How Washington state is allowing for crime to explode within it's boarders

This Initiative was just passed, and to the lay person may seem like a good idea:
Secretary of State for the State of Washington: I-940

I-940 is named "De-Escalation Washington", and it's stated purpose is to help save lives by providing all law enforcement officers in Washington with enhanced de-escalation, first aid, and mental health crisis training, so officers are better prepared to handle challenging situations. We can make Washington safer for families, communities, and law enforcement.

But hidden within the pages of the initative is these little fellows:

Sec. 7. RCW 9A.16.040 and 1986 c 209 s 2 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:
(a) When a public officer applies deadly force ((is acting)) in obedience to the judgment of a competent court; or
(b) When necessarily used by a peace officer meeting the good faith standard of this section to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty((.)); or
(c) When necessarily used by a peace officer meeting the good faith standard of this section or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid: (i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony;

(ii) To prevent the escape of a person from a federal or state correctional facility or in retaking a person who escapes from such a facility; ((or))
(iii) To prevent the escape of a person from a county or city jail or holding facility if the person has been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a felony; or
(iv) To lawfully suppress a riot if the actor or another participant is armed with a deadly weapon.
(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection
(1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:
(a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or
(b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given, provided the officer meets the good faith standard of this section.

(iv) To lawfully suppress a riot if the actor or another participant is armed with a deadly weapon.

I requoted the point I find troubling. Now I know the Seattle PD has their hands tied before, but this is is state wide and not isolated to just one area. We have law makers in this state that strongly believe that words are a form of deadly weapons. Will that come into play? Nobody really knows right now. Then if that wasn't an issue enough there is this :

NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. Except where a different timeline is provided in this act, the Washington state criminal justice training commission must adopt any rules necessary for carrying out the requirements of this act within one year after the effective date of this section. In carrying out all rule making under this act, the commission shall seek input from the attorney general, law enforcement agencies, tribes, and community stakeholders. The commission shall consider the use of negotiated rule making. The rules must require that procedures under RCW 9A.16.040(5)(d) be carried out completely independent of the agency whose officer was involved in the use of deadly force; and, when the deadly force is used on a tribal member, such procedures must include consultation with the member's tribe and, where appropriate, information sharing with such tribe. Where this act requires involvement of community stakeholders, input must be sought from organizations advocating for: Persons with disabilities; members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer community; persons of color; immigrants; non-citizens; native Americans; youth; and formerly incarcerated persons.

Just so I'm clear here the people who will be consulted in structuring how law enforcement can handle a situations (a civilian review board) the conmittee should be made up of:

non-citizens; native Americans; youth; and formerly incarcerated persons.

Native Americans I have no issue with, but really non-citizens (aka Illegal Immigrants), minors (aka kids), and formerly incarcerated persons (aka felons) should be telling the police how to do their jobs? Really? The law enforcement community here in Washington State is already having a hard time keeping their numbers up, and this isn't going to be helping anyone in the state who cares about crime prevention. As it stands law enforcment just went from having their hands tied to being handcuffed, and under this initiative if the public takes prevention of crimes into their own hands that can be shot.

Life in a liberal utopia. What ya gonna do?
Smoke some ganja, take a dump on the sidewalk and be happy.
Don't worry, be happy now.

Some people want it so the cops cannot shoot them or their children if they are committing a crime. Parents no longer are allowed to punish their kids so they wind up criminals sometimes. They also are both working so cannot see their kids go astray, then they pay for the lawyers to get them out of trouble which the kids tend to feel that they can do more serious things.

Liberals are a major player in this game of thrones, so are the middle class because both parents are too busy at work and traveling an hour each way from work. We have a major problem in this country, the mothers are all working and the kids are not being taught properly how to live in a peaceful society where people work to earn their money.

Unless there is someone who can fix this, we are headed to even more lawlessness because these parents are trying to change the laws to protect their delinquents.

a reply to: caterpillage

The whole of the state isn't liberal, far from it. It's Libertarian country that got infected by California Progressives. Don't forget the load of cash that supported the bill.

a reply to: Guyfriday

That's the issue I had with the bill. Always check the fine print of them.

What ever happened to Ombudsman?

a reply to: caterpillage


That deuce just might be a "tres" depending on how many $9.00 javas one has. This is beneficial for the storm drains during Winter, slides down easier.. win/win

originally posted by: dreamingawake
a reply to: caterpillage

The whole of the state isn't liberal, far from it. It's Libertarian country that got infected by California Progressives. Don't forget the load of cash that supported the bill.

That's the real issue here. In Washington State, how ever King County (or rather Seattle) votes that's the way the state goes. Last night the local news was saying that if Seattle pulls 68% of their votes in one direction or the other, then it really doesn't matter what the rest of the state says. This would be like having Disneyland decide what the state of California does (though that may be a bad example given how California has been in recent decades).

We already have the governor saying (on another initiative) that it doesn't really matter since he could just run it through the state house to pass it. We've also seen them just add things to the state constitution so that it can't be resolved in court. So even if this get's tossed out as unconstitutional by SCOTUS I'm willing to bet that Inslee and his AG Ferguson will just go that route so that he can have a good showing for his 2020 Presidential run.

a reply to: Guyfriday

At the gist of it the state is corporate run. West side has been shafting the East side for too long as it is, they have judges telling Spokane citizens to not get a ticket from cops because it all goes to the Seattle area, and it's true.

Love how the greedy couldn't get through the carbon tax trying it through votes this time. Their direction was to make it more friendly to Republicans this time around. Two fails, one from trying to push it out earlier this year without votes, but likely they will try it again.

I'm sure they are upset about the Anti Soda Tax bill winning. As the Seattle Soda Tax bill was passed without a public vote.

Just Washington State in one of its bids to overcome Cali in full blown idiocy
They are deadlocked in the race for the crown , with NY pulling up a close 3rd

a reply to: Guyfriday

Non citizens are not necessarily illegal. People with green cards, student visas, and H1B visas (PhD visas, pretty much) are legal. I don't see why they can't be included.

a reply to: Guyfriday

This is basically a cover your ass bill. If there is any suspected police excessive use of force, the PD and the state can more easily just point at the officer. It's an HR move, not a substantial change.

originally posted by: Look2theSacredHeart
a reply to: Guyfriday



Non citizens are not necessarily illegal. People with green cards, student visas, and H1B visas (PhD visas, pretty much) are legal. I don't see why they can't be included.

Nope, you should reread what the initiative says. It clearly makes a difference between immigrants and non-citizens. What you are stating are listed under immigrants. A noncitizen is just as I stated, an illegal immigrant, for the purpose of this document. Lawmakers have even stated this during broadcasted interviews.

originally posted by: Look2theSacredHeart
a reply to: Guyfriday

This is basically a cover your ass bill. If there is any suspected police excessive use of force, the PD and the state can more easily just point at the officer. It's an HR move, not a substantial change.

Except it isn't a cover your anything bill. All of the public protections that htis bill is supose to provide were already in place before the bill was made. The added items that this bill includes does nothing in the area of protecting the adverage citizen of Washington State, and only serves to empower criminals more by making it easier to go after law abiding citizens and law enforcement for doing nothing more then protecting themselves and others.

Uhh i live on the east side of WA. The top says deadly force is now allowed for just running while suspected of a felony. Scary times here. I gotta bail out of the nonsece and move away. Born and raised where im at and its really sad how things have become.

a reply to: dreamingawake

What maybe 2 people in town,the whole state is a liberal cesspool,my son's friend just moved back from there,said it really sucks,plus the sun never shines there,here everyday

a reply to: Oldtimer2

Nope, it's not all Liberal, most all rural areas vote Red and the state can be divided as such but of course one side has a higher population. Good hope the rest of the Progressive go home to their Progressive cesspool California instead of trying to make the whole West and, even TX into it. Go home Washington is full and the rain sucks!

originally posted by: ClanlessX
Uhh i live on the east side of WA. The top says deadly force is now allowed for just running while suspected of a felony. Scary times here. I gotta bail out of the nonsece and move away. Born and raised where im at and its really sad how things have become.

No, not just running.

It applies a good faith standard of mind to deadly force. It defines those beliefs in section 2. You'll see the good faith beliefs that would enable deadly use of force. It isn't just running. The suspect must brandish a weapon that warrants a good faith belief they pose a serious threat to the officer or others, or has just been involved in a violent crime involving the threat or act of death or serious injury. It's not any different than any other state statute I'm aware of concerning deadly force.

Changes in wording usually come about after some civil suit where a court/jury interprets the law unreasonably. So they add qualifiers to try to preclude that interpretation from happening again.