User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/27/2015 9:41:22 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You say that like getting fired is no big deal. 
Wait, are you a union attorney? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most PDs and SOs, outside of really big ones, have a "you want a cop [deputy], you get a cop [deputy]". Even if it is just a cop showing up to tell you they're not going to do anything. There are a lot of reasons for this. One is that they don't trust their people to decide if a response is necessary or not. Nobody at the line staff level cares if there is a legal obligation to respond. They don't want to get fired for not doing their jobs (responding). Society has decided that police are the first to respond to acute mental health issues. Firemen won't even respond to a 16 year old that 'OD''d on NyQuil until the police go in first to confirm that it is "safe". This is pretty universal across the US. And is not legally required and carries no civil or criminal liability for ignoring it. These are rules put in place by the same miserable gobs from the IACP who show up to stand behind Obama at gun-control rallies, or by elected sheriffs who are spending public money to generate support in the next election. Dispatch: Signal 60 at 1234 Main Street Officer: Not a police matter. I will not respond. Consequences: Discipline, possibly including termination. Nothing else. You say that like getting fired is no big deal.
Wait, are you a union attorney? I have been. However, the point is that there was no legal duty for the cops to enter the [WRONG] house in the first place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2015 10:18:15 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sad, but there really is no one at fault here. Cops are required to respond to those calls, dog was defending its territory from invaders. Very, very unfortunate.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2015 10:30:43 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
hold on, are you saying the cops are pussys comparied to the dog wardens?.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sad, but there really is no one at fault here. Cops are required to respond to those calls, dog was defending its territory from invaders. Very, very unfortunate. Guess who calls local LE to accompany them if they think there'll be a problem with animals or their owners...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2015 10:35:32 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Guess who calls local LE to accompany them if they think there'll be a problem with animals or their owners...... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sad, but there really is no one at fault here. Cops are required to respond to those calls, dog was defending its territory from invaders. Very, very unfortunate. Guess who calls local LE to accompany them if they think there'll be a problem with animals or their owners...... Yuuuuup. If they even show up at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2015 11:24:18 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And is not legally required and carries no civil or criminal liability for ignoring it. These are rules put in place by the same miserable gobs from the IACP who show up to stand behind Obama at gun-control rallies, or by elected sheriffs who are spending public money to generate support in the next election. Dispatch: Signal 60 at 1234 Main Street Officer: Not a police matter. I will not respond. Consequences: Discipline, possibly including termination. Nothing else. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Most PDs and SOs, outside of really big ones, have a "you want a cop [deputy], you get a cop [deputy]". Even if it is just a cop showing up to tell you they're not going to do anything. There are a lot of reasons for this. One is that they don't trust their people to decide if a response is necessary or not. Nobody at the line staff level cares if there is a legal obligation to respond. They don't want to get fired for not doing their jobs (responding). Society has decided that police are the first to respond to acute mental health issues. Firemen won't even respond to a 16 year old that 'OD''d on NyQuil until the police go in first to confirm that it is "safe". This is pretty universal across the US. And is not legally required and carries no civil or criminal liability for ignoring it. These are rules put in place by the same miserable gobs from the IACP who show up to stand behind Obama at gun-control rallies, or by elected sheriffs who are spending public money to generate support in the next election. Dispatch: Signal 60 at 1234 Main Street Officer: Not a police matter. I will not respond. Consequences: Discipline, possibly including termination. Nothing else. Sure. But 'likelihood of termination' is a big factor in how people decide to act. Probably a bigger factor than 'what the law requires of me'. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2015 11:25:12 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The agency creates the response policy. If your agency requires a response to a 911 call complaining that Mrs. Smith's husband is wearing a white jacket after Labor Day, that is 100% on your agency, not on the law. Ditto for suicides. Ditto, in fact, for all calls for service. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most PDs and SOs, outside of really big ones, have a "you want a cop [deputy], you get a cop [deputy]". Even if it is just a cop showing up to tell you they're not going to do anything. There are a lot of reasons for this. One is that they don't trust their people to decide if a response is necessary or not. Nobody at the line staff level cares if there is a legal obligation to respond. They don't want to get fired for not doing their jobs (responding). Society has decided that police are the first to respond to acute mental health issues. Firemen won't even respond to a 16 year old that 'OD''d on NyQuil until the police go in first to confirm that it is "safe". This is pretty universal across the US. Yeah, "you want a cop, you get a cop" is a stupid and wasteful policy. There are lots of reasons. That's the point. If the policy was, "we only send people to calls that actually require police," then nobody would get fired for "not doing their jobs." "Society" hasn't decided anything of the sort. No legislature or court has created these requirements - police departments came up with them all on their own. Believe it or not, a lot of these dumb civil calls need a cop to determine if it is in fact, dumb and civil. I've been sent to many a stupid calls that ends up being something criminal. That is how you figure it out, by having someone actually go and investigate. Came up with it on our own? We aren't the ones calling 911 asking for help. Society is. The agency creates the response policy. If your agency requires a response to a 911 call complaining that Mrs. Smith's husband is wearing a white jacket after Labor Day, that is 100% on your agency, not on the law. Ditto for suicides. Ditto, in fact, for all calls for service. You're right. But the cop responding, and the guy with the dead dog, would say your statement is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2015 11:38:22 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have been. However, the point is that there was no legal duty for the cops to enter the [WRONG] house in the first place. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most PDs and SOs, outside of really big ones, have a "you want a cop [deputy], you get a cop [deputy]". Even if it is just a cop showing up to tell you they're not going to do anything. There are a lot of reasons for this. One is that they don't trust their people to decide if a response is necessary or not. Nobody at the line staff level cares if there is a legal obligation to respond. They don't want to get fired for not doing their jobs (responding). Society has decided that police are the first to respond to acute mental health issues. Firemen won't even respond to a 16 year old that 'OD''d on NyQuil until the police go in first to confirm that it is "safe". This is pretty universal across the US. And is not legally required and carries no civil or criminal liability for ignoring it. These are rules put in place by the same miserable gobs from the IACP who show up to stand behind Obama at gun-control rallies, or by elected sheriffs who are spending public money to generate support in the next election. Dispatch: Signal 60 at 1234 Main Street Officer: Not a police matter. I will not respond. Consequences: Discipline, possibly including termination. Nothing else. You say that like getting fired is no big deal.
Wait, are you a union attorney? I have been. However, the point is that there was no legal duty for the cops to enter the [WRONG] house in the first place. You're talking like the cops knew ahead of time they had the wrong house. You're smarter than that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 10:06:34 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're talking like the cops knew ahead of time they had the wrong house. You're smarter than that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most PDs and SOs, outside of really big ones, have a "you want a cop [deputy], you get a cop [deputy]". Even if it is just a cop showing up to tell you they're not going to do anything. There are a lot of reasons for this. One is that they don't trust their people to decide if a response is necessary or not. Nobody at the line staff level cares if there is a legal obligation to respond. They don't want to get fired for not doing their jobs (responding). Society has decided that police are the first to respond to acute mental health issues. Firemen won't even respond to a 16 year old that 'OD''d on NyQuil until the police go in first to confirm that it is "safe". This is pretty universal across the US. And is not legally required and carries no civil or criminal liability for ignoring it. These are rules put in place by the same miserable gobs from the IACP who show up to stand behind Obama at gun-control rallies, or by elected sheriffs who are spending public money to generate support in the next election. Dispatch: Signal 60 at 1234 Main Street Officer: Not a police matter. I will not respond. Consequences: Discipline, possibly including termination. Nothing else. You say that like getting fired is no big deal.
Wait, are you a union attorney? I have been. However, the point is that there was no legal duty for the cops to enter the [WRONG] house in the first place. You're talking like the cops knew ahead of time they had the wrong house. You're smarter than that. So are the dispatchers completely unaware of the law? I would bet the dispatcher was not 100% certain and had a large amount of doubt, but was hiding behind the shield of the department. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 10:10:47 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm not sure how a suicidal person is a public threat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 10:15:51 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So the police get a call "I'm gonna kill myself gurgle oww" and they're just going to shrug and go get donuts? Where in America is there a town that is going to find that response by the police appropriate? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure how a suicidal person is a public threat. if they want to off themselves....let them. preventing it today only delays it until tomorrow. if their own families do not want to intervene...why have strangers intervene? Not to mention the very basic fact of it was the WRONG ADDRESS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 10:24:30 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Holy shit, ten posts and we're already well into derpyiness! It's a tragedy but NO ONE is to blame here but the suicidal woman who didn't change her billing address (and I guess Animal Control for being a bunch of lazy fucking bureaucrats who don't answer their fucking phones). Cops went to save a woman, they did everything right. Dispatch went with the info at hand, they did everything right. The cops even backed off to call Animal Control before going in. At the most, all the owners are owed is a letter of condolence things worked out the way they did. No. The owners are owed for ANY and ALL damage done to the property. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 12:53:36 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So are the dispatchers completely unaware of the law? I would bet the dispatcher was not 100% certain and had a large amount of doubt, but was hiding behind the shield of the department. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And is not legally required and carries no civil or criminal liability for ignoring it. These are rules put in place by the same miserable gobs from the IACP who show up to stand behind Obama at gun-control rallies, or by elected sheriffs who are spending public money to generate support in the next election. Dispatch: Signal 60 at 1234 Main Street Officer: Not a police matter. I will not respond. Consequences: Discipline, possibly including termination. Nothing else. You say that like getting fired is no big deal.
Wait, are you a union attorney? I have been. However, the point is that there was no legal duty for the cops to enter the [WRONG] house in the first place. You're talking like the cops knew ahead of time they had the wrong house. You're smarter than that. So are the dispatchers completely unaware of the law? I would bet the dispatcher was not 100% certain and had a large amount of doubt, but was hiding behind the shield of the department. What law? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 12:54:53 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So the police get a call "I'm gonna kill myself gurgle oww" and they're just going to shrug and go get donuts? Where in America is there a town that is going to find that response by the police appropriate? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure how a suicidal person is a public threat. Arftown, population: this thread
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 12:58:07 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
if they want to off themselves....let them. preventing it today only delays it until tomorrow. if their own families do not want to intervene...why have strangers intervene? Not to mention the very basic fact of it was the WRONG ADDRESS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure how a suicidal person is a public threat. if they want to off themselves....let them. preventing it today only delays it until tomorrow. if their own families do not want to intervene...why have strangers intervene? Not to mention the very basic fact of it was the WRONG ADDRESS. Not true in my experience. The ones we get calls about when its happening or threatening to happen are the ones that aren't 100% committed to doing it, and the response of family and/or emergency workers usually dictates their survival. The ones that are 100% committed we don't find out about until after the deed. Your third point is irrelevant to your first two. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 12:58:38 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. The owners are owed for ANY and ALL damage done to the property. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Holy shit, ten posts and we're already well into derpyiness! It's a tragedy but NO ONE is to blame here but the suicidal woman who didn't change her billing address (and I guess Animal Control for being a bunch of lazy fucking bureaucrats who don't answer their fucking phones). Cops went to save a woman, they did everything right. Dispatch went with the info at hand, they did everything right. The cops even backed off to call Animal Control before going in. At the most, all the owners are owed is a letter of condolence things worked out the way they did. No. The owners are owed for ANY and ALL damage done to the property. Absolutely. And where I work they'd get a check without argument. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 3:54:20 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What law? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You say that like getting fired is no big deal.
Wait, are you a union attorney? I have been. However, the point is that there was no legal duty for the cops to enter the [WRONG] house in the first place. You're talking like the cops knew ahead of time they had the wrong house. You're smarter than that. So are the dispatchers completely unaware of the law? I would bet the dispatcher was not 100% certain and had a large amount of doubt, but was hiding behind the shield of the department. What law? The law in general. They should be required to know what officers can and cannot do. They shouldn't be lying about a "trace" nor should they convey absolute certainty about an address when its been shown (especially in this thread) about how unreliable pinging a cell phone is. Using a previous billing address is appaling when calling that a "trace". |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 4:36:38 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The law in general. They should be required to know what officers can and cannot do. They shouldn't be lying about a "trace" nor should they convey absolute certainty about an address when its been shown (especially in this thread) about how unreliable pinging a cell phone is. Using a previous billing address is appaling when calling that a "trace". Despite what some here say, in general pings are fairly accurate most of the time We don't KNOW what "trace"they did to come up with the address other than locating the address through billing records There are a couple of dispatchers who post here who could enlighten us on their training. Most of the LE side is OTJ training They're required to maintain EMT-D for when they work the fire consoles There's some sort of fairly short academy that the state runs for dispatchers but I don't know how other states train their people The dispatchers rely on the supervisors at the police agency handling the call to decide what the officers can or cannot do based on available manpower, circumstances of the particular call,and to advise the dispatch center on that sort of issue |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 4:44:34 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The law in general. They should be required to know what officers can and cannot do. They shouldn't be lying about a "trace" nor should they convey absolute certainty about an address when its been shown (especially in this thread) about how unreliable pinging a cell phone is. Using a previous billing address is appaling when calling that a "trace". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have been. However, the point is that there was no legal duty for the cops to enter the [WRONG] house in the first place. You're talking like the cops knew ahead of time they had the wrong house. You're smarter than that. So are the dispatchers completely unaware of the law? I would bet the dispatcher was not 100% certain and had a large amount of doubt, but was hiding behind the shield of the department. What law? The law in general. They should be required to know what officers can and cannot do. They shouldn't be lying about a "trace" nor should they convey absolute certainty about an address when its been shown (especially in this thread) about how unreliable pinging a cell phone is. Using a previous billing address is appaling when calling that a "trace". Why are you trying to get into some nuanced discussion about something you clearly have no real world experience in? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 5:15:28 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you want to keep the job, you probably have to follow the illegal / immoral / unethical orders too. However, if you are a decent person, you shouldn't want a job that makes you do illegal / immoral / unethical things. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think people are confusing law and policy. The problem is that if you don't follow policy you get fired. Its like saying no to your commanding officer who gives you a direct order. As long as the policy/order is not illegal, immoral, or unethical you follow it if you want that job. If you want to keep the job, you probably have to follow the illegal / immoral / unethical orders too. However, if you are a decent person, you shouldn't want a job that makes you do illegal / immoral / unethical things. I thought you were sucking off the guys in Colorado yesterday but today it's back to an immoral job. Looney tunes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 5:27:03 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds about right. And yet, people still give me all kinds of grief in this thread for calling these policies stupid. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Stupid person calls 911 for stupid reason Officer shows up and tells them there is nothing they can do aka "civil issue" Officer leaves Stupid person calls city hall to complain Politician thinks "we should do something" and panders to stupid person (don't want to lose a vote) Politician bitches at Chief Chief and command staff writes more stupid policy Officers follow stupid policy to keep their jobs Sounds about right. And yet, people still give me all kinds of grief in this thread for calling these policies stupid. Quoted:So the police get a call "I'm gonna kill myself gurgle oww" and they're just going to shrug and go get donuts? Where in America is there a town that is going to find that response by the police appropriate? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 8:35:11 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Stupid person calls 911 for stupid reason Officer shows up and tells them there is nothing they can do aka "civil issue" Officer leaves Stupid person calls city hall to complain Politician thinks "we should do something" and panders to stupid person (don't want to lose a vote) Politician bitches at Chief Chief and command staff writes more stupid policy Officers follow stupid policy to keep their jobs Sounds about right. And yet, people still give me all kinds of grief in this thread for calling these policies stupid. Quoted:So the police get a call "I'm gonna kill myself gurgle oww" and they're just going to shrug and go get donuts? Where in America is there a town that is going to find that response by the police appropriate? "In any argument between two lawyers, one of them is 100% wrong" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 12:07:07 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why are you trying to get into some nuanced discussion about something you clearly have no real world experience in? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You're talking like the cops knew ahead of time they had the wrong house. You're smarter than that. So are the dispatchers completely unaware of the law? I would bet the dispatcher was not 100% certain and had a large amount of doubt, but was hiding behind the shield of the department. What law? The law in general. They should be required to know what officers can and cannot do. They shouldn't be lying about a "trace" nor should they convey absolute certainty about an address when its been shown (especially in this thread) about how unreliable pinging a cell phone is. Using a previous billing address is appaling when calling that a "trace". Why are you trying to get into some nuanced discussion about something you clearly have no real world experience in? It's called an internet discussion. There were all kinds of mistakes made, and the department seemed to have made all of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 12:11:06 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's called an internet discussion. There were all kinds of mistakes made, and the department seemed to have made all of them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So are the dispatchers completely unaware of the law? I would bet the dispatcher was not 100% certain and had a large amount of doubt, but was hiding behind the shield of the department. What law? The law in general. They should be required to know what officers can and cannot do. They shouldn't be lying about a "trace" nor should they convey absolute certainty about an address when its been shown (especially in this thread) about how unreliable pinging a cell phone is. Using a previous billing address is appaling when calling that a "trace". Why are you trying to get into some nuanced discussion about something you clearly have no real world experience in? It's called an internet discussion. There were all kinds of mistakes made, and the department seemed to have made all of them. I disagree. The person who called in their own suicide made a mistake by intivitng the man into their life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 3:05:54 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's called an internet discussion. There were all kinds of mistakes made, and the department seemed to have made all of them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So are the dispatchers completely unaware of the law? I would bet the dispatcher was not 100% certain and had a large amount of doubt, but was hiding behind the shield of the department. What law? The law in general. They should be required to know what officers can and cannot do. They shouldn't be lying about a "trace" nor should they convey absolute certainty about an address when its been shown (especially in this thread) about how unreliable pinging a cell phone is. Using a previous billing address is appaling when calling that a "trace". Why are you trying to get into some nuanced discussion about something you clearly have no real world experience in? It's called an internet discussion. There were all kinds of mistakes made, and the department seemed to have made all of them. I know what this is. If you were here asking questions I'd get that. But to waddle into the thread and espouse some vague accusations of wrongdoing while simultaneously show you don't know fuck all about what you're talking about is just... weird. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 3:12:21 AM EDT
[#25]
I'm usually consistent in my comments on unnecessary killing of family pets, but.....
Kind of hard to fault the officers on this one, crappy all around.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 5:13:45 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's called an internet discussion. There were all kinds of mistakes made, and the department seemed to have made all of them. In a true discussion the other side would be open to LE explanations about how things are done and why, and would learn from the exchange and stop making stupid anti-LE comments Since that is rarely the case, it's something other than a true discussion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 12:05:45 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In a true discussion the other side would be open to LE explanations about how things are done and why, and would learn from the exchange and stop making stupid anti-LE comments Since that is rarely the case, it's something other than a true discussion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's called an internet discussion. There were all kinds of mistakes made, and the department seemed to have made all of them. In a true discussion the other side would be open to LE explanations about how things are done and why, and would learn from the exchange and stop making stupid anti-LE comments Since that is rarely the case, it's something other than a true discussion. 
Says the guy who puts on "ignore" anyone and everyone he doesn't agree with. Yeah, you really want a discussion, and are open to anything other than your own extreme opinions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 12:09:03 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're talking like the cops knew ahead of time they had the wrong house. You're smarter than that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
[ I have been. However, the point is that there was no legal duty for the cops to enter the [WRONG] house in the first place. You're talking like the cops knew ahead of time they had the wrong house. You're smarter than that. No, he's saying the cops had no legal duty to enter the house, period. Whether it was the right one or the wrong one. His point - which is EXACTLY the same point I've been making for pages - is that there's no legal duty to respond. To any call, really. Police departments make their own policies requiring themselves to respond. Yes, cops have to follow policy or they get disciplined, but there is no external force making the PDs have that policy in the first place where they respond to EVERY call. You guys keep saying, "well what am I supposed to do, not respond and get fired?" No, again, not the point we're making. We're not talking about YOU as an individual cop. We're talking about the idiotic POLICY that sits above you, requiring you to respond to stupid calls. Stupid policy is stupid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 12:22:55 PM EDT
[#29]
Wasn't the house *technically* the correct house? Just that the previous owner/caller had moved? So sounds like the intel wasn't too wrong.
Unfortunate for everyone involved. I'm sure the cops involved feel horrible as well. I know I would. I've never shot a dog, but have come REALLY close on a few occasions. I almost shot a woman's dog in front of her after her dog who "doesn't bite" grabbed the back of my leg and started to try to rip my leg off. I only hesitated because I was on concrete sort of facing the house and was thinking ricochet in the back of my mind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 12:24:12 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So the police get a call "I'm gonna kill myself gurgle oww" and they're just going to shrug and go get donuts? Where in America is there a town that is going to find that response by the police appropriate? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure how a suicidal person is a public threat. Kind of depends on the call, right? In this case, the lady says she TRIED to hang herself but the phone cord broke. Sounds like she may be injured. Send an ambulance, that would be more useful than a cop (even at the correct address). What is a cop going to do in that scenario? "Yup, sure looks like you tried to kill yourself. Cord broke. Seems you have some ligature marks on your neck, let me call the medics." What about the town nutter who calls every other day with some contrived drama? Do you keep sending cops to indulge the whims of the crazy lady who calls every week? That draws resources away from other, legitimate calls. What happens when Nancy Nutjob, on her 4th call this week, pulls cops to her side of town and there is a real incident elsewhere? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 12:38:50 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Kind of depends on the call, right? In this case, the lady says she TRIED to hang herself but the phone cord broke. Sounds like she may be injured. Send an ambulance, that would be more useful than a cop (even at the correct address). What is a cop going to do in that scenario? "Yup, sure looks like you tried to kill yourself. Cord broke. Seems you have some ligature marks on your neck, let me call the medics." What about the town nutter who calls every other day with some contrived drama? Do you keep sending cops to indulge the whims of the crazy lady who calls every week? That draws resources away from other, legitimate calls. What happens when Nancy Nutjob, on her 4th call this week, pulls cops to her side of town and there is a real incident elsewhere? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure how a suicidal person is a public threat. Kind of depends on the call, right? In this case, the lady says she TRIED to hang herself but the phone cord broke. Sounds like she may be injured. Send an ambulance, that would be more useful than a cop (even at the correct address). What is a cop going to do in that scenario? "Yup, sure looks like you tried to kill yourself. Cord broke. Seems you have some ligature marks on your neck, let me call the medics." What about the town nutter who calls every other day with some contrived drama? Do you keep sending cops to indulge the whims of the crazy lady who calls every week? That draws resources away from other, legitimate calls. What happens when Nancy Nutjob, on her 4th call this week, pulls cops to her side of town and there is a real incident elsewhere? 911 called the lady back and she told them she didn't want or need any help & then she hung up again. "No, ma'am, that isn't how any of this works, you WILL be getting our assistance unless WE decide that we don't want to send it."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 1:47:05 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, he's saying the cops had no legal duty to enter the house, period. Whether it was the right one or the wrong one. His point - which is EXACTLY the same point I've been making for pages - is that there's no legal duty to respond. To any call, really. Police departments make their own policies requiring themselves to respond. Yes, cops have to follow policy or they get disciplined, but there is no external force making the PDs have that policy in the first place where they respond to EVERY call. You guys keep saying, "well what am I supposed to do, not respond and get fired?" No, again, not the point we're making. We're not talking about YOU as an individual cop. We're talking about the idiotic POLICY that sits above you, requiring you to respond to stupid calls. Stupid policy is stupid. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[ I have been. However, the point is that there was no legal duty for the cops to enter the [WRONG] house in the first place. You're talking like the cops knew ahead of time they had the wrong house. You're smarter than that. No, he's saying the cops had no legal duty to enter the house, period. Whether it was the right one or the wrong one. His point - which is EXACTLY the same point I've been making for pages - is that there's no legal duty to respond. To any call, really. Police departments make their own policies requiring themselves to respond. Yes, cops have to follow policy or they get disciplined, but there is no external force making the PDs have that policy in the first place where they respond to EVERY call. You guys keep saying, "well what am I supposed to do, not respond and get fired?" No, again, not the point we're making. We're not talking about YOU as an individual cop. We're talking about the idiotic POLICY that sits above you, requiring you to respond to stupid calls. Stupid policy is stupid. Yea, I know. I discussed how dumb your point is a few pages back. We're going in circles now. There is an ocean of difference between what "the law" requires the government to do and what it actually does. There probably isn't a law stating somebody is going to send the street sweeper past your house every 5th thursday, but here we are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 1:51:02 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Kind of depends on the call, right? In this case, the lady says she TRIED to hang herself but the phone cord broke. Sounds like she may be injured. Send an ambulance, that would be more useful than a cop (even at the correct address). What is a cop going to do in that scenario? "Yup, sure looks like you tried to kill yourself. Cord broke. Seems you have some ligature marks on your neck, let me call the medics." What about the town nutter who calls every other day with some contrived drama? Do you keep sending cops to indulge the whims of the crazy lady who calls every week? That draws resources away from other, legitimate calls. What happens when Nancy Nutjob, on her 4th call this week, pulls cops to her side of town and there is a real incident elsewhere? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure how a suicidal person is a public threat. Kind of depends on the call, right? In this case, the lady says she TRIED to hang herself but the phone cord broke. Sounds like she may be injured. Send an ambulance, that would be more useful than a cop (even at the correct address). What is a cop going to do in that scenario? "Yup, sure looks like you tried to kill yourself. Cord broke. Seems you have some ligature marks on your neck, let me call the medics." What about the town nutter who calls every other day with some contrived drama? Do you keep sending cops to indulge the whims of the crazy lady who calls every week? That draws resources away from other, legitimate calls. What happens when Nancy Nutjob, on her 4th call this week, pulls cops to her side of town and there is a real incident elsewhere? NOWHERE in the civilized United States will a fire department respond in to treat someone who has attempted suicide before the police arrive first and ensure that the fire department will be able to do their job in a safe environment. We've gone over this, you're repeating your silly argument again. The town nutter does get dealt with often, so that her neighbors and community don't have to (any more than necessary). That's how this works in American policing. Its too bad there aren't more threads about trusts and estates for you to show off your intelligence, because these threads just show your ignorance. eta: "legitimate" calls? You mean like people trying to kill themselves?? In your libertarian fantasy we don't respond to those either. I'm not sure what a "legitimate" call is to dbrowne1. I'd guess terrorist attack? Too bad you took away all our 1033 gear lol 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 2:11:38 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about the town nutter who calls every other day with some contrived drama? Do you keep sending cops to indulge the whims of the crazy lady who calls every week? That draws resources away from other, legitimate calls. What happens when Nancy Nutjob, on her 4th call this week, pulls cops to her side of town and there is a real incident elsewhere? We do I have a neighbor who calls 911 just about every day in the middle of the night reporting people banging on her windows, shining lights in her windows etc We've responded to calls, found nothing, and still been in the yard clearing and she'll make a repeat call to 911 reporting the same thing we just found to be unfounded. In the beginning she was accusing a specific family on my street of being the culprits That family recently moved away in part because of her This has been going on since last summer and its taking forever to get her under the care of Adult Protective Services In the meantime, we continue to respond to her calls If there are too many calls for service for the available personnel with jurisdiction, the 911 center starts drawing from the village PDs, college safety divisions, En Con, Park Police, etc If there is absolutely no one available they will triage calls and break officers free from less serious calls to respond to what are rated as more serious calls This can have consequences A few years ago we had a local vets office almost at the county line that was the source of frequent false alarms largely caused by employee error. They would KNOW they'd set the alarm off but wouldn't call 911 to stop the response Then we'd show up and the employees would laugh it off as employee error At the time a police alarm of that sort was treated as an in-progress call, which means we could get pulled off of other calls we were responding to, and eventually that's exactly what happened I was en route to an accident and this alarm came in, and I was re-directed to it Once there I again found out it was being laughed off by staff as employee error I advised staff that they needed to provide additional training to their staff or work with their alarm company to cut down on the number of alarms. They made a complaint to my agency about my comments, saying that it was my job to respond to the alarm regardless of the circumstances |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 2:19:23 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We do I have a neighbor who calls 911 just about every day in the middle of the night reporting people banging on her windows, shining lights in her windows etc We've responded to calls, found nothing, and still been in the yard clearing and she'll make a repeat call to 911 reporting the same thing we just found to be unfounded. In the beginning she was accusing a specific family on my street of being the culprits That family recently moved away in part because of her This has been going on since last summer and its taking forever to get her under the care of Adult Protective Services In the meantime, we continue to respond to her calls If there are too many calls for service for the available personnel with jurisdiction, the 911 center starts drawing from the village PDs, college safety divisions etc If there is absolutely no one available they will triage calls and break officers free from less serious calls to respond to what are rated as more serious calls This can have consequences A few years ago we had a local vets office almost at the county line that was the source of frequent false alarms largely caused by employee error. They would KNOW they'd set the alarm off but wouldn't call 911 to stop the response Then we'd show up and the employees would laugh it off as employee error At the time a police alarm of that sort was treated as an in-progress call, which means we could get pulled off of other calls we were responding to, and eventually that's exactly what happened I was en route to an accident and this alarm came in, and I was re-directed to it Once there I again found out it was being laughed off by staff as employee error I advised staff that they needed to provide additional training to their staff or work with their alarm company to cut down on the number of alarms. They made a complaint to my agency about my comments, saying that it was my job to respond to the alarm regardless of the circumstances Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What about the town nutter who calls every other day with some contrived drama? Do you keep sending cops to indulge the whims of the crazy lady who calls every week? That draws resources away from other, legitimate calls. What happens when Nancy Nutjob, on her 4th call this week, pulls cops to her side of town and there is a real incident elsewhere? We do I have a neighbor who calls 911 just about every day in the middle of the night reporting people banging on her windows, shining lights in her windows etc We've responded to calls, found nothing, and still been in the yard clearing and she'll make a repeat call to 911 reporting the same thing we just found to be unfounded. In the beginning she was accusing a specific family on my street of being the culprits That family recently moved away in part because of her This has been going on since last summer and its taking forever to get her under the care of Adult Protective Services In the meantime, we continue to respond to her calls If there are too many calls for service for the available personnel with jurisdiction, the 911 center starts drawing from the village PDs, college safety divisions etc If there is absolutely no one available they will triage calls and break officers free from less serious calls to respond to what are rated as more serious calls This can have consequences A few years ago we had a local vets office almost at the county line that was the source of frequent false alarms largely caused by employee error. They would KNOW they'd set the alarm off but wouldn't call 911 to stop the response Then we'd show up and the employees would laugh it off as employee error At the time a police alarm of that sort was treated as an in-progress call, which means we could get pulled off of other calls we were responding to, and eventually that's exactly what happened I was en route to an accident and this alarm came in, and I was re-directed to it Once there I again found out it was being laughed off by staff as employee error I advised staff that they needed to provide additional training to their staff or work with their alarm company to cut down on the number of alarms. They made a complaint to my agency about my comments, saying that it was my job to respond to the alarm regardless of the circumstances That's more of your departments fault than the alarm. If we are running call to call and get an alarm at one of those addresses I can push it back at the end of the line. Sometimes we can get a runner on the phone and disregard it all together. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 2:27:26 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's more of your departments fault than the alarm. If we are running call to call and get an alarm at one of those addresses I can push it back at the end of the line. Sometimes we can get a runner on the phone and disregard it all together. Its a central dispatch center for the county and we're all working within the same general dispatch criteria because of it Consolidating fire EMS and multiple police agencies under the same roof was not a good move |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 4:07:42 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In a true discussion the other side would be open to LE explanations about how things are done and why, and would learn from the exchange and stop making stupid anti-LE comments Since that is rarely the case, it's something other than a true discussion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's called an internet discussion. There were all kinds of mistakes made, and the department seemed to have made all of them. In a true discussion the other side would be open to LE explanations about how things are done and why, and would learn from the exchange and stop making stupid anti-LE comments Since that is rarely the case, it's something other than a true discussion. You fail to see the difference between anti-LE and anti-"bad" LE ie corrupt/inept/reckless LE. I don't like Obama, does that make me racist? I asked questions in a few posts in this thread, and most of those went unanswered. Many of you LE on this site take comments personally, and get very butthurt when nonLE question WHY a cop in a different department did something. Newsflash, many on here possess critical thinking skills and are taught to question things. It is many of the LE on this site that are narrowminded and not able to have the discussion. The homeowners didn't make any mistakes. Neither did the dog. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 4:43:09 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You fail to see the difference between anti-LE and anti-"bad" LE ie corrupt/inept/reckless LE. I don't like Obama, does that make me racist? I asked questions in a few posts in this thread, and most of those went unanswered. Many of you LE on this site take comments personally, and get very butthurt when nonLE question WHY a cop in a different department did something. Newsflash, many on here possess critical thinking skills and are taught to question things. It is many of the LE on this site that are narrowminded and not able to have the discussion. The homeowners didn't make any mistakes. Neither did the dog. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's called an internet discussion. There were all kinds of mistakes made, and the department seemed to have made all of them. In a true discussion the other side would be open to LE explanations about how things are done and why, and would learn from the exchange and stop making stupid anti-LE comments Since that is rarely the case, it's something other than a true discussion. You fail to see the difference between anti-LE and anti-"bad" LE ie corrupt/inept/reckless LE. I don't like Obama, does that make me racist? I asked questions in a few posts in this thread, and most of those went unanswered. Many of you LE on this site take comments personally, and get very butthurt when nonLE question WHY a cop in a different department did something. Newsflash, many on here possess critical thinking skills and are taught to question things. It is many of the LE on this site that are narrowminded and not able to have the discussion. The homeowners didn't make any mistakes. Neither did the dog. Lol. None of the cops posting here said they did |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 5:35:00 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
NOWHERE in the civilized United States will a fire department respond in to treat someone who has attempted suicide before the police arrive first and ensure that the fire department will be able to do their job in a safe environment. We've gone over this, you're repeating your silly argument again. The town nutter does get dealt with often, so that her neighbors and community don't have to (any more than necessary). That's how this works in American policing. Its too bad there aren't more threads about trusts and estates for you to show off your intelligence, because these threads just show your ignorance. eta: "legitimate" calls? You mean like people trying to kill themselves?? In your libertarian fantasy we don't respond to those either. I'm not sure what a "legitimate" call is to dbrowne1. I'd guess terrorist attack? Too bad you took away all our 1033 gear lol Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Kind of depends on the call, right? In this case, the lady says she TRIED to hang herself but the phone cord broke. Sounds like she may be injured. Send an ambulance, that would be more useful than a cop (even at the correct address). What is a cop going to do in that scenario? "Yup, sure looks like you tried to kill yourself. Cord broke. Seems you have some ligature marks on your neck, let me call the medics." What about the town nutter who calls every other day with some contrived drama? Do you keep sending cops to indulge the whims of the crazy lady who calls every week? That draws resources away from other, legitimate calls. What happens when Nancy Nutjob, on her 4th call this week, pulls cops to her side of town and there is a real incident elsewhere? NOWHERE in the civilized United States will a fire department respond in to treat someone who has attempted suicide before the police arrive first and ensure that the fire department will be able to do their job in a safe environment. We've gone over this, you're repeating your silly argument again. The town nutter does get dealt with often, so that her neighbors and community don't have to (any more than necessary). That's how this works in American policing. Its too bad there aren't more threads about trusts and estates for you to show off your intelligence, because these threads just show your ignorance. eta: "legitimate" calls? You mean like people trying to kill themselves?? In your libertarian fantasy we don't respond to those either. I'm not sure what a "legitimate" call is to dbrowne1. I'd guess terrorist attack? Too bad you took away all our 1033 gear lol The point is that there are people in this thread, and any number of other threads, who insist that police are REQUIRED to respond and they'll be liable if something happens if they don't respond. They're wrong. I'm going to keep repeating this until it sinks through your thick blue skull. How is someone trying to kill himself a call for the police? I've asked that repeatedly and nobody has actually provided a cogent response. Suicide or attempting it isn't a crime or a public safety issue. It's a mental health issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 5:44:41 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The point is that there are people in this thread, and any number of other threads, who insist that police are REQUIRED to respond and they'll be liable if something happens if they don't respond. They're wrong. I'm going to keep repeating this until it sinks through your thick blue skull. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Kind of depends on the call, right? In this case, the lady says she TRIED to hang herself but the phone cord broke. Sounds like she may be injured. Send an ambulance, that would be more useful than a cop (even at the correct address). What is a cop going to do in that scenario? "Yup, sure looks like you tried to kill yourself. Cord broke. Seems you have some ligature marks on your neck, let me call the medics." What about the town nutter who calls every other day with some contrived drama? Do you keep sending cops to indulge the whims of the crazy lady who calls every week? That draws resources away from other, legitimate calls. What happens when Nancy Nutjob, on her 4th call this week, pulls cops to her side of town and there is a real incident elsewhere? NOWHERE in the civilized United States will a fire department respond in to treat someone who has attempted suicide before the police arrive first and ensure that the fire department will be able to do their job in a safe environment. We've gone over this, you're repeating your silly argument again. The town nutter does get dealt with often, so that her neighbors and community don't have to (any more than necessary). That's how this works in American policing. Its too bad there aren't more threads about trusts and estates for you to show off your intelligence, because these threads just show your ignorance. eta: "legitimate" calls? You mean like people trying to kill themselves?? In your libertarian fantasy we don't respond to those either. I'm not sure what a "legitimate" call is to dbrowne1. I'd guess terrorist attack? Too bad you took away all our 1033 gear lol The point is that there are people in this thread, and any number of other threads, who insist that police are REQUIRED to respond and they'll be liable if something happens if they don't respond. They're wrong. I'm going to keep repeating this until it sinks through your thick blue skull. Unlike what they seem to teach in law school, life does not start and stop in a courtroom. When you are required to respond to calls as a condition of your continued employment, it might as well be a "law" as far as the end users are concerned. Your "point" is academic and irrelevant to how the world works, as I stated pages ago when you kept harping on this. Don't feel bad, I understand this fixation with irrelevant points and scenarios is pretty common to folks with no real world experience on what they're arguing about, and a trademark of your profession. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 5:46:39 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unlike what they seem to teach in law school, life does not start and stop in a courtroom. When you are required to respond to calls as a condition of your continued employment, it might as well be a "law" as far as the end users are concerned. Your "point" is academic and irrelevant to how the world works, as I stated pages ago when you kept harping on this. Don't feel bad, I understand this fixation with irrelevant points and scenarios is pretty common to folks with no real world experience on what they're arguing about, and a trademark of your profession. It's cute with the EMTs of the legal world try to argue with the doctors. You keep thinking this is about what individual cops should do, when the point has nothing to do with them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 5:48:27 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's cute with the EMTs of the legal world try to argue with the doctors. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Unlike what they seem to teach in law school, life does not start and stop in a courtroom. When you are required to respond to calls as a condition of your continued employment, it might as well be a "law" as far as the end users are concerned. Your "point" is academic and irrelevant to how the world works, as I stated pages ago when you kept harping on this. Don't feel bad, I understand this fixation with irrelevant points and scenarios is pretty common to folks with no real world experience on what they're arguing about, and a trademark of your profession. It's cute with the EMTs of the legal world try to argue with the doctors. Lol I'm sorry, were we having a debate about trusts and estates? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 5:49:36 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol I'm sorry, were we having a debate about trusts and estates? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unlike what they seem to teach in law school, life does not start and stop in a courtroom. When you are required to respond to calls as a condition of your continued employment, it might as well be a "law" as far as the end users are concerned. Your "point" is academic and irrelevant to how the world works, as I stated pages ago when you kept harping on this. Don't feel bad, I understand this fixation with irrelevant points and scenarios is pretty common to folks with no real world experience on what they're arguing about, and a trademark of your profession. It's cute with the EMTs of the legal world try to argue with the doctors. Lol I'm sorry, were we having a debate about trusts and estates? Do you think patrolmen write and review your agency's policies? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 5:50:16 PM EDT
[#44]
As to the question you asked in a previous post, here is the law we work under when someone is possibly suicidal:
"(a) When a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, professional person in charge of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, designated members of a mobile crisis team, or professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody for a period of up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention, or placement for evaluation and treatment in a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services. At a minimum, assessment, as defined in Section 5150.4, and evaluation, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 5008, shall be conducted and provided on an ongoing basis. Crisis intervention, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 5008, may be provided concurrently with assessment, evaluation, or any other service." |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 5:51:34 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you think patrolmen write and review your agency's policies? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unlike what they seem to teach in law school, life does not start and stop in a courtroom. When you are required to respond to calls as a condition of your continued employment, it might as well be a "law" as far as the end users are concerned. Your "point" is academic and irrelevant to how the world works, as I stated pages ago when you kept harping on this. Don't feel bad, I understand this fixation with irrelevant points and scenarios is pretty common to folks with no real world experience on what they're arguing about, and a trademark of your profession. It's cute with the EMTs of the legal world try to argue with the doctors. Lol I'm sorry, were we having a debate about trusts and estates? Do you think patrolmen write and review your agency's policies? In my agency yes we do, along with in house counsel |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 5:51:51 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As to the question you asked in a previous post, here is the law we work under when someone is possibly suicidal: "(a) When a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, professional person in charge of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, designated members of a mobile crisis team, or professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody for a period of up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention, or placement for evaluation and treatment in a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services. At a minimum, assessment, as defined in Section 5150.4, and evaluation, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 5008, shall be conducted and provided on an ongoing basis. Crisis intervention, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 5008, may be provided concurrently with assessment, evaluation, or any other service." MAY Also has nothing to do with whether you respond at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 5:53:16 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In my agency yes we do, along with in house counsel Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Do you think patrolmen write and review your agency's policies? In my agency yes we do, along with in house counsel Who I'm sure are just there to advise you on the tax implications, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 5:53:25 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's cute with the EMTs of the legal world try to argue with the doctors. You keep thinking this is about what individual cops should do, when the point has nothing to do with them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Unlike what they seem to teach in law school, life does not start and stop in a courtroom. When you are required to respond to calls as a condition of your continued employment, it might as well be a "law" as far as the end users are concerned. Your "point" is academic and irrelevant to how the world works, as I stated pages ago when you kept harping on this. Don't feel bad, I understand this fixation with irrelevant points and scenarios is pretty common to folks with no real world experience on what they're arguing about, and a trademark of your profession. It's cute with the EMTs of the legal world try to argue with the doctors. You keep thinking this is about what individual cops should do, when the point has nothing to do with them. Know how I know that you know you're wrong? When you respond with bullshit like this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 5:54:37 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Know how I know that you know you're wrong? When you respond with bullshit like this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unlike what they seem to teach in law school, life does not start and stop in a courtroom. When you are required to respond to calls as a condition of your continued employment, it might as well be a "law" as far as the end users are concerned. Your "point" is academic and irrelevant to how the world works, as I stated pages ago when you kept harping on this. Don't feel bad, I understand this fixation with irrelevant points and scenarios is pretty common to folks with no real world experience on what they're arguing about, and a trademark of your profession. It's cute with the EMTs of the legal world try to argue with the doctors. You keep thinking this is about what individual cops should do, when the point has nothing to do with them. Know how I know that you know you're wrong? When you respond with bullshit like this. What is it that I'm "wrong" about? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 5:55:10 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
MAY Also has nothing to do with whether you respond at all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As to the question you asked in a previous post, here is the law we work under when someone is possibly suicidal: "(a) When a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, professional person in charge of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, designated members of a mobile crisis team, or professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody for a period of up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention, or placement for evaluation and treatment in a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services. At a minimum, assessment, as defined in Section 5150.4, and evaluation, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 5008, shall be conducted and provided on an ongoing basis. Crisis intervention, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 5008, may be provided concurrently with assessment, evaluation, or any other service." MAY Also has nothing to do with whether you respond at all. EVERYTHING is a 'may' except for felony domestic violence cases and domestic violence restraining orders. Everything. You think we shouldn't respond to and investigate murders? Since that is a May as well? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
