4 ms·

You don't have to place the blame on one party. He's absolutely being harassed by swatters. They call the police to get him swatted. Not to mention that on top

You don't have to place the blame on one party. He's absolutely being harassed by swatters. They call the police to get him swatted. Not to mention that on top of swatting, there is impersonation going on AND they are targeting others as well - like his parents. He's ALSO being terrorized by the police, who are more inclined to cosplay with guns and make people fear than to actually do anything about their broken system or be held accountable at all. They absolutely cannot play ignorance - the are basically in an alliance with the swatters. Swatter calls it in, they wink and nod and follow through.

tomohawk 3y ago
The police are being hacked by the swatters, and not exercising due diligence. The swatters are taking advantage of the police because it is somehow acceptable for police to show up a a residence in full battle gear, when the resident has no criminal record and there is no known probable cause to use such deadly force. Swat should be rarely, if ever used. Instead they're used in more than 90% of these cases. There is literally no downside to the judges who approve these actions, or to the police who conduct them.
- Vegenoid 3y ago
  They may even be justifying their budget, or receiving larger budgets, due to how many times they “have” to respond with lots of manpower and expensive equipment.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Wait so if someone calls in and says “hey this guy across the street keeps rolling in barrels and barrels of explosives and what looks like rifles and ammunition,” you’re thinking they should be sending a patrol officer over to knock on the door? It’s obviously trivial to produce whatever kind of report is necessary to justify a SWAT response.
  - Auracle 3y ago
    I had some friends have the cops called on them during college because they were laying out their (real looking) airsoft guns and gear out on their beds. They sent police in SWAT gear, but they still politely knocked. They were let in, saw what was actually going on, talked to them about how neat the guns were, and that was that. There’s a middle ground that’s probably acceptable to most.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      Yeah, agreed. It can be true that SWAT is overused, that this guy shouldn't be able to get swatted 40+ times, that even when SWAT is used they're probably excessively aggressive and undertrained, and that "stop sending SWAT to extremely serious calls" is a ridiculously laughable solution to swatting.
  - bitcharmer 3y ago
    You would expect them to learn after a couple of times that it's not a legit report, so yes 47 times would be entirely police getting played like a bunch of five year olds. Which I hope you'll agree is not good.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      That’s not what I’m responding to, obviously. This is what GP said: it is somehow acceptable for police to show up a a residence in full battle gear, when the resident has no criminal record and there is no known probable cause to use such deadly force. Swat should be rarely, if ever used. Instead they're used in more than 90% of these cases. —- All of that is obviously bullshit if you spend 45 seconds thinking about reality. Obviously there is an infinite number of different calls to police that can justify an aggressive, armed, SWAT response to someone previously unknown to law enforcement.
      - MeImCounting 3y ago
        No. Cops should not even be carrying deadly weapons of any kind. Maybe tasers. Mayber pepper spray. We have a legal system for a reason. Giving a cop any lethal weapon is passive acceptance that he may circumvent the legal system and put himself in the position of judge jury and executioner. This is wrong and erodes trust in police and the judicial system vastly more than any other issue. No cops should have guns, not "SWAT" team, not beat cops, none.

tomohawk 3y ago

The police are being hacked by the swatters, and not exercising due diligence. The swatters are taking advantage of the police because it is somehow acceptable for police to show up a a residence in full battle gear, when the resident has no criminal record and there is no known probable cause to use such deadly force. Swat should be rarely, if ever used. Instead they're used in more than 90% of these cases. There is literally no downside to the judges who approve these actions, or to the police who conduct them.

Vegenoid 3y ago
They may even be justifying their budget, or receiving larger budgets, due to how many times they “have” to respond with lots of manpower and expensive equipment.
ethanbond 3y ago
Wait so if someone calls in and says “hey this guy across the street keeps rolling in barrels and barrels of explosives and what looks like rifles and ammunition,” you’re thinking they should be sending a patrol officer over to knock on the door? It’s obviously trivial to produce whatever kind of report is necessary to justify a SWAT response.
- Auracle 3y ago
  I had some friends have the cops called on them during college because they were laying out their (real looking) airsoft guns and gear out on their beds. They sent police in SWAT gear, but they still politely knocked. They were let in, saw what was actually going on, talked to them about how neat the guns were, and that was that. There’s a middle ground that’s probably acceptable to most.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Yeah, agreed. It can be true that SWAT is overused, that this guy shouldn't be able to get swatted 40+ times, that even when SWAT is used they're probably excessively aggressive and undertrained, and that "stop sending SWAT to extremely serious calls" is a ridiculously laughable solution to swatting.
- bitcharmer 3y ago
  You would expect them to learn after a couple of times that it's not a legit report, so yes 47 times would be entirely police getting played like a bunch of five year olds. Which I hope you'll agree is not good.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    That’s not what I’m responding to, obviously. This is what GP said: it is somehow acceptable for police to show up a a residence in full battle gear, when the resident has no criminal record and there is no known probable cause to use such deadly force. Swat should be rarely, if ever used. Instead they're used in more than 90% of these cases. —- All of that is obviously bullshit if you spend 45 seconds thinking about reality. Obviously there is an infinite number of different calls to police that can justify an aggressive, armed, SWAT response to someone previously unknown to law enforcement.
    - MeImCounting 3y ago
      No. Cops should not even be carrying deadly weapons of any kind. Maybe tasers. Mayber pepper spray. We have a legal system for a reason. Giving a cop any lethal weapon is passive acceptance that he may circumvent the legal system and put himself in the position of judge jury and executioner. This is wrong and erodes trust in police and the judicial system vastly more than any other issue. No cops should have guns, not "SWAT" team, not beat cops, none.