Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 46

Thread: Don't dial 911 for help

  1. #1

  2. #2
    oh my gosh what a dumb operator lol

  3. #3
    Agent Smith - Mr Anderson ZoneAlarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    120
    LOL wow if we have operators like that yea u might aswell just shoot the burglar and bring his dead body to the police station urself LOL

  4. #4
    I am me, too!
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    If only I knew...
    Posts
    2,214
    Sorry to rain on your parade peoples but, I work in 911 environments quite often and this call was handled properly.

    At no time did the lady stress any major urgency. She said she heard noises on her back door but never said the guy was gaining access or insisting/banging on the door, her voice tone stayed calm, she never mentionned the gun before the husband used it either. As far as the operator was concerned, she was not in immediate danger. The only stupid action from the operator's side was asking if the backdoor was on the north side of the house.

    For what we know from that call, the husband might have fired thru the door, without the burglar even gaining access, since there's no yelling or other commotion. Or maybe it wasn't even a burglar but some drunk coming back home but who was at the wrong house and could't figure out why his keys didn't fit!

    As far as dispatching an officer, unless it's a very small center, The call-taker is not the one doing this. His job is to gather information, pass it to a dispatcher, via computer, and stay on the phone with the caller, while staying calm. This is why you don't hear him dispatching a car and it doesn't indicate a car wasn't dispatched.

  5. #5
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,134
    I agree with metoo4. Show the 911 guys some love. I listened to the call and did not hear any urgency in the woman's voice. I feel as though the 911 operator acted appropriately, although I really don't know much about the protocols they are required to follow.

    What's more importantly demonstrated by this audiorecording is the remedy of "self help" as afforded to Americans through the right to bear arms per the Second Amendment to the U.S. constitution. If we all maintain firearms and shoot the burglars who enter our homes, there will be a lot less burglars and a lot less burglary, and that is a fact, Jack.
    Last edited by EagerBeaver; 07-13-2007 at 07:49 PM.

  6. #6
    By the sound of the woman's voice id have to say she was colored...did that have anything to do with the 911 operator's approach to her call?

    As for burglaries...im going to assume that the US has a greater number of cities below the poverty level...and with that your looking at a higher rate of crime. What you should do is compare similiar cities...one in Canada and one in the states and look at the crime rates. I really dont think you can compare gun ownership and burglaries...most burglaries will happen if there's a gun in the house or not.

    Maybe we can compare burglar's death/injury's in both countrys? Im sure in the states this happens somewhere everyday. If the burglar isn't killed he's going to jail. Now on the other hand...in Canada...you kill or injure a burglar, YOU will be the one going to jail. He's still got his rights even while breaking into your home.

  7. #7
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,134
    My hypothesis is 100% correct. The stats cited by t76 are utterly meaningless as they relate to guns and deterrence of burglary. A shot burglar is a deterred and unsuccessful burglar. I can only assume in those stats cited by t76 it would nevertheless be counted as a burglary because those stats are based on reports, not successes. But it is an UNSUCCESSFUL BURGLARY and unsuccessful burglaries don't count in my stat book.

    Please don't foist meaningless stats on us that are so easily dissected I can almost train a chimp to do it. Want a real stat? Tell us how many burglars were successful when they encountered a homeowner with a gun. Please tell us t76 where in your stat book you find that info.

    Please also look in your statbook to tell us how many burglars who were shot in their kneecap and needed expensive reconstructive knee surgeries ever went back to burglary as a profession.

    This is not to mention that all of this crime is taking place in below poverty level inner cities, for which there are socioeconomic causal factors not present in Canada. But none of this has anything to do with guns and the thwarting of a burglar and a burglary. Those stats relate to attempted burglaries and the only stat that counts is was it successful. So go back to your stat room and try to pull out something a little bit more relevant and meaningful.
    Last edited by EagerBeaver; 07-13-2007 at 10:57 PM.

  8. #8
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,134
    No, a deterred burglar is one who cannot go ahead with the burglary because the pain in his kneecap (which has been shattered by a bullet) is too excruciating to permit him to do so. When he is laying on the ground writhing in pain the last thing on his mind is burgling your home. All he is thinking about is percocets, morphine and other painkillers. The burglary plan is far from his thoughts.

  9. #9

    Escalated violence

    If every home owner carries a firearm, wouldn't that increase the probabilities for any given burglar to use a firearm in order to perpetrate his crime?
    Last edited by z/m(Ret); 07-13-2007 at 11:18 PM.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by EagerBeaver
    No, a deterred burglar is one who cannot go ahead with the burglary because the pain in his kneecap (which has been shattered by a bullet) is too excruciating to permit him to do so.
    Between shooting a burglar in the kneecap and, say, letting the burglar take whatever he wants (which, anyway, will be compensated by the insurance company), which of the two scenarios would incur the lesser social cost?

  11. #11
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,134
    We are not talking about legal definitions here, we are talking about a success of lack thereof in committing the crime. The burglar shot in the kneecap has in fact been deterred.

    No insurance claims will need to be made because the burglar has not been successful in his criminal enterprise. The shooting has prevented that. Therefore, the homeowner's insurance premiums will not be increased.

    I say it's a win-win situation for the homeowner, and the Constitution of the United States of America. It's only a losing situation for the unsuccessful burglar. And where I come from, losers are not rewarded.

    Anyway, we have gotten sidetracked. Breadman started this thread about a 911 operator...................
    Last edited by EagerBeaver; 07-13-2007 at 11:37 PM.

  12. #12
    Working rage-aholic
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    a rocky planet with one moon
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by EagerBeaver
    What's more importantly demonstrated by this audiorecording is the remedy of "self help" as afforded to Americans through the right to bear arms per the Second Amendment to the U.S. constitution. If we all maintain firearms and shoot the burglars who enter our homes, there will be a lot less burglars and a lot less burglary, and that is a fact, Jack.
    I don't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with you 100%

    For good measure, here's the infamous, "Do you want us to come over and shoot her," 911 call:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uROQ13hhgN8

    Even though it was very foolish of him to say this, especially as he knew he was being recorded, I feel bad for the guy. Maybe it was a bad joke, but the woman comes across as an a--hole in my opinion. I've heard stories of people calling 911 for directions, for a cab, etc...I bet people burn out real fast
    Why are homely people discriminated against...we're the majority

  13. #13
    Working rage-aholic
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    a rocky planet with one moon
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by traveller_76
    Hypothesis: Gun ownership deters home burglary.

    Facts:

    1) Gun ownership is greater in the US than in Canada.

    2) There were 27 477 burglaries in Canada in 2004 (Statistics Canada: 'Uniform Crime Reporting Survey')*; or
    88.8 burglaries per 100 000 (Statistics Canada: 'Crimes and Offenses').*

    3) There were 395,974 burglaries in USA in 2005 (FBI: 'Crime in the United States')**; or
    150.8 per 100 000 (Ibid.)**

    Conclusion: I need a new hypothesis.

    t76

    * StatsCan crime statistics: http://cansim2.statcan.ca/cgi-win/cn...ist&CORId=2693

    ** FBI crime statistics: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/
    EB already responded to this, and he's right, but I'd add that you're acting as though life exists in a vacuum by assuming all other factors are the same, and the only things affecting crime rates are gun ownership.

    There are about a million different factors that affect crime rates, income and neighborhood being pretty high up there.

    But, if you think that gun ownership rates and crime rates are the only stats worth comparing then how about comparing different states in the same country than different countries? You'll find that those like New Hampshire and Utah, with ultra lax gun laws, and widespread gun ownership, have very low break in and crime rates, while the places with the strictest laws and, lowest rates of (legal) gun ownership, like California and DC, generally have the highest break in and violent crime rates. So which came first, the chicken or the egg? Probably a little of both.

    You also point out that a burglar doesn't change his mind on what house to invade based on gun ownership because he doesn't know which house has a gun owner.
    True, but, you'll find that in areas in the US where (legal) gun ownership is commonplace, there are fewer home invasions. He might change his behavior based on the odds of running into someone who could hurt him, or even kill him

    And, if you want to look outside of the US, look at Australia. In the 12 months following the firearms ban in Australia, violent crimes, but most especially, break ins and armed robbery increased dramatically. That tells me criminals knew it was open seaon.
    Last edited by btyger; 07-14-2007 at 03:40 AM.
    Why are homely people discriminated against...we're the majority

  14. #14
    Working rage-aholic
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    a rocky planet with one moon
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy Montana
    Between shooting a burglar in the kneecap and, say, letting the burglar take whatever he wants (which, anyway, will be compensated by the insurance company), which of the two scenarios would incur the lesser social cost?
    I know what you're saying, but isn't that like saying, well, it's okay to steal from me because you're only stealing from the insurance company (which the homeowner pays for in the long run in higher premiums)?

    When I joined the army, the guy I signed up with told me about a trip he and a buddy had taken to So Carolina. They had stumbled into a bad neighborhood. At an intersection, a couple of guys approached them with knives and told them to get out of the car. His buddy rolled down the window and pointed a handgun at the would be robbers. They left. That's deterring armed robbery, isn't it?

    We can site statistics all day, we can use our opinions in lieu of fact to bolster our argument, and it doesn't change a thing. But you can't convince me that safe, responsible gun ownership can't be a deterrent
    Why are homely people discriminated against...we're the majority

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by btyger
    I know what you're saying, but isn't that like saying, well, it's okay to steal from me because you're only stealing from the insurance company (which the homeowner pays for in the long run in higher premiums)?
    More like, "it's not OK to steal from me though if you must, please don't kill me and my loved ones for we are unarmed."

    The moment owning a gun becomes a home owners standard what keeps things from escalating? The robber will carry the equalizer and use the surprise effect to his advantage.

    Theoretically, we shoot robbers in the kneecap, it's like TV. In practice, we don't even know how to hold a gun, at least most of us don't. At the end, we have LE rolling dead bodies for what? A few dollars-worth of jewels and electronic devices?
    Quote Originally Posted by btyger
    When I joined the army, the guy I signed up with told me about a trip he and a buddy had taken to So Carolina. They had stumbled into a bad neighborhood. At an intersection, a couple of guys approached them with knives and told them to get out of the car. His buddy rolled down the window and pointed a handgun at the would be robbers. They left. That's deterring armed robbery, isn't it?
    Gun -vs- knife, big advantage. What if next time around the same robbers come back with automatic weapons? At that point what is it gonna take to deter arm robbery? preemptive bazooka attacks on the neighbourhood? Where does it stop and is the killing worth the $50 stolen?

    It's not like people get robbed everyday, in one person's life it's usually a rarity. Most times, the loss attributed to robbery doesn't even cover the price of a firearm.
    Last edited by z/m(Ret); 07-14-2007 at 08:46 AM.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •