I would like for everyone reading this to know about 911 operators . Their job is to collect evidence .
I don't think so. Their job is to obtain enough
information to effect the timely deployment of help--medical emergency personnel, firefighters, other rescuers, and/or police officers, depending upon the nature of the emergency.
They are trained to keep you on the phone and ask you all kinds of questions .
Obviously. How else would they know how many ambulances to send, how to advise police officers or fire fighters where trapped people, or people under attack, may be located, or whether home invaders are inside on the first floor, on the back porch, coming up the stairs, etc., and how those things evolve as the situation unfolds?
When a 911 call is made state the necessities and get off the phone . The operator will tell you to stay on the phone , but , you dont have to . No matter if they order you , demand , beg , plead hang up .
I have yet to hear a convincing argument in support of that advice. For one thing, I would like to hear them tell me when the police are arriving, or if the police need to know it, where I am and what I look like. For another, I would like to be able to tell them timely if a car containing other perps is escaping, and in what direction.
I think I'll stay on the phone.
I was reading and listening to some of the details of the Joe Horn case and I heard the actual 911 call . They told him not to go outside 15 or 16 times and they used it against him in court .
Playing the recording in court does not mean that what a 911 operator told Horn was or could have been "used against him".
By the way, telling him to not go outside was pretty good advice.
People are not in their right mind in a situation like this and even though everybody (meaning the DA, LEO, Judges ) knows this they probably will still try and find a reason to prosecute and convict .
When one commits homicide, he or she is going to be investigated, and if and only if there is sufficient evidence that the otherwise criminal act was justifiable under the law (or completely accidental, and not the result of either negligence or an intentional act) will the authorities not have a reason to prosecute and convict. Of course, they may proceed anyway, and it will then be up to the defendant to produce convincing evidence of justifiability.
In Horn's case, a law enforcement officer who had witnessed the shooting testified that the people he shot had attacked him. Absent that, he would likely have been convicted.
I guess it is for the better , but , years ago things were a lot more simple .
How so? The "castle doctrine" now in effect in many states reduces the burden of proof on the defendant in the event of a home invasion, but the basic laws involving self defense have been in place for centuries.
The illegal aliens in the Horn case were endangering people's lives and financialy hurting people , however , it seems like in a situation like this the law would rather have put them in jail for a few years and turned them loose on the streets to continue criminal enterprise than have them dealt with in a manner that will keep them from doing it again .
Different issue. The state has not given the power to citizens to judge and execute sentence upon people, nor should it, nor will it.
