Police Reform Law

[RiverDog]

Coming soon to Washington state:

New rules take effect later this month that limit police chases and when officers can use force. Now a lot of law enforcement agencies are worried.

Officials at some departments said the new laws will allow criminals to go free because the standards of proof for officers are so much higher.

Currently officers are able to detain people if they have reasonable suspicion the person committed a crime. Going forward they WILL have to have probable cause, and Pierce County Sheriff’s Sgt. Darren Moss said that kind of evidence isn't always available when deputies roll up to a scene.

Moss gave the example of an arrest in Spanaway Friday morning after someone poured gasoline on a strip of grass and lit it on fire. A deputy took a man into custody in the area based on a description given by a witness during a 911 call.

Moss said the deputy had “reasonable suspicion,” but once HB 1054 and HB 1310 take effect july 25, deputies would need probable cause to make that same arrest.

“Probable cause would be I come to the scene, the witness is across the street and points and says, ‘That's the guy right there. He's the one that lit the fire,” Moss said.

Law enforcement can still approach suspects, but if they try to leave, officers would need probable cause to detain them or to use any kind of force.

High speed pursuits will have new limits. Probable cause will be required and the emphasis will be on violent felonies and sex crimes.

“So domestic violence suspects we will not chase, residential burglars we will not chase, burglary in the second degree we cannot chase,” Moss said.

Handcuffing is considered a use of force, so officers will no longer be able to pre-emptively restrain people for questioning unless they already have probable cause.

Moss said as law enforcement adjusts to these new standards the public will have to adapt as well because people suspected of crimes may not be taken into custody right away.

“That's what police work is going to turn into,” he said, “trying to catch the bad guy after the fact."

State Rep. Jesse Johnson, D-Federal Way, is one of the main sponsor of these new laws and said the changes still give police plenty of leeway.

Police pursuits can put the public at risk, and Johnson said they should be reserved for only the worst crimes. He said the new law still allows officers to chase down DUI suspects.

Johnson said his legislation allows officers to use force if suspect is an imminent threat. However, the goal is for police to exhaust de-escalation tactics first.

Violating any of these new laws could lead to an officer being de-certified and kicked off the force, so there will be a lot at stake to get it right.

https://keprtv.com/news/local/police-so ... K7HQE3KeKs

Handcuffing is considered use of force? Not sure if I agree with that. It's a restraint, like a seat belt. I can't see how this law is going to improve policing. It must really suck to be a police officer nowadays. I can't imagine a rational person ever wanting to become one.

[Aseahawkfan]

That's been the goal of left in Washington State for a while: turn the police into window dressing writing traffic tickets.

Can't arrest people for dealing small amounts of drugs now.

Sleep on the streets drugged up, police can't do anything.

Build tent cities all over the neighborhood, police can't do nothing.

Take over a few city blocks and implement your own laws.

Blame the police for all the problems and punish them instead of taking responsibility for bad criminal policy and the criminal and homeless culture people have allowed to develop in cities and communities.

Then ask the taxpayers for more money to provide the homeless with free drug zones, medical care, and housing to make yourself feel better.

Let people look and vandalize stores because they're angry at those wealthy bad people who own the stores.

It all makes sense.

This will happen here if it hasn't already:

https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/trends/story/watch-man-steals-items-from-us-store-walks-away-as-security-personnel-look-on-298921-2021-06-17

As long as they don't steal too much from your business or house, they get a misdemeanor and fine in California.

[RiverDog]

Yeah, that's the result of the BLM/defund the police movement that I was afraid of. If you see a car prowler, might as well not even call the police. They're unlikely to respond to such a trivial report as they're likely understaffed and even if they did, they won't do much more than scare them off because they can't even pursue them. Now we're going to see more citizens taking action themselves. What else do we expect them to do?

We had another article written by a chief of police of West Richland, one of our smaller local communities. He said that the unfunded mandates that the state has made by passing this new police reform law that requires his department to expand their training of officers and purchase new equipment (body cams) is going to force them to cut personnel, increasing response times. The state comes up with these laws yet does not provide a funding mechanism to pay for them. Just think of all the neat things we can come up with if we didn't have to worry about how to pay for them.

Oh, well....

[Aseahawkfan]

When you make the police the bad guys and fall guys in your society, you de facto make the criminal the good guys and the victim in your society.

The people who support making the police the bad guys would never admit this as they always have an excuse for criminals and bad actors in society. It's never their fault. And politicians won't admit they implemented bad criminal policy to garner votes as they never want to take the blame for anything. Politicians just find a fall guy for their screw ups. Doesn't matter the party either, just look at Cuomo and Newsom.

No one in American society wants to make hard, unpopular decisions any longer and be a leader. We just have politicians looking to garner votes and paint everything in a way that is best for them with professional speech writers and press workers paid to do this for them.

We don't have leaders any longer. We have administrators.

[RiverDog]

No one in American society wants to make hard, unpopular decisions any longer and be a leader. We just have politicians looking to garner votes and paint everything in a way that is best for them with professional speech writers and press workers paid to do this for them.

Which is another reason why I've lost a whole lot of confidence in our democratic system here in the United States. To our elected leaders all that matters to them is their election or re-election. Everything else is secondary.

We really need to overhaul our system. One 6 year term for governor, one 4 year term for Congressmen/women, one 8 year term for Senators. At least that way, once they are elected, they would be more likely to do the right thing vs. what's best for their re-election.

[Aseahawkfan]

Which is another reason why I've lost a whole lot of confidence in our democratic system here in the United States. To our elected leaders all that matters to them is their election or re-election. Everything else is secondary.

We really need to overhaul our system. One 6 year term for governor, one 4 year term for Congressmen/women, one 8 year term for Senators. At least that way, once they are elected, they would be more likely to do the right thing vs. what's best for their re-election.

I tend to agree. If you are not making a career of politics, then you can make hard decisions during your term and not worry about votes. It will be their term to lead, not politic.

I'll never give up my freedom though unless they kill me. I have seen China and Russia with their "strong" leadership. I have no interest in that. Putin and Xi make plenty of "hard" decisions to maintain their power and don't care about the vote as they answer to no one but themselves I never want a dictatorial leadership system where a handful of dictators who are able to hold power indefinitely control us. That would be worse in my opinion.

We may take longer to do things, but we benefit from a slower, freer system. It may not be the best for vaccine distribution, but for long-term living it is much preferred.

[RiverDog]

I'll never give up my freedom though unless they kill me. I have seen China and Russia with their "strong" leadership. I have no interest in that. Putin and Xi make plenty of "hard" decisions to maintain their power and don't care about the vote as they answer to no one but themselves I never want a dictatorial leadership system where a handful of dictators who are able to hold power indefinitely control us. That would be worse in my opinion.

We may take longer to do things, but we benefit from a slower, freer system. It may not be the best for vaccine distribution, but for long-term living it is much preferred.

I would personally give up some of my freedoms if I thought that the end result would benefit society in general. Where I draw the line is at the three inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

[Aseahawkfan]

I would personally give up some of my freedoms if I thought that the end result would benefit society in general. Where I draw the line is at the three inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

That is a deep question on how to maintain that within society.

A political science teacher a long time ago said to me, "All government is force." I had to really think about that and ask a lot of deep questions about that idea. I came the conclusion he was right. People would not follow the laws, pay taxes, or adhere to government if not forced to do so by force with penalties.

People forget their history until it is too late to reverse bad decisions wiser people made when structuring government and power. I am not of the mind humans have changed enough to believe that world peace is imminent and war a thing to never be seen again on a large scale.

To me this is a house carefully balanced by America and we spend an enormous amount of money to maintain world peace and commerce for "rider" nations who would otherwise have to foot the bill for their own defense from aggressive nations. I doubt many people have even spent the time to see the web of alliances we have worldwide to check the power of other aggressive nations.

I do not believe the competition for world control is over at all. I would not allow America to sleep too soundly with that idea in mind myself.

[Hawktawk]

As always a fascinating departure from the subject material . But back to the point for a bit . Not sure how to feel about the new laws here. It looks like overrreach at first glance but I’ve got a couple points to make . First stop pretending cops are by nature Knights in shining armor as a rule . Some are in fact racist steroid popping wife beating pieces of work . Many lie and manufacture evidence to justify them arresting someone . Handcuffs are used as a weapon of torture sometimes . My own experience years ago with a dui was A, being pulled over for touching a quarter inch of the turn lane stripe because my wife had been walking unsteady on the way to the vehicle and someone called 911. After 30 minutes of polite cooperation my cuffs were cranked down so hard my left hand went numb for 4 months . The cop testified to full crosswalks in the resort town I was in and his own dash cam footage showed they were empty . He said I rolled a stop sign which his own camera proved was false . The judge said it was only enough to stop me because of the call. My attorney told me to take it to trial but I plead guilty as I knew I had too much to drink when I turned the key. The good thing is in all the years since I’ve never put myself in that situation ever again .

Point being cops lie, they make up stuff . Not all but some . Reasonable suspicion is what got Frank Clark arrested which was straight up racial profiling imo.
MI’ve come to understand the truth is in the middle . One side justifies the Minneapolis PD to any degree which is ridiculous and the other side thinks we need no police . Lock and load is all I got to say . Get ready for the wild Wild West .

[RiverDog]

Of course, this is from the police POV, but it does highlight some of the weaknesses in the new law. From the Kennewick Police Department Facebook page:

On July 26, 2021, officers responded to a disturbance at 1001 W 4th Ave (in Kennewick, WA). A female, later identified as 28-year-old Andrea Spreadbury had armed herself with scissors and had been throwing rocks at a window, breaking one. Prior to patrol response, Spreadbury had returned to her residence and started throwing dishes out the door. Upon patrol arrival, Spreadbury started throwing dishes at the patrol vehicles. As officers tried to de-escalate the situation, Spreadbury armed herself with two large kitchen knives and approached the officers and patrol cars. As officers backed away from Spreadbury in an attempt to provide additional time and distance to continue de-escalating the situation, Spreadbury used her knives to puncture and flatten nine patrol car tires, she then began fleeing on foot through the neighborhood while officers worked to contain her and keep the community safe. Spreadbury was eventually taken into custody after officers were able to approach close enough to use a less-lethal pepperball gun and a less-lethal Taser to end the threat to the community.

Under new Washington State legislation that went into effect this week, HB 1054 prohibits the use or acquisition of “military equipment”, which includes any firearm .50 caliber or larger. Unfortunately, this includes one of our best long-range less lethal options, the 37mm impact baton. While it’s not “military equipment”, it is larger than .50 caliber, which means officers can no longer use these tools to rapidly bring a dangerous situation like this under control.

So, now that the police have to get closer to a dangerous situation like this one in order to bring a suspect under control, how does it make anyone, ie the police officers or the suspect, safer? It seems to me that having to get closer to a suspect in order to discharge their short range non lethal weapons is inherently more dangerous to the officers and since it's more time consuming to approach to a closer range, it puts others, including the suspect, at a higher risk.

And Hawktalk, I don't know of anyone in this forum that has ever given me the impression that cops are by nature Knights in shining armor as a rule. Of course, there are bad cops, just as there are bad teachers, bad managers, bad soldiers, and bad politicians. But I have not seen any evidence that there are a higher percentage of "bad" cops than there are corresponding "bad" people in other professions.

There are 800,000 cops in this country. If we assume that there are only 1% bad cops, which my experience in life indicates that most professions have "a-holes" at a rate at least several percentage points higher than 1%, that still equals 8,000 bad cops. That illustrates how high of a bar we are setting for ourselves if our standard is near zero incidents.

[RiverDog]

And here is another incident that happened recently where the new law tied the hands of law enforcement:

A man in a yellow dress stole a school bus and drove for miles across multiple counties before abandoning it and hitchhiking across the state, where he drove a front loader into his own home as his wife fled, sheriff's officials say. Chelan County Sheriff Brian Burnett said there was nothing deputies could do to stop the man under the new police reform laws that recently took effect.

The bizarre drama unfolded over the weekend and started Saturday morning in Steilacoom, when the 39-year-old man was released from Western State Hospital.

Chelan County sheriff's deputies spotted the bus running a red light near Monitor and tried to pull the man over but he refused to stop and kept going. Deputies discontinued the pursuit because the new police reform laws no longer allow law enforcement to pursue a fleeing vehicle unless there is cause to believe that a serious felony has occurred, Burnett said. Douglas County deputies later spotted the bus heading east on State Route 28 and followed it through the city of Wenatchee, but the suspect refused to pull over and they, too, had to break off the pursuit.

The bus was later found abandoned near Moses Lake. Police lost track of the man for a time as he hitchhiked across the state to Spokane and then to Chewelah in Stevens County. The next day, Sunday, officials say the suspect stole a front loader and crashed it into his own house, flipping a vehicle into the structure. The suspect's wife had just fled from the home when she learned her estranged husband might be coming. She was uninjured.

https://keprtv.com/news/local/man-steal ... 5A9r72y9pw

I guess we'll have to wait until someone gets killed because of this new law before they do something about it.

[c_hawkbob]

For every story like that there are are plenty of stories of cops in pursuit of a simple traffic violation T-boning a family of 4 on their way to church to balance that scale. Police can follow, and even pass surveillance of to he next jurisdiction, without actually engaging in a high speed pursuit.

Some sort of balance needs to be found. As with all things, either extreme example is what needs to be avoided.

[Aseahawkfan]

I think they would accomplish more by restructuring criminal law myself, specifically drug law. The war on drugs has been the single biggest disaster in American legal history. It's like if Prohibition had continued on too long, but with drugs. It's some of these dumbass Republicans who just don't realize they've lost the war on drugs and their methods aren't working. People on drugs who already aren't making rational decisions don't suddenly start making rational decisions because you implement a 3 strikes law. We just end up with full prisons of unproductive people we have to pay for to do nothing but sit in a cage becoming acclimated to prison life that doesn't allow them to mix back within society well as well as creating the incentive for an illegal drug trade with massive violence and issues not just here, but in Latin America.

We really need someone to wake up about the complete failure of the current drug laws. It would go a long way to clean up the police issues.

But hey, politicians always need scapegoats for their failures and the police are as good as any scapegoats I guess. Paint them as racist, ignore the drug and violence problems in communities populated by people of African and Latin descent that are harming those folks more than people of European ancestry, and call it a success. Then wonder why these things aren't really fixed and are possibly made worse.

[RiverDog]

For every story like that there are are plenty of stories of cops in pursuit of a simple traffic violation T-boning a family of 4 on their way to church to balance that scale. Police can follow, and even pass surveillance of to he next jurisdiction, without actually engaging in a high speed pursuit.

Some sort of balance needs to be found. As with all things, either extreme example is what needs to be avoided.

For every story like that there are plenty of stories of cops in pursuit of a simple traffic violation T-boning a family of 4 going to church? I call bullchit.

I just posted two stories within the last week that occurred in this state where the changes in this law created a very real possibility of placing the public, an arresting officer, and/or a suspect in grave danger. I invite you to find two of the stories you claim that happen at the same frequency and is within the same amount of time and relative location, that would validate your claim.

And FYI, police have long ago adapted practices of not engaging in high speed chases ala Smokey and the Bandit no matter what the crime. Besides, it's not just high speed chases that are involved here. Police can no longer force a suspect to pull over, to get out of a car, pat them down, or place them handcuffs unless they have reason to believe that the suspect has committed or is about to commit a felony. That's why the police had to break off their pursuit in the story I posted above. If they don't voluntarily pull over, the police have to discontinue the pursuit.

[RiverDog]

I think they would accomplish more by restructuring criminal law myself, specifically drug law. The war on drugs has been the single biggest disaster in American legal history. It's like if Prohibition had continued on too long, but with drugs. It's some of these dumbass Republicans who just don't realize they've lost the war on drugs and their methods aren't working. People on drugs who already aren't making rational decisions don't suddenly start making rational decisions because you implement a 3 strikes law. We just end up with full prisons of unproductive people we have to pay for to do nothing but sit in a cage becoming acclimated to prison life that doesn't allow them to mix back within society well as well as creating the incentive for an illegal drug trade with massive violence and issues not just here, but in Latin America.

We really need someone to wake up about the complete failure of the current drug laws. It would go a long way to clean up the police issues.

But hey, politicians always need scapegoats for their failures and the police are as good as any scapegoats I guess. Paint them as racist, ignore the drug and violence problems in communities populated by people of African and Latin descent that are harming those folks more than people of European ancestry, and call it a success. Then wonder why these things aren't really fixed and are possibly made worse.

Oh, I agree with you regarding the drug laws, at least as it applies to the end users. And as a person that voted for the 3 strikes law in this state, I openly admit that it was a mistake and needs to be re-visited.

But that isn't the point here. We're talking about changing police practices, not the war on drugs or 3 strikes.

[Aseahawkfan]

Oh, I agree with you regarding the drug laws, at least as it applies to the end users. And as a person that voted for the 3 strikes law in this state, I openly admit that it was a mistake and needs to be re-visited.

But that isn't the point here. We're talking about changing police practices, not the war on drugs or 3 strikes.

What I am saying is if they want the police to have reduced incidences of citizen violence, they would accomplish more by changing bad laws that cause these interactions than by scapegoating the police who have increased interactions due to the sheer number of bad laws on the books.

I believe these measures are put in place to scapegoat the police who end up involved in these incidents due to bad laws to start with. If they spent time cleaning up the law books and asking themselves if they need a particular law requiring police interaction, they would accomplish more and better manage police resources.

If crime rises, these same politicians will scapegoat the police for not doing their job to stop crime while they at the same time handcuffed the police from doing their job.

They should start by cleaning up the drug laws. The number of bad police interactions due to drug crime must be the highest of the bunch. Then make their way through the traffic laws, which are also insane in number.

Reduce the bad laws, reduce the number of police interactions with citizens, reduce the problem they are trying to fix without vilifying the police.

[RiverDog]

What I am saying is if they want the police to have reduced incidences of citizen violence, they would accomplish more by changing bad laws that cause these interactions than by scapegoating the police who have increased interactions due to the sheer number of bad laws on the books.

I believe these measures are put in place to scapegoat the police who end up involved in these incidents due to bad laws to start with. If they spent time cleaning up the law books and asking themselves if they need a particular law requiring police interaction, they would accomplish more and better manage police resources.

If crime rises, these same politicians will scapegoat the police for not doing their job to stop crime while they at the same time handcuffed the police from doing their job.

They should start by cleaning up the drug laws. The number of bad police interactions due to drug crime must be the highest of the bunch. Then make their way through the traffic laws, which are also insane in number.

Reduce the bad laws, reduce the number of police interactions with citizens, reduce the problem they are trying to fix without vilifying the police.

You're preaching to the choir, bro. But the issue here is specifically the police accountability law. We can do away with all the drug laws that we want, it's not going to restore the police's ability to keep the peace unless something is done about this new law.

The WCIA also recommends police stay away from misdemeanor crimes, such as small theft, he said, as well as custody issues. “Sometimes, those incidents require use of force, and we don’t have a legal authority to be there,” he said. Under WCIA recommendation, following the use of force bill, police can find a child runaway, but cannot take custody of them unless they volunteer to come along, Fuhr said.

The use of force bill is also putting limits on police pursuits. After July, police will only be allowed to pursue vehicles suspected of major crimes, such as robbery, rape and homicide.

For any lesser offense, police can stop the car, but they can’t require people to get out, can’t pat them down without consent and can’t put them in handcuffs without probable cause, Fuhr said.

https://columbiabasinherald.com/news/20 ... -police-w/

It's legislation like this that is driving a deeper wedge between liberals and conservatives and is of the type that fosters an environment where a politician like Donald Trump can win the presidency.

[c_hawkbob]

Give fatal police pursuits a quick search and there are a lot of even more recent examples but this is the most up to date study I could find that had actual statistics:

From 2014-2018, fifty-six percent of people killed during police pursuits were someone other than the fleeing driver.

An analysis by the Fine Law Firm and 1Point21 Interactive found that there were 1,699 fatal crashes involving police chases from 2014-2018, killing at least 2,005 people – 1,123 were not the driver of the fleeing vehicle.

Among those killed were:

882 fleeing drivers
337 fleeing vehicle passengers
21 police officers
765 bystanders (occupants of uninvolved vehicles or non-motorists)
75 non-motorists (67 pedestrians, 5 bicyclists and 3 on another means of personal conveyance)

https://www.thefinelawfirm.com/people-k ... ce-chases/

[Aseahawkfan]

You're preaching to the choir, bro. But the issue here is specifically the police accountability law. We can do away with all the drug laws that we want, it's not going to restore the police's ability to keep the peace unless something is done about this new law.

The WCIA also recommends police stay away from misdemeanor crimes, such as small theft, he said, as well as custody issues. “Sometimes, those incidents require use of force, and we don’t have a legal authority to be there,” he said. Under WCIA recommendation, following the use of force bill, police can find a child runaway, but cannot take custody of them unless they volunteer to come along, Fuhr said.

The use of force bill is also putting limits on police pursuits. After July, police will only be allowed to pursue vehicles suspected of major crimes, such as robbery, rape and homicide.

For any lesser offense, police can stop the car, but they can’t require people to get out, can’t pat them down without consent and can’t put them in handcuffs without probable cause, Fuhr said.

https://columbiabasinherald.com/news/20 ... -police-w/

It's legislation like this that is driving a deeper wedge between liberals and conservatives and is of the type that fosters an environment where a politician like Donald Trump can win the presidency.

The Police Accountability Law is another example of politicians scapegoating the police while creating more bad laws that are going to discourage quality candidates from joining the police force because there are now laws in place to make the police the bad guys while they haven't seem to have adjusted the laws that create these police interactions.

Now the police will have to police themselves. So now you have police policing citizens, then some other entity policing the police even more than they were policed before. The endless law and institution creation goes on and on as politicians try to appease the population that they're doing something when the existing entities fail. Then they rename and manipulate or ignore the statistics to claim they have improved the situation.

Like why do we need a Department of Homeland Security, F.B.I. I.C.E, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, National Security Agency, C.I.A., D.I.A., D.E.A., and the list could go on and on. We literally have created a numerous network of intelligence and law enforcement for all the various laws on the books.

In my opinion, until they fix all this crap, this police accountability law is just par for the course of politicians fixing things by adding more laws, more complexity, and more unnecessary bad laws to criminalize another group within society.

What do you want me to tell you? We're screwed and have been for a while. What is inevitable is that with size, the population will grasp for security over almost anything else even if that security is a fabrication or lie sort of like Trump followers believe America is made better with Trump as president without any real proof that it is so.

[RiverDog]

The Police Accountability Law is another example of politicians scapegoating the police while creating more bad laws that are going to discourage quality candidates from joining the police force because there are now laws in place to make the police the bad guys while they haven't seem to have adjusted the laws that create these police interactions.

Now the police will have to police themselves. So now you have police policing citizens, then some other entity policing the police even more than they were policed before. The endless law and institution creation goes on and on as politicians try to appease the population that they're doing something when the existing entities fail. Then they rename and manipulate or ignore the statistics to claim they have improved the situation.

Like why do we need a Department of Homeland Security, F.B.I. I.C.E, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, National Security Agency, C.I.A., D.I.A., D.E.A., and the list could go on and on. We literally have created a numerous network of intelligence and law enforcement for all the various laws on the books.

In my opinion, until they fix all this crap, this police accountability law is just par for the course of politicians fixing things by adding more laws, more complexity, and more unnecessary bad laws to criminalize another group within society.

What do you want me to tell you? We're screwed and have been for a while. What is inevitable is that with size, the population will grasp for security over almost anything else even if that security is a fabrication or lie sort of like Trump followers believe America is made better with Trump as president without any real proof that it is so.

You can add the Secret Service, Coast Guard, Capitol Police, National Park Rangers, and others to your list that fall under the umbrella of federal law enforcement. These agencies are often times redundant, get into turf wars, and don't communicate with each other, which was highlighted in the Capitol riot/insurrection, the 9/11 attacks, the Kennedy assassination, and so on. They need to consolidate some of those agencies or at least create a position where they all report to the same individual.

I don't buy that "we're screwed." In this particular police reform law, we can petition to put it to a vote and get it rescinded. Our friendly watch salesman Tim Eyman has filed a suit contending that the law is unconstitutional, that it should have been put to a vote.

[Hawktawk]

Derek Chauvin was THE LEAD OFFICER TRAINING NEW HIRES. He was also the guy who punched a black teenager in the face so hard it split his face open then knelt on his neck while he was cuffed for SEVENTEEN minutes . That was in 2017 , long before he murdered George Floyd . But he was cleared of any wrongdoing and was a senior officer training new hires for a major metropolitan city. Cops are in oath keepers , proud boys . They were at the Capitol. I can show footage of cops hanging out windows of squad cars spraying tear gas in the faces of people holding signs . I’ve heard enough of the bad Apple theory . I think cops are kind of out of control sometimes which is what’s led to these overreactions . My guess this Washington law isnt going to last long . Even liberals get how stupid it is . But policing in this country has got some changes to make . When you have the right to arrest someone , maybe shoot them you better be a well adjusted person.

[RiverDog]

Derek Chauvin was THE LEAD OFFICER TRAINING NEW HIRES. He was also the guy who punched a black teenager in the face so hard it split his face open then knelt on his neck while he was cuffed for SEVENTEEN minutes . That was in 2017 , long before he murdered George Floyd . But he was cleared of any wrongdoing and was a senior officer training new hires for a major metropolitan city. Cops are in oath keepers , proud boys . They were at the Capitol. I can show footage of cops hanging out windows of squad cars spraying tear gas in the faces of people holding signs . I’ve heard enough of the bad Apple theory . I think cops are kind of out of control sometimes which is what’s led to these overreactions . My guess this Washington law isnt going to last long . Even liberals get how stupid it is . But policing in this country has got some changes to make . When you have the right to arrest someone , maybe shoot them you better be a well adjusted person.

Nice to see your posting activity ramp up again, my friend. I don't always agree with your takes, but I enjoy your company.

I'm not suggesting that we accept bad cops. To the contrary, we need to step up efforts to wean out those individuals that do not fit the profile of the personality types that make good officers.

But that means expanding the field of applicants so we have more to choose from, and in order to do that, we have to make the occupation more attractive, both financially and psychologically, especially in today's tight labor market where good people have a whole lot of options. That's not going to happen if we cut police budgets and demonize those good officers that make up the vast majority of our police forces.

I'm glad that you agree that this new WA law is "stupid". It's a no brainer to all but the most liberally biased of observers, but it's nice that you have made that acknowledgement.

[c_hawkbob]

Cops are in oath keepers , proud boys

"Some of those that work Forces are the same that burn crosses"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWXazVhlyxQ

It was true then, it's true now. It'll unfortunately always be true to some degree. I think the best we can do is erase that code of silence that made the 8 or 9 good cops look the other way while those 1 or 2 bad cops got away with whatever they wanted. I do think we've at least made a step in that direction finally.

[Aseahawkfan]

You can add the Secret Service, Coast Guard, Capitol Police, National Park Rangers, and others to your list that fall under the umbrella of federal law enforcement. These agencies are often times redundant, get into turf wars, and don't communicate with each other, which was highlighted in the Capitol riot/insurrection, the 9/11 attacks, the Kennedy assassination, and so on. They need to consolidate some of those agencies or at least create a position where they all report to the same individual.

I don't buy that "we're screwed." In this particular police reform law, we can petition to put it to a vote and get it rescinded. Our friendly watch salesman Tim Eyman has filed a suit contending that the law is unconstitutional, that it should have been put to a vote.

You look at this in the context of a single Act. I look at this in the context of how politicians handle problems be creating new levels of bureaucracy that we must pay for that are ultimately redundant.

If the police continue to engage in the type of racist profiling and violence towards citizens they are doing now, they will get shackled more and more as people being targeted gain more economic and political power.

The best answer to these types of situations is a complete revision of the legal system and laws.

Other nations are handling drugs very differently than us, it is a major reason why they don't have the crowded prisons we have or the level of violent police interaction. Changing the drug laws would be far more effective than anything else politicians could do to fix the issue the Police Reform Act was created to fix.

[Aseahawkfan]

Just to add to the discussion as well, I also think technology will change the way policing is done within the next 100 years. I think they'll be able to do the following:

1. Apprehend with nonlethal weapons that are far more effective than stun guns.

2. Robots and drones will become more involved in police work allowing an officer to control a suspect with a robot or drone that won't put a human life at risk and perform with more precision.

3. They'll be able to kill cars by calling in numbers in a data base through their computer control systems cutting the electric engine, possibly using a drone.

4. Self-driving cars will be better at avoiding mistakes and obstacles even at high speed.

In 50 to a 100 years, policing will look extremely different and low tech, stupid violent criminals will be handled in ways we cannot even imagine now with complete ease as humans will find the age of robots ushering in changes only seen in movies. It's going to get real interesting.

[RiverDog]

You look at this in the context of a single Act. I look at this in the context of how politicians handle problems be creating new levels of bureaucracy that we must pay for that are ultimately redundant.

If the police continue to engage in the type of racist profiling and violence towards citizens they are doing now, they will get shackled more and more as people being targeted gain more economic and political power.

The best answer to these types of situations is a complete revision of the legal system and laws.

Other nations are handling drugs very differently than us, it is a major reason why they don't have the crowded prisons we have or the level of violent police interaction. Changing the drug laws would be far more effective than anything else politicians could do to fix the issue the Police Reform Act was created to fix.

The single act I am talking about is something that can be changed now, or at least within the next year or two. The things you are talking about are going to take decades, if they ever get resolved.

I'm all for revising our laws, particularly on drug use. Take the money we spend on enforcement and interdiction and re-direct it to education and treatment. But it's not going to happen overnight.

[Aseahawkfan]

[The single act I am talking about is something that can be changed now, or at least within the next year or two. The things you are talking about are going to take decades, if they ever get resolved.

I'm all for revising our laws, particularly on drug use. Take the money we spend on enforcement and interdiction and re-direct it to education and treatment. But it's not going to happen overnight.

That is why I don't think this law will change much, even in a few years.

The cell phone has changed everything including policing. The police cannot hide or muscle their way on citizens. Someone will always be watching or filming them in almost any populated area. If they continue this poor treatment of citizens, they are going to get hammered. Citizen journalism has made everyone more accountable for their actions.

The main unfortunate part for me is that the media racialized this rather than showed that they pretty much do this type of behavior across the board. There is tons of video evidence that they are treating citizens this way regardless of skin color, but the media doesn't show any of it. If George Floyd had been white, it wouldn't have had nearly the same reaction as racializing the incident did. That part is unfortunate as this could have been a unifying movement, but instead became a politicized, one-sided, racialized movement.

As long as citizens are filming police being scumbags, we'll just get a new law like the one you don't like. These movements will not stop until the police stop being violent screw ups. They need to be far more aware of how their actions appear to the public than trying to play some kind of tough guy cop role.

Lastly, I will wait and see what kind of effect this has before I assume it will turn out badly. Fact is the police have reached a point where they have too much power and too little accountability. I hope this forces police hiring boards to be even more selective about hiring some of these loons with these terrible attitudes.

[RiverDog]

[The single act I am talking about is something that can be changed now, or at least within the next year or two. The things you are talking about are going to take decades, if they ever get resolved.

I'm all for revising our laws, particularly on drug use. Take the money we spend on enforcement and interdiction and re-direct it to education and treatment. But it's not going to happen overnight.

That is why I don't think this law will change much, even in a few years.

We'll see. There's going to be some legal challenges to it and there's the possibility of a petition to put it on the ballot. It's by no means written in stone.

The cell phone has changed everything including policing. The police cannot hide or muscle their way on citizens. Someone will always be watching or filming them in almost any populated area. If they continue this poor treatment of citizens, they are going to get hammered. Citizen journalism has made everyone more accountable for their actions.

Absolutely true. It has had the same effect that the relatively new medium of TV had on the military in Vietnam. It brought the horrors of war into our living rooms. Before that, all you saw was selected images on movie newsreels.

The main unfortunate part for me is that the media racialized this rather than showed that they pretty much do this type of behavior across the board. There is tons of video evidence that they are treating citizens this way regardless of skin color, but the media doesn't show any of it. If George Floyd had been white, it wouldn't have had nearly the same reaction as racializing the incident did. That part is unfortunate as this could have been a unifying movement, but instead became a politicized, one-sided, racialized movement.

Again, I agree. Even with the George Floyd killing, I never saw any evidence that it was racially motivated. No one ever even accused Chauvin of being a racist. To the contrary, there is evidence that he was the opposite. He was married to a native Thai, not exactly the profile of a white supremist. Chauvin was obviously a bad cop, but the racial element was never explored during his trial.

Lastly, I will wait and see what kind of effect this has before I assume it will turn out badly. Fact is the police have reached a point where they have too much power and too little accountability. I hope this forces police hiring boards to be even more selective about hiring some of these loons with these terrible attitudes.

Well, there's already been several incidents of which I posted that involved a serious incident that could have very well ended in tragedy. I guess it's going to take several preventable deaths in order to get guys like you to recognize that this is a bad piece of legislation.

[Aseahawkfan]

Well, there's already been several incidents of which I posted that involved a serious incident that could have very well ended in tragedy. I guess it's going to take several preventable deaths in order to get guys like you to recognize that this is a bad piece of legislation.

Yes. It will take at last a year of data showing a noticeable difference in police statistics. You are correct. Anecdotal evidence from a few news stories with an agenda won't do it. As you know, I don't like news articles. They are one of the lowest forms of evidence along with TV news and Netflix documentaries. Articles and written works with clear agendas with evidence carefully curated to support the agenda are not what I consider good evidence. They are a few steps above, "I think..." opinion.

What will be good evidence is a year or more of this law, the adaptations to the law made due to recorded data, and if the data shows the law accomplishes what it set out to do while at the same time not causing a subsequent increase in other crimes or legal issues.

For me recognition absent evidence is opinion and opinion is not fact or data supported. So right now you have a theory that this piece of legislation is bad for citizens and police officers, the data to support your theory will take time to collect.

[RiverDog]

Yes. It will take at last a year of data showing a noticeable difference in police statistics. You are correct. Anecdotal evidence from a few news stories with an agenda won't do it. As you know, I don't like news articles. They are one of the lowest forms of evidence along with TV news and Netflix documentaries. Articles and written works with clear agendas with evidence carefully curated to support the agenda are not what I consider good evidence. They are a few steps above, "I think..." opinion.

What will be good evidence is a year or more of this law, the adaptations to the law made due to recorded data, and if the data shows the law accomplishes what it set out to do while at the same time not causing a subsequent increase in other crimes or legal issues.

For me recognition absent evidence is opinion and opinion is not fact or data supported. So right now you have a theory that this piece of legislation is bad for citizens and police officers, the data to support your theory will take time to collect.

So what evidence did they have when they came up with this legislation in the first place? Would it not have made sense to set such a high bar of fact supported data in order for you to support it had the issue came to you on a ballot like it should have? How many times has some of these non lethal weapons they're banning caused a death or serious injury to a suspect? What evidence was there that would support taking away the police's ability to apprehend a fleeing suspect?

You've got it backwards. You don't pass new legislation without any justification for it then wait and see how it works as if it's some type of laboratory experiment before deciding that it's ill advised.

[RiverDog]

Cops are in oath keepers , proud boys

"Some of those that work Forces are the same that burn crosses"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWXazVhlyxQ

It was true then, it's true now. It'll unfortunately always be true to some degree. I think the best we can do is erase that code of silence that made the 8 or 9 good cops look the other way while those 1 or 2 bad cops got away with whatever they wanted. I do think we've at least made a step in that direction finally.

That I agree with, and I think that charging some of these cops that stand by and watch as a fellow officer loses it and goes ballistic on a suspect, like what happened with the pistol whipping recently in Golden, CO, will help the police self correct. It will change the way that they train police.

Same goes with failing to render first aid. I recall an incident from a couple of years ago, in South Carolina I think, where an unarmed black man suddenly started running away from a cop when the cop shot him in the back and killed him. Another officer, a black female, just stood over the top of the victim as if it were a deer they had just shot and did nothing but talk into her radio with not so much as a cursory attempt to assess his status.

[c_hawkbob]

I agree with you that the training (and vetting) of new hires into forces is a critical step forward. It is to me analogous to the "project upgrade" Reagan went through all of the military forces when the first urinalyses for THC was developed. There was a huge loss of manpower as busted sailors, soldiers and airmen were mustered out of the military and it considerably narrowed the incoming enlistment pool, but the transition period was relatively brief and the goal was accomplished and now it's just the excepted norm. That's what we need to see here, a new normal.

[NorthHawk]

Better background checks are needed, too.
Up here a news outlet did a piece on Police abusing the system and found that many of those bad Cops were in fact High School bullies who now graduated
to the Police and were givne a badge and a gun. The good Cops know who they are but just turned a blind eye to the goings on. Hopefully things are changing.

With these Police Reform Laws in general, if they want to divert funds to social agencies and take some of the responsibilities off of the Police, they have to
have a transition period where the Police maintain their current assignments, but pilot projects are implemented so as to get it right for how much can be
taken off of the Police plate. Just changing the rules and/or defunding them is a ridiculous step without knowing the consequences of those actions.
It's sending trouble your way and could very well set back the intentions big time if things don't work out.

[RiverDog]

Better background checks are needed, too.
Up here a news outlet did a piece on Police abusing the system and found that many of those bad Cops were in fact High School bullies who now graduated
to the Police and were givne a badge and a gun. The good Cops know who they are but just turned a blind eye to the goings on. Hopefully things are changing.

With these Police Reform Laws in general, if they want to divert funds to social agencies and take some of the responsibilities off of the Police, they have to
have a transition period where the Police maintain their current assignments, but pilot projects are implemented so as to get it right for how much can be
taken off of the Police plate. Just changing the rules and/or defunding them is a ridiculous step without knowing the consequences of those actions.
It's sending trouble your way and could very well set back the intentions big time if things don't work out.

I agree that we need to do a better job of vetting police officer candidates, but that's going to require a lot more in terms of incentives, both psychologically as well as financially. The labor market is extremely tight, and if a candidate is good enough to meet the higher standards we're talking about implementing, they are going to have a lot more and better options than being a cop and working weekends, graveyards, holidays, being vilified by the public, denied the tools to do their jobs safely and effectively. That's simply not going to happen if we slash police department budgets as some cities like Seattle are doing and as many are advocating.

Otherwise, we insure ourselves of police departments full of Officer Tackleberrys, the only type of personality that would ever want to become a cop.

[c_hawkbob]

I did say training and vetting. Just like I provided statistical proof of a point I was called BS on earlier. I know I am not as deeply involved in this conversation, but don't blow me off and return to talking to each other... (we need a sad face wink emoji, that sounds way too needy!)

[RiverDog]

I did say training and vetting. Just like I provided statistical proof of a point I was called BS on earlier. I know I am not as deeply involved in this conversation, but don't blow me off and return to talking to each other... (we need a sad face wink emoji, that sounds way too needy!)

Sorry that I didn't respond. I got distracted and moved on.

You didn't conform to the parameters of my challenge, in other words, all you gave was some statistics with no story behind them as, in your own words..." For every story like that there are are plenty of stories of cops in pursuit of a simple traffic violation T-boning a family of 4 on their way to church...

Also, that reference of yours isn't exactly official: An analysis by the Fine Law Firm and 1Point21 Interactive What the heck is that? Where did they get their information from?

I'm waiting for two or three out of your "plenty of stories" of cops T-boning church going families in pursuit of someone running a stop sign, not some unofficial stats compiled by a bunch of law clerks.

Sorry, my friend, but I'm still calling BS. (closest I could find to a sad wink).

And BTW, we're perfectly aligned on the training and vetting of cops. I was simply adding that it's going to cost a lot more money and is unlikely to happen if we continue to demonize the police.

[c_hawkbob]

Sorry that I didn't respond. I got distracted and moved on.

You didn't conform to the parameters of my challenge, in other words, all you gave was some statistics with no story behind them as, in your own words..." For every story like that there are are plenty of stories of cops in pursuit of a simple traffic violation T-boning a family of 4 on their way to church...

Also, that reference of yours isn't exactly official: An analysis by the Fine Law Firm and 1Point21 Interactive What the heck is that? Where did they get their information from?

I'm waiting for two or three out of your "plenty of stories" of cops T-boning church going families in pursuit of someone running a stop sign, not some unofficial stats compiled by a bunch of law clerks.

Oh, and actually I like the eye roll thing, I'm gonna have to remember that one!

Sorry, my friend, but I'm still calling BS. (closest I could find to a sad wink).

And BTW, we're perfectly aligned on the training and vetting of cops. I was simply adding that it's going to cost a lot more money and is unlikely to happen if we continue to demonize the police.

I wasn't trying to conform to your parameters or your challenge, you called BS on what I said and I showed you it was not BS, accept it or not. This isn't a class and you don't get to hand out either assignments or grades. I mean, you didn't complete my assignment either did you? I told you a quick search returned a lot of individual storied but that I was looking for statistics to demonstrate the "plenty of" portion of what I said. And I guess I'm less dismissive of a law firm's research than you are (shrugs).

Oh well, as I see it you told me I was wrong, I demonstrated that it was you who were (are) wrong. I'm good with leaving it at that.

As for the training and vetting of the next wave of LE officers, I frankly don't care what it costs, get Bezos to pay some taxes and we're way in the green. This is too important to pinch pennies on.

[Aseahawkfan]

So what evidence did they have when they came up with this legislation in the first place? Would it not have made sense to set such a high bar of fact supported data in order for you to support it had the issue came to you on a ballot like it should have? How many times has some of these non lethal weapons they're banning caused a death or serious injury to a suspect? What evidence was there that would support taking away the police's ability to apprehend a fleeing suspect?

You've got it backwards. You don't pass new legislation without any justification for it then wait and see how it works as if it's some type of laboratory experiment before deciding that it's ill advised.

What part of all the racial incidents of negative police interactions did you miss as evidence? Such as the five times more likely to be shot by a cop and stopped by a cop? These new laws are specifically in place to address racial inequality in the legal system. There is a plethora of evidence indicating that the police have more negative interactions with people of African descent at around 500% compared to those of European descent. This law is supposed to reduce these negative interactions and police shootings of people of African descent.

That is the metric you will need to watch to see if the law is effective for the Democrats that made it.

You know why this law was made. You know when it was made. This law is specifically meant to address the concerns raised by the BLM movement which means it is racial in nature. So it will be the racial statistics for police use of force and negative interactions that will be used to track its success or failure.

What is my personal theory? I personally don't think it will do much negatively or positively if you want my honest opinion absent any facts. I think this law will be a net zero change that will be used politically by both parties to attack the other. But it won't have a dramatic affect on the crime statistics or negative interactions with folks of African descent. The vast majority of negative interactions do not seem to occur during routine police stops. They seem to occur when someone is called to an incident where a crime is occurring or some other active incident is in process. Then the police at the scene make a decision, then the media spins it up using whatever agenda they choose. If the majority of negative incidents that get publicized occur when the police are called, then it won't matter if probable cause is required as they have been called and that is sufficient cause for them to act.

I think the evidence at the end of a year will be a net zero effect on crime statistics and negative interactions with people of African descent. No real change.

[RiverDog]

I wasn't trying to conform to your parameters or your challenge, you called BS on what I said and I showed you it was not BS, accept it or not. This isn't a class and you don't get to hand out either assignments or grades. I mean, you didn't complete my assignment either did you? I told you a quick search returned a lot of individual storied but that I was looking for statistics to demonstrate the "plenty of" portion of what I said. And I guess I'm less dismissive of a law firm's research than you are (shrugs).

Oh well, as I see it you told me I was wrong, I demonstrated that it was you who were (are) wrong. I'm good with leaving it at that.

You're the one that said that there are "just as many cops T-boning families heading to church for a minor traffic violation", I was simply asking you to validate it. Giving me a very general stat that makes no distinction as to the seriousness of the crimes the suspects were fleeing from doesn't do much to answer that question. To be fair, your link did cite three stories of accidents involving chases, but there's no way of telling how common that is and there was no way of telling the seriousness of the crime they were fleeing from. I posted 2 stories within the same state and within the same week. You responded with three incidents nation wide spaced out over Lord knows how many years.

I see where this law firm drew their information from the NHTSA, which is a credible organization, but their link just sends you to the NHTSA home page and doesn't give any detailed information where one can corroborate at least some of their findings. Most investigative articles has links that takes you directly to the charts and graphs they are drawing their data from.

But I'm good with letting it drop if you so desire.

As for the training and vetting of the next wave of LE officers, I frankly don't care what it costs, get Bezos to pay some taxes and we're way in the green. This is too important to pinch pennies on.

Agreed, although I'm not going to go so far as to say that I don't care what it costs. But I am comfortable raising taxes to cover it of that's what it takes. Like you said, it's too important to be pinching pennies on.

[RiverDog]

What part of all the racial incidents of negative police interactions did you miss as evidence? Such as the five times more likely to be shot by a cop and stopped by a cop? These new laws are specifically in place to address racial inequality in the legal system. There is a plethora of evidence indicating that the police have more negative interactions with people of African descent at around 500% compared to those of European descent. This law is supposed to reduce these negative interactions and police shootings of people of African descent.

That is the metric you will need to watch to see if the law is effective for the Democrats that made it.

The stats on negative racial incidents, and as far as that goes, incarcerations, does not necessarily mean that they are being targeted or discriminated against. Personally, I think that you look at the educational level, the drop out rate, the drug/alcohol rate, and the poverty level of minorities, that you'll find a direct correlation with their crime rate. That's where the real emphasis should be, helping these minorities stay in school, get good educations, stay off drugs, have access to post secondary education, and give them a way out. I'm all about opportunity and self help.

You know why this law was made. You know when it was made. This law is specifically meant to address the concerns raised by the BLM movement which means it is racial in nature. So it will be the racial statistics for police use of force and negative interactions that will be used to track its success or failure.

Oh, I know exactly why and when this law was made. But there is no evidence that any of the activities that are being restricted by this new law would have changed any of the issues brought to the forefront by BLM. How many of these restrictions, had they been in place 5 years ago, would have prevented the shooting/killing of an unarmed black man? Perhaps the one on choke holds, but what about the one on police pursuits or the use of non lethal weapons? How about handcuffing a suspect? IMO this law is an extreme, unjustified overreaction.

What is my personal theory? I personally don't think it will do much negatively or positively if you want my honest opinion absent any facts. I think this law will be a net zero change that will be used politically by both parties to attack the other. But it won't have a dramatic affect on the crime statistics or negative interactions with folks of African descent. The vast majority of negative interactions do not seem to occur during routine police stops. They seem to occur when someone is called to an incident where a crime is occurring or some other active incident is in process. Then the police at the scene make a decision, then the media spins it up using whatever agenda they choose. If the majority of negative incidents that get publicized occur when the police are called, then it won't matter if probable cause is required as they have been called and that is sufficient cause for them to act.

I think the evidence at the end of a year will be a net zero effect on crime statistics and negative interactions with people of African descent. No real change.

Well, I sure hope that there is no real change. But if you look at some of these incidents, I'm afraid that the crime rate will get worse. Additionally, it's just one more issue that's going to drive a wedge between the right and the left.