People on drugs and/or with mental health issues can be a danger to others. Or are you suggesting that we should just send mental health specialists, alone, to all such calls?
I’m asking for something to support your position that it is done for financial reasons.
Banzai
2692
That is the call to ‘defund the police’ - which really means moving the budget around, so that the police get less and mental health (and other) services gets more. The police have broadly been against any reduction in their budget, even if there is a corresponding reduction in their duties. Not hard to google.
milo
2693
Yes. I am asking you what you believe a police officer will do to counter that risk? I mean, specifically?
jpinard
2694
This exactly. As many asked for city hall to move budgets around to employ mental health and social services for many calls, police have screamed bloody murder about it. They hate dealing with these calls, but don’t want to cut their budget to give it to someone else? So what’s the leave in the equation except money?
Timex
2695
Having someone trained in firearms use and self defense is in fact a useful thing in some situations.
Having them there, able to step in if the social worker is attacked, would likely be a good idea.
Christ, man. It’s been tested. Done. In a medium - sized American city, even, not even in pacifist Europe where there are less guns and violence.
It works this way: 911 dispatchers filter calls they receive – if they’re violent or criminal, they’re sent to police. If they’re within CAHOOTS’ purview, the van-bound staff will take the call. They prep what equipment they’ll need, drive to the scene and go from there.
Per self-reported data, CAHOOTS workers responded to 24,000 calls in 2019 – about 20% of total dispatches. About 150 of those required police backup.
If the police had been with those responders “just in case”, I’m pretty confident the number of cases needing armed intervention (and not just “police backup”) would have been higher than 150.
That is a VERY different thing than the allegation Jpinard made: “More lucrative to get massive overtime and just shoot people with issues.”
milo
2699
So, let’s not tiptoe around this. You (and Stepsongrapes) seem to be saying that you want someone on scene who can shoot and kill the person who is in distress if that turns out to be necessary. If you think that is the proper course of action, why not just say it that way? Why all the euphemisms?
Or are you suggesting that a simple show of force will be effective in de-escalating a tense situation with someone who is not entirely rational to begin with?
I am not a mental health professional. But I guess I trust them to make the call as to whether a situation carries a sufficient risk that the use of lethal force is warranted. Because if you bring Chekov’s gun into a tense situation, someone will use it. Especially if the person carrying the gun understands that’s the only reason they were asked to be there in the first place.
Timex
2700
Well, to be clear, cops are actually trained in use of force that doesn’t involve deadly force.
But the reason for the cop would be to protect the social worker in certain situations. Because they deserve to be protected.
If the person in distress ended up being an actual, significant threat to someone else, then yes, cops should protect that other person, with force if necessary. Do you see that as controversial? Note, I’m not saying every person in distress is a risk to others.
What would you do if a mental health professional were killed or seriously injured in one of these situations and adequate protection was not provided? Chalk it up to the risks of the job?
milo
2702
A bit, yes. Healthcare professionals are all taught to “first, do no harm.” If they do not feel safe treating a client, then they should not enter with an armed guard and thus risk making the patient worse. They should stay out. But as I said in the paragraph you deleted, I trust the healthcare professional to make that call.
I think it’s a very different situation if the distressed individual is safely in some house or apartment by themselves (your shouldn’t enter situation). But there are certainly instances where the individual isn’t alone, is armed, and/or isn’t safely contained.
I’m frankly puzzled by why you’re so certain that mentally distressed individuals (e.g., mentally ill or under the influence) aren’t, in some instances, a threat or potential threat to others, such that cops are never appropriate.
I certainly agree that there are clear instances where cops aren’t appropriate, necessary, or even helpful. Given the state of US policing, I certainly wouldn’t call the cops on someone who is only a threat to themself, for example.
Timex
2704
So… what are you suggesting be done in that situation?
Yeah, but what if the state couldn’t use its monopoly on force to enforce (heh!) the social contract?
I agree absolutely. Statistics for 2019 are right there in the bit that I quoted, and yet people are still arguing that we should have cops on hand at all times.
As I said, and as the article posits, this is an amazing model for a working system that’s been in place for 30+ years. I also agree with jpinard- Police (really like every department in a bureaucracy, government OR corporate) fight tooth and nail for to keep their current level of funding each year- even if reduction means that they don’t have to do the things they don’t really like doing. Police, however, are in a unique situation to demand they their budget goes up every year. So we don’t even get to try out systems like this one.
Tman
2708
they are trained, on average, 640 hours, or 4 months to be a cop. That includes everything.
I don’t think putting so much emphasis on 4 months of training is a good idea.
Very much this. And it’s amazing that some folks are arguing that people with mental health problems who are not institutionalized and instead live at home with family members are so dangerous that they can’t safely be approached by anyone without a gun. Does the cop sleep in the garage?
