Post by proudpd on Nov 28, 2008 23:37:02 GMT -5
911 HEAD-CASE HEADS-UP
By MURRAY WEISS – Wednesday, November 26th, 2008 ‘The New York Post’
The NYPD launched a new warning system that alerts cops when they are responding to an emergency involving an emotional disturbed person in order to reduce potentially deadly confrontations, The Post has learned.
Developed in the wake of several highly publicized fatal shootings, a new police database tells dispatchers when a 911 call involves an address with a history of at least three "EDP"-related calls in a year.
"This stems from a desire to have as much information as possible for responding officers," said Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne, the NYPD spokesman
=============================================
Oh excuse me kind sir. When reading the above, I really don't see anything that is an obvious reference to the safety of officers. It seems that they are more concerned about incidents that the Department is going to have to answer for.
If they are really concerned about the safety of responding officers, they would alert the officers after ONE incident concerning an EDP.
May I raise another issue - couldn't this be considered a form of "profiling" and, perish the thought, that we should really consider the safety of the officers.
Back in the 80's I was on Restricted Duty after being stabbed by one of the fine citizens of our precinct.
The idea occurred to me that there should be a 911 database to notify responding officers that the was a convicted violent felon living at that location.
At the time my C.O. was one of the best supervisors I ever worked for. I was embarrassed to pick up my PBA Delegate check. lol lol.
He thought it was a good idea but cautioned me that I would probably run into a brick wall due to the costs associated with establishing the database. Of course my attitude was the hell with the cost - we're talking about the safety of police officers. How naive could I have been.
So a couple of months pass by and I'm told to report to the Borough concerning the suggestion. The C.O. tells me to have a nice trip and to bring some band-aids for the beating I'm going to take.
I get to the Borough and I'm all set for the financial cost lecture. But not one word is mentioned concerning the cost. Nope, all I got lectured on was the "profiling" aspect (yes this was back in the 80's) and how upset the "community" would be about this.
"Chief, why in the name of God would decent, law abiding citizens be angry about the police knowing in advance that there is a POS residing in the location they are responding to?"
Response: "I don't think you understand the possible legal repercussions of this type of program."
Me: "You're right boss, I don't understand the legal repercussions unless you're telling me that officers can't be trusted to take the information under advisement and proceed with caution without starting a riot. That's a hell of a opinion."
This ends up with the old adage "Officer, return to command - no meal." lol lol
I get back to the command and I'm told to report to the C.O. Walk into his office - he looks up and states: "What's this? No bruises? No lacerations and/or multiple contusions? Can I cancel the bus? Give me back my band-aids." lol lol
So here we are about 30 years later and the department is still not overly concerned about the safety of officers but rather the possibility of an incident that would cause a problem for the hierarchy of the job.
As always it's up to you guys to watch each others back.
By MURRAY WEISS – Wednesday, November 26th, 2008 ‘The New York Post’
The NYPD launched a new warning system that alerts cops when they are responding to an emergency involving an emotional disturbed person in order to reduce potentially deadly confrontations, The Post has learned.
Developed in the wake of several highly publicized fatal shootings, a new police database tells dispatchers when a 911 call involves an address with a history of at least three "EDP"-related calls in a year.
"This stems from a desire to have as much information as possible for responding officers," said Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne, the NYPD spokesman
=============================================
Oh excuse me kind sir. When reading the above, I really don't see anything that is an obvious reference to the safety of officers. It seems that they are more concerned about incidents that the Department is going to have to answer for.
If they are really concerned about the safety of responding officers, they would alert the officers after ONE incident concerning an EDP.
May I raise another issue - couldn't this be considered a form of "profiling" and, perish the thought, that we should really consider the safety of the officers.
Back in the 80's I was on Restricted Duty after being stabbed by one of the fine citizens of our precinct.
The idea occurred to me that there should be a 911 database to notify responding officers that the was a convicted violent felon living at that location.
At the time my C.O. was one of the best supervisors I ever worked for. I was embarrassed to pick up my PBA Delegate check. lol lol.
He thought it was a good idea but cautioned me that I would probably run into a brick wall due to the costs associated with establishing the database. Of course my attitude was the hell with the cost - we're talking about the safety of police officers. How naive could I have been.
So a couple of months pass by and I'm told to report to the Borough concerning the suggestion. The C.O. tells me to have a nice trip and to bring some band-aids for the beating I'm going to take.
I get to the Borough and I'm all set for the financial cost lecture. But not one word is mentioned concerning the cost. Nope, all I got lectured on was the "profiling" aspect (yes this was back in the 80's) and how upset the "community" would be about this.
"Chief, why in the name of God would decent, law abiding citizens be angry about the police knowing in advance that there is a POS residing in the location they are responding to?"
Response: "I don't think you understand the possible legal repercussions of this type of program."
Me: "You're right boss, I don't understand the legal repercussions unless you're telling me that officers can't be trusted to take the information under advisement and proceed with caution without starting a riot. That's a hell of a opinion."
This ends up with the old adage "Officer, return to command - no meal." lol lol
I get back to the command and I'm told to report to the C.O. Walk into his office - he looks up and states: "What's this? No bruises? No lacerations and/or multiple contusions? Can I cancel the bus? Give me back my band-aids." lol lol
So here we are about 30 years later and the department is still not overly concerned about the safety of officers but rather the possibility of an incident that would cause a problem for the hierarchy of the job.
As always it's up to you guys to watch each others back.