Today is the one year anniversary of the death of George Floyd, and that has sparked some debate and discussion about the George Floyd Policing Act. Today, Sixers coach Doc Rivers was promoting this, so I figured now is as good of a time as any to break down some things that are in this bill and what's good, what's bad, and potential ramifications if it gets passed.
Grant power to the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division to issue subpoenas to police departments as part of "pattern or practice" investigations into whether there has been a "pattern and practice" of bias or misconduct by the department.
I think this is a positive. Often departments can be insulated from accountability if there is corruption within a department, and this could offer an alternative source to keep departments in check that have run amok with poor leadership. Obviously, things can change based on the framing within a bill, but as of right now, I have no issue with this provision.
Provide grants to state attorneys general to "create an independent process to investigate misconduct or excessive use of force" by police forces.
I'm okay with this also, for similar reasons as above. That said, the process needs to be just and with no agenda, and not succumb to public pressure or activists, who generally have no idea how anything in the law enforcement realm actually works.
Establish a federal registry of police misconduct complaints and disciplinary actions.
I think this is a very good one. It could prevent bad cops from just bouncing around departments and made it harder for bad officers to stay under the radar, although a big reason bad cops are often hired is because there aren't enough applicants, which I'll touch on later.
Enhance accountability for police officers who commit misconduct, by restricting the application of the qualified immunity doctrine for local and state officers,[8][10] and by changing the mens rea (intent) element of 18 U.S.C. § 242 (the federal criminal offense of "deprivation of rights under color of law," which has been used to prosecute police for misconduct) from "willfully" to "knowingly or with reckless disregard."
This is a tough one. I'm not totally against limiting qualified immunity, but it needs to come with some compromise. Essentially, qualified immunity allows law enforcement to face civil suits for their actions. With any proposal, you have to weigh pros and cons, and what net cost might be the end result. Without qualified immunity, the amount of police officers is certainly going to decrease. Especially now, in times where trust in law enforcement is at a recent low, even though policing and number of unarmed civilians killed by cops has decreased over the years. Officers are retiring and/or resigning en masse across the country. As you saw with the death of Ma'Khia Bryant, the teenage girl who was shot by officers in Ohio as she attempted to stab another girl to death, there were massive calls for the officer to be charged even though he objectively and legally did the right thing in that situation.
However, public pressure can be extreme, especially when it's accompanied by the threat of violence and destruction. When the public is in a place where every police incident is heavily scrutinized, especially by individuals who have very limited knowledge of law enforcement or criminal justice, the threat of having officers sued every time they do their just duty is going to deter officers from applying and staying on the force. Which in turn will lead to less officers being on the streets, and crime will inevitably rise. And in situations where officers stay on, it is going to cause officers to be hesitant to respond and intervene in certain situations, which will lead to more innocent deaths of civilians, which is not good. You have to find a balance between holding officers accountable for wrongdoing and protecting the public. Given that civilians are responsible for far more death and wrongdoing in this country than officers are, the net loss might be too great for ending qualified immunity to be beneficial overall. However, there is an exception, which is my proposal.
If you want to end qualified immunity, then commit to training officers better and putting a lot more funding into it. Cops are among the worst trained people of any profession in America. The amount of training they get and that is required is laughable compared to what they are asked to do. For example, in California, it requires more training to be a hair cutter than a cop. Think about that. Almost 3 times as much, in fact. Often, when officers make mistakes, that is the responsibility not just of the officer, but the cities and states who employ them and enact poor standards to departments in the first place. And don't task them to handle situations they aren't trained for, like going to residences with mentally ill people who are not armed. Cops are not trained to deal with the mentally ill, nor should they be held responsible if they handle it poorly. Unless that individual is armed with a weapon is is an immediate threat, the first responder should not be an officer. I think that is a fair compromise, rather than having officers terrified of being sued left and right for handling incidents poorly they weren't trained properly to handle, and sometimes handling situations correctly, but the family of a victim thinks they're in the right, because the officer's actions and legal standards don't align with their personal moral code.
Require federal uniformed police officers to have body-worn cameras.
Not really much to say here, I think every officer should be wearing body cameras. I have no problem with this.
Require marked federal police vehicles to be equipped with dashboard cameras.
Again, like the above, not a ton to say about this. I support this, and just like with body cameras, this can be good not just for civilian protection, but from the officer as well.
Restrict the transfer of military equipment to police.
I don't think I support this. I support redirecting funding to improve other areas of the department over offering military grade equipment, but I do think police should have access to it, in the event it is needed. Especially in a nation now where officers and departments have been under attack, and their leaders have done very little to protect them.
Require state and local law enforcement agencies that receive federal funding to adopt anti-discrimination policies and training programs, including those targeted at fighting racial profiling.
On the surface I have no problem with this at face value. That said, a lot of policies that are deemed discriminatory are sometimes not. It depends on who is accusing said policy of being discriminatory. How objective or subjective is it? If we go by simple inequities in results, that is a bad idea. There are very often not discriminatory reasons why there are inequities in policing results, that aren't just due to racism. So, in short, I can neither fully support or oppose this unless I find out exactly what policies are going to be adopted, the reason for those policies, and what they hope to accomplish.
Prohibit federal police officers from using chokeholds or other carotid holds, and require state and local law enforcement agencies that receive federal funding to adopt the same prohibition.
This is a bad idea and probably one I oppose the most. It's an extreme course correct that will do more harm than good. The number of people killed by law enforcement with chokeholds or sleeper holds is infinitesimal. These are necessary maneuvers to subdue and control individuals, and to apprehend individuals to place them under arrest. If we start banning means officers can non-lethally subdue an individual, the end result is going to be more officers resorting to more physical or lethal means to subdue and control. That means punches, kicks(until they ban those too) and using their firearm. A better idea would be to budget training officers to use these maneuvers seamlessly, so there's no concern over poor usage leading to fatalities. If your end goal is to make policing better and to save lives, this accomplishes neither, and is a bad idea. George Floyd didn't die from a chokehold. He died because someone's knee was on his neck for 10 minutes. That is not a chokehold or a sleeper hold, which is what would be banned in this bill.
Prohibit the issuance of no-knock warrants in federal drug investigations, and provide incentives to the states to enact a similar prohibition.
I support this. I think in certain situations, no-knock warrants can be useful, but in our never-ending disastrous war on drugs(a war we lost decades ago), raiding peoples' homes over things that some argue shouldn't even be illegal in the first place is dangerous. I think there are some minor drawbacks to this, but I think the net positive is better overall banning them, and things could be done tactically to serve warrants in situations with dangerous individuals in the place of no-knock warrants.
Change the threshold for the permissible use of force by federal law enforcement officers from "reasonableness" to only when "necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury."
This one is difficult. On the surface I somewhat support the general premise, the problem is, what will be deemed as "necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury"? I'll give you an example. A patrol officer gets a call over dispatch that there was a convenience store robbery in the area and they have the description of the vehicle used in the escape. The officer spots a car matching the description driving past. He puts on his sirens and pulls over the car. He's not 100% sure this is the robber, but he's checking just to make sure. From a distance he asks the driver to get out of his car with his hands up, gun drawn, and announces why he's pulling him over. Individual gets out of his car with his hands up, then reaches for something. In the moment, the officer has to assume the individual is pulling out a gun, otherwise the officer could be shot first, or even nearby civilians. Officer shoots individual dead, and it turns out he wasn't the robber, but was someone in a similar car reaching for his cell phone. Will an investigation deem that "necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm"? There are virtually endless grey areas in situations involving cops. If I trust the justice system to adequately and justly view these incidents with the benefit of the doubt, then I can support this provision. Otherwise, I can't. Too many officers would be held accountable for life and death ambiguity.
Mandate that federal officers use deadly force only as a last resort and that de-escalation be attempted, and condition federal funding to state and local law enforcement agencies on the adoption of the same policy.
I 100% support attempted de-escalation before resorting to lethal force, if that option is available. Sometimes there is no time to de-escalate. Much like the above, there is a lot of subjectivity here. What qualifies as a "last resort" to the officer, maybe not to their superiors and/or the District Attorney. As long as officers are given some benefit of the doubt that they indeed acted on a last resort, then I could support this. You can't pretend to be in the shoes of an officer, in the moment, during high intensity situations and act like you know what a last resort is, which much of the time is completely a judgement call.
Final Thoughts:
I think there is a lot of good and bad in this bill. I think there is a lot in here to hold officers and departments more accountable for wrongdoing, but what it gets wrong is it doesn't make the jobs of officers easier, nor does it provide anything to actually make them better at their jobs. Much of it is reactionary and I feel are over-corrections. The question is, what do you want out of this bill? Do you want less death? Do you want to make policing better? Or are you just out to hold officers accountable for wrongdoing? Each of those aspects relate to one another, but this bill doesn't focus on the former two enough. Civilians will always be more of a danger to other civilians than cops will. We kill one another far more than police officers ever have and ever will. Ultimately, any reform bill should focus on everything. Preventing death, making it easier for cops to do their jobs, and holding them accountable. This offers little to prevent the death of innocent civilians(quite the opposite), and doesn't seem to do a whole lot to improve the training of policing, and actually make policing better. Like increased funding to train for arrest and control situations, higher standards for firearm training, more and higher standards for situational training, and higher standards for applicants. Just to name a few. Aside from the focusing on de-escalation, which is helpful, I don't see a lot here that accomplishes much to better policing. The George Floyd Policing Act has some good ideas, but in my opinion it is incomplete, and needs some revisions to make society safer, policing better, and hold cops more accountable.
