To your point though - the fact that the swatting has resulted in innocent deaths is evidence that law enforcement is too aggressive.
There's like so many steps along the way where you can make an assessment of the situation before going FULL SWAT-raid. Mother in a night gown opening the door, yawning? Probably not a threat.
I'm not saying I want the job handling these situations or that it's easy, but "well, someone called, let's send in the Wet Ops team!" can't be the only answer, either! There's even videos of cops handling this super calm and professionally, basically how I described it above. So it's not impossible.
This is because in your country it is exceedingly unlikely the cops will receive a barrage of high powered assault rifle fire after knocking. The militarization of police in the US is a complicated problem that ultimately stems from our proliferation of guns which turn every interaction cops have into a potentially deadly one.
The US cops have talked about escalating risks for years but US cops haven't faced actual escalating dangers. One can track the actual danger faced by police and it has been declining.
The problem is the average citizen gets their information from TV dramas where cops indeed constantly face dangers.
headline: "Once again: police work is NOT getting more dangerous"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/02/...
I don't have an opinion on that, having not looked at the data, but it is entirely plausible.
stoking the fears of the average citizen to be fearful of cops likely increases their risk of death on the job which is all this does.
The question is whether this level of danger is a sufficient to justify police tactics that severely endanger civilians such as no-knock raids - factors that make "SWATing" so dangerous for the average person.
The further factor here is that the false belief that there's an armed camp ready to attack cops instantly with automatic rifles can give one the distorted impression that no-knock and related tactics will save lives.
However, the reality is there are few people ready to knowingly engage the cops (since even if you win, you lose against the authorities) but there citizens who have guns ready for persons known who might be breaking into their home and so SWAT tactics can be as likely to draw fire and casualties as to avoid them in the real world. And kill innocent of course.
I would never be an advocate for the kind of no-knock raids the article is describing. I'm not addressing that by contesting the use of those statistics. My point is more that _any_ risk of getting shot in the line of duty changes the entire playing field. Just because it's declining doesn't mean that it's insignificant. That being said, as said before I'm not advocating for the kind of overwhelmingly violent responses that SWATting describes.
I haven't seen many cop series lately but my impression is most police actors in hollywood don't dress up like John Rambo in fighting in the jungle.
https://www.journal-news.com/news/local/local-police-boost-a...
https://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/crime--law/police-ex...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/15/local-...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/09/police...
In part, this is driven by programs (as mentioned in the USA today article) where the local police forces can get the equipment itself at no cost (they only pay the maintenance, cost of shipping the equipment, and cost of storing the equipment, or any other local accommodations; all of which are a bargain compared to its actual cost)
SWATting and police militarization seems to have started after the September 11, 2001 attack in New York.
Regardless of your opinion on the issue, it's pretty clear that "gun ownership" and "police kicking down doors" don't correlate.
I own guns, as my father did before me and his father before him. All my brothers own guns. We're sportsmen, hunting is a popular recreation where we live.
Of all the guns in my family, not one has ever hurt a human being. Not a single incident, over many decades and who knows how many shots fired.
I have many friends with the same situation-- I don't know of anyone who has ever shot another human being. Not a single one.
The problem is the dramatic drop in respect for other people and their lives. Some people have lost respect, they are dangerous. It's not the gun's fault.
In 2010, there were an estimated 5,419,000 crashes, 30,296 deadly, killing 32,999, and injuring 2,239,000.
There are a roughly similar amount of fatalities related to guns, though more than 50% of those are suicides.
I'd suggest... you know... following the rule of law.
Basically, the whole presumption of innocence thing.
A call is a great reason to respond... with inquiry.
Guns ready sure IN the event and inquiry leads to life and death situation... but that should be after the fact of an inquiry: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It's not up to me to find solutions that don't violate peoples rights. It's up to the people wanting solutions. Just because you have a problem doesn't put you above the law.
Same goes for everyone under the concept of rule of law. As someone who is dealing with a US Naturalization, the rule of law as a concept is drilled in hard. Shame people born with the right don't understand it.
Exactly! Especially since law enforcement has (successfully!) argued that they have no legal duty to serve and protect you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree#L...
You can't have your cake and eat it too!
If you don't have an obligation to protect, you don't have immunity when you shoot at anyone who is not shooting at you.
IANAL. My understanding is police have a duty to the public at large, not to an individual person outside of a special relationship (i.e. witness protection). If the police did have a duty to individuals, the state would be unable to allocate police resources to best serve the public. Essentially, individual priorities would DDOS police resources. In the case you reference:
> a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen. [...] A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order. [...] Publicly furnished police protection may accrue to the personal benefit of individual citizens, but at all times the needs and interests of the community at large predominate.
A fatal SWATing recently should have raised so many red flags - caller was from an overseas number, described the house as two story when it was one, gave the wrong house color, and said that they could see things through the window from the street (when there were no windows visible from the street).
Furthermore, why do police feel obligated to respond to a phonecall that could be fake but not to a tweet, email, IM, etc?
The system is broken, phones that can call cops should have strict provenance standards.
If you're sending cops with guns to someone's house at 3am you should be required to prove your identity.
"Is something on fire?" "Is someone injured?" "I'm sorry, 911 is for emergencies only, not personal therapy"
For the moment, replace "swatting" with bona fide criminals behind the door. If the swat teams ended up killing some of those criminals that wouldn't be evidence of over-aggression on the part of law enforcement.
Since you posit that "gun drawn" is the reasonable response to swatting, then the same logic applies. You're obligated to continue wearing your devil mask for that sentence, so you have to explicitly argue why that isn't the case. :)
Yes, it would. Our police are not, as the saying goes, "judge, jury, and executioner." Those "bona fide criminals behind the door" are only accused of a crime and are entitled to a vigorous defense and day in court. They are definitely not to simply be gunned down in response to the arrival of the police.
Yes, if those people happen to do something threatening that requires lethal response--like shooting at the responding officers--then the officers are entitled to defend themselves. But police officers simply happening to show up where criminal activity is occurring does not give those officers license to "kill some of those criminals." That is over-aggression on the part of law enforcement and, sadly enough, is one of the major problems we're dealing with in Seattle in relation to our police, petty crime, the ways our police force have reacted in the past, and how to balance the competing needs.