Re: Commercial Alarm - help

["Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

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.