4 ms·

I don't assume competence of 911 responders because they regularly get the wrong house. Your aggressive screed really added nothing to the conversation. "It's p

I don't assume competence of 911 responders because they regularly get the wrong house. Your aggressive screed really added nothing to the conversation. "It's probably correct so we should ignore the problem" isn't a sane perspective on police violence based on a prank call.

nindalf 5y ago
My point is that they have more data and experience on deciding whether a call is legitimate or not. More than the GP here, who read two articles about SWAT-ing before deciding to upend the entire system. > regularly get the wrong house Citation needed, with data? Or do you, like GP, also want us to assume that your anecdotes are data? And getting the exact address isn’t the same thing as deciding the legitimacy of a call. > “it’s probably correct so we should ignore the problem” isn’t a sane perspective You’ve mischaracterised my comment and called me insane. That was uncalled for. I did not say this wasn’t a problem. I merely questioned whether a person with 0 data and 0 experience was qualified to call for upending the current system. More data is needed before we can hold such strong opinions. I would request that in future you don’t call people’s opinions insane without even understanding what they’re saying. You’re currently in violation of HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
- zimpenfish 5y ago
  > Citation needed, with data? Depends if you count a minimum of 10% "regularly"? From 2003: "After the New York City raid that killed Alberta Spruill, Police Chief Raymond Kelly estimated that at least 10 percent of the city’s 450+ monthly no-knock drug raids were served on the wrong address, under bad information, or otherwise didn’t produce enough evidence for an arrest. Kelly conceded, however, that NYPD didn’t keep careful track of botched raids, leading one city council member to speculate the problem could be even worse." There's a whole bunch documented here (where I got the quote) - https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/balko_whi...
  - nindalf 5y ago
    We’re not talking about the same thing are we? This conversation is specifically about where dispatchers are sent after a person makes a call requesting law enforcement, giving their address.
    - zimpenfish 5y ago
      Fair point. Although I think it speaks to the general competence of the US police that they can't get the right address even when they've spent days/weeks organising a raid - I wouldn't necessarily trust them to get it right on a fast rollout on a SWAT call.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
noptd 5y ago
>Your aggressive screed really added nothing to the conversation. Nor did your flamebaiting, uncharitable response to said comment (see 'In Comments' guidelines).

nindalf 5y ago

My point is that they have more data and experience on deciding whether a call is legitimate or not. More than the GP here, who read two articles about SWAT-ing before deciding to upend the entire system. > regularly get the wrong house Citation needed, with data? Or do you, like GP, also want us to assume that your anecdotes are data? And getting the exact address isn’t the same thing as deciding the legitimacy of a call. > “it’s probably correct so we should ignore the problem” isn’t a sane perspective You’ve mischaracterised my comment and called me insane. That was uncalled for. I did not say this wasn’t a problem. I merely questioned whether a person with 0 data and 0 experience was qualified to call for upending the current system. More data is needed before we can hold such strong opinions. I would request that in future you don’t call people’s opinions insane without even understanding what they’re saying. You’re currently in violation of HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

zimpenfish 5y ago
> Citation needed, with data? Depends if you count a minimum of 10% "regularly"? From 2003: "After the New York City raid that killed Alberta Spruill, Police Chief Raymond Kelly estimated that at least 10 percent of the city’s 450+ monthly no-knock drug raids were served on the wrong address, under bad information, or otherwise didn’t produce enough evidence for an arrest. Kelly conceded, however, that NYPD didn’t keep careful track of botched raids, leading one city council member to speculate the problem could be even worse." There's a whole bunch documented here (where I got the quote) - https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/balko_whi...
- nindalf 5y ago
  We’re not talking about the same thing are we? This conversation is specifically about where dispatchers are sent after a person makes a call requesting law enforcement, giving their address.
  - zimpenfish 5y ago
    Fair point. Although I think it speaks to the general competence of the US police that they can't get the right address even when they've spent days/weeks organising a raid - I wouldn't necessarily trust them to get it right on a fast rollout on a SWAT call.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

noptd 5y ago

>Your aggressive screed really added nothing to the conversation. Nor did your flamebaiting, uncharitable response to said comment (see 'In Comments' guidelines).