• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Forced To Disarm And The Outcome

erps

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
265
Location
, ,
imported post

M1Gunr wrote:
Its not up to the dispatcher to control the scene. All that needed to be said was " Homeowner is armed."
I absolutely agree. Is it unreasonable for the officers to communicate through dispatch to have the "complainant" come outside to contact the officers and leave his gun inside?
 

erps

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
265
Location
, ,
imported post

marshaul wrote:
erps wrote:
Is it unreasonable for the officers to communicate through dispatch to have the "complainant" come outside to contact the officers and leave his gun inside?
Yes...?
IMO it is not unreasonable and that it would go against officer safety training not to make that request.
 

swatspyder

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
573
Location
University Place, Washington, USA
imported post

erps wrote:
marshaul wrote:
erps wrote:
Is it unreasonable for the officers to communicate through dispatch to have the "complainant" come outside to contact the officers and leave his gun inside?
Yes...?
IMO it is not unreasonable and that it would go against officer safety training not to make that request.
Sorry, but the officer's safety is not in jeopardy when the caller is the one who has rights to the property and is defending himself and his property. I will stay armed considering my constitutional rights trump the officer's safety, especially on my own property.
 

kito109654

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
533
Location
Sedro, Washington, USA
imported post

swatspyder wrote:
erps wrote:
marshaul wrote:
erps wrote:
Is it unreasonable for the officers to communicate through dispatch to have the "complainant" come outside to contact the officers and leave his gun inside?
Yes...?
IMO it is not unreasonable and that it would go against officer safety training not to make that request.
Sorry, but the officer's safety is not in jeopardy when the caller is the one who has rights to the property and is defending himself and his property. I will stay armed considering my constitutional rights trump the officer's safety, especially on my own property.
Well said, I completely agree.
 

erps

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
265
Location
, ,
imported post

swatspyder wrote:
erps wrote:
marshaul wrote:
erps wrote:
Is it unreasonable for the officers to communicate through dispatch to have the "complainant" come outside to contact the officers and leave his gun inside?
Yes...?
IMO it is not unreasonable and that it would go against officer safety training not to make that request.
Sorry, but the officer's safety is not in jeopardy when the caller is the one who has rights to the property and is defending himself and his property. I will stay armed considering my constitutional rights trump the officer's safety, especially on my own property.
Are you suggesting that officers should not have the right to determine whether the scene is safe for them? Are you suggesting that officers have not been ambushed at false 911 calls or guarantee that it won't happen in the future?

Sorry, but your statement that the officer's safety is not in jeopardy is an opinion that is no more or less valid than that of the responding officer.
 

erps

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
265
Location
, ,
imported post

A 911 call that brought two police officers to a home where they were ambushed, and where a third was also later killed during a four-hour siege, was precipitated by a fight between the gunman and his mother over a dog urinating in the house.
http://news.aol.com/article/pennsylvania-police-shooting/414264

I'm thinking these officers would have preferred to go home at the end of their shift.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

redboneshadow wrote:
18 Dec. @ 1200 hrs. someone tried to force enter my home. I called the police. Operator 117 asked if i was armed and i told her i am always armed and do have a permit. The chief dispatcher got on the line with me (operator 20) she demanded that i disarm. I told her very politely that my weapon is secure in my holster and this is my house and yard and I have no reason to disarm. She told the officers that i refused and was arguing with her. I explained that i was not arguing with her as I knew this would be on tape. She also told them that i would come out with my hands in the air but refused to disarm. Another lie on her part. They refused to even show up and take a report until i disarmed. Operator 20 stated again to leave the gun in the house. and to come out with my hands up. I told her i would leave it inside if it would clear this issue up. She told the officers and they showed up. I went outside to talk to them and 2 of them started lecturing me on obeying the dispatcher and to leave my gun inside from now on. I was surrounded by 6 cops with 2 standing in front of me with 4 more in front of the house and police cars all over. Then they left. The officers did not check the yard or house. Never got a case number.

Outcome:

23 Dec. 2009,

Just got off phone with a Sgt. in internal affairs concerning when I was forced to disarm. He stated I did nothing wrong and he is sending a training memo to Sergeants of different Precincts to re-train Officers in a situation like this. Also a re-training memo is being sent to dispatch since they did not follow protocol concerning this issue. He fully supports my right to be armed and protect myself.

What an Asshat that dispatcher is. So if police refuse to show up to your house if you are armed, what do you assume about those that might be prowling around the home you are protecting with Mr. 12g? That they are not police/good guys?? Sounds like the dispatcher is making life much more dangerous for Seattle PD.

(Please no assume = .....comments)
 

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
imported post

It's all a matter of public record. I simply would have made it clear on the call itself that I wanted police to come out so I didn't have to shoot someone, and that they refused because of my lawful status of being armed, on my own property no less. If I had to shoot that person because the police refused to send someone out and that person broke in, the tape would go a long way to proving self defense.
 

erps

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
265
Location
, ,
imported post

So, erps, what department do you work for?
A little rinky dinky outfit that resembles Barney Fife's department. I came across the Opencarry site a year or two ago and think it's a great organization for educating the public and some public servants. I've learned quite a bit from this site.
 

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
imported post

compmanio365 wrote:
It's all a matter of public record. I simply would have made it clear on the call itself that I wanted police to come out so I didn't have to shoot someone, and that they refused because of my lawful status of being armed, on my own property no less. If I had to shoot that person because the police refused to send someone out and that person broke in, the tape would go a long way to proving self defense.
Oh Really? You had better have more than that to back up your defense.
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
imported post

erps wrote:
swatspyder wrote:
erps wrote:
marshaul wrote:
erps wrote:
Is it unreasonable for the officers to communicate through dispatch to have the "complainant" come outside to contact the officers and leave his gun inside?
Yes...?
IMO it is not unreasonable and that it would go against officer safety training not to make that request.
Sorry, but the officer's safety is not in jeopardy when the caller is the one who has rights to the property and is defending himself and his property. I will stay armed considering my constitutional rights trump the officer's safety, especially on my own property.
Are you suggesting that officers should not have the right to determine whether the scene is safe for them? Are you suggesting that officers have not been ambushed at false 911 calls or guarantee that it won't happen in the future?

Sorry, but your statement that the officer's safety is not in jeopardy is an opinion that is no more or less valid than that of the responding officer.

Are you reallysuggesting that someone luring the police into a trap with a false 911 call is going to tell either the dispatcher or the police the truth about whether or not they are carrying a firearm? Really? Seriously??

Your getting caught in the "false sense of security" trap erps, and sois any officer that responds to ANY 911 call that doesn't automatically assume that everyone involved is armed, especially in Washington. Just ask any Alaska StateLEO about the realities of working in an environment that almost everyone IS armed.

A citizen has done all that is required for officer safetyby simply making it clear to the dispatcher and orLEOsthat he is armed and he will be looking for UNIFORMED officers to assist. At-leastthe LACis being honest, andanyLEOsshould have a reasonable assumption that since he DECLARED he would be armed, hes most likely the "good guy".

Now, for the citizens safety, he should probably not have the firearm in hand when making initial contact with the officers, or at-leasthe shouldmakehis armed status clear to the officers in an nonthreatening manner before approaching.

The officers can then make any additional requests they feel is necessary for the situation AFTER that.
 

erps

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
265
Location
, ,
imported post

A citizen has done all that is required for officer safetyby simply making it clear to the dispatcher and orLEOsthat he is armed and he will be looking for UNIFORMED officers to assist. At-leastthe LACis being honest, andanyLEOsshould have a reasonable assumption that since he DECLARED he would be armed, hes most likely the "good guy".

Now, for the citizens safety, he should probably not have the firearm in hand when making initial contact with the officers, or at-leasthe shouldmakehis armed status clear to the officers in an nonthreatening manner before approaching.
Thank you for stating more clearly the message I was trying to convey.
Your getting caught in the "false sense of security" trap erps, and sois any officer that responds to ANY 911 call that doesn't automatically assume that everyone involved is armed, especially in Washington. Just ask any Alaska StateLEO about the realities of working in an environment that almost everyone IS armed.
That's a bit presumptuous, but a good point.
 

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
imported post

Trigger Dr wrote:
compmanio365 wrote:
It's all a matter of public record. I simply would have made it clear on the call itself that I wanted police to come out so I didn't have to shoot someone, and that they refused because of my lawful status of being armed, on my own property no less. If I had to shoot that person because the police refused to send someone out and that person broke in, the tape would go a long way to proving self defense.
Oh Really? You had better have more than that to back up your defense.
Not saying that's all, as always, it comes down to the facts of the situation at hand. But that would be one piece of a case put together to prove that it was a "good shoot". Perhaps you are forgetting we live in a country that -supposedly- has the precept of "innocent until proven guilty".....however little that precept is applied, notwithstanding.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

NavyLT wrote:
joeroket wrote:
REX681959 wrote:
Call 911 shout HELP then hang up. They are obligated to send someone out.

Uh.....no they aren't.

How many times have cops used that exact excuse to harass us?  "I got a 911 MWAG call and now I have to investigate it, so I have to diasrm you and see some ID!"  or  "We got a 911 call about strange noises coming from your house so we have to come in to investigate and make sure everything is OK!"

So what is this?  Mandatory investigation but only at the convenience of the police?

I think you are confusing the two things. One is the court case that I am referring to that says police are not required to protect individual citizens and the fact that most, if not all, departments have internal policy that they respond to a MWAG call.

I blame the courts for giving the officers discretion like this. It should not be up to them to decide what to respond to and what to ignore. They should be required to respond to all calls requesting assistance and then decide if a law has been broken. Sometimes, as in the case of an OC'er, it would simply be to respond to the call locate the "MWAG" and observe, then contact the RP and let them know that it is not unlawful and there is no need for the officer to contact the subject.
 

911Boss

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2007
Messages
753
Location
Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
imported post

I've worked in the 9-1-1 center for over 17 years. Call receiver, Dispatcher, and now shift Supervisor. I'll just lay out some general info before addressing specific posts.

First off, the idea that Call Receivers/Dispatchers have some sort of "control freak" mentality, is actually true. By and large we are "Type-A" personalities who tend to take charge and control a situation. Now this next part might be a newsflash - that is our job.

We don't do it to feed an ego, domination fantasies, or any other sinister motivation. Our job is to find out what the problem is, where the problem is, get the necessary information, and provide instruction/direction until the cavalry arrives. People who can't take charge and control a situation or get folks to cooperate over the phone fail miserably at this job. If you want someone to get all concerned, emotional, and be there to support you in your time of grief, call a friend, family member, or the Crisis Clinic.

We don't just make up the questions or the directions. Our direction and policies come directly from the folks with badges and guns. Want to know why we ask a specific question or make a specific request? Because the powers that be told us to. Those things are pretty much standardized across the profession. Yes, a huge part of it has to do with officer safety. It just so happens that officer safety is the number one priority.

Contrary to popular believe those folks aren't "getting paid" to risk their life for you or your stuff. No where in their list of job duties is "Die for someone". Yes, there is always that risk, and as we have unfortunately been reminded time and time again recently, it DOES happen. Let me be clear though, when it does, it is a tragic event that shouldn't happen.

When that cop walks up to your door, you are looking at close to a $150,000 investment of your tax dollars. That is what it costs to hire, train, equip, a single officer to get him to the first day of work. It doesn't even take into account the salary or ongoing costs. So damn straight "they" want that asset available for his/her next shift. They are not disposable and there is no planned attrition that they account for.

Along with officer safety, the law, and legal obligations, every agency has to also take into account image, liability, and community relations. It is simply a fact of life. While those things aren't as important in guiding policy decisions or determining protocol, they can't be ignored either.

Seems people always want to question how cops and dispatchers do their job and bitch about it on the internet. Just how often do you folks get calls at your work and have to deal with "customers" who DEMAND you run your business the way they "think" it should be done instead of the way you have successfully done it for years?

We ain't Burger King, we ain't Nordstrom's. You probably aren't going to get it your way and no, the "customer" isn't always right. Now what you SHOULD get and WILL get the extreme majority of the time, is the appropriate response handled in a professional manner. You may not understand the whys and hows of what is done, but I think you should have a little faith and trust that the professionals do know what they are doing, just as you would expect people to have faith and trust in your profession and job performance even when they don't understand it. If you take exception to what happened, instead of focusing on how you would do it (with no experience or understanding of the things involved), look at how other agencies in the area do it. You will more often than not find that it was done within the professional standards. You may not like it, but that's life.

Yes, everyone has a horror story of something that went tragically wrong where a friend of their brother's sister knew someone who heard about something etc. Mistakes happen. Even when everything is done right there is sometimes a bad outcome, or they don't get there in time to save the day.

What you don't hear about is all the calls that are handled properly, my agency handles an average of about 2100 phone calls a day. Each Call Receiver handles an average of about 12-14 calls an hour. As this year comes to an end, I can look back and count on a single hand the number of calls that went horribly wrong and have fingers left over. I have to use both hands to count the number of citizen complaints I fielded on the 25 employees I directly supervise on my shift. The number of sustained complaints, where the person actually did something "wrong"? Three.

Three sustained complaints (less than half of the complaints made) over a calendar year and some 300,000 phone calls (just on day shift...) handled by the 25 people I supervise. I challenge any of you to show a significantly better track record in your profession.


As to the posts...

redboneshadow wrote:
18 Dec. @ 1200 hrs. someone tried to force enter my home. I called the police. Operator 117 asked if i was armed and i told her i am always armed and do have a permit. The chief dispatcher got on the line with me (operator 20) she demanded that i disarm. I told her very politely that my weapon is secure in my holster and this is my house and yard and I have no reason to disarm. She told the officers that i refused and was arguing with her. I explained that i was not arguing with her as I knew this would be on tape. She also told them that i would come out with my hands in the air but refused to disarm. Another lie on her part. They refused to even show up and take a report until i disarmed. Operator 20 stated again to leave the gun in the house. and to come out with my hands up. I told her i would leave it inside if it would clear this issue up. She told the officers and they showed up. I went outside to talk to them and 2 of them started lecturing me on obeying the dispatcher and to leave my gun inside from now on. I was surrounded by 6 cops with 2 standing in front of me with 4 more in front of the house and police cars all over. Then they left. The officers did not check the yard or house. Never got a case number.
My advice to anyone calling 9-1-1, is to let the Call Receiver direct the call, cooperate, and answer the questions. Much like most people do on a traffic stop. You certainly do have your rights and the CR is not looking to take them away, judge you, or anything else. They are trying to quickly and efficiently determine the situation and collect the necessary information for response.

You were asked if you were armed- It is a yes or no question. What was the point of going into the issue of a "permit"? In fact to what "permit" are you even referring to? We don't have any sort of firearm "permits" in this state. We have a Concealed Pistol License, but since one is not required to own or possess a gun in your home, what was the point of bringing it up? Why not just say "Yes"?

Clearly from there your call went down hill. I haven't heard the call so I will not comment on the rest of it, but after 17 years of doing this and literally tens of thousands of calls (if not hundreds...) I have a pretty good sniffer on how a call gets from point "A" to point "B", and rarely does the responsibility fall on a single participant.

It is pretty standard for officer safety to ask that guns be put away when the cops arrive. There is tension, adrenaline, better to have less guns in play than more. If you don't trust the cops to take over and handle it when they arrive, then why call for them?

I will tell you this, callers are frequently caught up in the emotions and stress of the situation. Their mind is processing several different things. Frequently what they think was said is not what was said (whether it be what they think they said or what they think the CR said...). I have played calls back to people who swear they said one thing or were told another but it just flat didn't happen the way they remember it, it happens. I have even had people accuse me of altering the call recording because it didn't match their recollection of events.

Now I am NOT saying the CR wasn't out of line, when you get a copy of the call I would love to hear it. I am just saying it may not be exactly as you recall it. We are all people too, and sometimes our buttons get pushed and we respond. Different things set off different people. If you have armed yourself, we will most likely ask you to put it away when the cops get there.

We certainly can't "make" you do it over the phone, but if you don't cooperate, we absolutely are going to be letting those responding know. No we lowly Dispatchers don't have any authority to make you do anything, but when the folks with the badges show up, they certainly do. I'll let others argue the relevant laws, but when you don't do what the cops want you to do under certain circumstances it could result in obstruction charges or worse, even when you were initially the victim.

redboneshadow wrote:
Outcome:

23 Dec. 2009,

Just got off phone with a Sgt. in internal affairs concerning when I was forced to disarm. He stated I did nothing wrong and he is sending a training memo to Sergeants of different Precincts to re-train Officers in a situation like this. Also a re-training memo is being sent to dispatch since they did not follow protocol concerning this issue. He fully supports my right to be armed and protect myself.
Not knowing about SPD's policies, it sounds like this borders on the "when" issue and not the disarm issue, which is what I would expect.

I also want to point out that part about "supports your right to be armed...", the majority of rank and file cops are pro 2A, as are the majority of 9-1-1 folks. We see everyday the stuff that happens and have a much clearer understanding of how the world works than your average citizen. Bad things happen, evil exists. We will be the first to tell you that "When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away". It isn't slam or an insult, it is a fact of life and a realization that far to few are aware of.


SpyderTattoo wrote:
That is ridiculous. The dispatcher demanding that you disarm when you are on your own property??? WTF! Funny how some police/dispatchers think that they can just suspend the law and your rights just so they can "feel" safe. What kind of authority does a dispatcher think they have? As if they can force you to do something over the phone??? "Yeah, sure (dispatcher), you just try and make me disarm from over the phone line...
Well as I said, we really have none. We are just doing what we have been told and trained to do. It isn't about "suspending" rights or anything, it is about trying to increase the safety (actual, not "feeling") for everyone present, not just the officers.

The choice is certainly yours, just be willing to accept the consequences of that choice.


BrenTen wrote:
It's almost getting to the point that having 911 on the line is MORE dangerous to your life than calling them in the first place. It might be better just to call 911, state the problem and then hangup.

Can you imagine what a witness for the perps family she would be? "Well I told him to put hs gun down, but it was as if he WANTED to shoot someone.
It is certainly up to you, but I can tell you that the less information you provide and by hanging up, you are only delaying response, not improving it. It is a rare instance we send cops in when there isn't much info until we have multiple cops to send (there is that silly officer safety thing again...). Where you might have gotten one cop in 5-7 minutes, now you get to wait 12-15 minutes, but when they do get there, there will be three of them.

If you think that is somehow an improvement, by all means say what you want to say and then just hang up. Hopefully the folks in India or where ever the phone company enters your 9-1-1 info got it right, and we send them to the right address.

If you use your cell, make sure you are outside and wear bright colors, as the accuracy of cellular 9-1-1 location is only about 100 meters. If you are in your apt, we won't find you.


joeroket wrote:
REX681959 wrote:
Call 911 shout HELP then hang up. They are obligated to send someone out.

Uh.....no they aren't.
Correct, we aren't. We still generally will though, but as above the info and technology isn't quite as fool proof (seems someone is always making a better fool...) as the gubermint would have you believe.

As with most things in life, cooperation generally makes things easier, faster, better. I am betting you have a much greater interest in the outcome then we do though, so do what you feel is best.

Also you might want to know that a 9-1-1 "Help" hangup call is going to have a longer response time, not a shorter one (for a number of reasons).


*edited for spelling
 
Top