The entire argument for replacing police with unarmed workers relies on a massive misunderstanding of what 911 data actually means. Activists love to quote the statistic that "only 5% of 911 calls are for violent crimes," but that completely ignores the reality of what happens once responders actually arrive on the scene.

​If you look at the FBI’s LEOKA (Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted) data, the exact "minor" calls people want to hand over to unarmed teams are actually some of the most volatile. "Disturbance calls" account for over 30% of all physical assaults on officers, and "domestic disputes" cause roughly 14% of officer homicides. Removing the uniform doesn't magically remove the underlying threat of a person in an intense crisis.
​The real issue is that 911 dispatchers are working with massive information deficits. Multi-city analyses show that up to 88% of calls require an on-scene evaluation because the initial info given by frantic callers is ambiguous or flat-out wrong. A "non-criminal welfare check" routinely turns into an active assault or a weapon situation within the first 60 seconds. Unarmed citizens simply cannot legally detain someone or protect bystanders when a situation hits the fan.
​If the goal is actually better mental health outcomes while keeping communities safe, the data overwhelmingly points to the co-responder model—pairing an officer with a clinician—not total replacement. When cities like Tulsa used co-responders, it actually freed up over 800 traditional first-responder units in a single year to focus on high-priority violent crime. Plus, the mental health specialists themselves report feeling exponentially safer because the officer secures the area first.
​Defunding the police to completely swap them out for unarmed teams isn't data-driven policy. It’s an operational gamble where the civilian responders are forced to take 100% of the risk.