5 ms·

> Studies, surveys, anything at all to back up your claim. Sounds like there isn't (use of absolutes in your statement was probably the problem). Most people a

by cmh89 5y ago

> Studies, surveys, anything at all to back up your claim. Sounds like there isn't (use of absolutes in your statement was probably the problem). Most people are generally capable of reading that as an opinion absolute statement. Like, if I said 'Casino Royale is the best James Bond movie of the Daniel Craig era' that's an absolute statement but the reader can intuitively understand that its not going to be objectively provable and that it's clear its an opinion. Now, if I said 'It's a fact that....' it'd be fair to ask for evidence. But I didn't. > Depends on one's perspective and a bunch of other factors. You might be surprised about how many people carry guns in various professions (medical workers, mental health worker, various first responders, the general public, etc). The vast majority of people never have to fire their weapon. Most never even have to use their weapon. It's utility isn't solely based on being fired. The norm in most of the world is that unarmed people respond to most issues. If you think mental health workers are carrying guns on the job, you are just extremely uninformed on this topic. >You talk about armed personnel being more expensive. That's not exactly true. People become expensive based on the level of training they need/have. So it is exactly true then isn't it? Not only do you have to pay the increased cost of training and certifying , you actually pay them more hourly too to carry that gun too. >You could still use police as responders for mental health issues with some level of training while waiting for existing social workers or medical professionals to arrive. Why would you though? Police have no real training in mental health, the week long classes they take are really not useful. Remember that actual mental health professionals generally need a minimum of six years of education. Why in the world would you want someone with no training and gun to be the first responder to someone having a mental health crisis? > How so? Or is this another case of using the wrong words No, they are unqualified > If it's a matter of training, it may be cheaper to provide police with additional training rather than hire additional forces an incur all that overhead of benefits etc. It isn't though. Police are by far more expensive than people who are more qualified, which in many ways is sad, but it is what is. The idea that you can train police into being mental health professionals just shows the lack of understanding about what it takes to be a mental health professional. When it comes to lower level calls, why would it be better to send a more expensive employee to handle a call a less expensive can handle? Is that what your work does? Send the most expensive labor possible to handle simple problems? > ou seem to accept that violent situations require police response, so would be qualified for that. It's the only thing they are somewhat qualified for, yes. They do need much better training and weed all the 'killology' cops. > It sounds like the quality of life stuff are generally easy tasks that police are qualified to handle (you even mention a police report for a stolen bike). Sorry, they are unqualified to handle most of their calls, but that is an example of one where they are overpaid to handle that call. >The mental health situations depend on the level of training. Relatively few departments have adequate mental health training. I think this could be handled with training on how to approach those situations and talk people down while the social worker or mental health professional arrives. Mental health is a professional degree. There is no amount of week long trainings that will make police officers good responders to mental health calls. You of course have spent a lot of time talking about how armed police could do all these jobs, but you really haven't talked about why they should. What's the point of spending tons of money getting a cop even moderately good at responding to mental health crisis when we could just hire someone who is better trained and cheaper to respond to mental health crisis? You are locked into this idea that an armed police officer should be the first responder to every issue which gets back to my original point, you want police because that's the law enforcement construct you grew up with. Why in the world would you send an armed person to handle a bicycle report? You want to spend tons of money to try and maintain the status quo, which isn't going to improve things, rather than reallocating money to people who are significantly more qualified.

giantg2 5y ago
"Now, if I said 'It's a fact that....' it'd be fair to ask for evidence. But I didn't." Then there's no reason to discuss this. Based on the rest of the comment, you are not listening to what I'm saying, nor are you offering anything to back up any opinions. It's a matter of temporal response time within spacial constraints. Specialization and limitations of labor means that you need to drastically increase headcount to maintain current surface levels, which is more expensive even if a significant subset is currently cheaper (non-union police are cheaper, but once these public sector unions unionize, costs go up significantly). Then you still have questions about efficacy of the replacements (mental health pros don't have a great track record without patient history in these situations) and the fact that you still need to provide training to the existing force due to their exposure to these events either spontaneously or through misclassification. It also sounds like you have some odd and unexplained bias against armed people (in many states, the people you're adding can be and currently are armed even if it's not a part of their job).
- uoaei 5y ago
  Simply put, demands for evidence where none is required derail conversations. By trying to re-orient the conversation toward a debate, you are stifling any kind of contemplative progress. Practically, debates of this style are not dialectical and do not pursue synthesis or truth per se. Look around HN at any hour of any day to see people continually conflate the two. Folks who employ this and related tactics do little more than stroke their superiority complex with logical gotchas.
- cmh89 5y ago
  > Based on the rest of the comment, you are not listening to what I'm saying, nor are you offering anything to back up any opinions. I'm listening to what you're saying, it's just incorrect. > Specialization and limitations of labor means that you need to drastically increase headcount to maintain current surface levels, which is more expensive even if a significant subset is currently cheaper (non-union police are cheaper, but once these public sector unions unionize, costs go up significantly). Why do we do any specialization in the labor force then? What's the point? After all, specialization only increases labor costs. Or, perhaps specialized labor is more efficient, which is why it exists. An LEO is by far the most expensive person you could have respond to a situation and they aren't particularly effective at most of the situations they are called to. You could replace huge chunks of your inefficient armed staff and increase the head count while not increasing costs. For Portland, our unarmed PS3 position is a little more than 1/2 the cost of an entry level armed LEO. That means we can have almost two of them for every one cop. We could have more people out on the street. More people helping out, having eyes in the community and generally being useful. As an added bonus, non-armed staff are more useful to the community because a huge chunk of the community is terrified of police and wont call them or communicate with them making them effectively useless in certain neighborhoods. > Then you still have questions about efficacy of the replacements (mental health pros don't have a great track record without patient history in these situations) Yikes, you want to talk about track records "People with Untreated Mental Illness 16 Times More Likely to Be Killed By Law Enforcement" https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/key-issues/criminalization-of-mental-illness/2976-people-with-untreated-mental-illness-16-times-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-law-enforcement- https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/key-issues/criminali... Mental health professionals are far far far far far more qualified to safely help someone who is experiencing a crisis. > and the fact that you still need to provide training to the existing force due to their exposure to these events either spontaneously or through misclassification. The mild amount of training they get is fine. If they encounter someone in mental health crisis, they should disengage immediately and call for someone who is trained to handle that situation. > It also sounds like you have some odd and unexplained bias against armed people (in many states, the people you're adding can be and currently are armed even if it's not a part of their job). Guns make almost every single situation worse. I'm not sure my 'bias' is odd. Most of developed world recognizes that guns are terrible and that people walking around with them is a pretty dumb idea. The USA just has a fetish for making boom boom with them so we live with our school shootings, mass shootings, and frequent accidental deaths. I'm not aware of any governmental agency that lets their staff bring guns to work when it isn't part of their job. Would you care to provide a source? Even the gutter backwater of Texas doesn't allow them.

by cmh89 5y ago

giantg2 5y ago

"Now, if I said 'It's a fact that....' it'd be fair to ask for evidence. But I didn't." Then there's no reason to discuss this. Based on the rest of the comment, you are not listening to what I'm saying, nor are you offering anything to back up any opinions. It's a matter of temporal response time within spacial constraints. Specialization and limitations of labor means that you need to drastically increase headcount to maintain current surface levels, which is more expensive even if a significant subset is currently cheaper (non-union police are cheaper, but once these public sector unions unionize, costs go up significantly). Then you still have questions about efficacy of the replacements (mental health pros don't have a great track record without patient history in these situations) and the fact that you still need to provide training to the existing force due to their exposure to these events either spontaneously or through misclassification. It also sounds like you have some odd and unexplained bias against armed people (in many states, the people you're adding can be and currently are armed even if it's not a part of their job).

uoaei 5y ago
Simply put, demands for evidence where none is required derail conversations. By trying to re-orient the conversation toward a debate, you are stifling any kind of contemplative progress. Practically, debates of this style are not dialectical and do not pursue synthesis or truth per se. Look around HN at any hour of any day to see people continually conflate the two. Folks who employ this and related tactics do little more than stroke their superiority complex with logical gotchas.
cmh89 5y ago
> Based on the rest of the comment, you are not listening to what I'm saying, nor are you offering anything to back up any opinions. I'm listening to what you're saying, it's just incorrect. > Specialization and limitations of labor means that you need to drastically increase headcount to maintain current surface levels, which is more expensive even if a significant subset is currently cheaper (non-union police are cheaper, but once these public sector unions unionize, costs go up significantly). Why do we do any specialization in the labor force then? What's the point? After all, specialization only increases labor costs. Or, perhaps specialized labor is more efficient, which is why it exists. An LEO is by far the most expensive person you could have respond to a situation and they aren't particularly effective at most of the situations they are called to. You could replace huge chunks of your inefficient armed staff and increase the head count while not increasing costs. For Portland, our unarmed PS3 position is a little more than 1/2 the cost of an entry level armed LEO. That means we can have almost two of them for every one cop. We could have more people out on the street. More people helping out, having eyes in the community and generally being useful. As an added bonus, non-armed staff are more useful to the community because a huge chunk of the community is terrified of police and wont call them or communicate with them making them effectively useless in certain neighborhoods. > Then you still have questions about efficacy of the replacements (mental health pros don't have a great track record without patient history in these situations) Yikes, you want to talk about track records "People with Untreated Mental Illness 16 Times More Likely to Be Killed By Law Enforcement" https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/key-issues/criminalization-of-mental-illness/2976-people-with-untreated-mental-illness-16-times-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-law-enforcement- https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/key-issues/criminali... Mental health professionals are far far far far far more qualified to safely help someone who is experiencing a crisis. > and the fact that you still need to provide training to the existing force due to their exposure to these events either spontaneously or through misclassification. The mild amount of training they get is fine. If they encounter someone in mental health crisis, they should disengage immediately and call for someone who is trained to handle that situation. > It also sounds like you have some odd and unexplained bias against armed people (in many states, the people you're adding can be and currently are armed even if it's not a part of their job). Guns make almost every single situation worse. I'm not sure my 'bias' is odd. Most of developed world recognizes that guns are terrible and that people walking around with them is a pretty dumb idea. The USA just has a fetish for making boom boom with them so we live with our school shootings, mass shootings, and frequent accidental deaths. I'm not aware of any governmental agency that lets their staff bring guns to work when it isn't part of their job. Would you care to provide a source? Even the gutter backwater of Texas doesn't allow them.