Google Home Ends A Domestic Dispute By Calling The Police (gizmodo.com) 256
An anonymous reader quotes Gizmodo:
According to ABC News, officers were called to a home outside Albuquerque, New Mexico this week when a Google Home called 911 and the operator heard a confrontation in the background. Police say that Eduardo Barros was house-sitting at the residence with his girlfriend and their daughter. Barros allegedly pulled a gun on his girlfriend when they got into an argument and asked her: "Did you call the sheriffs?" Google Home apparently heard "call the sheriffs," and proceeded to call the sheriffs. A SWAT team arrived at the home and after negotiating for hours, they were able to take Barros into custody... "The unexpected use of this new technology to contact emergency services has possibly helped save a life," Bernalillo County Sheriff Manuel Gonzales III said in a statement.
"It's easy to imagine police getting tired of being called to citizen's homes every time they watch the latest episode of Law and Order," quips Gizmodo. But they also call the incident "a clear reminder that smart home devices are always listening."
"It's easy to imagine police getting tired of being called to citizen's homes every time they watch the latest episode of Law and Order," quips Gizmodo. But they also call the incident "a clear reminder that smart home devices are always listening."
Won't be long now (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I am waiting for someone to post an article about when visiting someones' house and another someone says "Display last web site visited". Google home will then turn on the smart TV, open a web browser, and visit the last site the home owner visited. Might be kind of amusing on how that article will turn out.
Re:Won't be long now (Score:5, Informative)
XKCD should receive "first post" for this. Or possibly claim an infringement of copyright for the story?
https://xkcd.com/1807/ [xkcd.com]
Re:Won't be long now (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, George Orwell probably deserves "first post" honors.
Re:Won't be long now (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Did he follow you around the whole time making sure that you didn't slyly order stuff while he wasn't listening?
Who leaves their terminal unlocked and logged into Amazon and their email without any kind of protection?
Re:Won't be long now (Score:4, Funny)
Is that before or after Futurama 3x04? Because I thought of this:
Farnsworth: "Shut up friends! My internet browser heard us saying the word Fry and it found a movie about Philip J. Fry for us. It also opened my calendar to Friday and ordered me some french fries."
Re: (Score:2)
Wait Philip J. Fry was in a movie in futurama? Or was that something they made up for the bit?
I'm pretty sure i've seen every episode but I don't remember that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Episode was: The Luck of the Fryrish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks to you both.
I've seen that episode I just didn't remember there being a movie.
IMHO he should have kept the clover anyway it would have made for an interesting episode.
Re: (Score:2)
viewing goatse.cx
Re:Won't be long now (Score:5, Informative)
Fun stuff!
Re: (Score:2)
Or in Mozilla's Gecko engine web browsers to restore windows and tabs. I wished restoring would work with secured forms since someitmes those datas get cleared. :(
Re: (Score:2)
What's so bad about that? Burger King already triggered a bunch of Google Home devices a month ago to much amusement and anger. (And Google blocked it - I tried it when Google Home was released in Canada
Re: (Score:2)
If you do not find anything wrong with someone else using your device, then you have nothing to worry about. This is just to point out that even convenient technologies may have its inconveniences, if not embarrassing results for some. However, the privacy mode does seem to mitigate these type of scenarios, but then it kind of loses its convenience until it goes into public mode again.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm waiting for an article about a new form of SWATting where the victims' TV calls police to storm their home and shoot their dog(s) and family.
Re:Won't be long now (Score:4, Funny)
Stop overreacting. How do crazy people like you come up with this garbage? Seriously though, they don't need this stuff because the NSA is already listening to your every word thanks to the radios in your fillings. ;)
Airstrip One called and wants their surveillance b (Score:3)
This was talked about in 1984. East Germany did as much as they could given their limited tech. China is doing a much more comprehensive job with modern tech.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually much prefer the Chinese model. It's terrible, don't get me wrong, but at least they are up front about it. None of this hacking people's property or hoarding critical vulnerabilities until they inevitably leak out. Just be up front, pass laws mandating that the service providers give you everything and set up a firewall to block anything you can't control.
Re: (Score:2)
Typical religious self loathing.
Re:Won't be long now (Score:4, Insightful)
Then, coming a little later -- perhaps 20 minutes into the future -- we'll have a Max Headroom [wikipedia.org] situation...
In the future, an oligarchy of television networks rules the world. Even the government functions primarily as a puppet of the network executives, serving mainly to pass laws — such as banning "off" switches on televisions — that protect and consolidate the networks' power.
Re: (Score:3)
Then, coming a little later -- perhaps 20 minutes into the future -- we'll have a Max Headroom [wikipedia.org] situation...
In the future, an oligarchy of television networks rules the world. Even the government functions primarily as a puppet of the network executives, serving mainly to pass laws — such as banning "off" switches on televisions — that protect and consolidate the networks' power.
Is anyone else wondering why this series never has any re-runs or is not available on DVD? (except some questionable japanese or something version) Even the usual go-tos for less legal outlets like youtube only have some crappy capture of a TV recording on VHS.
Re: (Score:2)
I tried watching the show a year or so ago... When they hacked into the men's toilet via the sewer pipe, I turned it off and deleted the whole thing :D.
Re: (Score:2)
Images of 1980s Amanda Pays were found to be causing dangerous breakdowns in worker productivity.
Re: (Score:3)
Only members of the Inner Party may turn off their telescreens.
Re: (Score:2)
And even them only for a while.
Re: (Score:3)
Mandate? Perish the thought. It will just become so inconvenient to lead your life without it. Much as those tracking devices everyone of us has in hits pockets. You won't be able to buy anything online anymore or order a pizza. Or at the very least it will cost a lot more doing it via phone or internet.
People will want those things and even pay for the privilege of having them.
Re: (Score:2)
I make my own pizza you insensitive clod.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you hate the hard working people at the pizza delivery service? What has the poor guy done to you, that tries to make a living by carrying those greasy cardboard boxes to you that you wish to deprive him of his meager income? Don't you have no heart that you want to take away his chance to clog it with arteriosclerosis?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: good thing that the GOP will not give out well (Score:3, Insightful)
Fucking NSA agent diverting the conversation to partisan politics so the serfs are distracted from the original topic!
Re: good thing that the GOP will not give out well (Score:4, Funny)
Re: good thing that the GOP will not give out well (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the problem with welfare for poor folks? As long as there's an obligation for self betterment with the view to getting off welfare i.e. education, internship, community service, I don't see the problem.
Corporate welfare on the other hand, I have a big problem with that. It has been demonstrated time and time again that corporate leaders use tax breaks to pad their own packages rather than improve employment prospects. Trickle down simply does not work and greed is the main factor.
Re: good thing that the GOP will not give out wel (Score:3, Insightful)
So you support corporations using the poor as easy position filling? That's what happens when you attach it to things like 'showing self improvement'. You get corporations taking part in incentive programs to 'create jobs'. The jobs in question are bottom of the barrel, violate labor laws (that the ignorant and poor cannot fight), and generally treat people like shit.
It then becomes a punishment to get off of welfare. We need to sever the tie between corporations, healthcare, and indeed even just surviving.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
The devil's in the details.
What criteria are used to determine whether that obligation is being met? Can they be gamed by lazy people to do the bare minimum work to get maximum benefits? Is it fair to let people take advantage of welfare programs like that? Is it right to force people to meet that obligation if they legitimately can't hold a job due to disability? Who decides what disabilities qualify? Who decides whether someone meets a disability? Who has the ability to even answer these questions?
Re: good thing that the GOP will not give out well (Score:4, Interesting)
There is always fraud. If it's possible for someone to get the assistance while still getting income from illegal or under-the-table dealings, someone will do it, even if just as a way to get by while "sticking it to the Man". Yes, that creative ingenuity would probably be more profitable in a legal enterprise, but there is always someone who just wants to get away with a scam. Remember, humans are horrible creatures.
Re: (Score:3)
That's flat-out wrong. There are plenty of people that want to live on handouts and to never work an honest day in their life. I know people like this. They know every trick in the book to game every welfare-like program, and when the government does a sweep of welfare looking for cheats, they jump over to disability. If that stops working for them, they go back to welfare.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure it does...
Now how much income? How do we account for inflation? Who gets to answer those questions? Is there any accommodation for unequal needs? What qualifies as "universal"? Does it apply to all citizens? Does it apply to all residents? Do convicted felons still get the paycheck while in prison? How do we stop fraud? Where does the money come from? Is that fair and just?
This basically summarizes why the government rarely implements simple solutions. They're rarely simple.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure it does...
Now how much income?
Double the poverty line.
How do we account for inflation?
Peg an increase to the inflation rate; similar to what we do with Social Security
Who gets to answer those questions?
Congress does.
Is there any accommodation for unequal needs?
No, it's universal
What qualifies as "universal"? Does it apply to all citizens?
Yes, every man, woman and child above a certain age
Does it apply to all residents?
Maybe
Do convicted felons still get the paycheck while in prison?
Perhaps they would get a portion, considering their room and board are already being paid for by the state
How do we stop fraud?
It's universal, so there would not be much fraud. But you could tie it to the Social Security system and track it that way.
Where does the money come from?
The federal government. They could tax for it, or just print it.
Is that fair and just?
Yes.
Hey, check it out,
Re: (Score:3)
the intelligent women know better.
And now just go back through your everyday experience and assume that intelligent women are no more frequent than intelligent men...
Re: Won't be long now (Score:4, Insightful)
Claims to treat women well and yet reduces the mating habits of humans to prehistoric times to make a point... You sure there's not more to the picture than raw strength? It's not like all women like all the same things,
Whether all women do or not is irrelevant. It's not about you; not everything is. Statistics show which men get to father the most children, and that's generally not the mild men. That men on average are larger than women is also evidence in itself. If there were no advantage for men to be bigger and stronger than their rival men, they wouldn't be. Evolution works relatively fast; a few dozen generations should show a markedly shift from bigger and stronger men if it didn't have an advantage, due to disadvantages like requiring more food. And if they have an advantage, it follows that women select for that advantage to increase the chances of their male children. The women who don't will have fewer successful male offspring.
Women like to think they're in control, but are as much slaves to the biological imperative as men are. There's no "going beyond evolutionary programming", because evolution selects against that.
abcnews article is updated, device not Google Home (Score:5, Informative)
At the very bottom of the linked story
http://abcnews.go.com/US/smart-home-device-alerts-mexico-authorities-alleged-assault/story?id=48470912 [go.com]
Editor's note: This story has been updated; an earlier version named a smart home device that was not the type found in the home and credited by police with calling 911.
Re: (Score:2)
A smart speaker, which was hooked up to a surround sound system inside the home, recognized that as a voice command and called 911, Romero said.
The summary sure made it sound like the device learned and reacted to "owner in distress" and not just accidentally mis-interpreted a shouted phrase "Did you call the sheriffs?" (spoken by the perpetrator, not the victim, might I add).
Re: (Score:2)
and not just accidentally mis-interpreted a shouted phrase "Did you call the sheriffs?" (spoken by the perpetrator, not the victim, might I add).
This is actually puzzling/concerning me - perhaps more than it should. But I can't figure out how that phrase could trigger any of the "common" virtual assistants - Google, Amazon, Apple, or Microsoft - unless at least one manufacturer has been less than forthright regarding what can trigger a response (and, therefore, regarding what the device actively listens for).
Re: (Score:3)
Based on some of the things my Echo responds to.... I bet "Did you' in a strong accent could sound like "Echo" which is a trigger word.
My concern is that the Echo can only call other Echo users.... so my guess is that it was one of the other AWS enabled devices.
Unless one of them is a developer and was building something that could do that. I don't imagine such folks are immune to domestic disputes. I knew a girl once who was very intelligent, (probably could have put ProtaOS on a Raspberry Pi) but always
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone know what device they actually had?
Neither the Amazon Echo or Google Home can currently make phone calls.
I would very much like to have one that can.
Re: (Score:2)
The I think my echo can make some calls at this point but it doesn't respond to "call the sheriff".
Re: (Score:2)
Echo can call other echo's and other echo users via the app but not actually make calls.
I think it's very unlikely the sheriffs office just so happened to have an echo in the office connected to their office number.
Re:abcnews article is updated, device not Google H (Score:4, Interesting)
When will they update it to state what actually happened?
1. Police receive 911 call about domestic dispute from woman who pretended to call someone else. ....
2. Man asks woman "Did you call the sherriffs?"
3. Woman denies it.
4. Sherriffs show up, man starts threatening woman because she lied to him.
5. Sherriff spots smart home device, remembers what was said on the call, and defuses situation by suggesting that the woman didn't call them, the smart home device did when the man asked the question.
6. Journalist overhears and thinks he has a news for nerds story worthy of slashdot front page.
7.
8. Profit
Hmm. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This makes me wonder how many of hundreds of false calls to 911 there must be out there due to these things, if one of them actually happened at the right time.
The problem with false 911 calls is that the call centre is legally required to handle your call. They are not allowed to say "fuck off, you idiot" if they have an idiot on the phone who thinks an ingrown toe nail is a 911 emergency.
But they could create a "second-rate" number that these home devices could call, allowing them to listen in or even see what's happening, without legal obligation. So if they see it's the kids mucking about, ignore it. If they see someone holding a gun or knife, send the cops
Re: (Score:2)
None, at least not in the way you're probably thinking, because Google Home & the Amazon Echo can't call 911 directly.
Re: (Score:2)
None, at least not in the way you're probably thinking, because Google Home & the Amazon Echo can't call 911 directly.
That's what They (tm) want you to think.
I call bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I call bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
May 17: Google Home can now make phone calls for free [cnet.com]
Re:I call bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
That said, the feature may not have rolled out yet, and the original story now has this note:
Editor's note: This story has been updated; an earlier version named a smart home device that was not the type found in the home and credited by police with calling 911.
Re: (Score:2)
It was announced back in may it's now july and it still can't do it.
Although I'm sure it will be awesome whenever it actually does launch.
It's pretty unusual tho the headlines were very misleading implying it could actually make calls on that date not just that the feature had been announced and would be available eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
you:
"Google Home cannot yet make phone calls."
vs
"Googleâ(TM)s Home speaker can now make phone calls"
https://www.theverge.com/circu... [theverge.com]
Which is right?
" I'd like to see some proof that this was a Google Home at work."
It wasn't. TFA was updated to say it was 'something else'.
"Isn't anyone at all skeptical anymore about news stories?"
Sure. But in this case, it was fairly reasonable; given google did announce the feature a couple months ago. You were right this time, but that was mostly luck, seeing as you d
Re:I call bullshit (Score:5, Funny)
"Google Home cannot yet make phone calls" vs. "Google Home speaker can now make phone calls"
Which is right?
Both. They were house-sitting for Erwin Schrödinger. He keeps his Google Home in a box.
Re: (Score:3)
Google Home can't call 911 or 1-900 numbers.
Note: Calls to 911 or 1-900 numbers are not supported on Google Home.
https://support.google.com/googlehome/answer/7394795?hl=en
Re: (Score:2)
True.It could have called the police on a non-emergency number though. But it didn't, and that isn't what happened, and it wasn't a google home.
I'm still a bit curious what happened though; don't all those boxes require a prefix to start a command... ??
Either way, it's just another reason I don't want one.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no, no. Something doesn't add up here.
Re: (Score:3)
It wasn't, you're right, story has been updated. I've stopped sending in story corrections to /. though.
Many Possible Permutations Not So Good (Score:5, Interesting)
In the end, perhaps it was a good thing.
But consider that Google Home missed the part about it being a question. I can see other situations where such a sentence might be used where I didn't want a SWAT response or any response at all.
Yes, I understand the 911 people listened in and made the decision to respond based on what they heard, and again in THIS case they were correct.
But there are all sorts of permutations of this where Google Home and whoever they called might be bad.
I certainly don't want to be sitting around bad-mouthing my employer / parents / next door neighbor who owns guns / [insert someone else here] and have Google Home call them so they can here it all...
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I understand the 911 people listened in and made the decision to respond based on what they heard, and again in THIS case they were correct.
If the law there is similar to that in my home state (Washington), police are obligated to respond to any 911 call when the dispatcher cannot determine what's happening.
When my daughter was little, she accidentally called 911 on our landline (which had a 911 button). A few minutes later, my wife got started by two police barging into our house (guns were not drawn or anything like that). The dispatcher had heard what sounded like toddler gibberish, but when they couldn't get an intelligible response the pol
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
In UK the number is 999, which is much more likely to be dialed by toddlers than 911.
I have it on good authority that the U.K. number is actually 0118 999 889 119 119 725 3.
Re: (Score:2)
Shoot, I messed that up. I am suitably ashamed...
Was his girlfriend's name Google? (Score:2)
Are we to believe that he shouted out, "Ok, Google, call the sheriff?"
Re: Was his girlfriend's name Google? (Score:3, Funny)
Given how shit the voice recognition still is on these things, he probably said something like "ok girl, I don't look at all like Omar Sharif"
goes ok this time, but how about next? (Score:2)
Re: goes ok this time, but how about next? (Score:2)
Or the guy hears the SWAT team arriving and shouts at the terrified woman.
"You liar, you did call the sheriffs"
"No honey, I swear I didn't", she replies, suddenly confused.
"Liar!". BLAM BLAM
Will it call when it hears gunshots? (Score:5, Funny)
When I hear about a story like this I think about an experience I had back when Doom II was released. I had hooked up my computer to my home stereo to show the game off to my roommates. I lived in an apartment in a bad neighborhood at the time.
I started to play and got as far as two shotgun blasts in before pressing pause to answer the phone. Shortly after the phone rang there was a very loud and forceful knock at the door. Said knock was followed by 'open up, police!'.
I went to the door, confused why the police were banging on my door. Several officers were standing outside with their guns in their hands while I had my phone in my hand. In my confusion I asked them what they wanted. They said they had reports of shots being fired and demanded entrance to my apartment. I let them in and showed them my computer with the game still paused. They were incredulous and didn't believe me, searching the apartment instead.
Ten seconds later they came back after finding nothing of interest. They then let me show them the computer game. I then showed them that by clicking the keyboard I could make the shotgun noise they heard.
Many additional police vehicles were outside. The officers had not yet bothered to tell the many additional cops outside that the shotgun was just a videogame. Much panic ensued as the officers outside started to yell 'shots fired' with their fellow officers inside my apartment. /repeat of my own comment from some time ago.
Big Brother loves you (Score:2)
This is proof that the surveillance state is here for your safety.
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer to live dangerous.
Soooo edgy!
Google's Irresponsible design (Score:2)
These things now make calls just by anonymous voice commands? Really? This is a massively irresponsible design. Even telephone number hyperlinks on websites require manual confirmation prior to dialing. Now anyone can create a website that plays call x, y and z to get your victim into trouble, stalk victims and or rack up toll charges or do the same via TV/radio broadcast.
They know it's dumb. They just can't help themselves.
Godwin (Score:2)
Hmmm.... one has to wonder.... (Score:2)
What would happen if someone said "I wasn't expecting the Spanish inquisition..."?
Hopefully not singing bob marley's song .. (Score:2)
... "I shot the sheriff"
I wonder what the google home would do in that situation.
Commence pranking! (Score:2)
Not Google Home (Score:2)
While I read the original story, and it noted that it wasn't Google Home, here is some interesting anecdotal thoughts that may or may not lead us to what the device actually was. (I really want to know for reason 1)
1. an Echo can only call other Echos (to my disappointment - I want to use mine to do speaker phone calls)
2. My Echo will randomly answer questions if something sounds anything like "Echo" which is my invocation word.
3. I would imagine with a heavy accent "Did you" could sound like "Echo" to an E
Re: (Score:2)
And those audio tracks can be processed and blacklisted, so those particular lines won't have any effect. As I understand, there are ongoing efforts for such things, but they're still incomplete at the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not even necessary. The queries are handled server-side and broadcast sounds happen at the same time, so the server can block queries for which many identical queries arrive from other users in the same 5-second (or whatever) window.
Re:Better not watch tv near that piece of shit. (Score:4, Insightful)
So you would have them process/blacklist every possible audio track from every show, movie, and radio broadcast ever created?
...yes?
It's not an intractable problem; merely an issue of scale, and the folks producing these systems are excellent at solving scaling issues. After all, the process has already begun with music [wikipedia.org].
As one possible solution, start with the libraries from Amazon, Google, and Netflix. Those libraries are already digitized and delivered in high-quality streams. As broadcast streams are produced, take a feed from each content-producing station, and process that. Note that since these streams can be processed faster than they're viewed, the backlog can be eventually caught up.
On the blacklist side, false positives can be reduced by listening to identify what media is being played. If you're watching Law and Order, for example, the device (or more appropriately, the cloud system behind it) can recognize the episode, and know to ignore the remaining dialog. That in turn increases the confidence of matches that aren't part of the episode's audio track. Conversely, when you change the station, the device can detect the deviation from the soundtrack, and lower that confidence input.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is with new episodes and with shows that are less common. Imagine someone playing a fresh Aussie show in the US with a lot of violence on a streaming service.
You can't catch them all. Unless you integrate the monitoring device with the audio system so it can automatically filter out all that sound.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah yes, the uncivilized land of Australia, where Google can't possibly get a data-sharing contract with the production studios.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that's not how it works.
Setting aside the comedy of a terms-of-use dispute, the police still (apparently) acted lawfully, as they believed they had probable cause to visit the house. Anything they observed during that visit would be evidence in its own right, including any threats or actions made leading to the arrest. Even if the recordings (911 call and Google's recordings, if available) were thrown own of court, the officers' testimony would probably still be adm
Re: (Score:2)
That's a fucking stupid way to look at it. No call to 911 would be legal if there was an assailant, as obviously he wouldn't approve of the call. The woman being threatened is surely in favor, and her permission can be assumed.
Re: Tainted Evidence (Score:4, Informative)
For reference, I will defer to an actual lawyer. The Illustrated Guide to Law [lawcomic.net] is an absolutely fantastic reference for basic legal fundamentals. Two [lawcomic.net] pages [lawcomic.net] in particular are good places to start for a particular example, applicable in this case.
By coincidence, it even addresses the privacy issue: There's no such expectation while in someone else's home.
The rest of the series is also great material for understanding the principles involved.
Re:Tainted Evidence (Score:4, Funny)
The funniest thing about this story is that the girlfriend neither called the cops herself, nor did she ask Google Home to do it. The boyfriend asked 'Did you call the police', and Google Home heard the last part, took it as his directive, and called the cops.
He should be allowed to take Google Home w/ him to jail, so that he can train it better.
"Didju"... aka "Bitch" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You better decide which side you are on [youtube.com] in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather side with the wife-beater than the government on this one. Why? Simple logic. I am nobody's wife, so whoever enjoys beating up his wife is no threat to me. Government, on the other hand, ...
Re: (Score:2)
So that's what the Samsung phone problems really were - built in kill feature that got sour.
Re: (Score:2)
You can only cook a grenade so much before it goes off unintended.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad this post didn't have one, then it would at least have been funny, if offtopic...
Re:Woman goes nuts threatens daughter (Score:5, Insightful)
"Guy intervenes, gets hurt, ,..."
and then breaks the law by using force other than in self-defence, and then breaks another law by pulling a gun when his life is not in immediate danger.
No matter how much you might dislike it, a gun is literally the last resort and you don't pull it unless you fully intend to shoot to kill. If you pull it and don't shoot, it's because of a major change in the situation, but - like an airbag going off - is something that should automatically involve the police if things have got this far.
Either way, you want the police coming at that point. And your correct response would not have been to pull the gun unless you genuinely thought that you needed to use it as a lethal weapon (rather than just showing it off to shut people up), or - if you didn't intend to use it - using reasonable force to restrain - AND - having called the police.
Responsibility comes with it the ability to know the legal limits. Even "fighting back" is a grey area unless the safety of yourself or others is in question if you don't. And there you want police to come too.
Sorry, in this case, penis means "I'm going to pull out a weapon when it's unjustified and threaten people with it". The exact thing that the rest of the world is always pointing at when the US doesn't punish its own police force for doing that. Let alone a private citizen.
Much scarier than that people tolerate devices listening all the time is that they can call emergency services just by hearing certain phrases. Much scarier than that is idiots pulling guns because of a domestic. Much scarier than that is idiots like that being able to source and carry guns, legally.
If you had restraint, nothing would have been able to get to that kind of position anyway.