Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40

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

  1. #11
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by Drang View Post
    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.

  2. #12
    Site Supporter Totem Polar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    PacNW
    Quote Originally Posted by Drang View Post
    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.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Drang View Post
    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.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by TSH View Post
    ... 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.
    Recovering Gun Store Commando. My Blog: The Clue Meter
    “It doesn’t matter what the problem is, the solution is always for us to give the government more money and power, while we eat less meat.”
    Glenn Reynolds

  5. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    CA Central Coast
    Quote Originally Posted by AMC View Post
    ... 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/voti...-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.)
    Last edited by fastbolt; 12-30-2017 at 04:06 PM.

  6. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Living across the Golden Bridge , and through the Rainbow Tunnel, somewhere north of Fantasyland.
    Quote Originally Posted by fastbolt View Post
    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/voti...-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.

  7. #17
    Site Supporter Coyotesfan97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix Metro, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Drang View Post
    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.
    Just a dog chauffeur that used to hold the dumb end of the leash.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Drang View Post
    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.

  9. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    CA Central Coast
    Quote Originally Posted by AMC View Post
    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.

  10. #20
    Site Supporter Erick Gelhaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Wasatch Front
    Quote Originally Posted by TSH View Post
    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.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •