Re: 911:: Detroit Dispatchers Charged

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/7/2006 3:38:58 PM Central Daylight Time,

ednlyn@... writes:

> but I do not see how incarceration will help

> anyone in this tragedy.

> Lyn

>

ya know, i don't either lyn. They should definately be fired, and never be

able to dispatch again, but jail..no way!. I remember being told that

dispatchers could never go to jail!

jamie in iowa

[Guest guest]

>but I do not see how incarceration will help

> anyone in this tragedy.

No, incarceration would in no way help anyone, and I don't look for it to

happen.

But these dispatchers, if they are guilty, and from what I've found it

certainly looks like the are, did a terrible wrong here. In fact what they

did borders on criminal, that's the reason for the charges. The charges, I'm

sure, are also part of the legal maneuvering in the wrongful death suit.

I see absolutely no problem here with filing Neglect of Duty charges against

these two Dispatchers, and agree with the statement...

" They should not be taking 911 calls. "

In another message:

>I remember being told that

dispatchers could never go to jail!

>I remember being told that

dispatchers could never go to jail!

I don't know know who told you that, but they told you wrong.

Most states have some types of laws that protect civil servants when doing

their duties... But if you do something that is determined to be criminal,

you are just as open to incarceration as anyone else.

Weintraut

----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/358 - Release Date: 6/7/2006

[Guest guest]

but I do not see how incarceration will help

> anyone in this tragedy.

Incarceration isn't meant to " help " people, it's there to punish or protect

people.

I'm not saying these dispatchers should go to jail either BUT it will punish

them IF they are the cause of the death. AND it will protect those that

might have been treated like the 5 year old boy was. It will also make

thousands of dispatchers stand up like we have on this list and realize how

important our profession is and how even on your worst day, people depend on

you.

Again, I'm not saying to slam the door on these folks, they deserve their

day(s) in court and due process. I'm sure lots will be made public that we

may not know now and as was said earlier, sometimes charges like these are

part of legal maneuvers.

Willett

PSTC - Public Safety Training Consultants

www.pstc911.com www.911cares.com

WK: x 102

FAX:

PGR:

E-mail: kevin@...

PO Box 5508 - Redwood City, CA 94063

_____

From: 911console [mailto:911console ] On

Behalf Of Weintraut

Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 9:16 AM

To: 911console

Subject: RE: 911:: Detroit Dispatchers Charged

>but I do not see how incarceration will help

> anyone in this tragedy.

No, incarceration would in no way help anyone, and I don't look for it to

happen.

But these dispatchers, if they are guilty, and from what I've found it

certainly looks like the are, did a terrible wrong here. In fact what they

did borders on criminal, that's the reason for the charges. The charges, I'm

sure, are also part of the legal maneuvering in the wrongful death suit.

I see absolutely no problem here with filing Neglect of Duty charges against

these two Dispatchers, and agree with the statement...

" They should not be taking 911 calls. "

In another message:

>I remember being told that

dispatchers could never go to jail!

>I remember being told that

dispatchers could never go to jail!

I don't know know who told you that, but they told you wrong.

Most states have some types of laws that protect civil servants when doing

their duties... But if you do something that is determined to be criminal,

you are just as open to incarceration as anyone else.

Weintraut

----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/358 - Release Date: 6/7/2006

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

> Again, I'm not saying to slam the door on these folks, they deserve

their

> day(s) in court and due process. I'm sure lots will be made public

that we

> may not know now and as was said earlier, sometimes charges like

these are

> part of legal maneuvers.

>

>

>

>

>

>

I agree, I would really like to hear what they have to say for

themselves! Also where where all the supervisors ?(Dispatch and

Patrol) someone should have caught this. I also believe that I read

somewhere this was a on going problem at this house, not an excuse I

agree, but perhaps that came into play. Of course I would hope this

would bring our profession into the eyes of some to the level of

importance that it deserves, however, I doubt it.

>

>

[Guest guest]

I am in NO WAY defending these women. I think what they did (in my

opinion ONLY) could possibly meet the standard in my state for at the

very least some type of criminally negligent manslaughter.

However, speaking as someone whose agency has been on CNN, I would

like to point out that agencies are really bad to fail to train

people, cut personnel budgets to the bone, and then act surprise when

the doo-doo hits the fan. I have friends who are police officers in

Detroit. Detroit has 3x the population of my county, which is about

half urban and half suburban. Detroit, of course, is mostly (if not

all) urban. My mixed county has 14 county-run ambulances. The city

of Detroit has 9. They are cutting public safety left and

right--layoffs and attrition. Soooo don't be so sure that sending

help would've saved her life. We will never know, and the women

should be punished. But the city officials in Detroit need to be held

accountable for THEIR part as well.

> >

> >

> >

> > Again, I'm not saying to slam the door on these folks, they deserve

> their

> > day(s) in court and due process. I'm sure lots will be made public

> that we

> > may not know now and as was said earlier, sometimes charges like

> these are

> > part of legal maneuvers.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> I agree, I would really like to hear what they have to say for

> themselves! Also where where all the supervisors ?(Dispatch and

> Patrol) someone should have caught this. I also believe that I read

> somewhere this was a on going problem at this house, not an excuse I

> agree, but perhaps that came into play. Of course I would hope this

> would bring our profession into the eyes of some to the level of

> importance that it deserves, however, I doubt it.

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>Soooo don't be so sure that sending

help would've saved her life.

Makes absolutely no difference.

I understand what you say about the situation in Detroit, and it's a sad

state of affairs. I'm sure it holds true in many other metropolitan areas.

Makes no difference.

This was a call to emergency services, that basically was ignored.

The city will also bear their part of the responsibility, when the wrongful

death suit is decided.

Weintraut

----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/359 - Release Date: 6/8/2006

[Guest guest]

I feel for the two dispatchers that got charged. They have become the

response for lack of resources : .....

BUT as in all cases of liability. They failed to do two things... do no

harm and failure to act. True you have the resources to look at.. but if the

dispatcher had put the call in for someone to go.... she would have done her

job and would not be in trouble now... It would have been the city liable for

not having the resources. One of the rules of thumb I always use in teaching

new dispatchers... when in doubt SEND... if they ask for an officer SEND...

this relieves you...

With the dispatcher NOT doing anything about the call... there in lays the

liability. Once she makes the card.. sends it to be dispatched ... it clears

hear.. If the city did not have the resources to respond ... then all fault

would lay upon the city.

Riggs

[Guest guest]

>With the dispatcher NOT doing anything about the call... there in lays the

liability.

Exactly.

When the Dispatcher does nothing, that is Neglect of Duty.

I understand what others are saying about lack of resources, training,

personnel, and have no doubt that some of that figured in this call.

But the bottom line is they received a call for assistance, and did nothing.

That puts the majority of the liability in their lap.

Weintraut

----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/359 - Release Date: 6/8/2006

[Guest guest]

I too Hesitate to judge these personnel. I do beleive that there is a high

probability that they will lose the case and that there was sometype of

negligence. Where I stop is saying it is all on the personnel involved.

I have recently retired from my department, there where many reasons, but one

of those was the lack of intelligent staffing and training of personnel. In

order to address an unaceptable abandon call rate which they knew about for

over 4 years before they took action due to a News Media Release they started

throwing personnel at the problem thinking that was the solution. While more

personnel was part of the solution it certainly wasnlt the whole solution. The

result of thier actions was forcing personnel through the training program at

a pace that did not allow for proper evaluation. In fact, you'd be hard

pressed to see correct accurate training reports of the Call Taker Training at

this point and time, a situation they will more than likely correct through

forgery as soon as they see this.

Training is key to any operation and departments are quick to cut training

from budgets, mine was no different. 911 Grant funds get diverted to pay

salaries instead of provide training as they were meant too.

The main reason you will see, if you can get them to actually tell the truth,

is they feel a " Trained Monkey, can do the job. I have actually heard this

term used several times. You might notice they don't bring thier " Trained

Monkey " butts over to the center to do the job.

Before we judge these personnel overly harsh lets remember this:

911 Call Takers are usually selected in the same manner as office Clerks,

They are Trained like office Clerks and they are paid like office Clerks. But

let something go wrong and the first head that gets put on the block will be

the 911 Call Takers.

I do believe there was negligence involved here but I believe that a large

pportion of that neglligence falls with the City and or Department that hired

and Trained these personnel.

Just My 2 cents, maybe I'm wrong but I doubt it.

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

>I do believe there was negligence involved here but I believe that a large

pportion of that neglligence falls with the City and or Department that

hired and Trained these personnel.<

I have no doubt that the City will bear some responsibility for this

tragedy, there will be a wrongful death suit, and it will be settled, or the

family will win.

And I certainly understand the desire to want to " stand up for some of our

own " , and announce some of the problems that certainly face nearly every

center in this country.

But look at some of the facts here.

These Dispatchers are age 43 and 47, and although I haven't been able to

find their " years of service " , I hardly doubt that they are rookies.

This 5 year old boy called to say his mother had collapsed and needed help.

The dispatcher spoke to him for approximately 43 seconds, the Dispatcher

fails to adhere to the pattern of questioning designed to evaluate a call,

does not treat the call as an emergency.

NO RESPONSE IS SENT... NONE.....

No matter how bad the training, how overwhelmed the staff, no matter the

resources, you simply cannot completely ignore a call for medical

assistance.

And the agency, as a whole, did not.... This Dispatcher did.

I simply can't find any reason to justify this.

The boy calls back hours later, talks to the second Dispatcher for 76

seconds.

Now, I can see this one a LITTLE better.

It's been three hours, same boy, saying same story, poor audio quality on

the call and the screen's probably going to show a " prank " call from that

location earlier.

At least this Dispatcher does SOMETHING. She sends a police car out to

inform the parent that the child is dialing 9-1-1.

And while I agree with most of what Jim's saying, I can't agree that on

this call, that the LARGE part of the negligence falls on the City and

Department that hired and trained these personnel.

Weintraut

----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/360 - Release Date: 6/9/2006

[Guest guest]

At 11:21 AM 6/11/2006, you wrote:

>These Dispatchers are age 43 and 47, and although I haven't been able to

>find their " years of service " ,

>NO RESPONSE IS SENT... NONE.....

>

>

>Weintraut

>

>----------

Nichols - almost 17 yrs, Sutton - almost 6 yrs.

This is the url - listing yrs of service -

http://tinyurl.com/r6dpn

Info from the Detroit Free Press Web site -- search " operators Charged "

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage

Lorraine

MN

[Guest guest]

Based on the information you provided in this one I agree more that there was a

problem. I haven't seen transcripts or heard the recordings. I agree that no

matter the first call taker should ahve sent a call. Our policy, which I know

is violated daily, was to send on these calls as 911 hang-ups or Disturbances

even when we thought it was a prank. Our system allows for tracking prank

callers but the call has to come in many times , the least amount I ever heard

of was 12, before it is added to that list.

If the call taker deviated from established policy or procedural questioning

that was provided then she is megligent and at fault. But again, this assumes

that all departments in all states require the same training which covers the

same techniques. I can't completely judge this situation with incomplete

information and that is still a big piece of the puzzle.

I agree that there will be some reprecussions to the City and Department in

the Law Suits filed.

This type of situation brings question upon us all. We owe tito ourselves

and to the Disaptchers involved and the Department involved to hold off of

passing final judgement until we have accessed to all the recordings or

transcripts of them, recordings are preferred since we would be able to hear

the tone used in the voices, and we know what training requirement there is.

I remember and have a training tape from a 20/20 show from Detroit several

years ago where the Dispatch Commander swore thy had established procedures for

follow on instructions and that all personnel followed them yet out of 20 calls

reviewed during the interview the only follow on procedure followed was " Look

for the Ambulance " . The show was done because of a lawsuit filed by families

of a man who died of a heart attack in whihc it took 45 minutes to Dispatch a

unit and no CPR instruction were given. Would CPR have saved the patients

life? We will never know for sure.

If the decision to NOT dispatch was made simply because it was a child caller

then the hammer needs to fall. I know it sounds coldbut that is the just of

it. We can not judge callers by age, we have to ACTIVELY listen to what is

said.

Weintraut wrote:

>I do believe there was negligence involved here but I believe that a large

pportion of that neglligence falls with the City and or Department that

hired and Trained these personnel.<

I have no doubt that the City will bear some responsibility for this

tragedy, there will be a wrongful death suit, and it will be settled, or the

family will win.

And I certainly understand the desire to want to " stand up for some of our

own " , and announce some of the problems that certainly face nearly every

center in this country.

But look at some of the facts here.

These Dispatchers are age 43 and 47, and although I haven't been able to

find their " years of service " , I hardly doubt that they are rookies.

This 5 year old boy called to say his mother had collapsed and needed help.

The dispatcher spoke to him for approximately 43 seconds, the Dispatcher

fails to adhere to the pattern of questioning designed to evaluate a call,

does not treat the call as an emergency.

NO RESPONSE IS SENT... NONE.....

No matter how bad the training, how overwhelmed the staff, no matter the

resources, you simply cannot completely ignore a call for medical

assistance.

And the agency, as a whole, did not.... This Dispatcher did.

I simply can't find any reason to justify this.

The boy calls back hours later, talks to the second Dispatcher for 76

seconds.

Now, I can see this one a LITTLE better.

It's been three hours, same boy, saying same story, poor audio quality on

the call and the screen's probably going to show a " prank " call from that

location earlier.

At least this Dispatcher does SOMETHING. She sends a police car out to

inform the parent that the child is dialing 9-1-1.

And while I agree with most of what Jim's saying, I can't agree that on

this call, that the LARGE part of the negligence falls on the City and

Department that hired and trained these personnel.

Weintraut

----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/360 - Release Date: 6/9/2006

[Guest guest]

History

The agency I work for has a consolidated PSAP (County EMS, County Fire,

County Sheriff, and one local PD). I have worked for our local Sheriffs Office

in

Southwest Florida for nearly 6 years. When I first started with the agency,

we had no regulated CTO program to train new hires. You basically sat in

with a senior dispatcher, and DOR's (Daily Observation Reports) were done

whenever your trainer felt they needed to be done, daily for some, weekly for

others and never for a few. The agency finally hired on someone who had

previous

dispatch experience in training up north in WA state. This individual has

since become our trianing coordinator and is now in charge of our techical

side as well. This individual has created a training program with check off

lists for intake training, Control training (Fire & EMS), and S.O. training.

DOR's MUST be completed daily, on the day the training takes place, not 5 days

later and not at random. After pushing the agency for some time, he was

finally able to get paid training for the CTO to train new hires, roughly $20 a

day after your 2nd year as a trainer. We work 4 day work weeks and it takes

roughly 8-12 weeks to train someone at our agency on intake and either S.O. or

Control. So the trainer gets just about $1,000 before taxes for training.

I know other agencies do not pay their trainers, but there in lies the

responsibility of someone with the agency stepping up and researching avenues

to

get the money to do so.

I realize that the agency in Detroit is a much larger PSAP then the one I

work for, so I question some other responses that I have read on this posting

forum that states the liability rests in the hands of the call takers

supervisors. Our agency has 3 supervisors on duty per shift and there is still

no

physical way that our supervisors can listen to every call " live " as they come

in. The only way a supervisor, especially one at a large PSAP, would be

alerted to a call from a child, possibly a prank, would be if the one who took

the call stood up and advised his/her supervisor that they just hung up on

child stating something was wrong with their mother. Whether that happened or

not, I don't know. Or, if the responding unit (finally after a call was sent)

asked the supervisor to research the address for previous calls. Once that

is done or the 1st scenario takes place and the supervisor sees there might

have been an issue that just occured, can he or she take the appropriate action

and discipline the intake operator. We cant place any responsibility into

the hands of the supervisor unless the supervisor actually new of the call and

DID NOTHING. If the supervisor was monitoring other calls and unfortunatly

missed this one, but once discovered took action, the supervisor is not at

fault.

Now the agengy according to others on this posting probably needs work from

the ground up including pay, time off work, breaks, additional supervision,

management etc.

Either way, these are dispatchers that apparently work for a PSAP that is

stretched to the limits and has different SOP's then we do, and until its all

said and done, we cannot pass judgement until we know what documentation took

place and what actions the floor supervisors took once they learned of the

incident.

Some thought on the topic of unverified 911's. The agency I work for has

the following policy in general. All calls for service will be answered. All

calls to 911 will received the response of a deputy sheriff including persons

who call 911, stay on the phone (meaning not a hang up) state they

misdialed, call for the time, calling the jail and didn't know what other

number to

dial, etc. even if they verified their information (name, phone number,

address). We also dispatch of course to 911 hang ups. The reasoning behind

sending

a deputy to someone who stays landline and said they called the wrong number

is because, that donesn't always mean " they called the wrong number " as we

all are aware, it could a domestic dispute in progress or worse.

I feel that the first dispatcher probably should have his/her position

terminated or appointment withdrawn from the PSAP she/he works for given the

lack

of belief the call was real (but thats without examining the agency's SOP for

" prank calls " ). If the intake operator followed a " prank call policy " ,

she/he might have a valid defense and the agency might take the lumps on this

one.

The second dispatcher who finally sent the call should not be terminated

(based on what I have read in the media only because he/she did send help in the

form of an officer, but is under the gun for saying on the phone that he/she

was sending an officer to tell the childs parent(s) to make him or her stop

playing on the phone. We don't know what was going through that 2nd

dispatchers mind, maybe he/she followed policy by sending an officer at least,

but

thought the child was playing on the phone)

I feel the floor supervisor should not be held responsibe just because they

have the title " supervisor " . Unless documentation supports the idea that the

supervisor knew of the incident and again " did nothing " .

I think regardless of the criminal case against the one or two dispatchers,

the agency and dispatcher(s) will face a large burden of a civic suit.

On a personal note, regardless of policy, I became a dispatcher to help

others, not to become a secretary or anything else. If anyone calls for help

from a landline phone or a cell phone with WPH2 technology, child or adult they

are getting it from me. If the day comes with I feel I am going to work just

to answer a phone, thats they day I look elsewhere to employment. Like

someone else mentioned " when in doubt, send them out " ...period.

Thanks

A.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/12/2006 4:02:37 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

l1001@... writes:

>These Dispatchers are age 43 and 47, and although I haven't been able to

>find their " years of service " ,

>NO RESPONSE IS SENT... NONE.....

>

>

>Weintraut

>

>----------

Nichols - almost 17 yrs, Sutton - almost 6 yrs.

They should have known better.

Peggy