slug.com slug.com

2 5

Emboldened by Democrat law, criminals won’t pull over for cops as WA crime surges

Law enforcement agencies in Washington state are reporting a high number of instances where criminal suspects refuse to pull over during investigations because of a Democrat anti-policing bill. Many times, the suspects are in stolen cars.

House Bill 1054, passed by Democrats in Olympia, “reimagined policing” in ways that emboldened criminals. Thanks to a near-total ban on police pursuits, suspects can ignore police without fear that they’ll be chased.

The only time police can pursue a vehicle is if they suspect impaired driving or have established probable cause, a much higher standard than reasonable suspicion, that the driver committed a violent crime, sex offense, or are an escaped felon.

[mynorthwest.com]

Garsco 8 June 1
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

That isn't "Democrat Law" - it is Democrats refusing to enforce the law.

Here is a scenario I hope doesn't happen but I also believe it will happen sooner or later:

Police see a car on the road that has been reported stolen. In comportment with their supervisors instructions the cops do NOT stop the car.
Later that evening there is a robbery and shooting at a convenience store leaving the clerk and one customer dead.

Families of both murder victims SUE the living Fk out of the City, County, The City Police Department and the cops who decided to NOT stop the car several hours before the robbery/murder Took place.

Someone - the tax payer ultimately - pays several million dollars to the surviving members of each murdered victims family.

So, given that scenario (which is quite plausible IMO) does anyone suppose the policy that allowed this crime to happen might be rescinded ?

The guy in the state senate who wrote the bill stopped it from being voted on to be rescinded already. In your scenario, I’d hope more sane politicians would demand the bill be at least voted on. But this is west coast politics in the 21st century.

@Garsco Right - and that "new wrinkle in the rules and policy books" hasn't even been voted on and therefore is NOT codified law. It just another example of politicians will nilly doing whatever they damn well like law be damned.
The unspoken reality of "new rules" like this rule regarding so called reasonable suspension, or the new "no cash bail rule" are intended to shield Black people - to prevent them being held accountable to the law itself.
At this stage Black criminals (which is to say more than 70 percent of all Black males between age 14 and 60) can steal, rob, rape, mug people on the streets, steal, hijack your car, drive without ID or license, lie to police, attack police...pretty much with impunity. So much for "Public Safety" printed on the side of most police cars around the country.

@iThink All this cowtowing to trouble-makers, thieves, rapists, looters, arsonists and murderers is really one of the scariest, most concerning developments of the last two years (post George Floyd) even though it began before then. This includes emptying the jails across blue states in 2020. America was blindsided with the rush of such actions at the onset of Covid. There does seem to be backlash now such as recalling the Soros-sponsored DA’s, which is at least encouraging.

@Garsco I could not agree more!

2

The "probable cause" rule is arbitrary and quite often abused. I would put "random stops" and sobriety check points up as an example of illegal search and seizure. I don't drink alcohol or use recreational drugs and have nothing to hide while driving. But I vehemently object to being stopped, interrogated while the cop blinds me with his flashlight and leans in through the window like a dog sniffing the air for a scent to follow. Randomly stopping, detaining people, asking for papers is absolutely unConstitutional and those things are done very frequently under the arbitrary "probably cause" rule which can mean anything the cops can dream up or lie by making up a false "probability cause".
Truthfully - honestly we all have to admit that "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" are exercised much more often on Black people than on White people. I don't have statistics to back up that claim. My assertion is based solely upon lifetime observation of Blacks being stopped while driving in a County or Neighborhood where it is easy to see that they don't LIVE there. One of the main reasons employers (Restaurant owners, managers for example) find it extremely difficult to keep employees for an appreciable length of time is that their dishwashers, bussers, cleanup crew, cooks even is that the people who need and want those jobs live "across" state and county lines. They generally drive old cars that are in "rough condition" AND they are Black and their tag shows that they "live across the proverbial tracks. This one of few valid reasons Blacks can't hold a job. Honestly. Now apply that to custodians / janitors in hospitals, business offices, school buildings - the list is long.
People who need that work and who want that work have a difficult time commuting from "across those tracks" to work without being stopped by the cops - and the return home after hours is the same or worse.

Police stopping and/or harassing citizens based solely on race is one of the few areas where the currently in-vogue term “disproportionately affected” is likely accurate and should be addressed.
That term, imo though, is abused in other areas where laws and rules are being proposed and passed to give free passes and advantages to individuals of some groups (blacks, mainly I suppose) who demonstrate personal behavior that is destructive, uncaring, or otherwise works against their own best interest: things that may range from jail release from “no bail” judges to not being held accountable for their own failures in academic settings. I’m talking about only individuals and not groups in general. Unfortunately the term “disproportionately affected” is being used to excuse behavior and extend privileges to a larger group while denying the same “privileges” to other groups.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:342291
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.