5 ms·

> "The problem, mental health experts say, is that police should not be the ones to check on suicidal people in the first place." This is a very uninformed sta

> "The problem, mental health experts say, is that police should not be the ones to check on suicidal people in the first place." This is a very uninformed statement. For 911 and/or police calls, there is an extensively well-established (to put it mildly) precedent that the safety of an area must be secured by police before medical personnel are even allowed on scene. There are very good reasons for this-- you don't want to have your primary emergency medical responders taken out by a delusional shooter when other emergencies will be coming up soon that require them, all too often for matters of life & death. > " 'The moral of this story is don’t call the cops,' Cassandra said. “If you know someone who is having a mental health crisis, call a friend, a trusted neighbor, or someone close by who can safely intervene. Keep the number to a volunteer emergency medical service in your city or neighborhood that can be called directly" This I agree with. For people familiar with the situation and person/people involved (if they exist), a much more appropriate response can be conducted. There are numerous accounts of these situations leading to the arrest of the individual in crisis, which of course can make things much, much worse for them. I know someone it happened to.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
iainmerrick 8y ago
Re "uninformed", I think it's more a question of whose interest is at stake. For the health of the suicidal person (which I assume is the angle the mental health experts are coming from) it's very dangerous for the first contact to be armed police because there's a large risk that they'll be shot. It could also be true that it's safer for the police, bystanders, and even those mental health experts themselves, for the first contact to be armed police. But that scenario is just another one to add to the US gun control debate. Generally speaking, this stuff hardly ever occurs in other countries. It's a special US thing.
- JulianMorrison 8y ago
  I believe the police would be the ones to bust a door and check on someone thought to be in immediate danger over here in the UK, too. The difference being that they wouldn't be going in guns drawn as if they were conducting a military raid.
  - iainmerrick 8y ago
    Yeah, that sounds right. The crucial difference is that police encounters in the UK hardly ever result in death. Edit to add: it's not just that the police are much less likely to shoot someone, but that people know the police won't shoot them and therefore they're less likely to react in stupid and/or dangerous ways.
    - JulianMorrison 8y ago
      Also if the police do shoot them, it's likely to be with a taser.
- DanBC 8y ago
  US police injure innocent bystanders in crossfire. Sending US police into a situation where guns probably aren't needed increases the risk a lot.
jdietrich 8y ago
>This is a very uninformed statement. For 911 and/or police calls, there is an extensively well-established (to put it mildly) precedent that the safety of an area must be secured by police before medical personnel are even allowed on scene. Here in the UK, the police would not routinely attend an ambulance call-out for someone experiencing suicidal thoughts unless there was specific intelligence to suggest that the patient might present a credible threat to an ambulance crew. Most British police officers are not permitted to carry firearms; armed officers would only be deployed to a mental health crisis if there was specific intelligence to suggest that the patient was armed and posed an immediate threat to life. All armed officers have specialist training, including crisis management and conflict de-escalation. In 2017, six people were fatally shot by police in England and Wales. Since 1990, the average number of fatal police shootings was 2.46 per year. Another way is possible. https://www.inquest.org.uk/deaths-in-police-custody https://www.inquest.org.uk/deaths-in-police-custody
- oblio 8y ago
  > Another way is possible. No, it's not. https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1820163660 https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-na...
- lysp 8y ago
  In Australia a large amount of police work is conducting welfare checks - suicide threats, people not showing up for work for a few days, distant family concerned about an elderly relative, health support workers who are concerned their mentally ill patient hasn't taken their medication, people who show erratic behaviour at a bank or government welfare office after talking to staff. Especially in country areas where they are limited Ambulance/Paramedic resources, police are more often than not the ones conducting checks and will be first responders. If paramedics are concerned about safety on a particular job (weapons mentioned on call, previous history of violence), they will wait for police to make the area safe before attending to a patient. If paramedics are unable to gain entry to a property, police are required to be the ones to force entry. Also if paramedics require to take someone involuntarily to hospital for mental health evaluation they require police presence to "arrest" someone under the Mental Health Act to allow them to be taken against their will due to health concerns. Due to large amounts of mental health work with police, on most shifts police will have a specialised unit (car) on duty in each area which has a combination of a police officer and specialist mental health worker / psychologist. They focus on any jobs relating to mentally ill and can conduct assessments without having to wait for an ambulance to be available. There are a lot more police on shift than ambulances, and ambulances are often tied up for hours at hospitals doing transfers of patients, so police can and should be the ones dealing with welfare of the general public. They have a very close relationship with health workers. Police will NEVER undertake a welfare check with guns drawn, even if forcing entry to a property. When arresting someone under the Mental Health Act police will not draw their guns. Guns are a last resort only.
Zigurd 8y ago
"...there is an extensively well-established (to put it mildly) precedent that the safety of an area must be secured by police before medical personnel are even allowed on scene" This kind of thinking is uniquely American. On my drive to work I heard a third tier college promoting their "anti-terrorism" major. We are marinating in an ambient paranoia, where every police response is an armed response, and every "first responder" response has a police element to it. That's not good. The expense entailed by American paranoia is part of why our ranking in things that matter to quality of life for people of modest means are mediocre.
empath75 8y ago
Leaning on precedent and 'policy' to justify murderous behavior on the part of police is one of the more infuriating trends. If your policies and precedent end with innocent people dying, then they need to be changed.
- slfnflctd 8y ago
  Oh, I couldn't agree more. The whole culture of police behavior in the U.S. would benefit from a dramatic overhaul, especially with regard to mental health issues. I'm only describing how the system currently operates, and some arguments I've heard from first responders about why it's done this way. I never realized until now that all countries don't operate this way, it's food for thought. Someone close to me had armed police bust into their house and haul them off in handcuffs because they confessed to violent thoughts in an email to a fellow support group member whose facilitator freaked out over it. I think they were put on a psych hold and handcuffed to a hospital bed. It absolutely devastated them and permanently damaged much of their progress.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

iainmerrick 8y ago

Re "uninformed", I think it's more a question of whose interest is at stake. For the health of the suicidal person (which I assume is the angle the mental health experts are coming from) it's very dangerous for the first contact to be armed police because there's a large risk that they'll be shot. It could also be true that it's safer for the police, bystanders, and even those mental health experts themselves, for the first contact to be armed police. But that scenario is just another one to add to the US gun control debate. Generally speaking, this stuff hardly ever occurs in other countries. It's a special US thing.

JulianMorrison 8y ago
I believe the police would be the ones to bust a door and check on someone thought to be in immediate danger over here in the UK, too. The difference being that they wouldn't be going in guns drawn as if they were conducting a military raid.
- iainmerrick 8y ago
  Yeah, that sounds right. The crucial difference is that police encounters in the UK hardly ever result in death. Edit to add: it's not just that the police are much less likely to shoot someone, but that people know the police won't shoot them and therefore they're less likely to react in stupid and/or dangerous ways.
  - JulianMorrison 8y ago
    Also if the police do shoot them, it's likely to be with a taser.
DanBC 8y ago
US police injure innocent bystanders in crossfire. Sending US police into a situation where guns probably aren't needed increases the risk a lot.

jdietrich 8y ago

>This is a very uninformed statement. For 911 and/or police calls, there is an extensively well-established (to put it mildly) precedent that the safety of an area must be secured by police before medical personnel are even allowed on scene. Here in the UK, the police would not routinely attend an ambulance call-out for someone experiencing suicidal thoughts unless there was specific intelligence to suggest that the patient might present a credible threat to an ambulance crew. Most British police officers are not permitted to carry firearms; armed officers would only be deployed to a mental health crisis if there was specific intelligence to suggest that the patient was armed and posed an immediate threat to life. All armed officers have specialist training, including crisis management and conflict de-escalation. In 2017, six people were fatally shot by police in England and Wales. Since 1990, the average number of fatal police shootings was 2.46 per year. Another way is possible. https://www.inquest.org.uk/deaths-in-police-custody https://www.inquest.org.uk/deaths-in-police-custody

oblio 8y ago
> Another way is possible. No, it's not. https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1820163660 https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-na...
lysp 8y ago
In Australia a large amount of police work is conducting welfare checks - suicide threats, people not showing up for work for a few days, distant family concerned about an elderly relative, health support workers who are concerned their mentally ill patient hasn't taken their medication, people who show erratic behaviour at a bank or government welfare office after talking to staff. Especially in country areas where they are limited Ambulance/Paramedic resources, police are more often than not the ones conducting checks and will be first responders. If paramedics are concerned about safety on a particular job (weapons mentioned on call, previous history of violence), they will wait for police to make the area safe before attending to a patient. If paramedics are unable to gain entry to a property, police are required to be the ones to force entry. Also if paramedics require to take someone involuntarily to hospital for mental health evaluation they require police presence to "arrest" someone under the Mental Health Act to allow them to be taken against their will due to health concerns. Due to large amounts of mental health work with police, on most shifts police will have a specialised unit (car) on duty in each area which has a combination of a police officer and specialist mental health worker / psychologist. They focus on any jobs relating to mentally ill and can conduct assessments without having to wait for an ambulance to be available. There are a lot more police on shift than ambulances, and ambulances are often tied up for hours at hospitals doing transfers of patients, so police can and should be the ones dealing with welfare of the general public. They have a very close relationship with health workers. Police will NEVER undertake a welfare check with guns drawn, even if forcing entry to a property. When arresting someone under the Mental Health Act police will not draw their guns. Guns are a last resort only.

Zigurd 8y ago

"...there is an extensively well-established (to put it mildly) precedent that the safety of an area must be secured by police before medical personnel are even allowed on scene" This kind of thinking is uniquely American. On my drive to work I heard a third tier college promoting their "anti-terrorism" major. We are marinating in an ambient paranoia, where every police response is an armed response, and every "first responder" response has a police element to it. That's not good. The expense entailed by American paranoia is part of why our ranking in things that matter to quality of life for people of modest means are mediocre.

empath75 8y ago

Leaning on precedent and 'policy' to justify murderous behavior on the part of police is one of the more infuriating trends. If your policies and precedent end with innocent people dying, then they need to be changed.

slfnflctd 8y ago
Oh, I couldn't agree more. The whole culture of police behavior in the U.S. would benefit from a dramatic overhaul, especially with regard to mental health issues. I'm only describing how the system currently operates, and some arguments I've heard from first responders about why it's done this way. I never realized until now that all countries don't operate this way, it's food for thought. Someone close to me had armed police bust into their house and haul them off in handcuffs because they confessed to violent thoughts in an email to a fellow support group member whose facilitator freaked out over it. I think they were put on a psych hold and handcuffed to a hospital bed. It absolutely devastated them and permanently damaged much of their progress.