The Derek Chauvin Trial

You're on the internet right now Skippy. The INT-ER-NET, do you know what that is? On what's called a "website". It might be difficult for you to find Antiques Roadshow here, but if you sit on the davenport, maybe you can find it on PBS.

I posed this question as an example of how the political extremes (either the left or the right) avoid the consequences of their position.

They are chanting "Say her name.... Ma'Khia Bryant". Ma'Khia was shot by a police officer while she was in the act of stabbing another girl. Do you know who's name they aren't chanting? The girl who was the real victim... the unarmed girl who was about to be stabbed.

If the police officer hadn't taken the shot, and the victim had died. This would have been another African American murder victim. No one would have marched for her. She wouldn't have been mentioned outside of Columbus. She may not have even made the front page. Because, murder victims don't matter unless they fit the political narrative.

You can, of course, pretend that stabbings aren't deadly. Of course she might not have died, but then the girl doing the stabbing might not have died from the gunshot (knife wounds are plenty deadly).

The point is that the simplistic political rhetoric doesn't work in reality. In reality sometimes you need to shoot someone who is attacking someone else with a deadly weapon. Sometimes you don't know which will lead to death, or which of these girls is "sweet and promising and oh so nice".

The facts don't matter to the political extremes. In this case the police officer had to make a split second decision to take a shot at an attacker to try to save an unarmed victim.

It is so simple to turn this into a story of cops "murdering unarmed people for petty crimes". That is a simple narrative that doesn't require any thought. There are no hard choices to make. There is no recognition that sometimes deadly force is needed to save innocent lives.

Reality is much more complex than the political extremes allow.

Several years back here in Australia, for whatever reasons, Paramedics were getting assaulted by their patients more and more often - leading to them implementing a policy of being escorted by police to any job where the patient had a history of violence. Same with hospital staff - until they employed more security officers.

I agree that all mental health calls ideally should be handled by mental health staff. But implementing it, and presuming police only get called when there is a mental health crisis (otherwise they would just go to their doctor or hospital), would run into multiple issues that I can see:

- crisiis happen at all times of the day and night, at all locations (and mental health services tend to be day time, and centralised)
- which would require more buildings to decentralise service centres / offices, so that they are in better position to respond to crisiis
- which would require shift work to cover night time events, therefore requiring many more staff
- would require a bigger vehicle fleet (for each of the new decentralised offices, and also because as the police / paramedics are no longer bringing the people in crisiis to them, but rather under this model, the mental health staff are going out in place of the police / paramedics)
- the fleet would require lights & sirens (mental health crisiis can involve imminently suicidal persons, or violently psychotic persons), which would require law changes allowing them to exceed the speed limit etc
- which would require driver training to enable safe excess of speed, and training in the law & policy where they can and can't exceed the speed limit (and therefore more staff to cover the training)
- would require the mental health staff to carry restraints and maybe tasers (for the phsycotic, violent delusional, violent paranoid patients)
- meaning they would require extra training in the use of those restraints / tasers etc (meaning more staff to cover the training days)
- body worn cameras as they are using form to detain people, and complaints can be made, and accountability requires evidence
- storage for same
- a bigger complaints department to investigate complaints

There's probably other issues I missed. In an ideal world mental health staff would be the ones to attend mental health issues. But I can only think of police departments being equipped to meet the above criteria - though perhaps theres a similarly equipped ambulance/paramedic/firefighter department out there.

It's a good idea - I just don't see how it would work in practicality.

To be clear, I don't mind implementing logical steps that are supported by the political left.

Having mental health professionals, rather than police, respond to a mental health crisis seems like a perfectly good idea. I imagine that in some circumstances, when the person in crisis is armed or has a history of vioence, that any mental health professional will want an armed policeman with them. I have a friend who is a social worker... at times she brings the police with her when she feels at risk with a dangerous client.

I am pretty sure that having an armed policeman present in domestic violence cases is a good idea, at least under some circumstances. I wonder if Edgar and Snood can conceded at least this one. If a violent domestic offender (particularly won with a felony assault warrant) poses an immediate risk to his wife and children, you want an armed response.

It is reality, sometimes there are difficult life or death decisions to be made. And the people who are supposed to make these decisions are human beings.

Training is good. Clear rules of engagement is good. Accountability is good. But you should also recognize that armed police are important, and when you need them you want to be sure they are there.

I would like to see police that are trained and professional. I would also hope that they are confident and supported when they do their duties to the best of their ability.

I agree totally. When I wrote earlier of cops doing their job, I meant in a newly formatted institution, with mostly different cops.

I have no issue if a community is prepared to pay for it - what I was pointing out was just how much extra money it would cost. It is a very significant amount.

And while the 'just throw money at it' concept is fine - moving a significant amount of funding into mental health, requires that you take a significant amount of funding away from something else. Usually my question is 'what would you take the money away from, in order to fund this?'...ie. I don't see any point to solving a problem without identifying if 'the solution' will cause other problems. Do you take it from other areas within the Health Budget? From the education budget? The public works (which more often than not support the economy, which allows extra tax revenue to flow into government coffers) etc? Which one?

The question can't not be asked, because there are so many interest groups saying the same thing for so many different areas - "X must be better funded"...So where does the funding coming from? Who gets priority? Who loses funding?

By the way, one of my answers would be:
-- stop trying to solve every little problem (this disempowers & deskills people by stopping them from problem solving, which over time contributes to growing anxiety, and a growing sense of entitlement that the government should solve their problems)
- provide people with help only if they have first tried to help themselves but failed
- provide help only to people who are prepared to be actively involved in providing help for people who don't want help.
- ensure the help is there when people need it (need, rather than want)

That would actually cut a lot of departments budgets. It is of course just one concept, but it goes across multiple departments. It might be enough to fund a mental health system restructure.

Have to agree there. The amount of killings you have over there that seem completely unecessary is both astonishing and ugly. I'm not sure about the bashings - they don't make it to the news over here.

I was curious though about how endemic such things are - and found that 3/4 of your police never fire their gun in their career (which sounds good, except I reckon it would be closer to 98-99% here. Here, police shootings are rare, and have always involved weapons being used as far as I know). While it differs from Australia, it still means the substantial majority of your police never see a reason to discharge their firearms during their entire career.

No idea - but I think perhaps you don't quite comprehend just how significant an amount you are asking for, to achieve what you want to achieve. That is - to achieve what you would want to achieve would require:
- almost as many mental health offices as there are police stations (remember, police tend to respond to mental health crisiis. If you dilute the mental health offices, you dilute the response time)
- probably around 5-6 times the amount of staff than currently exist in the mental health system. Most shift work businesses require 4-5 times the amount of staff than a 9-5 job, to put the same amount of people on a shift (8 hours goes 3 times into a 24hour shift, but then there is also days off, sickness, holidays, training etc). On top of the shift workers, are the additional admin staff for so many buildings, additional pay and HR staff for the additional shiftworkers)
- and that is before we get to the other things in my list.

You are actually talking about a massive amount of money. And I daresay I left a lot of things out.

If I had to guess, to achieve what you want from a police budget, would require a long term 40-60% decrease in long term police funding, but an immediate -200% decrease (buildings, all by themselves, aren't cheap)

I take that back...you would have to close policing down

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-04/america-s-policing-budget-has-nearly-tripled-to-115-billion
Over the past four decades, the cost of policing in the U.S. has almost tripled, from $42.3 billion in 1977 to $114.5 billion in 2017

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/2019-us-mental-health-spending-topped-225-billion-with-per-capita-spending-ranging-from-37-in-florida-to-375-in-maine--open-minds-releases-new-analysis-301058381.html
2019 U.S. Mental Health Spending Topped $225 Billion,

Need a little US history here:

In the final reign of Reagan and the Bush 1 reigns, the federally supported mental institutions were shut down. I know that my state followed along and shut down their part also. They closed down the institutions and turned people out on to the streets. One of the greatest funding of Fed/State supported institutions were the criminally insane. The inmates criminally committed were sent to prisons and the ones who had completed their sentences were.turn out on to the streets.

The job of sending emergency care/attention to all possible "crazy" person events was given over not only to hospital attendants ("crazy" situations are given over to special ambulance attendants who know how to handle "crazy" people); but, to police also. Police do not go to scenes as secondary attendants, they command. They will treat a scene different than a mental medical attendant.

For instance Chauvin refused to let medical attendants into the scene while he was killing Floyd.

Oh, and by the way, back in the early 90's, monies that communities received for emergency actions for medical situations involving the "insane" went to the police. They got the money then, turn the money back over and control of the scene to medical personnel NOW!

I am very familiar with this because my city was the location of the major Fed/State Mental Institution. When they turned the "residents" out onto the street, if you didn't have someone come and pick you up; and, you were vertical and mobile - you were taken to the front gate and freed!

Leftism is a form of mental illness.

What I don't understand is, why is policing still an issue?

It's been 100 days of Biden now. I was informed for 4 years straight that once Trump was out of office, that racism would be cured and that we'd all be living in a utopia.

You are very right that where there is a will there is a way.

As I mentioned previously - I see no issue if a community wants to pay for it. The only question I continue to have is where the funding will come from (ie. again, who will you take the funding away from).

You offered that the funding for the extended mental health capabilities should be taken away from the police budget...but haven't commented on the funding issues I pointed out, which appear to show that your idea won't work (just taking it out of the police budget). Presumably then, you realise your claim that it was easy to do, it isn't actually workable...yet you haven't offered an alternative where the funding comes from.

Many interest groups say the same thing. X should be done! But few offer the how of implementation, nor who is going to lose in the budget in order to fund their cause. How to Problem Solve isn't a mystery, yet these interest groups tend to act like it is a mystery, wanting some mysterious someone else to 'just work it out'. But again - problem solving is not a mystery.

If you are going to say 'do this', then offer how.