Suit: Seattle police say use-of-force policies unconstitutional

KOMO Seattle ^ | May 29, 2014 | Staff

[QT3.14]

More than 100 officers from the Seattle Police Department are suing the city and the Justice Department, claiming their department's new use-of-force policies put them in danger and violate their constitutional rights.

In 2012 Seattle officials agreed to an independent monitor and court oversight of the city's police department as part of a deal with the Justice Department following a report that found officers routinely used excessive force.

The civil suit, which was filed Wednesday, names Attorney General Eric Holder, the City of Seattle, Mayor Ed Murray, City Attorney Pete Holmes, and federal monitor Merrick Bob.

In the suit, the officers claim the new use-of-force policies "unreasonably restrict and burden the plaintiffs' right to use force reasonably required, to protect themselves and others, from apparent harm and danger, in violation of the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution."

[DannyTN]

“I’m going to kick your *ss,
and it’s my constitutional right to do so!”

[EagleUSA]

Hey, Seattle liberals...you voted for it, and you got it!! TWICE !! Deal with it.

[ConservingFreedom]

In the suit, the officers claim the new use-of-force policies "unreasonably restrict and burden the plaintiffs' right to use force reasonably required, to protect themselves and others, from apparent harm and danger

So quit, whiners. It's us you're supposed to "serve and protect" not yourselves.

[thorvaldr]

“Officer safety” still wants to shoot first and ask questions later.

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.” -George Orwell (1984)

[Veto!]

"in some places it is overly complicated and contradictory, in other places overly precise and mechanical, but throughout, requires plaintiff to engage in mental gymnastics wholly unreasonable in light of the dangerous and fast evolving circumstances we face every day," the suit reads.

"Mental gymnastics" when facing an armed and crazy "suspect" seems dangerous. But this is Seattle, where officers have been ordered to stand down while someone was being murdered in front of their eyes. Murdered by the Amish, btw.

[blueplum]

interesting that the police department is claiming rights for excessive force under the “ Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments”

unfortunately their victims don’t enjoy the same protections

“The officers... also want to be awarded damages for lost time and wages and punitive damages for the “ungrounded maligning of the good work of SPD’s patrol officers.”

The Justice Department....report later found officers were too quick to reach for weapons, such as flashlights and batons, even when arresting people for minor offenses.”

[vette6387]

“”in some places it is overly complicated and contradictory, in other places overly precise and mechanical, but throughout, requires plaintiff to engage in mental gymnastics wholly unreasonable in light of the dangerous and fast evolving circumstances we face every day,” the suit reads.”

“So just let us kill them all and let God sort out the wheat from the chaff,” is that it?

[QT3.14]

Another source says they have been issued a 88-page manual on what type of force to use in various scenarios.

The department has also warned their officers they face discipline if they speak out in the media.

[SoConPubbie]

The Justice Department....report later found officers were too quick to reach for weapons, such as flashlights and batons, even when arresting people for minor offenses.”

We are talking about Obama's and Holder's Justice Department here.

Two terms like Oil and Water, that just don't mix.

[vette6387]

“Hey, Seattle liberals...you voted for it, and you got it!! TWICE !! Deal with it.”

Seattle makes San Francisco look sane by comparison!

[SkyDancer]

[blueplum]

I have an image in my mind I can’t shake. It was the shooting of an old drunk in some non-discript town in California’s central valley. He was carrying some pruning shears, walking down a side street and had threatened a dog. The police came, tried to tazer him, fail. Followed him down the side street to the main street where he was shot dead about 10 feet before the main street, with a suv pulling up to the light in direct line of fire. I can’t help but ask why the officer didn’t a) wait for backup/secondary tazer b) go around him and herd him back down the side street until backup came or c) just take out a kneecap or his shoulder. It troubles me that the only response chosen after a tazer fail was to shoot him in the heart (I think it was four times) at point blank range (less than 6 feet) when pepper spray might have been just as effective at that range and another tazer was just a phonecall away. I was pretty upset after watching that video and so, lately, I have a very critical eye when it comes to excessive force, whether determined by the Holder department or whether shown in living color.

[SoConPubbie]

My point is that you should never use the current Justice Department as a measure of anything righteous.

They lie constantly and they are currently headed by a Marxist.

It defeats your purpose to use the current criminal Justice Department to back up your claims “Critical Eye” or not.

[zeugma]

In the suit, the officers claim the new use-of-force policies "unreasonably restrict and burden the plaintiffs' right to use force reasonably required, to protect themselves and others, from apparent harm and danger, in violation of the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution."

Words fail.

And so should they.

[qaz123]

To the 100 members of the Seattle Police Department…some would say the BRAVE 100 members, I will not. Please go to the link listed below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

Then, after reading that, realize that the city government does not give 2-sh!ts about you. Therefore, don’t do anything. Let the criminals have it. Protect yourself and don’t worry about anything else. Either that, or find another job. Hate to be that way. But you happen to work in a sh!tty liberal city, with sh!tty liberal leaders, who could care less about your wellbeing.

[Lazamataz]

Cops — We’re Gonna Protect and Serve The F*** Outta Ya.

[Veto!]

A friend’s son was killed by police who fired too fast. Tragic. So I’m not advocating “let us kill them all.”

However, in Seattle the uberlibs seem to want the police to be social workers and to never use force. I was there several years ago when a Mardi Gras celebration got out of hand, a perfectly nice young man was assaulted and murdered by thugs in view of policemen who had been ordered by the mayor to NOT take their weapons out of their holsters under any circumstance.

Hopefully some commonsense definitions/guidelines will result from this lawsuit.

[vette6387]

“A friend’s son was killed by police who fired too fast. Tragic. So I’m not advocating “let us kill them all.”

I wasn’t advocating that kind of action, I was just saying that it seems that the cops want “carte blanche” to violate constitutional protections “under stressful conditions.” Sorry if my flip comment was misinterpreted.

[LevinFan]

“
In the suit, the officers claim the new use-of-force policies “unreasonably restrict and burden the plaintiffs’ right to use force reasonably required, to protect themselves and others, from apparent harm and danger, in violation of the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.”

The officers go on to say the new rules are impractical and burdensome.

“in some places it is overly complicated and contradictory, in other places overly precise and mechanical, but throughout, requires plaintiff to engage in mental gymnastics wholly unreasonable in light of the dangerous and fast evolving circumstances we face every day,” the suit reads.”

You have only yourselves to blame. Maybe you, and by you I mean cops everywhere, weren’t so eager to use extreme violence all the time, this wouldn’t be an issue.
We just had an article about a woman brutally beat to death just to protect evidence she was swallowing.

Cops always want to push the edge of what they can do, rather than respecting the limits and the reason for them. You serve us, not the other way around.