Don't dial 911 for help
- Thread starter breadman
- Start date
oh my gosh what a dumb operator lolbreadman said:
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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...................
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:
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."btyger said:
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?
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?btyger said:
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:
Colored??? Colored??? By the jesus, I haven't heard that phrase since 1965. You mean she sounds like a Negro?breadman said:
Bingo! While I've got better things to do than google this, I do know that there are stats to back this up.Ziggy Montana said:
EagerBeaver said:
I disagree with you. What you just described is an attempted burglary; if he was deterred he would not have entered the home in the first place because of some sort of deterrence such as a sign:
"BEWARE, I SHOOT FIRST AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER"
Ronnie,
Naughtylady
EagerBeaver said:
If everyone has a gun at home, for sure the burglars would have to get themselves even bigger guns and they would shoot the people at first glance without letting them any chance. For sure there would be more dead people... but not only for the burglars... I would even bet the opposite since the burglars are professionals... not normal people.
traveller_76 said:
You can believe whatever it is you wish to believe. This is a kind of medieval type of logic, as was the case when it was believed that the Earth was flat: "it looks flat to me - I require evidence to believe otherwise." And then when Galileo provided that evidence, it was summarily rejected by the "authorities" as not being credible.
I don't need to provide any stats at all to prove my point, because I possess something much more powerful: life experience. I have worked in the legal system for over 15 years, including representing and defending criminals (including burglars). I also worked, prior to working in the legal system, in the American inner cities, specifically for several years managing a restaurant located in an inner city. I also have been involved (as auctioneer) of numerous foreclosure properties, hovels located in neighborhoods more horrendous than anything that exists in Canada, where the residents are unable to look you in the eye because they live in such squalor. I deal with people like this on an everyday basis, sometimes as clients, sometimes as parties or witnesses in a court case.
What I am not is a snippy, frappuccino sipping college student who sits in Second Cup making judgments based on articles in the Mirror (or some similar commie-liberal rag), written by card carrying pinkos who have no such life experience, usually because they have spent their lives in the ivory towers of academia, far removed from the battlefields in our court system and in our ghettos. Look, I lived that life too. I was extraordinarily successful in the world of academia: I was National Merit Scholarship finalist in high school, graduated college with honors, and made law review in law school in addition to winning commencement awards for outstanding legal scholarship, superior classroom performance and service to the law school. But none of those awards means anything to me now, insofar as my success was built on my actual work experience and learning as I moved along through each of these stations in life. My effectiveness at what I do is based on experience, my life experience, not based on being able to cite statistics. I am sure that the stats are out there that prove I am right, but it's more important to know that I am right based on my life experience.
Furthermore, I have watched as some of my equally successful colleagues on law review became complete and utter failures as lawyers and/or in other businesses. It is primarily because they could never escape the mindset of the world of academia, a mindset that by all appearances has you firmly held hostage. Free yourself!
No one's answering the simple questions.
Do both the economics and the risk assessment of deterring arm robbery with firearms -vs- letting it happen and see at the end which of the two options incurs the smaller social cost. To me, it's a no-brainer.
In a culture of firearms, robbers understand the need for them to upgrade their arsenal in order to perpetrate their crimes. So they carry guns as well, perhaps more sophisticated ones, with better training and using the surprise effect to their advantage.
Another question is: what valuable can a robber possibly take away from you that cannot be replaced and what are the probabilities that you will be a victim of robbery in your lifetime? Do the maths and you might conclude that it doesn't even cover the costs of protecting yourself with sophisticated alarm systems, movement detectors, biometrics, etc., let alone firearms and the risk of turning a rather insignificant incident into a bloodbath. If you keep most of your valuables in a bank safety box, the risk/value ratio is even lower.
How about offering the robber a coffee instead? Like that you might create an environment susceptible to open negotiations. Easier to make coffee than to handle firearms.
Do both the economics and the risk assessment of deterring arm robbery with firearms -vs- letting it happen and see at the end which of the two options incurs the smaller social cost. To me, it's a no-brainer.
In a culture of firearms, robbers understand the need for them to upgrade their arsenal in order to perpetrate their crimes. So they carry guns as well, perhaps more sophisticated ones, with better training and using the surprise effect to their advantage.
Another question is: what valuable can a robber possibly take away from you that cannot be replaced and what are the probabilities that you will be a victim of robbery in your lifetime? Do the maths and you might conclude that it doesn't even cover the costs of protecting yourself with sophisticated alarm systems, movement detectors, biometrics, etc., let alone firearms and the risk of turning a rather insignificant incident into a bloodbath. If you keep most of your valuables in a bank safety box, the risk/value ratio is even lower.
How about offering the robber a coffee instead? Like that you might create an environment susceptible to open negotiations. Easier to make coffee than to handle firearms.
Last edited:
Maxima said:
I agree with Maxima.
For me, "attention" is the last thing a bugglar wants.
Professionals WITH GUN don't even bother robbing house, they
rob store instead (Fast money). Again, this is my perspective of
things.
In the event that he shoot at first glance, it can be possible
that simply loss control of himself or freaked out. Professionals
shouldn't. If they do, I dont think he should be class as a
professional. I believe that one should have to be really trained
to hit someone at 10m* with handgun (much less under stress).
*=not too sure.
vodka236
Last edited:
Ziggy Montana said:
How about tossing hot coffee in the burglar's face, shooting him in the kneecap, and then as he writhes in agony on your kitchen floor, lecture him about how he has just made a very bad decision, but also telling him that you will assist him in his future decision-making processes by requesting that the prosecutor not charge him and only require of him restitution of any damage done to your home and the cost of ammunition needed to subdue him, in exchange for a nolle prosequi. I feel this is much more constructive for all parties concerned.
Last edited:
Similar threads
