Im suggesting that recon be limited to necessity.
if I call the cops knowing there are multiple armed assailants in my house I want a task force, not the two guys who were just hanging out at the nearest red light.

Im not suggesting they do NO recon. Im countering the implication that no recon is done. The argument I saw was "bust down the door waving guns". I am almost 100% certain that is not what happens. I think the way it is currently handled is fine, and im sure they've gotten it down to a science. There are probably many manuals and revisions from years and years of small mistakes and efficiency protocols.

Again, responding to a call is not the problem. Abusing the system is.

Give him prison because if he called SWAT on a black person,that black person would be dead.

Am I the only one who can't see any article in the OP?

If it would be in europe or any other country than the US yes its too much but given the risk of the police brutallity in the states its fair amount of years as punishment over there

Why spend more money on those kind of people by locking them up long term. 6 months is enough, 5 years probation, and 20% extra tax yearly until he has paid off every last cent he cost the system, including the cost of locking him up for 6 months. With the option to do community service to pay off the debt faster.

Fair enough I suppose but I'm really struggling to come up with hostage scenarios where recon wouldn't be necessary ... perhaps our definitions of recon are different.  I consider recon to be any gathering of intelligence about a given situation.  It could be as simple as peaking in a window.

I'm pretty sure they peak through the window among a bevy of other actions.
Generic is saying they should send two cops from around the corner to check out the scene and make sure the call is legit. That is nonsense.

When we have devolved to a point where we have to check if our citizens are telling the truth, then society is lost.
When the marathon bombers were hiding out in my neighborhood, they didn't move in with 1 or 2 cops at a time. You know what happened when previously, a lone cop responded to suspicious activity in that same area? He was killed. After that they sent into 8 cops to respond to the scene in watertown, along with the military.

My point isn't that we should respond with over the top force to ensure safety. My point is that if someone makes a call about a potentially extremely dangerous force, it should be met accordingly. Swat has all sorts of high tech equipment. Long range mics, radio scanners, jamming equipment, night vision, and most importantly layers upon layers of bulletproof gear. Cops have a gun and a notebook.

Maybe they should of thought about the consequences before doing something stupid

Average SWAT response time is 20 to 30 minutes in metropolitan areas, an average beat cops response time in those same areas is 5 to 10 minutes, do you need a lot of fancy equipment to gather information?  Sure it might help but does a jammer help you peak in a window?  Would you rather have someone trying to help you within 5 to 10 even if said help is just getting a handle on what SWAT will be facing or wait 3 to 4 times as long before the process starts. Also regular police forces are armed with more than a gun and notebook.  My cousin is a county cop in a rural county in Indiana and from what I understand he has access to all kinds of "toys".

Personally speaking if I were in such a situation I'd take any kind of help I could get as quickly as possible.

It should be a lot longer.