dl1911 wrote:JustaShooter wrote:I wouldn't be in favor of that - far too many people have no idea it is legal to openly carry a firearm in Ohio.
Easy solution to that is to train the people receiving the calls. Have them ask what the person is doing with the firearm. If they say anything like "nothing" have the person taking the call inform the caller that the open carrying of firearms is legal and to not call back unless they are threatening someone with it.
So the call I took the other night of a man dressed in all black wearing a hoodie at 4am running through the neighborhood I should not have dispatched anyone on? Where's the crime?
Just curious how a person on the phone can interpret what a person on the other end is seeing.
dl1911 wrote: In addition, it educates at least one person.
Not sure when the job of a dispatcher was to educate people on the law when they are not required to even know the law. They are required to take a phone call and send a police officer to investigate. That's pretty much it.
Brian D. wrote:I'd guess that the higher ups to the dispatchers fear the potential for that one incident in which a 'man with a gun' call is received. The dispatcher asks what the man with the gun is doing. The caller states that the person with the gun is doing nothing out of the ordinary. Dispatcher then tells caller there's no reason to send a cop out. Few minutes after the call ends, guy with gun uses it to unlawfully shoot someone.
That's some of it. The bigger part is we simply do not see what is truly happening. I've heard calls dispatched for structure fires that are just fireplaces burning. Should we send just a pumper to verify before sending the entire department? Last Septemberish an eye glass store in Kenwood had a theft occur. The caller gave the description of what happened and it was dispatched as a robbery in progress. The first officer on scene saw the vehicle ahead of him as he was getting ready to pull into the lot and a vehicle pursuit ensued from Kenwood all the way up past Kings Island on I-71. So we have a dispatch for a violent crime that is ranked either an F2 or F3. The suspects were caught after multiple jurisdictions got involved. Once someone could finally make it back to the scene it was discovered that no force or threat of force was used and therefore it was simply an M1 theft.
So where is the wrong? Dispatcher? Caller? I've heard the call, the caller said they were just robbed. Should the call-taker go through all the elements of robbery with the caller to verify it was a robbery?
And for those that say misuse of 911 should be prosecuted for any non-emergency calls. Well, then you will tie the court system up for decades on stupid crimes. 911 takes calls for lockouts, crashes that don't exist, shots fired that are unfounded or fireworks, etc. How do you prosecute a MWAG call and not prosecute other unfounded or non-emergency calls? You simply can't do it without destroying the entire system and burning the public's trust in it.