Transition Integrity Project

[98valk]

https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/11/the-left-is-setting-the-stage-for-a-coup-if-trump-wins/

In one of the simulations, a scenario similar to 2016 was gamed out, with Trump losing the popular vote but winning the right combination of states for an Electoral College victory. John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign chairman and a top adviser to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, played the role of Biden. According to Ben Smith’s account of the simulation in the New York Times, Podesta-as-Biden refused to concede, saying his party wouldn’t let him and instead alleged voter suppression, persuading the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan to send Biden electors to the Electoral College.

“In that scenario, California, Oregon, and Washington then threatened to secede from the United States if Mr. Trump took office as planned,” writes Smith. “The House named Mr. Biden president; the Senate and White House stuck with Mr. Trump. At that point in the scenario, the nation stopped looking to the media for cues, and waited to see what the military would do.”
The Left Is Engaging In Political Blackmail

Whether they realize it or not, Podesta and Frum and the others are acting out a present-day version of the election of 1860, only they’re playing the role of the secessionist South. Indeed, well before Abraham Lincoln won the election, even moderate “unionist” southern leaders warned that their states would secede if the vote didn’t go their way. It amounted to mass political blackmail, and after Lincoln’s decisive victory the South followed through on its threat. For slave states, the Union was conditional, not perpetual, and Lincoln’s election violated their conditions.

Once southern states began seceding — South Carolina was the first to go, less than two months after Lincoln’s victory and three months before he even took office — the long-burning question about the constitutionality of secession had to be answered. For Lincoln and most other northerners, the answer had always been obvious. The “central idea” of the Union, said Lincoln, “is the necessity of proving that popular government is not an absurdity. We must settle this question now, whether in a free government the minority have the right to break up the government whenever they choose.”

We now seem to be on the cusp of relitigating the question, only instead of slaveholding southerners blackmailing the country with secession, it’s anti-Trump Democrats and left-wing radicals threatening to tear the country apart if Trump wins in November. For them, the Union is conditional, and Trump’s reelection will violate their conditions.

What do they have in mind? Not exactly an 1860-style secession, state-by-state, but something more immediately disruptive. Depending on the circumstances the day after the election, they might contest the results and trigger lengthy litigations and ballot recounts, working in the meantime to come up with enough absentee ballots to put Biden over the edge. In that case, while the lawsuits and recounts are underway, the left plans to do what it’s been doing for months now: take to the streets.

Last week, an initiative called the Fight Back Table, a coalition of more than 50 left-wing groups that got together after the 2016 election, met to formulate a plan of action in case no clear winner emerges after Election Day. Of course, “no clear winner” is something for which the left has been rhetorically preparing the country under the guise of ensuring all the mail-in ballots are properly counted.

The group “began charting out what it would take to stand up a multi-state communications arm to fight disinformation, a training program for nonviolent civil disobedience, and the underpinnings of what one official described as ‘mass public unrest,’” according to a report by The Daily Beast. One person familiar with the discussion said the goal was to figure out how to “occupy crap, hold space, and shut things down, not just on Election Day but for weeks.” By now, we all know what that means.

Perhaps more disturbing than the possibility of organized mass riots and looting is the open fantasizing among Democrats, including Biden himself, about the role the military might play in a contested election. Biden has felt free to ruminate, more than once, on the possibility of soldiers dragging Trump out of the White House if he tries to “steal the election.”

Alas, this kind of electoral hostage-taking isn’t new. In the months before the 1860 election, southern leaders and newspapers warned in explicit terms that electing Lincoln would mean disunion, perhaps even war. “Let the consequences be what they may—whether the Potomac is crimsoned in human gore, and Pennsylvania Avenue is paved ten fathoms deep with mangled bodies,” declared one Georgia newspaper. “The South will never submit to such humiliation and degradation as the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln.”

Most northerners thought this was just bluster, that Lincoln’s election would never lead to actual war and bloodshed. They badly underestimated how lightly the South regarded the Union, and what southerners would do to the country to be rid of it. They should have taken the South at its word.

Now, 160 years later, we face what could be a similar crisis. There’s a rich irony in the elite assumption that post-election violence will come from “right-wing militias” or “vigilante groups,” when the last three months of rioting and looting by Antifa and Black Lives Matter activists have in some ways been a dress rehearsal for what the left is planning in November. You don’t need to read between the lines to understand this, you just need to take these people at their word.

[Alien]

I have no doube that whichever the losing side is will contest the election.  There doesn't seem to be a way around that outside of a clear landslide vistory for one candidate.  BUT, no one is seceding from the Union or staging a coup.  It will be much like the 2000 election, I think.

[Moonshot_1]

The view from the cheap seats here.

I've posted some thoughts on this previously on the board and I'll kind of extend them a bit.

I don't see an effort that results in a state secession. It will be slightly more subtle.

When you combine the mass mail in ballot effort and the defund the police effort you have an election day where you cannot count ballots with any integrity and you cannot secure your polling places because you have decimated your police forces.

The result will be that States that have a mass mail in ballot effort and defunded police, particularly in the urban, and populated sections, will be unable to choose their electors for the Electoral College by the traditional election means. States will be unable to count the votes in a timely manner, not even remotely, and the violence on and prior to election day at the voting booths will effectively shut them down.

Governors of the States will then declare a State of Emergency because of the violence.
Under the State of Emergency the Election of the Electors will then be done by the State Legislatures.

Constitutionally, the choosing of Electors by a State Legislature would be legit. Constitution simply says that the States shall choose their electors. In this case, they would be doing exactly that.

The political fallout would be immense.

The remedy for this will be violence. The remedy for this will be force.

What is disappointing beyond belief is that the Democrats and the left and their supporters have decided to destroy the electoral system to gain political power. Not ideas, not policy initiatives, but burning every bridge and empowering their followers to destroy the country.

It's not about voting for Trump. It is about saving a Country.

[The emperor has no clothes]

The view from the cheap seats here.

I've posted some thoughts on this previously on the board and I'll kind of extend them a bit.

I don't see an effort that results in a state secession. It will be slightly more subtle.

When you combine the mass mail in ballot effort and the defund the police effort you have an election day where you cannot count ballots with any integrity and you cannot secure your polling places because you have decimated your police forces.

The result will be that States that have a mass mail in ballot effort and defunded police, particularly in the urban, and populated sections, will be unable to choose their electors for the Electoral College by the traditional election means. States will be unable to count the votes in a timely manner, not even remotely, and the violence on and prior to election day at the voting booths will effectively shut them down.

Governors of the States will then declare a State of Emergency because of the violence.
Under the State of Emergency the Election of the Electors will then be done by the State Legislatures.

Constitutionally, the choosing of Electors by a State Legislature would be legit. Constitution simply says that the States shall choose their electors. In this case, they would be doing exactly that.

The political fallout would be immense.

The remedy for this will be violence. The remedy for this will be force.

What is disappointing beyond belief is that the Democrats and the left and their supporters have decided to destroy the electoral system to gain political power. Not ideas, not policy initiatives, but burning every bridge and empowering their followers to destroy the country.

It's not about voting for Trump. It is about saving a Country.

What a crock of crap ! Which Police have been defunded ? The Democrats are destroying the Electoral system ? How ? The President of Republican Party has encouraged people to commit felonies of voter fraud.

[Willow]

What a crock of poop ! Which Police have been defunded ? The Democrats are destroying the Electoral system ? How ? The President of Republican Party has encouraged people to commit felonies of voter fraud.

What a complete load of bullshit.  He's not President of the Republican Party, Constitutional enemy.  He's the duly elected President of the United States of America and he did not encourage anyone to commit voter fraud.

By the way, the police departments of several cities have had their funds reduced directing the reductions to other departments.   

[The emperor has no clothes]

What a crock of poop ! Which Police have been defunded ? The Democrats are destroying the Electoral system ? How ? The President of Republican Party has encouraged people to commit felonies of voter fraud.

What a complete load of bullshit.  He's not President of the Republican Party, Constitutional enemy.  He's the duly elected President of the United States of America and he did not encourage anyone to commit voter fraud.

By the way, the police departments of several cities have had their funds reduced directing the reductions to other departments.   

1) Telling people to break the law by voting twice is (or would be) voter fraud.
 2) having a budget reduced is not defunded.
3) He is President of the USA, and leader of the Republican Party.

[carolinarider09]

Just for the record, using a search in Duckduckgo.com using the following term.  

police units that have actually been defunded

One of the returned websites was Axios dated June 27, 2020

The cities that are already defunding the police

Last week, the Baltimore City Council approved a $22.4 million budget cut for the police department.

The Portland City Council cut $15 million from its police budget earlier this month. $5 million of that would be put toward a new program that sends unarmed first responders to answer homelessness calls.

Philadelphia cancelled a planned $19 million increase for the police department and shifted $14 million of the police budget elsewhere — including affordable housing.

The city council in Hartford, Connecticut voted to cut or reallocate $2 million of its police budget.

https://www.axios.com/cities-defund-the-police-george-floyd-188e169a-a32a-44fa-bace-e2e5df4d1c9b.html


In searching for the reliability of Axios I did another search and found this.  

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/axios/

Overall, we rate Axios just Left of Center biased based on story selection that slightly favors the left. They are High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and zero failed fact checks.

Other hits off my simple Duckduckgo search

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/07/01/new-york-city-budget-billion-nypd-defund-police/5354307002/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/06/04/la-mayor-slashes-lapd-budget-as-calls-to-defund-police-slowly-pick-up-steam/#30b38df1ba36

[Willow]

What a complete load of bullshit.  He's not President of the Republican Party, Constitutional enemy.  He's the duly elected President of the United States of America and he did not encourage anyone to commit voter fraud.

By the way, the police departments of several cities have had their funds reduced directing the reductions to other departments.  

1) Telling people to break the law by voting twice is (or would be) voter fraud.
 2) having a budget reduced is not defunded.
3) He is President of the USA, and leader of the Republican Party.

1) President Trump did no such thing.  Are you pretending to be stupid enough to interpret, "Go ahead and vote by mail but if your vote isn't counted go down to the poll and vote in person," as telling people to vote twice?  It was telling people to be sure their vote is counted.  Perhaps he was speaking above your comprehension level.

2)Budget reduced is exactly the meaning associated with the term by the people who originally used the term.

3) It seems you have mixed two titles to create your own single title.  Really?  You are the father of Mrs. Tice's children.  You are the husband of Mrs. Tice.  Does that make you the father of Mrs. Tice?

[The emperor has no clothes]

1) Trump quote ;

 "So let them send it in and let them go vote, and if their system's as good as they say it is, then obviously they won't be able to vote. If it isn't tabulated, they'll be able to vote."

As well versed as you are in grammar, surely you can't be stupid enough to not realize this is telling people to vote by mail and then go vote in person ?
2) So now defunded doesn't mean take away the funds, but a budget reduction ? If so, this is, and has been a normal process of city governments for decades (if not longer).
3) if you don't believe he leads the Republican Party, I'm not sure what else to say.

[Willow]

1) Trump quote ;

 "So let them send it in and let them go vote, and if their system's as good as they say it is, then obviously they won't be able to vote. If it isn't tabulated, they'll be able to vote."

As well versed as you are in grammar, surely you can't be stupid enough to not realize this is telling people to vote by mail and then go vote in person ?
2) So now defunded doesn't mean take away the funds, but a budget reduction ? If so, this is, and has been a normal process of city governments for decades (if not longer).
3) if you don't believe he leads the Republican Party, I'm not sure what else to say.

Wow!  As so many times before you simply make up what isn't there and argue against what wasn't said.  You didn't say "leads the Republican Party".  You said President of the Republican Party.  By upper casing President you referred to a title of the United States President not the leader of a political party.

I'm through.  I will avoid interacting with you in the future.  I can no longer attempt to stoop to that intellectual level.

[The emperor has no clothes]

1) Trump quote ;

 "So let them send it in and let them go vote, and if their system's as good as they say it is, then obviously they won't be able to vote. If it isn't tabulated, they'll be able to vote."

As well versed as you are in grammar, surely you can't be stupid enough to not realize this is telling people to vote by mail and then go vote in person ?
2) So now defunded doesn't mean take away the funds, but a budget reduction ? If so, this is, and has been a normal process of city governments for decades (if not longer).
3) if you don't believe he leads the Republican Party, I'm not sure what else to say.

Wow!  As so many times before you simply make up what isn't there and argue against what wasn't said.  You didn't say "leads the Republican Party".  You said President of the Republican Party.  By upper casing President you referred to a title of the United States President not the leader of a political party.

I'm through.  I will avoid interacting with you in the future.  I can no longer attempt to stoop to that intellectual level.

Surely you aren't so stupid as to see I corrected my quick typing in the second post. (I think your attempt at skirting the rules of the road is laughable)

[Alien]

1) Trump quote ;

 "So let them send it in and let them go vote, and if their system's as good as they say it is, then obviously they won't be able to vote. If it isn't tabulated, they'll be able to vote."

As well versed as you are in grammar, surely you can't be stupid enough to not realize this is telling people to vote by mail and then go vote in person ?
2) So now defunded doesn't mean take away the funds, but a budget reduction ? If so, this is, and has been a normal process of city governments for decades (if not longer).
3) if you don't believe he leads the Republican Party, I'm not sure what else to say.

Wow!  As so many times before you simply make up what isn't there and argue against what wasn't said.  You didn't say "leads the Republican Party".  You said President of the Republican Party.  By upper casing President you referred to a title of the United States President not the leader of a political party.

I'm through.  I will avoid interacting with you in the future.  I can no longer attempt to stoop to that intellectual level.

Can you avoid interacting with me too?  That'd be great.  Why should Meathead be the only lucky one? 

[The emperor has no clothes]

1) Trump quote ;

 "So let them send it in and let them go vote, and if their system's as good as they say it is, then obviously they won't be able to vote. If it isn't tabulated, they'll be able to vote."

As well versed as you are in grammar, surely you can't be stupid enough to not realize this is telling people to vote by mail and then go vote in person ?
2) So now defunded doesn't mean take away the funds, but a budget reduction ? If so, this is, and has been a normal process of city governments for decades (if not longer).
3) if you don't believe he leads the Republican Party, I'm not sure what else to say.

Wow!  As so many times before you simply make up what isn't there and argue against what wasn't said.  You didn't say "leads the Republican Party".  You said President of the Republican Party.  By upper casing President you referred to a title of the United States President not the leader of a political party.

I'm through.  I will avoid interacting with you in the future.  I can no longer attempt to stoop to that intellectual level.

Can you avoid interacting with me too?  That'd be great.  Why should Meathead be the only lucky one? 

I get rights as senior liberal.  all the others have been run off or died. 

[Psychotic Bovine]

Willow is showing a lot of restraint.  I would have swung the ban hammer a long time ago on some people.

[baldo]

1) Trump quote ;

 "So let them send it in and let them go vote, and if their system's as good as they say it is, then obviously they won't be able to vote. If it isn't tabulated, they'll be able to vote."

As well versed as you are in grammar, surely you can't be stupid enough to not realize this is telling people to vote by mail and then go vote in person ?
2) So now defunded doesn't mean take away the funds, but a budget reduction ? If so, this is, and has been a normal process of city governments for decades (if not longer).
3) if you don't believe he leads the Republican Party, I'm not sure what else to say.

Wow!  As so many times before you simply make up what isn't there and argue against what wasn't said.  You didn't say "leads the Republican Party".  You said President of the Republican Party.  By upper casing President you referred to a title of the United States President not the leader of a political party.

I'm through.  I will avoid interacting with you in the future.  I can no longer attempt to stoop to that intellectual level.

Can you avoid interacting with me too?  That'd be great.  Why should Meathead be the only lucky one? 

I get rights as senior liberal.  all the others have been run off or died. 

Not all of them......lol

I asked him last night why he feels the need to be so demeaning. Deleted.

[Patrick]

The view from the cheap seats here.

I've posted some thoughts on this previously on the board and I'll kind of extend them a bit.

I don't see an effort that results in a state secession. It will be slightly more subtle.

When you combine the mass mail in ballot effort and the defund the police effort you have an election day where you cannot count ballots with any integrity and you cannot secure your polling places because you have decimated your police forces.




The result will be that States that have a mass mail in ballot effort and defunded police, particularly in the urban, and populated sections, will be unable to choose their electors for the Electoral College by the traditional election means. States will be unable to count the votes in a timely manner, not even remotely, and the violence on and prior to election day at the voting booths will effectively shut them down.

Governors of the States will then declare a State of Emergency because of the violence.
Under the State of Emergency the Election of the Electors will then be done by the State Legislatures.

Constitutionally, the choosing of Electors by a State Legislature would be legit. Constitution simply says that the States shall choose their electors. In this case, they would be doing exactly that.

The political fallout would be immense.

The remedy for this will be violence. The remedy for this will be force.

What is disappointing beyond belief is that the Democrats and the left and their supporters have decided to destroy the electoral system to gain political power. Not ideas, not policy initiatives, but burning every bridge and empowering their followers to destroy the country.

It's not about voting for Trump. It is about saving a Country.

What a crock of poop ! Which Police have been defunded ? The Democrats are destroying the Electoral system ? How ? The President of Republican Party has encouraged people to commit felonies of voter fraud.

 geez, Thats about the dumbest things I've read.

[Patrick]

What a crock of poop ! Which Police have been defunded ? The Democrats are destroying the Electoral system ? How ? The President of Republican Party has encouraged people to commit felonies of voter fraud.

What a complete load of bullshit.  He's not President of the Republican Party, Constitutional enemy.  He's the duly elected President of the United States of America and he did not encourage anyone to commit voter fraud.

By the way, the police departments of several cities have had their funds reduced directing the reductions to other departments.   

1) Telling people to break the law by voting twice is (or would be) voter fraud.
 2) having a budget reduced is not defunded.
3) He is President of the USA, and leader of the Republican Party.

Oops, nope, I was wrong !  This is.

[baldo]

What a crock of poop ! Which Police have been defunded ? The Democrats are destroying the Electoral system ? How ? The President of Republican Party has encouraged people to commit felonies of voter fraud.

What a complete load of bullshit.  He's not President of the Republican Party, Constitutional enemy.  He's the duly elected President of the United States of America and he did not encourage anyone to commit voter fraud.

By the way, the police departments of several cities have had their funds reduced directing the reductions to other departments.   

1) Telling people to break the law by voting twice is (or would be) voter fraud.
 2) having a budget reduced is not defunded.
3) He is President of the USA, and leader of the Republican Party.

Oops, nope, I was wrong !  This is.

Why is it the "dumbest thing you've read"?

[markymark640]

I'd have to say that defunding the police might be a good idea.

Those places that have, and some that are, defunding, are actually just reallocating funds to services/programs that allow other than police to respond to certain types of incidents. This has led to creation/expansion of other services that will be specifically funded, trained, and employed to handle a variety of events in place of sworn police personnel.

I know for a fact that there are alot of police that support that idea because they they didn't join the force to be a social worker and feel that their time and efforts are better used on other 'typical' police matters.

Seems to me some folks are using scare tactics with this 'defund police' idea and not actually telling folks what that really means for their communities.  Having previous worked in law enforcement for some years I can say that policing in general has changed drastically over the years and no doubt will continue to evolve to try and meet the needs of those served. 

Me personally, I'm all for defunding police and reallocating those funds to other services that would be tasked to respond to selected events, thereby freeing our police to respond to the incidents that really need an armed law enforcement professional.

[Rams]

I'd have to say that defunding the police might be a good idea.

Those places that have, and some that are, defunding, are actually just reallocating funds to services/programs that allow other than police to respond to certain types of incidents. This has led to creation/expansion of other services that will be specifically funded, trained, and employed to handle a variety of events in place of sworn police personnel.

I know for a fact that there are alot of police that support that idea because they they didn't join the force to be a social worker and feel that their time and efforts are better used on other 'typical' police matters.

Seems to me some folks are using scare tactics with this 'defund police' idea and not actually telling folks what that really means for their communities.  Having previous worked in law enforcement for some years I can say that policing in general has changed drastically over the years and no doubt will continue to evolve to try and meet the needs of those served. 

Me personally, I'm all for defunding police and reallocating those funds to other services that would be tasked to respond to selected events, thereby freeing our police to respond to the incidents that really need an armed law enforcement professional.

Should your local PDs get "de-funded", are you willing to step into that role of responding to those issues being described?   Just remember, in voting, you get the leadership you deserve.   Hope it all works out for you and yours.

Rams

[Valkorado]

I'd have to say that defunding the police might be a good idea.

Those places that have, and some that are, defunding, are actually just reallocating funds to services/programs that allow other than police to respond to certain types of incidents. This has led to creation/expansion of other services that will be specifically funded, trained, and employed to handle a variety of events in place of sworn police personnel.

I know for a fact that there are alot of police that support that idea because they they didn't join the force to be a social worker and feel that their time and efforts are better used on other 'typical' police matters.

Seems to me some folks are using scare tactics with this 'defund police' idea and not actually telling folks what that really means for their communities.  Having previous worked in law enforcement for some years I can say that policing in general has changed drastically over the years and no doubt will continue to evolve to try and meet the needs of those served. 

Me personally, I'm all for defunding police and reallocating those funds to other services that would be tasked to respond to selected events, thereby freeing our police to respond to the incidents that really need an armed law enforcement professional.

And who will make the split second decisions about which "incidents" might require actual officers, and which ones could use a friendly counselor or social worker? And what if the counseling session escalates?  Will the social workers then call for the real police?

[..]

I'd have to say that defunding the police might be a good idea.

Those places that have, and some that are, defunding, are actually just reallocating funds to services/programs that allow other than police to respond to certain types of incidents. This has led to creation/expansion of other services that will be specifically funded, trained, and employed to handle a variety of events in place of sworn police personnel.

I know for a fact that there are alot of police that support that idea because they they didn't join the force to be a social worker and feel that their time and efforts are better used on other 'typical' police matters.

Seems to me some folks are using scare tactics with this 'defund police' idea and not actually telling folks what that really means for their communities.  Having previous worked in law enforcement for some years I can say that policing in general has changed drastically over the years and no doubt will continue to evolve to try and meet the needs of those served. 

Me personally, I'm all for defunding police and reallocating those funds to other services that would be tasked to respond to selected events, thereby freeing our police to respond to the incidents that really need an armed law enforcement professional.

Do you have a list of selected events that don't need a police response?

[Patrick]

I'd have to say that defunding the police might be a good idea.

Those places that have, and some that are, defunding, are actually just reallocating funds to services/programs that allow other than police to respond to certain types of incidents. This has led to creation/expansion of other services that will be specifically funded, trained, and employed to handle a variety of events in place of sworn police personnel.

I know for a fact that there are alot of police that support that idea because they they didn't join the force to be a social worker and feel that their time and efforts are better used on other 'typical' police matters.

Seems to me some folks are using scare tactics with this 'defund police' idea and not actually telling folks what that really means for their communities.  Having previous worked in law enforcement for some years I can say that policing in general has changed drastically over the years and no doubt will continue to evolve to try and meet the needs of those served. 

Me personally, I'm all for defunding police and reallocating those funds to other services that would be tasked to respond to selected events, thereby freeing our police to respond to the incidents that really need an armed law enforcement professional.

Do you have a list of selected events that don't need a police response?

Surely you wouldn't need to send the officers to something as mundane as a domestic disturbance.    Let the social worker get assaulted or shot at midnight.

[markymark640]

First off, get off the domestic incident thing.

I never said that, in any way shape or form.

I would suggest that what we have here is a bunch of folks who never spent a day in law enforcement of any kind attempting to discredit my comments by interjecting the idea that I suggested police wouldn't respond to domestic incidents.  I never said anything about domestic situations.  

As far as the comment of who is going to make the 'split decision'.  

It's the 911 folks, who are highly trained and make the decisions now. They know when to send a patrol, and how fast that unit needs to respond based on the information they get. They know when to send the Fire Department, when to send and Ambulance, when to send Animal Control, etc.

Second,  the majority of police organizations surveyed on this issue are in favor of the idea of 'defunding police' so that other sources can be funded and handle certain incidents.

One of the biggest issues for police is the extensive use of manpower needed to responded to and deal with mental health issues.  Most police depts agree they would rather that type call be handle by folks trained, and having the resources and funding to deal with those issues.

As far as a list of events that could be diverted, I think that is an issue that each jurisdiction will have to answer based on the make up of their unique population, their resources, and budgets.

But one such event that most police departments are supporting in mental illness situations.

Police all over the country are forced to deal with situations involving mentally ill people due to public policy that has limited funding to care for our nation’s severely mentally ill population

84.28 percent (or 1,866) of the law enforcement respondents said there been an increase in the mentally ill population over the length of their career

63.03 percent (n=1,391) of respondents reported the amount of time that their department spends on calls for service involving individuals with mental illness increased (during their career).

An additional 17.72 percent reported that the time spent had substantially increased, totaling 70.7 percent (n=1,782) of respondents reporting an increase.

56% said the increase in calls is due to the inability to refer mentally ill to treatment and 61% said more persons with mental illness are being released to the community.

The officers claimed that mental illness related calls take significantly longer than larceny, domestic dispute, traffic, and other calls.

In the country as a whole, mental health situations are responsible for about 1 in 10 police calls. Many stem from undiagnosed conditions unknown to police and first responders. The consequences can be tragic. While about 3 percent of U.S. adults suffer from a severe mental illness, they make
up a quarter to one-half of all fatal law enforcement encounters, according to the nonprofit Treatment Advocacy Center.


 

[markymark640]

Have you ever responded to a domestic ?

I have !  Many times!!

And I never said that or suggested that to begin with.   You're the one making that up 

You are quick to talk crap about things you seem to know nothing about and have absolutely no experience with.

Comprehension issues I guess. Domestic disputes are some of the more dangerous to respond to. I want experienced officers in those situations.  Don't try to insinuate anything about experience.

It's not a comprehension issue as I never spoke of Domestic Disturbances.

I don't disagree with police responding to domestics. Been there done that, many many a time. As most involve some type of violation of law, they are something easy for the officer to handle ( although they can be very dangerous).  Man hits wife. Domestic assault. Cuff en and stuff em. Some can be much more complex but again, well within the police officers training and experience.

BUT ----  I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT DOMESTIC DISTURBANCES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Increasing number of Homeless related incidents, and mental health related issues are two that come to mind.

There is a insightful article on how the Boston councilors want the city to create a crisis-response plan for non-violent 911 calls within 90 days. They said the plan should connect people who need help to unarmed service providers such as health care professionals instead of police.

Denver police officials say they are considering the model ( known as CAHOOTS) as an option to push beyond their existing co-responder program that sends mental health professionals on about six 911 calls a day.

The Eugene Police Department uses its CAHOOTS staff for more than mental health calls. They deliver death notices across the city, hand out water bottles and socks to people living on the streets, and take after-hours community medical referrals. The staff offers those services to the city for half the cost of a police officer.

Nationally, police officers carry the brunt of responding to mental health issues. In 2017, law enforcement agencies spent $918 million transporting people with severe mental illness, according to a 2019 survey from the Treatment Advocacy Center. It also estimated that officers spend 21 percent of their time responding to and transferring people for mental health issues.

“Our police officers try the best they can, but they are not mental health professionals,” says Eugene Police Lieutenant Ron Tinseth.

In 2017, Eugene diverted 17 percent of an estimated 130,000 calls to its CAHOOTS teams. This freed up Eugene police officers to respond to higher-level emergencies.

In 2007, HPD officers responded to 15,122 calls for service (CFS) involving a mental health nexus.

The first of its kind in the nation, the Crisis Call Diversion (CCD) program is a collaboration between the Houston Police Department (HPD), Houston Fire Department (HFD), Houston Emergency Center (HEC) and the Harris Center for Mental Health & IDD, with the express purpose of decreasing the volume of non-emergency Mental Health-related calls for service for both HPD patrol and HFD emergency medical services (EMS) and reducing the use of these personnel for non-emergency responses.

In Providence R.I.  pairs of counselors, medics and social workers, all dressed in jeans and hoodies, respond thousands of times a year to 911 calls involving mental health crises, substance use issues, panhandling complaints and other non-emergency situations.

You guys can keep blowing smoke about domestic incidents ( why ? I have no idea) but the facts are the idea of 'defunding police' so that funding can be used for other resources is an idea whose time has come in this country and there is a growing number of jurisdictions that are looking to adopt it, have adopted it, and have seen how effective it is to have other than sworn police officers respond to absolutely everything.

I'm pretty sure the folks on this forum that are saying the most about this have no idea how many calls come in thru the 911 system and how many calls end up with a one or two man patrol spending hours on some call that could be better handle by some one with the training, time, and resources to handle it better, so that patrol can respond to some of those domestic incidents every keeps talking about !!!!!!!!!!!!1

[scooperhsd]

Have you ever responded to a domestic ?

I have !  Many times!!

And I never said that or suggested that to begin with.   You're the one making that up 

You are quick to talk crap about things you seem to know nothing about and have absolutely no experience with.

YES I HAVE !! As the OOD of the base commander, I got calls for sailor creating a domestic disturbance in their government quarters with their spouse (who may or may not also be a service member). My watchstanders would get the call from the civilian DOD police about what was happening and that my presence was requested. In this case, it was usually good bye for at least the night for the servicemember causing the disturbance, because the quarters were provided for the dependents. I HATED getting these calls. Fortunately, they were relatively few in number and infrequent, with almost no repeat offenders. This was in Washington DC, Navy Yard / NavSta Anacostia (S.E. DC). The Navy enlisted married housing was just south of Naval Research Labs, which was south of Bolling AFB.

 

[markymark640]

Have you ever responded to a domestic ?

I have !  Many times!!

And I never said that or suggested that to begin with.   You're the one making that up 

You are quick to talk crap about things you seem to know nothing about and have absolutely no experience with.

YES I HAVE !! As the OOD of the base commander, I got calls for sailor creating a domestic disturbance in their government quarters with their spouse (who may or may not also be a service member). My watchstanders would get the call from the civilian DOD police about what was happening and that my presence was requested. In this case, it was usually good bye for at least the night for the servicemember causing the disturbance, because the quarters were provided for the dependents. I HATED getting these calls. Fortunately, they were relatively few in number and infrequent, with almost no repeat offenders. This was in Washington DC, Navy Yard / NavSta Anacostia (S.E. DC). The Navy enlisted married housing was just south of Naval Research Labs, which was south of Bolling AFB.

I was speaking in general. I suspect there are more than one member than has worked in law enforcement and responded to a number of domestic events.

I was directing that question to one highly opinionated person that sarcastically twisted what I was saying and talked about domestic disturbances.  I wasn't, haven't, and wouldn't ever suggest that non police respond to a domestic.

[scooperhsd]

Have you ever responded to a domestic ?

I have !  Many times!!

And I never said that or suggested that to begin with.   You're the one making that up 

You are quick to talk crap about things you seem to know nothing about and have absolutely no experience with.

YES I HAVE !! As the OOD of the base commander, I got calls for sailor creating a domestic disturbance in their government quarters with their spouse (who may or may not also be a service member). My watchstanders would get the call from the civilian DOD police about what was happening and that my presence was requested. In this case, it was usually good bye for at least the night for the servicemember causing the disturbance, because the quarters were provided for the dependents. I HATED getting these calls. Fortunately, they were relatively few in number and infrequent, with almost no repeat offenders. This was in Washington DC, Navy Yard / NavSta Anacostia (S.E. DC). The Navy enlisted married housing was just south of Naval Research Labs, which was south of Bolling AFB.

I was speaking in general. I suspect there are more than one member than has worked in law enforcement and responded to a number of domestic events.

I was directing that question to one highly opinionated person that sarcastically twisted what I was saying and talked about domestic disturbances.  I wasn't, haven't, and wouldn't ever suggest that non police respond to a domestic.

Heck no - I would not have gone there without the Police already onsite. I was there to provide the military authority, not to quel a disturbance by myself.

[markymark640]

I'd have to say that defunding the police might be a good idea.

Those places that have, and some that are, defunding, are actually just reallocating funds to services/programs that allow other than police to respond to certain types of incidents. This has led to creation/expansion of other services that will be specifically funded, trained, and employed to handle a variety of events in place of sworn police personnel.

I know for a fact that there are alot of police that support that idea because they they didn't join the force to be a social worker and feel that their time and efforts are better used on other 'typical' police matters.

Seems to me some folks are using scare tactics with this 'defund police' idea and not actually telling folks what that really means for their communities.  Having previous worked in law enforcement for some years I can say that policing in general has changed drastically over the years and no doubt will continue to evolve to try and meet the needs of those served. 

Me personally, I'm all for defunding police and reallocating those funds to other services that would be tasked to respond to selected events, thereby freeing our police to respond to the incidents that really need an armed law enforcement professional.

Should your local PDs get "de-funded", are you willing to step into that role of responding to those issues being described?   Just remember, in voting, you get the leadership you deserve.   Hope it all works out for you and yours.

Rams

Not sure what you're talking about. There weren't any specific 'issues being described'. It was a general statement that there are some events/incidents.

And

What the heck has this got to do with voting and 'leadership I deserve' ?

This is happening. Not sure how voting is going to change it.  Police Departments change over time. It's a process that happens despite your vote. They change to meet the needs of the jurisdiction they protect.

The use of K-9s, and the expanded use of K-9s as patrol partners. The training and use of K9s to find just about everything from people to narcotics to expolsives, dead people, etc.

The use of military quality weapons to combat those being used against them.

SWAT Teams, Special Reaction Forces, the use of and/or elimination of Community Policing, etc etc etc

The Police Departments will continue to evolve to meet the needs.  Several have already been 'defunded' and have working program in place to handle specific incidents.  

One thing I am sure of, more and more police departments will adopt some version of the working models that have proven to be successful, no matter how you vote !

[scooperhsd]

If Law enforcement was static and never evolved, things would get very ugly very quickly. Sometimes some of the population they serve don't like they way they are currently evolving. And I will leave it at that.

[markymark640]

If Law enforcement was static and never evolved, things would get very ugly very quickly. Sometimes some of the population they serve don't like they way they are currently evolving. And I will leave it at that.

Amen

[Patrick]

Did I twist what was said ?  OK.

[..]

Shoot?
Don't shoot?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8729727/Protests-erupt-Pennsylvania-police-fatally-shoot-man-ran-officer-knife.html

[scooperhsd]

Shoot ! LEO should get exonerated.

[JimC]

Good shoot !

It has been proven, (and used in training) that you need 20 feet in order to stop a knife assailant charging you if your weapon is holstered.

Anything less, and the cop is most likely going to get stabbed before he can draw and shoot.

Jim

[markymark640]

A couple of Supreme Court cases as far back as the 80's laid the foundation/framework for the standard we use today to determine when the use of deadly force is permissible by police and when it is not.

The United States Supreme Court held that a police officer may utilize deadly force if he/she has probable cause to believe that a suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

The question of "Did the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officer(s) or others" seems pretty easy to answer in the affirmative. 

I'd have to say I think it's a good shoot - no question in my mind.