Care where the idea that we have to let anybody off the hook comes from?
As I see it just because we shift the focus to the lower level (the layer executing the swats) we don't have to automatically let anybody off the hook on the higher levels. We can have both.
My comment was not intended to let swatters of the hook. My point was that the harassment should be called “attempted harassment”, because it should never have been effective, although still punishable.
That’s still harassment - the clear intention was to at best harass and at worst get them killed. You can support more responsible use of force by police while still recognizing that these guys were looking for a weapon to hurt someone and SWATing was the option they chose.
And even if they were not acting in that intention, knowingly calling emergency when there isn't one is a drain on resources that might be needed elsewhere.
Nobody mentioned letting anyone off the hook. That's a very internet thing to claim your opponent has said.
The question is pragmatic: are you going to surveil and psychologically analyze everyone in the world in order to detect and pre-crime imprison everyone who might potentially call in a false tip anonymously, or are you going to control your police forces so they don't attack people with sometimes deadly force based solely on anonymous tips?
> are you going to surveil and psychologically analyze everyone in the world in order to detect and pre-crime imprison everyone
No one suggested this; strawman.
There are a whole lot of ways to harass someone using proxies beyond swatting and the traditional ordering of 40 pizzas to their house. Even if any given proxy only falls for it once it can be really bad.
Coming up with ways to counter these kinds of harassment campaigns is important, but it probably doesn't involve "pre-crime imprison[ment]".
