Red Mosquito

E.H. Ruddock wrote:The Goon Squad getting sentenced by the state today. One of the guys is in a 5XL prison jumpsuit. Lol what are the standards for physical fitness in Mississippi police forces?

https://www.dps.ms.gov/MLEOTA/physical- ... quirements

It's called representation in law enforcement. #healthyatanysize

They're gonna try it:

https://www.boston25news.com/news/local ... AVERUXJBU/

Denver and Seattle have both been running this program

We've been doing it for 50 years.

https://www.townofchapelhill.org/govern ... risis-unit

My great great grandmother did this in 1874

Birds do it, bees do it

McParadigm wrote:Birds do it, bees do it

Folks get beaten close to death doing it:

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/we ... eld-visit/

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Birds do it, bees do it

Folks get beaten close to death doing it:

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/we ... eld-visit/

Cops'll drop the program cuz they're jealous.

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Birds do it, bees do it

Folks get beaten close to death doing it:

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/we ... eld-visit/

Cops'll drop the program cuz they're jealous.

Also a social worker was almost beaten to death

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Birds do it, bees do it

Folks get beaten close to death doing it:

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/we ... eld-visit/

Cops'll drop the program cuz they're jealous.

Also a social worker was almost beaten to death

Yeah, they're jealous that they didn't get to do the beating, dude.

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Birds do it, bees do it

Folks get beaten close to death doing it:

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/we ... eld-visit/

Cops'll drop the program cuz they're jealous.

Also a social worker was almost beaten to death

I guess my question is: since this attack occurred during a home visit, do you believe that it should cause us to reconsider social workers making home visits?

Do you feel that it warrants reconsideration of the task that was actually being done when the attack occurred? The specific service that put the social worker in this position? Do we cease home welfare check programs?

Because if it isn’t enough to justify reducing the professional activity the attack actually occurred during….why would it serve as a reason to cease a different professional action? One which occurs under different arrangements, while in direct communication with emergency services? One that’s been happening in enough communities for a long enough timeframe that it should have its own demonstrable data, if it is in fact of significantly heightened risk?

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Birds do it, bees do it

Folks get beaten close to death doing it:

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/we ... eld-visit/

Cops'll drop the program cuz they're jealous.

Also a social worker was almost beaten to death

I guess my question is: since this attack occurred during a home visit, do you believe that it should cause us to reconsider social workers making home visits?

Do you feel that it warrants reconsideration of the task that was actually being done when the attack occurred? The specific service that put the social worker in this position? Do we cease home welfare check programs?

Because if it isn’t enough to justify reducing the professional activity the attack actually occurred during….why would it serve as a reason to cease a different professional action? One which occurs under different arrangements, while in direct communication with emergency services? One that’s been happening in enough communities for a long enough timeframe that it should have its own demonstrable data, if it is in fact of significantly heightened risk?

"That driver had a silver Chevy and this driver has a metallic light gray Chevy! CHECKMATE"

I used that as a very recent example of the risks involved in field work, in this case the social worker did nothing more than knock on the wrong door and was nearly murdered during a routine job task. What Cambridge was looking at doing was sending social workers into emergency situations, not routine home checks, with what cops deemed inadequate situational training and unlike the link that B provided, the cops would not be present to take over if the situation goes wrong. Are there situations where a non-police first responder would help keep the situation calm more than cops with their guns drawn? Of course. But that is not without serious risks to everyone involved and to your point about communications... as you know Trump banned the police from using teleporters. So, shit.

Here, when someone calls 911, they train their dispatchers to review the situation to determine cop, social worker, or both. Is it dangerous? Sure, but that's what you sign up for. If you want guaranteed safety, you have to bomb every address that calls 911.

It sucks that the social worker was hurt by a neighbor in a situation that no one could have predicted, but if she'd been a cop every person in that house would be dead.

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Birds do it, bees do it

Folks get beaten close to death doing it:

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/we ... eld-visit/

Cops'll drop the program cuz they're jealous.

Also a social worker was almost beaten to death

I guess my question is: since this attack occurred during a home visit, do you believe that it should cause us to reconsider social workers making home visits?

Do you feel that it warrants reconsideration of the task that was actually being done when the attack occurred? The specific service that put the social worker in this position? Do we cease home welfare check programs?

Because if it isn’t enough to justify reducing the professional activity the attack actually occurred during….why would it serve as a reason to cease a different professional action? One which occurs under different arrangements, while in direct communication with emergency services? One that’s been happening in enough communities for a long enough timeframe that it should have its own demonstrable data, if it is in fact of significantly heightened risk?

"That driver had a silver Chevy and this driver has a metallic light gray Chevy! CHECKMATE"

I used that as a very recent example of the risks involved in field work, in this case the social worker did nothing more than knock on the wrong door and was nearly murdered during a routine job task. What Cambridge was looking at doing was sending social workers into emergency situations, not routine home checks, with what cops deemed inadequate situational training and unlike the link that B provided, the cops would not be present to take over if the situation goes wrong. Are there situations where a non-police first responder would help keep the situation calm more than cops with their guns drawn? Of course. But that is not without serious risks to everyone involved and to your point about communications... as you know Trump banned the police from using teleporters. So, shit.

This is not an obfuscation. This is a serious question.

If you feel that the risk of violence faced by social workers when making home visits is not enough to advocate for ending or drastically changing our approach to social worker home visits…then why would an example of home visit violence be enough to advocate for ending a different type of encounter? The logic makes no sense to me.

As B pointed out, situations get triaged. Sending a CARE team doesnt mean that you can’t also send cops, any more than sending the fire department prevents sending an ambulance.

McParadigm wrote: This is not an obfuscation. This is a serious question.

If you feel that the risk of violence faced by social workers when making home visits is not enough to advocate for ending or drastically changing our approach to social worker home visits…then why would an example of home visit violence be enough to advocate for ending a different type of encounter? The logic makes no sense to me.

As B pointed out, situations get triaged. Sending a CARE team doesnt mean that you can’t also send cops, any more than sending the fire department prevents sending an ambulance.

Maybe it doesn't make sense was because I was not advocating for ending the policy, that's a strawman you made up. I'm pointing out this is a policy that is likely to get people seriously hurt. I don't have a basis to judge what the acceptable number of victimized social workers is in any given community but clearly it's greater than zero.

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote: This is not an obfuscation. This is a serious question.

If you feel that the risk of violence faced by social workers when making home visits is not enough to advocate for ending or drastically changing our approach to social worker home visits…then why would an example of home visit violence be enough to advocate for ending a different type of encounter? The logic makes no sense to me.

As B pointed out, situations get triaged. Sending a CARE team doesnt mean that you can’t also send cops, any more than sending the fire department prevents sending an ambulance.

Maybe it doesn't make sense was because I was not advocating for ending the policy, that's a strawman you made up. I'm pointing out this is a policy that is likely to get people seriously hurt. I don't have a basis to judge what the acceptable number of victimized social workers is in any given community but clearly it's greater than zero.

Why share the story at all then? Policing is not risk free. Social work is not risk free.

Combining the two may be less risky than either in a vacuum for the public servants and the citizens they serve.

Oh fuck! Is B_i endorsing the defunding of the police?

Bi_3 wrote:Maybe it doesn't make sense was because I was not advocating for ending the policy, that's a strawman you made up. I'm pointing out this is a policy that is likely to get people seriously hurt.

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. It doesn’t make sense to me because you’re not advocating for ending home visits.

You demonstrated the risk-of-harm that a longstanding social support program (home visits) creates, but you are not advocating for ending it. Therefore…the policy and its outcomes must be valuable enough relative to that risk of harm. Correct?

That’s the thing about your post that I’m pointing out to you. The bolded statement.

By presenting a story about a violent attack during a home visit but NOT advocating for ending home visits, you are acknowledging that a violent attack is not sufficient to negate the value of such a program. Which means we could also conclude that the same is true for care team first responders.

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Maybe it doesn't make sense was because I was not advocating for ending the policy, that's a strawman you made up. I'm pointing out this is a policy that is likely to get people seriously hurt.

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. It doesn’t make sense to me because you’re not advocating for ending home visits.

You demonstrated the risk-of-harm that a longstanding social support program (home visits) creates, but you are not advocating for ending it. Therefore…the policy and its outcomes must be valuable enough relative to that risk of harm. Correct?

That’s the thing about your post that I’m pointing out to you. The bolded statement.

By presenting a story about a violent attack during a home visit but NOT advocating for ending home visits, you are acknowledging that a violent attack is not sufficient to negate the value of such a program. Which means we could also conclude that the same is true for care team first responders.

I was not advocating in favor of the policy either

For the Sonya Massey shooting, what were the cops trying to accomplish?

If the claims are accurate, she called in a prowler to 9/11 and the cops show up and enter her residence. The cops are inside talking with her for a little while, she goes to the stove, picks up a pot of (boiling?) water, and a cop shoots and kills her. Bodycam footage is available for those so inclined.

She seemed a little confused or out of it. The cops didn't seem to have any obligation to stick around, so what, did they suspect she was high and trying to snoop around and bust her for possession? Especially in today's climate, why prolong an interaction beyond what your department policy dictates?