.

How Quickly Did Deputies Respond to Syed Shooting?

Ladera Ranch's top cop says the time was a bit slower than his goal.

It took deputies six minutes and 40 seconds to reach rampage killer Ali Syed's Ladera Ranch home after his mother called 911, officials said Monday.

That's about 90 seconds faster than recent average response times, but still too slow, said Lt. Jim Rudy, chief of police services for unincorporated south Orange County.

On Feb. 19, in a panic around 4:45 a.m., saying she heard gunshots in the house. It turned out to be Ladera Ranch's first homicide in at least three years, Rudy said, and the beginning of a brutal murder-suicide spree that left four dead and three wounded.

Rudy spoke to the Ladera Ranch Civic Council on Monday evening about crime statistics and emergency services.

He said the average response time for a priority-one call—meaning a serious emergency—was eight minutes and seven seconds in Ladera Ranch last year. In 2009, it was 7:03. In 2010, it averaged 9:09.

Rudy has set a goal of six minutes for the future.

By way of comparison, L.A. County sheriff's deputies take an average of five minutes and 48 seconds to respond to emergencies in unincorporated areas, according to cbsla.com.

In San Juan Capistrano, deputies got to the scene in four to five minutes for priority-one calls at the beginning of 2012, Sheriff's Dept. Lt. John Meyer said. That's partly because San Juan covers a smaller area, he said.

San Juan also has as many full-time deputies on patrol—19—as all of unincorporated South County, an area that stretches from Cook's Corner in the north to Ortega Highway in the south and includes Laguna Woods, Coto de Caza, Ladera Ranch and Wagon Wheel.

Another factor: Ladera Ranch's narrow streets make it difficult for deputies to speed to the rescue, Rudy said. During the day, pedestrians and cyclists force deputies to drive even slower through the community of 23,000.

"You can't go 60-70 mph down the roadway," Rudy said.

Considering such limitations, he was happy with deputies' response to the Syed shooting.

"I thought it was well-handled," Rudy said. "It was relatively quick. Deputies had control of the scene there."

By the time Rudy arrived, about five to seven deputies were on hand securing the area with yellow caution tape, he said. Some of the deputies came from neighboring Rancho Santa Margarita.

The Syeds apparently did not ask deputies for counseling services, said Administrative Sgt. Mike Wagner, who works with the Trauma Intervention Program, a volunteer program that counsels and assists residents after a traumatic emergency.

At Monday's Civic Council meeting, Ladera resident Abhijit Joshi said he was disappointed Rudy didn't spend more time discussing potential gun violence.

"People were talking about parking tickets," he said. "But, to me, [the Syed shooting] was the most significant thing that happened."

Joshi, who has two children, ages 7 and 5, asked if deputies had plans to address gun violence in schools.

Yes, Rudy said, explaining that the Sheriff's Department is "revisiting and renewing" its tactics.

But Joshi wanted more information, such as how many drills might take place, and who handles a crisis situation when it arises.

"I feel pretty safe, but I'd like to see the specifics," he said.

Do you think six minutes is fast enough for a high-priority call? Tell us in the comments below.

JustUs March 01, 2013 at 07:08 AM
Pang, people should always train for unexpected emergencies. All members of the household should know what to do if the house catches fire. All members of the household should know what do do if there is a severe earthquake. All members of the household should know what to do and how to protect themselves if there is massive civil unrest. All members of the household should know what to do if a burglar breaks into the home. That way if the unexpected happens there is no confusion about what action to take and it could save the household members lives. So your little anecdote about "Carrier" is really irrelevant to the discussion here.
fact checker March 01, 2013 at 08:50 AM
JustUs you seriously can be advocating that every single person should be armed at all times?
Panglonymous March 01, 2013 at 02:24 PM
"I believe there will some pretty serious civil unrest in America. Don't know exactly when. But it it certain to happen at some point in time. People in the neighborhoods without protection will plead with neighbors who have protection to help protect their homes. Calling 911 will be a joke, just like it was in South Central in 1992. You saw what the Korean storeowners had to do. Those who think Orange County is immune from such behavior are only kidding themselves." JustUs If one casts oneself in the role of heroic patriot protector of the homeland and arms and possibly trains oneself in preparation for any extreme contingency Isn't there a natural human tendency to sub/consciously *hope* for the extreme contingency to occur so that one's analysis, predictions and preparations are justified one is admired as prescient by those who ignored early warnings and one's projected status as heroic protector is wholly fulfilled?
JustUs March 01, 2013 at 04:28 PM
"JustUs you seriously can be advocating that every single person should be armed at all times?" No, I am advocating that all responsibile lawful adults have the option of being armed at all times, provided that they have taken a certified gun safety course and passed all the legal and safety and proficiency requirements necessary to carry concealed. If this happened I think we would see crimes like robbery, assault, car jackings, etc... drop significantly. Would there be an accident or two? Sure. There are accidents in all aspects of life. People fall off their bicycles everyday and hurt themselves. That does not mean we should ban all bicycles. But the increased access to firearms would decrease deaths that result from violent crimes. And those who commit violent crimes would pay on the spot for it. I approve this message.
JustUs March 01, 2013 at 04:38 PM
Pang, no. Only emotionally disturbed people would hope for massive civil unrest or for a burglar to break into their homes or for someone to mug them on the street so that they would be forced to defend themselves. Only a sick mind would hope for something like that. Most people hope for the opposite. Your argument makes no sense. Using your logic, a family that prepares and trains to save themselves from a massive earthquake or from a home fire does not hope for a massive earthquake or a home fire are subconsciously hoping for such to occur. That's nutty thinking. The family is only training in advance of such possibilities so that the family is prepared in the event of a catastrophe to reduce panic and confusion and increase the probabity for survival. To read any more into that is ludicrous.
fact checker March 01, 2013 at 06:12 PM
Dan, the "Liberal idiots" and most conservatives believe in more gun controls. It is not their fault that other idiots take this as an excuse to arm themselves with guns that they have no idea how to use. Whose the idiot here?
fact checker March 01, 2013 at 06:14 PM
JustUs, and exactly how could he have used a knife or hammer to kill her through a locked, closed door?
fact checker March 01, 2013 at 06:18 PM
Did you shoot them Dan? What if the bunch of you surprised each other in the dark. Any danger of shooting each other? Or a homeowner you didn't know?
JustUs March 01, 2013 at 06:23 PM
"What if the bunch of you surprised each other in the dark." WHAT IF your grandmother were a man? She's be your grandfather. :^)
fact checker March 01, 2013 at 06:24 PM
"And those who commit violent crimes would pay on the spot for it." Vigilante justice? So the punishment for robbery is now death? Who needs a court system when we have you to be judge, jury and executioner? You do raise a good point with this however. With all of these armed people with questionable training and even more questionable judgement, we will have a rash of court cases examining the legality of killing your neighbor when he jumped your fence to retrieve a ball or to look for a pet that got out by mistake. The neighbor will be dead and you will be in court defending your use of deadly force because you have every right to defend your property and the neighbor didn't identify herself in a timely manner (such as before you pulled the trigger in a panic to defend yourself).
fact checker March 01, 2013 at 06:29 PM
Always interesting to see your replies to questions when you don't have a "logical" answer Justus.
JustUs March 01, 2013 at 06:36 PM
"Vigilante justice?" How did you come up with that? If a person feels that his life is under immediate threat and is being endangered by another person who is committing a violent illegal act OR that a reasonable person would conclude was about to commit a violent illegal act - the victim has the right to take equal or greater force to defend against that violent illegal act. It's called the 'instinct to survive'. So stop exaggerating again. "With all of these armed people with questionable training and even more questionable judgement, we will have a rash of court cases examining the legality of killing your neighbor when he jumped your fence to retrieve a ball or to look for a pet that got out by mistake." Stop exaggerating and spewing hysteria. If a person shot and killed an unarmed person wandering around in his yard looking for a ball or a lost pet that would be an automatic homicide charge with a 95% chance of a conviction. You exaggeration only substantiates your desperation on this topic. Please either check the facts before you post or change your moniker. Thank you.
Peter Schelden (Editor) March 01, 2013 at 07:16 PM
Let's stay on topic and avoid making it personal, folks.
fact checker March 01, 2013 at 07:23 PM
JustUs you keep insisting that a well trained person can protect themselves with a gun. In the dead of night you hear a sound in the yard. There was a burglary in your town just last week. You grab your gun, load it and cautiously open the back door. You see a person creeping around in the bushes just under your window. You have a split second to make the decision. What happens next? Finish the scenario so I will know how you would handle it. Would you call out asking the person to identify themselves, thus giving a criminal your location? Would you tell them you are armed thus giving them a reason to fire on you too? What precisely would you do?
JustUs March 01, 2013 at 08:02 PM
You never stick to a certain subtopic, fact checker. You make an assertion. I show how your assertion is wrong. And then you jump to a completely new subtopic. Why don't you just acknowledge that you were wrong and then we could move onto the new subtopic? That's how legitimate debates actually work. You throw a handful at the wall, it fails to stick and instead of picking that handful up and cleaning up the mess you just pick up another handful and toss it. Very unprofessional and not in the spirit of orderly and hononable debate. "Finish the scenario so I will know how you would handle it." Very simple scenario. I would open the door while remaining mostly concealed. I would tell the trespasser that I know he's out there and that the cops were on the way. I would shut the door. He would run away. And then I would go back to bed. And he would never bother my residence again. I would only consider using lethal force if someone unlawfully entered my residence without my permission and I had reason to believe that the criminal was endangering my survival. Otherwise, I would never ever even consider using lethal force unless I was physically attacked outside my home and I felt that unless I stopped the attack that I would die. Ok. Now go onto another subtopic, fact checker. hah. :^)
Panglonymous March 01, 2013 at 09:06 PM
"Only emotionally disturbed people would hope for massive civil unrest... Only a sick mind would hope for something like that. Most people hope for the opposite." Agreed.
fact checker March 01, 2013 at 09:12 PM
Wait, I thought you said the police are useless for help in your home.
JustUs March 01, 2013 at 09:16 PM
"Wait, I thought you said the police are useless for help in your home." Oh, I wouldn't actually call the police. I would only tell the prowler that so that he would hasten his exit from my property. But even the prowler would know that he'd have at least 30 minutes to exit the area until the police actually arrived. Afterall, most of them are experienced criminals and understand how the system actually works. :^)
LeAna Bui March 01, 2013 at 09:20 PM
I am neither hysterical nor desperate nor catastrophizing nor ignorant nor afraid of guns. I am also not wrong - I merely disagree with your view of how more guns will affect the rate of gun violence in this country.
Panglonymous March 01, 2013 at 09:34 PM
Catastrophize. Confabulate. Kudzu (invasive species.)
Peter Schelden (Editor) March 01, 2013 at 09:34 PM
Commenters, thanks for conducting a fairly civil debate on the topic of gun control. As this discussion begins to run out of steam, I'd like to encourage you all (if you haven't already) to consider blogging on Patch. By writing your own blog post, you get to set the topic, and you have more space to argue your points. You can apply to blog here: http://missionviejo.patch.com/blog/apply
LeAna Bui March 01, 2013 at 09:56 PM
Oh, boy! New words to look up! :)
JustUs March 01, 2013 at 10:41 PM
"And again, you are wrong. The number police (as a ratio of the whole population) is down from 10 years ago." As a ratio to the whole population has nothing to do with it. My point is that there are more police boots on the ground in America than there were 10 years ago. So since there are more police officers, more police officers will become engage in gunfire and more will become victims. It's math, LeAna. And you did not respond to the FACT that a police officer's job is not even listed as one of the 10 most dangerous jobs in America. Why do you sidestep that FACT?
JustUs March 01, 2013 at 10:45 PM
Rudy Giuliani - the former Mayor of NYC - finally cracked down on crime by throwing repeated criminals in jail for a long time and cleaning up the streets of NYC. That is what lessened the gun violence. Not gun laws. I told you before that criminals, by definition, don't obey the laws. If a lawmaker tells a criminal that he can't carry a gun - the criminal laughs at the lawmaker. So the only way to lessen gun violence is by taking criminals off the street - and that is the reason gun violence in NYC dropped. I am explaining this in the simpliest terms that I know how, btw.
JustUs March 01, 2013 at 10:53 PM
Those towns, cities and counties that have lenient gun laws and CCW laws, on average, have lower crime rates and lower gun violence. Those towns, cities and counties that have stricter gun laws and CCW laws, on average, have higher crime rates and higher gun violence. I cited Chicago as a perfect example of a City that has one of the strictest gun ordinances in the nation yet has one of the higher gun violence and gun murders. Over 500 gun related deaths in 2012 alone. More than 2500 injured by gunfire. Again, criminals, by definition, ignore the laws. If a lawmaker tells a criminal not to carry a gun, the criminal usually laughs at him and carries the gun anyway. Only obedient lawful citizens obey orders not to carry guns. So gun laws put the unarmed innocent citizen at heightened risk since he has no means to protect himself against armed criminals. It takes only seconds for an armed criminal to shoot an innocent citizen. Yet it takes a cop 5-10 minutes to show up after he is called. Is this starting to register yet, LeAna?
Panglonymous March 01, 2013 at 11:55 PM
Imagine a thread where we all end up smarter and better informed... :-)
Cathy March 02, 2013 at 12:45 AM
Kudzu has a very fragrant aroma in the summer heat!
Panglonymous March 02, 2013 at 03:31 AM
Sweet?
JustUs March 02, 2013 at 04:58 AM
"How do you know I have never been through firearms training?" That's why I said "You seem.....". When you discuss these issues you seem to me not to have all the facts about topics related to gun control. It's as if I am chatting about these issues with someone who is not totally informed on the subject matter. I would be very surprised to learn if you are a gun owner or someone with a good familiarity of guns, based on your opinions on this subject matter.
JustUs March 02, 2013 at 05:03 AM
"JustUs, and exactly how could he have used a knife or hammer to kill her through a locked, closed door?" Is there some sort of requirement that to get killed or murdered that one must be behind a locked, closed door? People are killed with knives and hammers and baseball bats and rolling pins and and rope and etc, etc, etc, all the time. Should we ban all those objects too?

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something