People Don't Call 911 Because Their Crocheting's Gone All Wrong
Well, some may, or because they didn't get their pizza on time, but those people are generally prosecuted. Mostly, however, people call 911 because they feel they are in serious and immediate danger. That's what that number is for.
So any officer responding to a 911 call should -- rationally and sensibly -- feel there's a potential for life-threatening danger on the other end. In fact, the same goes for any traffic stop. And cops do feel endangered -- and smart ones know that even a mom in a mini-van could potentially pull a gun.
But now Harris County, Texas sheriff's deputy Brady Pullen is trying to sue a woman because she supposedly "failed to adequately warn 9-1-1 of the dangerous situation he was walking into."
Walter Olson explains at Overlawyered:
Under the "firefighter's rule," which has eroded in some jurisdictions in recent years, emergency rescuers generally cannot sue private parties whose negligence is allegedly to blame for the hazards to which they are responding.
Also, it would seem the 911 operator's job to ask whether things are dangerous and ask for other specifics. Dumb chiseler probably should have sued the city to dig into its deep, taxpayer-funded pockets.
Gee, that will discourage people from calling 911 in a hurry, won't it?
Patrick at August 17, 2013 9:34 AM
No need to call 911.
There's always a Ninja named Todd lurking around.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 17, 2013 11:47 AM
Or he may be suing to forestall the inevitable lawsuit headed his way. Since, according to local news here in Houston, the victim was a sweet loving person who never harmed anyone.
Mike43 at August 17, 2013 12:33 PM
I teach people to be extra cautious around police officers because they are always prepared for the worst case scenario. Reaching down? You could be going for a knife or a gun and the officers will respond as such.
Do you mean that I've been wrong all this time and officers, even on a 911 call, will assume that you are a gentle, law abiding citizen?
Well, excuse me.
Jen at August 17, 2013 12:39 PM
I'm OK with holding 911 callers liable for not warning of a hazard...if we hold policemen personally and strictly liable for damage done in carrying out their duties, including property damage done in home raids.
Any takers?
Brian at August 17, 2013 3:27 PM
"So any officer responding to a 911 call should -- rationally and sensibly -- feel there's a potential for life-threatening danger on the other end. In fact, the same goes for any traffic stop. And cops do feel endangered -- and smart ones know that even a mom in a mini-van could potentially pull a gun."
According to the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 309 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed while making traffic stops between 1979 and 2008.
An estimated 17.7 million persons age 16 or older indicated that their most recent contact with the police in 2008 was as a driver pulled over in a traffic stop. These drivers represented 8.4% of the nation’s 209 million drivers.
So given an average of 10.3 cops killed in a traffic stop each year, the odds of a cop being killed in a traffic stop are 1 in 1.72 million using the 2008 statistic. 21 cops were killed in car crashes in 2012.
It's twice as dangerous for a cop to drive a car on duty than to make a traffic stop, or get hit by a car wile doing a traffic stop.
It's good to be cautious, but bad to assume that every traffic stop needs to be treated as an encounter with the enemy from the cops perspective. The person pulled over in the traffic stop is the one at risk as the cop can easily misinterpret the slightest movement with tragic results.
The police treat "The People" just like the TSA treats the "The People" -- as killers and terrorists. The police, at least, actually catch a bad guy once in a while, which is something the TSA can't say for themselves.
Jay J. Hector at August 17, 2013 4:48 PM
The video didn't load for me so I'm not aware of all the facts (are we ever?). But, it seems to me that this could go in a few different ways:
1) Yes, cops usually will assume that it could be a dangerous situation. And, perhaps, should always act that way.
2) However, if the 911 caller stated that someone needed help and made it sound like it was just a medical emergency; and the caller, in fact, knew it was more of a dangerous situation, then, yes, the caller should be held responsible. Sort of like, "I don't want the cops to shoot my brother; so, I won't tell them he has a gun" when they come to take him away.
3) Lastly, (and the cynic/realist in me is saying this) the drug abuser is dead, maybe this is just an attempt by the police to counter (pre-counter?) a coming lawsuit from the the dead guy's family. And surely, the dead guy's family will find some lawyer willing to put the cops through hell because their "loved one" decided to abuse drugs, become violent, and end up dead by the cops. The lawyer wants money and is willing to do whatever it takes to get them some too! Lastly, we all know that in the eyes of many, everyone else is responsible for the drug abuser's death except the drug abuser.
Charles at August 17, 2013 8:23 PM
Apparently the woman during the 911 call said the man was behaving erratically and she was afraid. Which is why the 911 operator thought a police officer should be sent as well as an ambulance - definite possibility of a violent reaction.
But the attacker seems to have come from the side, or even behind, and among other things broke the officer's nose. Well, stuff happens. But then the guy seems to have tried to get the officer's pistol, but the officer retained it and shot, killing the guy. (Sound familiar? Like a certain case in Florida?)
This sometimes results in the officer and employers being sued: perhaps the officer's idea was "the best defense is a good offense."
John A at August 17, 2013 10:27 PM
Brian, you had me going with your willingness to hold people responsible for not warning of a hazard...then came your follow up.
Totally brilliant, Brian.
Patrick at August 18, 2013 6:25 AM
There is the cop walking up to the car with his hand on the gun while the windows are closed is understandable. Hell, even once you get the "violator" out of the car something can still happen.
But there is now a disconnect between LEO and the everyday civilians. Maybe it is the multitude of laws on the books, the LEO that does anal and vaginal probes on the side of the road, the loss of respect for "authority". I can't give you an answer, but it is a consideration.
Jim P. at August 18, 2013 7:23 AM
If cops cant be held responsible for failing to respond, why should I be held liable for failing to give them an excuse not to respond?
lujlp at August 18, 2013 8:40 AM
luj, they're really unrelated. Warren v. DC established that police are not legally required to protect your person - and that is totally reasonable because, surprise, they can't. Never could. And a suit would bankrupt the town running the PD, depriving everyone of investigative agents.
Now, you LIE to the 911 operator... I'm sure someone has been set up this way. In those cases, when you have a compelling interest in advising the responding agents what the situation is, sure. If you know something deadly and don't tell the cops, how is anyone to tell your purpose wasn't simply to kill police?
Radwaste at August 18, 2013 2:12 PM
Jim P, here'a a study from the Journal of Criminal Justice entitled, "How dangerous are routine police–citizen traffic stops? A research note"
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/jbs/Criminal%20Procedure%20in%20American%20Society/OfficersAssaulted.pdf
"This study was a first attempt to refine the current
understanding of the perceived dangers to police
officers during motor vehicle stops. Rather than simply
tabulating the number of officers killed and
assaulted during traffic encounters, this research examined the danger of this activity in reference to its frequency. Although the ultimate interpretation and legal implication of these findings were left to the Court’s discretion, using these refined measures, some doubt was cast on the United States Supreme Court’s reliance on an assumption of danger during the routine police–citizen traffic encounter."
Jay J. Hector at August 18, 2013 3:35 PM
Leave a comment