• Echo Dot
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • maness300@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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?

      • Echo Dot
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • maness300@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.