8 ms·

My understanding, based mostly on what I’ve seen on Twitter: 911 call -> Dispatch unarmed City employee, typically a social worker, who specializes in the rele

My understanding, based mostly on what I’ve seen on Twitter: 911 call -> Dispatch unarmed City employee, typically a social worker, who specializes in the relevant situation, population or neighborhood. Goal is to assist the individuals involved, to be compassionate instead of punitive, to get to the root cause of the issue. There is still some kind of armed security backup for the social worker’s protection in situations that do escalate.

ryandrake 6y ago
An additional goal should be to de-escalate rather than escalate. Current policing emphasizes "escalation to violence" as the default tool that gets used during any confrontation, which has been on display for the last two weeks.
downerending 6y ago
That's admirable in theory, but sounds like a recipe for getting your head blown off. There really are unrepentantly awful people in the world, and sometimes we need to save innocents from them.
- hckr_news 6y ago
  On the other side of that extreme, you'll take cops filling innocent people with lead?
  - downerending 6y ago
    For every wrong shooting, there's what, maybe a hundred righteous ones? A thousand? Yes, I'll take it for now, and advocate for improvements.
    - newen 6y ago
      How can you possibly think so when there are about 25 police killings in Germany in the last 30 years and about 25 police killings in the US in the last month?
      - tommit 6y ago
        Many people won't like this, but I cannot explain this phenomenon other than that it's the result of years of normalizing gun ownership. Shootings are a very real and somewhat regular occurrence in the US. Here in Germany, it's literally not an issue people worry about. When was the last time you saw a gun anywhere in Germany? The majority of Germans would probably say in the holster of a policeman or possibly someone they know is a registered hunter. Indubitably, the crazy amount of guns coupled with a tendency to romanticize them leads to policemen being more on edge and willing to pull the trigger -- because worst case, you have an armed loon in front of you that might just shoot first. The initially suggested idea of sending an unarmed civil service guy to de-escalate some situation sounds great in theory, but honestly I wouldn't want to be the guy trying to talk sense into an armed loon. The fact that the above poster estimates there to be a thousand rightful shootings for every wrong one should really warrant the question of why there are a thousand shootings in the first place. That is not the norm.
        agensaequivocum 6y ago
        > Shootings are a very real and somewhat regular occurrence in the US. Here in Germany, it's literally not an issue people worry about. When was the last time you saw a gun anywhere in Germany? There was a shooting in February https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanau_shootings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanau_shootings. Germany is also in the top 25 per capita for civilian gun ownership http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/T-Briefing-Papers/SAS-BP-Civilian-Firearms-Numbers.pdf http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/T-Briefing-Pap...
      - downerending 6y ago
        My family is recently from Germany, and at least 50 years ago, they had an extremely strong culture of social order and obeying laws. I suspect variations in crime rates have a lot more to do with that than with differences in policing style.
        newen 6y ago
        It's not just Germany. Police killings are significantly lower in many many other countries compared to the US.
    - curryst 6y ago
      Going off the Washington Post's data, there were 1,003 police shootings in 2019. Before I break it down, these numbers overlap. If you want to see the non-overlapping data, feel free to check out https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic... and filter it any way you'd like. 55 of those were against unarmed people, and a further 29 were against people with toy weapons. So 84 of those were undeniably wrong. 334 shootings were against people fleeing the scene of a crime (by foot, car or other). I can't see any way that shooting someone fleeing the scene of a crime is not a wrong shooting. Perhaps legally, it is allowed, but I find that hard to morally justify. 200 of those shootings were people with mental illness, and I would question whether the police approach of shouting commands and waving guns exacerbated the situation. I will concede, though, that being mentally ill doesn't automatically make it a wrong shooting. 173 of those shootings were against people with knives. I would frankly expect police to have better solutions than shooting someone with a knife. Again, I can't say how many they could have resolved peacefully because I'm not going to read all the reports, but that seems high. This is all to say, I think 100 rightful shootings per wrong shooting is high. Even if we only count unarmed or toy weapons as unjustified shootings, it's far closer to 10 rightful shootings per wrong shooting.
      - ufmace 6y ago
        This is terribly naive and misguided towards the realities of violence. > 55 of those were against unarmed people, and a further 29 were against people with toy weapons. So 84 of those were undeniably wrong. What makes you believe that these were all undeniably wrong? Are you operating under some sort of Wild West moral code where you can't shoot an unarmed person? Reality is not a movie. If somebody twice your size is choking you to death, would you pray for a gun to stop them with, or say "he doesn't have a weapon so I'm not allowed to shoot him because reasons, guess I'll just die then"? I'm baffled that people continue to repeat this nonsensical thinking constantly. People who have toy weapons and are shot by police are frequently shot because they did a very convincing job of making the toy look like a functional firearm and handling it as if it is real and they intend to shoot the officer with it. Could be suicide-by-cop or being stupid and assuming the cops will back off if they act scary enough, hard to say. Many imitation firearms are difficult to tell apart from the real thing even up close and calm in good lighting. If somebody is acting like they want to kill you and pulling what looks like a gun, you would be foolish to second-guess whether it is real, and you will be too slow and will likely be shot if it is real if you take the time to wonder. Some of the people who are completely unarmed are also shot for similar reasons. Someone may not actually have a gun, but if, on a traffic stop, they stop suddenly in an unexpected place, dash out of the car while staying low and moving towards cover while trying to pull something out of your pants, you would be foolish to assume they don't have a gun. Many situations similar to these can be and are de-escalated by skilled officers. Sadly, some situations are just hopeless, and some officers are not as skilled or patient as they could be. Note also the reverse: If shooting someone who is unarmed is always wrong, no matter what they were doing at the time, is shooting someone who is armed always right? The police do encounter many armed individuals, and often manage to resolve the situation without shooting them. The situation and what the suspect is doing is what matters for justification, not what they are armed with. > 334 shootings were against people fleeing the scene of a crime (by foot, car or other). I can't see any way that shooting someone fleeing the scene of a crime is not a wrong shooting. Perhaps legally, it is allowed, but I find that hard to morally justify. Usually the legal standard is something like the police can only fire a gun at a "fleeing felon" if they can justify that his continuing to be at-large is a serious danger to the community. Sounds all right to me. I haven't reviewed all of those cases, but I'd bet that most of them are a lot more justified than you are imagining. > 200 of those shootings were people with mental illness, and I would question whether the police approach of shouting commands and waving guns exacerbated the situation. I will concede, though, that being mentally ill doesn't automatically make it a wrong shooting. Yup. I'm not a mental illness expert. Maybe some more cases could be successfully talked down by somebody with more skill. A lot of cases already are though, but they don't make it into these numbers. It would be nice if we could help everybody with mental illnesses in a better way, but unfortunately, some of them are just completely off the deep end, doing terrible things, and can only be stopped with lethal force. > 173 of those shootings were against people with knives. I would frankly expect police to have better solutions than shooting someone with a knife. Again, I can't say how many they could have resolved peacefully because I'm not going to read all the reports, but that seems high. You would expect wrong. I think you better watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upxfo_jBrDE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upxfo_jBrDE There's a bunch more that show the same idea. It's been tested a great many times that an attacker with a knife can close roughly 21' of distance and still stab a defender with a holstered handgun before the defender can draw and fire at the attacker. Note that the linked video considers the defense a "success" if the defender is able to get a round off at the attacker before getting hit with the knife, but guns are not death rays, and an attacker who has been shot, even multiple times, can still stab you to death before they have to stop or slow down. > This is all to say, I think 100 rightful shootings per wrong shooting is high. Even if we only count unarmed or toy weapons as unjustified shootings, it's far closer to 10 rightful shootings per wrong shooting. 100 or higher is likely to be closer to reality for any reasonable definition of justified. Unless you do silly things like make blanket assumptions that any shooting of an unarmed person is unjustified.
- mjburgess 6y ago
  Community policing has been the basis of UK policing for the last 200 years. The violent US model of presuming crime is about "saving innocents" is dramatically at odds with the US's exceptional mental health crisis -- which forms the basis of most of its community policing issues. The lack of universal healthcare around mental health is a catastrophe. It's remarkable how tolerant US society is to overwhelming amounts of untreated mental health problems.
  - downerending 6y ago
    I used to regard UK policing, founded on the unarmed bobbie (sp?), with awe. The Rotherham scandal changed my thinking on that entirely. It's the worst failure of policing I've ever heard of, and seems to have caused by this sort of "light touch above all" trend. Yes, "saving innocents" is the whole point of policing.
    - mjburgess 6y ago
      We may need to wait for the report to be clear on where the failures were, but there's lots going on there. Part of the context of that has to be a pretty systemic UK-wide issue affecting public institutions where child-abuse was ignored. It's not clear that heavy-handed policing, in that context, would lead to a different result. It certainly wouldn't in many high profile cases, where police had been strongly encouraged to ignore the issue.
      - downerending 6y ago
        A lot going on, yes, but impossible to believe the police were not aware. In the US, if higher-ups tried to suppress this, it'd be leaked to the press, and all hell would break loose.
        mjburgess 6y ago
        That's true and goes to my point. There's a classism at work here that isn't about the style of policing. For the UK, class is the defining structural issue, not race. Journalists and the police have typically protected and respected the upper-middle. That's interacting here with a police oversight in an usual way
- jmcqk6 6y ago
  >There really are unrepentantly awful people in the world, and sometimes we need to save innocents from them. As we have seen, more than a few of them work in law enforcement.

ryandrake 6y ago

An additional goal should be to de-escalate rather than escalate. Current policing emphasizes "escalation to violence" as the default tool that gets used during any confrontation, which has been on display for the last two weeks.

downerending 6y ago

That's admirable in theory, but sounds like a recipe for getting your head blown off. There really are unrepentantly awful people in the world, and sometimes we need to save innocents from them.

hckr_news 6y ago
On the other side of that extreme, you'll take cops filling innocent people with lead?
- downerending 6y ago
  For every wrong shooting, there's what, maybe a hundred righteous ones? A thousand? Yes, I'll take it for now, and advocate for improvements.
  - newen 6y ago
    How can you possibly think so when there are about 25 police killings in Germany in the last 30 years and about 25 police killings in the US in the last month?
    - tommit 6y ago
      Many people won't like this, but I cannot explain this phenomenon other than that it's the result of years of normalizing gun ownership. Shootings are a very real and somewhat regular occurrence in the US. Here in Germany, it's literally not an issue people worry about. When was the last time you saw a gun anywhere in Germany? The majority of Germans would probably say in the holster of a policeman or possibly someone they know is a registered hunter. Indubitably, the crazy amount of guns coupled with a tendency to romanticize them leads to policemen being more on edge and willing to pull the trigger -- because worst case, you have an armed loon in front of you that might just shoot first. The initially suggested idea of sending an unarmed civil service guy to de-escalate some situation sounds great in theory, but honestly I wouldn't want to be the guy trying to talk sense into an armed loon. The fact that the above poster estimates there to be a thousand rightful shootings for every wrong one should really warrant the question of why there are a thousand shootings in the first place. That is not the norm.
      - agensaequivocum 6y ago
        > Shootings are a very real and somewhat regular occurrence in the US. Here in Germany, it's literally not an issue people worry about. When was the last time you saw a gun anywhere in Germany? There was a shooting in February https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanau_shootings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanau_shootings. Germany is also in the top 25 per capita for civilian gun ownership http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/T-Briefing-Papers/SAS-BP-Civilian-Firearms-Numbers.pdf http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/T-Briefing-Pap...
    - downerending 6y ago
      My family is recently from Germany, and at least 50 years ago, they had an extremely strong culture of social order and obeying laws. I suspect variations in crime rates have a lot more to do with that than with differences in policing style.
      - newen 6y ago
        It's not just Germany. Police killings are significantly lower in many many other countries compared to the US.
  - curryst 6y ago
    Going off the Washington Post's data, there were 1,003 police shootings in 2019. Before I break it down, these numbers overlap. If you want to see the non-overlapping data, feel free to check out https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic... and filter it any way you'd like. 55 of those were against unarmed people, and a further 29 were against people with toy weapons. So 84 of those were undeniably wrong. 334 shootings were against people fleeing the scene of a crime (by foot, car or other). I can't see any way that shooting someone fleeing the scene of a crime is not a wrong shooting. Perhaps legally, it is allowed, but I find that hard to morally justify. 200 of those shootings were people with mental illness, and I would question whether the police approach of shouting commands and waving guns exacerbated the situation. I will concede, though, that being mentally ill doesn't automatically make it a wrong shooting. 173 of those shootings were against people with knives. I would frankly expect police to have better solutions than shooting someone with a knife. Again, I can't say how many they could have resolved peacefully because I'm not going to read all the reports, but that seems high. This is all to say, I think 100 rightful shootings per wrong shooting is high. Even if we only count unarmed or toy weapons as unjustified shootings, it's far closer to 10 rightful shootings per wrong shooting.
    - ufmace 6y ago
      This is terribly naive and misguided towards the realities of violence. > 55 of those were against unarmed people, and a further 29 were against people with toy weapons. So 84 of those were undeniably wrong. What makes you believe that these were all undeniably wrong? Are you operating under some sort of Wild West moral code where you can't shoot an unarmed person? Reality is not a movie. If somebody twice your size is choking you to death, would you pray for a gun to stop them with, or say "he doesn't have a weapon so I'm not allowed to shoot him because reasons, guess I'll just die then"? I'm baffled that people continue to repeat this nonsensical thinking constantly. People who have toy weapons and are shot by police are frequently shot because they did a very convincing job of making the toy look like a functional firearm and handling it as if it is real and they intend to shoot the officer with it. Could be suicide-by-cop or being stupid and assuming the cops will back off if they act scary enough, hard to say. Many imitation firearms are difficult to tell apart from the real thing even up close and calm in good lighting. If somebody is acting like they want to kill you and pulling what looks like a gun, you would be foolish to second-guess whether it is real, and you will be too slow and will likely be shot if it is real if you take the time to wonder. Some of the people who are completely unarmed are also shot for similar reasons. Someone may not actually have a gun, but if, on a traffic stop, they stop suddenly in an unexpected place, dash out of the car while staying low and moving towards cover while trying to pull something out of your pants, you would be foolish to assume they don't have a gun. Many situations similar to these can be and are de-escalated by skilled officers. Sadly, some situations are just hopeless, and some officers are not as skilled or patient as they could be. Note also the reverse: If shooting someone who is unarmed is always wrong, no matter what they were doing at the time, is shooting someone who is armed always right? The police do encounter many armed individuals, and often manage to resolve the situation without shooting them. The situation and what the suspect is doing is what matters for justification, not what they are armed with. > 334 shootings were against people fleeing the scene of a crime (by foot, car or other). I can't see any way that shooting someone fleeing the scene of a crime is not a wrong shooting. Perhaps legally, it is allowed, but I find that hard to morally justify. Usually the legal standard is something like the police can only fire a gun at a "fleeing felon" if they can justify that his continuing to be at-large is a serious danger to the community. Sounds all right to me. I haven't reviewed all of those cases, but I'd bet that most of them are a lot more justified than you are imagining. > 200 of those shootings were people with mental illness, and I would question whether the police approach of shouting commands and waving guns exacerbated the situation. I will concede, though, that being mentally ill doesn't automatically make it a wrong shooting. Yup. I'm not a mental illness expert. Maybe some more cases could be successfully talked down by somebody with more skill. A lot of cases already are though, but they don't make it into these numbers. It would be nice if we could help everybody with mental illnesses in a better way, but unfortunately, some of them are just completely off the deep end, doing terrible things, and can only be stopped with lethal force. > 173 of those shootings were against people with knives. I would frankly expect police to have better solutions than shooting someone with a knife. Again, I can't say how many they could have resolved peacefully because I'm not going to read all the reports, but that seems high. You would expect wrong. I think you better watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upxfo_jBrDE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upxfo_jBrDE There's a bunch more that show the same idea. It's been tested a great many times that an attacker with a knife can close roughly 21' of distance and still stab a defender with a holstered handgun before the defender can draw and fire at the attacker. Note that the linked video considers the defense a "success" if the defender is able to get a round off at the attacker before getting hit with the knife, but guns are not death rays, and an attacker who has been shot, even multiple times, can still stab you to death before they have to stop or slow down. > This is all to say, I think 100 rightful shootings per wrong shooting is high. Even if we only count unarmed or toy weapons as unjustified shootings, it's far closer to 10 rightful shootings per wrong shooting. 100 or higher is likely to be closer to reality for any reasonable definition of justified. Unless you do silly things like make blanket assumptions that any shooting of an unarmed person is unjustified.
mjburgess 6y ago
Community policing has been the basis of UK policing for the last 200 years. The violent US model of presuming crime is about "saving innocents" is dramatically at odds with the US's exceptional mental health crisis -- which forms the basis of most of its community policing issues. The lack of universal healthcare around mental health is a catastrophe. It's remarkable how tolerant US society is to overwhelming amounts of untreated mental health problems.
- downerending 6y ago
  I used to regard UK policing, founded on the unarmed bobbie (sp?), with awe. The Rotherham scandal changed my thinking on that entirely. It's the worst failure of policing I've ever heard of, and seems to have caused by this sort of "light touch above all" trend. Yes, "saving innocents" is the whole point of policing.
  - mjburgess 6y ago
    We may need to wait for the report to be clear on where the failures were, but there's lots going on there. Part of the context of that has to be a pretty systemic UK-wide issue affecting public institutions where child-abuse was ignored. It's not clear that heavy-handed policing, in that context, would lead to a different result. It certainly wouldn't in many high profile cases, where police had been strongly encouraged to ignore the issue.
    - downerending 6y ago
      A lot going on, yes, but impossible to believe the police were not aware. In the US, if higher-ups tried to suppress this, it'd be leaked to the press, and all hell would break loose.
      - mjburgess 6y ago
        That's true and goes to my point. There's a classism at work here that isn't about the style of policing. For the UK, class is the defining structural issue, not race. Journalists and the police have typically protected and respected the upper-middle. That's interacting here with a police oversight in an usual way
jmcqk6 6y ago
>There really are unrepentantly awful people in the world, and sometimes we need to save innocents from them. As we have seen, more than a few of them work in law enforcement.