Re: Commercial Alarm - help

["alarman" <alarman2000@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1131310283.663810.284250@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Russell Brill wrote:
> > That's what I was thinking, Burg alarms eat up their downtime...
Downtime =
> > LOST Productivity............ Hmmm, or maybe if they quit responding to
> > alarms, the crime rate will take a double digit dive... You know,
because
> > they'll have soooo much more time to fight real crime........ :-))
> >
>
> This has been part of my argument about this subject.
> If police weren't "somewhat" obligated to "roll" for an alarm signal,
> there'd always be 2 cars parked behind the firehouse. At least they're
> showing a presence in the community when responding to alarm signals.
> That in it's self is a deterrent. As it is, if you ever need a
> policeman, you stand a greater chance of finding them parked behind a
> commercial building, than patroling. This whole thing about costing so
> much to respond to alarms is simply the patroling cops having to move.
> It's not that they're all working 100 percent of the time. More like
> 50%. Expecially evenings/early morning. So then what's the issue about
> costing so much more to respond to alarms. NONE!  It's just that they
> got to do *something* rather than nothing. You can certainly bet that
> if they developed a no response policy to alarms, they wouldn't be
> laying ofFcops nor would the crime rate go down. And you can check that
> for accuracy in any of the locals that have instituted no response.
> That's one of the points I always make when the "no response" issue is
> raised here locally.

It's always interesting to me that the people in an industry which depends
so heavily on the local police have such a low opinion of them. Mostly this
attitude stems from ignorance; most people have no idea what real policemen
do, how they go about the business of crime prevention,  and balance that
with the blizzard of paperwork they are required to complete. I can't speak
for the cops on Long Island, maybe they're lazy, maybe not. I can only speak
from my own experience. The cops here don't have much time for snoozing.

People tend to see what they want to see, and most people resent authority.
Therefore, they look for reasons to dislike police officers. Three police
cars parked outside a restaurant; lazy pricks, right? What, you don't eat
lunch? You don't stop for a cup of coffee at 7-11 while you're working? The
cops parked behind a commercial building here are most likely working on
reports, because THAT is what takes up most of their time during the shift.
Ever see two or three police units pulled over on one traffic stop?
Rubberneckers, right? Never mind that there are two or three guys in the car
they stopped, and the chances are  very good that one or more of them are
(1) on parole, (2) under the influence, (3) armed, (4) don't speaka da
English, or more likely, a merry mix of the above.

Crime is prevented by making vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian stops; talking
to people you wouldn't want to meet, let alone put your hands on. The more
contacts, the more arrests are made, and the cleaner your streets. The cops
I know don't really mind responding to alarms. They do however, have an
issue with the chronic offenders, and rightly so. To say that police
response to alarms should be discontinued to make more time for "real" crime
prevention is silly. But to say that by eliminating that response there
would be more "cars parked behind the firehouse" is even more so IMO.

js