SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Man Gets 20 Years for Deadly "Swatting" Hoax:
Tyler Barriss has shown little remorse for the death of Andrew Finch.
Tyler Barriss, whose hoax call to Wichita police led to the shooting death of an innocent man, has been sentenced to 20 years in prison, the Associated Press reports. The sentence in Kansas federal court is a stark reminder of the serious consequences of the deadly prank called "swatting."
The December 2017 death of Andrew Finch began with an online feud over a Call of Duty game. Casey Viner, then around 18 years old, allegedly recruited Barriss to "swat" the Wichita home of Shane Gaskill, who was about 19. Barriss called Wichita police pretending to be a deranged man with a gun holding members of his family hostage, giving what he believed was the target's address.
As Barriss expected, the police responded by dispatching a SWAT team. But Gaskill lied to Barriss about where he lived. As a result, police surrounded a home occupied by the Finch family, which had nothing to do with the online dispute.
When 28-year-old Andrew Finch opened his front door, a police officer shot him. The officer later said he saw Finch reaching for his waist and feared he had a gun. In reality, Finch was unarmed.
[...] In April, the incarcerated Barriss briefly gained access to the Internet—and he took the opportunity to demonstrate that he had learned nothing from his time behind bars.
"All right, now who was talking shit?" he tweeted on April 6, 2018. "Your ass is about to get swatted."
[...] Prosecutors decided not to charge the police officer who shot Finch.
With good behavior, he could get something like 30 months off his sentence. Something tells me he might have difficulty with that "good behavior" part.
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Saturday March 30 2019, @08:23PM (7 children)
Fuck that jackass. 20 years in a box (or even 17.5, with good behavior) is a long time. He'll be nearly 50 when he gets out, so his choices have cost him the best portion of his life. Good.
What really kills me is that the intended target (a 19 year-old kid named Gaskill) was charged with wire fraud [wikipedia.org] for lying about his address to someone who was threatening to sent SWAT to his house. WTF?
From TFA:
IANAL, but what this kid did doesn't even come close to wire fraud. But, I guess when you're a US Attorney, everyone looks like a perp. Sigh.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 30 2019, @10:44PM (6 children)
Then maybe avoiding wire fraud should be a required course in high school.
When somebody dies everyone involved ends up carrying some of the weight.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 30 2019, @10:56PM
Except the one who pulled the trigger, right? Naturally, we're completely avoiding the uncomfortable question of why cops are so willing to start shooting without asking questions when we've known for a long time that swatting is a thing and that people can make false reports.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday March 30 2019, @10:58PM (3 children)
Please explain how lying about your address to someone who is threatening to SWAT you fits the definition of wire fraud [cornell.edu]:
By your logic, if some vicious jackass decides to pick a fight with me and ends up hurting/killing someone else, it's my fault?
I don't think so. You're talking out of your ass and it smells that way too.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday March 31 2019, @01:59AM (2 children)
Let me play prosecutor:
Gaskill's scheme was telling the swatter to go for it but defrauded the swatter in the process by using false representations. Gaskill's benefit was not getting shot at (I do have a hard time equating that to fraud, money, or property) which is worth a great deal.
But yeah, wire fraud requires telling a lie for gain -- we don't usually think of "not being shot at" as a "gain" because when all is said and done, you still have what you started with.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Sunday March 31 2019, @03:37AM (1 child)
I see your point. Had Gaskill not given a fake address (apparently, he didn't know the folks at that address at all), he risked having the Swatter find out his real address on his own.
Then again, he could have gone the Elwood route [youtube.com] too.
Either way, although IANAL, it seems like quite a stretch to call it "wire fraud." Then again, when a Federal prosecutor comes after you, the legal fees and potential jail time are often enough to get someone to take a plea deal. Situations like this really elucidate the need to get rid of plea-bargains altogether.
If prosecutors had to *actually try* every case they brought (rather than the 3-5% that don't plead out), they'd be much more selective about which cases they prosecute.
Given that a criminal conviction pretty much destroys your ability to live a normal life, any real criminal justice reforms would include prohibitions on allowing pleas to lesser charges. Face trial for the crime you're charged with or plead guilty to the top count.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday April 01 2019, @12:16AM
Agree. Especially when the plea deal ends up being a far smaller charge (e.g. from Grand Theft Auto to speeding). In those scenarios both parties know that the police have a weak case and just want to end up with a 'win' on the books, but the roll of the dice is just too risky. Do I pay that $200 fine and get on with my life, or do I possibly end up in jail for years and then never be able to work in a white collar job again?
As you say, if the cops had to offer a lesser sentence while still having the guy plead guilty (to GTA in my example), then the chance of it going to court would be way less.
(Score: 2) by pipedwho on Saturday March 30 2019, @11:02PM
Except the guys who stormed in and did the actual killing.