Here is a synopsis of a situation outside of our place in DC Saturday night and some things to think about going forward about the limits of policing. (1/?)

So, about two hours ago, there was a man across the street from where we live screaming and threatening no one in particular on our side of the street.
It's unclear from my vantage whether the man is mentally ill or was simply intoxicated, but suffice it to say he's not in his right mind during this outburst.
In a major US city, this is not particularly unusual, though anyone in the immediate vicinity could be excused for feeling uncomfortable.

I'd imagine description would read something like: B/M, 6'0", 30s, grey hoodie, black pants, pacing & yelling in threatening manner.
For 15-20 minutes, he was totally left alone. At some point, MPD was called, and they came-- but no lights or sirens, established a very loose perimeter--and let him continue to rant at nobody in particular.
At one point, he turned toward officers who were standing 20-30 ft away, who were making themselves known but not pushing or escalating situation. That didn't stop him from antagonizing them and continuing to make aggressive gestures, but the officers weren't biting.
Knowing a handful of patrol cops on this shift in my PSA, this is very much in line with how I'd expect and hope them to react.

Even though his pockets were even bulgy from a distance and he kept putting his hands in his pockets, no officer I saw made any move for their weapon
Eventually, it appears the man tired out and walked away. The police stuck around for a few minutes but got back in their cruisers and left--no one got hurt, no one arrested (as far as what was visible from my vantage).
Whether or not you are pro- or anti-police, or somewhere in between, the undeniable facts are:

-People sometimes get out of control (OOC) and someone needs to respond to put others at ease.
-The reasons people get OOC are myriad and often point to systemic social failures.
-Right now, police are the de facto responders, but they don't HAVE to be.
-Some cops/PDs handle these situations well, while others predictably resort to unnecessary violence. Because of the latter, it's reasonable to think twice before calling for help for OOC folks.
-The defund/abolish folx recognize these issues & want to address underlying issues--specifically support for the mentally ill--that lead to temporarily OOC people.
-The cops recognize these issues too and get frustrated that they don't have tools to address underlying issues
For all the man's bluster & aggressive posturing, he never approached anyone & thus no one seemed to be in imminent danger.

So here I am, looking out my window, staring at a situation that I knew someone would call 911 to address sooner or later & hoping right cops responded.
In discrete scenarios (cf. terrible day-to-day policy decisions), this is the crux of the problem.

Societally, we're failing our most vulnerable neighbors and generally don't care until they're having breakdowns outside of our homes, when we then call armed men to end it.
The BLM/defund/abolish folks are saying this is the wrong way to handle these situations...AND THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

There is nothing anti-cop in saying & recognizing this basic truth. Sure, a few people will always get OOC, but we have a lot more OOC folks than we should
And that is because we have absolutely failed to address mental health issues in this country. In major cities, this leads to unnecessary arrests and police violence against disadvantaged. In rural areas, it leads to rising gun suicides among middle-aged white men.
So I see what happened outside my window tonight and think:
1-thank you MPD officers for not escalating an unfortunate situation
2-this is not a long-term solution for the man in question and the countless folks like him around the country.
People who paint these issues as pro-cop or anti-cop are not interested in making life better for our most vulnerable neighbors. They aren't taking into account what is going on when personal emergencies happen and what we collectively need to do to prevent unnecessary tragedies.
But it's also wrong to think that responding to mental health problems are the only issue with current policing.

Many day-to-day policing choices do nothing to improve community well-being, and the defund/abolish folks are right about that too.
So the challenge we're facing is making govts & institutions more constructively responsive to enduring problems in communities. Some require law enforcement, many do not.

But in the best scenario, cops are performing triage which leaves us with far larger problems to confront
Thanks for coming to my TEDtalk.

More from Society

global health policy in 2020 has centered around NPI's (non-pharmaceutical interventions) like distancing, masks, school closures

these have been sold as a way to stop infection as though this were science.

this was never true and that fact was known and knowable.

let's look.


above is the plot of social restriction and NPI vs total death per million. there is 0 R2. this means that the variables play no role in explaining one another.

we can see this same relationship between NPI and all cause deaths.

this is devastating to the case for NPI.


clearly, correlation is not proof of causality, but a total lack of correlation IS proof that there was no material causality.

barring massive and implausible coincidence, it's essentially impossible to cause something and not correlate to it, especially 51 times.

this would seem to pose some very serious questions for those claiming that lockdowns work, those basing policy upon them, and those claiming this is the side of science.

there is no science here nor any data. this is the febrile imaginings of discredited modelers.

this has been clear and obvious from all over the world since the beginning and had been proven so clearly by may that it's hard to imagine anyone who is actually conversant with the data still believing in these responses.

everyone got the same R
Two things can be true at once:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause


I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.

I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views

I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.

I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.

You May Also Like