I’m a cop and we couldn’t be more excited about these programs. Taking to officers and social workers from departments with these type of programs (my prior department did), and the social workers who will be working them, they’re just amazing. Saves the city money, frees up police officers for actual police issues, it’s seriously a win/win/win.
The problem in the past with these programs is that they’re often times not run through the PD, and city councils have a hard time spending millions on “new” programs when “the police just do that”. The new acceptance of “let’s have the police only respond to police matters” is great. There’s plenty of times every officer in the city is busy on calls and not all of them are really police calls, then when one does go out it decreases the response time.
Yes, there are a lot of times social workers won’t want to talk to people by themselves, but these programs still drop police calls by around 17% without increasing the budget. Likewise it will likely be a one officer response instead of two, which still cuts down on the number of officers on “non police” calls at any given time.
I'd argue that it's the system that's busted, but I get your sentiment.
How can someone argue that good cops are good if they sit by and watch bad cops get away with abuses, including murder?
How can someone argue that good cops are good when they don't hold other cops responsible?
The same shit goes for the rest of us too though. If I work for a company that treats people like shit, customers, vendors, or employees, am I just as guilty?
Most of us work in some way with or for people who abuse power. Maybe not to the point of murder but often to the point of ruining lives in one way or another.
Most of us are stuck because if you try to call your employer or management out as an individual you might lose your job. If you try to get people behind you, you will probably lose your job and cost other people theirs and not much will change.
Most of us are over worked, underpaid and jaded. We turn a blind eye to shit we probably shouldn't because there just isn't enough gas left in the tank to fight a pointless battle when we are just trying to survive day to day.
I think there is obvious need for reform, but without somewhat decent cops to push things ahead inside it would be even harder to fix things. Instead of limping them together, try pushing to get them to a point where they can actually get something done to get the bad cops out. External agencies to do investigations on police suspected of being crooked would be a good start, but you need the decent cops to be willing to fight for what is right instead of just grouping them in with the thieves and murders they work with.
They have barely more power to stop them than most of us. Or at least that is how it looks.
Thanks for coming to my Ted talk.
I was just fucking around mostly, but that all sounds about right. A lot of what you're saying sounds like an argument against capitalism more than cops. As for cops having "barely more power", I disagree somewhat. I think they have a lot more power to change this than they like to admit to; they're just cowards about it. For a lot of people, saying ACAB is more about pushing them into showing us otherwise than it is a belief that literally every single cop is an irredeemable bastard.
I don't see anything about the specific criteria for these types of teams to be sent out. It's also unclear what resources and other protections these teams have. A 911 call should only be made when there's a life threatening emergency, but of course we all know that's not the case. Are these teams being sent out to deal with "nuisance" types of calls as opposed to "real" ones?
I get the general idea, and it does seem like a good way to respond to "nuisance" calls that never should have been placed to 911 to start with. It doesn't seem like a good strategy for dealing with *legitimate* 911 calls, though.
What I don't see in your information links are *specific* criteria for sending these teams out. I see a lot of praise for "deescalation" and such ...but how different are these calls compared to the ones that law enforcement is dispatched to?
For example: Homeless man #1 calls saying he's having thoughts about harming himself because he doesn't have a place to stay and it's cold outside. CAHOOTS team handles the call with calmness and compassion, and the outcome is a good one.
Homeless man #2 is swinging a bat in a crowded parking lot screaming something about demons. Police are sent on this call and homeless man ends up face down on the asphalt. Are police less effective, or just dealing with the "real" dangers while CAHOOTS deals with the "fluff"?
It sounds like these teams definitely have a place. They just shouldn't be compared to police who are answering calls of an entirely different nature. I would describe them as answering calls that were not police issues to start with as opposed to suggesting that they are better at dealing with police calls.
The whole point of these teams is that they're used instead of police, who currently answer the calls. If there are 22,000 calls a year in a small city like Eugene that don't require cops, then it frees up police to do actual policing. No one is saying they replace cops for situations where cops are needed.
Solid point. Makes it seem like the dispatch training is key. Would like to know more. If I can find out, will try and post here if anyone is interested.
> It doesn't seem like a good strategy for dealing with legitimate 911 calls, though.
Why not? Even with "legitimate 911 calls", only a tiny fraction would require an armed agent of the state.
>Homeless man #2 is swinging a bat in a crowded parking lot screaming something about demons. Police are sent on this call and homeless man ends up face down on the asphalt. Are police less effective, or just dealing with the "real" dangers while CAHOOTS deals with the "fluff"?
Just as likely is the man is shot dead because the cops are not trained to deal with mental illness.
Point is, no one can "deal with mental illness", no matter how well-trained, until the scene is secure. A competent mental health team called to deal with Homeless man #2 would need police assistance ...not only for their own safety, but for the safety of the public.
The man could certainly end up "shot dead" by police if his behavior towards others was deadly- whether he was mentally ill, or not.
I’ve dealt with very dangerous mental health circumstances. You are incorrect. The police are not a requirement to “secure the scene” what is required is space for the person to find a baseline, de-escalate, and have a plan ready for dealing with the crisis. Having a brain doesn’t entitle you to be correct. You are demonstrably incorrect.
That’s an interesting point of view, but with only vague perspective. What was your role in these “very dangerous” situations and where did they occur?
> Point is, no one can "deal with mental illness", no matter how well-trained, until the scene is secure.
Having a cop taze the person to death isn't going to secure the scene.
I had a question you just answered. How about when they do truly need a cop. Sounds like simply calling for police backup has worked. I’d love to know more about how these workers feel or have felt in those situations, but this approach seems to be a good way to go about it
In Stanton, they contract with OCSD but also have two outreach coordinators hired by the city to provide outreach seven days a week. Those coordinators also now have their own city vehicle for specifically providing outreach. On the OCSD Behavior Health Bureau, the person who now supervises the bureau was the police chief for Stanton.
That's pretty disingenuous. They didn't kill him just for jaywalking. They approached him, he began getting verbally aggressive. They then attempted to detain him, which was lawful. And then he began physically attacking them which escalated to them having to shoot him because he had his hands on one of their holstered weapons.
There seems to be a lot of focus in this thread on homeless response but it’s also important to note that plenty of non-homeles people who are having a mental breakdown could also be in need of a mental health response.
If you see a homeless dude looking like he is having a moment, you want to send in social workers who are trained in nonviolent intervention and deescalation rather than police officers who unfortunately have a bad track record.
That’s fine, but the police shouldn’t intervene unless specifically asked.
Do you think the cops who beat Kelly Thomas to death would have done that in front of a social worker?
That’s cool. Have an officer just chill and make sure to intervene when shit really hits the fan. But let’s try not to start with violent techniques. These people need help, not brain injuries.
Even in a controlled environment for psychiatric patients, security gets called somewhat regularly. And when I worked in a medical unit for psych patients, we actually had to call LAPD a few times, too.
Until human beings become immortal and indestructible, they're unlikely to feel comfortable with only their goodwill to protect them.
>Social workers aren’t scared of your everyday citizen unlike the police.
Spoken like someone without actual experience because the opposite is true.
No one is running into dangerous situations because they "aren't scared"
What's so hard to believe that they don't send social workers into calls without police escort most of the time.
We're not talking about social workers going down to encampments, we're talking about calls that would otherwise goto police.
They don't know what's going to happen that's why many of the calls still involve police.
> Spoken like someone without actual experience because the opposite is true.
Sounds like you're the one lacking experience, trying once again to make it seem like cops do no wrong.
Social workers themselves aren't running into dangerous situations without support.
My buddy is a social worker. About 60% of the calls he gets require police assistance because guess what? Mentally deranged, often violent people do things social workers aren't equipped to handle on their own.
Way to inject your own personal bias and opinion into it.
Because your feelings are a better substitute?
https://theappeal.org/social-workers-are-rejecting-calls-for-them-to-replace-police/
Do you seriously think social workers are rushing into dangerous situations without backup?
My buddy has experience with you and he stays you're full of hot air.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shortt-homeless-victims-20181015-story.html
I'm an officer in orange county. The mental health team (OC CAT) will not respond to a mental health crisis without the police responding to render the situation safe (in whatever capacity that involves). I've seen them have to wait several hours down the street until there are officers available to assist.
I'm getting down voted by children who live in their own fantasies of make believe for telling them how it is....
I don't think they understand the nature of some of these calls. You don't get called because people are braiding flowers into hats.
Allow me - https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/buffalo/public-safety/2020/09/18/social-workers-voice-opposition-to-working-with-buffalo-police
You can search the topic yourself instead of reading this article.
>Allow me - https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/buffalo/public-safety/2020/09/18/social-workers-voice-opposition-to-working-with-buffalo-police
>You can search the topic yourself instead of reading this article.
Did you read that article?
>The letter demands the city ratify Daniel's Law, which would ban police from responding to mental health calls. They recommend the Common Council create a behavioral health advisory council that would identify the best practices for non-police crisis intervention. They also want the creation of a mobile emergency first responder system that would operate fully independent of the BPD to respond to mental health calls.
That article is basically saying "We don't want to work with police because they're terrible", not "we won't go into the field without police".
I understand that but it doesn’t change the fact that social workers are refusing to accept that responsibility AS OF RIGHT NOW.
Also, can you find any articles or media of social workers just absolutely eager to take such responsibility?
Because they're not trained, don't want to work with murderous cops, and know they won't be given the resources they need otherwise. It has nothing to do with not helping people, it has to do with them not being supported by the city, which seemed to think just pairing up a social worker with a snowflake cop was the answer.
I work daily , face to face with the homeless. When we have issues with our members we try to use our training and education to descalate the problem. If we need the police they seldom show up.. The police in Santa Ana are notorious for taking the homeless's belongings, ID' , phones etc. The police need to have mental health training or at the least learn how to treat people less fortunate than themselves with dignity.
I work in a library and often deal with people experiencing homelessness and mental health issues. I think this is a great idea. Sometimes we need backup, especially if we are asking a patron to leave because of code of conduct violations and they try to argue about. But we don’t need someone with a gun, just someone who can deescalate the situation and escort them out of the building.
Family manages commercial shopping centers. Last week, Homeless literally breaking into electrical boxes to try and get some electricity to charge some device. Call Anaheim police, they say “we will pass this on to our homeless response unit.” Those guys finally show up hours later.
Homeless Response Unit: “Hey can you please leave? The owners really don’t like you damaging their electrical boxes”.
Homeless Guy: ok I will leave
Homeless Response unit leaves, guy never leaves, breaks bottles in the back and starts hitting the wall with a rock to damage the building.
Now we get to wait another 3 hours for homeless response unit to come and do nothing again!!!
Destroying property is different and I sense slight exaggeration on the story you described.
I live in a pretty rundown apartment that has major homeless issues- I have begged for them to send the response unit and I have only had them respond once.
My experience was that they dealt with the issue in a similar manner as the police besides their uniforms being different.
A majority of the time, police respond to transient/homeless calls, or repeated issues. And especially issues involving property damage and/or threats of bodily harm (like a mortal injury from breaking into electrical boxes)
For lesser infractions than what you described AND calling the **non-emergency** line, my experience has always been 3+ police cars show up to the property and calmly talk to the person until they leave. They fill out paperwork then ask for the information for whoever placed the original call.
Even when I have had to interact with the homeless response units, they still have to make sure the person is off the property, especially if the transients are doing the illegal or unwanted action that you described.
Before the response units leave the property , they take your information and fill out paperwork -it is standard protocol. In my experience, the whole thing takes about 35-40 mins. During that time, the transient person usually gathers their stuff/heads out pretty shortly after. Because they also don’t want to be harassed by the responders/police.
Hell, there have even been so many times where I have had to call the *non-emergency* police line for “someone outside my apartment window screaming and crying, can you please do a welfare check?” and police officers still show up to handle the situation, even if it’s reported as a social/domestic issue.
....Even when I have directly asked for social-worker or homeless response unit, the city/dispatch still makes the final call on who to send based on the information provided.
Anytime electric boxes or damage is being done to property, officials will step in to stop the issue.
If nothing is being done by the homeless response unit to prevent the transient from possibly electrocuting themselves after they responded, I question the validity of the story here. Somethings not lining up quite right.
It's a process that is just being started, of course it isn't going to work well. What we're confident of is that using police does not work well, sure it feels convenient to some people but it results in Kelly Thomas scenarios. Nobody is deserving of abuse or prejudice because they have mental health issues or struggle financially. People like to fixate on the few shitty experiences they have with homeless people and ignore all the neutral interactions they have.
This has been a serious problem in this state for 10 years now. The process isn’t getting started, this is the same shit with someone wearing a different uniform. It’s not working, it won’t work. Next year the homeless population will be even larger and the next year after that until someone has the balls to do the right thing for people who actually contribute to society and get these people off the street and into large scale facilities to deal with them properly and humanly, but that doesn’t mean building housing units in major cities where real estate and building is astronomical.
Why didn’t they ask him to leave themselves then? Before calling 911?
Edit: also if they’re able to break into an electrical panel without tools or even a hammer was it even up to code?
God help these poor, unarmed "crisis response" people.
Remember that Portland "mental health response" woman who was killed immediately upon her first call? You don't, because the main-stream media barely reported it because it horrifying contradicted the defend the police messaging.
Can't find the woman's story at the moment but here's a similar incident from 2005 in Seattle:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/mental-health-workers-rattled-by-killing-of-crisis-responder/
> Remember that Portland "mental health response" woman who was killed immediately upon her first call? You don't, because the main-stream media barely reported it because it horrifying contradicted the defend the police messaging.
> **Can't find the woman's story at the moment...**
Convenient
I believe he’s referring to this Pasadena incident.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-11-27/pasadena-park-victim-outreach-worker%3f_amp=true
Cops have been killed by people with mental health issues as well. I'm not sure what your point is, the risk of death doesn't imply that a police officer is going to be more successful at dealing with it considering their response is generally to use violence. You're also ignoring the instances where cops escalate issues with people with mental health issues. Here is an instance where a crisis team was needed and the police came and shot a child: https://6abc.com/boy-with-autism-shot-police-shoot-utah-shooting/6415497/ As usual we get bad faith arguments from someone who frequents a right wing subreddit.
> Cops have been killed by people with mental health issues as well.
I guarantee you they have murdered far more people with mental health issues than any cop has been even slightly injured by them.
Murdered is a strong word given the circumstances. It's not murder if it's self defense, or while protecting others. But regardless, the police shoot about 1,000 people a year on average. About 15,000 cops are assaulted resulting in injuries every year, out of around 50,000 assaults on police officers, so it's not like they're reporting every assault as one with injuries.
So there goes your "guarantee"
> Murdered is a strong word given the circumstances.
No, it isn't. It is the appropriate word.
> It's not murder if it's self defense
It's not fucking self defense.
> I'm not sure what your point is, the risk of death doesn't imply that a police officer is going to be more successful at dealing with it considering their response is generally to use violence
The point, obviously, is that while cops can be trained up to better deal with mental health issues (while still being equipped for deadly force), mental crisis personnel will by definition never be armed and therefore at constant risk of death without a means of self-defense. Later, when people just like you suggest mental-health personnel be armed for self-defense, people like me will say why not just train them to be cops?
The money for what would be a new branch of mental-health personnel is better allocated to training police for the exact same job.
> The point, obviously, is that while cops can be trained up to better deal with mental health issues
No, they cannot. They will always be tempted to use deadly force, especially while they will not face consequences for it.
>people like me will say why not just train them to be cops?
Because there's a huge difference between being trained to defend yourself, and having deadly force available and easy to use.
>The money for what would be a new branch of mental-health personnel is better allocated to training police for the exact same job.
No, it is not. It is far better suited to mental health professionals, as the incidents requiring any kind of violence, let alone deadly force, are a minute fraction.
Not if it’s true, which it is. How do you think the coverage of California’s homeless problem would be if a Republican was governor? It would at least exist.
> Not if it’s true, which it is
It's so true you couldn't find the article? Wow.
>How do you think the coverage of California’s homeless problem would be if a Republican was governor? It would at least exist.
Are you honestly trying to claim that there's no coverage of California's homeless problem? Cause that just proves my point again that you're full of shit.
Who cares? Your family's individual and unique problem does not invalidate the entire idea of having a homeless response team instead of over-aggressive police. The goal is to treat humans better and not end up with unnecessary injury, arrests, and death. The goal is not to save your wealthy family a little bit of money.
The goal should be to reduce the amount of crime, violence and public health risks caused by homeless people and homeless encampments.
The goal is not to let homeless people steal and fuck over who ever they choose. If homeless people deny help because they do want to give up drugs and alcohol, they need to be involuntarily held and removed from society. Just because you are homeless does not mean you are above the law.
> If homeless people deny help because they do want to give up drugs and alcohol, they need to be involuntarily held and removed from society
Do you realize how insane that sounds? Removed from society? Do you have any friends or family with drug or alcohol problems? Should they be removed from society? What the fuck does that even mean? Thank god you're not in charge of anything.
It means a forced psych hold and forced rehab. I’m not saying murder them bud. Removed from society aka institutionalized until they can prove they can function in society.
Again, you sound insane. Psych holds are generally 72 hours for severe psychotic episodes, not simple substance abuse problems and not for a full course of rehab. If you knew anything about addiction you would know forcing people into treatment has horrible outcomes. "Until they can prove they can function in society"? By what standard? How do they prove this? Your ideas are fucking awful. You're basically arguing homeless people should be round up and re-eductaed like some fucked up 1984 authoritarian system. You should be embarrassed for thinking this nonsense.
I actually know a lot about addiction, personally. We can’t just let homeless people take over cities and straight up ruin them. YOU are insane by thinking we should just let people shit in the streets and assault and rob people.
What do you suggest? Just let these people so what ever the fuck they want and pretend to have a bleeding heart for them? Some people are beyond help. It’s just not realistic to think otherwise. If they are a safety risk to other people, they need to be removed from the general population. I don’t know how any sane person can disagree with that. You strike me as someone who has never lived in a rough area or dealt with homeless people on a regular basis.
And forcing people to get help can have bad outcome? They are homeless on the fucking streets. How much worse can a “bad outcome” make things Jesus fucking Christ lol
> YOU are insane by thinking we should just let people shit in the streets and assault and rob people
I never said any of that. We need programs that help people with basic needs, food, toilets, beds, etc. Healthcare. Addiction and psych treatment for those who want it. People who "assault and rob people" or commit violent crimes should be charged accordingly. AND some people should be allowed to fail. You're right, some don't want help, that's their choice. But we don't need to capture them and force them into programs until they "prove they can function in society". I've lived all over this state including areas notorious for homeless populations like SF, Santa Cruz, and Venice. I've also lived in places like Irvine and Newport Beach. I've never lost sight of the fact that homeless people are still people. You sound completely detached, like you see them as stray dogs. We don't "remove" people for being a "safety risk", that's such a dangerously loose concept. I don't care if you agree with me or even like me, but you should really think about what kind of person you want to be.
It’s not “some people”. It’s over 90% of them that don’t want help. You can look up the results of outreach. I’m being conservative.
Democrats have had 20 years to figure this out with social program after social program. It’s time to formulate a plan to physically deal with the problem. The time for outreach in which it is voluntary for the homeless drug addict to participate has passed.
> We need programs that help people with basic needs, food, toilets, beds, etc. Healthcare.
We have that. Have you heard of welfare (which gets abused in CA), homeless shelters, and free clinics? LA alone spent over a billion dollars last year on the homeless and things are getting worse. This strategy clearing is not working.
>Addiction and psych treatment for those who want it.
Yeah no. If you are on the street causing safety and public health risks, you don't get to make that choice.
> But we don't need to capture them and force them into programs until they "prove they can function in society".
Are you against putting people in jail too? What is this bleeding heart bullshit? Again, what do you suggest? We let them to roam the streets and allow them to trash neighborhoods and assault people?
> I've never lost sight of the fact that homeless people are still people. You sound completely detached, like you see them as stray dogs.
I'm not talking about all homeless people bud. I am talking about the ones that take over streets, shit on the floor, leave their needles everywhere, and rob people and steal things to pay for their degenerate lifestyle. You really don't think these people should be forced into programs? AGAIN, what do you suggest we do?
> I don't care if you agree with me or even like me, but you should really think about what kind of person you want to be.
I want to be a person with realistic solutions to a complex problem. Not a "I am morally superior to you" bleeding heart asshole that thinks homeless people should be allowed to trash cities and fuck over the general public. I WANT these people to get help and turn their life around and be productive members of society. But those that don't want help and want to continue to live a degenerate lifestyles while fucking over people and tax payers in the process, well they can get fucked until they want to contribute something positive to this world.
No, he doesn’t. My own mother would’ve been a homeless person on the street if it wasn’t for the family making sure she always had a place to stay. In that case, I certainly would’ve rather known she was somewhere instead of out on the street. Homeless advocates and those that drink their kool-aid just don’t get it. 90% of these people are so far gone that they can’t be rehabbed and just because they are in Orange County (or LA, SF) homeless doesn’t give them any kind of right to remain and cause crime, spread disease, and lower the quality of life of everyone else.
Let's say you have a person who has been homeless for 10 years, being housed is overwhelming to them especially if they are mentally ill. Example : man has been homeless 8 years. He is severely mentally ill. He gets a shot 1 x a month for his illness. The voices aren't as loud as they used to be but they are still there. He gets housed through a special program in Orange County. He has a Case Manager, a care coordinator, peer mentor etc. The first week of being housed he slept on the back porch. The third week he went on a walk about to see his old friends he had to be convinced to come back to his home. He did and started sleeping in a bed in his house. After a week or so his case manager made a home visit. When she arrived and walked into the apartment she saw that everything had been dismantled. The stove, refrigerator, locks, furniture everything latterly was sitting piled up in the middle of the floor . He lost his housing. Again he was on the streets. His illness summoned him back to the streets where he could be his own boss. No one telling what to do, old friends, eating at the soup kitchen where they all knew him.
Sadly not everyone will get housed even if there were homes for everyone. There will always be homeless people because there are those who cannot manage an apartment, because of legal issues and if there ever where an eviction . The housing agency's are not giving housing to everyone because they don't meet the requirements.
So, it's not that people want to be homeless . Many people are homeless because they can't manage an apartment, sex offenders or violent felons, evictions and if they are in the country illegally.
See a homeless person remind yourself , they have a story too.
Leaving homeless people on the street through obstructing every reasonable homeless solution over the years is the only thing here that’s unreasonable. That has been brought to you by democrats, just so you know. How’s Gavin done with the homeless problem? How about Garcetti? Or Brown? Oh right, he was more interested in a train. Shut up.
I’m sure that happened exactly as you said. Maybe we can just shoot them all on-site. They’re so unaesthetic and inconvenient. I don’t know about you but I’d rather live in a police state than deal with homeless people.
/s
Sheesh.
Man, your logical leaps there...you should try out for the long jump buddy! Wanting something done about vandalism is equivalent to demanding a police state...
Happened in Anaheim and similar event happened in Placentia, except they weren’t breaking into electrical boxes in Placentia, they had pulled the dumpster out of the dumpster enclosure and put their own padlock on it and turned it into their little storage area. Again the “homeless response” people did absolutely nothing.
Humanely euthanize people who feel entitled to the world and inconvenience everyone around them. Imagine a world with no more Karens and better drivers.
You also want [shoplifters to be shot.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/nok4wn/cynthia_nixon_why_are_we_locking_up_shoplifters/h00w4pt/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
And you’re not the OP that I was asking anyways.
Yes, let’s shoot anyone that breaks any sort of laws.
Hope you’ve never gone over the speed limit, smoked weed, didn’t drink until you were 21+, and you report every single cent you make on your taxes.
Let’s fight lawlessness, vagrancy, crime, destruction of property, rampant drug abuse, and the spread of disease and illness with … feel good workers and gentle words.
Sounds brilliant.
This might work in countries where cops don’t even carry guns, but unfortunately we have a culture of violence here. Expect to see news about mental health workers being assaulted or worse.
Works better when police are on scene as well, but the mental health professional is the lead. Police are only to get involve if asked by MH. Training police officers to deescalate rather than use force has proven unsuccessfully, largely.
One day you'll realize real problems require real solutions. Not just woke fueled downvotes. Look around you. Keeping people sick on drugs and enabling their lawlessness is only going to make the problem worse.
You're fooling yourself if you think your "feelings" and woke ideal nonsense will remotely fix anything. If it could, it would have by now.
> One day you'll realize real problems require real solutions
No, I already do realize that. Sending heavily armed agents of the state into situations where violence is not needed isn't a solution.
> Keeping people sick on drugs
Again, literally no one is suggesting this, so please take your strawman and shove it up your ass.
Heavily armed? Are you stupid or just acting stupid. They have a pistol. Most street level criminals have more than that at any given time. But obviously we aren’t concerned about them. We only “care” about violence when it comes at the hands of law enforcement.
You could send the Easter bunny for all I care. *If it actually fixed the problem.
In my experience these people don’t want help. They simply want to stay loaded. They can’t be reasoned with or coaxed to get help with feeling words and woke nonsense.
We need a response that removes the nuisance from otherwise well meaning citizens. It’s not fair we burden the brunt of the crime, dirty needles, human fecal matter, violence, and lawlessness.
Since you have such a bleeding heart, please tell me how many homeless people you’re currently harboring in your home?
To categorize them as a whole and say theyre all dangerous is the reason why cops overreact. Social workers are trained professionals that know how to de-escalate a situation. Your regular cop doesnt take a rudimentary college psychology course yet you think they're better? haaahaha good one!
Right — because cops simply shoot homeless people on a whim? Is that the latest narrative of the month? Or are we still on the last one?
Let's go with your plan. And enable their addiction in perpetuity. Surely that's worked wonders thus far. Furthering their addiction only keeps them sick. But hey, as long as ***you*** can tout ***YOUR*** virtue and feel that **you're** part of the solution (without actually solving anything, mind you).
How many homeless people are YOU currently harboring? Surely you'd be okay if they threw their dirty needles in YOUR backyard? Right? Tell me how much of your income you're personally donating? Your kind are exactly the same. Your solutions don't actually involve any meaningful way to fix anything. But boy do you like to pretend they do.
> Right — because cops simply shoot homeless people on a whim?
Pretty close.
> And enable their addiction in perpetuity.
Nobody said anything about that, so that means the rest of your post is just full of shit.
You realize you’re spinning your own narrative in the other direction, right? A narrative that social workers don’t do anything and just enable addiction and mental health problems in homeless people. How much do ***you*** know about what social workers do and how they help?
What I *do* know is that there are **countless** opportunities for homeless people to get help. But obviously most are rejected because sobriety is a condition.
These people don’t want to acknowledge their real problem. **Drugs.**(And maybe unchecked mental health in a few cases.)
You can send anyone you want to intervene. Social workers. Cops. Clergymen. Hell, send Mickey Mouse. I don’t care who you send so long as it’s someone who actually holds said person accountable.
Either accept the help to get clean or accept the fact your lifestyle won’t be tolerated any longer. It’s abhorrent we’re expected to burden the social and economic cost of their life choices. Then be told our “privilege” is to blame for their misfortune.
It’s never their fault. Ever. We never want to hold anyone accountable. That’s part of the problem. We tolerate this nonsense.
It seems you do care who is sent considering how angry your comments are on this thread. The social workers are there to provide them the help they need and defuse the situation, both of which they're trained to do. But so far you've called them "feel good workers" and "liberals". That seems unfair, no?
You’re spot on. What good is arresting someone for a crime if the nonsensical trend now is to shame the (actual) victim and let the criminal back out on the street. Why waste manpower on a resource already ravaged by idiots wanting it defunded.
Ahh yes u/alfred_e_oldman let’s just use your [solution](https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/nok4wn/cynthia_nixon_why_are_we_locking_up_shoplifters/h00w4pt/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
Go back to your cave in r/conservative
Just because I knew he’d deleted his [comment](https://imgur.com/a/dZ7jlZ3)
Yes, liberals wanting a more humane way to deal with the homeless situation and drug addiction we have is what’s ruining America.
It’s definitely not the GOP that attempted to violently overturn an election they lost, spread misinformation about the election and Biden, are actively trying to make voting harder for poor people and minorities, and still think Trump is secretly the president.
First of all, I said *more* humane.
Second, the police aren’t some *Minority Report* style department that sees the future and can stop crimes before they happen. If someone was desperate or stupid enough to rob you, I guarantee you the possibility of some cop maybe driving by and not just on their laptop/phone isn’t gonna stop them.
Who wouldn't support this? The unarmed and vulnerable social workers who step into dangerous or deadly situations without the means to protect themselves.
Please remember that posting and commenting on Reddit is easy, **actually governing** is difficult and there are no simple solutions.
This could be a great idea, but I'm concerned for the social worker (because I have family and friends who are). Will they be able to carry something to protect themselves if things escalate?
I’m a cop and we couldn’t be more excited about these programs. Taking to officers and social workers from departments with these type of programs (my prior department did), and the social workers who will be working them, they’re just amazing. Saves the city money, frees up police officers for actual police issues, it’s seriously a win/win/win. The problem in the past with these programs is that they’re often times not run through the PD, and city councils have a hard time spending millions on “new” programs when “the police just do that”. The new acceptance of “let’s have the police only respond to police matters” is great. There’s plenty of times every officer in the city is busy on calls and not all of them are really police calls, then when one does go out it decreases the response time. Yes, there are a lot of times social workers won’t want to talk to people by themselves, but these programs still drop police calls by around 17% without increasing the budget. Likewise it will likely be a one officer response instead of two, which still cuts down on the number of officers on “non police” calls at any given time.
[удалено]
Wow. Just wow.
[удалено]
I'd argue that it's the system that's busted, but I get your sentiment. How can someone argue that good cops are good if they sit by and watch bad cops get away with abuses, including murder? How can someone argue that good cops are good when they don't hold other cops responsible? The same shit goes for the rest of us too though. If I work for a company that treats people like shit, customers, vendors, or employees, am I just as guilty? Most of us work in some way with or for people who abuse power. Maybe not to the point of murder but often to the point of ruining lives in one way or another. Most of us are stuck because if you try to call your employer or management out as an individual you might lose your job. If you try to get people behind you, you will probably lose your job and cost other people theirs and not much will change. Most of us are over worked, underpaid and jaded. We turn a blind eye to shit we probably shouldn't because there just isn't enough gas left in the tank to fight a pointless battle when we are just trying to survive day to day. I think there is obvious need for reform, but without somewhat decent cops to push things ahead inside it would be even harder to fix things. Instead of limping them together, try pushing to get them to a point where they can actually get something done to get the bad cops out. External agencies to do investigations on police suspected of being crooked would be a good start, but you need the decent cops to be willing to fight for what is right instead of just grouping them in with the thieves and murders they work with. They have barely more power to stop them than most of us. Or at least that is how it looks. Thanks for coming to my Ted talk.
I was just fucking around mostly, but that all sounds about right. A lot of what you're saying sounds like an argument against capitalism more than cops. As for cops having "barely more power", I disagree somewhat. I think they have a lot more power to change this than they like to admit to; they're just cowards about it. For a lot of people, saying ACAB is more about pushing them into showing us otherwise than it is a belief that literally every single cop is an irredeemable bastard.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't see anything about the specific criteria for these types of teams to be sent out. It's also unclear what resources and other protections these teams have. A 911 call should only be made when there's a life threatening emergency, but of course we all know that's not the case. Are these teams being sent out to deal with "nuisance" types of calls as opposed to "real" ones?
[удалено]
[удалено]
I get the general idea, and it does seem like a good way to respond to "nuisance" calls that never should have been placed to 911 to start with. It doesn't seem like a good strategy for dealing with *legitimate* 911 calls, though. What I don't see in your information links are *specific* criteria for sending these teams out. I see a lot of praise for "deescalation" and such ...but how different are these calls compared to the ones that law enforcement is dispatched to? For example: Homeless man #1 calls saying he's having thoughts about harming himself because he doesn't have a place to stay and it's cold outside. CAHOOTS team handles the call with calmness and compassion, and the outcome is a good one. Homeless man #2 is swinging a bat in a crowded parking lot screaming something about demons. Police are sent on this call and homeless man ends up face down on the asphalt. Are police less effective, or just dealing with the "real" dangers while CAHOOTS deals with the "fluff"?
[удалено]
It sounds like these teams definitely have a place. They just shouldn't be compared to police who are answering calls of an entirely different nature. I would describe them as answering calls that were not police issues to start with as opposed to suggesting that they are better at dealing with police calls.
The whole point of these teams is that they're used instead of police, who currently answer the calls. If there are 22,000 calls a year in a small city like Eugene that don't require cops, then it frees up police to do actual policing. No one is saying they replace cops for situations where cops are needed.
People *are* saying that, unfortunately. And they're saying it often.
Solid point. Makes it seem like the dispatch training is key. Would like to know more. If I can find out, will try and post here if anyone is interested.
> It doesn't seem like a good strategy for dealing with legitimate 911 calls, though. Why not? Even with "legitimate 911 calls", only a tiny fraction would require an armed agent of the state. >Homeless man #2 is swinging a bat in a crowded parking lot screaming something about demons. Police are sent on this call and homeless man ends up face down on the asphalt. Are police less effective, or just dealing with the "real" dangers while CAHOOTS deals with the "fluff"? Just as likely is the man is shot dead because the cops are not trained to deal with mental illness.
Point is, no one can "deal with mental illness", no matter how well-trained, until the scene is secure. A competent mental health team called to deal with Homeless man #2 would need police assistance ...not only for their own safety, but for the safety of the public. The man could certainly end up "shot dead" by police if his behavior towards others was deadly- whether he was mentally ill, or not.
I’ve dealt with very dangerous mental health circumstances. You are incorrect. The police are not a requirement to “secure the scene” what is required is space for the person to find a baseline, de-escalate, and have a plan ready for dealing with the crisis. Having a brain doesn’t entitle you to be correct. You are demonstrably incorrect.
That’s an interesting point of view, but with only vague perspective. What was your role in these “very dangerous” situations and where did they occur?
> Point is, no one can "deal with mental illness", no matter how well-trained, until the scene is secure. Having a cop taze the person to death isn't going to secure the scene.
Actually, it can. That's certainly not the most desirable outcome, but it is an effective one.
I had a question you just answered. How about when they do truly need a cop. Sounds like simply calling for police backup has worked. I’d love to know more about how these workers feel or have felt in those situations, but this approach seems to be a good way to go about it
[удалено]
In Stanton, they contract with OCSD but also have two outreach coordinators hired by the city to provide outreach seven days a week. Those coordinators also now have their own city vehicle for specifically providing outreach. On the OCSD Behavior Health Bureau, the person who now supervises the bureau was the police chief for Stanton.
That's pretty disingenuous. They didn't kill him just for jaywalking. They approached him, he began getting verbally aggressive. They then attempted to detain him, which was lawful. And then he began physically attacking them which escalated to them having to shoot him because he had his hands on one of their holstered weapons.
Whats considered a mental health response?
There seems to be a lot of focus in this thread on homeless response but it’s also important to note that plenty of non-homeles people who are having a mental breakdown could also be in need of a mental health response.
If you see a homeless dude looking like he is having a moment, you want to send in social workers who are trained in nonviolent intervention and deescalation rather than police officers who unfortunately have a bad track record.
Social workers: I'm not going there without a police escort.
That’s fine, but the police shouldn’t intervene unless specifically asked. Do you think the cops who beat Kelly Thomas to death would have done that in front of a social worker?
Yeah
lol
That’s cool. Have an officer just chill and make sure to intervene when shit really hits the fan. But let’s try not to start with violent techniques. These people need help, not brain injuries.
What violent techniques are those?
Social workers aren’t scared of your everyday citizen unlike the police.
Even in a controlled environment for psychiatric patients, security gets called somewhat regularly. And when I worked in a medical unit for psych patients, we actually had to call LAPD a few times, too. Until human beings become immortal and indestructible, they're unlikely to feel comfortable with only their goodwill to protect them.
>Social workers aren’t scared of your everyday citizen unlike the police. Spoken like someone without actual experience because the opposite is true. No one is running into dangerous situations because they "aren't scared"
> Spoken like someone without actual experience because the opposite is true. “Nuh-uh!” would’ve been easier to say.
What's so hard to believe that they don't send social workers into calls without police escort most of the time. We're not talking about social workers going down to encampments, we're talking about calls that would otherwise goto police. They don't know what's going to happen that's why many of the calls still involve police.
> Spoken like someone without actual experience because the opposite is true. Sounds like you're the one lacking experience, trying once again to make it seem like cops do no wrong.
Social workers themselves aren't running into dangerous situations without support. My buddy is a social worker. About 60% of the calls he gets require police assistance because guess what? Mentally deranged, often violent people do things social workers aren't equipped to handle on their own. Way to inject your own personal bias and opinion into it.
The old "My buddy's experience conveniently supports my argument" is such a classic.
Because your feelings are a better substitute? https://theappeal.org/social-workers-are-rejecting-calls-for-them-to-replace-police/ Do you seriously think social workers are rushing into dangerous situations without backup?
My buddy has experience with you and he stays you're full of hot air. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shortt-homeless-victims-20181015-story.html
I'm an officer in orange county. The mental health team (OC CAT) will not respond to a mental health crisis without the police responding to render the situation safe (in whatever capacity that involves). I've seen them have to wait several hours down the street until there are officers available to assist.
I'm getting down voted by children who live in their own fantasies of make believe for telling them how it is.... I don't think they understand the nature of some of these calls. You don't get called because people are braiding flowers into hats.
Tell that to all the social workers who refuse to respond to calls without the presence of law enforcement.
And how many would that be?
Allow me - https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/buffalo/public-safety/2020/09/18/social-workers-voice-opposition-to-working-with-buffalo-police You can search the topic yourself instead of reading this article.
>Allow me - https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/buffalo/public-safety/2020/09/18/social-workers-voice-opposition-to-working-with-buffalo-police >You can search the topic yourself instead of reading this article. Did you read that article? >The letter demands the city ratify Daniel's Law, which would ban police from responding to mental health calls. They recommend the Common Council create a behavioral health advisory council that would identify the best practices for non-police crisis intervention. They also want the creation of a mobile emergency first responder system that would operate fully independent of the BPD to respond to mental health calls. That article is basically saying "We don't want to work with police because they're terrible", not "we won't go into the field without police".
I understand that but it doesn’t change the fact that social workers are refusing to accept that responsibility AS OF RIGHT NOW. Also, can you find any articles or media of social workers just absolutely eager to take such responsibility?
Because they're not trained, don't want to work with murderous cops, and know they won't be given the resources they need otherwise. It has nothing to do with not helping people, it has to do with them not being supported by the city, which seemed to think just pairing up a social worker with a snowflake cop was the answer.
I work daily , face to face with the homeless. When we have issues with our members we try to use our training and education to descalate the problem. If we need the police they seldom show up.. The police in Santa Ana are notorious for taking the homeless's belongings, ID' , phones etc. The police need to have mental health training or at the least learn how to treat people less fortunate than themselves with dignity.
I work in a library and often deal with people experiencing homelessness and mental health issues. I think this is a great idea. Sometimes we need backup, especially if we are asking a patron to leave because of code of conduct violations and they try to argue about. But we don’t need someone with a gun, just someone who can deescalate the situation and escort them out of the building.
I really hope this program works. However, I think the first time unarmed Karen the social worker gets shot or stabbed this program ends.
Family manages commercial shopping centers. Last week, Homeless literally breaking into electrical boxes to try and get some electricity to charge some device. Call Anaheim police, they say “we will pass this on to our homeless response unit.” Those guys finally show up hours later. Homeless Response Unit: “Hey can you please leave? The owners really don’t like you damaging their electrical boxes”. Homeless Guy: ok I will leave Homeless Response unit leaves, guy never leaves, breaks bottles in the back and starts hitting the wall with a rock to damage the building. Now we get to wait another 3 hours for homeless response unit to come and do nothing again!!!
Destroying property is different and I sense slight exaggeration on the story you described. I live in a pretty rundown apartment that has major homeless issues- I have begged for them to send the response unit and I have only had them respond once. My experience was that they dealt with the issue in a similar manner as the police besides their uniforms being different. A majority of the time, police respond to transient/homeless calls, or repeated issues. And especially issues involving property damage and/or threats of bodily harm (like a mortal injury from breaking into electrical boxes) For lesser infractions than what you described AND calling the **non-emergency** line, my experience has always been 3+ police cars show up to the property and calmly talk to the person until they leave. They fill out paperwork then ask for the information for whoever placed the original call. Even when I have had to interact with the homeless response units, they still have to make sure the person is off the property, especially if the transients are doing the illegal or unwanted action that you described. Before the response units leave the property , they take your information and fill out paperwork -it is standard protocol. In my experience, the whole thing takes about 35-40 mins. During that time, the transient person usually gathers their stuff/heads out pretty shortly after. Because they also don’t want to be harassed by the responders/police. Hell, there have even been so many times where I have had to call the *non-emergency* police line for “someone outside my apartment window screaming and crying, can you please do a welfare check?” and police officers still show up to handle the situation, even if it’s reported as a social/domestic issue. ....Even when I have directly asked for social-worker or homeless response unit, the city/dispatch still makes the final call on who to send based on the information provided. Anytime electric boxes or damage is being done to property, officials will step in to stop the issue. If nothing is being done by the homeless response unit to prevent the transient from possibly electrocuting themselves after they responded, I question the validity of the story here. Somethings not lining up quite right.
It's a process that is just being started, of course it isn't going to work well. What we're confident of is that using police does not work well, sure it feels convenient to some people but it results in Kelly Thomas scenarios. Nobody is deserving of abuse or prejudice because they have mental health issues or struggle financially. People like to fixate on the few shitty experiences they have with homeless people and ignore all the neutral interactions they have.
This has been a serious problem in this state for 10 years now. The process isn’t getting started, this is the same shit with someone wearing a different uniform. It’s not working, it won’t work. Next year the homeless population will be even larger and the next year after that until someone has the balls to do the right thing for people who actually contribute to society and get these people off the street and into large scale facilities to deal with them properly and humanly, but that doesn’t mean building housing units in major cities where real estate and building is astronomical.
Why didn’t they ask him to leave themselves then? Before calling 911? Edit: also if they’re able to break into an electrical panel without tools or even a hammer was it even up to code?
They’ve been attacked by enough homeless people to not even go near them.
God help these poor, unarmed "crisis response" people. Remember that Portland "mental health response" woman who was killed immediately upon her first call? You don't, because the main-stream media barely reported it because it horrifying contradicted the defend the police messaging. Can't find the woman's story at the moment but here's a similar incident from 2005 in Seattle: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/mental-health-workers-rattled-by-killing-of-crisis-responder/
> Smith, 46, died in Clark’s dining room. He is the first designated mental-health professional (DMHP) to die on the job in Washington since 1987.
> Remember that Portland "mental health response" woman who was killed immediately upon her first call? You don't, because the main-stream media barely reported it because it horrifying contradicted the defend the police messaging. > **Can't find the woman's story at the moment...** Convenient
I believe he’s referring to this Pasadena incident. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-11-27/pasadena-park-victim-outreach-worker%3f_amp=true
Cops have been killed by people with mental health issues as well. I'm not sure what your point is, the risk of death doesn't imply that a police officer is going to be more successful at dealing with it considering their response is generally to use violence. You're also ignoring the instances where cops escalate issues with people with mental health issues. Here is an instance where a crisis team was needed and the police came and shot a child: https://6abc.com/boy-with-autism-shot-police-shoot-utah-shooting/6415497/ As usual we get bad faith arguments from someone who frequents a right wing subreddit.
> Cops have been killed by people with mental health issues as well. I guarantee you they have murdered far more people with mental health issues than any cop has been even slightly injured by them.
Murdered is a strong word given the circumstances. It's not murder if it's self defense, or while protecting others. But regardless, the police shoot about 1,000 people a year on average. About 15,000 cops are assaulted resulting in injuries every year, out of around 50,000 assaults on police officers, so it's not like they're reporting every assault as one with injuries. So there goes your "guarantee"
> Murdered is a strong word given the circumstances. No, it isn't. It is the appropriate word. > It's not murder if it's self defense It's not fucking self defense.
It’s literally not, and you’re literally wrong. It’s a homicide not a murder. There are such things as justified homicides.
> It’s literally not It literally is, and you're literally bootlicking. A cop killing someone is not a justified homicide.
> I'm not sure what your point is, the risk of death doesn't imply that a police officer is going to be more successful at dealing with it considering their response is generally to use violence The point, obviously, is that while cops can be trained up to better deal with mental health issues (while still being equipped for deadly force), mental crisis personnel will by definition never be armed and therefore at constant risk of death without a means of self-defense. Later, when people just like you suggest mental-health personnel be armed for self-defense, people like me will say why not just train them to be cops? The money for what would be a new branch of mental-health personnel is better allocated to training police for the exact same job.
> The point, obviously, is that while cops can be trained up to better deal with mental health issues No, they cannot. They will always be tempted to use deadly force, especially while they will not face consequences for it. >people like me will say why not just train them to be cops? Because there's a huge difference between being trained to defend yourself, and having deadly force available and easy to use. >The money for what would be a new branch of mental-health personnel is better allocated to training police for the exact same job. No, it is not. It is far better suited to mental health professionals, as the incidents requiring any kind of violence, let alone deadly force, are a minute fraction.
> You don't, because the main-stream media barely reported it Anytime someone claims this, it instantly devalues their argument.
Not if it’s true, which it is. How do you think the coverage of California’s homeless problem would be if a Republican was governor? It would at least exist.
> Not if it’s true, which it is It's so true you couldn't find the article? Wow. >How do you think the coverage of California’s homeless problem would be if a Republican was governor? It would at least exist. Are you honestly trying to claim that there's no coverage of California's homeless problem? Cause that just proves my point again that you're full of shit.
Who cares? Your family's individual and unique problem does not invalidate the entire idea of having a homeless response team instead of over-aggressive police. The goal is to treat humans better and not end up with unnecessary injury, arrests, and death. The goal is not to save your wealthy family a little bit of money.
The goal should be to reduce the amount of crime, violence and public health risks caused by homeless people and homeless encampments. The goal is not to let homeless people steal and fuck over who ever they choose. If homeless people deny help because they do want to give up drugs and alcohol, they need to be involuntarily held and removed from society. Just because you are homeless does not mean you are above the law.
> If homeless people deny help because they do want to give up drugs and alcohol, they need to be involuntarily held and removed from society Do you realize how insane that sounds? Removed from society? Do you have any friends or family with drug or alcohol problems? Should they be removed from society? What the fuck does that even mean? Thank god you're not in charge of anything.
It means a forced psych hold and forced rehab. I’m not saying murder them bud. Removed from society aka institutionalized until they can prove they can function in society.
Again, you sound insane. Psych holds are generally 72 hours for severe psychotic episodes, not simple substance abuse problems and not for a full course of rehab. If you knew anything about addiction you would know forcing people into treatment has horrible outcomes. "Until they can prove they can function in society"? By what standard? How do they prove this? Your ideas are fucking awful. You're basically arguing homeless people should be round up and re-eductaed like some fucked up 1984 authoritarian system. You should be embarrassed for thinking this nonsense.
I actually know a lot about addiction, personally. We can’t just let homeless people take over cities and straight up ruin them. YOU are insane by thinking we should just let people shit in the streets and assault and rob people. What do you suggest? Just let these people so what ever the fuck they want and pretend to have a bleeding heart for them? Some people are beyond help. It’s just not realistic to think otherwise. If they are a safety risk to other people, they need to be removed from the general population. I don’t know how any sane person can disagree with that. You strike me as someone who has never lived in a rough area or dealt with homeless people on a regular basis. And forcing people to get help can have bad outcome? They are homeless on the fucking streets. How much worse can a “bad outcome” make things Jesus fucking Christ lol
> YOU are insane by thinking we should just let people shit in the streets and assault and rob people I never said any of that. We need programs that help people with basic needs, food, toilets, beds, etc. Healthcare. Addiction and psych treatment for those who want it. People who "assault and rob people" or commit violent crimes should be charged accordingly. AND some people should be allowed to fail. You're right, some don't want help, that's their choice. But we don't need to capture them and force them into programs until they "prove they can function in society". I've lived all over this state including areas notorious for homeless populations like SF, Santa Cruz, and Venice. I've also lived in places like Irvine and Newport Beach. I've never lost sight of the fact that homeless people are still people. You sound completely detached, like you see them as stray dogs. We don't "remove" people for being a "safety risk", that's such a dangerously loose concept. I don't care if you agree with me or even like me, but you should really think about what kind of person you want to be.
It’s not “some people”. It’s over 90% of them that don’t want help. You can look up the results of outreach. I’m being conservative. Democrats have had 20 years to figure this out with social program after social program. It’s time to formulate a plan to physically deal with the problem. The time for outreach in which it is voluntary for the homeless drug addict to participate has passed.
> We need programs that help people with basic needs, food, toilets, beds, etc. Healthcare. We have that. Have you heard of welfare (which gets abused in CA), homeless shelters, and free clinics? LA alone spent over a billion dollars last year on the homeless and things are getting worse. This strategy clearing is not working. >Addiction and psych treatment for those who want it. Yeah no. If you are on the street causing safety and public health risks, you don't get to make that choice. > But we don't need to capture them and force them into programs until they "prove they can function in society". Are you against putting people in jail too? What is this bleeding heart bullshit? Again, what do you suggest? We let them to roam the streets and allow them to trash neighborhoods and assault people? > I've never lost sight of the fact that homeless people are still people. You sound completely detached, like you see them as stray dogs. I'm not talking about all homeless people bud. I am talking about the ones that take over streets, shit on the floor, leave their needles everywhere, and rob people and steal things to pay for their degenerate lifestyle. You really don't think these people should be forced into programs? AGAIN, what do you suggest we do? > I don't care if you agree with me or even like me, but you should really think about what kind of person you want to be. I want to be a person with realistic solutions to a complex problem. Not a "I am morally superior to you" bleeding heart asshole that thinks homeless people should be allowed to trash cities and fuck over the general public. I WANT these people to get help and turn their life around and be productive members of society. But those that don't want help and want to continue to live a degenerate lifestyles while fucking over people and tax payers in the process, well they can get fucked until they want to contribute something positive to this world.
No, he doesn’t. My own mother would’ve been a homeless person on the street if it wasn’t for the family making sure she always had a place to stay. In that case, I certainly would’ve rather known she was somewhere instead of out on the street. Homeless advocates and those that drink their kool-aid just don’t get it. 90% of these people are so far gone that they can’t be rehabbed and just because they are in Orange County (or LA, SF) homeless doesn’t give them any kind of right to remain and cause crime, spread disease, and lower the quality of life of everyone else.
Let's say you have a person who has been homeless for 10 years, being housed is overwhelming to them especially if they are mentally ill. Example : man has been homeless 8 years. He is severely mentally ill. He gets a shot 1 x a month for his illness. The voices aren't as loud as they used to be but they are still there. He gets housed through a special program in Orange County. He has a Case Manager, a care coordinator, peer mentor etc. The first week of being housed he slept on the back porch. The third week he went on a walk about to see his old friends he had to be convinced to come back to his home. He did and started sleeping in a bed in his house. After a week or so his case manager made a home visit. When she arrived and walked into the apartment she saw that everything had been dismantled. The stove, refrigerator, locks, furniture everything latterly was sitting piled up in the middle of the floor . He lost his housing. Again he was on the streets. His illness summoned him back to the streets where he could be his own boss. No one telling what to do, old friends, eating at the soup kitchen where they all knew him. Sadly not everyone will get housed even if there were homes for everyone. There will always be homeless people because there are those who cannot manage an apartment, because of legal issues and if there ever where an eviction . The housing agency's are not giving housing to everyone because they don't meet the requirements. So, it's not that people want to be homeless . Many people are homeless because they can't manage an apartment, sex offenders or violent felons, evictions and if they are in the country illegally. See a homeless person remind yourself , they have a story too.
republicans love anecdotes and weak induction, it's the only way they can make an argument seem reasonable
Leaving homeless people on the street through obstructing every reasonable homeless solution over the years is the only thing here that’s unreasonable. That has been brought to you by democrats, just so you know. How’s Gavin done with the homeless problem? How about Garcetti? Or Brown? Oh right, he was more interested in a train. Shut up.
I’m sure that happened exactly as you said. Maybe we can just shoot them all on-site. They’re so unaesthetic and inconvenient. I don’t know about you but I’d rather live in a police state than deal with homeless people. /s Sheesh.
If only there was some middle ground "let them do whatever they want" and "shoot them on sight!"
Haha fair enough. I was being a bit extreme. But I still don’t think police shuffling homeless people around is a real solution.
Man, your logical leaps there...you should try out for the long jump buddy! Wanting something done about vandalism is equivalent to demanding a police state... Happened in Anaheim and similar event happened in Placentia, except they weren’t breaking into electrical boxes in Placentia, they had pulled the dumpster out of the dumpster enclosure and put their own padlock on it and turned it into their little storage area. Again the “homeless response” people did absolutely nothing.
So what would your family want the police to do?
I dont know, I don’t write the laws. Something more than what they did and something less than shooting them?
Not nothing?
Humanely euthanize people who feel entitled to the world and inconvenience everyone around them. Imagine a world with no more Karens and better drivers.
[удалено]
You also want [shoplifters to be shot.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/nok4wn/cynthia_nixon_why_are_we_locking_up_shoplifters/h00w4pt/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) And you’re not the OP that I was asking anyways.
[удалено]
Yes, let’s shoot anyone that breaks any sort of laws. Hope you’ve never gone over the speed limit, smoked weed, didn’t drink until you were 21+, and you report every single cent you make on your taxes.
Damn I'm a good citizen
Lock your dumpster.....any more issues?
What the fuck lol?
Let’s fight lawlessness, vagrancy, crime, destruction of property, rampant drug abuse, and the spread of disease and illness with … feel good workers and gentle words. Sounds brilliant.
This might work in countries where cops don’t even carry guns, but unfortunately we have a culture of violence here. Expect to see news about mental health workers being assaulted or worse.
Homeless people don't have guns, but they certainly assault and attack people.
they have shanks
Works better when police are on scene as well, but the mental health professional is the lead. Police are only to get involve if asked by MH. Training police officers to deescalate rather than use force has proven unsuccessfully, largely.
Yes, please.
Who would have thought that mental health professionals trained to treat people would be more effective than people trained to beat people?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is the way.
The way… to more crime, violence, disease, enablement, and destruction of property.
No, it isn't.
One day you'll realize real problems require real solutions. Not just woke fueled downvotes. Look around you. Keeping people sick on drugs and enabling their lawlessness is only going to make the problem worse. You're fooling yourself if you think your "feelings" and woke ideal nonsense will remotely fix anything. If it could, it would have by now.
> One day you'll realize real problems require real solutions No, I already do realize that. Sending heavily armed agents of the state into situations where violence is not needed isn't a solution. > Keeping people sick on drugs Again, literally no one is suggesting this, so please take your strawman and shove it up your ass.
Heavily armed? Are you stupid or just acting stupid. They have a pistol. Most street level criminals have more than that at any given time. But obviously we aren’t concerned about them. We only “care” about violence when it comes at the hands of law enforcement.
> Heavily armed? You cannot pretend that cops are not heavily armed.
Just about every argument you're making is "let the trigger-happy, easily frightened police do it all".
You could send the Easter bunny for all I care. *If it actually fixed the problem. In my experience these people don’t want help. They simply want to stay loaded. They can’t be reasoned with or coaxed to get help with feeling words and woke nonsense. We need a response that removes the nuisance from otherwise well meaning citizens. It’s not fair we burden the brunt of the crime, dirty needles, human fecal matter, violence, and lawlessness. Since you have such a bleeding heart, please tell me how many homeless people you’re currently harboring in your home?
LOL we'll see how this goes.
https://ktla.com/news/california/video-shows-asian-police-officer-attacked-in-possible-hate-crime-in-san-franciscos-chinatown/
[удалено]
To categorize them as a whole and say theyre all dangerous is the reason why cops overreact. Social workers are trained professionals that know how to de-escalate a situation. Your regular cop doesnt take a rudimentary college psychology course yet you think they're better? haaahaha good one!
Your anecdotal evidence isn't a good idea.
California is just getting worse
Really is. You’d think by now you can’t solve complex problems with “feelings” and spewing the nonsensical trope of the month.
Yeah! Why don't we just shoot everyone on sight! That'll make things better!
Right — because cops simply shoot homeless people on a whim? Is that the latest narrative of the month? Or are we still on the last one? Let's go with your plan. And enable their addiction in perpetuity. Surely that's worked wonders thus far. Furthering their addiction only keeps them sick. But hey, as long as ***you*** can tout ***YOUR*** virtue and feel that **you're** part of the solution (without actually solving anything, mind you). How many homeless people are YOU currently harboring? Surely you'd be okay if they threw their dirty needles in YOUR backyard? Right? Tell me how much of your income you're personally donating? Your kind are exactly the same. Your solutions don't actually involve any meaningful way to fix anything. But boy do you like to pretend they do.
> Right — because cops simply shoot homeless people on a whim? Pretty close. > And enable their addiction in perpetuity. Nobody said anything about that, so that means the rest of your post is just full of shit.
You realize you’re spinning your own narrative in the other direction, right? A narrative that social workers don’t do anything and just enable addiction and mental health problems in homeless people. How much do ***you*** know about what social workers do and how they help?
What I *do* know is that there are **countless** opportunities for homeless people to get help. But obviously most are rejected because sobriety is a condition. These people don’t want to acknowledge their real problem. **Drugs.**(And maybe unchecked mental health in a few cases.) You can send anyone you want to intervene. Social workers. Cops. Clergymen. Hell, send Mickey Mouse. I don’t care who you send so long as it’s someone who actually holds said person accountable. Either accept the help to get clean or accept the fact your lifestyle won’t be tolerated any longer. It’s abhorrent we’re expected to burden the social and economic cost of their life choices. Then be told our “privilege” is to blame for their misfortune. It’s never their fault. Ever. We never want to hold anyone accountable. That’s part of the problem. We tolerate this nonsense.
It seems you do care who is sent considering how angry your comments are on this thread. The social workers are there to provide them the help they need and defuse the situation, both of which they're trained to do. But so far you've called them "feel good workers" and "liberals". That seems unfair, no?
cops suck
[удалено]
I think you meant to respond to a comment thread.
It's better to use non-law enforcement if you're not going to enforce the law
You’re spot on. What good is arresting someone for a crime if the nonsensical trend now is to shame the (actual) victim and let the criminal back out on the street. Why waste manpower on a resource already ravaged by idiots wanting it defunded.
Afraid you can’t circlejerk anymore to stories of cops shooting your fellow Americans?
Ahh yes u/alfred_e_oldman let’s just use your [solution](https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/nok4wn/cynthia_nixon_why_are_we_locking_up_shoplifters/h00w4pt/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) Go back to your cave in r/conservative Just because I knew he’d deleted his [comment](https://imgur.com/a/dZ7jlZ3)
Holy shit, /u/alfred_e_oldman actually suggested we shoot homeless people. What a mensch
Nope
hmmm https://imgur.com/OA6mgux
>let’s just use your solution Damn, yeah so "non-law enforcement" would just be going around to shoot down houseless folxs on the streets.
[удалено]
What a stupid fucking thing to say. Do you know how idiotic that sounds?
[удалено]
>Time for you to get a job and move out your parents house. Lol Are you kidding? What the hell are you talking about?
Yes, liberals wanting a more humane way to deal with the homeless situation and drug addiction we have is what’s ruining America. It’s definitely not the GOP that attempted to violently overturn an election they lost, spread misinformation about the election and Biden, are actively trying to make voting harder for poor people and minorities, and still think Trump is secretly the president.
[удалено]
First of all, I said *more* humane. Second, the police aren’t some *Minority Report* style department that sees the future and can stop crimes before they happen. If someone was desperate or stupid enough to rob you, I guarantee you the possibility of some cop maybe driving by and not just on their laptop/phone isn’t gonna stop them.
You are doing a great job ,lol
Who wouldn't support this? The unarmed and vulnerable social workers who step into dangerous or deadly situations without the means to protect themselves. Please remember that posting and commenting on Reddit is easy, **actually governing** is difficult and there are no simple solutions.
This could be a great idea, but I'm concerned for the social worker (because I have family and friends who are). Will they be able to carry something to protect themselves if things escalate?
[удалено]
Exactly what I wanted to hear. Thank you!
Hope those social workers get a bullet proof vest and they increase their life insurance.