Sending in a swat team without any kind of in person validation is pretty insane anyway IMO.
I've never heard of this happening in Europe in the counties I've lived. They have such teams but they're only sent in after a serious hostage situation is confirmed by cops on the scene. They don't just go around busting down doors because some anonymous caller says so.
I wonder how many of these situations in the US are legit and actually needed such a response.
it's a natural conclusion of the militarization of the police. The police gets a bunch of toys it doesn't need and then itches to use them on something.
Militarization of the police is just symptom. Root cause is that police needs to expect that almost anyone in the US could be armed. This is not the case elsewhere.
It's unlikely police get confronted with guns in the US too; we just have 350 million people, extremely authoritarian police culture, and a corporate news that jumps on the chance to report every instance.
I would wager way more citizens are killed by police (rightfully or not) than police are killed by citizens.
Militarization of police was indeed a symptom, but rather a symptom of the War on Drugs - the first SWAT team (in LA) was organized largely for that purpose.
Estimates are that there’s a firearm in 23-33% of Canadian households, while estimates for the US are around 44%.
I don’t disagree that the firearms are a problem, or even a factor, but it certainly doesn’t seem likely that it’s the root cause unless there’s some tipping point between 1-1.5/5 houses and 2/5 houses that makes things substantially more dangerous.
And it's utterly useless.. What good does a tank against a drone with an rpg7 head. Real resistence by a gang would obliberate a Swatteam. A cold War style armament spiral between gangs and police can not end in success.
But it can end in a kind of success for the arms manufacturers, their shareholders, the “hard on crime” politicians, the upper management of the police force, and the pro-police state people who gets validation for their calls ever-increasing need for violence.
Like developer with new shiny JavaScript framework/toolkit. Gotta use it at the next opportunity. Human condition to want to use the gear you're excited about. I'm glad my work is crappy rather than dangerous.
How do you in-person-validate a distress call alleging multiple guns fired in a particular home? You might try to call the residents with a false pretext, but surely the SWAT team would be on the way as early as it can.
I’m in the US, with European family (parent, cousins, etc.) and I can’t count the number of comments that I’ve heard or read that begin with “I am from Europe” and go on to make a very sensible, reasonable assertion about how things ought to be in the US.
Well, they aren’t that way. However your town works, Detroit is different. NYC is different. Tampa is different.
At some point the person who is repeatedly surprised at what doesn’t make sense to them has an obligation to either accept that their expectations aren’t universal, or to dig deeper. Maintaining perpetual shock and confusion is not a sign of moral righteousness or principle, it’s provincial.
> However your town works, Detroit is different. NYC is different. Tampa is different.
Yup. But you know what? Europe isn't just one town either. It's not even one country, one currency, one language, or one alphabet. Αθήνα isn't Berlin isn't Paris; Cambridge isn't like London isn't like Glasgow isn't like Belfast, and only the latter has "RPG Avenue" nicknamed due to the weapon fired at the cops, and yet the English (do not go to Belfast and describe it as "England") are so anti-gun that even the cops don't want to be armed.
America isn't unique in being diverse, it's not even half as diverse as its self image makes claim.
Learn about the differences that mean the rest of us don't face your challenges, and then use that to make your cities better.
As a European who spent 3 years driving all around the western half of the US, I really wouldn't even call America very diverse. The climate changes more than the people. The difference between city and rural is bigger than the difference between north and south; rural people in Montana and Arizona just aren't that different.
I understand your frustration about the "I'm from Europe" comments, but you have to appreciate that those comments come from a similar frustration.
The universally shared image of the US is that they loudmouth how great they are compared to the rest of the world. So when news comes out on how the US fails so dramatically on very basic public/social services, it leaves people from outside the US stumped.
I'd be interested to see evidence supporting your assertion of 'universally shared image'.
The image of the United States is perceived not nearly so negative in the counties which I visited: Jordan, China, Vietnam.
I'll add a fourth country, which I haven't visited. The image of the United States in Israel, while complex, includes a great deal of admiration. As a country with security always top of mind, overall Israel broadly admires the United States' extensive defense capability and power. I doubt most Israelis would describe the US as 'loudmouth'.
Similar nuances could be laid out for the countries I listed above.
Many world citizens can parse media of a random football fan screaming 'USA!' from the state department's lengthy policy positions. The perceived image you describe resembles most closely to me a self reflection found often within the US.
Nonetheless, I do think our culture could stand to posture in a more reserved fashion broadly, while not being afraid to mention where appropriate...
We remain a positive world standout in a variety ways.
> Many world citizens can parse media of a random football fan screaming 'USA!' from the state department's lengthy policy positions.
Most recently, I believe, the main contributor to that image was the former president of the US, not some American at the FIFA World Cup. Trump providing nonstop material for satire and comedy shows didn't help either.
In general the international image of the US seems to be better under democrat presidents.
That article broadly matches with my personal observations as a European.
> I can say with high confidence that the image of the United States is perceived not nearly so negative in the following counties which I personally visited: Jordan, China, Vietnam.
Eh. I can't speak to Jordan or Vietnam, but in China opinions on the US are usually a toss up. US (cultural) exports are warring with opinionated news that doesn't portray the US any better than US news portrays China.
> As a country with security always top of mind, overall Israel broadly admires the United States' extensive defense capability and power. I doubt most Israelis would describe the US as 'loudmouth'.
You're right that overall Israelis have an extremely favorable opinion of the US (ignoring their Arab population of course), however I have to point out these opinions aren't mutually exclusive.
The only surprising thing about Israel is that Trump apparently was more liked there than Biden is. They still seem to think Trump is more arrogant though.
I definitely agree that the president has a huge affect on US image on the world stage. The critism of the analogy I laid out is fair. Trump arguably regularly carried himself in a way that aligns with the narrative we're discussing.
Props for citing evidence via Pew. Just FYI, that Israel poll arguably became obsolete in the weeks following the 10/7 terrorist attack. Not sure where things currently stand.
I do wish there was a bit more nuance. The discussion of favorability is complex. I was speaking specifically to the comment regarding the US being perceived as a 'loudmouth how great they are compared to the rest of the world'.
As far as Europe broadly is conencerned... I would probably agree that public perception does include
a component resembling the aforementioned perception. I'd speculate that this probably has a fair bit to do with many European nations exceeding the US in various metrics surrounding healthcare, happiness, safety, income distribution ect. Those critism are fair ofc.
I suppose the distilled point of my comment was that there is a lot of nuance to US image from nation to nation. Myself, I didn't realize just how respected the US is amongst so many nations. Even arguably adverserial nations often respect a great number of things about the US. I find it regrettable that the US domestic population often has very unfavorable views of their own nation, without giving adequate and nuanced consideration to our many accomplishments. Often less developed nations focus more on some of the bigger picture factors which are worthy of full consideration.
> I'll add a fourth country, which I haven't visited. The image of the United States in Israel, while complex, includes a great deal of admiration. As a country with security always top of mind, overall Israel broadly admires the United States' extensive defense capability and power. I doubt most Israelis would describe the US as 'loudmouth'.
I'm from Amsterdam and most people there adore the US as well. Our culture is heavily influenced by it as most people on the street now speak a curious mixture of Dutch and American English. The country became strongly neoliberal as a result too (which hurt me as a socialist personally) and even got caught up in the Trumpist outcry over things perceived as "woke". 24% voted for Wilders who is basically a mixture of Trump-style populism and fascism in the last election. The country is really messed up now.
But, the police is not militarised as it is in the US and I'm really glad for that. Even though gangs do have a lot of guns. They're not easy to come by in Holland but we have an unmonitored border with Belgium where they are freely available in criminal circles. We still have some 'common sense' in police approach, at least for now.
? A region has such a weak rule of law, that police can terrorize a man without consequences - and a person from a vast region of various states were that is rather unheard of (and people travel way more) is provincial for calling that out? I'm honestly confused. We had some "valley rulers" in europe, but the law tends to get rid of them, bloodfeuds and other idiocies included. And any low point ought to remain shocking. Getting numb to pain is not normal.
A relative worked at the police in downtown Amsterdam. Where gang violence is also a problem, only a few years ago people had to duck in a tram to avoid stray bullets from gangs firing automatic weapons.
This didn't really cause a militarisation of the police though. The problem with that is that it leads to further escalation on both sides. And ordinary people can get caught up in that like what is happening with the swatting.
Also I've lived in many different EU countries and swatting is just not a thing anywhere. The US really is pretty unique in this phenomenon within the western world.
For all the problems caused by militarization of the police, is there any evidence that it leads to “escalation on both sides”? Gangs using automatic weapons seems to be escalated well beyond America already.
The constitution also says “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”
An interesting point that I am amenable too, I certainly appreciate the mental connections you make here. Though, I could say that based on these comments this isnt a universal problem, and that preserving a police force that has no regard for civil rights is not a sign of, say, conservative values, its fear.
I am well aware that we have gang violence and all types of problems. What I do not see is a justification for things like violating someones property, repeatedly. The man has no obligation to cooperate with shit, and the police have no right to barge in anyways, that isnt how probably cause is supposed to work.
They are reminding you that the reality you are experiencing is not normal and should not be normalised. They are stating that it is not only possible to not be like this, but it's actually a baseline expectation in most of the rest of the developed world.
You can keep burying your head in the sand, make excuses for unacceptable behaviour such as swatting with "but it's extraordinary circumstances with very specific context" and bemoan the "provincials" for expecting the US behaves, or at least trends towards, a society that resembles the rest of the democratic, civilized world.
Or you can say enough, and demand action. One is a lot easier than the other.
Sending in a swat team without any kind of in person validation is pretty insane anyway IMO.
If I’m a police captain, I’m going in guns blazing every time because I know the trend of SWATting won’t end until the penalties are ratcheted way up. The only way that’s going to happen is for terrible stories like this to become public.
You're right about the incentives, and in my opinion this won't change until police departments and the local governments that enable them are required to compensate their victims, including for things like emotional distress (being assaulted by a violent gang is going to take some time to process). The deep root of the problem here is that police are allowed to cause harm and then just walk away from any responsibility.
You know, its probably more cost effective and, well, effective at that point to just post an offficer across the street? A crossing guard would do fine.
Wouldn't that street be definitionally the highest crime hotspot in the area anyhow?
> they should really temper the response on future calls
So I should swat myself in the morning when I want to go on a rampage in the afternoon?
As inconvenient as it is for the victims, the 100% response rate is the only guarantee the system cannot be abused in other ways. A similar example from Germany: A friend is driving 8h every 2 months to his mandatory shooting practice because he missed too many flights back due to residues of gun discharges found on him at the airport. The government is accepting this 8h commute as work time because any way around the mandatory, extensive investigation at the airport would open holes in the security procedures in place. And my friends "secret service" badge does not grant him any special powers at the airport - also by design.
I agree with you BUT. If one time, somewhere in America, someone truly is a violent threat you'll see all over Twitter & Facebook: "Government agency ignores dozens of pleas for help! Numerous reports that child killer would kill children!"
It's obviously super dumb, but it is sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Ideally, we would solve this in a sane way but at least it seems like there is some tempering of violence in most of these stories which is sadly refreshing.
In Uvalde there was a known threat and the police did nothing. I think there's just bad police.
It's a tough job, but there are also a lot of under-trained, under-educated people that just want to bust down doors and wouldn't actually risk their lives for anyone. In fact, I'm sure some let themselves be used by swatters, as it gives them a chance to use their heavy equipment in low risk scenarios.
It's less dangerous than delivering pizza, and is basically free from accountability. Outside of being exposed to deeply tragic situations, I'm not so sure it's a "tough job."
I think “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t” does not adequately capture the issue here.
Police departments are incentivized/required to respond to SWATs as genuine incidents; therefore, they are not “damned” by this situation. It is the victims of the SWAT that are “damned”. The article says that a SWAT costs $10,000 US, but that cost is borne by the taxpayer and so it would be up to municipalities to deal with the risk of looking weak on crime or just pay the bill.
However, if the police were to not respond to an emergency that required a SWAT team that actually needed one, then they would be accused of not doing their jobs and being “damned” in that fashion.
My sad conclusion is that police departments and the different levels of government are not incentivized to solve this problem because the rich, the powerful, and enough of the voting public are sufficiently shielded from the negative consequences.
I was going to make this point above as well but it felt to cynical. Ultimately, I think its just a case of normal people having to respond to an extremely rare and kinetic situation with no playbook as every decision you make is scrutinized and broadcast in HD with full commentary. I'm honestly curious how many times the "hostage negotiator" has had to show up and negotiate for hostages. It's hard to imagine what success looks like in that role as (luckily) each of these situations are rare and highly unique. Outside of incidents that good information about the legitimacy of the threat are established, it seems like we should put a lot more effort into tracking down people who make false claims and doing PR on the perpetrators of false allegations. Right now it seems like the risk to the "informant" of a SWAT is low and the victim is insanely high. If we narrow these odds without destroying privacy and freedom, that would be the best case.
"Normal people with no playbook"? These are police SWAT teams we're talking about, the entire reason the specialization exists is to make them highly trained to deal with these situations.
Of course, in America that training tends to take the form of learning how to use their military-style weaponry to kill the Bad Guys(tm), not eg how to deescalate a situation.
Hey, its us, whats that make, 45 times? Oh, 46, really? Well go ahead and stop what you are doing, put your hands up and watch a bunch of armed strangers violate your private space. Dont be mad, its highly irregular for us to get these calls, we have no idea how to better respond, like just giving you a call and checking in on you.
> The article says that a SWAT costs $10,000 US, but that cost is borne by the taxpayer and so it would be up to municipalities to deal with the risk of looking weak on crime or just pay the bill.
Police budgets are not infinite, taxes don't automatically get raised even if they spend all of it. Towns can and have shut down their police departments because they ran out of funding.
Taxes do not pay for anything but debt servicing. It is inaccurate to say "spend all of it", it is spent down to the penny as immediately as it is collected. Police budgets, or any government budget for that matter, are only limited by political measures in any meaningful context.
Police budgets are effectively infinite. The nypd has bases internationally, Seattle's police dept has a budget of like half a billion every year. Local governments will defund every service before reducing police budgets even fractionally.
The nypd has offices in sixteen cities internationally.
Seattle police department budgets passed four hundred million and were only recently reduced by progressive members of the city council. They've had decades of year over year growth that exceeds both city spending growth and population growth. Bruce Harrell, Seattles mayor, is trying to increase budgets for police again and the one time reduction is unlikely to stick given the change in membership in the city council. One single reduction in a ballooning police budget is not indicative of the overall trend of massively increasing police spending.
The issue of 4 SWATs called to the same location is interesting to me because of all the other follow-on questions it raises in my head. It is tempting to give answers for them all as well, but my answers would all be speculative with no evidence to back them.
1. How are 911 dispatchers organized and staffed to have 24/7 coverage?
2. How are SWAT teams organized and staffed to have 24/7 coverage? How many SWAT teams cover/overlap a given address?
3. Comparing the answers for 1. and 2. with something like the fire department. Fire departments at times have to fight fires that run into multiple hours and multiple days and scale up their operations with help from neighboring regions and higher levels of government while maintaining sufficient organization and knowledge.
Well, in the flesh things take time to happen, the setup for the call, the deployment, the investigation, the debrief, a cooling off period to observe the results, thats probably a couple hours minimum. This isnt something you can parallelize or task more cores too, the swatter probably got bored, tired, or hungry.
Because the 4th time could be real even if the first 3 calls were hoax? I suppose there can be protocol to filter out hoax calls, but imagine if a 911 call came but nobody took it seriously because of the swatting history of that place. Everyone including HN will have a field day how irresponsible and indifferent the police were, that they would only protect the rich and powerful. Sound familiar?
> It's obviously super dumb, but it is sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation
I refuse to believe that anyone woild damn them with a headline of “smae parson was found to be doing nothing wrong 3 times earlier on the same day. So the forth time only a small friendly team was sent initially after which a full swat team was sent when they discovers it was real”
No one in their right mind would be like “why didn’t they go in with force for the forth time that day!?
Worst case, once they find the first one was a 'swatting', they should really temper the response on future calls.