DPD's finest response to armed robbery/shots fired

[Craizie]

What charges should they face? I could understand losing a job, but...

[Forever_frost]

Since there is no obligation to serve and protect, none. Fire their ass, or fire the cops for not responding in a timely manner. Where does the blame lie and who is losing their job over the failure?

[jefehbk]

You, like a few others, haven't taken me up on that ride along. What's the matter, scared I might actually help someone???

I will be your huckleberry...doing a ride along would kick ass.

[blownaltered]

If 911 didn't dispatch the call to the officer then how is it the officers fault. I personally would be bitching at the 911 operators not the patrol officers themselves.

[ceyko]

Let's see, there was an armed robbery with shots fired. The dispatcher, if you want to blame them, failed to ascertain what was going on which could have been handled with...questions. That failure led to cops taking an hour and a half to respond to a shooting. If you're not blaming the cops, you blame the dispatcher. Someone has to lose their job on this and should face charges.

So which one? Dispatcher or the cops who didn't show up for an hour and a half?

Dude, so if we generally agree it was on the dispatch side of life - why are you busting the local disliked cop? I'm certainly not going to be his fishing buddy or anything, but why bust his balls when he DOES have a valid point?

After listening to the video, I agree someone's head should roll. Robbery - shooting or not should have police dispatched quickly. However, if it is 100% true that a LEO was not dispatched/notified - they (LEO) can't be held accountable.

The other part is, it could have been a technology failure as well. I too would like to know the truth, but I see a lot of folks taking stabs at cops specifically and in THIS particular case it seems retarded to do so.

Also remember, (it may not be the case with Dallas County though) in some cases 911, police and fire are different budgets, management and overall leadership. Even though cops/fireman sometimes are in the 911 centers it does not mean the 911 centers are run by police/fire personnel.

[Forever_frost]

I was pointing out that even with the call transferred they have no obligation to respond in a timely manner or to protect anything. If you'll read, that was the point of my post. Evidently it was in the cue so should have been responded to quickly for a robbery but what are the odds that while this was going on, you still had DPD sitting on the highway writing tickets for speeding or illegal lane usage?

I am saying that when instances like this happen, there should be penalties that are swift, sure and severe. Dispatcher fucked up? Fired and bared from working as a dispatcher for at least a year. If it was the cops? You know, the ones that drive around with the neat mottos on their cars? Fired and charged with, hell, I don't know. You'd have to change the laws to actually make them accountable for not doing their job.

I posted up Supreme Court cases. He said I was wrong. I'm waiting for proof I am.

[Ted]

DPD sitting on the highway writing tickets for speeding or illegal lane usage?

.

Quick fix. DPD has pretty much given control of the highways to Sheriff's office. Maybe sitting on the main roads writing tickets.

[stevo]

You guys don't have a freaking clue of public service. Why don't you put in an application and give it a try?

Yup, no clue... go ahead and tell us. Tell us about the fact that someone can be getting stabbed or shot right in front of a cop, and he doesn't have to do jack shit. The person is dead, Officer Friendly ~might~ get fired.

I just giggle every time your defense of some deplorable act committed by a cop is "he'll lose his job", like his job somehow is worth more than the lives of people.

Stevo

[exlude]

Let's see, there was an armed robbery with shots fired. The dispatcher, if you want to blame them, failed to ascertain what was going on which could have been handled with...questions. That failure led to cops taking an hour and a half to respond to a shooting. If you're not blaming the cops, you blame the dispatcher. Someone has to lose their job on this and should face charges.

So which one? Dispatcher or the cops who didn't show up for an hour and a half?

It would seem the blame lies with the dispatcher. Which, I would think, supports my point about your argument in the first place. I'm not so convinced someone will face charges. Especially since no further damage appears to have been caused by the lack of response (not saying it's okay).

[HOOCBB]

Let's see, there was an armed robbery with shots fired. The dispatcher, if you want to blame them, failed to ascertain what was going on which could have been handled with...questions. That failure led to cops taking an hour and a half to respond to a shooting. If you're not blaming the cops, you blame the dispatcher. Someone has to lose their job on this and should face charges.

So which one? Dispatcher or the cops who didn't show up for an hour and a half?

What the fuck do you want, Frost? DPD's targeted response time to armed robbery calls is 12 minutes. Are the suspects going to stand around drinking a cup of coffee waiting for the cops to arrive? HELL NO.

Cops CANNOT be everywhere. When a crime takes place, they are there to secure the scene, take statements, and attempt to determine who the suspect is, then go find them.

Why are you on this kick? Yes, 85 minutes is a long time to wait, but given that the dispatcher was working with the audio he/she had LIVE, it's possible that it was noted as a simple robbery, and placed in the queue. Other calls could have come in that were perceived to be more of an emergency (shots fired, murder, etc), which takes priority over some other calls.

Do I have all the facts? Not on your life. I just heard about this situation in the last couple hours. But those of you that are bitching about response time and the failure of DPD's dispatchers need to learn how the system operates.

Especially you, Frost.

[JamisonFRC]

I would LIKE to think that the court's decision was in part to prevent anyone and everyone from suing Department's every time a house was broken into, every time a domestic assault happened, bike was stolen, etc because the Police didn't protect them.

Of course I'm going to catch hell for saying this, but can you imagine if the court said that officers are liable for not protecting and serving? Every officer responding to a simple fight in progress would be held liable if they didn't get there before some one was injured? Lose their job/sued if a house on their beat was broken into. Think about it.

I cannot see officers standing there watching someone get beat to death and say they have no duty to protect. I'm sure Frost will find a news article that disputes that. I see this is the way the majority here want to interpret the ruling and that might be exactly what the court was thinking. I just don't see it that way. But, getting back to the response times...

Every call is prioritized. The priority can even change depending on the information dispatch receives. I have been en route to a burglary call and dispatch will cancel me for a domestic in progress. Sorry, your burglary that happened while you were at work will wait a little while longer.

I can't count the number of times I've heard dispatch broadcast a call with "Units to respond?" Meaning every officer in the city at that moment is on a call. No available officers to send. It happens.

My next shift I'll sit in my car and refuse to respond to calls. Then when my Sergeant asks me what the hell I'm doing, "I'll say Warren v. DC, sir." Apparently this will soon be the easiest job in the world.

[sc281]

I would LIKE to think that the court's decision was in part to prevent anyone and everyone from suing Department's every time a house was broken into, every time a domestic assault happened, bike was stolen, etc because the Police didn't protect them.

Of course I'm going to catch hell for saying this, but can you imagine if the court said that officers are liable for not protecting and serving? Every officer responding to a simple fight in progress would be held liable if they didn't get there before some one was injured? Lose their job/sued if a house on their beat was broken into. Think about it.

I cannot see officers standing there watching someone get beat to death and say they have no duty to protect. I'm sure Frost will find a news article that disputes that. I see this is the way the majority here want to interpret the ruling and that might be exactly what the court was thinking. I just don't see it that way. But, getting back to the response times...

Every call is prioritized. The priority can even change depending on the information dispatch receives. I have been en route to a burglary call and dispatch will cancel me for a domestic in progress. Sorry, your burglary that happened while you were at work will wait a little while longer.

I can't count the number of times I've heard dispatch broadcast a call with "Units to respond?" Meaning every officer in the city at that moment is on a call. No available officers to send. It happens.

My next shift I'll sit in my car and refuse to respond to calls. Then when my Sergeant asks me what the hell I'm doing, "I'll say Warren v. DC, sir." Apparently this will soon be the easiest job in the world.

Which is exactly why we have guns. We should not have to rely on anyone but us to protect ourselves.

But if the gun grabbers want to ban guns and say the police are there to protect us so we don't need them anymore, then they should have this burdensome obligation put onto them, if only to show them how stupid they (the politicians and cop unions) were to want to take our guns away in the first place.

[03trubluGT]

Not irrelevant. YOu have no recourse when this shit happens because police have no obligation to respond to or protect you. That dispatcher has no obligation to send police even when they say they will, police have no obligation to rapidly get to where you are in distress nor to provide help. Do some? Yes. Are you required to by law? No. Can you be held responsible for your fuckups and failures? No.

Tell me that this dispatcher was fired for this. Tell me that the cops in the cases cited were fired and charged.

Damn dude, you really are off the deep end when it comes to authority, aren't you??

[03trubluGT]

Which is exactly why we have guns. We should not have to rely on anyone but us to protect ourselves.

But if the gun grabbers want to ban guns and say the police are there to protect us so we don't need them anymore, then they should have this burdensome obligation put onto them, if only to show them how stupid they (the politicians and cop unions) were to want to take our guns away in the first place.

That will be cold day in Hell...

[Forever_frost]

I would LIKE to think that the court's decision was in part to prevent anyone and everyone from suing Department's every time a house was broken into, every time a domestic assault happened, bike was stolen, etc because the Police didn't protect them.

Of course I'm going to catch hell for saying this, but can you imagine if the court said that officers are liable for not protecting and serving? Every officer responding to a simple fight in progress would be held liable if they didn't get there before some one was injured? Lose their job/sued if a house on their beat was broken into. Think about it.

I cannot see officers standing there watching someone get beat to death and say they have no duty to protect. I'm sure Frost will find a news article that disputes that. I see this is the way the majority here want to interpret the ruling and that might be exactly what the court was thinking. I just don't see it that way. But, getting back to the response times...

Every call is prioritized. The priority can even change depending on the information dispatch receives. I have been en route to a burglary call and dispatch will cancel me for a domestic in progress. Sorry, your burglary that happened while you were at work will wait a little while longer.

I can't count the number of times I've heard dispatch broadcast a call with "Units to respond?" Meaning every officer in the city at that moment is on a call. No available officers to send. It happens.

My next shift I'll sit in my car and refuse to respond to calls. Then when my Sergeant asks me what the hell I'm doing, "I'll say Warren v. DC, sir." Apparently this will soon be the easiest job in the world.

You evidently didn't read the cases or know what they covered. The cases covered were fun things like

1. Dispatcher said police were on their way while someone was kicking in the woman's door. Police never showed and she was raped and killed.

2. Woman took out protection order against her ex. When her ex took her children, she reported it and asked police to do something. Despite the protection order, police said there was nothing they could do. The man cut the kids up in the back of his truck and drove to the police station and opened fire on them.

Want more? None of it was over a bike or a burglary. It was over police expressly not doing their job. You know, the thing that is emblazoned across most squad cars? "To Serve and Protect."