8 ms·

The heart of the problem is that SWAT-ing is possible. You shouldn't be able to make an anonymous phone call and have the police bust down someone else's door

by donatj 7y ago

The heart of the problem is that SWAT-ing is possible. You shouldn't be able to make an anonymous phone call and have the police bust down someone else's door guns drawn. An unverified phone call alone should not amount to probable cause. That's not civilization.

mcantelon 7y ago
Might take a lot of lawsuits to get them to verify info before acting on it.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  Caller: “hi 911, I’m being held hostage by an armed and violent individual at this address, this is the only opportunity I’ve had to use a phone” 911 call taker: “Thanks for your report. We’ll work on verifying this and might be able to get out there in 2-3 weeks.”
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    Or maybe the police can still go check, but just not do it guns blazing? They can ring the door bell and ask to check around. If they're afraid of being fired upon they could even use a police robot or something.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Or even stand some distance from the door and shout "THIS IS THE POLICE, EVERYONE GET OUT WITH YOUR HANDS UP" through a bullhorn; it's going to be much less disruptive to everyone than a flashbang through the window, and the officers can still be hidden behind cover in case of actual criminals wielding guns being present.
      - stordoff 7y ago
        "They've threatened to kill me the if the police show up." I don't think there can be any one-size-fits-all solution to this - each case must be assessed on its own merits.
    - AmericanChopper 7y ago
      Hostage taker: “Nope, there’s no hostages here, and no you can’t come in” Police: “Well, thanks for that. Have a nice day”... Police don’t bust in and start opening fire, so your description of how this works is simply false, and removing their ability to respond to emergencies is absurd.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - ryacko 7y ago
    You just described the plot of Die Hard.
jonny_eh 7y ago
Then what do you propose, people give their names? But then they'll give fake names. So ask for proof of identity? Is that even possible, let alone expedient in an emergency? The solution is to take these reports seriously, but with a grain of salt. i.e. don't just shoot a guy that walks out of his house while confused.
- MisterTea 7y ago
  How about a phone system that does not allow random people to spoof numbers with little to no effort. That would be a nice start. Would also curb all those friggin spam calls I get from random numbers.
  - jonny_eh 7y ago
    People are working on a solution, but unfortunately it's a tough challenge due to bad choices made decades ago.
  - penagwin 7y ago
    You can still buy a 10$ sim card and use a burner phone. Potentially a free VOIP app would work too. It's not super scalable (that's why numbers are spoofed instead) but for a couple calls it'd be no problem.
    - XorNot 7y ago
      I mean in Australia you just can't do this. Burner phones aren't a thing. Prepay is but you have to activate it by providing ID.
  - the8472 7y ago
    Anonymous phone calls have positive uses too, it would be nice to not install more surveillance infrastructure and have less trigger-happy police instead. In other countries cops ring the door and ask if everything is ok after they have received a call.
    - 7y ago
debt 7y ago
The heart of the problem is that neo-nazi's are secretly compiling lists of opponents they wish to harm.
- seandougall 7y ago
  They certainly are, but I don't believe there's anything novel about that. What's (relatively) new is that they've discovered they can summon their own personal army in the form of an increasingly militarized police force.
penagwin 7y ago
To play devils advocate a little - If I'm a 911 operator and the person calling says "They have gun next door - there's shouting, I'm really scared WHAT DO I DO?!" What do we do? Turn them down? Ask for proof? From the police perspective - they're entering a potentially dangerous environment, which means gun drawn until the environment is cleared. To your point though - the fact that the swatting has resulted in innocent deaths is evidence that law enforcement is too aggressive.
- donatj 7y ago
  Drive by, see if there's any other evidence of any of this, leave if there isn't - because an unverified phone call alone really shouldn't count as probable cause?
  - mcny 7y ago
    > Drive by, see if there's any other evidence of any of this, leave if there isn't - because an unverified phone call alone really shouldn't count as probable cause? Exactly! Especially since law enforcement has (successfully!) argued that they have no legal duty to serve and protect you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree#Lozito_v._New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree#L... You can't have your cake and eat it too! If you don't have an obligation to protect, you don't have immunity when you shoot at anyone who is not shooting at you.
    - sa46 7y ago
      > since law enforcement has (successfully!) argued that they have no legal duty to serve and protect you IANAL. My understanding is police have a duty to the public at large, not to an individual person outside of a special relationship (i.e. witness protection). If the police did have a duty to individuals, the state would be unable to allocate police resources to best serve the public. Essentially, individual priorities would DDOS police resources. In the case you reference: > a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen. [...] A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order. [...] Publicly furnished police protection may accrue to the personal benefit of individual citizens, but at all times the needs and interests of the community at large predominate.
anigbrowl 7y ago
That's part of the problem, to be sure. Let's not decide which factors are the most important before compiling a fuller list.
mirimir 7y ago
Yes^N. Police in the US have become insanely militarized. And there's the fundamental "escalate in response to resistance" approach. Which in part has bled over from the military. Shock and awe. Show of force. Maybe it works in military conflicts, but in civilian policing, it gets too many ~innocents killed.

by donatj 7y ago

mcantelon 7y ago

Might take a lot of lawsuits to get them to verify info before acting on it.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
Caller: “hi 911, I’m being held hostage by an armed and violent individual at this address, this is the only opportunity I’ve had to use a phone” 911 call taker: “Thanks for your report. We’ll work on verifying this and might be able to get out there in 2-3 weeks.”
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Or maybe the police can still go check, but just not do it guns blazing? They can ring the door bell and ask to check around. If they're afraid of being fired upon they could even use a police robot or something.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Or even stand some distance from the door and shout "THIS IS THE POLICE, EVERYONE GET OUT WITH YOUR HANDS UP" through a bullhorn; it's going to be much less disruptive to everyone than a flashbang through the window, and the officers can still be hidden behind cover in case of actual criminals wielding guns being present.
    - stordoff 7y ago
      "They've threatened to kill me the if the police show up." I don't think there can be any one-size-fits-all solution to this - each case must be assessed on its own merits.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    Hostage taker: “Nope, there’s no hostages here, and no you can’t come in” Police: “Well, thanks for that. Have a nice day”... Police don’t bust in and start opening fire, so your description of how this works is simply false, and removing their ability to respond to emergencies is absurd.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ryacko 7y ago
  You just described the plot of Die Hard.

jonny_eh 7y ago

Then what do you propose, people give their names? But then they'll give fake names. So ask for proof of identity? Is that even possible, let alone expedient in an emergency? The solution is to take these reports seriously, but with a grain of salt. i.e. don't just shoot a guy that walks out of his house while confused.

MisterTea 7y ago
How about a phone system that does not allow random people to spoof numbers with little to no effort. That would be a nice start. Would also curb all those friggin spam calls I get from random numbers.
- jonny_eh 7y ago
  People are working on a solution, but unfortunately it's a tough challenge due to bad choices made decades ago.
- penagwin 7y ago
  You can still buy a 10$ sim card and use a burner phone. Potentially a free VOIP app would work too. It's not super scalable (that's why numbers are spoofed instead) but for a couple calls it'd be no problem.
  - XorNot 7y ago
    I mean in Australia you just can't do this. Burner phones aren't a thing. Prepay is but you have to activate it by providing ID.
- the8472 7y ago
  Anonymous phone calls have positive uses too, it would be nice to not install more surveillance infrastructure and have less trigger-happy police instead. In other countries cops ring the door and ask if everything is ok after they have received a call.
  - 7y ago

debt 7y ago

The heart of the problem is that neo-nazi's are secretly compiling lists of opponents they wish to harm.

seandougall 7y ago
They certainly are, but I don't believe there's anything novel about that. What's (relatively) new is that they've discovered they can summon their own personal army in the form of an increasingly militarized police force.

penagwin 7y ago

To play devils advocate a little - If I'm a 911 operator and the person calling says "They have gun next door - there's shouting, I'm really scared WHAT DO I DO?!" What do we do? Turn them down? Ask for proof? From the police perspective - they're entering a potentially dangerous environment, which means gun drawn until the environment is cleared. To your point though - the fact that the swatting has resulted in innocent deaths is evidence that law enforcement is too aggressive.

donatj 7y ago
Drive by, see if there's any other evidence of any of this, leave if there isn't - because an unverified phone call alone really shouldn't count as probable cause?
- mcny 7y ago
  > Drive by, see if there's any other evidence of any of this, leave if there isn't - because an unverified phone call alone really shouldn't count as probable cause? Exactly! Especially since law enforcement has (successfully!) argued that they have no legal duty to serve and protect you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree#Lozito_v._New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree#L... You can't have your cake and eat it too! If you don't have an obligation to protect, you don't have immunity when you shoot at anyone who is not shooting at you.
  - sa46 7y ago
    > since law enforcement has (successfully!) argued that they have no legal duty to serve and protect you IANAL. My understanding is police have a duty to the public at large, not to an individual person outside of a special relationship (i.e. witness protection). If the police did have a duty to individuals, the state would be unable to allocate police resources to best serve the public. Essentially, individual priorities would DDOS police resources. In the case you reference: > a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen. [...] A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order. [...] Publicly furnished police protection may accrue to the personal benefit of individual citizens, but at all times the needs and interests of the community at large predominate.

anigbrowl 7y ago

That's part of the problem, to be sure. Let's not decide which factors are the most important before compiling a fuller list.

mirimir 7y ago

Yes^N. Police in the US have become insanely militarized. And there's the fundamental "escalate in response to resistance" approach. Which in part has bled over from the military. Shock and awe. Show of force. Maybe it works in military conflicts, but in civilian policing, it gets too many ~innocents killed.