5 ms·

I'm still surprised that police would go shooting up a place without even verifying that the situation they are supposed to be handling even exists.

maxxxxx 9y ago
I would really like to see a discussion how different police forces in different countries would handle this. My guess is that German police would first stay outside and look at the situation. I doubt they would go straight in. The American attitude of going straight in seems in line with high speed chases. I think in most countries these would be viewed as too dangerous. Does anybody anything about strategies of different police forces?
- Theodores 9y ago
  It is the strategy of the swatter, not the police to focus on here. In Germany they might be more cautious however there will be situations where they have to proceed immediately. So you could be swatted for drinking a beer in some Arab state (notionally) but not in Germany. Therefore the swatter has to up his game to 'they have lots of cocaine that could be flushed down the loo' or, if that does not work, the threat could be a nuclear bomb dropped on baby's head or something else that takes it up to 'swat level'. This would not be possible if the police were to turn up unarmed, as would be the case in the UK where they would have tasers and body armour. The UK police do make big mistakes with firearms - sometimes politically motivated mistakes to give a bigger impression of terror than there actually is. The Brazilian guy that got shot on the underground was a notorious incident, plus there were the London Riots in 2011, sparked off by a police and guns problem that went wrong. In the UK there are firearms officers only a few minutes away in places like London, most of the police force know as much about guns as they know about Scandinavian poetry. Which is good. If the police need to get the guns out they can, there is no need for every officer to be armed. In many ways it is better, not least because only a small amount of officers have to use guns and they can dedicate the time required to be good at what they do, or the best they can be. Meanwhile, in America where every policeman, woman and dog is armed to the teeth, there is not the same level of specialisation, the whole force have to be trained to some standard that is not likely to be as good as the sharp shooters of London's police. This also applies to equipment, in America the police force needs more guns that Europe's armies need. So are those millions of guns going to be as good as the small handful of guns owned by London's police? Say you wanted to add video recording to every gun, so it recorded black box style, to not miss anything. You could update a few hundred guns with that capability a lot easier than you could if updating a few million guns. It is not hard. In the UK when Tony Blair was around then if you swatted someone as 'al-qaeda' then - if they had the beards right to be stereotyped - then the police would go in guns blazing. The credible threat would be bomb making, but even then it would rely on the fear of those times to be taken credibly. Plus the dark politics of the time. The police in the UK do drugs raids at dawn - or other times of day - where there is no polite entry. You could get someone swatted for that but only if they were known to the police and actually dealing drugs on the premises could you get the full raid. Here there are no guns, they cover the exits to the premises and then use the 'big key' to break down the front door. The goal is to then make sure they can get the drugs before they are hidden/disposed. Guns are not needed for this even though guns definitely exist in the world of class 'A' drugs. The police do have their riot gear on and this is partially bulletproof. Also very heavy so not operationally that convenient. Would an American police officer have the 'bravery' to burst down a house and go in unarmed, i.e. not gun first? There is a thought.
- coolspot 9y ago
  They did stay outside. There is body cam video[777]. Person came out of house and made a lot of hand movements. Got shot. [777] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UKp05HDXCU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UKp05HDXCU
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    That's just nuts. Can't they hide behind their cars or something and watch? Why shoot from such a distance just based on movement? I don't know what I would do if I got woken up at night, a flashlight in my face. With them being so trigger happy you are almost guaranteed to be shot. Imagine your dog or child ran out in this situation. How are you supposed to behave? Stand still and watch them get shot?
jandrese 9y ago
The mentality is that you will die if you let your guard down for even an instant. They have to assume they're facing an armed madman intent on killing the first cop he sees because otherwise that one time they are facing that guy they will die. This is reinforced when the report says that the suspect is an armed madman who just murdered an entire family. What I would like to see is one of the cops running over to a neighbor's house and asking if they heard any gunshots, especially if people are peeking their heads out of their windows and looking confused.
- jasonmaydie 9y ago
  Isn't there supposed to be someone in charge of the situation? What you are describing is a large # of cops showed up and each one took matters in their own hands. What I would expect in a situation like this is some kind of senior officer who directs the operation (whose first responsibility is accessing the situation before even putting his officers in a potentially dangerous situation).
  - jandrese 9y ago
    There is, but waiting for the commander to shout "he's got a gun!" is one of those situations where you would be dead before you heard it. So when something unexpected happens everybody has to make a judgement call, and it only takes one panicky or trigger happy policeman to make a tragedy. There is also a mismatch between tactics designed to deal with a gang controlled house full of methed out hoods being used on a quiet suburban family that was maliciously targeted. In the former there is a reasonable argument that if you give them warning they will attempt to ambush your officers, so the best course of action is to disable them all simultaneously to reduce loss of life. Using it in other situations however leads to cases where infants have their lungs burned out by flashbangs. This is why I suggested maybe asking the neighbors first, especially in areas where criminal activity is unusual.
- rrauenza 9y ago
  I'm going to argue this from both sides -- * From what I understand, the call was ongoing with the caller continuing to make threats. It wasn't a report and hangup (they called him back at the number he left on the non emergency line.) * The cop put himself into a position where the innocent man's actions on the doorstep could be perceived as a threat and hypothetically actually be a threat. Why? Why is the cop in a vulnerable position at that time?

maxxxxx 9y ago

I would really like to see a discussion how different police forces in different countries would handle this. My guess is that German police would first stay outside and look at the situation. I doubt they would go straight in. The American attitude of going straight in seems in line with high speed chases. I think in most countries these would be viewed as too dangerous. Does anybody anything about strategies of different police forces?

Theodores 9y ago
It is the strategy of the swatter, not the police to focus on here. In Germany they might be more cautious however there will be situations where they have to proceed immediately. So you could be swatted for drinking a beer in some Arab state (notionally) but not in Germany. Therefore the swatter has to up his game to 'they have lots of cocaine that could be flushed down the loo' or, if that does not work, the threat could be a nuclear bomb dropped on baby's head or something else that takes it up to 'swat level'. This would not be possible if the police were to turn up unarmed, as would be the case in the UK where they would have tasers and body armour. The UK police do make big mistakes with firearms - sometimes politically motivated mistakes to give a bigger impression of terror than there actually is. The Brazilian guy that got shot on the underground was a notorious incident, plus there were the London Riots in 2011, sparked off by a police and guns problem that went wrong. In the UK there are firearms officers only a few minutes away in places like London, most of the police force know as much about guns as they know about Scandinavian poetry. Which is good. If the police need to get the guns out they can, there is no need for every officer to be armed. In many ways it is better, not least because only a small amount of officers have to use guns and they can dedicate the time required to be good at what they do, or the best they can be. Meanwhile, in America where every policeman, woman and dog is armed to the teeth, there is not the same level of specialisation, the whole force have to be trained to some standard that is not likely to be as good as the sharp shooters of London's police. This also applies to equipment, in America the police force needs more guns that Europe's armies need. So are those millions of guns going to be as good as the small handful of guns owned by London's police? Say you wanted to add video recording to every gun, so it recorded black box style, to not miss anything. You could update a few hundred guns with that capability a lot easier than you could if updating a few million guns. It is not hard. In the UK when Tony Blair was around then if you swatted someone as 'al-qaeda' then - if they had the beards right to be stereotyped - then the police would go in guns blazing. The credible threat would be bomb making, but even then it would rely on the fear of those times to be taken credibly. Plus the dark politics of the time. The police in the UK do drugs raids at dawn - or other times of day - where there is no polite entry. You could get someone swatted for that but only if they were known to the police and actually dealing drugs on the premises could you get the full raid. Here there are no guns, they cover the exits to the premises and then use the 'big key' to break down the front door. The goal is to then make sure they can get the drugs before they are hidden/disposed. Guns are not needed for this even though guns definitely exist in the world of class 'A' drugs. The police do have their riot gear on and this is partially bulletproof. Also very heavy so not operationally that convenient. Would an American police officer have the 'bravery' to burst down a house and go in unarmed, i.e. not gun first? There is a thought.
coolspot 9y ago
They did stay outside. There is body cam video[777]. Person came out of house and made a lot of hand movements. Got shot. [777] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UKp05HDXCU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UKp05HDXCU
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  That's just nuts. Can't they hide behind their cars or something and watch? Why shoot from such a distance just based on movement? I don't know what I would do if I got woken up at night, a flashlight in my face. With them being so trigger happy you are almost guaranteed to be shot. Imagine your dog or child ran out in this situation. How are you supposed to behave? Stand still and watch them get shot?

jandrese 9y ago

The mentality is that you will die if you let your guard down for even an instant. They have to assume they're facing an armed madman intent on killing the first cop he sees because otherwise that one time they are facing that guy they will die. This is reinforced when the report says that the suspect is an armed madman who just murdered an entire family. What I would like to see is one of the cops running over to a neighbor's house and asking if they heard any gunshots, especially if people are peeking their heads out of their windows and looking confused.

jasonmaydie 9y ago
Isn't there supposed to be someone in charge of the situation? What you are describing is a large # of cops showed up and each one took matters in their own hands. What I would expect in a situation like this is some kind of senior officer who directs the operation (whose first responsibility is accessing the situation before even putting his officers in a potentially dangerous situation).
- jandrese 9y ago
  There is, but waiting for the commander to shout "he's got a gun!" is one of those situations where you would be dead before you heard it. So when something unexpected happens everybody has to make a judgement call, and it only takes one panicky or trigger happy policeman to make a tragedy. There is also a mismatch between tactics designed to deal with a gang controlled house full of methed out hoods being used on a quiet suburban family that was maliciously targeted. In the former there is a reasonable argument that if you give them warning they will attempt to ambush your officers, so the best course of action is to disable them all simultaneously to reduce loss of life. Using it in other situations however leads to cases where infants have their lungs burned out by flashbangs. This is why I suggested maybe asking the neighbors first, especially in areas where criminal activity is unusual.
rrauenza 9y ago
I'm going to argue this from both sides -- * From what I understand, the call was ongoing with the caller continuing to make threats. It wasn't a report and hangup (they called him back at the number he left on the non emergency line.) * The cop put himself into a position where the innocent man's actions on the doorstep could be perceived as a threat and hypothetically actually be a threat. Why? Why is the cop in a vulnerable position at that time?