5 ms·

Swatting seems like an uniquely American problem, whereas I’m pretty sure prank 911 calls are not. Has the FBI tried not knocking down the doors of people when

• donatj 3y ago
  They’ve got all this fancy swat gear laying around, they’re just itching for any excuse to use it and justify their budgets.
• HWR_14 3y ago
  In fairness, it's a phone call with a spoofed origin. They believe they know the origin, that it is in the house, and it is an urgent call for help to please kick down the doors and come protect the caller. Which again, they see with what seems to be proper identifiers. Also, the FBI has not swatted people (maybe they have rarely, but it's not normal). In America, those are usually the local police, maybe the state. And because of that, it's hard to implement a good national solution. Some local police coordinate with people who might be victims of swatting to set up mitigations, some don't.
  • _v7gu 3y ago
    What is so different in USA so the local police feel compelled to knock down people’s doors when other countries’ police don’t?
    • dragontamer 3y ago
      Guns are legal in USA. So the people in USA can (and often do) shoot at cops when they start busting down doors.
      • marak830 3y ago
        Guns are legal in many countries, so that argument doesn't really hole much water. But at the same time, I don't have a good reason why (but then again it's never been my field of study).
        • deleted 3y ago
          [deleted]
        • seanmcdirmid 3y ago
          Guns are legal in many countries, but they have different rules about them. For example, in Canada you aren’t allowed to use them for self defense (well, it’s ok against bears), in Germany they have to be locked in a safe when not in use (and the police will come to your home to do spot checks), in Switzerland militia ammunition is kept separate from guns, etc…
        • arp242 3y ago
          There are dramatically more guns in the US than any other country; the US has about 120 guns per person, Falkand Islands comes second with about 60 guns per person, and it drops off to 20-30 per person pretty quickly after that. In addition, in many places where guns are more common-ish they're usually for hunting, rather than "to protect me and my family": that is, more (hunting) rifles, less handguns, and less of a culture to use them for defence.
          • jemmyw 3y ago
            Got that info from wikipedia? Because I made exactly the same mistake the other day. It's 120 guns per 100 people, 1.2 guns per person in the US.
            • arp242 3y ago
              Oops, yes, that's what I meant to write >_< It's all per 100, not per person.
          • _v7gu 3y ago
            I mean, a person can shoot only one gun (accurately) at a time; and the calls usually denote the person targeted has a gun. Would the police force really apply Bayes’ rule to reevaluate the call’s truthiness if gun ownership halved?
          • matthewmacleod 3y ago
      • masklinn 3y ago
        Also and importantly the police gets lots of hands-me-down from the military, grants for high power devices, bills themselves warriors (with seminars like Grossman’s Killology), and trains in fearing everything and considering the civilian population their enemy. US cops are basically trained in thinking they work in occupied territory, but not in trigger discipline. Every podunk town has set up a “SWAT” team armed to the teeth moving around in mrap, chomping at the bit to use their toys (as long as there’s no obvious danger on the scene, flashbanging a crib at dawn is A-ok, rushing a mass shooter in a school in broad daylight is, you know, maybe later).
        • 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
          >...flashbanging a crib at dawn is A-ok, rushing a mass shooter in a school in broad daylight is, you know, maybe later Oh that's not fair. The official count is the police only waited 74 minutes[0] before attempting to engage a hostile situation. However, they were effective in blocking parents from entering the scene, tackling and threatening to taze anyone who dared disrespect their orders. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robb_Elementary_School_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robb_Elementary_School_shootin...
          • dragontamer 3y ago
            The cops there IIRC were outgunned. The shooter had an AR-15 rifle. You ain't beating that with just a side-arm / pistol. AR15 shoots at 3x the muzzle velocity with larger bullets, meaning the AR15 penetrates walls / cover better, and has better accuracy to boot (less drop over distances so its far easier to aim). I don't know exactly which magazines he was using, but AR-15 rifles can come with effective magazines as large as 30 shots, while typical pistols only have 9 far weaker shots. A trained man with an AR15 could very well beat an entire squad of pistol-armed police men depending on the distance of engagement, body armor available and cover available. Ex: The AR15 could penetrate doors and walls, while the Police could not (and even if the Police __COULD__ penetrate the walls, there was a chance at injuring the hostages). People just don't realize the mechanics of what happens when a shooter has access to guns that are more powerful than the Columbine shooters. It makes the tactics for stopping those shooters that much more perilous. -------- You can't expect cops to walk into a fight with literally weaker weapons than what the shooter was obviously using. People don't realize that here in the USA, not only are guns legal... _BIG_ guns, like the AR15 are legal. This is what people talk about "assault style weapons", which is poorly defined but obviously means things stronger than a typical pistol. When guns get bigger, they shoot further. They penetrate more armor and cover. They shoot more accurately due to barrel length and faster velocities. You literally are getting outgunned and favored to lose from a tactical perspective unless you sit around and wait for the SWAT team. ----- > "We have him in the room. He's got an AR-15. He's shot a lot ... we don't have firepower right now ... It's all pistols ... I don't have a radio ... I need you to bring a radio for me, and give me my radio for me ... I need to get one rifle ... I'm trying to set him up. The Uvalde cops _DID_ attack the shooter. They were so obviously outgunned that they retreated. Welcome to the reality of AR-15 all over the damn place.
      • _v7gu 3y ago
        Guns are legal in many countries. Hell, I can just go out and buy one (after applying for a license). And people starting shooting is kind of expected when you break down their doors without announcing. For all they know, their lives are being threatened and they have a right to self defence. But if a cop wants to shoot me here, there is a very clear procedure they must follow (verbal warning+warning shot). What is wrong with knocking on doors before trying to tear them down?
    • HWR_14 3y ago
      What makes you so sure other countries' police don't? The London Police swatted someone in August, 2022.
      • _v7gu 3y ago
        If that happened, then that’s a huge point against the anti-2A argument, and huge point towards the cowardly cops argument.
        • HWR_14 3y ago
          I don't see how there is a cowardly cops argument. They believe that there is one or more armed intruders holding the homeowners hostage. In that case I want them to kick down the door. I just want a phone system that has more authentication built in. And you can check the Wikipedia list of swatting incidents.
          • defrost 3y ago
            > In that case I want them to kick down the door. No concerns for homeowners killed in cross fire then? How about surrounding the location and assessing the situation first?
            • HWR_14 3y ago
              The calls say something like "I, a homeowner, have an armed intruder actively threatening me. Please come save my life." They are not "a criminal has broken into an empty house across the street". The phone company reports that, yes, it is the homeowner making the call.
              • defrost 3y ago
                And? This obliviates any need to verify?
                • HWR_14 3y ago
  • freetanga 3y ago
    Maybe, but also, there are so many cases that at this point they need to assume the call might be fake to begin with and adjust protocols.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• dragontamer 3y ago
  There are over 10,000 police departments in the USA. It's those dumbass cops from underfunded communities that fall for this. They get cheap military equipment because USA overbuilt MRAPs for Iraq and Afghanistan, and other guns are relatively cheap. Expensive, college educated cops are outside the budgets of many of these tiny police departments, so they're staffed with High School educated staff who have itchy trigger fingers and excess military stockpiles. What do you think would happen?
  • masklinn 3y ago
    > Expensive, college educated cops are outside the budgets of many of these tiny police departments Also literally over-qualified.
    • dragontamer 3y ago
      Doesn't change that the cops in my county are 100% college educated, cause my county is richer than other counties so we can afford it. Also, calling ahead and telling them you're a streamer and to watch out for Swatting (and other such protocols) are well established for my area. So its not something we really worry about. ------------- Cops are in competition with each other. The cheaper areas who don't pay as well do not get the college-educated cops and instead get an entire force at the high-school level. With only a TV-education on how telephones work or the fact that you can't just trust caller-ID (and other such factoids). I'm more than willing to bet that the counties where "Swatting" is an effective tactic are full of the lesser educated, likely underpaid, cops that are missing out on the latest Police training. (Training is also expensive, and some people think that good police training is a left-wing brainwashing mechanism anyway so they don't trust the police academies, sensitivity training, or so forth) But the surplus military equipment was literally free, so they got that.
      • masklinn 3y ago
        > Doesn't change that the cops in my county are 100% college educated You misunderstand, what I’m saying is that US police forces generally consider college education to be over-qualification outside of high-ranking officers. It’s not (just) that they’re expensive, departments literally don’t want them.