4 ms·

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 ammunitio

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.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      Got it. Cops responding to e.g. reports of a shooter walking classroom to classroom executing 5th graders should have maybe tasers or pepper spray. Cops responding to e.g. reports of a group of jihadists ambushing restaurants in a crowded European nightlife district: MAYBE tasers and pepper spray! Here in reality, awful stuff happens on a daily basis. Get a grip.
      - amrangaye 3y ago
        What’re you talking about? We’re discussing how in this particular case it would be trivial for the police department to see that this house has been SWATed 47 (!) times, which obviously means there’s something going on. How do you get from that to a school shooter executing students (what a horrible image to use for your argument so it’s based on emotion, and accusing people who disagree with you of being OK with school shootings). There’s place for nuance, esp when guns and lives are involved.
        ethanbond 3y ago
        Because the GGP, to whom I replied, made much broader claims which I’ve already cited above. The more immediate GP doubled down and clarified the (insane) belief that cops should NEVER be armed, except perhaps tasers and pepper spray.
        MeImCounting 3y ago
- pvaldes 3y ago
  I have second thoughts about it The real intention of the police could be to respond to each call and swat just to assure that as many charges as possible are accumulated and billed to the culprit later. Everything is reported and recorded so the police actions, that are torturing the victim, also dig the hole deeper and deeper for the criminal. The harm done is obvious and allow asking for damage compensations. At that level of reckless no judge could dismiss it as just child's play. Keep swatting also reward the criminals that are watching. This is not necessarily a bad thing. To keep them engaged and interested on the game is a must for the police, that therefore increase their chances to complete patterns and chase them slowly one by one.

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.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Got it. Cops responding to e.g. reports of a shooter walking classroom to classroom executing 5th graders should have maybe tasers or pepper spray. Cops responding to e.g. reports of a group of jihadists ambushing restaurants in a crowded European nightlife district: MAYBE tasers and pepper spray! Here in reality, awful stuff happens on a daily basis. Get a grip.
    - amrangaye 3y ago
      What’re you talking about? We’re discussing how in this particular case it would be trivial for the police department to see that this house has been SWATed 47 (!) times, which obviously means there’s something going on. How do you get from that to a school shooter executing students (what a horrible image to use for your argument so it’s based on emotion, and accusing people who disagree with you of being OK with school shootings). There’s place for nuance, esp when guns and lives are involved.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        Because the GGP, to whom I replied, made much broader claims which I’ve already cited above. The more immediate GP doubled down and clarified the (insane) belief that cops should NEVER be armed, except perhaps tasers and pepper spray.
        MeImCounting 3y ago
pvaldes 3y ago
I have second thoughts about it The real intention of the police could be to respond to each call and swat just to assure that as many charges as possible are accumulated and billed to the culprit later. Everything is reported and recorded so the police actions, that are torturing the victim, also dig the hole deeper and deeper for the criminal. The harm done is obvious and allow asking for damage compensations. At that level of reckless no judge could dismiss it as just child's play. Keep swatting also reward the criminals that are watching. This is not necessarily a bad thing. To keep them engaged and interested on the game is a must for the police, that therefore increase their chances to complete patterns and chase them slowly one by one.