3 ms·
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 healt
by 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 agoI 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 agoYeah, 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 agoAlso if the police do shoot them, it's likely to be with a taser.
- DanBC 8y agoUS police injure innocent bystanders in crossfire. Sending US police into a situation where guns probably aren't needed increases the risk a lot.