[Summit] Robbery on Burlington Street

[Emlyn Addison]

Maybe these details don't impact police costs, but they impact
consumers/taxpayers. Whichever way you'd care to cut it, the net result is
that someone pays for it. So the question becomes: Is it really necessary
and how best could this time & money be spent in its stead ("safety laws"
notwithstanding)?

Michael is right in pointing out that, even "off-duty", the officers are
still insured by their jobs with the city. In this economy--wow, what a
deal!

Emlyn


------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:09:43 -0400
> From: Allan Tear <aktear at gmail.com>
> To: summit at sna.providence.ri.us
> Subject: Re: [Summit] Robbery on Burlington Street
> Message-ID:
>        <CACYgpj-_z+HQ8E0cYYVFF0n5RtSHSjO1-VO_FL9VnyShPhF63A at mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Coryndon is correct, that these are off-duty officers "on detail", which is
> required by RI state law for street construction, and can also be
> contracted
> by private businesses (clubs for security presence, malls and auto dealers
> for directing traffic in high volume areas).
>
> Regardless of whether you think details are unnecessary, they don't have a
> first order impact on police costs. I would bet that, were police details
> done away with, it would be a net negative to municipal police costs, as
> officers see details as a "bonus" that they would otherwise have to replace
> as income some other way - like in the police contract that we all pay for.
>
> Best, Allan
> 93 Lauriston St.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachments/20110719/74481978/attachment.htm>