6 ms·

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

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.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
bcoates 7y ago
"They have gun next door - there's shouting, I'm really scared WHAT DO I DO?!" "Is something on fire?" "Is someone injured?" "I'm sorry, 911 is for emergencies only, not personal therapy"
- paulddraper 7y ago
  Yes, I think someone is injured. There were gunshots and lots of screaming.
jancsika 7y ago
Your last sentence doesn't follow. For the moment, replace "swatting" with bona fide criminals behind the door. If the swat teams ended up killing some of those criminals that wouldn't be evidence of over-aggression on the part of law enforcement. Since you posit that "gun drawn" is the reasonable response to swatting, then the same logic applies. You're obligated to continue wearing your devil mask for that sentence, so you have to explicitly argue why that isn't the case. :)
- techsupporter 7y ago
  > For the moment, replace "swatting" with bona fide criminals behind the door. If the swat teams ended up killing some of those criminals that wouldn't be evidence of over-aggression on the part of law enforcement. Yes, it would. Our police are not, as the saying goes, "judge, jury, and executioner." Those "bona fide criminals behind the door" are only accused of a crime and are entitled to a vigorous defense and day in court. They are definitely not to simply be gunned down in response to the arrival of the police. Yes, if those people happen to do something threatening that requires lethal response--like shooting at the responding officers--then the officers are entitled to defend themselves. But police officers simply happening to show up where criminal activity is occurring does not give those officers license to "kill some of those criminals." That is over-aggression on the part of law enforcement and, sadly enough, is one of the major problems we're dealing with in Seattle in relation to our police, petty crime, the ways our police force have reacted in the past, and how to balance the competing needs.
4ntonius8lock 7y ago
What to do? I'd suggest... you know... following the rule of law. Basically, the whole presumption of innocence thing. A call is a great reason to respond... with inquiry. Guns ready sure IN the event and inquiry leads to life and death situation... but that should be after the fact of an inquiry: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It's not up to me to find solutions that don't violate peoples rights. It's up to the people wanting solutions. Just because you have a problem doesn't put you above the law. Same goes for everyone under the concept of rule of law. As someone who is dealing with a US Naturalization, the rule of law as a concept is drilled in hard. Shame people born with the right don't understand it.
nothis 7y ago
I know in my country, the police would probably knock on the door and verify that something's wrong, especially if the caller can't spin a convincing scenario that fits the location. Maybe pistols drawn, but pointed down. If someone answers and says "huh? I didn't call anyone? what's going on?" in a somewhat convincing way, ask them to step outside, hands up, and if he complies the situation is probably solved, right there. You can still have a look inside, confirm. There's like so many steps along the way where you can make an assessment of the situation before going FULL SWAT-raid. Mother in a night gown opening the door, yawning? Probably not a threat. I'm not saying I want the job handling these situations or that it's easy, but "well, someone called, let's send in the Wet Ops team!" can't be the only answer, either! There's even videos of cops handling this super calm and professionally, basically how I described it above. So it's not impossible.
- aphextron 7y ago
  > I know in my country, the police would probably knock on the door and verify that something's wrong, especially if the caller can't spin a convincing scenario that fits the location. This is because in your country it is exceedingly unlikely the cops will receive a barrage of high powered assault rifle fire after knocking. The militarization of police in the US is a complicated problem that ultimately stems from our proliferation of guns which turn every interaction cops have into a potentially deadly one.
  - donw 7y ago
    The United States has had a high level of gun ownership for several hundred years. SWATting and police militarization seems to have started after the September 11, 2001 attack in New York. Regardless of your opinion on the issue, it's pretty clear that "gun ownership" and "police kicking down doors" don't correlate.
    - mirimir 7y ago
      As I recall, it was the War on Drugs that drove it, long before 9/11.
  - 7y ago
FireBeyond 7y ago
Even as a first responder (Fire/EMS), there's more that can be done even before then. A fatal SWATing recently should have raised so many red flags - caller was from an overseas number, described the house as two story when it was one, gave the wrong house color, and said that they could see things through the window from the street (when there were no windows visible from the street).
rmtech 7y ago
Well why are you allowed to make phone calls that appear to come from somewhere they don't come from? Furthermore, why do police feel obligated to respond to a phonecall that could be fake but not to a tweet, email, IM, etc? The system is broken, phones that can call cops should have strict provenance standards.
tinus_hn 7y ago
The solution to send an officer who checks out things without immediately escalating. Breaking down doors and going in with guns blazing is an overreaction to an unreliable, untraceable report.
zelon88 7y ago
It can't be anonymous. That's where this problem lies. If you're sending cops with guns to someone's house at 3am you should be required to prove your identity.

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.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

bcoates 7y ago

"They have gun next door - there's shouting, I'm really scared WHAT DO I DO?!" "Is something on fire?" "Is someone injured?" "I'm sorry, 911 is for emergencies only, not personal therapy"

paulddraper 7y ago
Yes, I think someone is injured. There were gunshots and lots of screaming.

jancsika 7y ago

Your last sentence doesn't follow. For the moment, replace "swatting" with bona fide criminals behind the door. If the swat teams ended up killing some of those criminals that wouldn't be evidence of over-aggression on the part of law enforcement. Since you posit that "gun drawn" is the reasonable response to swatting, then the same logic applies. You're obligated to continue wearing your devil mask for that sentence, so you have to explicitly argue why that isn't the case. :)

techsupporter 7y ago
> For the moment, replace "swatting" with bona fide criminals behind the door. If the swat teams ended up killing some of those criminals that wouldn't be evidence of over-aggression on the part of law enforcement. Yes, it would. Our police are not, as the saying goes, "judge, jury, and executioner." Those "bona fide criminals behind the door" are only accused of a crime and are entitled to a vigorous defense and day in court. They are definitely not to simply be gunned down in response to the arrival of the police. Yes, if those people happen to do something threatening that requires lethal response--like shooting at the responding officers--then the officers are entitled to defend themselves. But police officers simply happening to show up where criminal activity is occurring does not give those officers license to "kill some of those criminals." That is over-aggression on the part of law enforcement and, sadly enough, is one of the major problems we're dealing with in Seattle in relation to our police, petty crime, the ways our police force have reacted in the past, and how to balance the competing needs.

4ntonius8lock 7y ago

What to do? I'd suggest... you know... following the rule of law. Basically, the whole presumption of innocence thing. A call is a great reason to respond... with inquiry. Guns ready sure IN the event and inquiry leads to life and death situation... but that should be after the fact of an inquiry: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It's not up to me to find solutions that don't violate peoples rights. It's up to the people wanting solutions. Just because you have a problem doesn't put you above the law. Same goes for everyone under the concept of rule of law. As someone who is dealing with a US Naturalization, the rule of law as a concept is drilled in hard. Shame people born with the right don't understand it.

nothis 7y ago

I know in my country, the police would probably knock on the door and verify that something's wrong, especially if the caller can't spin a convincing scenario that fits the location. Maybe pistols drawn, but pointed down. If someone answers and says "huh? I didn't call anyone? what's going on?" in a somewhat convincing way, ask them to step outside, hands up, and if he complies the situation is probably solved, right there. You can still have a look inside, confirm. There's like so many steps along the way where you can make an assessment of the situation before going FULL SWAT-raid. Mother in a night gown opening the door, yawning? Probably not a threat. I'm not saying I want the job handling these situations or that it's easy, but "well, someone called, let's send in the Wet Ops team!" can't be the only answer, either! There's even videos of cops handling this super calm and professionally, basically how I described it above. So it's not impossible.

aphextron 7y ago
> I know in my country, the police would probably knock on the door and verify that something's wrong, especially if the caller can't spin a convincing scenario that fits the location. This is because in your country it is exceedingly unlikely the cops will receive a barrage of high powered assault rifle fire after knocking. The militarization of police in the US is a complicated problem that ultimately stems from our proliferation of guns which turn every interaction cops have into a potentially deadly one.
- donw 7y ago
  The United States has had a high level of gun ownership for several hundred years. SWATting and police militarization seems to have started after the September 11, 2001 attack in New York. Regardless of your opinion on the issue, it's pretty clear that "gun ownership" and "police kicking down doors" don't correlate.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    As I recall, it was the War on Drugs that drove it, long before 9/11.
- 7y ago

FireBeyond 7y ago

Even as a first responder (Fire/EMS), there's more that can be done even before then. A fatal SWATing recently should have raised so many red flags - caller was from an overseas number, described the house as two story when it was one, gave the wrong house color, and said that they could see things through the window from the street (when there were no windows visible from the street).

rmtech 7y ago

Well why are you allowed to make phone calls that appear to come from somewhere they don't come from? Furthermore, why do police feel obligated to respond to a phonecall that could be fake but not to a tweet, email, IM, etc? The system is broken, phones that can call cops should have strict provenance standards.

tinus_hn 7y ago

The solution to send an officer who checks out things without immediately escalating. Breaking down doors and going in with guns blazing is an overreaction to an unreliable, untraceable report.

zelon88 7y ago

It can't be anonymous. That's where this problem lies. If you're sending cops with guns to someone's house at 3am you should be required to prove your identity.