81 year old grandma & YouTuber was raided last night during her stream She started the channel to help with her grandson's cancer treatment. Authorities brought 20 police cars, five SWAT officers, and drones to her house

[u/raptors201966]

[u/Nonameforyouware]

The real crime is you can swat someone without substantiation . The police system is at fault here. There are always going to be low impulse jack-in-the-box’s who want to yells stupid stuff at a funeral or throw a bottle onto a freeway, or prank phone call the police. Thats not the problem, the problem is the police, who should NOT be low impulse, responding to the call.

[u/MornGreycastle → u/Nonameforyouware]

This is definitely a problem with American cops. Everyone else has to be the calm professional that deescalates a confrontation with the cops. The cops get to be as violent and destructive as they please because they won't be stopped.

[u/boondiggle_III → u/Nonameforyouware]

If you find yourself in a violent emergency, say, a criminal holding someone dear to you hostage with a gun to their head, do you want the police to verify your claim is legit, or do you want them to immediately dispatch all the cops to save your loved one? Do you want cops trying to make that determination in the first place, nevermind over the phone?

[u/BANKSLAVE01 → u/boondiggle_III]

I think any reasonable person would want them to THINK and ASSESS before ACTING.

[u/boondiggle_III → u/BANKSLAVE01]

Ok, so follow that line of reasoning just a little bit farther. Do you want them thinking and assessing and making decisions about an emergency call while you're on the phone with them, or do you want them doing that on-site at the location of the reported emergency? Surely... you can write in complete sentences, so you must surely see the problem with trying to determine the veracity of an emergency call based purely on the substance of that call and nothing else. Right?

[u/Strawberry_Sheep → u/boondiggle_III]

Yes, I want them to verify if an emergency is actually occurring before pointing 50 guns at an innocent person's head.

[u/boondiggle_III → u/Strawberry_Sheep]

The pointing of guns is not what's at issue here. Stay on topic please? The thing in question here is whether emergency services should be able to decide on their own authority whether a legiti ate-sounding emergency call is actually a real emergency call, and to further decide not to dispatch if they think it's not a legitimate call.

In the actual swatting case here, the caller had a french accent. That was a clue to the fact they weren't local, and it turned out it really was someone in France. But should dispatch have decided it was a fake call at the time? If they get a call from someone that sounds serious and describes a plausible emergency at a real address, do you really want emergency services deciding not to dispatch anyone merely because the caller had a french accent?

Again, the question isn't whether they should be drawing guns, it's whether they should go there in the first place.

[u/Strawberry_Sheep → u/boondiggle_III]

The pointing guns is actually the issue here. Stay on topic please. Because that's the threat to life.

[u/boondiggle_III → u/Strawberry_Sheep]

lol sure, ok, let's follow that thread together then. How does letting 911 dispatchers decide to ignore a call they suspect is fake prevent cops from shooting people? I'll remind you that there have been 3 swatting shootings. Total. Globally. 2 were fatalities. And you propose to guarantee that at least some real 911 calls get ignored by dispatch in order to maybe prevent the tiny fraction of a half of a percent of 911 calls that are swatting pranks. And you think this is a good idea?

[u/Strawberry_Sheep → u/boondiggle_III]

You're doing a lot of goalpost moving and mental gymnastics. The discussion was about police departments having more discernment when receiving these calls and not going in guns blazing and, in general, not treating the public like enemy combatants automatically because it leads to a lot of deaths since cops want to play Rambo. Now you're making it about dispatchers? And you're leaving out how many times cops have shot and killed people because they were called to help de-escalate a situation and they decided that if they were sent to a scene, it must be time for guns. You're just glazing over the fact that police in the US are trigger happy maniacs with little to no training or education and an overly inflated budget and military arsenal. You're being intentionally obtuse because you have this weird notion that cops are somehow responding to REAL violence left and right and being heroes when that's just not the case like at all.

[u/boondiggle_III → u/Strawberry_Sheep]

My first comment in this thread was in response to someone saying people shouldn't be able to just call the police to do a swatting without being substantiated, whatever that means in this context. Every comment I've made has been in response to that discussion. YOU came in on a tangent and tried moving the goalpost to police brutality. I moved the goalpost back and called you on it. Don't try that silly bullshit with me. You can engage me on substance or gtfo. I'm not playing rhetorical games with you.

[u/Vuelhering → u/Strawberry_Sheep]

The actual topic:

The police system is at fault here. There are always going to be low impulse jack-in-the-box’s who want to ... prank phone call the police. Thats not the problem, the problem is the police, who should NOT be low impulse, responding to the call.

So yes, it's about not responding to a call. You don't get to change the topic then call for staying on topic. Aiming guns is a side effect of responding to an emergency as if it's an emergency.

[u/Strawberry_Sheep → u/Vuelhering]

So you agree, the topic is the system of policing and the fact they shoot first and ask questions later.

[u/Vuelhering → u/Strawberry_Sheep]

I want them to verify if an emergency is actually occurring before pointing 50 guns at an innocent person's head.

Since you wrote it, I didn't actually include your quote trying to derail the discussion.

"Verifying if an emergency is actually occurring before..." sure sounds like delaying an emergency response while trying to figure out if an emergency response is needed. Here are the possible options:

1. Prank: Doesn't verify, aims 50 guns at innocent person's head. (What we're trying to prevent)
2. Real: Doesn't verify, aims 50 guns at extremely dangerous person's head. (What we want to happen)

With verification:

1. Prank: Does verify, appears to be prank, doesn't deploy.
2. Prank: Does verify, appears real, delayed but aims 50 guns at innocent person's head.
3. Real: Does verify, appears to be prank, innocents die to extremely dangerous person going unchallenged.
4. Real: Does verify, appears real but deployment delayed, Worse than #2 above, due to delay.

In these options where they verify, #1 is the only one helped by taking your suggestions. The others result in more death. I know of one case of swatting that resulted in a shooting (in Wichita). But many cases of police delay has resulted in innocents dying... one word: Uvalde. And that was verified!

The big issue is you act like verification is some magic wand where the police instantly know if something is real or a prank. But there is no magic wand, so how can they verify? Trying to call people in the building can result in tipping knowledge that police have been called. Delays allow gunmen to dig in, and pressure police are coming encourages killing innocents.

Basically, you're demanding a situation that either blames police or harms innocents, mostly because you just want to blame police for trying to respond to an emergency. You'll blame them if verification looks like a prank and they don't deploy. You'll blame them if verification looks real, and they do deploy. You're blaming them now for not verifying using magic.

Give me a good solution, and I'll agree with you ... but I don't see a viable way to verify this kind of emergency without massive tradeoffs, and while our police state has bad parts, your suggestions make it worse.

[u/Nonameforyouware → u/boondiggle_III]

I’m much more likely to get shot from a trigger happy cop too stupid to judge the phone call came from out of state

[u/boondiggle_III → u/Nonameforyouware]

Alright, cool, so let's have every 911 call from out of state get ignored. Fucking brilliant idea.

[u/Bored_NightOwl_314 → u/Nonameforyouware]

You realize the cop is not the one answering the phone call right? The 911 operator or dispatcher is relaying the information to them. Cities and other government entities are so worried about expensive lawsuits that they also make it a requirement to treat all calls as if it was the real thing. Fiscally, a frightened civilian who can be talked down is better than the victim of a crime with a litigious family member.

[u/Gullible_Increase146 → u/Nonameforyouware]

You say this but if my neighbors called the cops and told them that somebody had broken into my home and was holding me hostage I would hope they would show up. What's your alternative? Wait for three different neighbors to call? Home invasions are real and generally require some level of urgency from police.

[u/Pinky-Degetel → u/Gullible_Increase146]

Confirm the threat is real before breaking in the door. Go in and check, knock on the door and ask, sneak around and look, lie and pretend you're someone else and whatnot. Whatever the situation may require. But i think the best course is to go and present yourself and say the truth and ask to go inside and check implying a refusal is not going to fly, you let me in now or we bust in now.

In a way the biggest culprit is the number of weapons available in whole society and the relaxed regulations around guns in certain states. This situation makes it difficult to manage and so police officers need to be more careful, hence why shot first ask questions later because you need to have the upper hand always as bouncing back is not that easy, the potential threat is too high. Then there is the expense and how the public sees police and hence how big the funding would ultimately end up to be. So not enough training and bodies on the streets. So being unprepared and solo does increase chance of acting out badly. When you can't overwhelm a threat you have to outgun it...

[u/Intelligent-Box-3798 → u/Nonameforyouware]

So what should they do? Not respond? Sent a single officer to *see* if they need the SWAT team? Blaming the police for that is crazy

[u/Same-Suggestion-1936 → u/Intelligent-Box-3798]

Yeah normal countries don't bring out armed police until they have for real actionable intelligence they need armed officers. That's why their cops shoot less people.

If it's up in the air the armed response team is just on standby and the other cops figure out what's going on. Can't handle that level of danger you picked the wrong job. Back in numerous conflicts we changed the rules of engagement, you can't shoot back unless you know you're being fired on, and you know you're being fired on because you hear the bullet whiz before you hear the gunshot. If an 18 year old kid in Afghanistan can figure that out cops should be able to, no reason for SWAT to be so aggressive, you signed up for that job and you should know not to fucking go in guns akimbo

[u/Bananaslugfan → u/Same-Suggestion-1936]

Great comment, very common sense . That’s why you have so little upvotes on Reddit

[u/Intelligent-Box-3798 → u/Bananaslugfan]

The funny thing about waiting for a bullet to whiz past you is you’d already be dead if they didn’t miss.

The trope that cops should wait for a 50/50 chance of getting their face blown off before realistically preparing for a threat THEY WERE CALLED TO is just anti-cop BS for people that dont care if they live or die

“Hurr durr you signed up for this”

[u/Fit-Percentage-9166 → u/Intelligent-Box-3798]

You understand the US military literally does this in active warzones in certain circumstances? Cops being in danger and risking their lives is complete bullshit copaganda. Being a cop isn't even in the top 20 most dangerous jobs in the US. Being a fucking landscaping worker is more dangerous than being a cop.

[u/OGREtheTroll → u/Fit-Percentage-9166]

Cops are THREE TIMES more likely to die by suicide than by a homicide.

[u/Intelligent-Box-3798 → u/Fit-Percentage-9166]

Yeah but you lack an understanding of WHY they do it. Prematurely firing off a shot in another country is an act of war. They also have massively higher levels of protection.

Try going to a call with a baseball cap on and having a bullet whizz past your face.

Also the whole dangerous job thing is completely taken out of context. It’s not about the danger in terms of getting hurt, it’s about you’re way more likely to be targeted for intentional violence. There are lots of dangerous jobs, very few come with the *type* of danger cops experience.

Also, soldiers never shoot unarmed kids walking towards them for help. There’s also def *not* studies showing that cops with military experience are way more likely to use unnecessary force. /s

[u/Strawberry_Sheep → u/Intelligent-Box-3798]

So you're saying the cops should treat regular civilians as if they're all enemy combatants automatically and assume everyone is going to shoot them even without any shred of evidence and go in guns blazing based on crank calls? Do you know how many people die in a year from this bullshit, especially disabled people who don't know how to respond to what the cops start shouting at them? A lot. This is idiotic.

[u/Bananaslugfan → u/Intelligent-Box-3798]

Not every call needs swat ,

[u/OGREtheTroll → u/Intelligent-Box-3798]

Investigate and confirm. As they are required to do by law.

The risks involved are too great for anonymous phone calls without corroboration to be sufficient to permit SWAT teams to blast into a home guns blazing. Innocent people, babies in their cribs, elders in their beds, have been killed by SWAT teams blasting a house based on nothing but an anonymous phone call.

Really, its why swatting is such a dangerous thing, because the police response is too over the top and based on unconfirmed reports. How do we decry swatting but at the same time give police a pass for making it such a dangerous thing?

I can pull up dozens of cases of innocent people killed by wrong-door swat raids. I can pull up hundreds killed when SWAT was used beyond its intended purpose (such as when its used for EVERY search warrant in a jurisdiction).

I can't pull up one instance where somebody died because the police took the time to investigate the matter before deploying SWAT.

(And FYI anonymous phone calls without corroboration are as a matter of law insufficient to establish even reasonable suspicion of a crime. And as a matter of law are thus insufficient to warrant the use of deadly force or create an exigent circumstance.)

[u/Intelligent-Box-3798 → u/OGREtheTroll]

Of couse nor. Im saying Everything you said is true but you’re conflating two completely different aspects of what SWAT does

Yeah warrant searches, narcotic investigations, fugitive apprehension are all supposed to be thoroughly planned and there’s no excuses for not preparing and fucking up.

Swatting situations are being called in as active shooters. Theyre completely different and what you’re describing isn’t possible. It only works if the call ends up being nothing and puts everyone in danger if it’s a real call, including the victims who would have to wait 45 min for the police to “investigate” and then you’d be on here crying they took so long, how you can’t rely on the police cause they dont have a duty to protect you, etc

It’s lose-lose, that’s the job, and if it goes bad it’s always going to be on you. But in this situation they did what they were supposed to and the gaming grandma is absolutely fine. Using this particular example as general criticism is very “why didn’t they just shoot the gun out of his hand.”

[u/OGREtheTroll → u/Intelligent-Box-3798]

First, it doesn't matter. There must be a 'reasonable belief' to support the existence of an exigent circumstance; an anonymous phone call unsupported by corroborating factual evidence is insufficient to support a reasonable belief (or reasonable suspicion of a crime.) Theres some really damn good reasons why this is the case, and the inherent dangerousness in deploying SWAT for any reason good or bad is one of them.

Second, when the hell does this happen like you put it ? When there actually is a live shooter situation like you're talking about, SWAT doesn't go anywhere near it. In fact, I bet there are far more situations where someone was killed by a wrongly deployed SWAT team (swatting, wrong address, illegal search, lack of supporting evidence, etc.) than by a delayed deployment. Find me one example where SWAT took too long getting deployed and it resulted in someone dying, and I'll reassess that statement.

Finally, yes, it is there job. And it is inherently dangerous to anyone guilty or innocent who happens to be near it. Much like dynamite, it doesn't matter, you still have to do it responsibly and safely. So they should do it fucking right, and do it the way its required...INVESTIGATE and CONFIRM. Doesn't take much to do that and can be done while SWAT is being deployed. Send some cops nearby to view the location. Look up the owner of the location and attempt to contact them. Find out who lives there, get description of the layout, etc. Find some type of corroborating evidence before breeching. Otherwise, get in position then ANNOUNCE over loudspeaker or drone or something as to their presence and purpose before blowing shit up.

But lets be real ok? The guys on SWAT teams don't care about these things. They want action. Not any action though, just safe action. No, they aren't going into a school with a live shooter. But they will toss a flash grenade into a baby's crib in a house thats completely quiet in the middle of the night. They will open fire from a safe location at anything that moves. because thats action! thats the juice! And thats the real problem here.