Chief of Police Proposed Burglar Alarm Policy

[Relax]

The Chief of Police of the City of Tulsa has proposed TPD no longer answer burglar alarms as first responder. Instead the brilliant chief wants us [the "Alarmed"] to make sure there was a breakin before sending out his troops. I don't know if he is finally admiting they may be paper pushers only or if he has some real reason for this "ALARMING" proposal.

below is a email sent to the Council, local news and the like:

First of all - I would love to fully identify myself - except for fear of retaliation. I can be reached by email. If I have to, in the end come out, I will because we cannot sit on the sidelines and become victimized by those that are to protect and serve. We cannot be forced to do the work of the police department which, in this case would require the need for more citizens to become armed and seek to protect their own lives and property most times without proper training. If you ask of us to do police work at this level, you must also extend the "make-my-day" laws to cover persons "wherever" they are -- home. school, work, malls, car, street corner etc.

Hopefully, this is not just another loosely fired "scare'm [the public] up" comment for the sake of "being heard". I remember when the headlines said the TPD helicopter would have to be grounded due to lack of funds; then today it says TPD spent $250,000 on a camera for the chopper. Obviously the previous headline was either a "scare'm up" comment, inaccurate, misleading or just a reflection of a temporary budget problem -- which if the case should have been reported that way.

The public is getting tired of the "let's scare them to death" headlines. After so many times of being shocked and awed the effect dwindles and we see the news, news writers and news makers for what they are - noise makers who like to hear themselves make more noise.

The rise in street crime is most likely due to the fact that the Street Crimes unit was disbanded. It's need is more obvious today than when it was in full swing. We need that unit back up and running.

This proposed new policy is absolutely ridiculous. If fact the way the Chief and others at City Hall come to their conclusions is bordering on unbelievable. First and foremost - Government is by the people and for the people. Having said that - if "we the people" wish, desire and want the police to respond to "ALL" our burglar alarms, that is what the police should do -- without question and without questioning [us, the people].

This [responding to burglar alarms] is a police function and the City continually wants to make police work "self serve". They first stopped repsonding to motor vehicle accidents during wet wheather, now they want to make encountering burglars "self serve" also. I hear there is a move at the State capitol to introduce legislation that allos the self service of vehicle accidents to become an all the time situation rather than on slick street only. Again, I can't say it enough that government ought not be adversarial in its approach to servicing the very people that make the government possible through taxes. Instead the government ought to seek out what its citizenry wants, desires and needs.

It seems the Chief and others continually get into the "this is what I'm willing to do" attitude which doesn't 'serve' well the public. In the case of the burglar alarms and the false alarms, the City instituted a permit program whereby all alarm holders would have to pay a "first responder" permit fee and would also be fined for false alarms - this was to pay for the time officers spent responding to false alarms. The Chief did not say he was willing to forego the permit fee we already pay. That's because he doesn't have the authority to forego that fee. Therefore he should be asking citizens what citizens want instead of force-feeding some new policy that further sets the divide between citizens and City Hall. The Chief should also look at the commonsense problem the proposed policy would bring about, namely criminals would know they now have a longer period to burglarize and an even longer period before police will be responding, if ever.    

I hope homeowners and business owners will rally together and let City Hall know we don't like it [the proposed policy change].

Additionally, such a change would require others to become "first responders" to police work which is a public safety nightmare just waiting to happen. The alarm monitoring company's have said they would have to open security companies and become the first responders - I can hear it now "shots fired" and the homeowner or business owner is shot dead by the less trained, other than police, first responder.

Chuck A.
Tulsa Businessman
<snip>