I saw this police-penned story come across the wire. It's actually a nice tale of police and the alarm industry working together to do what both are supposed to do: stop crime and keep people and property safe. I just find this part interesting: One idea centered on Ã¢â‚¬Å“Eliminating the number of steps with the alarm,Ã¢â‚¬Â that caused a Hayward Baker representative being notified before the SPPD that the alarm had been activated. Due to the number of thefts at the company the SPPD and Hayward Baker decided to Ã¢â‚¬Å“Have the security company call us directly so we could catch the guys there on the property,Ã¢â‚¬Â said Chief MacKinnon. When the January 12 report of the alarm was received by the SPPD the Officers Ã¢â‚¬Å“went down and skippedÃ¢â‚¬Â the normal security measures of checking doors and windows to see if the business had been broken into. Ignoring the weird capitalization and distaste for commas, what's strange here is we have a police department touting its "proactive policing," when, in fact, they wouldn't have caught anybody doing anything if it weren't for the alarm company, whose name for some reason can't be mentioned. They don't have any problem naming the establishment that's protected, Hayward Baker, but can't seem to remember which alarm firm it was that was so compliant in changing protocol to suit the police department's needs. Huh. Over on Leischen's blog, there's discussion of alarm companies using free labor. Well, how many criminals are the cops catching if no one calls them up to tell them where they are?