Quantcast
Connect with us

Police could lose public funds if officers aren’t trained to best avoid shootings

Published

on

A federal bill would financially penalize police chiefs who don’t order and train officers to do everything possible to avoid open fire during confrontations with suspects

Police departments across the US would lose public funding if they fail to introduce tighter restrictions on when their officers may shoot at suspects under a new law proposed by a Democratic congresswoman.

ADVERTISEMENT

A bill due to be introduced in the House of Representatives on Thursday by Gwen Moore of Wisconsin would financially penalize any police chiefs who did not order and train their officers to do everything possible to avoid opening fire during confrontations with suspects.

Announcing her proposal , Moore said that “too many mothers have been forced to bury their children” due to unjustified deadly incidents involving police. “Too many young men and women in this country are unreasonably struck down by the very people who swore an oath to protect them,” she said in a statement.

Moore said in an interview that she had been prompted to act by the findings of a Guardian investigation recording every death caused by police in the US, along with a Washington Post project counting fatal shootings by officers.

The Guardian initiative, titled The Counted, recorded more than 1,100 deaths in 2015 . “It would be different if this were a rare incident,” Moore said. “But when you get into the 1,000 cases plus that you found, it’s the kind of thing that really makes you think.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Moore’s proposal is unlikely to advance in the Republican-controlled House, which has declined to take up a series of related initiatives from Democrats amid a wave of protests set off by the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, following the fatal police shooting of an unarmed black 18-year-old in August 2014. She said, however, that she was seeking Republican backers for her bill.

Her plan, titled the Preventing Tragedies Between Police and Communities Act, demands that states and municipalities introduce laws or police department policy manuals that set out an “affirmative duty” for their police officers to employ de-escalation techniques “whenever possible”, and to train them to “use the lowest level of force that is a possible and safe response to an identified threat”.

The bill calls for mandatory training in the use of non-lethal force alternatives along with “verbal and physical tactics to minimize the need for the use of force, with an emphasis on communication, negotiation [and] de-escalation techniques”.

ADVERTISEMENT

It also requires training in crisis intervention tactics, which are aimed at calming confrontations with people enduring serious mental health problems. Mental health issues were reported in relation to 246 people killed by police in 2015 – more than one in every five cases in the Guardian database.

Those authorities failing to implement de-escalation training within a year would lose 20% of the funding they receive under a US Department of Justice grant program that gives out about $280m a year to departments across the country. Authorities failing to introduce the “affirmative duty” would lose a further 15% of their funding.

Surveys by the Police Executive Research Foundation (PERF) have found the average police cadet received 58 hours of training on using guns, 49 hours on defensive tactics, and only eight hours on de-escalation. Moore based her proposal on a report by PERF published earlier this year, which set out a series of “guiding principles on use of force”.

ADVERTISEMENT

Moore’s bill would not create new federal law on when officers may shoot. Under a pair of landmark US supreme court decisions from the 1980s, police may use deadly force against a suspect they reasonably believe “poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others” or, if the suspect is fleeing, “that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”

However, Moore’s office lamented in a briefing document on Thursday that officers are frequently “trained more heavily on what is technically and legally allowed under the law” than in techniques designed to de-escalate confrontations.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media 2016

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump praises ‘amazing warrior’ Sean Hannity for saying impeachment hearings are a ‘phony showtrial’

Published

on

President Donald Trump thanked Fox News personality Sean Hannity for his over-the-top defense the evening before impeachment hearings begin.

According to Trump's quoting, Hannity said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was a, "corrupt, compromised, coward and congenital liar."

Hannity called the Schiff's Intelligence Committee hearings a "phony showtrial" -- despite the reality that an impeachment trial would occur in the GOP-controlled Senate.

Still, Hannity lashed out at the inquiry as "another fraudulent hoax conspiracy theory" and "witch hunt."

Trump thanked, "Sean the amazing warrior!"

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Rudy Giuliani harshly mocked after admitting Trump’s guilt in new WSJ column

Published

on

President Donald Trump's defense attorney took to the pages a Rupert Murdoch's newspaper to make "the case for the impeachment defense" on the eve of televised inquiry hearings.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani lashed out enemies while clinging to conspiracy theories in his Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Giuliani began by attacking the press for reporting on Trump's solicitation of foreign election interference.

"If your only sources of news the past two months have been CNN and MSNBC, you probably think President Trump has committed some heinous act that is deserving of being drawn, quartered and carted out of the White House," Giuliani argued. "That’s a false narrative built on selectively leaked testimony from Rep. Adam Schiff’s closed-door Intelligence Committee hearings."

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Bill Barr appears to be targeting Trump’s opponents — and senate Dems want an investigation

Published

on

In May, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) cornered Attorney General Bill Barr during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

Harris, a career prosecutor who served as San Francisco District Attorney and California Attorney General, asked Barr if the White House had ever asked for any specific investigations.

Barr struggled to answer the question.

Senator Harris: Attorney General Barr has the President or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone?Attorney General Barr: Um. I wouldn’t … I wouldn’t. uh—Senator Harris: Yes or No?Attorney General Han: Could you … could you repeat that question?Senator Harris: I will repeat it. Has the President or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone? Yes or no please, sir.Attorney General Barr: Urn, the President or anybody…Senator Harris: Seems you would remember something like that and be able to tell us.Attorney General Barr Yeah, but I’m. I’m trying to grapple with the word ‘suggest.’ I mean, there have been discussions of, of matters out there that. uh- – they have not asked me to open an investigation. But…Senator Harris: Perhaps they’ve suggested?Attorney General Barr: I don’t know. I wouldn’t say suggest…Senator Harris: Hinted?Attorney General Barr I don’t know.Senator Harris: Inferred? You don’t know?Attorney General Barr: No.

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image