Motion Z

Increase accountability and END unnecessary police use of force once and for all. The research is done. We’re here to spread it.

[themotionz]

Everything You Need to Know About Qualified Immunity: A Thread

Why Now?

On June 2, Libertarian Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan introduced the End Qualified Immunity Act, after the Supreme Court refused to take any cases regarding the provision’s legality.  Right now, Congress will be hearing arguments and deliberating whether or not to pass this law, and repeal qualified immunity.

What is Qualified Immunity?

Qualified immunity is a provision designed to protect cops from completely valid frivolous prosecution.  It is not a law, but rather a precedent introduced by the Supreme Court during the 1967 landmark case, Pierson v. Ray.

When a civilian attempts to press charges against a police officer for excessive use of force, an officer can ask for qualified immunity at a preliminary hearing.  This hearing will be well in advance of the trial and discovery process, to confirm that there is ample reason for an officer to be charged- it is NOT a trial. 

Once qualified immunity is requested by the defendant, a judge uses a two-step process to determine whether or not it should be granted.

The first question is whether or not the evidence shown could conceivably convince a jury that an officer used excessive force, in violation of the Fourth amendment, which guarantees protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, since 2009, appellate courts have been allowed to bypass this step, asking only the second question.

The second question is whether or not the officer is being charged with violating a right that is “clearly established,” meaning that a previous case, where an officer was found guilty, has occurred in an extremely similar situation to set precedent.  

If the answer to either of these questions is “no,” the officer is granted qualified immunity and charges are dropped.

This second question is where charges are dropped in most cases, because it allows officers whose circumstances were “unique”  to receive qualified immunity.  Since their situation is unique, it is rationalized that the officer was “not expected to know” that their actions violated a civilian’s constitutional rights- even in cases where, in hindsight, an officer seems to be clearly at fault, if their case is unique they can escape liability.

As a result of qualified immunity, more than half of cases analyzed by Reuters in 2019 were thrown out because the defendant was granted qualified immunity. 

It is one of the most difficult legal hurdles for a plaintiff to jump over to sue an officer, and just another example of cops’ unjust legal protections. 

[themotionz]

So, why does Qualified Immunity exist in the first place?

Proponents of qualified immunity argue that cops should not be “distracted” from doing their duty by the threat of lawsuits; they are worried that, if a cop is thinking more about how their actions might be perceived, they will be less effective because they might not take a risk and do what needs to be done. This is the same principle that is the reason why Supreme Court justices are appointed for life- so their decisions are not influenced by its potential reception by the public.

Proponents are also concerned about maintaining a police force large enough to be effective, for two reasons. First, they fear that police officers will spend too much time in court defending themselves against lawsuits, and not on the job. And second, they look to shield officers from financial burdens that may discourage newcomers to the force. However, this reasoning is flawed. Not only does it value the quantity of available cops over the quality of their performance - because if the police are not held accountable for misconduct, they are not truly serving the community - but the “financial burdens” that they fear would not even be a substantial deterrent to joining the force, as it is the city who is financially responsible. In fact, a UCLA Law study found that officers were only responsible for an average of 0.02% of payouts in 2014 lawsuits. While this statistic represents yet another barrier to accountability in itself, it should not be a valid argument used to justify qualified immunity.

[themotionz]

Why do we need to repeal Qualified Immunity?

The ambiguity inherent in the doctrine of qualified immunity allows for abuse of its power, so that in the majority of cases it is used, not to protect cops from frivolous lawsuits, but rather to protect them from any punishment for misconduct.  As Institute of Justice Anya Bidwell states, “[it] means that government officials can get away with violating your rights as long as they violated them in a way nobody thought of before.”  The “clearly established” clause of the qualified immunity doctrine contributes to its overuse, thereby neglecting to instill the same values in police officers as they supposedly uphold in their community.  In fact, this loophole reinforces the unaccountability that pervades our policing system, as officers see a pattern and realize that, if they commit a violation, there will likely be no consequences.  Thus, there is no incentive for cops NOT to compromise a citizen’s Fourth amendment rights, especially if it will help them to get an arrest.

If anything, police officers should be held to a higher standard, NOT a lesser one. 

And promoting this attitude of responsibility will only force officers to think before they act rashly, so we see less abuse of force cases in total.

Qualified immunity is used in civil suits- which are separate from a criminal trial.  That means that, regardless of whether an officer is charged or convicted in a criminal court, in order for a victim or victim’s family to receive a payment, they must sue a perpetrator separately in a civil court.  While this may seem at first glance like a simple annoyance of bureaucracy (in order to get “justice,” a plaintiff must be successful in two trials), its actual implications are much worse.  Even is a cop is convicted of murder in a criminal court, qualified immunity can still be used to deny the victim’s family any damages, because the method of murder is so unique.

Thus, qualified immunity prevents justice being served to both sides of an excessive use of force, and ought to be abolished.

[themotionz]

Everything You Need to Know About Qualified Immunity: A Thread

Why Now?

On June 2, Libertarian Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan introduced the End Qualified Immunity Act, after the Supreme Court refused to take any cases regarding the provision’s legality.  Right now, Congress will be hearing arguments and deliberating whether or not to pass this law, and repeal qualified immunity.

What is Qualified Immunity?

Qualified immunity is a provision designed to protect cops from completely valid frivolous prosecution.  It is not a law, but rather a precedent introduced by the Supreme Court during the 1967 landmark case, Pierson v. Ray.

When a civilian attempts to press charges against a police officer for excessive use of force, an officer can ask for qualified immunity at a preliminary hearing.  This hearing will be well in advance of the trial and discovery process, to confirm that there is ample reason for an officer to be charged- it is NOT a trial. 

Once qualified immunity is requested by the defendant, a judge uses a two-step process to determine whether or not it should be granted.

The first question is whether or not the evidence shown could conceivably convince a jury that an officer used excessive force, in violation of the Fourth amendment, which guarantees protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, since 2009, appellate courts have been allowed to bypass this step, asking only the second question.

The second question is whether or not the officer is being charged with violating a right that is “clearly established,” meaning that a previous case, where an officer was found guilty, has occurred in an extremely similar situation to set precedent.  

If the answer to either of these questions is “no,” the officer is granted qualified immunity and charges are dropped.

This second question is where charges are dropped in most cases, because it allows officers whose circumstances were “unique”  to receive qualified immunity.  Since their situation is unique, it is rationalized that the officer was “not expected to know” that their actions violated a civilian’s constitutional rights- even in cases where, in hindsight, an officer seems to be clearly at fault, if their case is unique they can escape liability.

As a result of qualified immunity, more than half of cases analyzed by Reuters in 2019 were thrown out because the defendant was granted qualified immunity. 

It is one of the most difficult legal hurdles for a plaintiff to jump over to sue an officer, and just another example of cops’ unjust legal protections. 

[themotionz]

So, why does Qualified Immunity exist in the first place?

Proponents of qualified immunity argue that cops should not be “distracted” from doing their duty by the threat of lawsuits; they are worried that, if a cop is thinking more about how their actions might be perceived, they will be less effective because they might not take a risk and do what needs to be done. This is the same principle that is the reason why Supreme Court justices are appointed for life- so their decisions are not influenced by its potential reception by the public.

Proponents are also concerned about maintaining a police force large enough to be effective, for two reasons. First, they fear that police officers will spend too much time in court defending themselves against lawsuits, and not on the job. And second, they look to shield officers from financial burdens that may discourage newcomers to the force. However, this reasoning is flawed. Not only does it value the quantity of available cops over the quality of their performance - because if the police are not held accountable for misconduct, they are not truly serving the community - but the “financial burdens” that they fear would not even be a substantial deterrent to joining the force, as it is the city who is financially responsible. In fact, a UCLA Law study found that officers were only responsible for an average of 0.02% of payouts in 2014 lawsuits. While this statistic represents yet another barrier to accountability in itself, it should not be a valid argument used to justify qualified immunity.

[themotionz]

Everything You Need to Know About Qualified Immunity: A Thread

Why Now?

On June 2, Libertarian Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan introduced the End Qualified Immunity Act, after the Supreme Court refused to take any cases regarding the provision’s legality.  Right now, Congress will be hearing arguments and deliberating whether or not to pass this law, and repeal qualified immunity.

What is Qualified Immunity?

Qualified immunity is a provision designed to protect cops from completely valid frivolous prosecution.  It is not a law, but rather a precedent introduced by the Supreme Court during the 1967 landmark case, Pierson v. Ray.

When a civilian attempts to press charges against a police officer for excessive use of force, an officer can ask for qualified immunity at a preliminary hearing.  This hearing will be well in advance of the trial and discovery process, to confirm that there is ample reason for an officer to be charged- it is NOT a trial. 

Once qualified immunity is requested by the defendant, a judge uses a two-step process to determine whether or not it should be granted.

The first question is whether or not the evidence shown could conceivably convince a jury that an officer used excessive force, in violation of the Fourth amendment, which guarantees protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, since 2009, appellate courts have been allowed to bypass this step, asking only the second question.

The second question is whether or not the officer is being charged with violating a right that is “clearly established,” meaning that a previous case, where an officer was found guilty, has occurred in an extremely similar situation to set precedent.  

If the answer to either of these questions is “no,” the officer is granted qualified immunity and charges are dropped.

This second question is where charges are dropped in most cases, because it allows officers whose circumstances were “unique”  to receive qualified immunity.  Since their situation is unique, it is rationalized that the officer was “not expected to know” that their actions violated a civilian’s constitutional rights- even in cases where, in hindsight, an officer seems to be clearly at fault, if their case is unique they can escape liability.

As a result of qualified immunity, more than half of cases analyzed by Reuters in 2019 were thrown out because the defendant was granted qualified immunity. 

It is one of the most difficult legal hurdles for a plaintiff to jump over to sue an officer, and just another example of cops’ unjust legal protections. 

[themotionz]

Since Congress is officially considering a bill to end qualified immunity, a provision that shields police officers from being held accountable in court for excessive uses of force, we will be doing an upcoming series of posts on everything that you need to know about qualified immunity. Stay tuned!

[themotionz]

Confessions of a Former Bastard Cop

I was a police officer for nearly ten years and I was a bastard. We all were.

tl,dr: On ACAB

“All Cops are Bastards” does not mean that, if you are a cop, you are  automatically and always have been a Bad Person. It does mean that, if you are a cop, you are perpetuating a culture that encourages other cops to abuse their power and prevent accountability.  It is inescapable, if you want to stay employed.  THIS is what makes you a bastard.

Considering that the supposed purpose of the police is to hold criminals accountable, the fact is, accountability is not a core value in most police departments.  Instead, a “code of silence” is enforced in the working environment in a police department that scares the overwhelming majority of cops into staying quiet when they witness misconduct- at least in the face of those who can investigate the officer at fault.

And this misconduct is not even the least bit taboo- officers are often praised for a high volume of arrests, regardless of whether or not the “criminals” arrested were actually a harm to the community.  They brag about what they have “gotten away with,” because they know that they will be protected by the silence of those who did not directly participate in misconduct.

--

If we EVER want a fair police system, we need to abolish this culture.  

Train cops to be accountable, and that their loyalty to each other should not be unconditional.  Get cops to speak up and hold their colleagues responsible for their past offenses, to show the rest that they cannot “get away” with anything.  Teach them that they are not above the law.

Teach them NOT to be bastards.

[themotionz]

Primed to Kill: The Solutions to Fear-Based Training (Part 2)

De-escalatory Training

Research has shown that de-escalatory training can be used to reduce police use of force without an increase in officer fatalities.. In de-escalatory training, emphasis is placed on so-called “tactical withdrawals” instead of “full frontal assault tactics”- a direct, full-force attack. This means that instead of promoting a direct, full-force attack on the “enemy,” officers momentarily back off and regroup when threatened with a weapon; these tactical withdrawals tend to get better results than direct force. 

When police departments such as that of Richmond, California focused more on de-escalation, they found officers significantly less likely to use both lethal and “less lethal” force, thereby potentially saving lives. 

“The Dallas Police Department, for example, saw an 18 percent drop in use of force the year after it instituted de-escalation training. In addition, since 2010, excessive force complaints there have dropped by 83 percent. Las Vegas, also, has reported a reduction in use of force and officer-involved shootings, which fell by more than half between 2012 and 2016, to just 10.”

Here, instead of impulsively trying to confront someone, officers are trained to take an indirect approach to protect themselves while they make contact with an individual at a safe distance. 

While guns and “less lethal” forms of force such as pepper spray and tasers can be useful in certain scenarios, there are multiple non-violent approaches that can be just as effective. By changing an officer's training, we can shift an officer’s “warrior” mindset to that of a guardian- one that recognizes the importance of preserving the lives of those in their community. 

In 2014, Michigan officers began to focus on tactics and communication rather than full frontal attacks.  In one case in Kalamazoo, when faced with an aggressive man carrying a knife, these techniques were used. After a 40 min standoff, the ordeal ended with a handshake instead of a funeral.  

Unfortunately, 34 states, including New York and Minnesota, do not require any de-escalatory training, and some states where it is required teach as little as one hour of de-escalatory training per year.  On average, to maintain a certification, de-escalatory training in states where it is required will be about 5% of mandatory yearly training- most of the program is focused on combat.  This is not enough to affect a change in an officer’s mindset.

Procedural Justice

Officers should also be required to undergo training in procedural justice. These programs emphasize the importance of voice, neutrality, respect, and trustworthiness in policing actions. Officers are encouraged to provide opportunities for civilians to state and explain their case before making a decision, apply consistent and rules-based decision-making, treat civilians with dignity and respect their status as community members.  Most importantly, they are taught how to specifically demonstrate willingness to act in the interests of the community and with responsiveness to civilians’ concerns.

Officers who undergo training in procedural justice are less likely to use force, and even less likely to make arrests.

Force-Limiting Policies 

There are additional policies that can be put into legislation to prevent excessive use of force, and to ensure that officers ultimately use the conflict-avoidant techniques outlined above.  

When all 8 of these policies are enacted, they can reduce police violence by 72%. 

Contrary to popular belief, officers in police departments that have more restrictive policies in place are actually less likely to be killed in the line of duty, less likely to be assaulted, and have similar likelihood of sustaining an injury during an assault. Policies that need to be enacted (from Campaign Zero) include: 

Requiring officers to de-escalate situations, when possible, before using force.

Requiring the use of a Force Continuum or Matrix that define/limit the types of force and/or weapons that can be used to respond to specific types of resistance.

Restricting chokeholds and strangleholds (including carotid restraints) to situations where deadly force is authorized or prohibiting them altogether.

Requiring officers to give a verbal warning, when possible, before using deadly force. 

Prohibiting officers from shooting at people in moving vehicles unless the person poses a deadly threat by means other than the vehicle (for example, shooting at people from the vehicle).

Requiring officers to exhaust all other reasonable alternatives before resorting to using deadly force.

Requiring officers to intervene to stop another officer from using excessive force.

Requiring comprehensive reporting that includes both uses of force and threats of force (for example, reporting instances where an officer threatens a civilian with a firearm).

We need to push for state-mandated legislation that allows for training de-escalatory and procedural justice training to improve relationships between cops and their community. .Call and email your local and state representatives and ask them to pass legislation requiring at least five hours of yearly conflict avoidance training, or to implement any of the force-limiting policies discussed above. In doing so, we will be saving lives. 

Click here to find out the training requirements in your state, and here to find out how to contact your elected officials. 

[themotionz]

Primed to Kill: The Problems With Fear-Based Training (Part 1)

“Are you prepared to kill somebody? If you cannot answer that question, you should not be carrying a gun.” 

 In a room full of police officers, this is not a rhetorical question or a matter of philosophy.  It is a very real possibility that needs to be considered.  And if you cannot reconcile with the answer, you are told to change your career.  Meet Dave Grossman, professor of “killology,” or the psychology of killing.  And for just $79, you, a budding police officer, can attend one of his courses- if one isn’t provided to you.

Grossman has been hired by local police departments for more than two decades to give cops courses in so-called “Warrior Training.”  In his sessions, he teaches cops to perceive every member of their community as a potential enemy, and to always be on guard- as the “first rule” of law enforcement states, “complacency kills.”  He tells them not to go out “looking for people to kill,” because the “gangbangers, mass murderers, and terrorists” will come to them.  Grossman paints the world as unbelievably dangerous, but this view is in fact what is most dangerous.  

While cops do face a very real risk on-duty, the world is not as dangerous as the dystopia painted by Grossman.  In actuality, the Department of Justice reported that

 in police officers’ 63 million annual encounters with the public, officers were only assaulted in .09% of interactions, most of which did not even cause any physical injuries.  Officers were killed in .00008% of civilian interactions. 

 Grossman is exaggerating the true risk posed to cops, thereby increasing an officers’ distrust of their community, with tragic consequences. 

Grossman’s courses are booked 200 days a year, and his clients include the Los Angeles Police Department, the California Highway Patrol, and hundreds of other jurisdictions. 

Even if a budding officer does not receive training from Grossman or another “Warrior” trainer, the same “us-versus-them” ideology is promoted in many police academies.  It begins on the first day, when officers are shown gripping images of other officers beaten and killed for the slightest hesitation.  They are jarred, and left with a strong conviction not to ever let themselves become the victim shown in a future class’ lesson.  The solution? Stay on guard.  Treat everyone as an enemy until they have proven you wrong.

But there is a fine line between training an officer to keep themselves safe and training them to do so at the expense of innocents.  Former police officer Seth Stoughton told NPR that,

on average, police academies give over 120 hours of combat and force training, compared to an average of 8 hours of training in de-escalation and conflict avoidance.  

Some departments don’t teach conflict avoidance at all, and this disparity means that whatever training is given is likely to be forgotten in lieu of force training.

When cops are taught to fear the community that they are supposed to serve, unconscious biases are revealed.  Although sadly unconscious bias is not unique to police officers, their training amplifies the consequences by causing an officer to react more strongly to the perceived threat of a black man than to that of a white man in otherwise identical situations.  In fact, the officer who shot and killed Philando Castile in 2016 took 56 hours of fear-based training prior to Castile’s death, in addition to taking one of Grossman’s courses two years prior.  And the restraint used by Derek Chauvin in the killing of George Floyd this past May was taught at Hennepin Technical College until 2016, when it was banned.  

Hennepin Technical College trains half of all Minnesota police officers.

The killing of Philando Castile prompted the St. Paul and Minneapolis police departments to put a ban on all fear-based training, but it is not enough.

 More counties must ban fear-based training, but they must also re-train their officers according to a program emphasizing de-escalatory training.

In our next post, we will discuss these policies in greater detail.

[themotionz]

Why We’re Here

Tamir Rice. Micheal Brown. Eric Garner. Breonna Taylor. George Floyd. Each of these people died at the hands of police officers for no good reason.  Despite social media coverage and protests following these deaths, police violence in America has not decreased.  Nothing has changed.

More than 1,100 people are killed due to police violence each year, making America one of the worst nations for police brutality in the western world. And the risk is 2.5 times more likely for an African-American man to be killed by the police than a white person.

We are seeing a needless amount of casualties- and it’s not just because of a few bad apples. The entire American policing system contributes to the problems that we see today. We need not just to protest, but to push for specific legislative changes.  In a series of posts, we hope to inform you about the reformable problems in the police system.  

Specifically, we will focus on:

The problems of fear-based training

The abuse of power by police unions

The Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights

The dangers of prosecutor relationships

And the injustice in qualified immunity

First, through an emphasis on fear-based training, officers are primed to see the community that they are supposed to serve as a threat- no wonder they find enemies where there are none.  

This is in contrast to other nations, such as the U.K, where most police officers aren’t even armed with guns. They are trained instead in conflict de-escalation to talk down an armed suspect to eliminate the threat, without the need for force.  The UK reported 55 fatal shootings between 1990 and 2014, which in over two decades is 20 times less than the amount of deaths in a single year in America, even though their population is only 6 times less than ours.

And because the investigation and trial process is biased towards officers, they are often not even held accountable for any misconduct.

In the past 15 years, only 35 officers were convicted of crimes related to on-duty fatal shootings. Only 3 of those officers were convicted of murder.  This means that an officer has less than .02% chance of being convicted of a crime after killing someone. 

Why?

We have the problem of the abuse of power of police unions, who have taken their role of protecting employees too far. For example, some make sure officers receive desk-duty or paid leave while being investigated, and even after being charged for a felony.   Provisions like these in police union contracts deliberately make it difficult to punish officers, and allow them to get off easy.  

Unions are also responsible for the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights, a set of rules that make it more difficult to investigate an officer and give them an unfair advantage.  For example, officers are entitled to a “cooling off” period of a couple of days before they can be interrogated.  During this period, officers have ample time and ability to access the plaintiffs’ testimonies before they even have to give their statement- an opportunity that a member of the general public does not have..

The corruption does not end with the investigation.

Local prosecutors rely on the police to produce witnesses and gather evidence to prosecute criminals, and develop a working relationship. When they are then expected to prosecute these same cops, it creates a conflict of interest. Because of this, prosecutors will often choose not to press charges, or be less harsh on the police officers who they are supposed to be holding accountable.

In April 2015, Norman Cooper, a 33 year-old African American man drove to his brother’s house while having a mental health episode.  Concerned for Norman’s health, his brother called 911.  He expected officers to be able to talk Norman down, or take him to the hospital.  Instead, officers Flaig and Sanchez quickly lost patience with Cooper’s delirium.  Within 5 minutes of arriving at the scene, the officers began shouting at Cooper.  After 11 minutes, Sanchez began to tase Cooper.  Over the next three minutes, Flaig and Sanchez  shocked Cooper 

“a total of nine times, shooting a 50,000-volt current through his body for nearly a minute total.”  

Cooper’s heart stopped beating 4 minutes later, leaving his wife without a husband and his 2 children without a father.

Cooper’s family sued the officers at fault, but Flaig and Sanchez were still given something called “qualified immunity.”  This immunity is granted when a grand jury determines that an officer should not have been expected to know that their actions were an abuse of power.  For immunity to be rejected, the accused crime must be “clearly established” by a previous case that took place in a similar situation.  This allows ‘unique’ cases where charges are dropped even though an officer is clearly at fault.  

Flaig and Sanchez are not the only ones-the fact that offenses must be “clearly established” is why 

in 2019 more than half of police use of force cases were thrown out,

 as the defendants were granted qualified immunity.

This lack of accountability only reinforces the violence used by cops- it increases distrust between the cop and their community and sends the message that they will get away with whatever force is used.

It is not enough to protest for individual officers to be held accountable- we need true reform, and we need your help.  Find your local representatives and senators, and use this information to push them to take action.  Help end unnecessary police violence one and for all.