5 ms·

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

by Natsu 6y ago

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
        But he was a drug dealer as well not just a "weed smoker". He died from an overdose of the drugs he was selling so waving this all away by saying there is no effect in looking the other way to violent crack dealers who are printing their own money is not a winning argument sorry.
  - avianlyric 6y ago
    I’m curious to understand why you think introducing a gun into this situation is going to make it any better? We know from plenty of examples that in the scenario you describe there’s a high chance that the individual will end up shot by the police, and probably dead. We know police don’t have the training or the tools to handle this scenario well. I don’t see how brining in people with better training could be a detriment. Worse case you ended up back where you started, the “violent and irrational” person ends up dead. Best case they successfully deescalate and render appropriate treatment, saving their life. Not sure where the downside is.
    - hnlurker 6y ago
      Just because there have been high profile cases which fit the narrative of what you already believe doesn't mean that that is an accurate picture of reality. The data simply do not comport with the position you are advocating. Here's some old (2005) data: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=653 https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=653 - 20% of people in US had contact with police in the year. - 9/10 people reported police acted properly - 44 million people with interactions, only 1% of those had violent conflict involved with the interaction, that's 440 thousand incidents Hell, even the left-leaning WaPo tried to use data to buttress their/your argument and it's just plain embarrassing: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic... - 1000 people shot by police in 2019 - they actually removed the numbers for unarmed, because it was so dismal for their message - less than 50 "unarmed" black people killed by police in 2019 Take an honest look at these numbers and then please try again to justify your position about how there's a "high chance that the individual will end up shot by the police" because by the light of the data you're living in a fantasy land.
      - avianlyric 6y ago
        I guess my claim of "high chance that the individual will end up shot by the police" is hyperbolic. But then my next question is, what does a police officer bring to the table other than a gun? What unique skill and tools does a police officer have that could help resolve such a scenario peacefully, that wouldn't also be available to someone specially trained in dealing with mental health issues?
- 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.

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

by Natsu 6y ago

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

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
        But he was a drug dealer as well not just a "weed smoker". He died from an overdose of the drugs he was selling so waving this all away by saying there is no effect in looking the other way to violent crack dealers who are printing their own money is not a winning argument sorry.
- avianlyric 6y ago
  I’m curious to understand why you think introducing a gun into this situation is going to make it any better? We know from plenty of examples that in the scenario you describe there’s a high chance that the individual will end up shot by the police, and probably dead. We know police don’t have the training or the tools to handle this scenario well. I don’t see how brining in people with better training could be a detriment. Worse case you ended up back where you started, the “violent and irrational” person ends up dead. Best case they successfully deescalate and render appropriate treatment, saving their life. Not sure where the downside is.
  - hnlurker 6y ago
    Just because there have been high profile cases which fit the narrative of what you already believe doesn't mean that that is an accurate picture of reality. The data simply do not comport with the position you are advocating. Here's some old (2005) data: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=653 https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=653 - 20% of people in US had contact with police in the year. - 9/10 people reported police acted properly - 44 million people with interactions, only 1% of those had violent conflict involved with the interaction, that's 440 thousand incidents Hell, even the left-leaning WaPo tried to use data to buttress their/your argument and it's just plain embarrassing: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic... - 1000 people shot by police in 2019 - they actually removed the numbers for unarmed, because it was so dismal for their message - less than 50 "unarmed" black people killed by police in 2019 Take an honest look at these numbers and then please try again to justify your position about how there's a "high chance that the individual will end up shot by the police" because by the light of the data you're living in a fantasy land.
    - avianlyric 6y ago
      I guess my claim of "high chance that the individual will end up shot by the police" is hyperbolic. But then my next question is, what does a police officer bring to the table other than a gun? What unique skill and tools does a police officer have that could help resolve such a scenario peacefully, that wouldn't also be available to someone specially trained in dealing with mental health issues?
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.