100 Seattle Cops File Lawsuit Saying They Have CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT To Brutalize Innocent Citizens!

(Thank You MoxNews)



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

SEATTLE -- 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.

This story is ironic because the new policy is born out of the very same police violating Seattle's citizens rights, by beating them.

Judge OKs new Seattle police policy on use of force

Beginning Jan. 1, Seattle police officers will be operating under new rules when it comes to using force.

A federal judge on Tuesday accepted a new and comprehensive use-of-force policy that will, for the first time, outline for officers when force is appropriate and when it isn’t, and provide for detailed reporting requirements.

The policy, negotiated between the Seattle Police Department (SPD) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) with the guidance of federal monitor Merrick Bobb, is key to addressing the findings of a 2011 DOJ investigation that concluded Seattle police resort to force too quickly and routinely use too much when they do. The Justice Department also found disturbing but inconclusive evidence of biased policing.

Surprising eh, the DOJ discovered the Seattle police were too quick to beat that ass and from it a new policy was born. I guess the DOJ isn't all bad, mostly but not all.

So the Seattle police are rallying together because they feel their lives are at stake and their rights are being trampled on. Well, lets look and see what all the fuss is about.

DOJ Hails Milestone In Seattle Police Department Reform Efforts With Court’s Approval Of New Use Of Force Policy

Under the new policy, all uses of force by SPD officers above de minimis force must be reported. The policy defines force itself for the first time, and details when force is appropriate and when it is prohibited. It establishes when and how to report force, and provides clear lines of authority and accountability for supervisory review and investigation of uses of force. The review and investigation of force will be more thorough than ever before. The policy further emphasizes de-escalation – including developing and using alternatives to force – and gives officers clear guidance on the use of specific tools, including a new requirement that officers carry at least one less-lethal tool. Separate policies and training on crisis intervention and dealing with people in behavioral crisis will also be completed in the near future.

The following is a summary of the new Use of Force policy provisions.

Enhances officer safety and protects rights with clear core principles guiding appropriate use of force:
-Officers shall “use only the force necessary to perform their duties” and “with minimal reliance upon the use of physical force.”
-Officers shall de-escalate through the use of “advisements, warnings, verbal persuasion, and other tactics in order to reduce the need to use force” and recognize that a subject’s lack of compliance is not always a deliberate attempt to resist but may be related to an inability to comply because of medical impairment or a language barrier.
-Sometimes force is unavoidable, but officers should not precipitate an unnecessary use of force and should know that their conduct prior to the need to use force may be a factor the Department will consider in assessing the appropriateness of the force.

Now I've worked in 2 fields where human behavior such as aggression is a reality and I've been trained on how to deal with it. First we're supposed to try to defuse the situation. It is possible to defuse potential violent situations, the key ingredients is to be calm and patient. Sometimes you can't defuse the situation and force is required, such is life, but never would I resort to using force first without trying to calm the person down.

If they're not trying to defuse the situation they're putting themselves at risk, simple as that.

Defines force – when it is appropriate and when it is prohibited – and when and how to report force:
-“Force means any physical coercion by an officer.”
-“All uses of force other than de minimis are reportable. Reportable force includes the “intentional pointing of a firearm at a subject.”
-For reporting purposes, force is broken into four types based upon the nature and severity of the incident: de minimis and Types 1, 2, and 3. [See chart on page one of Section 8.300 (Use of Force Reporting and Investigation) for guidance on distinctions, available here:

-Inappropriate to use force: to punish or retaliate; against individuals who only verbally confront them; against handcuffed or restrained individuals.

If any of these 126 Seattle officers have a problem with the above they need to be suspended.

Defines and enhances responsibilities for supervisors and creates new Force Investigation Team (FIT):
-Supervisors will be responsible for their officers and will review all uses force and further investigate all uses of force categorized as Type 2 and above.
-Supervisors screen all Type 1s at the scene and respond to the scene in all Type 2 and above.
-Creation of the new independent, inter-disciplinary FIT team for the highest level uses of force (Type 3 and above) and for officer-involved-shootings, in-custody deaths, serious assaults on officers.
-Procedures to protect the integrity of a possible future criminal investigation of the officer.

Get out! They have to be responsible and report/investigate when force is used?

SAY IT AINT SO DOJ!!!

Creates four procedural manuals on:
-A first weapon-by-weapon guidance manual on when and how weapons like tasers and peper spray can be used (Section 8.200, available here:
-Procedures on the reporting and investigation of uses of force (Section 8.300, available here:
-A manual for the new Force Investigation Team, which rolls to the highest levels of force, including officer involved shootings (Force Investigations Unit Procedural Manual, available here:
-Procedures of the Use of Force Review Board (Section 8.400, available here:

I have no doubt these police were all too quick to taser and or pepper spray anyone they didn't want to deal with.

Patience is not a Seattle police department virtue.

Institutionalizes the UOF Review Board (created by SPD in 2011) (Section 8.400)
The UOF Review Board reviews all Type 2 and Type 3 UOF to:
-confirm that UOF reporting, investigation and review are thorough and complete;
-determine whether the findings from the chain of command regarding whether the force used is consistent with law and policy are supported by a preponderance of the evidence;
-ensure that all uses of force contrary to law or policy are appropriately addressed; and
-identify trends or patterns of deficiencies regarding policy, training, equipment, or tactics.

a reply to: Swills

(ran out of characters in the OP)

So that's a summary of the new policies Seattle police now have to follow.

Do you see how their rights are being trampled?

Me neither.

a reply to: Swills

Did you happen to see the Acronym at 1:32. That is so awesome.

a reply to: Deemo Diablo

LMAO!!!

I did not see that!

/thread

a reply to: Swills

I seriously had to watch the video again to make sure it was a real news clip. They offered no explanation to the meaning, either.

To stay on topic, the police seem to always get their way, regardless of what the people think or want. It's sad, really. I do agree they need to protect themselves from act of violence, but a lot of them see that as an opportunity to inflict tyranny on the masses. They get a little power, and all of a sudden they are above the law, just like many wealthy people.

a reply to: Swills

so these officers feel that "unless people cower out of fear of being beaten and bow to my 'thor-i-taw" we aren't happy.

any decent officer would champion a less forceful approach. that would improve the image.

originally posted by: Deemo Diablo
a reply to: Swills

Did you happen to see the Acronym at 1:32. That is so awesome.

I think it's pretty lame that they hide behind ''their safety'' and how it will be compromised. They usually operate at a minimum 3:1 ratio when there is a disturbance. Now they just get a few toys taken away, and now all sorts of constitutional rights are violated? I think their rights are a little different due to the occupation, so the constitution doesn't stand for much. Ain't that how it goes?

originally posted by: Deemo Diablo
a reply to: Swills

Did you happen to see the Acronym at 1:32. That is so awesome.

I saw that right off the bat, I had to pause, I was like wait what?

The fact that they dont offer any explination is hilarious........im sure someone is gonna get fired over that, but i suspect we will see that soon on some funny vid sites.....

To the substance of the post, I think every single one of those officers should lose their jobs, honestly if you need to mandate that you need to be able to apply force at discretion like that, you dont need to be in uniform....

A lot of police these days have already proven that they cannot exercise proper constraint.......

a reply to: dfens

Yep that's the one. I'm sure that since he's advocating for the officers' lawsuit, then that is indeed his official title. He says "the public at large is at risk" in regards to these "tools" of oppression being taken away.

a reply to: Deemo Diablo

Yeah, batons, military grade pepper spray, bean bag guns, potatoe guns, electrified nets... Whatever kind of exotic tools they use to subdue the general public from hurting themselves. He seems to be pretty convinced that there's gonna be a whole lot of dead people as soon as they policies are in full swing. So yeah, appropriate title indeed.

Maybe they should learn to talk to people and get to know them rather than treating every citizen as a possible threat.
I do not know the US police culture that well but generally speaking the police need to be part of the community and they will quickly feel less threatened. I know they cannot KNOW everyone, but once their vibe is in tune with the community it will be better for everyone including police.

I do know that if I was thrown face down on the ground with my hands behind my back, and the knee drops down on my back with no concern, I will likely resist. I don't want to fight police but I have NO IDEA how to surrender to physical pain. I never did and I likely never will. Am I mentally disabled because I have a survival instinct and cat like reflexes? I don't think this should apply only to those who suffer from mental health or a language barrier. Maybe people don't want to be violated because the officer is in a constant state of generic fear.

a reply to: Deemo Diablo

i gotta wonder....is that an actual acronym, or was it edited in?

if you blow the video up to full screen, it doesn't seem to match the rest of the lettering. seems a bit fishy....still funny as hell though..

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I'm sure it was MoxNews who superimposed that into the video, and rightfully so.

a reply to: Daedalus

I did a google on acronyms. "Can't Understand Normal Thinking" was the only thing I found that made sense. You can probably imagine some of the other links that came up in that search. What fun is it to be a cop if you can't empty a clip into anyone who resists your authority in the tiniest way?

a reply to: Swills


Oh no you mean these cops actually have to talk to people and use there brains before brawns. What a travesty. I always thought a cops life is more important than the average Joe and this puts them at risk (sarcasm).

Seriously though its about time they need laws like this all over the nation and every cop should be required to wear a working camera and have it recording at all times to be allowed to be on duty.

a reply to: Swills

Yeah right.. they are afraid it might cause the officers to hesitate. If they hesitated they'd risk thinking, and that cant be allowed.

originally posted by: skunkape23
...What fun is it to be a cop if you can't empty a clip into anyone who resists your authority in the tiniest way?

Exactly.
What's with all the toys if you don't get to play with them at least once a week?

These officers need to be trained on some verbal judo.

Good for the DOJ

a reply to: Swills
I'm seriously concerned that this is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Every instance above a level 2 must be investigated... "Hey! We're overworked already. Need more personnel. Another tracking system. Continual de-escalation training. Etc..."

Maybe not. But, like anything else, their resistance/reluctance could turn it into a black hole.