I am a supervisor in a 9-1-1 center, but not in one related to this case. I have heard the call that cougar58 copied the transcript of above, but have not yet listened to the call the OP is referring to.
General Comments
A 9-1-1 call taker should ask certain basic information for ALL 9-1-1 calls and attempt to clarify any apparent discrepancies. These are the questions on the “All Caller’s Interrogation”. Local protocols may provide that some All Caller’s questions are optional. At my center the ACI questions include:
[ol][li]Where is help needed?[/li][li]What type of help (police, fire ambulance) is needed and why?[/li][li]What is the phone number you are calling from?[/li][li]What is your name? (optional)[/li][li]Is the incident in progress? [/li][li]Are there any injuries?[/ol][/li]
Even though these are ostensibly to be asked of all callers, some questions may not be relevant based upon information provided by the caller. Common sense should be used.
After the All Caller’s Interrogation, further incident specific questions are asked. 9-1-1 centers have a set of paper or electronic guides as to what questions should be asked and what protocols should be followed. There are guides specific to many common types of incidents (car accident, domestic violence, burglary in progress, etc…)
But occasionally something comes up that does not neatly and clearly fall into one of these categories. Questions from another incident type should be used instead, with a generous application of common sense. For example, we do not have a guide card specific to “Found Kidnapping Victim” but do have a guide for “Disturbance” that covers a lot of questions about the persons involved and safety of the parties.
The call cougar58 posted the transcript of
All Caller’s Interrogation
The call taker attempted to verify the address when an apparent discrepancy was noted. Good! 
The caller volunteered certain information (name and nature of incident). There is no need for the call taker to ask those questions again just to cover a check list.
The call taker did not verify the call back phone number! BAD! But I note one reality - publicly released tapes and/or transcripts will frequently edit out addresses and/or phone numbers. Clearly the address is revealed. The phone number may have been verified but edited from the tape for public release. There is enough uncertainty on that point that I could not possibly criticize the dispatcher… but his supervisor has access to the unedited tape and certainly could criticize!
There does not appear to be any assessment of injuries or need for medical attention! That is a WTF BAD!!! :smack:
Incident specific questioning
Note that these questions are to assist responding officers and do not take the police of a police interview. Most 9-1-1 operators are not police officers.
Names and descriptions of suspects, including direction and means of travel from an incident, are common lines of questioning and very relevant to this case. Some of these questions were asked, but it seemed like an afterthought. :eek:
There did not appear to be an assessment of the caller’s safety or inquiry into the safety of any other party involved in the incident. Such questioning could have revealed the existence of the other women being held if it was not otherwise known to the call taker. NOT GOOD! 
%!@*(#$! :mad: If a call taker I supervise did something like this in less than extraordinary circumstances then disciplinary action would result.
as soon as we get a car open
The call taker told the caller that, “We’re going to send them as soon as we get a car open” and then later, “The police are on their way” 
Despite public criticism I expect that was precisely in accordance with procedure. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER tell a caller police have been sent if they have not yet been notified. DO NOT make promises you cannot keep. This is drilled into a call taker during training. The call taker (person answering the phone) may be able to see that all officers appear to be engaged in calls. The call taker should not lie and say police are on the way until he knows officer(s) have been notified and are responding. The call taker appears to have done good in this regard.
The call taker gathers information and passes it to a dispatcher (person working the radio) for action. Dispatchers can dispatch available units and divert responders from lower priority calls to higher priority calls. Dispatchers cannot make responders appear out of thin air. A dispatcher SHOULD divert officers, if necessary, to deal with a report of this nature. The dispatch seems to have been handled well within an acceptable time frame.
It appears that the call taker did not stay on the line with the caller until responders arrived on scene. :mad: Whether this is proper depends upon local protocol but it is quite normal to stay on the call where the safety of the caller may be in doubt. Common sense applies and the totality of the circumstances must be considered (i.e may not be possible in a mass casualty event with more callers and injured/distressed persons than available call takers). If a call taker I supervise did something like this in less than extraordinary circumstances then disciplinary action would result.
I will try to listen to the call the OP posted about in this thread and do a critique later.