I think you’re right but for the wrong reasons - I think it would be an absolute net positive effect but I still think the lines should be drawn between policing and social work and healthcare issues. Fair warning, I’m from the UK which has it’s own issues with policing but nothing on the clusterfuck scale as it is across the pond.
Sending police officers (and ambulance staff, maybe even coastguard - in the civilian sense, not the American branch of the military) to do two or four weeks of social work attachment would work wonders. It would provide a great insight into the difficulties and behaviours of those in social or mental crisis, and give more soft tools to recognise and resolve issues.
That said, it shouldnt be policing agencies going to social work or mental health calls in the first place. People in crisis are often acting irrationally or unpredictably due to the very nature of the crisis they’re experiencing, and when a lethal weapon is an optional available to the responders, then you’ll have a less than spectacular outcome on occasions.
Ideally, additional funding should be centered around social work and mental health teams - perhaps having first responders for both so you don’t have cops wading in with the best of intentions, and confronting something they aren’t the best people to be dealing with - where a mental health ambulance or a social work rapid response team would bring a welfare call to a far safer conclusion.
I absolutely get that my view is very UK-skewed but if you keep putting armed cops into situations like that - then the public will get hurt, cops will get hurt, the taxpayer coughs up a fortune in legal costs … all of which could fund better ways to respond to the homeless, the stressed, the neurodiverse, and other non-criminal issues that people phone in with good intentions.
Here in Portland, Oregon the city has a relatively new agency called Portland Street Response, tasked with responding to non-emergency calls located in public places. They have social work and related training, show up with a big van full of supplies, are unarmed, and trained in de-escalation. Sometimes if the call holds the possibility of escalating, they will show up with an armed police officer who’s job is to be on the periphery if needed. The program has been wildly successful and popular, is expending, and it’s largest most vocal opposition is… The Portland Police Bureau.
That all sounds awesome aside from the last sentence - I’m keen to know the rationale for their opposition.
I can only imagine that there’s a concern that the Portland Street Response may be putting themselves at undue risk with the most volatile of clients… but even I can feel my back twitch from the amount of reaching I’m doing there!
Well if there’s a weapon involved - Unstable person waving around a knife in public for instance, which is fairly common - It’s automatically an emergency and PSR isn’t involved (Which ironically means it has a much lower response rate, as the cops here are bad at showing up in time for emergency calls). I think the police are opposed to it because 1) It’s money that might otherwise go to PPB, who already get millions of dollars in budget expansion every year and more importantly 2) It puts the lie to the myth that you need an intimidating security force with weapons to respond to all incidents when e.g. an unarmed 40 year old woman can diffuse a seemingly violent individual possibly in psychosis by offering them a peanut butter sandwich, asking them when the last time they napped was, and sitting down with them on a bench to talk about their feelings and issues for a half hour.
