Remember: our rules allow pointed disagreement, but require respectful discussion.
--
Jonathan writes:
>911 is the same number that people call for everything from noise
complaints to homicides. �And with our already overworked police staff,
having to prioritize calls, how are they going to distinguish between
incidents of say, a bunch of passengers on a plane who think anyone of
Arab descent must be a threat, and and actual situation of 3 "good ole
boys" drinking Old Milwaukee in a pickup and waiting for their
"patriotism" to kick in.
>More to the point, if we're being "assured that any action taken
against residents of Minneapolis because of their race, ethnicity of
religion will not be tolerated." �Given the above description why would
we have them just call 911?
Me writing:
Gotta disagree here, Jonathan. Unless 911 is severely overloaded - and I
haven't heard anyone say it is - I think one emergency number is
definitely the way to go.
Look at the story. St. Paul won't have their number up until at least
next week. Even then, you have to publicize it. There will confusion
about which number to call - 911 or the new number. How memorable will
the new number be?
I like Minneapolis's philosophy of one simple number for trouble. (If
anything, despite consistent city publicity efforts, people don't
realize that 911 is the number for anything suspicious, as well as
emergencies.) I believe 911 operators are trained to prioritize calls.
Perhaps the city should add 911 operators given the heightened chance of
trouble. But a whole new number looks like more trouble than it's worth.
I'm with the mayor on this one.
David Brauer
King Field - Ward 10
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
