ZeroCool@slrpnk.net to News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 年前17-year-old alleged ‘serial swatter’ charged after police say he made threats throughout the countryedition.cnn.comexternal-linkmessage-square72fedilinkarrow-up127arrow-down12
arrow-up125arrow-down1external-link17-year-old alleged ‘serial swatter’ charged after police say he made threats throughout the countryedition.cnn.comZeroCool@slrpnk.net to News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 年前message-square72fedilink
minus-squarehperrin@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 年前Not if you’re the false positive that gets a grenade thrown in your baby’s crib.
minus-squaremaness300@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0arrow-down1·1 年前And that’s worse than ignoring a real threat? “Sorry, we didn’t send help because we thought this was a prank.” Use your brains.
minus-squareEcho Dot@feddit.uklinkfedilinkarrow-up2·1 年前I think it’s possible that might just maybe a middle ground between going equipped for the third world war and ignoring the call. To suggest otherwise is just accepting that the police are heavily militarized and I don’t think that sensible. Swatting is nowhere near as big a deal in other countries so clearly it’s a solvable problem.
minus-squaremaness300@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·edit-21 年前 Swatting is nowhere near as big a deal in other countries so clearly it’s a solvable problem. Why isn’t as big a deal in other countries, though? Time to put on our critical thinking caps! Is it because they have more measures in place to identify false threats? Does this also coincide with LE ignoring real threats? Is it because their population doesn’t see the value in swatting as much as other nations’? (i.e. do they have fewer incels?) Is it something else?
minus-squareEcho Dot@feddit.uklinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 年前It’s because the police don’t carry around assault rifles as a matter of course that’s why. If there is a hostage taker you want to negotiator not an attack force. If a negotiator goes to the property and it’s a false flag no issue. Sending in an armed force is literally the worst response in both real and false situations.
minus-squaremaness300@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0arrow-down3·1 年前 If there is a hostage taker you want to negotiator not an attack force. If a negotiator goes to the property and it’s a false flag no issue. You clearly don’t know the history behind why the SWAT teams were created. Educate yourself and then come back to us.
Not if you’re the false positive that gets a grenade thrown in your baby’s crib.
And that’s worse than ignoring a real threat?
“Sorry, we didn’t send help because we thought this was a prank.”
Use your brains.
I think it’s possible that might just maybe a middle ground between going equipped for the third world war and ignoring the call.
To suggest otherwise is just accepting that the police are heavily militarized and I don’t think that sensible.
Swatting is nowhere near as big a deal in other countries so clearly it’s a solvable problem.
Why isn’t as big a deal in other countries, though? Time to put on our critical thinking caps!
Is it because they have more measures in place to identify false threats? Does this also coincide with LE ignoring real threats?
Is it because their population doesn’t see the value in swatting as much as other nations’? (i.e. do they have fewer incels?)
Is it something else?
It’s because the police don’t carry around assault rifles as a matter of course that’s why.
If there is a hostage taker you want to negotiator not an attack force. If a negotiator goes to the property and it’s a false flag no issue.
Sending in an armed force is literally the worst response in both real and false situations.
You clearly don’t know the history behind why the SWAT teams were created. Educate yourself and then come back to us.