Re: How did the burglars enter?

[Jim <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 3:18:44 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
> "G. Morgan" <sealteam6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:4uv2o712jvk030avfj96iblr00cjubj6ln@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Robert Green wrote:
> >
> > > Do you know what jurisdictions require voice/video verification.
> >
> > No I don't but I will cross post this to ASA where hopefully
> > someone will know.
> >
> > Does anyone have a list of burg. A/V verification jurisdictions?
>=20
> Thanks.  I can see why they require it.  When my neighbor had a new alarm
> installed, the tripped it at least three times a month.  The fines stoppe=
d
> that.  (-:
>=20
> --
> Bobby G.

I think you may have missed the point.=20

Fines are a good deterrent. But verification says that the police don't sho=
w up unless there is some prior visible observation that a crime is/has tak=
en place ...... but that's for EVERYONE.... whether they've had a false ala=
rm in the past ..... or NOT!=20

That means that the police can continue drinking their coffee and eating th=
eir doughnuts behind the Fire house without having to take a work break. Af=
ter all, of what good could come of the police having to show up even for a=
 false alarm. What's that word .... Oh yeah .... deterrent.=20

Buuut ... I'm sure that they'd much rather show up for an actual burglary .=
.. and catch some one ...... but wait a minute now .... I guess they'll nev=
er get the opportunity to even experience that ... by the time that they ge=
t their verification. I'm sure the theives will never catch on that they're=
 not going to show up first ....... right? =20

Oh .... and what about all the money that's going to be saved by them not h=
aving to respond?  All that saved money is now going to be given back to th=
e taxpayers ...... right? Because all the policemen that they had to hire t=
o take care of the false alarms can be laid off now.