Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 78

Thread: SPD officers file federal suit challenging use-of-force policies DoJ reform

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153

    SPD officers file federal suit challenging use-of-force policies DoJ reform

    But police say the terms of the settlement — that police are severely restricted in how they might physically deal with suspects — aren’t sitting well with officers, and they’ve launched a lawsuit in federal court to turn back some of those new rules, NBC said.

    The lawsuit was filed on behalf of 126 Seattle police officers, NBC News reported. It claims that the settlement is preventing them from even using “reasonable and effective force” in high-risk situations and forcing police to “take unnecessary risks.”

    Among those risks: Police now have to “under-react to threats of harm until we have no choice but to overreact” and that this scenario means “that officers and citizens will get killed or seriously injured,” NBC News said.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...rackdown-on-p/

    http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/...orce-policies/

    https://news.google.com/news/rtc?ncl...Cfg9JB-qIE8LuM

    Complaint 80 pages https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...complaint.html

    Policy 10 pages 440 KB http://www.seattle.gov/police/compli...11_27_2013.pdf
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I saw this too ... and the case will have a larger scope than just for police...

  3. #3
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    Confused

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    But police say the terms of the settlement — that police are severely restricted in how they might physically deal with suspects — aren’t sitting well with officers, and they’ve launched a lawsuit in federal court to turn back some of those new rules, NBC said.

    The lawsuit was filed on behalf of 126 Seattle police officers, NBC News reported. It claims that the settlement is preventing them from even using “reasonable and effective force” in high-risk situations and forcing police to “take unnecessary risks.”

    Among those risks: Police now have to “under-react to threats of harm until we have no choice but to overreact” and that this scenario means “that officers and citizens will get killed or seriously injured,” NBC News said.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...rackdown-on-p/

    http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/...orce-policies/

    https://news.google.com/news/rtc?ncl...Cfg9JB-qIE8LuM

    Complaint 80 pages https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...complaint.html

    Policy 10 pages 440 KB http://www.seattle.gov/police/compliance/finished_policy
    /Use_of_Force_Policy_11_27_2013.pdf
    So.....let me get this straight. The complaint asserts under the new use of force policy the officers constitutional right to use force is too restrictive and puts them in harms way. Further, the compaint states they have standing based on violations of second, forth, fifth and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution. ???

    The new UOF policy does not appear onerus or out of line with the "protect and serve" mantra. Perhaps the resident LEO will come along and provide an alternative perspective.

    Use of force snippets from aforementioned policy; Reasonable / Neccesary/ Proportional


    Reasonable:
    The reasonableness of a particular use of force is based on the totality of circumstances known by the officer at the time of the use of force and weighs the actions of the officer against the rights of the subject, in light of the circumstances surrounding the event. It must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.

    Necessary:
    Officers will use physical force only when no reasonably effective alternative appears to exist, and only then to the degree which is reasonable to effect a lawful purpose To be proportional, the level of force applied must reflect the totality of circumstances surrounding the immediate situation, including the presence of an imminent danger to officers or others. Officers must rely on training, experience, and assessment of the situation to decide an appropriate level of for ce to be applied. Reasonable and sound judgment will dictate the force option to be employed.

    Proportional:
    To be proportional, the level of force applied must reflect the totality of circumstances surrounding the immediate situation, including the presence of an imminent danger to officers or others.
    Officers must rely on training, experience, and assessment of the situation to decide an appropriate level of force to be applied. Reasonable and sound judgment will dictate the force option to be employed. Proportional force does not require officers to use the same type or amount of force as the subject. The more immediate the threat and the more likely that the threat will result in death or serious physical injury, the greater the level of force that may be proportional, objectively reasonable, and necessary to counter it.

    Attached PDF is food for thought with regard to individual LEO personal conduct.
    ~Whitney
    Last edited by Whitney; 05-29-2014 at 09:22 PM. Reason: wrong upload
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    This thread IMO is legitmate fodder for discussion insofar as it avoids painting LEA or LEOs collectively with a broad brush - then decideloy not so.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Ahh apparently the mods don't like when people are reminded about the SPD killing an innocent person, putting an innocent person in a coma, and kicking a Mexican-American after yelling racial obscenities.

    Gee, there really were some valid reason for a new 'use of force' policy. Who'd a thunk, well, no one if the facts are hidden.

    "Keep calm and censor on."
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 05-29-2014 at 09:49 PM.

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    This thread IMO is legitmate fodder for discussion insofar as it avoids painting LEA or LEOs collectively with a broad brush - then decideloy not so.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Ahh apparently the mods don't like when people are reminded about the SPD killing an innocent person, putting an innocent person in a coma, and kicking a Mexican-American after yelling racial obscenities.

    Gee, there really were some valid reason for a new 'use of force' policy. Who'd a thunk, well, no one if the facts are hidden.

    "Keep calm and censor on."
    IMO, the point was made quite clear w/o likelyhood of misunderstanding. My reminder was light handed, while deliberate attempt(s) to circumvent the policy will likely not be.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    IMO, the point was made quite clear w/o likelyhood of misunderstanding. My reminder was light handed, while deliberate attempt(s) to circumvent the policy will likely not be.
    Discussion of the facts that necessitated the new use of force policy, go hand in hand with discussing the absolute rejection of the new policy by the the rank and file.

    In other words: the policy didn't happen in a vacuum, therefore the objection shouldn't be viewed without proper context. There was no 'broad brush' applied. Several specific incidences were cited, in fact the very ones the lead to the new policy afaik.
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 05-29-2014 at 10:36 PM.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Well, this case may come back and bite LEOs in the buttocks ... right now, they have special laws protecting them. If the right to protect oneself gets broader then the special treatment they get may evaporate.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 05-29-2014 at 11:53 PM. Reason: engrish splelling

  9. #9
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Well, this case may come back and bite LEOs in the buttocks ... right now, they have special laws protecting them. If the right to protect oneself gets broader than the special treatment they get may evaporate.
    That would be applying fair logic to an inherently biased system.

  10. #10
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Discussion of the facts that necessitated the new use of force policy, go hand in hand with discussing the absolute rejection of the new policy by the the rank and file.

    In other words: the policy didn't happen in a vacuum, therefore the objection shouldn't be viewed without proper context. There was no 'broad brush' applied. Several specific incidences were cited, in fact the very ones the lead to the new policy afaik.
    Absolute rejection = all, no contrary opinions.

    A "broad brush" concept is the total opposite of "specific incidents" thus you would be supporting my point.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitney View Post
    [ ... ] Attached PDF is food for thought with regard to individual LEO personal conduct. ~Whitney
    Thanks. Copied for later reading.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    This thread IMO is legitmate fodder for discussion insofar as it avoids painting LEA or LEOs collectively with a broad brush - then decideloy not so.
    To sort of ad to your point. Seems this LEA is painting themselves with their own brush and confirming it is a rotten barrel.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Absolute rejection = all, no contrary opinions.
    You mean the 100+ Sworn SPD officers who are suing are not actually "absolutely rejecting" the new training requirements?

    Kind of seems like the whole point of the lawsuit to me.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    To sort of ad to your point. Seems this LEA is painting themselves with their own brush and confirming it is a rotten barrel.
    If I understand this correctly, the Seattle PD wants to use MORE force?!

    If that is the case how am I supposed to be able to trust the Seattle PD.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    If I understand this correctly, the Seattle PD wants to use MORE force?!

    If that is the case how am I supposed to be able to trust the Seattle PD.
    I see the suit as being that they want to be able to whatever force they feel is necessary to protect themselves and that company policy deprives them of their right to defend themselves.

    Courts are not going to open this can of worms ... how many store employees have defended themselves and got fired for doing so?

    This case, if they are successful, would open up wrongful discharge cases against employers. We can't have that !

    And if they are successful, then everyone's right to defend would trump other policies too including laws where a citizen cannot resist unlawful actions of police.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 05-30-2014 at 06:29 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I see the suit as being that they want to be able to whatever force they feel is necessary to protect themselves and that company policy deprives them of their right to defend themselves.

    Courts are not going to open this can of worms ... how many store employees have defended themselves and got fired for doing so?

    This case, if they are successful, would open up wrongful discharge cases against employers. We can't have that !

    And if they are successful, then everyone's right to defend would trump other policies too including laws where a citizen cannot resist unlawful actions of police.
    Interesting, but this 'ruling' would be limited to police officers according to the judges and the police.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Interesting, but this 'ruling' would be limited to police officers according to the judges and the police.
    Would be impossible to make a constitutional claim decision like that .... if so, then we just made nobility

  18. #18
    Regular Member 509rifas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Yakima County
    Posts
    253
    You'd think they'd blame the officers who established a pattern of unjustified use of force who ruined it for the rest of them.
    LIVE FREE OR DIE TRYING

  19. #19
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Would be impossible to make a constitutional claim decision like that .... if so, then we just made nobility
    David, I never said that it was the correct thing to do. As for nobility, we have that already as, from what I am hearing, judges are taking the word of police officers over any (video) recording that proves anything to the contrary. Since there is a class of citizen that had been proven to lie under oath and who's word is golden in the courts, how can you say that there is not a title of nobility right now? That class of citizens is allowed to destroy property, commit murder, steal, harass others, commit perjury, etc without fear of recourse and in most cases they get a paid holiday. They get to stay home and collect a pay check while there wrong doings are 'investigated' by others with the same title of nobility.

    So, I believe that my original statement would stand.

    I do however agree that it would be an unconstitutional ruling show I be correct in my belief(s) as to what the outcome may be.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  20. #20
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Well, this case may come back and bite LEOs in the buttocks ... right now, they have special laws protecting them. If the right to protect oneself gets broader then the special treatment they get may evaporate.
    Seattle police has tighter restrictions then you do, Washington law is specifically written to give private citizens broader power to use force then police.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  21. #21
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by 509rifas View Post
    You'd think they'd blame the officers who established a pattern of unjustified use of force who ruined it for the rest of them.
    The pattern does not exist, even the federal report describes incidents that are well within parameters of Washington law.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Seattle police has tighter restrictions then you do, Washington law is specifically written to give private citizens broader power to use force then police.
    Your employer can restrict you in more ways than the law can ... will likely not be favorable to the po po on this one I think.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    How can you make something new that already exists? Doesn't LEOSA already make them nobility as far as the 2nd Amendment goes?
    It does paint them with the broad brush of 'special Rights.'

  24. #24
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    How can you make something new that already exists? Doesn't LEOSA already make them nobility as far as the 2nd Amendment goes?
    No, it doesn't.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  25. #25
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    No, it doesn't.
    A sword for thee but not for me.

    Yeah, that's enough like old world nobility that it counts.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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