Watch out TPing, a fun new prank may soon take your place: Swatting.
How does it work? A playful prankster calls 911 and reports information of questionable validity-- white lies if you will. For instance, the brazen comic may pretend to be a man threatening to kill his wife and children. The police then kick in the (actual) man's door, and hold him at gunpoint despite the fact that he (probably) doesn't actually want to kill his wife.
It should seem old-school practical jokes such as coating houses with toilet paper, keying cars, and throwing bricks through windows are simply not hip enough.
Note: Feeding police false information has existed as long as police have existed, and according to the Wikipedia article the term "swatting" is at least 6 years old. However the ability to watch live-streamers get arrested from your sofa has accelerated the trend in recent weeks.
He could not have been playing a more perfect game for the circumstances. Although this is by far the most cinematic example (and most viewed), much worse examples exist including this local news story posted just hours before the time of this post. Some have had their homes invaded by misguided SWAT teams while their families are home-- an incredibly emotionally traumatizing experience... but SWAT raids can be more than emotionally damaging.
What should the evidence threshold be for holding citizens at gunpoint in their own houses? Is unverified "evidence" presented by a single informant enough to issue a search warrant? How much responsibility should police be forced to take for these events?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
3 comments:
It is certainly tragic what happens to these people. In the video from Columbia, they mention how the search of victims could have been prevented had the police truly collected more evidence than just a phone call. And moreover, why kill A DOG over drugs? Even if marijuana has been found, there is no reason to hurt or kill anybody, especially a confused animal whose only desire is to be next to his owner. It is disheartening when these kinds of actions of the police just slide by the courts: http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/local/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-over-swat-raid/article_46a9845f-d9d2-5caa-a68d-5a42d34948bf.html.
How would you feel if that was YOUR house? If that was YOUR family standing in front of a pointed gun? YOUR beloved dog killed?
Although Swatting is a much more serious crime, which I personally would consider terrorism, it reminds me of another scenario where police must investigate false calls: accidental 911 dials. According to this article, policemen are required to verify that every single call issued to 911 is dealt with, and in the case that it is an accidental dial, they must verify that there is no emergency. I agree that it must be scary to have the police show up at your doorstep, and of course that fear would be ten times as much if it were the fully armed SWAT team – but what if it could save just one life?
I believe that if the police were to take their time and gather evidence before conducting any formal sort of raid, there could be potential danger in situations in which there was an actual threat. For example, if someone truly was hiding in a house with a father gone berserk, how long does that kid have to survive? Wouldn't it not be better to have the police arrive and make sure all is well? If the police were to take even 30 minutes to gather enough evidence to ensure there is reason to send police, the child could be dead. As the old cliché goes, "better safe than sorry!"
Still, this prank (if it can even be called that) is way, way too out of bounds. Not only is it scarring families (as mentioned by Jeremiah), but it is wasting valuable police time and resources. Imagine if the prank call came in first and the police were dispatched to investigate, and then a REAL emergency were to come through. How... unfortunate would that timing be? I'm so mind blown by the stupidity of these prankers that I'm nearly speechless.
@Vivian Shen
In most cases I don't agree with the "save just one life" argument, as quality of life is more important than length of life. Even if the policy in question actually could save one life (which is oftentimes debatable), the loss of freedom may not be justified.
In this case, I don't want to live in a world where I can be held at gunpoint (and even assaulted) in my own house due to an anonymous report. When warrants are that easy to come by the 4th amendment may as well not exist. That being said, the phenomenon of impersonation (IP/phone spoofing) no doubt complicates these issues.
Post a Comment