In her excellent book Becoming Abolitionists Derecka Purnell makes a very compelling argument for concluding that police should only ever be involved when there's strong evidence that a crime has been committed.
Regardless of the amount of training they receive, expecting every single police officer in every single police department to be able to recognise, diagnose and handle medical or mental health events either competently or compassionately or intelligently, is an exercise in futility. That's just not the mindset of the average cop.
Interestingly, I don't think the sequence of events reported here in Bruce Frankel's case would have occurred in Australia. When we call "triple-zero" (the Australian equivalent of 911) the operator asks exactly one question: "do you want Police, Fire Brigade or Ambulance?"
If you ask for Ambulance, you get connected to a paramedic who guides you through initial diagnosis and first aid, and assesses whether an ambulance should be dispatched.
I'm not saying that that first-contact paramedic might not use their own judgement to call police (eg hearing sounds of domestic violence). Neither am I saying that paramedics arriving on the scene might not similarly use their own judgement to call police (eg a dead body and blood everywhere).
But, absent some indication that a call to triple-zero was for something other than a medical emergency, it's presumed to be a medical event. Calls to triple-zero don't see police elbowing their way into and otherwise interfering with medical decisions and procedures.
I don't want to suggest that Australia is some paradise where police are never involved in medical misadventures. One recent example is from November 2023 where a 95 year old 43kg (6.8 stone) grandmother with dementia was tased. She lived in a nursing home. News reports said she was wandering around on her walking frame holding a steak knife, possibly looking for a midnight snack. Police were called. Rather than just calmly taking the knife away from her, feeding her, and putting her back to bed, she wound up dead. The cop has been charged with manslaughter.
The first question I asked myself was why the hell did nursing home staff feel the need to call police? I have yet to see any media reports containing a satisfactory answer.
I wonder the same thing here. Why were police even involved in Bruce Frankel's case in the first place? Is it routine for a 911 call asking for paramedics to also result in the dispatch of police? Perhaps that's the thing that needs to change.
When I read articles like this (where it's clear legislators just refuse to see both the evidence placed in front of them and the likely constitutional fate of their efforts, all of which the author puts down to "moral panic") I often wonder if a lot of this legislative stupidity might not be explained by cognitive impairment as a result of the people pushing the bills having contracted COVID19?
Googling the topic finds a fair number of studies such as this.
We (society) might be better off if we required all those in positions of power to either prove, at least annually, they have never had the disease or, if they have, that they suffer no ongoing cognitive impairment as a result.
Sort of like porn actors having to prove they don't have AIDS or other STDs, or drivers having to prove they aren't under the influence.
I kinda like the idea of legislators having to prove, both routinely and frequently, that they aren't actually batshit crazy.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by cashncarry.
There might have been a different outcome in Australia
In her excellent book Becoming Abolitionists Derecka Purnell makes a very compelling argument for concluding that police should only ever be involved when there's strong evidence that a crime has been committed. Regardless of the amount of training they receive, expecting every single police officer in every single police department to be able to recognise, diagnose and handle medical or mental health events either competently or compassionately or intelligently, is an exercise in futility. That's just not the mindset of the average cop. Interestingly, I don't think the sequence of events reported here in Bruce Frankel's case would have occurred in Australia. When we call "triple-zero" (the Australian equivalent of 911) the operator asks exactly one question: "do you want Police, Fire Brigade or Ambulance?" If you ask for Ambulance, you get connected to a paramedic who guides you through initial diagnosis and first aid, and assesses whether an ambulance should be dispatched. I'm not saying that that first-contact paramedic might not use their own judgement to call police (eg hearing sounds of domestic violence). Neither am I saying that paramedics arriving on the scene might not similarly use their own judgement to call police (eg a dead body and blood everywhere). But, absent some indication that a call to triple-zero was for something other than a medical emergency, it's presumed to be a medical event. Calls to triple-zero don't see police elbowing their way into and otherwise interfering with medical decisions and procedures. I don't want to suggest that Australia is some paradise where police are never involved in medical misadventures. One recent example is from November 2023 where a 95 year old 43kg (6.8 stone) grandmother with dementia was tased. She lived in a nursing home. News reports said she was wandering around on her walking frame holding a steak knife, possibly looking for a midnight snack. Police were called. Rather than just calmly taking the knife away from her, feeding her, and putting her back to bed, she wound up dead. The cop has been charged with manslaughter. The first question I asked myself was why the hell did nursing home staff feel the need to call police? I have yet to see any media reports containing a satisfactory answer. I wonder the same thing here. Why were police even involved in Bruce Frankel's case in the first place? Is it routine for a 911 call asking for paramedics to also result in the dispatch of police? Perhaps that's the thing that needs to change.
I sense your apoplexy
So pretty standard
fairfare for a review-type post on Facebook. And the claim that the company ispurusingpursuing the civil caseCulture Warrioring
Ah, the verb "to warrior". I'll add that to my lexicon.
When I read articles like this (where it's clear legislators just refuse to see both the evidence placed in front of them and the likely constitutional fate of their efforts, all of which the author puts down to "moral panic") I often wonder if a lot of this legislative stupidity might not be explained by cognitive impairment as a result of the people pushing the bills having contracted COVID19? Googling the topic finds a fair number of studies such as this. We (society) might be better off if we required all those in positions of power to either prove, at least annually, they have never had the disease or, if they have, that they suffer no ongoing cognitive impairment as a result. Sort of like porn actors having to prove they don't have AIDS or other STDs, or drivers having to prove they aren't under the influence. I kinda like the idea of legislators having to prove, both routinely and frequently, that they aren't actually batshit crazy.