Mediaboss Marketing

DANBURY The YouTuber who has recorded his interactions with police and security guards at the Danbury Library and City Hall claims they tried to violate his first and fourth amendment rights.

But experts say the situation is more complicated.

Theres a lot more nuance than that, said Laszlo Pinter, the citys attorney.

Danbury police department has launched an internal investigation into its officers response captured in YouTuber SeanPaul Reyes video where he refused to stop recording at the Danbury Library, despite a library policy banning filming without permission.

A second video, where police are called when the YouTuber declines to give his name to a security guard at Danbury City Hall, is not part of the investigation, Chief Patrick Ridenhour said.

The five officers from the library incident, including a city sergeant who the YouTuber says he intends to sue, remain on duty, Ridenhour said.

Screenshots from a video from the YouTube channel Long Island Audit showing interactions with a security guard, police and other officials at Danbury City Hall on Thursday, June 10, 2021. Danbury police were called to City Hall on Thursday, June 10, 2021 after YouTuber SeanPaul Reyes refused to give his name to the security guard in order to enter the building. Reyes left after the town clerk was called down to the lobby so he could file his intent to sue a city sergeant.

Screenshots from a video from the YouTube channel Long Island Audit showing interactions with a security guard, police and other officials at Danbury City Hall on Thursday, June 10, 2021. Danbury police were called to City Hall on Thursday, June 10, 2021 after YouTuber SeanPaul Reyes refused to give his name to the security guard in order to enter the building. Reyes left after the town clerk was called down to the lobby so he could file his intent to sue a city sergeant.

Screenshots from a video from the YouTube channel Long Island Audit showing interactions with a security guard, police and other officials at Danbury City Hall on Thursday, June 10, 2021. Danbury police were called to City Hall on Thursday, June 10, 2021 after YouTuber SeanPaul Reyes refused to give his name to the security guard in order to enter the building. Reyes left after the town clerk was called down to the lobby so he could file his intent to sue a city sergeant.

Screenshots from a video from the YouTube channel Long Island Audit showing interactions with a security guard, police and other officials at Danbury City Hall on Thursday, June 10, 2021. Danbury police were called to City Hall on Thursday, June 10, 2021 after YouTuber SeanPaul Reyes refused to give his name to the security guard in order to enter the building. Reyes left after the town clerk was called down to the lobby so he could file his intent to sue a city sergeant.

Screenshots from a video from the YouTube channel Long Island Audit showing interactions with a security guard, police and other officials at Danbury City Hall on Thursday, June 10, 2021. Danbury police were called to City Hall on Thursday, June 10, 2021 after YouTuber SeanPaul Reyes refused to give his name to the security guard in order to enter the building. Reyes left after the town clerk was called down to the lobby so he could file his intent to sue a city sergeant.

It has not been necessary to put anyone one on leave, he said in an email.

Ridenhour declined to comment further, citing the ongoing investigation. Hearst Connecticut Media requested through the Freedom of Information Act the records of the officers involved in the library incident, as well as the body camera footage.

Both videos are edited.

I only see one side of the story, Mayor Joe Cavo said. Until I get all the facts, Im going to reserve my comment and see what happens with the rest of the information and how things proceed.

Danbury plans to keep its building policies in place, although officials are reviewing the incidents.

First Amendment law is very complicated, Cavo said. Fourth Amendment law is very complicated. Were trying to sort out how that relates to our responsibilities here as a public agency, and were working out those details now within inside counsel and outside counsel.

Reyes is part of a social media movement known as First Amendment Audits, where people film in public buildings, such as libraries or municipal centers, in an attempt to showcase how officials abide by the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and the press.

Allied Universal, the security company that the Danbury guards in the videos work for, trains its staff on how to respond to these auditors, the company spokeswoman said.

Guards take a specific training module on these audits when they join the company. The module includes appropriate practices for how to handle these situations, spokeswoman Vanessa Showalter said.

Guards are informed if auditors are in their area and get additional tips if so, she said.

The company has seen auditors the most in California, where Allied Universal, is based, she said.

Their whole goal is to provoke on-site security professionals in order to illicit a negative response, she said. The reason why they do this is so they can get a lot of likes on their Facebook and their social sites in order to get money. That is their whole goal.

Reyes told Hearst Connecticut Media on Friday that he aims to exercise his rights and educate police through his videos. He said he aims to start an outreach program in Connecticut where activists like himself could shed light on rights violations and is thinking about starting a YouTube channel to teach kids about these issues.

He said he has not taken any criminal justice courses and learned what he knows through YouTube and other online sources.

Im a big believer of knowing your rights, he said.

His channel, Long Island Audit, has about 24,200 subscribers as of Monday evening, up from around 22,800 subscribers on Friday. His video at Danbury Library has 66,000 views, while the City Hall video has 49,000 views.

Heck, if it does nothing other than make government employees aware that we the people have the right to observe that which is observable by the naked eye, it cant be a bad thing from where we sit, said Dan Barrett, legal director with the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut.

Cavo said hed rather see a collaborative approach.

I see what this guys doing and he has the right to do that, he said. For me, I dont know. I think in this world we need to figure out how to work together instead of instigate.

Some police officers know Constitutional law better than others, Barrett said.

Its never been clear to me that the training, if any, that they get on the free speech and the right to memorialize has any effect, he said.

Individuals have the right to film in and from public places, Barrett said.

Anywhere that you are allowed to be as a member of the public and anything you can see with your own eyes, its fair game, he said.

But the rules get trickier in places that are more sensitive, he said. Libraries can be places where people research or conduct private activities, such as research health related information, he said.

So, its unclear whether the librarys policy banning filming or photography would stand in court.

It depends a little bit on whats restricted where and what the librarys interests are, Barrett said.

The library policy states that filming or photography is not allowed inside the building without permission from the library director. Patrons may not take photos or videos of other library users without their permission.

Motivations dont matter when it comes to the First Amendment, Barrett said.

It doesnt particularly matter from the First Amendment standpoint, Barrett said. Thats all fair game. What matters is whether the library has a good enough reason and an appropriately tailored policy.

In a second video uploaded Sunday, Reyes goes to City Hall to file his intent to sue a Danbury police sergeant but refuses to give his name to the security guard, as required for visitors under COVID-19 precautions.

I shouldnt have to surrender my Fourth Amendment right to enter a public building, Reyes says.

Dont go there, the security guard says.

Dont go there, Reyes says. This is the United States of America.

I am the guard here, the security officer says. I dont make the rules. I enforce the rules. This is what they want me to do. They want me to take your name, give you a card and you go upstairs.

Collecting names to contact trace for COVID-19 in public buildings would likely not violate peoples protection from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, Barrett said.

In the time of COVID mercifully waning though it is in Connecticut it may be the case that collecting names is O.K., providing there is sufficient restriction on the use of those names, Barrett said.

Its fine if Danbury throws out the names after 14 days, but not if the city uses them to track if those people are paying their taxes, for example, he said.

Pinter argued the YouTubers claim about the Fourth Amendment violation is misplaced. Asking for someones name to enter a public building for COVID or security reasons is reasonable, he said.

Asking for identification is not a seizure if its reasonable, Pinter said. If its reasonable, its not a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

See the rest here:
A YouTuber tried to 'audit' how well Danbury follows Constitutional rights. The answer is complicated. - Danbury News Times

An American man is suing the city of Springfield, Illinois, and six of its police officers for opening an urn containing his daughter's ashes and allegedly "desecrating" it during a traffic stop.

In his lawsuit, Dartavius Barnes claims the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

Mr Barnes also claims the officers stopped his car initially without reasonable suspicion or probable cause that he had committed a crime, according to the lawsuit filed by his attorney, James C Pullos.

The lawsuit further accuses the police department of violating the Springfield man's Fourth Amendment rights of unlawful search and seizure of his vehicle without probable cause, a valid search warrant, or consent, and claims the officers acted intentionally and maliciously.

In its response to the lawsuit, the city denied Mr Barnes' claims and maintained the city and its officers were protected by "qualified immunity as their conduct was justified by an objectively reasonable belief that it was lawful."

"Unfortunately, I am not permitted to expand upon the contents of our answer at this time," Ms Fancher said.

The Springfield Police Department also declined to comment when contacted by CNN.

Mr Barnes has declined to speak with CNN about this incident.

Body camera footage shows traffic stop and search

The traffic stop occurred on April 6, 2020, when Mr Barnes was pulled over by a Springfield police officer for speeding and running a stop sign, according to the police incident report.

The officer who stopped Mr Barnes' car stated in his incident report that he heard through department radio that Mr Barnes was also a potential suspect from a nearby report of shots fired.

Mr Barnes' vehicle was shot one time in the passenger side rear fender, according to a police incident report.

"It is unknown if the blue Chrysler driven by (Dartavius Barnes) was a target of the shooter or was hit by the round," the incident report states.

"I had Dartavius exit the car and secured him in handcuffs," and sat him in the backseat of the officer's patrol car, according to the incident report.

Body camera footage of the incident was recently published and obtained from the police department by CNN.

The footage showed that Mr Barnes sat inside in a police vehicle for nearly 30 minutes after he was stopped.

Five other officers who were also on patrol came onto the scene and searched the vehicle.

"No problem if I search?" an officer asks Mr Barnes in the video.

"Yeah, go ahead," Mr Barnes states, as police search his car.

In the bodycam footage, an officer is seen holding a sealed urn which he found during his search. The incident report states a brass object was discovered which was shaped like a rifle round.

"I have seen similar items like this before utilised to contain narcotics," the officer wrote in the report.

"Then I checked for cocaine, but it looks like it's probably molly," the officer says in the bodycam video to one of his colleagues.

In the video, police tell Mr Barnes they found a substance in his car that tested positive for drugs, specifically ecstasy or meth.

The substance was instead the ashes of his deceased two-year-old daughter, Ta'Naja Barnes, which were kept in a sealed urn.

The brass object shaped like a "rifle round" or a bullet is a commonly used cremation urn necklace worn by individuals.

"No, no, no, bro. That's my daughter. What are y'all doing bro ... give me that bro, that's my daughter," Mr Barnes says in the video when officers showed him the urn.

Police decided not to re-test the ashes and gave the urn back to Mr Barnes' father, who had arrived on the scene in a separate car.

"Common sense, though, man," Mr Barnes' father is heard saying the video, regarding the contents of the urn.

The lawsuit claims the officers "desecrated" his daughter's ashes when they spilled some of them during the search.

Ms Davis and her boyfriend, Anthony Myers, were sentenced to prison for their roles in her death.

Mr Myers is serving 30 years in prison after he was found guilty of first-degree murder, according to WICS and court documents.

Ms Davis is serving 20 years in prison after pleading guilty to first-degree murder, according to WICS and court documents.

A trial on Mr Barnes' lawsuit against the city is scheduled for August 2022, according to court documents.

According to the lawsuit, Mr Barnes is asking for "compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial" along with attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses and any other "relief as the court may deem just or equitable."

Continue reading here:
Father suing US police department for opening an urn containing the ashes of his daughter - 9News

President Joe Biden supports a ban on assault weapons like the one that has been in place in California since 1989. On June 4, however, Roger Benitez, United States judge for the Southern District of California, ruled that California's ban is unconstitutional.

The judge is probably correct.

Benitez's ruling is a peculiar piece of work for a document that aspires to serious legal analysis. The ruling's tone and the judge's personal high regard for assault weapons are obvious in its first sentence: "Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment."

Elsewhere Benitez's prose smacks of the oppression that pro-gun advocates claim to endure at the hands of anti-gun zealots: "Under this relaxed test a state could enter a person's home without a warrant and seize him or his guns in violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition of searches and seizures without a warrant." This is paranoia worthy of an NRA lobbyist.

Benitez devotes a couple of pages to breathless descriptions of six cases in which homeowners used AR-15s to thwart home invasions, but he doesn't acknowledge that this is anecdotal evidence, which should be of questionable standing in legal analysis.

The judge also doesn't note that, according to FBI homicide data, for every "justifiable" gun homicide in 2012, there were 34 criminal homicides, 78 suicides and two accidental gun deaths.

And how common are home invasions? Judge Benitez says, "it surely happens a lot."

All we really need to know about the sketchy nature of this ruling is this unhelpful sentence from page 47: "More people have died from the COVID-19 vaccine than mass shootings in California." That can't be true. In fact, it's not, suggesting that we should view the entire document with some skepticism.

Our American infatuation with firearms is regrettable. The daily carnage is tragic. And the emergence of the AR-15 as the essential icon of a disgruntled minority who are angry, fearful, aggrieved and hostile to government is ominous.

Nevertheless, despite his bias, Benitez probably got it right about the unconstitutionality of an assault weapons ban, and his ruling is a good predictor of the result if the issue ever reaches our conservative Supreme Court.

The right to have a weapon for self-protection precedes the Constitution, a right so "natural" that the founders didn't bother to secure it by language any stronger than the slender reed of the Second Amendment.

The founders could not have imagined the killing efficiency of a modern assault rifle, any more than they could have imagined television, a Black president or a female vice president. For them, the "right to bear arms" implied muzzle-loading muskets. Still, if the modern hypothetical home invader is much better armed than in colonial times, the modern hypothetical homeowner has a right to be better armed, as well.

But even a constitutional right can be limited. The courts have held that citizens cannot own machine guns or bazookas. Some of the carnage might be limited by more rigorous background checks, mandatory training and demonstrated proficiency.

Even Benitez's ruling includes testimony (p. 30, p. 47) suggesting that the real culprit in mass shootings is large-capacity magazines. Reducing legal magazine size might help even the odds in the Great American Shoot-Out.

But in the meantime, our challenge is to find a way to live in a society drowning in guns, even as a hundred of us die every day by gunfire.

Tribune Content Agency

Follow this link:
Crisp: Learning to live with assault weapons - Chattanooga Times Free Press

ITEM 1.01 ENTRY INTO A MATERIAL DEFINITIVE AGREEMENT

On June 10, 2021, M/I Homes, Inc. (the "Company") entered into a FourthAmendment (the "Fourth Amendment") to the Company's unsecured revolving creditfacility, dated July 18, 2013, among the Company, the lenders party thereto andPNC Bank, National Association, as administrative agent (as so amended, the"Credit Agreement"). The Fourth Amendment, among other things, increased thecommitments from the lenders to $550.0 million from $500.0 million, extended thematurity to July 18, 2025, increased the required minimum level of ConsolidatedTangible Net Worth from $848.2 million to $946.2 million (subject to increaseover time based on earnings and proceeds from equity offerings) and increasedthe letter of credit sublimit to $150 million from $125 million. The FourthAmendment also provides an accordion feature pursuant to which the maximumborrowing availability may be increased at the request of the Company to anaggregate of $700.0 million, subject to obtaining additional commitments fromlenders and other terms and conditions of the Credit Agreement.

Interest on amounts borrowed under the Credit Agreement is payable at a ratewhich is adjusted daily and is equal to the sum of the one-month LIBOR rate plusa margin. The Fourth Amendment reduced the floor on one-month LIBOR to 0.25%from 0.75%, and decreased the LIBOR margin to 175 basis points from 250 basispoints (based on the Company's leverage ratio at March 31, 2021). The LIBORmargin is subject to adjustment in subsequent quarterly periods based on theCompany's leverage ratio. The Fourth Amendment also decreased the commitment feepaid quarterly by the Company on the remaining available commitment amount by 15basis points, to 30 basis points, which is also subject to adjustment insubsequent quarterly periods based on the Company's leverage ratio.Additionally, the Fourth Amendment increased the borrowing base advance ratesfor certain categories of inventory used to calculate the available amount underthe Credit Agreement. As of March 31, 2021, there were no borrowings outstandingand $66.7 million letters of credit outstanding under the Credit Agreement.

Certain of the lenders party to the Fourth Amendment are also lenders and/orserve as the administrative agent under a $175 million secured mortgagewarehousing agreement with M/I Financial, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of theCompany, as borrower.

The foregoing summary is qualified in its entirety by reference to the FourthAmendment which is attached as Exhibit 10.1 to this Current Report on Form 8-Kand incorporated herein by reference. All capitalized terms not otherwisedefined herein are as defined in the Credit Agreement.

*Submitted electronically with this Report in accordance with theprovisions of Regulation S-T.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Go here to read the rest:
M/I HOMES, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet...

As calls for reform intensify in the aftermath of police violence, police departments can be expected to fiercely resist proposed changes that look anything like rules. I recently published a paper that shares the responses of officers who were asked the question: Can use-of-force practices be reduced to hard and fast rules that limit office discretion? The response, to summarize, was an emphatic no. Those interviewed thought that hard and fast rules would undermine the discretion officers need to confront unpredictable and often dangerous circumstances. The predominant view was that rules were not just ill advised in the use-of-force context but also incompatible with the demands of policing.

Contrary to these departmental claims, my research reveals that use-of-force rules not only exist but also are common. These rules are created by the very departments that deny their existence. Departments do not publish these rules, let alone write them down. Rather, during trainings, departments communicate hard and fast rules that limit officer discretion and disregard the relevance of factual variability. In reaching this conclusion, my research team reviewed use-of-force training videos used by agencies across the country. In our analysis of these videos, it became apparent that departments, however unknowingly, are imposing rules on their officers. The research also revealed that the nature of these rules, shielded from public scrutiny and input, often distributed the risks of potential (and unnecessary) harm to civilians.

If departments are in fact wrong that rules are nonexistent and incompatible with policing, what is the upshot? Accepting that rules have a place in regulating use of force expands the options for community intervention. Communities seeking use-of-force reform should feel empowered to disregard departmental resistance and insist on legislating rules that curb officer discretion. At a minimum, communities should require departments to transcribe their trainings. By doing so, the invisible rulescommunicated during training and already governing police encounterscan be revealed to permit public scrutiny. The point is not that rules are good or bad. Rather,contrary to what departments say, rules exist, and given that rules exist, members of the public should have a say in creating them. At the very least, the public should be apprised of what rules already govern police use of force in their community.

The Rule-Resistant View

My research team interviewed representatives from Peace Officer Standards and Training agencies (POSTs). POSTs regulate officer training requirements in each state. Many representatives previously held leadership positions in police or sheriff departments. Almost all dismissed the possibility that use-of-force practices could be reduced to rules, and emphatically so: Absolutely not and Its impossible were representative answers.

The most common rationale for the rule-resistant view was that a rule would undermine officer discretion needed to respond to fluid, unpredictable circumstances. Every situation will have countless variables. You can have two really similar incidents lead to two totally different outcomes. Everything varies a million different ways. Its impossible to have a set of rules that will anticipate a particular situation. The only thing black and white about my job is my cruiser. Representatives tended to view rules as flattening out the factual variability an officer confronts in the field. In their view, requiring officers to act a certain way would result in too little force (losing control) or too much force (causing unnecessary harm). One representative viewed any discussion over rule-making as pure hubris: A lot of people try to come up with answers. Youre a prophet in your own backyard.

Some representatives saw rules as unfair: [S]ubjects dont follow rules, so how can an officer be expected to do so? There was concern that any rule would undermine the critical thinking necessary for deescalation: Making rules puts the gun in [officers] hands one step sooner. Some saw any rule overrun by exceptions, obviating its utility: Can you [really] have a rule that prohibits chokeholds? What if the suspect grabs a gun, and the only option is to put the person in a chokehold? Some feared that removing officer discretion would be demoralizing: You cant legislate [reasonable force]. If we put rules and laws in it is not gonna work . No one will want to do this job.

Very few were open to the imposition of rules. You cant say in every situation, if ... this, then do that. But you can have rules at a macro level[,] said one. I think we can have some successful rules of engagement. ... [I]f you can anticipate certain things happening, then you can make rules. He was an outlier.

At the heart of the rule-resistant narrative is Graham v. Connor (1989), in which the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourth Amendment to require that the use of force be reasonable. The court held that reasonableness will depend on the totality of the circumstances, accounting for the officers incomplete information and the stressful, rapidly evolving nature of an incident. Graham is explicitly rule resistant, stating that an officers use of force can not be governed by a single generic standard. Importantly, the opinion was designed to establish the constitutional floor for officer adherence to the Fourth Amendment, not to deprive communities of the opportunity to impose a more restrictive code of conduct on their officers.

Yet, from hamlet to metropolis, Graham is the law, in large part due to the lobbying efforts of departments. As to the representatives interviewed, a recurring sentiment emerged: In the absence of rules, departments still followed the law, the law being Graham. Stick to Graham, were the concise words of one. As Rachel Harmon observed, the Graham standard is so vague it provides little functional limit on the use of force. It was Graham, for example, that permitted use-of-force expert Barry Brodd to sincerely assert that Officer Derek Chauvin, kneeling on a mans neck for nine minutes, acted reasonably. Graham, contends John Gross, leaves the reasonableness of force almost entirely up to the individual officer. Put another way, the Graham standard permits officers to judge the reasonableness of force for the rest of us.

If Rules Exist, Where Are They?

For the vast majority of law enforcement representatives that we interviewed, use-of-force rules do not and cannot exist. They are wrong on both counts. My research reveals that a rule-based approach not only is possible but also is a widespread practice. In coming to this conclusion, my research team analyzed use-of-force videos produced over 10 years by Lexipol, the largest provider of police training in the United States. Lexipol trainers identified conditions that required officers to act a certain way. These are rules. From many examples, here is one with deadly consequences. A Lexipol trainer stated, Officers cannot wait to react until they are absolutely certain of an individuals malicious intent. If an officer waits to be certain that the individual is retrieving a weapon, the weapon could easily be used against the officer before he or she has an opportunity to respond. Another trainer stated, You see officers hesitate [trainers] sitting back with perfect perspective [who know the officer will be harmed are thinking], shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot now . Pursuant to this training, if an officer perceives a civilian is reaching for a weapon, regardless of the circumstances, the officer is to use deadly force. Many jurisdictions in fact train this practice. I call it the waistband rule, as officers so trained will deploy deadly force if they perceive civilians reaching for their waistbands.

Like the waistband rule, rules indeed flatten out factual variability. Take an incident reported by a law student driving her car home from yoga. An officer checked her license plate. The car came up stolen. When this happens, training often dictates that officers call for backup, draw firearms, and order the civilian to walk backward toward officers and submit to cuffing. No exceptions. In the law students case, an officer pointed a long gun at her as she walked backward, terrified, toward the group of officers. The reported theft was two years old. But the records staleness had no relevance to officer conduct. Training deemed all facts irrelevant but for a single condition: Was the vehicle reported stolen? With this condition present, officers followed a rule that subjected the student to a serious risk of harm, regardless of the unique circumstances known to the officer that reduced any risk surrounding the stop.

From an operational perspective, it should be obvious that departments would impose rules. No employer would give unfettered discretion to employees, and no employees would want to go out in the field without rules of engagement. Despite what they say, departments are no different. And as departments impose rules during training, the stakes are high. Even mundane police encounters, contends Alice Ristroph, can quickly lead to violent results.

In fact, training can require an officer to use deadly force in a mundane encounter. Take the case of Paul Heenan, an inebriated man in need of assistance who was shot by Madison Police Officer Steven Heimsness. As locals wondered whether the officer committed murder, another question remained dormant: Did training require Heimsness to shoot Heenan? The Madison Police Department (MPD) provided the answer in a press conference, where trainers described how, according to MPD training, it would have been unreasonable not to have shot Heenan.

The incident occurred on Nov. 9, 2012. Heenan, new to the neighborhood, had joined his household, a young family, for dinner. After seeing some bands, he ended up at the Weary Traveler bar. Owner Bregan Fuller noticed Heenan was intoxicated when he staggered into the ladys restroom. It took time to coax from Heenan his place of residenceBaldwin Street, a few blocks awaywhere Fuller dropped Heenan off around 2 a.m. Forty-five minutes later, Megan OMalley, who lived on Baldwin Street, heard someone at the door. On the porch, her husband Kevin found Heenan, who, shivering, attempted to enter. Ascertaining Heenan was inebriated, Kevin assisted Heenan home, two doors down. Heenan, unaware of where he was, leaned into Kevin. With Heenan in tow, Kevin backed toward his house to get help. Kevin did not know Megan had called 911 to report a possible burglary. Dispatch radioed, Husbands wearing plaid pajama bottoms. Officer Stephen Heimsness arrived at the incident with his firearm drawn. Only after Heimsness yelled, Get down! did Kevin realize the figure emerging from the shadows was an officer. As Kevin stepped back, Heenan lost his balance and flailed toward Heimsness. Kevin yelled, Hes a neighbor! Heimsness pushed Heenan away and shot him.

The MPD deemed Heimsnesss actions reasonable. Facing public skepticism, the MPD held a public presentation that offered a glimpse into MPD training. First, offering a big-picture view, trainers Jason Freedman and Kimba Tieu emphasized that officers, thrust into situations with limited options and little information, always abide by three principles: (a) retain the advantage, (b) hesitation kills (the officer), and (c) only the suspect chooses to escalate or deescalate a situation. Turning to the incident, the trainers provided answers to their rhetorical questions by acting out possible scenarios. Why did the officer approach with a lethal weapon? In accordance with MPD training, Tieu stated, in high risk situations such as burglaries and home invasions where the threats are unknown, to start at a lower level of force would potentially allow the suspect to harm the officer or public. We dont know the civilians intentions, their motivation, their training, the equipment that they carry, or if theyre fleeing from something heinous that they just did, said Freedman. Felonious situations will be a firearm day.

The presentation continued. Freedman commanded, Get down! Tieu, playing the suspect, pulled a gun. Freedman reported an untrained person can produce a firearm and shoot the officer in less than a half-second. Tieu clarified that an unarmed civilian still presents a deadly threat. Returning to their places, Freedman said, Get down! Tieu lurched forward and grabbed the gun. What if the officer had attempted additional verbal commands to gain compliance? Resetting their positions, Freedman issued a first and then second command. Tieu aggressed. Freedman explained that by the time my brain physically is able to process noncompliance, now he has my weapon, I am unarmed, and [there is a] threat to the community and to myself. What if the officer had tried to holster his weapon? As Freedman attempted to do so, Tieu hit Freedman with a right hook. What if the officer attempted to step back? Freedman explained it is not possible to move back faster than the suspect moved forward. What if the officer had turned and run? As Freedman turned to retreat, Tieu put him in a headlock. What if the officer had not pushed Heenan away? As the two struggled, Tieu disarmed and shot Freedman. We think about what it takes to disarm [the officer], said Tieu, nothing at all, Im gonna rip the gun, and Ill apply deadly force to the officer.

Can rules be extracted from this impromptu training session? MPD training certainly limits officer discretion once certain conditions are present. Though the officer was responding to a mundane situation (a drunk person needing assistance), MPD training deemed it high-risk, which required the officer to draw his firearm. As Seth Stoughton observes, doing so creates a path dependence, limiting an officers ability to use other force options. This was certainly the case in Madison. When Heenan failed to comply with the command to get down and approached the officer, training dictated that Heimsness use deadly force. Are Madisonians in agreement with this rule that distributes risk to the civilian and increases the potential for unnecessary violence? We dont know.

In sum, my research indicates that departments often impose rules on officers during training. Again, departments reject this contention. If the [recruits] keep asking for rules, remarked one trainer, they should seek another profession. If [the recruit] asks me what to do in this specific case, said another, I cant answer. But trainers often do what they say they do not.

Looking Forward

What are the consequences of accepting the rule-resistant view? Under this view, public input is limited: Any proposal that interferes with officer discretion is rejected. Instead, a community is left proposing weak-tea standards, for example, that officers attempt to use time and distance approaching a scene. Such a standard leaves officer discretion intact; the officer determines what time and distance are appropriate in any situation. In this way, acceptance of the rule-resistant narrative deflects public intervention and waters down any attempted reform. Thus far, departments have had success convincing the public that rules cannot govern the use of force.

Part of the challenge for communities seeking change is to make visible the use-of-force rules that already exist but have long remained invisible. My research suggests communities that do so will discover rules that often distribute risk to civilians. The rule directing officers what to do when a car is reported stolen, for example, is fraught with danger and humiliation for the civilianas this video shows. The rules followed in the Heenan incident ensured that any harm resulting from the officers misperception was to be borne by the civilian.

And the waistband rule trained by Lexipolthat an officer use deadly force when the officer perceives a civilian to be reaching for a weaponhas left a trail of preventable harm and death. In a Los Angeles study, of 100 shootings resulting from the waistband rule, 61 of these individuals had no weaponthe officer was wrong. Of these 100 individuals, then, at least 60 should not have been shot. Under an alternative rule that is not trained(a) wait to confirm the presence of a weapon and (b) confirm the civilians intent to use the weaponslightly more officers would be injured or killed, but the number of civilians spared from injury or death would be dramatically higher. Perhaps the people of Los Angeles would agree with the sheriffs department that they prefer officers to follow the waistband rule. We do not know. The people of Los Angeles have no idea they are subject to this rule.

Use-of-force rules often lurk behind tragedies. When officers shot Jacob Blake for resisting arrest, shot Daunte Wright for evading misdemeanor arrest, shot Laquan McDonald for walking with a knife, shot Adam Toledo after he dropped his gun or shot 12-year-old Tamir Rice as he reached for his waistband, the officers were likely acting according to decision trees that, imparted through training, ironed out a need to assess the particulars of an incident and directed officers to act in ways that distributed risk to civilians.

Though departments say otherwise, use of force is often governed by rules that remain invisible to the public. These rules are not the product of compromise. Imposed during training, these rules reflect values that might be unacceptable to the public. The values and assumptions embedded in use-of-force rules deserve public scrutiny. The question, then, is not whether use of force can be governed by rules. The question should be this: Who gets to impose rules governing officer conduct: the police or the communities the police serve?

Originally posted here:
The Invisible Rules That Govern Police Use of Force - Lawfare