Posted on 09/11/2023 6:35:31 AM PDT by SJackson
Why is it so hard for city officials to accept the fact that they need to bolster their budget for police officers in an effort to fight crime? They always seem to come up with these secondary solutions to solve the problem, when, in fact, they could actually make things worse.
I’m talking about Seattle officials recently deciding to stop police and fire departments from answering mental crisis calls, instead letting unarmed “crisis responders” handle the matter.
City officials note how this system has been in the works for the past three years, following what occurred with “defund the police.” Democrat councilwoman Lisa Hebold tried to explain her actions in a statement to City Inside/Out: Council Edition.
“Well, you know, usually I’m complaining about how delayed we are and how frustrated I am that we’re not meeting our benchmarks for developing this program,” she said about the program. “But today I’m really, really happy to report that the city is hiring for the six positions for its first pilot alternate response team. It’s going to be a way for 911 operators to dispatch calls to somebody other than police, somebody other than fire, a crisis responder who is unarmed.”
I don’t think Hebold understands what she’s doing.
Police and fire departments are trained to deal with all sorts of mental crisis issues. These “crisis responders” that she’s hired are not. They may be able to deal with someone in terms of potential mental turns. But…what happens if they turn violent?
Chaos, that’s what. And now, because of that, these innocent, unarmed civilians that are called upon to deal with these “mental crisis” patients run the risk of being assaulted – or worse yet – murdered. We’ve seen it in the past, when someone loses their grasp of reality and, as a result, snaps. And if you don’t believe me, take a look at the rise of “active shooter” events over the past couple of years.
And yet Hebold thinks this is a “good idea,” instead of simply giving the police more money to deal with the increasing crime rate in her city. That’s like putting a Band-Aid on a heavily bleeding wound, insisting that will solve the problem. It won’t.
The real question here should be who will be legally responsible for the lawsuits arising from social workers that are unarmed being murdered, to mental patients injuring/killing individuals because they were not restrained, to all kinds of wrongful deaths. Because a program like this opens that door.
Hebold is simply handing situations that would be better left in the hands of law enforcement to those that think talking is going to resolve everything. In my 30 years of experience in law enforcement, I can tell you – it won’t. There are some people out there that aren’t looking for talk to resolve their problems.
It’s just stubborn Democratic thinking. “Oh, the ‘defund the police’ people are right, we can’t possibly give them the money they need to bring crime down. I know, let’s bring in six civilians.” Does that sound like it makes sense to you?
And we’ve seen this kind of resolve before. Last year, a small town in California did away with its police force, instead calling on unarmed “enforcers” to patrol the streets to keep crime down. To no one’s surprise, it didn’t. In fact, it got worse, to the point that the city had to relent and attempt to hire police officers instead.
The moral of the story here is that Seattle needs police. Period. Not “crisis specialists” or “crisis responders” or therapists that are armed with nothing more than a pad and paper. They. Need. Police. I could practically write explanation after explanation to Hebold to get this point across; but knowing her, she would simply throw them away, insisting she’s right.
You have to wonder if she’ll keep that opinion going after so many of these “crisis specialists” end up injured or dead. Perhaps she should consider her own level of therapy before putting her endangered city into further peril.
Wait until they find out that their social worker college diploma isn’t bulletproof.
We have those “ambassadors” in a small town nearby. Most are college students who have no experience in walking the streets they’re walking, no back up and no street skills.
When I see them I think of the old quote of lambs going to the slaughter. Maybe some have radios. I’ll look today.
Deploying these people into these situations is probably a very bad idea.
No doubt some will be assaulted, and a few may be killed.
BUT, I forsee more than anything that these will become hostage situations.
What happens when the mentally ill person gets the social worker to their place. And then for one reason or another, refuses to leave the house. And then to stop the social worker from leaving? The social worker gets nervous, the situation escalates.
And now the police are forced to deal with a mentally ill person with a hostage.
Good points all. I’m kind o a seasoned old guy and see these “ambassadors” as sacred bleeders that actually believe they can de escalate domestic situations and serious medical issues with a wind breaker and their very presence.
I too think they’re an easy kill if things get out of hand. You’ll still need armed response and how far away will the police be while their in the wind?
I hope they all have body-worn cameras because this I need to see.
I wonder how the dispatcher is going to decided whether to send a “crisis responder” instead of police. Leaving a life or death decision up to an uneducated clerk. Brilliant. Maybe she will have a little checklist to hide guide her.
Exactly.
I cannot even think about how many mental health crises that have ended with the person in the crisis or a responding policeman getting killed.
BECAUSE THEY ARE ARMED WITH A KNIFE OR GUN.
It absoltely,is a bad idea- domestic disputes are one of the most dangerous situations cops face, and one of the reasons so many cops are killed. It’s just plain ignorant to send in college age kids without any experience or training or means of self defense such as guns
It’s disgraceful how many LEOs die trying to keep family members from killing each other during their dumbass “domestic disputes.”
I've had training in dealing with the mentally ill. Depending on their particular type of illness (there are several) they can indeed be, or turn, violent. They may be unlikely to listen to reason or logic and may not like you or want you in their space no matter what you have to say.
There are awful ideas, and this is a prime example.
YOU COULD NOT PAY ME ENOUGH TO RESPOND TO SUCH EVENTS
Hebold should be in the first group of responders to demonstrate how terrific her idea is.
“It absoltely,is a bad idea- domestic disputes are one of the most dangerous situations cops face, and one of the reasons so many cops are killed. It’s just plain ignorant to send in college age kids without any experience or training or means of self defense such as guns”
It is dangerous because many times both parties in the dispute turn on the police. I totally agree, this is going to get someone killed.
Actual results aren’t important to them. How did that defund the police program work out? Or no-bail? Or the CHAZ zone?
They just want to appear to be caring and thus morally superior. That’s who Dims vote for.
I see dead people...
Anecdotal evidence/news articles make it appear that police interactions with “mental health incidents” always end badly, following this pattern: A family can’t deal with a teen or adult child having a schizophrenic or psychotic episode; family calls the police for “help”, apparently expecting a medical team; police arrive, usually with ittle or inaccurate information (often emphasizing armed and dangerous); the person is swinging a knife, shouting incoherent threats or whatever; police scream put it down/get on the ground, further agitating the subject. The subject gets worse, runs at them. Bang.
But is this really typical, or just “newsworthy”? Are there hundred of successful interactions for every one bad enough to attract journalists and activists?
I like the idea of (at least experimenting with) non-police triaging situations and trying to calm the waters. Police don’t have time to molly-coddle every idiot who is acting out or research their particulars. Social workers can find out some medical history, find out if the real problem is being off meds, contact the person’s doctor, etc. Some situations resolve themselves if some time goes by. If force is required the social squad should back off and let police take over. The “social workers” can brief the police on the situation, and the police can send enough officers/ appropriately equipped to deal with the threat without fatalities/injuries to themselves. Tranquilizer darts and nets exist.
This kind of insanity is due to the Democrats/liberals believing that every person is basically good and would not bring harm to anyone else. There is no recognition of the sinful nature of man. Someone in the near future will pay the price for that insanity.
Go to PoliceActivity on YouTube and you’ll see tons of police use of force incidents. Many of them involve mentally ill people who are extremely violent and aggressive. This is going to be a disaster with deadly consequences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.