TexasCHLforum.com

texanjoker wrote:

Ericstac wrote:http://news.msn.com/us/chicago-police-n ... -911-calls

Yes Chicagoans, if you are assaulted don't bother calling 911 they will just hang up.. Oh and don't bother grabbing your gun either you are not allowed to own one.. Good luck suckers, life with no guns and no police and gangsters all around


"Chicago police are no longer responding in person to 911 calls reporting vehicle theft, garage burglary or simple assault in a change aimed at freeing up officers to deal with more serious crimes."

This is being taken out of context. They are not responding to take simple reports after the fact for petty crimes. This is done all over the country. The reports will be taken over the phone.

+1

Let's not get like the Dems by distorting and misleading. These are the calls that we sometimes wait hours for because all other calls take precedent. Heck you shouldn't even be using 911 for these calls but rather the non-emergency dispatch number.

So, the police WILL respond to an in-progress crime?

Abraham wrote:So, the police WILL respond to an in-progress crime?

Of course they will... many places do this and it is the norm. Sure people 'want' the cop to show up, but at some point they need officers for higher priority calls.

In some areas, LAPD for example, they quit responding to residential burglary alarms w/o further info that it may be valid. I can say they are a waste of time. They are almost always unfounded due to home owner error, yet tie up 2 officers. In some areas you literally go alarm to alarm.

So, given Crossfire's post, it doesn't sound like they'll respond to an in progress crime...or am I overlooking something?

Abraham wrote:So, given Crossfire's post, it doesn't sound like they'll respond to an in progress crime...or am I overlooking something?

The crooks know it takes time to for the police to get there hence their attitude. The store will call 911, and the PD needs two officers available to respond. Freeing up manpower for paper calls will help with that. If you read the article it explains more> I cut a few points below showing they will respond to in progress calls. I also know many stores do not press charges on shoplifters. They don't want to tie up their employees in court. Walmart is an exception to this rule. They are very aggressive in catching shop lifters. Chicago sounds out of control. They need to get that place under control. Maybe a few more gun laws will help with that? (sorry couldn't help it)



According to a report in the Chicago Sun-Times, the change came into effect on Sunday and also covers crime where the victim is "safe, secure and not in need of medical attention" and the offender is "not on the scene and not expected to return immediately."

Instead of sending officers, 911 dispatchers have been told to transfer the calls to the Chicago Police Department’s Alternate Response Section, which is staffed by officers on light duty.

Dispatchers have reportedly been told to transfer calls if "the offender is gone, not expected to 'return immediately' and an officer is not needed for a prompt investigation; an officer on the scene would 'not result in an immediate arrest'; and the victim is safe, secure and not in need of medical attention."

Thanks and wow!

With no arrest or prosecution of shop lifters, I can see the arrogance of petty or in some cases not so petty criminals.

That attitude from the crooks reminds me of the flash mob mentality where so many show up at the store and start stealing stuff and there is no way to handle that many people all at once. They know that...safety in numbers...

texanjoker wrote:

Abraham wrote:So, the police WILL respond to an in-progress crime?

Of course they will... many places do this and it is the norm. Sure people 'want' the cop to show up, but at some point they need officers for higher priority calls.

In some areas, LAPD for example, they quit responding to residential burglary alarms w/o further info that it may be valid. I can say they are a waste of time. They are almost always unfounded due to home owner error, yet tie up 2 officers. In some areas you literally go alarm to alarm.

While that makes sense, those false alarms should also be expensive to the home owner or alarm service --that would be more of an incentive for reducing false alarms.