Talk:2017 Wichita swatting

(untitled)

This article is poorly written. It has numerous grammatical errors and cites multiple unreliable sources. 68.142.180.84 (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistency in homeless status of Bariss

In 2017 Wichita swatting#Tyler Barriss

"At the time of the incident, Tyler Raj Barriss was a 25-year-old homeless man living in Los Angeles, California."

Then in 2017 Wichita swatting#Legal proceedings

"Barriss was arrested on December 29 at his Los Angeles home"

(which was the day after the incident)

So did he have a home, or was he homeless? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DsouzaSohan (talk • contribs) 15:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

911 Call

I thought that all 911 calls recorded where the call was coming from. So what gives?--174.99.238.22 (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Numbers can easily be spoofed, sadly--174.99.238.22 (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Misleading sentence in "Officer who fatally shot Finch" section

The article says:

"Justin Rapp, Officer, Wichita Police Department; originally stated he believed Finch had a gun, but testified in May 2018 that he merely saw Finch make a motion with his hand"

Several issues with this sentence and the source provided:

(1) These two things are not inconsistent. One can "believe[] Finch had a gun" because he "saw Finch make a motion with his hand." Those aren't mutually exclusive. (And keep in mind the context here: Police got a call that a man just murdered someone and his holding hostages... Thinking the man had a gun because he mad a motion is not an unreasonable belief in these circumstances).

(2) Thus, the quote unfairly suggests the officer contradicted himself. By saying that the officer "originally stated" one thing, "but testified " later that he "merely" saw movement, this sentence makes it sound like he somehow contradicted himself on the stand. But those two statements are not contradictory.

(3) The source cited does not support the notion that the officer contradicted himself. So, I checked the source to see if there is more information to suggest that the officer's later testimony was inconsistent with his original statement. There is no information in the source cited to suggest that. In fact, to the contrary, the source supports what I am saying: That the officer believed the man was armed with a gun because of the motion with his hand. That's the officer's testimony.

(4) Therefore, the sentence is not supported and should be changed. This is a rather misleading sentence and not supported. We have no source to suggest that the officer contradicted himself. Furthermore, his statements on their face don't appear to be contradictory, as stated in (1) above. Just those few words -- "originally stated," "but," and "merely" -- make this sound as if the officer is lying or his account is unreliable. It's an unfair sentence. I propose modifying it slightly to the following:

"Justin Rapp, Officer, Wichita Police Department; testified in May 2018 that he believed Finch had a weapon and saw Finch make a motion with his hand"

This more accurately reflects the testimony. What the officer "originally stated" is irrelevant, because it is consistent with the testimony, and the source is about the testimony. 2601:18A:8181:BE50:11CE:8E5D:D565:FC43 (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)