Democrats Rushed to ‘Reimagine’ Policing in Washington State. Now It’s Unsafe
SEATTLE—Democrats in Washington state rode the wave of anti-police sentiment after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Their goal was to “reimagine policing,” and it’s exactly what they did.
Consequently, Washington experienced a surge of violent crime. Now Republicans, and even some Democrats, are rushing to fix as much as possible.
With total control of the state Legislature, Democrats used the 2021 legislative session to rush through sweeping “reforms” that dramatically changed policing in the state. These passed bills clamped down on police use of force and detainment, banned departments from deploying large-caliber weapons, and even prohibited most high-speed chases.
Prior to the changes, police officers could use reasonable suspicion as a reason to detain a suspect. But thanks to a bill designated as HB 1310, an officer may use force only when making an arrest.
To make an arrest, though, an officer must have probable cause—a much higher standard than reasonable suspicion. If an officer detains someone or uses force under the reasonable-suspicion standard, thanks to the passage of SB 5051, he or she may lose police certification.
In the real world, this means if an officer sees someone acting suspiciously around an abandoned building in the middle of the night, in a neighborhood that is experiencing a rash of arson, the officer cannot detain that person.
The officer merely may ask the suspect to submit voluntarily to questioning. If the person suddenly flees, the officer may not pursue, because he didn’t witness a crime.
This issue has had the biggest impact on our communities that are overwhelmed by homelessness, where it’s common to see someone experiencing a public episode related to mental health or drugs.
Democrat politicians long have complained that armed police officers should not respond to calls involving citizens in crisis. They’re getting that wish now, and living with the consequences.
‘We Cannot Use Force’
Since law enforcement officers in Washington state are restricted to using force only when making an arrest, unless a crime is committed, officers are not allowed to touch the person in crisis, even if it’s to get him into a patrol car for transport to a mental health evaluation.
Snohomish County Sheriff Adam Fortney, in a recent interview on my Seattle-based talk radio show, said these occurrences are frequent and put other residents at risk.
Fortney recalled dispatching deputies and medics to a family dispute involving an adult in the middle of a mental health crisis. These first responders found the man lying down in the back of a pickup truck.
“We’re talking to him, you know, we’re keeping distance,” Fortney recalled. “We and the medic determined that he needs help … but this is the crux of the issue: Unless that person in crisis is willing to walk on his own accord into the back of the aid unit and go to the hospital and get the help, we cannot use force because of this new legislation.”
The man in this example ended up running away, the sheriff said, and there was nothing authorities could do since he had not committed a crime. But he would end up doing just that.
“We watched him run away,” Fortney said. “He jumps fences. He enters someone else’s home unlawfully after he shed his clothing. And that homeowner had to hold that person in crisis at knifepoint until we were redispatched and had to go deal with, now, the new issue that came up.”
It’s not the only circumstance where law enforcement officers have to stand by helplessly. They’re now put in positions where they are forced to watch suspects flee in vehicles, since legislation known as HB 1054 bans nearly all vehicle pursuits.
Limiting Pursuit
The law bars police from pursuing a suspect unless there’s probable cause that he committed a violent offense or sex crime, or a reasonable suspicion that the driver is impaired.
But that’s not all.
Prior to the pursuit, the law says an officer must consider whether a suspect poses “an imminent threat to the safety of others and the safety risks of failing to apprehend,” and a supervisor must give permission for the officer to pursue.
Imagine having to satisfy this law within seconds, at risk of losing police certification if you get it wrong.
It’s why the Chelan County Sheriff’s Office and police in neighboring Douglas County could not pursue a man who was driving a stolen bus. Law enforcement didn’t have probable cause that the man committed a violent crime.
The following evening, police made an arrest. Unfortunately, it came after the suspect left the bus and stole a front-end loader. Police said he crashed the vehicle into the home of his estranged wife.
The incident would have ended differently if cops weren’t stymied by Democrat lawmakers whose understanding of policing extends only to trusting activists who claim officers roam the streets looking to harass or hunt so-called BIPOC (black, Indigenous, and people of color).
Law enforcement agencies and the experts that run them were mostly cut off from helping draft the state legislation. That approach recently cost the life of a police dog.
Officers from the Seattle Police Department responded to a panicked call about a man, armed with a machete, who was trying to break into a home. When they arrived, the man was running away, wearing nothing but a bath towel.
Wielding a knife as well as the machete, the man refused to comply with orders to stop as he ran toward oncoming traffic.
The Death of Jedi
Officers called a K-9 unit to assist. A police dog named Jedi was unleashed not long after the man briefly advanced toward a cop and then turned back to the oncoming traffic with no apparent interest in stopping.
The man hacked Jedi multiple times with the machete, then stabbed the dog with the knife. The brutal violence was caught on police body cameras.
Jedi died of his wounds. The police dog’s handler was injured during the melee. Other cops on the scene shot and killed the man.
The dog’s death was needless; the K-9 unit itself was unnecessary.
HB 1054 banned police use of large-caliber firearms and ammunition under the ridiculous notion that police departments were becoming militarized. The legislation didn’t include a carve-out for nonlethal firearms such as 44 mm sponge-tipped rounds. Lawmakers unfamiliar with weapons or policing thought that a large caliber coincides with lethality.
“I say this with 100% certainty, having years of experience in patrol and SWAT, and having worked beside K-9 more times than I can count,” a Seattle police officer told me. “Had responding officers had 40 mm launchers to deploy on that suspect, Jedi would almost certainly be alive today. The suspect might also be alive today, receiving treatment.”
Other officers reached out to convey that same message.
After Democrats passed their legislation last year, law enforcement officials immediately raised red flags—the same ones that had been ignored by the Democrats who pushed through the legislation.
Lawmakers knew they erred and responded with ludicrous advice from the two state representatives who spearheaded the “reform” efforts.
Scrambling to Make Fixes
State Rep. Jesse Johnson, D-Federal Way, argued that his bills were being “misinterpreted.” Although news outlets that are antagonistic to police also made this claim, Johnson acknowledged that his legislation had “unintended consequences.”
Meanwhile, state Rep. Roger Goodman, D-Kirkland, advised police to ignore the ban on large-caliber weapons because “no one caught” that mistake. Goodman promised that “there are not going to be any sanctions” imposed on officers who use nonlethal weapons.
Good luck finding a cop who will trust that legally untenable position. Judges don’t look to interviews given by a lawmaker if pressed on a case.
Officers in law enforcement agencies that have decided to break the law and keep nonlethal tools are choosing not to use them. Take former King County Sheriff Mitzi Johanknecht, for one.
“In my mind, while I was sheriff, the decision that [the law] disqualified the carrying of less-lethal weapons for the Sheriff’s Office … I wasn’t going to take that chance for the members of my organization at that time,” Johanknecht, whose term ended in December, told me.
Now Democrats are hastily trying to fix some of their hastily passed legislation. It’s quite ironic.
They’re attempting to clarify when officers may use force so that they would not be barred from intervening in a crisis fueled by a mental health issue or addiction. They’re also changing the weapons ban so that it applies only to rifles.
But one fix is providing controversial.
Introduced by Goodman, the Democrat from Kirkland, HB 1726 would allow law enforcement officers to revert to the reasonable-suspicion standard when using force in a criminal investigation. It would allow officers to use force “to effect a temporary investigatory detention when there is reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is committing a violent offense, a sex offense, an assault, or domestic violence.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington opposes Goodman’s bill because it would expand the use of force
*************************************************
1,800 Sign Letter Urging Fidelity Charitable Not to Bow to Leftists’ Demands
More than 1,800 financial advisers, investment professionals, recipients of charitable donations, and others signed a letter sent last week urging Fidelity Charitable to protect donor privacy and philanthropic freedom, following a petition from left-wing groups targeting certain groups receiving donations.
The letter was in response to a petition from Unmasking Fidelity, a coalition of far-left advocacy groups. The activists are demanding that Fidelity Charitable disclose contributions over the past five years to a select group of 10 mainly conservative organizations, among them the Alliance Defending Freedom, Turning Point USA, and the Family Research Council.
“We are writing to you about our continuing concern that Fidelity Charitable’s Donor-Advised Funds (FC DAFs) contribute to tax-exempt non-profits that promote anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-Black or anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and policies that enable white supremacist and fascist violence,” the Unmasking Fidelity petition reads.
Fidelity Charitable, an arm of Fidelity Investments, is a 501(c)(3) organization that enables investors to donate to a wide range of tax-exempt organizations. It distributed $9.1 billion to charities in 2020, making it the nation’s top grant-maker, according to its website.
Fidelity Charitable describes itself as “cause-neutral” and says it “does not limit grant-making to specific charitable activities or fields of interest, to specific geographical or demographic criteria, or to specific organizations based on political, religious, or philosophical grounds.”
The response letter to Unmasking Fidelity was published by the Philadelphia Statement, a group that claims to combat cancel culture and promote free speech. Among the signatories was Kevin Roberts, president of The Heritage Foundation. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)
“Americans should be able to donate to charities and nonprofit organizations without the fear of being harassed by left-wing political activists,” Roberts wrote on Twitter.
“We write in response to Unmasking Fidelity’s list of demands that would jeopardize donor privacy and charitable choice,” the letter stated. “As a leader in philanthropy, Fidelity Charitable has an outsized opportunity (and responsibility) to resist demands to inject polarization, division, and enmity into charitable giving.”
The letter cited the recent Supreme Court case Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, in which the court’s 6-3 majority in June held that California’s donor-disclosure regulations violated First Amendment rights.
“Requiring that nonprofits disclose their donors not only exposes existing donors to the threat of doxing and harassment, but also discourages charitable giving and participation in the marketplace of ideas,” the Philadelphia Statement letter said. “Public advocacy is for everyone, not just those able to weather abuse. And donors have good reason to fear abuse. In our present age of cancel culture and social media mobs, too many are quick to ostracize, lambast, and threaten those with whom they disagree.”
Stephen Austin, a spokesman for Fidelity Investments, told The Daily Signal that Fidelity Charitable allows its more than quarter-of-a-million donors to bring their own values and perspectives to their giving.
“We conduct a robust review of each grant recommended by our donors, to ensure the organization is in good standing with the IRS and the funds are used for charitable purposes,” Austin said. “The IRS, not Fidelity Charitable, has oversight over an organization’s tax-exempt status.”
***************************************************
Liz Cheney Trounced: RINO Crushed in Latest WY Poll, Trump-Backed Challenger Get 10 Times More Votes
GOP Rep. Liz Cheney may be the mainstream media’s favorite Republican, particularly given her work on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Jan. 6 committee. In her native Wyoming, however, she’s a bit less popular.
According to the Casper Star-Tribune, a straw poll among state GOP activists taken Saturday by the Wyoming Republican State Central Committee saw Cheney lose big, with 59 votes for her top challenger in this year’s GOP primary, Harriet Hageman, compared to only six votes for the incumbent representative.
The movement to unseat the GOP’s biggest RINO began almost as soon as Cheney announced she would be voting to impeach then-President Donald Trump in January 2021 — and it’s something we’ve stayed on top of here at The Western Journal. We’ll keep bringing you updates to one of the most critical primary races in the country. You can help us bring America the truth by subscribing.
The straw poll was taken among 71 of the 74 individuals who make up the state central committee — three representatives from each Wyoming county and members of the state party. That means it can, in certain cases, be deceiving. In a 2020 straw poll, for instance, now-Sen. Cynthia Lumis lost to the GOP chairman of Sheridan County — then went on to beat him by a nearly 50-point margin in the actual primary, the Star-Tribune reported.
“I think it’s a good sign. It’s not an endorsement, but these are the county activists,” Hageman, a lawyer who has been endorsed by Trump, said after the straw poll, according to the Star-Tribune. “There will be lots of polls over the next eight months [before the August primary], and they will all show different things
The state party can’t officially endorse anyone, although Natrona County Committeeman Joe Mcginley told the Star-Tribune the vote “smells like an endorsement to me.”
“Whether that is the true intention of the state … or not, that’s what it appears to be.”
The state GOP had already censured Cheney and stripped her of party recognition, so the loss is no surprise. The nearly 10-to-1 margin might be, however.
Granted, Cheney and the state GOP have been at loggerheads of late. According to the Star-Tribune, Cheney used the anniversary of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot to note that there “are people in the state party apparatus of my home state who are quite radical. And some of those same people include people who were here on Jan. 6th, include a party chair who has toyed with the idea of secession.”
“If Ms. Cheney wants to continue to pick a fight with the majority of Wyoming Republicans and accuse the vast majority of being deplorables and radicals, then of course she can continue that foolish ploy,” the Wyoming GOP said in a statement in response, according to The Washington Times.
“She can also continue to engage in the politics of personal destruction with other Republicans – which is her specialty and only real qualification to sit on the farcical January 6th Commission — but that is unlikely to improve her position in the polls.”
Moreover, when it comes to the 196,179 registered Republicans who’ll be voting on Cheney’s fate this coming August, they don’t seem too thrilled with her, either.
Polling in the race has been scant thus far, but it doesn’t look good for Cheney. According to the Washington Examiner, Hageman was up by 20 points in a December poll, 38 percent to 18 percent. While that poll had a large number of undecideds, a poll taken in July found only 23 percent of potential GOP primary voters said they would vote for Cheney against 77 percent who wouldn’t, the Examiner reported.
And then there’s this number: 70.4. That’s Donald Trump’s percentage of the vote in Wyoming in the 2020 election, vs. Joe Biden’s 26.7 percent. Given that Wyoming only has one House seat and Trump enjoyed widespread support in the state — particularly among Republicans — this doesn’t augur well for Cheney’s chances in August.
Donald Trump Jr. was more than happy to call attention to the results of the straw poll and revel in them, it’s worth noting. The former president’s son tweeted Saturday that “Republican voters in Wyoming are sick and tired of being represented by a Pelosi puppet like Liz Cheney.
**********************************************
One More Time: It’s Not ‘Gun Violence’ It’s Gang Violence
Every time you hear a politician or a media personality mention “gun violence,” you should mentally translate that phrase to “gang violence.” Not only that, but ask yourself if that politician or media outlet has an agenda by mislabeling gang violence as something entirely different.
Obviously politicians who have enabled the “criminal justice reforms” that have directly resulted in the out-of-control increases in violent crime across America don’t want to talk about criminals and gangs. In fact, California’s Gov. Newsom even went so far as to actuall apologize for using the word “gang” when describing the organized groups of criminals who commit crimes (otherwise known as ‘gangs’).
Rather than correctly identify those who commit the majority of violent crimes in this country, countless failed and inept politicians like the Land of Lincoln’s Governor J.B. Pritzker and Murder City, USA’s Mayor Lori Lightfoot instead blame law-abiding gun owners.
They continue to promote more gun control laws and more government spending to redirect peoples’ attention away from the failures of their feckless policies and misplaced spending priorities.
As for the media, there’s a reason the great majority of Americans don’t trust them any more. Nine percent of Americans now have “a great deal” of trust in what they hear in the media. To put that into perspective, roughly four percent of the population think lizard people “control our societies by gaining political power.”
Too many of today’s media members are nothing more than Democrat party operatives with bylines who dutifully spout leftist talking points. They willfully ignore stories that are bad for their political allies and their agenda. Or they cover them…with a pillow. Until they stop moving.
At the same time, they’re quick to castigate law-abiding gun owners for the actions of actual criminals, terrorists, and lunatics who commit crimes with firearms.
The next time you see some politician or candidate talking about the problem of so-called “gun violence,” call them out on it. Pols usually squirm if you make them address the real issue that drives the majority violent crime in cities: gangs.
In centers of corruption like Chicago, they may aggressively deflect the discussion away from gangs because a lot of gangs in places like Chi-town have some very cozy relationships with local elected officials to provide votes in exchange for the politicians avoiding discussions about gang-related crimes.
As for the media, do the math. If they’re trumpeting talking points like “gun violence,” they’re probably gaslighting you about other topics too. Look deeper to see what else they’re lying to you about.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/one-more-time-its-not-gun-violence-its-gang-violence/
****************************************My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See