4 ms·

A few examples suggesting that SWAT protocol may altogether need reform: 1. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/swat-team-throws-flashbangs-raids-wrong-

by eth0up 10y ago

A few examples suggesting that SWAT protocol may altogether need reform: 1. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/swat-team-throws-flashbangs-raids-wrong-home-due-to-open-wifi-network/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/swat-team-throws-... 2. https://www.salon.com/2013/08/29/11_over_the_top_u_s_police_raids_that_victimized_innocents/ https://www.salon.com/2013/08/29/11_over_the_top_u_s_police_... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting 4. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150805/19343431865/no-immunity-cops-who-sent-swat-team-to-68-year-old-womans-house-threats-delivered-over-open-wifi-connection.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150805/19343431865/no-im... I'll refrain from posting dozens more supporting links.

Pxtl 10y ago
Here's the problem: what do you do when somebody has managed to describe, over the phone, a convincing scenario that demands an immediate and severe response. Like "people are dying in that room right now and will continue to die if nobody stops them". Fundamentally, there is no good answer to that. Both options can result in lives lost. One is an active shooter being allowed to continue killing freely, the other is sending police officers ready to deal and face lethal force. Obviously no-knock raids on suspected drug-dealers are a different matter - those are unacceptable by any sane metric. But you include swatting in your list. Swatting generally involves a violent emergency where delaying for verification would cost lives. For that case, all I think we can do is treat the swatters as people committing aggravated kidnapping or even attempted murder. They're attempting to send men to detain somebody at gunpoint.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The rational thing might be to let the people in the room die. It depends on how many outwardly hidden death rooms there really are and how often the existence of these rooms is revealed by anonymous phone calls. You don't need much of a ratio there for urgent action against false calls to create more harm than the hidden death rooms. And it doesn't have to be a binary choice; upon receiving notification of a hidden death room, the police could choose to investigate cautiously rather than escalating to extreme force. This will likely still have the effect of reducing the number of hidden death rooms without much risk of shooting innocent people in a raid.
- eth0up 10y ago
  I don't have sure answers to your question, but I can speculate. The response time between the report and arrival of LE is not instant, implying an inevitable delay. This might be reason to not necessarily rush in too quickly, i.e. the situation may have changed. In such an immediate scenario as you've proposed, there is definitely a maximum priority, and multiple factors to consider, e.g. hostages?; number of victims/assailants; style and material of attack; reliability of report and probably much more. I'll admit that I am not qualified to evaluate this variety of scenario. However, from what I've observed, most botched SWAT raids don't involve such a critical priority - and that is a problem. Oddly, there was, by some standards, a highly dubious delay in the SWAT response to the Orlando Pulse event, where things may or may not have ended very differently. I wholly concur that a much greater burden of responsibility is needed. In so many situations, there is no substantial accountability and either someone's life or dignity is lost for no legitimate reason. Not good for citizen morale.
- eric_h 10y ago
  > For that case, all I think we can do is treat the swatters as people committing aggravated kidnapping or even attempted murder. Absolutely. In fact - if swatting results in the death of a person, then the swatter should be charged with first degree murder. The problem, however, is that the swatters are not always in the US, so even identifying the swatter can be quite difficult; let alone extraditing them. Thus, the swat teams also need to, in one way or another, tone down their violent, no-knock raids.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    If I told an easily-angered person that her spouse had intimate relations with someone I didn't like, could I be charged with the resulting murder? Why don't the police have agency?
    - Pxtl 10y ago
      Intent matters. The intent was to send a group of dangerous and heavily armed men in to detain an innocent person. That's aggravated kidnapping. In common law, if somebody is killed in the commission of a violent felony even if the death was unplanned, it's "felony murder". In most of the USA, "felony murder" is first-degree murder.
- abysmallyideal 10y ago
  Swat teams, police, secret service, etc tend to degenerate as just enforcers of the rich and powerful. The following one was highly suspicious and looked like a hit done by a swat team covered as a 'mistake'. The US has a several hundred billion dollar revenue generating illicit drugs market, and that doesn't happen without alot of involvement from US agencies. http://abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-swat-team-defends-shooting-iraq-marine-veteran/story?id=13640112 http://abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-swat-team-defends-shooting-i...

by eth0up 10y ago

Pxtl 10y ago

Here's the problem: what do you do when somebody has managed to describe, over the phone, a convincing scenario that demands an immediate and severe response. Like "people are dying in that room right now and will continue to die if nobody stops them". Fundamentally, there is no good answer to that. Both options can result in lives lost. One is an active shooter being allowed to continue killing freely, the other is sending police officers ready to deal and face lethal force. Obviously no-knock raids on suspected drug-dealers are a different matter - those are unacceptable by any sane metric. But you include swatting in your list. Swatting generally involves a violent emergency where delaying for verification would cost lives. For that case, all I think we can do is treat the swatters as people committing aggravated kidnapping or even attempted murder. They're attempting to send men to detain somebody at gunpoint.

maxerickson 10y ago
The rational thing might be to let the people in the room die. It depends on how many outwardly hidden death rooms there really are and how often the existence of these rooms is revealed by anonymous phone calls. You don't need much of a ratio there for urgent action against false calls to create more harm than the hidden death rooms. And it doesn't have to be a binary choice; upon receiving notification of a hidden death room, the police could choose to investigate cautiously rather than escalating to extreme force. This will likely still have the effect of reducing the number of hidden death rooms without much risk of shooting innocent people in a raid.
eth0up 10y ago
I don't have sure answers to your question, but I can speculate. The response time between the report and arrival of LE is not instant, implying an inevitable delay. This might be reason to not necessarily rush in too quickly, i.e. the situation may have changed. In such an immediate scenario as you've proposed, there is definitely a maximum priority, and multiple factors to consider, e.g. hostages?; number of victims/assailants; style and material of attack; reliability of report and probably much more. I'll admit that I am not qualified to evaluate this variety of scenario. However, from what I've observed, most botched SWAT raids don't involve such a critical priority - and that is a problem. Oddly, there was, by some standards, a highly dubious delay in the SWAT response to the Orlando Pulse event, where things may or may not have ended very differently. I wholly concur that a much greater burden of responsibility is needed. In so many situations, there is no substantial accountability and either someone's life or dignity is lost for no legitimate reason. Not good for citizen morale.
eric_h 10y ago
> For that case, all I think we can do is treat the swatters as people committing aggravated kidnapping or even attempted murder. Absolutely. In fact - if swatting results in the death of a person, then the swatter should be charged with first degree murder. The problem, however, is that the swatters are not always in the US, so even identifying the swatter can be quite difficult; let alone extraditing them. Thus, the swat teams also need to, in one way or another, tone down their violent, no-knock raids.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  If I told an easily-angered person that her spouse had intimate relations with someone I didn't like, could I be charged with the resulting murder? Why don't the police have agency?
  - Pxtl 10y ago
    Intent matters. The intent was to send a group of dangerous and heavily armed men in to detain an innocent person. That's aggravated kidnapping. In common law, if somebody is killed in the commission of a violent felony even if the death was unplanned, it's "felony murder". In most of the USA, "felony murder" is first-degree murder.
abysmallyideal 10y ago
Swat teams, police, secret service, etc tend to degenerate as just enforcers of the rich and powerful. The following one was highly suspicious and looked like a hit done by a swat team covered as a 'mistake'. The US has a several hundred billion dollar revenue generating illicit drugs market, and that doesn't happen without alot of involvement from US agencies. http://abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-swat-team-defends-shooting-iraq-marine-veteran/story?id=13640112 http://abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-swat-team-defends-shooting-i...