Three Brits charged over 'active shooter threats' swattings in US, Canada

Three young Brits are accused of stateside swatting offences and will appear in a UK court today to face their charges after a joint investigation by the FBI and Merseyside cops. Liam White, 22; Dylan Ash, 18; and Keiron Ellison, 18 were charged by the Crown Prosecution Service this week for perverting the course of justice – …

[KarMann]

What could possibly go wrong?

The FBI's advice for those who find themselves in a swatting scenario is to comply fully with officers on the scene, who will be able to verify the call was a hoax.

I'm sure that will be quite the condolence for their next of kin.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

"The FBI's advice for those who find themselves in a swatting scenario is to comply fully with officers on the scene, who will be able to verify the call was a hoax."

I'm sure that will be quite the condolence for their next of kin.

My thoughts too.

The agents of the FBI are able, mostly, at least to read and write but from what I can determine the various local police forces offer pitances in compensation and even less training that even the usual peanut applicants aren't attracted so not a real surprise these things usually end so badly for the victim.

Only in America would you routinely employ those too dumb to be criminals to carry firearms and to use them recklessly with apparent immunity (at least as long as the victim is not white and/or wealthy.)

[DS999]

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

Only in America would you routinely employ those too dumb to be criminals to carry firearms

Its worse than that. They do intelligence tests to screen out people who score too high. The claim is that they don't want to waste time training people who will soon become bored and quit, but we all know the reason is that they don't want people who can think and potentially question orders like whether it is a good idea to bust down a door guns blazing based on a single 911 call.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

This is factual. There have been cops with prior military service being fired from their agency for using their military peacekeeping training instead of falling in line with the rest of the cops in shooting an armed suspect.

This title is provocative but accurate to the the events: https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/police-officer-wins-settlement-city-fired-him

We are the only country where the cops are more violent than the army.

[Andrew Scott]

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

They actually denied entry to the police academy in Connecticut because the applicant was too intelligent i believe. happened 10 or so years ago.

[Andrew Scott]

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

yes, easy to cooperate with the cops and still get shot around here or smothered, all a misunderstanding of course and the cops with their Kevlar vests were in fear of their lives. excuses everything.

[JimBz]

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

Compliance is still a lot smarter. (I don't always agree with the FBI, but this is good advice, unfortunately.)

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Now on Signal

Just DM a grid coord to the US defense secretary and they will send an air strike.

[Anonymous Coward]

sentenced to 20 months in prison, suspended for 18 months, in April 2024.

Seems a very light sentence. Should have been extradited. As per the UKs "special" treaty.

[ecofeco]

Re: sentenced to 20 months in prison, suspended for 18 months, in April 2024.

Well first you have to royally piss off some rich people.

Us peons? Meh.

[HarryBl]

Re: sentenced to 20 months in prison, suspended for 18 months, in April 2024.

No need if Judge Jeffreys was in charge The maximum sentence for perverting the course of justice is life.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: sentenced to 20 months in prison, suspended for 18 months, in April 2024.

No need if Judge Jeffreys was in charge The maximum sentence for perverting the course of justice is life.

Weren't that good judge's sentences reputedly generally wholely "suspended?"

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: sentenced to 20 months in prison, suspended for 18 months, in April 2024.

Very briefly

[Ian Mason]

Re: sentenced to 20 months in prison, suspended for 18 months, in April 2024.

They couldn't be extradited. Our extradition treaties with other nations require that the offence being extradited for would also be an offence in the UK. As the article points out, there isn't a specific "swatting" offence in the UK. The reason that our treaties are like that is so we don't have to extradite people for offences are incompatible with our idea of the rule of law, like apostasy or lèse-majesté which are criminal offences in some countries.

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

Only in United States Of America

Several swatting victim were shot be the police.

Sending to callers to prison is fine. But the officers doing the killing? On the one hand they fail in their job, on the other hand some will suffer PTSD for their life knowing they killed someone innocent.

[martinusher]

Re: Only in United States Of America

By and large law enforcement has blanket immunity for any and everything in the US. Its not a healthy situation but its been tested in the courts and holding any police officers to account, even if they're completely deranged, is impossible (unless you can prove they violated some typically unpublished guidelines, that is).

[Excused Boots]

Re: Only in United States Of America

Yes, OK I sort of see the argument for blanket immunity; but it does suppose that the officer isn't some under-trained, trigger-happy moron who simply blasts away without first engaging brain - 'is what this person is doing, really threatening and I (and others) are in imminent danger; or could it just be an normal, expected human reaction to a stressful situation'?

Yes, maybe, maybe, an officer pausing, not opening fire immediately, might put them in slightly greater danger - is that not part of the job though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Only in United States Of America

I believe it was decided a few years ago that police in the US have no obligation or duty to put themselves at risk in order to protect the public.

[ChoHag]

Re: Only in United States Of America

> some will suffer PTSD for their life knowing they killed someone innocent

See this violin? See how small it is?

You got the gun, you get the responsibility.

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

Re: Only in United States Of America

You talk about USA and gun responsibility? Those are mutual exclusive....

[MrMerrymaker]

Re: Only in United States Of America

Would but your down voters have the courage to explain why.

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

Re: Only in United States Of America

No, not even as AC :D.

[cornetman]

> ...in US, Canada

As much as many Canadians would like it, the US isn't currently part of Canada.

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

What the.... Now that you point it out... WTH who wrote that headline with a comma instead of "and".... Well

Hey Connor Jones, there is something wrong here, and it is not funny!

[cornetman]

I must admit to having been a bit snarky.

I believe that in much of American journalism these days, for headlines they routinely omit the word "and" and substitute a comma, probably to preserve space. It often makes for difficult to parse headlines though, something that I have encountered a number of times more recently on El Reg unfortunately. Headlines are supposed to be snappy, but it kinda defeats the point if you have to read it 2 or 3 times to figure out the grammar.

That might have made sense in a newspaper column, but most people are reading this on a large(ish) display with text reflow so not really an issue in this day and age.

Another humorous example was "Man, dog implicated in attack" or somesuch. When you read it quickly it feels more like "Man, dog, implicated in attack", which is probably a little harsh.

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

"We're going to eat grandma."

"We're going to eat, grandma."

Edit: I didn't notice anything snarky here - maybe you need more German directness :D. Are you US, who have to watch their wording way Way WAY more carefully to avoid offending and beat around the bush three times before maybe, but only maybe, coming to the point ?

[cornetman]

A Yorkshire lad living in Canada, if that answers your question. We're not normally known for being backward about coming forward though.

[Ian Johnston]

My favourite headline from the long-gone "Portadown News":

"Too much lead in NI water, politics."

[C. P. Cosgrove]

Re :- Swatting

There wad a well reported incident incident in London a few years ago where an innocent citizen who was carrying a wrapped up and repaired table leg was shot to death in the street by the police. It turned out that he had gone into a bar for a drink on his way home and another drinker had taken the wrapped up table leg for a shotgun and phoned the police.

Understandably, the police had turned out an armed response unit who , at the scene, issued the standard challenge - "Armed police ! Put down the weapon !". This obviously creates a problem for someone who knows he is not carrying a weapon. In consequence the police opened fire and he was killed. No evidence was ever brought that the bystander in the bar who phoned the police acted with any malicious intent. The incident went down as a tragic accident.

In the Army I was trained that in the 'Advance to Contact' you did not take cover until you came under 'Effective enemy fire'. While this was never defined to my satisfaction, it is probably quite reasonable to say you should allow the enemy / suspect the first shot before you open fire.

Chris Cosgrove

[werdsmith]

Re: Re :- Swatting

Time goes quickly. 26 years ago.

[Anonymous Coward]

US police

Part of the problem but used as the solution.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: US police

In the UK that would be other way around.

caller> There is active shooter in my area!

police> Did he shot you?

caller> No

police> Then why do you call?

caller> I am in danger!

police> But you have time for a chat?

[gnasher729]

Every time swatting comes up, someone pipes up “but evil police kill people”. That’s no excuse for swatting. Quite ghe opposite, if the police responding to 999 calls is known to kill innocent people, then swatting is murder or attempted murder. So if that happens then throw the swatter in jail and throw the keys away, whether someone got hurt or not. and then investigate what the police did if they hurt someone.

[Richard 12]

Depends on the specifics

Sentencing guidance for attempted murder is 3-40 years at the moment.

Reckless endangerment might cover it too, which is theoretically up to life.

Perverting the course of justice has a precedent, so is easier for the prosecution.

UK Sentencing Council

Obviously Category 1 in every case where police attended, so 9 months to 7 years depending on culpability.

[Steve Crook]

Good deal...

You do something that results in life changing injury for the victim and you serve no time?

What would the sentence have been if the bullets were real, not rubber?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Good deal...

What a stupid question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone for Venezualian Pokey?

Given Emperor T rather likes deporting the bad'uns, these three better hope they don't get extradited to Trumpville 'coz I doubt they could cope with life in Venezualian pokey.

[Potemkine!]

Tyler Bariss made the call and two years later was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

How many years got the actual killer ?

[MrMerrymaker]

20 years it says right there.