Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California Man Sentenced To 20 Years In Deadly Kansas 'Swatting' (fox4kc.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the time-to-get-what-you-deserve dept.

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.'"

21 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. Ars Technica link... by Iwastheone · · Score: 4, Interesting
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...

    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?

    1. Re:Ars Technica link... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This guy does deserve the sentence he got.

      Perhaps.

      But the cop who pulled the trigger, and murdered the unarmed victim in cold blood perhaps should serve some time as well.

    2. Re:Ars Technica link... by Cederic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if you consider the LEOs had none of the foregone knowledge thaat they were not at a house where a murder had already been committed, the police reaction is much more understandable

      Nope, an unarmed man stood in bright lights on his own porch was murdered. I don't understand why the policeman even fucking shot him, let alone got away with that murder.

    3. Re: Ars Technica link... by Cederic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you don't read what exactly the kid did, you don't have a right to comment. [...] The cop opened the door expecting a shooter about to execute a number of people

      Given that the policeman didn't open the fucking door and did shoot an unarmed man I think it's pretty clear that you don't think you have a right to comment.

      You would rather other people act to protect you and die than you do it yourself because cops are bad in your eye

      How can I put this. I could have done a better job than that policeman, and I'd seriously fucking hope he's never called out to my house because he's demonstrably more likely to fucking kill me than anybody he's allegedly there to protect me from.

      I don't hate the police, I just expect the law to apply to them. Including murder charges when they murder unarmed people standing in the door of their own home.

    4. Re: Ars Technica link... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The cop opened the door expecting a shooter about to execute a number of people

      Nonsense. He was standing on his front porch, unarmed, with his hands visible, and the cop shot him from across the street.

      Go watch the videos on YouTube.

      Or read the description of the shooting.

    5. Re:Ars Technica link... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a civilized society, we are somewhat reluctant to recognize the most uncivilized elements of humankind must be dealt with

      The first step is to make sure we don't give them a badge and a gun.

    6. Re:Ars Technica link... by fafalone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you unaware of the details? The police, in large numbers, had the front of the house surrounded, from a tactical position behind their vehicles. An unarmed individual came out, was not identified, was not given a chance to comply with orders, and fired upon within seconds simply because an officer thought his hands passed too close to his waist. Could have just as easily been a hostage, especially since having hostages answer the door is the typical scenario.
      This was an egregiously terrible shoot. There is zero excuse here, and if you're defending executing someone in these circumstances, you're a disgusting person condoning having absolutely no reasonable restriction on allowing police to execute anyone they encounter. They didn't know if it was a hostage, they didn't know if he was armed, they didn't give him a chance to surrender, he didn't do anything at all-- his hands just passed near his waist he didn't reach for something, and they did it all from a distance behind cover.

      Barriss absolutely deserves the 20 years, but the officer who opened fire deserves life. And fuck whoever would defend one of the worst shoots ever, you're not defending a tough call, you're defending a wholly unjustified murder.

    7. Re:Ars Technica link... by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the most uncivilized elements of humankind must be dealt with

      100% correct. Trigger happy police officers who shoot unarmed people must be dealt with.

      I am merely grateful

      Why are you grateful that the very people who protect you are so fucking trigger happy that they are likely to shoot you when you call for help, even if you're tiny white woman in her bathrobe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Interactions with police are an example of a clash of an unpleasant element of society, but in the USA it is for all the wrong reasons.

    8. Re: Ars Technica link... by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Funny

      The police see the worst of mankind every day.

      And that's only roll call!

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re: Ars Technica link... by zugmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All other arguments aside, I'd like to present two facts and one outcome:
      Cedric has probably never killed anyone.
      Officer Justin Rapp has.
      Because of Rapp's actions, an innocent person Rapp was supposed to be protecting is now dead.
      Is it presumptuous of me to hold the opinion police shooting innocent people is a bad thing?

  2. Why the minimum I wonder by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Why the minimum I wonder by yorgasor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When all you have is a SWAT team, everything looks like a huge drug-lord compound.

      --
      Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
  3. And the one who pulled the trigger... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Serves zero time.

  4. OK, how about the actual shooter? by bmimatt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How long did the guy who actually pulled the trigger and sent the deadly bullet get?

    1. Re:OK, how about the actual shooter? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Go watch the youtube videos.

      It is nothing like what you describe.

      The cops show up. Position themselves across the street in body armor, behind multiple cars, with a dozen guns pointed at the house.

      Then an unarmed guy comes out, hands clearly empty, clearly confused, with a bright searchlight pointed at his face.

      Then a cop murders him in cold blood.

      Even if the call was real, there was absolutely no excuse to just kill the first guy they see. They had no idea if he was the "bad guy" or one of the "hostages".

    2. Re:OK, how about the actual shooter? by Iwastheone · · Score: 4, Informative

      GTA is a fucking made up fantasy video game that immature young adults can be/are influenced by. That's the truth whether you like it or not. Most kids know it's just a b.s. game, this swatter guy did not. An innocent man died because of this.

    3. Re: OK, how about the actual shooter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The cop thought he was going for a gun because he was trained to see any hand motion as going for a gun, and was expecting the victim to go for a gun.

      If you go camping in the woods and are afraid of bears, every shadow looks like a bear and every noise sounds like a bear.

    4. Re:OK, how about the actual shooter? by fafalone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're that fucking panicked from across the street behind your car door that you can't even wait to open fire until the dude at least reaches for something, you have absolutely zero business signing up for a job where you're fucking supposed to be putting your life on the line to protect innocent people, and should absolutely be held accountable for your completely over the top reaction. Police responding to a hostage situation don't get to just open fire on anyone they see for no reason, the hell is the point of even calling them if they're just going to shoot the hostages themselves? Sending a hostage to open the door is what is normally done.
      Even if the info they had was 100% correct this would have still been a straight up murder. Shooting from across the street behind cover the second someone walks out, without him doing absolutely anything to indicate he might be reaching for a weapon even, is completely unacceptable.

    5. Re:OK, how about the actual shooter? by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullshit.

      There was no way the cop could know if it was a hostage at the door or the 'alleged criminal.'
      The likelihood of it being a hostage outweighs any perceived danger a SINGLE person answering the door to a dozen fully armored SWAT officers behind vehicles, ballistic shields and blinding spotlights faced.

      The cops were not in any real danger even if he had walked out with an AR-15 in each hand. We're not talking about a street cop walking up to the door but the civilian equivalent of a military task force that called him out with a bullhorn from across the street.

      This would of been a bad kill in a wartime situation, much less a civilian one.
      He failed rule number one:
      a) Positive identification (PID) is required prior to engagement. PID is a reasonable certainty that the proposed target is a legitimate military target. If no PID, contact your next higher commander for decision.

      Military ROE card:
      https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/11.htm

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
  5. Re:people still blaming cops by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People still blaming the cops on this one. Get a clue, please.

    We have a clue. The police responded to a complete anonymous tip with deadly force and no attempt to even identify what the situation is let alone diffuse it. In any other country the police officer would be in jail. There are levels of escalation and the side with an overwhelming advantage in this one sided confrontation responded with unwarranted deadly force.

    Have you seen the Hateful Eight? "Anybody moves a little weird....little sudden--gonna get a bullet. Not a warning. Not a question; a bullet. Let me hear you say, 'I got it'." See even fucking Quentin Tarantino when writing a bloodbath knows how to communicate a warning.

    The swatter orchestrated an incredibly dangerous situation and is the one to blame for this

    You've boiled a complicated situation escalated by many people down to blaming a single person. You sir are an idiot.

  6. Yes, but... by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.