Re: Verified Response

[Joe <spam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bob Worthy wrote:
> "Joe" <spam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1Bz8k.14838$s77.8375@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> George Siegle wrote:
>>> How many Cities have tried Verified Response and then found B&E's went
> up or have cancelled the Verified Response program?
>>>
>>> And just how busy do you think the police would be if ALL of us said for
> one day: "We will not call anyone when the alarm goes off?"
>> if you mean calling the premise to verify, I thought everybody does that.
>
> The term "verified response" is being used by municipalities that have a
> sensitive political flavor within the community. What it really means in "no
> response". They don't want their citizens to go ballistic. They will
> respond, but only after someone else goes first (guard company) and then
> calls if there is a problem, hence "verifying" prior to response.
>
> There are more cities than you want to think about that have gone to some
> sort of verified response. SIAC has statistics about the crime rate
> question. If you talk to them, which I tend to lean towards their standing
> on the issue since they are joined at the hip with the IACP, they will tell
> you that crime has escalated dramatically in these cities. If you talk to
> the cities, again for political reasons, they will tell you every thing in
> great. It is great because they have cut their budget so they look like
> heroes while shuffling the paperwork to hide the rising crime rate.
>
hell, whattaya need a cop for by then, just call your insurance agent.