236
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
236 points (96.1% liked)
News
38985 readers
2025 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I mean the main reason they do that is they have to take it seriously. If they decided to ignore anonymous tips, then how many actual situations would they fail to prevent and handle.
Swatting is just taking advantage of the fact that they have no choice but to take it seriously.
That being said, if it's a place that gets swatted regularly or a place that's likely to be swatted due to various reasons they should have precautions in place with people they can trust in order to double check before acting, or at least be prepared to go in with their guns still holstered.
The problem isn't that the police respond, it's how they respond. The fact that the police themselves are so dangerous to the presumptive victim on whose behalf they're responding -- as tacitly acknowledged by "swatting" being treated as a serious crime going beyond mere misuse of police resources -- is the much bigger problem here. Frankly, going after swatters is at least 50% a misdirection tactic: an attempt to shift the blame away from the reckless police.
Patrick Tomlinson was swatted over 40 times in 2023 alone. It took WAY too many times before the police would simply knock on his door and ask him if everything was okay. You'd think after the 4th or 5th time they might figure it out.
https://www.wisn.com/article/milwaukee-science-fiction-writer-victim-of-swatting/40912738
https://www.insideedition.com/milwaukee-sci-fi-author-patrick-tomlinson-victim-of-yearslong-swatting-campaign-of-terror-82365
You'd think Patrick would have set up a big sign like "Hello, if you're swat, chill! It's just a prank bro! Just come in and have a beer." But no, so the guy basically resisted /s
The frustrating thing was that the police had him on a list. They KNEW the history. But half the time they still rolled up ready for war. It was a banner day when he was woken up at 3 in the morning only by two normal officers knocking on the door to let him know it happened again.
They don't need to send SWAT teams. They just do it for kicks.
Oh shut up with these intellectually dishonest arguments. You know there's a problem you know the police are overly aggressive to civilians but hey that's fine I guess and swat to every situation, come on.
This is about American police being way over militaryized. Swatting is not a problem in many other nations so it's a solvable issue but if we're just going to say it's acceptable then nothing will ever change.
You 100% misunderstood me or you meant to reply to someone else.
Huh? You.just want em to send Joe bob over for a chit chat? He'll unwind this whole bomb thingie-whatever
Yep, that's exactly what I want them to do. Unarmed.
Carry that thought. Then what?
Bomber blows up the neighborhood and Joe bob did fuck all.
To be clear, I'm not making light of swatting, and not accepting the culture of modern cops to go all tactical to every little thing. Injustices are happening, people are getting hurt.
I personally want to live in a country where a bomb threat is treated with maximum seriousness.
Are you suggesting that unarmed negotiators don't have an amazing success rate?
They are public servants who volunteer to do a dangerous job. Considering the way they treat innocent people now, yeah I'd much rather hire competent people who are willing to do the job properly.
I'd love to see a source on that. I've never heard negotiators are particularly effective.
"Amazing success rate" sounds like a 75% + de-escalation rate with the offender in custody and the bomb undetonated.
Nope. I don't have numbers. But I have seen competent, compassionate people talk desperate people out of some dire situations without harm to anyone. We should always start there. Every single time.
Cops on the other hand must be leashed.
I spoke to the tactical-happy nature of cops, and how that's a serious issue. I pretty specifically constrained my area of discussion to bomb threats. I acknowledge that for other issues of less terroristic nature, a negotiator is great. (Wellness checks, domestic issues, substance issues, etc)
Thanks for clarifying the anecdotal source though.
Crazy to see you get down voted for this.
Not taking the threat seriously is exactly how Uvalde started.
"popular" sentiment is FULLY ACAB, dearm, negotiate, community activist.
Life is not black and white. Sometimes a strong response is needed. I'm real fucking thankful police exist. Despite their massive failings.
On the other hand there are many many many calls that don't need an armed response, and a community negotiator is a better choice.
Ultimately policing in north America needs massive restructuring. Unnecessary violence and injustice are happening everyday, especially to minorities.
But the response to bomb threats is NOT the top of the list of changes.
By that logic, why not send the Marines?
Huh? The military isn't deployed domestically.
Do you mean the national guard? They don't train on residential bomb threats do they?
I want the most local, most able team to respond ASAP, to resolve the threat. Properly trained police are that group.
Acknowledged that many police are not properly trained.
SWAT doesn't seem all that well trained either if they can be used as weapons by angsty teens.
Until they figure out what is happening, if anything at all, the SWAT teams certainly stand the chance to do more harm than good. How about some recon first? Deaths are happening, and if nothing else innocent and completely bewildered people wind up with police guns pointed at their heads. Most of the time it's cleared up but the victims are left with "Oh sorry folks, someone called and said there was a hostage here."
I don't know what they could do with a mosque. I think it is a very valid assumption that someone could be in there with a gun and a very valid assumption it could be an asshole "pranking".
Be nice to see some harsh criminal penalties for people who SWAT and maybe some more advanced tech like cameras in the building they can plug into and see.