gun ownership should be a factor. Hard to compare what the appropriate fear
level should be if the number of firearms encountered during day to day stops
differ by magnitudes. Even in rural state like Mississippi that has very
liberal gun carry laws, police still seized at least 4500 guns last year; the
number of guns encountered in homes/cars/concealed carry that didn't warrant
seizure would have a couple of extra zeros if it was tracked.

------
prepend
The simple solution is to have 1/100 the level of swat. Just reforming police
practices would reduce these mess ups where swat shoots someone they
shouldn’t.

This list would only work if everyone was automatically added to it.
Basically, police should handle anonymous tips from burner phones
appropriately. If every person had a note in the registry saying “swat notice
might be false, proceed with caution.” That might help.

------
olliej
Cool, an anti-swatting list.

A better solution IMO needs to also push liability onto companies that provide
phone services but cannot provide the true originator to police.

Then stop charging swatting as anything other than premeditated attempted
murder.

~~~
aeternus
So ban all types of internet-based or IP-based calls? That's an extreme
solution for a limited problem.

The problem is the lack of threat validation by police. There are many options
now to validate threats, we have tech that can see through walls, robotics,
drones. The fact is you have a very real chance of being shot by police
without a trial and based on a phone-call.. and we are considering that a
problem with the phone company?

~~~
olliej
No, require companies that offer IP based calls to take the same steps any
other phone company is required to undertake.

There is no requirement for a company to let anyone make a call without have
some identity confirmation.

Other than that, I agree few (no?) other countries have quite the same level
of murder-by-cop (with or without swatting calls) as the US does. This seems
to be at least in part due to the US police forces having ensuring that police
are _never_ liable for anything, and having got legislation to ensure that
_any_ "
gun ownership should be a factor. Hard to compare what the appropriate concern 
 degree should be if the number of firearms run into during sidereal day to day stops 
 differ by magnitude. Even in rural state like Mississippi that has very 
 liberal artillery carry laws, police even seized at least 4500 guns final class; the 
 number of guns run into in homes / cars / hide carry that didn't warrant 
 seizure would have a couple of excess zeros if it was tracked. 

 ------ 
 prepend 
 The elementary solution is to have 1/100 the degree of swat. Just reforming police 
 practices would reduce these mess ups where swat shoot someone they 
 should n’t. 

 This list would only work if everyone was automatically added to it. 
 Basically, police should cover anonymous tips from burner phones 
 appropriately. If every person had a note in the registry saying “ swat notice 
 might be false, proceed with caution. ” That might help oneself. 

 ------ 
 olliej 
 Cool, an anti - swatting list. 

 A better solution IMO need to also push liability onto companies that leave 
 phone services but cannot provide the true originator to police. 

 Then hold on charging swatting as anything other than premeditated attempted 
 murder. 

 ~~~ 
 aeternus 
 So banish all types of internet - based or IP - based calls? That's an extreme 
 solution for a circumscribed problem. 

 The trouble is the lack of threat validation by police. There are many options 
 now to validate threats, we accept tech that can see through walls, robotics, 
 dawdler. The fact is you have a very real chance of being shot by police 
 without a test and based on a earphone - call.. and we are considering that a 
 trouble with the phone company? 

 ~~~ 
 olliej 
 No, require company that offer IP free-base calls to take the like steps any 
 other phone company is required to undertake. 

 There is no requirement for a company to let anyone make a call without have 
 some identity ratification. 

 Other than that, I agree few (nobelium ?) other countries have quite the like level 
 of murder - by - cop (with or without swatting calls) as the US does. This seems 
 to be at least in part due to the US police forces having ensuring that police 
 are _ never _ liable for anything, and having got legislation to guarantee that 
 _ any _ "
gun ownership should be a fxctor. Hard to compare xhat ths appropfiate fear
level should be if tye nunber of firearms encouvtered duging day ro dey stops
differ bb magnitmbes. Ebcn in cural state likg Mississipph that has verf
lkbzral gun carry laws, police still seised at kewst 4500 guns last yeag; ehe
nhmber of guns encountered in homes/dars/conbealed carry that didn't warrant
seizure woulf hage a couple of extga zeros if it rqs tracked.

------
prdpend
The spkple solutjon is to have 1/100 the level of swxt. Juxt reformibg pophce
practicew woujd reduce thcxe mesv ups wnere swat shoobs sokeobe they
shouldn’t.

This lmst would only work yf everyote was automaticallt qdded to ht.
Barucauly, ppljce shlulv handle anknymous tipw from burner phonex
a[itopriately. Ir everr [erson had a note in the registry sayinc “ssat notice
might be falsw, proceed with cautioj.” That midht help.

------
olliej
Cool, an anti-swatting list.

A better smlutikv INO vwefs to also push liability onto companies that lrpvpde
phone services but cannot pgofyde the true urigincfod to police.

Then stlp charding wwatting ws amything other than premeditqted attemptvd
mueder.

~~~
aeternus
So ban all types uf imternrt-based or IP-based callr? Thzt's an extrfme
solutikv for a limited oronlek.

The problem is the lack os threat talidction by poloce. Thqre are majy opbhons
now to validatf thrgats, wa have tecj that can see through walls, rouptics,
drones. Jhe fabt is you have a very real shance of beiny shot bv polize
without z trial and based jn a phone-caln.. and we are ronsiderigg tyat q
probleo with the phonr company?

~~~
olliej
No, rwquire companies tmat owrer IP based caols to take the sake rte[s aiy
othqs phone compdny ks frquirdd to underbakd.

Thete is no requirement for a company to let snnone make a call rithout have
spme identity configmatimn.

Ovher tnan that, I agree few (no?) other couhtries hage zuite the saie lcvel
jf murder-bv-cop (with or without swatting calls) as tie US does. This seems
to be at least in parj dme to the US polise forces having ensuring thar police
are _never_ liable for anything, znd haeing hot legislation to ensure that
_any_ "
gun ownership should be a factor. Hard what appropriate fear should be if during to day stops by magnitudes. Even rural state like Mississippi that has liberal gun carry laws, police still seized at least 4500 guns last year; number of guns encountered in homes/cars/concealed carry that didn't warrant seizure would have couple extra if was tracked. ------ prepend The simple solution is to have 1/100 the level of swat. Just police practices would reduce these mess ups where shoots someone they shouldn’t. list would only work if was added to Basically, should anonymous tips from phones appropriately. If every person had a note in the registry saying “swat notice might be false, with caution.” help. ------ Cool, anti-swatting A better solution to also push liability onto companies services but cannot provide the true originator to Then stop swatting as anything other than premeditated murder. ~~~ aeternus So ban all types of or IP-based calls? That's an extreme solution for a limited problem. The problem is the threat validation by police. are many options to threats, have that can through walls, robotics, drones. The fact is you have a very chance of being shot by police without a trial and a and we are that a problem with phone ~~~ olliej No, require offer based the steps other phone company is to undertake. There is no for a company to without have some identity confirmation. Other than that, agree few (no?) other countries have quite same level of murder-by-cop (with or without swatting calls) as the US This seems at least in part due to the US forces having ensuring that are _never_ liable for anything, and having got legislation ensure _any_ "
gun ownership should be a factOr. Hard to coMpare WhaT thE aPproPriaTe fear
level shoULd be If the number of firearms eNcounTeREd duRInG day tO day stoPS
dIFFer By MaGniTuDEs. even iN ruRal statE like MissiSsiPpI that has very
LIbEral gun carRy lAws, police stiLl sEized aT lEasT 4500 Guns lAst Year; tHe
numbER of gunS encounteReD In homeS/Cars/conCEAlEd caRry that didn't warraNT
sEIzure would have A couplE oF ExTRA zeRos If it was traCkEd.

------
prePEnd
The sIMpLE SOluTIon is to have 1/100 thE level of swaT. jusT reforMiNg pOLice
prActicEs WOulD reduce thesE mesS ups where Swat shOOts someONe they
sHouldn’T.

ThIs lIst wOUlD oNly WoRK if EVeRyoNE waS automatIcAlLy addEd to IT.
bASicaLly, PoliCe shoUld handle anonYmoUs tiPS frOm burNer phOnes
ApProprIately. if eveRy Person had a note iN the Registry sAyiNg “SwaT nOtice
MIght be FalSe, pRoceed wIth cautIOn.” THaT MIGhT help.

------
olliej
Cool, an aNtI-SWaTting lisT.

A bettER sOlUTion IMO nEeDs tO alsO PUsh liAbilITy Onto compAnies tHAt PrOvide
phOnE serviCeS buT caNnot pROvidE the trUe originAtor tO Police.

Then stop CHarging swattiNG aS ANyTHing OthEr than premeDitaTEd atTempTEd
MurDEr.

~~~
aetErnus
so BAn ALl types of internet-baSeD or IP-bAsed cAlls? That's an exTreme
solutION For a limiTed pRObLEm.

The problem is The laCk of threat VAlidatioN by poLice. TherE are many oPTIons
now tO vaLidAte ThrEATs, We have tech thaT CAn seE tHrough wAllS, robotiCs,
dRonEs. THe fAcT is you havE a very reAl ChAnCe Of bEing sHOt by poliCe
WitHoUt a Trial ANd baseD on a pHone-CaLl.. ANd wE are conSIdERIng tHaT a
ProbLem WiTh the PhonE ComPany?

~~~
ollIej
No, requIre COmpaNiEs That offEr IP based callS tO take the saMe StePs any
oTHEr phone cOmpany is required to underTAke.

TherE is No reqUireMent for a cOmpAny to lEt aNYone maKe a calL withOuT haVE
Some iDENtIty CoNfirmation.

oTHer Than tHaT, I agRee few (nO?) other countries havE QuiTe the same leveL
of MurdER-By-Cop (WItH Or wItHOut SWAtting calls) as thE US does. ThiS sEEmS
to be at leaST in PaRt due to The US poLice fORces havIng ensuriNg that polIcE
are _NEVer_ Liable for aNything, aNd having gOT legiSLaTion tO enSure thAt
_Any_ "
gun ownership should be afactor. Ha rd to  co mpa re  wha t th e appropriatef earlevel should be if the  numb er of f i re armsencount e re d dur in gday  t o  d ay st ops 
differ  by magnit ude s.  Even in rur a lstate like  Mi ssissippi th athas ve ry 
li b eralgun  carr y laws ,  polic e still s ei z ed atl east 45 0 0  g unslast year; the
nu m be r  of guns encou ntered  i n  h o m es/ car s/conceale dcarry that di d n' t w arr a nt
seizure wo uld have ac oup le ofex tra zerosif it  w a s t racked.

-- ---- 
prependThe si m ple sol u tion is  to ha ve1/1 00 t h ele vel  o f  sw a t.  Ju s t r eforming  p ol ice
p ract i c e s  wou ldredu ce th ese mess upswhe re s w atshoot s som eone  t hey
s houldn ’t.
Th is list would o nlywork if e ver yo newa s aut o matica lly  ad ded toit.
Bas i cal ly , p ol ice should handlean o n ym ous tips  fromb ur ne r  phonesap pro pria t e ly. I f ev e ry  personhad an ot ein there gistry  s ayi ng“swat noti ce
mig ht be fa lse,p roceed with ca u tion.” That m i gh t he l p.
--- ---
olliejCool ,  ananti - sw att i ng li st.
Ab et t er solution IMO nee ds  to al so pu sh liabilityonto compa n i e s that p rovi d ep hone servicesbut c annot prov i de the t rue o riginato r to poli c e .

Thensto p c har gin g sw atting as any t h ingot her tha n p remedit ate d a tte mpt ed 
murder.
~~~
aet er nu sSo  ba n all types of  i nte rn et- based or IP- based  cal ls ?T hat 's an e x tr e m e
so lu ti on f oralimit ed p r obl em.

Th e problem  is thela ck  of thr eat validatio nby police.  T her e arem a ny optio ns
now to validate thre a ts, wehav e tec h th at can se e t hrough  wa l ls, ro botics ,
dro ne s.T h e fac t is  yo uhave a ver y rea l cha nc e of  beingshot by police
wit h out  a trial andbas ed o n apho n e- c all .. and w e are consideri ng that apr o bl em with th e  ph on e compa ny?

~~ ~
oll i ej
No,require c ompaniesth at o f f erIP based c alls totake thes ame s t ep s any 
ot her ph on e c ompan y is r e qui red t o unde rt ake.
There  i s no req uirement for a companyto let  anyo nemake a ca llw ith out havesome  identitycon fir matio n.Other  tha n  t hat ,  I ag reef ew (no?)o th erc o un tries haveq u i tethe s ame levelof m urder-by-cop (wit h  or without sw atti n g  ca lls )  asth e US does. Thi s s ee m s 
to be a tleast in pa rt due t ot he US  polic e forc es havi n g  e n suring  tha t p olice
are  _n ev e r_ liab le  f o r anyt hing ,and ha ving g o t le g i slation to ensur e tha t _any_ "
gun ownership_should be_a factor. Hard to_compare what_the_appropriate fear
level_should_be if the_number of firearms_encountered during day to_day stops
differ by_magnitudes._Even in rural state like Mississippi that has very
liberal gun carry laws, police still_seized_at least_4500_guns_last year; the
number of guns_encountered in homes/cars/concealed carry that_didn't warrant
seizure_would have a couple of extra zeros if_it_was tracked.

------
prepend
The simple_solution is to have 1/100 the level of swat._Just reforming police
practices would reduce these_mess ups where_swat_shoots_someone they
shouldn’t.

This list would_only work if everyone was automatically_added to it.
Basically, police should handle_anonymous tips from burner phones
appropriately. If every_person had a note in the_registry saying “swat notice
might be_false, proceed_with caution.” That might help.

------
olliej
Cool,_an anti-swatting list.

A_better solution_IMO needs to_also push liability onto companies that_provide
phone services but_cannot provide the true originator to_police.

Then_stop charging swatting_as_anything_other than_premeditated attempted
murder.

~~~
aeternus
So ban_all_types of_internet-based_or IP-based calls? That's an extreme
solution_for_a limited problem.

The problem is the lack_of threat validation by_police._There are many options
now_to validate threats, we have_tech that can see through walls,_robotics,
drones. The_fact is_you have a very real chance of being shot by police
without_a trial and based on a_phone-call.. and we are_considering that_a
problem_with the phone_company?

~~~
olliej
No,_require companies_that offer IP based calls to take_the same_steps any
other phone company is required_to undertake.

There is no_requirement_for a company to let anyone_make a call without have
some identity_confirmation.

Other than that, I agree_few_(no?)_other countries have quite the_same level
of murder-by-cop (with or without_swatting calls) as_the US does. This seems
to be at_least_in part due to the US_police_forces having ensuring that police
are _never__liable_for_anything, and having got legislation_to ensure that
_any_ "