That doesn't mean more training couldn't hurt, but at a certain point, training in a live situation will always go out the window. People are not perfect.
No, sorry, but the first task for the police is to protect innocent civilians. Even if it causes harm to the policemen themselves (this is why they get all those jackets and equipment). Murdering them is not protecting, how can you defend the type of police that goes and kills a gamer in his house with no other proof than a phone call?
On the other hand, the First Rule of Policing is "get home for dinner."
Actually, you might as well give me a raise because I haven't killed anybody in the process either.
Is that in US? Because in my EU country, "Protect life" is pretty much what they're trained to do. That includes life of civilians, themselves and criminals in this order. Killing anyone is seen as a failure which results in an investigation into why hurting someone was necessary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
The first task for police is to keep crime reduced. Notice the police don't usually arrive until after a crime has happened. Not to say they won't genuinely do their best to help you, but that isn't their job. Their job is to keep crime down. The only person responsible for your safety and protection is yourself.
> Even if it causes harm to the policemen themselves
A fair bit of cops get killed in the line of duty. A lot more are "lucky" and only get injured - that might mean losing an eye, permanent spinal cord injuries, or just losing a few fingers or toes. Sucks to be the police officer, also sucks to be their family.
Cops deal with the worst of the worst on a daily basis - the rapists, the murderers, the drug dealers - and they have to constantly make life and death decisions. Is that junkie reaching into their pocket to grab their ID or a used needle to stab you with? Would you take a bullet for a serial rapist or a spouse abuser?
It's easy to cast stones. It's a lot harder to be the one driving up to a potential hostage situation where innocent lives may depend on you. Sure, it might be a prank - or it could absolutely be a barricaded suspect with innocent family inside the house with them.
Right now, I see no movement with police higher officers to improve police response protocols to reduce fatal encounters.
The narrative is not about "all people are different" and "some neighborhoods are bad" and not about "some officers can use more training"; I think there is an institutional problem, with police protocols that prescribe police chasing/hunting, swarming, incapacitating, shooting, all topped up with officers having no strong knowledge of the law, and not being punishable for lying on duty and unnecessarily hurting during arrest.
> keep in mind that if you did this in a thousand neighborhoods
Sure, but if so few people can cause so much damage only with a phone, do you really think the police is still not part of the cause of the problem?
I don't think it's worth it to have the police react this way to a call. I'd rather see criminals get away than innocent die because of swatters.
> People are not perfect.
Exactly, and that's the same for swatters, you will always have a good supply of people idiot enough to do that.
So what is the solution, putting future idiots in jail and let future innocents die of swatting?
I'm not american and I often hear about police issues in the US.
The phenomenon of police shooting innocent people without a SWATter being involved seems to be a more powerful and direct illustration of that, but, sure.
The emphasis on speed is not to arrest the criminal but to stop innocents from dying. Swatting calls always involve hostages.