3 ms·

> The rate of violence in those with mental health issues is the same as the general population. But what about the rate of violence among mental ill people wh

> The rate of violence in those with mental health issues is the same as the general population. But what about the rate of violence among mental ill people who are committing some action that warrants a 9-11 call? What exactly leads to someone calling 9-11? It isn’t that someone is sitting in their house mentally ill — they are doing some action that is concerning enough to warrant a callout. So among that group of mentally ill, what’s the violence rate compared to the “general population.” It’s going to necessarily be higher. I honestly think most people opining on the subject have never worked as a front line first responder before. It’s like news pundits talking about battlefield tactics when they have never been in combat. Lethal force should obviously be a last option, but when some literally insane person starts lunging at you with a knife all that theory of “the best way” goes out the window. There are thousands of mental health “dangerous” 9-11 calls happening every day and the vast majority end peacefully. Police on-duty firearms discharges are very rare but people act like it’s an epidemic because these incidents get magnified and broadcast to make people think it’s a frequent occurrence. How many mental health 9-11 calls end violently? 1 out of 10,000? 1 out of 100,000? Without knowing that number, any implication that this is a systemic problem is grounded in emotion rather than data. There are also unintended consequences. Saving that 1 out of 10,000, could result in an increase in risk that would offset any gains from such policies. If NYC wants to experiment, good for them. I am not opposed to a better way. I am concerned about unintended consequences of policies — consequences that are often ignored.

joshuamorton 6y ago
> So among that group of mentally ill, what’s the violence rate compared to the “general population.” It’s going to necessarily be higher. This doesn't follow. People don't call the police for mentally bill people being violent, they call for them being disruptive, or in the best case, perceiving the mentally ill person as a threat. Neither of those implies any violent action on the part of the mentally ill person. People are primed to assume that any sort of abnormal behavior is dangerous or implies potential for violence. That doesn't really follow. Not do we even touch on second order effects like how escalating aggression with mentally ill person will lead to more aggression in response. What we do have, already, is fairly conclusive data that these policies do work, in other nations and our own.

joshuamorton 6y ago

> So among that group of mentally ill, what’s the violence rate compared to the “general population.” It’s going to necessarily be higher. This doesn't follow. People don't call the police for mentally bill people being violent, they call for them being disruptive, or in the best case, perceiving the mentally ill person as a threat. Neither of those implies any violent action on the part of the mentally ill person. People are primed to assume that any sort of abnormal behavior is dangerous or implies potential for violence. That doesn't really follow. Not do we even touch on second order effects like how escalating aggression with mentally ill person will lead to more aggression in response. What we do have, already, is fairly conclusive data that these policies do work, in other nations and our own.