[mjgoins]

There is zero discussion of accountability for the cops in any of these situations. If they are so easily tricked, they need to either scale back the militarized force they are allowing to be abused, or become more skeptical about these threats.

[fixermark]

Krebs notes in TFA:

"I received a phone call from the local police department. It was early in the morning on Apr. 10, and the cops wanted to know if everything was okay at our address.

Since this was not the first time someone had called in a fake hostage situation at my home, the call I received came from the police department’s non-emergency number, and they were unsurprised when I told them that the Krebs manor and all of its inhabitants were just fine."

At least in his part of the world, it seems the cops are exercising a healthy level of discretion.

[Zikes]

Please read the link from TFA (linked in the very quote you gave, even) about how previously Krebs opened his door to a large contingent of officers with handguns, shotguns, and assault rifles pointed at him.

[fixermark]

Indeed. So last year they were tricked (easily), and they are now more skeptical about these threats. This correlates with my response to the parent.

[mrcharles]

Unfortunately, that isn't an option at all, because the one time they are skeptical wrongly can result in bad shit. The same way that the fire department has to respond to every single fire alarm, even when they are false alarms. You can't choose where you go or what you do when it comes to people's safety.

[dmm]

Actually there are many cases where the police completely ignore calls for help and courts have found that police have absolutely no responsibility to protect individuals.

The police do however love opportunities to justify large expenditures and fancy equipment.

Many courts have upheld this principle:

BARILLARI v. MILWAUKEE http://www.leagle.com/decision/1995441194Wis2d247_1431

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia The Court explained that "[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists."

[superuser2]

No one would ever be a police officer if police officers were liable for damages every time they were unsuccessful in protecting someone. This is perfectly reasonable.

[dmm]

I completely agree. It is every individual's responsibility to protect themselves. The police have no obligation to protect the public.

[superuser2]

No, they do have an obligation to protect the public in general. That's the point of police.

What they don't have is financial liability for the death of every specific person they aren't smart/fast/legally empowered/well-funded enough to save, because that would be unreasonable.

[dmm]

> No, they do have an obligation to protect the public in general.

I see your point but I think it's a pretty arbitrary one. Have a police force every been held legally accountable for failing to protect the public? The case law that the police have no particular obligation to protect individuals is well established.

What does it mean to have an obligation to protect the public when the public is made up of individuals and the police have no particular obligations to protect individuals?

[angersock]

"can result in bad shit"

Lots of things can result in bad shit--but we seem to be looking at the civic equivalent of rheumatoid arthritis.

If a fire department shows up without need nobody is put in prison, shot, assaulted, or has their dogs killed.

[raamdev]

> The same way that the fire department has to respond to every single fire alarm,

I discovered this isn't true, at least not in Lowell, MA (a bit north of Boston, MA). A few years ago I bought a 3-family rental property. There was a big blizzard that froze the badly insulated water pipes in the house, which resulted in the pipes bursting on the 3rd floor. That caused what amounted to a waterfall inside the 2nd and 1st floors.

When I arrived, the fire alarms were on. I was going to head down to the basement to turn off the water main but then I realized I had no idea where the water main was (I had just bought the house) and I figured that venturing into a dark basement full of water with live wires running everywhere probably wasn't the brightest idea.

So I called 911, explained the situation, and waited. They told me they'd "send someone". 20 minutes went by. The waterfall was still going. I called again. They told me they'd send someone. 10 minutes went back. I called a 3rd time and was told "they're busy clearing snow from fire hydrants around the city". I happen to be standing next to a light switch in the house and I happened to smell something that smelled like smoke. "But I smell smoke", I said to the dispatcher.

"Smoke?!", she replied. "We'll send someone immediately."

And within 3 minutes I had a dozen firefighters in the house.

[DanBC]

You reported a flooded building and they didn't send anyone. You then reported the hint of a fire and they sent out people very quickly.

Your anecdote seems to support the statement "the fire department has to respond to every fire alarm".

[raamdev]

> When I arrived, the fire alarms were on.

And I explained that to the dispatcher.

[chris_wot]

A fire in a flooded building?

[T-hawk]

Sure, these are not mutually exclusive. Fire burns upward, heat rises. Water floods downwards. They won't cancel each other.

[jberryman]

I think police regularly (have to?) pick and choose where to go, more so than firefighters. I know from friends and anecdotally that e.g. reporting a domestic violence situation in a poor neighborhood is certainly not gaurenteed to get the cops out.

[matthewmacleod]

Yeah, they will. The problem is, that's going to result in seriously bad things when a genuine hostage situation arises, the police don't get involved, and a bunch of people die.

It certainly looks as if the situation was pretty well handled in this particular case.