The public speaks, and it reminds us

Of topics that we want to address. Anonymous, at 01:02PM, adds:

"The problem is not 'not enough police'. The problem is too many nanny-state call types..."

We agree with the latter. We know for a fact that manpower on the district "watch" level is severely lacking, but for the life of us, we can't figure out why we are mandated to send the police on some of the calls we receive.

Well-being checks (not all of them) that citizens can't do on their own due to laziness, "I'm locked in the cemetary, come get me out," "Ride with our ambulance because a 10-year-old child is having an asthma attack," "My 8-year-old child is trying to fight me, send me the police," "McDonald's gave me cold fries, send me the police," all of these are just the tip of the iceberg - and just a typical day/night at OEMC.

To the POs who ask us "are you serious?" when we give them these calls, yes. We are. Our administration made it very clear some years ago that if people ask for/demand to see the police, we are to send them - whether it's a police matter or not. Years ago, if we told citizens that we weren't sending the police for non-police matters, the complaint would be "squashed" once said citizens talked to the floor supervisors.

Now, if we tell citizens that we aren't sending the police for non-police matters, we're looking at possible CIs and suspensions for "failure to provide police service," along with the favorite catch-all "Conduct unbecoming a city employee" (Is that automatically inserted at the end of every CI number issued?). And, of course, the police unit sitting at your house teaching you how to raise your child or trying to bargain some "hot fries" for you could be responding to some woman getting pummelled by her boyfriend.

New York still tells its citizens that they're not sending the police for many calls. Guess that's more proof that we'll always be the "Second City."