Fremont Ca. Residents threaten to arm themselves

J

JimDiver

New member
Fremont police are rolling out a new policy that states they will not respond to burglar alarms unless there is a witness or something caught on video. The reason given is that they can no longer afford to respond to them as they are 98% of the time false alarms.

This has local residents up in arms thinking this is a call to crooks everywhere to come and rob them with impunity and now some are threatening to arm themselves.

Fremont police welcomed people who wished to apply for CCW, but state that the new policy will not stand as "good cause" which is required to get a Ca. CCW.

On a related note, days after announcing this policy, a gun store was burglarized in Fremont. The owner blames the new policy for the break in.


Makes me wonder what good the police are in Fremont now that they will not come when someone breaks into your house or business.
 
While a police chief, I issued a general order similar to Fremonts. A veteran LEO was severely injured/disabled and retired from a TC while responding to a false alarm. Banks and government facilities were the only exceptions. We establshed a fine schedule for companies with a high number of false alarms. The FD did the same thing. When an alarm monitor is hit with a large fine due to defective installation or equipment, they fix the problem or leave town quickly. Residential alarms are usually not investigated by LEOs. This is what the security firms are in business for. When a CSO finds evidence of a genuine B&E in progress, LEO response is then a priority. 98% is about normal rate for false alarms. Nothing to be excited about.
 
Imagine a house alarm. Owner hits the panic button. Alarm company calls. The owner is made to give the code but is smart enough to give a fake one so the Alarm Company knows it's for real. Cops don't respond because it's against policy. Good going Fremont! BTW, San Francisco PD is also going to ignore alarms too.
 
I've been a LEO for 15 years and have responded to hundreds of alarm calls. Never have I went to a legit one, not once. The alarm companies are making a killing and we can't answer the real calls because we are responding to calls that are not even from our citizens. There is some complainant from another state giving us an address to go to. Some jurisdictions are charging the alarm companies for false alarms. I wish we could. We would'nt be ignoring our citizens if we did'nt respond. If there is a local complainant we will always go. (well we go to all calls anyway)
 
Sir William said:
We establshed a fine schedule for companies with a high number of false alarms. The FD did the same thing. When an alarm monitor is hit with a large fine due to defective installation or equipment, they fix the problem or leave town quickly. Residential alarms are usually not investigated by LEOs. This is what the security firms are in business for.
Click to expand...

Fremont allegedly tried the fines and claims they didn't reduce the false alarm problem. My guess is that they didn't escalate the false alarm fee fast enough or high enough. The city of Sunnyvale, Ca. (across the bay) used to get them until they charged something like $50 for the 2nd false alarm, $200 on the 3rd, $500 on the fourth and beyond that it was $2500 a pop. Fines were "reset" if it was a good call. For residential alarms they cut that in half with the max fine at $500 per call, but 8 false alarms in a row would get your response cancelled w/o confirmation.

Worse was a power outage or a minor earthquake would set off a lot of alarms. So would heavy rainstorms with lots of wind.

In California, most so-called security companies don't even permit their people to be armed. This includes alarm responders. The few that are have been told that unless they see blood from an axe-murder in progress the gun stays in the holster.
 
Our fine scedule was $500.00 per responding prowl car. The FD charged a higher rate. I think it was $2500.00 per station. It was high enough that the university police handled all their own responses. Plants began doing the same, their monitoring stations were on-site and they only called if they needed help. The county fined $750.00 for response to a false alarm. The standard response for a silent 911 was a LEO, fire district response and EMS. Monitor stations became centralized and out of state monitored because of fines. The alarm companies marketing notwithstanding. The one thing that always bothered me was the impression that a residence in BFE was safe because it had an alarm. We always advised homebuilders and owners to buy a dog that barked for inside, a dog that bit for outside and a shotgun for a doorgreeter.
 
Police agencies have never been legally or morally responsible to "protect" people or their property. They are investigative, custodial and reporting agencies.

The people of Freemont, or many of them, ignorant of this fact are no doubt having a rude awakening. Made worse by living in a jurisdiction that de facto denies them their right to protect themselves and their property, and those under the 2nd Amendment.

This CCW nonsense has been a Trojan horse from the beginning anyway.
 
San fransisco, too?

Do you have a link to the San fransisco no-alarm-answer story?
I'd love to send it to my parents.
C-
 
How long till the police will ONLY respond if more than one shot is fired? How long till the dispatchers ask for credit card numbers to send an amulance, Firetruck, or Police? So basically we pay taxes and monitoring fees for no reason other than to protect the criminals?
 
Imagine a house alarm. Owner hits the panic button. Alarm company calls. The owner is made to give the code but is smart enough to give a fake one so the Alarm Company knows it's for real. Cops don't respond because it's against policy.
Click to expand...

In this case, there would be a witness, so it would warrant a response under Fremont's policy.

If 98% of the time it's not a criminal, how is this policy protecting criminals? Criminal alarm companies, perhaps.
 
Think about this...

This is a very good move toward an armed citizenry.

I used to be a locksmith, edged up against the alarm business. The bulk of alarms are false, ranging from rain the works to the cat fiddling with the sensor. Police departments are limited, the Freemont Police is honest enough to admit it.

Now, if more folks buy guns to keep at home, and see all the nonsense about 'background checks' and 'proficiency checks' and 'carrying checks' and all these socialist restrictions, how much more pressure will that put on the legislature to clean up idiotic gun laws?

Legislators do not respond to facts and reason, they do respond to votes.
 
Wraith, no excuse for what, not responding?

if you cry wolf too many times and there is no wolf, when the wolf really does show up, no one is listening to your cries.

how's that for clever :D
 
Wraith, sorry let me try that again:

damned if they do: since 98% of the alarm calls are false, resources are diverted away from situations where they might actually be needed. all officers currently on duty are investigating home alarms, so no one is available to patrol the area where several car breakins have occured, which means the next guy to get his car broken into says "why the hell are the police investigating home alarm calls that are 98% false and not patroling a known crime area?". IMO this and $$$ are why the policy was implemented.

damned if they don't: some of the posts in this thread that are not LEO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top