6 ms·

That some point is on the first one. They should not send in a violent response due to a spoofed call from another state. Worst case, once they find the first

by bagels 3y ago

That some point is on the first one. They should not send in a violent response due to a spoofed call from another state. Worst case, once they find the first one was a 'swatting', they should really temper the response on future calls.

wand3r 3y ago
I agree with you BUT. If one time, somewhere in America, someone truly is a violent threat you'll see all over Twitter & Facebook: "Government agency ignores dozens of pleas for help! Numerous reports that child killer would kill children!" It's obviously super dumb, but it is sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Ideally, we would solve this in a sane way but at least it seems like there is some tempering of violence in most of these stories which is sadly refreshing.
- Capricorn2481 3y ago
  In Uvalde there was a known threat and the police did nothing. I think there's just bad police. It's a tough job, but there are also a lot of under-trained, under-educated people that just want to bust down doors and wouldn't actually risk their lives for anyone. In fact, I'm sure some let themselves be used by swatters, as it gives them a chance to use their heavy equipment in low risk scenarios.
  - yareal 3y ago
    It's less dangerous than delivering pizza, and is basically free from accountability. Outside of being exposed to deeply tragic situations, I'm not so sure it's a "tough job."
    - Geisterde 3y ago
      It would be a tough job if done correctly, is probably the point.
      - yareal 3y ago
        [dead]
- bagels 3y ago
  Well, they should start doing a better job at figuring out what calls are legitimate and won't find themselves in this situation often. Besides all that, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police are not obligated to help you anyways.
- tareqak 3y ago
  I think “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t” does not adequately capture the issue here. Police departments are incentivized/required to respond to SWATs as genuine incidents; therefore, they are not “damned” by this situation. It is the victims of the SWAT that are “damned”. The article says that a SWAT costs $10,000 US, but that cost is borne by the taxpayer and so it would be up to municipalities to deal with the risk of looking weak on crime or just pay the bill. However, if the police were to not respond to an emergency that required a SWAT team that actually needed one, then they would be accused of not doing their jobs and being “damned” in that fashion. My sad conclusion is that police departments and the different levels of government are not incentivized to solve this problem because the rich, the powerful, and enough of the voting public are sufficiently shielded from the negative consequences.
  - wand3r 3y ago
    I was going to make this point above as well but it felt to cynical. Ultimately, I think its just a case of normal people having to respond to an extremely rare and kinetic situation with no playbook as every decision you make is scrutinized and broadcast in HD with full commentary. I'm honestly curious how many times the "hostage negotiator" has had to show up and negotiate for hostages. It's hard to imagine what success looks like in that role as (luckily) each of these situations are rare and highly unique. Outside of incidents that good information about the legitimacy of the threat are established, it seems like we should put a lot more effort into tracking down people who make false claims and doing PR on the perpetrators of false allegations. Right now it seems like the risk to the "informant" of a SWAT is low and the victim is insanely high. If we narrow these odds without destroying privacy and freedom, that would be the best case.
    - resolutebat 3y ago
      "Normal people with no playbook"? These are police SWAT teams we're talking about, the entire reason the specialization exists is to make them highly trained to deal with these situations. Of course, in America that training tends to take the form of learning how to use their military-style weaponry to kill the Bad Guys(tm), not eg how to deescalate a situation.
- gklitz 3y ago
  > It's obviously super dumb, but it is sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation I refuse to believe that anyone woild damn them with a headline of “smae parson was found to be doing nothing wrong 3 times earlier on the same day. So the forth time only a small friendly team was sent initially after which a full swat team was sent when they discovers it was real” No one in their right mind would be like “why didn’t they go in with force for the forth time that day!?
wkat4242 3y ago
Sending in a swat team without any kind of in person validation is pretty insane anyway IMO. I've never heard of this happening in Europe in the counties I've lived. They have such teams but they're only sent in after a serious hostage situation is confirmed by cops on the scene. They don't just go around busting down doors because some anonymous caller says so. I wonder how many of these situations in the US are legit and actually needed such a response.
- asddubs 3y ago
  it's a natural conclusion of the militarization of the police. The police gets a bunch of toys it doesn't need and then itches to use them on something.
  - djbusby 3y ago
    Like developer with new shiny JavaScript framework/toolkit. Gotta use it at the next opportunity. Human condition to want to use the gear you're excited about. I'm glad my work is crappy rather than dangerous.
  - Log_out_ 3y ago
    And it's utterly useless.. What good does a tank against a drone with an rpg7 head. Real resistence by a gang would obliberate a Swatteam. A cold War style armament spiral between gangs and police can not end in success.
    - Y-bar 3y ago
      But it can end in a kind of success for the arms manufacturers, their shareholders, the “hard on crime” politicians, the upper management of the police force, and the pro-police state people who gets validation for their calls ever-increasing need for violence.
  - timeon 3y ago
    Militarization of the police is just symptom. Root cause is that police needs to expect that almost anyone in the US could be armed. This is not the case elsewhere.
night862 3y ago
You know, its probably more cost effective and, well, effective at that point to just post an offficer across the street? A crossing guard would do fine. Wouldn't that street be definitionally the highest crime hotspot in the area anyhow?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jlg23 3y ago
> they should really temper the response on future calls So I should swat myself in the morning when I want to go on a rampage in the afternoon? As inconvenient as it is for the victims, the 100% response rate is the only guarantee the system cannot be abused in other ways. A similar example from Germany: A friend is driving 8h every 2 months to his mandatory shooting practice because he missed too many flights back due to residues of gun discharges found on him at the airport. The government is accepting this 8h commute as work time because any way around the mandatory, extensive investigation at the airport would open holes in the security procedures in place. And my friends "secret service" badge does not grant him any special powers at the airport - also by design.

by bagels 3y ago

wand3r 3y ago

I agree with you BUT. If one time, somewhere in America, someone truly is a violent threat you'll see all over Twitter & Facebook: "Government agency ignores dozens of pleas for help! Numerous reports that child killer would kill children!" It's obviously super dumb, but it is sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Ideally, we would solve this in a sane way but at least it seems like there is some tempering of violence in most of these stories which is sadly refreshing.

Capricorn2481 3y ago
In Uvalde there was a known threat and the police did nothing. I think there's just bad police. It's a tough job, but there are also a lot of under-trained, under-educated people that just want to bust down doors and wouldn't actually risk their lives for anyone. In fact, I'm sure some let themselves be used by swatters, as it gives them a chance to use their heavy equipment in low risk scenarios.
- yareal 3y ago
  It's less dangerous than delivering pizza, and is basically free from accountability. Outside of being exposed to deeply tragic situations, I'm not so sure it's a "tough job."
  - Geisterde 3y ago
    It would be a tough job if done correctly, is probably the point.
    - yareal 3y ago
      [dead]
bagels 3y ago
Well, they should start doing a better job at figuring out what calls are legitimate and won't find themselves in this situation often. Besides all that, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police are not obligated to help you anyways.
tareqak 3y ago
I think “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t” does not adequately capture the issue here. Police departments are incentivized/required to respond to SWATs as genuine incidents; therefore, they are not “damned” by this situation. It is the victims of the SWAT that are “damned”. The article says that a SWAT costs $10,000 US, but that cost is borne by the taxpayer and so it would be up to municipalities to deal with the risk of looking weak on crime or just pay the bill. However, if the police were to not respond to an emergency that required a SWAT team that actually needed one, then they would be accused of not doing their jobs and being “damned” in that fashion. My sad conclusion is that police departments and the different levels of government are not incentivized to solve this problem because the rich, the powerful, and enough of the voting public are sufficiently shielded from the negative consequences.
- wand3r 3y ago
  I was going to make this point above as well but it felt to cynical. Ultimately, I think its just a case of normal people having to respond to an extremely rare and kinetic situation with no playbook as every decision you make is scrutinized and broadcast in HD with full commentary. I'm honestly curious how many times the "hostage negotiator" has had to show up and negotiate for hostages. It's hard to imagine what success looks like in that role as (luckily) each of these situations are rare and highly unique. Outside of incidents that good information about the legitimacy of the threat are established, it seems like we should put a lot more effort into tracking down people who make false claims and doing PR on the perpetrators of false allegations. Right now it seems like the risk to the "informant" of a SWAT is low and the victim is insanely high. If we narrow these odds without destroying privacy and freedom, that would be the best case.
  - resolutebat 3y ago
    "Normal people with no playbook"? These are police SWAT teams we're talking about, the entire reason the specialization exists is to make them highly trained to deal with these situations. Of course, in America that training tends to take the form of learning how to use their military-style weaponry to kill the Bad Guys(tm), not eg how to deescalate a situation.
gklitz 3y ago
> It's obviously super dumb, but it is sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation I refuse to believe that anyone woild damn them with a headline of “smae parson was found to be doing nothing wrong 3 times earlier on the same day. So the forth time only a small friendly team was sent initially after which a full swat team was sent when they discovers it was real” No one in their right mind would be like “why didn’t they go in with force for the forth time that day!?

wkat4242 3y ago

Sending in a swat team without any kind of in person validation is pretty insane anyway IMO. I've never heard of this happening in Europe in the counties I've lived. They have such teams but they're only sent in after a serious hostage situation is confirmed by cops on the scene. They don't just go around busting down doors because some anonymous caller says so. I wonder how many of these situations in the US are legit and actually needed such a response.

asddubs 3y ago
it's a natural conclusion of the militarization of the police. The police gets a bunch of toys it doesn't need and then itches to use them on something.
- djbusby 3y ago
  Like developer with new shiny JavaScript framework/toolkit. Gotta use it at the next opportunity. Human condition to want to use the gear you're excited about. I'm glad my work is crappy rather than dangerous.
- Log_out_ 3y ago
  And it's utterly useless.. What good does a tank against a drone with an rpg7 head. Real resistence by a gang would obliberate a Swatteam. A cold War style armament spiral between gangs and police can not end in success.
  - Y-bar 3y ago
    But it can end in a kind of success for the arms manufacturers, their shareholders, the “hard on crime” politicians, the upper management of the police force, and the pro-police state people who gets validation for their calls ever-increasing need for violence.
- timeon 3y ago
  Militarization of the police is just symptom. Root cause is that police needs to expect that almost anyone in the US could be armed. This is not the case elsewhere.

night862 3y ago

You know, its probably more cost effective and, well, effective at that point to just post an offficer across the street? A crossing guard would do fine. Wouldn't that street be definitionally the highest crime hotspot in the area anyhow?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jlg23 3y ago

> they should really temper the response on future calls So I should swat myself in the morning when I want to go on a rampage in the afternoon? As inconvenient as it is for the victims, the 100% response rate is the only guarantee the system cannot be abused in other ways. A similar example from Germany: A friend is driving 8h every 2 months to his mandatory shooting practice because he missed too many flights back due to residues of gun discharges found on him at the airport. The government is accepting this 8h commute as work time because any way around the mandatory, extensive investigation at the airport would open holes in the security procedures in place. And my friends "secret service" badge does not grant him any special powers at the airport - also by design.