In the UK for example, the normal beat police do not have guns. If they approach a situation where they feel in danger, they're trained to back off and call for either more backup or an armed response. Turns out most of the time whatever the issue is will still be there when backup arrives. On the other hand, if it's a simple issue, they can just deal with it and there's a much smaller chance someone gets shot.

I can see that helping in some situations, but how does that help when the situation really is urgent?

Say you have someone who is violent and irrational due to drug intoxication and they need medical aid or they'll die, yet it's not safe to provide that. What is the answer in that case?

I'm only half joking.

In all of the recent cases that have blown up in the US though, this was never the issue. The issue was the situation escalated way beyond where it should have. George Floyd was being arrested for using a supposedly counterfeit $20 bill. Maybe they could have just let him run. I'm sure the US economy won't be ruined by there being an extra $20 in circulation.

In the EMT case, I think we have to think about the alternative outcomes. If the EMTs can't help because the person is irrationally violent due to drugs, and the EMTs can't restrain them, I don't really see why calling the cops would make the situation any better. All they're doing is providing more hands, which could be done by simply having more EMTs. If they have a gun, then call the police. If they don't, they're unrestrainable, and you can clear out members of the the public, just let them be. The only other options simply make the situation worse for the person. Even using a taser in that situation can cause a heart attack.

In aggregate it would be.

It's like thinking you'll win the war on drugs by arresting weed smokers, except even less effective

We know from plenty of examples that in the scenario you describe there’s a high chance that the individual will end up shot by the police, and probably dead. We know police don’t have the training or the tools to handle this scenario well.

I don’t see how brining in people with better training could be a detriment. Worse case you ended up back where you started, the “violent and irrational” person ends up dead. Best case they successfully deescalate and render appropriate treatment, saving their life.

Not sure where the downside is.

The data simply do not comport with the position you are advocating. Here's some old (2005) data: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=653

- 20% of people in US had contact with police in the year. - 9/10 people reported police acted properly - 44 million people with interactions, only 1% of those had violent conflict involved with the interaction, that's 440 thousand incidents

Hell, even the left-leaning WaPo tried to use data to buttress their/your argument and it's just plain embarrassing: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic...

- 1000 people shot by police in 2019 - they actually removed the numbers for unarmed, because it was so dismal for their message - less than 50 "unarmed" black people killed by police in 2019

Take an honest look at these numbers and then please try again to justify your position about how there's a "high chance that the individual will end up shot by the police" because by the light of the data you're living in a fantasy land.

But then my next question is, what does a police officer bring to the table other than a gun? What unique skill and tools does a police officer have that could help resolve such a scenario peacefully, that wouldn't also be available to someone specially trained in dealing with mental health issues?

The UK has ~5 guns (legal and illegal) per 100 civilians.

The US has 120 per 100 civilians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...

I think it goes down with many more factors applying at the same time, not just „guns“.

Domestic abuse/violence, threatening behavior towards third parties or behavior that's so unpredictably out of line that you can't confidently sit back and not deal with it because you'd be wondering if others would be placed in danger by your non-action.

I'd say that most of the comments in this thread are very out of touch with reality and firmly in the realm of wishful thinking.

But to answer your question directly, there are tons of simple things you can do, from body language to tone. They aren't really a mystery to figure out either. Start with empathy and asking how you can help.

Like I mentioned above, Patrick Skinner distills this succinctly with "how would I solve this problem without my badge and my gun?" and in particular, using the example of if your next door neighbor asked you for help with some minor crisis.

Treat your neighbor that lives rough the same way and it's amazing the difference in reaction you get.

Assuming violence is necessary from the start becomes a self fulfilling thing.

I listened to the local dispatch until recently when the cops switched to encrypted channels. Fire/EMS is still available though.