4 ms·

While SWAT should respond, shouldn't they cordon off the area and try to make contact? Actually going inside seems like it should be the last resort, after ther

While SWAT should respond, shouldn't they cordon off the area and try to make contact? Actually going inside seems like it should be the last resort, after there is no response or there is observable probable cause or imminent threat. Especially if the call is anonymous with few concrete details -- the police should consider why does this caller know the info they know? Why is the call anonymous or otherwise untraceable? How many times have lives been saved by SWAT entering after a call like this vs an innocent person getting injured or killed? How many anonymous, untraceable calls to 911 have even turned out to be legitimate?

DrScump 9y ago
Actually going inside seems like it should be the last resort and they did not go inside to shoot the victim.
danenania 9y ago
It definitely seems like some simple heuristics could help a lot in giving police a sense of the probability that it's a false alarm. They will of course still need to assess the situation, but systemic police accountability issues aside, harming completely innocent people is still no picnic for the officers involved, so knowing when the fraud likelihood is particularly high should help them calm down and take a more measured approach. Apart from call tracing, I'd expect simple things like whether the caller stays on the line and cooperates with the dispatcher (vs hanging up immediately) to be quite predictive.
- fleitz 9y ago
  Or like getting their name and address so they can verify in person?
pps43 9y ago
Not in the active shooter scenario. The standard approach now is to not even wait for SWAT, but to go in as soon as at least two officers are on the scene. The rationale is that active shooters usually stop killing people as soon as they get any kind of resistance, so timing is very important. Of course "going in" does not mean shooting indiscriminately.
- DrScump 9y ago
  "Active shooter" scenarios usually only apply to areas with more than a few potential victims, e.g. not a single household.

DrScump 9y ago

Actually going inside seems like it should be the last resort and they did not go inside to shoot the victim.

danenania 9y ago

It definitely seems like some simple heuristics could help a lot in giving police a sense of the probability that it's a false alarm. They will of course still need to assess the situation, but systemic police accountability issues aside, harming completely innocent people is still no picnic for the officers involved, so knowing when the fraud likelihood is particularly high should help them calm down and take a more measured approach. Apart from call tracing, I'd expect simple things like whether the caller stays on the line and cooperates with the dispatcher (vs hanging up immediately) to be quite predictive.

fleitz 9y ago
Or like getting their name and address so they can verify in person?

pps43 9y ago

Not in the active shooter scenario. The standard approach now is to not even wait for SWAT, but to go in as soon as at least two officers are on the scene. The rationale is that active shooters usually stop killing people as soon as they get any kind of resistance, so timing is very important. Of course "going in" does not mean shooting indiscriminately.

DrScump 9y ago
"Active shooter" scenarios usually only apply to areas with more than a few potential victims, e.g. not a single household.