SWATing.

Sounds like everything went just as it should by all parties except the guy that called it in. It always confuses me when people act like you have stricken fear into them but they weren't too afraid to confront you about carrying. I don't get the logic.

utbagpiper said:

......Now, if the cops would just go back to the office and have a few words with the dispatcher.......

Charles

Click to expand...

I'm just wondering what words should be had with dispatch. If a person calls in a man with a gun, and it was dispatched as a man with a gun, what did dispatch do wrong? IF they dispatcher gave false information then by all means have at it. Unfortunately though, the dispatcher can only work with the information they are given.

willy1094 said:

snipp... Unfortunately though, the dispatcher can only work with the information they are given.

Click to expand...

like the new age adage...'garbage in...'

ipse

willy1094 said:

Sounds like everything went just as it should by all parties except the guy that called it in. It always confuses me when people act like you have stricken fear into them but they weren't too afraid to confront you about carrying. I don't get the logic.



I'm just wondering what words should be had with dispatch. If a person calls in a man with a gun, and it was dispatched as a man with a gun, what did dispatch do wrong? IF they dispatcher gave false information then by all means have at it. Unfortunately though, the dispatcher can only work with the information they are given.

Click to expand...

I would hope dispatchers ask if the MWAG was brandishing or threatening and if not, informing the caller that OC is legal before sending a unit. People call for the dumbest reasons sometimes and I don't think they have the manpower (and certainly not the obligation) to respond to every legal activity that might upset someone.

Dario said:

I would hope dispatchers ask if the MWAG was brandishing or threatening and if not, informing the caller that OC is legal before sending a unit. People call for the dumbest reasons sometimes and I don't think they have the manpower (and certainly not the obligation) to respond to every legal activity that might upset someone.

Click to expand...

Some departments send a unit if the caller requests one PERIOD as a matter of policy (PD's not Dispatch's). It's not in the dispatcher's hands. If the dispatcher did not ask the above questions, that would be grounds to have a talk with said dispatcher. Those SHOULD be/ARE standard questions.

Also keep in mind that callers have been known to stretch the truth or all out lie to fit the way the feel about a situation. This can be from ignorance, fear/panic, or 100% deceit. A dispatcher can have a feeling that the person is lying but can really only use further questioning to poke holes at lies. If the person holds to their story, dispatcher's have VERY little room for opinion.

willy1094 said:

--snipped--
If a person calls in a man with a gun, and it was dispatched as a man with a gun, what did dispatch do wrong? IF they dispatcher gave false information then by all means have at it. Unfortunately though, the dispatcher can only work with the information they are given.

Click to expand...

Should an officer be dispatched for every call? There is a man walking down the street. The are several men standing around talking. There are hundreds/thousands of men (some women too) yelling in the soccer field bleachers.

Reporting a man with a gun shows no indication of anything illegal, anymore than a man with a hat, baseball bat, or truck. It is not the object, but the observed action that counts.

Call 911 if his hat is on fire, if he is violently swinging the bat at people, or if he is driving wildly into a crowd of children.

Do not call 911 if he is quietly eating an ice cream cone with his lady and dog. A holstered gun adds nothing to the evaluation.

Threat assessment needn't be complicated. Sometimes the simple question, "What is he doing?" is enough.

Grapeshot said:

Should an officer be dispatched for every call? There is a man walking down the street. The are several men standing around talking. There are hundreds/thousands of men (some women too) yelling in the soccer field bleachers.

Reporting a man with a gun shows no indication of anything illegal, anymore than a man with a hat, baseball bat, or truck. It is not the object, but the observed action that counts.

Call 911 if his hat is on fire, if he is violently swinging the bat at people, or if he is driving wildly into a crowd of children.

Do not call 911 if he is quietly eating an ice cream cone with his lady and dog. A holstered gun adds nothing to the evaluation.

Threat assessment needn't be complicated. Sometimes the simple question, "What is he doing?" is enough.

Click to expand...

As we all know, what should be and what is often do not coexist. I can understand that no elected official wants to be answering questions about why no one was sent because something seemed minor but then turned into something major (I'm not relating this to only MWAG calls).

You can't even tell a business owner/their agent that they are responsible for enforcing their own policies (like no weapons).

Grapeshot said:

snip
Threat assessment needn't be complicated. Sometimes the simple question, "What is he doing?" is enough.

Click to expand...

This is asked often. Again, their reply can be "Nothing, but I think an officer should check them out." Soooo, an officer goes.

willy1094 said:

This is asked often. Again, their reply can be "Nothing, but I think an officer should check them out." Soooo, an officer goes.

Click to expand...

An officer on an driveby (observe & report) run = no problem. Nine (9) officers or a SWAT team is severe over reaction.

willy1094 said:

I'm just wondering what words should be had with dispatch. If a person calls in a man with a gun, and it was dispatched as a man with a gun, what did dispatch do wrong? IF they dispatcher gave false information then by all means have at it. Unfortunately though, the dispatcher can only work with the information they are given.

Click to expand...

As others have explained, officers ought to make sure dispatch isn't wasting limited resources sending out 9 officers on bogus calls. There was a day in this nation when a couple of largish black men walking in certain neighborhoods was considered appropriate justification to dispatch police regardless of how the men were dressed or comporting themselves. Thankfully, those days are (most?) over. A couple of black men walking on a sidewalk is not, of itself, reason for police to even do a drive by.

The same should be true of someone who is peacefully OCing a properly holstered sidearm, lacking any overt indications of violations of some law. (And most--if not all--laws making such conduct a crime need to be rescinded.)

(And I chose my example very deliberately. LAC gun owners need to start recognizing bigotry and discrimination against themselves for what it is: and it is every bit as small minded, dangerous, and ugly as racism.)

Charles

Grapeshot said:

An officer on an driveby (observe & report) run = no problem. Nine (9) officers or a SWAT team is severe over reaction.

Click to expand...

Not to the cops ... nine minimum. The purpose is not to enforce the law but to enforce the government's desires.

In Cincinnati people are encouraged to call 911 when they see a gun.
http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/police/contact-us/911/

Dial 911 for Emergencies Only

Appropriate uses of 911 are instances of immediate danger or there is a crime in progress, such as:

breaking and entering
assault
rape
shooting
cutting/stabbing
robbery
any crime against a child
missing person (if they are a child or an adult with a mental or physical disability)
vehicle accident
person with a weapon (gun/knife)
suspicious situations
medical emergencies
fires
electrical lines down
gas leaks
an immediate situation where someone can be injured or is injured

davidmcbeth said:

Not to the cops ... nine minimum. The purpose is not to enforce the law but to enforce the government's desires.

Click to expand...

In this case I don't think the reported facts support that. Yes, nine cops. But not one even bothered to talk to the OP--who was clearing OC--until he spoke with them. This isn't cops being anti-OC.

If this had been an active-shooter or gang war situation about to develop, 9 cops isn't excessive.

What was reported and by whom to give the cops any hint that 9 of them might be warranted?

Charles

davidmcbeth said:

Not to the cops ... nine minimum. The purpose is not to enforce the law but to enforce the government's desires.

Click to expand...

Conclusion not supported by evidence/facts of this incident. Broad brush agenda detected.

utbagpiper said:

As others have explained, officers ought to make sure dispatch isn't wasting limited resources sending out 9 officers on bogus calls. There was a day in this nation when a couple of largish black men walking in certain neighborhoods was considered appropriate justification to dispatch police regardless of how the men were dressed or comporting themselves. Thankfully, those days are (most?) over. A couple of black men walking on a sidewalk is not, of itself, reason for police to even do a drive by.

The same should be true of someone who is peacefully OCing a properly holstered sidearm, lacking any overt indications of violations of some law. (And most--if not all--laws making such conduct a crime need to be rescinded.)

(And I chose my example very deliberately. LAC gun owners need to start recognizing bigotry and discrimination against themselves for what it is: and it is every bit as small minded, dangerous, and ugly as racism.)

Charles

Click to expand...

Ironically enough the man was black.

Grapeshot said:

An officer on an driveby (observe & report) run = no problem. Nine (9) officers or a SWAT team is severe over reaction.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And I have had several occasions when a cop drove by at the park. I always like that because for just that moment I have backup that much closer haha.

On the issue of dispatch (not directed at you Grapeshot, other comments): i was walking my dog in the evening at Cherokee park, on the main loop (half the road one way car traffic the other half pedestrian). I saw a possum get hit by a car and subsequently go into throws and bleeding from mouth and nose. I had 120lb between 2 dogs itching to investigate so had my hands full. Being a city boy with my heart in the country, I called up my girl (grew up in rural Apalachian mountains) asking if it would be a danger to folks. Yep. They are mean nasty things that play dead and bite last minute. So I called dispatch (9pm) to see if they would send an officer over to push it into a ditch. I would have tried, but again 2 dogs and i could see its eyes following me. Dispatch gave me a number, fish and wildlife services. Really? At 9pm. I called again explaining they were closed and that this animal was probably still alive, on a road frequented by night runners and cyclists, and thus was a possible danger to people. She asked for my description (age hight race clothing) and I told her I would be with a small flashlight 2 dogs on leashes and open carrying a sidearm. I stood there warning runners. It was pitch black by the time 2 patrol cars showed up. A good hour between critter being hit, me calling, and them coming. Now, why the long story? Because that WAS a threat to folks. In fact, a runner almost ran over the thing as cops were looking at it. It had moved 10 feet in abou 20 minutes (i had walked some distance down to get my pups away). I left after making sure I wasnt needed. So dispatch DOES ask detailed questions and knows what to do. I am a frequent visitor of the highlands. Not a visit to Cherokee park goes by where one cop doesnt eventually drive by. I think I might just introduce myself so they can know who the "6 foot white male in 5.11 pants with a white dog (Great Pyrenees)" is. Guessing the cops there may have had some inclination who I was when they came to greaters since i am the only person I have seen OCing.

Grapeshot said:

Conclusion not supported by evidence/facts of this incident. Broad brush agenda detected.

Click to expand...

Well, I think even you agree that the number of cops who responded was excessive. What's your take on the reason?

There are some facts that support that conclusion ... I think you meant to say that there were enough facts to make a finding that the conclusion was proven (by whatever level you thought was necessary) ; what if the level needed to prove well enough that the conclusion was a "maybe" and not "more likely than not?" -- then the conclusion was shown to have merit by that "maybe" level of confidence.

Or was the conclusion noted a stated hypothesis/conclusion which requires facts to show that it was incorrect (not missing facts that offer support). IANAL but I test hypothesis/conclusions all the time...usually not by the methods used in courts but in science (completely different methods of testing conclusions).

"beyond a reasonable doubt" must have some confidence associated with it? Probability 0.995? etc.
"more likely than not" is .500001 probability?
And postings of conclusions on an interweb forum requirement is ???? Probability of 0.10? Or 0.05? I don't think that there is any probability requirement. One states a conclusion and others can rebut it ... nothing wrong with that. Looking at the rules , there are no guidelines as to the need for any facts to support any conclusions in a post.

Not a cop bashing post ... a gov't imposing their desires upon citizens ... not cops imposing their desires but the local gov't on the whole.

MWAG call .... gov't says "scare him with sending out an army to his location" (basically that's what I see peoples' thoughts as, including me) ... Is this a "broad brush", its based on specific facts and leads to a logical conclusion...so I don't think so.


http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/police/contact-us/911/
Linked by another poster offers MORE evidence that this is the goal of the gov't ... to intimidate citizens into not carrying. You don't see a "call the police" for "people driving a car," 'cause "they maybe car thieves" right?

davidmcbeth -

The sentence/thought to which I object is "The purpose is not to enforce the law but to enforce the government's desires."

That is broad brushing, because neither of us can state with any authority what was the government's motivation is this instance. Therefore it can hardly be extrapolated to a general condition.

Examples do not equate to goals. In fact IMO these force multipliers are the exception rather than the customary response.

I'm still saying it was something the caller said to the police. A simple "man with a gun" would not have called any cops out or if they did it would be a couple cops going in to buy ice cream. At least that's what has happened before when I suspected I had been called on: cops drive by, or are WAY down the street, or I walk into a place and they are going about their business (shopping, etc). I'm thinking LMPD has enough experience and training to handle a person or group OCing, and that the response was in proportion to the call. And if the caller said something like "there's a man with a gun at Greater's on Bardstown Road and he's saying he isn't supposed to have a gun and is acting weird please send help!" then suddenly hangs up, can't really blame police for acting on the side of caution. What was interesting was that as a final check, not the first thing they said, but the last, was "so you didn't call" and "so you're ok with him being here". Maybe I was imagining it, but they seriously looked aggrevated. I felt no animosity towards me from anyone there. when they confirmed that it was about me, it was more like "we could care less about you, someone's wasting our time" kind of looks. like they had better places to be. if that makes any sense. That's one of the main things I noticed as odd, cops usually see me OCing, move on. These guys didn't even make eye contact or look at me more than anyone else. no stares at the gun, nothing but annoyance is what I felt from them. So hence my curiosity as to what the caller actually said.

Now while I wait on said records, the issue of SWATing, some folks here believe it is serious, some don't. In relations specifically to KY (and even more particularly the more liberal metro areas), do you think this will ever be an issue?

poetdante said:

I saw a possum get hit by a car and subsequently go into throws...

Click to expand...

Eggcorn!

"Throes".