1. Memphis, Tennessee.
   Mayor: Jim Strickland, Democrat

2. Detroit, Michigan.
Mayor: Mike Duggan, Democrat

3. Little Rock, Arkansas.
Mayor: Frank Scott Jr., Democrat

4. Pueblo, Colorado.
Mayor: Nick Gradisar, Democrat

5. Tacoma, Washington.
Mayor: Victoria Woodards, Democrat

For reference, the first city with a Republican Mayor came in on the list at #15, referencing Mayor Kevin Lincoln in Stockton, CA. Technically #10, Springfield, Missouri, does not have a Democrat as Mayor, but only because the office is officially non-partisan.

The post America’s Most Dangerous Cities, and Their Parties appeared first on Criminal Justice Review.

Mayor Jones responds to the tragedy in St. Louis and blames it on “lax gun laws.” She neglects, naturally, the myriad of crime being committed right in front of her. Let us break this incident down:

1. The shooter is 17. It was illegal for him to have a gun. He did not care. The fact that those 19 and over can carry a concealed firearm is completely irrelevant.
2. It is illegal to shoot someone in almost every case. The shooter did not care.
3. It sounds, although not confirmed, that the party where this incident happened was a social media-influenced gathering that involved an office building being burglarized.

Rather than focus on the existing laws of Missouri, Mayor Jones uses the death of a young person to air grievances with laws she does not agree with. Absolutely shameful.

The post St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones Using Tragedy for Political Gain appeared first on Criminal Justice Review.

In any case, good work, Seattle PD.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/seattle-police-recover-stolen-gun-during-traffic-stop/ar-AA1bMjyG?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=1f8660ab74fa4286af4f043b28e148c4&ei=112

The post Traffic Stop Recovers Stolen Gun appeared first on Criminal Justice Review.

Senator Lynda Wilson wants funding for “Auto Theft Prevention,” despite clear data showing that auto thefts have increased so dramatically because police cannot legally chase fleeing thieves.

Most would think this laughable with the answers so clear, but alas, not in Washington.

The post Lawmaker Wants Funding Over Solutions appeared first on Criminal Justice Review.

The list in its entirety can be found below:

1. Non-criminal and/or non-violent homeless and quality of life-related calls

This is very broad, but few to no police would have a problem with this switch.

2. Non-criminal mental health calls

This is a grand idea, but rarely do people know what is a mental health crisis. Usually these call types start as crimes in progress, public disturbances, etc.

3. Non-violent juvenile disturbance or juveniles beyond parental control calls; (won’t go to school)

This is a no-brainer. The police cannot fix in 15 minutes what parents could not fix in 15 years. Involving police in these types of calls also creates a barrier of trust from these young adults towards law enforcement as they grow older.

4. Calls to schools unless the school administration is initiating a call for an emergency police response or making a mandatory reporting notification

Possibly unsafe; most police response is initiated by a witness. It does not make sense to require a school administrator to make a call for police at a venue where thousands of people–potential victims–may be at risk.

5. Public health order violations

Good call. There are public health departments who are vastly better suited to respond to these.

6. Non-violent calls for service at City parks

Noise complaints are the most common calls to parks, and most are satisfied with a gentle reminder to turn the music down. Police are definitely not needed at the outset.

7. Under the influence calls (alcohol and/or drugs) where there is no other crime in progress

Similar to the above note about unknown catalysts, this would be difficult to make a blanket change to.

8. Welfare check – WELCK

• Non-criminal

• Courtesy request from doctors/hospitals

Generally welfare checks are better suited for the fire department.

9. Non-fatal vehicle accidents

Various collisions could be diverted, but I have seen numerous instances where a collision is not serious, but one party is very angry and a fight ensues.

• Non-DUI/non-criminal: property damage only (including City property), verbal disputes involving non-injury traffic collisions, refusing to share ID at traffic collisions

This will only be a good idea until the unarmed responder is assaulted. Sadly, I do not believe it would take long.

10. Parking violations

Yes, definitely not a police response.

11. Driveway tow

See above.

12. Abandoned vehicles

Also see above.

13. Person dumping trash

Without the potential for enforcement, it is likely this crime would grow.

14. Vicious and dangerous dog complaints where no attack is in progress

We have Animal Control Officers for a reason.

15. Calls for service for loud noise, loud music, or ‘party’ calls that are anonymous or have no victim

See note about parks.

16. Landlord/tenant disputes

This would be profound. These calls are common and yet they are not criminal in nature. This would be big to remove police from.

17. Loitering/trespassing with no indication of danger

I vehemently disagree with this. Trespassing is a crime that has a real impact on business owners. If police will not respond to enforce it, we are looking at the potential for serious quality of life impacts.

18. Code 30 Alarm Response (except 211 silent alarm)

Most alarm calls–in the high 90%–are false. However, some, such as glass break alarms and multiple trip alarms, are often real. Without police response, most active burglaries will evade arrest. A better idea would be to do what many agencies do, and bill businesses for false alarms. This encourages that alarms are maintained to reduce false activations.

19. Syringe disposal

Not a crime, so should not receive a police response.

20. DOT stand-by

Same as above.

21. Homeless encampment clean-ups, unless officers are requested or prescheduled

Same as above.

22. Panhandling
23. Illegal vending
24. Illegal gambling

It will be curious to see what the LAPD believes can take place of a police response in these situations. These are potential dangerous situations that an unarmed response would be placing an employee in undue danger.

25. Fireworks

It is nearly impossible to hold someone accountable for fireworks, so it would indeed be a better use of police to avoid these fishing expeditions.

26. Defecating/urinating in public

While this behavior generally involves people in mental health crisis, it also shows instability which can be dangerous.

27. Drinking in public

Certain situations could be handled, or ignored, but again we look at quality of life crimes and whether or not the community will tolerate them.

28. Suspicious circumstances-possible dead body, where no indication of foul play

I would be very hesitant to trust the investigation of a dead body to someone not trained to investigate death. This call type is different than a death in, for instance, a medical facility. If it is “suspicious circumstances,” how can one rule out foul play?

The post LAPD Reducing Police Response appeared first on Criminal Justice Review.

To be sure, the need for mental health resources isn’t limited to the United States. Mental illness is an issue everywhere around the globe and the need for the most humane and appropriate response is as pertinent in America as it is in Britain, Bahrain, or anywhere else. Clearly, however, different cultures and justice systems take the need for differential responses with varied levels of importance. Most Western nations, fortunately, see this as an area that needs investment and exploration.

Fortunately, exceptional numbers of studies have looked at co-response programs and their effectiveness. One of the best meta-analysis (a look at trends from numerous studies rather than just one) published looked at studies from the United Kingdom (https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-018-1836-2). In short, it was noted that co-response programs may reduce the number of people taken into custody by police. But few other constants exist.

Limitations with co-responder programs are significant. Foremost, very few co-responder programs work without police, which is against the intent of the program. Few mental health professionals will enter situations that are uncertain or blatantly unsafe. Generally by the time the police are involved, this is the type of situation the public is looking at. So if people want to remove police from the situation entirely, the co-responder model won’t work. You can’t expect MHPs to put themselves at risk.

Additionally, few co-responder programs are fully staffed. Funding is limited for these roles and people best able to serve in these positions are worthy of pay higher than the average available in co-response roles, so they tend to be employed elsewhere. Without fully staffed programs, true understanding is impossible to ascertain.

Ultimately, when you hear someone tell you that co-responders work, or that they don’t work, know they’re speaking from opinion, not fact.

The post A Review of Co-Responders appeared first on Criminal Justice Review.