digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

See the original image at news.yahoo.com —

Police: Slain woman dialed 911; help not sent

news.yahoo.com — MADISON, Wis. - A college student apparently called 911 from her cell phone shortly before she was killed but a dispatcher hung up, failed to call back and never sent police to investigate, authorities said Thursday.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • jontalisman, on 05/03/2008, -13/+265This is outrageous.
    • cashman57, on 05/03/2008, -52/+62This is why the people need to be armed. It is clear that there is no security in a free state when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is infringed.
      • Ajajadude, on 05/03/2008, -20/+28That only works if you get the drop on the would-be burglar, murderer, etc. Do you think real life is like the movies where you can suddenly drop and roll while pulling out a gun and shooting the "bad guy" before he realizes what's going on? If someone catches you by surprise and puts a gun to your face or a knife to your throat YOUR gun won't do anything to help you at that point.
        • CaptainAmerica1, on 05/03/2008, -5/+32It's rare to be totally surprised in your own home...in most situations, the resident becomes aware of something wrong (as this yoiung lady did) and there is enough time to arm and defend yourself while calling for help.
        • gossipninja, on 05/03/2008, -2/+16What you say is mostly true however, if you TRAIN(range and with replicas) you can draw your weapon and neutralize a threat before they can react. Action is always faster then reaction. Cops and military do this all the time, it just takes training and an awareness. Crap look at krav maga, it teaches you how to disarm gun and knife attacks and they teach this to anyone. When my brother took krav training, within his first couple of lessons they showed him this. Now if you are untrained and just some redneck with a pistol, you are probably a bullettrap by the time you draw the gun. That is why almost every conceal and carry instructor encourages you to practice and to look into further training.
        • Ajajadude, on 05/03/2008, -5/+6Both valid points. But, I didn't mean just in your home. Walking down the street, stopped at a light in your car, 3 am and your fast asleep (and Hillary isn't around), and any other time when you have zero chance to react in time.
          All I'm saying is there are plenty of situations where carrying a gun isn't going to do anything for you. And there are plenty of people out there who shouldn't be allowed to carry guns (people like me).
          • Grym11, on 05/03/2008, -2/+8Most of your examples involve awareness. To put it simply, be more aware both of your surroundings and yourself. Most criminals aren't particularly clever and aren't as sneaky as you might think. Follow your instincts. Evolutionarily, you're a natural predator with unconscious awareness of your surroundings and potential threats. If you feel that a situation is ever unsafe, it probably is. React accordingly.

            The one exception to this is when you are asleep. Get a dog. Or, if you have allergies, a security system. Lock your bedroom door. All of these things will give you time to react.
      • specialK16, on 05/03/2008, -26/+6Thank you very much for bringing a very controversial and UNNECESSARY topic to the table.
        • Ostizzle, on 05/03/2008, -2/+14Unnecessary? This is a very necessary topic; one which must be discussed. Rather than sticking their heads in the sand because they're too afraid to accept the possibility that they could be the victim of violence, people need to accept this possibility and prepare themselves. Unfortunately, it seems that tragedy must strike before the sheep pull their heads out of their collective ass.

          Whenever there is a murder what do we hear on the news? "It's just such a surprise. This stuff never happens in Littleton/DeKalb/Blacksburg!"

          I'm not specifically referring to this situation and stating what the victim of this tragedy should or should not have done. I'm merely stating that these are the instances in which people should shift paradigms from one of "It can't happen to me" to one of preparedness.
        • jmpeagle, on 05/03/2008, -1/+12the only thing unnecesary was this woman's death
        • specialK16, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Yes, but you don't seem to get that this wasn't the point of the article. But if you want to discuss then go ahead, I'm not telling you not to.
      • Karna101, on 05/03/2008, -8/+17you are right cashman, having a gun could have saved her life. don't understand why you were dugg down. law abiding citizens having guns is not a bad thing
        • MadOgre, on 05/03/2008, -2/+13Pacifism is a privilege of the protected.
        • SargedeathXmode, on 05/03/2008, -0/+5Unfortunately, the state does not protect us at all times, as was the case with this poor woman. Thus, by your logic, we are not privileged to pacifism.
      • kristoaster, on 05/03/2008, -12/+6Yeah, because the right to bear arms isn't outdated by a few hundred years, obviously it wasn't brought in to defend yourselves incase the Brits invaded.
        • athrasher, on 05/03/2008, -2/+8How is preventing your own government from establishing policies outlawing firearms an action to protect against a British invasion. The right to bear arms is about protection from your own government, not from foreign invaders (that purpose would be served by a militia).
          • ShmoeTheHo, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3From wikipedia... -- "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights declares a well-regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms.""
        • mysql101, on 05/03/2008, -3/+5kristoaster is a prime example of our excellent educational system here in these states united.
          • supermario44, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3so your right to a fair and speedy trail is outdated to then ?
            how about the fact that you even have a voice in the government is now outdated bc ya know we dont have to speak up about how badly the brits treated us......
            go back to government class dude
      • IrvineKinneas50, on 05/03/2008, -9/+5What kind of idiot responds as if their rights are being threatened in response to a negligent responder? Take off the tinfoil hat and save it for the Ron Paul threads.
        • mcquitty, on 05/03/2008, -2/+3You're right. It should be a perfect example of how government action or inaction show lead all people to be concerned about more government intrusion into our lives.

          The government, the same group people are saying are fascists, killers (http://digg.com/politics/The_DC_Madam_was_Murdered ... and inept are also going to save us and give us healthcare? Does anyone see the strange dichotomy in those statements?
      • N0vember, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1I think I already saw such comments on digg.
        And I think you already saw comments describing how other countries that doesn't allow people to be armed are WAY safer than the US.

        But you're right, be the sheep, think like your neighbors, support your "1% of the adult population live in a prison" system. This is probably your utopia, and it is obviously not mine.
        • tony23, on 05/04/2008, -1/+1"other countries that doesn't allow people to be armed are WAY safer than the US."

          Google: Gun control england
    • Duggan360, on 05/03/2008, -10/+21"Captain Obvious awayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy......."
    • Ell3, on 05/03/2008, -32/+3It's "outrageous"? The only thing that's outrageous is your lack of common sense. Do you really expect 911 to send out the police for every blank call they get? Yes, the dispatcher should have called her number back. Do you think that would have saved her?
      • threemagic, on 05/03/2008, -6/+25We will never know. However, when you are in a seat where lives are on the line, I think it's "*****" for someone in that position to ignore protocol.
      • NYPD, on 05/03/2008, -0/+5Yeah, That's their ***** Job. Do you pay your taxes on time? I do, but the cops would be to late at my house. I would blow their damn heads off first then call the cops. I guess they could be late to my house. They would have to come sometime.
      • FloMonster, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Outrageous? In my community, it's called a 9-1-1 hang-up call, and yes a police dispatcher always attempts a callback to verify that the caller is okay. After a 9-1-1 hang-up, a police officer is almost always dispatched to the location to check things out. This is standard policy in most of California, and it should be in most places in the US as well. Even if it's a prank call by kids, a police officer will go out and speak with them and their parents, you can't ever assume that the caller is okay, ever.
    • kpmoore, on 05/03/2008, -15/+31If cops had been dispatched right away, they would have arrived in time to draw a chalk outline around the body and snap some crime scene photos. Yes, the dispatcher screwed up, but the final outcome would have been the same regardless. I think it's unfortunate, but not outrageous.
      • known, on 05/03/2008, -11/+2I think this dispatcher is suffering from ASPD.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASPD

        Is it possible to ask for psychological diagnosis and evaluation of this dispatcher?
        • derek20cali, on 05/03/2008, -1/+10Stick your armchair psychology up your ass.
          • known, on 05/03/2008, -4/+1same to you.
          • NYPD, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Derek your right. Wikipedia has an opinion on everything. They're not always right either. A few people want to control all of us. If all the guns that are registered where taken away only the unregistered guns would still be here. Now that's ***** scary. The way things are going someday there might be a revolution. These people keep grabbing power and the less we can do. That's both party's. I wish a 3rd party could win, but the Dem's and Repub's have some much control we're screwed. These 3 people we have to pick from are at the bottom of the barrel. McCain is really a Dem. Hillary is full of crap. All the Clinton's are. We only know a little about Obama and what we do know is pretty crappy too. All I hear is Hope & Change, but nothing about either of the two words. Hope is a feeling and change can be a very bad thing. The Dem's won in 2006 and said they would fix the gas prices and give us more things. Gas has doubled and the only things we have are higher prices on everything. I can't think of one politician that I trust. I don't trust any of them.
      • nonymous666, on 05/03/2008, -0/+4We don't even know the full details. She looks like a cute girl in the photo. Which means it muight be more than just a murder - the guy might have stayed for a while and had some fun, if you know what I mean. If only the cops had come by.
      • Kerplunk5975, on 05/03/2008, -1/+6Seriously, I live in a town where basically nothing bad ever happens...
        My neighbors 1 year old son was turning purple. The response time?
        45 minutes.
        The kid was fine by then, thank god.
        The only country that getting a pizza delivered is faster than police response times.
    • lydecker, on 05/03/2008, -6/+6This was a dangerous mistake. In this case, however, it is doubtful it would have made a difference.

      At least attention is being brought to it.
    • JakeyG14, on 05/03/2008, -2/+8As negligent as the dispatcher was, it's the piece of ***** who killed the girl that deserves the brunt (if not all) of this hate.
    • klisejo, on 05/03/2008, -7/+19-1 for the gun control folks. If she had been armed, she might have stood a chance.
      • NYPD, on 05/03/2008, -1/+4Right on.
      • unreg, on 05/03/2008, -5/+4How do you know she wasn't armed. Maybe she had a gun but it was located in another room. Or maybe it wasn't loaded.

        Your flatulent arm waving about having a gun and it being the deciding factor is comical. What killed her was an intruder, not the lack of a gun.
        • supermario44, on 05/03/2008, -2/+3have you ever head the rack of a shot gun ? loaded or not its there. and if was breaking into a house and heard that. i'd fastly tip toe my ass out of that house
          • unreg, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2What the ***** does your comment have to do with anything?
    • dropbox, on 05/03/2008, -0/+9The police say the call contained enough evidence to invoke some type of response. Yet the call center says police have put them under stress to establish individual call importance due to past mistakes surrounding malicious or unimportant dispatches. The police counter that claim, cite their inability to respond to every-single-call due to low budget/resources. This whole thing has turned into the blame game, and no one will know what really should have been done until that tape gets leaked.
    • anchorman, on 05/03/2008, -11/+5Statistically, if you bring a gun into your home... you are much more likely to be shot or have one of your friends/family shot by it than an intruder.
      • NYPD, on 05/03/2008, -5/+3That's by Idiots. Drunks, Drugs and Gangs are 95% of that statistic. I guess if you have drugs, drink ( a lot) or your in a gang.

        KEEP THE F**KING GUNS OUT OF YOUR HOUSE!
        Check your facts before you spew them Mr. Rogers.
      • Liability, on 05/03/2008, -4/+4Statistically, 90% of the things you read on the internet are written by morons.
      • CaptainAmerica1, on 05/03/2008, -2/+7Ahhh...the infamous Kellermann study ignorance raises its ugly head.

        It was only a matter of time for this to get mentioned. Kellermann's study has been refuted over and over again -- here's just one site discussing the issues.

        http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html
        • anchorman, on 05/03/2008, -3/+1@CaptainIgnorant1

          It was once said... those who draw the sword, perish by the sword. It's just the way it works... I'm sorry if you don't like the fact. Want to study something? Look up how many American soldiers are killed by weapons made in the good ol' USA.
      • glutamate, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1Listen retard, he was simply making the point that the way thay statistic is derived, the "study" is totally irrelevant to gun control, as the "accidental" house deaths are DELIBERATELY self-inflicted.
        • CaptainAmerica1, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2My my...such language. Come back when you can make a cogent point without name-calling.
    • ICSU, on 05/03/2008, -8/+3I care because she was white and hot.
      • NYPD, on 05/03/2008, -2/+1Read my comment. It's right after yours. And your right about both things. Sad. It makes me want to harm a Crack-head. Any color.
    • NYPD, on 05/03/2008, -3/+4I wonder if the 9-11 operator was Black? If the dead were Black we would know if the operator was not Black, (White).

      I'm Black and think the whole racist thing is getting to be a sick joke.
      Black people are in jail because they do crimes & get caught!
      • pcghost, on 05/03/2008, -1/+3.. and they have a much higher conviction rate, and they tend to be given longer sentences.
    • sjl127, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Flava Flav, 911 is a joke.
  • SecretLove, on 05/03/2008, -24/+9There is no security or quick help available in today's time
    • itsgotyou, on 05/03/2008, -4/+7This is why people need to learn self-defense. Enroll in one of those anti-rape/ mugging courses. Most of them are offered in the local community centers for next to nothing, if not for free.
      • bphicke, on 05/03/2008, -1/+10Guns save lives.
      • mike17032, on 05/03/2008, -1/+12You might as well learn how to quack like a duck, it will have the same chance of saving your life as those joke classes that get people beat the ***** up.

        If you are a god damn pussy, taking a class a few times isnt going to change that. Buy a weapon and learn how to use it.
    • vikingscool, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1Only some are not, some are yes.
  • yayintertubes, on 05/03/2008, -62/+95This kind of neglegence beggars belief. The 911 dispatcher should be sacked and stabbed.
    • whiterice0, on 05/03/2008, -15/+78For the sake of your friends and family, and those of us who read DIgg comments, please go back on your medication.
    • floridiot2, on 05/03/2008, -10/+22I will digg you both up and let someone else decide.
    • heystoopid, on 05/03/2008, -2/+3Charged , railroaded and found guilty of an accessory to felony murder one get fifteen to life after a short public trial , now that is what one expects should happen in the unfair US injustice system at work and play , sweet !
      • mcquitty, on 05/03/2008, -1/+3Ah, but the police can not be held responsible for inaction.


    • cryptoki, on 05/03/2008, -4/+4absurd comments.... next.
    • yuanzhoulu, on 05/03/2008, -1/+0it's not fully investigated yet. if there were already life-threatening emergencies at hand and that's why the call was not returned, i wouldn't sack anyone, it's a lesson to increase capacity.
    • wmcarpenter, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2911 Dispatcher causes some of the fastest job turnarounds in the country. Do you know why? Because it is INCREDIBLY stressful, that much liability shouldn't be placed on one person. You don't know if that girl was seconds, minutes, or hours away from being killed. Perhaps by answering the next call she saved someone else's life.

      Get off your ***** high horse.
  • 1cat, on 05/03/2008, -35/+10I thought police should help and protect? well, hopefully better next time...
    • RuffRidr, on 05/03/2008, -1/+32There is no next time for this woman.
    • DeskFlyer, on 05/03/2008, -8/+4RTFA.
    • goldendome92, on 05/03/2008, -4/+12the polices job is not to protect, but to enforce the law. Wisconsin should have concealed carry.
      • ShiningSquirrel, on 05/03/2008, -1/+5Funny, where I leave the police are there to "Protect and Serve", they even have it painted on their patrol cars on it's on their shoulder patches. I do agree however that this was a failure of the 911 operator and not the police .
    • derek20cali, on 05/03/2008, -0/+6This has nothing to do with the police failing to act, Sparky.
    • TheMidnight, on 05/03/2008, -1/+3I live in Madison, and the police rarely solve crimes or catch suspects here (take a look at their online police reports. The suspects almost always get away). They're too busy writing speeding tickets and any other traffic violation they can think of to rake in money for the People's Republic of Madison Municipality. They'll spend hours on enormous, ten-cruiser speed traps on the Beltline but won't send help to murder victims.
  • jamestroy, on 05/03/2008, -58/+125Not only should this piece of crap operator be fired, but serve a prison sentence for the death of this young girl!
    • CaptainAmerica1, on 05/03/2008, -6/+49Look, I'm a former cop, and also served time as a dispatcher during training (back when officers were rotated through the 911 center). This is extremely tragic...but, there is a fallibility factor associated with human performance in any job -- no one is 100% effective all the time in their jobs. That fall ability may have been a factor in this situation -- I would hope that this didn't happen due to total and willful abdication of job and personal responsibility.

      Given that it was determined to be human error, what crime would you charge the dispatcher with so that they would serve a prison sentence?
      • Tenlow, on 05/03/2008, -5/+8However the actions of the operator in this case could be construed as depraved indifference, and should be treated as a criminal matter until proven otherwise. I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon and say this operator should be shot in the street, but simply saying "***** happens" and sweeping it under the rug seems like a bit of a miscarriage of justice.
        • CaptainAmerica1, on 05/03/2008, -4/+7So that others know what is meant by "depraved indifference":

          "...To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting. " (http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depraved-indiffer ...

          I agree...and, I'm not defending the dispatcher's actions. But, I am saying let's see what comes out in the investigation.
        • AndrewDB, on 05/03/2008, -6/+3Negligence and Assistance to Homicide.
        • smurfsahoy, on 05/03/2008, -1/+4I would say that the depraved indifference charge, as given above, certainly applies here. "I'm being hunted by a murderer!" and you go "meh?" Maybe if the person was at the scene, and afraid for their own life, and didn't ask to be there, it'd make sense. But this person is safely behind a phone line, has nothing better to do, and signed up and is getting PAID to help people.
        • tim04, on 05/03/2008, -2/+1so guilty until proven innocent, good call. Thank god you're not a judge.
          • smurfsahoy, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2"being treated as a criminal matter" does not imply guilt. It just means they should operate under assumption that criminal guilt is possible, and investigate accordingly/hold the operator on bond, etc. awaiting a possible trial. The same way they would treat a suspect for any other criminal event.
      • cryptoki, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2Its should be assumed that some calls are placed when the person is hiding in the closet etc... (type of situation) and cannot answer all the dispatchers questions, without giving themselves away. My guess is she was trying to hide or barricade herself in a bedroom etc. My guess is that she tried to tell the attacker she had the police on the phone and they were on their way. Most criminals would flee i'm assuming in that situation, so this is strange, and having an investigative mind, i would guess that someone planned this ahead of time, and its not just some random robber etc. I hope it is the law that the tape must be revealed. Then and only then can we make the right judgment. If they are trying to cover up the tape, you know they are seriously at fault. If the hard drive that stores the call crashes and the data is lost, you know they were really at fault.
    • alphaterminus, on 05/03/2008, -10/+2If she were white this would not have happened!
      /oh wait
    • Pyroteq, on 05/03/2008, -5/+23Or maybe the guy who ***** killed her should be the one taking the punishment? Just maybe.
      • smurfsahoy, on 05/03/2008, -2/+8No reason why only one person has to be punished... Nor do they have to serve the same sentences.
    • mrsmegz, on 05/03/2008, -1/+20I am a 911/police/fire dispatcher for a county of roughly 250k ppl. Like most centers, we are short staffed and work lots of overtime just to keep the service to the public going 24-7. People get tired, people get burned out, and most of the calls are problems people can solve them self breeding apathy among dispatchers. Not to defend never calling back, but our center has a policy to call back at least twice on all hangups, check open lines for TTY machines (devices for the hearing impaired), and send officers on every land line hangup we get. However newer cell phones have features built in where we can receive the location of your call. We have toyed around w/ it some and it varies from right on top of you to about 300m away. We do not send officers on cell phone calls since over 95pct are not emergencies, or we are listening to a phone in somebody's pocket who held down 9. If there was some sort of distress or somebody calling for help, he would send help as best we could, if the cell phone gave a location, otherwise there is no way for us to find you. So as a tip for everybody, if you have to dial 911, give your location first every time, so if you get cut off, at least we know where to go.
      • cryptoki, on 05/03/2008, -1/+6Thats why we need to hear the tape so we can find out if the person did in fact give the location and what they had to say. Why should something funded with tax dollars by immune from public scrutiny. aka... please let us hear the tape. ( i could see protecting tapes if they were a matter of national security, but no way, in this situation)
    • fucknuggets, on 05/03/2008, -0/+6Warren vs. District of Columbia. the police have no legal obligation to help you
    • N0vember, on 05/03/2008, -1/+0So, in the end, no one will work to protect you, because every single one who dare try will in the end be sentenced for their human errors ?
      Good Idea.

      I'm starting to feel like digg is full of angry jerks who should seriously take a break some times.
  • WriterSD, on 05/03/2008, -4/+24So awful!
  • Korpil, on 05/03/2008, -3/+85There is a lot more to this story than yahoonews knows. I live in Madison and they have had this bit of information out for a while now. Here is the story that ran in the campus newspaper today that may shed a little more light onto this story rather than this mindless idiocy. http://badgerherald.com/news/2008/05/02/police_fai ...
    • WHNA, on 05/03/2008, -2/+30I am curious as to why the department refuses to release the tape.

      Unless they are withholding it from the public by request of the parents of the victim, they need to make it available to the press at the very least, so they can review it to provide an account of what happened on the call. The story points out so many inconsistencies in what they are saying about the circumstances surrounding the call that it all reeks of CYA by the folks at the department.
      • triad203, on 05/04/2008, -1/+1A pending court case or internal investigation are two good reasons NOT to make it public. Another is to avoid a witch-hunt. I still think it will end badly for the dispatcher, but I doubt making it public would benefit anyone involved.
    • joegibes, on 05/03/2008, -2/+3I heard about this on the JJO (Madison radio station) morning show... They had a few people call in and talk about it, one of whom is a 911 operator (but not from Madison). She said that it MAY have been an equipment error, but most likely the operator misread the number that was on her screen.
      • WhereAmI, on 05/03/2008, -2/+2JJO kicks ass. Doesn't come in down here in Milwaukee past hwy 100 though.
    • catalysis, on 05/03/2008, -4/+2What exactly is the "mindless idiocy" in the article you are talking about? I'm from Madison too and this is just another in a long line of ***** that has resulted in 3 consecutive unsolved murders here. Almost every city has a procedure to call back on 911 hangups and send a cop out if they don't respond. It's common sense because you can't just chat awayt on the phone while you are being victimized in a crime. Don't fall for the crap the Madison cops are trying to pull on yet ANOTHER murder to cover for their incompetence.

      BTW WHNA, the Madison police won't release the tapes because they never release any information on murders to the public. All murders that happen here are totally blacked-out from public scrutiny.
      • TehROFFLES, on 05/03/2008, -4/+1Why don't you become a cop to teach those in-ept cops a lesson?
      • amynguyen93, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1I think he might have been criticizing the way the article was wrote, so that's why he posted a link to a different article of the story. That's how I read it, at least.
      • Korpil, on 05/03/2008, -1/+0That is how I posted it. And I apologize for catalysis for being so against the madison police. Our anti-everything hippie population seems to love making an unfortunate incident into a drawn out protest.
    • cryptoki, on 05/03/2008, -2/+2I have an idea!!!! Lets find her cell phone records... cell phone companies keep a log of how long a call was connected (usually up to seconds in accuracy) that way we can most likely prove beyond a reasonable doubt, if it was a hang up call or not. Conspiracy theories aside.... Is it beyond the scope to reason, to believe a call could be altered, or the public just told it was a hang up call? This just reminds me of how "the cameras were not functioning" at a particular time in many big cases over the last few years (a few of you might know what im referring to). Cameras always seem to break when they count the most.
    • rkthoadan, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3Based on that article it seems the real problem may be that the 911 center is understaffed. The Operator definitely should have called back, but it appears they took 2 calls immediately after the call in question, and after those 2 calls just forgot about the initial call. It doesn't say how long those 2 calls were, but if they were of any significant length then I can understand forgetting the initial call. It doesn't excuse what happened but I believe it suggests that additional staffing are a better solution than stricter policies.

      The operator should probable receive whatever is the standard disciplinary action for this failure to follow policy.
  • DeskFlyer, on 05/03/2008, -17/+177This story has been dominating the news radio airwaves here in Milwaukee. I listened to the press conference and it does indeed sound like it was a colossal screw up on the dispatcher's part. But before everyone starts calling for the hanging of the operator, keep in mind that 911 dispatchers receive tons of misdials a day and they are under a lot of pressure to get the resources they have available to them to the people who need them the most. Obviously, Zimmerman was one of these people and the dispatcher failed to call back the number as required by policy, but everyone makes mistakes. We're all human.

    This dispatcher, as negligent as they were, did not do this on purpose. I'm not saying that this should be swept under the rug; an investigation is most definitely on order, but just think how bad this person feels right now. It's just a sad, unfortunate situation all around and they can't do anything other than take the proper steps to ensure it doesn't happen again in the future (probably by punishing and/or firing the operator and emphasizing training in this particular area). Bury me if you want, but I not only feel bad for the Zimmermans, but for the dispatcher as well.
    • sockpuppets, on 05/03/2008, -19/+7If I were a 911 operator it would seem pretty obvious to me to call someone back. You're better suited to work the fry-a-lator at McDonalds if you can't comprehend the importance of a policy like that.
      • supras, on 05/03/2008, -4/+5If you had to handle several hundred calls a day it becomes much harder.
        • uhhNo, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2If you were a doctor, would you just send someone home if they came in because their stomach hurts? It probably would be nothing, since humans have so many stomach problems these days, but nevertheless, you would still investigate the problem just to make sure nothing is seriously wrong.
        • Wetzilla, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1That's not a fair analogy at all. From the local article someone posted it appears that she called and immediately hung up. That would be like someone walking into a busy emergency room, turning around a leaving, and a doctor not running out to try and find the person to see if anything was wrong.
      • CaptainAmerica1, on 05/03/2008, -3/+4sock, how about you signing on as a dispatcher and see how you can handle the pressure. Let us know how it goes.
    • AriaStar, on 05/03/2008, -17/+15If you make a mistake in judgment and cause a car accident and a kid in another car dies, you go to jail for manslaughter. It was an accident, but you're still responsible.
      • threemagic, on 05/03/2008, -5/+13How is she responsible? She didn't stab her... let's get back to reality, shall we?
        • pendrachken, on 05/03/2008, -3/+6same way as any other accident. INVOLUNTARY manslaughter, you did not mean it but one ( or more ) of your actions caused someone to lose their life.

          Not saying this should necessarily be brought up in this particular case, but should be POSSIBLE to charge the operator with this.
      • MewTwo, on 05/03/2008, -3/+9That's not a good analogy. The dispatcher didn't cause her death.
        I think a better analogy with the same sort of idea as yours is...
        So if a guy leaves a party, some people know he's had a couple of drinks but don't try to stop him, he kills a kid on the way home... sure the people at the party kind of suck, but are they responsible? No.
      • GeckoSlayer, on 05/03/2008, -0/+4well, i'll charge you with manslaughter for not being there stopping the murder, then.
    • WHNA, on 05/03/2008, -12/+11Yeah everyone makes mistakes, but not everyone has a job where those mistakes can cost others their lives.

      I have seen more than enough instances of unprofessional, outright hostile 911 operators treating callers like ***** to feel bad for this jackass who didn't call back. I think there is more to this story, especially considering they won't release the tape.

      Welcome to the age we live in, where no one can take full responsibility for their actions.
    • SillyDigger, on 05/03/2008, -3/+8These "mistakes" have been happening too many times.

      Americans depend on and trust the 911 system with their lives, If we continue to make excuses for and tolerate the abhorrent behavior of some 911 operators whats the point of having a 911 system in the first place?

      • doubledmateo, on 05/03/2008, -1/+3Not to say that a mistake like this isn't a horrible thing, but I'm sure there are thousands that are saved daily by 911 operators.
      • TripcodeMel, on 05/03/2008, -1/+4These "mistakes" happen no more often than they do in the past. You just happen to hear about more of them with modern media. It doesn't matter that crime is down, when more crimes are documented and reported on.
    • headzoo, on 05/03/2008, -2/+4I'll accept that people make mistakes. I just don't want to find out that it was near the end of the operator's shift, and it had been a long day, and figured calling back was more trouble than it's worth.
      • MewTwo, on 05/03/2008, -0/+5Well, if you read the article linked by the previous commenter, it says the operator got two other calls directly after receiving this one, and did not call back right away (as stated in the policy). So I mean... you never know, maybe this one operator had too much responsibility. What if somebody else died because they couldn't get through while she was calling back? Either way, it was definitely a broken system over there.
    • catalysis, on 05/03/2008, -2/+5Keep in mind that the standard procedure is to call back and send a cop out if nobody answers. You can't expect a crime victim to stay on the phone and talk as they are being attacked. It doesn't matter how many hangups they get.
    • Kamatz, on 05/03/2008, -2/+5"Everyone makes mistakes......but we still have to pay the consequence."
      People tend to forget that last part.
      • Wetzilla, on 05/03/2008, -1/+4And you don't think this person living with the knowledge that her actions indirectly lead to someones death is a bad enough consequence?
    • cryptoki, on 05/03/2008, -4/+2Better to call the police direct, than call 911... Police departments have dispatch numbers too... except theiy are 7 digits and not 3 (of course). I've called the cop shop direct a few times, and they were right there within a few minutes. I rest my case.
    • mcm020, on 05/03/2008, -3/+4I think the most logical explanation is that the dispatcher gets a lot of hangs up calls. And as the OP said, she wants to allocate her resources most efficiently, she breaks policy and does not return the call, instead taking two other calls she thought to be actual emergencies.
    • Scr4tchFury, on 05/03/2008, -0/+4When I was living in Charleston, SC, I called 911 a few times by accident because of the scroll wheel on my Blackberry, and I was called back every single time even though I wasn't connected more than a second. I was even in line to pay a cable bill, and they had a VoIP phone on display and a kid dialed 911 and hung up. No one answered the return call and there was a police officer there within minutes. So some places have it right, but who knows if they have better tools or whatnot.
      • shootsfired, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1I use to call 911 (by accident) a lot with my Treo 650, when its locked it's easy to hit the 'make emergency call' button right next to the OK button. It doesn't ask "are you sure" it just dials 911. They usually ended up calling me back 85 percent of the time. I had to disable the lock feature because of poor programming.
    • withears, on 05/03/2008, -3/+1The dispatcher needs to be fired. He/she has proven they cannot do the job - don't give him/her another chance to screw up and have someone else lose their life as well.
  • glock22ownr, on 05/03/2008, -26/+19I've said it once, and I'll say it again. The only thing police are good for is filing reports and investigating the crime! Your defense is your own responsibility as sad as that is... What happened to this girl is a shame! ( No I'm not saying anything bad about officers, just the whole system )
    • AriaStar, on 05/03/2008, -14/+7You are not seriously blaming the victim, are you?

      No.

      No, you can't be that stupid.
      • AdmiralKarelia, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1He's not saying that it's the victim's own fault they were killed, rather that it's NOT the police's fault that she didn't have defense. As soon as you start putting your defense solely in the hands of the police, you're good as dead. When it comes to a shootout, sure, let the cops handle it. But when it comes to a one-on-one assault, you should really be prepared with the ability to defend yourself. You've got a lot better chance when fighting than you do trying to run away and escape.
  • PolishLogic, on 05/03/2008, -13/+26So people make mistakes and sometimes those mistakes have tragic consequences? You don't say....
    • AriaStar, on 05/03/2008, -9/+18A mistake is something unintentional. The dispatcher was outright negligent. The dispatcher knew what to do, but didn't do it, and someone died.
      • CaptainAmerica1, on 05/03/2008, -5/+6I don't think it's been conclusively determined that the dispatcher was willfully negligent. If it has, please let me know the link. Thanks.
        • crossmr, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1The cops think there was enough evidence in the tape to send them, and the dispatcher didn't...
          let me show you how to draw a line from point A to point B..
      • doubledmateo, on 05/03/2008, -3/+5I read a one page article and now I can unequivocally say that dispatcher is a horrible, evil person, and should be burned at the stake. Talk about critical thinking!
  • brettsontfarrey, on 05/03/2008, -28/+4The director and dispatcher should both be stabbed and beaten.
    • whiterice0, on 05/03/2008, -3/+20These are the types of comments that result when 13-year-old malcontents are allowed Internet access.
      • fkr3, on 05/03/2008, -0/+5Correct. Any adult can see the murderer deserves the stabbing, everyone else should be let off with a beating.
        • pendrachken, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1I think you meant the murderer needs the castration, tongue and finger removal then be tossed into a pit of rabid pornstars.
    • hansk, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3/facepalm
    • dagnome1984, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2This is not Iran, brettsontfarrey. I don't want shariah law thank you very much.
  • flossdaily, on 05/03/2008, -5/+25Wait for the tape to be released before you make up your minds.
    • mikeyellenlee, on 05/03/2008, -11/+1***** you you stupid bitch, like they're gonna release it to the general public. it's a ***** STRICT POLICY that if someone even just calls and hangs up then you call them the ***** back !!!! SHOVE IT UP YOUR DIRTY FILTHY *****
    • theviceroy, on 05/03/2008, -1/+3well you can wait till you die then, cause its not going to get released...
  • lhbaker, on 05/03/2008, -4/+134A few years ago, My 1-year old son dialed 911 at random, and the phone was on speaker. When I heard the dispatcher say "Jefferson County Sheriff, what is your emergency?" I snatched the phone and told them my toddler had dialed them. Fifteen minutes later, there was a knock on my door. It was a cop, and his gun was unholstered. It sounds like Madison, WI needs a similar policy.
    • richmessenger, on 05/03/2008, -23/+7Fifteen minutes? That is not good reaction time considering how little time it takes for a crime to be committed.
      • tehbored, on 05/03/2008, -3/+14Well location is a factor, and fifteen minutes is still reasonable.
      • tnoy, on 05/03/2008, -1/+14Exactly, every person in the country lives within 2-3 minutes from a police station...

        *cough*
      • dagnome1984, on 05/03/2008, -3/+13This is why the police end up being the clean up crew. If you want real protection it's best to arm yourself.
        • natastna2, on 05/03/2008, -1/+5Which is a great idea. To have a gun around the house with a 1 year old toddler.
        • david468, on 05/03/2008, -2/+3Yes, because you must keep it loaded and within the reach of a 1 year old at all times. Don't be stupid.
          • TeraRealm256, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2Exactly! Can I say "gun cabinet"? Hmm...yes...I can! Oh, also mounted high where a tolder(even if he/she obtained a key)coudn't reach. Yes, use common sense people.
          • dancercotillion, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2If someone has broken into my home, I will not want to have to find my key, run to my gun cabinet, unlock it, and grab the gun inside. That gets people killed, TeraRealm.
        • TeraRealm256, on 05/03/2008, -2/+1:werd:
      • TeraRealm256, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1It would be impossible to provide those resources realistically. There are A LOT of false calls. Epic fail!
    • funktimus, on 05/03/2008, -4/+31Thing is, her call was made from a cell-phone, and apparently the technology isn't there yet to effectively dispatch to a "cell location."
      http://www.dailycardinal.com/article/2973 - this article is better in general. It's from Madison and isn't nearly as biased and sensationalized.
      • BGog, on 05/03/2008, -1/+16Actually the tech is there. It is called the E911 system and there are FCC rules requiring that phones and towers can provide enought information for a rough location.
        • CaptainAmerica1, on 05/03/2008, -0/+8There are still some parts of the US where that hasn't been fully implemented. One should not automatically assume that when 911 is dialed, the call goes to the closest law enforcement dispatch center.
          • lhbaker, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1I'm pretty sure all 911 calls from a cell phone go to the State Patrol.
        • nonstop87, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3Trust me. Madison is covered. I hit a deer and they pinpointed me on Mineral Point Road using my cell.
      • positron, on 05/03/2008, -1/+5Yeah. It's not like GPS is mandatory in modern cell phones for the purpose of 911 response and can still be activated by law enforcement even when disabled for daily use.
        • dagnome1984, on 05/03/2008, -3/+1You need a court order for that. Plus that is not a function that is normally available to the PD, but rather the FBI.
      • triskele, on 05/03/2008, -0/+4Actually the technology IS there and has been for some time.
      • Mike89, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Read comments above from other 911 Dispatchers. It exists, but can vary by 300 metres.. so you can't just send a cop to 'roughly there'.. That's a lot of area to cover.
    • supremebeing18, on 05/03/2008, -2/+11They do, I was in Madison a few years ago and my little brother dialed 911 on a pay phone and they showed up within a few minutes.
    • 0011002, on 05/03/2008, -0/+6My now son when he was about 2 did something similar but i hung up the phone not know someone was at the other end. A few moments later a call came threw with the ID showing our county. I was surprised but they accepted my all's well and there was no cop following up after but I should also note we where in a bad neighborhood here in PA.
      • 0011002, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3humm proof reading might have helped should be "my now 3 year old son"
      • picpak, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3You don't even wanna know what my then son did.
    • joegibes, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3I live in Janesville (south of Madison) and cops DO show up when you dial 911.
    • cryptoki, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1This happens all the time, if you call them by accident and tell them, theyll send someone out sometimes. Ive noticed these types of stories are becoming more common lately and i dont know why
      • lhbaker, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1After Columbine, the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department pretty reliably covers their asses.
    • Zephik, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Well the dispatcher doesn't know that it was really your son who dialed 911 or if someone has a gun to your head and is telling you that. Thank god it wasn't the ladder huh?

      As for the gun being unholstered? Meh, some cops are just pussies like that. They'll unholster their weapon "just to be safe", as they don't know the situation any better than the dispatcher did/does.

      But, lets just say that you were in danger, well then thank god an officer was sent over to investigate and even more thanks to god that he had his gun out and ready (although its really not that necessary, they can draw them out pretty fast).

      People would complain and understand things a hell of a lot more if they would/could imagine themselves in another persons shoes. Just my opinion of course.
      • Zephik, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Ignore that last post. I'm pretty sure I just had a brain fart and thus misinterpreted your post.

        *sigh*

        I hate having brain farts...
  • Rotzooi, on 05/03/2008, -19/+70It's Hillary's fault.
    • 0011002, on 05/03/2008, -1/+15well she can't answer all those calls at 3am
  • matthewdestroys, on 05/03/2008, -15/+3The whole story seems sketchy.
  • jjive, on 05/03/2008, -57/+8She probably dialed 411.
    The human gene pool just got stronger.
    • hansk, on 05/03/2008, -0/+25after reading what you are thinking, I'm thinking the human gene pool needs more chlorine.
      • RgyaGramShad, on 08/28/2008, -0/+6"the gene pool is stagnant, and i am the minister of chlorine"
    • albaghly, on 05/03/2008, -0/+11the human gene pool just got stronger? you ***** moron, im a student here at UW-Madison and see absolutely no humor in that. She was a junior at a very highly ranked university, id put my money on her genes being far more superior to yours. idiot.
  • UltramegaOK, on 05/03/2008, -37/+12Since she's attractive people will Digg the story and the mainstream media will continue giving it attention. It reminds me of the "missing white girl syndrome" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_s ...

    If she was ugly or a minority people wouldn't give a *****.

    Of course it is a tragedy, but the media bias is blatant.
    • Duggan360, on 05/03/2008, -1/+17Oooo that means if you go missing no one will care =)
    • hansk, on 05/03/2008, -1/+5you are wrong. she is a human being, and i would expect most diggers to empathize with that. the outrageousness is not that a white attractive girl was killed, it is that the 911 dispatcher did not do their job. There is a duty of care the dispatcher has towards the public, and he/she failed to do so. I hope the dispatcher is slapped with criminal negligence.
      now to play devil's advocate = how many prank or false 911 calls are there compared to real ones? Plus, isn't it hard to pinpoint the location of a cell phone? Would the dispatcher not have the relevant information available to send help?
    • 3zero3, on 05/03/2008, -4/+4Duggan's an outright douche, and hansk is delusional. You're absolutely right, this is MWWS. It's an awful tragedy without a doubt, but you're spot on with the bias. People don't have any idea how common this is in depressed socioeconomic areas. There was a horrendous murder in an affluent white area by two men who were out on parole for their second offense. Only then did the airwaves flow with talk about "what we need to do about the three strikes law to make it tougher."
  • Shawshanksr, on 05/03/2008, -26/+3this is just disgusting... again these kind of things seem to be concentrated in america. whats wrong with you people?
    • sockpuppets, on 05/03/2008, -0/+16Yes all 300 million of us are in on it. Your super smart irish brain figured it out again!
      • itsgotyou, on 05/03/2008, -0/+6Why did you have to confirm his conjectures? Now everybody knows.
    • hansk, on 05/03/2008, -0/+9not true pinhead, a infant died up here in canada (around calgary i think) due to a failure of the 911 system to send help asap just last week.
  • FukUrCouch, on 05/03/2008, -21/+2I called LAPD about some guys drinking outside my business and they never showed up. I called 30min later and was told that they where on a priority call. I was like WTF! there is only 1 police car in this whole city and my security cameras showed that the cops never showed up at all!!
    • supras, on 05/03/2008, -0/+9LAPD is overstretched. Try covering a huge city with several hundred cars. It's hard.
    • hansk, on 05/03/2008, -1/+6public drinking? ohh waaahhh...get their names, file a report, get them charged or sue them in small claims for harassment or for aggravated damages.
    • wonderchemist, on 05/03/2008, -1/+13This is where you call back and say you don't need the cops no more cause you just shot them.
  • AriaStar, on 05/03/2008, -25/+15I hope her family sues and wins, and that the dispatcher ends up in jail.
    • noahhoward, on 05/03/2008, -6/+4How about this, how about you sign up to be a 911 dispatcher. Give it a few years, let us know how it goes. Guilt is punishment enough.
      • theviceroy, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2guilt may be self-punishment, but it is NOT justice.
        • noahhoward, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1What is justice, should we kill her too? Suffering for suffering, eye for an eye.
    • itsgotyou, on 05/03/2008, -3/+2Gotta love how people think these days.
      1. tragic incident
      2. chance of proving culpability of government/ business entity
      3. ?????
      4. LAWSUIT
    • CaptainAmerica1, on 05/03/2008, -0/+7Aria...yes, this is tragic. But, law enforcement agencies and individuals have been taken to court for similar events. Over and over courts have ruled that law enforcement agencies and cops are not obligated to provide individual protection to citizens.

      http://www2.psacake.com:81/dial_911.asp
      http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protectio ...
      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?c ...
      http://www.endtimesreport.com/NO_AFFIRMATIVE_DUTY. ...

      Think hard about these cases...if you're a supporter of Obama, remember that he wants to eliminate firearm ownership by private citizens, period.

      If he's elected, and if he gets his way...who will protect you and your family from those who would do you harm??

      p.s. It's not just Obama we have to be concerned about...it's all of those people - usually liberal Democrats - who want to see law-abiding citizens deliberately placed into harm's way through firearm confiscation.
      • SealandRes1, on 05/03/2008, -4/+1yeah, lets make guns more widely available so people don't even have to break into your home to kill you. That way, you won't even know what hit you.
  • shyboy2008, on 05/03/2008, -27/+1what about the africans who are getting slaughtered. like they got 911. 911 is a priviledge, not a right.
    • solidus636, on 05/03/2008, -2/+4The police's job is to protect the people. It is not a privilege to be protected by a police officer, it IS a right. That's the whole reason the police exists, "to serve and protect". Am I right?
      • MadOgre, on 05/03/2008, -3/+3Police are not obligated to protect you.
        • EvilGunOwner, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2Why did somebody digg the comment down? The US Supreme Court ruled that the police are not legally obligated to protect you from crime. US Court of Appeals from some states have made the same ruling. Read "Dial 911 and Die."
    • whoreable, on 05/03/2008, -0/+4Privileges aren't paid for.
    • 0011002, on 05/03/2008, -0/+5erm, what? My tax money goes to pay for that 911 system and the cops. It may not be a right but I damn sure pay for the privilege so I expect results or I want the castle doctrine in my area so when they don't respond I can defend myself and my family without going to jail for killing the intruder. Also, I did RTFA and yes I know the MPD wasn't informed so not their screwup.
  • Number23, on 05/03/2008, -11/+61A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Police: When seconds count, they're minutes away.
    • blorc, on 05/03/2008, -2/+21My .45 Springfield 1911 diggs this post.
    • pinguwin, on 05/03/2008, -14/+2the key is "well regulated militia". Let's define that before we speak any further.
      • Skooma714, on 05/03/2008, -2/+7And what is a militia but a bunch of folk with guns?
      • Leomarth, on 05/03/2008, -2/+6Sure. Regulated: trained.

        Now, how about we look at "the People." In the Bill of Rights, as in the rest of the Constitution, there are three distinctly delineated parties. 1) "The States", 2) "The Federal Government" and 3) "The People". Take the 1st Amendment for instance. Does the right of the people to assemble or redress the government mean only the "collective people as represented by the government"? Or does it mean that individuals have the right to assemble and seek redress? In the 4th Amendment, does the right of the people only mean in some vague collective can the group be secure? Or does it mean that individuals have the right to privacy? In the Ninth and Tenth amendments, does "the people" represent a group approved by the government as retaining rights? Or does it represent individuals that have rights?

        In the entire Constitution, when it mentions "the people", it means individuals. Why would you want to bias the one sentence for otherwise?
        • dancercotillion, on 05/03/2008, -2/+1What does that have to do with a well trained militia? People have a right to own firearms in America. But those people should also be trained. This isn't crimping your freedom, it's not taking away your rights.
          • Leomarth, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1The people owning firearms are the instrument to a well trained militia. If you do not have individuals owning firearms, you do not have a militia at all.
    • theviceroy, on 05/03/2008, -4/+6Handguns need to be cheaper and safety classes need to be both mandatory and free.
      • Skooma714, on 05/03/2008, -1/+4Who is going to pay for it?
      • EvilGunOwner, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2I was with you until the "mandatory and free" part.
        First, there is no such thing as free. Somebody has to pay for it. If owning and carrying arms was more common, prices for training and guns might get lower due to group discounts, referrals, and partnerships between manufacturers and trainers.
        Second, almost anything mandatory is bad in the long-term. The majority of people were able to drive cars and handle guns safely before driver's licenses and carry permits became the norm.
        Let's just keep on setting good examples and nature will take its course.
        • dancercotillion, on 05/03/2008, -2/+1Taxation will pay for it. If people bring their own weapons and ammunition, then the actual course can be built into the taxes you pay on your Starbucks coffee. Then everyone who wants a gun pays fractions of a penny here and there.

          Oh wait, I'm talking to an American here. Any form of government-paid program with funding coming through taxation is Communism to you and should be killed with fire. Sorry. You have fun "setting good examples" through people who have no idea how to operate their weapons. Some fella just blew his brains out cleaning his shotgun! What a good example. Some free, mandatory training would probably have helped John, but socialism is an evil, evil thing, so no free training for John.

          But hey, at least he didn't have to submit to a mandatory safety regulation. America is safe for another day.
          • EvilGunOwner, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1The people who set good examples don't make it to the news. There are 80,000,000 gun owners in America according to pro-gun expert John Lott. Citizen use of guns to stop crime is estimated to be 1,500,000 to 2,500,000 times a year. The Brady crowd gloats over the 30,0000 deaths due to "gun violence" a year thing -half being suicides and the other half mostly criminals killing criminals. Gun accidents with children have been going down every year with information technology reaching "flyover territory" and parents being more educated and less complacent towards children's safety.

            I never said anything funded with taxpayer's money is evil and should be "killed with fire." You said that, not me. I simply know, and basic economics supports this, that the private enterprise is usually better at running a program and promoting it because of the profit motive. Socialism is terrible because it goes against nature, you now, that pesky force called natural selection and evolution. It brings everyone to the lowest common denominator and discourages anyone from working harder. It ignores one's natural impulses to survive and reproduce by working from top-down like a "hive mind." "Communism: Right idea, wrong species." -Jermaine Evans.

            Your tone in your writing comes off as very hostile to me. I give kudos to your spelling and grammar. Most "libtards" (never used that word before because neocons use it and I don't want to be associated with them) are so angry and unhappy, they have to punch at their keyboards and use profanity. I don't drink coffee or hang out at Starbucks. You are stereotyping, not using rational educated generalizations like a normal person. Unless most conservative or libertarian Diggers go to Starbucks, you are just making yourself look like a jackass. Please look within yourself and find everything that is bothering you. You can't fix everything, but change the smaller things that make you unhappy. Exercise, talk to people face-to-face, play violent video games (I do all three on the weekends), and express those emotions. I lost my childhood because I felt afraid and disinclined to express my emotions due to undiagnosed Asperger syndrome (mild autism). Don't do that to yourself to the rest of your life. "Love and peace!" -Vash the Stampede.
      • albinorhino101, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1Why do they need to be cheaper? Obviously you have a computer, you probably have a TV maybe an Xbox and some other nice things...why can't you afford a gun? a decent gun will last you a lifetime, not to mention you don't need a fancy tricked out H&K for home defense, a simple Taurus revolver or other similar model will do the trick and not leave you broke.
    • matador3, on 05/03/2008, -2/+19Yup, having a gun is cheap insurance. My home defense gun is a Maverick 88 pump shotgun that I bought at Wal Mart for $150. At that price I can't understand why the hell people wouldn't have one. They probably cost a bit more nowadays but figure $300 for a shotgun and a few boxes of shells to get proficient with it. It seems like a worthwhile thing to do even if you're not a "gun enthusiast". I didn't use to be and I only bought it on the advise of my dad because my first apartment was in a sketchy neighborhood. I've never needed it and probably never will but I appreciate the fact that its there if I do.
      • JFitzpatrick, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2You can pick up a Remington 870 Express pump shotgun in my area for under $300. =)
    • mikemil828, on 05/03/2008, -8/+5And the police reserve the right to mow you down should you try and protect yourself if they decide break down your front door in the middle of the night for some reason or another. Contrary to what gun jockeys think, a gun can't always protect you from what's knocking on your front door.
      • Reddog_x2000, on 05/03/2008, -3/+8No, not always. But, your odds are a hell of a lot better.
        Besides, if someone is breaking into your house in the middle of the night, odds are, it's a crook & not the police.
        • mikemil828, on 05/03/2008, -2/+1Not really, if you have a gun and your assailant has a gun, all it does is even your odds (if the assailant was planning to kill you from the beginning, otherwise being armed only forces a deadly confrontation where either you or your attacker dies, where it might not be necessary) , if your assailant has a knife and is pretty good with it, you might be good as dead anyway even if you do have a gun. There are much better ways of keeping yourself alive than a do or die gun battle.
        • Reddog_x2000, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1Mike, this is just dumb. You've embarrassed yourself.

          @ if you have a gun and your assailant has a gun, all it does is even your odds.

          I'll take even odds over being at a huge disadvantage any day.

          @ (if the assailant was planning to kill you from the beginning, otherwise being armed only forces a deadly confrontation where either you or your attacker dies, where it might not be necessary)

          Or, more likely, he sees that I have a weapon and decides to retreat. Criminals tend to be opportunists. They're not interested in getting into a fair fight.

          As to whether or not he intended to kill me, well I'm not going to ask him what his intentions are. I'm going to go on the only sane assumption, which is that he's willing to use his weapon against me. If I die, I died acting rationally. My odds of survival were better because I fought. It just didn't work out. If he dies, I regret that. I'm sure I'd feel guilty as hell about it. But, it'd be an irrational guilt. I'd comfort myself with the knowledge that his actions invited death as a possible consequence. He's responsible, not me. Had he not violated my home and threatened my life, he'd still be alive.

          @ if your assailant has a knife and is pretty good with it, you might be good as dead anyway even if you do have a gun.

          Okay, if he's right on top of me & attacks before I realize what's going on. Otherwise, I've got the advantage. And (hint) If I've taken the time to grab my gun, I probably took an extra second to grab my knife as well. Why? I might run out of ammo.

          @There are much better ways of keeping yourself alive than a do or die gun battle.

          Right!! You could tell him that he's being bad and that's not cool. Or, you could throw muffins at him!!! And, lest we think you a wimp, they'd be hard, stale muffins. Yes, I'm mocking you. You hint that you have some kind of knowledge that would prove your point. But, rather than presenting it and enlightening us, you just walk away. This leads me to believe that you're bluffing. I believe that you have no freaking clue what you'd do. You simply prefer just about anything to a gun fight.

          Sorry to be so harsh. It's clear that you prefer not to have a gun. That's fine as long as you are willing to accept that you and those you live with might die as a result. It's simply a choice you've made. But, it sounds an awful lot like you're scared of guns. That's fine as well. What's not fine is that you're trying to say "I'm not scared. I'm just making a smarter choice" And, honestly Mike, I'd respect you for it if you were making any sense at all. But, you're clearly criticizing things you don't understand & implying that others are stupid for not agreeing with you.


          Prove me wrong and I'll admit it right here.
      • DiogenesJr, on 05/03/2008, -3/+3You're absolutely right. But I'd rather die fighting than pleading any day. By the way, I am a completely rational human being. I just have a well developed understanding of value.
      • JFitzpatrick, on 05/03/2008, -2/+4I'm not sure which part of your logic bothers me more... than you think there is a high probability of the police knocking down your door in the middle of the night or that you're willing to forgo gun ownership at the risk of being brutalized by a criminal and willingly brutalized by a police state to avoid any confrontation. Sad.
        • mikemil828, on 05/03/2008, -2/+1All they need to coming knocking down your door is an anonymous tip that you have a massive amount of weed from a passive aggressive neighbor that wants you dead but neither want to get his hands dirty or pay for a hitman, but knows you'll go out guns ablazing should uninvited guests show up. Plus, I don't need a gun to protect myself,
        • Reddog_x2000, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1@ I don't need a gun to protect myself.

          Right, cuz you're superman and bullets bounce off of you.

          Sorry, even if you're the Grandmaster of every martial art known to mankind, you're at a huge disadvantage if you're unarmed, he's armed and there's more than 10-15 feet in between you.

          I honestly hope that you're never in a situation where you need to defend yourself. I really do. Because your lack of understanding of violence will get you killed very quickly.
  • OfNumbers, on 05/03/2008, -10/+4"I don't think there's anything to apologize for at this time."
  • jamessavik, on 05/03/2008, -15/+6Anyone will tell you that unless you speak ebonics, you won't be able to communicate with a 911 operator.
    Even if you can they don't listen and will ask the same questions over and over.
    • pendrachken, on 05/03/2008, -4/+2You sir, are retarded.
      • suswin, on 05/03/2008, -0/+0that's an insult to retarded people. this guy is a bigot.
      • jamessavik, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Ever call 911? I didn't think so.
        When/if you ever do, I hope you get some affirmative action hero that can't speak plain english.
        Oh yeah- ***** you very much.
  • RevChris, on 05/03/2008, -10/+2Call Center, I would almost guarentee this girl needed to get " the call in que" to get her stats for the month , otherwise she might only get a .10$ raise instead of a proper one come yearly review time. I wonder if the dispatch office was outsourced or directly run....
  • LastDitchHero, on 05/03/2008, -5/+11Read the book Dial 911 and Die, also police do not obligated to protect you, they really only become liable if the threat has been established (e.g. person who attempted to murder you is at your house again) even then it may not be more than a slap on the wrist.
    • Zekarus, on 05/03/2008, -3/+1 Police is a public service.

      As long as you, or your dependents, pay tax, you technically are obliged to benefit from it. It's just that there are retards who abuse this by clogging up the stretched resoruces on things like... uhhh... "Neighbour's kid is on my lawn again!"

      Everyone pays tax because everyone benefits from it.

      Wait a second, what about those who don't pay tax? /obligatory rhetorical question
      • JFitzpatrick, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1No they don't have an obligation to protect you. The police have an obligation to maintain civil order and protect the public in general, not you personally.

        ". . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen . . ."

        Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)
      • Zekarus, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1 Who mentioned anything about protecting people, you retards?

        Obligation to be protected =/= obliged to receive benefits, as much as it may imply it.
    • Skooma714, on 05/03/2008, -0/+4Nope, Supreme Court ruled that they have no obligation to protect you.
    • cryptoki, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1it really is a book...

      http://www.amazon.com/Dial-911-Die-Richard-Stevens ...
    • NormalVisual, on 05/03/2008, -0/+0Even if the police have actual knowledge that a crime is being committed, there have been numerous rulings that they aren't required to protect you. See Warren vs. District of Columbia for starters.
  • RSS14, on 05/03/2008, -14/+12For some unfortunate reason, I doubt this story would get dugg if the victim wasn't attractive. . .
    • StanleyKoolPrik, on 05/03/2008, -1/+15She's just a normal looking girl, you pathetic lonely fool.
  • Dou6, on 05/03/2008, -3/+39Sorry, but even if police were sent, it was likely already too late. In a situation like this, by the time you dial 911, it's too late, the police show up to fill out a report, you get a toe tag, and everyone is blamed and no one acknowledges that you are responsible to protect yourself. Did this girl deserve to die, of course not, but this is the world we live in, unfortunately.

    I am the kind of person that won't even kill a spider in the house, but I know that if someone attempts to harm me, using a firearm in my defense may be the only option.
    • shinythingy, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3and if it wasn't too late?
      • Dou6, on 05/03/2008, -1/+3I am not saying that they shouldn't bother sending police, and yes there was obviously a problem here. But that does not take away from the fact that the person who is reponsible for your own safety above all others is YOU. You cannot assume that someone else will always be there so save you.
    • JFitzpatrick, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1I'm with you. I'll take great care to return a spider, ant, mouse, etc. that I find in my house, safely outside... but the fury I would unleash upon someone trying to harm my family would give the devil pause.
  • erhanaltay, on 05/03/2008, -17/+27Rather than WASTE time calling the police, any sane person would of pulled out a pistol (all sane people should carry one at all times) and shot her assailant. The simple fact that everyone is armed would deter 90% of attacks like this.
    • sallywally14, on 05/03/2008, -22/+7You're an idiot.
      • SargedeathXmode, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2Looks like you're alone in your unbacked opinion.
    • Skooma714, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1Get a gun
      Get a dad
      Get off the netz.
    • shinythingy, on 05/03/2008, -2/+3If everyone was armed he could have just shot her and ended it quicker
      • yuanzhoulu, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1yes and then there would be more people out there actually wanting to impulsively shoot me. also, drunk people and those on drugs would have a messed up brain and would not be able to think, resulting in many innocent deaths as they just wave their guns around killing people. it also presents a problem to officers trying to catch them.
        right now, any criminal with just a fist as a weapon, i would probably be able to escape because i usually have a bicycle and i can dart off faster than they can run ... not a luxury i would have with guns around.
    • dnl2ba, on 05/03/2008, -1/+8This 21-year-old college girl wasn't sane because she didn't have a loaded gun? I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on gun control, but that's just stupid.

      Also, if the killer were an acquaintance of hers (jilted ex, maybe?), he could have known whether or not she had a gun-- so even a greater prevalence of guns among college girls wouldn't necessarily have helped.
    • diadem2, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3The second amendement isn't honored in every area of the us
  • matador3, on 05/03/2008, -11/+34The perfect example of why everybody should have a gun in their home and know how to use it. 911 is great idea but mistakes happen and in any case the response time might not be fast enough to save your ass. You're ultimately responsible for your own safety.
    • heystoopid, on 05/03/2008, -13/+2I suggest you use yours now and save Darwin the trouble !
      • matador3, on 05/03/2008, -2/+7Only a true Darwin Award candidate would make a comment like that.
      • sgtpppr, on 05/03/2008, -1/+9Did you honestly just try to make a anti-gun statement by saying the poster should kill themselves?
        • RuffRidr, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Did you expect logic and reasoned discourse?
  • goldendome92, on 05/03/2008, -20/+14I live in the state of Wisconsin. We do not have concealed carry. If we did maybe this girl would be alive. Governer Jim Doyle is to blame for her death. He had the opportunity to change it, but he killed a girl. Thanks Doyle!
    • CaptainAmerica1, on 05/03/2008, -0/+9In most states, you do not need a Concealed Carry Permit to own/have a gun in your residence.
    • matador3, on 05/03/2008, -1/+8Thats stretching it, most college girls don't own guns or get concealed carry permits (though they should).
      • Skooma714, on 05/03/2008, -1/+6Guns are scary and take away valuable shoe money.
    • heystoopid, on 05/03/2008, -10/+1Have a small concealed wang I see !
    • SgtBulldog, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2I support shall issue CCW, but this happened in the person's home where one would not need a CCW anyway.
    • sgtpppr, on 05/03/2008, -0/+4She didn't need to carry a concealed weapon...she was attacked in her apartment. Buy a gun, know how to use it, and keep it in a place where you can get to it if someone breaks in. Hopefully (and likely), you'll never have to touch it, but you never can tell. I consider it like keeping a fire extinguisher in the house.
      • cryptoki, on 05/03/2008, -2/+1This is fishy... im assuming this girl didnt live in a "tough apartment" complex. Im suprised no witnesses have come forward, to say they heard something. Apartments walls are only two layers of sheetrock thick.
    • superossum, on 05/03/2008, -4/+1Ferchrissakes, life is not like an action movie. When the killer breaks in at midnight and you're breathing heavily in the darkness amidst the sounds of a screeching string score, you don't typically reach for the gun and successfully shoot the moving shadow to kill, you either sit, cower, and die, or you futz with the gun until the guy wrestles it away from you and shoots you first.
      • DiogenesJr, on 05/03/2008, -1/+4If she had time to dial 911, she had time to empty a revolver into the shadowy figure approaching her in the darkness. We can sit here and debate the effectiveness of various armed individuals and it may have actually gone down the way you describe it if she had a gun. But the fact is, without a gun she was fodder. A gun won't make you invincible, but it would have evened the odds in this case, for sure.
        Oh, and to avoid the whole futz issue, go with either a Glock or a name brand revolver. So easy, even a child can blast a bad guy! (With proper training and a healthy respect for the firearm instilled by a responsible adult, of course)
    • Reddog_x2000, on 05/03/2008, -1/+4Ok, guess we know how you'd react.
      Me, I'd be scared. But, I'd be able to function. There's a pretty decent chance that the crook would be the one getting shot. There's no chance if he's got a gun and I don't .

      As for successfully shooting him, there's a pretty good chance you won't have to. Guess what? Criminals don't want to get shot. Sure, you've got some who will stay and shoot it out. But, a lot of them will rush out the nearest exit when they hear a gun go off. Again, your odds are much better if you've got a gun.
    • Ultra200, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2***** Doyle that douchebag
  • 223Sniper, on 05/03/2008, -14/+32STAY ARMED STAY SAFE! Gun Owner or Victim, Your Choice!
    • heystoopid, on 05/03/2008, -10/+3With a tag like that it figures "Idiocracy" rocks on !
      • 223Sniper, on 05/03/2008, -2/+6With an attitude like that, complacency must be your middle name. Get back with the flock sheep.
        • dancercotillion, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Oh, Internet Tough Guy. You're so awesome and muscular. I can feel the fitness and masculinity seeping through the web straight into my monitor. With a name like 223Sniper, how can you be anything but an ultrafit paragon of manliness?

          You couldn't possibly just be some angry fat ***** with a Confederate flag and an unhealthy obsession with guns and donuts.
    • mikemil828, on 05/03/2008, -1/+5Unless your assailants happen to be plain-clothed officers sent on a drug bust, then you are a gun owner AND victim. Damned if you do...
    • khyberkitsune, on 05/04/2008, -1/+1Your name makes this even funnier. Hey, moron, your gun doesn't help you if I have mine out and you don't. BE SMART STAY SAFE. What a tool you are.
  • threemagic, on 05/03/2008, -14/+9You arms lovers are like vultures.. you love stories like this to push your agenda.

    What if you find out she had a gun and by pulling it out it actually ENRAGED the assailant to stab her in the back? That scenario is just as likely as your john wayne saves the day visions/
    • sdavids, on 05/03/2008, -5/+7Because she is from Wisconsin, one of two states that don't allow people to carry firearms. Not to mention she is a student and was probably on campus, yet another place where you can't carry.
      • MadOgre, on 05/03/2008, -3/+2Which are all problems that can be fixed with proper legislation. The shame is that the state prevented her the right to self protection and she died because of it.
      • smurfsahoy, on 05/03/2008, -0/+4She was in her apartment, where she could have had a gun (I think even on campus)
      • TonyLocNE, on 05/03/2008, -3/+4If you do not know your facts, please refrain from posting.....

        BY THE 2ND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, ANY CITIZEN (except for felons and mentally unfit) IN ALL 50 STATES ARE ALLOWED TO OWN A FIREARM.
        She was in her apartment, a place where you can have a gun, you can walk down the street with a gun, you can ride your bicycle down the street with your gun. The only thing you cannot do in a state that does not allow concealed weapons is to "conceal" it in public. I could have 20 guns strategically hidden in my house and the police wouldn't be able to do ***** about it. Learn your rights/learn your laws and don't speak when you have no clue about what is going on.
        • smurfsahoy, on 05/04/2008, -1/+2Maybe. Many campuses (not all) do not allow firearms in certain places, including sometimes student housing. These laws have been upheld by the supreme court before. But that doesn't mean she couldn't have had one. Or that those are good laws.
          • TonyLocNE, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1no where in the article does it say she was living in student housing... You people keep perpetuating the fact that she was living on campus for some ridiculous reason. Logic would tell me that since she had a fiance that she lived with, the chances of her living on campus in a dorm or even a student apartment, sorority, etc would be slim to nil.
    • ADVIZR, on 05/03/2008, -2/+9Some liberals, like myself, want to have that option. Don't you get it? Just because you do not want to know how to operate a firearm nor want to have the possible protection of a firearm does not negate that others should have that right and option.

      Though I should add, as far as I know, in-home firearms are fully allowed legally in Wisconsin, unlike much of Illinois, I think (whose crime rate is skyrocketing).
      • TonyLocNE, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1it doesn't matter what state you live in, you can own a firearm in your house. Its called the Constitution of the United States of America. In Illinois you can walk down the street with an AK-47 as long as its registered in your name and it is not concealed.
    • theviceroy, on 05/03/2008, -2/+9reality has a pro-gun bias, sorry.
    • Dou6, on 05/03/2008, -1/+7I have seen a lot of stories of people being killed because they were unable to protect themselves, stories of people who survived because they were able to protect themselves (many women), but sorry, I haven't seen a lot of stories of someone pulling a gun in self defense and then so enraging the other person that they stabbed them. Usually what happens is person pulls gun, assailant runs. Assailant does not run, assailant gets shot.

      Do I wish that there were no guns in the world YES. Do I wish I did not feel the need to have a gun in my home for self defense and for concealed carry, YES. But I live in reality, and understand that criminals have no compassion for people like me and what I would like in an ideal world. Being a stubborn idealist does nothing but get you dead.
    • DiogenesJr, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1This is one of those common sense issues that both liberals and conservatives should agree on. Sure, liberals may not want Joe Six-Pack to be able to buy a civilianized military clone and us Joe Six-Packs may disagree to aesthetic limitations placed on firearms by people who don't understand them, but people of all political persuasions should be able to see that rational people have the right to defend themselves in their own homes, of all places.
      Besides, I can't speak for all criminals, but I spent enough time in law enforcement to know that your average scum bag picks the easy mark. If you take any step to defend yourself, most crooks run away. The minute you start resisting, his odds of going back to the funny farm increase exponentially. I have seen it time and again.
      I have also seen instances where criminals didn't give a ***** about what happened to them and in these cases you are going to die or be seriously hurt. Even if you pull out a gun, he ain't going to care. So pull out the gun and shoot him, right in the face, no open casket for senior scum-bag. Or don't shoot him and try to talk it out with a guy who is attacking you because he thinks you're violating him "psychicly" (true story, btw!), the choice is yours.
      My point is, do what you think is best for you. I'll be over here ready to plug bad guys when they come in to my house. Then I will sue their estate for the cost of debraining my living room. If you think you will never be violated, you're probably right. But on the off chance, that one in a million event happens and you find yourself face to face with a criminal in your own home, I bet your gonna wish you had something other than a cell phone to protect yourself with.
    • susn, on 05/04/2008, -0/+0why would she have her back to him if she was trying to shoot him?
  • sdavids, on 05/03/2008, -10/+16Allow concealed carry on campus and perhaps these things won't happen.
    • clynnc, on 05/03/2008, -5/+2She weren't on campus. She was in her apartment.
      • matador3, on 05/03/2008, -1/+6Was the apartment on campus?
        • IbnSina, on 05/03/2008, -0/+0Madison is an urban campus. Most of the students who attend UW-Madison live in private housing located on private property. That's irrelevant, though. Wisconsin does not allow concealed carry at all, regardless of where you are.
  • 3zero3, on 05/03/2008, -6/+4Indeed this is awful. But I'm sensing a little MWWS here.
  • MaceSoul, on 05/03/2008, -7/+13Don't count on cops for anything but a speeding ticket. Your personal protection is always up to yourself.
  • robertallen, on 05/03/2008, -6/+5I can't seem to get that Public Enemy song "911 Is A Joke" out of my head now.
  • RAT-Man, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2That's just terrible.
  • pinguwin, on 05/03/2008, -1/+18I was being hassled by a car while riding my bike one day and rode to the police station on a quiet Saturday afternoon. The 911 dispatcher was the only one at the station and was busy on a call so I didn't make a fuss. After about five minutes of the call he didn't look very engaged so I edged closer to the mouse hole in the glass window and heard her discussing her credit card bills. She had no idea whether someone was in the parking lot with a heart attack or not. She wouldn't take details nor could she figure out whether it was in her jurisdiction, etc. In other words she was telling me, "Go away" When I talked to the police chief two days later he said no record was made even though the 911 dispatcher said a car was sent to investigate. He raised hell when he found out. So dispatchers sometimes make mistakes, other times it's far worse.

    FWIW, when I lived in Madison and accidentally dialed 911 from a computer at work during an all-nighter. I heard the dispatcher speak but couldn't respond (as it was on a modem) and hung up the modem. Within a few minutes a police car was at work querying the night guard who sent them my way, so Madison did respond properly in my case.
  • ImmediateAction, on 05/03/2008, -3/+7Regardless of the fact that dispatchers get "misdials" everyday all day long, this is a human life we are dealing with, and this my friends superceeds all else. Hiding behind a "crying wolf" defense is not only ineffective but in all honesty absolutely ***** repugnant. If there is any chance that a human life is hanging by a thread, regardless of the thickness of said thread, it is a person's duty to default to the worst case scenario and either send help where it isn't needed or save an innocent's life. That is the bottom line.
    • sgtpppr, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2It's sad too cause this is the same argument they used with that case recently where a woman called 911 to report a guy driving a car hitting someone in the back seat. Turned out guy was a fugitive, had a kidnapped woman in the back, and later killed her. The 911/cops said they get too many false alarms and they can't tell the difference. To me, that sounds like someone who is trying to explain that their job is not necessary. Instead of trying to explain the problems with the system and fix them, they immediately try to blame someone else (people who prank or make non-emergency 911 calls) or openly imply that the entire system is useless.
  • albaghly, on 05/03/2008, -2/+6this is at my school..... im a student at UW-Madison, it was a huge scare on campus. this is outrageous, she called for help but they totally ***** it up... wow...
  • highlyhigh, on 05/03/2008, -10/+2america- the land of irresponsible. i knew cops were dumb, but *****.
    • sgtpppr, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2Cops didn't get the call...did you read the article?
  • mgyqmb, on 05/03/2008, -5/+8Everyone knows this already - the police aren't there to protect you. The police are there to arrest the survivors. It will take a lot more information before I make a judgment about this particular scenario. I still don't even know how this girl died.
    • yuanzhoulu,