I’ve got to agree with Jason. Tactical judgments should be relatively immune from second guessing, other than by internal fact finders and training teams.

The dispatcher’s superiors have a duty to second guess calls like that, and to determine if the operator is following department standards. They also have a duty to review their training, and perhaps make this call the subject of a training seminar. Or not.

It must be acknowledged that it is the Citizen’s responsibility to defend himself. A remote operator on a telephone is a mighty imprecise instrument to determine tactical issues on the ground. You are responsible for your own defense. No one can protect you.

9-1-1 Help in minutes … when seconds count.

In this case the victim called 911 after his neighbor fired a rifle in his direction. He left the scene, first called a friend and then 911. 911 prioritized the call level 2 since it was not immediately in progress (and in context this is a rural area where the firing of a rifle is not a light/sirens type response). Later, the wacko with the rifle chased him out of his garage and then the victim again first called his friend and then 911. Tragically, he was gunned down while on the phone with 911 making plaintiff’s estate exhibit A. Only after the victim’s second call was the call prioritized level 3 with the lights/sirens response.

The old law to dissolve immunity in a case like this was for the 911 dispatcher to make a statement that was false or unfulfilled that a caller relied on to his/her detriment. Here, when the dispatcher said law enforcement was dispatched it was; the dispatcher did not say law enforcement would arrive at any particular time or would be dispatched in any particular manner. And, it was the victim’s sole decision to wait where he did and was not encouraged by the dispatcher.

Sadly, this is one more step in making the State of Washington liable for any harm that may befall the general public. And, it’s important to note that plaintiff’s estate did not sue the man who killed him. He’s notably absent as a party to the lawsuit. So, when the plaintiff’s bar crows about holding wrongdoers accountable and championing the rights of victims, feel free to laugh in their face.

Now, and I’m being serious, all 911 dispatchers can say without incurring liability is, “we acknowledge your call”. When callers ask if an ambulance or police have been dispatched they will hear, “we acknowledge your call”. No truthful, affirmative statement can be given lest the government (read: taxpayers) be liable for death via heart attack, murder, rape or whatever that could have been somehow prevented if the call was dispatched some other way, or prioritized in a manner differently in light of the other calls also currently under consideration.

Do you send the deputy to the domestic violence call or the shooting call; what about the prowling? What about the residential alarm call that turned out to be false (as many are) that you sent the deputy to and not the other call that turned tragically wrong?

Seriously, the 911 dispatch center retains its immunity by telling callers nothing and doing nothing–dispatching no one while they take an extra coffee break–than telling the panicked caller truthful information about what they are doing.

Now excuse me while I go pay my taxes.