6 ms·

I'm a little surprised you didn't mention anything about police being held accountable when responding with unreasonable force to anonymous tips. If we are goin

I'm a little surprised you didn't mention anything about police being held accountable when responding with unreasonable force to anonymous tips. If we are going to start talking about fixing this issue, I'm not sure getting rid of blocked numbers is going to materially impact these outcomes. Likewise, what is your recommendation on eliminating the threat of burner phones?

djsumdog 8y ago
There's an audio clip of the 911 call posted on here. It wasn't an anonymous tip; the person on the phone pretended there was a situation/serious domestic dispute. The police should have still been more accountable, but let's get the context right.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  Sure, and that is a bad reason to go in guns blazing. It is even worse than if it was a hostage situation. It is even worse if the subject capitulated and went outside. What could they do, take aim at someone and then get shot? This is stupid trigger happy gangster style policing.
oh_sigh 8y ago
The alternate side of officers using unreasonable force from a scam anonymous call is getting officers or members of the public killed from a real anonymous call. Police are going to be on high alert regardless, even if they think the call was a hoax
- aharrison 8y ago
  You will note that I did not say "scam" anonymous call. I said "anonymous call" which includes both real and anonymous calls. Police officers should respond with force dictated by the circumstances of their situation, trained in such analysis, and held accountable to their decisions - both as individual officers and as departments. The source of the initial investigation should have little if any impact on the level of force used in the encounter.
  - kinleyd 8y ago
    Spot on. I believe the crux of the issue lies in the present bias toward officer safety, leading to an almost anything goes situation if the officer claims to have felt endangered. Which is quite ridiculous because the danger is always there. It's just not an acceptable reason to blast away.
    - AstralStorm 8y ago
      They're paid hazard rates exactly because of the danger. They are not supposed to cause danger. It is completely unacceptable. At least here which is not US there is no such problem.
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    I agree completely - my point was that police can't treat anonymous calls differently than real ones, because it is literally their lives(and the lives of the potential hostages) on the line. Unreasonable force is unreasonable force, regardless of how the officer was called into the situation.
chipperyman573 8y ago
>I'm a little surprised you didn't mention anything about police being held accountable when responding with unreasonable force to anonymous tips I think the logic behind this is that if the tip was correct then trying to talk it out/etc could end much worse for everyone involved. You have to remember that, to the best of the officer's knowledge, there is a live hostage in a building somewhere that needs to be saved by them
- LanceH 8y ago
  There is no "best of the officer's knowleedge", though. They have zero knowledge of the situation. They have an unsourced phone call. They know exactly that one person has made a claim on the phone and too often they don't bother looking past that and it is completely reckless. I can't even conceive of the same thing happening in the military (been there, done that). "We got a call the enemy is in that build." "suit up, we'll go in." "how about we watch the building for a minute?" "Naw..."
  - Haga 8y ago
    At the end of the day you will always want to go home more than follow the law. Americas weapon laws put everyone postcall in a defacto civil war zone. In war zones the law, civil conventions and concepts collapse. Its your tribe vs the others. Quite frankly for this situation americas swats are remarkable civil. Ps: the military has its own track record on fire first and then sort them out later. They blew up whole towns in Iraq for one sniper-with everyone on it. So bad example. The watch and wait often only happens in spy movies. In reality it's protect our boys preemptive at all costs. If one dies you have alot more to answer for then 40-50 locals die. Those can be labeled asymmetric after exitus. And quite frankly theire surviving relatives thirsty for revenge will cover your war crime up. One week later that sleepy town ruin is a Hotspot.
- scotty79 8y ago
  Ok. Worst case if they restrained themselves from killing the suspect is that one citizen is dead and they couldn't prevented it. Actual outcome was that one citizen is dead because they murdered him. I don't see how much worse is first outcome when compared to the second one.
hermitdev 8y ago
Most police calls that are not from a victim amount to an anonymous call. They cannot be ignored. I hate to say, but it's a slippery slope. Right now, you can't distinguish between a legit line and a spoof, or a burner. But a burner still has a traceable number. Perhaps burners could be placed in a "low trust" zone when dialling emergency services. Such a classification could give 1st responders the caution they need.
- omeid2 8y ago
  > I hate to say, but it's a slippery slope The underlying problem is that police should not jump to lethal force and have proper training to contain dangerous situation, not kill people who are crawling on the floor under their orders. The problem is not distinguishing between a legit line and a spoof, it is having a police force that is not trigger happy who cowardly justify every killing with "I was scared for my life". Police who are so easy to be "scared for life" should not be in the force, in the same way someone with pyrophobia should not be a firefighter.
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    Again, that's a different issue and separate from calling the Swat teams. The cops are told that murder has happened and a person that had "killed" his family member has zero to lose, so yeah, cops are afraid. The person that sees 20 armed cops or has a grenade thrown through his window will freak out and not act rationally. Recipe for disaster, all because someone made that call. 19 years old going to jail for 20-25 years...
    - socceroos 8y ago
      The call is the catalyst. The cops are the gullible, hyper-agressive actors that turn what should be a simple matter of communication into the 'justified' killing of an innocent.
      - onetimemanytime 8y ago
        I agree. In the video I saw the cops killed the person from it seemed like 100 yards away. He had opened the door and cops thought he was reaching for his gun. But the cops were or should have been behind a car or bulletproof thingy, no need to look for the lamest excuse to kill someone.
onetimemanytime 8y ago
>>I'm a little surprised you didn't mention anything about police being held accountable when responding with unreasonable force to anonymous tips. Who says they aren't? They have rules, procedures etc., but when you tell police that x person killed his wife and is about to kill his two little children bad things are likely to happen. Plus, both sides can be held accountable at the same time. The person that made the call can be responsible for everything that happens, even for the car accident cops get into while going there. More or less like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule
m0zg 8y ago
Technically, in the US the police doesn't have to protect you (search "no duty to protect"). And "holding them accountable" much beyond the existing threshold will ensure they won't show up at all except to collect the body.
- scotty79 8y ago
  It sounds like you are saying that better police cannot exist. But it exists in every first world country except the US.
  - m0zg 8y ago
    That's only because those countries aren't, in fact, the US. The US is a pretty violent country compared to just about any other first world country. The policing methods employed elsewhere are (IMO) unlikely to work here. It'd be hilarious to send London policemen to Chicago or Detroit and have them "deescalate" things with gangs there.
    - root_axis 8y ago
      Well, Detroit and Chicago gangs exist inside minority communities, i.e. not the vast majority of America, including in this particular story. SWATing is not a problem in the hood.
      - m0zg 8y ago
        :-) https://www.google.com/search?q=swat+chicago+hood https://www.google.com/search?q=swat+chicago+hood

djsumdog 8y ago

There's an audio clip of the 911 call posted on here. It wasn't an anonymous tip; the person on the phone pretended there was a situation/serious domestic dispute. The police should have still been more accountable, but let's get the context right.

AstralStorm 8y ago
Sure, and that is a bad reason to go in guns blazing. It is even worse than if it was a hostage situation. It is even worse if the subject capitulated and went outside. What could they do, take aim at someone and then get shot? This is stupid trigger happy gangster style policing.

oh_sigh 8y ago

The alternate side of officers using unreasonable force from a scam anonymous call is getting officers or members of the public killed from a real anonymous call. Police are going to be on high alert regardless, even if they think the call was a hoax

aharrison 8y ago
You will note that I did not say "scam" anonymous call. I said "anonymous call" which includes both real and anonymous calls. Police officers should respond with force dictated by the circumstances of their situation, trained in such analysis, and held accountable to their decisions - both as individual officers and as departments. The source of the initial investigation should have little if any impact on the level of force used in the encounter.
- kinleyd 8y ago
  Spot on. I believe the crux of the issue lies in the present bias toward officer safety, leading to an almost anything goes situation if the officer claims to have felt endangered. Which is quite ridiculous because the danger is always there. It's just not an acceptable reason to blast away.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    They're paid hazard rates exactly because of the danger. They are not supposed to cause danger. It is completely unacceptable. At least here which is not US there is no such problem.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  I agree completely - my point was that police can't treat anonymous calls differently than real ones, because it is literally their lives(and the lives of the potential hostages) on the line. Unreasonable force is unreasonable force, regardless of how the officer was called into the situation.

chipperyman573 8y ago

>I'm a little surprised you didn't mention anything about police being held accountable when responding with unreasonable force to anonymous tips I think the logic behind this is that if the tip was correct then trying to talk it out/etc could end much worse for everyone involved. You have to remember that, to the best of the officer's knowledge, there is a live hostage in a building somewhere that needs to be saved by them

LanceH 8y ago
There is no "best of the officer's knowleedge", though. They have zero knowledge of the situation. They have an unsourced phone call. They know exactly that one person has made a claim on the phone and too often they don't bother looking past that and it is completely reckless. I can't even conceive of the same thing happening in the military (been there, done that). "We got a call the enemy is in that build." "suit up, we'll go in." "how about we watch the building for a minute?" "Naw..."
- Haga 8y ago
  At the end of the day you will always want to go home more than follow the law. Americas weapon laws put everyone postcall in a defacto civil war zone. In war zones the law, civil conventions and concepts collapse. Its your tribe vs the others. Quite frankly for this situation americas swats are remarkable civil. Ps: the military has its own track record on fire first and then sort them out later. They blew up whole towns in Iraq for one sniper-with everyone on it. So bad example. The watch and wait often only happens in spy movies. In reality it's protect our boys preemptive at all costs. If one dies you have alot more to answer for then 40-50 locals die. Those can be labeled asymmetric after exitus. And quite frankly theire surviving relatives thirsty for revenge will cover your war crime up. One week later that sleepy town ruin is a Hotspot.
scotty79 8y ago
Ok. Worst case if they restrained themselves from killing the suspect is that one citizen is dead and they couldn't prevented it. Actual outcome was that one citizen is dead because they murdered him. I don't see how much worse is first outcome when compared to the second one.

hermitdev 8y ago

Most police calls that are not from a victim amount to an anonymous call. They cannot be ignored. I hate to say, but it's a slippery slope. Right now, you can't distinguish between a legit line and a spoof, or a burner. But a burner still has a traceable number. Perhaps burners could be placed in a "low trust" zone when dialling emergency services. Such a classification could give 1st responders the caution they need.

omeid2 8y ago
> I hate to say, but it's a slippery slope The underlying problem is that police should not jump to lethal force and have proper training to contain dangerous situation, not kill people who are crawling on the floor under their orders. The problem is not distinguishing between a legit line and a spoof, it is having a police force that is not trigger happy who cowardly justify every killing with "I was scared for my life". Police who are so easy to be "scared for life" should not be in the force, in the same way someone with pyrophobia should not be a firefighter.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  Again, that's a different issue and separate from calling the Swat teams. The cops are told that murder has happened and a person that had "killed" his family member has zero to lose, so yeah, cops are afraid. The person that sees 20 armed cops or has a grenade thrown through his window will freak out and not act rationally. Recipe for disaster, all because someone made that call. 19 years old going to jail for 20-25 years...
  - socceroos 8y ago
    The call is the catalyst. The cops are the gullible, hyper-agressive actors that turn what should be a simple matter of communication into the 'justified' killing of an innocent.
    - onetimemanytime 8y ago
      I agree. In the video I saw the cops killed the person from it seemed like 100 yards away. He had opened the door and cops thought he was reaching for his gun. But the cops were or should have been behind a car or bulletproof thingy, no need to look for the lamest excuse to kill someone.

onetimemanytime 8y ago

>>I'm a little surprised you didn't mention anything about police being held accountable when responding with unreasonable force to anonymous tips. Who says they aren't? They have rules, procedures etc., but when you tell police that x person killed his wife and is about to kill his two little children bad things are likely to happen. Plus, both sides can be held accountable at the same time. The person that made the call can be responsible for everything that happens, even for the car accident cops get into while going there. More or less like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule

m0zg 8y ago

Technically, in the US the police doesn't have to protect you (search "no duty to protect"). And "holding them accountable" much beyond the existing threshold will ensure they won't show up at all except to collect the body.

scotty79 8y ago
It sounds like you are saying that better police cannot exist. But it exists in every first world country except the US.
- m0zg 8y ago
  That's only because those countries aren't, in fact, the US. The US is a pretty violent country compared to just about any other first world country. The policing methods employed elsewhere are (IMO) unlikely to work here. It'd be hilarious to send London policemen to Chicago or Detroit and have them "deescalate" things with gangs there.
  - root_axis 8y ago
    Well, Detroit and Chicago gangs exist inside minority communities, i.e. not the vast majority of America, including in this particular story. SWATing is not a problem in the hood.
    - m0zg 8y ago
      :-) https://www.google.com/search?q=swat+chicago+hood https://www.google.com/search?q=swat+chicago+hood