back to article Scumbag who phoned in a Call of Duty 'swatting' that ended in death pleads guilty to dozens of criminal charges

One of three people charged over the December 2017 “swatting” death of 28-year-old Andrew Finch in the US has pleaded guilty. Tyler Barriss, 25, was indicted in May for making a bogus 911 call to police in Wichita, Kansas, urging officers to send out a SWAT team. As a result, on December 28, the cops showed up outside Finch's …

Page:

  1. anonanonanon

    How many mass shootings you had this year? Literally noone else in the civilized world has your troubles mate, and we don't want them.

    1. Michael Habel Silver badge

      And, yet London is the knife muder capital of the world, supassing even New York in violent crimes. So yeah, again worry about your own mess.

      1. Casca

        You really are a special snowflake arn't you? Look upp the statistics. If my memory is correct it was one month one year… But hey, you at least have some guns to coddle...

        1. A.P. Veening

          Snowflake

          Please don't turn up the heat too much on our snowflake, he might melt ;)

      2. LDS Silver badge

        It's very difficult to kill tens of people in a little time with a knife. London has a gang issue, true, and with guns it would be just deadlier - with higher risks for anybody withing the bullets range.

        Anyway I would prohibit carrying knives as well - we're not in the Middle Ages when carrying a knife around was a necessity - inside a city you don't need knives, unless they're stored in your toolbox, for your job - which usually aren't the knives best suited to kill people.

        1. Clockworkseer

          "inside a city you don't need knives, unless they're stored in your toolbox, for your job - which usually aren't the knives best suited to kill people"

          Actual Law Time: You may carry, without a good reason, a folding knife of blade less than three inches with no locking mechanism whatsoever. Anything else, you must have a good reason (or its banned outright if its certain kinds of knife.)

          On a practical level, you re much more likely to hurt yourself with the first kind of knife than you are whatever you're hitting. Ain't nobody stabbing with something like that. Having one of those close on your fingers (the most likely result) is nasty.

          Now, as to need: I know a reasonable number of disabled people who, for reasons of hand dexterity and other such conditions, find dealing with food and packaging while out and about significantly easier with some kind of sharp object. My work canteen has no sharp knives whatsoever, so actually cutting anything up as part of lunch is a massive chore. just because you can;t think of any good reasons for something like that doesn't mean there aren't any.

          Most of the stabbings out there are either big fixed blade knives(which, you really don't need to carry around a city) small locking folders (the law is a little knee-jerk in this regard) and weapons of opportunity (kitchen knives, cleavers, etc, screwdrivers, anything sharp and pointy.) and those last few are something you'll never truly stop.

      3. This post has been deleted by its author

      4. DavCrav Silver badge

        "And, yet London is the knife muder capital of the world, supassing even New York in violent crimes. So yeah, again worry about your own mess."

        Lies. Just all lies.

        The UK counts a violent crime as any crime using physical force, so pushing someone is a violent crime in the UK. Whereas, oh why bother, you're obviously an idiot.

        1. MachDiamond Silver badge

          "The UK counts a violent crime as any crime using physical force, so pushing someone is a violent crime in the UK."

          In the US everything is a Hate Crime if the people involved are of different races, straight v Gay, of different religions or any other fabricated division.

          The UK appears to have more incidents involving knives/sharp instruments as handguns are not as prevalent to date. Since criminals aren't bothered with following the law, hey, they're criminals, they'd use a gun if they can get one. Where there is a demand, there will be a supply. To use a knife or machete properly, you have to practice and also get rather close to your victim. Guns don't take as much training and can even be used with none and you don't have to be standing next to your victim. Just by firing a few rounds or showing a gun, you can discourage chasers where brandishing a knife won't deter somebody from following you a few meters back.

      5. rg287

        And, yet London is the knife muder capital of the world, supassing even New York in violent crimes. So yeah, again worry about your own mess.

        New York Homicides:

        2015: 352

        2016: 334

        2017: 290

        London Homicides:

        2015: 109

        2016: 102

        2017: 117

        Knife crime? Gun crime? Do go on about how violent London is. And watch less Fox News.

      6. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "And, yet London is the knife muder capital of the world, supassing even New York in violent crimes. So yeah, again worry about your own mess"

        ^ At least the actions are generally limited where knives are concerned unlike when military assault weapons are used to commit everyday massacres in the United States.

        You ought perhaps to encourage your country to put its own thoroughly rotten house in order first before criticising other nation states. Indeed, of the advanced OECD countries, it is only the United States that persists with the sheer lunacy of allowing criminals, violent extremists and unstable individuals to build up large personal arsenals then are then used to commit mass murders.

        The overbearing power of the completely malignant (and Kremlin-backed and funded) National Rifle Association needs to be curtailed.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Despite hysteria, mass shootings aren't a real problem though - they are completely buried by background noise. For USA in 2016:

      * gun deaths due to mass shootings: 71

      * gun deaths due to accidents and war casualties: 1,305

      * gun deaths due to homicides (other than mass shootings): 14,344

      * gun deaths due to suicide: 22,938

      * motoring deaths: 37,806

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year

      Reducing gun ownership might at least reduce "gun deaths due to accidents"

      1. DavCrav Silver badge

        "Despite hysteria, mass shootings aren't a real problem though - they are completely buried by background noise. For USA in 2016:

        * gun deaths due to mass shootings: 71

        * gun deaths due to accidents and war casualties: 1,305

        * gun deaths due to homicides (other than mass shootings): 14,344

        * gun deaths due to suicide: 22,938

        * motoring deaths: 37,806

        Reducing gun ownership might at least reduce "gun deaths due to accidents" "

        All I see from this is that you lot are also shit at driving. And kill yourselves a lot. And murder each other a lot.

        You know, getting rid of guns will reduce the following: mass shootings, accidents, homicides, and suicides. Won't help with your lack of driving ability though. For that I recommend wearing your fucking seatbelt.

        1. sabroni Silver badge

          re: For that I recommend wearing your fucking seatbelt.

          It's my constitutional right to be catapulted through the windscreen!

          1. Allonymous Coward

            Re: re: For that I recommend wearing your fucking seatbelt.

            I thought American cars did the seatbelt thing for you?

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SptbcNjYVtw

            1. hplasm Silver badge
              Coat

              Re: re: For that I recommend wearing your fucking seatbelt.

              "I thought American cars did the seatbelt thing for you?"

              For Freedom, you meed to shoot the seatbelt off first (coz knives are bad...)

        2. xeroks

          @DavCrav I believe the point AC was trying to make is that mass shootings, while horrible, are not the worst effect of high gun ownership.

          To me, reducing the numbers of accidents and successful suicides are the bigger, more obvious targets that are easier to measure.

          Reducing the number of homicides is harder to measure. The NRA have managed to prevent the authorities from recording stats and without past stats, future benefits can only be estimated.

          However we know that one of the key factors influencing the decision to commit a crime is the availability of means. It seems a no brainer that less legal guns= less death by legal guns, and that a large national pool of legal guns is a resource that criminals can comparatively easily exploit to source guns for themselves.

          but you know, personal defence is so important because scare stories.

      2. Danny 2 Silver badge

        @AnonCow

        "Despite hysteria, mass shootings aren't a real problem though - they are completely buried by background noise. For USA in 2016:"

        For a start, that is a distraction fallacy since this story isn't about mass shootings, it is about SWATting.

        Secondly, I challenge the BBC sources for 2016 as inaccurate. The BBC cite the CDC and Mother Jones for 2016 mass shootings without a supporting link. The CDC, while normally highly credible, is specifically banned from researching gun violence. They have no especial authority or credibility in this area, due to legal constraints designed by NRA funded politicians. And Mother Jones is meh.

        The Gun Violence Archive lists 382 reported and verified mass shootings in 2016. Why the discrepancy? Presumably definition. The official definition of mass shootings had recently changed from four or more deaths to three or more deaths. https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

        You'll note that the total number of gun deaths in the US reported by the GVA is far lower than the BBC unlinked CDC/Mother Jones figures. That again will be methodology - the GVA relies on "reported and verified". It is the 'Iraq Body Count' of US gun deaths. The true, higher, figure would require an epidemiological study which the CDC is capable of but legally unable to do.

        Your link also minimises total gun deaths as often suicides. I would argue that gun ownership increases suicides due to it's easy, convenient and often instant attributes, so that is still an argument against gun ownership. Several times I have thought, "Just shoot me / Put a bullet in my head", and if I had a gun to hand then I would have. Other methods are slightly more off putting - the prolonged agony of hanging or even more prolonged slitting of wrists; the pain of gas poisoning; the social distress and risk to others of a traffic death, well, the knowledge of those things gives pause for thought. And even a slight pause for thought can save a life.

        I support voluntary euthanasia as some European nations permit it - after a period of commitment and with drugs rendering the suicide unconscious.

        This level of detail is distraction from the ongoing mass slaughter in the US which is unique in the developed world. It is wrong to call the US a third world or developing country, but you are a fractured nation whose allegiance to a misinterpretation of a poorly worded historic document helps slaughter an amazing amount of yourselves each year.

        There was a tendency in the UK to ignore US suicidal/homicidal stupidity as 'yank on yank violence', and that was a mistake. Your current idiot in chief has inspired the pseudo-fascist Italian government to lower gun controls, and currently Italians can travel to the UK.

        1. Ian Emery Silver badge

          Re: @AnonCow

          FIRST result in entering "CDC gun death 2016" into Google search bar (UK ,as I know Google block some of these results in the US).

          https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

          Please note, no "research" just complied records.

          Also - for the sake of context - more US people die (on average), of gun injuries in any one month, than have died in the ENTIRE Afghanistan debacle; and you are running at over 50% per year, of the US military WW2 mortality rate.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @AnonCow

            "Also - for the sake of context - more US people die (on average), of gun injuries in any one month, than have died in the ENTIRE Afghanistan debacle; and you are running at over 50% per year, of the US military WW2 mortality rate."

            Well yes, compare the population of US people in Afghanistan to US people in the US. Feel free to do the same for WW2. I think if you actually wanted to think, you'll find that the per capita rate nicely illustrates your false equivalence.

            -1 must try harder.

            1. Ian Emery Silver badge

              Re: @AnonCow

              Fewer people die from guns in a war, than in "peaceful" USA and you say "must try harder" ??

              You sir, are a moron, no wonder you are hiding your identity.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: @AnonCow

                Maybe, at least I'm not a liar.

                There have been over 100,000 killed in the Afghanistan debacle and of those about 2,400 were US military and 1,700 US contractors for a total of 4,100 US people. Note that the vast majority of these people were killed by someone else. In one month in the US the average (2017 FBI data) is 915 people killed by someone else with a firearm but you mislead by including suicides. Unfortunately for you, your claim is still bogus when you include suicides which average 1,833 (2015 CDC data) suicides by firearm per month. Last I checked, 1,833 plus 915 was 2,748 making you ignorant and lazy or a liar.

                Also your claim is still false even when including homicides by firearm and all suicides, including the 1,848 per month who opt for other methods of suicide, which brings the average to 3,683 per month.

                Yes, that it is still a large number but the vast majority are suicides and have little bearing on whether a place is "peaceful" or "safe." Well, unless you are saying places like South Korea and Belgium are the most dangerous places in the world because their suicide rates are so high but most would find that preposterous. Oh, I see, suicide is fine as long as they do it the "right" way and don't use a gun.

                You sir, are a liar and an ass.

        2. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: @AnonCow

          There are some very simple and painless ways of committing suicide. Using a gun is fraught with problems and the likely reason it's still up the charts is the publicity. I lost a friend to bottle of Yukon Jack and strong pain meds that was accidental. If a bit of a screw up like that can put out the lights, why risk pain and/or a life going forward as a quadriplegic?

          Terry Pratchett did a show on assisted suicide. When his was diagnosed with Alzheimers, he didn't want to deteriorate to the point where he was a burden on his family and lost his sense of self, so he did a fair amount of looking into methods and countries where it is legal. It's a tough program to watch, but worth it.

    3. Eddy Ito Silver badge

      Focus @anonanonanon, focus! This was the cops who did the shooting. It wasn't a mass shooting and, albeit surprisingly, no puppies were harmed. There's no need for a non-sequitur so you can go off on a rant. I'm sure cops in your 'civilized world' have shot innocent people too although they might have been able to plant the required evidence to make it look like a "good shoot".

  2. Inventor of the Marmite Laser Silver badge

    All that just confirms my opinion that America is a third world country.

    If that wasn't enough, I further opine it is rapidly heading for categorisation as a banana republic.

    1. A.P. Veening

      banana republic?

      It isn't even a republic any more (except in name), no politician is working for the public cause (res publica!).

      1. hplasm Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: banana republic?

        It's an Orange Republic now...

  3. gotes

    Throw the book at him

    .. use a hardcover and aim for the face.

    I see a lot of people discussing US gun laws and trigger happy police officers, but nobody is condemning this piece of shit who has called in 46 bomb hoaxes and (indirectly) got an innocent man killed due to his childish actions.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Throw the book at him

      Actually I think most people are condemning him but curious as to why the police apparently don't bare any responsibility for turning up at someone house, assuming the person walking out was an aggressor and hostage taker and then shooting him when he's unarmed.

      In the UK in that situation he probably wouldn't even have been tazed or slapped with a baton, he would have been cuffed, they'd have checked the house, probably kept him in overnight whilst they carry out enquiries and then he'd be freed whilst they go after the hoax caller.

      In the US an innocent man is dead, the police shrug and the blame is entirely placed on the numpty who made the call. We're not saying numpty should be freed, we're simply perplexed as to why yet again the use of deadly force against unarmed citizens isn't seen as a huge problem.

      1. gotes

        Re: Throw the book at him

        Yes, true. In the UK we had the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, I don't think any police officers were charged in that case either.

        1. Halfmad

          Re: Throw the book at him

          Difference with Jean Charles de Menezes is that there was genuine public outcry about it and the media reported it essentially as a public execution.

          Did this swatting get similar treatment in the US or is it lost amongst the wealth of similar police killings?

          1. Ian Emery Silver badge

            Re: Throw the book at him

            You omitted to add that the Police involved had genuine reasons to suspect he was wearing a suicide vest; that they were on high alert after several suicide bombings, and he RAN when approached.

            I feel for both this relatives and the poor sod who shot him, despite not being a huge fan of the UK police.

            1. John 62

              Re: Throw the book at him

              Suicide bomb threat in London: apprehend suspect and shoot him at point blank range.

              Suicide bomb threat in Jerusalem: apprehend suspect, take off bomb-vest and defuse it, prosecute suspect.

              Not that I'm putting Israeli security practices in general on a pedestal (and there's an incentive in not making people into martyrs), but the difference is striking.

            2. BoldMan

              Re: Throw the book at him

              @Ian Emery

              "You omitted to add that the Police involved had genuine reasons to suspect he was wearing a suicide vest; that they were on high alert after several suicide bombings, and he RAN when approached."

              HE WAS NOT CHALLENGED BY POLICE, HE RAN BECAUSE THE TRAIN WAS IN THE STATION AND HE WANTED TO CATCH IT!!

              It was a case of mistaken identity and in the paranoia of that time no checks were made and they executed him once he was on the tube train. All the suspicious behaviours attitude to him by the police (eg getting off a bus to go into a tube station and then getting on a different bus because the tube station was closed) were later shown to be perfectly reasonable behaviour.

              Try reading the bloody facts before spouting nonsense.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

        2. rg287

          Re: Throw the book at him

          Yes, true. In the UK we had the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, I don't think any police officers were charged in that case either.

          We did, and there was public outcry, the IPCC ripped the Met a new one and the Met Commissioner was prosecuted, though they wasn't enough evidence to convict individual officers (though it was likely "career-limiting" for a number of those involved). The Met formally apologised to the family and there was a 6-figure settlement.

          AFAIK the Wichita police have not yet apologised to the family or formally admitted fault.

          1. MachDiamond Silver badge

            Re: Throw the book at him

            "AFAIK the Wichita police have not yet apologised to the family or formally admitted fault."

            In the US, if they did that, it would be used in court against them. With a pending Civil case, they can't say anything without potentially prejudicing the case.

        3. MonkeyCee Silver badge

          Re: Throw the book at him

          "I don't think any police officers were charged in that case either."

          In part that is because it's not actually clear (I'm happy if anyone can clear this up) who did the shooting. I have my suspicions (based on how the inquest was handled) that at the very least the rooftop spotter (who was having a piss and so falsely identified Menezes as a suspect) was military and not police. The shooters also seemed to be more of a more military bent than your normal firearms officers.

          There was a lot of cover up going on, which worked quite well since most of the bullshit has already been spouted already on this thread. Essentially he was mis-identified, no-one confirmed who he was, he didn't act in any suspicious manner, and they passed up multiple opportunities to intercept him in far less "dangerous" situations. If they genuinely thought he was a suicide bomber, they were perfectly happy having him ride on two fairly crowded busses.

          Hence why the Met eventually copped to "failing to uphold his health and safety" while not giving any cops (or soldiers lent to the cops) a specific portion of the blame.

          But yes, for those who do the "but the UK cops shoot people too" remember that when it comes to counter terrorism, the UK often relies on the army rather than the police for it's pointy sticks, and it's often kept on the down low since there is a bit of unease about using troops to keep order. Well, us lefties find it a bit problematic, small c conservatives do too (government action and all that) whereas the Conservative party is generally of the principle that strikers/trade unionists/Labour voters should be rounded up and shot, pour encourager les autres.

          1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

            Re: Throw the book at him

            As a small 'c' conservative I think strikers, trade union members and Labour voters ( post Corbyn ) should be shot because that's a price worth paying to keep the government from growing even more.

    2. rg287

      Re: Throw the book at him

      I see a lot of people discussing US gun laws and trigger happy police officers, but nobody is condemning this piece of shit who has called in 46 bomb hoaxes and (indirectly) got an innocent man killed due to his childish actions.

      That's already spoken for by virtue of the fact he's been arrested and is going to the clink.

      What we're all confused about is the lack of comeback on the officer who shot a hostage-taker who didn't actually have any hostages. Or a weapon.

      It's nearly as bad as the Police who killed the guy who shot at them from the top of his stairs. But from his point of view, he wasn't shooting at Police. He was shooting at the masked intruders who'd broken down his door in the middle of the night without announcing who they were.

      They were executing a no-knock warrant and had just broken into the wrong house...

      What's that old rule - measure twice cut once?

  4. TVU Silver badge

    "Scumbag who phoned in a Call of Duty 'swatting' that ended in death pleads guilty to dozens of criminal charges. Another pair awaiting trial over slaying of Andrew Finch"

    An entirely innocent person lost his life because the actions of three very immature and unthinking scumbags. Said scumbags will now be experiencing the consequences of their actions which will probably include a very long time in jail which will allow them to reflect on their initial actions.

    Hopefully, the great publicity surrounding this particular trial will serve as a deterrent to any other epsilon semi-morons out there who are considering following their misguided example.

    1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Hopefully, the great publicity surrounding this particular trial will serve as a deterrent to any other epsilon semi-morons out there who are considering following their misguided example.

      We can certainly hope it will deter some, but swatting is common enough that some police departments are taking measures to counteract it (finally), and like any country the US seems to have an inexhaustible supply of morons.1

      Krebs noted that the idiot who (successfully) swatted him got 3 years probation, while some members of the gang that sent heroin to his home and "tipped" police were sentenced on unrelated charges. The sort of people who do this won't be deterred by the thought of probation. And note there have been two other attempts to swat Krebs, and he's just a well-known security researcher.

      I think the real lesson here is: don't play multiplayer online video games. That seems to be the number-one attractant for such morons.

      1Those who are so inclined may recall the relevant Einstein quotation at this point.

  5. Andy Mac

    Hey lock, say goodbye to key, you two might not be seeing each other for a while.

  6. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

    I can't see why these guys aren't being prosecuted for murder

    The guy who called in the SWAT did something deliberately that he knew could cost someone their life. Qualitatively, that's no different to firing a gun into a crowd of people.

    The guy who egged him on and gave a false address also did something he knew could cost someone their life.

    As for the cop who shot the victim; I don't know how it works in the US, but in the UK, there has to be an investigation every time an armed officer fires their weapon.The officer is suspended automatically, whilst the IPCC investigates, even if it is clear-cut that they they acted correctly, such as shooting someone who is rampaging with a knife, in order to disable them.

    Some responsibility also has to lie with the police call operator who took the 911 call, or with the people in charge of their operations. The call came from another state, it should have been easy to verify that it did not come from the alleged perpetrator.

    I know for instance, that if you call the police in the UK on 999, the first thing you get is confirmation of the number you are calling from, because everyone here knows that false polcie reports are a thing. I can't believe that they would not be able todo the same in the US, so there is a systematic failure there somewhere.

  7. adam payne Silver badge

    Barriss will be sentenced on January 30, 2019, while Viner, 18, of Ohio, and Gaskill, 20, of Kansas, are still awaiting trial after denying any wrongdoing.

    How can either denying any wrongdoing?!?

    One deliberately gave out the wrong address and the other dared someone else to place the call like a coward.

    I hope the courts teach these two idiots that there are consequences to your actions.

    1. MonkeyCee Silver badge

      Wrongdoing

      "How can either denying any wrongdoing?!?

      One deliberately gave out the wrong address"

      Well, I can see why Gaskill is claiming this. Not sure how Viner is.

      Viner threatened to SWAT someone, got an address (which he didn't bother to check), then persuaded someone else to make the SWAT call to that address. Can't see any way around it, guy is guilty.

      Now Gaskill is trickier. He was threatened, gave a fake address and said "go on then". Now, I can see how that's not a good thing to do, but is it crossing the line to criminality? Or is it illegal to give a fake address when someone is threatening to to SWAT you?

      So if some nutter came up to you in the street, and told you they were going to sneak into your house and murder you, and then asks you for your address. So you say "10 Downing Street". Now, are you guilty of a) nothing b) being a dick or c) attempted murder?

      1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

        Re: Wrongdoing

        So if some nutter came up to you in the street, and told you they were going to sneak into your house and murder you, and then asks you for your address. So you say "10 Downing Street". Now, are you guilty of a) nothing b) being a dick or c) attempted murder?

        If there's a genuine expectation that the nutter thinks that's where you live (he is a nutter after all) and will murder you, then yes. Especially if you don't immediately report the threat to kill from the nutter to the police.

        With the example you give, you also have to take into account that "the man on the Clapham Omnibus" would know that you won't live at 10 Downing Street, so for this reason, a court would probably exonerate you if the nutter went ahead and killed the PM. I think in this case, there would be a number of bigger questions to answer anyway!

        If you gave a false address where it is not reasonable to expect that the nutter knows it isn't your address, then I think at the very least, you would facee some grilling about why you didn't report the threat.

  8. xeroks

    underlying issue: SWATTers?

    As far as I can see, a significant part of the problem might be that the kind of investigation and prosecution that has been done in this case should be done in all swatter situations.

    Essentially: if you SWAT someone, the authorities should go after you with the same rigour regardless of whether someone died as a result.

    That would help prevent this kind of thing from occurring.

  9. Danny 2 Silver badge

    Fractured

    I noticed one statistic on the most recent Californian mass shooting reportage. California has tighter gun controls than most US states, and only 14% of Californians own a gun. Most of them only own one gun, but 10% of the Californian gun owners own more than ten guns, so 50% of guns in California are owned by 1.4% of Californians.

    When 1.4% of a society owns 50% of the guns then that is a rational reason for enhanced 'stop and search' every time they leave their bunkers / compounds.

    1. imanidiot Silver badge

      Re: Fractured

      There's a similar statistic for almost anything you'll find. Even cars. Some people collect guns. So a person has managed to collect (amongst others) a Mauser pistol of every type ever made, or every known variant of the Luger. Or every full size cartridge service rifle the French military ever adopted. Or a whole slew of antique muzzle loading firearms. That's just 4 examples of collections I know exist. And that's just 4 people with over 30 different firearms each. All of them capable of being fired, none of them actually ever likely to be used because the (historic) value of the arms in question far exceeds their practicality, usability as a firearm and the risk of loss in value if it gets damaged doing so. Collectors of anything tend to skew the average a little. We don't all own 30 cars. But if we look at a 1000 random people and Jay Leno happens to be in the group, you might just come to that conclusion.

      1. Baldrickk Silver badge

        Re: Fractured

        A similar "statistic" is the quite odd one that the average person has less than two arms.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019