The article does a good job of deflecting blame away from the British hoaxer, which seems to be its goal. So I'm not surprised if anybody initially feels a sense of injustice here, but in this case I think it's misplaced.
While he should be held accountable, you do realize he essentially made a prank call from a foreign country right? Is the prank call the problem or, are the police responding to a prank cal, breaking the bones (in a guy playing video games face) the problem? Seriously, who is more guilty here? I say put them all in prison for a long time.
Swatting is not the moral equivalent of a prank call. The psychological effects on the victim put it closer to terrorism, and the very real risk of injury, even to competent emergency responders, put it closer to assault.
There isn't any information in the article to judge whether the police response was appropriate. For example: was the victim acting suspiciously, or being violent and uncooperative during the incident? The notion that the police overreacted in this case is not a conclusion that is supported by any known facts.
The article also doesn't make the slightest attempt to examine the accusations of police incompetence that it presents, which further fuels the unwarranted sense of outrage.
Why wouldn't you have reason to ignore the warnings from people claiming to be "family" members in a hostage scenario, given they might be criminal accomplices?
Why is it bad to take reports of serious crime at face value, instead of assuming it might be a prank and risking a pattern of ignoring legitimate incidents in future?
Why would you take the expensive and time-consuming step of tracing phone calls before acting, when it risks wasting valuable time that would have saved lives in a real criminal incident?
There are incidents that demonstrate police incompetence and overreaction, or a failed law enforcement system, but this isn't one of them.