California Man Sentenced To 20 Years In Deadly Kansas 'Swatting' (fox4kc.com) 232
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.'"
Whoa! Classy Lawyer. (Score:1)
"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!"
Re: Whoa! Classy Lawyer. (Score:1)
Kid is lucky he isn't spending 60 years in jail as he should be. This is about paying for a crime. He shouldn't even have a chance of seeing the light of day of freedom for 60 years. He got off light and lucky. The justice system failed the public.
Re: (Score:1)
s/Kid/Cop/
Re: Whoa! Classy Lawyer. (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair point. It doesn't need to be either/or.
Reverse Russian Roulette (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ars Technica link... (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.
Re:Ars Technica link... (Score:4, Insightful)
Absolutely. For some reason, it seems he's getting off without so much as a reprimand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Ars Technica link... (Score:1)
If you don't read what exactly the kid did, you don't have a right to comment. He specifically tagetted the officers on the scene and stayed on the phone escalating what he was telling them that was going on inside a room the cops had no eyes on.
The cop opened the door expecting a shooter about to execute a number of people and rigged up to a bomb that would go off after he completed his task. He should never have been put in that position. It was a killer's approach to get someone else to kill another pers
Re: Ars Technica link... (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.
Re: Ars Technica link... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: Ars Technica link... (Score:5, 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 [wikipedia.org].
Re: Ars Technica link... (Score:3)
Not the OP, but as a veteran who was willing to die to protect other people, fuck yes thatâ(TM)s what I want and expect from LE. Donâ(TM)t like it, get another job.
Re:Ars Technica link... (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.
Re: (Score:3)
If I recall correctly the situation was even more absurd.
The police on the scene had everything under control. A further police car arrived, an officer left it and shot the guy instantly from a quite big distance (something like 30yards).
Re: Ars Technica link... (Score:1)
You don't recall it correctly. The officer was positioned at a distance, providing overwatch, well before the suspect exited the building.
Re: (Score:2)
They should have called in an airstrike just to be sure.
Is there a bomber variant of the 737-MAX?
Re:Ars Technica link... (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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There's two problems here. First the people who decide who gets a badge and gun also think it's OK for law enforcement officers to shoot people for any reason, not the least of which being that they were frightened. So no one in law enforcement is doing the right thing from top to bottom. Second problem is a lot of people in the USA, never having been in an interaction with the police, can't empathize with victims of police manslaughter and agree that it's perfectly OK for them to gun people down because
Re: Ars Technica link... (Score:1)
You are wrong.
The police see the worst of mankind every day. Even the best hires, even those you pick yourself, cannot be prepared to experience the most rotten parts of our society day after day. Stories the news papers and television media think are too graphic to report on are seen first hand by these people.
And you have the audacity to think they shoot at the slightest fear for no reason.
How about this scenario. They pulled up to a house where a horrific murder just took place and two hostages are tied
Re: Ars Technica link... (Score:5, Funny)
And that's only roll call!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ars Technica link... (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/... [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re: (Score:3)
If you can do better, have you signed up for police work yet?
The current tense climate will only improve when people who can do better do, or come to understand why they and others can't.
Re: (Score:2)
Understanding better doesn't stop them shooting people in their own homes.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's been some misunderstanding. "They" in my statement is the person who finds in practice they actually cannot do better than the existing law enforcement system.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt I'll ever get the opportunity to test that. It's not my specialty.
Re: Ars Technica link... (Score:1, Troll)
very people who protect you are so fucking trigger happy that they are likely to shoot you when you call for help
The fact that you're ignorant enough to refer to a one-in-many-million occurrence as "likely" - and that multiple jackasses found your statement "insightful" - is a sad commentary on the Slashdot crowd. Apparently today's geeks don't actually understand this whole math thing.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that you're ignorant enough to refer to a one-in-many-million occurrence as "likely"...
Given that we hear about several deaths caused by SWAT invasions each year, either your anally-produced numbers are wildly incorrect or there are millions and millions of SWAT raids per year.
The fact is an innocent person was killed. By the very people who were supposed to be protecting said person. How many accidental and completely preventable murders / killings / accidental executions * of innocent people would be an acceptable number, in your opinion?
*It's hard to neutrally term the act of intentional
Re: Ars Technica link... (Score:2)
Given that we hear about several deaths caused by SWAT invasions each year, either your anally-produced numbers are wildly incorrect or there are millions and millions of SWAT raids per year.
This wasn't SWAT; it was regular cops. Obviously you just hear what you want to hear.
The fact is an innocent person was killed. By the very people who were supposed to be protecting said person.
Yes, it's tragic. About as tragic as when a patient dies on the operating table, or overdoses on perception medication. Shall we start locking up doctors who make an incorrect decision?
How many accidental and completely preventable murders / killings / accidental executions * of innocent people would be an acceptable number, in your opinion?
I'm perfectly fine with the current numbers. How many would be acceptable in your opinion?
*It's hard to neutrally term the act of intentionally discharging a firearm into someone causing them to die, isn't it?
Only if you're incompetent; the neutral term is "killing".
Re: Ars Technica link... (Score:1)
You seriously don't see the control angle of what is happening?
I was considering responding to the rest of your comment, but this Alex Jones nuttery spoiled the whole thing. It takes a special kind of turd to see the botched handling of a hostage situation as an example of "control".
A hard job (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Ars Technica link... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Police knock on the wrong doors and addresses all the time too, they have to accept there's a chance the call is fake or they are at the wrong house.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wondering if you meant to type what you typed there. You can always create a hypothetical where the police didn't know not something.
Let's hope that if they ever ring your doorbell they know that you are not holding an atom bomb detonator disguised as a TV remote. Because by your own "logic" if they aren't sure they should shoot you just in case.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wondering if you meant to type what you typed there. You can always create a hypothetical where the police didn't know not something.
Let's hope that if they ever ring your doorbell they know that you are not holding an atom bomb detonator disguised as a TV remote. Because by your own "logic" if they aren't sure they should shoot you just in case.
Sometimes I have Posting Tourette's, where I can't help but represent an alternative, underrepresented, opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
I do that sometimes, but I usually include a bit of a hint that I'm being sarcastic.
exactly (Score:1)
Re:Ars Technica link... (Score:4, Funny)
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!
They'd better keep a close eye on him when he's making his weekly phone call.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's totally unfair.
You left out "while outnumbering the suspect by 20 to 1".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH doesn't it make sense to figure out what's actually going on before you start shooting people?
Yeah stress / split second decisions and all that, but this is not the first (or 50th) time police have killed the people they were supposed to be protecting.
Re: Ars Technica link... (Score:2)
Yes. Before video games, noone ever commited stupid and/or violent crime.
Why the minimum I wonder (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, and the trigger-happy cop who killed the innocent man does not serve jail time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Police want to have an excuse to use all that cool SWAT gear.
Re:Why the minimum I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
When all you have is a SWAT team, everything looks like a huge drug-lord compound.
Re: (Score:2)
"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?"
Maybe because when something like this happens, it is the stupid kid the one that gets 20 years in prison instead of the cop that out of any real need pulled the trigger.
And the one who pulled the trigger... (Score:5, Interesting)
Serves zero time.
Not too much is going to happen to him in prison (Score:2)
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 mayb
Sentence fair, additional training appropriate (Score:1)
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.
Re: Sentence fair, additional training appropriate (Score:1)
Swatting is a sport in the US. They train you from a very young age and it's going on all over the place. Collateral damage is not a concern in the United States
The problem is not 'how much' training. (Score:2)
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.
OK, how about the actual shooter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
DA did not press charges.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:OK, how about the actual shooter? (Score:5, 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".
Re: OK, how about the actual shooter? (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.
Re: (Score:2)
And the office didn't open fire immediately after the man came out, but only after the man came out with his hands up, then turned, lowed his arms and with one hand made a motion to his waist. The cop thought that he was going for a gun that was shooter reported in the police call possessed.
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.
Except you're not going to any random place "in the woods", you're going to where a rabid bear allegedly just mauled a bunch of victims. That will strongly screw your perception that everything is the bear until proven otherwise. I mean the guy who calls into 911 with that story is a nutter, he could very well be coming out onto that porch to die in suicide-by-cop because that's why he called them over. Doesn't matter that he's surrounded by a ton of cops in full tactical gear, out in the open, blinded by a
Yes, but... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
I frequently go camping in the woods, I am terrified of snakes and I agree with your general statement. I will frequently carry a machete for the purpose of separating snakes from their lives. The thing is, I don't go wildly swinging every time I see a branch, twig or something in my peripheral vision move. I stop, quickly but safely move away from the thing that could be a snake and tr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait. So not only did the incompetent cop fail to ascertain if the man was a hostage or the shooter and was a threat, he missed. His bullet could have gone anywhere. He needs to be fired at the very least.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:OK, how about the actual shooter? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine that you are one of the police officers responding to this unknown
In many civilised countries the police officer wouldn't even be armed, sure as fuck not for some anonymous call.
YOU imagine (Score:2)
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 i
Re: (Score:1)
Re:OK, how about the actual shooter? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Remorse (Score:4, Insightful)
“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.
Re: Remorse (Score:1)
Indeed. That shitbag even snuck online in the jail and bragged about getting away with it, and that he'd do it again. 20 years is too good for him. I vote for a rail gun human cannonball launch into LEO. You get electrocution, vacuum death, and a nice meteor burning up at the end. Now that's Monday night rehabilitation!
people still blaming cops (Score:1, Insightful)
Cops are like this because of the choices we've made
Re:people still blaming cops (Score:5, 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.
"normal, quite street scene" (Score:2)
I would just point out that it WAS a "normal, quite street scene" until the cops showed and executed that guy.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see how someone who has watched TV news their entire life, and never met anyone who owns a gun, might form the opinion that you have. The trade-off that you suppose does not exist: there is something else going on that I think most non-gun-owners just don't see. Let me try to help you bridge the gun culture gap that I see in America.
I live in a suburb about 20 minutes outside of one of the most dangerous cities in America. When I moved here, I didn't realize how many people nearby me have guns. A
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a gun culture, more like a gun fetishism. And I say that as a former firearm owner.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF are you talking about? I simply sold my rifle a decade ago when I got bored with shooting at cardboard targets. As a bonus I don't need to own a metal cabinet anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Your are wrong.
Your "mile per mile"-claim obviously is false when comparing to very sparsely populated countries, such as Greenland (nearly the same rate of homicides per capita as the US, but very sparsely populated).
And per capita it is well known to be false, as European countries have far lower rates. Including those with far lower gun ownership rates than the US, such as Germany (about one fifth the homicide rate of the US), and those with gun ownership rates higher than the US, such as Switzerland (ab
Re:people still blaming cops (Score:4, Informative)
Gun ownership in Switzerland is higher "on paper only". First of all they have strict rules for carrying a weapon. Secondly the guns/rifles are in possession of members of the militia. Weapon and ammunition is locked away in different lockers, ammunition amount is minimal. In case of mobilization they gather at assigned points with their base equipment they have at home, and specialists who bring transportation and orders bring the extra ammunition.
Perhaps one from Switzerland can comment more precisely how it exactly works.
Re: (Score:1)
The rules for carrying a weapon in Switzerland are simple enough (I'm a Swiss citizen living in Switzerland and a retired NCO): you can carry your weapon to competition or out-of-service (mandatory if you're in active service) shooting events unloaded, ammunition is provided on site. When you retire from active service you may keep your service weapon if you have a good service status and have attended enough mandatory out of service exercise, then your rifle is converted to semiauto-only. At home you can k
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like their militia is pretty well regulated.
Charging the target (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Or the address of the local jail.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Depends on what glasses you put on. From the victim's point of view he's effectively the mastermind who used Barriss as his stooge to send the cops as hit men. He goaded and taunted Barriss into doing it, that he pretended to bring the harm on himself only makes him more liable as the one pulling the strings.
Let's try an analogy: You've been sleeping with the wife/daughter of dangerous/violent criminal, but they don't know who you are. You taunt them with intimate details about her body/bedroom and they thr
Proceute the Police, Too. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd step on you
To see the Who!
Re: (Score:2)
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 someon
involuntary cornhole activity (Score:2, Troll)
Not much of that in the Feds, especially at lower security levels.
Re: (Score:1)
Memoirs from people like Michael Santos agree.
The key thing about lower security is that everybody there knows that if they get in a fight, they'll immediately be transferred to a place where it's harder to get contraband and movement is controlled so you can't just go into a vacant classroom and cry like you can in a minimum security camp. It really does keep things peaceable.
When you go to prison (Score:1)
You learn that all of that stupid bullshit about prisons you saw in movies is not real.