Does anybody actually know what made the police show up three hours later? By the news reports, it says the kid called twice. So what eventually made the police investigate? Did the 911 operator just decide three hours later, “what the hell, I’ll send a car over”?
Hopefully they do drug and alcohol testing for matters such as these as well.
No, look, it’s really simple. You either hire a qualified person for a position or you don’t.
If it can be shown that there were other, more qualified people to answer this particular call, I think that would be irrelevant in this case,
since they didn’t answer the fucking call!
So, you brought it up just so you could eliminate it from the equation? :dubious:
I’d be curious to know if she was an [DEL]Bush[/DEL] Ford hire. Not trying to be inflammatory here, but what if?
I’ll be back later to eliminate it from the equation.
You people. 
CMC fnord!
I agree 100% Don’t jump to conclusions based on the ‘facts’ of a newspaper report. This whole pit thing where people jump to conclusions and swear their little heads off is sooo old. The above quote should be considered THEN respond with malice, if still warranted. Ah, fuck it. I pit the pit. The pit is filled with whiney little shits that scream first and think later (if ever). I like the ‘Pit’ idea, but man are there a lot of too sensitive posters on here just wanting to unload for their lifetime’s worth of cowering in some corner, versus some intelligent pitting of life’s shit that can be argued about. Now to confuse- if the operator dismissed this call with no reason (again, read the above quote) then FIRE her. And don’t fucking sue. The money spent on a payout could be better used to hire and train better people. Oh, and I’m pretty sure the emergency services are ultimately managed by an ELECTED person who should then be judged as well (like not vote for them).
Yeah. In a way, your clarification reminds me of job interviews for office jobs (and others as well). Yes, a big part of the interview is definitely about your skills, what you have done, your competence level and if you can do the job. But another large part of it is seeing if you have a good personality and if you’d fit in the office culture.
So if you have one guy who has 3 years experience (did his job well) and is charming, personable and would be a perfect match for the company culture and another guy who has 6 years experience (also did his job well) but is a bit surly and brusque and really wouldn’t match the company culture at all… well, often they’re gonna go with the first guy. I’m sure that many people would see the second one as “the most qualified”, but there are many factors that go into hiring decisions (usually).
I know that was kind of a tangent, sorry.
I’m on the list of “people who accidently called 9-1-1.” I realized it, hung up, and they called me back immediately making sure everything was all right.
If any 911 operator ever could be justified in blowing something off as a prank call, it’s the Jersey City Operator who got the first 911 call on 9/11. “Hey, a plane just hit the World Trade Towers.” She seemed mystified, but said she would notify the PATH Police immediately. The other calls have been released and on the news lately. While the opertors had no idea what was really going on, they were there, trying to reassure people and help them.
And if that is the case, then the people in charge most definitely need to be reamed with a spiked lawsuit until their eyeballs bleed.
What really bothers me is the “disciplined” part. I mean what’d she do, get a write-up?
“We’re putting a note in your Permenent Record. The next time you ignore a 911 call, possibly resulting in someone’s death, we may have to take this more seriously.”
:mad:
It sounds like there is indeed more to this story than meets the eye. I remember when I was working as a medical lab tech on the night shift. As the only lab tech in the hospital, all the lab duties were my responsibility. If we had two emergencies at once, it was up to the doctors and me to decide which set of tests got priority. One guy is really close to dying, one other guy is not quite as close to dying - first guy gets priority. From the perspective of the family of the second guy, it could look like I was incompetent in this situation (not running his critical tests until half an hour later, once the first guy’s tests were done, for example).
My point is that we don’t know what else was going on for this 911 Operator to make the decisions she made.
Here is another newspaper report of the incident, along with recordings of the 911 calls the boy made.
I’m rather amused that everyone jumped on Stephe96’s AA post but not on this one. Where are all the pothead defenders?
(I’m not criticizing you, ParentalAdvisory, I’m just pointing out the double-standard)
*Actually * St. Urho while it is the responsiblity of the provider to PROVIDE the info, the PSAP has to have equipment that will ACCEPT the ANI/ALI info. I don’t know if Detroit does.
Right, but IME it’s been the cell phone company end that’s been lagging behind rather than the PSAPs.
Which is?
Weeellll… Not so much. The cell phone companies have an FCC mandate. The PSAPS are under no real pressure.
Unfortunately the nature of the business is that accuracy is hard to come by except in application of skills. When EMS shows up you never know what you are walking into, how many feet of household debris you will be wading through, or what kind of freaked out family is going to be screaming their fool heads off while you try to take a blood pressure. Since perfect outcomes are rarely the case, you actually see alot of forgiveness for mistakes. Even if EMS rolled immediately there is no guarentee that mom would have survived.
As far as the operator, I don’t know the system in detroit, here the EMS dispatch people are all feild EMT-1’s that transferred to dispatch after a minimum of 1 year in the feild. I would be curious to hear the tapes, before hanging the dispatcher but the news story sounds pretty bad.
See my post #109 which has a link to a newspaper article with links to the recordings.
The operator(s) read out his address both times, so they knew where he lived from the phone call.
I would imagine that all calls are prioritized and then the relevant services respond to them as appropriate.
Let’s say you’ve got one cop (for the sake of example) at 11pm.
You have three calls to 911. One is a business motion detector going off. Another is a 911 hangup call. A third is a fight is breaking out outside a known rowdy bar at a crowded location.
Unless there’s additional resources you can pull in from neighboring cities, the officer might often choose to respond to the fight first, because in that situation you KNOW people are in danger. If things get ugly, you could be detained there for awhile.
Of course, officers can pull off from non-urgent trips to respond to urgent ones. However, there are only so many police officers, ambulances, and fire trucks; if you have more calls than services, and everyone’s involved with something urgent, you make a judgement call. This is probably not the dispatcher’s responsibility.
Keep in mind that 911 hangups and kids calling 911 is very common. I’m not going to say 3 hours is an acceptable response because it’s not, and to make the judgement call to classify it as a prank shouldn’t have happened. However, the 3 hour response probably isn’t in the hands of the dispatcher.
Actually, I used to be a dispatcher (for a short period) serving several cities. Each of them had a slightly different policy in place for the priority and response required to 911 hangup calls or 911 non-emergencies. People call 911 all the time for stupid stuff (why are the tornado sirens going off [when they’re being tested at the same time each month]). You do have to learn to give the officer a realistic impression of priority, and it’s easy to be wrong. Say, for example, I got a call where a citizen said that they heard shots fired, I would enter it as that, but if it is July 4 and people are shooting off fireworks everywhere, you’re not going to get multiple squad cars screaming over there, sirens blazing.
There’s a big difference between an honest accident (e.g. screwing up the dispatch address) and a conscious decision that reflects utter lack of judgment (e.g. this case). I can see giving an otherwise good employee some slack for the former, but not the latter.
From the same article:
Jesus Christ.