Are cops obligated to respond to a MWAG call?

This is a discussion on Are cops obligated to respond to a MWAG call? within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; The two statements you want to bicker over; Because the ruling you are talking about is about protecting an individual. Society as a whole is ...

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 68 of 68
Like Tree3Likes

Thread: Are cops obligated to respond to a MWAG call?

  1. #61
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,661
    The two statements you want to bicker over;

    Because the ruling you are talking about is about protecting an individual. Society as a whole is to be protected.
    and

    So AMWAG at a public place is more important than AMWAG at a person's home. At least in the eyes of the courts.
    are a world of difference apart. If you truly don't get the different meanings of what each sentence structure implies, its well beyond my patience level to explain it to you.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubbiesdad View Post
    And they were criminally negligent for not responding to the second call. A call being made after they "cleared" the first call should have told them something.
    Well, the court disagreed.
    IIRC when this incident occurred D.C. did not have 9-1-1 service. Calls to the police were called in on (202) 727-1010. If you gave an address the call taker would have to take your word for it. If they had an open line they would have to call (then) C&P telephone company to start a trace. Prank phone calls to police and fire departments were, and still are everday occurrences. The difference is now kids are doing it from "dead" cell phones because they know with E-9-1-1 the call takers get their number and address (if land line) as soon as the call rings in. People also call 9-1-1 and ask the police to "check the welfare" of people they are stalking. They also request welfare checks on their soon to be ex spouses. People try to use the police to harrass people they have problems with.

    The officers responded on and investigated the first call. The call would have been cleared as either unverified or unfounded. Less than ten minutes after the officers give that clearance, a second call is received saying basically the same thing at the same address. There was no independant verification of the callers location. This is before seven a.m. on a Sunday morning. There were no calls from any neighbors about screaming. Officers were just there less than ten minutes ago, saw nothing wrong, heard no screaming, and got no answer when they knocked at the door. And it was more reasonable for the officers to consider this a credible call than someone wanting to harrass the residents there why?

    With todays technology where it could be clearly seen that the call was coming from inside that residence it most likely would have been handled differently. But the court held that the Metropolitan Police had done everything they were required to do.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  4. #63
    Member Array ecorrigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northwest part of God's Country in Montana
    Posts
    220
    Quote Originally Posted by Blackeagle View Post
    Maybe in Florida. In parts of Arizona where open carry is relatively common they won't.
    I would have to agree with this statement. Here in Montana where OC, CC or Carry in general is fairly commonplace it's not going to draw an LEO each and every time just because a person has a gun. If they aren't posing a threat and the dispatcher taking the call is somewhat educated it'll probably get stopped right there. The video of the gentleman who made the MWAG call on himself was a good example of an educated dispatcher. Just because you make the call doesn't mean they're going to send the whole second shift to check things out.
    In a crisis you don't rise to the occasion but rather default to your level of training!

    Forgiveness is between them and God, it's my job to arrange the meeting!
    -John W. Creasy (Man on Fire)

  5. #64
    Senior Member Array Bubbiesdad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    East TN
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    The two statements you want to bicker over;

    Because the ruling you are talking about is about protecting an individual. Society as a whole is to be protected.


    and

    So AMWAG at a public place is more important than AMWAG at a person's home. At least in the eyes of the courts.




    are a world of difference apart. If you truly don't get the different meanings of what each sentence structure implies, its well beyond my patience level to explain it to you.
    I think I understand, if someone assaults you while you aren't in public, and they don't have a gun, you are on your own.
    Always remember that others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.
    Richard M Nixon
    Owning a handgun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician.
    Jeff Cooper

  6. #65
    Senior Member Array Bubbiesdad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    East TN
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Well, the court disagreed.
    IIRC when this incident occurred D.C. did not have 9-1-1 service. Calls to the police were called in on (202) 727-1010. If you gave an address the call taker would have to take your word for it. If they had an open line they would have to call (then) C&P telephone company to start a trace. Prank phone calls to police and fire departments were, and still are everday occurrences. The difference is now kids are doing it from "dead" cell phones because they know with E-9-1-1 the call takers get their number and address (if land line) as soon as the call rings in. People also call 9-1-1 and ask the police to "check the welfare" of people they are stalking. They also request welfare checks on their soon to be ex spouses. People try to use the police to harrass people they have problems with.

    The officers responded on and investigated the first call. The call would have been cleared as either unverified or unfounded. Less than ten minutes after the officers give that clearance, a second call is received saying basically the same thing at the same address. There was no independant verification of the callers location. This is before seven a.m. on a Sunday morning. There were no calls from any neighbors about screaming. Officers were just there less than ten minutes ago, saw nothing wrong, heard no screaming, and got no answer when they knocked at the door. And it was more reasonable for the officers to consider this a credible call than someone wanting to harrass the residents there why?

    With todays technology where it could be clearly seen that the call was coming from inside that residence it most likely would have been handled differently. But the court held that the Metropolitan Police had done everything they were required to do.
    And with today's technology we have public servants (911 operators) telling children with injured or dying parents to stop playing with the phone
    Last edited by Bubbiesdad; February 24th, 2011 at 09:05 PM.
    Always remember that others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.
    Richard M Nixon
    Owning a handgun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician.
    Jeff Cooper

  7. #66
    VIP Member Array LongRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,618
    Quote Originally Posted by Timezoneguy View Post
    Here is the scenario; lets say it's a walmart manager who calls 911. ( in an open carry state like Idaho)
    911: this is 911 whats your emergency?
    WM: this is Joe the manager at walmart, I have a customer walking around with a hangun on his hip clearly visible.
    911: Is he threatning any one or doing anything unusual or threating in any way?
    WM: Nope I just had other customers call it to my attention.

    If there is nothing threatning, no confrontations, nothing unusual other than a shopper with an exposed gun, is dispatch going send an officer to investigate? Cops help me out here.
    In many municipalities in Washington 911 is directed to ask these questions. If the MWAG is not doing anything illegal, not being threatening, not brandishing a weapon but simply going about his or her business with a legally holstered gun the caller is told that carrying a gun is not illegal. They are tired of being sued for unlawful detention / arrest. If a crime has not been committed if no illegal act is being committed and there is not suspicion that a crime is being committed the police have no just cause to detain a law abiding citizen.

    Pretty much the same as when a black man is walking in a white neighborhood. Some folks are threatened and intimidated but the police will no longer respond, detain, arrest or harass him as they once may have. It is illegal and a violation of his rights for them to do so

    It is not the polices job to ease everyone's irrational, unfounded fears and phobia's. Contrary to some misconceptions here the police can not be sued for not responding when a crime has not been committed.

    That said of course in many places they do respond and try to blow it into something it is not but they are learning. Civil rights activists are showing them the error of their ways. One court case at a time because that is the only language some understand.
    Harryball likes this.
    Abort the Obamanation not the Constitution

    Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as vile, dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family

  8. #67
    Member Array mandalitten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Newport, RI
    Posts
    362
    Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po.../28scotus.html

    However, in most cases the police will respond.

  9. #68
    VIP Member Array LongRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,618
    Quote Originally Posted by mandalitten View Post
    To what?
    Abort the Obamanation not the Constitution

    Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as vile, dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Call It in First And Get Your Side on Record, and Never Talk to the Cops
    By JCooper in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: January 26th, 2010, 09:13 PM
  2. Am I legally obligated?
    By Ram Rod in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: December 24th, 2008, 12:19 AM
  3. GOOD: 85 yo woman stops 17 yo intruder...and makes HIM call the cops. (Merged)
    By C9H13NO3 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: August 21st, 2008, 11:16 AM
  4. Police respond to man with gun call.
    By raevan in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 13th, 2008, 01:22 AM

Search tags for this page

mwag

,

mwag call

,
mwag call by cop
,
mwag call indiana
,
mwag calls
,
mwag!
,
mwag?
,
ohio mwag
,
police are not obligated to even respond to your calls for help,
,
teh police not legally obligated to respond to 911 calls
,
what is mwag call
,
whats is a mwag call
Click on a term to search for related topics.