system is foreseeability. It determines if the harm resulting from an action could reasonably have been predicted. The test is used in most cases only in respect to the type of harm. It is foreseeable, for example, that throwing a baseball at someone could cause them a blunt-force injury. But proximate cause is still met if a thrown baseball misses the target and knocks a heavy object off a shelf behind them, which causes a blunt-force injury. Evident in Corrigan v HSE (2011 IEHC 305).

This is also known as the "extraordinary in hindsight" rule.[6]

....

The "Risk Rule"[edit]
Referred to by the Reporters of the Second and Third Restatements of the Law of Torts as the "scope-of-the-risk" test,[9] the term "Risk Rule" was coined by the University of Texas School of Law's Dean Robert Keeton.[10] The rule is that “[a]n actor’s liability is limited to those physical harms that result from the risks that made the actor’s conduct tortious.”[11] Thus, the operative question is "what were the particular risks that made an actor's conduct negligent?" If the injury suffered is not the result of one of those risks, there can be no recovery.

It seems like foreseeability and the risk rule (to a lesser extent, because its less about merely negligence?) are applicable. To not foresee any harm being done to someone after a swat team has been called on them (and in which case the Swat team believe the threat to be real) is kind of a stretch in my opinion. That would, conceptually, make the assumption that the Swat team cannot make a mistake, which is a high bar I think. I think this is where me and @Danoff disagree. If there was evidence to support the Swat team suspected it was a fraudulent report, I would feel the balance of responsibility would shift to the Swat team.

And we've gone deep into the weeds of legalese.

 

[Danoff]

It seems like foreseeability and the risk rule (to a lesser extent, because its less about merely negligence?) are applicable. To not foresee any harm being done to someone after a swat team has been called on them (and in which case the Swat team believe the threat to be real) is kind of a stretch in my opinion. That would, conceptually, make the assumption that the Swat team cannot make a mistake, which is a high bar I think. I think this is where me and @Danoff disagree. If there was evidence to support the Swat team suspected it was a fraudulent report, I would feel the balance of responsibility would shift to the Swat team.

And we've gone deep into the weeds of legalese.

The question is still whether the death was a result of the fraudulent phone call. That's the important link. This isn't a physics example where a baseball was thrown, and the thrown baseball lands on something. The initial act, propagated through physics, results in blunt force injury. The phone call has to "result in" death. And that's very tricky to argue, because it has to happen through a bunch of other actors, who each made judgments based on their own experience, the available information, and the scene they were presented with.

The police were trigger happy and made a mistake that cost someone their life. They're all too happy to have been sent there by a 'hat who will take the fall.

Let me try this again.

Someone performs an act of throwing a baseball. The act of throwing the baseball results in something being broken. We know it resulted from the the throwing of the baseball because the baseball went unperturbed along a trajectory from the person throwing it to the object broken. The next question was whether the damage was foreseeable. Would a reasonable person have know that throwing the baseball had a good chance of breaking something?

So there are a few questions there.
1) What did the person do? (throw a baseball)
2) Did the throwing of the baseball cause the breakage?
3) Was that foreseeable?

If the person didn't throw the baseball, or it turns out that the throwing didn't cause the breakage (say, someone else hit the ball with a bat and that caused the breakage), or that it wasn't forseeable, then the chain is broken.

In this case, the comparable questions are:
1) What did the person do? (call the police with fraudulent information)
2) Did the call cause the death? (this is the point I'm debating)
3) Was that death foreseeable?

It's point number 2 where I'm hung up.

 

[Famine]

2) Did the call cause the death? (this is the point I'm debating)

In the UK it wouldn't - which is probably why you don't hear about UK SWATtings (or... ARVings?).

If you call the police in the UK and say there's a lunatic with a gun at address X holding someone hostage and making threats to life, and you've heard gunshots, what will roughly happen is that every appropriate response team in the area will show up and seal off the street. The senior officer on the ground will direct other officers to the address to determine what the situation is, and firearms-trained officers will cover them off. Only once the senior officer on the ground decides the situation is dangerous will the firearms-trained officers seek permission from the duty commander to go live, and they are unlikely (but not unable) to grant that without shots being fired from the perpetrator first. They also will not fire unless they have determined that a shot (one ping only, Dmitri) is the safest resolution at that time, with the duty commander's permission given to fire. It's also usually the very last thing they will do as a firearms-trained officer, and perhaps as a front-line officer or even as a police officer at all; very few firearms officers who have fired a shot on duty - even when totally justified - will go back on duty as a firearms officer, and there's a lengthy review process of the incident first.

My operational knowledge of SWAT is somewhat different and gleaned from episodes of Cops. From what I can tell it's "assume the perp is armed and hostile based on the 911 call, kick the door down yelling 'POLICE! DROP THE WEAPON!', and discharge six in their general direction if they are not hands up, face down the moment you first see them, or make any movements of any kind. Then blow off any concept of counselling and go back to work the next day and do it again".

I imagine that's slightly simplified from reality, but it's also a bit of a difference from requiring two senior officers to okay live fire and the officer who takes the shot being retired to a desk until he hits 50 and retires completely.


Ultimately the police showing up at your door shouldn't be a deadly encounter, even if they have reason to think you are making threats with a firearm. In a place where cops are very reluctant to fire a weapon even when permitted, to the point of putting their own safety behind the concept of the possibility of killing someone who only might be a threat, that's the case. In other cultures where the cops are highly militarised, don't require permission to fire, put their own safety ahead of a possible yet unconfirmed perpetrator's life, and have few repercussions on their life and career as a result of taking a shot, it seems more likely that it's not the case.

 

[Danoff]

In other cultures where the cops are highly militarised, don't require permission to fire, put their own safety ahead of a possible yet unconfirmed perpetrator's life, and have few repercussions on their life and career as a result of taking a shot, it seems more likely that it's not the case.

...but it's the fault of the police for that, not the caller. I still end up placing the "result" at the feet of the police. What we all seem to know is that the call should not have ended this way. And the reason it should not is the behavior of the police.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If you call the police in the UK and say there's a lunatic with a gun at address X holding someone hostage and making threats to life, and you've heard gunshots, what will roughly happen is that every appropriate response team in the area will show up and seal off the street. The senior officer on the ground will direct other officers to the address to determine what the situation is, and firearms-trained officers will cover them off. Only once the senior officer on the ground decides the situation is dangerous will the firearms-trained officers seek permission from the duty commander to go live, and they are unlikely (but not unable) to grant that without shots being fired from the perpetrator first. They also will not fire unless they have determined that a shot (one ping only, Dmitri) is the safest resolution at that time, with the duty commander's permission given to fire. It's also usually the very last thing they will do as a firearms-trained officer, and perhaps as a front-line officer or even as a police officer at all; very few firearms officers who have fired a shot on duty - even when totally justified - will go back on duty as a firearms officer, and there's a lengthy review process of the incident first.

This is all correct as I understand it with one caveat: since The Events Of (Insert Terrorism Date Here) armed officers leave the station with authority to fire if they perceive an immediate threat to human life. That means they could pull up at a random incident, see a drawn weapon, fire their own weapons to protect life. I can't think of any cases where that's happened but I believe the provision is there. A judge would still need to decide formally if the shots were fired legally, a long (but correct, imo) process.

 

[Rallywagon]

This is all correct as I understand it with one caveat: since The Events Of (Insert Terrorism Date Here) armed officers leave the station with authority to fire if they perceive an immediate threat to human life. That means they could pull up at a random incident, see a drawn weapon, fire their own weapons to protect life. I can't think of any cases where that's happened but I believe the provision is there. A judge would still need to decide formally if the shots were fired legally, a long (but correct, imo) process.

In the US at least, the odds are almost fully in the polices favor though. With incidents like what just happened in Philly and Denver, it's clear the US has some major issues we need to contend with.

 

[Danoff]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/ohio-gam...hs-prison-time-in-deadly-kansas-swatting-case

15 months for the guy who "recruited" the guy who made the call, who got 20 years. I understand that the 20 years was for multiple offenses.

 

[Danoff]

Seems like a good place for this: