Sorry if I missed it somewhere, but this seems to be mere correlation…are they sure it wasn’t because of, for example, the end of COVID shutdowns, or the unusually hot economy in 2021?
Not to discount CALL…I love it and would like to see more of this community support. But a lot of other things changed in 2021 that could impact suicide rates too.
A good start. It's obvious, for example, that if you call 911 because someone's having a heart attack, that they should dispatch paramedics, not police officers. If you call to report a house fire, they should dispatch firefighters. The purpose of the police is to threaten violence and to exercise violence. For any emergency that violence isn't equipped to solve, dispatch a specialist.
In many places they dispatch police and paramedics for a heart attack.
The police officers are trained to provide CPR and have defibrillators in their cars, of course. (The reason they don't just dispatch paramedics because the police can often be there faster, either because they have more units or simply happen to be closer.)
The idea of doubling up like that to increase coverage may be well-intentioned, but it's complicated specifically with regard to the police. If, say, you train firefighters to pull double-duty like that, then nobody's going to object; as the saying goes, nobody ever wrote a song called "fuck the fire department". For several demographics, the police do not inspire reassurance but instead inspire terror, and the prospect of the police showing up for a medical emergency can dissuade people from calling for help, potentially making health outcomes worse rather than better.
There are many areas in the US where the fire department or paramedics will not go without a police escort, because they've been attacked too often when trying to render aid.
That's an entirely separate concern. By all means, if paramedics don't feel safe going somewhere, then give them police escorts. The point is not to say "the police cannot come", it's to say "the police should not come unless someone asks for the police".
Firefighter/paramedic here. These are definitely outlier events. It's not zero risk, but it's close enough to zero to not worry about.
That isn't to say violence against Fire/EMS isn't an issue, but the idea that we need cops on every call just in case it's an ambush is silly. One of my first priorities on a scene where there are cops present is to clear the cops as quickly as possible. Nine times out of ten if a cop is going to get involved in something, they're going to escalate things, not cool them down.
It’s interesting the extent to which police varies geographically. I’d love for any police officer of Oregon to be at my side in times of trouble, but god forbid any King country officer show up when I’m in need.
I’d wager any “blue lives matter” folks would change their mind when presented with urban officers, and on the flip side all “ACAB” people would flip when dealing with rural enforcement.
>I’d wager any “blue lives matter” folks would change their mind when presented with urban officers, and on the flip side all “ACAB” people would flip when dealing with rural enforcement.
i wish i could downvote this 100 times, because its just so absent of any factual basis. i live in rural oregon and regularly have to defend my neighbors from the police. the year i moved to my home in rural oregon a young child ~7 yo was accosted on my driveway on july 4th by local police for riding their bike down the street. my wife cried, i had to go out and talk to the police. when disrupted, they provided no explanation for why they had pulled the child over for questioning on my driveway (bringing said child to tears obviously), they let him go while i was arguing with them that they had no reason to accost this child. (they were never able to come up with a reason that this particular asian child was not allowed to ride his bike on a road where many white children had been riding all day)
i moved to rural oregon coming from downtown portland after tear gas was pouring into my 12th floor window during that 2020 protests. this wasnt citizens deploying tear gas downtown, this was police. 12th floor of a high rise in downtown SW Portland. this was in May of 2020 before it got much worse. the policing here in rural oregon is not much better but more infrequent, this does not represent a better police force, but a more lackadaisical one with less accountability.
the idea that rural police are actually more inclined to police their jurisdiction properly is pure hogwash, invented by people who dont interact with those outside the "standard social sphere" and see no problem with outcasting others. sure in rural oregon where you dont know anyone who isnt white, it might seem like the police are just hunky dory; but bring anyone else into the equation and you see very quickly who is and isnt held the the absolute law, and who is and isnt hunted down by those rural police and treated as a criminal despite actions and age. your comment speaks to your incredible ignorance of what many people go through, even in the rural areas of this state.
reminder: oregon is a state that outlawed slavery, not because of the human rights violations, but because it would mean that black people were allowed in the state! please be serious when talking about how utterly depraved the state of oregon is when it comes to treating all people with their basic human rights.
Every input must be scaled by one’s certainty the source is portraying an accurate and honest representation of the underlying facts (if you don’t perform such scaling I have no interest in your arguments).
Before you made the above comment, I had my default small but nonzero belief you were portraying your experience accurately and the same for your source. Thus, multiplied together, the information carried little (but still nonzero!) weight. This isn’t me being difficult, it’s quite literally the at the core of any reasonable legal system.
After you made this comment, willfully and egregiously misrepresenting what I said for the sake of… I don’t know what… I hold zero belief that you accurately and honestly represent underlying facts in arguments — meaning this thread has reached its natural conclusion. Cheers, have a good day.
I'm not the one here who is refusing to believe something that gets reported on a regular basis. I'm assuming you haven't had any negative experience with police because your skin color places you in the majority
It seems weird to me how there's a group a people who seem to think the police can do no wrong and are infallible yet shit keeps happening. The police are definitely racist and its more common than you would apparently like to admit
There are real concerns about sending the police in such cases. However heart attacks can very quickly lead to death and should therefore be treated as an all hands on deck situation. When in low population areas an ambulance might be 30+ minutes away, sending the police could save a lot of lives.
When we get to the point where people are tagging and changing “All Plumbers are Bastards”, then yes, plumbers should carry when entering an unknown situation.
So, I do get it, but it's also a self-fulfilling prophecy. People are chanting "all police are bastards" as a result of police carrying guns everywhere (and the downstream effects, like those guns occasionally shooting innocent people).
Some members of <group X> did <bad thing Y>. Therefore all members of <group X> are bad.
We don’t tolerate when it group X is a racial group or when it’s a religious group, but otherwise intelligent and reasonable people seem to give zero care when group X is cops. It’s weird to me.
> Some members of <group X> did <bad thing Y>. Therefore all members of <group X> are bad.
You missed a second clause there... Some members of <group X> did <bad thing Y>. The remaining members of <group X> have failed to hold those members accountable (and in most cases work to actively cover up their misdeeds). Therefore all members of <group X> are bad.
Have you considered how your logic applies to non-police groups? I never thought I would see such blatant racism against black people on this message board.
Being black is something people are born into where policing is something people join. Judging black gang members because their gang members isn’t racist any more than judging black police officers because their police officers.
By that logic people shouln’t be judged for Al-Qaeda membership. There is a meaningful difference between groups people join voluntarily and those people are born into.
> but otherwise intelligent and reasonable people seem to give zero care when group X is cops
You might want to wonder then if those intelligent and reasonable people might have knowledge or experiences they're basing these things off of that you don't have direct access to.
It's not prejudice if it's not pre. For me I didn't come to truly hate all police until I had accumulated years of experience of their violence and dishonesty across so many different jurisdictions and even countries that I realized it really is a problem with the system itself rather than any specific individual within it.
ACAB doesn't mean only bad people become police, it means you must become bad to remain police. Well-meaning people join all the time and they either leave, are forced out, or get in line and start covering for the really heinous shit.
If someone had a bad experience with different black people multiple times in their country and abroad, would you feel it justified for them to be racist?
What part of your post was about groups who have voluntary vs involuntary membership? Your baseless assertion of "you must become bad to stay police"? Would you look up Eric Talley, who was a family friend of mine, and tell me that he was a bastard or a bad person?
And...maybe people are "born" cops? What if some people are born with ultra high points on "law and order", and they disproportionately become cops through their genetics?
I’ve met plenty of police that want nothing more than general order in their jurisdictions. They come up to my car when I’m broken down on the side of the road and ask if there’s anything they can do to help. I’ve also met police that go out of their way to give me a hard time for going 5 mph above the speed limit.
The difference is the geography - when police are used as a “follow every guideline some bullshit group of representatives set forth” enforcer, they tend to be bullshit. When they’re used as a “make sure people are being reasonable” force, they tend to be reasonable as well.
It’s up to the people in the jurisdiction to elect a chief who matches their viewpoint. And it’s up to the individual living in that jurisdiction to choose an area that matches the enforcement they’d like to see.
> It’s up to the people in the jurisdiction to elect a chief who matches their viewpoint.
The chief of police is rarely an elected position (in most US jurisdictions). Sheriffs are typically elected, but that's an outlier in terms of law enforcement leadership positions.
> And it’s up to the individual living in that jurisdiction to choose an area that matches the enforcement they’d like to see.
It seems likely you have a pretty narrow view on the world if you think everyone (or even the majority of folks) have the resources to choose where they live based on that criteria.
I didn't say you were more "able" (though if you don't believe different levels of ability exist, I'm not sure what to tell you...). I said people have different available resources. If you're working a part time/minimum wage job with no car (which is just one example that covers a massive number of people), then you don't have the option to decide you don't like the policing in your neighborhood and just up and move. There are countless other scenarios that would similarly limit someone's options to simply move somewhere else if they were being harassed by the police.
My experience is limited to the US, but in most US jurisdictions, the police chief works for the local municipal government and goes through the same hiring process as any other city/town employee.
Different levels of ability may exist, but the thinking “if people aren’t living the way I want to live, it must be because they can’t” is pervasive. By and large, people have agency. Assuming they are passive blobs forced into situations beyond their control is both disrespectful and out touch. I frequently speak with people who have been in far worse situations than “low income and no car”, who have been able to travel the country and reach their desired enforcement zones.
In my experience, heads of policing candidates each put their “mission statement” and intended enforcement levels in an essay/Q&A hosted online by the local news. The community can read through the statements and choose the policing they feel most appropriate for their situation. If communities have chosen levels I don’t like, I respect their ability to do so - and live elsewhere.
If your community doesn’t have elected control over their police, and you want it to - I suggest you live elsewhere. Oregon is lovely this time of year.
>It’s up to the people in the jurisdiction to elect a chief who matches their viewpoint. And it’s up to the individual living in that jurisdiction to choose an area that matches the enforcement they’d like to see
A less nice way to put this is "all you jerks around here who want to live in some nice urban area/suburb need to come to terms with the fact that this will require using police and state violence or the threat thereof to enforce the kind of conformity that requires."
What do you think would happen to police if they didn't carry guns? How many police would be killed the first day in America that policy is implemented?
I'm not suggesting police should never carry guns! If you're going to apprehend a suspected murderer, you should probably have a weapon on you.
But if you're going to e.g. help a heart attack victim, I think it's reasonable to ask officers to leave their guns in their car, just as a doctor wouldn't bring a gun. I'd expect exceedingly few officers to be killed as a result.
If someone calls in and says a burglar shot a family member and the burglar ran away, would there be any reason for a cop to bring a gun to give first responder treatment to the family member?
If one is innocent until proven guilty, then using violence against them before their trial is by definition an extrajudicial punishment, even if they ultimately deserve it.
This is why we should strongly advocate for non-violent apprehension pretty much across the board. There must be better strategies than shooting at or even killing someone before they get a trial.
> If one is innocent until proven guilty, then using violence against them before their trial is by definition an extrajudicial punishment, even if they ultimately deserve it.
Police do not give up their right to self defense when they take the job. If someone is trying to kill it hurt you, you have the right to use lethal force in response. Same thing for police.
> The purpose of the police is to threaten violence and to exercise violence
Not arguing against your final point, but the purpose of the police is to enforce the law, which does not ideally _have_ to involve violence or threat of violence. Sometimes it just means giving someone a traffic citation.
Except you don’t need a heavily armed person to issue a citation. If you’re going to have people with the ability to inflict deadly force, only deploy them when deadly force may be required.
Traffic stops can get pretty violent. When they do, it's almost always one of three reasons: possession of drugs or an illegal firearm, driving under the influence, or a standing bench warrant for their arrest.
I can vaguely imagine a world where illegal firearms and drugs don't exist, just firearms and drugs. But warrants and DUI are going to remain, and you're proposing sending unarmed people to deal with that.
Someone will run that experiment, the unarmed social worker trying to issue the citation will be badly hurt or murdered, and we'll go back to cops doing that job. Hopefully none of this will be in a county where I live, I don't want to be around vehicles operated with impunity by people who know they can just accelerate away.
> but the purpose of the police is to enforce the law, which does not ideally _have_ to involve violence or threat of violence
Literally all law is fundamentally backed up with the threat of violence, there is no way around that philosophically. That's the difference between the rules of the state (which claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence) and the rules of a private person.
Enforcing the law reduces to the (hopefully regulated) application of violence or threat of same. Otherwise you'd call your lawyer and not a guy with a badge and a gun.
I’ve seen far more semi-automatic rifles in the hands of police offers in Europe than I ever have in the US. Our front line police here might be over-armed but they have no issue with the application of state violence anywhere else in the world.
Those are almost never semiauto, they're either submachine guns or full on assault rifles. The real ones with select fire.
London, Brussels, Paris, Rome, Florence, yadda yadda. I don't know why Europeans don't see them, I've had this conversation dozens of times and they always go "oh. yeah. but that doesn't count!"
- Specialist Firearms Command (SCO19) carry weapons (hand guns), but they are only called in when needed (like to arrest a known violent criminal). The have access to a rifle locked in their vehicle, but they don't routinely carry it around.
- Counter Terrorist Specialist Firearms Officers (CT-SFO) are the top tier of SCO19, trained for major crime, hostage taking and terrorism. This is who you are going to see walking around with submachine guns and assault rifles at the Olympics, Buckingham Palace, Parliament, etc.
- The Queen's Guard at Buckingham Palace (the people with the funny hats) also carry rifles with bayonets, but they aren't loaded. They are more likely to hit you with them or stab you with the bayonet if you mess with them.
If you are tourist going to Buckingham Palace, Parliament or other super high risk sites, you are going to see CT-SFO officers out carrying assault rifles because they are positioned to respond in case of a terrorist attack. This is the same as visiting the White House or the Pentagon. You are going to see heavily armed guards on patrol at places like that.
But in daily life outside of that, you are only interacting with unarmed police.
So it's not that "it doesn't count." It's that guns are only involved when there's a strong reason to get them involved. If you call the police for a domestic dispute, no one is going to have a gun and no one is getting shot.
It is no such thing. An assault rifle is a select-fire rifle with an intermediate cartridge and detachable magazine. AR-15s are not this, since they aren't select-fire.
You're thinking of "assault weapon", which is when a gun is scary and black.
I mean, it's your choice to make it violent. They should be able to counter _your_ threat of violence effectively, but violence is not the default way that someone gets taken to jail. Ultimately, the law is based on threat of punishment, which can come in many forms. For a lot of us here on HN, being violently thrown into a squad car is less threatening than having your career put into jeopardy by having a mark on your record.
If you say "my uncle is having a heart attack", the remedy is obvious. If you say "my parents are fighting and one has a knife" – it's not so clear that a social worker will help (or be safe)
No family members on the force. I’m sorry you took it that way. I’m not trying to address police brutality (which absolutely exists at a gross level), just what a police force is _supposed_ to be in the ideal sense.
Our European visitors are important to us.
This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws.
For our European brothers and sisters that can't see shit when they click the link: https://archive.ph/zvuMG
I think that is the correct answer for most of us. Whatever it is you're offering, the probability I actually need it is preeeeetty low. I waste too much time on the internet anyways, thanks for the reminder, website.
VPNs serve a purpose. Not always the purpose advertised though. Hopefully HN readers understand the nuance in tech and know how to properly use the available tools.
It can stop MITM issues at skeptics internet providers. It can route you to different nations (as many YouTube adverts indicate). It doesn’t magically protect you from H4Ck3Rz.
VPNs are extremely useful, and hopefully the type who visit HN understand the risks associated with using a VPN and know how to properly mitigate them.
The elephant in the room is that people with some mental illnesses can become erratic and violent. Someone above pointed out that cops are meant to "threaten and deliver violence." I think this is a vast simplification, but even under those criteria you can see why cops might be dispatched to deal with people who are mentally ill.
None of that is to say we shouldn't have other options, just that there are valid reasons to involve cops in some of these situations.
> Dispatching mental health specialists instead of police officers to substance abuse and nonviolent emergencies sharply lowered low-level crime in Denver, according to a study published Wednesday in Science Advances.
> The Support Team Assistance Response, or STAR, program, which uses a mental health crisis interventionist and a paramedic to respond to nonviolent 911 calls, showed a 34 percent reduction in crime for offenses such as trespassing and public disorder, according to the study conducted by a Stanford University professor and researcher.
> Of the 748 incidents to which clinicians and paramedics responded, police assistance was never needed, according to the study.
You can also just have dispatch send both, but just have the cops there nearby for backup vs. being the first person into the situation. Hell, I'm reasonably mentally stable, but if I got a knock at the door and there's a uniformed police officer outside, I'm immediately in "oh god something awful has happened/will happen" stress and more likely to shut down or do something odd.
> The elephant in the room is that people with some mental illnesses can become erratic and violent.
The elephant in the room is maintaining stereotypes about the violence of the mentally ill that don't have any reference to statistics. Usually followed with a story about being yelled at by a homeless person once.
You're correct, some of the time you will need cops. I'm just not sure why it'd be more in Florida than in Seattle or San Francisco. There could be a reason why, I just don't know without the data.
Alternatively, why do you need cops for those situations? It seems like they might do more harm than good confronting already erratic person; there's a long, public history at this point of cops killing people by subduing them inappropriately. The situation has to be pretty extreme for you to actually need physical force to subdue someone. It happens, but it seems like these studies are telling us it's extremely rare.
Our street crises teams have the unique expertise to respond to people in crisis and de-escalate disruptions in the community. We avoid unnecessary use of police and costly hospital stays, and address the immediate needs of people experiencing homelessness.
