Quote:
|
So you just want the 911 operator to make the determination as to which calls the police respond to or not?
|
No one is saying that, although that, in fact is their job. So let's say a call comes in from a neighbor of Joe Open Carry:
Caller: I'm calling to report a man with a gun
911: Have there been any shots fired? Are you ok, do you need an ambulance?
Caller: No, but he's got a real gun on his belt, in one of those holster thingys.
911: Is he threatening anyone?
Caller: No, but . . .
911: Do you know this man?
Caller: Yes, he's my neighbor
911: Without placing yourself in any danger, can you see him? Can you see what is he doing right now?
Caller: Yes
911: What is he doing right now?
Caller: He's digging a hole
911: Do you know why he might be digging a hole?
Caller: It looks like he's planting a tree.
Etc., Etc.
Now the operator has a sense of the situation that's a lot more informative than a basic 'man with a gun' call. And the responding officers can approach the situation with an appropriate caution and officer safety protocol without over-reacting and violating the man's civil rights.
This officer lacked knowledge of the law, and/or common sense and/or sufficient training to repspond appropriately to what was obviously (to the Judge) NOT a violation of any existing law. There was most likely a lack of clear department policy on dealing with a situation such as this.
In some departments, cases such as these have resulted in agency memos clarifying department policy, sometimes due to incidents and cases vis-a-vi open carry movement organizations.