Other than the fact you are dead wrong, agreed. Responding to a 911 call doesn't meet the litmus test. If they show up and no crime is in evidence, then it should have been closed as a false call. Same as responding to a fire call where there is no fire.
I haven’t changed my mind at all. All they need is the 911 call about people carrying guns and something horrible. Wisconsin is a “Stop and Identify” state.
http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=stats&jd=968.24
968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person’s conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.
1. Fine the lady for calling 911 because she’s confused and stupid.
2. Fire the 911 operator for not enquiring what the purpose of the call was, exactly what was going on, why the lady is calling 911 and the ultimately why the operator dispatched a car to the scene.
3.) Fine the police for not asking who called 911 when they got to the scene and not ticketing her for abusing it’s function. Investigate why the police were harassing certain individuals for no reason.
One officer could have spoken to the manager, even over the phone, and asked if everything was alright. Then say, “Give us a call if things change.”
That’s a proper investigation.