FBI launches national database to combat surge in swatting incidents

midian182

Posts: 9,745   +121
Staff member
In brief: Swatting is one of the most insidious crimes to arise in the digital age. The act of calling 911 to falsely claim someone is brandishing a weapon or engaging in other serious crimes has led to dangerous situations and fatalities. Now, as the number of incidents increases, the FBI has created a national database for law enforcement across the country to track and share information on these hoax calls.

Swatting incidents have been on the rise in the US recently, especially on college campuses. CNBC reports that the FBI's response was to create a national database in May that will provide the bureau with a "common operating picture of what's going on across the country," according to Chief Scott Schubert, of the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services headquarters in Clarksburg, West Virginia.

"We're taking every step to monitor this national problem and help however we can," added Shubert.

In the short time since its creation, the database has already tracked 129 swatting incidents around the nation.

This is the first time a central agency has tracked swatting incidents, despite there being an estimated 1,000 cases in the US each year. The most infamous of these took place in 2017 when Tyler Barriss swatted 28-year-old Andrew Finch, resulting in the father of two's death.

That incident was the result of a $1.50 wager on a CoD: WWII game involving Casey Viner and Shane Gaskill. Viner contacted Barriss asking him to swat his opponent, but Gaskill had given him an old address – Finch was an innocent party who didn't know any of the men.

Despite the potential consequences, there is no specific law that criminalizes swatting in the US. The False Information and Hoaxes statute is usually used in these cases. If homicide or attempted homicide is involved, the person can be jailed for up to 20 years or face life imprisonment if the victim is killed; Barriss was sentenced to 20 years for involuntary manslaughter, false information & hoaxes, cyberstalking resulting in death, and several other unrelated charges.

An illustration of how common swatting has become arrived in April with reports of a Telegram channel that offered to swat specific targets, using computerized voices, for a price.

Permalink to story.

 
How about just not sending a SWAT team to a residence based solely on an unsubstantiated "tips?"

How exactly to do propose to do substantiate a tip?

That is the problem, how exactly do you know if someone calls and says "there is an intruder in my house" if that is true or not? You have to react to every claim of impending danger the same every time.

It has happened several times that a young kids calls 911 and says mommy fell down and the 911 operator and dismissed the kid and told them not to call. Several days later they find the mother dead on the floor. This and similar situations have occurred multiple times not just in the US but in the UK (999) and other western nations.
 
How exactly to do propose to do substantiate a tip?

That is the problem, how exactly do you know if someone calls and says "there is an intruder in my house" if that is true or not? You have to react to every claim of impending danger the same every time.

It has happened several times that a young kids calls 911 and says mommy fell down and the 911 operator and dismissed the kid and told them not to call. Several days later they find the mother dead on the floor. This and similar situations have occurred multiple times not just in the US but in the UK (999) and other western nations.
You go with what worked for decades before, you send a normal patrol unit with 1-2 officers who investigate first and shoot second.

If on arrival they determine there really is an armed terrorist combat cell holed up there, then they can call for specialized backup.

Or in the 99% of other cases in which encounters can be handled by them alone, or with assistance of other regular officers, they do that.

Police were not always semi-militarized units.
 
You go with what worked for decades before, you send a normal patrol unit with 1-2 officers who investigate first and shoot second.

If on arrival they determine there really is an armed terrorist combat cell holed up there, then they can call for specialized backup.

Or in the 99% of other cases in which encounters can be handled by them alone, or with assistance of other regular officers, they do that.

Police were not always semi-militarized units.
oh! You mean that american police officers should act more like British or French officers? Nah... that will never work! :D
 
You go with what worked for decades before, you send a normal patrol unit with 1-2 officers who investigate first and shoot second.

If on arrival they determine there really is an armed terrorist combat cell holed up there, then they can call for specialized backup.

Or in the 99% of other cases in which encounters can be handled by them alone, or with assistance of other regular officers, they do that.

Police were not always semi-militarized units.
This.

We don’t need a database.
We need less trigger happy police.
 
So, it took them like what, 20 years, till they finally decided to act??
 
oh! You mean that american police officers should act more like British or French officers? Nah... that will never work! :D
British police have their own armed response units which are basically their version of swat, but they're less trigger happy and all french police officers carry firearms afaik. I'm sure they also have their own version of swat. Sure, accidents can happen and there's currently riots in France on the news due to some young guy getting shot by police while trying to escape in a car. Whether that was called for or not, is not for me to judge.
 
While it's a good start, until they pass laws that make it a first class felony with a minimum sentence of 20 years without parole and NO ACCESS to any electronic devices, it's effect will be limited.
 
While it's a good start, until they pass laws that make it a first class felony with a minimum sentence of 20 years without parole and NO ACCESS to any electronic devices, it's effect will be limited.
Multiple states are moving to do so.
You go with what worked for decades before, you send a normal patrol unit with 1-2 officers who investigate first and shoot second.

If on arrival they determine there really is an armed terrorist combat cell holed up there, then they can call for specialized backup.

Or in the 99% of other cases in which encounters can be handled by them alone, or with assistance of other regular officers, they do that.

Police were not always semi-militarized units.
It always amazes me that people make suggestions like this.

Yes, in decades past this was the response. Now, why do you think that was stopped?

You think it may have to do with incidences leading to civilian lives being lost due to slow response times, or local officers not being outfitted to do things like handling armed incursions? If someone describes an "active shooter" situation, and you lollygag sending 2 local PD guys to see if its real, the moment one of those calls turns out to be real and they got an extra 30 minutes to run wild you'll be drowning in lawsuits and media attention.

The real solution is to properly criminalize, and prosecute, those who SWAT others. Bare minimum, it should be attempted murder.
 
You think it may have to do with incidences leading to civilian lives being lost due to slow response times, or local officers not being outfitted to do things like handling armed incursions?
I sure don't think it's about response times, since the nearest patrol car is going to get there a lot faster than spinning up and sending the centralized SWAT team, and is going to be the right call the majority of the time.

Obviously, there's all sorts of related issues here. It ought to be possible to send a SWAT team and have them not shoot the single unarmed civilian where no incident was taking place for example.

No objection to considering swatting a serious offense too of course.

I think a lot of the change was unplanned and unforeseen, and related to relatively recent policies of the military and federal budget providing a lot of heavier gear to local departments than they used to, and no I'm not convinced that all started primarily to meet citizen requests for public safety enhancement. I think it very well may have started on the supply side vs the demand side.
 
British police have their own armed response units which are basically their version of swat, but they're less trigger happy and all french police officers carry firearms afaik. I'm sure they also have their own version of swat. Sure, accidents can happen and there's currently riots in France on the news due to some young guy getting shot by police while trying to escape in a car. Whether that was called for or not, is not for me to judge.
FYI I was born in the UK, I'm aware of how British police officers are trained and how armed response works. (Brandish a gun to an unarmed policeman, he calls for armed response, armed response shows up with a negotiator and person in charge, and if the negotiator can't get you to deescalate, the PIC will just order that they just snipe your behind.)
The rest of those reading here might find it rather eye opening to look into how other police forces operate in the western nations.
 
Back