The Derek Chauvin Trial

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

This from Shaun King on Facebook:
After 6 months of pilot testing here in NYC, the city just announced that ALL mental health calls in New York are being removed from the NYPD altogether. ⁣
⁣
It will take some time to implement this, but last year over 154,000 mental health calls went to the NYPD. ⁣
⁣
That’s 421 calls a day that won’t be going to the NYPD anymore. ⁣
⁣
That’s less brutality. ⁣
That’s thousands fewer arrests for people who actually need treatment. ⁣
⁣
Now, that funding and staffing should no longer be needed by the NYPD. ⁣
⁣
Move the funding they would’ve had for this over to social services. ⁣
⁣
This is all we mean when we say Defund the Police. ⁣

My city has just moved $1,000,000 from the police budget to mental health. Yes Edgar, this is what we mean! We.are a relatively small city (around 100,000), I still hope it is just a start!

2 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

I hear what all of you are saying about the unlikelihood of her appeal succeeding.

I guess as far as the justice system goes, until further notice, call me cynical, jaded snood.

The ONLY place 'Shoot First, Ask Questions Later" orders are in force is in a declared armed combat zone, on the frontline, in areas in front of the lead unit, lead soldier! I would have to question the police officer for.this action, period. And, they should be found guilty!

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

I read the judges on the appeal board were extremely skeptical of her appeal and very complimentary of the prosecutors who were fighting against it.

Even if her appeal fails she’s eligible for parole in 2024 - 3 stinking years.

0 Replies

@BillW,

Hopefully it works. I'm sure police officers will appreciate the decision as well.

0 Replies

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

This from Shaun King on Facebook:
After 6 months of pilot testing here in NYC, the city just announced that ALL mental health calls in New York are being removed from the NYPD altogether. ⁣
It will take some time to implement this, but last year over 154,000 mental health calls went to the NYPD. ⁣
That’s 421 calls a day that won’t be going to the NYPD anymore. ⁣
That’s less brutality. ⁣
That’s thousands fewer arrests for people who actually need treatment. ⁣
Now, that funding and staffing should no longer be needed by the NYPD. ⁣
Move the funding they would’ve had for this over to social services. ⁣
This is all we mean when we say Defund the Police. ⁣

My city has just moved $1,000,000 from the police budget to mental health. Yes Edgar, this is what we mean! We.are a relatively small city (around 100,000), I still hope it is just a start!

Read here to find out exactly "Defending Police" works! Note, I dislike that term and this articles explains why it works by saving police from doing what their not trained to do and using personnel that prevent escalation of problems.

https://www.oudaily.com/news/experts-deconstruct-defund-the-police-amid-normans-reallocation-of-npd-funds-to-mental-health-services/article_bbdea10c-c600-11ea-814f-7380601fb3a7.html

1 Reply

@BillW,

One city at a time could take a really long time. It needs to be universal.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Takes a strike to light a match - now I want this to become a wild fire! I have my fingers crossed Edgar.

0 Replies

I'm not sure exactly where the Facebook poster is getting his information about there having been a 6 month trial, and the results being implemented city wide:

https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/773-20/new-york-city-new-mental-health-teams-respond-mental-health-crises

Quote:

November 10, 2020

For the first time in the city’s history, mental health and medical experts will be the default response to 911 mental health calls in two high-need communities

Beginning in February 2021, new Mental Health Teams will use their physical and mental health expertise, and experience in crisis response to de-escalate emergency situations, will help reduce the number of times police will need to respond to 911 mental health calls in these precincts.

While again, I think it is a good idea - call me cynical in that they will have chosen 2 neighbourhoods that already have a large mental health facilities in them...cynical because everything runs on finances...meaning the issues I previously mentioned would still exist for anywhere there isn't a large mental health facility nearby.

Still, one can hope something positive will come out of it, and they re-imagine how these things should work.

I wonder how they will handle drug induced psychosis or paranoid schizophrenics off their meds (for both cases, I'm talking the violent or volatile kind)

1 Reply

@vikorr,

1. I think these teams are a good idea.

2. I think the political left is being rather naive. I have a friend who is a social worker. When she has to do a family visit in a volatile situation (often relating to domestic violence) she will request that an armed police officer accompany her.

This is because mental health workers shouldn't have to put themselves at risk.

I think the key word here is "teams", and I am sure these teams will include armed police officers. My intuition says that the mental health workers should have the final say on whether an armed response is necessary.

In reality, sometimes people with mental health issues are dangerous. If these politically motivated policy changes work. Then I support them. But if they lead to more people being killed (be it mental health workers, or estranged spouses or innocent bystanders) then they aren't a good idea.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I think the key word here is "teams", and I am sure these teams will include armed police officers.

They do say that it will lighten the workload on police, so maybe they will have a database of volatile people, or have access to the police database of violent people, for cross referencing purposes (that would carry it's own issues) - and call police only for known volatile patients.

Quote:

My intuition says that the mental health workers should have the final say on whether an armed response is necessary.

If you mean if police get called out as well - that makes sense.

But if you mean whether or not police at the incident should use their arms -I don't know how that would work:
- I can't see a police officer going 'Doc, should I taser him?'. If the Doc hesitates, the Doc then becomes the bad guy in the patients eyes, which would cause things to escalate. If the Doc has to say, without being asked 'Taser him'...you hamstring safety responses when the Doc freezes (some will), or is indecisive, or just plain doesn't recognise a threat to their safety.
- Firearm responses should only be for imminent threat to life. The time taken to talk (even to say 'shoot him', and then for the officer to recognise and react) could cost a life
On the good side, people won't get tasered for mere non-compliance, which seems to happen a bit over there.

Quote:

But if they lead to more people being killed (be it mental health workers, or estranged spouses or innocent bystanders) then they aren't a good idea.

That's the question, isn't it. While it seems like a good idea, how it plays out in practice still needs to be seen.

I wonder if the staff they are using are only the medical professionals...and not their security staff that would normally deal with anything volatile (while the medical professional talks). Ie. if they have ever personally dealt with the full range (the talking + the physical threat side) of a mental health patient who's volatile. And it would be a less controlled environment than the one they are used to operating in....I guess that is why trials are a good thing.

1 Reply

Quoting Nina Turner
Why is the consensus in Washington to only ask “how are we going to pay for it” when it comes to investments in people?

The same question is never asked when it comes to subsidizing corporations and funding wars.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

I think it's because the world is just a giant Monopoly board game. Everything--properties, railroads, utilities--has all been bought up long, long ago. The rest of the human population are left to roll the dice and hope they don’t land on someone’s property and then have to pay rent to them. But the sad fact is that the masters of the game--the owners of it all; the one percent that holds half of the worlds money--have set it up in such a way that paying rent is unavoidable. Even if you buy a house, first you’re lent the money, which you will pay back, PLUS give the lender one and a half to two houses for the service of lending you what you needed to buy one. Add to that the yearly taxes and insurance you have to pay, and you’re basically paying rent anyway. But I digress.

In the great Monopoly game called the world, those who own the properties, the railroads, and the utilities eventually came to the place where they couldn’t stand the static nature of the game. They have everything they could ever want in a hundred lifetimes, but it’s not enough because they have psychological problems. So then fulfillment became a matter of making wars and taking what the other owners have. They’re like extremely developed infants; think “terrible twos.” And the rest is history . . . and the present.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Quoting Nina Turner
Why is the consensus in Washington to only ask “how are we going to pay for it” when it comes to investments in people?

The same question is never asked when it comes to subsidizing corporations and funding wars.

Factually,

We do ask how we are going to pay for it and how we are going to fund wars. I don't really get your point here.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Forgive me, Maxdancona, but that is complete bull crap.

After 9/11 and we knew who attacked and the Taliban was refusing to hand over Bin Laden, who do you remember asking, how are we going to fund the operation to go into Afghanistan? All of our allies were behind us, none of them asked how we are going to fund that war. It is only when the wars started to turn unending and all the war abuses caused by our own country and the lies which led to Iraq began people started to ask how are we going to fund the wars. You tend to want to be contrary no matter the subject just for the sake of representing a contrary view.

0 Replies

I was the reading the account of one of the Chauvin juror's. The last sentence I found to be so compelling simple to sum up the whole BLM in a way not to cause any defensiveness, or shouldn't anyway. (not that it should anyway, but...)

Quote:

“I just want to see police be more compassionate when it comes to Black men, instead of moving with such aggression,” he said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/29/us/chauvin-jury-brandon-mitchell.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage&section=US%20News

1 Reply

https://whyy.org/articles/four-philly-men-arrested-for-making-and-selling-untraceable-ghost-guns/

0 Replies

@revelette3,

While I agree with the sentiment - I hope it is not the foundation for an appeal for a mistrial. The juror expressed that he already held a negative view about how police in general behaved. It may be argued that his negative overall view prejudiced his interpretation of the evidence, preventing a fair trial. I hope not (as he also described the evidence as overwhelming), but it is concerning.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

No juror is going to be completely unbiased, whether s/ he had seen news reports, had a personal experience, had a family who experienced something similar. It's impossible to ask.

And if those are the grounds for a mistrial, it's ridiculous. Any thinking, cognitive person (or not) would have a bias. And aren't these biases supposed to be discovered during the jury choosing? What a lot of time and money wasted. Not to mention energy and emotion.

2 Replies

@Mame,

Make, to take your comments one step further, the intent of voir dire is not to expose possible any bias but to insure a bias does not rule at the cost of truth!

2 Replies

@BillW,

I sure hope so.

0 Replies

The Derek Chauvin Trial

Quick Links

My Account

able2know