Context: This is a call in which a father reports his son being trapped beneath a truck.
Operator:
[inaudible 00:00:03] County.
Aaron Solomon:
I'm trying.
Operator: Where is your emergency?
Aaron Solomon: It's 1357 South Water Street. It's off 109. Please hurry.
The question of the location of the emergency is answered. The subject then says, "please hurry." In an emergency, it is expected that the caller is in earnest and will go beyond the boundary of the question.
Yet, the subject does not state what the emergency is, nor for whom emergency services needs to help.
In extremity, operators sometimes have to repeat the question about location.
Why?
Because the caller's priority is the current state of the victim.
Even when the question is answered, the current state of the victim is the expectation. It is front and center of the language because of the immediate need. It is also the priority of the language due to familiar relationship: the father's instincts to help his son.
Operator:
You said 57.
Aaron Solomon:
Please hurry.
Please hurry for what? For whom?
The subject now causes the operator to ask what is the emergency. This is not expected. The scene described by a father is one in which we expect to hear immediately.
Operator:
Okay. What's going on?
Aaron Solomon:
1357. My son's truck backed over him and it's rolled over him and drug him into the ditch and it's on top of him. He's trapped under the truck. Yeah. Somehow it drug him underneath it? Yes, my son is under it. I'm trying to ... No, I'm trying to call 911.
"My son's truck backed over him"
Did the subject witness this?
Note next that there is ongoing action: "my son's truck backed over him and it's rolled over him and drug him into the ditch..."
The truck:
a. backed over him
b. rolled over him
c. drug him into the ditch.
This is an ongoing (element of time) activity.
He then tells us that his son is trapped (emergency) after explaining what happened.
Expected is "my son is trapped!" as the first priority.
The language he has, thus far, used, is to give the details of what a person witnessed. He informed the operator that the truck backed over him, rolled over him and drug him into the ditch and is on top of him.
He then is heard saying, "yeah somehow it drug him underneath it"
Why now the expression of uncertainty?
As the audio continues:
Yes, my son is under it. I'm trying to ... No, I'm trying to call 911.
If the subject is addressing someone else (or others), what would cause the need to affirm that his son is "under it"?
This raises the question that if others are present, why not make the effort to extricate his son?
Operator:
Okay. What's your name?
Aaron Solomon:
Oh my God. My name is Aaron Solomon. Oh my God.
Operator:
And you said you're at 1357 South Water Avenue, right?
Aaron Solomon:
Yes.
Operator:
How old is the male?
Aaron Solomon:
He's 18. He just turned 18 about a month ago. It's my son. Oh my God. Oh my God. This is not good.
References to Deity repeated. The statement "this is not good" is unnecessary.
We wait for him to ask what to do for his son.
Operator:
Is he awake? Can he [inaudible 00:01:08]?
Aaron Solomon:
Oh, please hurry. I don't know. I don't think so. He's not alert, right? No, he is out and he's trapped. I got three guys here and he's trapped under the truck.
"please" has the polite demeanor continuing. What does his son need? What does he need to help his son?
The question is, "is he awake?"
"I don't know,. I don't think so. He's not alert, right?"
Has he checked his son?
Has he spoken to his son?
The expectation is to run to the son,
Where, in proximity to his son, is the subject located? Why isn't he next to his son for this call?
We then get the answer to whom he was speaking to:
I got three guys here and he's trapped under the truck.
He has "three guys here" on the scene, interrupts his 911 call to inform them, yet we hear of no attempt to free his son.
Operator:
Okay.
Aaron Solomon:
Oh my God.
Operator:
I understand, sir. Stay on the phone with me while we get somebody out there. What's your name?
Aaron Solomon:
Aaron Solomon.
Operator:
All right, Aaron.
Aaron Solomon:
Huh?
Operator:
What kind of vehicle is it?
Aaron Solomon:
It's a Toyota Tacoma. And he's underneath the vehicle.
Operator:
Okay. I've got that.
Aaron Solomon:
And-
Operator:
Okay. I've got that. What color is it?
Aaron Solomon:
It's a white truck. That's my son. Somehow it backed up. Yeah. Yeah. I'm on with 911 right now. Oh my God. Oh my God. Oh my God.
"Somehow..."
Does he know this? Did he witness it?
If he came upon a scene in which his son was under a truck, how would he know to even speculate how this happened?
This question is on the mind of the 911 Operator:
Operator:
Was your son working on it?
This is a logical question to a 911 call that is raising concerns for the operator.
Aaron Solomon:
No. No. He was just getting out of it. We're on an incline and I guess he didn't have it in park or something, or it wasn't engaged or ... Oh my gosh. Oh my God. I can't believe this.
The subject affirms to know what happened and the timing ("just") of what happened.
He still does not ask what he can do for his son, nor ask the 3 guys present to help him attempt to free his son.
Time is passing.
Operator:
And you said he's still not responding?
Aaron Solomon:
No. No.
Operator:
And he's still under the truck? No one can get him out from under it?
The operator appears aware of the passage of time in describing what happened.
Does the operator assume that the subject and the three guys made an effort to get him out? It is not something we have heard the subject state.
Aaron Solomon:
No.
He does not say, "no, we tried!" or any such description.
Operator:
We saw units en route to you. I'm just asking you questions so we can update them. Okay? Can you check and see if he's breathing?
Aaron Solomon:
Huh? Somebody's telling me that he's coming to-
Is he not with his son while making this call?
Operator:
Okay.
Aaron Solomon:
... maybe.
Operator:
He is waking up. Try to keep him still. So he is breathing?
Aaron Solomon:
Well, yeah, he can't move. I don't think he can move. I don't know.
The subject does not appear to be aware of his son's state.
Operator:
Okay, I understand.
Aaron Solomon:
No, he can't move. He's trapped.
Operator:
Okay. We got somebody en route. Now when he wakes up, he might be scared. Can somebody just sit down there and talk to him?
The operator recognizes that the father is not with his son.
Aaron Solomon:
Yeah, somebody talk to him.
Why would a father assign this to someone else?
Speaker 3:
[inaudible 00:03:19].
We do not know what the subject now responds to:
Aaron Solomon:
There's blood. Is he facing up or down? He's facing up. They said he may aspirate. We need to hurry. Oh my God.
Operator:
So does he have blood coming out of his mouth?
Aaron Solomon:
Yeah. Yeah. There's blood coming out. Yeah, somehow it drug him down I think. I don't know whether it wasn't in park or what, or if it didn't engage the brake or it drug him underneath somehow.
He offers more information about not knowing, than he offers about his son. His son's status is known because of the questions asked him and information coming from someone else ("they said he may aspirate")
Operator:
Okay.
Aaron Solomon:
They said he's facing up.
Again, we are led to understand that the caller, the teen's father, is not with his son. Apparently, strangers are.
Operator:
Okay.
Aaron Solomon:
But he's bleeding from his mouth. So, Grant, turn your face to the side if you can barely, but be careful.
Operator:
Don't move him. Okay?
Aaron Solomon:
We can't move him. We can't move him. [inaudible 00:04:09].
Operator:
All right. [inaudible 00:04:12] there. I'm going to let you go, okay?
Aaron Solomon:
Yeah. Okay.
Operator:
Okay.
Aaron Solomon:
All right.
Operator:
Uh-huh. Bye-Bye.
Analysis Conclusion: Concerning
Rather than facilitate the flow of information, the subject raises questions about what happened to his son.
The subject is the victim's father.
He does not ask for help or directions on how to help, his son.
He shows a priority of explaining how this happened, and then repeats it, rather than report immediately the state his son was in.
The subject appears to be physically distant from his son. This raises the question as to why a father would not be the closest to his son, not only there for his son, but reporting directly to the operator and receiving instruction on how to help him.
How is it that a father could overcome the natural instinct to be with his entrapped son? What history or background might lend itself to this distance?
The subject does not offer information in a manner that shows priority of saving his son, but causes the 911 operator to ask directly.
Time
I am concerned about the passing of time, as an element, within this call.
Without informing the operator of his son's condition, the caller offers an explanation on what happened in a step by step manner. This is, in the mind of the caller, the element of time passing. He even speculates (unnecessary information) on why it happened.
I am concerned that more time passed here than considered, which is vital to an investigation. It is the perceived passing of time in the caller's mind (revealed in chosen language) that should cause investigators to seek to learn if anything else took place during the passing of time, that the subject is not revealing, while he is thinking of it.
This call is concerning. There may be explanations for its content, but it is the caller, himself, who has raised questions about what happened to his son.
The priority within the language does not indicate the saving of his son, but rather to explain, in steps, how it happened.