Slashdot Mirror
California Man Sentenced To 20 Years In Deadly Kansas 'Swatting' (fox4kc.com)
slipped_bit writes: Tyler R. Barriss, 26, who pleaded guilty to multiple counts of "swatting" attempts, including the case that caused an innocent man to be killed by police in 2017, has been sentenced to 20 years in prison. The case in 2017 was all because of a dispute between two online players over a $1.50 bet in the "Call of Duty: WWII" video game. A total of 51 federal charges related to fake calls and threats were made against Barriss. "Barriss' prosecution in Wichita consolidated other federal cases that had initially been filed against him in California and the District of Columbia involving similar calls and threats he made," reports FOX 4 Kansas City. "Prosecutors had asked for a 25-year sentence, while the defense had sought a 20-year term."
"The intended target in Wichita, Shane Gaskill, 20, and the man who allegedly recruited Barriss, Casey Viner, 19, of North College Hill, Ohio, are charged as co-conspirators," the report adds. "Authorities say Viner provided Barriss with an address for Gaskill that Gaskill had previously given to Viner. Authorities also say that when Gaskill noticed Barriss was following him on Twitter, he gave Barriss that old address and taunted him to 'try something.'"
"The intended target in Wichita, Shane Gaskill, 20, and the man who allegedly recruited Barriss, Casey Viner, 19, of North College Hill, Ohio, are charged as co-conspirators," the report adds. "Authorities say Viner provided Barriss with an address for Gaskill that Gaskill had previously given to Viner. Authorities also say that when Gaskill noticed Barriss was following him on Twitter, he gave Barriss that old address and taunted him to 'try something.'"
"while the defense had sought a 20-year term."
"Well son you might have been looking at a long stretch, but I managed to get you off with 20 years!"
Instead of pointing the gun at yourself, point it at someone else.
Only a matter of time before it went off and killed someone.
Twenty years seems light considering the number of times he swatted people.
Ars also has an informative story with lots of links. This guy does deserve the sentence he got. If his jail sentence means others will learn not to do horrendous acts that endanger peoples lives then GOOD! No sympathy for this sociopath or psychopath. Don't parents teach kids that video games are not reality?
Considering he actually got someone killed, and his sentence helps send a message to other potential swatters... the minimum amount of fla, err, sentence doesn't seem quite enough.
On the other side of this coin how is it possible after years of swatting action, that it's still really possible to swat anyone? It seems at this point like just a single source call should not be quite enough to trigger such an extreme response, or more recon should be done, or something.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Serves zero time.
The sentence is fair, for the SWAT call was the trigger for the events that eventually lead to the homeowners death. It also shows how additional training for police response would be a good thing to try to handle the losers trying to abuse the system to cause harm to others.
How long did the guy who actually pulled the trigger and sent the deadly bullet get?
Are you serious? If you yell 'fire' in a movie theater and some guy gets trampled by a careless firefighter, it's your damn fault.
“If I could take it back, I would, but there is nothing I can do,” Barriss told the court. “I am so sorry for that.”
Uh, no, you cunt. You showed that you have no remorse throughout the whole ordeal.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
I don't see why Shane Gaskill should be held responsible for somebody else's reckless actions.
I thought the same thing after the story originally broke, and apparently it comes down to Mr. Gaskill not being a good little comrade and contacting the authorities the second he found out shit got real. Okay, that part I can kind of understand. Going to the cops doesn't always have the outcome you're hoping for.
But then it gets weird: Mr. Gaskill actually contacted the guy who "hired" the swatter and told him to destroy any evidence of what had transpired. That's a really strange thing to do for someone whose prank could've very likely gotten you killed if the SWAT team hadn't gone to someone else's house.
It appears the whole lot of 'em are a bunch of deranged fucks, and they all probably deserve varying degrees of time locked away from society.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
No my friend, it's the theaters fault for not making space to get to the exits.
Bullshit! If you yell 'fire' when there is no fire, you created a panic situation that got scared people trampled by people trying to escape. You, as the person who screamed "Fire!" are the cause of any injuries/deaths that happened. You caused the situation. You should be held responsible for your actions.
People still blaming the cops on this one. Get a clue, please. This is the US. Guns outnumber people. It's just a cold, hard fact: US cops have to deal with a population that's swimming in guns, and it's their responsibility to somehow keep the "peace" So they assume that pretty much everyone they encounter is packing, which means they're going to escalate to gunfire very, very quickly in response to anything outside of "normal, quite street scene".
Cops are like this because of the choices we've made as a civilization about guns. We engineered this situation. I'm not making value judgments - just pointing out that the trade-off is absolutely clear. We really, really, really, really want free ownership of guns. But freedom isn't free - the cost is a high murder rate, school shootings and swat events gone bad. And it's obvious to me that we're generally ok with this tradeoff as a group. When gun violence makes the news, 20% of the population wrings their hands, 20% of the population goes out and buys more guns, and 60% shrugs their shoulders. After 72 hours everyone forgets about it. The dead get buried, maybe someone goes to prison, insurance companies write a few checks, more guns go into circulation, and everyone hangs around till the next event. We could have gotten rid of the guns decades ago if we really wanted to.
Oh, and here's a message to any NRA type who comes back with "guns don't cause increased violence" or "guns make schools safer" or any variant of that: shut the f*** up, grow a pair, and admit that your favorite toy comes with a blood price. No, your family is NOT safer cause you have a gun in the nightstand. Yes, school shootings are DEFINITELY linked to easy gun availability. Yes, our sky high murder rate is BECAUSE of guns. For Gods sake, just own up to the price we pay instead of hiding behind something that Charleton Heston spewed in support of a gun industry lobby. You'll get a ton more respect from me.
The swatter orchestrated an incredibly dangerous situation and is the one to blame for this. For what's basically a murder (not first degree) 20 years seems reasonable. He's not in for life, but he'll be in a cage long enough that his testosterone levels will be way lower when he gets out. He probably won't be a threat by then.
But if the fire fighter walks in, doesn't see any fire yet but gets so scared of the potential fire he splits your head with his axe to get you out of the way while trying to run back out the door, he'd also share in the responsibility no? That's the better equivalent to what happened here. No actual danger to the officer, and no action taken that would justify murder.
Dude you don't get to use lethal force against someone just because you're scared but not actually in danger. What is your obsession with allowing police to execute unarmed people who've done absolutely nothing threatening when the cop is far away and behind cover? That's unjustified murder, get a grip. You have to wait until there's an actual threat to kill someone.
It just seems weird to me that the intended target was charged as a co-conspirator. Was it for giving a fake (old) address? Seems a really low bar to co-conspire in something, if you can get charged for misdirection against and evading someone actively trying to cause you harm.
He is going into the Feds, not State.
Even with no time served, he is eligible for about 32 months of Good Conduct Time, so, his projected release will be about 17.5 years out. Since he's under 20 years, he's eligible for Low Security. He is young, though, so he might still wind up designated to a Medium. Depends what the analysts in Texas think of him.
Regardless, even if he goes to a Medium, it's not going to be one of the warrior academies. He would probably go somewhere like Allenwood, Butner, or maybe even Lexington.
I'm not saying it's going to be fun, but it's not going to be Shawshank, either.
Ooh! I just remembered. I think they revamped the Good Time calculation recently. He may serve even less than 17.5 years.
The problem is 'what' training. When you repeatedly tell the officer to shoot if there is fast motion where you can't see both hands, that's what they're going to do. Telling them the same thing more often is not going to make them stop. You have to actually change the thing you're telling them to do.
You're sitting at home watching TV and there's a commotion outside. A loud voice starts demanding that you exit your home. You go open the door to see what is happening.
A bunch of people (cops?). You're surrounded. Bright lights, you're blinded. You're confused.
Let's consider that for a second: YOU ARE CONFUSED.
Next, you make some random movement with your hand (NOT going for a gun - you don't have a gun!) and the next sound you hear is harps, 'cause you're gone.
Why didn't the COPS imagine this? Why isn't part of their training to understand that when you point guns at people and yell at them, some of them get confused? Being confused during a police encounter should not result in a death sentence.
Everyone keeps saying that the swatter is the only one with culpability here. This police force made their SWAT team available for this activity. Don't they have at least as much culpability as someone who leaves a loaded gun where a child can find it and be injured or killed?
It is tough to be right 100% of the time. You're right.
But when you are the guy who is wrong that one time, and you kill some innocent person, and it happens because of your personal judgement (nobody else was shooting, just YOU), you should be held accountable.
I am a convicted felon. I could have died coming out of that last bank, would have been nobody's fault but my own. I get that.
MOST police shootings are justified. I get that. Hell, I subscribe to Donut Operator's channel on YouTube.
When they are not justified, though, we are not served by a justice culture that protects bad shooters.
I would just point out that it WAS a "normal, quite street scene" until the cops showed and executed that guy.
Not much of that in the Feds, especially at lower security levels.
Yes, they do a hard job, and mostly they do it well.
When they do it badly though, as in this case, accountability is critical.
Do you recognize that tense relations between police and community increases danger to the police officers? Then let's also recognize that this greatly increases that tension.
I'd step on you
To see the Who!
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Both of them. A hitman and his client are held in equal culpability for the homicide they commit together; so it should be with this.
Fair point. It doesn't need to be either/or.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."