The sons of a 67 year-old Berkeley (Calif.) man who was bludgeoned to death last February have called for improvements in the way dispatchers handle incidents, especially during times when police responses are restricted. Peter Cukor was struck with a ceramic pot and killed by a man who was later declared incompetent to stand trial because of his psychiatric condition. Cukor called police to report the suspect was on his property and acting erratically. At the time police were preparing for an Occupy Oakland march and were only handling Priority 1 incidents—the calltaker classified Cukor’s incident as Priority 2. Police did not respond until Cukor’s wife dialed 911 to report he was being assaulted. During a press conference last week, Cukor’s adult sons said police calltakers should inform callers of the assigned priority of their incident and given an approximate response time. Dispatchers should also receive training to better evaluate the circumstances of incidents reported by citizens, the sons said. The Cukors also called upon Alameda County adopt a law that would more effectively handle people with psychiatric conditions, saying the suspect should have been locked up “years ago.” Download (pdf) the family’s statement here.
5 comments… add one
I don’t see that as helping. First of all it would delay the call-taker from getting off the phone and onto another priority call. You know when you say ” thank you for calling we have placed your call In a prioritized queue of calls pending. Due to my experience and gut feeling as to the glorified and partially erroneous information you have relayed to me, I have considered the circumstances of your call to be a priority 2.”
Now spend the next 7 minutes explaining your departments protocol for prioritizing calls and response and pending times. now you have not only caused a delay in response to other callers, but you will have to listen to the informant get beat with their own arm while they were egging on the other involved party while they were on the phone with you.
I understand the families concerns, but let’s leave the law making and policy making up to the the people who know what they are doing!
I would like to know how the conversation ended, if the dispatcher advised the caller to shelter in place, avoid further contact, and call back if it got worse. That would be my interpretation of an appropriate instruction based our EMD protocol, but I am a fire dispatcher, not law enforcement. I cannot tell you how hard it is to keep RPs away either – they frequently want to try to solve the situation themselves before units arrive. A crazy man in your yard, so what, let him lose interest and wander away until law enforcement can address it. He starts breaking stuff, so what, it’s just stuff; it is replaceable, but your health is not. Law enforcment will be there as soon as they can. I have literally had to say these things to callers to keep them focused on our mutual goal: their health and safety.
I think there is huge danger is providing an expectation of a response time based on a perceived queue because as all emergency service professionals know, it can all change in a heartbeat – a plane can go down, fire break out, mci vehicle accident, etc. There is no way we can recontact everyone waiting for services when the s@#* hits the fan. That’s why we ALWAYS put the onus back on the caller – “if it gets worse or changes, call us back.” They are there and they can see what it happening; we cannot.
As a manner of liability- I never tell someone directly what to do. I always say. “I can not tell you what to do– do what you have to do to make yourself safe”. Whenever someone is watching a suspect or suspicious person, I will, however, tell my caller not to follow them and to lock the door only if they feel safe doing so. I do not believe this incident can be blamed on the dispatcher. He/she did what they were trained to do. Additionally, It is ludicrous to expect a dispatcher to tell a caller what priority the call has been assigned. That will result in an explanation of call priority protocol which a majority of callers would simply not understand. A fail safe to relinquish liability from dispatchers/dispatch supervisors is to broadcast “BOLF” any calls with suspect information, and have a sergeant or patrol supervisor acknowledge that you are holding the call if no units are available to dispatch.
While this incident is tragic, I personally would not have approached this person and would have stayed indoors until officers arrived.
You cannot advise callers even a ballpark response time figure, that creates major liability for you and your dispatch center/agency.
Also dangerous would be to tell a caller that police are on the way. Especially if the call is till pending, but even if a unit is enrt they can always be pre-empted for a higher priority call.
Wasn’t this a day that Oakland Mayor Kwan gave city employees a paid day off so they could participate in the occupy wall street scrum? Watch the dispatcher get hung out to dry, when upper management and Oakland’s mayor should really get the blame.
How very sad.
This is a tragedy, no doubt, but to place blame on the dispatcher is wrong. Call priorities can be changed, therefore they are irrelevant. None of us know what the dispatch personnel involved & RP said to one another. We don’t know what information was gathered.
It is also ludicrous to give a citizen a time frame of a response. The best I ever give is “As soon as possible”, even if I am simultaneously dispatching units. The bottom line, I am NOT driving the emergency vehicle and can’t account for road conditions, traffic, etc. I’ve had field units come across other crimes in progress, or get in to accidents themselves while on the way to the call. Remember : Murphy’s law?
If the call came in to Berkeley’s Comm Center, both a Com Center supervisor and a patrol supervisor would have probably been involved (letting them know what calls were pending).
Know your Dept’s protocol and follow it to your best ability while documneting your actions. Remain professional. Notify supervisors and advise of any potential danger. “Bump’ up the call to the next level if any reason exists to think violence may occur.
You must log in to post a comment. Log in now.