By: Lisa M. Hayes – Confluence Daily is your daily news source for women in the know.
I have spent months, if not years, studying the issue of police reform. I wrote a State-wide initiative and ran a very complex campaign on this issue. It was the first attempt in our nation’s history to put policing laws in the hands of voters.
It’s complex, but not as complex as police like to make it out to be. My campaign failed – but the follow-up initiative, I-940 won and it was a huge victory for the citizens of Washington. However, I’ve laid awake many a night staring at the ceiling, knowing even in that victory our hands were tied in too many ways.
I have read every U.S. State statute on use of deadly force by a law enforcement officer, every-single-one, and laws from around the world. What I know is our laws regarding Use of Deadly force don’t meet muster by International Standards in any state. Not one state in the US even comes close.
There are basically three standards for use of force:
The low bar – “by any means necessary”.
That means a cop can do whatever they need to, to get the job done. That used to be in the law of the land most places. A lot of people got killed in very bad shoots. However, over time the states have “upgraded” their laws, but still built in a lot of loopholes that protect officers from prosecution in deadly force crimes.
The middle standard is: “Unless I’m afraid” otherwise known generally as the “reasonableness standard”. Pretty much every state in the U.S. sits at this middle standard where an officer’s actions are almost always deemed “reasonable” if he/she can assert a believable case that they felt threatened. In case you haven’t noticed, even with these upgrades in place, a lot of people still get shot and killed in highly questionable circumstances.
Then there is the European Standard – the standard every country in the EU has adopted. It’s a simple standard.
“Deadly force can be used, but only when it is completely necessary.” It’s clearcut – and yes, it might prioritize the safety of the public over the police in some ways. However, let’s be very clear, THAT’S THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.
As many states around the nation are moving in the direction of police reform I’ve felt a growing sense of frustration. Even in Washington, where a follow-up campaign to the one I started did in fact win and moved the needle forward, we didn’t move the needle forward far enough. It’s nearly impossible. Police unions are a mighty force in lawmaking. You get stuck fighting nuances of the same damn broken concept over and over again.
And here’s my confession: The reason we didn’t move the needle far enough is because we were forced to focus on improving a broken standard – that middle standard – the “unless I’m afraid” standard that gives officers a free pass to shoot if it’s “reasonable” and fear is always what makes it “reasonable” to shoot.
Every single Law Enforcement Officer who gets away with a bad shoot does it because they were “afraid” and the law protects them with reasonableness clauses.
Even when I was fighting tooth and nail for an initiative I wrote – which was the boldest upgrade in police reform in our state’s history, I knew in the pit of my stomach it wasn’t enough for the effort we were putting in. Behind closed doors, even police talked about how it would be a “ceremonial” change in language. They fought it anyway, just for good measure.
Now to be clear, the initiative Washington State ultimately passed in the legislature as a House Bill also included some incredibly important upgrades to officer training requirements and that will undoubtedly save lives. However, I’ve secretly been terrified that the statutory language still provides too many protections to allow an officer prosecution even when the public would demand it. As long as a reasonableness standard in any form, that fear standard is in play, it just won’t work.
But you know what change would work? The only thing that would actually result in officer accountability is the standard the EU has adopted.
You can only shoot if it’s necessary.
And here’s the good news – lawmakers are talking in public about adopting that language in California.
A few California legislators are painting targets on their backs by doing what should be done in every state. They are suggesting Use of Deadly Force Laws in the US should meet international standard. They are talking about it publicly, in front of cameras.
This is a watershed moment – and we should all be paying attention.
They are suggesting if there was another option available to you, even if you’re afraid, you cannot resort to “shoot first, ask questions later policing”.
I’ve heard many police officers rattle off a motto I’m sure they hear in the police academy. “It’s better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6”.
It’s time we ensure that if a cop lands his or herself in front of a jury of twelve for killing someone the laws don’t make that trail ceremonial.
These legislators and citizens in California are doing something so incredibly courageous. How courageous exactly, you can’t understand unless you’ve been where they are. If you’re interested in real police reform that would get the U.S. out of the dark ages, find a way to support them.
Coming from a girl who’s said, I’ll never do another campaign, I’d go to work for these people in a red hot minute.
Confluence Daily is the one place where everything comes together. The one-stop for daily news for women.
