Hacker News Reader

Comment by j-j-j-j | Hacker News Reader

> Mr Tomlinson told The Independent he had woken in the middle of the night to find officers banging on his door, been handcuffed, and had guns shoved in his face during the yearslong ordeal. He was once swatted four times in one day.

Are officers and government actually involved in these Swat operations like mentally challenged or something? I mean ... after couple of hours you forget you've just been in the same place and the whole report was a fake?

View on HN

> Are officers and government actually involved in these Swat operations like mentally challenged or something?

Yes. Each SWAT call is just an excuse to play soldier, the chance they never got because they couldn’t pass the ASVAB to become real soldiers.

Competent police departments maintain a list of common swatting targets. Any time an address on that list gets called in, they have a number to call to check before sending armed officers. Four dozen times is beyond incompetence.

> Competent police departments maintain a list of common swatting targets.

In other countries, competent police departments simply do not send tactically armed officers to assault homes based on a phone call.

This seems like an incredibly broad generalisation. It happens even in the UK where (except for Northern Ireland) most officers are not armed with any firearm.

One example of several upon a quick search: https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crime/armed-police-called-to-...

The description of that incident is not the same as a 'SWATting', but rather the competent way of handling such calls:

> “Officers attended the venue and spoke to the individuals and determined that air weapons were for sale.”

There was no tactical assault. Armed police arrived, spoke to the (mistakenly) targeted individuals, confirmed that it was a mistake, and left.

Sorry, that example seemed to occur in a public venue so isn’t the most relevant.

This one may be more appropriate: https://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/11238632.armed-police...

At least to a layman not at all versed in firearms, armed police responses in the UK look a lot like SWAT teams in the US and feel similarly intense, but perhaps there are material differences here. I’m genuinely not sure.

Headline notwithstanding, nothing in the article implies the armed police forced their way into the home. Rather, the spokeswoman appears to imply that armed officers were present as a precaution but did not engage, which is consistent with the neighbours' comments.

It's definitely unclear, but there's also no evidence from the article that the armed police were not among the officers that "stormed the address," as the article states. They were also visible outside, and it would be unusual to see police with rifles in the UK (or the US, for that matter) so it makes sense that neighbours noted that, but the article title as you said points in the direction of armed officers raiding the home.

To be clear, my point is not to draw a false equivalence between armed police raids in the UK and the US. I would, however, say that the problem of appropriately responding to a potential armed threat isn't exactly solved in either country, if that's even possible.

Here's yet another example on a quick Google search, if you're still unconvinced that this occurs in the UK: https://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/news/hertfordshire-ne...

> "No action will be taken against the occupants of a Hemel Hempstead home that was raided by armed police after a mystery phone call."

> "One witness described armed officers going inside a home shortly before putting two people inside the home in handcuffs and in the back of a police car."

Do you know what SWAT responses entail? It's kick down the door, assault rifles and body armor, shoot if you perceive a threat level response. Police shoot swatting targets sometimes because they have itchy trigger fingers.

It's not a generalisation, it's just the definition of the word 'competent'.

Fair enough, but I suppose the "in other countries" constraint isn't even necessary in that case. :)

> Each SWAT call is just an excuse to play soldier, the chance they never got because they couldn’t pass the ASVAB to become real soldiers

IIRC you only needed a 13 to be a soldier. Many of these folks are both in the guard/reserves and police

Considering the frequency, you'd think at least some areas would have established a sort of "false report database" to keep track of locations where fake calls were made, but yeah, either way it's not like they're engaged in SWAT responses multiple times per day/week/month in most localities.

It is difficult to get a officer to understand something, when their overtime depends upon not understanding it.

Yes, the article mentions each call costs $10,000. I'm guessing that's not the cost of fuel, so presumably some hazard payment is involved.

While this could have been worded a little differently, I think the core point is valid. What on earth is going on in law enforcement that they can get four anonymous tip-offs for the same address on the same day and not, by the fourth time, think "hey, we've already arrested this guy three times today, maybe he's not suddenly going to have become a heavily armed criminal since 2pm when we last checked."

A few potential things.

1) The department could have a policy that considers all calls real threats. For example lets say you target a business that carries a lot of cash with swatting. You fatigue the cops with swatting until they no longer respond. Then you rob the place.

2) The cops don't like the guy. Couple that with number 1 and you get the perfect shitstorm situation for the victim.

I'd never try that strategy for robbing a cash business. They would have been gotten civil asset forfeited after the first call, leaving nothing for any other crooks.

3) overtime pay

> 1) The department could have a policy that considers all calls real threats. For example lets say you target a business that carries a lot of cash with swatting. You fatigue the cops with swatting until they no longer respond. Then you rob the place.

It's not that you no longer respond. What competent orgs do is establish that there is a swatting risk after the first incident (or after the individual notifies them), call the phone of a known good number at the residence/business to verify that things are okay, and then send a patrol car to the residence/business as a final safety check.

It's really not super complicated. You treat it like a real threat but with a known risk of impersonation/fake threats. And importantly you don't jump straight to the kicking down doors and swinging vases SWAT response but rather gradually ratchet up the response as red flags appear.

I'd love to quote Hanlon's Razor but I really think Occam's is more appropriate in this case: they're obviously complicit and doing it on purpose.

They are responding to a reported incident that allegedly requires a highly armed response, finding a sleeping man, and handcuffing him anyway. They shouldn't be doing that even once. An anonymous phone call is not probable cause.

Its not likely that they are truly that incompetent; its probably free (overtime) money/hazard pay or something.

If they stopped responding, then fake SWAT calls would end being a great way to stage a violent assault. Just make a dozen fake threats to the same address, wait for the cops to lose interest, then attack.

Incredibly risky because no matter when you attack, your presence will almost certainly leave physical or digital footprints.

Much easier to terrorize by proxy via false swatting.

Someone must have a sadistic fun playing deadly toy and endanger people’s life!

After that 3rd or 4th SWAT you'd think something would click

>Are officers and government actually involved in these Swat operations like mentally challenged or something?

Obviously, the same officers have been to his house 47 times. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, fool me 47 times I'm mentally challenged....

> Are officers and government actually involved in these Swat operations like mentally challenged or something?

The police have long discriminated against anyone with too high an IQ: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/jordan-v...

Meanwhile, the FAA is currently looking for applicants with "Severe intellectual disability" as you can see from: https://www.faa.gov/pwdp

This older case has also been going around lately - https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4542755/brigida-v-unite... - in which people cheated on a biographical test that 90% of people were expected to fail in order to pull in fellow organization members.

So I think the real answer is that many of our public agencies have been selecting against competence for quite some time now.

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2015/12/reverse-discrimination...

They gave people "applying for FAA jobs, the correct answers to select on the BQ as well as key words to use on their resumes in order to be selected by FAA hiring personnel"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com