In an ideal world,
these 'swatters' would be excluded from future police protection from anything.
An unknown online crim drew 16 armed police to raid a Sydney man's home, by way of a fake emergency call to Queensland police. The dangerous and expensive prank, known as swatting, was believed to be Australia's first on the public record, according to senior cybercrime state and federal police speaking to Vulture South. …
I get what you're saying but in an ideal world, this wouldn't be an issue : )
To reality, though, no - EVERYONE gets police protection if they need it, EVERYONE gets the right to the presumption of innocence, EVERYONE gets the right to legal representation and EVERYONE gets the right to a fair trial.
Refusing police protection to a 'swatter' is no more defensible than capital punishment, which, 'in an ideal world' would not exist either. Yes there are those who are for capital punishment but, well, I am not.
Besides, if one of these idiots ever was the beneficiary of police protection in a time of need, I suspect that would make far more of a real, 'new-leaf', changed-man, difference than hanging them out to dry.
So I'm a leftie, commie, pinko (just don't let Matt Bryant know . . . )
"Good luck anyway, if they used a pay-as-you-go phone, bought with cash & topped-up with cash..."
Even prepaid phones in Australia are meant to require ID for sale. And topups tend to come through electronically at the time of purchase, whether you pay cash or not. If the shop has security cameras, it would be possible to at least track it down to a visual appearance.
You're aware that swatting is named for the police Special Weapons And Tactics (SWAT) units that are sent out and perform a paramilitary assault on the victim. It has nothing to do with being interwebby and more to do with the militarization of the police and their eagerness to play commando instead of starting with a more reasoned response.
"more to do with the militarization of the police and their eagerness to play commando instead of starting with a more reasoned response."
So you want the police to treat them like dignified individuals, to ask questions first and shoot later? Or preferably not shoot at all? Even better, just say they were mistreated teenagers and let them off with a warning.
Tell you what. Volunteer for a "swatting" some time, and then open your fat mouth and tell me how much fun it was.
I don't need to volunteer on that front Skippy as I've already been swatted so I already know much fun it isn't. But yes, it would have been a lot more pleasant and less costly all around if the cops did show up at the door and politely rang the bell. No instead I get tossed from a sound sleep to the sound of crashing wood and screaming armed thugs in uniform. So yes, you're DAMN right I prefer police treat people like dignified individuals when they are basing their smash and bash raid on the bovine excrement of some confidential informant or worse the "anonymous call"!
No, no, Skippy tell me how stressful it was for the guy wearing full body armor behind the badge and carrying a select fire M4 while the rest of us folks who were sleeping wearing next to nothing had no reason to worry while their liberty and property was being violated because the thugs in blue are from the government and are only here to help. How dare I ask WTF is going on with a jack boot pressed firmly down on my left shoulder? All I can say is the cops should lay off the 'roids and caffeine and just perhaps consider the veracity of the source.
Now then, run along and buy a clue. Later you can ask yourself why police departments all around the country are being militarized even in sleepy little hamlets. Nah, never mind. Keep on guzzling that kool-aid Skippy, the thin blue line is there to back you up. To hell with the victims of swatters and their tools; did I mention there Skippy that the SWAT team is just one of the swatters tools? I'd say you should think about it but I'm sure your mind is already made up.
The point of those special weapons trained guys is to stop weapons wielding social misfits or 'highly strssed indicivuals' from furthering their desctructive habits. They're equipped with equipment regular police forces aren't. Like guns. And armour. And special tactics to resolve the issue as non-violently as possible, but use leathal force if neccessary.
THAT's why these things are very severe and dangerous to the public. To call upon these services is a gross-misuse of public trust and funds and dangerous to innocent people.
Imagine having a group of armed-men storm your house while you were sinikin beers watching the telly. PRetty frightening stuff for a regular person.
"Public mischief such as swatting carrie[s] a maximum penalty of a year in prison and a fine of $5500."
No. No, no, no, no, no.
Elect me Benevolent Dictator for Life of Australia and I will make the 'maximum penalty' exactly the same as the minimum penalty, which will be the repayment, to the taxpayers, the amount of their money wasted by the 'prank'.
I can't imagine hut'ing over 16 police officers is exactly free.
Adding to that, of course, the CDPP should bring the case to court, suing for mental distress to the community and the damages awarded accordingly.