An end to 911 call replays?

I absolutely think we should be able to listen to 911 calls. If its going to help find out what happened in a case, I think its a must. Invasion of privacy? I'm glad that 911 operator got reprimanded for what he said, that was TOTALLY unprofessional. I don't care if the person is calling for an actual emergency or not, they are trained with how to handle the level of crisis and that was wrong. The instance of the woman dying in the fire is another reason to air them. If people are doing their jobs correctly, they won't be embarrassed by hearing their taped call.

Like most things in life the answer to this is so obviously easy. The phone calls should be allowed to play on t.v,internet, radio; however in order to protect caller identify a simple voice filter could be dubbed over the original callers voice that would slightly distort it.

I'm sure people have seen similar things on tv shows etc

Regarding making 911 calls public; this is a tough one. I believe we should be aware of how our calls are being handled. Our tax dollars pay for this service. However, if I had an emergency...I'm doubt I would want it publicized.

911 calls didn't seem to become a problem until it pointed out negligence. Putting a restriction on the records is handing out a run around to information that plays a significant role in journalism. It seems fishy to me.

No and no.
For me it is no different than watching a killing.
All I want to know is the facts...ma'am.
Just the facts without sensationalism.

After watching your piece, I believe the best solution is to allow the airing of 911 calls only with the consent of the caller or (God forbid) their next-of-kin.

I am a volunteer firefighter, and I believe that 911 calls are invation of privacy. The only time that someone such as a laywer to be able to hear 911 calls is if it is going to trial.

Seems to me like the simple solution to protecting the privacy of callers would be to allow the callers to decide whether to release the tape, or a transcript, or nothing at all.

It isn't clear that there's any good reason for dispatchers to have any expectation of privacy. After all, the call could be recorded from the other end.

I believe that broadcasting 911 calls could put the caller in a position where a perpetrator could seek revenge by identifying the caller's voice.. The media should be satisfied with the transcript and could have access to the audio but be prohibited from replaying the audio on the air or posting it on their web-page.

Hey, this is Carol Costello. Really interested in hearing your views. Another interesting twist to this story-some experts say Ohio's proposed law is unconstiutional.
Why? Because it allows people to hear the tape, in private, if they request it–because they are unable to share what they heard with others-well, experts say that makes it unconsitutional. The proposed law should ban the broadcast of 9-1-1 tapes altogether. That's why the law is constitutional in other states.

It makes perfect sense they would want to keep these calls from the public. I wouldn't want my screw ups on the air either. Its a good idea, keep the information from the public eye so that the people never know whats really going on. Its a great play from the republican play book.

I don't think the American Taxpayers need yet another law banning our freedoms. As long as we are complacent and do nothing, the Government will keep trampling our rights. The news media is already censored enough by the Government. If the 911 calls are censored, who will hold the dispatchers accountable? I beg the Washington Fatcats to do something productive, like fixing the broken Social Security System. At what point do my tax dollars start actually working for ME?

i feel it is an invasion of privacy. there are people who wont call if this was public. how sad that would be for those who may lose their life.

No, 911 calls should NOT be public. An event that causes a person to call for help is news – the person's frantic voice is not. The only reason to air them is to exploit the situation for news ratings. As you reported, states which restrict access to have a mechanism by which 911 abuses can be investigated. Any other use is only sensationalism. You guys are supposed to be better than that, right?

Allowing use of transcripts only is ideal solution and protects privacy and gives press access to information. The argument that there is a need to hear actual call is an example of what I call yellow journalism. It is self serving on part of “news� organizations and is being used to play to the ambulance chaser instincts of the public for rating purposes.

The US Constitution was written and assures the rights of individuals and has no mention of rights of organizations (other than the right to assemble) on behalf of individuals. I feel that as such the media/news should have limited access to 911 recordings and the rights of the individuals on these tapes exceeds that of the media and should be protected.

9-11 calls should not be banned from being aired; if anything, the restriction of not being aired could only apply if the caller wants privacy or discloses private medical information.

Never merely because 9-11 operators are concered about their performance. 9-11 operators have a job which requires responsibility, and thus anything they say to a caller should be broadcasted. In fact, if they say something unprofessional they deserve to be broadcasted and humiliated; aftter all, how do you think the caller feels.

grammer error before...

May 15th, 2009 7:57 am ET
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

No, 911 calls should NOT be public. An event that causes a person to call for help is news – the person’s frantic voice is not. The only reason to air them is to exploit the situation for news ratings. As you reported, states which restrict access do have a mechanism by which 911 abuses can be investigated. Any other use is only sensationalism. You guys are supposed to be better than that, right?

Yes........you're calls should not be scattered all over the airwaves. Can't reporters be sanctioned to not make the information public? People should not have to worry about being targeted once they have informed on some illegal activity.

I think that restricting 911 calls is a bad idea. We do posess the technology to alter the callers voice which would then take care of the concern for the criminal recognizing the caller's voice. The public relies on this system to save lives, act in a professional manner and respond quickly. The examples in this story were perfect examples of why they need to be heard; we need to know that an operator may need further training. Neither incendent in the story were handled professionaly or rapidly. These operators and one that act the same way on the job need to be removed from their position for further training to bring the up to better standards or removed permantly if they can not achieve the standards. The lawyers and government officials that are fighting for the restrictions on these calls are only thinking one way, we need this access to be able to show where there are problems with the system that need addressed.

I feel that the 911 tapes should be public, with the permission from the party calling. If the party says they don't want to make the call public then go to court and fight it out. The 911 system Is a public service, and should be kept public, it isn't like all calls will be aired on Tv. just the important ones.

So long as the taxpayers maintain 911 services, and if 'Public Information Act' is to be respected, the public has a right to hear 911 recordings.

I have often wondered what te purpose of re-playing 911 emergency tapes on air was. I don't see any value in hearing another person calling out for help in stressful and/or life threatening situations; however,I hadn't considered someone's voice being recongized calling in to 911, resulting in a revenge motive by some nefarious person. That possibility makes me more against the releasing of 911 tapes to the media. It is not entertainment!

Read: Books by Everett E. Rupert at your bookstore now!

I my community we can listen openly to the 911 operators as they call police and fire responders. We can alread figure out where the problem is occuring, what it is and, often, who is likely to be involved. Though it creates a sense of community involvement and sometimes brings additional volunteer aid where needed, I always feel a little like I am peeking into to people's lives.

Sometimes we can deduce that a mother is calling in a son threatening suicide or that someone is beating up another family member, or that so and so has overdosed, again. This makes me uncomfortable.

Actually hearing the person who has called 911 goes too far. I can imagine that it might inhibit someone from calling under certain cicunstances

This is BS! We should be able to access ANY and all videos from ANY police department at ALL times. This is why we have so many criminal cops abusing people in EVERY city in the United States. They tamper with evidence knowing NO ONE will do anything to stop them. And they are correct. Our FBI doesn't do anything and no else does either. The press should have access to ALL video, voice recordings as well as access to their digital photos!

Privacy seems lost these days but some of us still cling to it and it saves lives in criminal cases. I would be afraid to call 911, if I thought my voice would be broadcast. Who wants the public listening in on a frantic, emergency conversation? I'm going to check the laws in my state.

Yet another blazing example of Ohio's "agents of the people" being entirely out of touch with the actual people. I don't know anyone who is afraid to call 9-1-1. I know plenty of people who are terrified of the police. Even I, when calling 9-1-1 for an elderly alcoholic neighbor who had collapsed, was very nervous to make an emergency call knowing that the first "person" to arrive at the scene would be what we've come to call around here – a "wildcard cop." Exposing 9-1-1 calls is as essential as exposing any other kind of incompetency. Unbiased journalism should have no restrictions. For me, it raises a serious eyebrow of suspicion when political people who are out of touch are scrambling with to interject some kind of obstacle to obstruct public viewing.

MY question on this is is this not a public system paid by public funds through our taxes from the telephone companies and through our local county property taxes? So why then if I or you John Q public or Jane Q publics pays for this why should we not have a visial and audio form of oversight , transcripts are fine but how abot the sight impaired how easy is it for them to have access to them?
thank you for your time and ear

open up the conversation. The mistakes that happen can no longer be hid.

I like Jennifer H."s solution "with the permission from the party calling".

I was surprised to see that your story on 911 callls focussed on the need to expose 911 operator error. Of course that does occur. Most of the 911 calls played on CNN and other news outlets are not of this kind. They are used to dramatise the news. Think of the plane crash on the Hudson. Days later several 911 calls were played. Why? We already know that the plane had gone down and people were saved due to heroism and good common sense. Playing the calls simply gets people at a gut level.

If I make a 911 call in a heart-rending situation, I don't want it plastered all over the news to help the media keep more viewers. Transcripts should be enough.

MKMuller

Journalists clearly want 911 calls to be public because the sound of a victim in crisis can often plump up an otherwise flat news story. The idea that there should be public access to 911 recordings "so the public can be sure that 911 operators respond to calls in a proper manner" is absurd. There must be a better ways to manage operator performance than playing the sounds of a person in crisis over the tv or radio.

Carol Costello again...

Fab comments. Another thing to consider–remember how the NYT fought for the release of the 9-1-1 tapes from September 11?

The paper–and a 911 family group–went to court to force NY to release the tapes.

There was a compromise–only the operator's voices were heard. (unless family members agreed their loved voices be heard as well)

As a supervisor in a 911 dispatching center in a large metropolitan area in Ohio I strongly disagree with the bill introduced by Senator Tom Patton. Our behavior and actions on 911 calls greatly influence the outcome of life or death situations for the citizens we serve. Accountability for our actions in all forumns should be the only deciding factor regarding public oversight. Unless the senator can document instances where disclosure of 911 tapes in public media has endangered the individual initiating the call then this is a misguided bill that will do more harm than good.

Regarding the 911Well, here's the thing. Certainly, with logic, we can find resolution to this problem that is taken so far. It is simple.

1. The most important thing that needs to be observed is that we are Citizens of this Nation therefore the consumers, the human beings, the tax payers, the ones who are right.

2. It is logical for the 911 calls to be broadcasted without restrictions because of the following reasons.

a. Transcripts can be taken out of context because it is just black and white and no humor, nor human exppression can be identified in order to properly understand what is being said and felt by either the 911 caller and the dispatcher. For exmaple the dispatcher who answered the caller, "what do you want us to come over there and shoot her?" was expressing humor to make light of the situation. If this were to be read and not heard then that transcript could be used in a manner that is not beneficial to the dispatcher but if the dispatcher can use the recording to properly illustrate that he was expressing humor and can defend him or herself because humor is a human emotion and is understood and can be forgiven, given the fact that humans are the dispatchers.

b. The moment a transcript or anything for that matter becomes an issue about wether or not to be public in public, at that moment, it is to late, it already belongs to the public. It shouldn't be an issue and just accept your mistake, move on, and try not to keep throwing stuff to the media, and if you ever have any doubt about something belonging to the public then you might be walking thin ground. And you should ask yourself why you are asking yourself that question.

c.Older transcripts can be studied by the public and some cold cases that went unsolved may actually get some outside help from the public of which does not require a salary or a budget. I'm not saying that a simple recording can solve a case but that it couldn't either.

That's it for now.

Many people are aware of the freedom of information laws, however, most probably are not aware of the security and privacy laws that are essentially exceptions to FOI. I was a police administrator who dealt with these issues for almost 30 years. The only way to handle these FOI requests, is on a case by case basis. In Connecticut, some exceptions to FOI release of information are: identity of informants or witnesses, information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action if prejudicial to such action, investigatory techniques not otherwise known to the general public, arrest records of a juvenile, the name and address of the victim of a sexual assault, or injury or risk of injury, or impairing of morals.

Police and other public safety agencies must constantly do an analysis of requests under FOI, while also being fully cognisant of laws requiring that certain records remain secure and private.

As a retired manager of a 911 system I can tell you that I never had any fear in providing tapes to the news media because of the actions of my tele-communicators. In Florida, this is a given under the Government in the Sunshine Act. Transparent government is of critical importance. I did sometimes worry that the news media would play segments out of context, but that a risk I was willing to take. I wish the news media could broadcast all of the conversations of our politicians. Don't you think they'd change the way they do their job.

It is just a way to protect those incompetent 911 operators. Change does not take place until the public knows and can place pressure on the 911 system.

"Reading words doesn’t convey emotion from the caller, or disrespect on the part of the operator."
What about the calls where the 9-1-1 operator saves a life? Or where the caller is a nut? The remark in the article shows where this guy's assumptions are. And the press denies being liberal...

911 Dispatcher: “OK. Did you want us to come over and shoot her?�

That's just funny.

Amen! It's about time! It is absolutely ridiculous to play people in their private moments of terror or agony for all to laugh and poke fun at. Who wants that? People will just stop using 911 in emmergencies because they don't want themselves ostracized, and they don't want to be the center of a public spectacle. There is only one valid circumstance where I can see it would provide any benefit to the public... that is when people abuse it wasting taxpayers money, when people are found out to be deliberately misusing it by making fraudulent or frivolous claims. For example, something like that lady who put a dead man's finger into her bowl of chili at Wendy's and then turned around and tried to SUE Wendy's because of the finger she had herself put in it, and tried to claim the Wendy's was legally liable to her and owed her millions of dollars in extortion money. Any instances of deliberate fraud like that, if put through the 911 system, should be exposed and prosecuted to the maximum extent of the LAW.

Exactly how does airing them publicly help solve crimes? They are not proposing that police, investigators or supervisors can not listen to the calls to solve crimes or review for appropriate handling of cases. Those of you who are so strongly advocating for them to be aired publicly are doing so out of entertainment interests, not valid societal interests. Airing the calls to the masses does little to serve those interests. Callers who have their calls handled inappropriately can ask to have the calls reviewed by the parties that matter without them being aired by the media for entertainment or "news" purposes.

Can the state hack name an incident where a caller was identified and harmed? usually, the criminal knows who called 911; the person he was hurting!

"...it smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car..."

What would Nancy Grace do without being able to play 911 calls?

I have privacy concerns for the people doing the calling. Sometimes these are just played for ridicule. I don't think the public should have a right to hear these. Often the self-righteous right to know is used to justify the voyeuristic desires everyone seems to have.

As for the 911 operators, my concerns are a little less, but how would you like a mistake you make at work to be a major news story? I think issues should be handled internally unless a real pattern develops that is not being addressed.

I don't think they should be so liberal with releasing the calls. For example there is case with a woman seeing her daughter being shot in front of her and she's calling 911 and pleading for help. The only reason the news was publishing it for the "shock value". There were no questions about how the call was taken or how the police arrived, the news people were committing how upset she was. In this poor woman's worst moment ever, her words are being played for people entertainment. I think that is wrong, the transcripts would have been enough.

I was a victim of a high profile crime in Indiana. It was the top story on the news for a week until the guy was caught. During that time, I was horrified to learn that the media was pressing the police to release my 911 phone call. Words can not describe the invasion of privacy I felt. There was nothing in the call that would have furthered their "reporting." They just wanted a sensational 911 call to play on the news so everyone could hear me sobbing for help. As a sexual assault victim, the media would not have released my name anyway, but the mere fact that the media tried so hard to get the call released was sickening. It was not released to the media and was never played on TV for everyone to hear. For that I am thankful. Now whenever I hear someone else's call played, I feel for the victim. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of people hearing them call 911 for help on the worst day of their life.

There is no value in playing the actual tape. If you have a problem with the dispatcher who handled the call, there are other avenues to pursue. Reporters who claim they are looking for wrongdoing are really just looking for something sensational to report.

Well of course they don't want their screw ups known to the public.
This is the government covering up their incompetance again. Maybe that same 911 operator would never have been reprimanded and in fact should have lost his job for being such an idiot in an emergency situation.
When the government starts passing laws to protect themselves from incompentcy, we have a real big problem that needs to be addressed at election time. I would say this Senator Patton is in the back pocket of law enforcement and needs to go. These people work for us and are paid by us...not the opposite. A little common sense here should tell everyone what this guy's agenda is. Let's look at who his bank rollers are for the next election.
Things are geting way out of hand and now they want to pass legislation to put the public even further out of the picture. Sounds more like a dictatorship every day.

I absolutely think we should be allowed to listen to 911 calls. Without hearing the 911 call, you're only getting part of the story.

The mother did the right thing since the ultra liberals have made it illegal to spank your own children, who else would she call???
This 911 operator should have been fired. When people call 911 they aren't looking for some lazy idiot to tell them jokes on the other end of the line. This is getting worse every year and now some moron wants to pass a law to hide the incompentcy of our law enforcement.
Get this guy out of office. He's obviously in someone's back pocket.

To the cops who respond –with people won't call 911 because thier afraid the criminals will reconginze thier voice– that is obsurd , people that don't call 911 are people that don't want to be involved . The media isn't interested in the cases that go good thier interested in the case that goes bad like the operator who says what do you want us to do shoot her. The only reason a person would not want these tapes aired is to cover up thier mistakes.

Help find out what happened? That's not supposed to take place in a public forum, and rarely succeeds when it does, because the public gets a melanfge of fact and fiction distorted by the ratings and profit concerns of the media. Don't kid yourself – we rarely get the truth, even when they play things like 991 calls straight from the recording. But where we "find out what happened" is in court, with legal respresentation on both sides, and a jury getting the facts as presented and deciding. Playing this stuff in public is just voyeurism and probably should be banned, particularly if there's legitmacy to the claim that playing these on air makes people afraid to call 911. Playing it in court is proper.

Its fishy! So there wont be any check and balance ? come on ! Sounds like Microsoft ! What are they trying to hide ? If someone is in danger believe me they will call 911 if there lives is counting on it. Who the hell came up with this idea ?

I think everyone is missing the point that this legislation is meant to protect the caller, not the 911 Operator. I recently witnessed a domestic dispute in the street while driving home. I immediately pulled over and asked the woman being assaulted if she needed help. I was then verbally threatened by the man that had her pinned to a vehicle. When I called 911, the operator did not ask for my name, but she did ask for my cell number in case the police needed to call me back. I was unable to provide my new cell number and had to provide my phone number instead. I am listed in the phone book and only live a a few streets away from where this incident occurred. I am home alone at night with my small child – I certainly wouldn't want an anonymous 911 call to help a stranger turn into a dangerous situation for me and my family through this type of media exposure.

I wonder what percentage of the calls really are even an issue. If you figure that say there are 10 million 911 calls a year (i've no idea the figure but you get the idea). and say even .1% (again i'm just giving you an idea of numbers) are handled badly thats still 1000 calls a year someone screwed up. How many of us can say we havent screwed up 1 out of the last 1000 calls we were on. I konw I sure cant.

the police have a very valid point, one I never concidered before. VIctems are afraid of being recognized. Maybe the point of this is that we need to stop overreacting to small chances of something happening for the greater good. Do we really have to listen to someone afraid of their life or someone else's often, while another person (often succesfully but sometimes not) trying to calm them down while they get information from them. How many of you really want to have public a call where you are paniced and afraid for what most times is a very valid reason. How many of you want to hear them because you find them funny, find them entertaining. Have we become really that mentally sick of a nation that we have to hear more and more extreme things to be entertained?

16 out of every 17 articles you read and see are negative. (this is a figure i'm not making up). 1 out of every 17 is EITHER neutral or positive. Stop worring about hearing things to depress you, there are more then enough out there.

Deb P

How comes it's always a Republican who wants to hide things from the public.
Republicans are always trying to take away come rights or access from the public, and then they say they want limited government, oh the hypocrisy.

Transcripts provide all the information needed by reporters and the public. It is in the publics best interest NOT to have the AUDIO broadcasted. We want people reporting crimes. If one person doesn't call because the are afraid of their voice being recognized then that is a problem for all of us. In this age of people being told to not "snitch" we need to do everything possible to make people feel safe doing so.(snitching) We'd have more crimes reported- making us all safer!

Charlie says this is a system paid for by the public, so we should have unfettered access. Well, the Social Security system is also paid for by the public, but your number is not public information. Likewise Medicare – so everyone should have access to your medical records? This is a totally specious argument. The only reason for playing these things on the news or internet is sensationalism. If I had to call 911 because of an accident or some such event, it adds no information for you to know how upset I was at the time. Need some excitement? Go skydiving or something.

If you haven't noticed..you pay taxes through your phone bill for 911, so yes, they should stay public. However; I believe they need to do a clean sweep of 911 operators as I find they are some of the rudest people on earth. People are calling them for help not to have some rude remark made to them.

These are very personal and private calls and why should the public be allowed to hear them. It is none of there business what goes on in the 911 office. Is there nothing sacred anymore. Just cause we pay taxes there has got to be some restrictions on what information we are allowe to have. And there calls that go thru to 911 aren't one of them .

How dare anyone say they want to listing. How low can people sink that they feel they should be allowed in these more horrific moments for most people. How would you feel if you 911 call went over the air for everyone to listed. There is no espect of privacy these day.
I say BAN IT from the air.

There is no reason that the audio needs to be made public. A transcript is enough to show if the operator made a bad judgment. The only reason why the news media wants the audio is to sensationalize the story.

Who here hasn't been moved by the screams from 911 calls that were posted in the media.

Who cares about journalist? Honestly.

I can't believe anybody fights towards them staying public. Get your flash value news somewhere else, the calls no have business being there.

Playing 911 calls on TV should only be allowed if they are introduced by William Shatner.

Whatever happened to Freedom of the Press?

This country is going to hell in a handbasket.

That person calling in to the police should be ashamed of herself!!Since when should the police be called when she can't even disclipline her own children!! There are people out there with actual EMERGENCIES who need the police's help. People like her need to call their family counselor and not bother the police who have alot more important things to do!!

NO! In the USA, the people must suffer under their FREEDOM, so i believe all recordings should be illegal to make at all.. in fact, recording devices should be BANNED IN THE USA, just like everything else.

We play a 3 second spot out of a 30 year history and want to hang that person.

Well think about this. The parent is not being a parent when they have to have to police come to control her kids. I bet she was one of those people who did not want to spank their kid when they were little because they did not want to teach them to be violent.

When I was a kid if we started to fight mom made us get outside. She knew we wouldn't kill eachother. If it got real bad and she thought one of us was going to hurt the other bad she would be between us but she never wanted or needed someone else be the parent. She took care of it. Grow up America and stop asking others to do what you need to be doing for yourself.

GOOD GOD WHAT HAVE WE BECOME?

First of all I think that 9-1-1 operator should have been fired; not reprimanded...someone calls for help and he makes a joke? That was not funny. As for releasing them I think if they do there should be a way to alter the caller's voice so that there can't be any reprisals against the callers. There are too many crazy people out there and if they recognize a caller's voice that got them arrested they could go after the victim again for turning them in. Most important is the safety of the caller because they will not call for help if they think they are not safe in calling. And second; any 9-1-1 operator who dismisses, jokes or insults someone calling for help, regardless of the reason, or whether or not it was a true emergency should be terminated on the spot. They are in a position to help people and using that authority in the way the operator quoted in the story is reprehensible.

911 calls should be aired. It will let the dispatchers know that they are under scrutiny and that they could be humilitated in public just like they humiliate people who call them for assistance. "Smart mouthed" dispatchers need to be put in their places and brought down a peg or two and know that they cannot get away with saying anything they like just because they dont think there is an emergency. They dont know the feelings of the caller and that person may really fear for their lives.
What if the lady on the other end had answered "yes, come shoot her"? Then the call would have readily been played with no consequences to the dispatcher but to the mother. Put efforts towards real bills and stop flooding the legislature with the BS.

ISN'T THIS SUPPOSE TO BE THE JOB OF A MOTHER TO DISCLIPLINE HER OWN KIDS, NOT THE COPS?!

What about security issues? During these 911 calls names, addresses, phone numbers are released. Who is to stop a bad guy to break in to your home while you are being rushed to the hospital with your family behind you in the car?

Unless they are going to give voice prompts that inform people that their call may be broadcast later, the caller has some assumption of privacy. "This call may later end up as joke fodder on America's Dumbest or You Tube. To accept, press 1" Imagine dealing with that when you have an emergency and just want to reach the operator.

I don't think 911 calls should be made public in any way! The people involved are under extreme stress and not always aware of how they're coming across to the operator. Only the authorities should listen to and analize them. The public, untrained, hears what they want to hear, and draw their own conclusions, not always the correct ones. People think they're entitled to EVERYTHING! Some things should remain private, and this is one!

What will be next? Reporters can't interview wittnesses to anything? Figures though, Ohio is the center of bassackwardness in America.

I think we should hear them....not to hear negligence on the part of the operator but to hear the stupidity of our population....some of those calls are ridiculous and inappropriate uses of our 911 system.

We should have an expectation that the extremely personal moment at which we contact 911 will not become fodder for the entertainment value of the 24/7 news cycle. Abuses within the system should be reported and transcripst provide an excellent compromise for such reports.

I agree with Johnny (Ohio) just alter the voice with a filter, but keep the context and emotion of the caller intact.

Two reasons these calls should NEVER be banned. It will keep 911 operators on their best and most PROFESSIONAL behavior. It's tells them if you make stupid, bad or unprofessional comments in a situation that may or may not be life an death it will be heard.

And, if you ban these calls, then when a really important call turns up and the police need the publics help to identify the person talking on the phone they won't be able to release it without going through a lot of red tape. Making a 911 call public can help solve a crime.

This lawmaker needs to deal with it and worry about bigger problems then phone calls that let us know stupid people are on both ends of a 911 call sometimes.

I feel that 9-1-1 calls should be aired only if the caller agrees to it. I can respect that one may be worried of retaliation depending on what type of call it is, but when a dispatcher handles a call like the guy I just read about then yes it should be aired. No person calling for help should be treated that way. If it was the other way around the caller getting rude or inappropiate responses Im sure the outcome would have been alot worse for the caller then the dispatcher getting a slap on the wrist for being an idiot.

The word transparency seems to mean nothing to Thomas Patton. With oversight by public scrutiny, we ensure that negligence and rude, crude, or inappropriate behavior of 911 operators is not permitted to occur, behaviors which could interfere with public safety or the lives that are at stake. If the 911 operators know they are being watched, they will check their desire to abuseively wield their power over dispatching help (life and death).

Once again a politician wants to hide the failure for someone to perform their assigned tasks in a correct manner. Isn't this the same approach used to hide the shaky deals being performed in the SEC? Isn't this the same thing? We take away the oversight (playing of the tapes) and then we can wonder if the operators are performing their jobs or not. Without the playing of the tapes, I wonder if the individuals supervisors would even be aware of their actions.

No, I think we (the general public) have no reason to listen 911 calls. The only reason people do is for entertainment and curiosity's sake. I think that only the people that need to hear it should be allowed to. Police, hospital, etc. in order to obtain information. But there's no cause for random people to hear, for example, the last seconds of someone's life in some cases. There's no reason to play any of them either-if you're that hard up for entertainment (with some of the dumb calls) go read a book, watch a movie, or play a game.

[...] http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/15/ban-911-calls-from-tv/ [...]

Voices can be disguised, so it seems like the only reason to restrict the release of tapes is to protect dispatchers. But since they are providing services to the public, just like the police, firemen, etc. why should they be protected from public scrutiny. Only the "victims", the callers, should be disguised and protected. If dispatchers are acting in a professional manner they shouldn't have anything to worry about, and won't be embarrassed.

I fully agree with the ban, not necessarily for the benefit of the operators, but for the victims. I can't begin to express how damaging it is to hear the distress calls being played over and over in the media when you've been on the crisis side of a situation. With them hitting every channel and media outlet, they're practically inescapable, short of living in a cave for weeks (months, years).

Heres a solution.. Why dont they just make it so that if a 911 call is to be HEARD on tv .. the tv station would have to get permission from the caller???

For every one tape played on the news to reveal errors made by a 911 operator, there must be 50 played just so the viewers can hear the panicked voice of the caller. "Coming up next – the chilling 911 call from last week's shooting!"

Obviously, there has to be a balance between the public's right to know, and the public's right to privacy. As other have said, allow callers to decide if the calls should be made public. Lawyers can always subpoena the tapes as evidence, so that's not even an issue.

What about the woman calling 911, 3 times, about not getting her chicken nuggets? I think, the media needs to decide for themselves, if their action causes revenge to the victim/caller, they can and should be held liable.

Note to Republicans – one thing that got you in trouble for 8 years was passing laws / executive orders that hid things from the American people. Continuing to do this is not going to bring your party back.

The playing of these tapes is 1st and foremost important to find out facts in what happened in an emergency situation. 911 systems are (as far as I know) fully paid by taxpayers as a service to everyone; darn right they should have to stand up to public scrutiny.

In most places 911 recordings are stored for a certain period of time then destroyed or if recorded to digitial drives the recordings may be over-written when the drives get full (usually 60 to 90 days).

If a request is not submitted in time the recording can be lost forever.

A defendant has the right to hear the 911 recording and face his accuser at trial (in most cases) so the idea that people will be identified by their voices is of little concern when their faces will be present in the courtroom.

The path is -> 911 call -> contact by police -> signed affidavit-> identified to suspect during questioning.."Mary saw you do it!"

Even if the accuser is not present in the courtroom (as in child sexual assualts) the criminal knows who his victim is...

Just more smoke by law enforcement in their 'us versus everyone else' approach.

The police are worried about callers being recognized? Since when have any of these calls come out where the caller didn't identify themselves openly? What incidents of the press releasing 911 calls has ever resulted in a caller having their identity exposed when they didn't want it to be?

The police are simply attempting to exclude themselves from enforcement and oversight. They want the law to not apply to them. They want their misdeeds to not come home to them.

The only tool the citizens have against police misconduct is openness. But police are seeking to arrest people who photograph them while at work, to video them when they are bad, or who record them during traffic stops or home visits.

Yet they see no problem of taking such videos themselves, or even taking along a TV camera crew for shows such as "Cops".

The media and average citizens need the right to record and release any and all interactions between the police and any public official. These interactions aren't private – they are official actions. And if the police are allowed to hide what they did, then they are putting themselves outside the law.

I agree with the Senator. The only reason anyone wants it played it to be involved in the tragic incident so they can rip on people. No one besides who is involved with the call needs to hear it. It's insulting to those who are victims calling in and they are being condascended upon. No one wants their privacy invaded but have no problem being part of someone else's invaded privacy.

I believe they should be public info. Our tax $ pay for it. If you're concerned with revenge based on vocal playback, then distort the voice and be done with it. End of argument. I do not think it should only be transcripts published, you lose; context, word emphasis and the true urgency or lack thereof, in someone's voice.

If an Operator acts unprofessionally/ inappropriately, deal with the individual(s), don't hide it from the public.

The only people who should be able to hear a 911 call are Lawyers Judges and Jurrors. Only in a crime should they be played. People are typically at their lowest moment in their life when they dial 911, why sensationalize someones worst day ever. Why make public a recording of a mother requesting an ambulance for her dying child?

America wants to know whats going on in everyones lives all the time, its about time we sit down shut up and look out for whats going on in our own life for a change. Maybe people would have realized they couldnt afford their million dollar mortgage, or noticed that their child was stockpiling weapons for a school shooting if they werent worrying about somebody elses problems.

What a bunch of sheep.

911 call records should be made available to public. However, these calls should not be relayed publicly on any media. If anybody needs access to it, he/she should make an official request to obtain it. This way, nobody is hurt.

Oh come on!!! How can you not laugh at that operator's comment!!! It's freakin hilarious!!!

Bad judgement call to run that "joke" om 2005. There was no purpose.

And yet, I completely support transparency. I absolutely want anyone who abuses their powers at a 911 line to be subject to public criticism.

I say AMEN to what Ken said (comment from 9:39am ET). Though I personally don't think media really needs access to these.

And what did they caller say after his comment? Why didn't they play that part? I would love to hear it.

These tapes are funded by taxpayers, who also pay the salaries of those doing the dispaching and the first responders. Translation: We OWN the transcripts, so yes of course we get to hear them.

And in 99.9 percent of cases, there is absolutely no case to be made related to security issues.

This isn't opinion, it is fact

I would avoid calling 911. I wouod not want anyone else hearing me at my most vulnerable time. Sure, sounds great for us all to say we should until you are the one on the line screaming and in need of help. What is it that people have the need to be involved in other peoples business at all times and situations?

The idea of giving the person who made the call the right to decide whether it can be broadcast seems sensible. It's like the approach to photographing the return of military dead from overseas where the families make the decision. Obviously, such a rule could not apply to the playing of such recordings in legal proceedings.

Sad to say, but much of the time the calls are aired on TV, it's to cynically hype a story and increase listeners and accordingly advertising rates.

There's one channel that seems to broadcast nothing beyond the tapes of police chases, confrontations with the cops, and accidents with the voice-over guy vilifying the person involved without any real knowledge of whether the individual's guilty of anything.

Worse yet the situation on a couple of these programs is turned nto a comedy when more often than not it's anything, but funny to the people involved. Freedom of the press by all means. But individuals have a rights too.

Socialist

Because 911 calls are public, celebrities don't call 911 and instruct their staff not to. That is why, in the Heath ledger incident, the masseuse called Mary-Kate's bodyguard

I think its total trash. We as taxpayers are paying for the service so I think we totally should be allowed to hear it.

Absolutely, these should be publicly available. The wrongdoing of both the caller and the 911 operator should be heard in it's entire context so that the public can be aware of abuse of the system. To not release is a clear coverup by law enforcement, they hate to be scrutinized by the public, fi a private citizen is concerned about privacy, then they should be the ones forced to go get a court order to prevent the release. As the law enforcement community is so typical to say, "if you have nothing to hide then why won't you reveal?" Yet, it seems that when you reverse this on them, they tend to hide behind excuses such as, "oh we need to protect the caller's privacy." What a bunch of baloney, if that was the case, then why do we always keep watching these Casey Anthony jailhouse tapes. It seems they only want to release what puts them in a favorable light, further misleading the public, and release anything else that will damage someone else, such as an accused criminal. Contact your representatives and insist that we will have a right to access to these 911 tapes.

I totally agree with this lawmaker. A member of the public can't offer any helpful input after hearing a 911 call, there are no case-solving clues to be found in the conversation between dispatchers and callers. I don't see how public replays of 911 calls (e.g., the woman attacked by the chimp) offer anything other than opportunities for bored people to inject a little vicarious adrenaline into their lives, and there are certainly more healthy and dignified ways we can all do this. And because online news magazines like CNN.com choose content primarily in accordance to what draws people's mouse-clicking index fingers, good taste aside, it is the public's responsibility to tune these replays out in the name of health and decency.

This "politically correct" "transparency" issue has run amuk. The 911 issue is just one example. It's gotten to the point where good public administrators can't effectively run their agencies properly because either (1) their political enemies are collecting every bit of work information on them to use against them or (2) the press is second guessing everything that they do. It is possible to be too "open".

I'd propose the following "compromise." Ban 911 calls from 'broadcast' – but, allow them to be searched and heard via some repository system. I agree that the calls should be reviewd for problems, but, not on TV. I – as an average citizen – have no recourse toward a lack of professionalism. The only reason to broadcast it to me would be for "entertainment value," which isn't sufficient cause. Review boards, and even citizen groups who wish to monitor these calls should have full access, no question. For those familiar with the distinction, availability should be "pull" not "push."

I think the key point being frequently missed, is FIRST the protection of the person calling.
Access to information on a public system is a valid right, but it can only be exercised if it does not conflict with the rights of the caller. The dispatcher has no expectation of privacy, working for a public enterprise. The caller, however, is someone in a traumatic state, that is often utilizing what they see as their last line of defence. They are extremely vulnerable and need not be exploited.
This is not to say the tapes cannot be available. It is the caller's choice though.
In certtain cases a judge may declare it vital for a trial (eg: operator discipline case) to replay the tapes. In other cases, the caller may have no issue with releasing the tape. In some cases the caller may want their voice disguised, or only a transcript written.
As a taxpayer, YOU don't have the right to sit and replay my cry for help for your entertainment.

I am ALL FOR this bill being made a law. The playing of 911 calls on local news broadcasts is out of control. The more emotional the caller is, the more probable that it will be played on a news cast. It's absolutely ridiculous that someone who is experiencing a traumatic event such as homicide or a house fire has to go through the humiliation of everyone hearing their 911 call. They should be kept private. If news stations or papers want a copy for investigation- fine but it should not be played for the general public at all!

Having been a 911 operator/dispatcher for nearly two decades, I believe that a court order should be required. People call up who are, at the time, distraught and some unable to actually speak due to the stress they are under, whether it be a crime or a person or family member injured. How would the public like to hear a women on a 911 call being raped? Does that sound exciting and interesting to you? For some I am sure, as nothing but negativity seems to promote the curiosity of many sickos.

If a 911 operator makes a mistake because they are human, than that should be handled internally through the department. A lot of the problem, unknown to the public, is that dispatchers are put under extreme stress with very little pay compared to that of other public safety workers. It takes a special person to work for very little pay, work the crazy schedule including time away from family on midnights, holidays and weekends, work numerous amounts of overtime due to high turnover and handle all calls with 100 % accuracy. If you think it is an easy job, try it. I am sure there are openings, even in this economy, in any jurisdiction. Let me know how it works out for you and tell what if your opinion has changed.

I think that it should not be available for just anyone to hear. Access should be regulated and controlled. Do people screw up? Absolutely, but think how hard it would be to do your job (whatever it is) if you had someone vulturing over your shoulder every single second and picking it apart. Nobody is perfect and everyone has bad days. That being said, if there is misconduct that rises to the level of someone getting hurt, absolutely use it in a court case. If it's a stupid mistake like the crappy comment the one in the article made, let the caller make a complaint and let the supervisor deal with it, because I can guarantee you they will. The general public doesn't need to know about every single mistake. Especially when there are some very, very ignorant or entitled callers who do not know what it's like trying to deal with people who are genuinely in distress every single day. How would you like your fairly small, yet stupid mistake to be broadcast on every news channel for no reason other than entertainment? On the other end, now people are afraid to call 911. Not only because the bad guys might recognize them, but don't think for a second that your call to 911 might not be on Jay Leno if you make a stupid call or a call that sounds funny to them. People don't call 911 because things are going great, they call because they are in distress or because they perceive that they are in distress. It takes a very special breed of person to handle those calls every single day, all day. And to do it without a mistake? Good luck, because there isn't a person in this world who is that perfect.

As a former 911 operator, I think the public should be able to hear everything. I can also tell you, even what you are allowed to hear, is often not the full truth or content of the call. The dispatch centers can cut out parts they don't want you to hear and that includes the background conversations of other 911 operators in the room.

People get into being a 911 operator because they want to be in a position to help others, but they get great kicks and laughs out of your misfortunes. When you cal 911 yes, they will get you the assistance you need, but for the rest of the day, depending on the situation yo called about, you will be the butt of their jokes.

The dispatch centers remove all of that background information from the tapes before they are released to the media, and they are able to selectively edit everything.

I think 911 call recordings should be publicly available as a matter of course. It's the only proof the public has of how their calls for help are being handled.
I've heard several different 911 calls on the news over the years; I'm often surprised at the unsympathetic and flip tone taken by the responders. In a time of crisis, the last thing a victim needs is sarcasm. Unemotional cool professionalism should be the gold standard, but it seems that's often not the reality.

Who ever get paid with American people taxes must be subject to scrutiny.
End of the story.

If the law's intention is to make some provision to protect the rights of privacy of the callers, that seems reasonable. The caller could then waive that right of confidentiality if they so choose. I can't conceive of any useful reason other than expansion of an unaccountable police state to protect the privacy of the 911 operator.

Unless Lawmakers start paying the taxes on service such as 911 then it should be public information.

Yet another idiot who wants to ban our rights! Once they start they'll keep banning as much as possible! There another idiot politician who feels tax payers shouldn't have the right to something else when he can pay for those services out of his pocket then he can ban it. a republican no doubt

Just another Republican idea to suppress evidence. Can't let the people know whats really going on you know? Then they might question things....we can't have that.

Gawd, no one can take a joke at ALL anymore.. I thought that was HILARIOUS. I mean, calling 911 because your 12 year old and 14 year old are fighting? GET IT TOGETHER LADY. I am a parent of teenagers and I can guarantee you they would -never- pull something like that. Whatever happened to parenting, for god's sake.

Make Them Public! Do not protect 911 operators who fail to perform their job in a professional manner. If the tapes are never heard I guarentee nothing more than a Slap On The Hand will happen to the Non-Professional operators. I bet there is a Union behind this just to protect its members. Why do we want to protect Stupidity?

Also its just Human Nature to want to hear "Feel Good" Stories. How many 911 Operators have we considered Heros due to their Absolute Professionalism in assisting people who need help, and without the 911 Operator who knows what would have happen. We have heard them calm a Scared Child when his mother was laying on a floor. We all want to know there are Good People out there, we want to know there are Hero's out there.

I would hate to know unprofessional operators remain on the jobs because there is no public outcry. Keep The Recordings Public!

of course 911 should be free to the press – like rodney king, if camera not watching -

Why do we NEED to be able to listen to 911 calls? Is there really that much of a problem with dispatchers that we need to have this available to the public?

We do pay their salaries with our tax dollars, but we pay for their services, not to be their boss. I agree that the public should be able to know what’s going on with the department, but I don’t agree that we need to hear someone's 911 call just to criticize the dispatcher without the permission of the caller.

I think with a good reason (ie: court) that 911 tapes should be available. But just to have the calls available for ANY person to hear (without the permission of the caller) is going a little far.

Can anyone honestly say that they would want their 911 tapes available for public release? 911 calls are personal, private, scary, and sometimes tragic moments in people's lives and the possibility of it being broadcast all over the news purely just for a network to boost their ratings is just in bad taste. And the risk it involves to the caller could be substantial.

I feel like it’s an invasion of privacy to the people calling 911. At one time I unfortunately had to call 911, I know I would never want to see that available to the public to hear as they please and for networks to use it to make money. I do not believe that is fair to me as a citizen. My life should be able to remain private unless I agree to the release.

One of the most heartbreaking things I ever heard was a young boy caliing 911 to report that he had found his mommy dead. You could hear him crying and trying to revive her (no foul play, it was diabetes-related). I was so profoundly disturbed to think that for the rest of his life, the fear of that moment can be replayed–the moment he realized he had lost his mommy. What earthly good can it be for me, a total stranger, to hear his private anguish? Callers are in panic and their terror should not be used to boost ratings. No one has a right to that sort of voyeurism–even at car crashes the scene is draped to obstruct the view. Show these poor people a modicum of privacy and respect in their moment of need.

but we need to be remain totally anonymous, and dub our voice -

This is just an audible version of Voyeurism. Anyone who wants to hear these recordings are the same kind of people who would "rubber-neck" to see a gruesome car wreck, or gossip across their neighbor’s fence. Sleazy Americans should just settle for Jerry Springer and be satisfied.

There is a simple way to address both the privacy and oversight concerns. Make the general rule that the recording may not be released but provide and exception for situations in which the caller consents. I'm sure the upset callers would gladly consent to releasing the recordings to keep the call centers honest, but this allows those who would not consent to have privacy protection. This is not that hard, people.

It would be best if we could trust people in charge to determine if a call was fit to be released. But we can't. Releasing calls and the sometimes shocking unprofessionalism they contain is unfortunately the only way we have right now to try and exert some set of standards on 911 operators. The police cannot be trusted. We see that on the news every day. To try to stop the same ugly prejudice used by police infiltrating emergency call operators, public inspection must be allowed.

I think (hope) a lot of the people making comments here are missing the point of this proposed law. It is not trying to completely restict access to the tapes it is restricting the broadcasting of the actual call. There is no good reason to broadcast a 911 call other then sensationalism to boost ratings. If the operator is doing something wrong you can tell that just as easy by reading the transcript of the tape and the actual tape does not need to be broadcast to the public.

When I see a comment like "do you want us to come shoot her?", I read it as a way to break the tension, create a laugh and help the caller calm down a little while waiting for someone to assist her. I've worked in customer service/technical support roles for many years and frequently laughter DOES help diffuse emotional moments.

Absolutely the public should be able to hear the conversation! If the operators think no one will hear they could go crazy with their faux pas' while someone is seeking help. That's what they're there for – to help, not to slap someone verbally for using the 911 system. Clearly the mom of the 14 year old was scared of her own child. Let the guy or gal off with, "oops, my bad – it was a faux pas" if you want to, but I call it intense insensitivity to someone needing help. Add arrogance in there, too. They don't mind releasing the tapes to the public when they do something good, do they?

They should replay 911 calls because it informs the public when they are not doing their job i.e. the woman who lost her life. If they were properly trained and did their job right then maybe the tapes wouldn't be replayed as much as they are now.

Of course we should be able to hear it. This stupid law maker and the cops want to hid it because thier stupidity is getting caught and found out.

It would seem that the main concern is the safety & privacy of the callers to the 911 network. With all of the voice encription technology redily available to Police & News networks, encription of the "callers voice" would/should address these issues sufficiently without compromising privacy, safety or the audible value of the callers distress...

You only want to hear them until it's your Mother, Sister, or Daughter on the other end of that line and they end up dead and the whole world is listening to her last call or cry for help.

We are a sick nation. I don't care to hear, see or wallow in other people's misery.

We should people with their heads blown open, beaten and abused. What signal are we sending our children. Sometimes seeing that mess makes already fragile people more dangerous because we give them ideas.

I say if you want to hear the tapes...Go to the police station and ask to listen to them but just remember that if they haven't caught the criminal that you are subject. It doesn't take much to sit at the local supermarket amd hear your.

This is just a preliminary maneuver to silence us in the future. The switchboards will be filled up in the coming chaos. They can't have us connecting the dots too quickly. 911 calls will be banned because they dont want you hearing THEIR side of things.

If it's truly an emergency, I can't imagine that someone will make the decision to not call 9-1-1 simply because they fear it will be put on the air. Allowing operaters (who are the public's access to law enforcement) to openly mock people who are asking for help is absolutely unacceptable and should be taken seriously. Calling his "faux pas" a joke is unfair and not an excuse that should have been accepted.
If identity is such a concern, then disguise callers' voices; otherwise, play us the tapes and allow us to be outraged when citizens are openly mocked by those we should trust. The media is our strongest voice for change.

This is in regard to Carol Costello's article on 911 calling and crime.
I am amazed at how the authorities are able to avoid the spotlight on
911 calls. You would expect the Open Records Act or Freedom of
Information Act or even Federal Court Subpoena could access them.
Example: Seminole County, Oklahoma 911, 2:02 a.m., 7 Jan 07. What
did that caller say to 911 that caused 9 fire trucks to be dispatched,
arriving 4 minutes after firefighter pay records show they had been "baby-sitting" for 6 hours the burning of a 28,000, three story kiln designed church building. Talk about domestic terrorism! Can you imagine the screaming, cursing, threatening, heart attacks etc.
manifest in such a call? Do you know anyone who could publicize it?
(Call 405-220-2215 or 382-8883 WmChoate, $100 reward is waiting)

Come on .... I am starting to really worry about the country I live in, We have already have a crisis in the economy as far as the depression goes, So to many of us we Ourselves have to worry about who ,where and how we are going to fix our own situation since the governement don't have the capacity on how to help out in this tough time .Now we are having to ask questions about should 911 calls be made open to the public Yes!!!!!!! That is what you call an Emergency Situation ....Don't have us to suffer because you can't train your operators properly and when they goof off you want to punish a law abiding,tax paying citizen. I don't know what is going on in this world I am starting to think are these people trained for this job or is the economy this bad that they are hiring students straight out of high school ...(Just to save a DOLLAR)

I still think a Union is behind this just to Protect the 911 Operators.

This is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the FCC. The state will be overstepping its boundaries by trying to legislate here and it will fail due to the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Control over the airwaves is granted exclusively to the FCC and no state may burden that control.

I agree that 911 calls should be aired! That is tax payers money that supports the call centers. I want to know that there is a checks and balance system in place. What better way to be monitored than by the taxpayers themselves.

The re-playing of 911 calls is to appeal to nothing more than the macbre side of human nature...people want to hear that heart-wrenching call of the mother paniding because she can't find her child, or the woman screaming her ex-husband is after her with a gun...and the media gets higher ratings because of it. So it's all about money. What about the 9/11 phone calls from the Trade Center. I was appalled when they made those public. I don't care what law is in place or some stupid notion that the public "needs to know," if that were my dad or mom or brother calling from there, and the public were to hear their last moments on earth, I'd be pretty upset. It's sick, it's twisted, it's twisted, it's WRONG.

Always somebody (some lawmaker) trying to find good reasons to protect a system from appearing to be just as it pretty much is. If anything, they should specify not being able to play 911 recordings in cases where a victim could reasonably expect retaliation. Like when the lady was dying in L.A. and they were busy in King's hospital trying to figure out if she might be a criminal until she died – those people if punished correctly wouldn't be able to "recognize" the voice of the person who called, because they'd be locked up.

Hey folks...Matthew Sobel here. shalom. I think 9/11 calls should definitely be aired...as it is entertainment for people and we all need some these days. Inbetween my WJC activities I often watch tv (i'm also an actor)... i love the news events that have this real live stuff. It is very good...except all the crap about New Yorkers..i mean who cares about 9/11 in New York?

Oh c'mon – we have reality TV that is nothing like real reality – and 911 calls from brainless Americans unable to formulate a good sentence let alone any common sense in general.

If you take that away from us, what will all the cable channels be forced to broadcast?!?! Good TV – and Lord knows we dont want any good TV on TV...

No, we need the idiots to fill up the time slots when American Idol and Lost are not running – please dont take that away – Lord no!!! We might suddenly become an intelligent nation and we sure dont want that!!!

911 calls should never be played by media for the entertainment of the public and that is what most people who posted comments here want. Pure entertainment. They may enjoy listening to someone else's tragic events but the wife who was shot to death by her husband during a domestic dispute while on the phone with 911 would disagree. I'm also sure that the mother who awoke in the middle of the night to find her infant not breathing would not appreciate her infants death being your entertainment.

GET YOUR ENTERTAINMENT ELSEWHERE

I see no reason for these calls to be censored. It is a serious business. Anyone using it in an unprofessionally (the 911 operator), or for foolish calls should be held accountable. I am tired of politicians wasting time on issues of such little significance. Is this the most important issue this guy could come up with? This country is so out of control. Why don’t we make drug testing mandatory for politicians?

It’s interesting that this is coming from a Republican. I wonder if it has anything to the broadcasting of John McCain’s brother making two ridiculous calls to 911 that were broadcast on truTVs World’s Dumbest?

No. 911 calls are to be handled professionally. Not as something that could potentially turn around and hurt the parties involved. As for the "public replays will help us solve crimes" argument, people have a highly overrated opinion of their inner-sleuth. If the world were filled with Encyclopedia Brown's, there wouldn't be a single issue plaguing mankind today. Yes, make 911 calls available for government parties with warrants. No, don't make a http://www.hearyour911.com website with a "Hear what you thought was private!" slogan.

To those saying if you don't here the call you don't get the complete story:

Why does your getting the complete story trump victims desire for privacy? If you want to be entertained watch TV or rent a DVD.

Let the victim decide if there is a reason to release the tape, otherwise lets not make a very difficult time for someone to be used for others "need to know". It really is about dignity for crime victims.

Of course, nobody wants to hear the thousands of calls that get dispatched with the saving of somebodies life.
The ones that wan't to hear the mistakes are probably the ones
that read(and prefer to believe) the National Enquirer.
NO, NO, and NO...
People that aren't in that position are too quick to point blame and
pick sides.

A father of a 911 operator

Since a majority of the individuals on this post seem to believe that if 911 dispatchers have nothing to hide then they should not object to their recordings be replayed. So lets do this, since the roads we drive on are funded by tax payers, every car being driven will have a camera in it and the evidence of your terrible driving is admissable in a court of law. I can only imagine how well that would go. This has nothing to do with the 'safety' of the caller. Things happen. People make mistakes and should be held accountable. However, let each orginization handle its employees. For those of you who are worried about 'corrupt cops' and 'evidence tampering' and would like the callers voice to be covered, the last thing you should want is people 'altering' anything.

I don't think they should broadcast to the general public out of respect for the families. My aunt was murdered and the 911 call was all over the internet. As if my family needed to hear him attempt to turn himself in. I am biased, but w-e.

[...] An end to 911 call replays? « جورج عاوز مصر . [...]

I don't believe the calls should be broadcast at all. I can think of so many reason but the main reason is in direct response to something in the article, "Others say 911 recordings should be public. It’s the only way reporters can investigate wrongdoing" Sorry, but its not the reporters job do investigate wrong doing, they are susposed to REPORT what is being given to them. The people that investigate these things should be the Internal Affairs division, the command staff, whoever is in charge of the Dispatchers or whoever.

I also don't think that victims or victims families really need to hear calls of the blood, gore, etc of what happened in a crime, weather or not it be a brutal murder, or a simple car wreck were someone "messed up" driving.

Invasion of privacy?? What a joke! Invasion of privacy is just another one of those "rights" that we had in the past which has been highly altered by our govt. to place a "control" on the people. We are just about under full control now! Our rights have been disappearing for a while now, yet now we complain?? Our govt. has been tapping into "OUR" phone calls, emails, texts messeges ...for quite a while now. The president that we have now has intruded on our rights the most! Soon, i feel, we should not have very many rights at all. Alot of other countries have more rights that a US American citizen anymore, yet we were the one born "free". We should put a stop to ALL invasions of privacy, and to ANYONE feeling that they had the "POWER" to alter our constitution in the first place! I feel that a tampering of the constitution should be a case of treason and should be treated as such. This administration will not stop until we have no privacy AT ALL and that they are in FULL CONTROL of you, your families, and every asset that you own. If you support this, then you must support that ALL invaions are simply an assult against our constitutional rights. As i have said ...soon ...we will not have many rights even left. The constitutuion will end up collecting dust in a museum as a part of our nations past history, and nothing more. We as "the people" must ban to stop the tampering with our constitutional rights to begin with.

Very nice site!

A woman was concerned enough to call 9-1-1. Teenagers can be brutal and abusive because of their hormones. True the mother may have let things slide enough to where her daughter would act however she wanted to, but when they get so big that you cannot "defend" yourself, or control the situation, therein lies the problem. Nothing against the mother whatsoever. I am not attacking the mother at all, but she should be recongnized as a victim and people should realize that if you let things slide for kids while they're younger, they grow up thinking they can do anything they want. If they get angry and feel like slamming you into a wall because you won't let them go out, why not? None of the other tantrums (like throwing things against the wall, slamming doors, shouting curse words) recieved punishment.

My friend weighed 280 lbs when she was 12, her mother, a mere 125. What do you think the odds are that if they had gotten into a physical fight things would go the mother's way? Even when the situation being that they were virtually the same size, it's still difficult to control the situation, which is why she was compelled to call 911.

There are tons of teenagers that get physical. How many unstable teenagers do can you think of right off hand? If a mother called 911, chances are it was serious and should be taken seriously. I think the operator should be fired period! America is in a recession and someone like him has a job? If that was all the operator knew before he popped off with his mouth, then her safety could have really been endanger. It doesn't take too long for someone to pick up a knife in an argument and use it. I'm disgusted with this call.