Police: Slain student dialed 911; help not sent

Source: AP

MADISON, Wis. (AP) - Police say a University of Wisconsin student called 911 from her cell phone shortly before she was killed but a dispatcher hung up, didn't call back and never sent police.

The police chief in Madison, Wisconsin, says it's too early to know if a better response could have saved 21-year-old Brittany Zimmermann or helped police capture her killer.

Authorities haven't released the content of the call, but police say it should have been enough for the Dane County 911 operator to take seriously.

Zimmermann was found dead in her apartment in what police say was a random crime. They haven't identified a suspect. But they have ruled out her fiance, who found the body and shared the apartment.



Read more: http://www.wtkr.com/Global/story.asp?S=8260011

---

lawsuit? that dispatcher will have a few things to answer for in his/her next life...

<snip>

The 911 center says it's investigating the incident to decide if employees should be disciplined. A spokesman says he doesn't think "there's anything to apologize for at this time."

"...it's too early to know if a better response could have saved 21-year-old Brittany Zimmermann or helped police capture her killer."

That is truly an incredible statement. The bottom line, if this pans out the way it has been reported so far, not only should the dispatcher lose their job, but they should be hounded right out of the city and sued/prosecuted under any charges applicable.

Nothing like the "what if" scenario being used in defense of a terrible situation.

"No need to appologize at this time"?!?!?! WHAT?!?!? Fire the whole damn department. If it had been a drug bust they would have sent in the swat. Assholes :mad:

The city of Madison, and Dane county is also on the hook and that will = tax payers.

My guess (I am not a lawyer, just a layman) is we are talking in the 7 figures for a deserved settlement.:mad:

the police and the town will invoke the ruling in Castle Rock V Gonzales that the police or any other government authority has no duty to protect the individual. They will also invoke such cases as a DC case in which a woman was being raped and the 911 operator actually thought it was a fake and hung up- she sued but the court found that she had no standing to sue because the duty of the police were to "protect the public in general" and were not obligated "to protect the individual"

Frankly i think the operator should lose their job, but there isnt really anything more that can be done....sorry

I'd be very surprised if it wasn't from sometime within the last 30 years, when we started seeing blatant corruption and abuse of power in government. The police and government authorities damn well do have a duty to protect the individual. Whatever "judge" handed that ruling down ought to have been disbarred.

i believe the DC case was in the 1970's


there were many other cases earlier in the 1950's and i believe one during the pre WW1 era

all had the ruling that the police have no duty to protect the individual

and in reality that makes sense, as much as people don't like it. If police were responsible for our safety, everytime someone gets mugged/raped/killed- the family/victim could sue the department for failing to protect them- talk about a waste of tax payer money

but in the end it is what it is....the police or any government agency does not have any duty to protect us as individuals unless we are in their custody...thats the way it is

if the individual was entitled to police protection- there could be a good arguement that says in someway we are all in the custody of the state. That may sound good to some but to me- i dont like it. Being in the custody of the state means that the state could over-rule my lawful decisions in my life- and frankly im sick and tired of the destruction of our privacy under this criminal administration.

so i, some case you can't have your cake and eat it too.

DeShaney v. Winnebago County


remember that alot of these cases (not this one actually) rely on the fact that the federal government has no duty to protect- there could be state clauses that say otherwise but in my research i don't know of any that actually do

got a year in jail for neglect of duty.

http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_911_Operator_Found_Guilty_Of_Willful_Neglect_13006.html

that those cases were at the federal level- different states could have specific laws that make criminal charges for those type of things

Im no lawyer, states may have laws that allow for prosecution for neglect of duty as in the case of detriot. what the cases i posted showed that there are no constitutional garuntees to police protection- or government protection of the individual

the city is determined to have "undertaken the duty" to help, a settlement could still work. Depends, as it always does, whether or not the judge is either 1) on the take 2) an asshole.

Responses here are slow at best and nonexistent at worst. Unless the cops smell a possible shootout - then they send in the entire force on a single call.

any time I turn on corporate whore local news stations they're broadcating "LIVE BREAKING NEWS" of yet another police pursuit involving one civilian vehicle fleeing from 5-10 LAPD patrol cars, at least one LAPD helicopter.

Just another way to get one's Warholian '15 minutes of fame" in La-La land, I suppose.

For the record, though, my wife and I had occasion to call LAPD's Pacific Division several years ago because of a drunken, rowdy neighbor making threats against us. The two officers who appeared were highly professional and kept their cool utterly, even when the rowdy threw a half-full beer can at them.

on drunken, rowdy neighbors or other such crap. If at all.

far west side (Venice\Palms\Mar Vista).

Citizens who live in the Valley pay taxes just like other Angelenos. Recently, the per-month garbage fee jumped about 50% (itemized on the electicity bill). When I called Rosendahl's office to complain, I was told that the increase was slated to pay for more LAPD officers. That got me complaining even more loudly, as despite my positive experiences with Pacific Division a few years back, the most recent outrage was last year's police riot against demonstrators in MacArthur Park. If the fees raised go to hire more immigrant-bashing SWAT officers, I will be leaving LA for good.

apparently wasn't a problem. I'm a lot happier with him than the last three clowns in charge of LAPD, lol.

I have to admit that the average officer on the street seems more cordial if you just come up to them to ask a question. 10-15 years ago they were really rude if not downright mean to normal citizens, like we're all common criminals.

Shots fired.

Certainly beats taking chances with a possibly negligent dispatcher.

If I ever need the cops to show up that's what I'll say... followed by "There's a black man smoking crack sitting on his chest."

If they show up.

That mentality can be fatal, as the unfortunate Wisconsin victim found out.

Low priority call, but not reassuring.

"...fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)


See also the decisions in:

* Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958)
* Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968)
* Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983)
* Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985)
* Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
* Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982)
* Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981)
* Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978)
* Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977)
* Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.)
* Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and
* Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982).

Local TV here has played tapes of them actually arguing with people who were obviously in emergency situations.

that call! I don't know anything about Wi. but I know something about 911 operators in general, and there HAD to be some reason this operator didn't think this was a serious call. You would be surprised at the number of stupid, silly & accidental calls that come into a 911 operator.

There are bad apples and stupid people in every profession, and this could have been one, but we need to hear a lot more than has been reported before making a judgement.

It's not at all reasonable to expect police to be able to get there soon enough to protect you.

I would like to hear the recording before passing judgement on the dispatcher.