Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: This is new: Scammer uses SWATTING against would-be victim

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    This is new: Scammer uses SWATTING against would-be victim

    Wow, this is crazy.

    TFred

    Scammer takes a 'swat' at Culpeper man

    Snip from article:

    According to Culpeper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins, a resident on Carrico Mills Road got a call Friday from a scammer pretending to be an IRS agent. The caller told the resident that he owed thousands of dollars in back taxes and ordered him to bring the money to a specified address in Washington or be arrested.

    Jenkins said the resident realized it was a scam and responded by saying that he would have to borrow the money from “a police officer friend.”

    The scammer immediately hung up, but minutes later placed a call to 911 reporting a man with a gun at the victim’s residence. Five deputies and a canine responded to find nothing awry.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Scary.

    Counter-measures? Just brainstorming here:

    1. Hang up on the scammer and instantly call the police to report it. No delay. You would at least have a chance for dispatchers to recognize the same address.

    2. Tell the caller you have the money, but the bank doesn't open until 9:00am. Make it a point to appear attentive about getting the right address. Promise to show up to set the IRS account to rights. Then instantly call the police.

    3. Hmmmm. I wonder if this was a targeted situation, meaning I wonder if it wasn't really a scammer, but somebody who had a grudge against the victim, and decided to hit the victim with a double-whammy. As I understand it, scammers just want your bank account number or a phone check. I can't recall ever hearing of a scammer who wanted the victim to actually bring the money to a certain location.
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-19-2015 at 01:09 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Newbie
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Hampton, Va
    Posts
    4
    This is becoming a very unsettling trend around the country, I've seen multiple stories about it and some have ended with in gunfire. Gun hating libs like using this method to cause problems for law abiding citizens. For instance I seen a case where a man was enjoying a ride on his motorcycle up in Nova and he was open carrying a pistol and entered a 711 to buy some cigs and a lady seen him with his pistol and called the police and said he just robbed the 711 so of course the police presence was heavy when they stopped him and found out he did not rob a store and was just enjoying a beautiful day on his bike. However that situation could have turned ugly.

    My opinion is anyone who attempts to use this method as a "joke" or trying to make a point or whatever reason should be hunted down by police and charged with attempted murder


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Thaas4 View Post
    This is becoming a very unsettling trend around the country, I've seen multiple stories about it and some have ended with in gunfire. Gun hating libs like using this method to cause problems for law abiding citizens. For instance I seen a case where a man was enjoying a ride on his motorcycle up in Nova and he was open carrying a pistol and entered a 711 to buy some cigs and a lady seen him with his pistol and called the police and said he just robbed the 711 so of course the police presence was heavy when they stopped him and found out he did not rob a store and was just enjoying a beautiful day on his bike. However that situation could have turned ugly.

    My opinion is anyone who attempts to use this method as a "joke" or trying to make a point or whatever reason should be hunted down by police and charged with attempted murder


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Its a little less unsettling when you realize case law sets some standards against anonymous tips to police. Meaning, if the person gives their name and address, increasing their credibility according to case law, they are then identifiable for a false alarm. Alternatively, if the person does not identify himself, the police are more restricted in what they can do. I know that doesn't mean the police will restrict themselves. But, its something.

    Google the term indicia of reliability.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Here in Utah a family has been the victim of so-called "SWATTING" multiple times.

    This last time the police sensed something was amiss and responded carefully, but non violently. They determined the call was a hoax without busting down doors or other such violence. On the flip side, when he realized what was happening, the father went out front, very non-aggressively, and was able to talk to the responding officers.

    These things put cops in a no win situation. Some number of 911 calls about hostage situations are real.

    These fake calls need to be handled in the same category as terroristic (ie bomb) threats.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Here in Utah a family has been the victim of so-called "SWATTING" multiple times.

    This last time the police sensed something was amiss and responded carefully, but non violently. They determined the call was a hoax without busting down doors or other such violence. On the flip side, when he realized what was happening, the father went out front, very non-aggressively, and was able to talk to the responding officers.

    These things put cops in a no win situation. Some number of 911 calls about hostage situations are real.

    These fake calls need to be handled in the same category as terroristic (ie bomb) threats.

    Charles
    Since when is trying to get someone else in trouble the equivalent of terrorism with its inherent demand for political change? Where is the political demand in SWATTING?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Since when is trying to get someone else in trouble the equivalent of terrorism with its inherent demand for political change? Where is the political demand in SWATTING?
    Where is the political demand of someone claiming there is a bomb in a high school?

    SWATting goes way beyond "trying to get someone else in trouble." It is using the police force to terrorize and potentially injure or kill another person. Property damage is very possible.

    It is bearing of false witness for those who place any credence in the big 10. It is filing a false police report. It may well divert limited police resources away from other needs on the false premise of a higher priority need.

    No, it isn't "trying to get someone else in trouble". It is attempted murder and imposition of terror.

    Stop looking so much at who is posting and more at what is said. Your insistence on finding disagreement with me is starting to make you look really rather out of touch with reality.

    SWATting is way more than "trying to get someone else in trouble."

    Bringing up a supposedly anonymous donation is response to a perceived slight is really boorish conduct.

    And thinking every disagreement is antagonism and disrespect is childish.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Where is the political demand of someone claiming there is a bomb in a high school?
    Exactly.

    No political demand = not terror. Murderous threat, yes.

    But, terrorism has long be used to refer to violence for political reasons. Munich Olympics 1972, the PLO, the Red Brigades, the IRA.

    Bomb goes off and kills people without a political angle, then its just mass murder. Nutcase shoots up a movie theater without political angle, its just mass murder.

    Just because government decided to redefine the term in the wake of 9-11 for brownie points with the electorate or to give itself new powers doesn't make it terrorism. For pete's sake, I've come across a few news stories where some guy was charged with making "terroristic threats" against his ex-wife or girlfriend. There was already a term for that: making threats. Just because government decided to stretch the term doesn't mean the rest of us have to go along with it. I've never seen a constitutional provision giving government the power to change the language.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    No political demand = not terror. Murderous threat, yes.

    But, terrorism has long be used to refer to violence for political reasons. Munich Olympics 1972, the PLO, the Red Brigades, the IRA.

    Bomb goes off and kills people without a political angle, then its just mass murder. Nutcase shoots up a movie theater without political angle, its just mass murder.
    Oh, so you didn't really mean just "trying to get someone in trouble." What you really meant was "trying to get someone seriously injured or killed, filing a false police report, and bearing false witness."

    So why did you write just "trying to get someone in trouble" rather than writing what you really meant?

    Pick nits all you want. You might even have a few cases where the law was obviously misapplied.

    But I recognize a difference between merely threatening to kill someone, and threatening to kill someone in a way that causes a larger scale panic or danger, that undermines trust in public institutions, or that diverts major public safety resources falsely.

    I don't see where "terror" is defined in the constitution, so it is up to statute to determine how to define it. Kind of like how in many cases "assault" doesn't require any physical contact at all, that is "battery".

    So keep picking nits or looking for non-material disagreement as you try to twist every thread into some kind of anti-government sermon. Or, try communicating.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,195
    When the Canadians started collecting data for their gun registry it was recommend that filling out registration forms for anti's and anti gun politicians. With false information about guns they might or might not own.

    The registry was filled with bad information and was one of the reasons they did away with it.

    The same with some 800 gun reporting systems they received a lot of bad reports and were done away with.

    I would think the same might happen with certain government organizations if they would receive a large amount of bad information.

    What information does one act on especially in smaller departments a lot of SWAT teems are made up from a small number of department members would get called out on over time. A called out is costly and time consuming to many false alarms really screws up the system in many ways.

    When dealing with anti's and anti gun politicians one has to remember a double edged knife cuts both ways.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  11. #11
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    These fake calls need to be handled in the same category as terroristic (ie bomb) threats.
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Since when is trying to get someone else in trouble the equivalent of terrorism with its inherent demand for political change? Where is the political demand in SWATTING?
    You're probably the only one who didn't get it, even though it is in plain English: "handled in the same category...".

    What he is saying here is that SWATTING calls should be HANDLED in the same way that bomb threats are handled. Do you ever read the news reports about when bomb threats are called in to schools, malls, etc? They HUNT THEM DOWN and PROSECUTE them. That is what must happen to SWATTERS as well.

    TFred

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    Originally Posted by utbagpiper

    These fake calls need to be handled in the same category as terroristic (ie bomb) threats.

    Originally Posted by Citizen
    Since when is trying to get someone else in trouble the equivalent of terrorism with its inherent demand for political change? Where is the political demand in SWATTING?


    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    You're probably the only one who didn't get it, even though it is in plain English: "handled in the same category...".

    What he is saying here is that SWATTING calls should be HANDLED in the same way that bomb threats are handled. Do you ever read the news reports about when bomb threats are called in to schools, malls, etc? They HUNT THEM DOWN and PROSECUTE them. That is what must happen to SWATTERS as well.

    TFred
    - the end result of swatting does frequently end with government (political) involvement.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    If SWAT SWATTED the SWATTERS for SWATTING swincidents of swatting swould swurely be swrduced ....
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    You're probably the only one who didn't get it, even though it is in plain English: "handled in the same category...".

    What he is saying here is that SWATTING calls should be HANDLED in the same way that bomb threats are handled. Do you ever read the news reports about when bomb threats are called in to schools, malls, etc? They HUNT THEM DOWN and PROSECUTE them. That is what must happen to SWATTERS as well.

    TFred
    No, TFred, that's not what he said. His post is expressly says swatting calls should be handled the same way category as terroristic threats. The bomb angle was an example. Here is what he wrote verbatim: "These fake calls need to be handled in the same category as terroristic (ie bomb) threats."

    I took him to task over the terrorism angle. Not whether they should be hunted down and prosecuted.
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-21-2015 at 03:27 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    You're probably the only one who didn't get it, even though it is in plain English: "handled in the same category...".

    What he is saying here is that SWATTING calls should be HANDLED in the same way that bomb threats are handled. Do you ever read the news reports about when bomb threats are called in to schools, malls, etc? They HUNT THEM DOWN and PROSECUTE them. That is what must happen to SWATTERS as well.

    TFred
    You jogged something for me, TFred. Thanks.

    Since when did terrorists call in bomb threats? Outside of the movies, I cannot think of a single terrorist ever giving a warning that he was going to detonate a bomb at such-and-such place. And, that only makes sense. Terrorists who use bombs want maximum dead bodies. Why would they call ahead and reduced the number of dead bodies by giving warning?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    No, TFred, that's not what he said. His post is expressly says swatting calls should be handled the same way as terroristic threats. The bomb angle was an example. Here is what he wrote verbatim: "These fake calls need to be handled in the same category as terroristic (ie bomb) threats."

    I took him to task over the terrorism angle. Not whether they should be hunted down and prosecuted.
    *shrug* I took Piper to be referencing "terroristic" in no sense beyond the terminology heard in news reports and to describe the way LEO hunt down with great prejudice anyone who would use telecommunications to make a false report to call out emergency services and disrupt citizens lives, and that SWATTERS should be subject to the same level for scrutiny and manhunting as someone who calls in say, a bomb threat.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  17. #17
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    No, TFred, that's not what he said. His post is expressly says swatting calls should be handled the same way as terroristic threats. The bomb angle was an example. Here is what he wrote verbatim: "These fake calls need to be handled in the same category as terroristic (ie bomb) threats."

    I took him to task over the terrorism angle. Not whether they should be hunted down and prosecuted.
    Got it. "Same way" is synonymous with "same category." Sheesh.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    The victim's accounting of the LE conduct is desired.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  19. #19
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    3. Hmmmm. I wonder if this was a targeted situation, meaning I wonder if it wasn't really a scammer, but somebody who had a grudge against the victim, and decided to hit the victim with a double-whammy. As I understand it, scammers just want your bank account number or a phone check. I can't recall ever hearing of a scammer who wanted the victim to actually bring the money to a certain location.
    I've seen other cases of it. I've even seen cases where the scammer instructed the victims to bring the money to a police or government facility - outside, but at the facility nonetheless.
    Advocate freedom please

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Got it. "Same way" is synonymous with "same category." Sheesh.
    OK. I fixed it for you.

    Personally, I don't see why one would categorize a crime in such-and-such a way if he didn't mean to handle it the same as other crimes in that category. While I can see a difference, I wouldn't have said that difference is a material difference for the purpose of the exact context and discussion. Especially, when the main point was conflating non-political acts with terrorism.

    But, I don't mind changing that word for you.

    Oh, by the way. Maybe you can correct TFred, too. He also made the way vs category imprecision in post #11.
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-21-2015 at 03:39 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    When the Canadians started collecting data for their gun registry it was recommend that filling out registration forms for anti's and anti gun politicians. With false information about guns they might or might not own.

    ....

    When dealing with anti's and anti gun politicians one has to remember a double edged knife cuts both ways.
    This is true. When I first heard of "SWATting" it was being directed against government officials specifically to let them see first hand what it is like to have your door kicked in and be looking down the barrel of a gun held by a guy clad in black with his face covered. I have to confess to being less outraged by it at the time than I am at the present time having seen it used primarily against average citizens rather than those who can actually effect change.

    I suppose if this were so common that the police had no choice but to assume any given call claiming something a SWAT team might respond to was fake that would be one thing. Ditto if it were common enough that legislators changed laws on when forced entry or other similar SWAT responses could be used.

    Neither of those seem to be the case. And the fact is, there are some number of situations where a SWAT response is needed. How to avoid harming innocents is the key.

    As it seems to have been used most frequently, this tactic seems to be a remote controlled attempt to injure or kill innocent parties rather than any real effort to change police policies.

    Those making these fraudulent calls need to be handled very much the same way as we'd handle anyone else engaged in similar terroristic type activities.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    SNIP Those making these fraudulent calls need to be handled very much the same way as we'd handle anyone else engaged in similar terroristic type activities.
    Still working on confirming the government's expansion of what constitutes terrorism, I see.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  23. #23
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    I have a question of police mobilizing to respond to an anonymous call. You would think Caller ID would work - or if not require and confirm contact information on the complainant. If it turned out to be bogus the next stop for the police w/b to locate the caller and arrest them.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Still working on confirming the government's expansion of what constitutes terrorism, I see.
    And still trying to read in far more than intended. Respectfully, the anarchists do not get to impose their unique definitions for words onto the rest of us. When I'm writing contracts of legislation, I'll choose words precisely. Here, I'm plenty verbose without trying to skate around your hypersensitivities in these various areas.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  25. #25
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by HPmatt View Post
    I have a question of police mobilizing to respond to an anonymous call. You would think Caller ID would work - or if not require and confirm contact information on the complainant. If it turned out to be bogus the next stop for the police w/b to locate the caller and arrest them.
    Caller ID is fairly easy to spoof. Not to mention the fact that from time to time the cops are alerted to a real hostage situation through a cell phone call.

    Obviously, all reasonable steps should be taken to confirm before busting in a door. Watch a home for a bit. Ask the neighbors what they have seen or heard. Place a phone call to the home. Perhaps the ideal response is to get a very limited warrant to use IR or other sensors to get an idea of what is going on inside the home before taking further action. If it doesn't look like a violent/hostage situation, send one officer up to knock on the door and check. Or have an officer dressed like Pizza delivery knock on the door looking for an address.

    I guess the question is, what is more common: SWATting or legit 911 calls where a SWAT team is the proper response? I just don't know.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •