Hacker News Reader

Apparently, they usually bring police with them, and they are often called to the scene by police. Adding a trained counselor for deescalation sounds nice, but it may simply be an enhancement not an alternative. https://www.streetroots.org/news/2019/05/03/portland-mental-...

It's both. Dispatch calls it out and sometimes police show up, sometimes they don't. The main thing is the team is focused on solving the problem vs controlling people while ignoring their problem.

If people are a danger to themselves or others, the cops should be there, period. Sorry if that hurts their feelings but once a situation triggers calling for assistance it’s not just about them anymore.

There are multiple problems with that simplified model of conflict engagement. The most immediate one is that it encourages people to call nobody and just try to sort out the situation themselves, because the risk of a simple call for assistance ending in the death of a loved one is too high right now.

https://www.inquirer.com/news/west-philadelphia-police-shoot...

What sort of training helps deal with violent and irrational people?

Simply not feeling you must deal with the situation right now.

In the UK for example, the normal beat police do not have guns. If they approach a situation where they feel in danger, they're trained to back off and call for either more backup or an armed response. Turns out most of the time whatever the issue is will still be there when backup arrives. On the other hand, if it's a simple issue, they can just deal with it and there's a much smaller chance someone gets shot.

> Simply not feeling you must deal with the situation right now.

I can see that helping in some situations, but how does that help when the situation really is urgent?

Say you have someone who is violent and irrational due to drug intoxication and they need medical aid or they'll die, yet it's not safe to provide that. What is the answer in that case?

not the 'official' answer here but if they're that far gone on drugs eventually something will happen where they'll either tire themselves out or lose consciousness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1JXhSYfLNE

I'm only half joking.

In all of the recent cases that have blown up in the US though, this was never the issue. The issue was the situation escalated way beyond where it should have. George Floyd was being arrested for using a supposedly counterfeit $20 bill. Maybe they could have just let him run. I'm sure the US economy won't be ruined by there being an extra $20 in circulation.

In the EMT case, I think we have to think about the alternative outcomes. If the EMTs can't help because the person is irrationally violent due to drugs, and the EMTs can't restrain them, I don't really see why calling the cops would make the situation any better. All they're doing is providing more hands, which could be done by simply having more EMTs. If they have a gun, then call the police. If they don't, they're unrestrainable, and you can clear out members of the the public, just let them be. The only other options simply make the situation worse for the person. Even using a taser in that situation can cause a heart attack.

> I'm sure the US economy won't be ruined by there being an extra $20 in circulation

In aggregate it would be.

No amount of "arrest random dude on the street with a potentially counterfeit $20" would address a systematic issue endangering the us economy.

It's like thinking you'll win the war on drugs by arresting weed smokers, except even less effective

I’m curious to understand why you think introducing a gun into this situation is going to make it any better?

We know from plenty of examples that in the scenario you describe there’s a high chance that the individual will end up shot by the police, and probably dead. We know police don’t have the training or the tools to handle this scenario well.

I don’t see how brining in people with better training could be a detriment. Worse case you ended up back where you started, the “violent and irrational” person ends up dead. Best case they successfully deescalate and render appropriate treatment, saving their life.

Not sure where the downside is.

Just because there have been high profile cases which fit the narrative of what you already believe doesn't mean that that is an accurate picture of reality.

The data simply do not comport with the position you are advocating. Here's some old (2005) data: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=653

- 20% of people in US had contact with police in the year. - 9/10 people reported police acted properly - 44 million people with interactions, only 1% of those had violent conflict involved with the interaction, that's 440 thousand incidents

Hell, even the left-leaning WaPo tried to use data to buttress their/your argument and it's just plain embarrassing: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic...

- 1000 people shot by police in 2019 - they actually removed the numbers for unarmed, because it was so dismal for their message - less than 50 "unarmed" black people killed by police in 2019

Take an honest look at these numbers and then please try again to justify your position about how there's a "high chance that the individual will end up shot by the police" because by the light of the data you're living in a fantasy land.

I guess my claim of "high chance that the individual will end up shot by the police" is hyperbolic.

But then my next question is, what does a police officer bring to the table other than a gun? What unique skill and tools does a police officer have that could help resolve such a scenario peacefully, that wouldn't also be available to someone specially trained in dealing with mental health issues?

You're ignoring cases (the majority I'd estimate based on 911 calls I've listened in) where others are affected.

Domestic abuse/violence, threatening behavior towards third parties or behavior that's so unpredictably out of line that you can't confidently sit back and not deal with it because you'd be wondering if others would be placed in danger by your non-action.

I'd say that most of the comments in this thread are very out of touch with reality and firmly in the realm of wishful thinking.

Most UK civilians do not have guns either.

The UK has ~5 guns (legal and illegal) per 100 civilians.

The US has 120 per 100 civilians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...

Are you implying that enough people can't be trusted not to shoot at police with their guns that it justifies an armed response to every call everywhere in the entire country?

I think it’s more like if you are a first responder, the math tells you whomever you are dealing with has a gun. That changes the dynamic entirely.

The math doesn't say that - the 120 per 100 figure is misleading: obviously everyone doesn't own a gun. About 22% of people report owning a gun. So yes, a high figure, but the chance of someone owning a gun AND currently carrying it brings that number down a bit. I do agree that it's still quite a dangerous situation regardless.

1 in 5 is still far higher than UK first responders have to deal with.

Well then let's run the numbers: which math are you talking about, the number of guns? My question stands, then. After that, where is the line that changes the dynamic "entirely?"

I‘m not sure whether measuring the number of guns per citizen is a valid measure. Take a look at Switzerland.

I think it goes down with many more factors applying at the same time, not just „guns“.

Why begin with the assumption people are violent and irrational due to a random 911 call?

But to answer your question directly, there are tons of simple things you can do, from body language to tone. They aren't really a mystery to figure out either. Start with empathy and asking how you can help.

Like I mentioned above, Patrick Skinner distills this succinctly with "how would I solve this problem without my badge and my gun?" and in particular, using the example of if your next door neighbor asked you for help with some minor crisis.

Treat your neighbor that lives rough the same way and it's amazing the difference in reaction you get.

Assuming violence is necessary from the start becomes a self fulfilling thing.

Listen to some 911 calls sometimes. People are often screaming, panicked, crying.

Where can I find a representative sample of 911 calls?

The calls themselves aren't usually in the open due to privacy concerns, but you can listen to dispatch in many cities here: https://www.broadcastify.com

Exactly, which is why I'm highly skeptical of someone whose political position is justified by supposedly listening to 911 calls.

I listened to the local dispatch until recently when the cops switched to encrypted channels. Fire/EMS is still available though.

I have. Up until the recent protests dispatch here was in the open, so you could follow situations in real time. There's no reason that a taser, gun, or handcuffs help with the overwhelming majority of calls, including ones with someone who's panicked and crying.

The one where you arent trained to just shoot people until they stop moving/gun runs out of bullets.

> which clearly has spread to you as well

How do you know this?