During the “Summer of Love” in 2021, the D.C. Council enacted a series of
police
reforms intended to appease the public’s unquenchable desire to hold all police officers accountable for the death of
George Floyd
.
The hastily enacted bill titled D.C. Act 24-76, the “Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Emergency Amendment Act of 2021,” was supposedly designed to enhance accountability and provide transparency in policing in the district. This bill contained a “sunset provision,“ which means it would expire unless enacted as a permanent law.
They have reconstituted this into the new Revised Criminal Code Act Of 2022. Democratic Mayor
Muriel Bowser
vetoed the current bill due to minor problems unrelated to what I intend to discuss here.
CANADA’S PUSH TO DECRIMINALIZE DRUGS WILL BE A DISASTER
The original bill contained a number of restrictions and requirements that hindered effective public safety and demonstrated the legislator’s customary knee-jerk reaction based on emotions, guesses, and assumptions, none of which were grounded in fact. The use of neck restraints is expressly prohibited in the first paragraph. At first glance, this action appears to be logical and promotes citizen safety. But was there really a need for this, or was it just another overt
woke
gesture for public consumption?
For two decades, the Metropolitan Police Department has been ahead of the curve in law enforcement, prohibiting the teaching and actual use of neck restraints as written policy. There was no evidence that neck restraints were used on the streets in patrol. Nonetheless, the subject became a political hot potato. And the council was happy to serve it up in its usual cop-bashing style.
But the label “neck restraint” is highly subjective, interpreted, and conflated to mean any contact with the neck, no matter how slight. In the real world of law enforcement, things can get very ugly at times. That is why we hire police officers to do the unpleasant work for us. The bad guys frequently refuse to comply and violently resist. Officers use the phrase “going hands-on” to describe their response, and this is exactly what it means — limiting a person’s movement and gaining physical control over the situation only when needed.
If a grab for the shoulder in a struggle touches the neck, and it is recorded on a body-worn camera, it is considered a “neck restraint.” An officer involved in such an incident would be mandated to report this interaction as possible misconduct under this D.C. bill.
This kind of use of force incident necessitates a mountain of paperwork, including officer statements, as well as multiple levels of review of the bodycam footage by MPD management. This bill is forwarded to the Citizens Review Board and MPD Internal Affairs for review. Meanwhile, the member is placed on “non-contact,” which means no public interaction, rendering the officer unable to assist his community in combating crime and sidelined until the investigation is completed. Investigations used to be subject to a 90-day deadline for completion, but this act has significantly extended it, leaving officers in a state of limbo.
Again, the overwhelming majority of these cases are the result of flailing limbs and combative subjects. Many aspects of an investigation are involved, including witness perspectives, anti-police bias, as well as body camera position, lighting, and angle of view. All of these factors must be considered. The decision can have far-reaching consequences, ranging from termination to criminal prosecution for assault. This is due to the fact that it falls outside of the purview of departmental policy.
So what is the commonsense answer for the officer in this dilemma? Simply put, they will respond by avoiding any situations that necessitate the use of physical force. That way, the attempted takedown that brushed the neck of the arrestee while you get your face punched in won’t result in getting you fired. Just be a punching bag for the miscreants, you might get lucky and go out for the medical injuries you sustain.
While the act states that “police brutality is abhorrent,“ apparently, the criminals have free rein to pummel, choke, spit, bite, and toss feces at officers. And yes, this happens a lot more often than you think. I’ve seen it and experienced it.
As you can see, it’s a lose-lose proposition for the street officer. Perhaps the use of neck restraints on police officers should be a crime — ah, but it already is. It’s codified as D.C. Code: § 22-405 Assault on a Police Officer, APO for short. Don’t bother to remember it because it is routinely charged by injured officers but rarely prosecuted by the D.C. Attorney General’s Office. This is also demoralizing to the entire force.
I always like to explain how police problems affect your personal safety. As a D.C. resident, this means less effective policing, which creates a void that is filled by criminality. I think we can all see this happening in the district today. Our officers are doing their best with the resources they have. Now, their priority is to avoid landmines such as the one described above.
Look, don’t take my argument out of context. Neck restraints are extremely dangerous, and police should avoid them. However, when we attach a hyperliteral meaning to the term, confusing a simple unintended contact with a resisting subject’s neck as police brutality, it is a swing of the pendulum far to the left of the center.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
David J. Terestre served as a sergeant with the Metropolitan Police Department and is a nationally published author on policing issues.
