California man sentenced to 20 years in fatal ‘swatting’ | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World

California man sentenced to 20 years in fatal ‘swatting’

Associated Press
952491_web1_952491-a0f1a123155c4b4482246875acb9e2c2
AP
In this May 22, 2018, file photo, Tyler Barriss, of California, appears for a preliminary hearing in Wichita, Kan. Barriss, who pleaded guilty to 51 charges related to fake emergency calls and threats will be sentenced in federal court in Wichita, Friday, March 29, 2019, and could face decades in prison. His case drew national attention to the practice of “swatting,” a form of retaliation in which gamers get police to go to an online opponent’s address. One hoax emergency call by Barris led police to fatally shoot a Kansas man.

WICHITA, Kan. — A California man was sentenced Friday to 20 years in prison for making bogus emergency calls to authorities across the U.S., including one that led police to fatally shoot a Kansas man following a dispute between two online players over $1.50 bet in the “Call of Duty: WWII” video game.

U.S. District Judge Eric Melgren sentenced Tyler R. Barriss, 26, under a deal in which he pleaded guilty in November to a total of 51 federal charges related to fake calls and threats.

The 2017 death of 28-year-old Andrew Finch drew national attention to the practice of “swatting,” a form of retaliation in which someone reports a false emergency to get authorities, particularly a SWAT team, to descend on an address. Authorities say an Ohio gamer recruited Barriss to “swat” a Wichita gamer, but that the address they used was old, leading police to Finch, who was not involved in the video game or the dispute.

Barriss admitted he called Wichita police from Los Angeles on Dec. 28, 2017, to falsely report a shooting and kidnapping at that Wichita address. Finch answered the door, and an officer shot the unarmed man.

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. Prosecutors had asked for a 25-year sentence , while the defense had sought a 20-year term.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation recognized swatting as an emerging threat as early as 2008, noting it had become commonplace among gamers.

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. 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.”

Viner and Gaskill pleaded not guilty to charges including conspiracy to obstruct justice, wire fraud and other counts. Viner has notified the court he intends to change that plea at a hearing scheduled for Wednesday. Gaskill’s trial has been delayed to April 23 amid plea talks with federal prosecutors.

Finch’s family has sued the city of Wichita and the unidentified officers involved. Police have said the officer who shot Finch thought he was reaching for a gun because he moved a hand toward his waistband. Prosecutors declined to charge the officer.

Categories: News | World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.