# Police: Errors Made In Responding To Emergency Call



## Nachtwächter (Dec 9, 2005)

* Police: Errors Made In Responding To Emergency Call *

_Wed Aug 30, 7:52 AM ET_

The Massachusetts State Police admitted that errors were made when a call from an emergency call box went unanswered long enough for a man to be hit and killed by a car.
Team 5's Sean Kelly reported Wednesday that a Methuen woman picked up one along Interstate-93 in Tewksbury on June 30. The call was not immediately answered, and her husband was killed in front of his son.
A dispatcher at state police barracks in Andover heard the alarm for service. Alaina Raucci used the call box to get help changing a flat tire. Her first call reached police at 8:33 p.m., but no one responded for 30 minutes. She called back at 9:12 p.m., but there was still no response from state police.
One hour after the first call for help, Anthony Raucci, changed the tire himself. Police said 35-year-old Ki Yong O had taken sleeping pills. He swerved toward the shoulder, hit and killed Anthony Raucci. His wife and son were watching.
State police took about two months to investigate why none of their patrol officers responded to the call box alarm.
"The desk officer failed to notify the appropriate sector patrol of the request for assistance," police said in a statement. "In this particular case, we did not provide the quality of police service the public should expect from the department. We will take every measure to make sure this will never happen again."
The conclusion of the investigation does not shift criminal blame. Only one person has been charged with vehicular homicide. He has pleaded not guilty. State Police are still evaluating the conclusion of their investigation, meaning there has still been no disciplinary action.


----------



## lofu (Feb 25, 2006)

HMMMMMMMMM, I wonder when the lawsuit will be filed?


----------



## JoninNH (Jan 29, 2004)

They probably have to decide which blood thirsty lawyer to use. I bet they have a number of anti-police lawyers lining up outside the home like the lenders in the Diteck commercials. Disgusting.


----------



## Hartmn (Mar 7, 2006)

Why is that disgusting.. a father of a young child is dead..an there is a reasonable chance he would be alive if the desk officer had done his job based on what the investigation is saying. If no one responded because both patrols were already committed, thats different..but if no one was dispatched because someone didn't do their job, they are at least indirectly responsible. And since they are emplyed by the state, the state is left holding the bag too.. I think most lawyers are money grubbing scumbags.. but in this case a civil suit is easily justified in my opinion.


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

It's called get AAA.
If the father had bought AAA none of this would have happened.
If the guy had better tires none of this would have happened.
If the guy waited a little longer none of this would have happened.

No where does it say that police must respond to a roadside assistance in X minutes.
Just sit in your car and wait next time idiot, whoops he can't he's dead because of the MSP...snore.


----------



## Mongo (Aug 10, 2006)

Hartmn said:


> Why is that disgusting.. a father of a young child is dead..an there is a reasonable chance he would be alive if the desk officer had done his job based on what the investigation is saying. If no one responded because both patrols were already committed, thats different..but if no one was dispatched because someone didn't do their job, they are at least indirectly responsible. And since they are emplyed by the state, the state is left holding the bag too.. I think most lawyers are money grubbing scumbags.. but in this case a civil suit is easily justified in my opinion.


What are you shitting me.


----------



## ChiefJoe (Jun 14, 2005)

SOT_II said:


> It's called get AAA.
> If the father had bought AAA none of this would have happened.
> If the guy had better tires none of this would have happened.
> If the guy waited a little longer none of this would have happened.
> ...


Way to show some compassion SOT. I'm sure you're a real pleasure to deal with out on the road. I say it's an unfortunate set of circumstances... but in no way is it the fault of the guy changing the tire.

I'm not putting all of the blame on the MSP, but they're a little vague about what happened. It is the job of whoever is working the desk to answer the radios, phones and call-boxes.


----------



## Capt. Kirk (Nov 21, 2002)

SOT_II said:


> It's called get AAA.
> If the father had bought AAA none of this would have happened.
> If the guy had better tires none of this would have happened.
> If the guy waited a little longer none of this would have happened.
> ...


You seem a bit harsh IMO. I honestly don't know how much having AAA would have helped. I have waited more that an hour before for them. Beside the breakdown lane is not safe anyway, there are times when there is some idiot driving in it when they should not be. As Chief said it's a sad set of circumstances. We may never know if a police response would have prevented it but you can't help but think it might have... IMHO


----------



## 94c (Oct 21, 2005)

someone in law enforcement dropped the ball, plain and simple.


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

Please...it's just another blame the cops for something thread it seems.
It's the same issue as "Protect and Serve". Police are NOT individually responsible for a persons safety. The police can't do everything all the time, the police can not be there all the time, this has been proven in court in many cases, much more dire and direct threat cases. 

Maybe instead of looking to blame the cops (read: people with the big fat wallet) maybe bleam the freaking idiot who actually hit the guy and killed him.
If you think I'm being "harsh" maybe consider it's about time people started taking responsibility for their own lives instead of trying to pin the blame on the deep pockets of the State.


----------



## Andy0921 (Jan 12, 2006)

It is sad, but if the police were there Mr. Ki Young O would have probably hit the cruiser, which would probably have collided with the disabled and taken out the poor fellows wife and kid and totalled a cruiser.


----------



## HPD104 (Jan 12, 2006)

SOT_II said:


> Please...it's just another blame the cops for something thread it seems.
> It's the same issue as "Protect and Serve". Police are NOT individually responsible for a persons safety. The police can't do everything all the time, the police can not be there all the time, this has been proven in court in many cases, much more dire and direct threat cases.
> 
> Maybe instead of looking to blame the cops (read: people with the big fat wallet) maybe bleam the freaking idiot who actually hit the guy and killed him.
> If you think I'm being "harsh" maybe consider it's about time people started taking responsibility for their own lives instead of trying to pin the blame on the deep pockets of the State.


Sorry to say, that a call was reported to the State. The call was of a safety concern and was NEVER dispatched....Let me say it again...NEVER dispatched. Try and protect that thin line all you want but if it was your loved one killed in front of you it would be a different story. It it was a Trooper calling from a call box for assistance, would the same have happened????


----------



## HPD104 (Jan 12, 2006)

andy0921 said:


> It is sad, but if the police were there Mr. Ki Young O would have probably hit the cruiser, which would probably have collided with the disabled and taken out the poor fellows wife and kid and totalled a cruiser.


And killed the easter bunny too! are you shitting me with that scenario???? So if it was your call in court you would say something like " Well Ma'am, consider your self lucky, you could of been killed along with your son if the police came, we were just doing you a favor....thankss for the taxes tho" come on, you gotta be kidding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## FutureCop23 (Sep 24, 2004)

Personally, I'd have to side with the "just another thing to blame the police for" opinion. It is obviously a very sad and tragic incident, however I would not consider a call about a flat tire to be considered an EMERGENCY call. If on the other hand it was a call about a medical emergency or someone being physically harmed or some actual EMERGENCY then I would say the blame should be placed on the police. I don't know about any of you, but I'd bet that if someone called the barracks and requested help with a flat tire, the responding officer would not travel 100MPH with lights and sirens blaring trying to get there as fast as possible. Once again, if it were an actual emergency, yes blame the police. However, it WAS NOT an emergency in my eyes and if anyone is to be blamed it is the driver who struck and killed the man. This is just another example of "oh it's not his fault he fell asleep/was drunk/jacked up on drugs while he was driving and killed somebody, it's the police who didn't use their psychic powers and know this was going to happen who are to blame. Give me a break, and unfortunatly it's just going to get worse.


----------



## Guest (Aug 31, 2006)

Im gonna have to side with SOT too. It was an act of stupidity. I don't know I-93 at all in Tewksbury, but I am guessing he was near the right hand travel lane. If you were on the driver's side changing the tire, wouldn't you try to get the car as far away from that right hand travel lane as possible? If he couldn't because of a guardrail or something then he should have just sat in the car and waited.

There are a lot of factors, but those are the basics. If he just used common sense out there, he would probably be still alive.

I normally don't see locals out on the highway unless its an emergency, but if I waited that long for MSP and still noone showed up, I would have called Tewksbury PD and see what they could have done. They probably would have directed me to MSP anyway but I would have given that a shot just to cover the bases.


----------



## Mongo (Aug 10, 2006)

*SOT_II For Governor*


----------



## gooday (Jul 20, 2006)

SOT_II said:


> Please...it's just another blame the cops for something thread it seems.
> It's the same issue as "Protect and Serve". Police are NOT individually responsible for a persons safety. The police can't do everything all the time, the police can not be there all the time, this has been proven in court in many cases, much more dire and direct threat cases.
> 
> Maybe instead of looking to blame the cops (read: people with the big fat wallet) maybe bleam the freaking idiot who actually hit the guy and killed him.
> If you think I'm being "harsh" maybe consider it's about time people started taking responsibility for their own lives instead of trying to pin the blame on the deep pockets of the State.


I dont think its totaly the depts fault, but arent you a public safety official? So how can you say police are not responsible for someones safety, was he not the public. He must have seen some threat to his safety if he used the call box. Now there is some family greiving because of a shitty driver and a slow response to the situation. Although what if the cop showed up and this guy hit him, maybe the big man upstairs was looking out for him. Either way a mans dead and its a shame. Just because he did not have AAA does not make him deserve it.


----------



## jasonbr (Feb 9, 2006)

What kind of "help" did the guy need? Did he actually call the police to come change his tire? That would be rediculous....


----------



## Mongo (Aug 10, 2006)

SP has a policy of not touching a dmv for changing tires.


----------



## chief801 (Dec 8, 2004)

We have a DUTY to respond, whether we think it is a "real" police call or not. Respond, assess, offer assistance (if reasonable), and move on. I agree, it is not the SP's fault that the accident occurred, however, there was a failure in carrying out a duty that is expected by the public. We are the ones who are "trained and experienced". We can roll up and say, "Hey pal, you are in a bad spot. I'm going to back-up, put my lights on, and create a safer zone for you to change your tire." Do this, you're a hero. Don't do this, you're a goat...Like it or not, that IS police work. We spend more time doing this thoughout our careers than we do chasing bad guys. Service calls are the overwhelming majority of calls we receive. We are expected to provide that service, even if it is nothing more than "I'll call you a tow truck".


----------



## Mongo (Aug 10, 2006)

You are correct Chiefie I do not disagree with that. However this cop bashing of blaming the death of the civillian on the late response or fudged up dispatch call to a freakin flat tire is fucking ridiculous. The impaired operation of a motor vehicle by the dick head that hit the civillian is 100% at fault. Do you code three to a service call? Do you prioritize your calls? Invest isn't over yet,and their are people already hanging the SP.


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

Lok it still is pretty simple. Police on duidty are not responsible for protecting every person every second of the day. It just doesn't work that way. TO draw some sort of corelation to the fact that an officer was called and didn't show up and somehow that makes the officer directly responsible is nuts.
1. Because it just is
2. It presupposes that the officer being there at that exact moment would have made a difference. (called: predicting the future or past).


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

I think a trooper would have used a radio. ANd yes if a trooper called in and said, yeah I think there's something dangerous going on out here...people would consider that a bit higher priority than some dude asking for help changing a tire.



HPD104 said:


> Sorry to say, that a call was reported to the State. The call was of a safety concern and was NEVER dispatched....Let me say it again...NEVER dispatched. Try and protect that thin line all you want but if it was your loved one killed in front of you it would be a different story. It it was a Trooper calling from a call box for assistance, would the same have happened????


----------



## copcar65 (Aug 16, 2004)

jasonbr said:


> What kind of "help" did the guy need? Did he actually call the police to come change his tire? That would be rediculous....


He wanted the same type of "help" the state is always willing to offer to any contractor working off the side of the highway - a cruiser sitting behind him with lights flashing.

That's it, they should have called the detail office instead of the local baracks.


----------



## SPD3 (Feb 1, 2005)

To be fair the disabled motorist had a cell phone which she used to contact her husband. The husband could have just as easily called a tow service but he did not, nor did his wife. Had a trooper been dispatched to the dmv, which was safely in the breakdown lane, he would have offered to send out a tow but which would have required cash payment which it appears that the family was trying to avoid. The cruiser would not have stayed with the dmv for the time it would have taken the husband to arrive. The call box system was designed for a time when most motorists did not have cell phones, hence the service function pressed in this case. A trooper's arrival would not have hastened her husband's response. The failure to dispatch a cruiser was a failure no doubt, but a motorist using a call box while holding a cell phone in the other hand is superfluous. If you know you need a tow truck to change your tire and you have a cell phone, how is a state trooper going to be of assistance other than offering to summon services that you yourself could arrange? The fatal accident was caused by an impaired motorist.


----------



## copcar65 (Aug 16, 2004)

FutureCop23 said:


> however I would not consider a call about a flat tire to be considered an EMERGENCY call. If on the other hand it was a call about a medical emergency or someone being physically harmed or some actual EMERGENCY then I would say the blame should be placed on the police.......it's the police who didn't use their psychic powers and know this was going to happen who are to blame. Give me a break, and unfortunatly it's just going to get worse.


I agree the police can't use psychic powers, but you seem to think it was okay for the dispatcher to use psychic powers to know that it was only a flat tire call. And I guess the dispatcher knew the car was in a safe location.

As said before, if the cruisers had been tied up or the trooper arrived on scene and had to leave, that would be one thing. In this case a call for help was received and either no one wanted to go or someone forgot to give the call out.

Sorry but MSP made a mistake. I would say they only deserve a small portion of the blame, but to say they are blameless is wrong. I guess if they accidently shot someone you could argue it's the victims fault because they didn't wear a bullet resistent vest.


----------



## ChiefJoe (Jun 14, 2005)

I don't think anyone here is denying that the guy who hit the family is at fault. There's no doubt. 

However, if there was a trooper in a cruiser with lights flashing behind the car in the breakdown lane... it's certainly possible the scenerio wouldn't have played out that way. The trooper would have to sit there for all of 10 minutes while the guy changes the tire. I've done it, they can do it.

A few people on this board have forgotten about the "serve" part of "protect & serve". Is it glamorous and exciting to sit in the breakdown lane behind a DMV?? No. Is it our job??? Absolutely!


----------



## HPD104 (Jan 12, 2006)

Since when is the breakdown lane a "safe place". I have had to change tire's in the breakdown lane and I felt anything but "safe". It's things like this that make the news and make the public hate what we do....because to them, it appears as if we dont do anything....Some peope are saying "its not the Trooper's job" to assist with a DMV??? Call me crazy, isnt that the whole point of take home cruiser's for the MSP???? Or is that just something they say, cuz apparently they dont respond to DMV's.....


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

What utter BS. If they were paying detail rates for an off duty trooper, then yeah the family should be pissed for not having a guy sitting behind them. But they weren't were they?

They were just too flucking cheap to call a tow truck, had all the resources to do so, didn't even need to get out of the car to use the call box...and somone ended up dead.

So back to the original answer, If the had AAA, none of this would have happened...or maybe the AAA guy would have been dead and we would be reading about how the AAA guys family blames the motorist in need or the MSP.



copcar65 said:


> He wanted the same type of "help" the state is always willing to offer to any contractor working off the side of the highway - a cruiser sitting behind him with lights flashing.
> 
> That's it, they should have called the detail office instead of the local baracks.


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

It is not the job of the MSP or any police officer to be individually responsible for the citizenry at the individual level except in very rare circumstances. This was not one of them.
More to the point, and if we must place blame beyond the guy that actually drove into the motorist, maybe blame the wife for not calling a tow truck...or maybe blame the husband for not calling a tow truck.

From personal experience, I've called AAA (which I pay a yearly fee to to assist me) and waited more than an hour on more than a couple occasions. It's MSP, not AAA.

Lastly, I would much rather have the MSP actually out patrolling for impaired drivers than sitting behind some dumb ass that had a cell phone and was just too flucking cheap to call a tow truck. Obviously there are not enough troopers out there actually patrolling let alone playing baby sitter to some cheap bastard...because this impaired driver was not stopped sooner.



HPD104 said:


> Since when is the breakdown lane a "safe place". I have had to change tire's in the breakdown lane and I felt anything but "safe". It's things like this that make the news and make the public hate what we do....because to them, it appears as if we dont do anything....Some peope are saying "its not the Trooper's job" to assist with a DMV??? Call me crazy, isnt that the whole point of take home cruiser's for the MSP???? Or is that just something they say, cuz apparently they dont respond to DMV's.....


----------



## ChiefJoe (Jun 14, 2005)

Wow... you've really lost touch man. That's too bad.


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

No I'm just tired of people trying to place blame where no blame is due.
I think you've gone well over the edge somehow thinking that a person who had a cell phone and could call her husband should somehow blame the MSP for his death.


----------



## SPD3 (Feb 1, 2005)

It took over an hour for her husband to arrive to change the tire. It seems to be the contention of some of you that a cruiser should have been dispatched and waited behind the vehicle for the duration of that time period. I should hope that it would be obvious that logistically such an allocation of resources was and is impossible. Had a trooper been dispatched he would have conversed with the operator, she would have stated that her husband was en route, and the patrol would have secured. This happens HUNDREDS OF TIMES a day on EVERY HIGHWAY IN MASSACHUSETTS. The breakdown lane is a safe place relative to the travel lanes and ramps on a highway, not really an advanced concept. If an operator is in the act of changing a tire then the cruiser almost always stays as that is the point of greatest vulnerability, but waiting for third parties or even AAA to arrive is time prohibitive. The call box should have been forwarded as a request for service but it would most likely not have changed the course of events.


----------



## ChiefJoe (Jun 14, 2005)

I agree that a trooper can't sit behind them in the breakdown lane for an hour. 

If a trooper encountered the female and she said "my husband will be here in an hour" he should've requested the duty wrecker and had the vehicle removed. That's what we do where I work. We don't leave DMVs. Unless you can get it into a driveway or parking lot, if it's not going to be fixed immediately, it's getting hooked.

If a trooper encountered the husband while he was changing the tire, he should wait with his rear lights activated until the motorist changes the tire and is on his way - which would take all of 10 - 15 minutes.

The real issue is, whoever was at the barracks should've answered that callbox. It is totally unacceptable that they didn't. What if she was calling to report an accident? A medical? That she had just been raped and let out of a car? 

Saying "oh well" when someone fails to answer the callbox and then chastizing the family for not having AAA is like not answering a 911 call for a house fire and telling the family they should've put in a sprinkler system.


----------



## snapbox (Dec 28, 2005)

94c said:


> someone in law enforcement dropped the ball, plain and simple.


I agree...

I think we're also forgetting that the driver who collided with the DMV was OUI...

Can't we send some blame his way as well?


----------



## Mongo (Aug 10, 2006)

snapbox said:


> I agree...
> 
> I think we're also forgetting that the driver who collided with the DMV was OUI...
> 
> Can't we send some blame his way as well?


Ya like 100% blame


----------



## 94c (Oct 21, 2005)

snapbox said:


> I agree...
> 
> I think we're also forgetting that the driver who collided with the DMV was OUI...
> 
> Can't we send some blame his way as well?


Absolutely...

But when a call for service comes in the police have a responsibility to respond and then assess the situation. It may take a while sometimes but we still have a duty to respond.

Those who disagree either are not cops like SOT or are in the wrong profession.

By the way...When trooper Barry drove into the Dump Truck and killed himself, was there not a call earlier about it?


----------



## snapbox (Dec 28, 2005)

I never heard about any call prior to his fatal accident...

It would be interesting if it turns out to be the case.


----------



## JoninNH (Jan 29, 2004)

MSP should have been sent, I agree with that. I am not aware of the other factors that may have weighed on the call taker's choice to decide not to notify the patrol sector of the call for service. Perhaps all the units were on priority calls? I dunno. What I do know is that this persons death, while tragic, is not the responsibility of the MSP. The blame needs to fall squarely onto the person who choice to OUI killed this man. Whether MSP had responded to the DMV or not is of no consequence... an OUI driver killed this man plain and simple. If you blame MSP, then you are saying that if a trooper had responded to the DMV that this OUI driver wouldn't have been on the road, or otherwise would have not hit this man? There is not guarantee that would be the case. In fact, I am sure we all have some stories about how crazy drivers act when encountering blue lights.

If this man had chosen to take a leak on the guard rail prior to changing his tire, the three minutes it took him to drain his lizard might have been enough time to put him in another spot when the OUI came crashing in. On the same token, had the tire change taken place right away then maybe he would have been on the road when the OUI crashed in... or maybe not, maybe he would have been struck by another vehicle. There is no way to tell.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

snapbox said:


> I never heard about any call prior to his fatal accident...
> 
> It would be interesting if it turns out to be the case.


If you are talking about Trooper Barry's accident you should read this thread:
http://www.masscops.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15203

From one of the postings:
The accident is still under investigation, though questions have arisen about the parked truck on the highway, and what it was doing there. Peter Phaneuf, a retired Southborough Fire chief, said he had called the state police more than six hours before the fatal crash about the parked truck.


----------



## benike84 (Apr 11, 2006)

Yes someone did call the dmv in and no one responded.


----------



## firefighter39 (Apr 10, 2006)

SOT_II said:


> What utter BS. If they were paying detail rates for an off duty trooper, then yeah the family should be pissed for not having a guy sitting behind them. But they weren't were they?
> 
> They were just too flucking cheap to call a tow truck, had all the resources to do so, didn't even need to get out of the car to use the call box...and somone ended up dead.
> 
> So back to the original answer, If the had AAA, none of this would have happened...or maybe the AAA guy would have been dead and we would be reading about how the AAA guys family blames the motorist in need or the MSP.


I always thought that the primary function of the MSP was HIGHWAY patrol. If a sector car was available then it should have been sent. However, it seems that the MSP is getting away from its primary mission of highway patrol, and branching out into too many specialized areas without adequet resourses.

They need to refocus their efforts of their primary mission


----------



## SPO123 (Dec 31, 2005)

SOT_II said:


> No I'm just tired of people trying to place blame where no blame is due.
> I think you've gone well over the edge somehow thinking that a person who had a cell phone and could call her husband should somehow blame the MSP for his death.


HUH? I don't think she is blaming MSP; maybe dispatch. But, when my wife had a flat, she called AAA and then ME. I responded and arrived long before AAA. Created a safe zone with my POV, AAA arrived, I spotted and everything went fine. Any ONE change in reaction COULD have changed the outcome. Point is, no one with any traffic safety knowledge responded. Not to point blame, but a lawyer will find "contributory negligence" and the state will settle. Next time, dispatch. Let the sector car decide.


----------



## no$.10 (Oct 18, 2005)

Here's the one thing I do not understand, and it continually aggravates me. 

SINCE WHEN did a "flat tire" render a vehicle inoperable. Having driven my share of sh*tboxes, and encountered this problem on more than one occasion, I can state with absolute certainty that the vehicle, any vehicle, will still move with a flat tire. Thousands of people die every year in the breakdown lanes of America. And I gotta say, in their own way, most of them were STUIPID. I don't care who that pisses off, either. Drive to the next exit, there's a concept. I remember reading about one of those idiots with the mattress tied to the top of their car, pulled over to "adjust" said mattress, and WHACK, mattress no longer a problem as said operator was dead. STUPID. I have seen people stop to EAT LUNCH in the breakdown lane. STUPID. Pedestrians get killed probably once a year at least, walking in the breakdown lane. just plain dumb.


----------



## 4ransom (Mar 1, 2006)

Lets consider all the factors. This incident occurred on a friday evening during rushour traffic. Considering the amount of traffic on the roads (I believe it was a holiday weekend). There are only 2 Troopers covering a very large, busy sector of highway. Ask any call taker how many calls they recieve during a typical afternoon of erratic drivers, dmv's, and minor fender benders. There is no way all these calls can be handeled in a timely manner by 2 cars. Think about it. Every single dmv you see, no matter where it is, some busybody has picked up there cell phone and made the free call to try to be the hero. And everytime somebody gets tailgated or passed, They pick up the phone and call 911 trying to get the person pulled over. The state can't handle that kind of volume, so the call takers have to prioritize major calls, and diffrentiate what calls deserve a police response and what calls don't. I am sure the call takers have to broom about 50% of the calls they recieve a day. Until they get at least 5 troopers covering a sector, that is how it has to be. This call taker probably took this as a low prioroty call because NOBODY USES CALL BOXES ANYMORE AND THEY SHOULD ALL BE REMOVED. This person was obviously stuck in the 80's and couldn't pick up the phone and say "my husband is changing a tire and is dangerously close to getting clipped by a car". I am sure that would have warranted a response once the tire changing began. I urge anybody being critical of this call taker and these troopers to spend a friday afternoon answering these calls every 30 seconds and making these decisions. What if a trooper was sitting waiting for this guy to change a tire and there is a rollover with entrapment 1/2 mile behind him? Now his reponse time is delayed because he has to turn around somewhere and backtrack. A life threatning incident is hampered because of some fat idiot who couldn't wait for a tow truck.


----------



## ChiefJoe (Jun 14, 2005)

So by that way of thinking, the MSP should NEVER go to any calls because there might always be one that's behind them and they would have to "backtrack". That's the worst arguement I've heard for this yet.

All of what you're saying with the only 2 troopers on etc. is well and good. And if there were higher priority calls that night and the MSP couldn't make it to them before they were struck, then it's a shame, but understandable. But we'll never know because whoever was watching the desk at the barracks NEVER PICKED UP THE CALLBOX!!!!!! That's what is being argued here. That's what is truly deplorable. 

As someone else brought up earlier, the MSP doesn't have a very good record this summer of removing DMVs, as with what happened in Wrentham. It's interesting how the MSP are looking to prosecute whoever left that truck in the breakdown lane, but when they don't feel like making it out to another DMV it's the driver's fault.


----------



## 4ransom (Mar 1, 2006)

I'm not saying they should not go to any calls. What i am saying is that when you have 2 cars covering such a large area and volume, you better make damn sure that if you are going to tie up one of those cars, it better be for a damn good reason. I think that what i am trying to say is that some calls just have to be ignored. There hasn't been any documentation released to show if that sector was tied up at that time, so we don't know what the reason for the desk officer ignoring that call. 

And I hold a lot of the blame to the victim. Did you see that piece of shit car? I would 
NEVER put my kid in that car and drive it on a highway. They were very naieve in thinking that sitting there waiting was the right think to do. They should have walked past the guardrail or whatever and walked up the embankement as far as they could. 
Have some common sense and streets smarts.


Here is a question to ponder... How often do those highway call boxes get used? And how many times are they used for prank calls? Maybe the thing hadn't been used in years because most people have common sense to call on a cell phone.


----------



## SPD3 (Feb 1, 2005)

Damn, some of you people are retarded. No one is saying that the call box for service should not have been dispatched, the issue is whether the MSP is culpable for the ensuing fatal accident. The Commonwealth's policy on disabled vehicles is that if they are within the marked lines of the breakdown lane and properly registered they may remain for 24 hours prior to removal to give the owner a chance to repair or remove same. You can not just tow a dmv out from under someone because you don't like it there, nor can you force them to pay 100 plus dollars for a tire change because it is more convenient for everyone. The disabled motorist in this case pressed the call box for service twice but also contacted her husband who responded himself to change the tire. As I said before had a cruiser been dispatched he would have spoken with the caller who would have relayed to the trooper that her husband was en route and the cruiser would have cleared the scene, advising the barracks that the dmv had their own help responding. This happens repeatedly throughout any given day. Had the help vans (formerly CVS Samaritans) been working one could have changed the tire for her free of charge but this was after they had secured for the night. 

The issue regarding the fatal accident in Franklin revolves around the registration status of the truck. The media made an issue of its presence in the breakdown lane but the MSP did not, as it was understood that the cause of the accident was the cruiser's departure from the travel lanes and not the presence of a vehicle there. It could just as easily have been Joe citizen broken down there changing a tire instead of an unoccupied vehicle. 

In addition some of you spouting off here apparently have never even seen a call box. There are three buttons which can be pressed within, one for accident, one for medical, and one for service. Furthermore the media incorrectly assumed that it was a dispatcher inside the barracks when in fact it was a trooper on the desk as per standard operating procedure. Andover is one of, if not the busiest barracks in the state coupled with the fact that it appears first alphabetically and is thus forwarded additional calls by 411 of people simply seeking the MSP in general. It can be nothing short of crazy in there sometimes and there is no one else in the building at that time of day to assist.


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

Jesus some of you don't get it.

It wasn't the MSP's fault that the guy died. It is that simple.
It was either the guy who hit the car and was on ludes or whatever (who was charged with a crime)
or 
It was the fault of the husband who instead of calling a tow truck for his wife decided to hop out there and fix the tire himself
or
The wife who had a cell phone and didn't call the tow truck herself. 
How hard is that to understand?
The MSP is not AAA, if you are too stupid or too cheap to call a tow truck when you have the resource...whos fault is that? 
All this shows is that the MSP is understaffed and that they are doing other things and can't really be AAA (which they shouldn't be expected to be, nor am I paying taxes for them to be).


Could someone clarify:
It was my understanding that the wife called her husband to the scene and he actually wasn't even with her in the car. Is that true?


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

It is not the "job" of the police, any police, to wipe the lemmings' snotty nose or change their soiled diaper. SOT is right: that is why one cannot sue one's town for failing to provide "security" if one's house is burgled (or one is raped, murdered, et cetera...). I suppose the troopers will now be required to stock their cruisers with "sugar-teats" to dispense to the motoring public for every little a$$-ache.

Should the call for service have been dispatched? Absolutely, especially in the town that is the subject of those Walgreens commercials (where Chief Joe and firefighter 39 apparently work...). 

That having been said, given the area where the event took place and considering the call volume at the barracks covering that area, I think it is safe to assume that a "call for service" was a low priorty at that time. That the call was not dispatched does not necessarily indicate that it was ignored/"broomed" or some other mis/mal/nonfeasance. I'd suggest that the call was placed in the queue according to its priority, to be dispatched in-turn. It is the job of the dispatcher/desk guy to prioritize the calls and dispatch them. Policy and procedure may be different where you work, but where I work the calls are not dispatched to the patrols en masse, but are dispatched as patrols become available to handle calls: the route cop/sector car is not expected to triage and keep track of the calls assigned to him...that's why there is a dispatcher. 

In any event, the commenters who have suggested that the OUI operator was solely responsible for the death of the tire changer were 100% right. Further, so to were the points made that: 1) a flat can be driven on (no it cannot be fixed: a puncture means that the structure of the tire has been compromised and cannot be repaired, it must be replaced); 2) get off the highway (plenty of exits in that neck of the woods); 3) the responding cruiser would arrive, insure you had help enroute and then left (maybe even put out some flares for you!); 4) unless the tire change was already in progress when the cruiser arrived, you would not be permitted to change the tire on the highway (because my confederates and I are not going to expose ourselves or our employers to such a liability...it's one thing to change a tire on a secondary or tertiary way and quite another to do so on a limited access highway...).

Lastly, can't afford AAA (and waiting for an hour is no moment...one has a flat, one has to wait: this is true for all of us, regardless of station in life...well, unless one is fabulously wealthy), can't afford to replace Mr. Tire or can't afford to properly maintain one's vehicle equals CAN'T AFFORD TO DRIVE! Move to the city, get on the dole, get your free bus pass and section eight housing and leave the driving to those who are "driving" the economy to new heights!:twisted:


----------



## HPD104 (Jan 12, 2006)

4ransom said:


> Lets consider all the factors. This incident occurred on a friday evening during rushour traffic. Considering the amount of traffic on the roads (I believe it was a holiday weekend). There are only 2 Troopers covering a very large, busy sector of highway. Ask any call taker how many calls they recieve during a typical afternoon of erratic drivers, dmv's, and minor fender benders. There is no way all these calls can be handeled in a timely manner by 2 cars. Think about it. Every single dmv you see, no matter where it is, some busybody has picked up there cell phone and made the free call to try to be the hero. And everytime somebody gets tailgated or passed, They pick up the phone and call 911 trying to get the person pulled over. The state can't handle that kind of volume, so the call takers have to prioritize major calls, and diffrentiate what calls deserve a police response and what calls don't. I am sure the call takers have to broom about 50% of the calls they recieve a day. Until they get at least 5 troopers covering a sector, that is how it has to be. This call taker probably took this as a low prioroty call because NOBODY USES CALL BOXES ANYMORE AND THEY SHOULD ALL BE REMOVED. This person was obviously stuck in the 80's and couldn't pick up the phone and say "my husband is changing a tire and is dangerously close to getting clipped by a car". I am sure that would have warranted a response once the tire changing began. I urge anybody being critical of this call taker and these troopers to spend a friday afternoon answering these calls every 30 seconds and making these decisions. What if a trooper was sitting waiting for this guy to change a tire and there is a rollover with entrapment 1/2 mile behind him? Now his reponse time is delayed because he has to turn around somewhere and backtrack. A life threatning incident is hampered because of some fat idiot who couldn't wait for a tow truck.


What if...what if....what if.


----------



## HPD104 (Jan 12, 2006)

Ring ring.....Ring Ring.....Ahh...those damn EMERGENCY call box's....ha, dont have to worry bout picking it up...It may be an emergency and we wouldnt want to have to do our job cause we might get another call and have to backtrack. They should just remove them...Ring Ring....Ring Ring...Yep still ringing..... Its probably a DMV... I'll just leave it up the to the civilians with barely any emergency traffic knowledge to handle it, its there job, not ours.....Pass the buck...pass the buck..... Give me a F'n break MSP......I love you guys for what you do, but i hate it when you cant admit when some F'ed up!


----------



## HPD104 (Jan 12, 2006)

4ransom said:


> I'm not saying they should not go to any calls. What i am saying is that when you have 2 cars covering such a large area and volume, you better make damn sure that if you are going to tie up one of those cars, it better be for a damn good reason. I think that what i am trying to say is that some calls just have to be ignored. There hasn't been any documentation released to show if that sector was tied up at that time, so we don't know what the reason for the desk officer ignoring that call.
> 
> And I hold a lot of the blame to the victim. Did you see that piece of shit car? I would
> NEVER put my kid in that car and drive it on a highway. They were very naieve in thinking that sitting there waiting was the right think to do. They should have walked past the guardrail or whatever and walked up the embankement as far as they could.
> ...


IGNORED....are you kidding me....NO call should EVER be ignored....NEVER...NEVER... They could have called one of the local agencies...But hey....typical MSP...never want to ask for help.... Im so sick of hearing "should of, Would of, could of...... How about the MSP "should have" responded which "would have" provided a safe service to the driver which " Could Have" safed a life.... And as far as call boxes being used for prank calls is irrelevant, as 911 is abused every minute, and every minute a local responds....


----------



## TypeX (Oct 16, 2005)

HPD104 said:


> Give me a F'n break MSP......I love you guys for what you do, but i hate it when you cant admit when some F'ed up!


Maybe you dont know how to read?
Almost everyone who has reponded has clearly stated that the dispatcher made a mistake. Most of them were saying it is not the road troopers fault that they didn't get there. As far as passing the buck.. the 'buck' is soley on the OUI who felt he was above the law and took a life because of his mentality. In an area which has the lowell connector, 495 and rt 93 and plenty of secondary roadways along with the losers in lowell to deal with.. im sure a dmv was not high on the priority list. If I was the a-1 dispatcher I would assume someone who has the intelligence to use the call box in the first place would be able to realize that squatting next to rt 93, right after rt125 on the bottom of a hill would not be the smartest thing. I am not excusing dispatch's mistakes.. but I highly doubt they were the sole reason the driver was killed.
It's real simple for anyone to sit on a computer and question the actions of someone else. More importantly.. this wasn't a case of someone too close to the first lane and a car just clipped it.. it was an OUI.. Who's to say that if he had passed this dmv safely he wouldn't of killed someone up the road, or jumped the median or whatever? Stop passing the buck.. and keep it squarely where it belongs.. the OUI driver.


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

Wolfie, no doubt HPD has the inside track on this affair, so let's all back-off for a moment and allow HPD to provide links to substantiate his claims...what has been offered by others as opinion/what-if scenarios has been offered as fact, given his prose, by HPD.

HPD: links please....or STFU.


----------



## no$.10 (Oct 18, 2005)

Wolfman said:


> Take a look at a call box sometime, genius. It isn't a phone. These is no voice capability. It's a one-way communication - *kind of like you*.


:L: OMG ROTFLMAO


----------

