no difference if they're operated the same way.

look. did you read the report itself? even the supervisor in the report said they get prank calls all the time ... almost made it sound like they have a protocol for it. i'm sorry ... but just because its a 911 center doesn't mean that this person is automatically to blame .. i'd first see if this the organization that first needs to take the blame and then the person. because the i'd hate for this person to become the scapegoat and the call center continuing to operate the same way.

....I know. I said in my firts post I agreed with you. I never said that people should lay the blame squarely on her. She did what she was trained to do, as far as we know. It's a culmination of many things, not just the operator and the calling center. Better education could have prevented the need for a prank call protocol. Who knows. All I'm saying i that I don't think ti's even remotely fair to use a credit card calling center as a comparison point to a 911 emergency center...if not only for the types of call each gets, but for the amount. I don't think Visa phone operators have ever had to deal with something as incredible stressful and intense as even a somewhat mild 911 call.

true .. but once again, i'm not talking about the 'type' of call or the 'stress' levels. i'm just talking about protocol. Lets look towards how the call center is run before we make this woman the scapegoat.

We don't get a lot of prank calls to 911, but we do get a crapload of kids calling it out of curiousity and then hanging up the phone and not answering on call back. We respond to every 911 hang up call with no answer on call back (calling 911 displays your address and phone number to the dispatcher) as there are times when it is something legitimate like a domestic... but 75% of the time it is an unsupervised kid playing with the phone.

I don't know about the suing (generally, I hate the whole principle of suing) but otherwise I completely agree with you.

PEACE, Mike.

Yes, but it can go both ways. She sends people over, turns out to be a prank. Meanwhile somewhere else in the city there's someone with a real emergency who doesn't really have time to wait around, but has to because resources are being used up by someone who doesn't really need them.

I bet if you were that second person, or a loved one was you sure would wish this previous prank call would have been ignored. Of course it would never happen but I bet if she had ignored the called, it HAD turned out be a prank...as a direct result of her ignoring the call another life was saved somewhere else she would be singed praises. She wouldn't really deserve it either, she would have made a decision that turned out to be the right one, but she had no way of knowing before. Same here, she made a decision, it was obviously the wrong one, we know that now...but...unless you were in her shoes you have no way of knowing why she did it so judging for it is bad enough, but calling her a bitch...kinda sad. And the same goes for the other story. You have a woman on the phone. She's telling you she was just shot in the head i dont care by who...um...does no one else realize how ridiculous that sounds uless you already know it's true??

It's a news story above all. It's supposed to attract a reader's attention because that's what news story. What a better way to attract attention than this poor little boy who had his mother died because of this operator who just wasn't resposible enough.

And I feel really bad for the kid, I really do. And I agree 100% that the phone call should have been taken seriously, but again it's EASY to know that AFTER THE FACT, and unless you know why she made the decision you really don't have a right to judge her. What the story doesn't tell you, however, is that even if the operator had taken the phone call seriously, somewhere out there wherever this took place, there would still be a little boy who's mom just died.

The huge difference for me being is that there was no indication whatsoever that this was a prank call. She dismissed the caller because he was a young kid. What the hell are we doing teaching our kids to call 911 then, if all of them are just going to be ignored? It's a ridiculous situation to me, that never should have happened, because it was a legitimate phone call. Picking and choosing certain phone calls based on the person's age is right out stupid, because you're going to end up allowing a lot of people to die.

I also think this is a case where it's better to be safe than sorry because if a call is indeed genuine, and you don't send out help, then you are directly affecting a situation and costing someone's life. Arguing that it is better to assume that calls are prank calls in order to free up resources for other "potential" calls is a very assumptuous, risky thing to do, in my opinion. You're ignoring one caller who you wrongfully and for no good reason assume is a prank caller, in favour of a "potential" caller that you haven't even gotten yet, and may never get. Doesn't sound like great logic to me.

PEACE, Mike.

I don't think you can assure that unless you listen to the actual call which what I was trying to say to begin with. We don't know that...we don't know why she made the decision she did, it might have been, and I have a feeling it was, more than just him being a little kid.

Based on the article, which covers some of it, and the actual circumstance (which comes in to play in determining a prank call, no doubt), I think she made a stupid call, and I bet that him being a kid had a lot to do with it. There were no other kids present, no giggling in the background, and the circumstance which the kid brought up (his mother not being able to breathe) was hardly something unbelievable or something you would assume is a fabrication. Also, the woman's composure on the phone was of absolute immaturity. Threatening a kid, who had a legitimate call and explanation? Remarkably stupid, in my opinion.

And then you ignored the rest of my argument, which was the chunk of it. I'll just repeat that I still think your logic about tying up resources for other "potential" calls is very wrong. Refer back to my argument, or else I'd just be typing out the same thing.

PEACE, Mike.

Transcript of the Call:


911 Operator: "911. What's the problem?"

Robert: "My mom has passed out."

911 Operator: "Where's the grownups at?"

Robert: (Inaudible)

911 Operator: "Let me speak to her before I send the police over there."


Robert: (Inaudible)

911 Operator: "I don't care. You shouldn't be playing on the phone. Now put her on the phone before I send the police out there to knock on the door and you gonna be in trouble."

Robert: "Ugh!" (Hangs up.)

Audio of Phone Call

But I already said her decision was definitely wrong. But I'm also trying to say...

1. We don't know why she did it. I still would like to hear audio of the call, a transcript is not always very accurate, the same way I might type something on hear and it might come off as something completely different then if I were saying it to you in person. She did something she shouldn't have done, yes, I agree with that, I have from the very beginning. But I also think the reaction against her is extreme. Maybe she IS a bitch lol I don't know. But I would hope people would bother learning about the circumstances under which events happened before jumping to conclusions on something llike that. And maybe she really did have absolutely NO reason to dismiss it as a prank call...again I don't know that. But what about the tone of voice or whatever it sounded like on the phone. Maybe if you had been in her place you would have had a good reason to believe it was not a serious call. It is not an excuse to dismiss the call altogether, but... Either way the article is not enough for people to see things in black and white, I think. This woman is evil. This poooooor kid.

and

2. People blaming the mother's death on the operator. Ridiculous. As I said chances are no one would have been able to do anything regardless. Should they have tried? Yes, but let's also be realistic.

So we agree? Why are we even arguing? The audio is right above, by the way. And I'm not trying to say she is the devil. I'm trying to reiterate that what she chose to do was a VERY stupid decision. It doesn't mean I think she is a bitch, but she made a huge mistake, in my opinion, and I don't think she should be excused of it just like that. Some people make very stupid decisions. There was a story once where a kid decided to engage in drag racing, and he went way out of control, smashed into another vehicle (which coincidentially happened to be his mother and another person) and immediately KILLED them. No, he's not the spawn of satan, but what he chose to do at that time was an incredibly STUPID decision that was NOT excused.

Anyways, I can't really add anything more to my argument. That's that.

PEACE, Mike.

Dude, she works at 911!!!!!!!!!!!!! Every call should be taken seriously. they shouldn't have the right to determien which calls are pranks until they know they are. Calling about being shot in the head or having your mom lying on the ground dying sounds pretty serious. And if they were pranks then there should be some kind of repurcussions. But each call should be taken without passion or prejudice. She let her passion and her prejudice get in the way and she should taken to task for it.

There is a fundamental flaw with saying she is OK to ignore the call. Aside from the fact that a PERSON DIED,

The boy said someone was hurt. He didn't hang up, he didn't giggle. He said someone is hurt. There is no reason to look over this call at ALL. No excuse. The woman absolutely has to use judgement in selected which calls to send a dispatcher to, and I'm sure she can eliminate countless numbers of calls when people don't respond. However, this is clearly a different situation. She should be held accountable.

Ageed.

I remember when I was little, my friend made a crank 911 call and pretty obvious that it wasn't a serious call. The paramedics still showed up though, just to make sure nothing happened. So yeah, there's no excuse to why the woman could have at least called the house back or sent someone there just to check.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/07/911.d ... index.html

See? This is why I had a problem with launching an attack on just the people attending the call. This wasn't just one person dismissing the boy. These are 2. Instead of going after these 2 women right away and convicting them, I'd rather see who is incharge of this call center and what kind of policies they have running there. For all I know, its this 911 emergency call center thats mandating its operators to screen calls like this.