3 ms·
It seems to me that the fault lies entirely with the state. If it is violently intruding people's homes on the basis of this sort of report - which ends up bein
by jMyles 11y ago
It seems to me that the fault lies entirely with the state. If it is violently intruding people's homes on the basis of this sort of report - which ends up being false - then obviously it needs to change the nature of what evidence can be regarded as sufficient cause to do this.
After all, say-so alone isn't supposed to be sufficient evidence to conduct a search. From the 4th amendment:
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
(emphasis mine)
- onewaystreet 11y agoSWAT is only called in when there is an imminent threat. The problem is that the swatters can make up whatever story they need to. There's no good way for the SWAT team to actually confirm the story without going in.
- jMyles 11y ago> There's no good way for the SWAT team to actually confirm the story without going in. I don't think I agree, especially as communications technology matures. On its face, this "hostage with gun to the head" story needs to be regarded with enormous skepticism, just because of how rare it actually is.
- awalton 11y agoWhen someone says they're robbing a bank, they send in the SWAT team, but the first thing they do is set a perimeter and try to make contact with the people inside. Zero of these incidents that I've read about have tried to make any contact with people inside. They just break down the door and invade the house, guns drawn, smoke grenades in cribs, whatever it takes to make entry. I have no idea why it isn't protocol to have a hostage negotiator ring the house, given that's how they'd respond to several other classes of incident, but my guess is that's what happens when you pay for BearCats and bullet-resist vests instead of councilors and negotiators.
- 67726e 11y ago> Zero of these incidents that I've read about have tried to make any contact with people inside I got swatted a year ago and they setup a perimeter outside, really just eight officers with assault rifles aimed at the front door, and had one knock and yell that it was the police and that I needed to come out immediately. Granted in my case the caller said I had heavy weapons and was planning some kind of mass killing rather than the classic hostage situation so maybe they took a different approach?
- onewaystreet 11y agoBank robberies and hostage situations are not imminent threats. Remember, a swatter can make up any story they want. The kind of stories they make up are more along the lines of: A guy is massacring people. With the multiple mass shootings in recent years and now the terrorist attack in Paris, this gets taken seriously.
- fenomas 11y agoThere's no reason SWAT teams couldn't follow one set of procedures until there's secondary confirmation of a threat, and a different set of procedures from then on. Come to that, it seems crazy not to.
- joshuaheard 11y agoExigency is considered an exception to the 4th Amendment requirement of a warrant. So, for instance, someone calls in a hostage situation, or someone shooting with a gun.
- jMyles 11y agoMy point is: if it's so easy to create fake exigency via a phone call, then we can't really consider a phone call, in the absence of any other evidence, sufficiently exigent to warrant such an exception.
- cinquemb 11y agoIn the age of metadata driven drone strikes on US citizens abroad enabled with redefinition of laws in secret courts with secret rules, a phone call seems sufficient.