Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

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

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    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
    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.

  2. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Various spots in Arizona
    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"?
    What you do right before you know you're going to be in a use of force incident, often determines the outcome of that use of force.

  3. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    East Greenwich, RI
    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.

  4. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Living across the Golden Bridge , and through the Rainbow Tunnel, somewhere north of Fantasyland.
    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.

  5. #35
    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

    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.
    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

  6. #36
    Site Supporter Erick Gelhaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Wasatch Front
    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.

  7. #37
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Texas
    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.
    Last edited by willie; 04-22-2018 at 02:47 PM. Reason: spelling

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Angus McFee View Post
    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.
    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

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by willie View Post
    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.
    The Minority Marksman.
    "When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
    -a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.

  10. #40
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Texas
    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.

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
  •