You have to acknowledge that fact, before you can hold the position that it's not fair to the citizens, and disagree.
Here's something interesting I've stumbled across. It seems that the Seattle Police force is upset that they will not be allowed to use excessive force as a normal part of their duties, and some officers are suing. Back in 2011, the Feds determined that the SPD was had excessive force issues. Since then, the city, in order to maintain control of the police department, negotiated new rules of engagement for their police. Force was redefined "as any physical coercion" of a suspect and that the police had to report all but the smallest of physical encounters. They are claiming that the new rules infringe on their constitutional right to make split second decisions in support of their duties. One one hand, this department has been proven to systematically abuse the consitutional rights of the citizens the police, to include death; and they want to be able to continuing doing so without fear of retribution. On their other hand, do they have valid concerns? Does the first rule of policing trump our rights not to be abused?
that have filed a pro se lawsuit that is neither supported nor funded by the police union.
The police department itself recognizes that it is under a court ordered consent decree finding that the police engaged in a pattern and practice of using excessive force and fully intends to comply with the decree. The lawsuit is heading for a quick dismissal so you need not worry about this one. The confusing language about the cops have a "constitutional right to make split second decisions" is simply a function of the complaint being drafted by non-attorneys.
While the pro se complaint has no legal validity, the officers do have a practical point that the new use of force rules go overboard and make effective policing pretty difficult. The officers are going to spend more time filling out paper work every time they use the slightest bit of force than they are going to spend in the actual encounter.
What we really have here is a bunch of attorneys writing up specific guidelines as how force used by used in police encounters. The problem of excessive force by this department is apparently real – but the remedy dreamed up by guys in suits and ties who have never pulled over a car on a dark road is pretty silly
I did say some in my post. Interesting that you believe that restriction of a police officers ability to use force is a problem, especially when it have been proven that this department consistently abused the citizens it was supposed to protect.
You have to acknowledge that fact, before you can hold the position that it's not fair to the citizens, and disagree.