(08-01-2020 10:38 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  My problem lies with the systemic issue of poverty breeding desperation that leads to poor education and crime
get

I agree with that.

(Most leftists will cling to racism, but that's neither here nor there in our discussion.)

I'm OK with the idea of transferring certain functions from the police to some Good Will Corp of kinder people.

I am questioning which functions should be transferred to which people, and why this would result in better outcomes.

I also think that a good economy leading to more jobs is the best antidote to poverty.

(08-01-2020 04:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 10:38 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  My problem lies with the systemic issue of poverty breeding desperation that leads to poor education and crime
get

I agree with that.

(Most leftists will cling to racism, but that's neither here nor there in our discussion.)

I'm OK with the idea of transferring certain functions from the police to some Good Will Corp of kinder people.

I am questioning which functions should be transferred to which people, and why this would result in better outcomes.

I also think that a good economy leading to more jobs is the best antidote to poverty.

The theory on better outcomes is that you would both have people who are better trained and less likely to escalate the situation interacting with the individual. Cops are asked to do a lot, and can’t be experts in all areas, so let’s have people who specialize in, say, mental health, interact with people with mental health issues.

(08-01-2020 06:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The theory on better outcomes is that you would both have people who are better trained and less likely to escalate the situation interacting with the individual. Cops are asked to do a lot, and can’t be experts in all areas, so let’s have people who specialize in, say, mental health, interact with people with mental health issues.

And get killed.

(07-31-2020 09:59 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-31-2020 04:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And you hit on the Third Golden Rule of being stopped by the police and why the police never mention 'what state you are in'. Ask them if you are free to go, and if not are you being detained, or are you being arrested. Various protections kick in at every point. i.e. some kick in at a stop, some kick in at a detainement, some at arrest, and some at charging.

See my comments above. Uneducated and especially impaired people don't know their rights. I know they often say they do, but they're almost always wrong.

Most 'very well educated' people either do not know the limit of their rights, or simply choose not to exercise the. It kind of makes your comments a non-sequitor.

How many people here have refused a request to search by the police, without a warrant? My best guess is two, tops. Spotting y'all one right here.

Getting back to the 'stop and van them' issue, no one knows at the present time (save perhaps a few handful of people, none of them on this board) the full set of facts that led to the Feds telling their (literal) foot soldiers to stop Pettibone.

I can think of a myriad of ways that the entire episode is good, and an equal number that make it bad.

When you denote the Chopkin dude that lad sings the josannas of, he doesnt know the raw facts either. He keeps citing the principles of Ybarra of why this was a bad stop --- here are the facts of Ybarra, on which I have won some pro bono, and lost some pro bono on the very many exceptions to and situations that fall outside Ybarra. But the Eesteemed Hahvud Professor doent bother with that.

Ybarra's facts are simple. Shitbird the cops want goes into a bar. The cops follow him in, then proceed to search everyone else in the bar simply because they are in the bar with the shitbird. That situation is no better than having 4 officers joyriding and picking up people at random.

When you think back to the situation that Pettibone was picked up for, what we do know can be distinguished with just a modicum of thought. If all the feds have are videos of lasers and Pettibone is just somewhere in the area -- bad stop on Ybarra.

If on the other hand the videos put him anywhere near the source of the lasers, that is sufficient not just for a stop, not just a detainment, not just a custodial arrest, but all the way up to a full arrest.

But without sufficient other evidence, the videos themselves may not be suffcient for charging. Since Pettibone already invoked his attorney rights, the cops cant even question him. And the 5th amendment and tons a of case law mandate that one can be arrested, but absent charging, must be let go in some amount of time.

But it is always interesting that no one seems to champion that the devil is in what the officers knew or saw that prompted the order to pick him up. But many seem to need to make up facts not in evidence to keep screeding on it.

(08-01-2020 06:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 06:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The theory on better outcomes is that you would both have people who are better trained and less likely to escalate the situation interacting with the individual. Cops are asked to do a lot, and can’t be experts in all areas, so let’s have people who specialize in, say, mental health, interact with people with mental health issues.

And get killed.

That’s a really big assumption that every mental health check would result in murder...

Is your preference that police handle all societal ills?

(08-01-2020 06:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 06:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 06:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The theory on better outcomes is that you would both have people who are better trained and less likely to escalate the situation interacting with the individual. Cops are asked to do a lot, and can’t be experts in all areas, so let’s have people who specialize in, say, mental health, interact with people with mental health issues.

And get killed.

That’s a really big assumption that every mental health check would result in murder...

Not every one, but more than none. Of course, given my low regard for sociologists, that may be a feature and not a bug.

Quote:Is your preference that police handle all societal ills?

A criminal with a weapon is not a societal ill. That's one huge problem we have is trying to attribute everything to society instead of holding individuals responsible for their actions.

Why do you try to put words like "every" and "all" in my mouth? The reductio ad absurdiam argument hardly fits my comments.

(08-01-2020 06:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 04:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 10:38 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  My problem lies with the systemic issue of poverty breeding desperation that leads to poor education and crime
get

I agree with that.

(Most leftists will cling to racism, but that's neither here nor there in our discussion.)

I'm OK with the idea of transferring certain functions from the police to some Good Will Corp of kinder people.

I am questioning which functions should be transferred to which people, and why this would result in better outcomes.

I also think that a good economy leading to more jobs is the best antidote to poverty.

The theory on better outcomes is that you would both have people who are better trained and less likely to escalate the situation interacting with the individual. Cops are asked to do a lot, and can’t be experts in all areas, so let’s have people who specialize in, say, mental health, interact with people with mental health issues.

Call comes in to 911 - lots of loud noise next door. Some yelling.

Who do you send? Mental health specialist? Professional negotiator? Marital counselor? Noise specialist? Music expert?

The cops maybe have to wear a lot of the hats, but the hats all arrive at once - and first.

If the 911 operator has to choose which of six different agencies to send, sometimes they will choose wrong.

And of course, we will have to retrain every 911 operator in the USA.

(08-01-2020 06:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 06:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 06:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 06:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The theory on better outcomes is that you would both have people who are better trained and less likely to escalate the situation interacting with the individual. Cops are asked to do a lot, and can’t be experts in all areas, so let’s have people who specialize in, say, mental health, interact with people with mental health issues.

And get killed.

That’s a really big assumption that every mental health check would result in murder...

Not every one, but more than none. Of course, given my low regard for sociologists, that may be a feature and not a bug.

Quote:Is your preference that police handle all societal ills?

A criminal with a weapon is not a societal ill. That's one huge problem we have is trying to attribute everything to society instead of holding individuals responsible for their actions.

Why do you try to put words like "every" and "all" in my mouth? The reductio ad absurdiam argument hardly fits my comments.

Not trying to put words in your mouth - hence the question mark.

Your short response left a lot to be desired. It made it clear you didn’t think that others should be asked to do some of the police’s job, and currently they’re basically tasked with handling all societal ills. We ask them to wear far too many hats, IMO.

(08-01-2020 07:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 06:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 06:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 06:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 06:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The theory on better outcomes is that you would both have people who are better trained and less likely to escalate the situation interacting with the individual. Cops are asked to do a lot, and can’t be experts in all areas, so let’s have people who specialize in, say, mental health, interact with people with mental health issues.

And get killed.

That’s a really big assumption that every mental health check would result in murder...

Not every one, but more than none. Of course, given my low regard for sociologists, that may be a feature and not a bug.

Quote:Is your preference that police handle all societal ills?

A criminal with a weapon is not a societal ill. That's one huge problem we have is trying to attribute everything to society instead of holding individuals responsible for their actions.

Why do you try to put words like "every" and "all" in my mouth? The reductio ad absurdiam argument hardly fits my comments.

Not trying to put words in your mouth - hence the question mark.

Your short response left a lot to be desired. It made it clear you didn’t think that others should be asked to do some of the police’s job, and currently they’re basically tasked with handling all societal ills. We ask them to wear far too many hats, IMO.

Uhh..... no. They are not. Not even close.

(08-01-2020 07:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Your short response left a lot to be desired. It made it clear you didn’t think that others should be asked to do some of the police’s job, and currently they’re basically tasked with handling all societal ills. We ask them to wear far too many hats, IMO.

WTF?? "All societal ills"?? No, just the ones that are violent, or likely to become so.

Criminals are not "societal ills." They're bad people.

Cops are tasked with handling problems.

A man with a knife is a problem.

People out of work is a societal ill.

(08-01-2020 06:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Call comes in to 911 - lots of loud noise next door. Some yelling.

Who do you send? Mental health specialist? Professional negotiator? Marital counselor? Noise specialist? Music expert?

BTW, real questions. I would appreciate real responses. How will that 911 operator know to send the mental health specialist, instead of the domestic violence specialist or the loud party specialists?

(08-01-2020 07:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 06:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Call comes in to 911 - lots of loud noise next door. Some yelling.

Who do you send? Mental health specialist? Professional negotiator? Marital counselor? Noise specialist? Music expert?

BTW, real questions. I would appreciate real responses. How will that 911 operator know to send the mental health specialist, instead of the domestic violence specialist or the loud party specialists?

Because the 911 operator will have a discussion with the caller over the phone. Typically, when people call 911 the first question is “What’s your emergency?”

(08-01-2020 07:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 07:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Your short response left a lot to be desired. It made it clear you didn’t think that others should be asked to do some of the police’s job, and currently they’re basically tasked with handling all societal ills. We ask them to wear far too many hats, IMO.

WTF?? "All societal ills"?? No, just the ones that are violent, or likely to become so.

Criminals are not "societal ills." They're bad people.

I pointed out that police are often called to deal with people with mental health issues, you responded by stating that non-police officers would be killed.

I think it makes sense to have people specialize and respond to a less broad range of issues, notably mental health, addiction, and homelessness. Of course every interaction with a stranger could become violent, but the chances of escalation to violence are likely less if you have someone who is specifically trained to manage the specific problem and de-escalate. .

(08-01-2020 09:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 07:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 06:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Call comes in to 911 - lots of loud noise next door. Some yelling.

Who do you send? Mental health specialist? Professional negotiator? Marital counselor? Noise specialist? Music expert?

BTW, real questions. I would appreciate real responses. How will that 911 operator know to send the mental health specialist, instead of the domestic violence specialist or the loud party specialists?

Because the 911 operator will have a discussion with the caller over the phone. Typically, when people call 911 the first question is “What’s your emergency?”

Smart ass response, and totally inadequate. I thought we were cleaning this site up.

if the caller says, “lots of noise next door, lots of yelling and screaming“, who do you send?

The callers are not always coherent, sometimes hysterical, sometimes a child. If the cop is not qualified, how is the caller qualified?

More to the point, how would YOU, as a 911 operator, know to send the mental health specialist instead of a cop? Do you just ask “Are they crazy over there?” Does the screaming have to be a certain quality?

It’s easy to say send A mental health specialist to talk to disturbed people, but if you don’t know if they are disturbed, how do you know who to send?

Right now, the operator dispatches cops, and/or fire, and/or EMS. Three choices.

You want them to choose between those three and perhaps up to half a dozen others. How will they know who to send? You want them to rely on the possibly hysterical caller.

(08-01-2020 09:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 09:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 07:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 06:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Call comes in to 911 - lots of loud noise next door. Some yelling.

Who do you send? Mental health specialist? Professional negotiator? Marital counselor? Noise specialist? Music expert?

BTW, real questions. I would appreciate real responses. How will that 911 operator know to send the mental health specialist, instead of the domestic violence specialist or the loud party specialists?

Because the 911 operator will have a discussion with the caller over the phone. Typically, when people call 911 the first question is “What’s your emergency?”

Smart ass response, and totally inadequate. I thought we were cleaning this site up.

if the caller says, “lots of noise next door, lots of yelling and screaming“, who do you send?

The callers are not always coherent, sometimes hysterical, sometimes a child. If the cop is not qualified, how is the caller qualified?

More to the point, how would YOU, as a 911 operator, know to send the mental health specialist instead of a cop? Do you just ask “Are they crazy over there?” Does the screaming have to be a certain quality?

It’s easy to say send A mental health specialist to talk to disturbed people, but if you don’t know if they are disturbed, how do you know who to send?

Right now, the operator dispatches cops, and/or fire, and/or EMS. Three choices.

You want them to choose between those three and perhaps up to half a dozen others. How will they know who to send? You want them to rely on the possibly hysterical caller.

They will “know” who to send based on the response of the person calling 911 and what sort of emergency is described.

Choices aren’t binary - the dispatch could send a police officer if they feel there is a risk of violence, or send a combination of emergency response personnel if fit. You’re trying to argue a level of detail that isn’t really relevant if you don’t clearly agree or disagree with the stated premise.

Talking about the exact methods used to execute this change is what we would be talking about if you agreed with the overall idea of splitting off some of the police’s duties, but you dont agree with that idea, so why try and work through the how?

(08-02-2020 07:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 09:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 09:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 07:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 06:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Call comes in to 911 - lots of loud noise next door. Some yelling.

Who do you send? Mental health specialist? Professional negotiator? Marital counselor? Noise specialist? Music expert?

BTW, real questions. I would appreciate real responses. How will that 911 operator know to send the mental health specialist, instead of the domestic violence specialist or the loud party specialists?

Because the 911 operator will have a discussion with the caller over the phone. Typically, when people call 911 the first question is “What’s your emergency?”

Smart ass response, and totally inadequate. I thought we were cleaning this site up.

if the caller says, “lots of noise next door, lots of yelling and screaming“, who do you send?

The callers are not always coherent, sometimes hysterical, sometimes a child. If the cop is not qualified, how is the caller qualified?

More to the point, how would YOU, as a 911 operator, know to send the mental health specialist instead of a cop? Do you just ask “Are they crazy over there?” Does the screaming have to be a certain quality?

It’s easy to say send A mental health specialist to talk to disturbed people, but if you don’t know if they are disturbed, how do you know who to send?

Right now, the operator dispatches cops, and/or fire, and/or EMS. Three choices.

You want them to choose between those three and perhaps up to half a dozen others. How will they know who to send? You want them to rely on the possibly hysterical caller.

They will “know” who to send based on the response of the person calling 911 and what sort of emergency is described.

Choices aren’t binary - the dispatch could send a police officer if they feel there is a risk of violence, or send a combination of emergency response personnel if fit. You’re trying to argue a level of detail that isn’t really relevant if you don’t clearly agree or disagree with the stated premise.

Talking about the exact methods used to execute this change is what we would be talking about if you agreed with the overall idea of splitting off some of the police’s duties, but you dont agree with that idea, so why try and work through the how?

Last night after going to bed I thought of the perfect example to get this over to despite yourself resistance. (Isn’t that always the case?)

It is my sister - My crazy delusional sister, who I have mentioned here often. You might remember.

My sister would call 911 and tell the operator there was a man breaking in and he was trying to rape her. (Of course, the man existed only in her own mind) Who would you think the operator getting a call like that should send - a psychiatrist? Crazy people do not identify themselves as mentally ill when they call to report their delusions. Nor can a perfectly sane layperson identify another person as mentally ill just because they are digging in their trash.

The irony is that my sister was a mental health professional, so under your system she would likely be one who was sent.

So if you are depending on callers to identify themselves or others as mentally ill, you are depending on the wrong people.

You say this is the way to get the right treatment to those who need it, but first it has to pass through the gateway of the 911 operator. I know the hundreds of times my sister called to report a rape or an intruder, they took her at her word, as you suggest they should do. But those operators only had the choice of fire, police, or ambulance. How do you suggest those operators know how to discern which calls need cops and which really need something other than what is requested?

I don’t necessarily disagree with the stated premise, as you assume. I just want to know how it would work before it is installed. So far all we have is a pie in the sky statement of it would be better to send mental health personnel for crazy people, without the foggiest idea of how those people would be identified. And when I ask, certain people jump to the conclusion that I disagree with the premise.

After all, this was proposed as a response to Black Lives Matter, and I do not see how this would affect that situation. But at least we can say we did something, even if it was useless or worse than useless.

(08-01-2020 09:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I pointed out that police are often called to deal with people with mental health issues, you responded by stating that non-police officers would be killed.

Some would be killed. Maybe enough for us to realize that this is not a great idea. I'm sorry that you took my response to mean that "all" of them would be killed. But in a world where "all" Black men are being hunted down and killed by police means that 200-odd Black people (out of 40 million) were killed by police last year, I should expect people to leap to conclusions. My point is that just about every situation where police are called today has at least some nonzero potential to become violent, and sending social workers to deal with those situations will result in an inordinate number of dead social workers. Perhaps some situations can be dealt with by a combined LEO/social worker team. But what if it's 2 in the morning, are we going to have social workers on duty to make house calls 24/7/365?

I think you will soon fine that a lot of social workers don't like being thrust into life-or-death situations on a daily basis. LEOs may not like it either, but that's what they signed on to do.

I think one of the issues that is being totally glossed over is what it means to be an LEO. You risk your life, almost literally 24/7/365. That is being largely ignored in all of the piling on police that is going on.

Quote:I think it makes sense to have people specialize and respond to a less broad range of issues, notably mental health, addiction, and homelessness. Of course every interaction with a stranger could become violent, but the chances of escalation to violence are likely less if you have someone who is specifically trained to manage the specific problem and de-escalate. .

And that might be an argument for a two-person LEO/social worker team. The social workers to try to de-escalate the situation and the LEO in case de-escalation fails. But as I say, I think a lot of social workers are going to walk away from life-or-death 24/7/365 pressure.

(08-01-2020 06:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Most 'very well educated' people either do not know the limit of their rights, or simply choose not to exercise the. It kind of makes your comments a non-sequitor.

'educated' was only one of my points of differentiation.... the educated might know to keep a gun in the trunk or glove box... not merely under the seat where it could be kicked or slide into 'plain view'. The educated might have a better job and thus a better home and the ability to smoke pot on their secluded porch as opposed to in their car... so the cops don't smell it in your car, but they do in 'the other guys'.

(08-01-2020 06:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Call comes in to 911 - lots of loud noise next door. Some yelling.

Who do you send? Mental health specialist? Professional negotiator? Marital counselor? Noise specialist? Music expert?

The cops maybe have to wear a lot of the hats, but the hats all arrive at once - and first.

If the 911 operator has to choose which of six different agencies to send, sometimes they will choose wrong.

And of course, we will have to retrain every 911 operator in the USA.

You miss the point I'm making.

When all those hats arrive, they're all the same hats.

You send a cop. When the cop sees that it's a man and wife and they're mostly just yelling... other resources are already in route... he perhaps tells the other 'cops' to stop, and lets the counselors keep coming. When they arrive, they manage it, so long as the conversation remains stable.

Same way you might have a male cop first arrive to a rape scene... who then mostly waits on a female cop to arrive... or the drug bust who waits on the dog.

I'd also note that most of the points of differentiation you made would fall under the same general specialty of 'counselor'. I'd say that most teams would be cop and counselor. Single cops might be first responders and of course would be sent to 'shots fired' or 'robbery in progress' or whatever.... but shortly thereafter, there would be a counselor on site.

(08-01-2020 07:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Cops are tasked with handling problems.

A man with a knife is a problem.

People out of work is a societal ill.

What if the crime is the theft of a pie because the guy is out of work, and the knife is because he plans on sharing it? Sorry, just being silly there... but it's the same sort of questions that I see coming towards me.

I'm not eliminating cops. They still 'do what they do'.

I think your 'many hats' analogy is a really good one. The first hat to arrive is a generalist... and then you defer to a specialist as quickly as you can as you learn more about what is actually going on.

Most of what I've been talking about has been the use of minor, arguably nebulous traffic offenses as a pretense to search for drugs... and of using psychological techniques including carefully crafted verbiage to confuse and/or trap people.

I pulled you over because I think you're under the influence. Give me your ID, check for warrants. Take a test or be booked and fight it in court. No ID? You don't have a choice. Can it be abused? Of course... and the evidence would be the relatively high number of such tests or arrests that a particular cop or department has that end up walking. The car is impounded... 'plain sight' means 'with the doors closed'... and take a picture of what you see and let a judge/jury decide if it was actually in plain sight or legitimately appeared to be what he said he thought it was. This is the 21st century and we all have cameras. Cops have multiple cameras.

I pulled you over because you didn't signal. I have car video of you not signaling. Here is your ticket. You can still check for priors or whatever.

You don't need a 'counselor' because there is no real discussion nor attempt to 'catch' trivial offenses.

If you're pulling a guy over for a traffic violation as a pretense because he's a significant drug dealer and you're trying to catch him riding dirty... then you likely have 'priors' to justify the stop and aggressive tactics. I don't think these should be used against petty criminals. You can have a counselor talk to them about that back at the police station.... offer them help... try and get them to turn on their suppliers etc..... but have a specialist who also knows how to get someone help do it, not a generalist who mostly knows how to control a situation.

(08-02-2020 12:32 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 06:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Most 'very well educated' people either do not know the limit of their rights, or simply choose not to exercise the. It kind of makes your comments a non-sequitor.

'educated' was only one of my points of differentiation.... the educated might know to keep a gun in the trunk or glove box... not merely under the seat where it could be kicked or slide into 'plain view'.

I never took a course in how to keep cops from discovering my illegal gun. But I did have a Rice friend who was caught with a large knife under his seat, when he was stopped in the area of a reported crime and had no ID on him. I guess he should have had a different major. (PS - We bailed him out).

I think the education you are talking about is often called "street smarts", or maybe just "common sense".