Re: Verified Response

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Joe" <spam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:v5W8k.5387$NQ5.305@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Bob Worthy wrote:
> > "Joe" <spam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1Bz8k.14838$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.

Hence, public pressure starts to rise and the revisiting of the city's
ordinance becomes a reality.