Carey Holzman Swatted

[pubquiz]

Hi Tom. I'm Kris.

As a 51 year old male speaking to a 59 year old male and both of us have a lot of experience with online forums I want you to look through this thread.

In this thread are 3 very new members. All with very similar names (that's why you were confused with someone else).

Now with your extensive knowledge of online forums, if that happened in a forum you were a long time member of... if three new people all with very similar screen names all jumped into one thread and took the same side... would you be a little suspicious?

BTW, I got a lot of "who the fuck are you" back then. Hell I still do.

Hi Kris

Point taken....just glad I joined (only just) before this thread and not because of it ...am curios who the 3rd new user is though...can only see me and pburk (the brother of the guy who got the visit) who joined 2019 all other posters seem to long established?

 

[pubquiz]

oopps I am craking up as well changed my avatar and ended up double posting.ignore above....time for a bath and bed I think

 

[DigDog]

Because for four generations now, the police have been actively promoting anonymous tips to combat fear of reporting crimes.

They are aware, but they cannot read minds.

The answers are easy when you're not involved. Less easy when you actually have to deal with it.

Yeah but an unidentified tip should lead to surveillance. That would 100% eliminate swatting and likely result in as many successful busts (if not more).
Going in guns blazing without knowing that a crime is actually happening is ridiculously irresponsible.

 

[Amused]

Yeah but an unidentified tip should lead to surveillance. That would 100% eliminate swatting and likely result in as many successful busts (if not more).
Going in guns blazing without knowing that a crime is actually happening is ridiculously irresponsible.

There's the "guns blazing" misrepresentation again.

Sigh.

They cannot know a crime is not happening until they actively investigate it. You do not investigate an active shooter call by "surveillance." If you did, and someone dies who could have been saved by quick intervention, you've failed.

The cops in this case were very measured. They sent a force strong enough to deal with an active shooter while remaining calm and polite. No guns blazing.

 

[DigDog]

And in other cases they murdered innocent homeowners, killed dogs (or accidentally shot colleagues while trying to kill a dog) and traumatized families.
If someone is concerned about GUNSHOTS they surely have no problem identifying themselves. This isnt a rival drug dealer giving a tip, that requires anonymity - it's someone geographically close to live fire that would be very unrealistic to need to remain anonymous.
Only in the US, would you receive a single call about live fire, in a residential area, and think to send armed police not even at the propriety, but IN the propriety. Ridiculous.

 

[Amused]

And in other cases they murdered innocent homeowners, killed dogs (or accidentally shot colleagues while trying to kill a dog) and traumatized families.
If someone is concerned about GUNSHOTS they surely have no problem identifying themselves. This isnt a rival drug dealer giving a tip, that requires anonymity - it's someone geographically close to live fire that would be very unrealistic to need to remain anonymous.
Only in the US, would you receive a single call about live fire, in a residential area, and think to send armed police not even at the propriety, but IN the propriety. Ridiculous.

Sigh. Bullshit, I just posted 2 of many such cases in the UK where armed response to a "swatting" occured.

You don't send unarmed people to a shooting call. Period. That would be stupid.

 

[zinfamous]

People are afraid of phoning 911 to report a gunshot without doing it anonymously?

Oh my, yes! Snitches get stitches, bro (also: ditches)

 

[Paladin3]

Why is it so ridiculously easy to swat someone? Why doesnt the 911 agent ask the caller to identify themselves when they KNOW the call will result in a swat raid ?? Is the police unaware that swatting exists ?

911 operators do ask the caller to identify themselves. Where the hell did you get the idea they don't? And it's more important that enough help be sent rather than waiting to verify the identity of the caller. All that can be done later, but emergency services must begin rolling as soon as possible in order to save lives. And in order to ensure the safety of the responding unit we send more than just one when it's a potentially violent situation.

 

[Paladin3]

And in other cases they murdered innocent homeowners, killed dogs (or accidentally shot colleagues while trying to kill a dog) and traumatized families.
If someone is concerned about GUNSHOTS they surely have no problem identifying themselves. This isnt a rival drug dealer giving a tip, that requires anonymity - it's someone geographically close to live fire that would be very unrealistic to need to remain anonymous.
Only in the US, would you receive a single call about live fire, in a residential area, and think to send armed police not even at the propriety, but IN the propriety. Ridiculous.

Yeah, they should have just knocked on the door and left after the homeowner told them it was a hoax. I'm sure that policy could never backfire on anyone.

 

[Viper1j]

He's gonna be rich.. They won't even take it to trial.

 

[darkswordsman17]

There's the "guns blazing" misrepresentation again.

Sigh.

They cannot know a crime is not happening until they actively investigate it. You do not investigate an active shooter call by "surveillance." If you did, and someone dies who could have been saved by quick intervention, you've failed.

The cops in this case were very measured. They sent a force strong enough to deal with an active shooter while remaining calm and polite. No guns blazing.

Yes, I think police are starting to realize stuff like this so they're going in more calmly. But take that situation that happened in Wichita a year or two back, there's still room to improve.

Its not like SWAT teams can be on the spot immediately, so your argument against surveillance is absurd. I also guarantee you that they do some manner of surveillance before sending SWAT in because it'd be stupid not to (especially when the claims include explosives). Hell, SWAT itself often waits once they reach the area to do anything so that they can assess the situation and formulate their plan.

I think this is an area that technology will improve and should be pushed to help. We could use small drones for some quick surveillance and or monitoring an area (so the closest patrol or closest precinct could send out a drone and scope out the area while the SWAT team is loading up so even if they have to go in they should be going in with more information). Ones with specialized equipment would let you be able to check in ways that a human couldn't as well. If it doesn't seem to indicate anything, then you could send a standard unit in and do a simple check. All this could be done before the SWAT team would even be able to arrive, so its not like this is delaying support for the situations that need it. And if it does seem to indicate an issue warranting the SWAT rolling in they'll be prepared with more info quicker and so can more quickly respond to it.

 

[chrisjames61]

Who?

A pompous computer repair guy.