• Austin police swarm white man for walking with black granddaughter
    81 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34753699]Sigh, read what you're replying to.[/QUOTE] Good luck getting accurate objective details from an average citizen.
[QUOTE=Paramud;34755100]Good luck getting accurate objective details from an average citizen.[/QUOTE] Oh so operators are not trained to handle those situations. They take people from the street to be 911 operators and they treat every call with 100% confidence in description of the situation made by panicked person. Do you realize how much manpower would police need to work like that? And how many stories like this one would be on the news every day?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34753699]Sigh, read what you're replying to.[/QUOTE] I dont know what else to say to you. There is else the operator could have done to differ the outcome of the situation. Any questions asked would have added up to the conclusion of a kidnapping, because the caller legitimately believed it to be so. The operator did not make a bad decision, he made the only decision he could have and contacted the police. The operator being at fault here suggest he did something wrong, which he did not. I have repeated this point in about all my post but it isn't getting through to you.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;34755285]I dont know what else to say to you. There is else the operator could have done to differ the outcome of the situation. Any questions asked would have added up to the conclusion of a kidnapping, because the caller legitimately believed it to be so. The operator did not make a bad decision, he made the only decision he could have and contacted the police. The operator being at fault here suggest he did something wrong, which he did not. I have repeated this point in about all my post but it isn't getting through to you.[/QUOTE] Because I don't understand how description of the situation made by someone believing that it's something else will make someone thinking clearly come to the same conclusion. Do you not understand difference between facts and subjective conclusion? Do you read my posts at all? [QUOTE=Silly Sil;34742338] "hello, there is an armed man in front of my house, he wants to kill me [subjective conclussion by panicked person]", "we're sending units, (sends units to the address) why do you think he wants to kill you and are you sure it's a gun? What is he doing with it?" , "because I own some dude 1000$ and they must be after me, and the gun I don't really see it clearly but right now he's holding it next to his ear and talking to it [description of what's actually happening, facts]", "(operator tells the responding units not to go guns blazing)"[/QUOTE] And about operator's fault, for the third time [QUOTE=Silly Sil;34742338] Now if when presented with description of what's happening (not with subjective conclusions like "he kidnapped") the operator makes a bad decision, he either made a mistake in conclusion and the police should apologize for misjudging the situation or the operator failed to get the facts and acted on subjective concussions which is his mistake again and the police should apologize or the caller didn't present the facts as they were and he's to blame.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34755401]Because I don't understand how description of the situation made by someone believing that it's something else will make someone thinking clearly come to the same conclusion. Do you not understand difference between facts and subjective conclusion? Do you read my posts at all?[/QUOTE] [b]People are not cameras.[/b] They can not recall things 100% accurately 100% of the time, let alone explain them to other people just the same.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34755401]Because I don't understand how description of the situation made by someone believing that it's something else will make someone thinking clearly come to the same conclusion. Do you not understand difference between facts and subjective conclusion? Do you read my posts at all? And about operator's fault, for the third time[/QUOTE] The operator cannot in any way verify if what the person is say is a fact. All 911 calls are done on the assumption that the caller is telling the truth to a certain degree. You where saying earlier that the operator should have established facts by asking specific questions, to which I responded it would have been impossible to because of the caller giving generally bad information. Once again it is impossible to gain full awareness of what is going on over the phone. About the only other thing they could have done was to ignore the call.
It's not the police's fault at all. If you get a call from a woman saying a man was running into the woods with a little girl, then you're gonna go and investigate. Blame the retarded woman that called it in. She's the one that made up a whole story just because she saw a little girl with an older man.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;34755671]The operator cannot in any way verify if what the person is say is a fact. All 911 calls are done on the assumption that the caller is telling the truth to a certain degree.[/QUOTE] So the operator assumes that everything that a panicked person or person in shock is saying is 100% accurate and true. That's flat out retarded. I wonder how many stories like this we would hear every day if that was true. [QUOTE=BusterBluth;34755671]You where saying earlier that the operator should have established facts by asking specific questions, to which I responded it would have been impossible to because of the caller giving generally bad information. [/QUOTE] Of course they can't get 100% accurate description, but they can get information like why does the person calling think a crime is being committed. Or what does she see or hear. And the operator should come to a conclusion to what's happening, not the person calling. That's why you are narrow minded, you see everything in black and white. It's either subjective conclusion of a panicked person or 100% accurate and objective description. It's never like that. [QUOTE=BusterBluth;34755671]Once again it is impossible to gain full awareness of what is going on over the phone. About the only other thing they could have done was to ignore the call.[/QUOTE] Again black and white thinking. Either take the call and believe everything or ignore the phone completely. Idiotic. You treat it as if everything the caller said is true but you continue asking questions to better understand the situation, which in the end may not be what it seems to the caller for various reasons. [QUOTE=Paramud;34755646][B]People are not cameras.[/B] They can not recall things 100% accurately 100% of the time, let alone explain them to other people just the same.[/QUOTE] Another guy saying it's either completely subjective conclusions of the person calling or 100% accurate description. Nothing in between. People can't tell what they see or what made them think a crime is being commited. Really? Someone would either have to be in shock or have some sort of mental disability.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34756240]So the operator assumes that everything that a panicked person or person in shock is saying is 100% accurate and true. That's flat out retarded. I wonder how many stories like this we would hear every day if that was true. Of course they can't get 100% accurate description, but they can get information like why does the person calling think a crime is being committed. Or what does she see or hear. And the operator should come to a conclusion to what's happening, not the person calling. That's why you are narrow minded, you see everything in black and white. It's either subjective conclusion of a panicked person or 100% accurate and objective description. It's never like that. Again black and white thinking. Either take the call and believe everything or ignore the phone completely. Idiotic. You treat it as if everything the caller said is true but you continue asking questions to better understand the situation, which in the end may not be what it seems to the caller for various reasons. Another guy saying it's either completely subjective conclusions of the person calling or 100% accurate description. Nothing in between. People can't tell what they see or what made them think a crime is being commited. Really? Someone would either have to be in shock or have some sort of mental disability.[/QUOTE] Good lord, I said in the very thing you quoted they have to assume they are telling the truth [B]to a certain degree[/B]. And as I have said over and over again the operator can only come to a conclusion with what information the caller is giving. Asking what she sees and what she hears is also all based on what the caller says. If you have some who says "some one just ran into a place and snatched a little girl" of course what they see and hear is going to attest to that. I understand the operator must try to sort out the situation but when your only source is so wrong it would be near impossible to come out with a right solution. Through your prior post you have seemed to want the 911 operator to have a hundred percent clarity of the situation, to which I have said that would be impossible due to the only source of information the operator had was faulty. If you read the article then you saw that the woman said something to the effect of the man ran inside the building and snatched the girl. Having such a distorted description of what happen its no question that all the other questions answered by her would have been equally distorted. You are treating this as though the caller said "there's a white guy and black girl waling down the street she must be kidnapped" when in reality the caller said something to the effect of "help a man just ran into a building and snatched a kid". Im sure the operator did stay on the line with the woman and ask questions as they are required to do. But when you have such a distorted view of what had actually happen these questions are not going to establish anything.
[QUOTE=silentjubjub;34740414]This is sensationalist. The police were just doing their damn job by following a call through made by a retarded, paranoid woman. [editline]17th February 2012[/editline] It's not as though the cops said "There's a white guy with a black kid, SHE MUST BE KIDNAPPED ARREST HIM" which [I]so[/I] many of you people seem to think.[/QUOTE] Ten patrol cars, and they drew their weapons on him instantly, without seeing how he reacted. Yeah this is the polices fault. The police system in america is broken beyond repair.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;34756499]Good lord, I said in the very thing you quoted they have to assume they are telling the truth [B]to a certain degree[/B].[/QUOTE] Yes that's the point, the operator has to do everything to get as much objective information as he can and base on that. [QUOTE=BusterBluth;34756499]And as I have said over and over again the operator can only come to a conclusion with what information the caller is giving. Asking what she sees and what she hears is also all based on what the caller says. If you have some who says "some one just ran into a place and snatched a little girl" of course what they see and hear is going to attest to that. I understand the operator must try to sort out the situation but when your only source is so wrong it would be near impossible to come out with a right solution.[/QUOTE] Agree. But then after hearing "someone just ran into a place and snatched a little girl" he should investigate what the caller actually saw. Did someone just ran into a place grabbed a girl and ran out? Or he ran into a building and walked out with a little girl out. Because if it was the latter there is no reason to think it's a kidnapping. [QUOTE=BusterBluth;34756499]Through your prior post you have seemed to want the 911 operator to have a hundred percent clarity of the situation, to which I have said that would be impossible due to the only source of information the operator had was faulty.[/QUOTE] See you are assuming it's either one thing or something else. It can't be anything in between. The operator has to have as much clarity as he can. He is trained to talk to people in distress and what to ask. That's his job. [QUOTE=BusterBluth;34756499]If you read the article then you saw that the woman said something to the effect of the man ran inside the building and snatched the girl. Having such a distorted description of what happen its no question that all the other questions answered by her would have been equally distorted. You are treating this as though the caller said "there's a white guy and black girl waling down the street she must be kidnapped" when in reality the caller said something to the effect of "help a man just ran into a building and snatched a kid". Im sure the operator did stay on the line with the woman and ask questions as they are required to do. But when you have such a distorted view of what had actually happen these questions are not going to establish anything.[/QUOTE] Operator should ask her to explain what she means by snatched. You can get more info than that, tough it will never bee 100% accurate, you can get more clarity. That's the responsibility of the operator.
Please don't become a 911 operator Sal, I like my children alive and not raped to death just because some operator distrusts humanity.
[QUOTE=DrMonumbo;34757963]Please don't become a 911 operator Sal, I like my children alive and not raped to death just because some operator distrusts humanity.[/QUOTE] This is exactly what I was talking about when I said narrow minded and thinking in black and white. Which part of "first send units, then continue asking questions to get more info" do you not understand? How does that disrupt anything? I never said you hold everything off till you are 100% sure that the call is legitimate. You people jump to ridiculous conclusions.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34758018]This is exactly what I was talking about when I said narrow minded and thinking in black and white. Which part of "first send units, then continue asking questions to get more info" do you not understand? How does that disrupt anything? I never said you hold everything off till you are 100% sure that the call is legitimate. You people jump to ridiculous conclusions.[/QUOTE] As are you because that's exactly the procedure the police use and did use in this situation so why are you even trying to fault the operator?
[QUOTE=DrMonumbo;34758232]As are you because that's exactly the procedure the police use and did use in this situation so why are you even trying to fault the operator?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;34742338] "hello, there is an armed man in front of my house, he wants to kill me", "k, we're sending swat, goodnight". [/QUOTE] That's the procedure? Have fun with people getting killed and police wasting a lot of time on calls from people jumping to ridiculous conclusions.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34758305]That's the procedure? Have fun with people getting killed and police wasting a lot of time on calls from people jumping to ridiculous conclusions.[/QUOTE] Hahaha wow no. That's not what I described, that's not what the operator did in this instance, and that's certainly not police procedure. So what are you complaining about?
Or are you saying that the operator did try to get more clarity on it but it didn't help? I even posted [QUOTE=Silly Sil;34742338]Now if when presented with description of what's happening (not with subjective conclusions like "he kidnapped") the operator makes a bad decision, he either made a mistake in conclusion and the police should apologize for misjudging the situation or the operator failed to get the facts and acted on subjective concussions which is his mistake again and the police should apologize or the caller didn't present the facts as they were and he's to blame.[/QUOTE] Someone can always report something wrong, and then it would be the callers fault. But the operators are trained to handle those situations. That's their job and responsibility.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34758385]Or are you saying that the operator did try to get more clarity on it but it didn't help? I even posted Someone can always report something wrong, and then it would be the callers fault. But the operators are trained to handle those situations. That's their job and responsibility.[/QUOTE] Didn't help what? Diminish the amount of dispatched officers? The only way to get a clear picture is to get officers on the scene which is exactly why they were dispatched. The operator was given information by a witness that suggested a possible kidnapping in progress and responded accordingly. Literally no one in this scenario is truly at fault for anything but being cautious.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34756786]Yes that's the point, the operator has to do everything to get as much objective information as he can and base on that. Agree. But then after hearing "someone just ran into a place and snatched a little girl" he should investigate what the caller actually saw. Did someone just ran into a place grabbed a girl and ran out? Or he ran into a building and walked out with a little girl out. Because if it was the latter there is no reason to think it's a kidnapping. See you are assuming it's either one thing or something else. It can't be anything in between. The operator has to have as much clarity as he can. He is trained to talk to people in distress and what to ask. That's his job. Operator should ask her to explain what she means by snatched. You can get more info than that, tough it will never bee 100% accurate, you can get more clarity. That's the responsibility of the operator.[/QUOTE] Of course the operator is going to attempt to get clarity, but as I stated before only a certain amount of clarity is going to be gained when the call is already totally wrong. Someone who tells you a child has been snatched and rushed out of a building is going to describe a child being snatched and rushed out a building. Operator "What do you mean by snatched?" Caller "she was grabbed" The caller is going to describe what she think happen regardless if it was right. Theres only so much clarity that can be gained over the phone, which is my whole point.
[QUOTE=DrMonumbo;34758756]Didn't help what? Diminish the amount of dispatched officers? The only way to get a clear picture is to get officers on the scene which is exactly why they were dispatched. The operator was given information by a witness that suggested a possible kidnapping in progress and responded accordingly. Literally no one in this scenario is truly at fault for anything but being cautious.[/QUOTE] Didn't help to clarify the situation? Why are you assuming that everything I'm saying is to diminish the amount of dispatched officers or ignore the call completely. Why are you so fixed on that? [QUOTE=BusterBluth;34759645]Of course the operator is going to attempt to get clarity, but as I stated before only a certain amount of clarity is going to be gained when the call is already totally wrong. Someone who tells you a child has been snatched and rushed out of a building is going to describe a child being snatched and rushed out a building. Operator "What do you mean by snatched?" Caller "she was grabbed" The caller is going to describe what she think happen regardless if it was right. Theres only so much clarity that can be gained over the phone, which is my whole point.[/QUOTE] "what do you mean by grabbed?" "what did the man do?" "how did the child behave during that?"
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34759992] "what do you mean by grabbed?" "what did the man do?" "how did the child behave during that?"[/QUOTE] "he want over and took her" "he ran out with her" "she looked scared" Like I said a bazillion times, what the caller is going to say is going to correspond to what she thought happened. If she thinks a kidnapping went down her description is going to sound like one.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;34760081]"he want over and took her" "he ran out with her" "she looked scared" Like I said a bazillion times, what the caller is going to say is going to correspond to what she thought happened. If she thinks a kidnapping went down her description is going to sound like one.[/QUOTE] Well thank god you're not a 911 operator or there would be blood.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.