exactly, as you say, 911 operators have "some" training, just not enough quality training. In the case of Z, it appears the 911 operator handled the situation correctly. I'm not saying they are all inept, however, after listening to many of the 911 calls, it is apparent that some of them lack the ability in determining exactly what the problem is and delivering up the correct solution in a timely fashion.

does more pay = better handling of emergencies? raise taxes, pay them more $$$$ and still get the same incompetency? again, after listening to many 911 calls, the ineptness was and is overwhelming. who trains these people? I'm not going to place my life in the hands of the incompetents. I'll take care of myself, thank you. As one friend of mine, an ex Marine said, "Don't help me".

a few months back I had a conversation with a retired state policeman. He said that if someone were to break into his home, 911 would be the last call he made. He stated he would take care of the problem himself, then call in the 'armed forces' as you say. those who practice at the shooting range at least once a month.

First, with regard to your comment about punctuation, I thought we had gotten past that. I am treating it as a question because that's how it makes the most grammatical sense. Since disley came up with the idea, I called it his question.

Second, it seems unfair for you to first edit the question by inserting "without qualification" and then criticize the question as edited.

Third, I think that we all understand that citizens are more subtle than a binary description, but if you would like to pontificate further on that point, please be our guest. What I thought we were attempting to do is what many people would call a normal conversation, not some sort of back and forth where each person applies an unreasonable interpretation to what the other said. The great Judge Benjamin Cardozo said it best:He was talking about a breach of contract, but the same concept applies here. I think when people use words, we should assume that they intend a reasonable interpretation of those words, unless they say otherwise.

Despite your strenuous efforts to make an interesting question seem boring, I still like it.

1. Mr Disley was here to correct his grammar and thus far has chosen not to. So the grammatical question is still open.

2. I did not editorialize his statement (or question). I observed that it asserts two choices without qualification. Am I wrong? Tell me how.

3. Words that people use should be taken at face value. To do otherwise is to insert an understanding that may not have been intended by the author.

This fact is of course, why we have language, so that we can have a free exchange of idea. Otherwise we need do no more than assume what the other person meant and not bother enquiring further of that person.

Thank you for informing me of the rules of dialogue on this site. I can't believe I have been here so long, in which numerous people have changed identities over time, and did not realize that there was a rule for dialogue that is constant. This sure can be complicated when one assumes what other people hold in common.

Good grief. Are you still suggesting that you don't know what meaning I intended when I referred to it as disley's question?The main reason I think your meaning differs from the original is that it uses different words. The use of different words is often a sign that the writer intends a different meaning.There we go, yet another example of what I mean. What you attributed to me is not what I meant. How can we tell? It used different what? Can you guess? That's right. It used different words. Very good.

The above comments illustrate perfectly why one should not presume to insert meaning into the words of other people.

1. Good grief. Etc.

2. I quoted his text and commented on it. This is not an unusual thing. I did not put quotations around what i wrote which would have implied a direct quote, which is the normal practice when quoting somebody. But I suspect you may already be aware of that convention.

3. Good grief.

More and better training will entail some cost, hence, more taxes.

I would think even a retired policeman might come to grief if he called some buddies to take care of a problem, and those guys are not likely to be close by. The only way I know of the summon armed men with some legal sanction to use deadly force is by calling 911, or flagging an officer on the street perhaps.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

if we pay more, do we really get more? If we throw enough money at a problem, the problem will be fixed? or does the bureaucracy known as government simply take the extra $$$$ and then continue to provide the same crappy services?

Of course it won't. But your suggestion for how to achieve better training is what? Someone will have to devote hours to devising and implementing better training. Plenty of incompetent people in many fields, civic service arguably has a higher percentage that other segments but nothing but cynicism doesn't work for me. A good number of honest and worthy people in such positions as well.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

and when will that someone or someones step up to the bat and grab the bull by the ba**s and rewrite the training manuals? In the year 3000? In a life and death situation, I don't want to have to "guess" or "hope" that the party on the other end of the phone is going to:

1. acquire the necessary data or information from the caller.
2. make the correct decision that renders real help.

for instance, someone has a medical emergency. 911 is called and the 911 operator decides to dispatch the police. The police arrive only to find that a real life and death medical emergency is facing them. Had EMTs and an ambulance equipped with life saving medical equipment been dispatched, the victim may have lived or not have suffered permanent damage.

I've seen a situation very similar to the one described in the foregoing paragraph; idiocy rules. You like 911? be sure and call them when you need them. If they drop the ball like the did in this particular case and you or your loved ones suffers permanent damage or maybe even dies, you can say, "well, the 911 operator did his/her best".

The system is working.

I like 911? My other option is what? Calling my buddies when I'm in a wreck on the highway? Of course our existing system is not perfect and never will be.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

try to drive carefully and you won't need to call anyone.

Yeah see how that works with all the mindless people driving around yapping on their phones.

__________________
1984 300SD Orient Red/ Palomino
1989 560SEC
2016 Mazda 6 6 speed manual
1995 Ford F-150 reg cab 4.9 5speed manual

best to stay off the roads altogether. we are way past due for an upgrade to the transportation system. high speed rail is the answer. when people board the train, give them a dose of a knock out drug so that no one has to listen to them yak on cell phones or text their buddies.

Ain't that the truth. Yeah, I guess when I'm lying on the highway with blood spurting and someone asks me if I need some help, I'll just say "No, I think the 911 operators will get it wrong and besides, if I'd been driving more carefully, this never would have happened."

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

You are aware that this is sub-forum on a car enthusiast site? I'd be happy to never drive again, or at least only do it once or twice a month on highways that are about as crowded as they are now at 3 am. I don't have the magic potion to make that happen and will have to do what I can to make do with what we have in the meantime, and it can get mean out there.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K