While this is carried on Officer.Com - - much of the material is from the Seattle Times, it is not clear to me if the website is simply re-printing the article, or if they based their own on that source. http://www.officer.com/news/11488592/seattle-police-officers-sue-over-doj-reforms "As a result, officers are afraid to do their job for fear of being second-guessed over burdensome, complicated and voluminous policies, the suit says." "widespread hostility within the Police Department toward the new use-of-force policies, " ""But I will say: the Seattle Police Department is under a federally-mandated court order, in part because of a disturbing pattern of unnecessary use of force and other forms of unconstitutional policing," Murray said." This appears to be a summary of the Use of Force policy: "The new use-of-force policy, which went into effect Jan. 1, for the first time defined "force" as any physical coercion by an officer in the performance of their duties, and advised when it can be used and how much is appropriate under the circumstances. Officers must report all but the most minimal use of force to supervisors, and shall "use only the force necessary to perform their duties" and "with minimal reliance upon the use of physical force." "They also are required, if circumstances allow, to attempt to de-escalate tense situations through "advisements, warnings, verbal persuasion, and other tactics" to reduce the need for force. When using force is unavoidable, the policy cautions officers to use only the force necessary to make the arrest, and says that their conduct before force was used may be considered by the department in determining whether force was appropriate." So, why did the City develop these Use of Force policies? Because they were ordered to by the USA. Mind you the USA is A-OK with Stop and Frisk. So how bad was it to get them involved?