Bad news for WA LEOs

[Nick Burkhardt]

Looks like Washington lawmakers are aiming to neuter their police officers.

Washington lawmakers move quickly on police deadly force law

Read More

 

[Alexx1401]

Looks like Washington lawmakers are aiming to neuter their police officers.

Washington lawmakers move quickly on police deadly force law

Another case of the voters getting what they asked for. What will happen is the smart Cops will just stop trying to stop criminals. Let them go to prey on the weak. The public will then scream for the Police to do something. Now more than ever it will be up to each person to protect themselves. Voters keep getting what they ask for until they ask for something else.

 

[kott0n]

Wouldn't it be nice if we could break laws as long as we had "good faith"?

No, that sounds ludicrous. Everyone should be accountable for actions.

This is only in repose to violence being introduced constantly in non violent situations.

 

[mkwerx]

Without seeing the text of the bill I don't have a strong opinion on it, but I do not see a problem with amending the current law to open the ability to prosecute bad shoots. If indeed its next to impossible under current law to charge a cop with a bad shoot, this seems a reasonable change.

If police face the same standards those of us without a badge face - that being acting with a reasonable fear of imminent death or severe bodily injury to ourselves or another - I'm good with that. I don't think a cop should get off without charges for a shoot that would land one of us in a court room. The prosecution still has to prove intent and malice, or that the shoot was not in good faith. The cop will still get to plead his case to a jury. Good cops will still be good cops, but maybe a few of the more trigger happy asshats will think twice. Most shootings are morally and legally justified, but not all.

I want to see the text of this bill, but in general I like the idea that police are held to the same standard, if not higher, than we the people are when it comes to ending someone's life.

 

[DuneHopper]

Without seeing the text of the bill I don't have a strong opinion on it, but I do not see a problem with amending the current law to open the ability to prosecute bad shoots. If indeed its next to impossible under current law to charge a cop with a bad shoot, this seems a reasonable change.

If police face the same standards those of us without a badge face - that being acting with a reasonable fear of imminent death or severe bodily injury to ourselves or another - I'm good with that. I don't think a cop should get off without charges for a shoot that would land one of us in a court room. The prosecution still has to prove intent and malice, or that the shoot was not in good faith. The cop will still get to plead his case to a jury. Good cops will still be good cops, but maybe a few of the more trigger happy asshats will think twice. Most shootings are morally and legally justified, but not all.

I want to see the text of this bill, but in general I like the idea that police are held to the same standard, if not higher, than we the people are when it comes to ending someone's life.

Police more then average Joe should be able to determine a deadly threat.
Today more then ever less lethal is an option for control of a situation or Bipodding the
coverage one armed one taser. If I have to make and educated choice if it is or not a deadly threat and held to that legal standard, it should be easy for police to do it I am expected to as they are also not doing so under duress like most would.

 

[fxdc]

Looks like Washington lawmakers are aiming to neuter their police officers.

Washington lawmakers move quickly on police deadly force law

Portland's mayor's HUG A THUG policy has worked it's way north.
WTF!!!

 

[bbbass]

Shoot 'em all... let GOD sort it out.

 

[revjen45]

1) Does this mean there won't be a Mitch Brailsford Award ceremony this year?
2) Most of the people on this board probably don't need the police to save them from bad guys. If we call the cops it's to report the attack as required by law when you shoot in self defense and tell them the perp requires medical aid. They will then keep the EMTs away until the orc has a chance to bleed out (oops make that until the scene is secure). Thus, if the cops launch a work slowdown it will mostly affect the sheeple.
3) If I call the cops to deal with a serious threat I'm calling them to save the orc's life. I can save my own life but I would like to avoid the expense, inconvenience, and legal jeopardy of shooting him. It annoys the DA for a mere peon to deprive the legal industry of all the busy work the bad guy would be sending their way over the next 20-30 yrs. Also, just a guess here, but it's likely that a load of #00 to the head would leave a mess in the house.
4) If the cops throw a sulk because they lose carte blanche to indiscriminately shoot people maybe they should look into another career.

 

[hatchj]

I just skimmed the bill. But it seems fine to me.if a shooting is deemed justifiable. The officer/dept are reimbursed for time, money, etc.

Otherwise they get rid of the "good faith" portion, which could make officers and such more accountable

 

[No_Regerts]

As an LEO, my biggest issue with the proposed changes have to do with the other reasons that LE can use deadly force where the general public may not. I'm not worried about having issues with a reactive shoot to an immediate threat.

There are instances where deadly force is used to prevent escape or destruction of certain types of government property. Most cases the person is unarmed but are still shot, and for good reason. The law says in those instances, the box is checked and you pull the trigger.

The way the new law would open up those types of shootings to the power of suggestion by someone's parents who can't believe theirnunarmed kid is dead, is troublesome to me.

Otherwise, the law doesn't do anything Graham V. Connor and Tennessee V. Garner didn't already do.

 

[Gator Monroe]

Portland's mayor's HUG A THUG policy has worked it's way north.
WTF!!!

The Rule of " The Man's Laws "
Is to be challenged in " The Schtruggle"

 

[kott0n]

As an LEO, my biggest issue with the proposed changes have to do with the other reasons that LE can use deadly force where the general public may not. I'm not worried about having issues with a reactive shoot to an immediate threat.

There are instances where deadly force is used to prevent escape or destruction of certain types of government property. Most cases the person is unarmed but are still shot, and for good reason. The law says in those instances, the box is checked and you pull the trigger.

The way the new law would open up those types of shootings to the power of suggestion by someone's parents who can't believe theirnunarmed kid is dead, is troublesome to me.

Otherwise, the law doesn't do anything Graham V. Connor and Tennessee V. Garner didn't already do.

May I ask why a weapon would ever be used against someone who doesn't have a weapon? Seems like a baton, pepper spray, taser or physical strength would be the go to.

 

[fxdc]

The Rule of " The Man's Laws "
Is to be challenged in " The Schtruggle"

Yup and another name for Man Bun is TELE TUBBY DUDE.
LOL

 

[Gator Monroe]

May I ask why a weapon would ever be used against someone who doesn't have a weapon? Seems like a baton, pepper spray, taser or physical strength would be the go to.

Try allowing a perp to close ground on you and you don't know his skills or what drugs he is on or if he ( Or she ) does not have a screwdriver or icepick or other type of implement and counting on a fore arm shiver or your tazer to not deflect or stick badly to save you from grevous bodily injury or death is sketchy at best sometimes ...

 

[kott0n]

Try allowing a perp to close ground on you and you don't know his skills or what drugs he is on or if he ( Or she ) does not have a screwdriver or icepick or other type of implement and counting on a fore arm shiver or your tazer to not deflect or stick badly to save you from grevous bodily injury or death is sketchy at best sometimes ...

Shoot first and figure out intent later?

 

[Gator Monroe]

Sad to say but yes if you wanna bum rush a cop pointing a gun at you ( even if for a hale & Hearty hug ) then you potentially become a Darwin Award winner pronto ...

 

[kott0n]

See the law is for instances like the BART shooting in Oakland where the guys on the ground, hands behind his back and gets shot in the back from a standing officer.
What about the guy choked out in NYC for selling cigarettes.

If a drug riddled convict is rushing LEO, as in your example, I'm not sure he has anything to worry about.

 

[Gator Monroe]

See the law is for instances like the BART shooting in Oakland where the guys on the ground, hands behind his back and gets shot in the back from a standing officer.
What about the guy choked out in NYC for selling cigarettes.

If a drug riddled convict is rushing LEO, as in your example, I'm not sure he has anything to worry about.

The good shoots outnumber the bad shoots 50 to 1 historically

 

[Gator Monroe]

The good shoots outnumber the bad shoots 50 to 1 historically

BTW a good shoot can have ricochet or bystander injury or friendly fire just as a bad shoot does ( Not all NYC cops can shoot like the Garland Texas cop who took down the Islamic inspired perps gunning for Mohammad cartoonists with an AKM from 45+ yards with a handgun

 

[Squidly]

Sad to say but yes if you wanna bum rush a cop pointing a gun at you ( even if for a hale & Hearty hug ) then you potentially become a Darwin Award winner pronto ...

Not a good idea to bum rush anybody in and armed state.
I'm not a big guy, a 55yo desk jocky. The disparity of force would almost always be against me. If a large young man were to bum rush me, what are my options? (retort)