Talk:Killing of Nathan Heidelberg

Amy Wilson talks to 911 three times - Learns on the last it is the police outside.

@Daniel case Please review this article: https://www.newswest9.com/article/news/crime/trial-david-wilson-midland-police-officer-nathan-heidelberg/513-1e34dfd5-86ab-4384-898f-921bc8103f64

Amy Wilson spoke with 911 a total of 3 times. It was not until the third and final call that 911 dispatchers finally informed her that the suspects outside were actually the police.

Can you please explain how this is not a failure in communication?

Thanks SwissAmish (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It would not be, IMO, a failure to communicate unless we knew that the dispatchers also knew at the same time that the address they were receiving the call from was also the same address to which Heidelberg and his trainee had been dispatched. That was a failure of the 911 system software, perhaps, but not of communication. You're not obligated to tell someone something you don't know, even if it's something they really should know. (Remember, also, the police were under the impression that the burglar alarm company would be calling the Wilsons to let them know the police were coming).

If there was a reason the dispatcher should have told the Wilsons this on the first call, I'm sure, the defense would have made a big deal out of it. It doesn't seem like they did. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: I just reverted your restoration of this to the intro because, on further reflection and review of the cited source, while it is true that there were three calls between the Wilsons and 9-1-1 and only on the third one (the one initiated by dispatch) did the dispatcher inform the Wilsons that the police were already at the house, no one, not the source, not (least of all) Wilson's lawyers, have described this as a "failure". For us to say something so clearly interpretative as that without citing a reliable source saying that is impermissible original research, so we can't say it.

Also, I took out the source not only per WP:LEADCITE but also because it is also the same source we use many times in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, all makes sense. Thanks for explaining. SwissAmish (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome! Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Please see my latest update and see if this makes sense. It just seem noteworthy for the lead, particularly on a paragraph on communication issues, that the Wilsons had literally talked to 911 multiple times as officers were on the scene, but were not informed of such; Despite the nature of the communication mishap. Or am I being pedantic? SwissAmish (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Either way, I wont press it further beyond this. SwissAmish (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm OK with what you wrote, although maybe we could come up with a better word than "gaps". Daniel Case (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

What about just "Communication issues" ? SwissAmish (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)