Non-Support Brings Premature Retirement

[mahagonny]

Is anyone surprised to see a story like this one? I am not. I think there will be more.

https://www.startribune.com/policing-and-mental-health-why-i-am-one-of-many-former-mpd-officers/600019128/

Discuss please.

[jimbogumbo]

We've both (I think) discussed the approach cited below. It would certainly help.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/02/06/denver-sent-mental-health-help-not-police-hundreds-calls/4421364001/

[dismalist]

What happens when instead of wrongly sending police to quell the purported perpetrators, the health professionals are wrongly sent to quell the purported perpetrators?

The health professionals might get their heads blown off. Unless the people on the telephone can predict well what kind of perpetrator is involved we are just changing the incidence of killings, not necessarily their number.

[jimbogumbo]

This (from the article) suggests a judicious use of the option:

"Over the first six months of the pilot, Denver received more than 2,500 emergency calls that fell into the STAR program's purview, and the STAR team was able to respond to 748 calls. No calls required the assistance of police, and no one was arrested.

Denver police responded to nearly 95,000 incidents over the same period, suggesting that an expanded STAR program could reduce police calls by nearly 3%, according to the report."

[mahagonny]

We've both (I think) discussed the approach cited below. It would certainly help.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/02/06/denver-sent-mental-health-help-not-police-hundreds-calls/4421364001/

Thanks for the interesting article, but what I recall our agreeing on was more a setting where police meet the community informally and get acquainted in a non-charged setting with the idea of building sense of working together. I agree many times a law is broken by someone whose mental health is more the issue than their disregard for the law. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure -- sure, but how?
on edit: You can see in the George Floyd video, the early part, that wasn't released until months later where neighborhood people were trying to explain to police that he was off balance. They knew him; the cops didn't.

[marshwiggle]

What happens when instead of wrongly sending police to quell the purported perpetrators, the health professionals are wrongly sent to quell the purported perpetrators?

The health professionals might get their heads blown off. Unless the people on the telephone can predict well what kind of perpetrator is involved we are just changing the incidence of killings, not necessarily their number.

Sadly, when that happens, because it will eventually, the same people now saying the police shouldn't be involved will be complaining that the police should have protected the mental health workers.

[Caracal]

What happens when instead of wrongly sending police to quell the purported perpetrators, the health professionals are wrongly sent to quell the purported perpetrators?

The health professionals might get their heads blown off. Unless the people on the telephone can predict well what kind of perpetrator is involved we are just changing the incidence of killings, not necessarily their number.

Sadly, when that happens, because it will eventually, the same people now saying the police shouldn't be involved will be complaining that the police should have protected the mental health workers.

There are already are all kinds of people who are not law enforcement who deal with volatile situations. Think of paramedics, fire fighters, social workers. Those people can all call the police and I'm assuming they are trained to know when they should and shouldn't do so.

When people make these sorts of arguments, it mostly shows how committed they are to this idea that the police really exist to violently and regularly maintain order in certain areas and among certain people. Instead of a model that posits that the government's job should be to maintain the peace, the idea is that the government is supposed to be an occupying force.

Dispatchers already make decisions about who to send to a call. You get a different response to a call if you report a burglary in progress, a giant brawl at a bar, someone having a heart attack, a person with a drawn gun, a car theft, etc. etc. If you call and say that there's an acquaintance in your house and you've asked him to leave and he's refusing, you are likely to have a police officer knock on the door and you would be pretty alarmed if they had their gun drawn. If you say the person is brandishing a gun and threatening people, you're presumably going to get a different sort of response.

The people you could send to deal with situations that didn't seem to need the police would have training in how to assess the situation once they got there just like paramedics or social workers do. If they showed up somewhere and there was ongoing violence or a clear threat of violence, they would radio in for the police. Would a job like that carry some risk? Yes, sure. If you had these people across the country, would there be occasional incidents where one of them was attacked and killed. Of course, but I doubt it would result in more overall deaths of government personnel. Probably it would result in fewer, since people would be less likely to react violently and erratically to people without guns who couldn't arrest them.

[mahagonny]

What happens when instead of wrongly sending police to quell the purported perpetrators, the health professionals are wrongly sent to quell the purported perpetrators?

The health professionals might get their heads blown off. Unless the people on the telephone can predict well what kind of perpetrator is involved we are just changing the incidence of killings, not necessarily their number.

Sadly, when that happens, because it will eventually, the same people now saying the police shouldn't be involved will be complaining that the police should have protected the mental health workers.

There are already are all kinds of people who are not law enforcement who deal with volatile situations. Think of paramedics, fire fighters, social workers. Those people can all call the police and I'm assuming they are trained to know when they should and shouldn't do so.

When people make these sorts of arguments, it mostly shows how committed they are to this idea that the police really exist to violently and regularly maintain order in certain areas and among certain people. Instead of a model that posits that the government's job should be to maintain the peace, the idea is that the government is supposed to be an occupying force.

Dispatchers already make decisions about who to send to a call. You get a different response to a call if you report a burglary in progress, a giant brawl at a bar, someone having a heart attack, a person with a drawn gun, a car theft, etc. etc. If you call and say that there's an acquaintance in your house and you've asked him to leave and he's refusing, you are likely to have a police officer knock on the door and you would be pretty alarmed if they had their gun drawn. If you say the person is brandishing a gun and threatening people, you're presumably going to get a different sort of response.

The people you could send to deal with situations that didn't seem to need the police would have training in how to assess the situation once they got there just like paramedics or social workers do. If they showed up somewhere and there was ongoing violence or a clear threat of violence, they would radio in for the police. Would a job like that carry some risk? Yes, sure. If you had these people across the country, would there be occasional incidents where one of them was attacked and killed. Of course, but I doubt it would result in more overall deaths of government personnel. Probably it would result in fewer, since people would be less likely to react violently and erratically to people without guns who couldn't arrest them.

Whatever their training though, show me an incident where a white person(s) was called to attend to a situation containing non-whites, and I can show you journalists who are looking for a juicy white racists story.

[Puget]

This (from the article) suggests a judicious use of the option:

"Over the first six months of the pilot, Denver received more than 2,500 emergency calls that fell into the STAR program's purview, and the STAR team was able to respond to 748 calls. No calls required the assistance of police, and no one was arrested.

Denver police responded to nearly 95,000 incidents over the same period, suggesting that an expanded STAR program could reduce police calls by nearly 3%, according to the report."

Another article I read on this program described one of their typical responses-- a homeless man with foot pain. Instead of dispatching an ambulance and probably police, ending in an ambulance trip to the ER for non-emergency medical care, the STAR team responded, gave him food, examined him, and talked to him. Turned out what he really needed was new shoes and socks so his feet wouldn't hurt, so they got him some.

Conservatives should love this-- imagine the cost savings just from this one call (2 person team in a van + shoes, socks, meal $ << ambulance, ER, multiple police and medic time), and the police are happy to get to do "real police work" rather than social work.

Surely having specialized teams rather than police respond to mental health and social work situations is something we could all agree on? Or maybe not, since some here seem more interested in defending the use of police in every situation rather than actually solving any problems.

[mahagonny]

Conservatives should love this-- imagine the cost savings just from this one call (2 person team in a van + shoes, socks, meal $ << ambulance, ER, multiple police and medic time), and the police are happy to get to do "real police work" rather than social work.

Conservatives and also anyone who passed fourth grade arithmetic. But police don't always want to let other people have some of their work. Not if involves overtime detail, like for instance directing traffic.

[Caracal]

Conservatives should love this-- imagine the cost savings just from this one call (2 person team in a van + shoes, socks, meal $ << ambulance, ER, multiple police and medic time), and the police are happy to get to do "real police work" rather than social work.

Conservatives and also anyone who passed fourth grade arithmetic. But police don't always want to let other people have some of their work. Not if involves overtime detail, like for instance directing traffic.

Its amazing to me how different attitudes are toward police unions compared to teachers unions. The same people who condemn teachers unions for being a powerful entrenched interest are perfectly fine with police unions publicly encouraging their members to disobey orders and even stage what amount to slowdowns in police work if they feel like elected officials are insufficiently supportive.

[mahagonny]

Conservatives should love this-- imagine the cost savings just from this one call (2 person team in a van + shoes, socks, meal $ << ambulance, ER, multiple police and medic time), and the police are happy to get to do "real police work" rather than social work.

Conservatives and also anyone who passed fourth grade arithmetic. But police don't always want to let other people have some of their work. Not if involves overtime detail, like for instance directing traffic.

Its amazing to me how different attitudes are toward police unions compared to teachers unions. The same people who condemn teachers unions for being a powerful entrenched interest are perfectly fine with police unions publicly encouraging their members to disobey orders and even stage what amount to slowdowns in police work if they feel like elected officials are insufficiently supportive.

Power corrupts. Our tenure track union claims to be pro-labor, but they're not. They are pro tenure track union labor.

[marshwiggle]

Surely having specialized teams rather than police respond to mental health and social work situations is something we could all agree on? Or maybe not, since some here seem more interested in defending the use of police in every situation rather than actually solving any problems.

Just to be clear: I think these programs are great idea and a big improvement. However, there are going to be cases where the risk assesment is wrong, and some of these workers get hurt or killed. I sincerely hope in those cases the people advocating most strongly for these services now won't then turn around completely and complain that somehow the police were at fault for NOT responding.

[Hegemony]

I am familiar with another of these programs, which has been going for 31 years and has served as a national model:

https://whitebirdclinic.org/what-is-cahoots/

Thirty-one years, no deaths, wide community support. I don't get the doom-mongering about this kind of thing. Something could go wrong, sure. But in practice, amidst hundreds, probably thousands of call-outs, it has not gone wrong, so why the impulse to jump to a worst-case scenario? "If X happens, then people will response in this undesirable way!" Look at what's actually happening — we have the data. It's a good program, it saves money, it promotes community well-being, it almost certainly saves lives.

[mamselle]

Moaners gotta moan.

M.