UMW President places "man with a gun" test call

imported post

buster81 wrote:

Don't the adminstrators conducting fire drills tell the fire department becore they mobilize and show up with lights and sirens? Just a question.

Click to expand...

user wrote:

The question, as I understood it, was not whether or not the university president exhibited the finest in judgment; the question was whether she had committed a crime.

Click to expand...

I think buster's point was that the difference between criminal and non-criminal "pulling a false alarm" is or should be based on whether or not you take steps to prevent the Emergency Services from responding in a manner that would endanger others, and that certainly seems reasonable to me.

However, reading the law that Repeater cited above, I'm not sure it would be a slam dunk guilty verdict... although a violation of section (i) seems pretty clear from the reports that have been published in the newspaper articles.

§ 18.2-461. Falsely summoning or giving false reports to law-enforcement officials.

It shall be unlawful for any person (i) to knowingly give a false report as to the commission of any crime to any law-enforcement official with intent to mislead, or (ii) without just cause and with intent to interfere with the operations of any law-enforcement official, to call or summon any law-enforcement official by telephone or other means, including engagement or activation of an automatic emergency alarm. Violation of the provisions of this section shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

TFred

imported post

Once again it proves that the police are not there to protect the individual......

imported post

The thing is, the president of the university IS law enforcement, the same way a mayor in a city is. So proof of specific intent to mislead law enforcment beyond a reasonable doubt is just not possible. And this is a specific intent offense, not a general intent offense.

Well if anyone charges her with a crime, I hope she calls me for the defense. I think that one would be fun.

imported post

user wrote:

The thing is, the president of the university IS law enforcement, the same way a mayor in a city is. So proof of specific intent to mislead law enforcment beyond a reasonable doubt is just not possible. And this is a specific intent offense, not a general intent offense.

Well if anyone charges her with a crime, I hope she calls me for the defense. I think that one would be fun.

Click to expand...

I see your point, and I'm not disagreeing with you, but somehow, whether it is or not, it should not be legal for one to be the cause of squad cars responding at dangerous driving speeds (reported to be 45 in a 25 zone) through a very crowded residential neighborhood, placing severe risk to life and property of city residents.

If nothing else, it should be wreckless use of resources... Not that that is a specific crime... I suppose if someone had been injured or killed in the response, the civil liability would have been different... or maybe not... does "testing" police response fall under qualified immunity?

TFred

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

There are still places using those blue light phones?

Click to expand...

JMU, another anti-defense college.

Most of the ones I've ever seen were vandalized, though. :quirky

imported post

TFred wrote:

user wrote:

The thing is, the president of the university IS law enforcement, the same way a mayor in a city is. So proof of specific intent to mislead law enforcment beyond a reasonable doubt is just not possible. And this is a specific intent offense, not a general intent offense.

Well if anyone charges her with a crime, I hope she calls me for the defense. I think that one would be fun.

Click to expand...

I see your point, and I'm not disagreeing with you, but somehow, whether it is or not, it should not be legal for one to be the cause of squad cars responding at dangerous driving speeds (reported to be 45 in a 25 zone) through a very crowded residential neighborhood, placing severe risk to life and property of city residents.

If nothing else, it should be wreckless use of resources... Not that that is a specific crime... I suppose if someone had been injured or killed in the response, the civil liability would have been different... or maybe not... does "testing" police response fall under qualified immunity?

Click to expand...

The only way to avoid that, would be for the officers themselves to know they were responding to a test rather than emergency.

At that point it's no longer a test, and becomes meaningless.

imported post

I for one applaud the President's decision to "test" the system.

Clearly the students at the University are concerned about safety and police response to the Blue Light Phones, so what better way to see if their concerns are valid than test it.

In a campus as small as that one, why it takes 6 minutes to get somewhere is what should be under investigation.

If the police chief does not like the test then he needs to find a new job.

Management by walking around is one of the tried and truest ways to find out what is going on in the world that one is responsible for managing and it is not exercised nearly enough.

Be Careful Out There!

Paul

imported post

I think what the UMW president did was a good move on her part to test her employees. Could some things be done better? Sure, but seeing that the university police company works for her, it is not out of line for her to ensure that they do their job acceptably.

imported post

It truly is a Catch-22. How do you test a safety system without acting as if there is a trouble event?

How do you achieve true, unbiased response by giving forewarning?

On the other hand, from my perspective it might have been worthwhile to coordinate with campus police that "sometime between the dates of XXXX and YYYY a security response exercise will be initiated".

And it should only be posted to the chief or director? That way campus police and dispatch would respond as if it were an actual event and all bases are covered?

I don't know, it's easy to be a Monday night quarterback, but it's not like this is the first campus security emergency test ever. Should the president be held liable? Maybe. Would that be the best way to educate her and her staff? Probably not.

The 6-minute response time is not the only area for improvement. And I can definitely see where a lawful citizen OCing near this "test" event could be misconstrued as volatile and subject to felony takedown despite innocence.

However, "good" police work involves investigation of events and communication. A lawfully armed citizen in the vicinity could be detained briefly as part of the investigation, but any officer that would go into a "MWAG" situation with the first instinct being to open fire should reconsider his career choice.

imported post

Six minutes to respond to a call "alleging" a man with a gun does not seem too long. After all the police are a reactive organization rather than a proactive organization.

In the Va Tech incident it was not a Tech officer that was on the scene. The two closest officers were a Blacksburg PD and a Va State Trooper who were riding together returning from eating breakfast. It took them almost five minutes and they were on campus and responding to multiple 9-1-1 calls of shots being fired.

imported post

kenny wrote:

Six minutes to respond to a call "alleging" a man with a gun does not seem too long. After all the police are a reactive organization rather than a proactive organization.

In the Va Tech incident it was not a Tech officer that was on the scene. The two closest officers were a Blacksburg PD and a Va State Trooper who were riding together returning from eating breakfast. It took them almost five minutes and they were on campus and responding to multiple 9-1-1 calls of shots being fired.

Click to expand...

But remember... UMW: 2x12 blocks... nowhere near the size of VT.

http://www.umw.edu/visitors/directions/documents/UMWMap-July09.pdf

The parking deck in question is #43, at the upper left corner.

TFred

imported post

At the very least...a call should have been placed ot the Fredricksburg police letting them know of the "drill." And...as anyone with ANY military experience will tell you, there also should have been coordination with various dept heads and other key personnel to monitor and observe the responder's actions, or inaction as the case may be. Without knowingand documenting EXACTLY what happened at EVERY level of the chain of command during the drill, it makes the drill completely and utterly useless...and this particular University President, a bigtime bonehead!

imported post

fully_armed_biker wrote:

... as anyone with ANY military experience will tell you, there also should have been coordination with various dept heads and other key personnel to monitor and observe ...

... Without knowingand documenting EXACTLY what happened at EVERY level of the chain of command during the drill, it makes the drill completely and utterly useless...

Click to expand...

+1

Planning and executing meaningful and realistic exercises -- especially in scenarios potentially involving significant safety risks -- is far more difficult than the actual act of "responding."

imported post

The local newspaper is poking a little more fun at the UMW pres...

http://fredericksburg.com/blogs/view?blogger_id=7&p=1256578959

You have to read the explanation to get the full context, he ties in another laughable event from this past May's graduation...

TFred

imported post

TFred wrote:

kenny wrote:

Six minutes to respond to a call "alleging" a man with a gun does not seem too long. After all the police are a reactive organization rather than a proactive organization.

In the Va Tech incident it was not a Tech officer that was on the scene. The two closest officers were a Blacksburg PD and a Va State Trooper who were riding together returning from eating breakfast. It took them almost five minutes and they were on campus and responding to multiple 9-1-1 calls of shots being fired.

Click to expand...

But remember... UMW: 2x12 blocks... nowhere near the size of VT.

http://www.umw.edu/visitors/directions/documents/UMWMap-July09.pdf

The parking deck in question is #43, at the upper left corner.

TFred

Click to expand...

Size really does not matter, in this case. The on-duty officer could have been at any one of numerous campus police hang outs slightly off campus.

Another issue could be the technology used in the phone such as was it a ring down or direct dial which could have added 30-40 seconds. I would be curious if and when anyone requests a FOIA to see the actual times.

Remember that those "alleged" six minutes are what brings most of us together.

imported post

I wonder what the response time is for VCU's yellow emergency phones.

But us common folk would get in trouble for testing it. :uhoh:

imported post

kenny wrote:

TFred wrote:

kenny wrote:

Six minutes to respond to a call "alleging" a man with a gun does not seem too long. After all the police are a reactive organization rather than a proactive organization.

In the Va Tech incident it was not a Tech officer that was on the scene. The two closest officers were a Blacksburg PD and a Va State Trooper who were riding together returning from eating breakfast. It took them almost five minutes and they were on campus and responding to multiple 9-1-1 calls of shots being fired.

Click to expand...

But remember... UMW: 2x12 blocks... nowhere near the size of VT.

http://www.umw.edu/visitors/directions/documents/UMWMap-July09.pdf

The parking deck in question is #43, at the upper left corner.

TFred

Click to expand...

Size really does not matter, in this case. The on-duty officer could have been at any one of numerous campus police hang outs slightly off campus.

Another issue could be the technology used in the phone such as was it a ring down or direct dial which could have added 30-40 seconds. I would be curious if and when anyone requests a FOIA to see the actual times.

Remember that those "alleged" six minutes are what brings most of us together.

Click to expand...

That begs the question; how many on-duty officers do they have? If it is only 1, WTH is he doing off campus at all, slightly or not? If they have more than one, (which I'm guessing is true by what the article says about the eventual response) where was the breakdown in communication? Did they all sit around afterwards, point at each other,andsay, "I thought you were going to handle it" before they realized nobody was handling it? I guess they'll never know where the breakdown was because nobody was watching to see what was happening.

While she may be ultimately responsible for the campus police, she has NO authority to summon the F'burg police, State police, etc...on a whim. Basically, her story and that of everyone else from UMW stinks to high heaven of CYA after the fact!!! If this was a "planned exercise" as claimed,there should be correspondence...emails, memos, etc....I'd love to see someone force her to produce them...I'd bet my last dollar she can't!

imported post

fully_armed_biker wrote:

That begs the question; how many on-duty officers do they have? If it is only 1, WTH is he doing off campus at all, slightly or not? If they have more than one, (which I'm guessing is true by what the article says about the eventual response) where was the breakdown in communication? Did they all sit around afterwards, point at each other,andsay, "I thought you were going to handle it" before they realized nobody was handling it? I guess they'll never know where the breakdown was because nobody was watching to see what was happening.

Click to expand...

Per their website, the UMW PD has 15 sworn positions of which 3 are vacant (police chief and two officers).

imported post

rlh2005 wrote:

fully_armed_biker wrote:

That begs the question; how many on-duty officers do they have? If it is only 1, WTH is he doing off campus at all, slightly or not? If they have more than one, (which I'm guessing is true by what the article says about the eventual response) where was the breakdown in communication? Did they all sit around afterwards, point at each other,andsay, "I thought you were going to handle it" before they realized nobody was handling it? I guess they'll never know where the breakdown was because nobody was watching to see what was happening.

Click to expand...

Per their website, the UMW PD has 15 sworn positions of which 3 are vacant (police chief and two officers).

Click to expand...

That explains a lot...:banghead:

imported post

Mt Vernon .40 wrote:

fully_armed_biker wrote:

... as anyone with ANY military experience will tell you, there also should have been coordination with various dept heads and other key personnel to monitor and observe ...

... Without knowingand documenting EXACTLY what happened at EVERY level of the chain of command during the drill, it makes the drill completely and utterly useless...

Click to expand...

+1

Planning and executing meaningful and realistic exercises -- especially in scenarios potentially involving significant safety risks -- is far more difficult than the actual act of "responding."

Click to expand...

Anyone with any military experience will also tell you that if you fail to stop the aggressor that looks bad on your fit rep.....so it helps to know before hand what's going on....

This type of excercise is completely justified. If the cops know something is going to happen ahead of time, they will naturally be on a higher level of alert and responsiveness - even if they don't know the "where". The campus isn't that big. It would be easy to prestage your responding assets for a week if you knew an event was planned for that week, but not what particular day or time.

The only way to get real information is with a limited amount of people knowing what is going on and auditing the system afterward. The headmaster did that, only he and the actor in play knew what was going on.