4 ms·

You're an EMT. You aren't trained for this. I don't know about NYC's new program, but Portland has been doing something like this for a couple years. They send

You're an EMT. You aren't trained for this. I don't know about NYC's new program, but Portland has been doing something like this for a couple years. They send out teams of a medic from the fire department and a counselor/social worker with specific training in deescalating acute mental health crisis. There have been no incidents of these teams being attacked or injured. This "under siege" mentality that the police have adopted as central dogma, which clearly has spread to you as well, is the problem. I'd suggest reading the various interviews and comments from Patrick Skinner. He's been on a solo crusade for a more compassionate approach to beat policing for a few years now. He gets a lot more clout with police with it though, as he's ex CIA, so no one questions his machoness. The very core of his approach is "how would you solve this without a badge and gun?" It's simple. It works. It's moral. It doesn't mean we abandon society to anarchy, it just means we stop seeing citizens and police as enemies of each other, where the default assumption is that a restraint and a gun are necessary to even have a conversation.

Natsu 6y ago
What sort of training helps deal with violent and irrational people?
- xxpor 6y ago
  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.
  - Natsu 6y ago
    > 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?
    - 0_____0 6y ago
      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.
    - xxpor 6y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1JXhSYfLNE 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.
      - claytongulick 6y ago
        > I'm sure the US economy won't be ruined by there being an extra $20 in circulation In aggregate it would be.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        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
        shard972 6y ago
  - taway98236 6y ago
    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.
  - trimbo 6y ago
    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_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...
    - rhizome 6y ago
      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?
      - burke_holland 6y ago
        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.
        lifeformed 6y ago
        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.
        shadowgovt 6y ago
        1 in 5 is still far higher than UK first responders have to deal with.
        rhizome 6y ago
        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?"
    - 6y ago
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
  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.
  - tenebrisalietum 6y ago
    Listen to some 911 calls sometimes. People are often screaming, panicked, crying.
    - jhardy54 6y ago
      Where can I find a representative sample of 911 calls?
      - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
        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 https://www.broadcastify.com
        jhardy54 6y ago
        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.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
      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.
- rasz 6y ago
  The one where you arent trained to just shoot people until they stop moving/gun runs out of bullets.
neekleer 6y ago
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-health-responders-alternative-police-usually-bring-cops https://www.streetroots.org/news/2019/05/03/portland-mental-...
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
  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.
  - Vaslo 6y ago
    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.
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      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-shooting-locust-20201026.html https://www.inquirer.com/news/west-philadelphia-police-shoot...
tomcam 6y ago
> which clearly has spread to you as well How do you know this?

Natsu 6y ago

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

xxpor 6y ago
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.
- Natsu 6y ago
  > 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?
  - 0_____0 6y ago
    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.
  - xxpor 6y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1JXhSYfLNE 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.
    - claytongulick 6y ago
      > I'm sure the US economy won't be ruined by there being an extra $20 in circulation In aggregate it would be.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        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
        shard972 6y ago
- taway98236 6y ago
  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.
- trimbo 6y ago
  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_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...
  - rhizome 6y ago
    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?
    - burke_holland 6y ago
      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.
      - lifeformed 6y ago
        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.
        shadowgovt 6y ago
        1 in 5 is still far higher than UK first responders have to deal with.
      - rhizome 6y ago
        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?"
  - 6y ago
jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
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.
- tenebrisalietum 6y ago
  Listen to some 911 calls sometimes. People are often screaming, panicked, crying.
  - jhardy54 6y ago
    Where can I find a representative sample of 911 calls?
    - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
      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 https://www.broadcastify.com
      - jhardy54 6y ago
        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.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
    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.
rasz 6y ago
The one where you arent trained to just shoot people until they stop moving/gun runs out of bullets.

neekleer 6y ago

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-health-responders-alternative-police-usually-bring-cops https://www.streetroots.org/news/2019/05/03/portland-mental-...

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
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.
- Vaslo 6y ago
  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.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    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-shooting-locust-20201026.html https://www.inquirer.com/news/west-philadelphia-police-shoot...

tomcam 6y ago

> which clearly has spread to you as well How do you know this?