4 ms·
In SF, with all the hills and low spots, it seems to me the coded dialogue might be more efficient or perhaps easier to communicate. Officers are often 10-1 (re
by johnohara 7y ago
In SF, with all the hills and low spots, it seems to me the coded dialogue might be more efficient or perhaps easier to communicate. Officers are often 10-1 (receiving/sending poorly) and requested to 10-9 (repeat last message) as in "One Edward Fifteen you are very 10-1. Please 10-9."
And it's weird how your brain picks up on the code and immediately understands the seriousness of the situation. When a 408 is upgraded to code 3, enroute, you sense the urgency. A simple "affirm, upgrading to code 3" tells the officers at the scene that the 408 "gets it" and "hang on, we're hurrying." Usually with the sound of sirens and air horns in the background.
- JshWright 7y agoIt's not easier or more efficient (it's actually more error prone, since there's less context). The systems also tend to be very regional (a "10-50" can be very different things depending on where you are). Generally the reason its used is "that's how we've always done it". The other reason is that it sounds cooler... (I work in a system that has (mostly) phased out codes in favor of plain words)
- johnohara 7y agoI've heard officers shroud context using codes. "Put me on it, I've dealt with him before. He's a known 800 (mentally ill person)." Or "show me 97 (on scene), subject appears extremely 811 (intoxicated). I'll advise." 99% plain language yet subtly informative.
- JshWright 7y agoGenerally we use meaningful acronyms in those cases. Still a code, but one that is a lot less arbitrary. e.g. EDP="Emotionally disturbed person", or EtOH=Ethanol