commercial for issue 2

[kawi kid]

My favorite commercial is the one against issue 2 that has a man calling 911 because somebody broke into his house and the dispatcher says it will be 15 to 20 min before anyone can respond. Everytome I hear it I can't help myself and I yell at the radio shoot him!!!! Damnit how about a little self reliability? If that is the answer I get when I call 911 ill tell them to skip sending law enforcement and just go straight to the medical squad and coroner.

[Casper]

My favorite commercial is the one against issue 2 that has a man calling 911 because somebody broke into his house and the dispatcher says it will be 15 to 20 min before anyone can respond. Everytome I hear it I can't help myself and I yell at the radio shoot him!!!! Damnit how about a little self reliability? If that is the answer I get when I call 911 ill tell them to skip sending law enforcement and just go straight to the medical squad and coroner.

15-20 minutes would be an improvement in most areas.

[SJC1000rr]

Thats fine, I think every person should be able to defend there home/castle. But the message that service responce times may be increase also serves to notifiy the public that they may want to consider some home defense. Outside of that, LE will still have to get there and process the scene as it is and forward all the info to a prosecutor for grand jury indictment. Some area's are going to be worse depending on how far out in the boondocks you are and how many LEO are on shift. Obviously the more people, the easier it is to send someone thats not on a call then someone that is. I can say that our responce times will at least double when we run with 3 vs having 4-5 people simply due to the call volume.

Edited October 19, 2011 by SJC1000rr

[kawi kid]

Well the way I look at is if you come in my house a body bag is gonna be required.... for you or me that will be to decided.... but either way someone is leaving in it. All I can say is I pitty you cuz shit is gonna get morbid.

Edited October 19, 2011 by kawi kid

[Casper]

Thats fine, I think every person should be able to defend there home/castle. But the message that service responce times may be increase also serves to notifiy the public that they may want to consider some home defense. Outside of that, LE will still have to get there and process the scene as it is and forward all the info to a prosecutor for grand jury indictment. Some area's are going to be worse depending on how far out in the boondocks you are and how many LEO are on shift. Obviously the more people, the easier it is to send someone thats not on a call then someone that is. I can say that our responce times will at least double when we run with 3 vs having 4-5 people simply due to the call volume.

Just out of curiosity, how does SB5 affect PD staffing more than it already has been by the economy and mismanagement? In recent times, numerous departments have been laying off LEO's because of lack of funds. Some departments are on skeleton crews, and some have no police officers at all. None of that had anything to do with SB5. And how do you know your staffing levels will drop from 4-5 to 3? I think a whole lot of misinformation is floating around from both sides.

[Tonik]

Just out of curiosity, how does SB5 affect PD staffing more than it already has been by the economy and mismanagement?

The answer to your rhetorical question is that it does not effect it at all. The mayors and PD chief's already decide staffing levels.

[SJC1000rr]

If you read what I said, I never said it WOULD drop from 4-5 to 3. I simply stated that when there’s a lower number of people working that you could expect a longer wait time for a response of service to your call. Such as you stated, Layoffs and skeleton crews will mean people get to you slower if at all when you really need it. As for how SB5 affects this process, is that parts of SB5 that makes it illegal for unions and management to discuss staffing levels during contract negotiations.. which is when such things are set into stone for the future of the department. Otherwise it’s left in the open and can be changed as the department sees fit regardless of safety concerns.

As for how out department operates, we have scheduling group/committees that works with management to come to an agreed upon level given safety concerns and the departmental mission. This would become irrelevant for the future with SB5 as management would have total say in what they feel is appropriate staffing, despite the fact that they never step a foot into a car anymore or deal with daily activities. I know when theres so few officers working, theres not much desire to get into a lot of activity because you have no help coming if you needed it.

Edited October 19, 2011 by SJC1000rr

[SJC1000rr]

The answer to your rhetorical question is that it does not effect it at all. The mayors and PD chief's already decide staffing levels.

Clearly you work for all agencies and know about what goes on in all contracts and policies.

[Tonik]

Clearly you work for all agencies and know about what goes on in all contracts and policies.

I'm betting that is sarcasm, and you think you are actually the one that knows everything.

[kawi kid]

[chevysoldier]

[SJC1000rr]

Clearly you work for all agencies and know about what goes on in all contracts and policies.

I'm betting that is sarcasm, and you think you are actually the one that knows everything.

Yes, you would be correct in that assumption. And I don't know everything by any means, nor did I state I did now did I. But I at least know more then you since I work in the environment in question.

[Casper]

Play nice gentlemen. It's okay to disagree.

[Uncle Punk]

Will the union allow for a reduction of manpower if the population gets reduced by half in a given area or do you need the same staffing to cover the same area regardless of population?

[ohiomike]

Will the union allow for a reduction of manpower if the population gets reduced by half in a given area or do you need the same staffing to cover the same area regardless of population?

I would bet that cutting the pop. down like that would improve the ratio of Leo's to civilians. Based on what I have seen in Columbus, or what my wife sees (she drives up there everyday) very little equip violation tickets are written, or failures to use turn signals, speeding, or lane violations....most of which we see on 270 which is probably not the CPD's jurisdiction...but who would know.

The wife drives it during peak morning and afternoon drive times and tells me she rarely sees a patrol car, but all sorts of the other illegal stuff going on constantly. Seems we could do with more Leo's per citizen rather than less.

[SJC1000rr]

Play nice gentlemen. It's okay to disagree.

I was about to make the same comment. Clearly most of us in this thread feel differently about the issue at hand and thats fine. I dont think either of us are going to change anothers mind and at this point its about as effective as running out heads into a wall. I think we all agree that some changes are needed. But how those changes come about and implemented are where the issues rise.

[Uncle Punk]

I would bet that cutting the pop. down like that would improve the ratio of Leo's to civilians. Based on what I have seen in Columbus, or what my wife sees (she drives up there everyday) very little equip violation tickets are written, or failures to use turn signals, speeding, or lane violations....most of which we see on 270 which is probably not the CPD's jurisdiction...but who would know.

The wife drives it during peak morning and afternoon drive times and tells me she rarely sees a patrol car, but all sorts of the other illegal stuff going on constantly. Seems we could do with more Leo's per citizen rather than less.

So is it your contention that those in charge of making decisions for staffing quotas are wrong and that we need more public employees regardless of population change? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?