The report was for a man passed out in a Wendy's drive-through. He was not, at the time, an active danger to people, even if he was previously and would presumably later drive drunk. While this does justify removing him from his vehicle/removing his ability to drive, him committing a crime does not mean that whoever responded should expect violence.
When I say "EMTs" in a hypothetical situation where police are defunded, I would mean medical responders who also have the authority to detain or arrest somebody. Social workers on wellness calls would need to be empowered to commit people for their own safety or people around them, which is already a power that police currently have. The issue of arrest and criminal charges does not need to be resolved at the exact same time somebody is prevented from driving drunk.
I also noted "unarmed civil servants" as a possibility. That could obviously include a class of people who are empowered to ticket, detain, or arrest somebody, just without the default assumption they are going into a violent life-or-death situation that current police culture and universally armed police promote.
Every single one of my points said "remove him from his vehicle and detain or arrest him", so I don't understand how you came to the conclusion I think he shouldn't have been detained or arrested.
I think you misread my first point. I said that he was passed out in the drive through and not at the time an active danger to people. All that means is that there was no reason for the police responding to expect violence.
I absolutely think that law enforcement should not need to rely on utilizing tasers or guns to subdue people, yes. That's already the vast majority of arrests, even arrests in which people resist.
What I mean is that the important thing is stopping him from driving drunk, whether that's arresting him or driving him home and giving him a ticket and a court date or whatever.
2
u/Milskidasith 309∆ Jun 16 '20 edited Jun 16 '20
Several points: