Is this deadly force bill a step in the right direction?
Dec 7, 2016, 1:19 PM
A bill filed in Olympia would potentially make it easier to charge police for unjustified use of deadly force.
, proposed by Democratic Representative Beth Doglio, would adopt recommendations made by a task force and takes it a step further.
Police say use of force continues to be rare in Seattle
If approved, police would need to have “a reasonable belief of an imminent threat of death or serious harm to the officer or a third party, and the deadly force is necessary to prevent death or serious physical harm,” in order to be protected from potential criminal charges.
Under the current law, an officer is kept from being charged for killing someone as long as he or she can prove the use of deadly force was done “without malice and with a good faith believe that such act is justifiable …” The Use of Deadly Force in Community Police task force voted in favor of removing the words “malice” and “good faith” from the law. Both the state House and Senate would have to pass the change in order for it to become law.
Proponents of the reform argue that makes it extremely difficult to prosecute officers. found that of the 213 fatal police shootings that occurred from 2005 to 2014, the “vast majority” were deemed legally justified. Even those that were controversial, however, made it “nearly impossible” for prosecutors to criminally charge law enforcement.
Not everyone on the task force agreed with removing the keywords from the law — including police.
鈥淔or me to be able to use deadly force, it has to be I have to be in imminent jeopardy, correct? Do I have to know that gun is loaded? Does that gun have to be pointed at me? How long does it take for somebody to draw a handgun and point it at somebody and shoot? Where is 鈥榠mminent鈥 there?鈥 asked Sgt. Rich Phillips, of the Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs.
Rep. Doglio’s bill could make the law less lenient toward police. But 成人X站 Radio’s Jason and Burns questioned if it will really make that much of a difference. For starters, Doglio’s bill seems to only replace vague language with more vague language, Zak Burns said.
Listen to their whole conversation below and join the conversation: