6 ms·

I might be wrong, but a whole bunch of heavily armed guys busting down doors in response to an anonymous phone call is not in the spirit of prioritizing de-esca

I might be wrong, but a whole bunch of heavily armed guys busting down doors in response to an anonymous phone call is not in the spirit of prioritizing de-escalation over violent resolutions. I want cops de-escalating situations, not shooting up the neighborhood, or going on high-speed chases on neighborhood streets. Now, I imagine swat teams don't like doxxing either. Sounds like a business opportunity.

rhcom2 7y ago
Unfortunately in our world of active shooters the thinking is now that the police should enter the situation to try to engage the shooter as fast as possible as research shows this is what saves the most lives.
- JustSomeNobody 7y ago
  What world is that? I don’t believe that happens often enough in my world for police to come in guns blazing.
  - rhcom2 7y ago
    I'm trying to explain why de-escalation is not the preferred tactical response from the police when it comes to active shooter scenarios. I think it makes sense from a law enforcement point of view to take every threat as credible until proven otherwise. According the FBI there's been 250 between 2000-2017. https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-incidents-graphics https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/office-of-partner-eng... I also think it's important to understand why the police respond like they do. It isn't arbitrary, it's statistically suppose to save lives, but SWATing is intentionally abusing that response.
    - tastroder 7y ago
      250 incidents in 17 years seems to hardly be an explanation to rule out de-escalation by default when interacting with the general population. Even in these cases, it's not like SWATting is a new phenomenon. As an alternative: Maybe invest in proper training for LEOs instead of military grade equipment, that would at least decrease the frequency of stuff like [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Wichita_swatting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Wichita_swatting
      - dmix 7y ago
        You mean surrounding a house with 20 guys with AR-15 rifles, with the right to shoot any moment the persons hands aren’t where various officers yelling at him at the same times wants them to be, isn’t a good deescalation strategy?
    - traderjane 7y ago
      > I think it makes sense from a law enforcement point of view to take every threat as credible until proven otherwise. Doesn't that strike you as something people might say but never do? Kind of like innocence until proven guilty? I mean of course the state and its employees don't think like that.
    - FireBeyond 7y ago
      > I'm trying to explain why de-escalation is not the preferred tactical response from the police when it comes to active shooter scenarios. As a first responder who has trained with, and documented photographically, multiple active shooter scenarios (training, at high schools, community colleges and even malls) and responded to more than one... These scenarios are not active shooter events. That is someone well, actively shooting. Usually with confirmation from 911 dispatchers ("we have gunshots in the background of the call"). Usually these situations are highly Hollywood-ized. One caller described "I can see from the street through the window - they have the whole family on their knees, hands on heads and have guns to their heads, about to execute them all". More worryingly are stories of sending quantities of drugs (often possession, not even supply levels) to a residence - that shouldn't be able to evoke a no-knock SWAT response in the first place.
kyleblarson 7y ago
Why would the police want to de-escalate when they can put on their battle jammies and act like they are in Fallujah while knowing full well there will be zero repercussions for their actions?
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
jonnycomputer 7y ago
May SWAT team guns shouldn't have independent triggers, but require some kind of consensus algorithm across SWAT team members for a pulled trigger to have an effect.
- chucksmash 7y ago
  Novel idea, but how do you handle disagreement between the first person who can see an imminent threat and the person in the back of the stack in a way that doesn't get the first guy through the door killed more often, doesn't just become a rubber stamp, blanket approval "to be on the safe side", and offers improved outcomes compared to relying on the training and judgment of the individual in front with a gun?
- orf 7y ago
  Better get Jepsen to test it. That would be an interesting read.
  - donw 7y ago
    "Shoot Me Maybe?"
- jacobush 7y ago
  Wow, I can imagine that going wrong in so many ways. Executions squads come to mind. Groupthink. Even less liability. Instant guaranteed kill instead of only probably kill, even fewer annoying survivors in court.
  - jonnycomputer 7y ago
    Well, the thought was to avoid a single agent having a fear reflex and pulling the trigger. In fact, I think the situation now is that one spooked officer shooting off the gun causes other officers to get spooked too and pull the trigger. I think under those circumstances, having a consensus algorithm in place would diminish the likelihood of it occurring, since, presumably multiple agents would have to have the fear reflex at the same moment. Unless agents are getting feedback from others about their trigger pools, or decide before hand that they are going to do it all together, I just don't see the scenarios you describe being realized. Of course, if cops go in with the idea that they are gonna kill someone, then they are no longer behaving lawfully. My real issue with the idea is how practical it would be. If an officer's gun didn't go off when it should have, and they were killed, then people are going to be really upset.

rhcom2 7y ago

Unfortunately in our world of active shooters the thinking is now that the police should enter the situation to try to engage the shooter as fast as possible as research shows this is what saves the most lives.

JustSomeNobody 7y ago
What world is that? I don’t believe that happens often enough in my world for police to come in guns blazing.
- rhcom2 7y ago
  I'm trying to explain why de-escalation is not the preferred tactical response from the police when it comes to active shooter scenarios. I think it makes sense from a law enforcement point of view to take every threat as credible until proven otherwise. According the FBI there's been 250 between 2000-2017. https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-incidents-graphics https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/office-of-partner-eng... I also think it's important to understand why the police respond like they do. It isn't arbitrary, it's statistically suppose to save lives, but SWATing is intentionally abusing that response.
  - tastroder 7y ago
    250 incidents in 17 years seems to hardly be an explanation to rule out de-escalation by default when interacting with the general population. Even in these cases, it's not like SWATting is a new phenomenon. As an alternative: Maybe invest in proper training for LEOs instead of military grade equipment, that would at least decrease the frequency of stuff like [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Wichita_swatting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Wichita_swatting
    - dmix 7y ago
      You mean surrounding a house with 20 guys with AR-15 rifles, with the right to shoot any moment the persons hands aren’t where various officers yelling at him at the same times wants them to be, isn’t a good deescalation strategy?
  - traderjane 7y ago
    > I think it makes sense from a law enforcement point of view to take every threat as credible until proven otherwise. Doesn't that strike you as something people might say but never do? Kind of like innocence until proven guilty? I mean of course the state and its employees don't think like that.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    > I'm trying to explain why de-escalation is not the preferred tactical response from the police when it comes to active shooter scenarios. As a first responder who has trained with, and documented photographically, multiple active shooter scenarios (training, at high schools, community colleges and even malls) and responded to more than one... These scenarios are not active shooter events. That is someone well, actively shooting. Usually with confirmation from 911 dispatchers ("we have gunshots in the background of the call"). Usually these situations are highly Hollywood-ized. One caller described "I can see from the street through the window - they have the whole family on their knees, hands on heads and have guns to their heads, about to execute them all". More worryingly are stories of sending quantities of drugs (often possession, not even supply levels) to a residence - that shouldn't be able to evoke a no-knock SWAT response in the first place.

kyleblarson 7y ago

Why would the police want to de-escalate when they can put on their battle jammies and act like they are in Fallujah while knowing full well there will be zero repercussions for their actions?

dang 7y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

jonnycomputer 7y ago

May SWAT team guns shouldn't have independent triggers, but require some kind of consensus algorithm across SWAT team members for a pulled trigger to have an effect.

chucksmash 7y ago
Novel idea, but how do you handle disagreement between the first person who can see an imminent threat and the person in the back of the stack in a way that doesn't get the first guy through the door killed more often, doesn't just become a rubber stamp, blanket approval "to be on the safe side", and offers improved outcomes compared to relying on the training and judgment of the individual in front with a gun?
orf 7y ago
Better get Jepsen to test it. That would be an interesting read.
- donw 7y ago
  "Shoot Me Maybe?"
jacobush 7y ago
Wow, I can imagine that going wrong in so many ways. Executions squads come to mind. Groupthink. Even less liability. Instant guaranteed kill instead of only probably kill, even fewer annoying survivors in court.
- jonnycomputer 7y ago
  Well, the thought was to avoid a single agent having a fear reflex and pulling the trigger. In fact, I think the situation now is that one spooked officer shooting off the gun causes other officers to get spooked too and pull the trigger. I think under those circumstances, having a consensus algorithm in place would diminish the likelihood of it occurring, since, presumably multiple agents would have to have the fear reflex at the same moment. Unless agents are getting feedback from others about their trigger pools, or decide before hand that they are going to do it all together, I just don't see the scenarios you describe being realized. Of course, if cops go in with the idea that they are gonna kill someone, then they are no longer behaving lawfully. My real issue with the idea is how practical it would be. If an officer's gun didn't go off when it should have, and they were killed, then people are going to be really upset.