Another good argument against SWAT teams

Here’s a tactic I hadn’t heard about before but which doesn’t surprise me.

SWATting is a particularly dangerous hoax in which a caller, generally a computer hacker, calls a police department to report a shooting at the home of his enemy. The caller will place this call to the police department’s business line, using Skype or a similar service, and hiding behind Internet proxies to make the call impossible to trace. Anxious police, believing they are responding to the home of an armed and dangerous man, show up at the front door pointing guns and screaming orders.

That is exactly what happened to me. It is a very dangerous hoax that could get the target killed.

Such systems should not be in place. No house should ever be raided by the police on the basis of a crank telephone call.

Despicable.

UPDATE: Patterico reports that blogger Eric Erickson has also been SWATTED. (More here.) Other bloggers like Glenn Reynolds and William A. Jacobson have already contacted their local law enforcement authorities ahead of time  to let them know that they may be targeted.

What kind of country do we live in that gives such scum the power to send in a SWAT team with a phony phone call?

That such awful people exist and will abuse process is to be expected.

But it has to be remembered that the bloggers who have been raided are not merely victims of the thugs who support this psychopath, but of the system which allows them to sic SWAT teams on innocent people.

MORE: I should add that this is a very serious situation, and it is not limited to the instant case. “SWATTING” is an evil idea that will probably spread.  The only way to nip it in the bud is either to rewrite police SWAT team deployment procedures to make it impossible, or else abolish SWAT teams altogether.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

17 responses to “Another good argument against SWAT teams”

  1. Will Avatar
    Will

    It was a shock for Patterico and I suspect it was a first for the officers too. While I am very disappointed in many of the tactics that police and others are adopting I can’t fault them for taking the call seriously.

    Times are changing. I recall a Texas Sheriff who told a group of us kids back in the early sixties something like this. “When you wear a badge you should behave like an Officer of the Law. That includes being calm and courteous at all times. You might have to draw your gun or even shoot someone, but you need to speak calmly and call him “sir” while you’re doing it.”

  2. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    So let me see. We have been building the Brown Shirt organization (SWAT Teams) for 30 years and I’m all of a sudden supposed to get excited when they are used on the “wrong” people?

    A taste of their own medicine may prove tonic in the long run. Or not. And how ironic not too long ago Patterico was wielding those very SWAT teams. Well he was a cog. “Well woe is Me MOFO” cry me a river. I have misplaced the world’s smallest violin otherwise he might be worthy of a few notes. Or not. If he begs hard and sends me $30 I’ll send him an “It Can’t Happen Here” t-shirt. For old times sake. No hard feelings you Son Of A Bitch.

    I have decided I’m selling out to whoever comes out on top. Authoritarians (of one stripe or another) are determined to come to power. Who am I to stop them? I intend to indicate my preferences and make peace with the winners.

    As long as things remain unsettled I’m rooting for the libertarians. As long as it doesn’t interfere with business.

  3. joshua Avatar

    What’s funny to me is that the author and most of the commenters come have a (generally right-wing) perspective where the people who built the hoax are the bad guys that need to be brought to justice, and the SWAT team are good guys that just happened to get caught up in this and almost accidentally kill an innocent man. In other words, “The government should be breaking into the hoaxer’s house!”

    But I and most of the people around here have a (generally libertarian) perspective that whether or not you bring these bad guys to justice there will be others and we should really be questioning whether or not SWAT teams should be allowed to do this in the first place. In other words, “The government should not be breaking into anyone’s house!”

    Just as Democrats have a blind eye to government making mistakes about regulation and business, Republicans have a blind eye when it comes to government making mistakes about criminal justice and civil liberties.

    Wow, you just helped me collect my thought together almost good enough for a blog post 🙂

  4. Stan Avatar
    Stan

    I tend to agree Joshua, but I got the feeling Patterico had a bit of an eye-opening experience regarding such mistakes.

    Of course he says “they were just doing their job,” but obviously when it endangers the lives of innocent people something needs to change. I think he understands that.

  5. DiogenesLamp Avatar
    DiogenesLamp

    People who think that the government should never break into someone’s house remind me of people who think that no country should ever fight a war.

    It overlooks the obvious circumstance of being forced to deal with a situation that cannot be avoided. Those who won’t fight a war, will lose and be replaced by those who will.

    Those who won’t break into a person’s house when it is necessary, will lose their liberties from criminals, which are just as bad if not worse, than the government.

    Seriously, the law enforcement people were told that a man had murdered his wife, and was possibly in the act of murdering his children, and you don’t think they should have broke his door down to stop such a crime?

  6. DiogenesLamp Avatar
    DiogenesLamp

    Of course he says “they were just doing their job,” but obviously when it endangers the lives of innocent people something needs to change. I think he understands that.

    I would like to hear a suggestion as to how we can change things to alleviate the police responding aggressively to a report that someone is killing people inside his house.

    Obviously we don’t want governmental accessible cameras in people’s houses to see what is wrong first. Perhaps video phones will make it less likely in the future for people to try this “swatting” tactic?

    I don’t know about you, but i’m already uneasy at the various technological breakthroughs that assist big brother.

  7. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    I don’t know about you, but i’m already uneasy at the various technological breakthroughs that assist big brother.

    What better way to deal with it than put that technology in the hands of SWAT teams? Comforting thought that.

  8. Eric Scheie Avatar

    the law enforcement people were told that a man had murdered his wife, and was possibly in the act of murdering his children, and you don’t think they should have broke his door down to stop such a crime?

    So, if I set up an untraceable phone call, which is relatively easy to do —

    http://www.itstactical.com/digicom/privacy/does-an-untraceable-cell-phone-exist/

    http://www.howtodothings.com/electronics/how-to-make-an-untraceable-phone-call

    and I “confess” that I am you and I murdered my family, it is your position that is perfectly OK for the cops to raid your house. I think that is profoundly un-American. To say the least, such a scenario violates the Fourth Amendment which requires that there be probable cause before searches. An anonymous, untraceable phone call is anything but probable cause.

    Allowing anyone to sic SWAT teams on anyone is not only despicably tyrannical, but facilitates anarchy.

  9. […] regardless, I’m pretty sure I agree with Eric that “an anonymous, untraceable phone call is anything but probable cause,” and […]

  10. Sarah Avatar
    Sarah

    If you’re going to raid, you should demand the accuser identify himself. Look, bluntly, if I think my neighbor is on a shooting rampage WHY would I want to hide my identity? Seriously.

    I don’t like this. I REALLY don’t like this. It’s been going on for years with child-protective-services. ANYONE can accuse you anonymously, you’re not allowed to confront your accusers, and you’re guilty until proven innocent. ENOUGH of this. Americans should be able to confront their accusers. ALWAYS.

  11. DiogenesLamp Avatar
    DiogenesLamp

    What better way to deal with it than put that technology in the hands of SWAT teams? Comforting thought that.

    I do not see how such technology can be kept OUT of their hands. You are not going to constrain a person or a group of persons by force or deprivation. You have to convince them that there is a proper way to behave, and an improper way to behave. As Edmund Burke Said:

    The use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again: and a nation is not governed, which is perpetually to be conquered.

    It must be accepted by those who exercise the power of the state that they have limits beyond which they should not go. It must be taught to them, and they must be made to understand it and agree with it.

  12. DiogenesLamp Avatar
    DiogenesLamp

    and I “confess” that I am you and I murdered my family, it is your position that is perfectly OK for the cops to raid your house. I think that is profoundly un-American. To say the least, such a scenario violates the Fourth Amendment which requires that there be probable cause before searches. An anonymous, untraceable phone call is anything but probable cause.

    I do not suggest that they should always break down his door, but they need to be ready to do so if subsequent evidence demonstrates it to be the right thing to do.

    So let’s put this shoe on your foot. What would *YOU* do if someone calls you and claims someone is murdering people in their house? Tell us what *YOU* would do.

    Allowing anyone to sic SWAT teams on anyone is not only despicably tyrannical, but facilitates anarchy.

    I certainly think the initiator of this tactic needs to be tracked down and punished, but I am at a loss as to how police should know when to ignore such a call, and when they should respond to such a call.

    Tell us how they can do the right thing every time. I just read today that Erick Erickson (Whom I dislike, but that is irrelevant) was “Swatted”. He fortunately had the good sense to contact his local Sheriff’s office and inform them that such a thing might happen to him. Glenn Reynolds has also mentioned that he did the same thing.

    The police HAVE to respond to calls. They can’t tell which are real and which are fake until they get there. They simply should exercise good restraint until they can figure out exactly what is going on.

  13. DiogenesLamp Avatar
    DiogenesLamp

    If you’re going to raid, you should demand the accuser identify himself. Look, bluntly, if I think my neighbor is on a shooting rampage WHY would I want to hide my identity? Seriously.

    Yes, you should demand the accuser identify themselves, but you cannot refrain from acting just because they won’t. But it misses the point. If someone is going to pull this stunt, they can claim to be anybody they want. Police won’t be able to verify their identity until much later than the event. (If then, even.)

    The cops HAVE to go and see, and they HAVE to be prepared to deal with the worst case scenario. If you have a better suggestion, i’m very interested in hearing it.

    I don’t like this. I REALLY don’t like this. It’s been going on for years with child-protective-services. ANYONE can accuse you anonymously, you’re not allowed to confront your accusers, and you’re guilty until proven innocent. ENOUGH of this. Americans should be able to confront their accusers. ALWAYS.

    On this I absolutely agree. The accusers ought to be REQUIRED to be identified and their motives probed. It is, in fact, a requirement of Constitutional law that an accused has the right to face their accusers, but our legal system constantly ignores constitutional provisions that it doesn’t like.

    I have personally witnessed numerous examples of people making anonymous accusations and causing serious economic/emotional injury to people. The bureaucrats don’t want to identify accusers, because if they did, they wouldn’t get as many accusations. I would point out that this is a different circumstance from someone calling in and saying people are in imminent danger, and but for action lives may be lost.

    The priority should be to insure that lives are not lost because of inaction, and the subsequent identification of the accuser is important, but of secondary urgency. But I agree absolutely, the State should be required to identify the accuser *IF* they take action against the accused.

  14. Eric Scheie Avatar

    There ought to be strict verification procedures in place to protect people against these spoofing tactics. Saying they should be tracked down and prosecuted misses the point, because these phony calls can be placed from anywhere — like the Netherlands or the Ivory Coast. 911 administrators should at the very least attempt to make telephone contact with the person alleged to be the 911 subject and ask whether in fact he did place a 911 call. You would think today’s technology would allow that. Instead, they seem to be dispatching the cops like robots. Reminds me of the TSA.

  15. […] Until a few days ago (when my computer was having some downtime and I was blogging erratically), I had never heard of Brett Kimberlin. (Just what he and the powers that be at Wikipedia want.) I have now read more about him than I care to read, and not only do I have a creepy feeling about people like that gaining influence and power (which reminds me of Bill Ayers/Bernadine Dohrn), but I also don’t like being told simultaneously that: […]

  16. […] first place. It should not be possible to generate a SWAT team raid on the basis of a phone call. Once again, the founders would be horrified. This is so far from probable cause for a search warrant […]