> They get a call that someone is shot, and that soon others will be killed, they are going to call SWAT.

There is no law of nature requiring that police departments react that way. It is up to us as a society to decide what behavior we desire.

If, for instance, I were to learn that 90% of all calls for SWAT teams are from "swatting" (baseless prank calls performed to create the reaction) while 10% were actual life-or-death situations it would affect my opinion of the right way for police to handle it.

So I think knowing the actual statistics is important.

You really think 90% could be pranks? Anything could potentially be a prank, that doesn't change the fact someone could be in imminent danger. Police need to always both exercise caution and respond quickly to potential crimes.

I'd recommend reading mcherm's comment again. He doesn't state that 90% could be pranks. He states "If, for instance, I were to learn that 90% ..." This is called "reductio ad absurdum", and is a pretty standard method of arguments. The statement from x86_64Ubuntu was that a report of violence in all cases is responded to by a SWAT team, with the implication that this is correct and reasonable behavior in all circumstances.

From my reading, mcherm is giving a hypothetical scenario in which the automatic response of sending a SWAT team would be unreasonable. The conclusion isn't that we exist in that hypothetical scenario, but that more information is needed in order to determine whether and how close we may be to it.

Yes but the reasonableness of that hypothetical can still be challenged. This isn't a math proof, but a discussion of the reasonableness of a policy.

Correct, and the hypothetical establishes that the proportion of maliciously false calls is essential for determining the reasonableness of the policy. At 0% maliciously false calls, reasonable. At 90% maliciously false calls, unreasonable. Clearly, that number is important to the discussion, which is the sole point of introducing the hypothetical.

This is a repeat of the same argument. An unrealistic hypothetical does not establish that we need to consider something in the real world. Hypothetically perhaps UFO's were beaming ideas into the cops' heads, hence we cannot trust their statements and need an alternative data source. Nope, this is preposterous so we can go ahead and not worry about concerns based solely on this argument.

Thank you for explaining this so clearly.

There’s no winning for the cops.

It’s a really hard job where you have to walk the correct route through a protocol in an emergency, often while being in danger yourself

They could win a lot more by being smarter. Their tactics are terrible. A lot of crime could be (and is) de-escalated without the police there. They can be better trained and informed to deal with different scenarios without pulling their weapon, shouting commands, etc. They can have a better relationship in their communities. There's a lot of evidence that alternative methods result in less harm.

The "protocol" for police is also dictated by their unions and the way laws around police use of force are interpreted. In general they know they are safe if they simply kill a person as soon as they perceive a threat. They will be legally covered and physically out of harm's way. This therefore incentivizes them to use lethal force, because they have no incentive not to use lethal force.

Yes, police have a hard job. But it could be a lot less hard (for them) if laws and policies are reformed.

Crazy that this is being downvoted. The cops were responding to a call about a armed gunman actively killing. If they respond slowly or tepidly and people die, then they get yelled at. If they respond quickly and decisevly and they have been lied to, they get yelled at. They are not omnipotent.

What percentage of alerts triggered by home security systems are false alarms? I don't have authoritative numbers, but I kind of thought "everybody knows" it's most of them.

I'm not arguing for 90%, just against assumptions.

The kids initiated the whole thing and used the cops as proxy. The actions of the police can’t be ignored. To place all blame on the kids is to pretend that hyper mobilization of a quasi military is okay.

To take this further if someone malicious caused me to do something catastrophic at work should I be absolved of all accountability? Sure, I am not the person who did the malicious thing because I had no intent, but I did still do it. Maybe I shouldn’t be fired but the security policies and procedures should be changed for the entire company to prevent this from happening again.

So what exactly do you think the police shouldn't have done here?

Noone has an answer because people just want to be mad at the police.

why is swatting a very american thing? how come other countries police departments don't seem to have an issue with it?

What happens in other countries when the police receive an anonymous report of an ongoing violent crime at a residence?

What do the police in those countries do differently?

not send swat? actually at that not have a swat team that needs to justify its existence?

You are asking other people to explain your associations and assumptions.

If you want to discuss a topic in a productive manner, the first thing to do is to honestly say something about what you believe and why.

What actual observations of the world led you to your generalizations?

No i'm responding to someone who things "there is no other way to respond" when clearly given many other countries don't have this problem, there must be?

> is to pretend that hyper mobilization of a quasi military is okay.

To stop a shooter? Yes it is.

No it is not. For that you send the police, not the military and not quasi military.

Need actual evidence there is a shooter beyond just a phone call.

By the time you have that evidence, the evidence will be being carried out in body bags if there is a shooter.

"Perhaps the most notable aspect of the deadly force findings is that SWAT officers rarely discharge their firearms at human targets. We estimated that across the hundreds of team years for which we had data that SWAT officers took suspects under fire in just 342 of the tens of thousands of operations they undertook"

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/223855.pdf

I don't think that most SWAT responses are actually saving lives with bullets. Also included in that paper is a table showing that most frequently, SWAT is used to serve warrants.

I’m glad that most SWAT incidents end without the team firing any rounds. To me, that’s a success case and a better outcome than if the metric showed “50% of the time, officers discharged their weapons”. It’s not a waste when their body armor goes untested on a call either.

If a warrant serving situation seems dangerous enough to use SWAT, I hope they use them and no rounds are fired. That’s a good warrant service, not a failure, in my book.

Can you describe the process you are suggesting?

"After receiving a phone call concerning an active shooter situation, the force sent round a single officer, just to double-check. The officer was among the 7 killed by the gunman."

Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf? The sheep were slaughtered because the town stopped trusting him. I'd rather the police scare a few unlucky people and waste some resources than learn to distrust our cries for help. Of course it's a tragedy that someone lost their life, but how many lives would be lost through not mobilising enough police?

Do you think we need corroborating evidence of a fire before rolling a fire truck, or is a phone call enough there?

The difference is that the fire brigade don't tend to run into a house and shoot the occupants.

Well in the case that we are discussing here, the police didn't shoot the guy.

The police/SWAT team are the ones who ultimately pull the trigger. They need to do their due diligence before doing so.

"Someone else told me XYZ" doesn't absolve you of responsibility for your actions. The people who called in with a false report certainly share in that responsibility, but it's not solely theirs.

They didn't pull the trigger at all. They just showed up.

True, but did they show up aggressively and unannounced stormed into the guy's house or land while armed to the teeth and totally shock him into death?

They didn’t storm anything. They responded to the call and the man came at the police with a gun. They de-escalated.

What are you proposing they should have done? Just waited it out from a distance?