Hacker News Reader

Comment by atoav | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> He’s not being harassed by the swatters.

The very first comment in this thread had this false statement:

> He’s not being harassed by the swatters.

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.

What should the people calling in the swat be on the hook for, if they aren't harassing him?

Fake police report, wire fraud and if they forgot a cent in their last tax declaration add tax evasion.

It’s not wire fraud but it is certainly use of an electronic device to harass and annoy as well as disturbing the peace.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com