(October 1, 2021 at 6:47 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(October 1, 2021 at 6:30 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Your solution SOUNDS good....
But......
In the real world?
Cops will tell you - rightly so - that the most dangerous calls they have been on SEEMED like not much at all till things went sideways in a big way in a big hurry.
You are putting a SHITLOAD of pressure on dispatchers - who frequently have an incomplete, unclear view of the situation. This isn' t TV with a script you get to follow.
What WILL happen is your social workers will get sent into what turns out to be a rather lopsided firefight.
Keep in mind - with budget restraints being what they are - when you take on MORE social workers - you are going to have that many less cops. When the shit hits the fan - you might not have enough armed cops to help out. Or you could send in more targets....errr... social workers....
It' s the advantage of all cops being armed.
A lot of those situations that go sideways do so because cops are sent out to resolve them. The perception of cops - rightly or wrongly - is that cops arrest people and take them to jail. Cops simply showing up at, again, at a homeless guy on a bench heightens tensions.
Even cops don’t get into firefights all that often. Less that 5% of police call-outs (in the US) turn violent.
It’s perfectly possible to increase the number of social workers without reducing the number of cops - don’t be so quick to equate ‘defund the police’ with ‘fire a bunch of cops’. What I suggested would actually free up more cops to deal with the nightmare scenarios you’re concerned about.
Boru
True - not that many turn violent - in no small part because the cops ARE armed. You don' t try to stab or axe a pair of guys packing sidearms.....
A social worker?
....
I' m sure they' ll be hiring... You should look for a job in LA, Chicago or Detroit.....
I'm sure they will take you.....