5 ms·

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 do

by 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!?

by wand3r 3y ago

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!?