Advances in technology allow prank callers to mask their voice, phone number or IP address, or make their false 911 calls sound more credible.
Author Patrick Tomlinson and his wife, business owner Niki Robinson, have been "swatted" at their home in Milwaukee more than 40 times, often resulting in police pointing guns at their heads. Their tormentors have also called in false bomb threats to venues using their names in three states. Yet law enforcement hasn’t been able to stop the prank calls.
The couple’s terror comes as these incidents appear to be on the rise in the U.S., at least on college campuses. In less than a single week in April, universities including Clemson, Florida, Boston, Harvard, Cornell, Pittsburgh, Rutgers and Oklahoma, as well as Middlebury College, were targeted by swatters.
To combat the growing problem, the FBI has begun taking formal measures to get a comprehensive picture of the problem on a national level.
Swatting is a huge problem and needs addressing, no argument there. But it's not about disbanding SWAT teams. These units exist for high-risk situations like hostage crises and active shooters - genuine threats.
The focus should be on improving how these incidents are handled and preventing false calls in the first place. We need better training for 911 operators to spot potential swatting calls and more targeted legislation to crack down on these dangerous pranks. Tech companies could also step up their game in addressing online harassment that often leads to swatting.
It's about creating a system that can respond to real threats while safeguarding innocent people from becoming victims of cruel pranks. Not an easy task, but something we should definitely aim for. Let's fight for change where it's needed most.
How many hostage situations have been resolved via murder squad and how many innocent people have been murdered by the squad whose job it is to kill people?
If you ran the numbers, I'm certain you would find society safer with no murder squads—with surplus military gear no less—than with them.
To be clear: I advocate not just the disbanding of SWAT teams, but the abolition of all police.
SWAT teams were designed to handle high-risk situations, not just hostage scenarios. They assist in various law enforcement operations, protect high-profile individuals, respond to civil disturbances, and serve high-risk warrants. These roles are crucial and can't be ignored.
The unfortunate cases where innocent people are harmed are heartbreaking, yet they don't represent the majority of SWAT deployments. Most SWAT teams manage high-risk situations without resorting to lethal force.
Rather than complete abolition, we need to focus on better training, stricter oversight, and stronger accountability. The militarization of police, including surplus military gear, is a concern and should be addressed separately.
As for 'swatting', it's a serious misuse of the system by individuals making false reports. This issue requires improved training for 911 operators and stricter punishments for those who make false reports.
While your concerns about SWAT teams are valid, I believe that reform, rather than total abolition, might be a more effective solution to ensure safety and justice.
Does this include people protesting the police murdering them?
For what crimes?
Nothing in that link seemed to back up the claim those roles are crucial, but I did see a giant list of 27 weapons they don't need.
I believe you are incorrect. I maintain the existence of police is itself an injustice which serves to keep housing prices high by evicting squatters out of unused housing, food unaffordable by arresting people who claim it unused out dumpsters, and punish people who will not work for capitalist masters by harassing unhoused people for existing on the street.
I invite you to consider why you consider violent enforcement necessary, what is being enforced with that violence, and against who the violence is used.
What "crimes" do you suppose cannot be dealt with by removing the social conditions which engender them, and (if there are any) how are murdersquads a superior solution?
SWAT teams are typically not the first responders for protests. Their role in civil disturbances generally involves extreme situations like riots or instances where there are direct, credible threats to life. Still, I agree it's vital to ensure that law enforcement respects people's right to protest.
High-risk warrants often involve dangerous crimes or situations like armed suspects, drug trafficking, or violent crime suspects where there's a high probability of violence. But the system is imperfect, and mistakes can and do happen, sometimes with tragic consequences.
IACP conducted two studies—one on police use of force and another on SWAT activities—to provide accurate data and insights on these aspects of law enforcement, aiming to inform the field, public, and media about the true nature of these practices.
I totally agree we should strive to address social conditions that lead to crime. But we do not live in an ideal society; there will still be instances of violence, harm, or crisis where a specialized response is necessary, whether we call it "police" or not.
I can tell we have some starkly different views on governance, and that's okay. Not trying to spar here endlessly. Just remember, a world with zero law enforcement might not be as idyllic as it sounds. It's clear you envision a utopia and your perspective is valid. However, it's crucial not to let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Improving our systems should be our focus, even if they can't instantly reach perfection. Keep pushing for a better world, but let's also strive for achievable progress.
This is begging the question of these "suspects" needing arrest at all. A person being armed—by itself—is not a crime. Using, possessing, selling, and manufacturing drugs should not be. How much of this "high probability of violence" directly stems from people with guns coming to kidnap them? (Yeah, I'm a prison abolitionist, too.)
I see nothing in the quote which addresses their role in society being crucial.
Yes, and I am willing to admit in addition to some of my thoughts needing polish, I hold certain views (I have not yet shared with you) which are flagrantly contradictory. I still am confident the end goal of the pursuit of justice will lead to a world that does not have slave patrols. I view a desire to preserve such a system of domination to be a moral failing.
Police kill more Americans than active shooters do and should be disestablished for that reason alone. 1/3rd of all homicides are by police. Homicide by police is the largest single category of homicide. Yet, police have only 2% of all the firearms in this country. To me, those statistics are staggering. We have actually, by several objective metrics, reached the point where police commit more crimes than the "criminals" do. American society is just experiencing whiplash catching up to the numbers because many of us don't want them to be true. Which is understandable, we have put a huge amount of collective trust in these institutions and it sucks to be betrayed.
Defunding the police isn't about idyllic utopias, it's about stopping the ongoing racialized mass-murder that doesn't actually protect anyone's community. Where I live, the police are a bigger social problem than any gang or mafia.
Defund, disarm, disband.
Counterpoint: hostage takes can get a new hostage after killing the first one without if nobody is present to stop them
Countercounterpoint: Fuck the police.
Here's the thing though.
In the USA, police kill way, way, way more people than are ever taken hostage.
Police brutality is a much larger problem than hostage-taking and given that context, using the police as a tool against hostage taking doesn't make sense.
1/3rd of all homicides in the USA are committed by police. Police also kill far more Americans than active shooters do.
Phrasing it as "spotting potential swatting calls" is approaching it from the wrong direction.
Instead it should be "confirming that there is probable cause before moving in with weapons". A single call should not probable cause make.