My guess would be an asshole.
That’s actually a pretty good solution. It’s opt-in and presumably completely confidential, if it’s registered for use by law enforcement only.
It’s sad that something like this even has to exist though.
But what are they doing with that information? So they know there is a swatting concern at an address that they just received a call about… now what? So they do what differently?
Uh… I have no idea? It’s not my policy, and they forgot to consult with me before moving ahead with implementation. ;)
But for real, I don’t really understand your concerns. It’s an optional opt-in list of people that are just saying “hey, I am worried about being swatted, bear that in mind before you send in a police response.” You can get more details from the link inside the article itself.
Here’s how. A 911 call taker receives a report of a critical incident. While ensuring first responders are dispatched to that call for service as quickly as possible, the call taker will simultaneously check for whether or not swatting concerns have been registered at that address. If swatting concerns have been registered, this information will be shared with responding officers, who will still proceed to the call. If no location profile exists, officers will still continue to the call. Nothing about this solution is designed to minimize or slow emergency services. At the same time, if information is available, it is more useful for responding officers to have it than to not.
I read it, and the links provided. They don’t really outline what they expect officers to do with this information. My concern is, I don’t have a lot of faith in the police at the moment, so I think they should indicate what kind of training the police officers are receiving when it comes to actually using this database when they respond. Heck, maybe indicate there is training at all and not just some sort of hey just so you know this thing is here, do with it as you will.
Sounds good to me.
Yes, the idea only works if they use this data in an effective manner. Something to the effect of ‘double check the situation before going in guns blazing’. Which, really, should be SOP anyhow. But here we are!
Yeah.
The last thing we need is some streamer acting less cautiously maybe not following orders perfectly to get shot because he, or she, is sitting there thinking hey I’m in a database so they know not to shoot me.
People should not have to register in a list to not be killed in their home.
Maybe the problem is not swatting.
But I would use the list if I where streamer and had that fear.
So if everyone signs up for it then???
The people signing up will be all the people with kidnap victims in the cellar. Nothing to see here officers.
Here’s a crazy idea. Why don’t they just treat all residences with the care and respect to those that will be “on the list”?
Haha, their list suddenly becomes a means to get care and respect for police and suddenly their database is filled with millions. I’m sure, sure they have a plan for when the database gets filled with people not at all at risk for swatting… except, anyone can be at risk for swatting, really.
Well, when you get a call that says, “Armed men have taken over the house next door and are firing shots! The screams! The screams!”, community policing kinda fades off the radar as an option.
This will become “How to run a Stash House 101” in Seattle, though. “Step 47-Register on the non-SWAT database.”
Everyone will sign up for it because no one wants armed police at their door shooting everybody.
I’d also think that people who are going to swat someone would also sign up for it as protection against revenge swatting.
And what about the swat team for shooting an innocent, unarmed man?