Posted on 07/14/2012 5:22:21 AM PDT by marktwain
Toledo police Lt. Randy Pepitone wanted to make sure Annie Huddleston was all right inside her central Toledo home.
Ms. Huddleston thought the man outside prying open her front door lock Thursday was a burglar.
Just as Lieutenant Pepitone was opening the door, Ms. Huddleston, 92, steadied in her hand her late husband's .357 Magnum revolver, and pulled the trigger just once.
The bullet blasted through a wall hitting the 54-year-old lieutenant in the side of the head.
"All of a sudden there was a loud explosion right next to my ear and I went down," the lieutenant said. "I could taste the blood, I saw it dripping on the porch, and then saw the bullet hole."
The lieutenant said he knew the wound was superficial so he crawled across the porch and jumped over the railing where he was treated by firefighters already on scene.
The crew took Lieutenant Pepitone to Toledo Hospital where he was treated and released.
Police Sgt. Joe Heffernan said Ms. Huddleston will not be charged with the shooting because "I don't think it meets all the culpability standards for felonious assault on a police officer."
Sergeant Heffernan said the department confiscated Ms. Huddleston's gun on Thursday morning.
"Lieutenant Pepitone is very lucky," Sergeant Heffernan said. "Another centimeter over and it could have been a very different story."
(Excerpt) Read more at toledoblade.com ...
Well yeah, she thought she was shooting at an intruder, we've established this. No?
But what caused this.
Where was the communication between dispatch, the cop on scene and the 911 caller?
You seem to have an unusually sensitive definition of ‘personal attack’.
Care to share it with the rest of us who are following this thread?
Exactly. The answer is, of course, in their minds was, "We're the Police. We can do anything we want. Property rights be damned. What are those anyway?"
Yes.
If SHE called the cops, then they had every right - plus a responsibility - to get in there.
I didn’t realize she’d called them herself.
Ah, logic. Nice to see you again.
Has anyone said “Holy Toledo!” yet?
And humor. Hello.
You bet Sam.
In addition, seems pretty clear, there was a major communication problem between dispatch, the cop on scene and the 911 caller.
When the LEO arrived on scene, he should have immediately informed the dispatcher, who should have told the 911 caller the police were on scene and simple ask her if everything was OK at that point.
I'd bet a nickel, this was all set into motion due to total lack of communication between the responding cop, the dispatcher, and likely the failure to keep the 911 caller on the line until they arrived, and possible the failure of the cop to inform dispatch he arrived on scene.
My bet is they failed to follow their own training and protocol.
The article says they attempted to contact her, but were unsuccessful. How do you suppose they tried to contact her? Telegram? Write her a letter? Ouija board? Carrier pigeon?
On one hand we have a trained, veteran LEO, following procedures. On the other, we have an addled, 92 year old, who's been imagining people are breaking into her house, and, unable to respond to LE contact, instead decides to squeeze off a blind shot.
I know who I think I'd give the "benefit of the doubt" to. But then again, I'm not a blind cop-hater.
Some of the folks around FR, the cop-hater contingent, remind me of the folks at DU who hate the armed forces irrationally.
Geeze, no kidding.
They were already in contact with her. Did she not call 911?
By training 911 operators are trained to keep the caller on the phone until a unit responds, then the unit advises dispatch they are on-scene, and to inform the caller.
This is not complex.
They were already in contact with her. Did she not call 911?
By training 911 operators are trained to keep the caller on the phone until a unit responds, then the unit advises dispatch they are on-scene, and to inform the caller.
This is not complex.
In addition, according to the article, upon receiving the 911 call the LEO was nearly right there, in the immediate neighborhood, and was there very quickly. Given this fact, it should have been obvious no one was breaking in.
No?
They were already in contact with her. Did she not call 911?
By training 911 operators are trained to keep the caller on the phone until a unit responds, then the unit advises dispatch they are on-scene, and to inform the caller.
This is not complex.
In addition, according to the article, upon receiving the 911 call the LEO was nearly right there, in the immediate neighborhood, and was there very quickly. Given this fact, it should have been obvious no one was breaking in.
No?
In fact, the LEO was on scene nearly immediately, according to the article. IF the 911 caller put down the phone, it was probably due to the fact the LEO was attempting to force entry, and had failed to notify dispatch he was on scene. At which point she puts down the phone, picks up the gun and shoots through the door.
My hunch based on the article.
Exactly, by Ms. Huddleston, yet unfortunately, by her own admission, she wasn't able to determine that and responded instead by shooting the assistance she called for.
This is not the kind of person that should be responsible for a gun.
They were already in contact with her. Did she not call 911?
By training 911 operators are trained to keep the caller on the phone until a unit responds, then the unit advises dispatch they are on-scene, and to inform the caller.
This is not complex.
In addition, according to the article, upon receiving the 911 call the LEO was nearly right there, in the immediate neighborhood, and was there very quickly. Given this fact, it should have been obvious no one was breaking in.
No?
In fact, the LEO was on scene nearly immediately, according to the article. IF the 911 caller put down the phone, it was probably due to the fact the LEO was attempting to force entry, and had failed to notify dispatch he was on scene. At which point she puts down the phone, picks up the gun and shoots through the door.
My hunch based on the article.
Exactly, by Ms. Huddleston, yet unfortunately, by her own admission, she wasn't able to determine that and responded instead by shooting the assistance she called for.
Excuse me? She called 911, they're supposed to keep her on the phone until a unit arrives. They'd never tell an old lady to go investigate and check out her perimeter. Never.
You don't seem to know what you're talking about.
Why did 911 not keep her on the phone as they're trained to do until they could inform her a LEO was on scene?
They were already in contact with her. Did she not call 911?
By training 911 operators are trained to keep the caller on the phone until a unit responds, then the unit advises dispatch they are on-scene, and to inform the caller.
This is not complex.
In addition, according to the article, upon receiving the 911 call the LEO was nearly right there, in the immediate neighborhood, and was there very quickly. Given this fact, it should have been obvious no one was breaking in.
No?
In fact, the LEO was on scene nearly immediately, according to the article. IF the 911 caller put down the phone, it was probably due to the fact the LEO was attempting to force entry, and had failed to notify dispatch he was on scene. At which point she puts down the phone, picks up the gun and shoots through the door.
My hunch based on the article.
Exactly, by Ms. Huddleston, yet unfortunately, by her own admission, she wasn't able to determine that and responded instead by shooting the assistance she called for.
Excuse me? She called 911, they're supposed to keep her on the phone until a unit arrives. They'd never tell an old lady to go investigate and check out her perimeter. Never.
You don't seem to know what you're talking about.
Why did 911 not keep her on the phone as they're trained to do until they could inform her a LEO was on scene?
BTW, why have they not release the 911 recording?
They'll probably lose it. For good reason.
I'd pay a nickle to hear it.
Soooo... what do you think happened? The trained 911 oporator for some unknown, undocumented reason, hung up on Ms. Huddleston? OR An addled, 92 year old, with obviously, admittedly, poor judgement, might have laid down or hung up the phone and decided to fire at the first sound she was able to detect?
Seriously, who do you think you'd like to throw in with?
It’s a rabbit hole.
They were already in contact with her. Did she not call 911?
By training 911 operators are trained to keep the caller on the phone until a unit responds, then the unit advises dispatch they are on-scene, and to inform the caller.
This is not complex.
In addition, according to the article, upon receiving the 911 call the LEO was nearly right there, in the immediate neighborhood, and was there very quickly. Given this fact, it should have been obvious no one was breaking in.
No?
In fact, the LEO was on scene nearly immediately, according to the article. IF the 911 caller put down the phone, it was probably due to the fact the LEO was attempting to force entry, and had failed to notify dispatch he was on scene. At which point she puts down the phone, picks up the gun and shoots through the door.
My hunch based on the article.
Exactly, by Ms. Huddleston, yet unfortunately, by her own admission, she wasn't able to determine that and responded instead by shooting the assistance she called for.
Excuse me? She called 911, they're supposed to keep her on the phone until a unit arrives. They'd never tell an old lady to go investigate and check out her perimeter. Never.
You don't seem to know what you're talking about.
Why did 911 not keep her on the phone as they're trained to do until they could inform her a LEO was on scene?
BTW, why have they not release the 911 recording?
They'll probably lose it. For good reason.
I'd pay a nickle to hear it.
Soooo... what do you think happened?
Uh...You seem a bit slow, but please read the above.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.