6 ms·

So... why don't we fix the problem at its source by trying to better assess the reliability of a lone phone call before barging in guns blazing as though it was

by Reelin 8y ago

So... why don't we fix the problem at its source by trying to better assess the reliability of a lone phone call before barging in guns blazing as though it was a war zone? Before: "We got a single phone call guys, this is bulletproof. No need to actually assess the situation or anything, no one would ever lie to us - we're the authorities after all." Now: "Not in the database - looks like we're good to shoot on sight!" Obviously I exaggerate, and hopefully things don't usually proceed the way they did in Kansas (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/us/gamers-swatting-charges.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/us/gamers-swatting-charge...). But I really have to wonder about the reasoning here. In all seriousness, which of the below is a more frequent occurrence? * A hostage (or similar) situation deserving of this sort of response, but with no externally visible indications - just a single phone call. * "Prank" calls of this sort. I don't actually know the answer, but I strongly suspect the latter by a very large margin.

a_t48 8y ago
This has to be balanced by the need for fast responses when there is an actual real emergency. Heads will roll if the authorities come slowly or not at all for a real hostage situation.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  In a real hostage situation you won't just rush in with full force. Most of the times the situation gets resolved with long negotiations wearing the hostage taker down.
- vosper 8y ago
  I don't think the best outcomes for hostage situations are quick responses by heavily armed assault teams? I'm pretty sure the playbook is something like surrounding and controlling the area, establishing communications, and trying to work out a peaceful outcome. Whilst planning for an alternative option.
  - mrhappyunhappy 8y ago
    I am pretty sure thing are the way they are for a good reason that you and I have no insight to. Otherwise they wouldn’t be this way. Cops are not stupid and neither are the people running those teams. I doubt it gives them any pleasure responding to potentially deadly situations and putting their own lives at risk. Cops have families too. Perhaps we need to ask someone who knows better instead of speculating.
    - adamsea 8y ago
      There are stupid people in all walks of life. Or, people who do things because that’s how they’ve been done and they don’t want to rock the boat and that’s what their paycheck depends on.
      - mrhappyunhappy 8y ago
        Of course, but a fact does not make the opposit case.
    - samontar 8y ago
      Turns out some times the authorities are morons, dude. Once upon a time we dumped radioactive material off the coast of SF and shot holes in the barrels to make them sink. I’m sure there was someone running around saying “there’s probably a good reason”. That dude would have been wrong.
      - mrhappyunhappy 8y ago
        I wouldn’t disagree with your first statement but HN tends to skew to a bunch of I’m a know it all attitudes. I’m just saying, things are not always as simple as they appear and while you can have an opinion on the matter does not make you authority on the subject. I forget the term for this concept but the news is always wrong depending on who is reading it.
        iamnothere 8y ago
- village-idiot 8y ago
  Overly quick armed response usually has more downside than upside. If it's a swatting, you might end up killing innocent civilians. If it's an actual hostage situation, you can trigger a violent end to the confrontation when a negotiator might have sufficed.
- flukus 8y ago
  They can respond quickly without charging in like action hero wannabes. In that article the police are simply murderers, no one should get shot opening the front door.
- anon08142018 8y ago
  Actually the problem is that if they show up and shoot someone, heads won't roll due to the excuse that "Well it could have been a real emergency so we came in shooting just in case." How many incidents have their been in recent years where the cops acted too slowly and cautiously vs incidents where someone innocent died or was injured because they came in guns blazing?
maxxxxx 8y ago
When I read stories like the one you linked I wonder how a normal person won't get shot because they make some weird movement. Having a bunch of armed guys yell at you is a pretty stressful situation and a lot of people simply will not comprehend what's going on and not "comply" in some way. Sometimes I wonder if cops have watched too many action movies and try to emulate these movies. How about first waiting and assess the situation? Why that rush and aggressiveness?
- artificial 8y ago
  There are rules of engagement that are stricter in a war zone. Also one of the incentives is the pay increases when geared up.
  - gammateam 8y ago
    The Federal Government is more humane than the independent states' well armed militias. The Federal Government exists in a cohesive world that requires cooperation. The States are exempt from that, exempt from actual challenges to their sovereignty because the Federal Government will protect them, and they are also exempt from oversight from the Federal Government as long as they pass their own laws to justify their egregious behavior.
    - craftyguy 8y ago
      > The Federal Government is more humane than the independent states' well armed militias. Only if you somehow manage to ignore everything the federal government is doing internationally (15 & 17yr wars [with no end], ignoring ethnic cleansing in Myanmar, etc). > and they are also exempt from oversight from the Federal Government That's not true at all. For a very recent (today) example: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-net-neutrality-lawsuit-against-state-california-0 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-net-...
      - gammateam 8y ago
        I was very particular with my words. The outcome may not be agreeable but the Federal Government's military and rules of engagement are much more humane and nuanced than anything any of the state's have ever legislated. I don't agree with the ideology supporting the wars, or processes behind the drone strikes. That doesn't undermine my argument. Secondly, you decided to link something completely out of context to the discussion of the state's well armed militias, which is the only thing I am referring to in the whole post.

by Reelin 8y ago

a_t48 8y ago

This has to be balanced by the need for fast responses when there is an actual real emergency. Heads will roll if the authorities come slowly or not at all for a real hostage situation.

maxxxxx 8y ago
In a real hostage situation you won't just rush in with full force. Most of the times the situation gets resolved with long negotiations wearing the hostage taker down.
vosper 8y ago
I don't think the best outcomes for hostage situations are quick responses by heavily armed assault teams? I'm pretty sure the playbook is something like surrounding and controlling the area, establishing communications, and trying to work out a peaceful outcome. Whilst planning for an alternative option.
- mrhappyunhappy 8y ago
  I am pretty sure thing are the way they are for a good reason that you and I have no insight to. Otherwise they wouldn’t be this way. Cops are not stupid and neither are the people running those teams. I doubt it gives them any pleasure responding to potentially deadly situations and putting their own lives at risk. Cops have families too. Perhaps we need to ask someone who knows better instead of speculating.
  - adamsea 8y ago
    There are stupid people in all walks of life. Or, people who do things because that’s how they’ve been done and they don’t want to rock the boat and that’s what their paycheck depends on.
    - mrhappyunhappy 8y ago
      Of course, but a fact does not make the opposit case.
  - samontar 8y ago
    Turns out some times the authorities are morons, dude. Once upon a time we dumped radioactive material off the coast of SF and shot holes in the barrels to make them sink. I’m sure there was someone running around saying “there’s probably a good reason”. That dude would have been wrong.
    - mrhappyunhappy 8y ago
      I wouldn’t disagree with your first statement but HN tends to skew to a bunch of I’m a know it all attitudes. I’m just saying, things are not always as simple as they appear and while you can have an opinion on the matter does not make you authority on the subject. I forget the term for this concept but the news is always wrong depending on who is reading it.
      - iamnothere 8y ago
village-idiot 8y ago
Overly quick armed response usually has more downside than upside. If it's a swatting, you might end up killing innocent civilians. If it's an actual hostage situation, you can trigger a violent end to the confrontation when a negotiator might have sufficed.
flukus 8y ago
They can respond quickly without charging in like action hero wannabes. In that article the police are simply murderers, no one should get shot opening the front door.
anon08142018 8y ago
Actually the problem is that if they show up and shoot someone, heads won't roll due to the excuse that "Well it could have been a real emergency so we came in shooting just in case." How many incidents have their been in recent years where the cops acted too slowly and cautiously vs incidents where someone innocent died or was injured because they came in guns blazing?

maxxxxx 8y ago

When I read stories like the one you linked I wonder how a normal person won't get shot because they make some weird movement. Having a bunch of armed guys yell at you is a pretty stressful situation and a lot of people simply will not comprehend what's going on and not "comply" in some way. Sometimes I wonder if cops have watched too many action movies and try to emulate these movies. How about first waiting and assess the situation? Why that rush and aggressiveness?

artificial 8y ago
There are rules of engagement that are stricter in a war zone. Also one of the incentives is the pay increases when geared up.
- gammateam 8y ago
  The Federal Government is more humane than the independent states' well armed militias. The Federal Government exists in a cohesive world that requires cooperation. The States are exempt from that, exempt from actual challenges to their sovereignty because the Federal Government will protect them, and they are also exempt from oversight from the Federal Government as long as they pass their own laws to justify their egregious behavior.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    > The Federal Government is more humane than the independent states' well armed militias. Only if you somehow manage to ignore everything the federal government is doing internationally (15 & 17yr wars [with no end], ignoring ethnic cleansing in Myanmar, etc). > and they are also exempt from oversight from the Federal Government That's not true at all. For a very recent (today) example: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-net-neutrality-lawsuit-against-state-california-0 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-net-...
    - gammateam 8y ago
      I was very particular with my words. The outcome may not be agreeable but the Federal Government's military and rules of engagement are much more humane and nuanced than anything any of the state's have ever legislated. I don't agree with the ideology supporting the wars, or processes behind the drone strikes. That doesn't undermine my argument. Secondly, you decided to link something completely out of context to the discussion of the state's well armed militias, which is the only thing I am referring to in the whole post.