Anonymous wrote:Um - Minneapolis isn’t planning reform.

The just voted to disband the police entirely:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/9-minneapolis-city-council-members-announce-plans-to-disband-police-department/ar-BB159zvz?li=BBnb7Kz

Rapists, muggers, home-invaders, and criminal gangs must be overjoyed right now.

Hope those of you in Minneapolis can find a way to protect yourselves (you’ll soon need it).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To answer PP's question: police aren't very good at preventing things like bank robberies or domestic assaults. They're purely reactive. And even then, they're not very good at solving crime, either. We'd start by investing in things that reduce crime: universal health care (including prenatal care), subsidized childcare, free drug/alcohol treatment for those that want it, and mental heath care workers in EVERY school. And we'd create a new universe of "first responders" that are equipped to solve the issues you mentioned: think social workers, mental health professionals, domestic violence advocates, paramedics, crisis response workers, etc.

People rob banks because they don't bother to apply for Obamacare and because they don't have childcare?
That is rich.
Yeh, send social worker to calm down a violent felon.
Good luck.

Example I like to use is so you send a mental health worker to a non violent domestic situation. What happens if one party becomes violent? You run the possibility of having two potential victims instead of one. You still need a police officer at that point. The violence would have probably been prevented if the police had responded in the first place.

This is my question. So someone calls 911 re: a domestic dispute. Is the 911 dispatcher going to decide in 30 seconds whether a policeman or social worker needs to be dispatched? How in the world is a dispatcher going to make that call? How fast will the social worker get there? Do they have sirens and lights to get through traffic? What happens when the city is sued because the dispatcher didn’t send the police? The problem is, from a liability standpoint, the city has to send a policeman when people think they need one (which is why there are penalties for calling the police for spurious reasons).

My understanding is that they wouldn't send a social worker in lieu of a cop if someone is calling for a cop. It's that they would beef up services to victims and perpetrators of domestic violence to wrap them in community-based services and resources so that the cops aren't needed. That the abuser is getting the help that they need so that they aren't arrested, lose their job, etc. and that a victim of domestic violence is getting the help that they need, healing services, job, counseling, whatever. In other words, try to take the cops out of the day-to-day response to DV, but if a crisis/emergency occurs, that they still respond.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Case study here, people.
“So what’s happening in this city, which for many years has been deemed among the dangerous in America? Thomson, who took the helm of the Camden police force in 2008, says the biggest factor may have been the change in structure of the department itself. In 2013, the Camden Police Department was disbanded, reimagined, and born again as the Camden County Police Department, with more officers at lower pay—and a strategic shift toward “community policing.”

That meant focusing on rebuilding trust between the community and their officers.

“For us to make the neighborhood look and feel the way everyone wanted it to, it wasn’t going to be achieved by having a police officer with a helmet and a shotgun standing on a corner,” Thomson said. Now, he wants his officers “to identify more with being in the Peace Corps than being in the Special Forces.”
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/01/what-happened-to-crime-in-camden/549542/

Great example.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To answer PP's question: police aren't very good at preventing things like bank robberies or domestic assaults. They're purely reactive. And even then, they're not very good at solving crime, either. We'd start by investing in things that reduce crime: universal health care (including prenatal care), subsidized childcare, free drug/alcohol treatment for those that want it, and mental heath care workers in EVERY school. And we'd create a new universe of "first responders" that are equipped to solve the issues you mentioned: think social workers, mental health professionals, domestic violence advocates, paramedics, crisis response workers, etc.

People rob banks because they don't bother to apply for Obamacare and because they don't have childcare?
That is rich.
Yeh, send social worker to calm down a violent felon.
Good luck.

Example I like to use is so you send a mental health worker to a non violent domestic situation. What happens if one party becomes violent? You run the possibility of having two potential victims instead of one. You still need a police officer at that point. The violence would have probably been prevented if the police had responded in the first place.

This is my question. So someone calls 911 re: a domestic dispute. Is the 911 dispatcher going to decide in 30 seconds whether a policeman or social worker needs to be dispatched? How in the world is a dispatcher going to make that call? How fast will the social worker get there? Do they have sirens and lights to get through traffic? What happens when the city is sued because the dispatcher didn’t send the police? The problem is, from a liability standpoint, the city has to send a policeman when people think they need one (which is why there are penalties for calling the police for spurious reasons).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Case study here, people.
“So what’s happening in this city, which for many years has been deemed among the dangerous in America? Thomson, who took the helm of the Camden police force in 2008, says the biggest factor may have been the change in structure of the department itself. In 2013, the Camden Police Department was disbanded, reimagined, and born again as the Camden County Police Department, with more officers at lower pay—and a strategic shift toward “community policing.”

That meant focusing on rebuilding trust between the community and their officers.

“For us to make the neighborhood look and feel the way everyone wanted it to, it wasn’t going to be achieved by having a police officer with a helmet and a shotgun standing on a corner,” Thomson said. Now, he wants his officers “to identify more with being in the Peace Corps than being in the Special Forces.”
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/01/what-happened-to-crime-in-camden/549542/

Camden abolished the police force so they could bust the union and pay the officers less $$. They actually ended up with more police officers.

I actually agree with busting the unions, but not for pay reasons. The unions stop the firing of bad cops.

Anonymous wrote:Um - Minneapolis isn’t planning reform.

The just voted to disband the police entirely:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/9-minneapolis-city-council-members-announce-plans-to-disband-police-department/ar-BB159zvz?li=BBnb7Kz

Rapists, muggers, home-invaders, and criminal gangs must be overjoyed right now.

Hope those of you in Minneapolis can find a way to protect yourselves (you’ll soon need it).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To answer PP's question: police aren't very good at preventing things like bank robberies or domestic assaults. They're purely reactive. And even then, they're not very good at solving crime, either. We'd start by investing in things that reduce crime: universal health care (including prenatal care), subsidized childcare, free drug/alcohol treatment for those that want it, and mental heath care workers in EVERY school. And we'd create a new universe of "first responders" that are equipped to solve the issues you mentioned: think social workers, mental health professionals, domestic violence advocates, paramedics, crisis response workers, etc.

People rob banks because they don't bother to apply for Obamacare and because they don't have childcare?
That is rich.
Yeh, send social worker to calm down a violent felon.
Good luck.

Example I like to use is so you send a mental health worker to a non violent domestic situation. What happens if one party becomes violent? You run the possibility of having two potential victims instead of one. You still need a police officer at that point. The violence would have probably been prevented if the police had responded in the first place.

This is my question. So someone calls 911 re: a domestic dispute. Is the 911 dispatcher going to decide in 30 seconds whether a policeman or social worker needs to be dispatched? How in the world is a dispatcher going to make that call? How fast will the social worker get there? Do they have sirens and lights to get through traffic? What happens when the city is sued because the dispatcher didn’t send the police? The problem is, from a liability standpoint, the city has to send a policeman when people think they need one (which is why there are penalties for calling the police for spurious reasons).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To answer PP's question: police aren't very good at preventing things like bank robberies or domestic assaults. They're purely reactive. And even then, they're not very good at solving crime, either. We'd start by investing in things that reduce crime: universal health care (including prenatal care), subsidized childcare, free drug/alcohol treatment for those that want it, and mental heath care workers in EVERY school. And we'd create a new universe of "first responders" that are equipped to solve the issues you mentioned: think social workers, mental health professionals, domestic violence advocates, paramedics, crisis response workers, etc.

People rob banks because they don't bother to apply for Obamacare and because they don't have childcare?
That is rich.
Yeh, send social worker to calm down a violent felon.
Good luck.

Example I like to use is so you send a mental health worker to a non violent domestic situation. What happens if one party becomes violent? You run the possibility of having two potential victims instead of one. You still need a police officer at that point. The violence would have probably been prevented if the police had responded in the first place.

This is my question. So someone calls 911 re: a domestic dispute. Is the 911 dispatcher going to decide in 30 seconds whether a policeman or social worker needs to be dispatched? How in the world is a dispatcher going to make that call? How fast will the social worker get there? Do they have sirens and lights to get through traffic? What happens when the city is sued because the dispatcher didn’t send the police? The problem is, from a liability standpoint, the city has to send a policeman when people think they need one (which is why there are penalties for calling the police for spurious reasons).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To answer PP's question: police aren't very good at preventing things like bank robberies or domestic assaults. They're purely reactive. And even then, they're not very good at solving crime, either. We'd start by investing in things that reduce crime: universal health care (including prenatal care), subsidized childcare, free drug/alcohol treatment for those that want it, and mental heath care workers in EVERY school. And we'd create a new universe of "first responders" that are equipped to solve the issues you mentioned: think social workers, mental health professionals, domestic violence advocates, paramedics, crisis response workers, etc.

People rob banks because they don't bother to apply for Obamacare and because they don't have childcare?
That is rich.
Yeh, send social worker to calm down a violent felon.
Good luck.

Example I like to use is so you send a mental health worker to a non violent domestic situation. What happens if one party becomes violent? You run the possibility of having two potential victims instead of one. You still need a police officer at that point. The violence would have probably been prevented if the police had responded in the first place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes a social worker will stop the rapists and robbers!!

Police are terrible at dealing with rape victims, and solving rapes. Heck, police are often rapists themselves: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertsamaha/this-teenager-accused-two-on-duty-cops-of-rape-she-had-no?utm_source=dynamic&utm_campaign=bffbsoml&ref=bffbsoml&fbclid=IwAR0S_1RgZTeIadOMkG1RiPqLPHcl0VvIsE5oh0nmjNLlDHgDxNmw4lHkK8U

Our current system does not work for rape victims, so threatening women with "what will you do about rapes?" isn't going to work.

You still have not identified any other alternative to protecting women. And saying "police are often rapists themselves" is bs. "Often"? really? show me some statistics and not some anecdote.

Anonymous wrote:Case study here, people.
“So what’s happening in this city, which for many years has been deemed among the dangerous in America? Thomson, who took the helm of the Camden police force in 2008, says the biggest factor may have been the change in structure of the department itself. In 2013, the Camden Police Department was disbanded, reimagined, and born again as the Camden County Police Department, with more officers at lower pay—and a strategic shift toward “community policing.”

That meant focusing on rebuilding trust between the community and their officers.

“For us to make the neighborhood look and feel the way everyone wanted it to, it wasn’t going to be achieved by having a police officer with a helmet and a shotgun standing on a corner,” Thomson said. Now, he wants his officers “to identify more with being in the Peace Corps than being in the Special Forces.”
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/01/what-happened-to-crime-in-camden/549542/

Anonymous wrote:Case study here, people.
“So what’s happening in this city, which for many years has been deemed among the dangerous in America? Thomson, who took the helm of the Camden police force in 2008, says the biggest factor may have been the change in structure of the department itself. In 2013, the Camden Police Department was disbanded, reimagined, and born again as the Camden County Police Department, with more officers at lower pay—and a strategic shift toward “community policing.”

That meant focusing on rebuilding trust between the community and their officers.

“For us to make the neighborhood look and feel the way everyone wanted it to, it wasn’t going to be achieved by having a police officer with a helmet and a shotgun standing on a corner,” Thomson said. Now, he wants his officers “to identify more with being in the Peace Corps than being in the Special Forces.”
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/01/what-happened-to-crime-in-camden/549542/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To answer PP's question: police aren't very good at preventing things like bank robberies or domestic assaults. They're purely reactive. And even then, they're not very good at solving crime, either. We'd start by investing in things that reduce crime: universal health care (including prenatal care), subsidized childcare, free drug/alcohol treatment for those that want it, and mental heath care workers in EVERY school. And we'd create a new universe of "first responders" that are equipped to solve the issues you mentioned: think social workers, mental health professionals, domestic violence advocates, paramedics, crisis response workers, etc.

People rob banks because they don't bother to apply for Obamacare and because they don't have childcare?
That is rich.
Yeh, send social worker to calm down a violent felon.
Good luck.

Example I like to use is so you send a mental health worker to a non violent domestic situation. What happens if one party becomes violent? You run the possibility of having two potential victims instead of one. You still need a police officer at that point. The violence would have probably been prevented if the police had responded in the first place.