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

[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....raham-v-Connor