News
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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
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.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
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.
view the rest of the comments
Now this is the real story. You can hire out to swat people? This is fucked up.
as always, the real real story is, why the fuck, after all these years of SWAT teams being misused this way, do they still respond in full force to anonymous calls without checking the "target" first?
Because of the huge threat that is faked, SWAT Teams MUST respond.
These assholes usually tell police that the victim's location has a terrorist threat or someone is planning to assassinate politicians via anonymous call systems that were put in place to protect witnesses to actual crimes. It wastes police resources, makes actual threats seem fake, and puts the lives of everyone involved in a raid in danger.
Its like a twisted form of the Boy Who Cried "Wolf!" But the boy calls the someone else a wolf and the villagers who show up have guns and a history of shooting everybody's dog
I'm not sure that passes the sniff test. SWAT teams aren't just sitting in a room fully kitted out waiting for the phone to ring. Even if they were, there are likely regular PD closer to wherever the report is than the SWAT team. Why isn't a car with two guys sent to the scene first to qualify the threat?
The swat team usually consists of sheriff's deputies in my neck of the woods. They're exactly the same distance away roughly speaking. Maybe in a city where the swat building is separated from the PD that's the case. I do know they'll call out other county sheriff's deputies from nearby cities if they need a big enough response too. That's why there were a billion cops (who did nothing) at Uvalde most likely. All types of agencies responding.
Even if its the same people, doesn't it at least take time to get all kitted up in SWAT gear? They're not wearing it all the time. If the threat is imminent, as the argument goes, why are they taking time to get all the gear on and groups of people in place before going to the threat?
At the North Hollywood Bank Shootout (or North Hollywood Bank Robbery) SWAT showed up with tactical gear and short shorts because two guys with AKs and bullet proof armor opened fire at a Bank of America. SWAT dropped what they were doing (I think they were exercising?), grabbed their tactical gear and guns and showed up for a fight.
Its not the same as somebody alleging that there is a terrorist bombing threat or a planned assassination, but they have to maintain that readiness just in case that it IS real.
I have no problem with readiness, but I'm talking about the FIRST cops that should be on the scene. I'm betting that North Hollywood incident didn't have the shorts wearing SWAT officers as the first ones arriving, right? I have no problem with a large tactical response....when its qualified that that is what the situation requires. So many times we're see the SWAT team kick in the door as the very first step of assessing a situation. That's the problem I'm calling out.
Job security? I would imagine the "shoot first, ask questions later" favors issues where there are no survivors.
I think I’ve been desensitized to the point of not being surprised when police use inappropriate force and too little reason in the course of their jobs.
Did your ever read the Boy Who Cried Wolf?
in that story, the townsfolk eventually stop coming when they realize that the boy is lying for attention. so, the question should be: has anyone working SWAT ever read that story?
of course, there are alternative interpretations...
They stop coming when an actual tragedy is occurring. The point I was trying to make is that you don't want paramedics, firefighters, or police officers deciding for themselves if it's a real emergency or not. They should treat them all like real emergencies.
these aren't SWAT teams, though, and in the time between the call and the deployment, certainly someone can pick up a phone and/or google to check out the target to see if it's legit.
I didn't think I would have to clarify that I was including SWAT in police.
lol, ok, fair, but I tend to separate SWAT from police because it’s not what most would consider a typical police response/service (when grouped with fire/EMT as you did). at least in the context of this conversation.
anyway, the point that I’m trying to make is that, after decades of SWAT teams’ response system being abused horribly this way - especially against public figures, etc - one would think there should and would be steps taken to put safeguards in place to prevent such misuse.
That one episode of Darknet Diaries on swatting made me think they’re not the best idea.
Apparently, yeah. The Wired article I linked doesn't mention that part, just how they pieced his illegal activities together. So, I'm unclear if he used those services or was providing them.
The real SaaS right there.