Just months after leading an effort that would have defunded the police department, City Council members at Tuesday’s work session pushed chief Medaria Arradondo to tell them how the department is responding to the violence.
The number of reported violent crimes, like assaults, robberies and homicides are up compared to 2019, according to MPD crime data. More people have been killed in the city in the first nine months of 2020 than were slain in all of last year. Property crimes, like burglaries and auto thefts, are also up. Incidents of arson have increased 55 percent over the total at this point in 2019.
I'm no fan of the police and I agree with the idea of having a prevention-first approach, but this sounds a bit naïve.
I'm no fan of the police and I agree with the idea of having a prevention-first approach, but
“If we have these systems in place we are getting ahead of the violence,” said Cunningham. “That’s why I have advocated so strongly for the violence interrupters, because if they are interrupting the violence before the guns are being fired, then the MPD doesn’t have to respond to that violence.”
Charitably, you could assume an implicit "as often" at the end of that quote. Sometimes people exaggerate a bit, and I doubt anyone really believes all violence can be prevented.
Charitably, you could assume an implicit "as often" at the end of that quote. Sometimes people exaggerate a bit, and I doubt anyone really believes all violence can be prevented.
It's more the implicit "guns may be fired" that causes me to raise a brow. If this particular intervention is happening with antisocial people who have violent tendencies that have no qualms...
It's more the implicit "guns may be fired" that causes me to raise a brow. If this particular intervention is happening with antisocial people who have violent tendencies that have no qualms escalating their disputes to gun-usage... well, I don't think "violence interrupters" can do much to quell their inner demons (so to speak) and in fact might be needlessly putting themselves into harm's way. That's an intervention that'd have to happen way earlier...
I'm certainly pro-deescalation (and think the police are generally very bad at that), but I think unarmed "violence interrupters" might just end up getting bullied (or worse) by those violent, non-gun-shy folk. I dunno..maybe I'm being too cynical?
"violence interrupters" fundamentally can't make a huge dent in gun crimes because the majority of gun crimes are whatever the locale's equivalent of robbery + assault with a deadly weapon are, in...
"violence interrupters" fundamentally can't make a huge dent in gun crimes because the majority of gun crimes are whatever the locale's equivalent of robbery + assault with a deadly weapon are, in the form of muggings. Muggers are typically very careful about how they pick targets and engagement locations, so that intervention and retaliation are both very unlikely. It's been a long time since I looked into this, but IIRC muggings also escalate to violence about 25% of the time, which means that they actually make up the bare majority of attempted homicides. That said, the statistics don't provide what percentage of muggings are actually committed with a gun.
Ya, I imagine most violent gun usage is spur-of-the-moment type stuff that that'd necessitate some type of Minority-Report-esque system to prevent. Of course, the issue of gun access is one to...
Ya, I imagine most violent gun usage is spur-of-the-moment type stuff that that'd necessitate some type of Minority-Report-esque system to prevent. Of course, the issue of gun access is one to address, as is the issue of identifying why people would be drawn towards violent crime from the get-go and nipping that behavior in the bud.
What I'm getting at, though, is not that I think these "interrupters" would be thrust into the middle of some kind of O.K. Corral shootout and tasked with talking people down. I guess I imagined the scenario being Person/Group A having problems with Person/Group B with word getting around and these professional de-escalators hitting the scene, trying to mitigate any problems or act as mediators. Just seems they'd be ineffective in engaging in dialogue with people who'd rise to a certain level of violence. I honestly have no idea how that program would be implemented, though, so it could be successful. I just have my doubts.
From the article:
I'm no fan of the police and I agree with the idea of having a prevention-first approach, but
this sounds a bit naïve.
Charitably, you could assume an implicit "as often" at the end of that quote. Sometimes people exaggerate a bit, and I doubt anyone really believes all violence can be prevented.
It's more the implicit "guns may be fired" that causes me to raise a brow. If this particular intervention is happening with antisocial people who have violent tendencies that have no qualms escalating their disputes to gun-usage... well, I don't think "violence interrupters" can do much to quell their inner demons (so to speak) and in fact might be needlessly putting themselves into harm's way. That's an intervention that'd have to happen way earlier...
I'm certainly pro-deescalation (and think the police are generally very bad at that), but I think unarmed "violence interrupters" might just end up getting bullied (or worse) by those violent, non-gun-shy folk. I dunno..maybe I'm being too cynical?
"violence interrupters" fundamentally can't make a huge dent in gun crimes because the majority of gun crimes are whatever the locale's equivalent of robbery + assault with a deadly weapon are, in the form of muggings. Muggers are typically very careful about how they pick targets and engagement locations, so that intervention and retaliation are both very unlikely. It's been a long time since I looked into this, but IIRC muggings also escalate to violence about 25% of the time, which means that they actually make up the bare majority of attempted homicides. That said, the statistics don't provide what percentage of muggings are actually committed with a gun.
Ya, I imagine most violent gun usage is spur-of-the-moment type stuff that that'd necessitate some type of Minority-Report-esque system to prevent. Of course, the issue of gun access is one to address, as is the issue of identifying why people would be drawn towards violent crime from the get-go and nipping that behavior in the bud.
What I'm getting at, though, is not that I think these "interrupters" would be thrust into the middle of some kind of O.K. Corral shootout and tasked with talking people down. I guess I imagined the scenario being Person/Group A having problems with Person/Group B with word getting around and these professional de-escalators hitting the scene, trying to mitigate any problems or act as mediators. Just seems they'd be ineffective in engaging in dialogue with people who'd rise to a certain level of violence. I honestly have no idea how that program would be implemented, though, so it could be successful. I just have my doubts.