8 ms·

In Wisconsin, a Decade-Old Police Shooting Leads to New Law

76 points by philip1209 12y ago

brohoolio 12y ago
This should be standard in every state. It's unfortunate that many laws have corporate origin and can get picked up by tons of states due to lobbying but ones like this that make a difference don't get that same sort of attention or promotion.
- _delirium 12y ago
  Bit of an aside, but the "horizontal" propagation of laws from state to state has some structural reasons that it favors certain kinds of laws more than others. Mostly the large role of the Uniform Law Commission (ULC), which draws up model laws and organizes campaigns for them to be passed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Law_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Law_Commission. It has no formal power, but it has a well-established set of supporters, working relationships with legislators, staff to do the actual drafting work who are familiar with the law of all 50 states, etc. The ULC in principle is interested in a lot of areas of harmonization of what they consider well-written laws. But its biggest political support is from multi-state companies that want a uniform commercial operating environment, so it has been mostly successful there, via the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a set of model regulations for commerce. Businesses can get some of what they want in this respect more directly, by lobbying the federal government to directly pass uniform national laws, enforced via federal preemption. But it's possible to achieve a more comprehensive degree of uniformity, avoiding constitutional issues with federalism, by going the UCC route. It formally preserves federalism (each state voluntarily enacts the UCC), while still producing the desired outcome due to the heavy pressure states feel to conform to the UCC, lest they be perceived as "bad for business" (every state has passed it, though in a few cases with modifications). The other area they've been somewhat successful in is family law, due to widespread concern over problems that arise in cross-state divorce and child-custody proceedings if the states have very different family-law regimes. So many states are willing, absent some strong lobby in another direction, to sign on to a "national best practice" in that area.
tehwalrus 12y ago
A Federal law along these lines would do so much more, but this is an excellent first step. It is also an example of how a realistic solution can be built, with the consent of officers, for the crisis of police accountability currently happening in the US.
gambiting 12y ago
And in UK police officers don't even carry guns anymore. It's impossible to shoot anyone by accident(or deliberately) if you don't have a gun in the first place. If there is a situation which requires using guns, backup force with them can arrive within minutes. There is simply no need for a policeman who does routine patrols to be carrying a lethal weapon on him. Is there a statistic clearly showing that more deaths are prevented than caused by police officers having a weapon on them at all times in the US?
- viraptor 12y ago
  Airport police/security in the UK still does carry guns. And not small pistols at the belt. Big guns carried in both hands - it looks almost as if they really wanted them on display. You can't miss them due to the contrast of what normal police on the street looks like.
  - tehwalrus 12y ago
    The armed police at airports, and those at Parliament, are the only armed UK police I've ever seen. (I'm a UK person, lived here all my life).
    - joncrocks 12y ago
      They have them sometimes in central London, I suspect when there are specific events/threat levels are higher. I've seen them a few times when I've been walking round London, always a bit shocked when I stumble across them.
    - Otik 12y ago
      I was once in a car that was pulled over at a speed trap in northern England, and noticed that they had guns on their hips. When asked, the officer said that they manned low-priority things like speed traps the majority of the time that they were on duty so they could rapidly respond to any firearms-related incidents. With how few of those we typically have, it sounds like an incredibly boring job.
    - 12y ago
pm90 12y ago
I really like the attitude of the father of the kid who was shot. To not vent his anger, but use it to come to a constructive solution that will hopefully reduce the chances of such unnecessary deaths in the future... that is amazing. And a great use of settlement money as well.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  What solution? Do we have any evidence that when another police agency investigates such things that the conclusions are different? It already happens, some PD will have an incident that is investigated by the Sheriff or state police. And yet, in those cases, we see the same thing... everyone's cleared of wrong-doing, and maybe some mandated "use of force" training. It's bizarre and depressing.
- busterarm 12y ago
  I'm surprised there hasn't been more attention to this case until now. I'd have been pretty mad. His son was scheduled to testify the next day in a case involving a previous incident with the very same officer who shot him in the head. That alone should require an independent investigation. Bell was shot by the officer at close range after he was already tased, pinned to a vehicle and restrained by two other officers.
rbcgerard 12y ago
The problem with many of these "structural reforms" is that they are very susceptible to capture by police unions. Take for example civilian complaint review boards - often appointed by the mayor. Except the mayor often relies on police unions for votes - and they care who is on that review board - where as the typical person (I'm including myself) doesn't even know if there is a review board, let alone who is on it. Definitely think it's a step in the right direction - but think more time needs to be spent ensuring an "adversarial" relationship that is not prone to capture.
innguest 12y ago
Putting billboards up and working to pass a new law is a much more sensible course of action than rioting. I wonder what the difference here is.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  You are being racist.
  - innguest 12y ago
    If the shoe fits... I'm simply being curious.
    - innguest 12y ago
      Why am I being downvoted for a racist person projecting their personality onto my remark?
  - ArtDev 12y ago
    Louis CK - Being White: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CmzT4OV-w0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CmzT4OV-w0
- mikeash 12y ago
  I can think of two obvious differences off the top of my head: 1) The family sued and won almost $2 million, which is what allowed them to pay for the ad campaign. 2) White people still generally have a friendly relationship with police. There is no systematic discrimination, brutality, and killing the way there is with (at least some) minorities. In short, this difference is precisely what you would expect to see when a member of a powerful group is wronged versus when a member of a powerless group is wronged.
larssorenson 12y ago
This strikes me as something that should have been a law since day one. We have checks and balances (and we can argue their effectiveness some other time) between the different branches of government, yet when it comes to the police departments (under the executive branch) there is no check or balance when the police departments screw up like when someone in the federal government screws up. tl;dr: We need to have this law in every state.

76 points by philip1209 12y ago

This should be standard in every state. It's unfortunate that many laws have corporate origin and can get picked up by tons of states due to lobbying but ones like this that make a difference don't get that same sort of attention or promotion.

_delirium 12y ago
Bit of an aside, but the "horizontal" propagation of laws from state to state has some structural reasons that it favors certain kinds of laws more than others. Mostly the large role of the Uniform Law Commission (ULC), which draws up model laws and organizes campaigns for them to be passed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Law_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Law_Commission. It has no formal power, but it has a well-established set of supporters, working relationships with legislators, staff to do the actual drafting work who are familiar with the law of all 50 states, etc. The ULC in principle is interested in a lot of areas of harmonization of what they consider well-written laws. But its biggest political support is from multi-state companies that want a uniform commercial operating environment, so it has been mostly successful there, via the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a set of model regulations for commerce. Businesses can get some of what they want in this respect more directly, by lobbying the federal government to directly pass uniform national laws, enforced via federal preemption. But it's possible to achieve a more comprehensive degree of uniformity, avoiding constitutional issues with federalism, by going the UCC route. It formally preserves federalism (each state voluntarily enacts the UCC), while still producing the desired outcome due to the heavy pressure states feel to conform to the UCC, lest they be perceived as "bad for business" (every state has passed it, though in a few cases with modifications). The other area they've been somewhat successful in is family law, due to widespread concern over problems that arise in cross-state divorce and child-custody proceedings if the states have very different family-law regimes. So many states are willing, absent some strong lobby in another direction, to sign on to a "national best practice" in that area.

tehwalrus 12y ago

A Federal law along these lines would do so much more, but this is an excellent first step. It is also an example of how a realistic solution can be built, with the consent of officers, for the crisis of police accountability currently happening in the US.

gambiting 12y ago

And in UK police officers don't even carry guns anymore. It's impossible to shoot anyone by accident(or deliberately) if you don't have a gun in the first place. If there is a situation which requires using guns, backup force with them can arrive within minutes. There is simply no need for a policeman who does routine patrols to be carrying a lethal weapon on him. Is there a statistic clearly showing that more deaths are prevented than caused by police officers having a weapon on them at all times in the US?

viraptor 12y ago
Airport police/security in the UK still does carry guns. And not small pistols at the belt. Big guns carried in both hands - it looks almost as if they really wanted them on display. You can't miss them due to the contrast of what normal police on the street looks like.
- tehwalrus 12y ago
  The armed police at airports, and those at Parliament, are the only armed UK police I've ever seen. (I'm a UK person, lived here all my life).
  - joncrocks 12y ago
    They have them sometimes in central London, I suspect when there are specific events/threat levels are higher. I've seen them a few times when I've been walking round London, always a bit shocked when I stumble across them.
  - Otik 12y ago
    I was once in a car that was pulled over at a speed trap in northern England, and noticed that they had guns on their hips. When asked, the officer said that they manned low-priority things like speed traps the majority of the time that they were on duty so they could rapidly respond to any firearms-related incidents. With how few of those we typically have, it sounds like an incredibly boring job.
  - 12y ago

pm90 12y ago

I really like the attitude of the father of the kid who was shot. To not vent his anger, but use it to come to a constructive solution that will hopefully reduce the chances of such unnecessary deaths in the future... that is amazing. And a great use of settlement money as well.

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
What solution? Do we have any evidence that when another police agency investigates such things that the conclusions are different? It already happens, some PD will have an incident that is investigated by the Sheriff or state police. And yet, in those cases, we see the same thing... everyone's cleared of wrong-doing, and maybe some mandated "use of force" training. It's bizarre and depressing.
busterarm 12y ago
I'm surprised there hasn't been more attention to this case until now. I'd have been pretty mad. His son was scheduled to testify the next day in a case involving a previous incident with the very same officer who shot him in the head. That alone should require an independent investigation. Bell was shot by the officer at close range after he was already tased, pinned to a vehicle and restrained by two other officers.

rbcgerard 12y ago

The problem with many of these "structural reforms" is that they are very susceptible to capture by police unions. Take for example civilian complaint review boards - often appointed by the mayor. Except the mayor often relies on police unions for votes - and they care who is on that review board - where as the typical person (I'm including myself) doesn't even know if there is a review board, let alone who is on it. Definitely think it's a step in the right direction - but think more time needs to be spent ensuring an "adversarial" relationship that is not prone to capture.

innguest 12y ago

Putting billboards up and working to pass a new law is a much more sensible course of action than rioting. I wonder what the difference here is.

happyscrappy 12y ago
You are being racist.
- innguest 12y ago
  If the shoe fits... I'm simply being curious.
  - innguest 12y ago
    Why am I being downvoted for a racist person projecting their personality onto my remark?
- ArtDev 12y ago
  Louis CK - Being White: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CmzT4OV-w0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CmzT4OV-w0
mikeash 12y ago
I can think of two obvious differences off the top of my head: 1) The family sued and won almost $2 million, which is what allowed them to pay for the ad campaign. 2) White people still generally have a friendly relationship with police. There is no systematic discrimination, brutality, and killing the way there is with (at least some) minorities. In short, this difference is precisely what you would expect to see when a member of a powerful group is wronged versus when a member of a powerless group is wronged.

larssorenson 12y ago

This strikes me as something that should have been a law since day one. We have checks and balances (and we can argue their effectiveness some other time) between the different branches of government, yet when it comes to the police departments (under the executive branch) there is no check or balance when the police departments screw up like when someone in the federal government screws up. tl;dr: We need to have this law in every state.