Adventures in Overreacting

[from 12/30/09]

The recent rash of shootings of police officers has everyone understandably concerned. I want to stand behind that and express my deepest condolences to the families of the fallen officers.

On the other hand, there are the not so understandably concerned. For instance state Representative Troy Kelley of Tacoma, has introduced legislation that would deny bail to anyone who is "potentially dangerous" and who has ever been pardoned by any governor. "Potentially dangerous" includes, but is not limited to, people with cars, people with matches, large people, tiny people (groin bites!), smart people, stupid people, people with hands, and legislators. As for governors pardoning, do we really have anything to fear from people pardoned by any Texas governor? I'd say any Texan that's never been executed has got to be pretty decent folk.

I want to pause to commend Don Pierce, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs & Police Chiefs, who said that cuts to things like mental health treatment and community services could hinder any measures meant to protect the police. That's seeing the big picture.

But back to the little picture, where this column belongs. "What other proposals are on the table to protect the police from the criminally insane, Wes?" I'll tell you, anonymous imaginary reader!

At the heart of the new legislation is a bipartisan effort to expand hate-crime laws to include the police as a protected minority. As Rep. Pat Backus, R-Pissatchoo, one of the sponsors, put it, "For far too long we have looked the other way as a society as the police have been maligned and oppressed. Even acts of verbal abuse serve to incite violence."

The law would not only increase the penalties for physically injuring a police officer, but also make it a hate-crime to malign them as a class. It would continue to be legal to say "police officer Billy is a pig," but it would not be legal to say so of police officers in general, as in the sentence, "Police officers in general are pigs."

Police officers will no longer be required to wear identification or mandatory uniforms. "It's demeaning to us to have to wear a star on our chest, everywhere we go in public," said one Seattle officer who didn't want his name used, for fear of persecution. "It's like we were all Jews in Nazi Germany or something. I, for one, am not a Jew."

Other legislation addresses the flip side of that issue. "Police who have 'come-out' as police, who choose to wear their police-ness proudly, should not be discriminated against," said State Senator William Wohnte, D-Sunnyside. He has introduced a law that would provide fines and civil damages for specific acts of police discrimination, such as refusing to rent to an openly policing person, or refusing service at a restaurant or night club, or even (ironically!) refusing to sell illegal substances to a uniformed policeman. These measures would apply even if the police dress were non-standard. "It's not up to anyone but the policeman to say how he or she should dress. To suggest otherwise is to make the police an underclass."

Under study is a law that would address the criminal profiling of police officers. Unfortunately, no one's been able to figure out how to get that up and going; the concern is that the lack of profiling invites class retaliation. One suggestion is to have two police forces, the Blues and the Purples, say, and try to get them to profile each other, by telling them each horror stories about the others. Like, you'd tell the Purples that the Blues are always getting high on their drug confiscations and beating people unnecessarily. The Purples wouldn't care if anyone said that about themselves, even if it was true, but saying it about someone else might have an impact.

Still a long way off, but something advocates are hoping for, would be legislation providing police officers with decent permanent housing. I may have that confused.