4 ms·

Nobody in this discussion has presumed such a thing.

by bigbubba 6y ago

ruined 6y ago
It's the explicit expressed fear in the root comment, and the basis of the police warrior ideology.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  The root commenter has said explicitly of armed violent people: "the vast majority of patients are not like that" So to reiterate, nobody in this thread has presumed as bluntfang claims.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    Yet their claim is that we need to respond as though every mentally ill person is an imminent threat.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      Their claim, as I've interpreted it, is that their lived experiences have lead them to believe any situation must be treated with caution because they never know what to expect. That is simply not the same as presuming that every mentally ill person is carrying a firearm and is violent. As I see it, that's just common sense. If you get a call from a woman telling you she's fallen down and is hurt, how likely is it that EMTs are met at the door by a drunk man who claims nothing is wrong? What first appeared to be a simple medical situation may actually be a case of domestic violence. Neither the dispatcher nor the EMT can know this before anybody arrives on the scene, so whoever gets there first needs to be cognizant of all possibilities. Recognizing the possibility that somebody might be violent is not the same as believing they will be.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        But I think you've made my point for me: > As I see it, that's just common sense. If you get a call from a woman telling you she's fallen down and is hurt, how likely is it that EMTs are met at the door by a drunk man who claims nothing is wrong This is 1. Exceedingly unlikely 2. A situation where escalating might be warranted, but the person who knocks on the door isn't in imminent danger. 3. You wouldn't bring a police officer to this call, but as you've so clearly pointed out, there's a chance it could turn violent. The logical conclusion here would be that police should respond to all medical emergencies, but they don't for reasons that become clear if you look into the history of how separate medical emergency response came to be.

Nobody in this discussion has presumed such a thing.

ruined 6y ago

It's the explicit expressed fear in the root comment, and the basis of the police warrior ideology.

bigbubba 6y ago
The root commenter has said explicitly of armed violent people: "the vast majority of patients are not like that" So to reiterate, nobody in this thread has presumed as bluntfang claims.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  Yet their claim is that we need to respond as though every mentally ill person is an imminent threat.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    Their claim, as I've interpreted it, is that their lived experiences have lead them to believe any situation must be treated with caution because they never know what to expect. That is simply not the same as presuming that every mentally ill person is carrying a firearm and is violent. As I see it, that's just common sense. If you get a call from a woman telling you she's fallen down and is hurt, how likely is it that EMTs are met at the door by a drunk man who claims nothing is wrong? What first appeared to be a simple medical situation may actually be a case of domestic violence. Neither the dispatcher nor the EMT can know this before anybody arrives on the scene, so whoever gets there first needs to be cognizant of all possibilities. Recognizing the possibility that somebody might be violent is not the same as believing they will be.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      But I think you've made my point for me: > As I see it, that's just common sense. If you get a call from a woman telling you she's fallen down and is hurt, how likely is it that EMTs are met at the door by a drunk man who claims nothing is wrong This is 1. Exceedingly unlikely 2. A situation where escalating might be warranted, but the person who knocks on the door isn't in imminent danger. 3. You wouldn't bring a police officer to this call, but as you've so clearly pointed out, there's a chance it could turn violent. The logical conclusion here would be that police should respond to all medical emergencies, but they don't for reasons that become clear if you look into the history of how separate medical emergency response came to be.