>SWAT-ing has an imminent intent to invoke deleterious action
To be fair, if the incidence of escalation to use of lethal force weren't so prevalent as to be an almost guarantee in the states, the results of SWAT'ing wouldn't even be a problem but more of a nuissance, in the first place, yeah?
In other words, if the resultant actions of the police forces - whether believing they were acting in the interests of public safety or not - weren't so haphazardly deleterious to the public at-large (see the baby with burns because of tear gas thrown in it's crib, as an example), this wouldn't have been a viably dangerous exploitation surface to begin with.
Whilst I can understand that such an action (SWAT'ing) is bad and I am not trying to argue against, dissuade, nor assuage the realities of it, I'm merely trying to point out that the realities of the dangers of it's byproduct solely exist due to societial declination; particularly, in the devaluation of human life, as a whole - which has given carte blance, as it were, to the use of lethal force.
In other words, if lethal force weren't such a foreseeable outcome of SWAT'ing, would it even be something considered deleterious or would it be moreso considered merely a waste of time and resources (which, in and of itself, could have secondary or tertiary effects that are possibly damaging [e.g.: we couldn't respond to 'x' critical situation because we were dealing with 'y' critical situation])?
I like where you're coming from, but it doesn't quite work IMO.
Even having the police just knock on your door might be deleterious enough: The point is the outcome is known, expected, likely, and almost certainly has an observable (by third parties that the person ordinarily associates with) negative effect.
Saying something nasty to someone in an online forum, that if ignored will have no effect, is still markedly different; and is readily differentiable.
A first test might be "if I didn't see the speech would it still have an effect".
To be fair, if the incidence of escalation to use of lethal force weren't so prevalent as to be an almost guarantee in the states, the results of SWAT'ing wouldn't even be a problem but more of a nuissance, in the first place, yeah?
In other words, if the resultant actions of the police forces - whether believing they were acting in the interests of public safety or not - weren't so haphazardly deleterious to the public at-large (see the baby with burns because of tear gas thrown in it's crib, as an example), this wouldn't have been a viably dangerous exploitation surface to begin with.
Whilst I can understand that such an action (SWAT'ing) is bad and I am not trying to argue against, dissuade, nor assuage the realities of it, I'm merely trying to point out that the realities of the dangers of it's byproduct solely exist due to societial declination; particularly, in the devaluation of human life, as a whole - which has given carte blance, as it were, to the use of lethal force.
In other words, if lethal force weren't such a foreseeable outcome of SWAT'ing, would it even be something considered deleterious or would it be moreso considered merely a waste of time and resources (which, in and of itself, could have secondary or tertiary effects that are possibly damaging [e.g.: we couldn't respond to 'x' critical situation because we were dealing with 'y' critical situation])?