WA: Supporters turning in signatures to get use of force initiative on ballot

[Drang]

MyNorthwest.com: Supporters turning in signatures to get use of force initiative on ballot (http://mynorthwest.com/855347/i-940-use-of-force-initiative/)


Supporters of an initiative to change the state’s use of force law are turning in signatures to get it on next year’s ballot.

The changes would make it easier to charge officers for using deadly force in some instances. But proponents say it will give police officers more tools to handle dangerous situations.

...

In Washington, a police officer can’t be charged with a crime in deadly force shootings if it’s proved they acted in good faith and without what’s called “evil intent.”

The most controversial provision would remove proving malice as a condition to prosecute officers who misuse deadly force.

Initiative 940 would require de-escalation training for all law enforcement officers. It would also mandate that they provide first aid if they end up shooting someone.

[Casual Friday]

This will be the tip of the iceberg for citizens determining police policy in WA. I used to creep around on local anti gun and left wing pages before they went to closed group status and this is nothing compared to what the end game is. Cops not carrying guns at all like the UK is one of their goals.

[fastreb]

For citizens in a state that considers itself just as hi-tech as CA's silicon valley, those that signed that proposal charged right past stupid and went to full-throttle moron. I'm hoping the citizens of Idaho will help head off the zombie apocalypse and keep them from coming east.

[TSH]

It’s one thing to get a bunch of signatures from progressives in Seattle, quite another to get the voters at large to approve it. I wouldn’t worry about this until it passes, after which there will almost certainly be crippling lawsuits slowing it down.

Their website said polls show 75% polled support it. Laughable, and shows you how out of touch they are. Even in California something this left wing doesn’t get that kind of support.

Not a Washingtonian, but I predict this won’t go far in its current form.

[AMC]

California also has an initiative process...but fortunately for the legislators, they've just expanded their voting constituents to cover themselves for the crazy they plan. California just extended the franchise to convicted felons, including during their incarceration. Some Pols are already calling them " incarcerated persons". I've repeatedly brought this up to progressive friends and neighbors, and asked what they think it means for the future of public safety in the state that their elected representative will be pandering to criminals for votes? Gonna get what you asked for, California.

[Peally]

Washington, not surprised. Might as well start calling it North California.

[TheNewbie]

California also has an initiative process...but fortunately for the legislators, they've just expanded their voting constituents to cover themselves for the crazy they plan. California just extended the franchise to convicted felons, including during their incarceration. Some Pols are already calling them " incarcerated persons". I've repeatedly brought this up to progressive friends and neighbors, and asked what they think it means for the future of public safety in the state that their elected representative will be pandering to criminals for votes? Gonna get what you asked for, California.

How do they reply?

I loved California when I visited, but between the leftism and taxes I couldn't live there. Many seem to think Texas will be the next California. If so I am going to live on the ND prairie with woodchucks and wind chills that will freeze my eyeballs in the socket.

[Totem Polar]

As bad as that bill is, you should read the gun control one that is expected to be in front of our newly D-controled state legislature Q1 of 2018. It’s bad.

I should add that I am born and raised here—with just scattered time living in other states and the mideast. As I approach 50, I’m amazed at the direction my home is heading. I mean, WA state had shall-issue 2 decades before runner-up Indiana, and 25 years before, say, the dakotas and florida. Christ, WA was leading the way 3 decades before Oregon and Idaho on CCW issue.

But now, thanks to the influx of left coast people and ideas into king and surrounding counties, I and others like me are looking at daily and weekly activities—perfectly legal and responsible—becoming class 3 felonies with the opening of the derp faucet, and the stroke of a pen, or keyboard or whatever.

Amazing, really. You other freedom states (and I’m also one including Texas, given that they are currently the top refuge for millionaires/billionaires fleeing leftist state economies) better watch and learn. Some of you are probably old enough to escape personal persecution, but 50 years goes by quickly, and anyone with kids and grandkids better start seeing the big picture, and the bigger culture war.

[TheNewbie]

As bad as that bill is, you should read the gun control one that is expected to be in front of our newly D-controled state legislature Q1 of 2018. It’s bad.

I should add that I am born and raised here—with just scattered time living in other states and the mideast. As I approach 50, I’m amazed at the direction my home is heading. I mean, WA state had shall-issue 2 decades before runner-up Indiana, and 25 years before, say, the dakotas and florida. Christ, WA was leading the way 3 decades before Oregon and Idaho on CCW issue.

But now, thanks to the influx of left coast people and ideas into king and surrounding counties, I and others like me are looking at daily and weekly activities—perfectly legal and responsible—becoming class 3 felonies with the opening of the derp faucet, and the stroke of a pen, or keyboard or whatever.

Amazing, really. You other freedom states (and I’m also one including Texas, given that they are currently the top refuge for millionaires/billionaires fleeing leftist state economies) better watch and learn. Some of you are probably old enough to escape personal persecution, but 50 years goes by quickly, and anyone with kids and grandkids better start seeing the big picture, and the bigger culture war.

The problem is will the refugees learn? Many from Latin America do not learn, so no reason the rich from California should. It's troubling for sure.

Actually weather wise I would pick eastern WA over any state. The dreary rainy days are heaven on earth for me.

[Drang]

Guys:
As the one who posted this in the LAW ENFORCEMENT FORUM, which I did to give the LEOs a chance to discuss it, perhaps we should move it to GD so everyone could discuss the wider political implications.

Myself, as much as I complain about Seattle liberals ruining the state, I doubt we'll solve anything.

I was more interested in the LEOs thoughts on things like mandating first aid and making it easier to sue them over UOF.

[TheNewbie]

Guys:
As the one who posted this in the LAW ENFORCEMENT FORUM, which I did to give the LEOs a chance to discuss it, perhaps we should move it to GD so everyone could discuss the wider political implications.

Myself, as much as I complain about Seattle liberals ruining the state, I doubt we'll solve anything.

I was more interested in the LEOs thoughts on things like mandating first aid and making it easier to sue them over UOF.


My apologies for the thread drift.

As an LEO I want to desecalate if I can and I want to help even the bad guys when I can. Making it law will only complicate things and criminals will be even more brazen. That's my initial thought anyway.

[Totem Polar]

Guys:
As the one who posted this in the LAW ENFORCEMENT FORUM, which I did to give the LEOs a chance to discuss it, perhaps we should move it to GD so everyone could discuss the wider political implications...

Sorry, brother; I screwed to pooch and absolutely failed to take note of what forum we were in. Completely my fault. Apologies for taking things off the rails.

[TSH]

Guys:
As the one who posted this in the LAW ENFORCEMENT FORUM, which I did to give the LEOs a chance to discuss it, perhaps we should move it to GD so everyone could discuss the wider political implications.

Myself, as much as I complain about Seattle liberals ruining the state, I doubt we'll solve anything.

I was more interested in the LEOs thoughts on things like mandating first aid and making it easier to sue them over UOF.

My thought is that it doesn't matter. The Supreme Court has already given us Graham v. Connor, so the whole "subjective" part of the legislation will get knocked down with the first case to make it to the 9th circuit. As far as life saving, we do that already.

Everyone already gets de-escalation training. Despite what the proponents say, I'm willing to bet every LEO agency in Washington is already in compliance with that portion of the proposed law.

Let's say the law passes: so what? Give the people what they want. Show up to P1 calls an hour later to make sure the suspect is gone. If they are still there, let them injure a bystander so your actions to stop them are judged in the best light. Let's be honest - that is precisely what the proponents of this bill desire.

All that said, I predict this thing is going nowhere. Like I said, getting the signatures to get it on the ballot is the easy part. Convincing the rest of the state...not so much. Especially when LEO experts start explaining what the world will look like if the prop passes.

[Drang]

... I predict this thing is going nowhere. Like I said, getting the signatures to get it on the ballot is the easy part. Convincing the rest of the state...not so much. Especially when LEO experts start explaining what the world will look like if the prop passes.

The problem is, the initiative process doesn't look at things like whether the initiative is Constitutional, practicable, passes the common sense test, is sane, etc.

So if there are problematic aspects of this law, it would probably be a good idea for Law Enforcement in Washington State to step up and say so now.

[fastbolt]

... California just extended the franchise to convicted felons, including during their incarceration. Some Pols are already calling them " incarcerated persons". I've repeatedly brought this up to progressive friends and neighbors, and asked what they think it means for the future of public safety in the state that their elected representative will be pandering to criminals for votes? Gonna get what you asked for, California.

I'm sure some members might be interested to get some clarification of how the law works in CA, so here's a link to a CA Secretary of State website explaining it. (Read the Additional Information paragraphs, as well as the can/can't register to vote info):
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/voting-california/who-can-vote-california/voting-rights-californians/

I'm not sure whether the rest of the voters may care what CA's LE thinks of it, especially since it's already established law. Besides, last I read (2015 numbers), CA only has about 77,000 sworn LE. (I think it was just over 6K for the total of reserves, looking on another site.)

[AMC]

I'm sure some members might be interested to get some clarification of how the law works in CA, so here's a link to a CA Secretary of State website explaining it. (Read the Additional Information paragraphs, as well as the can/can't register to vote info):
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/voting-california/who-can-vote-california/voting-rights-californians/

I'm not sure whether the rest of the voters may care what CA's LE thinks of it, especially since it's already established law. Besides, last I read (2015 numbers), CA only has about 77,000 sworn LE. (I think it was just over 6K for the total of reserves, looking on another site.)

That was kind of my point. I agree that most Californians don't care what LE professionals think of public safety issues....since many think we're out of control racist murderers anyway. I also think the overwhelming majority have no idea where their elected officials stand on issues, or what was in the ballot initiative they just voted 'yes' on. Like I said...good luck with that, California.

[Coyotesfan97]

The problem is, the initiative process doesn't look at things like whether the initiative is Constitutional, practicable, passes the common sense test, is sane, etc.

So if there are problematic aspects of this law, it would probably be a good idea for Law Enforcement in Washington State to step up and say so now.

I thought there was already significant LE opposition to this initiative from Sheriff’s and Police Associations.

[TSH]

The problem is, the initiative process doesn't look at things like whether the initiative is Constitutional, practicable, passes the common sense test, is sane, etc.

So if there are problematic aspects of this law, it would probably be a good idea for Law Enforcement in Washington State to step up and say so now.

Yeah, but that's why the losing side always has lawyers on standby, and I have no doubt the various LEO organizations in WA are working on their counterpoint. As a matter of fact, when I was reading about the initiative process in WA, it looked like the legislature can introduce their own version of the bill, and I bet it is already being written with significant input from LEOs.

LEO associations have no shortage of money (at least judging by the dues I have to pay out of every paycheck). I'm willing to bet they can outspend the opposition, wine and dine the various legislators, and eventually get what they want. It is an issue of educating the public, which they know how to do. After that, the rank and file in King County can start working on embarrassing and undermining their Sheriff for supporting this nonsense.

At any rate, the fallback is as I said before: give the public the policing they want. If they want officers that are reluctant to help the public and don't show up to calls, they can have it. My paycheck will be the same either way.

[fastbolt]

That was kind of my point. I agree that most Californians don't care what LE professionals think of public safety issues....since many think we're out of control racist murderers anyway. I also think the overwhelming majority have no idea where their elected officials stand on issues, or what was in the ballot initiative they just voted 'yes' on. Like I said...good luck with that, California.

Figured it was your point. I just thought I'd lend some numbers to your idea, to emphasize it for some other members.

While most of the guys and gals at my cigar club tend to keep politics outside, occasionally someone will bring up a sincere question for discussion in a congenial manner. I've long since stopped being surprised when a lot of otherwise well informed and educate folks haven't actually read an initiative, but have just relied upon sound bites or blurbs in the Editorial pages of the paper. Naturally, when they find out what's really in the fine print, or what it will cost taxpayers, they're surprised. I have no idea why people trust the news media, lobbyists, special interests groups or politicians to tell them how they should vote. ;)

[Erick Gelhaus]

My thought is that it doesn't matter. The Supreme Court has already given us Graham v. Connor, so the whole "subjective" part of the legislation will get knocked down with the first case to make it to the 9th circuit. As far as life saving, we do that already.


While Graham v. Connor is still the legal standard for evaluating L/E use of force, one only needs to look at the last several USSC use of deadly force cases to see how the Circuit Courts are ruling - and it is not accordance with the USSC directions. In Plumhoff v. Rickard, the officers were originally charged with murder.

Simply, this initiative is about being able to prosecute and sentence officers for line of duty shootings. That's a view based on significant feedback from a prosecuting attorney in WA.

If explaining these issues to the community was easy, CA would not be stuck with the various de-criminalization & little is a violent felony anymore initiatives we have had shoved down our throats in spite of L/E and L/E employee associations reaching out, speaking out.

[TSH]

Simply, this initiative is about being able to prosecute and sentence officers for line of duty shootings. That's a view based on significant feedback from a prosecuting attorney in WA.

I don't doubt that at all. The point remains, however: If the public want peace officers that are afraid to use force, give them that. I'm not risking prison time for people that will vilify me if I use force in their stead, and I would applaud every law enforcement officer that made the same decision. They don't want lethal force used? Okay by me, but they should be prepared to pay the price.

Edited to add:

Thinking about this some more, the initiative is in direct opposition to Graham v. Connor. The language in the decision said the court must view it from the point of view of the officer on scene instead of hindsight and must consider the fact that officers are required to make split-second decisions. This initiative doesn't abide by that.

Really, if it passes I think this thing will be so tied up in court it won't even matter.

[fastreb]

I don't doubt that at all. The point remains, however: If the public want peace officers that are afraid to use force, give them that. I'm not risking prison time for people that will vilify me if I use force in their stead, and I would applaud every law enforcement officer that made the same decision. They don't want lethal force used? Okay by me, but they should be prepared to pay the price.

Edited to add:

Thinking about this some more, the initiative is in direct opposition to Graham v. Connor. The language in the decision said the court must view it from the point of view of the officer on scene instead of hindsight and must consider the fact that officers are required to make split-second decisions. This initiative doesn't abide by that.

Really, if it passes I think this thing will be so tied up in court it won't even matter.

There are a couple of problems I see with your points, First, you could shut down, make no vehicle stops, etc. and still find yourself at a call where someone winds up trying to kill you. So, without getting some kind of job in admin like doing background checks on applicants, you could still find yourself facing some over-zealous prosecutor trying to make a name for themselves, especially in some politically correct place like CA, OR, and now, WA. The second problem I see is that to have standing in court and have this initiative shot down, some officer will most likely have to be up on charges in the first place. Again, in the atmosphere of CA, OR, WA or NY, it will likely mean the officer has been convicted of some charge and they'll have to beat the charge and initiative on appeal. While they might win, their life will still have been left in ruins. I'm just glad that insanity like that hasn't taken root here in my state near as much and I'll probably be retired before it does.

[Drang]

I thought there was already significant LE opposition to this initiative from Sheriff’s and Police Associations.

There may be, I don't know.

[gtae07]

I've long since stopped being surprised when a lot of otherwise well informed and educate folks haven't actually read an initiative, but have just relied upon sound bites or blurbs in the Editorial pages of the paper. Naturally, when they find out what's really in the fine print, or what it will cost taxpayers, they're surprised.
I have run across this many, many times... most strikingly with a couple of close family members. Sometimes the secondhand "sources" are brazenly wrong, like 180 out from the truth, and severely distort the subject all out of recognition.


I have no idea why people trust the news media, lobbyists, special interests groups or politicians to tell them how they should vote. ;)
Because they've already chosen how they're going to vote based on "common sense"*, the talking heads of their choice make them feel better about it, and obviously those "other people" aren't in agreement because they are terrible abominations who support the things they support out of the most vile and despicable reasons.


* this being the collection of uninformed biases and surface-level observations about how the world appears to work from their viewpoint. Common sense is what gave us the Ptolemeic model and spontaneous generation, and said heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones.

[Shoresy]

I have no idea why people trust the news media, lobbyists, special interests groups or politicians to tell them how they should vote. ;)

Because thinking is hard and people are lazy.

[fastbolt]

I don't doubt that at all. The point remains, however: If the public want peace officers that are afraid to use force, give them that. I'm not risking prison time for people that will vilify me if I use force in their stead, and I would applaud every law enforcement officer that made the same decision. They don't want lethal force used? Okay by me, but they should be prepared to pay the price.

Edited to add:

Thinking about this some more, the initiative is in direct opposition to Graham v. Connor. The language in the decision said the court must view it from the point of view of the officer on scene instead of hindsight and must consider the fact that officers are required to make split-second decisions. This initiative doesn't abide by that.

Really, if it passes I think this thing will be so tied up in court it won't even matter.

I agree I don't know how this would stand up to the Graham v. Conner standard, even in the 9th.

[TSH]

There are a couple of problems I see with your points, First, you could shut down, make no vehicle stops, etc. and still find yourself at a call where someone winds up trying to kill you. So, without getting some kind of job in admin like doing background checks on applicants, you could still find yourself facing some over-zealous prosecutor trying to make a name for themselves, especially in some politically correct place like CA, OR, and now, WA. The second problem I see is that to have standing in court and have this initiative shot down, some officer will most likely have to be up on charges in the first place. Again, in the atmosphere of CA, OR, WA or NY, it will likely mean the officer has been convicted of some charge and they'll have to beat the charge and initiative on appeal. While they might win, their life will still have been left in ruins. I'm just glad that insanity like that hasn't taken root here in my state near as much and I'll probably be retired before it does.

Yeah, an officer could stop all proactive work, but that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about be dispatched to a hot call, and just waiting it out to make sure the suspect is likely gone when they arrive. I know of at least one large agency doing exactly that. It is certainly not their policy to do so, but they are doing it nonetheless out of simple self-preservation.

As far as an officer being charged, I don't think that is what it would take. My reading of the initiative led me to believe uses of force in general are to be reviewed under the new standard in clear violation of Graham v. Connor. To have standing, an officer would not have to be charged, just penalized by the department or receive some other form of punishment for a politically incorrect use of force. I could be wrong. If it is lethal force only, then unfortunately an officer being charged is what it would take. Let's be honest, though - an officer is getting charged with something at some point regardless.

IANAL, but I would imagine the officer cold challenge the charge during arraignment (hopefully). That way it would make it to the USSC before he could even stand trial. The USSC has made it abundantly clear that Graham v. Connor is the only standard they are willing to use and they have shown no hesitation in correcting the lower courts. Based on the types of people Trump is throwing out for the federal bench, I would guess that trend will strengthen rather than weaken.

That, coupled with Gallup polling showing there is a nearly 60% approval rating for law enforcement in this country, makes me believe people in general are not inclined to vilify law enforcement - just those in the ivory tower.

[HCM]

I agree I don't know how this would stand up to the Graham v. Conner standard, even in the 9th.

There is an organized campaign by the left against the objective reasonableness standard - they want Graham v Connor overturned - directly or indirectly.

[TSH]

There is an organized campaign by the left against the objective reasonableness standard - they want Graham v Connor overturned - directly or indirectly.

There certainly is, and it’s going nowhere. With every USSC decision, Graham v. Connor becomes more entrenched, to the point of the Supremes reversing and remanding when the lower courts so much as forget to cross a “t.”

[HCM]

There certainly is, and it’s going nowhere. With every USSC decision, Graham v. Connor becomes more entrenched, to the point of the Supremes reversing and remanding when the lower courts so much as forget to cross a “t.”

The Left believe (correctly) Graham v Connor is counter to advancing their agendas that it protects cops more than they would like.

Hence the move to try and go around with crap like this WA ballot initiative and poisoning the pool slanted media pieces like this recent radio lab piece : https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?28779-Radiolab-on-Graham-v-Connor

[TSH]

The Left believe (correctly) Graham v Connor is counter to advancing their agendas that it protects cops more than they would like.

Hence the move to try and go around with crap like this WA ballot initiative and poisoning the pool slanted media pieces like this recent radio lab piece : https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?28779-Radiolab-on-Graham-v-Connor

Everything you are saying is correct, and it still doesn’t matter. Graham v. Connor is the Roe v. Wade of use of force. It has been around and unchanged for nearly 30 years - it isn’t going anywhere. Even the liberal wing of the court has signed on to it. The fact the anti-cop factions are turning to the states to fight it is evidence that even they know it isn’t going away.

[JustOneGun]

Two issues I ponder:
1. Most departments make it very clear about force, deescalation, etc. I get looked at weird by non-LEO family and friends when I explain that most officers are more afraid of their admin than they are of a person waving a gun at them. They just don't understand that. We as officers collectively wait too long to use force. Sometimes that waiting makes the situation worse. Often that waiting leads to a higher use of force to resolve the issue. It's difficult to give that level of understanding to average citizens.

One of the points I try to make to civilians is that every time an officer waits instead of properly applying the law is a chance for that criminal to not only use force on the officer but on the public. So if I wait and the rounds that don't hit me, where do they go? They go downrange towards the people I swore to protect. If I wait and the suspect gets away, that is just leaving the suspect with the community I swore to protect.

While this initiative goes directly against Graham, it just helps solidify what has been happening for decades. It's harder to get in trouble for what you don't do than what you might do. That avoidance behavior was getting locked into my department for the last decade.

2. Given DB's idea that a police department is a mirror of a community, where do these type of initiatives and this type of trend in point #1 lead? I don't ask that rhetorically. I assume we will have less and less new officers drawn to the profession that agree with my point one. How does an officer, do their job if they actually believe that this initiative is not all that bad and believe in the, "New way of using force"?

[LSP552]

The cultural war against police that Obama started, or at least took to an entirely new level, will not be reversed. It’s past the tipping point in many places. Police work has always been a relatively thankless profession, except for those bright momments when people REALLY need help. Now, it’s becoming extremely dangerous to proactively police. And that danger is from the community, media and political agency heads.

The left, fueled by the media, doesn’t want justice. They want tic for tat. At their core, they believe any use of deadly force is a failure and means someone screwed up. The tool they want to use is have the office charged and a public trial for a fatal use of force that doesn’t meant THEIR standard.

It’s truly becoming a no-win for many locations. Damn if you do, damn if you don’t. And this makes it extremely dangerous for officers and the public, and has caused the death of pro-active policing.

At the end of the day, some people need shooting. Once, a large majority of this county would agree with that statement and line where it would be drawn. Today, there isn’t much agreement on either in many places.

And they will end up with the policing they deserve.

[AMC]

I also think some of our brethren in more 'conservative' areas are being a bit naive in the reliance on Graham. My departments new UOF policy explicitly states it is more restrictive than State Law and Graham. Sure....they can't get around Graham when it comes to criminally charging an officer. But they can discipline or fire them, and your recourses are very limited in that case. If people don't believe that will have an effect on policing, they're delusional.

I should add...when our policy was being considered by the appointed Police Commission, one of the commissioners (a former Assistant DA) came around to the stations to explain it. He went to great lengths to explain that the LAW wasn't changing, that they weren't talking about putting officers in Jail for Use Of Force.....just suspending and firing you. He simply couldn't understand why that was going to change how officers did their job, and how it would endanger officer and public safety. He was astounded at the objections...a former prosecutor. You just can't fix that level of stupid. And he's now a Superior Court Judge.

[Drang]

One of these days I'll have to finish my parody of "Danke Schoen", entitled "Schadenfreude."

Washington lawmakers violated state constitution when rewriting police deadly force laws, judge says (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/washington-lawmakers-violated-state-constitution-when-rewriting-police-deadly-force-laws-judge-says/)


OLYMPIA — The Washington Legislature’s unprecedented maneuver to change the law for police use of deadly force violated the state constitution, a Thurston County Superior Court judge ruled Friday.

Judge Christine Schaller said lawmakers acted improperly in March when they passed an amendment to a use-of-force initiative before actually approving the initiative itself.

She rejected the Legislature’s action and ordered the Washington Secretary of State’s Office to put the initiative, I-940, on the November ballot.

While attorneys for the Legislature immediately appealed the decision, Friday’s ruling was yet another snag in the long-running push to make it easier to prosecute police for a wrongful shooting.

[Erick Gelhaus]

So, now, this initiative will go before an electorate that is truly ignorant (from Merriam-Webster online: ignorant 1 a : destitute of knowledge or education; an ignorant society; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified; parents ignorant of modern mathematics) on the legalities and realities of human confrontations, human performance, using force, and being on the receiving end of it.

Yeah, that is wonderful idea - not.

[willie]

I'm reminded of the national outcry when police were called to Starbucks and then arrested two men for trespassing when they refused to leave. Had two white guys been arrested nobody would have cared. It appears that a double standard has been confirmed as an acceptable alternative. I see policy changing to accommodate this view: police training will be teaching that zero tolerance is counter to the American way of life and that officers must not hassle citizens, and that all people are basically good, and as public servants, we must substitute counseling and understanding for punitive action that might thrust us into situations where lethal force is used, and that as highly competent law officers, we must understand that not all justifiable shooting are really justified. These statements have implications which will constitute an agenda. It's the agenda that may destroy law enforcement. One reason is that for every agenda, there always exists a hidden agenda.

I saw anti cop sentiment during the turbulent 1960's. Calling cops pigs became a practice that extended through the early 1970's. Google riots and read about the number of American cities involved. Who is called out to deal with rioters? Not Boy Scouts and school teachers.

[Drang]

So, now, this initiative will go before an electorate that is truly ignorant (from Merriam-Webster online: ignorant 1 a : destitute of knowledge or education; an ignorant society; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified; parents ignorant of modern mathematics) on the legalities and realities of human confrontations, human performance, using force, and being on the receiving end of it.

Yeah, that is wonderful idea - not.

The article should have reward "put the initiative... BACK on the ballot."
It was passed there.
It was truly flawed.
That's why the state legislature was trying to re-write the law, to avoid the issues that would ensue.
BTW, WA state law says you cannot amend an initiative until 2 years have elapsed after the people pass it.

[GardoneVT]

Who is called out to deal with rioters? Not Boy Scouts and school teachers.

Don’t speak so soon. One of the things DB & CH pointed out in their last podcast is the “de-fanging” of police. Ultimately a gun is a tool; if the officer isn’t trained with the mindset to use it the firearm is just a belt ornament.

The regrettable reality of matters is a police department of disarmed social workers is the wave of the future for multiple reasons: first ,such people won’t risk careers. Meat eaters don’t listen to desk jockeys when the mission needs doing ,while social workers obey the company line. Chiefs and bosses sleep easier at night knowing their subordinates won’t act in ways which risk said superiors odds of a nicer desk someday.

The next reason is the growth of analytics and academic research into crime. While analyzing data and apply academic principles has its place,unfortunately numbers don’t always jive with reality. It’s easier for managers and leaders to adopt a white paper policy recommendation (with career boosting resume bullets) before actually evaluating if it’s even practical in the first place.

Last; the public ultimately decides policy. That’s the nature of local and state government by design, which sucks when said public is totally ignorant of police work. You have voters and professional contributors to political organizations that have never fought anyone or have any understanding of what it’s like to fight for their lives. To them violent crime is a Hollywood ad copy; something like Sasquatch or the boogeyman that’s a figment of imagination. When you don’t see the problem you’re unlikely to see the solution. Who needs fire breathing,assertive officers when there’s “no” violent crime to begin with?

Much of what the disarmament lobby says makes sense ; but only if you assume the world isn’t populated with evil people. As ridiculous as this sounds, millions of voting Americans believe just that. So they vote in a mayor who buys into the disarmament culture,who then pressures or hires a police supervisor who thinks the same way. It trickles down until you get a patrolman who can’t clear a 1911 safely.

[willie]

Some think that disarming citizens will help achieve lofty social goals, but these folks ignore the fact that criminals will not surrender guns. Such social planners think that eliminating any firearms is good so they will start with honest people. This event will parallel the phenomenon that Gardone described in post #39. The process will be incremental and occur over time. It's called cultural evolution. Changing demographics will accelerate it. Eventually police dogs will be beagles and labs and their purpose will be comforting apprehended persons.