A man has been swatted 47 times for making a joke about Norm Macdonald
A man in Milwaukee says he has been “swatted” — subjected to armed police raids based on false emergency calls — 47 times over several years after posting a critical tweet about comedian Norm Macdonald. Commenters question how police can repeatedly storm the same address without adjusting their protocols, pointing to militarized tactics, perverse incentives (like overtime and budget justification), and the lack of mechanisms such as “do not SWAT” flags or verification calls. Others focus on the upstream causes: weak caller authentication through VoIP, difficulty unmasking perpetrators due to legal and technical shields, and under-enforcement of laws that could treat swatting as attempted murder or serious harassment.
Police response, competence, and incentives
- Many argue the police bear substantial blame: continuing full SWAT deployments to the same address (including four times in one day) is seen as gross incompetence or complicity.
- Others say departments feel forced to treat every serious call as real to avoid “ignored real threat” scandals, making it a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation.
- Incentive theories recur: overtime, KPI padding, and budget justification (“look how often SWAT is used”) may discourage skepticism.
- Several note that once an address is known as a swatting target, the response should be de‑escalated (phone call, patrol car, wellness check), not repeated door‑kicking raids.
Telecom, VOIP, and traceability
- Swatters often use VOIP, VPNs, burner phones, or call non‑emergency lines, complicating attribution.
- Discussion references STIR/SHAKEN and FCC rules; some believe better call authentication and strict carrier liability would deter abuse, others note legacy networks and payphones/burners still enable anonymous calls.
- One subthread stresses that PSAPs and local lines may not yet fully leverage spoofing metadata.
Legal treatment and accountability
- Strong sentiment that swatting should be treated as attempted murder; past cases where deaths occurred are cited.
- Frustration that offenders, often teens, receive relatively light sentences, while there is little or no accountability for officers who kill or traumatize victims during raids.
- Some see this as part of a broader pattern: police are legally not required to protect individuals, enjoy qualified immunity, and rarely face consequences.
Victim behavior, trolls, and “lolcow” dynamics
- Several describe the subject as heavily engaged in public online arguments, possibly feeding a “lolcow” dynamic where trolls keep escalating because they get a big reaction.
- Others push back that this framing veers into victim‑blaming; harassment and swatting are unjustifiable regardless of how someone behaves online.
US vs other countries
- Multiple commenters contrast US SWAT culture with other countries’ armed response units, arguing that elsewhere tactical teams typically wait for confirmation on scene instead of storming based on a phone call.
- Some note that many countries do have militarized units, but swatting as a common phenomenon appears largely US‑specific.
Broader concerns
- Thread widens into critiques of US policing (militarization, low hiring standards, racism), high violence and gun prevalence, and reasons some would avoid living or working in the US despite its wealth.