sas5814 Posted July 2, 2021 Share Posted July 2, 2021 Not likely. I have done everything short of armed revolt including cancelling my PAC donation in protest and nothing has changed. If you want to have some fun wander over and start a thread about the sitting AAPA president simply leaving the board early in her term with zero explanation to the membership. See how fast it gets shut down. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted July 2, 2021 Administrator Share Posted July 2, 2021 FWIW, there are people actively posting on Huddle who are no longer legally able to practice as PAs. I know, because in at least one case I reported the misconduct that got that PA into a negotiated settlement with the board to retire. If we want to start cleaning up Huddle, let's remove the retired members (sorry, Bob) from the ability to post. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted July 5, 2021 Share Posted July 5, 2021 @rev roninIt seems the dinosaurs on Huddle will be working til they are in their 90's. I am no longer paying dues so can't access Huddle anymore. Oh well. PA Forum is more fun and entertaining. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted July 5, 2021 Moderator Share Posted July 5, 2021 Just now, Incognito said: @rev roninIt seems the dinosaurs on Huddle will be working til they are in their 90's. Yup, ya gotta wonder when they start their posts with " I used to babysit Dr Stead as a child and..." or " So Osler told me..." 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sas5814 Posted July 6, 2021 Share Posted July 6, 2021 On 7/4/2021 at 8:30 PM, EMEDPA said: Yup, ya gotta wonder when they start their posts with " I used to babysit Dr Stead as a child and..." or " So Osler told me..." or every post starts with a recitation of their resume 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatswain2PA Posted July 6, 2021 Share Posted July 6, 2021 Well, doctorate level social workers isn't the worst idea ever regarding social workers. The WORST idea regarding social workers is "Let's defund the police and send social workers instead!" Two job openings for social workers in Baltimore.https://www.wbal.com/article/521642/2/safe-streets-worker-fatally-shot 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAAdmission Posted July 6, 2021 Share Posted July 6, 2021 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Boatswain2PA said: "Let's defund the police and send social workers instead!" What could possibly go wrong? Edited July 6, 2021 by CAAdmission Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sas5814 Posted July 6, 2021 Share Posted July 6, 2021 when the social workers start getting killed we will need to defund them too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatswain2PA Posted July 6, 2021 Share Posted July 6, 2021 10 minutes ago, sas5814 said: when the social workers start getting killed we will need to defund them too Nope. Make them all Doctors, with government funded college, grad school, housing, and private contractors for their security. But police are racist.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANESMCR Posted July 6, 2021 Share Posted July 6, 2021 Crazy! And to think…there are social workers in CPS. What a terrible idea! Right boats? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAAdmission Posted July 7, 2021 Share Posted July 7, 2021 52 minutes ago, ANESMCR said: Crazy! And to think…there are social workers in CPS. What a terrible idea! Right boats? Terrible idea if they go into a potentially violent environment without law enforcement backup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MediMike Posted July 9, 2021 Share Posted July 9, 2021 @Boatswain2PA do you do any research before blindly posting articles? Neither of these individuals were social workers, they were outreach workers associated with the Safe Streets program in Baltimore. Nowhere that I've seen has said anything about them responding to a potentially violent call and being killed as a result. The SSP takes individuals with a criminal past and uses them in a peer outreach format to inside change in their own neighborhoods. Police have no idea where or why this poor guy was shot. The other man who was killed in January was found dead shot in the head in the projects, again with no association between his murder and a violent/potentially violent incident. Unless you have information that I haven't found? If so I'd appreciate your linking it, showing that their deaths have anything at all to do with "defunding the police". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sas5814 Posted July 9, 2021 Share Posted July 9, 2021 well this thread has run off the rails..... close it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ifeeluncomfortable Posted July 9, 2021 Share Posted July 9, 2021 7 hours ago, MediMike said: The other man who was killed in January was found dead shot in the head in the projects, again with no association between his murder and a violent/potentially violent incident. Man found shot in the head. No association between his murder and a violent incident.... what? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MediMike Posted July 9, 2021 Share Posted July 9, 2021 (edited) Go ahead and defund it. @ifeeluncomfortableif you read the thread you'll see that the discussion is revolving around the possibility of SW being sent to violent incidents rather than law enforcement. There is no evidence that these individuals were sent/dispatched to a violent incident resulting in their deaths. Edited July 9, 2021 by MediMike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ifeeluncomfortable Posted July 9, 2021 Share Posted July 9, 2021 Gotcha. Makes more sense now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAAdmission Posted July 9, 2021 Share Posted July 9, 2021 32 minutes ago, MediMike said: the discussion is revolving around the possibility of SW being sent to violent incidents rather than law enforcement. It appears that doing so is the stated plan in a lot of places, is it not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MediMike Posted July 9, 2021 Share Posted July 9, 2021 8 minutes ago, CAAdmission said: It appears that doing so is the stated plan in a lot of places, is it not? Is it? I guess inasmuch that ANY call/problem could be considered violent sure. The idea that they will be sending SW alone to knife wielding maniacs is ridiculous. For liability purposes alone I'm sure the areas the choose to send SW as solo responders will have tight parameters for which calls are appropriate. Again, no relationship to the above news story though (that I can find) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatswain2PA Posted July 10, 2021 Share Posted July 10, 2021 (edited) Do you disagree there has been a major push by the vocal minority within one political party to defund the police and use social workers to respond to many 911 calls? I agree there is no reporting that these murdered well-doers were on a 911 call. What I have seen reported on this has been brief news snippets with virtually no information. Doesn't change my post that the strongly pushed idea of sending social workers to 911 calls instead of police is the dumbest idea ever in the history of social work. I'm sure Ventana will close the thread now..... Edited July 10, 2021 by Boatswain2PA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted July 10, 2021 Administrator Share Posted July 10, 2021 On 7/9/2021 at 8:36 PM, Boatswain2PA said: Do you disagree there has been a major push by the vocal minority within one political party to defund the police and use social workers to respond to many 911 calls? I agree there is no reporting that these murdered well-doers were on a 911 call. What I have seen reported on this has been brief news snippets with virtually no information. Doesn't change my post that the strongly pushed idea of sending social workers to 911 calls instead of police is the dumbest idea ever in the history of social work. I'm sure Ventana will close the thread now..... I might, but instead I'll just call out publicly that your 1) explicitly politicizing an the idea of non-police response rather than dealing with it on its merits, and 2) calling out a moderator here are both poor form. To wit, my advice: Grow up and learn to talk about tough topics without trying to make political points. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted July 10, 2021 Administrator Share Posted July 10, 2021 7 hours ago, MediMike said: For liability purposes alone I'm sure the areas the choose to send SW as solo responders will have tight parameters for which calls are appropriate. Here in Washington State, due to the interpretation of a recently enacted statute, my local LE agencies are not sending officers to non-crimes. Like, for example, attempted suicides. Or unspecified medical problems at houses that have histories of domestic violence. Basically, in a few of these cases, the 9-1-1 callers will not receive service: LE's not coming, and Fire/EMS decides they can't safely enter the scene without LE presence. I wish I was kidding. I spent the better part of an hour yesterday talking with my fire chief about just this scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiovolffemtp Posted July 10, 2021 Share Posted July 10, 2021 Rev, Will these cases totally lack 911 service, or will they just have to wait until LE responds after fire/EMS calls for them? I can't imaging LE not responding to a fire/EMS request for them - though they certainly could be delayed depending on call volume, location, etc. I am concerned about the use of social workers in some situations. The information that the 911 call taker gets, much less the portion of that they relay, may not be anything like what's happening on scene. I've walked into several GSW scenes alone unexpectedly when the dispatch information was "sick person", "family screaming for an ambulance", etc. On the other hand, my mother as a medical social worker made home visits many times in bad areas without ever having a problem. These were home health visits and not 911 responses. She also made a point of being there between mid-morning and early afternoon - when most if not all of the bad actors were asleep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted July 11, 2021 Administrator Share Posted July 11, 2021 13 hours ago, ohiovolffemtp said: Will these cases totally lack 911 service, or will they just have to wait until LE responds after fire/EMS calls for them? I can't imaging LE not responding to a fire/EMS request for them - though they certainly could be delayed depending on call volume, location, etc. It's a matter of liability for police officers in scenes where there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime in progress. I don't pretend to have read up on all the legislative nuances, but it's basically opened up liability for LE being places where there's no crime reasonably suspected to be in progress. Consider this scenario: - Roommate calls 9-1-1 on emotionally disturbed person sitting in tub with straight razor and (presumably self-) slit wrists. - EMS enroute, calls for LE. - LE correctly ascertains no crime in progress, does not respond, notifies dispatch, who notifies EMS. - EMS now has the choice to enter the scene with a known EDP with a bladed weapon, or not enter the scene due to known safety hazards. Now, that particular scenario may be a bit far fetched, but we have had other instances where "no crime in progress" means EMS is not rendering 9-1-1 service to callers requesting it due to responder safety issues. If it were up to LE, they would absolutely keep our backs covered. Nice thing is, if everything goes well, minimal paperwork. But it's not up to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MediMike Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 11 hours ago, rev ronin said: It's a matter of liability for police officers in scenes where there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime in progress. I don't pretend to have read up on all the legislative nuances, but it's basically opened up liability for LE being places where there's no crime reasonably suspected to be in progress. Consider this scenario: - Roommate calls 9-1-1 on emotionally disturbed person sitting in tub with straight razor and (presumably self-) slit wrists. - EMS enroute, calls for LE. - LE correctly ascertains no crime in progress, does not respond, notifies dispatch, who notifies EMS. - EMS now has the choice to enter the scene with a known EDP with a bladed weapon, or not enter the scene due to known safety hazards. Now, that particular scenario may be a bit far fetched, but we have had other instances where "no crime in progress" means EMS is not rendering 9-1-1 service to callers requesting it due to responder safety issues. If it were up to LE, they would absolutely keep our backs covered. Nice thing is, if everything goes well, minimal paperwork. But it's not up to them. Interesting. Could you post the RCW/WAC that has instituted this change? Or is it a local protocol? I haven't heard any rumblings of this and remain closely tied to the EMS community, would like to be able to take a closer look at this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted July 11, 2021 Administrator Share Posted July 11, 2021 30 minutes ago, MediMike said: Interesting. Could you post the RCW/WAC that has instituted this change? Or is it a local protocol? I haven't heard any rumblings of this and remain closely tied to the EMS community, would like to be able to take a closer look at this. https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bills/House Passed Legislature/1310-S2.PL.pdf#page=1 Section 3, (2)(a) ends with: "and leaving the area if there is no threat of imminent harm and no crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed;" I haven't seen a detailed analysis of the law, but this is the only thing that seems to prohibit LEs from deploying with fire/EMS for potentially (but not imminently) hazardous but non-criminal situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.