Defund the Police

Bet it was lousy crank.

Imagine the legal fallout here if it turns out even a few convictions rode on false positives.

Early results from an experimental program in NYC seem promising.

Too bad OF ran off, since this is exactly the kind of thing that he said could never work.

The men in white coats took him away.

Hey, if nothing else, can we at least not have them getting into pre-crime policing?

‘Predictive policing’ continues in Pasco’s school; it’s been amended, not ended.

Source: https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/20...cos-school-its-been-amended-not-ended-column/

You were guilty before you ever did anything, kids.

I thought it was a guy wearing a black robe and carrying a scythe?

This shit isn't limited to the schoolkids either - the program takes anyone with a criminal record and puts them on a list for harassment by the cops - who are pretty fucking open about what they're doing:

And you could get harassed even if you weren't the direct target of the "program":

Mind you, seems like it's as pressing on some of the cops as it is the harassed public:

https://projects.tampabay.com/proje...o-sheriff-targeted/intelligence-led-policing/

Pasco County . This is what happens when a community grows because of a nearby big city (Tampa) but the good ole boy network is still running things.

To be fair, I don't think he out and out would say it would never work, because that would involve taking a stand.

What he would tend to do is passive-aggressively focus on the notion that sometimes the mentally ill would turn violent and then the social workers would be up the creek. Which isn't an unreasonable concern on its face. But when you consider that the ratio of times when the "primarily social workers" approach is just better to the the times "turns out that there was a need for an armed person" approach, you'd probably have something like a 1k to 1 or more at a guess. Also, even in the "armed person was needed," the general worst case of death of the mentally ill person or the social worker is likely to be rare.

I'd suggest that the armed response is not infrequently the cause of violence.

A Democratic sponsored bill? What the actual fuck?

and so it begins ...

or continues ...

We can't have people hurting police officers' delicate fee-fees.

Michigan: Cops with guns drawn handcuff two men and a teenage boy on suspicion of Being a Realtor While Black and Buying a Home While Black.

https://www.ajc.com/news/black-real...-at-home-for-sale/4OOUOOKV75F4JAFDTJ6G4CWIEE/

I'm not shocked, TBH.

So does it count as discrimination if they are off duty? Or how about if I know they are a cop, but I do something to them while they are out and about? What if they quit? are they still a protected class? How long do you have to work as a cop to be a protected class?

Yeah, this is going to float like a lead balloon.

I am wondering how you can actually be a good cop in this sort of environment? This is just openly hostile to the public and the department itself is just horrible. In the rotten apple analogy the basket is full of decay and ooze and you are not good. To be in such a basket would mean you were rotten.

Apparently some Washington State law enforcement agencies took a new police reform law to mean they could ignore calls involving mental health. Sort of sulky response apparently...anyway the state AG says that's not what the law means. This is a press release from the state Democratic party.

OLYMPIA – In response to concerns from some law enforcement agencies whether they have the authority to show up to community caretaking calls and calls involving a mental health crisis where no crime has been reported, Rep. Roger Goodman (D-Kirkland) and Rep. Jesse Johnson (D-Federal Way), Chair and Vice Chair of the House Public Safety Committee, sought guidance from the Attorney General’s Office. In a privileged communication Goodman and Johnson are now making pubic, Deputy Solicitor General Alicia O. Young and Assistant Attorney General Shelley Williams make clear that nothing in the new law prevents officers from responding to community caretaking calls or calls for assistance with a mental health crisis. Police can show up to assist Designated Crisis Responders and on other behavioral health calls.

HB 1310, the law which some agencies are citing as a reason they cannot attend to community caretaking functions, simply creates a standard of reasonable care for officers when using force against the public. That standard requires officers to exhaust all available de-escalation tactics, to consider the characteristics and conditions of the person to whom force is being applied, and to use the minimal amount of force necessary to bring someone into custody. Washington law recognizes that police serve as caretakers of the community and often have to respond to situations where no crime has been committed. HB 1310 specifically accounts for that by allowing the use of force “to protect against an imminent threat of bodily injury to a peace officer, another person, or the person against whom the force is being used.”

The vast majority of officers have been successfully assisting Designated Crisis Responders. Washington has been training de-escalation strategies and expanding investment in co-responder programs for years. Unfortunately, while the majority of community caretaking calls are handled successfully and professionally, that has not always been the case. Unnecessary uses of force have disproportionately affected Black and brown communities and these incidents have eroded trust between law enforcement and the community. The goal of HB 1310 is to ensure equitable treatment of all communities by law enforcement where everyone can expect the same degree of reasonable care.

“Many, if not most police departments have confirmed their continued commitment to respond to community caretaking calls and to serve their communities,” said Goodman. “Law enforcement has always had the discretion to decide which calls to show up to. However, not responding at all to mental health crisis calls could jeopardize community safety, especially where police can and should employ a host of available de-escalation tactics to resolve situations peacefully. We hope that those agencies that are now pausing will reconsider in light of this AGO guidance.”

“We hope this robust guidance from the Attorney General’s Office is clarifying. We have been working with law enforcement agencies and organizations to ensure they have the clarity to do their job,” said Johnson. “I am submitting a set of key questions from the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs to the Attorney General’s Office for a formal advisory opinion. We look forward to continuing to collaborate closely with our partners in law enforcement to meet community expectations.”

Are you a doctor, hospital, employee or contractor thereof, or insurance company? No? You can't violate HIPAA. I swear it's as overused as RICO on press release Twitter, maybe even more.

HIPAA and RICO are memes unto themselves in circles like PopeHat and BadLegalTakes.

Good for Seattle. Meanwhile, Chicago FOP is pushing for one officer involved in the riot (on the bad guy side) to have their sidearm licence reinstated and returned to duty. The head of the CFOP has issued several statements downplaying the serious nature of 1/6.

Biden's DoJ is re-instating "pattern or practice" investigations, starting with Phoenix PD. These look for evidence of excessive force, discrimination and retaliatory acts against those protesting the police.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/05/doj-probe-phoenix-police-502625

Even then, there are exceptions. My Judicial Mentor is a Circuit Court Judge. That's big-boy felony court for those not familiar with our system. The DA approved of a motion by the defense for a guy to enter a pre-trial diversion program and one of the conditions that my friend ordered was that he be confined to an in-patient mental health facility for stabilization followed by an order for him to be confined to an in-patient group home for monitoring. Well, sentencing for the pre-trial diversion was delayed for one year. If the guy was compliant with all of the conditions of the program, the case would be dismissed with prejudice.

The guy was in the group home when the sentencing date came due. The Circuit Clerk's office was making arrangements for the guy to be brought to court from the group home and the institution's Medical Director, an MD, refused to give up any information or even acknowledge that the patient was there citing HIPAA. He also suggested reaching out to corporate counsel. So, my friend sent an order to the facility and the good doctor citing the statute where the facility is required to either 1) transport the patient to court at their expense or 2) furlough the patient so can transport themselves. He attached the original order of commitment from his court and a note reminding corporate counsel and the doctor that Contempt of Court is a thing.

They transported him to court...