OP is correct and the fact of the matter is that progressive DC has hijacked the "woke" movement. Now Allen is overlaying pet projects in wokeness instead of simply shutting up and listening.

Bill Burr summed it up on SNL when he turned his attention to white women (and DC Counsel) who have "hijacked the woke movement." "Generals around the world should be analyzing this," he joked. Explaining that "the woke movement was supposed to be about people of color not getting opportunities that they deserve, their at bats" Burr argued that that all changed in "eight seconds."

"Then somehow, white women swung their Gucci booted feet over the fence of oppression and stuck themselves at the front of the line," he said. "I don't know how they did it. I've never heard so much complaining in my life from white women."

"The nerve of you white women," he added before attempting to "go back in history" to explain his argument. "You guys stood by us toxic white males through centuries of our crimes against humanity. You rolled around in the blood money, and occasionally, when you wanted to sneak off and hook up with a Black dude, if you got caught, you said it wasn’t consensual. Yeah, that’s what you did! .... So, why don’t you shut up, sit down next to me, and take your talking to?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1xgXJ5_Q34

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a MSW, I really question whether most social workers would be willing to go unaccompanied into many of these situations, maybe with a partner, but not alone. Many of the situations that end up with police shootings are people who appear volatile, have a knife in their hand, are high and approach in a threatening way, etc. Definitely they don't deserve to die. I am just not sure that many people in mental health services would want to approach these people alone. It could even create more dangerous situations, as the police feel that they have to protect the unarmed social worker who is in the line of fire. Perhaps police could at least use nonlethal force when called for mental health checks, and not chase and agitate people on welfare checks. Training...

This. The minute there is a shift to "send a social worker", the social workers will refuse and/or one will be killed or seriously injured in short order.
Sure, the police could use more training, but sometimes there just aren't a lot of good options when you have somebody who is armed and high/psychotic.

So you all are thinking that we won't change how police do their business and we won't change how social workers do their business. We'll just send them in the way they are now. Think about that. Why are you assuming that there isn't some other way to organize these services so social workers wouldn't go in alone? Why not have social workers and police working together?

Because cops playing babysitter to a social worker may not be the best use of resources? And because it may create further complications?

I don’t know what planet some of you are on regarding police and mental illness. Previous posters keep repeating “training” as if police in this area are sent out into the world to work with no idea that many people they will deal with professionally are going to be disturbed. I’d say that the police have dealt with more mentally ill people than your average social worker

I am the social worker. I know that police are trained, but shooting to kill someone approaching with a knife, etc. doesn't have to be the default (unless they are close enough to stab you). Cops are trained that when they shoot, they "shoot to kill." Perhaps when doing mental health or drug checks, they can assess whether they are really in mortal danger before using the "lethal" option. I also know of car chases/shootings resulting from suicide welfare checks. Or what about the autistic 13 year old who was shot multiple times in Utah when he became aggressive toward his mom and she called for help? Come on. They may be trained, but the training that is used for a dangerous criminal isn't the same that should be used in these situations. So yes, training.

This would involve re-training, not defunding. Prob more funding. Also, I would argue that for police it introduces more ambiguity and society would have to have some tolerance for human error.

I agree with all your statement. I don't think many of us on this thread are for de-funding.

There was a LOT of defunding talk on the Policing Bills Forum yesterday. Councilman Allen hosted it and there were many speakers who would just assume do away with MPD. Interestingly the defund camp had zero alternatives except that the problem would "go away".

The other thing I noticed was that 99% of the other commenters were from George Washington Law School which seems to operate a DC Justice Department which had dozens if not more ideas for removing rights for the police department or having social workers replace police officers.

The ideal all "sounded" great, though I am not sure any of them have been taken beyond paper at this point and put through a real though test.

I have lived in this city forever and I am pretty annoyed that we have come to think of ourselves as a 'progressive' experimental city. Maybe it comes from not being a real city but it is annoying. I think that there is lots of room for looking for efficiencies and logical evolutionary points within the MPD and heck the rest of the city government, I simply think that "defund" is dangerous talk by people who at their core do not have the city's best interests at heart.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a MSW, I really question whether most social workers would be willing to go unaccompanied into many of these situations, maybe with a partner, but not alone. Many of the situations that end up with police shootings are people who appear volatile, have a knife in their hand, are high and approach in a threatening way, etc. Definitely they don't deserve to die. I am just not sure that many people in mental health services would want to approach these people alone. It could even create more dangerous situations, as the police feel that they have to protect the unarmed social worker who is in the line of fire. Perhaps police could at least use nonlethal force when called for mental health checks, and not chase and agitate people on welfare checks. Training...

This. The minute there is a shift to "send a social worker", the social workers will refuse and/or one will be killed or seriously injured in short order.
Sure, the police could use more training, but sometimes there just aren't a lot of good options when you have somebody who is armed and high/psychotic.

So you all are thinking that we won't change how police do their business and we won't change how social workers do their business. We'll just send them in the way they are now. Think about that. Why are you assuming that there isn't some other way to organize these services so social workers wouldn't go in alone? Why not have social workers and police working together?

Because cops playing babysitter to a social worker may not be the best use of resources? And because it may create further complications?

I don’t know what planet some of you are on regarding police and mental illness. Previous posters keep repeating “training” as if police in this area are sent out into the world to work with no idea that many people they will deal with professionally are going to be disturbed. I’d say that the police have dealt with more mentally ill people than your average social worker

I am the social worker. I know that police are trained, but shooting to kill someone approaching with a knife, etc. doesn't have to be the default (unless they are close enough to stab you). Cops are trained that when they shoot, they "shoot to kill." Perhaps when doing mental health or drug checks, they can assess whether they are really in mortal danger before using the "lethal" option. I also know of car chases/shootings resulting from suicide welfare checks. Or what about the autistic 13 year old who was shot multiple times in Utah when he became aggressive toward his mom and she called for help? Come on. They may be trained, but the training that is used for a dangerous criminal isn't the same that should be used in these situations. So yes, training.

This would involve re-training, not defunding. Prob more funding. Also, I would argue that for police it introduces more ambiguity and society would have to have some tolerance for human error.

I agree with all your statement. I don't think many of us on this thread are for de-funding.

I have been listening to The DC City Council hearing on B23-0882 "Policing Bills"

It is very "pie in the sky" and simply seeks to reallocate funds right now for many experiments. Everybody is well meaning but the ideas are drawn up in a vacuum and not even bounced again any sort of white boarded "what are the potential outcomes" type of activity.

I just wanted to throw this slide into the discussion with some data from the DC Justice Lab.



Interestingly a great deal of the solution actually seem to be putting more responsibility on the 911 operators to make decisions about which resources they will send to a call. I find this interesting as we have a hard enough time in this city simply determining which jurisdictional force we will send to a response. It was only a few weeks ago we had multiple drownings in a week because 911 operators sent EMS to the wrong addresses.

The LEAPS program everybody is pitching wants two man/woman counselor teams responding to all non violent 911 calls.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a MSW, I really question whether most social workers would be willing to go unaccompanied into many of these situations, maybe with a partner, but not alone. Many of the situations that end up with police shootings are people who appear volatile, have a knife in their hand, are high and approach in a threatening way, etc. Definitely they don't deserve to die. I am just not sure that many people in mental health services would want to approach these people alone. It could even create more dangerous situations, as the police feel that they have to protect the unarmed social worker who is in the line of fire. Perhaps police could at least use nonlethal force when called for mental health checks, and not chase and agitate people on welfare checks. Training...

This. The minute there is a shift to "send a social worker", the social workers will refuse and/or one will be killed or seriously injured in short order.
Sure, the police could use more training, but sometimes there just aren't a lot of good options when you have somebody who is armed and high/psychotic.

So you all are thinking that we won't change how police do their business and we won't change how social workers do their business. We'll just send them in the way they are now. Think about that. Why are you assuming that there isn't some other way to organize these services so social workers wouldn't go in alone? Why not have social workers and police working together?

Because cops playing babysitter to a social worker may not be the best use of resources? And because it may create further complications?

I don’t know what planet some of you are on regarding police and mental illness. Previous posters keep repeating “training” as if police in this area are sent out into the world to work with no idea that many people they will deal with professionally are going to be disturbed. I’d say that the police have dealt with more mentally ill people than your average social worker

I am the social worker. I know that police are trained, but shooting to kill someone approaching with a knife, etc. doesn't have to be the default (unless they are close enough to stab you). Cops are trained that when they shoot, they "shoot to kill." Perhaps when doing mental health or drug checks, they can assess whether they are really in mortal danger before using the "lethal" option. I also know of car chases/shootings resulting from suicide welfare checks. Or what about the autistic 13 year old who was shot multiple times in Utah when he became aggressive toward his mom and she called for help? Come on. They may be trained, but the training that is used for a dangerous criminal isn't the same that should be used in these situations. So yes, training.

This would involve re-training, not defunding. Prob more funding. Also, I would argue that for police it introduces more ambiguity and society would have to have some tolerance for human error.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a MSW, I really question whether most social workers would be willing to go unaccompanied into many of these situations, maybe with a partner, but not alone. Many of the situations that end up with police shootings are people who appear volatile, have a knife in their hand, are high and approach in a threatening way, etc. Definitely they don't deserve to die. I am just not sure that many people in mental health services would want to approach these people alone. It could even create more dangerous situations, as the police feel that they have to protect the unarmed social worker who is in the line of fire. Perhaps police could at least use nonlethal force when called for mental health checks, and not chase and agitate people on welfare checks. Training...

This. The minute there is a shift to "send a social worker", the social workers will refuse and/or one will be killed or seriously injured in short order.
Sure, the police could use more training, but sometimes there just aren't a lot of good options when you have somebody who is armed and high/psychotic.

So you all are thinking that we won't change how police do their business and we won't change how social workers do their business. We'll just send them in the way they are now. Think about that. Why are you assuming that there isn't some other way to organize these services so social workers wouldn't go in alone? Why not have social workers and police working together?

Because cops playing babysitter to a social worker may not be the best use of resources? And because it may create further complications?

I don’t know what planet some of you are on regarding police and mental illness. Previous posters keep repeating “training” as if police in this area are sent out into the world to work with no idea that many people they will deal with professionally are going to be disturbed. I’d say that the police have dealt with more mentally ill people than your average social worker

I am the social worker. I know that police are trained, but shooting to kill someone approaching with a knife, etc. doesn't have to be the default (unless they are close enough to stab you). Cops are trained that when they shoot, they "shoot to kill." Perhaps when doing mental health or drug checks, they can assess whether they are really in mortal danger before using the "lethal" option. I also know of car chases/shootings resulting from suicide welfare checks. Or what about the autistic 13 year old who was shot multiple times in Utah when he became aggressive toward his mom and she called for help? Come on. They may be trained, but the training that is used for a dangerous criminal isn't the same that should be used in these situations. So yes, training.

PP has a point, but I would love to know the statistics. We all read about the shooting of a 13 yo autistic boy, it is awful, but I bet that police make thousands of successful interventions a month just in a city like DC. I bet that if we were to look at the data, police involved shootings would be a tiny fraction of the total calls that police respond to. How do we make that admittedly small fraction even smaller is the challenge. Interestingly, people keep on bringing up "non lethal" (in a job I once had we were not allowed to use that term. We had to use "less than lethal" and the user had to know that a lethal outcome was possible, just less likely), Maybe the answer is more less than lethal equipment made available to police, but that is EXACTLY what Grosso and his cronies are attempting to eliminate.

At the end of the day, the police are doing a time calculation from the moment they get the call. How can I mitigate this potentially dangerous situation? Do I have the time to simply allow limitless resources to arrive or does this situation pose a threat to others. I think that the default answer needs to be that if there is time, the city will spend the money to put all of its resources into solving a situation. However, if anybody is in danger, the police officer will have to be supported when he makes the call to use a sidearm to protect other lives.

Is this potentially less efficient? Absolutely, but maybe that is the cost of doing business. Maybe instead of conducting a dozen no knock warrants in an evening, we have to do them one at a time with dozens of officers and support staff involved in every step from intelligence to apprehension. They might have to simply contain a target until they leave for work or whatever, but if there is no threat and you just want to prevent the guns or drugs from leaving, you might have to wait.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a MSW, I really question whether most social workers would be willing to go unaccompanied into many of these situations, maybe with a partner, but not alone. Many of the situations that end up with police shootings are people who appear volatile, have a knife in their hand, are high and approach in a threatening way, etc. Definitely they don't deserve to die. I am just not sure that many people in mental health services would want to approach these people alone. It could even create more dangerous situations, as the police feel that they have to protect the unarmed social worker who is in the line of fire. Perhaps police could at least use nonlethal force when called for mental health checks, and not chase and agitate people on welfare checks. Training...

This. The minute there is a shift to "send a social worker", the social workers will refuse and/or one will be killed or seriously injured in short order.
Sure, the police could use more training, but sometimes there just aren't a lot of good options when you have somebody who is armed and high/psychotic.

So you all are thinking that we won't change how police do their business and we won't change how social workers do their business. We'll just send them in the way they are now. Think about that. Why are you assuming that there isn't some other way to organize these services so social workers wouldn't go in alone? Why not have social workers and police working together?

Because cops playing babysitter to a social worker may not be the best use of resources? And because it may create further complications?

I don’t know what planet some of you are on regarding police and mental illness. Previous posters keep repeating “training” as if police in this area are sent out into the world to work with no idea that many people they will deal with professionally are going to be disturbed. I’d say that the police have dealt with more mentally ill people than your average social worker

I am the social worker. I know that police are trained, but shooting to kill someone approaching with a knife, etc. doesn't have to be the default (unless they are close enough to stab you). Cops are trained that when they shoot, they "shoot to kill." Perhaps when doing mental health or drug checks, they can assess whether they are really in mortal danger before using the "lethal" option. I also know of car chases/shootings resulting from suicide welfare checks. Or what about the autistic 13 year old who was shot multiple times in Utah when he became aggressive toward his mom and she called for help? Come on. They may be trained, but the training that is used for a dangerous criminal isn't the same that should be used in these situations. So yes, training.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a MSW, I really question whether most social workers would be willing to go unaccompanied into many of these situations, maybe with a partner, but not alone. Many of the situations that end up with police shootings are people who appear volatile, have a knife in their hand, are high and approach in a threatening way, etc. Definitely they don't deserve to die. I am just not sure that many people in mental health services would want to approach these people alone. It could even create more dangerous situations, as the police feel that they have to protect the unarmed social worker who is in the line of fire. Perhaps police could at least use nonlethal force when called for mental health checks, and not chase and agitate people on welfare checks. Training...

This. The minute there is a shift to "send a social worker", the social workers will refuse and/or one will be killed or seriously injured in short order.
Sure, the police could use more training, but sometimes there just aren't a lot of good options when you have somebody who is armed and high/psychotic.

So you all are thinking that we won't change how police do their business and we won't change how social workers do their business. We'll just send them in the way they are now. Think about that. Why are you assuming that there isn't some other way to organize these services so social workers wouldn't go in alone? Why not have social workers and police working together?

Did you read the posts? We are trying to think through the advantages and disadvantages of the idea, which is actually how problems are solved...not with bricks and spray paint.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a MSW, I really question whether most social workers would be willing to go unaccompanied into many of these situations, maybe with a partner, but not alone. Many of the situations that end up with police shootings are people who appear volatile, have a knife in their hand, are high and approach in a threatening way, etc. Definitely they don't deserve to die. I am just not sure that many people in mental health services would want to approach these people alone. It could even create more dangerous situations, as the police feel that they have to protect the unarmed social worker who is in the line of fire. Perhaps police could at least use nonlethal force when called for mental health checks, and not chase and agitate people on welfare checks. Training...

This. The minute there is a shift to "send a social worker", the social workers will refuse and/or one will be killed or seriously injured in short order.
Sure, the police could use more training, but sometimes there just aren't a lot of good options when you have somebody who is armed and high/psychotic.

So you all are thinking that we won't change how police do their business and we won't change how social workers do their business. We'll just send them in the way they are now. Think about that. Why are you assuming that there isn't some other way to organize these services so social workers wouldn't go in alone? Why not have social workers and police working together?

Because cops playing babysitter to a social worker may not be the best use of resources? And because it may create further complications?

I don’t know what planet some of you are on regarding police and mental illness. Previous posters keep repeating “training” as if police in this area are sent out into the world to work with no idea that many people they will deal with professionally are going to be disturbed. I’d say that the police have dealt with more mentally ill people than your average social worker

Anonymous wrote:Getting more police doing the same old thing isn't going to solve these problems. More social services, more emergency workers who can address social problems - that's what we need. Yesterday I saw a young man very high and very loud who I have seen maybe two times before in the same condition. He got into an argument with a woman who told him to put his clothes back on. I'm not calling the police on him but I'd like to be able to call someone. And why would the police want to deal with this guy anyway? They should be focusing on crime, not on crazy youngsters who are getting high in public.

Also there have been maybe 20 murders in my neighborhood in the last 20 years. Do you really think bringing more police is going to stop that? The police are already here! They respond quickly after every shooting. OP, they are not able to stop the shootings. What we need are more violence interrupters, more social services, more things that provide a future for people who right now think they have no future and nothing to lose by using guns to solve disputes.

I understand why you feel the way you do, OP. But you need to ask yourself why what we've been doing for years hasn't worked.

In this city for the incident that you are describing the CITY wants you to dial 911. If you can articulate clearly that there is ZERO hazard to the persons self or other, the operator will call Behavioral Services. However, if they cannot determine that there is ZERO danger, they will call MPD to make first contact. MPD will then call behavioral services if they believe the person needs an evaluation. Behavioral Services may have the MPD transport them as their vehicles are not equipped to handle the ramifications of a person coming down off of their high.

Behavioral Services Access HelpLine: 1(888)7WE-HELP or 1-888-793-4357

Now to your next point, I would go as far as to say that more Police has in fact reduced the crime rate in the city. Is it zero, no but it is significantly lower than it was when the city had far fewer police. Is zero crime an attainable goal? Maybe not. But there must be rate lower than what we have now that we can find some middle ground on. How about simply solving the open case which we have and if we cannot solve them, ask ourselves what we are missing. Do we need ShotSpotter deployed on areas outside of the city core? Do we need Police Kiosks? Do we need to figure out how to put a behavioral services rep in every fifth patrol car? Every tenth? Maybe just for a year as a sort of 'rolling education'. I do know that defunding the police accomplishes nothing positive except making a handful of woke people feel good about themselves as the rest of the city implodes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a MSW, I really question whether most social workers would be willing to go unaccompanied into many of these situations, maybe with a partner, but not alone. Many of the situations that end up with police shootings are people who appear volatile, have a knife in their hand, are high and approach in a threatening way, etc. Definitely they don't deserve to die. I am just not sure that many people in mental health services would want to approach these people alone. It could even create more dangerous situations, as the police feel that they have to protect the unarmed social worker who is in the line of fire. Perhaps police could at least use nonlethal force when called for mental health checks, and not chase and agitate people on welfare checks. Training...

This. The minute there is a shift to "send a social worker", the social workers will refuse and/or one will be killed or seriously injured in short order.
Sure, the police could use more training, but sometimes there just aren't a lot of good options when you have somebody who is armed and high/psychotic.

So you all are thinking that we won't change how police do their business and we won't change how social workers do their business. We'll just send them in the way they are now. Think about that. Why are you assuming that there isn't some other way to organize these services so social workers wouldn't go in alone? Why not have social workers and police working together?