>>> GOOD MORNING.
THE PUBLIC SAFETY MEETING WILL
COME TO ORDER.
IT'S 9:34.
JANUARY 14, 2025.
I'M ROBERT KETTLE, CHAIR OF
THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL
ROLE?
[ ROLL CALLED ]
>> THERE ARE FIVE MEMBERS
PRESENT.
>> THANK YOU.
IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION,
THE AGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED.
HEARING AND SEEING NO
OBJECTION, THE AGENDA IS
ADOPTED.
GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
APPRECIATE EVERYBODY BEING
BACK
FOR OUR FIRST COMMITTEE MEETING
OF 2025.
FOR THE CHAIR'S REPORT, I
JUST WANTED TO START OFF WITH
A COUPLE REMARKS ON A COUPLE
OF ISSUES OR TOPICS, AND THEN
TO THE TOPIC OF THE DAY.
TODAY, I WANTED TO START
WITH TRANSIT SECURITY.
WHAT I WANTED TO DO WAS ASK FOR
A MOMENT OF SILENCE FOR KING
COUNTY METRO DRIVER SEAN YIN.
OUR CONDOLENCES TO THE
FAMILY, TO THE TRANSIT UNION
ATU 587
LED BY PRESIDENT GREG WOODFILL,
PLUS COMMUNITY MEMBERS PART OF
HIS
RIDERSHIP AND THE REGION.
WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE
TO ASK FOR A MOMENT OF SILENCE.
THANK YOU.
I WANTED TO NOTE THAT
T SECURITY REMAIN CENTER TO
OUR EFFORTS BOTH IN THE
GENERAL SENSE AND WHAT WE ARE
LOOKING
TO DO FOR OUR COMMUNITIES, OUR
NEIGHBORHOODS, THE
ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THE
TRANSIT SYSTEM
WORKS, BUT ALSO SPECIFICALLY
TO TRANSIT SECURITY ITSELF.
SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE SEEN ON
OUR CALLS FOR SUPPORT WORKING
WITH KING COUNTY METRO, KING
COUNTY SHERIFF LAST SUMMER
AND ALSO IN OUR BUDGET FROM
LAST
FALL.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK
TRANSIT
SECURITY DURING THE COURSE OF
'25 WITH THE COMMITTEE
MEETINGS
BUT ALSO REACHING OUT TO THE
STAKEHOLDERS, THOSE THAT
ARE IN THIS WORLD TO ASSURE
THEM THAT
WE WILL DO
WHAT WE CAN WORKING IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH KING COUNTY
AND SEPARATELY WITH
OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AS
WELL
POTENTIALLY IN ORDER TO CREATE
A BETTER, SAFER ENVIRONMENT
FOR EVERYONE TO INCLUDE OUR
BUS DRIVERS IN KING COUNTY
METRO.
SEPARATELY, TOO, AS YOU
KNOW, LOS ANGELES IS GOING
THROUGH A
TERRIBLE
DISASTROUS, CATASTROPHIC FIRE.
OUR THOUGHTS ARE WITH OUR C
OUNT
COUNTER
COUNTERPARTS IN L.A.
COUNTY THERE WILL BE LESSONS TO
LEARN.
SOME MAY NOT APPLY
TO US, BUT
SOME WILL. WE SHOULD NOT HAVE A
FALSE SENSE
OF SECURITY BECAUSE IN THE
BIG DARK IT RAINS OFTEN AND THE
LIKE.
I REMIND EVERYONE THAT WAS
IT LAST YEAR OR THE YEAR BEFORE
WE HAD A WILDFIRE IN THE
OLYMPIC
NATIONAL RAINFOREST.
WITH CLIMATE CHANGE, WE'RE
GOING TO BE INCREASINGLY AT
RISK.
SO IT'S EVEN MORE IMPORTANT
TO TAKE THESE LESSONS LEARNED
NOW SO WE CAN TAKE ACTIONS NOW.
SO CLEARLY, PUBLIC SAFETY
AND SPECIFICALLY
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS NEEDS TO
BE
CENTER OF OUR PLANNING EFFORTS.
THE IDEA OF AN OUNCE
OF PREVENTION IS WORTH A POUND
OF
CURE TOMORROW, AND
IT NEEDS TO BE PART OF OUR
PLANNING TO LOOK
AT WHAT
WE'RE DOING IN THE COUNCIL
WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE ON
A POSITIVE STEP FORWARD
IN TERMS OF PLANNING TO BE
POTENTIALLY READY FOR SOMETHING
SIMILAR.
IT ALSO HIGHLIGHTS, BY THE
WAY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE
REPORTS COMING OUT OF L.A.
COUNTY, WE HAVE T█O DO JOB ONE,
TOO,
IN TERMS OF TAKING CARE OF
THE HEALTH OF OUR
SYSTEM, PARTICULARLY IN TERMS
OF IN
THIS CASE, FIRE.
WE NEED TO ENSURE
THE MAINTENANCE IS DONE.
I'VE BEEN TO THE FIRE GARAGE.
I'M PROBABLY THE ONLY
COUNCILMEMBER TO HAVE GONE.
BUT THE ISSUES THAT RELATE
TO THE FIRE GARAGE, THE
MAINTENANCE OF THESE LADDER
TRUCKS, THESE
FIRE ENGINES AND EQUIPMENT
ARE SO HUGE.
THERE'S TRAINING.
THEN ULTIMATELY, IT
COMES DOWN TO THE PEOPLE.
WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF THE
UP TEMPO IMPACTING OUR
FIREFIGHTERS, OUR PARAMEDICS
ACROSS THE BOARD.
THESE ARE THINGS WE NEED
TO THINK ABOUT NOW AND LOOK TO
MAKE SOME LONG- TERM
PLANNING DECISIONS SO THAT WE
CAN
PUT THAT ON A STRONGER FOOTING
SO THAT IF WE DO GET SOMETHING
LIKE
WHAT'S HAPPENING TO L.A. NOW,
THAT WE ARE IN A POSITION
TO MITIGATE IT AND RESPOND
QUICKER.
AGAIN, OUR THOUGHTS ARE WITH
OUR
COUNTERPARTS IN L.A. COUNTY
AND PROBABLY VENTURA COUNTY
SOME OF THE OTHER AREAS AND THE
COMMUNITIES WITHIN.
TODAY, WE ARE LOOKING AT
LESS LETHAL WEAPONS.
THIS IS SOMETHING ONGOING
AS PART OF THE CONSENT
DECREE PROCESS FOR A WHILE.
THERE'S BEEN COURT ACTIONS.
THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSIONS
LIKE IN THE FALL, THE MAYOR HAD
HIS LETTER ON THIS TOPIC IN
OCTOBER.
WE HAD OUR FIRST MEETING IN
DECEMBER ON LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
NOTE SOME MAIN THEMES.
ONE IS THE RIGHTS TO FREE
SPEECH
AND ASSEMBLY NEED TO BE
PROTECTED.
NON- VIOLENT PROTESTS.
ONE OF THE THINGS NOTED IS THAT
WE HAVE ALL TAKEN OATHS
TO DEFEND THOSE RIGHTS HERE IN
THE
CITY, THE STATE AND THE
FEDERAL.
I'VE DONE IT MANY
TIMES PREVIOUSLY
DURING THE COURSE OF MY SERVICE
IN THE MILITARY.
SO THAT'S THE FRAME THAT WE
SHOULD START WITH, IS THAT THE
RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH
AND ASSEMBLY NEED TO BE
PROTECTED.
ANOTHER THING THAT I THINK
IN TERMS OF FRAMING
AND UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE
CANNOT LEGISLATE TO THE PERFECT
SCENARIO.
WE WILL NOT ALWAYS GET
THE NOTICE OF A PROTEST TO
INCLUDE THOSE THAT MAY BECOME
VIOLENT, MAYBE A COUNTERPROTEST
AS
PART OF THAT.
WE MAY NOT ALWAYS GET
THAT NOTICE OF THAT
COUNTERPROTEST.
SCENARIOS CAN BE BORN OUT
OF ACROSS THE POLITICAL
SPECTRUM. SOMETIMES WE THINK
FROM ONE
PERSPECTIVE.
WE NEED TO BE ON THE READY
THAT THESE PROTESTS CAN COME
FROM
VARIOUS DIRECTIONS AND
PERSPECTIVES.
WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT --
WE NEED TO AVOID -- WE NEED TO
BE READY TO RESPOND
IN THE CASE OF VIOLENCE.
HOW BEST TO RESPOND,
PRACTICALLY MEANING
UNDERSTANDING
THE STRUCTURES THAT ARE SET
AND CAPABLE TO RESPOND.
THIS IS AN AREA WHERE I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT TO
UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S
SYSTEMS
OPERATIONALLY, LIKE WITH
SPD, WITH THE CHIEF OF POLICE
WITH
A DEPUTY WHO HAS THE
EXPERIENCE AND BACKGROUND, OR
THE
ASSISTANT CHIEF WHO HAS THE
MANY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR
BEING INCIDENT
COMMANDER IN ADDITION TO HAVING
CAPTAINS IN
THE PRECINCTS AND LIEUTENANTS
THROUGHOUT THE 24 HOURS OF EACH
DAY. I HIGHLIGHT THIS BECAUSE I
HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
MAYOR AND OTHERS.
I'M REMINDED THAT SOMETIMES
THE MAYOR IS NOT HERE.
LAST YEAR,
THE MAYOR WAS IN KOREA.
WHAT IS THE SYSTEMS THAT ARE
THERE FROM THE MAYOR'S SIDE
THAT MAY NOT EXIST WITH THE
CHIEF OF
POLICE?
AS I NOTE, IF THE MAYOR IS
IN KOREA NOT ABLE TO
BE REACHED, ARE WE READY FOR
THAT?
ALSO, LEGISLATION AND POLICIES
ARE IMPORTANT BUT CRUCIAL IS
TRAINING. TRAINING AND
TRAINING.
FROM COMMAND AND CONTROL TO
THE EMPLOYMENT OF LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS, TRAINING AND
ENSURING THAT THAT TRAINING IS
OCCURRING IS KEY.
THAT'S ANOTHER AREA OF FOCUS
THAT NEEDS TO BE PART -- AS
WE LOOK AT THIS TOPIC TO ENSURE
THE
PROPER USE OF LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS.
IN TERMS OF THOSE EMPLOYING IT
BUT ALSO COMMAND AND CONTROL.
FINALLY, THIS GOES TO
THE TRAINING AND POLICIES
POINTS, I
JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT OUR
ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS ARE AN
IMPORTANT PIECE OF OUR PUBLIC
SAFETY TEAM AND THAT WE NEED
TO SET THEM UP FOR SUCCESS
RATHER THAN FAILURE.
THE OIG, THE OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR
GENERAL, WHICH IS MENTIONED
IN THE LEGISLATION, OPA, OFFICE
OF POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY, WHO
HAS WRITTEN THE LETTER RELATED
TO THIS LEGISLATION, AND ALSO
AND
IMPORTANTLY, THE POLICE
COMMISSION WHO IS
REPRESENTED TODAY WHO ALSO BOTH
SENT
A LETTER AND SOME PROPOSED
EDITS
OF THE LEGISLATION, AND I
BRING UP CPC BECAUSE IT HAS A
KEY
ROLE IN TERMS OF ENGAGING WITH
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ON
POLICIES.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANTIMPORTANT
PIECE.
I BRING THIS UP FOR PEOPLE
TO THINK ABOUT AS WE LISTEN TO
THE
AMENDMENTS, AS WE LISTEN
TO DIFFERENT POINTS THAT ARE
MADE,
THAT THE COUNCIL CAN PUSH --
THE COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL CAN
PUSH INTO THE POLICY PIECE, BUT
MY FEAR IS THAT WE CROWD OUT
THAT
SPACE FOR THE CPC.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
GIVE THAT SPACE TO WORK POLICY
ISSUES WITH THE CPC TO BE THAT
VOICE
AND TO BE THAT KIND OF GIVE AND
TAKE FROM THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT, SO THEY HEAR FROM
THE
COMMUNITY, IN ADDITION TO WHAT
WE DO
AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
COMMUNITY.
I SAY THAT BECAUSE I THINK
IT'S
IMPORTANT.
THIS COMES UP IN OTHER AREAS,
TOO, IN TERMS OF SUPPORTING
THE ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS.
YOU WILL HEAR SOON ENOUGH
ABOUT OTHER LEGISLATION THAT
HELP
THE OFFICE OF POLICE
ACCOUNTABILITY.
SOMETIMES BY ACCIDENT WE
KIND OF TIED THEIR HANDS AND
CREATED
A SITUATION WHERE THEY CAN'T
PERFORM TO THE BEST OF THEIR
ABILITY. THIS KIND OF GOES TO
THE
IDEA THAT WE NEED TO BE SETTING
UP OUR ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS
FOR
SUCCESS RATHER THAN FAILURE.
SO WITH THAT, I JUST WANTED
TO MAKE THOSE NOTES AND SAY
THOSE
PIECES.
IN TERMS OF FRAMING, TO
HAVE THAT IN THE BACK OF YOUR
MIND
AS WE LISTEN TO THE COMMENTS
FROM THOSE WHO ARE HERE TO
SPEAK
AND ALSO FROM MY
COLLEAGUES AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
THE NEXT THING THAT -- MOVING
ON, NEXT THING IS THAT WE WILL
NOW OPEN THE HYBRID
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
PUBLIC COMMENT SHOULD RELATE TO
ITEMS ON TODAY'S AGENDA,
WITHIN
THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE.
ONE THING I WANTED TO BE --
CLERK, CONFIRM, HOW MANY
DO WE HAVE TODAY
IN.
>> CURRENTLY, WE HAVE 13
IN- PERSON SPEAKERS AND 16
REMOTE
SPEAKERS.
>> EACH SPEAKER WILL HAVE ONE
MINUTE.
WE WILL
START WITH THE IN-PERSON
SPEAKERS.
ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED
TO HIGHLIGHT BY THE WAY AND
SAY THIS AS THE CHAIR OF
THE COMMITTEE -- THIS HAS COME
UP
PREVIOUSLY.
THIS IS A PUBLIC
SAFETY
COMMITTEE MEETING, NOT A PUBLIC
HEARING.
NORMALLY, THIS 20
S -- WE
WILL GO BEYOND THAT. I WANT TO
SAY WE CANNOT GO FOR
AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF
TIME BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE
THIS
ROOM FOR THE ENTIRE DAY.
WE HAVE A COUNCIL MEETING THIS
AFTERNOON.
THERE'S SOME PEOPLE --
PEOPLE LIKE TO EAT LUNCH AND
THE LIKE. %
WE WILL LOOK TO ENDEAVOR TO
GET EVERYBODY THE OPPORTUNITY
TO
SPEAK, WHICH I THINK TODAY WE
WILL.
WITH THAT, CLERK.
>> THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD WILL BE MODERATED IN
LOWING MANNER.
IT'S UP TO 60 MINUTES.
SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN
THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY
REGISTERED.
SPEAKERS WILL HEAR A
CHIME WHEN TEN SECONDS ARE LEFT
OF THEIR
TIME.
SPEAKERS MIC'S WILL BE MUTED
IF THEY DO NOT END THE
COMMENTS WITHIN THE ALLOTTED
TIME
TO ALLOW US TO CALL ON THE NEXT
SPEAKER.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS
NOW OPEN AND WILL BEGIN WITH
THE FIRST SPEAKER ON THE LIST.
THE FIRST IN- PERSON SPEAKER
IS GABRIEL JONES TO BE FOLLOWED
BY
JONATHAN -- I'M NOT SURE OF
THE LAST NAME.
IT STARTS WITH A T.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THE READING.
GABRIEL, GO AHEAD.
>> GOOD MORNING.
>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
MY NAME IS GABRIEL JONES.
I'M TALKING ABOUT
LESS LETHAL
OPTION. LET'S LOOK AT 2020.
THERE WAS A $10
MILLION SETTLEMENT FOR POLICE
BRUTALITY DURING THE PROTESTS.
$30 MILLION TO FIGHT IT.
THAT'S $40 MILLION TOTAL
OUT OF THE BUDGET.
FOR $40 MILLION, WE COULD OPEN
133 UNIT PROPERTY FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR TEAR UP
20 BARRIERS.
NO POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY LET
POLICE LIE AND SAY THERE WERE
ARMED PROUD BOYS WHEN THERE
WERE.
IT LET THEM ARREST JOURNALISTS
FOR KEEPING PEOPLE SAFE AND
INFORMED. NO POLICE
ACCOUNTABILITY LED TO
PEOPLE HAVING LIFE LONG
INJURIES AND
DYING. THERE ARE MEDICS WHO GO
THROUGH
TREATMENTS.
THERE ARE INJURIES THAT
AREN'T RIGHT THAT I SAW
FIRSTHAND AS
A MEDIC AND WAYS I'M NOT
CHANGED FROM HAVING
TO TRY TO KEEP PEOPLE SAFE
EVERY DAY OUT THERE. INSTEAD TH
ONCE AGAIN TO INSTEAD OF SEEING
WHAT IS WRONG AND MAKING
CHANGES,
WE GIVE COPS MORE MONEY AS
CRIMES DON'T GO DOWN AND
THINGS DON'T
CHANGE.
I PROMISE, WHAT YOU WILL SEE
IF YOU UNBAN LESS LETHAL
OPTIONS
IS MORE MONEY THAT COULD GO
TO THINGS WE NEED AND MORE
PEOPLE INJURE
AND MORE PEOPLE LEFT DISABLES.
I NEED YOU TO MAKE A CHANGE.
STAND UP FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE
CITY. I NEED YOU TO VOTE NO ON
LESS LETHAL OPTIONS TO KEEP
OUR
CIVILIANS ALIVE.
>> THANK YOU.
PLEASE
WHEN YOU HEAR THE CHIME, YOU
HAVE TEN SECONDS REMAINING.
>> JONATHAN, I'M GOING TO TRY
--
TOLEDO, TOLEDA.
NEXT UP IS VALLEY ERIE
SCHLERDET.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS JONATHAN.
I'M A MEMBER OF THE
SEATTLE ALLIANCE AGAINST RACIST
AND POLITICAL OPPRESSION.
TO START OFF, I WANT TO SAY
THE CONSENT DECREE IS ENDING.
WE HAVE NOT SEEN PROOF THAT
THE WAY THAT
SPD CONDUCTS ITSELF HAS
CHANGED.
THE LAST TIME THE POLICE
WERE GIVEN ACCESS TO THESE LESS
THAN
LETHAL WEAPONS IT RESULTED IN A
$10 MILLION LAWSUIT,
PAID FOR BY OUR TAX DOLLAR
MONEY.
THESE INJURIES SUSTAINED WERE
AS
FOLLOWS.
FRACTURES, BLINDNESS, EVEN
HEART ATTACKS.
THIS IS NOT EVEN INCLUDING
THE FACT THAT CHILDREN AND
PREGNANT WOMEN WERE AMONG THESE
CROWDS
WHERE THEY FIRED WITH TEAR
GAS, PEPPER BALLS AND BLAST
BALLS.
THE FACT THAT THIS IS EVEN
A QUESTION AFTER SO MANY
PEOPLE HAVE FACED GRIEVOUS HARM
CALLS INTO QUESTION
WHETHER THIS COUNCIL CARES
ABOUT
PUBLIC SAFETY OR WHERE OUR TAX
AND CITY
FUNDS ARE GOING.
>> THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING.
>> HI.
AFTER 12 YEARS, LET'S
NOT SACRIFICE FREE SPEECH AND
HUMAN RIGHTS JUST TO EXIT THE
CONSENT DECREE IN A HURRY.
THE JUDGE TOLD THE CITY TO
GET THE CROWD CONTROL POLICIES
IN
COMPLIANCE, BUT HE ALSO SAID
HE STILL HAS CONCERNS ABOUT
OUR POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY.
THE BILL YOU ARE
DISCUSSING TODAY IS TOO VAGUE
TO HOLD
OFFICERS ACCOUNTABLE WHEN
THEY USE WEAPONS THAT BLOW
HOLES IN
FLESH, DAMAGE HEARING
AND EYESIGHT OR CAUSE HEART
ATTACKS.
FOUR YEARS LATER, THERE'S
BEEN NO REAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR
SPD'S
MOST HARMFUL POLICING OF THE
GEORGE FLOYD PROTESTS OF 2020.
DAMAGE SETTLEMENTS PAID BY
THE TAXPAYER ARE ONLY SOME
COMPENSATION. THEY ARE NOT
JUSTICE.
SOME PROPONENTS ASSERT WE
HAVE BEEN THROUGH A PUBLIC
RECKONING
IN THE CITY.
IN FACT, THE REVIEW GATHERED A
PANEL OF POLICE AND CITY
WITH FEW COMMUNITY AND DESIRE
ZERO PROTESTERS.
HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING
ABOUT
POLICE CONDUCT AT
DEMONSTRATIONS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> NEXT WE HAVE LINDSEY
BURGESS TO BE FOLLOWED BY KOMAS
HOMADEY.
>> HELLO.
I'M HERE TO OPPOSE THE USE OF
LESS THAN LETHAL WEAPONS BY
POLICE. THE POTENTIAL FOR HARM,
MISUSE AND IMPACT ON PUBLIC
TRUST
ARE KEY REASONS I'M AGAINST
THE USE.
THIS VOTE SHOULD BE
POSTPONED AND THERE SHOULD BE A
PUBLIC HEARING TO INCREASE
TRANSPARENCY.
THERE'S RISK OF DEATH
AND
SERIOUS INJURY DESPITE BEING
LABELED LESS THAN LETHAL.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE BLAST BALLS
RELEASE CHEMICAL IRIRRITANTS,
INCREASING RISK TO PROTESTERS.
THESE AFFECT EVERYONE IN THE
VICINITY, INCLUDING PEOPLE
IN THEIR OWN HOMES.
I MYSELF WAS SUBJECT
TO RESPIRATORY DISTRESS ON MY
8th FLOOR APARTMENT DURING
2020 WITH MY WINDOWS CLOSED.
THESE WEAPONS CAN INFRINGE
ON THE INDIVIDUAL'S FIRST
AMENDMENT
RIGHTS AND FREE ASSEMBLY.
THERE CAN BE A LACK OF
TRAINING FOR THE POLICE
OFFICERS
THAT USE
THEM. THEY MIGHT USE THEM IN --
ARE
LIKELY TO USE THEM
UNNECESSARILY.
THEY CAN LEAD TO LONG- TERM
HARM WITHIN THE COMMUNITY
FACING
INEQUALITIES.
WE NEED TO -- SORRY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> GO
AHEAD.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I'M A PRIVATE CITIZEN IN
DISTRICT FIVE.
I APPRECIATE THE COUNCIL AND
STAFF'S WORK TO CODIFY
THE PROHIBITION OF USE OF LESS
LETHAL WEAPONS AGAINST
THE CITIZENS OF SEATTLE.
HOWEVER, I HAVE SERIOUS
CONCERNS ABOUT THE LACK OF
CLARITY ON THE
SPECIFIC TYPES OF SCENARIOS
THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR AN
EXCEPTION OF
THE BAN TO BE USED BY THE
SO- CALLED
LESS LETHAL WEAPONS BY SPD.
FROM HOW I HAVE READ THE
BILL, IT LACKS EXAMPLES THAT
WOULD LEAD TO THE EXCEPTIONS OF
THE BAN CLAIMED BY SPD OFFICERS
AND
SUPERVISORS.
WITH THE LAW AS MINUTE,
PERMIT THE CHAOS THAT WAS
ESCALATED
TO OCCUR AGAIN DURING A
FUTURE PROTEST AGAINST THE
INCOMING FEDERAL
ADMINISTRATION.
I BELIEVE IT WOULD ALLOW FOR
SUCH AN EVENT THAT OCCURRED
ON CAPITOL HILL ALL OVER AGAIN
WHICH LED TO 13,000
CITIZEN COMPLAINTS AND A $10
MILLION
SETTLEMENT AFTER A LEGAL BATTLE
WITH THE CITY.
I IMPLORE YOU TO TURN THIS
OVER TO MORE PUBLIC INPUT AND
ENSURE THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY
HAVE
MORE TIME TO GIVE
INPUT ON THIS
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN
LEGISLATION.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> NEXT UP WE HAVE RICKY KOHL
TO BE FOLLOWED BY HOWARD GALE.
HOWARD GALE.
TO BE FOLLOWED BY CRYSTAL
SNOW.
>> GOOD MORNING, HOWARD.
>> GOOD MORNING. THE CROWD
CONTROL LEGISLATION BEFORE YOU
TODAY IS
SEVERELY FLAW AND MUST BE PUT
ON HOLD
TO HEAR FROM THOSE MOST AT RISK
AND
EXPERTISE AND HISTORICAL
KNOWLEDGE OF PAST PRACTICES.
THE
THIS IS SUGGESTIVE AS FOR "WHEN
FEASIBLE" ALLOWS POLICE
TO IGNORE CONSTRAINTS.
NOTHING WRONG WITH
ASPIRATIONS, BUT WHEN THESE
HAVE BEEN PART
OF POLICE POLICY FOR DECADES,
IT SEEMS ABSURD TO THINK
REWARDING THEM IS
GOING TO BRING ABOUT A BETTER
RESULT.
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, YOU TALK
ABOUT TRAINING.
TRAINING WITHOUT
ACCOUNTABILITY IS WORTHLESS.
WE HAVE NO ACCOUNTABILITY FROM
2020.
LASTLY, COMMUNITY
POLICE COMMISSION HAS BECOME IN
THE LAST TEN YEARS THE
COMMISSION THAT POLICES THE
COMMUNITY.
IT IS ONE OF THE ONLY
COMMISSIONS THAT DOES NOT ALLOW
PUBLIC COMMENT.
NOT A SINGLE MEMBER OF THE
CPC
HAS EVER BEEN HARMED IN A
DEMONSTRATION.
IT'S ABSURD TO THINK THAT THE
CPC IS GOING TO REPRESENT THE
COMMUNITY.
WE NEED A FULL PUBLIC HEARING.
NOT A
RUSH TO JUDGMENT. LAST, LET ME
SAY, 650 WEEKS OF
THE CONSENT DECREE.
WHAT IS A FEW MORE WEEKS
GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE,
ESPECIALLY WHEN THE JUDGE
USUALLY RULES
IN THE SUMMER OR FALL?
WE CAN TAKE TIME ON THIS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> NEXT UP, CRYSTAL SNOW
FOLLOWED BY MAX DOGGETT.
>> I'M CRYSTAL
SNOW, DISTRICT
THREE. SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL HAS
AN
OBLIGATION TO OBJECT
THE
LEGISLATION TO ALLOW SPD ACCESS
TO CROWD CONTROL WEAPONS.
THE PROPOSAL TO MILITARIZE
OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT FOLLOWS
AN
INTERNATIONAL TREND OF
STATE BRUTALITY INSTEAD OF
OFFERING
CITIZEN SUPPORT IN THE WAKE OF
INCREASING RACISM,
HOMOPHOBIA AND DEPORTATION
SEATTLE WOULD
JOIN IN ON THIS TREND.
INSTEAD, CONSIDER THE
I'LL ALTERNATIVE.
CARE FOR CITIZENS WILL REDUCE
UNREST.
SPEND THIS MONEY ON SERVICES.
EDUCATION, HEALTH
CARE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING,
ACTUAL TRAINING WITH
ACCOUNTABILITY
AND AS COUNCILMAN KETTLE SAID,
CITY INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE WAKE
OF CLIMATE CHANGE.
SERVE THE PEOPLE YOU CLAIM TO
REPRESENT.
ALLOW US TO -- ALLOW THE
CITY THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK
AND VOTE NO ON ARMING SPD
WITH LESS LETHAL WEAPONS.
I EMPHASIZE WEAPONS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> MAX AND FOLLOWED BY SEAN
ISHAM.
>> I'M HERE THIS MORNING TO
ASK
THAT YOU PLEASE NOT
AUTHORIZE THE INCREASE IN THE
USE OF MORE
TOOLS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST ME
AND MY FAMILY, MY COMMUNITY, MY
CHILDREN.
FOR OUR MILITARIZED POLICE
FORCE, IT SEEMS SURREAL THAT
I WOULD HAVE TO EVEN COME AND
ASK
YOU ALL THIS.
FOR ALL OF THE VICTIMS OF THE
MILITARIZED SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT, I'D
LIKE TO ASK US FOR A MOMENT OF
SILENCE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU TO WHAT I
BELIEVE IS A CLASS OF STUDENTS
THAT
CAME AND VISITED.
ARE YOU THE TEACHER?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING.
GOOD DAY TO COME. IMPORTANT
TOPIC.
DEMOCRACY IN ACTION.
>> NEXT UP --
>> WHAT GRADE?
>> 11th AND 12th GRADERS.
>> WHICH SCHOOL?
>> UNIVERSITY PREP.
THANK YOU ALL.
>> WE HAVE A UNIVERSITY PREP
ALUM?
>> NO.
SEATTLE PREP.
>> SEAN TO BE FOLLOWED BY GREG
DAVERNA.
>> GO AHEAD.
>> I AM FROM DISTRICT ONE.
I AM HERE TO TALK ABOUT
CB120916.
IT'S NICE TO SEE MORE
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AT
THIS PARTICULAR MEETING VERSUS
THE
LAST PUBLIC COMMENT.
I CAN SEE WHY THIS IS
BEING RUSHED FORWARD SO
QUICKLY. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE
FOR
THE HEALTH÷÷ AND SAFETY AND
WELL-
BEING OF THE CITIZENS OF THIS
CITY,
OF OUR CITY, OF YOUR CITY.
WHAT YOU ARE PRIORITIZING NOW
IS HARMFUL WEAPONS TO A GROUP
THAT HAS A LONG HISTORY OF
ABUSING THEM ON YOUR CITIZENS.
THIS IS BEING SWEPT UNDER
THE RUG AGAINST THE WILL OF
THE PEOPLE AND WILL
BE USED TO SUPPRESS THE WILL OF
THE PEOPLE.
I YIELD THE REMAINDER
OF MY
TIME.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> GREG, FOLLOWED
BY DANIEL GRIMALDI.
>> GOOD MORNING.
$385 MILLION IS THE
EXPECTED POLICE BUDGET THIS
YEAR.
$10 MILLION MORE THAN LAST
YEAR AND $20 MILLION MORE THAN
THE YEAR BEFORE.
WHILE WE THE WORKING CLASS GET
CUTS TO OUR SCHOOLS,
RENTAL SERVICE PROGRAMS, FOOD
PROGRAMS.
MAYBE WITH THE EXTRA BUDGET,
THE SPD CAN CONTINUE TO PAY OUT
$10 MILLION LAWSUITS TO THOSE
HIT
WITH RUBBER BULLETS AND IT'S
GAS.
A YEAR IN WHICH WE SAW AN 18%
IN
HOMELESSNESS IN THIS CITY.
WE ALL GET TO TAKE PRECIOUS
TIME OUT OF OUR DAY TO COME OUT
HERE AND DEBATE WHETHER THE
POLICE
CAN CONTINUE TO ASSAULT THE
WORKING PEOPLE OF THIS CITY.
HAVE WE STOPPED TO CONSIDER
THAT MAYBE THOSE EXERCISING
THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
ARE SCREAMING OUT, DO BETTER?
WE DESERVE HEALTH CARE.
WE DESERVE HOUSING.
WE ARE TIRED OF OUR COUNTRY'S
PROTECTION AND FUNDING OF
A GENOCIDE WHEN IT'S
IMPOSSIBLE
TO LIVE IN THE CITY AS RENTS
CLIMB, AS GROCERY BILLS CLIMB.
WE HAVE AN INCOMING
INAUGURATION PROPOSING SOME OF
THE
LARGEST TAX CUTS TO THE RICH
AND
MASS DEPORTATIONS WE HAVE SEEN.
THE PEOPLE ARE SCREAMING OUT.
THE CITY IS
DEBATING WHETHER TO BEAT THEM
INTO SUBMISSION.
>> THANK YOU.
>> NEXT UP, DANIEL TO
BE FOLLOWED BY KURI WHITE.
>> THIS ATTEMPT TO REINSTATE
THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S
USE
OF SO- ED NON-- LETHAL
WEAPONS IS AN ATTEMPT TO REPEAL
REFORMS TO THE WORKING PEOPLE
OF THIS
COUNTRY.
FRANKLY, IT COMES AS NO
SURPRISE
BECAUSE IT HAPPENS NO MATTER
WHO
IS IN CHARGE, WHAT PARTY YOU
ARE AFFILIATED TO.
IT HAPPENS OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
WE UNDERSTAND THIS BECAUSE
THESE REFORMS WERE MADE FROM A
MILITANT AND VALIANT
PROTEST
MOVEMENT OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS
CITY.
ALL WHILE THE CONDITIONS OF
THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY
WORSEN,
HOMELESSNESS RISES, INFLATION
RISES, WAGES STAGNATE.
WE KNOW WHEN TRUMP COMES
IN, HE IS GOING TO WORSEN THESE
CONDITIONS.
IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS
A
SITUATION IN WHICH Y'ALL ARE
PREPARING FOR.
IT'S
SURPRISING THAT THIS IS THE GO
TO.
>> THANK YOU.
>> NEXT UP IS KURI.
OUR LAST IN-PERSON SPEAKER
IS KAT MUNSON.
>> HI.
I JUST WANT TO ANNOUNCE THAT
FOR 23 YEARS I WAS
A JUVENILE CORRECTION OFFICER.
I'M GOING TO SPEAK TO
THE MENTALITY OF THE POLICE
THAT
I DEALT WITH EVERY DAY I WORKED
IN INTAKE.
SO I HAD TO WORK WITH THE
POLICE.
THE WORSE DAYS I HAD WITH
THE POLICE WERE THE DAYS
WHEN THEY WERE TRAINING
SOMEONE, BECAUSE
THEY WOULD
PUT UP THEIR CHEST AND THEY
WOULD BE MACHO
AND TREAT THE KIDS WITH LESS
RESPECT
WHEN THEY ARE TRAINING.
THE SEATTLE HAS A DIFFICULT
TIME WITH TRAINING.
THEY CAN'T EVEN SEEM TO
GET A DECENT CHIEF OF POLICE.
FROM WHAT WE HAVE SEEN,
FROM WHAT I DEALT WITH,
TRAINING IS
NOT WORKING.
IT SCARES S A SENIOR CITIZEN
LIKE ME THAT WANTS TO GO OUT TO
A
PEACEFUL RALLY, PROTEST.
AND FOR CHILDREN AND FOR ME
THAT HAS A SERVICE DOG.
THAT RIGHT SHOULDN'T BE TAKEN
AWAY BECAUSE POLICE
DEPARTMENTS CANNOT TRAIN TO NOT
KILL
AND INJURE PEOPLE.
WE GIVE THEM THE WEAPONS.
YOU WANT TO GIVE THEM THE
WEAPONS TO DO IT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> OUR LAST
IN-PERSON SPEAKER IS KAT
MUNSON.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I'M THE POLICY AND ADVOCACY
MEMBER FOR REAL CHANGE.
AS I WAS READING THROUGH THE
AMENDMENTS, I WAS STRUCK
THAT THE PARSING OF HOW, WHEN
AND UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS THESE
DANGEROUS CROWD CONTROL
MEASURES CAN BE USED IS NOT A
DISCUSSION
THAT CENTERS PUBLIC SAFETY AND
SECURITY.
ANY GROUP OF
PASSIONATE PROTESTERS
WILL GOING FORWARD BE PAINTED
AS CHAOTIC.
EACH AMENDMENT
OUTLINES EXCEPTIONS THAT ARE
PROVIDING JUSTIFICATION FOR
SPD'S USE OF
WEAPONS.
LET'S BE CLEAR, ANY AND
ALL OF THE CROWD CONTROL
MEASURES ARE
WEAPONS.
WEAPONS ARE DESIGNED TO
THREATEN AND OPPRESS THOSE
WITHOUT INSTITUTIONAL POWER.
THEY HAVE NO PLACE IN A PUBLIC
PROTEST.
YOU HAVE HEARD THE HARMFUL
POWER OF THESE LESS LETHAL
MEASURES.
I CANNOT IMAGINE ANY CITIZEN
WHO HAS SUFFERED A CARDIAC
ARREST AS A RESULT OF BEING HIT
BY A
BLAST BALL WOULD CATEGORIZE
THEM AS
SUCH. IF THE CITY COUNCIL PUT
A FRACTION OF THE PUBLIC
RESOURCE INTO PROTECTING THE
SAFETY
AND SECURITY OF OUR UNHOUSED
NEIGHBORS, FORCED TO SLEEP ON
DOWN DOWNTOWN STREETS EVERY
NIGHT, WE
WOULD BE MUCH CLOSER TO THE
SEATTLE THAT OUR
MOST VULNERABLE
IES DESERVE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
OUR FIRST
ONLINE COMMENTER IS M.J.
JURGENSON.
PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX WHEN
YOU HAVE HEARD
THE PROMPT, YOU HAVE BEEN
UNMUTED.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I'M THE DIRECTOR OF THE
GREENWOOD SENIOR CENTER.
I'M ONE OF THE PROTESTERS
WHO CAME TO THE STREETS IN 2020
TO CONFRONT POLICE BRUTALITY.
I BECAME ONE OF THE
50
PLAINTIFFS WHO BROUGHT A
LAWSUIT BEFORE THE CITY.
IN THE SUMMER OF 2020, I
WAS TARGETED WITH AN EXPLOSIVE
THAT BLEW UP AGAINST MY LEFT
THIGH.
THE EXPLOSIVE, WHICH WE
CAN ASSUME WAS A BLAST
BALL, SHATTERED THE CHAPSTICK
IN
MY POCKET AND GAVE ME A BRUISE
OF
SIZE OF MY LEFT
QUAD. IT WAS THE LEAD ST OF MY
FELLOW
PROTESTERS. WE CAME TO PROTEST
POLICE
BRUTALITY.
I ASK THE COUNCIL TO TAKE THESE
ACCOUNTS INTO CONSIDERATION
WHEN REFLECTING ON WHAT IT
MEANS FOR
A POLICE DEPARTMENT TO PROTECT
AND SERVE THE PEOPLE. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
THE NEXT REMOTE SPEAKER
IS HANNAH JONESJONES BE
FOLLOWED BY LENNON BROOKS.
>> HI.
MY NAME IS HANNAH JONES.
I LIVE IN CROWN HILL.
I'M SPEAKING TODAY TO URGE YOU
TO OPPOSE THE USE
OF, QUOTE, LESS LETHAL WEAPONS.
THIS ORDINANCE WILL
ALLOW VIOLENCE BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGAINST PROTESTERS
AND CHILL
THE FREE SPEECH OF PEACEFUL
PROTESTERS.
BY REPEALING THE BANS ON MANY
OF THE, QUOTE, LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS, THAT WERE USED, WE'RE
GOING
BACK TO THE PROTESTS OF 2020
FOR RACIAL JUSTICE WHEN SPD
PEPPER SPRAYED ROUNDS AND
UNLOADED
RUBBER BULLETS
CAUSING INJURIES TO PEACEFUL
PROTESTERS, EXERCISING THEIR
FREE SPEECH
RIGHTS.
I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU THAT
THIS COST
THE CITY $10 MILLION IN
LAWSUITS.
PROTESTER RESPOND AND LACK
OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE
SEATTLE POLICE OFFICERS REMAIN
THE REASON THAT THE SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS UNDER THE
CONSENT
DECREE.
GIVING SPD DISCRETION
TO DETERMINE WHAT CONSTITUTES
A THREAT TO ESCALATE TENSIONS
DURING PROTESTS AND FAILING
TO HAVE MEANINGFUL
ACCOUNTABILITY TO HOLD OFFICERS
ACCOUNTABLE
FOR THEIR ACTIONS IS A
RECIPE FOR
DISASTER.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> NEXT UP, WE HAVE
LENNON BROOKS TO BE
FOLLOWED BY SUE HAHN.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I LIVE IN WEST SEATTLE.
I'M CALLING IN BECAUSE I
DON'T BELIEVE SPD SHOULD BE
ALLOWED
TO USE
BLAST BALLS, RUBBER BULLETS AND
PEPPER SPRAY AGAINST
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
WE ALL KNOW THE
REPRESENTATION OF SPD.
THE LARGEST KNOWN CONTINGENT OF
COPS AT THE JANUARY 6th
INSURRECTION.
THE SPD PROVED IN 2020
THEY CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO
PROTECT
THE FREE SPEECH OF THE PEOPLE
AS THEY USED THEIR LESS
LETHAL
WEAPONS AGAINST PEACEFUL
PROTESTERS.
THESE LESS LETHAL WEAPONS
CAN INFLICT LIFE- LONG INJURIES
AND
IT'S UNACCEPTABLE FOR OUR
TAX DOLLARS TO BE USED TO
INFLICT SUCH HARM ON OUR
COMMUNITY.
WE LIVE IN UNSTABLE TIMES AND
THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE
PROTESTS IN THE FUTURE.
I IMPLORE YOU TO PROTECT
OUR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND
OPPOSE THE USE OF THESE
WEAPONS.
YOU HAVE A MORAL AND ETHICAL
OBLIGATION TOWARDS US. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT UP WE HAVE SUE
HAHN FOLLOWED BY MATTHEW
OFFENBACHER.
>> I'M A SECOND YEAR LAW
STUDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON AND RESIDENT OF D3.
I'M ASKING WE LEARN FROM
THE HISTORY OF CIVIL RIGHTS
AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN
THIS COUNTRY WHERE WE CAN
TRACE MODERN DAY POLICING BACK
TO SAVORY AND POLICE OFFICERS
KILLING AND MAIMING PROTESTERS
IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT
AND
2020.
IN 2020,
SPD HAS CAUGHT US THEY CAN'T BE
TRUSTED
WITH LESS LETHAL WEAPONS.
WE REMEMBER A WOMAN WHOSE
EYE WAS MANGLED AND 72
RESIDENTS
WHO REPORTED SERIOUS INJURIES
FROM THE PROTESTS IN
2020. THERE'S NO AMOUNT OF
TRAINING THAT SPD CAN RECEIVE
THAT WILL
OVERCOME THE INHERENT,
IMPRECISE NATURE OF LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS.
LESS LETHAL WEAPONS TARGET
PEOPLE
INDISCRIMINATELY, INCLUDING
CHILDREN AND DISABLED.
LESS
LETHAL WEAPONS CAN AND WILL
KILL PEOPLE.
THE ORDINANCE SIGNALS TO THE
POLICE PUBLIC THAT OUR SAFETY
IS NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND WE
WILL
REMEMBER THIS COME ELECTION
SEASON IN THE FALL.
>> THANK YOU, SUE.
NEXT WE HAVE MATTHEW TO BE
FOLLOWED BY MICHAEL MALLINI.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS MATTHEW.
I'M A LONGTIME RESIDENT.
COUNCILMEMBERS, I WONDER IF
YOU WERE LIVING ON CAPITOL HILL
IN
2020.
HOW TO
FIND WORDS TO DESCRIBE HOW
POLICE BOMB YOUR
NEIGHBORHOOD, TO HAVE
WEAPONS TURNED ON YOU AND YOUR
NEIGHBORS FOR NO REASON THAT
THEY
ARE FEARFUL AND
ANGRY AT PEOPLE SPEAKING OUT
ABOUT POLICE
BRUTALITY.
ON THE GROUND IN 2020 IT
WAS CLEAR SPD'S ACTIONS
WERE MOTIVATED BY RAGE AND
CONTEMPT AND THAT THEIR
RECOURSE TO VIOLENCE WILDLY
DISPROPORTIONATE TO ANY THREAT
WAS THE SIGN OF
A DEEPLY TROUBLED ORGANIZATION.
NOTHING I HAVE SEEN SINCE 2020
SUGGESTS SPD SHOULD EVER
BE
TRUSTED WITH THESE DANGEROUS
WEAPONS AGAIN.
YES, LET'S GET RID OF THE
CONSENT DECREE.
VOTE NO ON THIS BILL.
YOU CAN SEND IT BACK AND
REQUIRE DETAILED, NON- VIOLENT
CROWD
CONTROL, DEESCALATING PLANS
AND METHODS AND CONTINUE THE
BAN ON TEAR GAS AND PEPPER
SPRAY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT UP WE HAVE MICHAEL TO
BE FOLLOWED BY B.J. LAST.
>> HELLO.
I'M A RENTER IN DISTRICT
THREE.
DURING THE 2020 DEMONSTRATIONS,
MY APARTMENT WAS FLOODED
WITH TEAR GAS CAUSING ME TO
HAVE TO
EVACUATE.
DURING THIS PERIOD, THE
ONLY THING THAT MADE
ME FEEL UNSAFE WAS THE MILITARY
PRESENCE OF SPD
AND NOT THE ACTUAL
DEMONSTRATION.
IF CITY COUNCIL IS
CONCERNED WITH THE UPTICK IN
DEMONSTRATIONS IN THE COMING
MONTHS AND YEARS, THEY
SHOULD SEEK POLICIES THAT WILL
SUPPORT THE MARGINALIZED
COMMUNITIES IMPACTED BY THE
THREATS OF
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION RATHER
THAN
TRYING TO OWE PRESIDENT ITS OWN
CITIZENS.
THERE'S NO NEED FOR THIS
POLICY
TO BE RUSHED.
DO NOT ALLOW SPD
TO HAVE THESE
WEAPONS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> NEXT UP WE HAVE B.J. LAST
TO BE FOLLOWED BY AIDEN CAROLE.
>> GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS B.J. LAST.
I'M A HOMEOWNER.
I'M AGAINST REVERSING THE BAN.
LESS LETHAL WEAPONS FOR CROWD
CONTROL.
THE DISCUSSION WHY STICKS TO
SPD OBJECTED TO THIS BAN.
WHEN THE PEOPLE TRIED TO
ENACT THE BAN, SPD SAID NO.
WHEN THEY COULDN'T PUSH
ENOUGH, THEY GOT THE CONSENSUS
DECREE MONITOR TO COME IN AND
BE ON
THEIR SIDE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT
THEY DONE IS PROP UP SPD.
TODAY SPD COULD ADOPT THE
POLICY THAT'S IN LINE WITH
WHAT
THE ORDINANCE THAT COUNCIL
PASSED.
THEY ARE NOT GOING TO DO THAT
BECAUSE WE
HAVE NO CONTROL OVER SPD.
REPEALING THE BAN REFLECTS
THAT.
INSTEAD OF THE COUNCIL TRYING
TO ACTUALLY EXERT CONTROL OVER
SPD, IT WILL SAY, NOPE, IT'S
WHAT
YOU WANT, BECAUSE
WE KNOW WE CAN'T FORCE YOU TO
DO ANYTHING.
WE SAW THIS WITH WHEN THE
PRIOR COUNCIL ASKED SPD TO FIRE
COPS.
THEY MADE SURE THAT DIDN'T
HAPPEN.
WE SAW THIS WITH ROLLING
OUT OF NON-POLICE RESPONSE.
SPD PREVENTED IT FROM
HAPPENING, REQUIRING IT A DUAL
DISPATCH
AND SPD GETS FULL CONTROL OVER
WHAT
IT DOES AND WHO GETS DO THAT.
ANOTHER
SIGN WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER
SPD.
>> THANK YOU.
>> NEXT UP, WE HAVE AIDEN
CAROLE TO BE FOLLOWED BY SKYLAR
MOCK.
>> SEEMS LIKE EVERY COMMENTER
GETS IT.
I HEAR YOU CONNECTED THIS TO
THE CONSENT DECREE.
YOU COULD USE THIS TO
NEGOTIATE TO LET
THEM EXPAND THE CARE TEAM.
AS WE HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL
ALONG, YOU DON'T HAVE TO
AGREE WITH THOSE OF US WHO
DON'T
BELIEVE -- REALITY ASIDE,
EXPAND
ALL
ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE, MORE
MONEY÷÷ON THE POLICE.
MEANWHILE, YOU HEAR YOU SAYING
THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON
FOR THIS IS THERE COULD BE
AN EMERGENCY THAT PLEASE
OLICE NEED TO RESPOND.
WHAT ABOUT WHEN THE POLICE
NEED TO RESPOND TO THE
GOVERNMENT?
CONNECT THE DOTS.
YOU MIGHT NEED US AT SOME
POINT.
WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO TURN --
>>
THANK YOU.
>> WHEN YOU HAVE
GIVEN THE
POLICE --
>> THANK YOU.
HAVE A GOOD DAY.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE SKYLAR MOCK
TO BE FOLLOWED BY KAREN KOHLER.
>>
HI. I'M SKYLAR.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
SHOWS THE COUNCIL KNOWS IT'S
NOT ONLY UNPOPULAR BUT
DANGEROUS,
THREATENING THE WELL-BEING OF
THE PROTESTERS AND THE PUBLIC.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT UP WE HAVE KAREN KOHLER.
TO BE FOLLOWED BY RAYMOND
MITCHELL.
>> GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS KAREN KOHLER.
I'M FROM DISTRICT SEVEN.
I LIVE HERE.
I'M MANAGING PARTNER OF MY
LAW FIRM HERE.
I'M A HOUSING PROVIDER TO
DOZENS OF
SEATTLE CITIZENS HERE IN
DISTRICT SEVEN.
MY LAW FIRM AND I REPRESENTED
MANY, MANY PEOPLE AGAINST
THE CITY OF SEATTLE IN ALL OF
THE BIGGEST HIGH- PROFILE
CASES INVOLVING PROTESTS.
WE WERE INVOLVED IN WTO
WHICH LED TO THE CONSENT
DECREE.
WE WERE INVOLVED IN
THE MARDI GRAS KILLING OF
CHRISTOPHER
KIND.
I WAS THE LEAD ATTORNEY ON
THE BLACK LIVES MATTER PROTEST.
I SENT YOU A LETTER WHICH I
ASK YOU TO FORWARD TO ALL THE
PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THIS MEETING
TODAY
THAT DETAILS 23 ILLUSTRATED
EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE THAT
WERE INJURED IN THE PROTESTS.
I DIDN'T GIVE YOU ALL 50.
I THOUGHT
I WOULD GIVE YOU SOME
OF THEM. THEY INCLUDED TWO
PEOPLE
THAT WERE HIT BY SHRAPNEL.
I THINK YOU NEED TO
TALK TO ME FOR MORE THAN ONE
MINUTE. %
I SPENT YEARS WORKING ON THESE
CASES.
I HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION
AND STATISTICS AND EXPERTS TO
HELP YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THESE
FROM
A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE THAN
WHAT
YOU ARE BEING -- WHAT YOU
ARE BEING FED BY
THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THIS IS
AN INVITATION TO YOU
TO CALL ME. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
WE DO HAVE YOUR LETTER THAT
WAS WRITTEN YESTERDAY, WHICH WE
WILL ENTERING INTO THE RECORD.
WE HAVE COPIES WE CAN PASS OUT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CALL.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
>> RAYMOND MITCHELL.
TO BE FOLLOWED BY TIM MARINEN.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF
ANYONE CONSIDERING PASSING
THIS LEGISLATION IS TO BE
SWAYED BY
A MORAL ARGUMENT.
I
WON'T PRESENT A MORAL
ARGUMENT. I WILL GIVE YOU A
PRACTICAL ONE.
THE CITY HAD TO PAY
MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO
SETTLE
A LAWSUIT ABOUT THE USE OF
THESE
WEAPONS.
IT MADE YOU AS
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITY
GOVERNMENT LOOK
BAD. I'M GUESSING IT MADE YOUR
JOBS
HARDER.
IF YOU PASS THIS LEGISLATION,
IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN.
THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO
NOT
CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR YOU AS YOU
SHOULD BE WELL AWARE OF.
THEY DON'T HOLD THEIR
OWN ACCOUNTABLE AND THEY DON'T
CARE
WHETHER IT MAKES YOU LOOK BAD
WHEN THEY INJURE CIVILIANS.
THEY WILL NOT USE DISCRETION.
THEY WON'T CARE IF IT COSTS
THE CITY TO USE WHATEVER
WEAPONS THEY HAVE ON HAND.
IF YOU PASS THIS, THE POLICE
WILL MISUSE THE WEAPONS AND
THE CITY WILL PAY MORE
SETTLEMENTS
FOR IT.
IT WILL. NOT MIGHT, WILL.
IT WILL BE BAD FOR ALL OF YOUR
CAREERS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> IF YOU DON'T WANT BLOOD
ON YOUR HANDS AND EGG ON YOUR
FACE, YOU WILL NOT PASS
THIS
LEGISLATION.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT UP WE HAVE TIM TO BE
FOLLOWED BY ROBERT ENGEL.
>> HI.
MY NAME
IS TIM. I'M FROM DISTRICT
THREE.
LEGISLATION THAT ALLOWS THE
POLICE TO USE VIOLENCE
AGAINST PEOPLE TO PREVENT
SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY DAMAGE IS
EXPLICITLY
DISCRIMINATORY.
IT MEANS THE POLICE SERVE
THOSE WITH MORE MONEY AND
EXPENSIVE
PROPERTY OVER PEOPLE WHOSE
VOICE
IS THEIR ONLY TOOL FOR CHANGE.
THIS REPRESENTS A LACK OF
CREATIVITY BY THE CITY
COUNCIL TO FIND SOLUTIONS
RATHER
THAN RECYCLING OLD POLICIES
THAT ARE EXPENSIVE AND HAVE
FAILED IN
THE
PAST. I FIND IT INTERESTING
THAT
FOR LEGISLATION ABOUT GIVING
NEW WEAPONS TO THE POLICE, THE
FIELD ON RACIAL EQUITY ANALYSIS
IS NOT
APPLICABLE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, TIM. WE HAVE
ROBERT NEXT.
TO BE FOLLOWED BY DAVID HAINES.
>> HI.
I'M ROBERT ENGEL.
I WANT TO TELL YOU IN THE
STRONGEST LANGUAGE POSSIBLE
THAT YOU CAN'T PASS THIS BILL.
THIS IS A CLEAR ATTEMPT TO RUSH
IT THROUGH. I'M
ASHAMED. I'M DISAPPOINTED.
I REALLY, REALLY HATE IT.
YOU HAVE PAID OUT $10 MILLION
IN
SETTLEMENTS FROM THE PROTESTS
IN 2020.
IT WAS OUTLAWED BECAUSE OF
THAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS
SO DIFFERENT NOW.
WHAT
IS SO DIFFERENT NOW THAT MAKE
U.S. S YOU THINK IT'S A GOOD
IDEA
NOW?
IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
ALL OF THE EXPERTS KNOW
THAT THESE -- ALL THESE WEAPONS
ARE
VERY DANGEROUS.
YOU ARE -- WE'RE HAVING CITY
COUNCILMEMBERS TRY THEM OUT IN
A
TESTING RANGE.
WHAT ABOUT TESTING GETTING
HIT BY THEM?
THIS
IS WHAT -- YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO
REPRESENT US.
IT'S DISGUSTING.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT UP IS DAVID HAINES.
TO BE FOLLOWED BY --
>> THANK YOU, DAVID HAINES.
>> GO AHEAD.
>> SEATTLE IS OVERRUN WITH
EVIL CRIMINALS CONDUCTING
UNCIVIL
WAR WITHIN THE TRANSIT
CORRIDOR.
THE CITY COUNCIL WANTS TO
FOCUS ON BLAST BALLS, ALMOST
LIKE
THEY ARE MISCONSTRUING
AND VICARIOUSLY LIVING THROUGH
THE RIOTS OF OTHER CITIES AND
APPLYING THAT AS AN
OVERWHELMING
AMOUNT OF RESOURCE AND OVERTIME
FOR COPS TO DO CROWD
MANAGEMENT.
THEY SPENT MORE DETAILED TIME
FOCUSING ON THAT THAN ALL THE
EVIL CRIMINALS AND THEIR
OPEN DRUG MARKETS THAT ARE
PROTECTED FROM HAVING BLAST
BALLS
APPLIED TO THEM.
GET RID OF THE BLAST BALLS.
IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN TEAR
GAS
WHEN YOU HAVE COPS THAT NEED TO
BE REQUIRED TO BLOW INTO A
BREATHALYZER TO MAKE SURE
THEY ELECTRIC NOT HUNG OVER
WHERE
THEY USE BLAST BALLS FROM THE
SIDE INSTEAD OF GOING INTO THE
CROWD AND GRABBING THE
TROUBLEMAKER
OR SHOOTING THEM
WITH A RUBBER BULLET IN A SAFE
PLACE.
>> THANK YOU.
OUR SECOND TO LAST
COMMENTER, RIVER HAZE TO BE
FOLLOWED BY MONSERI DE CASTRO.
RIVER, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX.
>> HI.
I'M RIVER HAZE, A THIRD
YEAR STUDENT AT THE UNIVERSITY
OF
WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF LAW.
THIS LEGISLATION ALLOWS FOR
THE USE OF LESS LETHAL WEAPONS
WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES OCCUR THAT
CREATE AN IMMINENT RISK OF
PHYSICAL
INJURY TO ANY PERSON OR
SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY DAMAGE.
AS SOMEBODY ACTIVELY WORKING ON
CIVIL RIGHTS CASES
IN THIS CITY AS WELL AS ACROSS
THE COUNTRY,
I CAN SEE THAT THE SEATTLE
POLICE ARE PRACTICED IN
CREATING EXCUSES FOR BRUTALITY
AFTER THE
FACT.
A RISK OF PHYSICAL INJURY
OR PROPERTY DAMAGE CAN AND
WILL LOOK LIKE ANYTHING.
THE PASSAGE OF THIS
LEGISLATION WILL ALLOW THE SPD
TO
EXERCISE BRUTALITY AGAINST
SEATTLE CITIZENS
INDISCRIMINATELY.
THIS CONTINUES
SEATTLE'S MILITARIZATION
ARMING THEM AGAINST SEATTLE
CITIZENS. THE BUDGET ALONG WITH
OTHER
LAWS SHOW THIS CITY COUNCIL IS
MORE INTERESTED IN EXERCISING
STATE
CONTROL OVER ITS CITIZENS
THAN ADDRESSING THE PROBLEMS
THAT WE ARE CRYING OUT FOR YOU
TO SOLVE.
THIS WILL SHOW AT
THE NEXT
ELECTION TIME.
>> THANK YOU.
OUR LAST REMOTE COMMENT ER.
>> I'M A DISTRICT SEVEN
RESIDENT.
I'M SPEAKING TO YOU, BOB
KETTLE.
I'M ENCOURAGING PUBLIC SAFETY
TO
VOTE NO ON
THE BAN ON LESS LETHAL WEAPONS
AND LISTEN TO
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE HARMED BY
LESS LETHAL WEAPONS.
THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT WILL
AFFECT ALL OF US,
YOUR CONSTITUENTS AND
YOURSELVES.
YOU THINK LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS AREN'T A BIG DEAL
UNTIL YOU
ARE FIGHTING FOR YOUR RIGHTS.
THE ACTIONS SPD HAS
TAKEN AGAINST US HAVE AN IMPACT
ON REAL HUMANS.
HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE
WERE INJURED IN THE EXCESSIVE
FORCE.
TOO MANY HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE
ANGUISH OF BEING HARMED BY
THE PEOPLE SWORN TO PROTECT
HIM.
BY REPEALING THIS, YOU MAY PICK
UP THE BLAST BALL AND THROW IT
IN THE FACE OF YOUR NEIGHBOR
WITH THE RETURN OF TRUMP,
PEOPLE WILL BE OUT FIGHTING FOR
RIGHTS.
YOU WILL PERSONALLY BE THE
ONES PEPPER SPRAYING ALL OF US.
THE INJURY AND HARM TO
YOUR CONSTITUENTS IS IN YOUR
HANDS.
WE ARE NOT
GOING TO FORGET IT COME
ELECTION SEASON.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, EVERYONE WHO
PARTICIPATED IN THE PUBLIC
COMMENT.
THOSE CALLING IN AND FOR
EVERYONE THAT WAS HERE, THAT
IS HERE AND SOME THAT HAVE
LEFT, REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
I APPRECIATE
THE SNAPS. THANK YOU.
ONE OF THE THINGS I HAVE
SAID BEFORE IS THAT PUBLIC
COMMENT
IS IMPORTANT.
IT LED TO AMENDMENTS IN
PREVIOUS
BILLS, LAST YEAR IN TERMS OF
THE PUBLIC SAFETY BILLS WE
PASSED.
I HEAR THE POINTS REGARDING
THINGS LIKE
NOT SEEING PROOF. FAIR POINT.
THERE'S OTHER INDICATORS
THAT POINT TO
THAT. MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING
THAT
COULD BE BROUGHT OUT.
SOME OF THE OTHER COMMENTS THAT
WERE MADE, I
DEFINITELY RECOMMEND JUST AS
PART OF
THE CONVERSATION WHAT WE CALL
THE
MATRIX -- OR THE SPD CALLS
WITH THEIR SIX LEVELS.
THAT'S ONLINE.
THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE LAST
MEETING IN DECEMBER.
THAT'S HELPFUL.
THAT GOES TO SOME OF THE
COMMENTS.
MILITARIZATION OF THE POLICE.
I'M 100% IN AGREEMENT WITH
YOU ON THAT AS A VETERAN.
A VETERAN OF THE IRAQ WAR,
WHERE A LOT OF THE
MILITARIZATION POINTS GO TO.
I NOTE THAT INTERIM POLICE
CHIEF
ROHR HE IS ESPOUSES BEING
GUARDIANS VERSUS WARRIORS.
WILL GO THROUGH THE PROCESS FOR
THE NOMINATION OF OUR NEW
POLICE CHIEF.
I HEAR THE VARIOUS POINTS
ABOUT TEAR GAS.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S
NOT TALKED ABOUT IN THIS IS
THAT THIS BILL AS RELATES TO
TEAR
GAS IS ABOUT ALIGNING THE CODE
WITH
THE REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON.
GETTING THE
CITY LAW LINED UP WITH THE
STATE LAW ON THIS.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU SEE
IN THE LEGISLATION.
I UNDERSTAND
THE $10 MILLION POINT THAT MANY
MAKE.
I WILL NOTE, TOO, I
REALLY APPRECIATE THE POINTS
ABOUT
TRAINING AND THAT'S SOMETHING
WE
NEED TO ENGAGE ON AS A COUNCIL
AND AS A COMMITTEE TO ENSURE
NOT JUST FOR CROWD MANAGEMENT
BUT ACROSS THE BOARD THAT
TRAINING
IS LOOKED AT AND ENSURED IT'S
TO
THE LEVEL THAT'S NEEDED.
I APPRECIATE THESE COMMENTS.
I ALSO WANT TO THANK ALL THOSE
THAT HAVE EMAILED, THOSE
THAT HAVE SENT LETTERS TO
INCLUDE THIS ONE
THAT TIED TO THE LADY WHO WAS
SPEAKING , MISS
KOHLER, THAT WAS SPEAKING FROM
HER LAW
FIRM AND THE REPORT THAT CAME
IN YESTERDAY.
I'M JUST SEEING IT RIGHT NOW.
I WILL LOOK AT IT LATER.
ALSO THE MEETINGS ON THIS TOPIC
ACROSS THE BOARD THAT REALLY
HELP INFORM WHAT WE'RE DOING.
I JUST WANTED TO -- IN TERMS
OF PUBLIC COMMENT, THE
VARYING TIMES THAT WE RECEIVE,
I WANT
TO THANK
EVERYONE FOR PARTICIPATING.
I FEEL I SHOULD NOTE, TOO,
THAT THE RIGHT TO PROTEST IS
VERY
IMPORTANT.
I, MYSELF, PARTICIPATED IN
A MARCH AND A PROTEST EIGHT
YEARS
AGO, THE WOMEN'S MARCH, WHICH
WE ARE COMING UP ON THE
ANNIVERSARY OF.
THESE ARE IMPORTANT THINGS WE
NEED TO LOOK AT AS WE GO
THROUGH
THIS BILL.
WITH THAT SAID, WE WILL
MOVE ON TO OUR FIRST ITEM OF
BUSINESS.
WILL THE CLERK READ ITEM ONE
INTO THE RECORD?
>> COUNCIL BILL 120916,
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO
THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT MANDATING THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT ADOPT AND MAINTAIN
CROWD MANAGEMENT POLICIES
THAT PROHIBIT THE USE OF LESS
LETHAL TOOLS IN CROWD
MANAGEMENT
SETTINGS UNLESS SPECIFIC
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE
OCCURRING OR ABOUT TO OCCUR
THAT CREATE
AN IMMINENT RISK OF PHYSICAL
INJURY TO A PERSON -- TO ANY
PERSON
OR SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY DAMAGE
AND REPEALING SECTION 3.28.
146 OF THE SEATTLE MUNICIPAL
CODE AND
ORDINANCE 126422.
>> THANK YOU.
I MOVE THAT THE
COMMITTEE RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF
CIL
BILL.
>>
SECOND.
>> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS?
BEFORE WE MOVE INTO THE
AMENDMENTS, I WOULD LIKE TO
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE OUR
PRESENTERS HERE AT THE TABLE
HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BEFORE
WE GO INTO IT.
WE WILL ALSO
HAVE CENTRAL STAFF
PARTICIPATING AS WELL.
TODAY WE HAVE DEPUTY MAYER
BURGESS.
WE HAVE CHAIR MERKEL.
MISS DUGARD, A FOUNDING
MEMBER OF THE POLICE
COMMISSION, NOW
HEAD OF PDA, THE LEAD
PROJECT BEING THE CENTERPIECE.
ALSO FROM SPD, WE HAVE
DEPUTY CHIEF UNDERWOOD AND
ASSISTANT CHIEF DAVIS.
ALSO THE CHIEF OPERATING
OFFICER, MR. MAXEY.
DEPUTY MAYOR.
>> GOOD MORNING,
COUNCILMEMBERS.
THANK YOU FOR THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THE
PROPOSED
CROWD
MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE WITH YOU
AGAIN.
PERHAPS THIS IS A GOOD TIME FOR
EACH OF MY COLLEAGUES TO
INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AND TELL
US WHY THEY ARE HERE,
WHAT THEIR POSITION IS TO
ADDRESS THIS.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I'M JOEL
MERKEL. I'M CO- CHAIR OF THE
SEATTLE POLICE COMMISSION WHERE
I HAVE
SERVED ALMOST THREE YEARS.
IN MY DAY JOB, I'M AN
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I'M LISA DUGARD.
AS CHAIR KETTLE INDICATED, I'M
CO- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT
PURPOSE
DIGNITY ACTION, FORMERLY
THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
ASSOCIATION.
I'M HERE TODAY BECAUSE I WAS
--
THE INAUGURAL CO- CHAIR OF
THE COMMUNITY POLICE
COMMISSION. I SERVED IN THAT
ROLE FOR SIX
YEARS FROM 2013 UNTIL 2018.
I REMAINED ON THE COMMISSION IN
2019 WHEN I STEPPED DOWN.
I WAS AMONG THOSE WHO LED THE
CPC'S WORK ON SPD'S RESPONSE
TO CROWD MANAGEMENT, PROTEST
EVENTS, COUNTERPROTEST
EVENTS AND REQUESTED REGULATION
OF LESS
LETHAL WEAPONS MANY I'M HERE
TO
SHARE SOME OF THAT HISTORY.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I'M THE DEPUTY CHIEF
UNDERWOOD.
I'VE RECENT BY BEEN APPOINTED.
I'M HERE WITH MY COLLEAGUES
TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS COUNCIL MIGHT HAVE
ABOUT THESE TOOLS.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I'M ASSISTANT CHIEF DAVIS.
I'M CURRENTLY SERVING AS THE
ASSISTANT CHIEF OVER OUR
SPECIAL
OPERATIONS BUREAU WHICH
CONTAINS OUR S.W.A.T. UNIT,
WHICH CONDUCTS A LOT OF THE
TRAINING FOR OUR LESS LETHAL
TOOLS.
I ALSO SERVED ON THE -- AS A
MEMBER OF THE SEMINAL EVENT
REVIEW.
I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE
DISCUSSION
LEADING UP TO WHERE WE ARE
AT TODAY IN TERMS OF THE
WORK WITH
CROWD MANAGEMENT. THANK YOU FOR
HAVING ME.
>> GOOD MORNING.
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT.
HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT I
CAN.
>> THANK YOU.
MAYOR PROPOSED THIS ORDINANCE
TO
HARMONIZE CITY LAW AND POLICE
DEPARTMENT POLICIES SO THAT
WE COULD SUBMIT THOSE POLICIES
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FOR THEIR REVIEW AND THEN TO
THE JUDGE FOR HIS
CONSIDERATION.
THIS IS ONE OF THE
JUDGE'S REQUESTED FINAL STEPS
BEFORE
WE CAN JOIN WITH THE DEPARTMENT
OF
JUSTICE AND
SEEK DISMISSAL OF THE CONSENT
DECREE.
THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AFFIRMS
OUR LONGSTANDING
SEATTLE TRADITION OF SUPPORTING
FREE SPEECH AND PEACEFUL
ASSEMBLY AND
IMPORTANTLY IT RECOGNIZES
THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS
AN OBLIGATION TO MAKE SURE
THESE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS CAN
BE
EXERCISED FREELY AND SAFELY.
THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHES THE
VALUES AND RULES THAT GOVERN
THE
USE OF LESS LETHAL TOOLS
IN CROWD MANAGEMENT SITUATIONS.
PUT ANOTHER WAY, THE
ORDINANCE YOU ARE CONSIDERING
TODAY
WILL ESTABLISH RESTRICTIONS ON
WHEN THOSE TOOLS CAN BE USED.
AND THESE RESTRICTIONS ARE
MORE
SUBSTANTIAL THAN WHAT IS
REQUIRED UNDER STATE LAW.
THEY CAN ONLY BE USED WHEN
POLICE OFFICERS CAN CITE
SPECIFIC FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATING
IMMINENT RISK
OF VIOLENCE TO INDIVIDUALS OR
SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY DAMAGE.
I WANT TO AMPLIFY SEVERAL KEY
FACTORS AS YOU CONSIDER THE
AMENDMENTS TODAY.
FIRST, THE ORDINANCE
RESTRICTS THE USE OF LESS
LETHAL TOOLS
RATHER THAN RESTRICTING THE
TOOLS THEMSELVES.
WE BELIEVE THIS IS A MUCH
BETTER APPROACH BECAUSE IT
ACKNOWLEDGES THE VOLATILE AND
OFTEN QUICKLY
CHANGING
CIRCUMSTANCES POLICE OFFICERS
ENCOUNTER IN THE FIELD.
IT'S A VALUES BASED APPROACH
THAT CAN --
THAT OFFICERS CAN TRAIN FOR AND
PRACTICE.
IT IS ALSO AN APPROACH
THAT SUPPORTS AND REINFORCES
THE
CONTINUUM OF
FORCE STANDARDS THAT OFFICERS
MUST FOLLOW.
WHEN YOU READ OUR POLICE
POLICIES, YOU WILL SEE THE
PHRASE REASONABLE NECESSARY
AND PROPORTIONAL USED
REPEATEDLY.
OUR POLICE OFFICERS ARE
TRAINED TO APPLY THIS STANDARD
FOR ALL
USES OF FORCE, FROM COMPELLING
A PERSON TO BE
HANDCUFFED FOLLOWING AN ARREST
ALL THE
WAY UP
THE CONTINUUM TO THE USE OF
DEADLY FORCE.
THIS ORDINANCE REINFORCES THESE
CONTINUUM OF FORCE PRINCIPALS
AND PRACTICES.
SECOND, WE NEED TO BE
CAREFUL THE AMENDMENTS DON'T
HAVE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
FOR EXAMPLE, RESTRICTING
BLAST BALL USE OR REQUIRING
TIME
CONSUMING PROCEDURAL STEPS
BEFORE THEIR USE COULD FORCE
INCIDENT COMMANDERS TO ESCALATE
HIGHER ON THE FORCE CONTINUUM.
WHILE UNINTENDED,
RESTRICTING ONE LESS LETHAL
TOOL
COULD REQUIRE
USING ANOTHER THAT IS A HIGHER
USE OF FORCE.
WE WANT TO AVOID THAT.
WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT HERE
IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT NOT ALL
CROWD
MANAGEMENT SITUATIONS ARE THE
SAME.
WHEN CONSIDERING THIS
ORDINANCE, WE TEND TO THINK
ABOUT
MASS PROTESTS OR DEMONSTRATIONS
WHEN PEOPLE EXERCISE
THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF
FREE SPEECH AND PEACEFUL
ASSEMBLY.
HOWEVER, THE POLICE DEAL WITH
MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF CROWDS.
THINK ABOUT THE CROWDS
THAT SOMETIMES OVERWHELM GOLDEN
GARDENS, MAGNASON PARK
WITH STREET RACING,
LOUD CROWDS AND EVEN VIOLENCE.
OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT
BEGAN CONSIDERING USING BLAST
BALLS IN
2001 AFTER A HORRIFIC AND
DEADLY
ASSAULT IN PIONEER SQUARE.
IT WAS MARDI GRAS,
AND THERE WERE THOUSANDS
OF PEOPLE CELEBRATING.
CHRISTOPHER KIME WAS THERE,
TOO.
HE NOTICED A YOUNG WOMAN LYING
ON THE GROUND.
SHE HAD BEEN ASSAULTED.
AS HE BENT OVER TO ASSIST
HER, CHRISTOPHER HIMSELF
WAS ASSAULTED AND BEATEN TO
DEATH.
NEARBY, POLICE OFFICERS WHO
WERE NOT PREPARED FOR THE SIZE
OF
THE CROWD WERE HELD BACK BY
THEIR
COMMANDERS WHO FEARED
THE VIOLENCE PLAYING OUT BEFORE
THEM
WOULD
OVERWHELM THE LIMITED NUMBER OF
OFFICERS.
THIS WAS A CROWD MANAGEMENT
CRISIS.
HAD BLAST BALLS BEEN
AVAILABLE, THEY COULD HAVE DIS
BURSED
THE CROWD AND ALLOWED OFFICERS
TO
RESCUE CHRISTOPHER AND SAVE HIS
LIFE.
THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A
TACTICAL DECISION MADE BY AN
INCIDENT COMMANDER IN MINUTES.
THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN
ANY TIME TO CONSULT WITH THE
CHIEF OF POLICE OR THE MAYOR.
THERE
CERTAINLY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
ANY TIME TO PREPARE
A PROCLAMATION OF CIVIL
EMERGENCY.
A MORE RECENT EXAMPLE
HAPPENED LAST YEAR ON CAPITOL
HILL NEAR
BROADWAY AND PIKE STREET.
ONE OF THE STREET
TAKEOVER EVENTS WAS TAKING
PLACE.
VEHICLES WERE SPINNING
DOUGHNUTS, REVVING
ENGINES, CREATING E ING HAVOC
AND ENDANGERING
HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE.
THEN GUNFIRE AT
INTERSECTION WOUNDED
THREE KILLED ONE.
THIS WAS ALSO A CROWD
MANAGEMENT
CRISIS.
WHILE IT IS LESS CLEARCUT THAN
CHRISTOPHER'S DEATH, IT DOES
HIGHLIGHT THE COMPLEXITY AND
VOLATILE NATURE OF SOME CROWD
MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTS.
SOMETIMES EVENTS DEMAND FAST,
REASONABLE, NECESSARY
AND PROPORTIONAL INTERDICTION.
I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE
AMENDMENTS THAT PLACE
RESTRICTIONS ON OUR MUTUAL AID
PARTNERS.
MUTUAL AID PROTOCOLS
ARE MANDATED BY A MUTUAL AID
AGREEMENT THAT
ESTABLISHES PROCEDURES AND
RULES OF
ENGAGEMENT.
ALMOST EVERY MUNICIPALITY IN
KING COUNTY IS A PARTY TO THIS
AGREEMENT.
THE AGREEMENT REQUIRES
RESPONDING MUTUAL AID
OFFICERS TO FOLLOW THE COMMAND
AND
AUTHORITY OF THE REQUESTING
JURISDICTION.
WHEN OUR POLICE OFFICERS
REQUEST MUTUAL AID FOR CROWD
CONTROL
PURPOSES, THE
RESPONDING OFFICERS FROM
OUTSIDE THE
CITY ARE UNDER THE CONTROL,
DIRECTION
AND AUTHORITY OF THE SEATTLE
POLICE ON SCENE INCIDENT
COMMANDER.
AFFIRMING THIS IN THE ORDINANCE
IS FINE, BUT IMPOSING
FURTHER RESTRICTIONS WILL
LIKELY
CAUSE OUR MUTUAL AID PART NER S
TO DECLINE TO RESPOND AS THEY
HAVE
SINCE THE 2021 ORDINANCE
WAS ADOPTED BY THE PREVIOUS
COUNCIL.
I ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THIS
AS PART OF YOUR
DELIBERATIONS, ESPECIALLY SINCE
WE WILL
REQUIRE A SIGNIFICANT MUTUAL
AID RESPONSE BEGINNING THIS
SUMMER WITH THE CLUB WORLD CUP
GAMES AND THEN THE WORLD CUP IN
2026.
I WILL TURN NOW TO THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION.
I WILL SAY WE ARE VERY
PLEASED THAT THE OFFICE OF THE
INSPECTOR
GENERAL, THE OFFICE OF POLICE
ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE
COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION ARE
UNIFIED IN
THEIR SUPPORT OF THE MAYOR'S
ORDINANCE.
THESE PROFESSIONAL
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS HAVE
REVIEWED THIS ORDINANCE,
CONSULTED WITH
COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND
CONCLUDED THAT THIS ORDINANCE
IS
REASONABLE AND WORKABLE. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
CHAIR KETTLE, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, I WANT TO START
BY THANKING THE PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE FOR INVITING
THE SEATTLE POLICE COMMISSION
TO TESTIFY THIS MORNING ON
THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE.
ENGAGING IN POLICING POLICY
WITH CITY LEADERS AND OUR
PARTNERS
IS A CORE FUNCTION AND
MISSION OF THE CPC.
WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE OUR
FEEDBACK AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON
CB12096.
I WANT TO THANK CPC STAFF
WHO ARE PRESENT BEHIND ME FOR
THEIR
LEADERSHIP AND THEIR WORK
ON THIS ISSUE.
I ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THE WORK OF THE CPC'S
POLICE PRACTICES WORK GROUP FOR
THEIR DEDICATION AND COMMITMENT
TO INCORPORATING THE
COMMUNITY'S FEEDBACK TO SHAPE
THE RECOMMENDATION AND
OVERALL POSITION ON THIS ISSUE.
SINCE RECEIVING THE DRAFT OF
THE
ORDINANCE, THE CPC HAS WORKED
DILIGENTLY TO ENSURE THAT
OUR FEEDBACK BALANCES THE NEED
TO PROTECT
CIVILIANS' CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO
EXPRESSION, FREE SPEECH AND
ASSEMBLY WHILE EMPHASIZING
SPD'S ROLE IN PROTECTING THESE
RIGHTS
WHILE THEY ARE UNDER THREAT
FROM OTHERS AND TO ACCOMPLISH
THIS, THE POLICE PRACTICES WORK
GROUP
CONVENED SEVERAL MEETINGS
DURING WHICH THEY DEVELOPED,
ISSUED AND
ANALYZED A COMMUNITY SURVEY
ON CROWD MANAGEMENT.
THEY
ENGAGED THIS POLICY DISCUSSIONS
WITH FWARTER
PARTNERS, INCLUDING CPC
FOUNDING COMMISSIONER LISA
DUGARD, BRIAN
MAXEY AND COUNCIL STAFF
AND CONDUCTED RESEARCH ON BEST
PRACTICES FOR CROWD MANAGEMENT.
FROM THIS WORK, THE
CPC DEVELOPED
THREE PRINCIPALS TO GUIDE OUR
RECOMMENDATIONS.
THEY ARE NUMBER ONE, ABOVE ALL
ELSE, THE
PROTECTION OF HUMAN LIFE IS
PARAMOUNT.
TWO, THE USE OF LESS
LETHAL WEAPONS SHOULD BE
AVOIDED
UNLESS THERE'S A DIRECT THREAT
TO
SOMEONE'S LIFE OR
SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY DAMAGE.
THREE, SPD PLAYS AN
IMPORTANT ROLE IN FACILITATING
SAFE GATHERINGS AND PROTECTING
CIVILIANS'
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO
ASSEMBLE.
UNDER THESE PRINCIPALS
ALONG WITH COMMUNITY FEEDBACK,
RESEARCH AND PARTER IN
DISCUSSION PARTNER
DISCUSSIONS, WE VOTED TO
NOT PLACE A PROHIBITION OF THE
USE OF TOOLS THAT CAN HAVE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES NOT
ONLY LEAVING SPD IN A POSITION
TO
USE LESS APPROPRIATE TOOLS BY
BY
REMOVING TOOLS NECESSARY FOR
SPD TO ASSURE FREEDOM OF SPEECH
AND
ASSEMBLY, TO MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC WHEN
COUNTERPROTESTERS
THREATEN THOSE RIGHTS.
TO THAT END THE CPC VOTED
TO SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING
RECOMMENDATIONS.
WITH RESPECT TO BLAST BALL
USE, THE CPC
ADVOCATES FOR RESTRICTIONS ON
HOW AND WHEN
THEY ARE USED FOR CROWD
CONTROL AND
TO PROTECT LIFE AND SIGNIFICANT
PROPERTY DAMAGE.
THE CPC SUPPORTS A CLEAR
AND TIMELY APPROVAL PROCESS
RESTING
WITH THE INCIDENT COMMANDER
WITH THE RANK OF LIEUTENANT OR
HIGHER.
INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS SHOULD
NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION
TO DEPLOY BLAST BALLS FOR CROWD
AL.
WHEN DEPLOYED, THE CPC
ADVOCATES BLAST BALLS BE
DIRECTED
AWAY FROM PEOPLE, THROWN
UNDERHANDED AND
RELEASED AT LEAST TEN YARDS
AWAY FROM THE INDIVIDUAL.
WE BELIEVE THIS SHOULD BE
WRITTEN INTO THE ORDINANCE.
WITH RESPECT TO MUTUAL AID, THE
CPC BELIEVES MUTUAL AID
AGENCIES DEPLOYED IN SEATTLE
MUST
ADHERE TO SEATTLE ORDINANCES
AND SPD
POLICIES, INCLUDING THOSE ON
LEASE LETHAL TOOLS AND CROWD
MANAGEMENT. THEY SHOULD OPERATE
UNDER
THE DIRECTION OF AN SPD
INCIDENT COMMANDER WHO IS BOUND
BY SEATTLE LAW AND SPD
POLICIES.
WITH RESPECT TO POST DEPLOYMENT
OVERSIGHT, THE CPC BELIEVES
SPD SHOULD CONSULT WITH THE
CPC REGARDING THE DEPLOYMENT OF
THE LESS LETHAL WEAPONS IN A
CROWD MANAGEMENT SCENARIO.
THIS SHOULD INCLUDE
GATHERING AND INCORPORATING
PUBLIC FEEDBACK ON SIGNIFICANT
CROWD MANAGEMENT INCIDENTS,
INCLUDING THOSE INVOLVING LESS
LETHAL WEAPONS AND INTEGRATING
THIS INFORMATION INTO THE
REQUIRED ANNUAL REPORTS BY SPD
AND OIG.
FINALLY, THE ORDINANCE
SHOULD EMPHASIZE SPD'S
RESPONSIBILITY
TO PROTECT THE EXERCISE OF
FREE SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY
RIGHTS WHEN
THOSE ARE UNDER THREAT FROM
OTHERS.
I WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT
PASSING THIS LEGISLATION IS ONE
OF
THE FINAL COMPONENTS NECESSARY
TO END THE CONSENT DECREE AND
RESTORE SEATTLE TO
SELF- GOVERNANCE ON POLICING.
THE CPC LOOKS FORWARD TO A
POST- CONSENT DECREE AIR
WHERE WHERE THE COMMUNITY HAS
GREATER
INFLUENCE OVER E ING
POLICY AND RELIES ON LOCAL
LEADERSHIP.
THIS IS A CRITICAL
OPPORTUNITY TO HOLD OURSELVES
ACCOUNTABLE
FOR THE PROGRESS ACHIEVED SINCE
2012 AND THE CPC
REMAINS COMMITTED TO ENGAGING
WITH THE
COMMUNITY AND THE COUNCIL AND
THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND
PARTNERS
IN THIS WORK.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> AS I SAID, I SERVED ON THE
CPC FOR SEVEN YEARS.
I HOPE IN THESE BRIEF REMARKS
TO
DISTILL THE COLLECTIVE THINKING
AND WISDOM OF MY MANY
REMARKABLE
COLLEAGUES WHO SERVED ON
THE COMMISSION THROUGHOUT THOSE
YEARS.
THAT PERIOD OF TIME
WAS CHARACTERIZED BY REALLY
STRONG CONSENSUS FORMATION
PROCESS THAT
TOOK A LOT OF TIME AND DEBATE
TO CREATE WHAT WERE
USUALLY UNANIMOUS CPC POSITIONS
ON
ISSUES SUCH AS SPD RESPONSE
TO
PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS AND CROWD
MANAGEMENT.
OBVIOUSLY, MY COLLEAGUES,
MOST ARE NO LONGER ON THE
COMMISSION, DIDN'T ELECT ME TO
SIT HERE
AT THIS TABLE TODAY.
BUT I WILL TRY TO REFLECT ON
THE
COLLECTIVE THINKING THAT THAT
GROUP PRODUCED.
I DO WANT TO SAY -- THIS MAY
BE STRANGE BUT I HAVE BEEN
HARMED AS A PARTICIPANT IN
DIRECT
ACTION.
AND I HAVE BEEN FALSELY
ARRESTED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF
MUTUAL AID
AGENCIES OPERATING IN
THE STREETS OF SEATTLE IN A
POST
WTO EVENT WHICH THE THEN
CITY ATTORNEY AGREED WAS
A WRONGFUL
ARREST. I HAVE BEEN PEPPER
SPRAY MANY
TIMES.
MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN
PEPPER SPRAYED.
I CAME TO THE CPC AMONG
OTHER REASONS IN ORDER TO BRING
THOSE
EXPERIENCES AND CONCERNS TO THE
DELIBERATIONS OF THE
COMMISSION.
IN 1999, WHEN THE WTO PROTESTS
OCCURRED, I LED THE DEFENSE OF
PROTESTERS SUGGESTED TO
SUBJECTED TO ALL
MANNER OF ARGUABLY USE OF
LESS LETHAL TOOLS
BASICALLY SUCCESSFUL
LITIGATION. I REPRESENTED
PLAINTIFFS
ARGUING THAT THEY WERE
WRONGFULLY
SUBJECTED TO USE OF FORCE IN
A CROWD MANAGEMENT
CONTEXT. SO THIS IS THE POINT
OF VIEW
I BRING TO THIS TOPIC IS
THAT THESE ARE EXTREMELY
SERIOUS, POTENTIALLY EXTREMELY
HARMFUL
SITUATION
SITUATIONS. OUR EXPERIENCE IS
THAT SETTING -- WHILE LISTENING
TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY, I WAS
BROUGHT BACK TO 2015 WHEN JESSE
HIGOPIAN WHO MANY OF THE FOLKS
WHO TESTIFIED KNOW, MANY
COUNCILMEMBERS KNOW, HE
WAS WALKING DOWN THE STREET IN
THE
CENTRAL IN A MARTIN THER
KING DAY MARCH AND HE WAS
PEPPER SPRAYED BECAUSE AS IT
TURNED OUT
POLICE -- THERE WAS AN
OFFICER WHO HAD FALLEN BEHIND A
POLICE LINE AND OFFICERS WERE
UNDERDEPLOYED.
THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT HIS
SAFETY.
SO AN OFFICER PEPPER SPRAYED
JESSE.
IT WAS INCREDIBLY HARMFUL
AND
DIVISIVE. IT CAUSED TREMENDOUS
PUBLIC LEGITIMACY CRISIS AROUND
THE
USE OF FORCE.
THESE WERE -- THAT
HAPPENED WHILE I WAS ON THE
CPC.
IT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS
WE FOCUSED ON SPD
POLICY ON CROWD MANAGEMENT AS A
CENTRAL PIECE
OF WHAT THE ACCOUNTABILITY
AGENCIES NEEDED TO BE RAISING
TO
THE ATTENTION OF ELECTED
OFFICIALS AND OF SPD ITSELF.
I WILL SAY DURING THAT
PERIOD FROM -- ESPECIALLY FROM
2014, WHEN BLACK LIVES
MATTER DEMONSTRATIONS BEGAN IN
SEATTLE, THROUGH 2019, WE WERE
ALMOST ALONE IN RAISING
CROWD MANAGEMENT ISSUES.
THE CONSENT DECREE PROCESS
DID NOT FOCUS ON THESE.
IN FACT, BOTH THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND THE
COURT WERE
UNINTERESTED IN
FOCUSING ON
THEM. SO IT IS REALLY IN A WAY
A VICTORY IN ITSELF
TO SEE THIS DEGREE OF FOCUSED
ATTENTION
FROM COUNCIL AND FROM
THE MAYOR'S OFFICE ON THESE
ISSUES.
IT IS APPROPRIATE, AND IT WAS
LONG IN COMING.
I WILL SAY THE CPC LETTER IS
ONE
THAT I RESPECT AND SUPPORT.
IT'S VERY ALIGNED WITH THE
APPROACH THAT WE TOOK FROM
2014 TO 2019.
I WANTED TO PROBABLY -- LET
ME MAKE A COUPLE POINTS AND
CONCLUDE WITH DISCUSSION OF
BLAST BALLS.
WE FOUND THAT WHILE THERE CAN
BE A TENDENCY TO MINIMIZE THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF THREATS TO
PROPERTY, AS AN
APPROPRIATE BASIS FOR USE OF
FORCE, THE
FACT IS THAT PUBLIC EXPECTATION
IS THAT A POLICE FORCE WILL
PROTECT
PROPERTY AGAINST RAMPANT
DAMAGE.
A COMPELLING EXAMPLE OF THAT
THAT I THINK EVERYONE CAN SEE
IN RETROSPECT WAS PROBLEMATIC
WAS
A MARCH THROUGH
THE CHINATOWN INTERNATIONAL
DISTRICT IN
2020 THAT RESULTED IN
TREMENDOUS
DAMAGE TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD
FROM
WHICH SOME BUSINESSES
REALLY WERE NEVER ABLE
TO RECOVER. SPD DID NOT -- WAS
NOT VIEWED
AT TAKING PROMPT ACTION IN
RESPONSE
TO THAT.
I THINK THERE WAS A
WIDESPREAD UNDERSTANDING
THEREAFTER
THAT THAT WAS PROBLEMATIC AND
THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE OF
A
RESPONSE.
I JUST
CALL THAT OUT CONNECTED TO THE
LEGACY PC'S POINT
OF VIEW THAT UNDERSERVICE FROM
A POLICE DEPARTMENT, FAILURE
TO
PROTECT IS ITSELF A CIVIL
RIGHTS ISSUE.
I WOULD NOT -- IT WAS NEVER
OUR APPROACH TO SORT OF SET
ASIDE PROPERTY DAMAGE AS
UNIMPORTANT.
THE RULES OF THE ROAD
AROUND RESPONDING TO PROPERTY
DAMAGE
ARE WHERE FOCUS NEEDS TO BE.
THE SPD POLICY THAT'S
BEEN EVOLVED DOES PLACE
PROPERTY
DAMAGE, I THINK, IN A PRETTY
SHARPLY
SHARPLY AREA.
IT'S ADDRESSED.
THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE
APPROACH WE TOOK.
WE SEE THAT ALSO FROM WHEN I
WAS ON THE CPC THAT WAS -- THAT
COVERED THE PERIOD FROM 2016 TO
2019 WHEN THERE WAS A GREAT
DEAL OF CIVIC UNREST BETWEEN
CIVIL
SOCIETY FORCES.
PEOPLE IN THE STREET
ADVANCING STRONG VIEWS ON ONE
ISSUE AND
FAIRLY FREQUENTLY BEING
CONFRONTED AND
SOMETIMES ATTACKED BY CIVIL
SOCIETY
FORCES WHO HAD A STRONG
DIFFERENT
POINT OF VIEW.
AT THAT POINT, WHAT ONE
COULD LOOSELY SAY WERE THE
MORE PROGRESSIVE FORCES STARTED
TO CALL FOR -- NOT UNIVERSALLY,
BUT STARTED TO CALL FOR SPD
TO PROTECT THEM FROM THREATS
OF HARM FROM COUNTERPROTESTERS.
THE DEPARTMENT MAY BE PLACED
IN A POSITION WHERE THEY MUST
USE FORCE IN ORDER TO
PROTECT INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
EXERCISING THE RIGHTS OF SPEECH
AND
ASSEMBLY.
WE SAW THAT PLAY OUT MANY
TIMES.
ALSO NOTE THAT WE ALL HAVE
TO RECALL THAT THERE IS NO
REQUIREMENT TO GET
APPROVAL, EVEN SUPERVISORY
APPROVAL, BEFORE LETHAL FORCE
IS USED.
IT'S ASSUMED THAT THAT FORCE
IS GOVERNED BY STATE LAW,
BY CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS.
BUT IF AN OFFICER IS IN A
POSITION WHERE SHE BELIEVES
THAT
SHE MUST AND SHOULD USE LETHAL
FORCE, NO ONE PAUSES TO
GET SUPERVISORY APPROVAL OR
THE APPROVAL OF AN ELECTED
OFFICIAL OR OF THE CHIEF,
BECAUSE
THE SITUATION IS UNDERSTOOD TO
BE
QUICKLY DEVELOPING AND
THE THREAT THAT WOULD CAUSE
THAT, THAT WOULD CALL FOR THAT
IS
NOT SOMETHING THAT
YOU CAN PUSH PAUSE AND WAIT TO
SEE.
IT IS REALLY -- IT IS
REALLY IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER
THAT
LESS LETHAL WEAPONS, I
THINK APPROPRIATELY CALLED
WEAPONS, ARE CALLED THAT
BECAUSE THEY ARE
CONTRASTED WITH OTHER
WEAPONS THAT ARE NOT REGULATED
TO
THE DEGREE THAT THIS
LEGISLATION
AND THE SPD POLICY CONTEMPLATES
REGULATING LESS LETHAL TOOLS.
THERE ARE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES FOR MANY
OF IMPEDING THE RIGHT DECISION
BY
GOING TO OTHERS WHO ARE MORE
REMOVED FROM THE SITUATION.
AND THE SPIRIT OF CPC WORK FROM
2013 TO 2019 WAS VERY MUCH
TO INVEST IN A POLICY
FRAMEWORK, TRAINING AND
CONTINUOUS
FEEDBACK SO THAT THOSE ON THE
GROUND
MAKING THE DECISIONS WHO
ARE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBILITY
TO THE
MAYOR, THEY ARE EXECUTIVE
EMPLOYEES, ARE EQUIPPED TO
MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION.
IF THEY DON'T, THAT THAT
LESSON CAN BE
RAPIDLY LEARNED AND PUBLICLY
TAKEN ON BOARD.
BLAST BALLS, WE STARTED WRITING
TO THE COUNCIL ASKING THAT
THERE
BE A TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF
USE
OF BLAST BALLS IN, I BELIEVE,
2017 BASED ON CONTINUED
INCIDENTS FROM 2015 AND 2016
AND THEN AGAIN OCCURRING IN
2017 AND
2018 OF BLAST BALLS BEING
USED CONSISTENT WITH SPD
DIRECTION.
NO OFFICER, I BELIEVE, WAS
FOUND TO HAVE USED A BLAST BALL
CONTRARY TO THAT DIRECTION.
BUT IT WAS THE DIRECTION WAS
TO BOWL UNDERHAND OR
OCCASIONALLY THROW OVERHAND
INTO AN
OPEN SPACE NOT DIRECTLY AT A
PERSON
BUT ADJACENT TO THE PERSON
WHO WAS THE TARGET,
WHOSE ACTIVITIES WERE THE
TARGET.
OFFICERS WOULD DO THAT IN
CHAOTIC CROWD SITUATIONS.
PEOPLE WERE CONTINUOUSLY HURT.
THOSE HARMS, SOME OF THEM
WERE BURNS AND THINGS THAT
SOMEONE COULD RECOVER FROM.
BUT SOME OF THE INJURIES
WERE MORE SERIOUS AND IN ONE
INSTANCE
SOMEONE WAS -- COULD EASILY
HAVE LOST AN EYE.
THERE WAS A DEEP GASH BELOW THE
PERSON'S EYE. ALL OF THESE
IMPACTS WERE
UNINTENDED. THEY ARE NOT THE
PLANNED
IMPACT OF THE WEAPON.
THEY
CHRONICALLY HAPPEN BECAUSE
THESE WEAPONS ARE VERY
DIFFICULT TO AIM AND VERY
DIFFICULT TO CONTROL.
BECAUSE THEY EXPLODE.
THE PEOPLE WHO GOT INJURED
WERE NOT THE PEOPLE COMMITTING
CRIMES OR ALLEGEDLY COMMITTING
CRIMES.
THEY WERE, IN ONE CASE, A
POLICE
OFFICER. SEVERAL TIMES A
REPORTER.
BYSTANDERS, PEOPLE CLEARLY JUST
EXERCISING
THEIR RIGHTS OF SPEECH AND
ASSEMBLY.
OBSERVING THAT, IT WAS OUR
VIEW THAT THIS COULD BE
EXPECTED
TO
REPEAT UNLESS THERE WAS SOME
KIND OF DIFFERENT DIRECTION.
UPON -- IN ALL THE YEARS
THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO THAT
REQUEST,
I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO
THINK ABOUT WHAT MIGHT
WORK BETTER AND TO LISTEN TO
OTHER
THOUGHTS.
IT IS MY BELIEF THAT BLAST
BALLS
ARE NEVER APPROPRIATE TO
THROW INTO A GROUP OF PEOPLE,
BECAUSE THE OUTCOME IS
UNCONTROLLABLE
BY A
WELL-INTENTIONED OFFICER
FOLLOWING POLICY AND DIRECTION.
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE
TO GET HURT, BECAUSE THE TOOL
ITSELF IS JUST UNIQUE IN THAT
WAY.
IT'S SOMEWHAT CHAOTIC IN ITS
IMPACT.
THEREFORE, THE DIRECTION WHICH
I WOULD HOPE THE COUNCIL
WILL IMPOSE THAT BLAST BALLS
SHOULD ONLY BE BLOW AWAY FROM
PEOPLE.
THEY CREATE A NOISE.
THEY GET ATTENTION.
THAT'S THE INTENDED USE BY
SPD AS THEY PRESENTED TO THE
CPC LAST MONTH.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, AND THEY
ARE ONLY THROWN
AWAY FROM PEOPLE, THEN YOU GET
AWAY FROM THE NEED
TO CREATE THESE SORT
OF HIERARCHIES OF APPROVAL
WHICH
DON'T REALLY MATCH THE NATURE
OF
THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN YOU
WOULD
WANT TO THROW A BLAST BALL.
IN CONCLUSION -- I KNOW I HAVE
GONE ON FOR A LONG TIME -- I
DO APPRECIATE THAT AGREEMENT ON
COUNCIL THAT THESE ARE REALLY
SERIOUS QUESTIONS.
IT'S REALLY A MATTER OF
STRATEGY
ABOUT HOW BEST TO CREATE
AN ENVIRONMENT
THAT REDUCES RISK AND REDUCES
UNINTENDED HARM.
NO MATTER WHAT DECISIONS ARE
MADE, IT IS A GOOD THING THAT
WE ARE BACK IN AN ENVIRONMENT
WHERE LOCAL OFFICIALS ARE
CHARGED
WITH AND HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO
MAKE
THESE DECISIONS UNDER YOUR OWN
POWER, BECAUSE YOU CAN
MAKE CHANGES IF THINGS PLAY OUT
IN
A WAY THAT'S NOT INTENDED.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONCERN AND EFFORT ON BEHALF OF
THOSE
OF US WHO RAISED THESE ISSUES
FOR
ISSUES LEADING UP TO 2019.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU FL .
DEPUTY CHIEF, ANYTHING TO ADD?
OKAY. GREAT.
THANK YOU, BY THE WAY, FIRST AS
CHAIR, TO HIGHLIGHT I'VE
BEEN NEGLECTFUL IN RECOGNIZING
ONE
OF MY COLLEAGUES HAS ARRIVED
EARLIER.
COUNCILMEMBER RINK, WELCOME.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
ASK ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY
HAVE. YOU CAN'T VOTE.
JUST BE KNOWN THAT I
GO TO MY VICE CHAIR FIRST.
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I APPRECIATE THE BACKGROUND.
I REALLY APPRECIATE THE
POINT ABOUT BEING UNDER
DEPLOYED.
THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT,
BECAUSE WHEN UNDER DEPLOYMENT
HAPPENS, THAT'S WHEN
POTENTIALLY BAD
THINGS CAN HAPPEN.
AS YOU WERE SAYING THAT, THAT
WORD, I'M THINKING OF MY TIME
IN IRAQ.
BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, IN
DETENTION, PRISONS A ND THE
LIKE.
IN MY UNIT, A PRISON, WE HAD
TOP PEOPLE, SADDAM AND DR.
DEATH AND
THE
REST. WHEN REPORTS CAME OUT ON
ABUSES, THE CAMP AND THE
MILITARY POLICE
BATTALION THAT WORKED WITH
US, THE SILVER LINING OF THAT
REPORT, AND THE REASON WHY IS
BECAUSE WE
ENSURED THAT IT WAS WELL
RESOURCED.
SADLY, A LOT
OF UNITS WERE ORPHANED.
THEY WERE AT FERENT
LOCATIONS.
FOOD, AIR CONDITIONING,
WATER, IT'S INCREDIBLE IF YOU
THINK
ABOUT.
WE ADOPTED
THAT UNIT. BECAUSE WE WERE A
CIA /DIA
UNIT, WE WERE THE BEST
RESOURCED UNIT
IN THE COUNTRY.
THAT OPERATION WAS DONE WELL
AND DONE ETHICALLY WITH GREAT
LEADERSHIP.
UNDER DEPLOYED IS A
VERY INTERESTING PHRASE AND
SOMETHING TO BE THOUGHT OF AS
IT GOES TO THIS PIECE.
USUALLY, I GO VERY LAST.
I WANTED -- UNDER
DEPLOYED CAUGHT MY ATTENTION.
I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT.
I APPRECIATE THE CONTEXT
THAT YOU ADDED, MS. DUGARD.
ANY QUESTIONS?
I I START WITH MY VICE CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU. ONE QUESTION.
FOR EVERYONE
ON THE PANEL TODAY. THANK YOU
FOR BEING HERE.
STARTING WITH THE
COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION,
PERTAINING
TO A SPECIFIC TECHNIQUE FOR
DEPLOYMENT OF BLAST BALLS,
I'M HEARING A FEW DIFFERENT
POINTS OF VIEW REFLECTED IN
VARIOUS EXPRESSIVE DOCUMENTS
AND WORDS
HERE.
I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S A
CONSENSUS VIEW.
IF
THERE'S NOT, THAT'S FINE,
TOO.
ON YOUR LETTER LAST WEEK I
THINK IT WAS DATED, YOU TALKED
ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATION FOR
USE
OF BLAST BALLS BEING TEN FEET
AWAY .
IT STAYS SILENT ON
UNDERHAND VERSUS OVERHAND USE.
JOEL,
I HEARD YOU TALK ABOUT -- YOU
SPECIFICALLY PREFER
THE UNDERHAND DEPLOYMENT.
THEN I HEARD YOU, A MOMENT
AGO, JUST SAY -- TALK ABOUT
BOTH.
ONLY OVERHAND SHOULD BE
USED MORE OR LESS IN A
VERY LIMITED, NARROW SET OF
CIRCUMSTANCES.
I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE
POSITION, IF THERE'S
NO
CONSENSUS, THAT'S
UNDERSTANDABLE. THAT'S FINE.
BUT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE
COMMISSION'S PERSPECTIVE ON
THE
USE OF UNDERHAND VERSUS
OVERHAND, AND THEN ALSO
DIRECTLY FROM THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE AND
OUR POLICE EXPERTS HERE ON
THE SAME EXACT POINT,
UNDERHAND VERSUS
OVERHAND. THANK YOU.
>> I'M NO LONGER ON THE
POLICE COMMISSION -- ON THE
CPC.
I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEIR
POSITION.
I WILL SAY, THIS IS WHY TO
ME THE SIMPLEST SOLUTION IS
THROW THEM AWAY FROM PEOPLE,
UNDERHAND OVER OVERHAND.
IF THEY ARE THROWN AWAY FROM
PEOPLE TO EXPLODE AND GET
ATTENTION THROUGH NOISE, THEN
THESE OTHER ISSUES DISAPPEAR OR
VANISH.
I DON'T THINK UNDERHAND OR
OVERHAND CONTROLS THE CHAOTIC
PATH OF THE BLAST BALL IN
A RELIABLE ENOUGH WAY THAT
IT MITIGATES THE PROBLEM OF
TRYING
TO INSERT THEM IN AN
OPEN SPACE WITHIN A CROWD,
WHICH IS
REALLY÷÷ -- IT'S TOO DYNAMIC
OF
A SITUATION TO ASSUME YOU CAN
EXECUTE THAT.
THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
INTEND OR SKILL OF THE OFFICER.
IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT WEAPON TO
CONTROL.
>> THE CPC WAS FOCUSED ON
ENSURING THAT IF A BLAST BALL
IS
USED, THAT IT IS DIRECTED
AWAY FROM PEOPLE, AWAY FROM A
CROWD, AT A MINIMUM OFOF YARDS,
OVERHAND OR UNDER HAND WASN'T
IMPORTANT.
IT WAS AWAY FROM PEOPLE.
THE CHAOTIC NATURE OF
THAT WEAPON CAN CAUSE A LOT OF
HARM IF IT'S NOT DIRECTED
AWAY FROM PEOPLE AT A CERTAIN
DISTANCE.
THAT WAS THE FOCUS OF THE
COMMISSION,
UNDERHAND, OVERHAND
WASN'T THE FOCUS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I WILL DEFER TO THE POLICE
COMMANDERS ON THAT QUESTION.
>>
IN TERMS OF DEPLOYMENT, OUR
PRIMARY TRAINING FOR
DEPLOYMENT OF THE BLAST BALLS
IS TO DO THE
UNDERHAND DEPLOYMENT.
HOWEVER, AS WE SAW -- WE
SAW THIS IN 2020.
THERE ARE OCCASIONS WHERE
THERE ARE TACTICS USED BY SOME
OF
THE PEOPLE DOING THE
DEMONSTRATIONS,
BECAUSE THEY KNOW WE DEPLOY
THAT
WAY, OR MAYBE THERE ARE ACTORS
IN THE BACKGROUND THAT ARE
THROWING FROZEN BOTTLES OF
WATER OR INSTRUMENTS THAT COULD
IGNITE AND HARM SOMEBODY, WHERE
MAKING
A DEPLOYMENT OVERHAND
TO REACH THOSE PEOPLE ARE
IMPORTANT.
WHEN WE DEPLOY THOSE BLAST
BALLS, WE DO THAT FOR THE
PURPOSES OF AFFECTING CHANGE,
MAKING THEM MOVE, STOPPING
THEIR BEHAVIOR OR STOPPING
THE ASSAULT OR BEHAVIOR FROM
OCCURRING.
WE TRAIN THIS.
THIS IS SOMETHING WE HAVE THEM
CONSIDER.
THERE'S A LIMITED TIME IN
WHICH THE BLAST BALL WILL
DETONATE.
IF IT'S TOO FAR
OF A DISTANCE, THAT'S MAYBE NOT
THE BEST TOOL.
THAT IS SOMETHING WE TRUST OUR
OFFICERS TO EVALUATE PRIOR TO
MAKING THAT DEPLOYMENT.
IT STARTS WITH OUR TRAINING.
>> THANK YOU.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, MR.
CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR.
COUNCILMEMBER RINK?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO
JOIN TODAY.
I'M NOT A MEMBER OF
THIS COMMITTEE BUT APPRECIATE
AT BUILT TO PARTICIPATE AND
ASK SOME QUESTIONS.
JUST TO GET SOME THINGS AND
MAKE SURE WE HAVE -- WE'RE
ALL WORKING FROM THE SAME
UNDERSTANDING OF THE
HISTORY BEHIND THIS.
AND THERE'S A LONG
HISTORY BEHIND THIS.
ORDINANCE 126102 WAS PASSED IN
2020 AND OUTRIGHT BANNED LESS
LETHAL WEAPONS.
THIS GOT ENJOINED BY THE U.S.
DISTRICT COURT.
ESSENTIALLY STOPPED.
FROM THAT POINT, IN 2021, WE
HAD
ORDINANCE 126422,
WHICH ULTIMATELY NEVER WENT
INTO AFFECT FOR A MYRIAD OF
REASONS.
SINCE THAT POINT, WE HAVE
BEEN OPERATING UNDER SPD'S
INTERIM
POLICY.
SINCE WE HAVE BEEN
OPERATING UNDER THE INTERIM
POLICY,
HOW MANY TIMES
SINCE THEN HAVE WE DEPLOYED
BLAST BALLS?
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
THE ANSWER IS, WE HAVE
NOT DEPLOYED ANY BLAST BALLS
SINCE OCTOBER 26th
OF 2020.
>> THANK YOU.
>> NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, CHAIR.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBERS?
COUNCIL PRESIDENT?
NO QUESTIONS?
OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED TO
THE NEXT -- DON'T GO TOO FAR.
WE WILL GO TO THE NEXT
PART OF THE MEETING.
I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE MR.
DOS TO COME TO THE TABLE.
THANK YOU.
MR. DOS, IF YOU COULD -- FIRST,
WELCOME.
SECOND, IF YOU CAN INTRODUCE
YOURSELF. I FORGET, DO YOU HAVE
ANY
REMARKS BEFORE MOVING INTO THE
AMENDMENTS?
I KNOW YOU WILL SPEAK TO THE
AMENDMENTS?
ANY REMARKS PRIOR TO DOING THAT
IN.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. GOOD
MORNING.
MR. CHAIR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
AND -- COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND
COUNCILMEMBER
RINK. I WAS GOING TO OFFER SOME
OPENING COMMENTS
AND THEN MOVE RIGHT INTO THE
AMENDMENTS.
JUST BY WAY OF BACKGROUND
FOR FOLKS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN
PRESENT
OVER THE LAST COUPLE
MONTHS, THIS COUNCIL BILL
120916
WAS FIRST INTRODUCED IN MID
OCTOBER, WHICH WAS DURING THE
COUNCIL BUDGET SESSION.
THERE WASN'T AN AVAILABILITY
FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
TO
HEAR IT AT THAT TIME.
IT WAS FIRST HEARD ON DECEMBER
10th AT WHICH TIME THERE WAS A
DISCUSSION BY MANY OF THE
FOLKS THAT WERE HERE TODAY,
ALONG
WITH THE OIG AND OPA.
BACKGROUND ON THE BILL 120916
REPEALS CITY LAWS THAT
GOVERN THE USE OF LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS.
IN ITS PLACE, THE BILL WOULD
ENACT UNCODIFIED LANGUAGE
THAT WOULD REQUIRE SPD TO
ENSURE
CROWD MANAGEMENT POLICIES
ARE CONSISTENT WITH CITY VALUES
AND
EXPECTATIONS AND COMPLIANT
WITH STATE LAW ON TEAR GAS.
THE BILL OUTLINES HIGH LEVEL
PRINCIPALS THAT SPD POLICY IES
MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH.
ENSURING POLICE USE
IS OBJECTIVELY
REASONABLE, NECESSARY AND
PROPORTIONATE TO
THE THREAT PRESENTED.
AS I SAID A MINUTE AGO, IT
MAKES SEATTLE LAW CONSISTENT
WITH THE
RCW ON TEAR GAS.
IT DOES GO ONE STEP FURTHER ON
TEAR GAS AND REQUIRES A MAYOR
PROCLAMATION BEFORE TEAR GAS
CAN BE USED.
IT'S THE CASE THAT THIS
BILL WOULD ENDORSE, NOT
INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE OR BY
LAW, SPD
POLICIES.
SPD POLICIES WOULD ALLOW
FOR TEAR GAS USE UNDER PHASE
SIX OF THE MATRIX.
PHASE FIVE IS THE FIRST
PHASE WHERE A CROWD MAY BE
DECLARED ILLEGAL AND MAY BE
DISPERSED.
SIX IS WHERE LIFE SAFETY COMES
INTO ABSOLUTE PARAMOUNT --
A NEED ABSOLUTELY TO INTERVENE.
IT IS PHASE SIX THAT TEAR
GAS WOULD BE USED.
IT'S REGULATED BY THIS BILL.
FINALLY, THE BILL REQUIRES
SPD TO COLLABORATE WITH THE
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
FOR PUBLIC SAFETY TO CREATE AND
SEND
TO THE COUNCIL THE USE OF
FORCE IN CROWD MANAGEMENT
SETTINGS.
THAT SHOULD INCLUDE THE USE
OF LESS LETHAL TOOLS.
WITH THAT BASE OF
UNDERSTANDING, I'M AVAILABLE TO
GO INTO
AMENDMENT DISCUSSIONS AND
TALK
ABOUT HOW YOU ALL WOULD AMEND
THE BILL.
>> THANK YOU.
WE WILL START THAT PROCESS.
AS IT TURNS OUT, I'M THE
AUTHOR
OF AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE.
I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120916 AS PRESENTED ON
AMENDMENT
ONE.
>> SECOND.
>> IT'S MOVED AND
SECONDED TO ADOPT AMENDMENT
ONE.
MY NOTES SAY CENTRAL STAFF IS
RECOGNIZED TO DESCRIBE
AMENDMENT
NUMBER ONE.
>> I WILL.
I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BRING
UP THE AMENDMENTS ON THE SCREEN
SO EVERYONE CAN SEE THE EXACT
LANGUAGE.
I'M GOING TO SUMMARIZE THIS AT
A HIGH LEVEL.
BUT I'M GOING TO TRY TO HIT
ALL THE POINTS.
BEFORE I GET INTO SUMMARIZING
IT, I WILL SAY THAT THERE
ARE TEN AMENDMENTS THAT ARE
BEFORE YOU TODAY.
THEY VARY IN THE AMOUNT
OF RESTRICTION THAT THEY WOULD
PLACE ON THE DEPARTMENT'S
CROWD CONTROL POLICIES.
THEY HAVE BEEN ORDERED SUCH
THAT FOR THE MOST PART, THIS IS
THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE AMENDMENT
ON
SPD.
THEN FROM THERE ON, IT
BECOMES MORE RESTRICTIVE AS WE
GET
THROUGH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING
FOR
COUNCILMEMBERS TO KNOW AS YOU
ARE CONSIDERING THIS.
SOMETHING ELSE THAT YOU
SHOULD CONSIDER OR YOU MAY WANT
TO CONSIDER IS THAT THIS
AMENDMENT WAS WORKED -- THE
CHAIR
WORKED ON THIS AMENDMENT WITH
THE
MAYOR'S OFFICE.
I DON'T KNOW, MR. CHAIR, IF
YOU WANT TO
SPEAK TO THAT BEFORE I GET INTO
IT.
I GUESS I SHOULD DESCRIBE IT.
>> DESCRIBE.
I
WILL SPEAK TO THAT AFTER YOU
ARE DONE.
>> OKAY.
THE TITLE EXPANDING
AND CLARIFYING CITY VALUES
AND EXPECTATIONS FOR CROWD
MANAGEMENT.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
INCORPORATE
INTO SECTION TWO OF THE
BILL CITY VALUES AND
EXPECTATIONS FOR
SPD'S CROWD MANAGEMENT POLICY.
THE BILL WOULD PROHIBIT USE
OF BLAST BALLS UNLESS
CROWD CONDITIONS MIRROR
THOSE DESCRIBED IN PHASE FIVE
OF THE
MATRIX AND AN UNLAWFUL
ASSEMBLY OR RIOT.
THEN AUTHORIZATION WOULD
BE PROVIDED BY THE ASSISTANT
CHIEF
OF POLICE ON SCENE COMMANDER
AFTER CONSULTING WITH
THE CHIEF OF POLICE.
WHEN A CROWD -- WHEN USED FOR
CROWD MOVEMENT OR DISBURSE AL,
BLAST BALLS SHOULD BE
DEPLOYED WHEN SAFE AND
FEASIBLE, CONSISTENT WITH
TRAINING IN
AN OPEN SPACE TO
MITIGATE AGAINST THE RISK OF
INJURY TO A PERSON.
THIS IS IN THE OPEN SPACE TO
MITIGATE RISK OF INJURY TO
A PERSON IS ALONG THE
THEME THAT THE CPC PRESENTED
TODAY.
THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS GO
FURTHER.
THIS IS CERTAINLY REINFORCING
THEIR THEME OF ENSURING
THAT BLAST BALLS ARE THROWN
WITH
ENOUGH SPACE THAT FOLKS WON'T
GET HURT.
MUTUAL AID OFFICERS
RESPONDING TO CITY AT THE
REQUEST OF
SPD FOR CROWD MANAGEMENT
PURPOSE MUST AGREE TO FOLLOW
THE
COMMAND AND CONTROL OF THE ON-
SCENE INCIDENT COMMANDER.
THEY MAY NOT DEPLOY LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS IN A CROWD
MANAGEMENT
SETTING CONTRARY TO THE
DIRECTION.
OR CONTRARY TO STATE LAW
OR STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY
THE WASHINGTON STATE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION.
THIS LANGUAGE REINFORCES
THE CURRENT MUTUAL AID
AGREEMENT THAT IS
SHARED BY DEPARTMENTS IN KING
COUNTY.
IT'S NO MORE RESTRICTIVE.
IT'S REINFORCING THE FACT THAT
THERE IS A COMMAND AND
CONTROL THAT SPD WILL BE LEAD
ON
THAT WHEN MUTUAL AID OFFICERS
COME
INTO OUR JURISDICTION.
THERE IS A NEW SECTION FIVE
THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT REPORT TO THE
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR
PUBLIC
SAFETY AND THE COMMUNITY POLICE
COMMISSION ANY DEPLOYMENT
OF LESS LETHAL WEAPONS
IN A CROWD
MANAGEMENT SETTING AS SOON AS
FEASIBLE.
IT WOULD REQUIRE THE OIG
TO EVALUATE THE DEPLOYMENT
PROPERLY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE GOALS
AND VALUES OF THIS ORDINANCE.
IT WOULD REQUIRE THE OIG IN
ITS ANNUAL REPORT TO
INCLUDE INFORMATION ON THE
POLICE
DEPARTMENT'S TRAINING AND USE
OF BLAST BALLS AND WHETHER
THAT TRAINING IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE VALUES IN
THIS ORDINANCE.
FINALLY, IT WOULD REQUIRE SPD
TO NOTIFY THE COUNCIL'S PUBLIC
SAFETY COMMITTEE
BEFORE AUTHORIZING USE OF ANY
LESS
LETHAL WEAPON THAT'S NOT
CURRENTLY IN SPD POLICY.
WITH THAT, I WILL STOP AND ASK
IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ON
THIS.
>> BEFORE DOING THAT, I
WILL INTRODUCE AS THE AUTHOR
OF THE AMENDMENT PRIOR TO
QUESTIONS,
THE GENESIS OF THIS CAME FROM
OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE
HAD DISCUSSIONS THROUGHOUT THE
FALL, OFF AND ON, PRIOR TO
BUDGET.
OBVIOUSLY, WE HAD THE
MAYOR'S LETTER FROM OCTOBER
AND
THE DISCUSSION RELATED TO
CONSENT
DECREE.
THERE'S MANY CONVERSATIONS
TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE COUNCIL,
BUT ALSO WITH THE EXECUTIVE,
THE
MAYOR'S
OFFICE AND SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT.
ALSO STARTED CONVERSATIONS WITH
OTHERS AS WELL.
IN ADDITION, WE HAD THE
CHECK WITH LEGAL IN ADDITION TO
ALL OF
THE OTHER PIECES THAT WE HAVE
HAD.
THERE WAS CHECK- IN IN
ADDITION TO THAT WITH THE
FEDERAL
MONITOR.
OBVIOUSLY, MOVING FORWARD, WHAT
WE'RE LOOKING TO DO FOR
THIS CROWD MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
IS TO
WORK WITH THE FEDERAL
MONITOR, WORK WITH THE JUDGE AS
PART OF THE CONSENT DECREE
PROCESS.
THAT WAS THE GENESIS BEHIND
OR PARTS -- BEHIND THE
AMENDMENT.
I LOOK AT THIS AMENDMENT --
I WILL BY UP FRONT
WITH YOU. EVERYBODY BRINGS
THEIR
PERSPECTIVE. AS I MENTIONED, IN
TERMS
OF UNDER DEPLOYED PIECE THAT I
BRING IT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AS
A NAVAL OFFICER RETIRED.
ALSO MY EXPERIENCE WORKING
COMMUNITY POLICE -- COMMUNITY
SAFETY, PUBLIC
SAFETY ISSUES IN THE COMMUNITY
HERE IN SEATTLE.
WHEN LOOKING AT THE
LEGISLATION, I FELT THAT AN ON-
SCENE
INCIDENT COMMANDER ITSELF WAS
NOT
SUFFICIENT.
THIS
GOES TO THE QUESTION AS I
DESCRIBED IN VARIOUS INTERVIEWS
AND THE LIKE THAT THIS COMES
UP TO THE CHIEF AND THE
MAYOR QUESTION TO HAVE THAT
KIND OF --
DUE TO THE, AS DESCRIBED
BY OTHERS IN TERMS OF THE
IMPACT OF
BLAST BALLS AND THE
NATURE OF THE BLAST BALLS.
ANOTHER PART OF THIS -- I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
HIGHLIGHT THIS
AMENDMENT BRINGS UP THE MATRIX.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO STEP
THROUGH THESE PHASES AND BE
MINDFUL OF THE
FACT, WORKING THROUGH THESE
PHASES ,
EACH SITUATION IS DIFFERENT.
SOME MAY SPEED UP REALLY
QUICKLY IN TERMS OF SKIPPING
THROUGH
THE÷÷PHASES.
SOME
MAY GET TO BEING VIOLENT EARLY.
THAT IS SOMETHING IN TERMS OF
THE MINDSET AS WE GO
THROUGH THAT.
THINK ABOUT THE VARIOUS
SCENARIOS, THE VARIOUS
CONTINGENCIES. THAT'S AN AREA
WHERE AS I
HIGHLIGHTED, THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS THAT
STRUCTURE
TO RESPOND AND RESPOND
WITH INDIVIDUALS OF SUFFICIENT
RANK AND EXPERIENCE AND
TRAINING
TO MAKE FOR BETTER, SMARTER
DECISIONS.
THAT IS WHAT GENERATED MY LOOK
AT THAT PART OF THE ORDINANCE.
SECOND, AS IT RELATES TO
BLAST BALLS AS WELL, LIKE
EVERYBODY
HERE, I THINK WE'RE
ALL LOOKING FOR THE SAFE
EMPLOYMENT OF
THE BLAST BALLS.
IN ADDITION TO ALL THE
MEETINGS I HAVE HAD AND THE
LIKE WITH ALL
THE VARIOUS PIECES AND
ALSO RECEIVING THE VARIOUS
INPUT ON
THIS, I SHOULD BE -- A
GOOD POINT TO NOTE THAT I DID
GO
TO THE RANGE AND HAD A
BRIEFING FROM S.W.A.T. ON ALL
THE
LESS LETHAL WEAPONS.
THAT INCLUDED A DEMONSTRATION
OF BLAST BALLS ALONG WITH A
NUMBER
OF OTHER LESS LETHAL WEAPONS AS
WELL.
PART OF UNDERSTANDING
THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN TERMS OF
THE EMPLOYMENT OF BLAST BALLS.
I BELIEVE THAT THIS, WHICH
HAS WORKED WITH LEGAL, IS A
GOOD
WAY TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE IN
TERMS OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF
BLAST
BALLS.
THAT'S THE REASON WHY THIS
IS INCLUDED HERE, BUILDING ON
WHAT WAS IN THE BILL INITIALLY.
THE MUTUAL AID OFFICERS PIECE,
I
HIGHLIGHT THIS BECAUSE
I BELIEVE WE HAVE TO BE
PRACTICAL.
IF WE COME TOO
RESTRICTIVE, EITHER IN TERMS OF
OTHER
JURISDICTIONS POLICIES
OR THEY -- THOSE INDIVIDUALS
INTO OUR POLICIES AND THE LIKE,
WHAT WE WILL END UP HAVING IS
NO JURISDICTIONS PROVIDING
MUTUAL AID TO THE SEATTLE
POLICE
DEPARTMENT AND TO THE CITY OF
SEATTLE.
IF WE DON'T GET MUTUAL AID
IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, AND IF
WE
ARE UNDER DEPLOYED, THAT
CREATES EVEN WORSE CONDITIONS.
THAT CREATES CONDITIONS
FOR,
BEING FRANK, BAD THINGS TO
HAPPEN.
IT IS THE ABILITY TO ATTRACT
MUTUAL AID BUT THEN DO IT
IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT FOLLOWS
THE
SEATTLE WAY, THE SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT WAY.
BY THE WAY, I HEAR THIS
IN PUBLIC COMMENT.
BUT WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF 2025
IS VERY
DIFFERENT FROM THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT OF 2012.
YOU COULD SEE IT IN THE
TURNOVER, FIRST OFF.
THEN IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE
REFORMS AND PIECES OF THAT --
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S NOT
REALLY ACKNOWLEDGED.
I WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
POINT RIGHT HERE.
BUILDING OFF THAT,
BY EMPHASIZING THE COMMAND AND
CONTROL AND THE DIRECTION, IT
IS A WAY TO ENSURE THAT
MUTUAL AID OFFICERS ARE
OPERATING IN A
WAY CONSISTENT WITH SEATTLE
POLICE POLICIES IN A WAY WE DO
BUSINESS HERE IN SEATTLE AND
DONE
AND WRITTEN IN A WAY SO IT
DOESN'T
TURN OFF ANY MUTUAL AID
FROM NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS.
AGAIN, I SAY THIS THIS
WAY BECAUSE IF WE DON'T GET
MUTUAL
AID, THE CIRCUMSTANCES COULD BE
WORSE.
MY EXAMPLE IN IRAQ GOES TO
THAT.
THE EXAMPLE IN PIONEER SQUARE.
THERE'S PLENTY OF EXAMPLES
OUT THERE THAT WHEN PEOPLE DO
NOT
HAVE THE SUPPORT -- WE
WERE SUPPORTIVE OF AFGHANISTAN
OPERATIONS.
THOSE SOLDIERS OPERATED IN A
WAY
WHEN THEY KNEW THEY HAD
THE SUPPORT OF OUR AIR WING AND
THE
COVER.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE SUPPORT
AND YOU ARE IN A VERY TENUOUS
SITUATION, THAT IS WHEN,
AGAIN, POOR DECISIONS MAY BE
MADE,
BAD DECISIONS MAY BE MADE.
SO IT'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT
TO
ENSURE WE HAVE THAT SUPPORT
WHEN NEEDED.
THAT'S THE BACKGROUND RELATED
TO THAT SECTION.
ALSO VERY IMPORTANT IS THE --
I
CANNOT SAY ENOUGH AND I KEEP
SAYING THIS.
THE SUPPORTING OUR
ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS, ALL
THREE.
OIG, OPA AND THE CPC.
THAT GOES TO ENSURE THAT
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
AND OUR ACCOUNTABILITY
PARTNERS.
TO ENSURE TO THE TRAINING
POINT THAT THAT IS ALSO
REPORTED ON.
FINALLY, TO HAVE THAT KIND
OF DIALOGUE REQUIRED IN TERMS
OF HOW WE MOVE FORWARD WITH
LESS LETHAL WEAPONS.
THAT'S THE DRIVING PARTS
BEHIND
THIS AMENDMENT.
IT'S REALLY -- IT'S
ONE AMENDMENT BUT IT'S GOT SIX
PIECES TO IT OR FIVE IF YOU
KIND OF COMBINE THE TWO BLAST
BALL
ELEMENTS BEHIND THIS AMENDMENT.
WITH THAT, COLLEAGUES, VICE
CHAIR, I TURN OVER TO
QUESTIONS FOR MR. DOS OR IF YOU
WOULD
LIKE TO DIRECT THEM TO ME
AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
A COUPLE QUICK COMMENTS.
FIRST OFF, I NOTE THAT ALL
OF OUR PROPOSED TEN AMENDMENTS
EFFECTIVELY BUILD UPON THE
MAYOR'S ORIGINAL PROPOSED BASE
BILL. I WANT TO THANK YOU, MR.
DOS, FOR WORKING SO
COLLABORATIVELY AND CLOSELY
WITH ME AND
MY OFFICE
IN BUILDING OUR OWN AMENDMENTS.
THEY DO A NUMBER OF THINGS
TO EACH OTHER.
TREAT CERTAIN ELEMENTS
CONTAINED
IN INDIVIDUAL
AMENDMENTS DIFFERENTLY.
SOMETIMES THEY STAY SILENT ON
IT.
FOR THE PUBLIC'S BENEFIT
TO UNDERSTAND THE CHRONOLOGY
OF WHAT THESE DO AND WHAT THEY
DO NOT DO IN CERTAIN
INSTANCES, WOULD APPRECIATE AS
WE
GO GO THEM -- YOU ARE NO
DOUBT PLANNING TO DO THIS.
HIGHLIGHT AREAS OF CLEAR
CONSISTENCY AND INCONSISTENCY
AS WELL, BECAUSE IN SOME CASES
THEY COMPLETELY ABROGATE
FEATURES
CONTAINED AND IN SOME CASES
THEY STAY SILENT.
THAT
WILL BE HELPFUL FOR THE PUBLIC.
THE SECOND THING, JUST WANT
TO JUST CLARIFY, I GUESS, JUST
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I
APPRECIATE MR.
DOS YOUR CHARACTERIZATION
THAT THE AMENDMENTS GO ON
AN ESCALATING BASIS FROM LEAST
TO MOST RESTRICTIVE.
I GENERALLY AGREE WITH ONE
MINOR EXCEPTION.
THAT IS MY PROPOSED
AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX, ALL THAT
DOES IS
INCORPORATE BY
REFERENCE EXISTING LAW AND MAKE
CRYSTAL CLEAR SOMETHING THAT
WAS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN UNDER
LAW ANYWAY MUST HAPPEN.
WE WILL TALK MORE ABOUT IT.
THE EXECUTIVE MUST ENGAGE WITH
ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS
BEFORE MAKING CHANGES.
IN ANY
EVENT, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S
PARTICULARLY RESTRICTIVE.
I GENERALLY AGREE WITH
EVERYTHING.
THIRD AND FINAL THIN, MR. G,
MR.
CHAIR.
I WANT
TO THANK YOU FOR PUTTING
FORWARD THIS THOUGHTFUL
CHAIR IT'S AMENDMENT.
I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR TO ME
YOU'VE THOUGHT THROUGH
THE ISSUES AND TALKED TO A LOT
OF
PEOPLE AND TRIED TO
INCORPORATE AS MANY
PERSPECTIVES AS POSSIBLE
IN PUTTING TOGETHER A
THOUGHTFUL PACKAGE.
MY AMENDMENTS ARE INTENDED TO
BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT.
MOSTLY CONSISTENT WITH THAT.
BUILD UPON IT.
I WANT TO THANK
YOU FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP IN PUTTING THIS
TOGETHER.
>> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIR.
MY QUESTION, GREG, IS SINCE WE
HAVE SO MANY ADDITIONAL
AMENDMENTS, ARE THEY -- IF WE
APPROVE AMENDMENT ONE, WHAT
DOES THE IMPACT OF THE OTHER --
ARE WE AMENDING AMENDMENT ONE
WITH THE OTHER SUBSEQUENT
AMENDMENTS?
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE.
THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS,
YES.
THE VARIOUS PARTS OF THE
CHAIR'S AMENDMENT, AMENDMENT
ONE,
WOULD BE AMENDED OUT OR CHANGED
IF YOU
ADOPT SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS.
A GOOD EXAMPLE IS THE FIRST
PARAGRAPH OF THE CHAIR'S
AMENDMENT, IT SAYS THAT
POLICY -- POLICE POLICY
SHALL PROHIBIT THE USE OF
BLAST BALLS TO MOVE OR DISPERSE
A CROWD.
IT LAYS OUT PHASE FIVE
REQUIREMENT OF
SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY DAMAGE OR
IMMINENT THREAT OF VIOLENCE
AGAINST
PERSONS.
THEN IT SAYS THAT BLAST
BALLS MAY BE AUTHORIZED ONLY
THROUGH AN ON- SCENE ASSISTANT
CHIEF INCIDENT
COMMANDER AFTER CONSULTATION
WITH THE CHIEF.
THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION
FIVE, IF SUBSEQUENT
AMENDMENTS THAT WE GET TO
REQUIRE A HIGHER
LEVEL OF APPROVAL, LIKE SAY A
MAYOR'S AUTHORIZATION OR A
DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY,
IT WOULD AMEND THAT FIRST
AMENDMENT
AND TAKE OUT THE CHAIR'S FIRST
PARAGRAPH SAYING THAT THE
CHIEF OF POLICE WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO
AUTHORIZE AND REPLACE IT
WITH THE MORE
STRICT OR RESTRICTIVE
REQUIREMENTS.
YES, THIS AMENDMENT WILL SERVE
AS A BASE.
THEN AS WE GET TO EACH
SUBJECT, YOU ALL WILL HAVE THE
CHOICE
TO SORT OF RAISE THE LEVEL
OF RESTRICTION OR
RAISE THE BAR IN EACH OF THESE
AREAS.
DOES THAT HELP?
>> YES.
THANK YOU. THAT WAS VERY
HELPFUL.
MAY I MAKE A COMMENT ON
THE
AMENDMENT? CHAIR?
>> YES.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
>> I JUST WANT TO --
OBVIOUSLY, I HAVE QUITE A
NUMBER
OF AMENDMENTS MYSELF.
I DID WANT TO THANK YOU, CHAIR,
FOR PUTTING FORTH THIS AS A
BASELINE CHAIR AMENDMENT.
I THINK IT MAKES SIGNIFICANT
IMPROVEMENTS OVER
THE LEGISLATION THAT WAS SENT
TO US.
I DO APPRECIATE
THE THOUGHTFULNESS THAT WENT
INTO PUTTING TOGETHER THE
CHAIR'S
PACKAGE.
AGAIN, I BELIEVE WE CAN GO
FURTHER.
THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT
MY ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS.
BUT THANK YOU, NONETHELESS,
FOR THE
WORK YOU HAVE PUT INTO THIS.
>> THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS?
>> THANK YOU FOR PUTTING SO
MUCH WORK INTO THIS.
I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN
CONSULTING WITH A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT
PEOPLE TO PERFECT YOUR
AMENDMENT,
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE. AT THE
BEGINNING OF YOUR
COMMENTS, YOU SAID YOU HAD
RUN THIS AMENDMENT BY LEGAL AND
ALSO I BELIEVE -- WELL, CENTRAL
STAFF.
DID YOU CHECK IN WITH OUR
PARTNERS THAT WERE AT THE
TABLE EARLIER TODAY,
SPECIFICALLY WITH
CPC?
>> YES.
THERE'S BEEN CONVERSATIONS
WITH
CPC, PARTICIPATION IN
CPC
MEMBERS AND ALL OF THE ABOVE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ALSO, THE MAYOR'S OFFICE
AND SPD WERE INVOLVED.
>> YES.
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
ON AMENDMENT ONE.
AT THIS POINT I WAS GOING
TO NOTE THE QUESTION THAT YOU
RAISED, COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE, REGARDING MUTUALLY
EXCLUSIVE
AND THE LIKE.
I THINK, MR. DOS, YOU
ADDRESSED THOSE POINTS CLEAR
AND
WALKED THROUGH THOSE --
THAT ASPECT OF THESE
AMENDMENTS.
AT THIS POINT, I ASK FOR --
OKAY.
FURTHER TO WHAT YOU
NOTED, THERE ARE TWO AMENDMENTS
IN
AMENDMENT ONE THAT ARE
EXCLUSIVE
WHERE ONLY ONE OF THE TWO MAY
BE
ADOPTED.
I'M GOING TO ASK CENTRAL
STAFF TO WALK THROUGH THE
TWO AMENDMENTS WHICH ARE
AMENDMENTS TWO AND THREE.
CENTRAL STAFF,
PLEASE WALK
THROUGH THESE TWO OPTIONS.
>> OKAY.
AMENDMENT TWO IS GOING TO --
WOULD AMEND YOUR AMENDMENT, MR.
CHAIR, TO REQUIRE A HIGHER
LEVEL
OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE
OF BLAST BALLS.
ONE THAT WOULD REQUIRE A MAYOR
PROCLAMATION.
WE WILL GET
INTO DISCUSSION OF THAT AFTER
YOURS.
NUMBER THREE WOULD AMEND YOUR
--
AGAIN YOUR FIRST PARAGRAPH ON
AUTHORIZATION THAT WOULD
REQUIRE AND WOULD REQUIRE
MAYORAL
AUTHORIZATION AND
A PROCLAMATION
OF EMERGENCY FOR USE OF BLAST
BALLS.
YOUR AMENDMENT AS A BASE CAN BE
PASSED.
THE SPONSORS OF AMENDMENT
TWO AND AMENDMENT THREE COULD
VOTE FOR YOUR AMENDMENT.
THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY
EXCLUSIVE.
AMENDMENT TWO AND
AMENDMENT THREE WOULD CHANGE
YOUR AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE A
HIGHER LEVEL OF AUTHORIZATION.
>> IN EFFECT, WE WILL GO
THROUGH
AMENDMENTS TWO AND THREE AS IT
IMPACTS CHANGES POTENTIALLY
ATO AMENDMENT ONE.
AFTER THAT PROCESS IS DONE,
THEN WE WILL VOTE
ON AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE.
>> SORRY.
POINT OF PRIVILEGE?
>> YES.
>> IS THAT CORRECT?
THERE ARE PORTIONS OF
YOUR AMENDMENT ONE THAT RELATE
TO MUTUAL AID.
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT
RELATES
TO MUTUAL AID.
YOU HAVE A SECTION THAT RELATES
TO HOW BLAST BALLS ARE
DEPLOYED.
I ALSO HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO HOW
THE BLAST BALLS ARE DEPLOYED.
THOSE WOULD
ALL AMEND YOUR UNDERLYING
AMENDMENT.
>> UNDERSTOOD YOUR POINT.
>> IF I CAN ADD, I DON'T KNOW
IF
THE CLERK HAS REQUESTED THIS
CHANGE.
IN THE WAY THAT THE
AMENDMENTS ARE BUILT AND
STRUCTURED, YOURS
SHOULD GO FIRST.
FOR INSTANCE, YOUR
AMENDMENT ADDS A NEW SECTION TO
THE BILL,
SESSION SECTION H.
>> WE WILL GO WITH THE
VOTE. I'M WORKING IN TERMS OF
WHAT
WE HAD DONE WITH THE CLERKS.
TO THAT POINT, WE WILL VOTE
ON AMENDMENT ONE, WHICH
ADDRESSES
THE POINT THAT
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE DID.
IT'S NOT JUST AS SHE NOTED THE
BLAST BALL PIECE.
THERE'S THE MUTUAL AID PIECE.
WE WILL GO AHEAD AND -- I
CALL FOR A VOTE
ON AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE.
>> I'M PRETTY SURE WE HAVE TO
--
BECAUSE AMENDMENT TWO
AND AMENDMENT THREE BOTH AMEND
AMENDMENT ONE, THEY HAVE TO
BE VOTED ON FIRST.
THE REST OF THE AMENDMENTS,
FOUR THROUGH TEN, DO NOT
AMEND AMENDMENT ONE.
THEY AMEND THE BILL AFTER
IT HAS BEEN AMENDED BY
AMENDMENT ONE.
>> POINT OF ORDER.
I THINK WHAT YOUR PROPOSED
AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE DOES IS
ESTABLISH THE NEW BASE.
THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE VOTED
ON
FIRST.
AND THEN FROM THERE THE
FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS.
>> WE ARE CONTACTING THE
CLERKS.
THE
CLERKS WILL COME DOWN HERE.
>> THANK YOU.
>>
WE WILL HAVE A FIVE-MINUTE
RECESS.
>>>
THANK YOU. WE ARE RESTARTING,
RECONVENING.
WE ARE ADJUSTING
OUR PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS
HERE SLIGHTLY FROM THE
ORIGINAL SCRIPT THAT WE HAD.
MR. DOS, CAN YOU SPEAK
TO THIS IN.
>> HAPPY TO EXPLAIN. WHAT WE
HAVE IS A
SITUATION WHERE THE BILLS THAT
WERE WRITTEN WITH THE CODE
REVISER AND THE LAW DEPARTMENT
HAVE SPECIFIC JINGLES TO THEM.
A JINGLE IS A HEADLINE WHERE
WE DISCUSS HOW A BILL IS
AMENDED.
THEY ARE WRITTEN IN SUCH A WAY
THAT CLASHES WITH PARLIAMENTARY
PROCEDURE.
THEY ARE RULES YOU ADOPT.
WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT WE'RE
GOING TO PROCEED AS WE
HAD TALKED ABOUT, AS I HAD
SAID,
WHERE WE'RE GOING TO START
WITH
AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE AND
THEN WE'RE GOING TO
PROCEED TWO, THREE, ET CETERA.
BUT WHEN WE GET TO
AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO, YOU ARE
GOING
TO SUSPEND THE RULES SO THAT WE
CAN
RECONSIDER THE ISSUE OF
AUTHORIZATION.
TO WALK YOU THROUGH
IT, AMENDMENT ONE WILL REQUIRE
THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO
PROVIDE AUTHORIZATION FOR BLAST
BALLS. WE WILL GET TO AMENDMENT
TWO.
YOU WILL SUSPEND THE RULES.
AMENDMENT TWO REQUIRES MAYOR
PROCLAMATION FOR
AUTHORIZATION FOR BLAST BALLS.
YOU WILL VOTE ON THAT.
YOU WILL GET TO AMENDMENT
THREE,
SUSPEND THE RULES AGAIN, AND
THEN VOTE ON AMENDMENT
THREE, WHICH IS A PROCLAMATION
AND MAYORAL APPROVAL.
AS
WE CONSIDER THE SAME ISSUE, YOU
WILL HAVE TO SUSPEND THE
RULES.
THIS IS A STAFF ERROR.
FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH
COUNCIL, NOTHING TO DO WITH
THE CONSIDERATION OF THE
AMENDMENTS FROM A POLICY
STANDPOINT.
THIS IS ALL JUST
TECHNICAL CLASHES BETWEEN
TWO DIFFERENT
POLICIES. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
>> MR. DOS, NO ISSUE THERE.
OBVIOUSLY, LEGAL AND
PARLIAMENTARY, SOMETIMES
THINGS
CLASH.
WE WILL WORK THROUGH IT RIGHT
NOW.
WE WILL START WITH ONE AND THEN
HOPING THERE'S NO
OBJECTIONS, BUT I WILL SAY THAT
AGAIN AFTER -- WHEN WE GET TO
NUMBERS
TWO
AND THREE. WITH THAT, CLERK,
WILL
YOU CALL THE ROLL ON THE
ADOPTION
OF AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE?
[ ROLL CALLED ]
THERE ARE FIVE YES VOTES.
ZERO NO VOTES AND ZERO
ABSTENTIONS.
>> THANK YOU, CLERK.
COLLEAGUES, IF THERE'S NO
OBJECTIONS, THE RULES WILL
BE SUSPENDED TO ALLOW
THE CONSIDERATION AND VOTE
ON AMENDMENT TWO
AND AMENDMENT
THREE. ANY OBJECTION?
SEEING AND HEARING NO
OBJECTION, WE WILL
PROCEED AS STATED BY MR. DOS.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK VICE
CHAIR TO MOVE HIS AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU.
I MOVE TO AMEND AMENDMENT
NUMBER ONE AS PRESENTED ON
TWO.
>> IT IS MOVED AND SECONDED
AS PRESENTED ON
THE AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO.
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO
DESCRIBE
IT FIRST?
>> YES.
GO AHEAD.
>> AMENDMENT TWO, AS WE
DISCUSSED A BIT, WILL AMEND
THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT REQUIRES
THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO
AUTHORIZE
USE OF BLAST BALLS.
THIS AMENDMENT, NUMBER
TWO, WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE
MAYOR
ISSUE A PROCLAMATION OF
CIVIL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE 10.02.
THIS REQUIREMENT FOR
A PROCLAMATION OF EMERGENCY IS
THE SAME REQUIREMENT THAT THE
UNDERLYING BILL HAS FOR TEAR
GAS.
THIS IS ELEVATING
THE AUTHORIZATION LEVEL FROM
BLAST
BALLS AT THE INCIDENT
COMMANDER TO THE MAYOR -- TO
A PROCLAMATION OF EMERGENCY
GIVEN BY THE MAYOR.
ALSO NOTABLE IS THAT THIS
DOES NOT CHANGE THE CAUSES
AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH SPD
MAY USE THE BLAST BALLS
THEMSELVES.
THEY COULD STILL BE USED AS
LEVEL FIVE WHERE THERE'S
A THREAT OF VIOLENCE AND
SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY DAMAGE.
IT WOULD JUST
REQUIRE THE MAYOR AL
DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> THANK YOU.
VICE CHAIR?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
IT'S NO SECRET THAT THE MOST
CONTENTIOUS TOOL OR
TECHNIQUE THAT WE ARE BEING
CALLED UPON
TO CONSIDER AS PART OF THE
BROADER CROWD MANAGEMENT
PROPOSED LEGISLATION IS THE USE
--
THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH
SPD COULD USE BLAST BALLS OR
NOT.
BLAST BALLS, MOST
CONTROVERSIAL, MOST SENSITIVE.
BLAST BALLS ARE DANGEROUS.
IT'S NO SECRET.
SKIMMING THROUGH THE LETTER
FROM
A PUBLIC COMMENTER EARLIER
TODAY, MISS KAREN KOHLER.
WE HAVE PICTURES OF
PEOPLE SUFFERING CATASTROPHIC
INJURIES AS A DIRECT RESULT OF
BLAST
BALLS.
IT CONTINUES ON WITH SOME
MORE GRUESOME PHOTOS.
COULD TURN THE PAGES HERE,
AND THESE ARE ACTUAL PEOPLE WHO
HAVE
SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF BLAST
BALLS, WHETHER JUSTIFIED OR
NOT, IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.
THEY ARE HARMFUL.
THEY ARE DANGEROUS INHERENTLY.
LESS THAN LETHAL OR OTHERWISE.
WE HAVE SEEN VARIOUS
COMMUNITY GROUPS SAY WE SHOULD
NOT
USE THOSE AS A CITY, AS A
POLICY MATTER UNDER
ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER.
THAT CERTAINLY SEEMS TO BE THE
POSITION OF OUR CITY'S OFFICE
OF CIVIL RIGHTS.
OCR.
I READ THEIR REPORT I THINK
FROM LAST MONTH NOW.
IT'S NO SECRET BLAST BALLS ARE
DANGEROUS -- VERY DANGEROUS.
MY PROPOSED AMENDMENT HERE --
BLAST BALLS ARE DANGEROUS.
ON THE ONE HAND PEOPLE SAY
THEY SHOULDN'T BE USED UNDER
ANY
CIRCUMSTANCE.
OTHER HAND, FOLKS SAYING
SHOULD HAVE FREE WILL ACCESS TO
USE
THEM UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
ULT PAT ULTIMATELY WHAT MY
PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS ABOUT,
IT'S ABOUT
BALANCE.
THIS AMENDMENT IS ABOUT
BALANCE.
IT'S TRUE THAT THERE MAY
BE SITUATIONS WHERE BLAST BALLS
ARE
NECESSARY FOR CROWD
DISPERSEMENT
PURPOSES. PURPOSES.
SPECIFICALLY WHERE
DEMONSTRATORS AND CITIZENS ARE
AT RISK
BECAUSE A DEMONSTRATION HAS
GOTTEN
OUT OF HAND.
IN ORDER TO USE THIS
TECHNOLOGY, WE SHOULD BE SURE
THAT
BLAST BALLS ARE BEING DEPLOYED
IN
A CONTEXT THAT WARRANTS
THEIR SPECIFIC USE, WHICH IS
WHY
MY PROPOSED AMENDMENT CALLS ON
THE
MAYOR TO MAKE A DECLARATION OF
CIVIL EMERGENCY.
AS WE HEARD, THERE'S AN
EXISTING -- AS WE KNOW,
THERE'S AN EXISTING STATE
ORDINANCE THAT
IMPOSES A REQUIREMENT FOR MORE
HEIGHTENED,
STRINGENT, EXACTING STANDARD
FOR POSSIBLE -- POSSIBLE USE
OF
BLAST BALLS FOR CROWD
MANAGEMENT PURPOSES.
LET ME BE CRYSTAL CLEAR.
BLAST BALLS ARE NOT WITHOUT
RISK.
I DON'T BELIEVE -- I DON'T
THINK THERE'S ANY SUCH THING
AS ZERO
RISK.
I MYSELF VOLUNTEERED
TO WITNESS -- AND SIGNED UP TO
DO
A BLAST BALL DEMONSTRATION
AMONGST OTHER CROWD MANAGEMENT
TOOLS THAT SPD CURRENTLY HAS AT
ITS
DISPOSAL.
SIGNED UP TO WITNESS AND
OBSERVE THAT FIRSTHAND.
I ALSO TOOK THE EXTRA STEP --
I HEARD SOMEONE DURING
PUBLIC COMMENT EARLIER TODAY
SAYING, YOU ALL TOOK THE VISUAL
DEMO.
NONE OF YOU SIGNED UP FOR --
TO ACTUALLY SEE IT
FIRSTHAND. I DID.
I TRIED AT LEAST.
I TRIED.
I PERSONALLY -- I THINK IT'S A
PERSONAL CHOICE.
FOR ME, BEING A MILITARY
VETERAN, I HAVE SEEN CERTAIN
IMPACTS FIRSTHAND OF WEAPONS,
TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGY.
I ALSO HAVE BEEN AT
DEMONSTRATIONS ,
PROTESTS, INCLUDING IN 2020,
THAT
STARTED
OFF PEACEFUL AND QUICKLY
DEVOLVED WHERE I HAVE INHALED
NOXIOUS GAS, PEPPER SPRAY.
I DON'T KNOW WHATEVER THE HECK
IT WAS.
THAT'S WHEN I KNEW IT WAS TIME
FOR ME
TO GO HOME TO MY FAMILY,
PERSONALLY.
I WOULDN'T PERSONALLY
AUTHORIZE ANYTHING THAT COULD
POTENTIALLY BE USED ON THE
GENERAL
PUBLIC THAT I'M NOT
COMFORTABLE
WITH OBSERVING FIRSTHAND.
I TRIED.
I SIGNED UP.
I ASKED.
I ASKED, WANTED TO.
PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE
SEPARATION
OF POWERS.
THIS IS A CLEAR EXAMPLE.
I MADE THE REQUEST.
THIS IS ULTIMATELY THE MAYOR'S
CALL. THE EXECUTIVE DECLINED
MY REQUEST TO EXPERIENCE
A DEPLOYMENT OF
BLAST BALLS FIRSTHAND.
BUT I TRIED.
I STILL,
AGAIN, OBSERVED THEM VISUALLY
AT LEAST.
MY GOAL WITH THIS AMENDMENT IS
THAT WE AS A CITY COME UP WITH
A
POLICY THAT ATTEMPTS TO
RESTRICT THE USE OF BLAST BALLS
TO MORE
LIMITED, NARROW
CIRCUMSTANCES PROVIDING CLARITY
FOR
OFFICERS, MUCH NEEDED CLARITY
FOR
OFFICERS ON THE GROUND AND
PROTECTIONS FOR THOSE
DEMONSTRATING
IN OUR CITY.
IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE
SPECIFIC
LANGUAGE, THAT FIRST
SENTENCE THERE OF MY PROPOSED
AMENDMENT,
AGAIN, REQUIRES THE MAYOR
TO ISSUE A PROCLAMATION OF A
CIVIL
EMERGENCY.
THAT SECOND SENTENCE,
COLLEAGUES, AS MR. DOS NOTED,
IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH
AN ELEMENT -- I JUST
BORROWED LANGUAGE DIRECTLY FROM
THE
CHAIR'S AMENDMENT SETTING
FORTH THE CIRCUMSTANCES, ONCE
THAT
HAPPENS, THEY SHOULD BE USED.
I LIKE TO THINK -- THAT'S
FROM ONE OF THE MATRIX -- THE
CPC
MATRIX, I BELIEVE.
THAT'S ONE OF THEIR SPECIFIC
RECOMMENDATIONS.
WE CLARITY
ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THAT.
BUT I LIKE TO THINK OF THAT
SHORTHAND AS A MINIMUM -- A
LAST RESORT.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF LAST RESORT.
AGAIN, COLLEAGUES, I THINK
THIS BILL IS CONSISTENT WITH,
IT HEIGHTENED WITH THE PROPOSED
CHAIR'S AMENDMENT THAT WE JUST
PASSED.
IT BUILDS UPON IT IN
AN IMPORTANT WAY BY MAKING
CLEAR --
MAKING CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT
BLAST BALLS ARE ONLY A MATTER
OF LAST
RESORT.
ONCE THAT PROCLAMATION BY
THE MAYOR HAS BEEN GIVEN, IT
UNLOCKED ANY NUMBER OF OPTIONS.
AT THAT POINT I PERSONALLY
WOULD DEFER TO THE MAYOR AND
THE DEPARTMENT TO FIGURE OUT
WHAT THAT -- WHO
SHOULD MAKE THE CALL.
I THINK THIS IS ULTIMATELY
AT THE END OF THE DAY A
BALANCED APPROACH THAT STRIKES
THE
RIGHT BALANCE BETWEEN THE
VARIOUS COMPETING INTERESTS AND
NEEDS
HERE.
I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
>> CAN I CLARIFY ONE THING?
>> YES.
>> I MAY HAVE MISSPOKE EARLIER.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I
DID THAT THIS POINT IS
ABSOLUTELY
CLEAR.
THE STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT
THE MAYOR GIVE APPROVAL OF USE
OF
TEAR GAS.
IT WAS THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND
SPD THAT ADDED INTO THIS
BILL THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT
THAT THERE BE A MAYOR'S
OFFICE PROCLAMATION FOR USE OF
TEAR
GAS.
IT IS TRUE THAT BOTH OF THOSE
THINGS ARE
NECESSARY UNDER THIS BILL FOR
USE OF TEAR GAS.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. DOS.
ARE
THERE ANY COMMENTS ON AMENDMENT
NUMBER TWO?
>> THIS IS -- I APPRECIATE YOUR
WORK.
I HAVE JUST A SIMPLE
QUESTION ABOUT WHEN WE SAY
PROCLAMATION, WE WHO SIT UP
HERE ALL
THE TIME -- I HAVE A CERTAIN
IDEA OF
WHAT A PROCLAMATION IS.
IT'S IN A FOLDER AND YOU
PRESENT
IT TO SOMEBODY.
IS THERE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF --
WHO ARE THE -- WHAT ARE
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
ISSUANCE
OF A PROCLAMATION IN TERMS OF
WHO HAS TO BE IN THE AUDIENCE,
ET
CETERA?
DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE
LOGISTICS?
>> THE LOGISTICS ON THAT -- THE
SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THE
LOGISTICS, I WOULD DEFER TO MR.
DOS AND THE EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT.
AT A PRE- CONDITION RATHER
FOR POSSIBLE DEPLOYMENT, THE
MAYOR WOULD BE REQUIRED TO
ISSUE
A PROCLAMATION OF CIVIL
EMERGENCY
PURSUANT TO EXISTING LAW.
IN THIS CASE IS SMC CHAPTER
10.02.
THOSE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
AND LOGISTICS SET FORTH IN THAT
CODE WOULD APPLY WITH EQUAL
WEIGHT AND FORCE IN THE BLAST
BALL
CONTEXT FOR CROWD
MANAGEMENT PURPOSES AS WELL.
MAYBE MR. DOS HAS --
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
SAKA.
EVERYTHING YOU SAID IS TRUE.
SMC 10. 02 WOULD REQUIRE
SPECIFIC FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES TO THAT
EVENT WHICH IS CAUSING
THE EMERGENCY DECLARATION.
IT IS THE CASE THAT THE
MAYOR'S OFFICE HAS INDICATED
THAT SUCH
A DECLARATION COULD BE
WRITTEN BETWEEN ONE AND THREE
HOURS.
PROBABLY CLOSER TO THE
HIGHER END OF THAT RANGE.
IT WOULD HAVE TO GO -- THAT'S
MY INTERPRETATION.
IT WOULD HAVE TO GO
THROUGH LEGAL REVIEW WITH THE
CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO ENSURE
THAT THE DECLARATIONS THAT WERE
GOING
INTO THE PROCLAMATION
WERE CORRECT AND THAT IT COULD
BE
ISSUED.
THERE'S A
DURE ALL THINGS THAT WOULD SLOW
IT
DOWN.
THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE ESTIMATES THAT COULD
TAKE UP TO THREE
HOURS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
I NOTE AMENDMENT TWO IS --
RELATES DIRECTLY TO THE FIRST
PARAGRAPH OF THE NOW AMENDED
BILL.
I ALSO NOTE IT POINTS TO
POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY, WHICH
GOES BACK TO THE EARLIER POINT
ABOUT
WORKING WITH THE COUNCIL BUT
ALSO THE COMMUNITY
POLICING COMMISSION TO ENGAGE
SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT ON POLICY
ISSUES TO INCLUDE CROWD
MANAGEMENT.
WITH THAT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
I DON'T SEE ANYTHING.
WITH THAT, CLERK, WILL YOU
PLEASE CALL
ROLL ON ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT
TWO?
[ ROLL CALLED ]
>> FIVE
IN FAVOR AND NONE OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU. AMENDMENT TWO IS
ADOPTED.
WE HAVE ALREADY HAD THE RULES
SUSPENDED.
WE CAN MOVE TO AMENDMENT
NUMBER THREE.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> THANK YOU.
I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL
BILL 126916 AS PRESENTED ON
AMENDMENT
THREE, DRAFT VERSE
TWO.
>> SECOND.
>> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED
TO AMEND AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE
AS PRESENTED IN AMENDMENT
NUMBER
THREE DRAFT TWO.
DRAFT VERSION TWO.
>> DRAFT TWO WAS DISTRIBUTED A
FEW MOMENTS BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE SESSION BEGAN.
I WOULD ASK THE CLERK IF HE
CAN BRING UP
AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE DRAFT
TWO.
>> THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
REQUIRE THE MAYOR ISSUE A
PROCLAMATION OF CIVIL EMERGENCY
PURSUANT TO
THE SMC 10.02.
THE SAME LEVEL OF
RESTRICTION YOU JUST ADOPTED.
BUT IT WOULD FURTHER
REQUIRE THAT THE MAYOR HIMSELF
OR
HERSELF AUTHORIZE USE OF BLAST
BALLS.
AGAIN, CONSISTENT WITH PHASE
FIVE OF SPD'S CROWD MANAGEMENT
CONTROL POLICY.
AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE
AMENDMENT, PHASE FIVE IS AS WE
DISCUSSED, VIOLENT ACTS BY A
PERSON
OR ACTS THAT POSE A THREAT
OF VIOLENCE
AGAINST PERSONS OR SIGNIFICANT
PROPERTY DAMAGE.
IT IS THE CASE THAT ONCE THESE
THINGS HAVE BEEN -- HAVE
HAPPENED, THERE'S A
PROCLAMATION THAT HAS
BEEN ISSUED AND THE MAYOR HAS
GIVEN HIS OR HER
AUTHORIZATION THAT THERE'S
NO MORE RESTRICTION AND
SPD INCIDENT COMMANDERS
LIEUTENANT OR ABOVE COULD
PROVIDE AUTHORIZATION TO USE
BLAST
BALLS.
THAT PROVISION ALSO THE SAME AS
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA'S
AMENDMENT.
HERE, WE ARE LAYERING ON
TWO ADDITIONAL LEVELS OF
AUTHORIZATION OR ONE LEVEL.
THAT IS THAT THE MAYOR MUST
GIVE SPECIFIC APPROVAL.
I WILL ASK IF THERE'S
ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT.
>> ANY QUESTIONS?
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, CAN
YOU SPEAK TO YOUR AMENDMENT?
>> SURE. THANK YOU.
THIS AMENDMENT DOES TWO THINGS.
WELL, THREE THINGS, I GUESS.
IT REQUIRES THAT BEFORE WE --
THE MAYOR -- BEFORE SPD IS
ALLOWED TO USE BLAST
BALLS, THERE HAS TO BE A
MAYORAL AUTHORIZATION OF CIVIL
EMERGENCY
AND THEN THE MAYOR HAS TO
AUTHORIZE THE USE OF BLAST
BALLS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF
SECTION FIVE OF THE POLICE
POLICY.
BASED ON MY CONVERSATIONS WITH
CPC -- I GOT THEIR LETTER ON
FRIDAY.
AND THEIR CONCERN THAT THERE
WAS
NO MECHANISM FOR IMMEDIATE
RISK TO LIFE.
I BROUGHT FORTH THIS AMENDMENT.
I DID PASS IT OUT TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS YESTERDAY,
JUST SO YOU
WOULD BE AWARE THAT IT WAS
COMING.
THAT'S WHY IT SAYS THESE
RESTRICTIONS SHALL NOT APPLY
TO IMMEDIATE THREATS TO LIFE
SAFETY THAT REQUIRE IMMEDIATE
POLICE
ACTION AS ESTABLISHED IN
PHASE SIX OF SPD'S CROWD
MANAGEMENT INTERVENTION AND
CROWD CONTROL
POLICY.
I KNOW THERE WAS SOME
DISCUSSION
EARLIER TODAY ABOUT
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF
BEING SOMEWHAT
PRESCRIPTIVE IN REFERENCING THE
RIOTS AT MARDI GRAS THAT
RESULTS IN THE DEATH OF THE
INDIVIDUAL.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR MY
AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW SPD --
WOULD
HAVE ALLOWED -- IF IT WERE IN
PLACE AT
THAT TIME WOULD HAVE ALLOWED
SPD TO IMMEDIATELY RESPOND
AND UTILIZE BLAST BALLS.
IT WOULD NOT HAVE REQUIRE
AID DECLARATION OF CIVIL
EMERGENCY OR
A DIRECT AUTHORIZATION BY THE
MAYOR.
THERE IS THAT ESCAPE CLAUSE IF
SPD IS SEEING SOMEBODY
WHOSE LIFE IS IMMEDIATELY IN
DANGER.
IF THEY DON'T ACT IMMEDIATELY,
THE PERSON WILL
SUFFER SERIOUS -- LIFE-
THREATENING
INJURY.
I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.
TO THE OTHER PIECE, WE
HAVE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
AND WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE THIS
HIGHER LEVEL OF APPROVAL
BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT
UNINTENDED HARM
TO HAPPEN THROUGH ESCALATING
TO DIFFERENT USES, DIFFERENT
LESS LETHAL WEAPONS.
TO THAT I WOULD RESPOND
THAT BLAST BALLS THEMSELVES
HAVE BEEN
DOCUMENTED BOTH IN 2015 AND
2020 IN SEATTLE AND I WOULD SAY
THEY ARE USED
THROUGHOUT THE NATION AS
RESULTING IN UNINTENDED HARM.
BECAUSE BLAST BALLS BY
THEIR NATURE ARE RUBBER AND
THEY
BOUNCE, EVEN IF AN OFFICER
THROWS THE BALL PER POLICY
APPROPRIATELY, THERE'S NO WAY
TO GUARANTEE THAT THE BALL
ISN'T GOING TO BOUNCE AND HIT
SOMEBODY WHERE IT'S NOT
SUPPOSED TO
OR BOUNCE OFF INTO A
DIFFERENT DIRECTION AND HIT AN
UNINTEND ED
PERSON BECAUSE OF THE VERY
NATURE OF HOW IT DEPLOYS.
THEY SEPARATE.
SO YOU HAVE THE RUBBER
PIECE THAT'S FLYING ANY WHICH
WAY, WHICH CAN ALSO CAUSE
INJURY.
THIS IDEA THAT SOMEHOW WE
HAVE TO -- THAT BY ALLOWING
SORT OF THE UNLIMITED USE OF
BLAST
BALLS, WE ARE PREVENTING
UNINTENDED HARM FROM OTHER
WEAPONS I THINK IS
DISINGENUOUS IN TALKING ABOUT
THE
UNINTENDED
HARM THAT CAN HAPPEN WITH BLAST
BALLS.
THE OTHER THING THAT'S
IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND IS
THAT
WE CONTINUE TO SAY LESS LETHAL
VERSUS NON-LETHAL.
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE KEEP
THAT DISTINCTION IN MIND.
NONE OF THESE ARE NON-LETHAL.
THEY ARE ALL LESS LETHAL.
I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE
MATERIALS THAT KAREN
KOHLER SUBMITTED TO SHOW IN
GRAPHIC DETAIL WHAT HAPPENED.
I ALSO WANT TO MAKE IT
CLEAR THAT WE DO HAVE A NEW SPD
FORCE.
WE HAVE MADE A LOT OF ROE
PROGRESS UNDER THE CONSENT
DECREE.
WE HAD PROBLEMS IN 2015.
THAT WASN'T MAYDAY. THAT
WASN'T A 2020 PROTEST WHERE
PEOPLE WERE PROTESTING
AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT AND IT
WAS
PERSONAL.
WE HAD THESE KINDS
OF PROBLEMS IN 2015 WHERE
PEOPLE
WERE PROTESTING ABOUT MAYDAY.
TO THE POINT THAT
COUNCILMEMBER RINK WAS ABLE TO
MAKE, WE
HAVEN'T DEPLOYED IT YET.
I'M SURE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
MANY DEMONSTRATIONS THAT ARE
COMING FORTH.
TO ME, THE USE OF BLAST
BALLS AND THE POTENTIAL INJURY
AND THE
POTENTIAL RISK TO LIFE IS OF
A LEVEL OF SERIOUSNESS THAT
THE HIGHEST ELECTED OFFICIAL IN
THE CITY SHOULD APPROVE THEIR
USE.
THE PERSON, THE MAYOR SHOULD BE
CONFIDENT THAT THE
CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT PLACING
THE CITIZENRY AT
THIS LEVEL OF RISK.
IF THE MAYOR IS UNWILLING
TO MAKE THAT CALL, THEN IT
SEEMS TO
ME THAT IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO
AUTHORIZE THAT DEGREE OF LESS
LETHAL.
I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT
OVERALL, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT
ALL OF THE LESS LETHAL WEAPONS.
BUT THERE ARE CERTAINLY OTHER
ONES THAT CAN BE UTILIZED
THAT ARE NOT QUITE SO LETHAL AS
BLAST BALLS.
LOOKING AT THE BLUE NOSE.
SOME OF THOSE ARE.
BUT THE BLUE NOSE ARE LESS SO.
WE HAVE PEPPER SPRAY THAT WE
CAN
UTILIZE.
I WANT TO NOTE THAT WASHINGTON
ATTORNEY GENERAL USE OF
PHYSICAL FORCE AND CROWD
MANAGEMENT
BEST PRACTICES THAT CAME OUT IN
JULY OF 2022 TALKED ABOUT NOISE
FLASH
DEVICE, WHICH IS WHAT A BLAST
BALL IS.
IF YOU GO TO THE DEFENSE
PAGE, THEY ARE THE
MANUFACTURERS THAT
WE HAVE, THEIR PAGE SAYS THAT
THE BLAST BALL GRENADE IS A
DEVICE THAT DELIVERS
THREE STIMULI FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL
AND
PHYSIOLOGICAL AFFECTS.
LIGHT, SOUND AND
OC PEPPER SPRAY.
THE INTENT IS TO CAUSE
DISTRACTION, PANIC, DISORDER.
BECAUSE OF THAT, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, AN ARM -- NOT
A BLEEDING LIBERAL IN TERMS OF
ITS
INSTITUTIONAL POSITIONS,
HAS RECOMMENDED AGAINST THE USE
OF NOISE FLASH DIVERSIONS,
SHALL NOT BE USED FOR CROWD
MANAGEMENT
EXCEPT AS A LAST RESORT.
I THINK GIVEN THAT THE
PROFESSIONALS WHO HAVE LOOKED
AT THIS ISSUE OVER THE YEARS,
WE EVEN HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES TALKING ABOUT THE
NEED TO REALLY UTILIZE THIS AS
A LAST
RESORT, THAT WE NEED TO
CREATE THAT FRAMEWORK FOR OUR
CITY.
THERE'S SOME CONCERN THAT
IT'S
GOING TO TAKE TOO MUCH TIME
FOR THE MAYOR TO MAKE THIS
DECISION OR THE MAYOR IS GOING
TO BE
OUT OF TOWN.
IF THE MAYOR IS OUT OF
TOWN, THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE A
PRO TEM.
I WOULD ASK MY COLLEAGUES IF
YOU
BALK AT HAVING TO -- BEING PUT
IN A POSITION OF HAVING TO
MAKE THE DECISION ABOUT WHETHER
TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF BLAST
BALLS, I WOULD ASK YOU TO ASK
YOURSELF WHY.
WHY WOULD YOU HAVE THAT
HESITANCY? FOR ME, I KNOW IT'S
BECAUSE OF THE LEVEL OF
POTENTIAL
LETHALITY THAT I WOULD BE
EXPOSING
THE CITIZENS TO AND HAVING TO
BALANCE THAT AGAINST ALSO THE
LEVEL OF POTENTIAL
HARM THAT COULD HAPPEN TO
PEOPLE FROM
A RIOT SITUATION.
NEEDING TO KNOW
THAT PROPORTIONAL BALANCE.
CERTAINLY, I WOULD LOOK TO
MY SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS AND
SPD TO HELP ME MAKE THAT
DECISION.
I
WOULD EXPECT THE MAYOR TO DO
THE SAME.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WHEN
I TALKED TO CPC ABOUT ON FRIDAY
WAS THEIR CONCERN AGAIN THAT
THERE WOULD BE TOO MUCH
TIME BETWEEN THINGS UNFOLDING
ON
THE GROUND AND BEING ABLE TO
MAKE THIS -- COMING BACK TO THE
MAYOR FOR
A DECLARATION RELATING TO BLAST
BALL USE.
I'M NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT.
CLEARLY, I'M SPEAKING
FROM A POSITION OF SOME
IGNORANCE HERE.
BUT I WOULD IMAGINE THAT
IF YOU ARE COMING TO THE
MAYOR'S
OFFICE FOR A DECLARATION OF
CIVIL EMERGENCY THAT IT WOULD
MAKE
SENSE AT THAT TIME TO ALSO
MAKE THE CASE FOR ISSUING --
AUTHORIZING THE USE OF BLAST
BALLS AND GIVING IT AS AN
OPTION
FOR THE LIEUTENANTS ON THE
GROUND IF THEY SEE IT
NECESSARY.
IN MY OPINION, I WOULD SEE THAT
AS SOMETHING THAT
HAPPENS SIMULTANEOUSLY TO THE
REQUEST FOR A CIVIL EMERGENCY
DECLARATION.
THE OTHER THING AS WELL, IF
THE MAYOR IS OUT OF TOWN.
IF WE LEAVE IT AT THE POLICE
CHIEF, THE CHIEF ISN'T ALWAYS
IN TOWN EITHER.
THEN WE AGAIN ARE DOWN THE
CHAIN OF COMMAND.
IS THAT APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE
POTENTIAL RISK, BOTH
PHYSICAL RISK AS WELL AS THE
LEGAL RISK?
WE PAID OUT $10 MILLION
BECAUSE THERE WERE OPA FOUND --
CONFIRMED QUITE A NUMBER
OF INSTANCES WHERE POLICY WAS
NOT
COMPLIED WITH.
EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE A POLICY,
YOU RUN THE RISK OF THERE
BEING,
FOR WHATEVER REASON,
NON-COMPLIANCE.
I THINK IT'S INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT THAT WE MAKE IT VERY
CLEAR THAT THESE TOOLS
CARRY SERIOUS RISK.
THERE NEEDS TO BE SERIOUS
CONSIDERATION. IF THINGS GO
WRONG, THAT
THERE IS SOMEBODY DIRECTLY
ACCOUNTABLE TO THE CITIZENRY.
IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO SAY,
WELL, THE POLICE CHIEF CAN BE
FIRED.
BECAUSE OFTEN WE SEE THAT
THAT CAN BE A COMPLICATED AND
LENGTHY PROCESS AND DOESN'T
ALWAYS
HAPPEN.
I THINK WHEN SOMEBODY
IS EXERCISING THEIR FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHT AND THEY
RECEIVE A
LIFE- THREATENING OR EVEN
LONG-TERM INJURY, THAT THEY
HAVE THE RIGHT TO HOLD THEIR
ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES, THE COUNCIL
AND THE MAYOR RESPONSIBLE FOR
HAVING
MADE THAT DECISION SHOULD THEY
BELIEVE IT WAS THE WRONG
DECISION.
THAT'S WHY I BELIEVE WE NEED
TO
HAVE THIS AMENDMENT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE.
>> MR. CHAIR.
>> GO
AHEAD.
>> I'M SORRY TO KEEP
INTERRUPTING.
I NEED TO PRESENT SOME
TECHNICAL
INFORMATION THAT I THINK WILL
AFFECT ALL OF YOUR VOTING.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU
ALL HAVE INFORMATION.
I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED IN MY
OVERVIEW THAT THERE IS, AS
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE PUT IT,
THE ESCAPE CLAUSE THAT
REQUIRE IMMEDIATE POLICE ACTION
AS
ESTABLISHED IN PHASE SIX OF
THE CROWD INTERVENTION AND
CONTROL
POLICY.
THERE IS WITHIN SPD'S
MATRIX POLICIES THE ALLOWANCE
FOR OFFICERS TO MAKE
INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS TO DEPLOY
BLAST BALLS
WHEN THERE IS A THREAT TO LIFE.
HOWEVER, THAT PROVISION DOES
NOT
ALLOW FOR CROWD DISPERSAL.
ALLOWS FOR MORE OF AN
INDIVIDUAL INTERDICTION TACTIC.
IN A WAY, THIS BROADENS THEIR
EXISTING POLICY, BECAUSE
THE RESTRICTIONS -- THIS
BROADENS THE POLICY FROM THE
LAST
AMENDMENT, BECAUSE
THE RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD BE
PUT IN PLACE, THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE AUTHORIZATION AND THE
MAYOR'S OFFICE PROCLAMATION,
WOULD
NOT BE REQUIRED IN PHASE SIX
WHEN WE HAVE REACHED LIFE
SAFETY EVENTS.
THAT IS -- THAT WOULD ALLOW THE
MAYOR'S OFFICE TO DISPERSE A
CROWD AT PHASE SIX.
UNDER THEIR CURRENT POLICY,
THEY
CAN ONLY USE THEM FOR
INDIVIDUAL INTERDICTION.
OFFICERS CAN MAKE DECISIONS
ONLY AT THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
FOR INDIVIDUAL INTERDICTIONS,
NOT
FOR CROWD DISPERSAL.
I'M GOING TO INVITE BRIAN
MAXEY
UP.
DO
YOU WANT -- UNLESS I SAID
SOMETHING WRONG THERE.
DO YOU WANT TO CLARIFY?
TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IS
GETTING THE RIGHT INFORMATION.
>> GREG, WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC
QUESTION?
>> SPD'S CURRENT POLICIES ALAW
ALLOW FOR OFFICERS TO MAKE
INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS IF IT'S
A MATTER OF LIFE DECISION,
BUT THEY CANNOT MAKE THE
DECISION
TO DISPERSE A CROWD.
THEY CAN ONLY MAKE THE DECISION
TO INTERDICT AT AN INDIVIDUAL
LEVEL.
>> THAT'S A CORRECT STATEMENT,
YES.
>> UNDER THIS AMENDMENT,
THE MAYORAL PROCLAMATION AND
THE MAYORAL SPECIFIC PERMISSION
WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED IN PHASE
SIX WHEN THERE IS -- TO
DISPERSE THE CROWD, NOR WOULD
AN
INDIVIDUAL OFFICER BE
PROHIBITED
FROM MAKING A DECISION TO
INTERDICT WITH
INDIVIDUALS WITHIN A CROWD IF
THERE'S A LIFE
SAFETY EMERGENCY?
IT BASICALLY GIVES A
BROAD EXCEPTION FOR LIFE SAFETY
EMERGENCIES?
>> THANK YOU,
MR. DOS.
>> CAN YOU CLARIFY?
IS THIS COUNTERINTUITIVELY
PROVIDING FOR MORE --
NOT NECESSARILY -- FOR
MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR THE USE OF
BLAST
BALLS IF YOU ARE SAYING THAT
THE SAFETY OF THE PEOPLE
INVOLVED
IS ALREADY A REQUIREMENT
THAT HAS BEEN MET IN A
SITUATION?
>> ONE WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT
IS, WHEN THE MAYOR'S OFFICE OR
THE
CHIEF OR AN INCIDENT COMMANDER
GIVES AN ORDER TO DISPERSE A
CROWD, THAT'S USING BLAST
BALLS IN A WAY THAT IS INTENDED
TO MOVE OR DISPERSE THE CROWD.
WITHIN SPD POLICY,
THERE'S ALREADY AN EXCEPTION
FOR LIFE
SAFETY EMERGENCIES IF SOMEONE
--
IF AN OFFICER SEES THAT SOMEONE
AT THE EDGE OF A CROWD PULLS
OUT
A KNIFE OR A MOLOTOV COCKTAIL
OR
SOMETHING THAT COULD CREATE
LIFE
SAFETY EMERGENCIES, THAT
OFFICER CAN USE A BLAST BALL
TO INDIVIDUALLY INTERDICT IN
THAT
INSTANCE.
THEY COULDN'T DISPERSE A
CROWD.
BUT THEY COULD INTERDICT WITH
THAT ONE INDIVIDUAL.
THAT REMAINS TRUE UNDER THE
LAST AMENDMENT THAT YOU JUST
PASSED.
TO DISPERSE A
CROWD, YOU NEED THE HIGHER
LEVEL OF
AUTHORIZATION, THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE.
OR IN THIS CASE,
THE PROCLAMATION FROM THE MAYOR
AND
THE
MAYOR'S OFFICE EMERGENCY
DECLARATION.
THIS AMENDMENT ALSO ALLOWS
CROWD DISPERSAL AT LEVEL SIX.
NOT ONLY DOES THE OFFICER HAVE
THE ABILITY TO MAKE INDIVIDUAL
INTERDICTIONS
DECISIONS AT -- TO USE A BLAST
BALL.
UNDER THIS AMENDMENT, THE
POLICE
DEPARTMENT COULD USE
CROWD CONTROL AS A METHOD.
THEY COULD -- WHEN IT GETS
TO LIFE SAFETY, THEY COULD
DISPERSE THE CROWD AND THEY
COULD DO SO
WITHOUT HAVING TO CONTACT THE
MAYOR'S OFFICE.
DOES THAT HELP?
AGAIN, IT'S THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL
INTERDICTION AND CROWD
DISPERSAL.
INDIVIDUAL INTERDICTION
ALLOWED UNDER ALL THE
AMENDMENTS THAT
YOU HAVE PASSED SO FAR.
THIS ONE WOULD ALLOW INDIVIDUAL
INTERDICTION FOR LIFE SAFETY
AND THE MAYOR'S OFFICE WOULD
NOT HAVE TO BE CONTACTED IF
IT'S A
LIFE SAFETY EMERGENCY
TO DISPERSE A CROWD.
IF IT'S A LOWER LEVEL,
PROPERTY
DAMAGE, THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE NEEDS TO BE CONTACTED
AND THEY NEED
TO ISSUE
A PROCLAMATION AND GIVE
PERMISSION.
>>
THANK YOU. THAT'S CLEARER.
>> THANK YOU, MR. DOS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
VICE CHAIR?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE, FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD.
REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR
LEADERSHIP ON THIS AND
ANY NUMBER OF ISSUES.
AMONG THE REMAINING ITEMS
, AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE GOING
TO BE CONSIDERING THIS ONE, I
WAS THE CLOSEST ON THE FENCE
FOR
POTENTIALLY SUPPORTING.
I'M ULTIMATELY NOT GOING TO
BE SUPPORTING IT TODAY.
BUT I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
YOUR LEADERSHIP AND
THOUGHTFULNESS IN
BRINGING IT FORWARD.
I CAN SAY SOMETHING GREAT
ABOUT ALL OF OUR COLLEAGUES.
I DO REGULARLY PUBLICLY
AND BEHIND THE SCENES.
FOR YOU, YOU ARE PROBABLY
THE MOST THOUGHTFUL,
DILIGENT COLLEAGUE THAT I HAVE
HAD THE
PLEASURE OF WORKING WITH.
IT'S REFLECTED HERE.
ULTIMATELY WHY I'M GOING TO
DECLINE TO SUPPORT IT
TODAYTODAY
BECAUSE ON ONE HAND,
IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE
EARLIER
ONE THAT WE JUST PASSED, THE
PROCLAMATION.
IN MY VIEW THE NEXT STEP
IN TERMS OF REQUIRING --
CONSISTENT INSOFAR AS IT
REQUIRES THE MAYOR
TO ISSUE A PROCLAMATION.
TO BUILD UPON THAT BY
REQUIRINGREQUIRING
MAYOR ALSO TO
PROVIDE SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION
FOR
THE USE OF BLAST BALLS AND IN
MY VIEW THAT'S -- THAT IS A
BIT TOO
PRESCRIPTIVE AND LEAVES THINGS
LESS FLEXIBLE.
I DON'T WANT TO PUT ANY --
I THINK THAT KIND OF OF
DECISION IS NOT BEST FOR AN
ELECTED OFFICIAL TO BE MAKING.
I THINK THAT'S BEST FOR
THE DEPARTMENT TO BE MAKING.
I THINK -- I ALSO BELIEVE
THAT THERE'S
SUFFICIENT ACCOUNTABILITY BAKED
INTO THE
SYSTEM.
IF THE MAYOR ISSUES THE
ORIGINAL PROCLAMATION OF A
CIVIL
EMERGENCY, WHICH IN AND OF
ITSELF UNLOCKS ANY NUMBER OF
POTENTIAL TOOLS BEING
DEPLOYED, TEAR GAS, BLAST BALLS
NOW
AND ANY NUMBER OF THINGS, AND
I THINK THERE'S
SUFFICIENT ACCOUNTABILITY FROM
VOTERS THAT
THEY ARE ACCOUNTABLE --
THE MAYOR WOULD BE
DIRECTLY ACCOUNTABLE TO VOTERS.
I THINK THAT'S SUFFICIENT
IN THIS CASE.
FOR THOSE REASONS, I'M NOT
GOING
TO BE SUPPORTING THIS.
BUT I DO APPRECIATE
YOUR THOUGHTFULNESS AND THE
DILIGENCE AT WHICH YOU SHOW UP
AND DO
THIS WORK EVERY DAY.
I'M HONORED TO
WORK ALONGSIDE
YOU. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS,
COLLEAGUES?
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER MOORE,
FOR YOUR AMENDMENT.
REGARDS TO MY VIEWS, I DID
LOOK AT LIFE SAFETY IN MY
ORIGINAL DRAFT OF AMENDMENT
ONE.
THIS BILL IS REGARDING
CROWD MANAGEMENT AND LIFE
SAFETY
AND THOSE INDIVIDUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES
IS ADDRESSED.
DID NOT INTERMINGLE THE TWO
AND PULLED THAT OUT OF MY CHAIR
AMENDMENT.
SEPARATELY, THE APPROVAL FOR
EACH DAY COULD CREATE ITS OWN
CHALLENGES.
IT SAYS SPD INCIDENT COMMANDERS
MUST REQUEST -- THAT S
ECHELONS.
I WOULD ADD THE DEPUTY CHIEF
OF POLICE OFTEN HAS MORE
EXPERIENCE AND HAS THE
SUBSTANTIAL TRAINING
AND EXPERIENCE SO THAT IF THE
DEPUTY IS ACTING CHIEF, THAT
YOU HAVE
THAT COVERED. I WANTED TO NOTE
THAT.
FOR THOSE REASONS -- THIS
IS SIMILAR TO
THE AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO -- I
RESPECT THE POINTS
MADE. BUT I WILL NOT
BE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT.
CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON
THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT
NUMBER THREE.
[ ROLL CALLED ]
>> TWO IN FAVOR
AND THREE OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU.
THIS IS THE -- FINISHING
THAT SECTION THAT WE HAD
RELATED TO
AMENDMENT NUMBER
ONE.
>> YES.
YOU ALL HAVE NOW AMENDED
NUMBER ONE IN TERMS OF MUTUALLY
EXCLUSIVE TOPICS .
FROM NOW ON, THERE WILL
EITHER BE ADDITIONS TO
AMENDMENT
NUMBER ONE OR SPD POLICY.
BUT THERE WON'T BE ANYTHING
EXCLUSIVE.
WOULD HE LIKE
ME TO DESCRIBE NUMBER FOUR ?
>> YES.
AMENDMENT TWO HAS
AMENDED AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE.
WE DON'T HAVE TO
RECONFIRM AMENDMENT
ONE AS AMENDED NUMBER
TWO?
>> NO.
YOU DON'T NEED
TO SUSPEND THE RULES AGAIN.
>> THANK YOU.
LET'S MOVE TO AMENDMENT NUMBER
FOUR.
>> IT'S BROUGHT BY
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE.
IT WOULD AMEND THE BILL
TO REQUIRE THAT THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT, ITS POLICY ON
LESS LETHAL WEAPONS SHALL
REQUIRE
THAT BLAST BALLS ARE DEPLOYED
ONLY WHEN DIRECTED AWAY
FROM PEOPLE UNDERHANDED AND AT
A
DISTANCE OF AT LEAST TEN YARDS.
IT WOULD INCORPORATE TWO
NEW RECITALS SUGGESTED BY
THE COMMUNITY POLICE
COMMISSION.
THEY ARE ABOVE YOU ON THE --
ABOVE ME ON THE AMENDMENT.
THE WHEREAS CLAUSES.
THEY SUGGESTED THE LANGUAGE
OF DIRECTED AWAY FROM PEOPLE
UNDERHAND AND AT A DISTANCE
OF TEN YARDS.
THAT LANGUAGE IS MIRRORED HERE.
AS I SAID, THE TWO RECITALS
ARE FROM
THE COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION
LETTER.
>>
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
AGAIN, I KNOW THERE'S BEEN
A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT
IS
THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO DEPLOY
BLAST
BALLS AND ARE WE BEING
TOO
PRESCRIPTIVE. I'M SORRY.
THANK YOU.
I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120916 AS PRESENTED ON
AMENDMENT
FOUR.
>> SECOND.
>> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED TO
ADOPT AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR.
WE HAVE DONE THAT.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS
IT.
>> THANK YOU.
SORRY FOR
MISSING THAT CRITICAL STEP.
AGAIN, THIS IS ALSO BASED ON
CONVERSATIONS WITH CPC.
ADDITIONALLY, I WAS ABLE TO
LOOK
AT THE SPD POLICIES.
THEY DO STATE THAT THE
PREFERRED
METHOD OF BLAST BALL
DEPLOYMENT IS LOW DEPLOYMENT,
WHICH IS
BOWLING STYLE.
ABSENCE A THREAT OF
SERIOUS
IMMINENT HARM.
THERE'S THAT EXEMPTION.
DIRECTING BLAST BALLS
TOWARDS PEOPLE NOT CAUSING A
THREAT. THEY ALLOW OVERHAND
WHEN
THE NEED FOR FURTHER DEPLOYMENT
OR GET
AROUND AN OBSTRUCTION CREATED
BY THE ING
MUNITION.
I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO
LIMIT IT TO THE UNDERHAND
THROW. IN LOOKING AT THE OPA
FINDINGS, MANY OF THEM RELATED
TO VIOLATION OF POLICY RELATING
TO
THE OVERTHROWING OF BLAST
BALLS.
THIS IS IN THE
MATERIALS SUBMITTED TO US BY
KAREN KOHLER.
SPD OFFICERS DEPLOYED TEAR
CANISTERS OF BLAST BALLS WARE
OF THEIR SURROUNDINGS AND
HITTING PEOPLE NOT POSING A
RISK TO PUBLIC SAFETY OR
PROPERTY.
IT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH POLICY
AND TRAINING.
I THINK EVEN -- THERE'S
SOME MENTION BY LISA DUGARD
THAT
UNDERHAND OR OVERHAND MADE NO
DIFFERENCE.
I BEG
TO DIFFER. GIVEN THE NATURE OF
THE
INSTRUMENT ITSELF BEING RUBBER,
BOUNCING, IT BEING ITSELF AN
UNPREDICTABLE ENTITY, THERE'S
A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN
TERMS OF RISK POSED BY HOW IT
IS DEPLOYED OVERHAND OR
UNDERHAND.
THAT'S
WHY I'M BRINGING THIS
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK
YOU, COUNCILMEMBER MOORE.
VICE CHAIR?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
I WANT TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD.
I GENERALLY -- WITH RESPECT --
THERE'S A LOT OF
THOUGHTFUL
IDEAS CONTAINED IN THIS
PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
WITH RESPECT TO THE RECITALS
PIECE, RECITALS, AS
WE KNOW, THEY ARE VALUE
STATEMENTS.
IT'S A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO
STATE AND MAKE CLEAR VALUES,
SET EXPECTATIONS SHORT OF
ACTUALLY
PUTTING IT IN THE UNDERLYING
CODE.
THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO DO IT.
I LIKE THE RECITALS HERE.
ULTIMATELY WHERE I AM NOT
GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE
WHOLE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT IN
ITS ENTIRETY IS BECAUSE OF ONE
AND ONLY ONE WORD.
UNDERHAND.
CPC, WE -- THAT'S WHY I ASKED
THE QUESTION EARLIER.
WHAT'S THE POSITION
ON UNDERHAND USE OR NOT?
IT SOUNDS LIKE EVEN
CPC
RECOGNIZES THAT -- I DON'T
THINK THE FOCUS OF THE ANALYSIS
WAS
UNDERHAND VERSUS OVERHAND.
BUT I THINK AS A GENERAL
PROPOSITION, I HEARD
THAT THERE'S EVEN RECOGNITION
THAT
THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES --
LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE
OVERHAND IS APPROPRIATE.
I THINK THIS GETS JUST A
LITTLE TOO PRESCRIPTIVE FOR MY
PERSONAL
LIKING AND COMFORT.
I DO LIKE THE RECITALS.
IF THOSE WEREN'T ALL --
THERE'S A LOT GOING ON IN
THIS THOUGHTFUL AMENDMENT.
I WOULD BE INCLINED TO
SUPPORT THE RECITALS ALONE.
BECAUSE IT HANGS TOGETHER IN
ONE SINGULAR DOCUMENT AND ONE
AMENDMENT, I'M NOT OING TO BE
ABLE TO SUPPORT IT TODAY.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
IT
FORWARD.
>> COLLEAGUES? ANYBODY ELSE?
THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER MOORE.
I APPRECIATE AND OBVIOUSLY READ
CPC'S LETTER AND SUGGESTIONS.
CONSIDERING THEM, RELATED
TO THIS AND RELATED TO THE
WHEREAS
CLAUSES, THE RECITALS, MY
CONCERN IS -- IT GOES TO
PRESCRIBING -- BEING TOO
SPECIFIC REGARDING THE MANNER
OF
DEPLOYMENT RELATES TO SOME
LEGAL
CONSIDERATIONS.
FOR THOSE I WILL NOT SUPPORTING
THOSE -- THIS AMENDMENT TODAY.
I WOULD LOOK TO ENGAGE IN
TERMS OF POSSIBILITIES WITH THE
CPC
LETTER AT A LATER TIME.
I WILL BE VOTING NO ON THIS.
WILL THE CLERK -- COUNCIL
PRESIDENT.
>> I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT I
VALUE THE ROLE OF THE
COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION
WHOSE JOB --
IN THE SMC, IT SPECIFIES THE
JOB OF THE PCC IS TO DEVELOP
POLICY
IN CONSULTATION WITH THE
COMMUNITY. THAT'S A UNIQUE
RESPONSIBILITY OF OUR
ACCOUNTABILITY APPARATUS.
I DO -- I WOULD -- I GUESS
I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD LISTEN
TO
THEM.
AND I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH
ADDING THE RECITALS.
I WOULD CONSIDER IF YOU
WANTED TO BRING THIS FORWARD
AGAIN
AND ADD THE RECITALS IF
THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT PASS AT
FULL COUNCIL.
I DO UNDERSTAND THAT UNDERHAND
IS VERY SPECIFIC.
AS SOMEONE WHO IS
PERHAPS SHORTER THAN A LOT OF
OTHER PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE
EMPLOYING
THIS PARTICULAR TOOL PERHAPS, I
CAN UNDERSTAND THAT IN
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES OVERHAND
COULD BE
BETTER.
IN ANY CASE, I JUST
WANTED TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE
VALUE
OF THESE RESIZE ALS AND THANK
YOU FOR
PUTTING THEM BEFORE
OUR ATTENTION FOR DISCUSSION.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT.
WILL THE CLERK CALL
ROLL ON ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT
FOUR?
[ ROLL CALLED ]
THERE ARE TWO IN FAVOR,
TWO OPPOSED AND ONE ABSTENTION.
>> AMENDMENT FOUR IS NOT
ADOPTED.
MOVING ON TO AMENDMENT FIVE.
MR. DOS WILL HAVE YOU
ENTER IT BEFORE YOU SPEAK TO
IT.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, CAN
YOU MOVE YOUR AMENDMENT,
PLEASE?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I MOVE TO
AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120916 AS PRESENTED ON DRAFT
ONE AMENDMENT FIVE.
EXCUSE ME, AS PRESENTED
ON AMENDMENT FIVE DRAFT ONE.
>> THANK YOU.
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED
TO ADOPT
AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE. MR. DOS,
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED
TO DESCRIBE
AMENDMENT FIVE.
>> THANK YOU.
THIS AMENDMENT IS SOMEWHAT
STRAIGHTFORWARD.
IT SIMPLY SAYS THAT THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT'S MUTUAL AID
POLICY AND INTERIM CROWD
MANAGEMENT POLICY SHALL
PROHIBIT THE
DEPARTMENT'S INCIDENT
COMMANDERS FROM DEPLOYING TO A
CROWD
MANAGEMENT CONTROL ROLE
ANY MUTUAL AID OFFICER WHO IS
UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO COMPLY
WITH
SPD'S CROWD MANAGEMENT
POLICIES.
SPD MAY DEPLOY MUTUAL
AID OFFICERS TO NON- CROWD
CONTROL MANAGEMENT
ROLES DURING A CROWD MANAGEMENT
EVENT.
AS THIS AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT
WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
CPE, THE NATIONAL POLICING
ORGANIZATIONS, THAT SAY THAT
MUTUAL AID OFFICERS SHOULD
ABIDE BY THE DEPARTMENT --
THE POLICIES OF THE DEPARTMENT
THAT THEY ARE ASSISTING.
HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN NOTED BY
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE
MAYOR'S OFFICE THAT -- AND THE
CPC THAT IT IS THE CASE
THAT THERE ARE SOME
PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS AROUND
HAVING MUTUAL AID OFFICERS
FOLLOW
SPD POLICY.
THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION --
THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT
WOULD ALLOW MUTUAL AID TO COME
HELP.
THEY JUST COULDN'T BE IN A
ROLE
THAT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR DEPLOYING LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS OR
DISPERSING A CROWD OR ANY
KIND OF CROWD MANAGEMENT
ACTIVITY.
IF MUTUAL AID OFFICERS CAME TO
THE SPD'S ASSISTANCE, THEY
WOULD
GO INTO TRAFFIC CONTROL OR
BACKFILLING 911 IF THAT'S
AN APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR THEM.
BUT NOT INTO CROWD MANAGEMENT
ROLES, UNLESS THEY
COULD COMPLY WITH SPD'S
POLICIES.
>> THANK YOU, MR. DOS.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO SPEAK TO YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, AGAIN.
I KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME
CONCERN IN STATEMENTS MADE THAT
IF WE
REQUIRE THEM TO SIGN ON
THE DOTTED LINE AND AGREE TO
COMPLY
WITH THE SEATTLE
CROWD MANAGEMENT POLICIES THAT
INCLUDE
RESTRICTIONS AROUND THE USE
OF BLAST BALLS, THAT NOBODY
WILL
SHOW UP TO THE CALL.
I GUESS PLY MY RESPONSE IS I
THINK IT'S HYPERBOLE.
THIS DOES NOT PROHIBIT OFFICERS
FROM SHOWING UP AND
BEING UTILIZED IN A MANNER IN
WHICH THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE
PUT IN
A POSITION TO UTILIZE LESS
LETHAL
WEAPONS.
WE HAD A FINDING FROM OPA THAT
IN 2020 MUTUAL AID OFFICERS
ALSO WERE -- PEOPLE WERE --
PROTESTERS WERE INJURED
BY MUTUAL AID OFFICERS USING
LESS LETHAL WEAPONS NOT IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR OWN
POLICIES .
SO IF THEY ARE UNWILLING TO
COMPLY, THERE'S THE
POSSIBILITY THAT THEY CAN BE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR POLICY
AND YET
ENGAGE IN ACTIONS THAT WILL
RESULT
IN HARM OR INJURY TO OUR
CITIZENRY.
LASTLY, IF THEY ARE UNWILLING
TO COMPLY, THAT CAUSES ME
SERIOUS
CONCERN.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY
SHOULD
BE COMING TO THE CITY.
WE CAN ALWAYS LOOK FOR OTHER
WAYS.
WE CAN UTILIZE THEIR SERVICES
IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T PUT --
DOESN'T COMPROMISE
THEIR INDEPENDENCE BUT ALSO
DOESN'T
POTENTIALLY PLACE OUR RESIDENTS
AT RISK.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE.
COLLEAGUES? VICE CHAIR?
OTHERS?
NOTHING?
OKAY.
COUNCILMEMBER RINK?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
VERY BRIEFLY TO CHIME IN ON
THIS.
I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A
FAIR AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION JUST
ABOUT CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER OR
NOT MUTUAL AID WOULD COME
WHEN CALLED UPON BUT
WOULD JUST AGAIN REAFFIRM THAT
PERHAPS THIS IS TO
SOME DEGREE HYPERBOLE,
WOULD FURTHER STATE THAT I
THINK THERE'S MORE INTENDED
RISK
POSED TO THE CITY BY THE
LIABILITY
OF HAVING MUTUAL AID COME IN
AND DISPLAY EXCESSIVE FORCE OR
DEPLOYMENT OF OTHER KINDS
OF WEAPONS AND WOULD OPEN UP
THE
CITY, OF COURSE, TO ADDITIONAL
LIABILITY FOR HAVING TO PAY
OUT DUE TO EGREGIOUS INJURIES
CAUSED TO THE PUBLIC.
WOULD JUST STATE AND URGE THE
COMMITTEE TO SERIOUSLY
CONSIDER THIS AMENDMENT.
WOULD STATE MY SUPPORT FOR IT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK
YOU, COUNCILMEMBER RINK.
>> MAY I MAKE ONE LAST COMMENT?
>> YES, COUNCILMEMBER MOORE.
>> I DID WANT TO NOTE THAT
THIS IS RECOMMENDED -- THIS
AMENDMENT IS RECOMMENDED BY
CPC.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
OBVIOUSLY, I HAVE SPOKEN TO
THIS ALREADY.
ONE OF THE POINTS I WANT
TO MAKE -- IT GOES BACK TO LIFE
SAFETY.
THIS IS A CROWD MANAGEMENT
ORDINANCE.
TO MR. DOS' POINT, IF WE HAD
OFFICERS FROM
OTHER JURISDICTIONS COMING
DOING
NON- CROWD MANAGEMENT ISSUES,
THAT'S
A SEPARATE CIRCUMSTANCE
ESSENTIALLY.
THE BILL AS NOW AMENDED SAYS
MUTUAL AID OFFICERS
RESPONDED FOR CROWD MANAGEMENT
PURPOSES MUST AGREE
TO FOLLOW THE COMMAND AND
CONTROL OF THE ON-
ON-SCENE COMMANDER.
MY POSITION IS THAT THIS GETS
US TO WHERE WE ARE BECAUSE --
I UNDERSTAND THE POINT.
I UNDERSTAND THE POLICIES.
BUT WE'RE GETTING TO THE SAME
PLACE.
THE ISSUE IS, AGAIN, IF YOU ARE
IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION AND
YOU HAVE YOUR CITY ATTORNEY
COMING TO YOU, THAT CITY
ATTORNEY
WOULD LIKELY RECOMMEND FOR
LEGAL
CONSIDERATIONS, LEGAL
EXPOSURE, TO NOT COMPLY WITH
THE
REQUEST FOR MUTUAL AID.
AT THE END, I DON'T CONSIDER
IT
HYPERBOLE TO SAY THAT
OFFICERS, WHETHER POLICE
OFFICERS, LAW
ENFORCEMENT OR IN OTHER
SETTINGS, IF THEY KNOW THEY
HAVE BACKUP, IF THEY KNOW THEY
HAVE
SUPPORT, THEY ARE
IN A POSITION TO EVEN BETTER
CARRY OUT
THEIR DUTIES IN CROWD
MANAGEMENT IN
A WAY CONSISTENT WITH OUR
POLICIES
AND OUR LAWS.
WITH THAT POINT, AGAIN,
I UNDERSTAND -- GENERALLY,
THERE'S A LOT OF OVERLAP
BETWEEN THE
TWO.
IT'S THAT SPECIFIC POINT AND
MY
BELIEF THAT ANOTHER
JURISDICTION
WITH THEIR LEGAL COUNSEL
WOULD BASICALLY GET TO A
SITUATION WHERE WE DON'T GET
ANYBODY.
WITH THAT,
I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS
AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU.
WILL THE CLERK CALL THE ROLL
ON ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT FIVE?
[ ROLL CALLED ]
THERE ARE TWO IN FAVOR AND
THREE
OPPOSED.
>> AMENDMENT FIVE IS NOT
ADOPTED.
WILL THE CLERK
CALL THE ROLL -- SORRY.
MY PAPER.
THIS IS
WHAT HAPPENS WITH MANY
AMENDMENTS.
VICE CHAIR, WILL YOU
PLEASE ADDRESS -- MOVE
AMENDMENT
NUMBER SIX?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120916 ON AMENDMENT
SIX.
>> SECONDS.
>> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED.
CENTRAL STAFF, MR.
DOS. YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO
DESCRIBE
AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA IN
HIS COMMENTS EARLIER WAS RIGHT.
THESE AMENDMENTS DO TEND TO
ESCALATE IN TERMS OF
THE RESTRICTIONS PUT ON THE
DEPARTMENT.
HOWEVER, THIS ONE IS AN
EXCEPTION.
THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT
JUST REQUIRES THAT SPD COMPLY
WITH THE ACCOUNTABILITY
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT
SEATTLE'S ACCOUNTABILITY
AGENCIES
ARE PROVIDED WITH AN
OPPORTUNITY
FOR REGULAR, TIMELY REVIEW
OF PROPOSED REVISIONS
TO THE SPD POLICY MANUAL.
THAT LANGUAGE, REGULAR, TIMELY
REVIEW AND A SCHEDULE FOR
REVIEW
OF REVISIONS TO THE
POLICY MANUAL IS IN THE
ACCOUNTABILITY ORDINANCE
ALREADY.
SPD SHOULD BE COMPLYING WITH
THAT.
THIS IS UNDERSCORING THE
POINT THAT THEY SHOULD BE
COMPLYING WITH THAT AND
OBVIOUSLY IN
THE CONTEXT OF CROWD CONTROL
WEAPONS AS WELL
AS ANY OTHER CHANGES TO THEIR
POLICY MANUAL.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL -- VICE CHAIR
SAKA, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO
ADDRESS AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX.
>> THANK YOU.
I WILL BE BRIEF.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
REINFORCE THE BELIEF THAT SPD
NEEDS
TO CONSULT WITH THE
ACCOUNTABILITY
PARTNERS BEFORE AUTHORIZING NEW
POLICIES.
SPECIFICALLY, PERTAINING TO
CROWD MANAGEMENT POLICIES.
SPD NEEDS FLEXIBILITY
IN ADJUSTING POLICIES.
BUT OUR COMMUNITIES NEED TO
KNOW
THEY HAVE DONE SO
IN CONSULTATION WITH THOSE
CRITICALLY ACCOUNTABLE
PARTNERS.
ENOUGH SAID.
THIS SHOULD BE HAPPENING
ALREADY UNDER CURRENT LAW,
NAMELY,
THE ACCOUNTABILITY ORDINANCE.
THIS MAKES CRYSTAL CLEAR
AND PUTS -- CAPTURES
THIS REQUIREMENT INTO A SINGLE
LEGISLATIVE INSTRUMENT.
IN THIS CASE, THE ORDINANCE
WE HOPE TO PASS.
THANK YOU.
I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU, VICE
CHAIR SAKA. COLLEAGUES?
OKAY.
THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR.
CLEARLY, THIS IS ADDRESSED.
WHAT YOU ARE
LOOKING TO DO IS TO RE-
EMPHASIZE BASICALLY.
THAT DOESN'T GET INTO
SOME OF
THE CONSIDERATIONS WE HAVE BEEN
DISCUSSING ALREADY.
YES, I SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.
WILL THE CLERK CALL ROLL
ON ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT
NUMBER
SIX? [ ROLL CALLED ]
THERE ARE FIVE IN FAVOR
AND NONE OPPOSED.
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX IS
ADOPTED. THANK YOU FOR BEING
BRIEF.
BECAUSE
WE ARE OBVIOUSLY RUNNING LATE.
I HAVE A NOTE, COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE, REGARDING SEVEN.
ARE YOU PROCEEDING WITH THIS?
>> NO.
I WANT TO MAKE PEOPLE AWARE OF
IT.
>> OKAY.
AMENDMENT NUMBER SEVEN WILL
NOT BE CONSIDERED TODAY.
WE WILL MOVE -- WE WILL
SKIP AMENDMENT NUMBER SEVEN IN
TERMS OF
THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE WITH
THIS BILL.
MOVE TO AMENDMENT NUMBER -- IS
EIGHT -- EIGHT IS BEING
NOT --
>> ALL THE REST ARE GOING
FORWARD.
>> THE REST
ARE GOING FORWARD?
>> YES.
>> OKAY.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO MOVE AMENDMENT
NUMBER
EIGHT.
>> I MOVE TO AMEND THE BILL
AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT
EIGHT.
>> SECOND.
>> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED
TO ADOPT AMENDMENT NUMBER
EIGHT.
MR. DOS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED
TO DESCRIBE AMENDMENT
EIGHT.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AMENDMENT EIGHT IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE BUT
AUTHORED BY RINK.
THE AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE
SPD TO REVISE THE PURPOSE
STATEMENT FOR ITS CROWD
MANAGEMENT INTERVENTION AND
CONTROL
POLICY SUCH THAT THE PURPOSE
STATEMENT WOULD SAY, A
FUNDAMENTAL
FUNCTION OF THE ROLE OF
POLICE IN CROWD MANAGEMENT
SETTINGS
IS TO IDENTIFY AND CLEARLY
COMMUNICATE ENTRY AND EXIT
POINTS FOR INDIVIDUALS
ASSEMBLED
IN THE CROWD AS WELL
AS INDIVIDUALS PASSING BY,
LIVING IN THE AREA OR WORKING
IN THE
AREA.
SO THAT STATEMENT WOULD BE
NEEDED TO ADD TO
SPD'S CROWD MANAGEMENT POLICY.
THERE IS A PURPOSE
STATEMENT THAT WOULD -- THIS
WOULD GO
INTO THAT IS ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE
PARAGRAPHS
LONG. I WILL ASK THE CLERK TO
BRING
IT UP.
AS YOU CAN SEE THERE,
THE PURPOSE STATEMENT
EMPHASIZES
THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH.
IT EMPHASIZES SPD'S ROLE
IN CROWD MANAGEMENT.
SO THIS WOULD ADD THAT
STATEMENT I JUST MADE INTO THE
PURPOSE
STATEMENT.
I WOULD ALSO NOTE BY WAY
OF BACKGROUND THAT SPD'S
POLICY, NOT IN ITS PURPOSE
STATEMENT, BUT ELSEWHERE DOES
REQUIRE
THAT INCIDENT COMMANDERS ENSURE
THERE IS AN AVENUE OF
EGRESS SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW A
CROWD TO
DEPART AN ASSEMBLY DECLARED
UNLAWFUL IN STAGE FIVE.
WHILE THIS REQUIREMENT IS IN
SPD'S POLICIES ALREADY, IT
IS NOT IN THE PURPOSE
STATEMENT.
IT DOESN'T SERVE AS A
GUIDELINE FOR HOW SPD SHOULD
MANAGE
CROWDS.
I BELIEVE THE INTENT OF THE
COUNCILMEMBER WHO IS
OFFERING THIS IS TO ENSURE THAT
THIS
IS PART OF THE PURPOSE
STATEMENT AND DOES PROVIDE
GUIDANCE TO
SPD ON HOW THEY SHOULD HANDLE
ALL
CROWD MANAGEMENT EVENTS.
>> THANK YOU.
I GUESS WE WILL HAVE TWO.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO BE
OFFICIAL, I WILL START WITH
YOU.
I SUSPECT YOU WILL LATERAL TO
COUNCILMEMBER
RINK.
>> THANK YOU.
I WILL CEDE MY TIME TO
COUNCILMEMBER RINK.
THANK YOU FOR BEING WILLING
TO SPONSOR THESE AMENDMENTS.
THANK YOU, GREG, FOR YOUR
WORK ON THIS AND FOR EXPLAINING
A BIT
BEHIND OUR INTENTIONS HERE.
THIS AMENDMENT ADDS
LANGUAGE CONSISTENT WITH THE
CURRENT POLICY TO OVERARCHING
CODE.
IT DOES NOT INTEND TO REQUIRE
SPECIFIC PROCEDURES FOR SPD
TO CONTACT EVERY INDIVIDUAL IN
THE VICINITY OF EXIT POINTS.
IT DOES INTEND TO ENSURE
THAT THE EXPECTATION IS
EXPLICIT THAT
SPD PERSONNEL MUST RECOGNIZE
NON- PARTICIPANTS IN THE
VICINITY
OF ANY CROWD SITUATION IN
WHICH LESS LETHAL WEAPONS ARE
CONSIDERED AND CONSIDER
THE IMPACT IN ALL OF THE
VICINITY
AND ENSURE THAT ALL IN
THE VICINITY ARE GIVEN
INFORMATION ABOUT SAFE POINTS
OF ENTRY AND
EGRESS, ET CETERA.
CURRENTLY, THERE'S LANGUAGE
IN POLICY REQUIRING SPD
TO IDENTIFY DISPERSAL ROUTES TO
CROWD
BUT NOTHING ABOUT LOCAL
BUSINESSES OR RESIDENTS THAT
COULD
BE INJURED AS COLLATERAL
DAMAGE.
WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT SPD
IS AFFIRMATIVELY CONSIDERING
THE IMPACT OF THE DEPLOYMENT
OF THESE KINDS OF WEAPONS
ON NOT JUST FOLKS IN A CROWD
PEACEFULLY
EXERCISING THEIR FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS BUT ALSO ON
THE FOLKS
WHO JUST HAPPEN TO LIVE AND
WORK IN
THE VICINITY.
I THINK WE CAN SEE THIS
ALSO BEST EXEMPLIFIED SEEING
THE EVENTS
THAT OCCURRED THROUGHOUT 2020.
THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS.
I'M HAPPY TO
CEDE THE REST OF MY TIME.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILREMEMBER
RINK. VICE CHAIR, COLLEAGUES?
NOT HEARING AND
SEEING NONE, THANK YOU
COUNSELMEMBER
RINK AND MOORE FOR THIS
AMENDMENT.
I BELIEVE A LOT OF THE THINGS
THAT ARE
INCLUDED IN THIS AMENDMENT -- I
COULD SEE THE
VALUE OF THEM.
THERE'S TWO THINGS THAT I
RAISE.
ONE IS -- I SAID THIS AT THE
BEGINNING.
THIS IS KIND OF LIKE -- IN
TERMS
OF EMPOWERING THE CPC IN
TERMS OF ITS ROLE IN ENGAGING
SPD
ON ITS POLICIES , I'M LOOKING
FOR OPPORTUNITIES -- I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT TO SUPPORT THE
CPC
IN TERMS OF ITS LANE AND ITS
WORK.
NOT CROWDED OUT BY DOING
THIS WITH COUNCIL ACTION.
THE OTHER THING, TOO, IS SOME
LEGAL CONCERNS WERE RAISED
ON THIS AMENDMENT FROM THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
I THINK THIS WOULD BE BEST
MAYBE
WORKING WITH CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WORKING
THROUGH
THAT PROCESS OF THE COMMUNITY
POLICE
COMMISSION.
AND, OF COURSE, WITH US AS
WELL.
TO LOOK TO ATTAIN WHAT YOU
ARE
LOOKING TO DO WITH THIS
AMENDMENT.
FOR THOSE LEGAL CONCERN
QUESTIONS, AND MY DESIRE TO
WORK
WITH THE COMMUNITY
POLICE COMMISSION ON SPD POLICY
ISSUES, WHILE UNDERSTANDING
WHAT'S GOING
BEHIND THIS AMENDMENT, I WILL
BE VOTING NO ON THIS AMENDMENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
THIS IS NUMBER
EIGHT.
>> I HAD MY HAND UP.
>> SORRY.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE.
>> I WANTED TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF THIS.
I UNDERSTAND THE ADVICE WE GOT
FROM LAW JUST TO -- IT'S OUR
ROLE TO DECIDE HOW WE
INTERPRET AND EXECUTE THAT
ADVICE.
I THINK IT DOESN'T HURT TO
RESTATE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING
FOR.
I DON'T THINK THIS USE --
INCLUDING THIS LANGUAGE IN
ANY WAY USURPS THE ROLE OF CPC.
WE ARE
ALL WORKING HERE IN
PARTNERSHIP.
FOR THOSE
REASONS, I WILL BE
SUPPORTING IT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE AND
COUNCILMEMBER
RINK.
>> JUST TO RESPOND TO THAT
POINT AND EMPHASIZE, IT'S NOT
OUR
PRIMARY JOB AS CITY
COUNCILMEMBERS TO SOLELY
EMPOWER THE CPC.
WE ARE PUT HERE TO SERVE
THE PEOPLE AND ENSURE THEIR
SAFETY.
THIS LANGUAGE HAS ALREADY BEEN
REVIEWED BY LAW.
I UNDERSTAND ADDITIONAL
FEEDBACK CAME IN THIS MORNING.
IT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY LAW
AS IT EXISTS IN SPD POLICY
CURRENTLY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RINK.
FAIR POINTS ON BOTH,
PARTICULARLY COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE
ON YOUR POINT.
THE LEGAL COUNSEL WE RECEIVED
--
MY POSITION REMAINS THE SAME.
CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT
NUMBER
EIGHT.
[ ROLL CALLED ]
THERE ARE TWO IN FAVOR AND
THREE
OPPOSED.
>> AMENDMENT EIGHT IS NOT
ADOPTED.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, AMENDMENT
NINE. OVER TO YOU TO
MOVE.
>> THANK YOU.
I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120916 AS PRESENTED ON
AMENDMENT
NINE DRAFT 1A.
>> SECOND.
>> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED
TO ADOPT AMENDMENT NUMBER NINE.
MR. DOS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED
TO DESCRIBE AMENDMENT NUMBER
NINE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THIS AMENDMENT IS BROUGHT BY
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE AND
IS AUTHORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
RINK.
IT WOULD REQUIRE SPD TO AGAIN
CHANGE THE PURPOSE
STATEMENT OR TO ADD TO THE
PURPOSE
STATEMENT FOR ITS CROWD
MANAGEMENT INTERVENTION AND
CONTROL POLICY.
THE PURPOSE STATEMENT WOULD
BE MODIFIED TO SAY THAT LESS
LETHAL WEAPON USE SHOULD BE
NECESSARY
AND PROPORTION ATE AND TACTICS
THAT MAY CAUSE INJURY OR
FATAL HARM SHOULD BE
PROPORTIONAL
TO THE THREAT PHYSICAL HARM
THAT WOULD RESULT FROM CROWD
VIOLENCE.
THIS WOULD AGAIN SERVE AS
A GUIDELINE FOR THE
DEPARTMENT WHEN THEY ARE
DEVELOPING
LESS LETHAL WEAPON
AND CROWD MANAGEMENT RULES AND
POLICIES.
WHAT THIS SAYS SPECIFICALLY --
THE OPERATIVE AFFECT IS THAT
LESS LETHAL WEAPONS OR TACTICS
THAT MAY CAUSE PHYSICAL
INJURY SHOULD NOT BE USED
UNLESS THE
RISK OF SAID INJURY IS
PROPORTIONATE THAT MIGHT RESULT
FROM CROWD VIOLENCE.
WHERE THIS COMES INTO AFFECT IS
THE MATRIX.
THE MATRIX AT LEVEL FIVE
ALLOWS AN SPD INCIDENT
COMMANDER TO
DISPERSE A CROWD AND TO USE
LESS LETHAL WEAPONS TO DO SO.
HOWEVER, THE THRESHOLD IS ONE
OF IMMINENT RISK TO
SAFETY OR SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY
DAMAGE.
UNDER THIS AMENDMENT,
THERE WOULD BE A SECOND
CONSIDERATION
THAT SPD OFFICERS WOULD HAVE TO
MAKE.
THAT IS IF LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS ARE DEPLOYED THAT COULD
CAUSE
PHYSICAL INJURY, SHOULD THEY
BE DEPLOYED IF THERE'S NO RISK
OF PHYSICAL INJURY IN THE CROWD
AT THAT MOMENT?
FOR INSTANCE, IF THERE
IS SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY DAMAGE
OCCURRING, IF THERE ARE --
AS WAS GIVEN EARLIER, THE
EXAMPLE OF THE CHINATOWN
INTERNATIONAL
DISTRICT, IF THERE'S A MARCH
AND
ALL THE BUSINESSES ARE BEING
AFFECTED, THERE'S
SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY DAMAGE,
THAT WOULD
BE ENOUGH UNDER THE
CURRENT THRESHOLD FOR SPD TO
DISPERSE THE CROWD.
UNDER THIS LANGUAGE, SPD WOULD
HAVE TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT
THERE WAS ACTS OF VIOLENCE
IN THE CROWD TOWARDS PEOPLE.
IF THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL
THREAT TOWARDS INDIVIDUALS IN
THE
CROWD, ANY LESS LETHAL
WEAPON THAT MIGHT CREATE
PHYSICAL INJURY SHOULD NOT BE
USED.
IT REALLY GETS TO THE POINT
WHERE THERE IS A THRESHOLD SUCH
THAT PROPERTY DAMAGE ALONE IS
UNLIKELY, EVEN IF
SIGNIFICANT, TO ALLOW THE USE
OF ANY
LESS LETHAL WEAPON THAT
COULD POTENTIALLY INJURE
SOMEONE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. DOS.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS
AMENDMENT NINE AND OUR
COLLEAGUE.
>> THANK YOU.
I CEDE MY TIME TO COUNCILMEMBER
RINK.
>> THANK YOU.
THIS ADDS LANGUAGE CONSISTENT
WITH WHAT'S THERE.
IT'S ADDRESSED IN PHASES FIVE
AND SIX IN RESPONSE
DESCRIPTIONS BUT NOT IN THE
OVERARCHING PURPOSE STATEMENT.
WE HAVE HEARD THAT OUR
LANGUAGE ASSUMES OR IMPLIES
THAT.
LESS LETHAL WEAPONS ARE TO
CAUSE SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY
OR
FATAL HARM.
THIS IS A MISREAD.
WE SAID
THEY MAY CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY
AND FATAL HARM. THAT'S
ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
WE HAVE HEARD THAT
CONDITIONAL USE OF LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS POTENTIALLY ELEVATES
THE
LIMITATION OF LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS POSSIBLY ABOVE LETHAL
FORCE.
WE WOULD SAY THIS IS A BIT OF
A STRETCH AND RELIES ON THE
ARGUMENT THAT CALLING
FOR PROPORTIONALITY WITH LESS
LETHAL WEAPONS IS A HIGHER
STANDARD THAN FOR FIREARMS,
WHICH
WE PERMIT IF THERE'S A
RISK OF SERIOUS INJURY OR
DEATH.
CERTAINLY, MAYBE WE
SHOULD ENSURE THAT OUR LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
SHOULD THINK THROUGH THE
IMPACTS OF DEPLOYING
ANY WEAPON IN A CROWD AND
DEPLOY THEM
WITH PROPORTIONALITY IN ALL
SITUATIONS.
TO THAT END, I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE IN ALL
OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, JUST TO
CHIME IN, WE'RE IN A STATE
RIGHT NOW
WHERE WE HAVE A FLUX IN
LEADERSHIP BETWEEN HAVING AN
INTERIM CHIEF WITHIN
SPD AS WELL AS INTERIM
LEADERSHIP AT OPA AND
CPC. I JUST WANT TO TAKE A
MOMENT TO
ALSO NOTE THAT RIGHT NOW WE
HAVE
A REAL RESPONSIBILITY GIVEN THE
FLUX IN LEADERSHIP ACROSS
THOSE ROLES TO MAKE SURE WE
HAVE
A GREATER AMOUNT OF
OVERSIGHT AT THIS TIME.
THIS CONCLUDES MY
COMMENTS ON THIS PARTICULAR
AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
COUNCILMEMBER RINK. RICE CHAIR,
COLLEAGUES?
NOTHING?
OKAY.
FIRST NG I WANTED TO SAY --
THIS GOES BACK TO THE LAST
AMENDMENT.
I DO RECOGNIZE THAT
THERE'S TIMES WHEN WE HAVE TO
ENGAGE ON
POLICY.
MY POINT WAS A GENERAL POINT
REGARDING ALLOWING OUR
ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS
TO OPERATE IN THEIR LANE.
I'M NOT SAYING WE'RE NOT
ENGAGED ON POLICY.
I DIDN'T MEAN THAT,
THE IMPRESSION ONE MAY RECEIVE.
REGARDING THIS, THERE'S
SOME QUESTIONS IN TERMS OF HOW
I SEE
THIS.
MOST CONCERNING IS THAT WE
STILL HAVE THE SAME
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS AS
PRESENTED BY
THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE
PHRASING, AND THAT COULD CREATE
SOME LEGAL
CHALLENGES FOR US.
FOR THAT REASON -- I UNDERSTAND
AND I THINK BOTH THE LAST
ONE AND THIS ONE COULD BE
WORKED
IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
BUT BECAUSE OF THE LEGAL
CONCERNS, I WILL NOT BE
VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS
AMENDMENT.
I DON'T SEE ANY HANDS RAISED
UP.
I WILL GO TO THE CLERK TO
PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL
ON THE ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT
NINE. [ ROLL CALLED ]
THERE ARE ONE IN FAVOR,
THREE OPPOSED AND ONE
ABSTENTION.
>> THANK YOU.
AMENDMENT NINE IS NOT ADOPTED.
NOW WE ARE -- THANK YOU, BY
THE WAY FOR EVERYONE WHO HAS
BEEN
IN ATTENDANCE TODAY.
I RECOGNIZE
THIS MEETING IS BASICALLY A
DOUBLE MEETING.
WE ARE NOW ON OUR LAST
AMENDMENT.
AGAIN, I WILL GO TO
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE.
>> THANK YOU.
I MOVE TO AMENDMENT COUNCIL
BILL
120916 AS PRESENTED ON
AMENDMENT TEN DRAFT 1A.
>>
SECONDED.
>> MR. DOS, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZES TO DESCRIBE
NUMBER TEN.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THIS AMENDMENT IS BROUGHT BY
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE.
AGAIN AUTHORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
RINK.
IT WOULD CREATE A PRIVATE
RITE OF ACTION WHEN A PERSON
INCURS
PHYSICAL INJURY CAUSED BY
THE USE OF LESS LETHAL WEAPONS
IN VIOLATION OF SPD'S
CROWD MANAGEMENT INTERVENTION
AND
CONTROL POLICY.
IT WOULD GO ON TO SAY THAT
A PERSON WHO IN THE JUDGMENT OF
A REASONABLE PERSON COMMITS
A CRIMINAL OFFENSE AT
OR IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE USE
OF A LESS LETHAL WEAPON USE
OF FORCE MAY NOT RECOVER UNDER
THIS
SECTION.
ABSENT EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING
A GREATER AMOUNT OF DAMAGE,
THE DAMAGE IS PAYABLE TO
AN INDIVIDUAL FOR
INJURIES APPROXIMATELY CAUSED
IN VIOLATION IN SPD LESS
LETHAL WEAPON POLICY SHALL BE
$10,000,
ADDED TO ATTORNEY AND COURT
FEES.
THIS DOES NOT PRECLUDE
FROM ANY OTHER LEAGUE RECOVERY
PROCESS
AVAILABLE TO A PERSON UNDER
FEDERAL OR STATE LAW.
>> THANK YOU, MR. DOS.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS
AMENDMENT
TEN.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
TURN IT OVER TO COUNCILMEMBER
RIFRPG.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IT BRINGS BACK THE RIGHT OF
PRY SAT ACTION WHICH THE
CURRENT INTERIM POLICY
SUPPLANTED.
AS GREG EXPLAINED, THIS
WOULD CREATE A RIGHT OF PRIVATE
ACTION
AGAINST THE CITY WHEN A PERSON
HAS INJURY BY THE USE OF
LESS LETHAL WEAPONS IN
VIOLATION OF
THE CROWD INTERVENTION AND
CONTROL POLICY.
THIS WAS INCLUDED BY THE
PREVIOUS LEGISLATION AS SAID.
THIS WOULD ONLY APPLY IF
LESS LETHAL WEAPONS ARE USED IN
VIOLATION OF SPD POLICY.
WHILE SOME HAVE
DISCUSSED FINANCIAL RISK, THERE
IS
ALSO THE COMPONENT THAT WE
SHOULD REALLY MAKE SURE THAT WE
ARE STRONGLY INCENTIVIZING CITY
EMPLOYEES ARE
NOT INJURING OUR COMMUNITY
MEMBERS AGAIN.
WE CAN CREATE THIS CAUSE
OF ACTION AND CREATE A KNOWN
RISK
FOR THE CITY. AS WAS DISCUSSED
TODAY
THROUGHOUT PUBLIC COMMENT,
THE CITY HAS HISTORICALLY PAID
OUT TO THE TUNE OF $10 MILLION.
WE CAN CREATE KNOWN RISK RATHER
THAN LEAVE IT UP TO
CHANCE IN THE COURTS FOR
WHATEVER SUBSEQUENT LAWSUITS
MAY OCCUR
WHEN
THESE KINDS OF WEAPONS ARE
DEPLOYED.
WE
COULD JUST TAKE OUR CHANCES ON
THAT FRONT.
AGAIN, THIS KIND OF MONEY
AND THE MONEY THAT
UNFORTUNATELY HAS BEEN SPENT TO
PAY OUT FOR
EGREGIOUS INJURIES AND HARM
THAT HAS BEEN CAUSED TO OUR
COMMUNITY MEMBERS, THAT MONEY
COULD
HAVE BEEN MUCH BETTER SPENT ON
OTHER THINGS THAT MAKE OUR
COMMUNITIES HEALTHY AND WHOLE.
I WOULD URGE THE
COMMITTEE'S SUPPORT FOR THIS
AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
VICE CHAIR, COLLEAGUES?
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR THIS AMENDMENT.
IT'S INTERESTING, YOU NOTED
THE PREVIOUS TWO ORDINANCES
PASSED
PREVIOUSLY THAT AS YOU
NOTED WERE HELD UP.
I
THINK OTHERS HAVE SPOKEN TO
THAT AS WELL.
THAT BILL, WHICH I HAVE
HERE, DID SPEAK TO THE PRIVATE
RIGHT OF ACTION FOR PHYSICAL
AND OTHER REASONS.
ONE OF THE THINGS HERE IS THERE
IS MANY WAYS TO ADDRESS THIS
IN TERMS OF SEEKING REDRESS
THAT ALREADY EXIST.
THE IDEA OF INCENTIVIZING THE
--
ON THE CITY SIDE , I NOTE THAT.
BUT WE HAVE OTHER WAYS
AND OTHER --
THIS BILL IN ITSELF WILL DO
THAT.
I'M CONCERNED IN TERMS OF ITS
INFLUENCING ON THE
OVERALL ENVIRONMENT WITH A
DOLLAR AMOUNT
IN TERMS OF USING THE WORD YOU
USE, INCENTIVIZE. THAT'S A
GREAT CONCERN.
AGAIN, PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION
I DON'T THINK IS
NECESSARY, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE
WE
ALREADY HAVE A MEANS TO ADDRESS
THIS.
I WILL BE VOTING NO ON THIS
AMENDMENT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
WILL THE CLERK CALL THE ROLL ON
ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT NUMBER
TEN?
[ ROLL CALLED ]
THERE ARE NONE IN FAVOR, THREE
ABSTENTIONS AND TWO OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU.
THE AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED.
WE WILL MOVE NOW TO THE AMENDED
BILL.
ARE THERE ANY
FINAL COMMENTS ON THE BILL AS
AMENDED?
VICE CHAIR?
I'M ASKING THIS
AS STANDARD. I JUST WANTED TO
ASK.
I WANTED TO THANK EVERYONE WHO
HAS BEEN PARTICIPATING IN THIS
PROCESS OVER THE MONTHS
AND
PARTICULARLY OVER THE LAST
NUMBER OF WEEKS .
THERE WILL
BE MORE TO COME AS WELL, NO
DOUBT.
THAT WILL BE EXTENDED, TOO.
BECAUSE I BELIEVE THIS WILL
NOT BE COMING ON JANUARY 28th
TO FULL COUNCIL DUE TO THE
ABSENCE
OF SOME COUNCILMEMBERS.
WHICH IN TURN WILL ALLOW
SOME TIME FOR OUR NEW DISTRICT
TWO REPRESENTATIVE MEMBER TO
ALSO GET UP TO SPEED ON THIS
BILL.
AGAIN, I BELIEVE THAT THIS
AMENDED BILL REALLY GOES TO THE
ISSUES THAT WE SPOKE ABOUT
THROUGHOUT TODAY.
STARTING OFF REAFFIRMING
THE RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND
ASSEMBLY.
THEN ALSO DOING SO IN SUCH A
WAY
THAT -- IN TRYING TO SOLVE ONE
PROBLEM, WE'RE NOT
CREATING OTHERS IN TERMS OF
BEING OVERLY
PRESCRIPTIVE. I THINK THE
AMENDED BILL
IMPROVES THE ORIGINAL BILL
AND GETS TO ALL THE ISSUES THAT
WE GOT TO, MAYBE NOT AS FAR AS
WE MAY WANT IN SOME CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES.
BUT IN TERMS OF ALLOWING
THE CITY TO BETTER RESPOND TO
THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, I THINK THIS
BILL DOES THAT.
WE WILL CONTINUE OUR WORK IN
THIS AREA THROUGHOUT -- THIS IS
NOT A ONE AND DONE SITUATION.
THIS IS SOMETHING WE ARE
ENGAGING.
THE RECOGNIZE COMMENTS
MADE THROUGH PUBLIC COMMENT
REGARDING
TRAINING AND OTHER POINTS
MADE AND THAT WE NEED TO
CONTINUALLY
WORK THIS AND WORK THIS WITH
OUR ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS.
WITH THAT, I LOOK UP AT MY
SCREEN. I SEE COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR KETTLE.
I HAVE SAID A LOT TODAY.
I WILL KEEP MY
S SHORT. I DID WANT TO THANK
MY COLLEAGUES FOR THE
THOUGHTFUL
WORK YOU HAVE DONE ON THIS, ON
THE BILL.
THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
SAKA
FOR YOUR LOVELY COMMENTS.
APPRECIATE THAT.
AGAIN, BASED ON THE AMENDMENTS
I
PUT FORTH, I THINK THERE'S A
LOT
OF ROOM FOR
ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT.
GIVEN THE GRAVITY OF
WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US, THE
FACT
THAT WE'RE GOING FROM
ESSENTIALLY
HAVING A POLICY, EVEN THOUGH
IT WASN'T IMPLEMENTED
BECAUSE OF THE CONSENT
DECREE, THAT SAID NO BLAST
BALLS TO ONE THAT TURNS IT
OVER TO THE DISCRETION OF THE
DEPARTMENT IS TROUBLESOME.
I THINK THE FACT THAT A LOT
OF THIS IS DRIVEN BY THE DESIRE
TO BE OUT OF THE CONSENT
DECREE, WHICH I FULLY SUPPORT.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT
WE CONCLUDE THAT CHAPTER IN OUR
HISTORY.
I ALSO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WE
DON'T RUSH SOMETHING AS
CRITICAL
AS THIS.
I'M GOING TO KEEP WORKING
WITH MY COLLEAGUES BEFORE WE
GET
BACK TO FULL COUNCIL ON THIS.
I THINK THERE'S SOME ROOM FOR
MOVING SOME ADDITIONAL COMMON
GROUND THAT CAN BE FOUND.
I DID WANT TO SAY, THANK,
THANK YOU FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE
DONE.
AGAIN, I THINK WE CAN DO
BETTER.
SO
I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS
TODAY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MEMBER
MOORE.
>> I KNOW WE ARE -- I KNOW YOU
LOVE
TO RUN LONG PUBLIC SAFETY
MEETINGS.
I SUPPORT OUR SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT.
I THINK WE AS A COUNCIL
HAVE VOTED ON ORDINANCES,
BUDGETS
AND WE HAVE CHANGED THE TONE OF
THIS COUNCIL WITH THE
RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR PRECINCT
AND OFFICERS.
I'M VERY AWARE IN MY
DISTRICT THE ACTIONS THAT WERE
TAKEN
DURING 2020 AND THE HISTORY
THAT THAT HAS.
WE HAVE HAD PUBLIC
COMMENTERS COME AND SPEAK TODAY
AND ONLINE.
WE RECEIVED EMAILS FROM FOLKS.
I WILL BE SUPER FRANK, I HAVE
SHARED THIS PRIVATELY
AND PUBLICLY THAT THIS WAS NOT
A
PRIORITY OF MINE.
I THINK AS THE GENERAL
PUBLIC, PEOPLE ARE ASKING
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ON WHY IS
IT
THE COUNCIL TAKING UP NON-
LETHAL WEAPONS WHETHER IT'S
HARD
S WHEN IT'S HARD TO GET
RESPONSE TO ROBBERIES AND
BREAK-INS.
WE ARE
UNDERSTAFFED. I KNOW WE ARE
MAKING PROGRESS ON
RECRUITMENT AND ENFORCEMENT AND
ARRESTING ING PEOPLE FOR
VIOLENT
CRIMES.
I'M THANKFUL TO SPD AND OUR
FIRST RESPONDERS FOR
THE IMPROVEMENTS THEY HAVE MADE
TO HELP RESPOND TO THE CRIME IN
OUR
CITY.
I'M GRATEFUL FOR THEM.
I ALSO WANT TO ECHO
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE'S
COMMENTS REGARDING -- I DO
BELIEVE WE
NEED TO BE OUT OF THE CONSENT
DECREE AND UNDERSTAND THAT.
FOR THIS, I WILL BE
ABSTAINING FOR THIS.
I KNOW THERE'S SOME WORK TO
DO LEADING FROM NOW INTO THE
FULL COUNCIL VOTE.
I APPRECIATE THE CHAIR'S WORK
ON
THIS AND THE
REST OF MY COLLEAGUES FOR YOUR
CONTINUED
EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN THIS
BILL.
IT'S VERY THOUGHTFUL OF YOU
ALL.
WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR CITY
IS SAFE.
THANK YOU TO MY S AND
EVERYTHING.
THIS IS NOT A NO. THIS IS JUST
ABSTAINING
AND LOOKING FORWARD TO THE
FULL COUNCIL
VOTE.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
HOLLINGSWORTH.
>> THANK YOU TO ALL OF THE
FOLKS THAT TURNED OUT FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT AND FOLKS THAT
HAVE WRITTEN IN.
WHEN SEATTLE RESIDENTS GO OUT
TO EXERCISE THEIR FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF SPEECH AND
ASSEMBLE, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE
TO HAVE
THE PEACE OF MIND THAT THEY
WILL NOT
BE INJURED BY THEIR OWN -- BY
THEIR LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THEY SHOULD TRUST THAT THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT THAT MAY BE ON
THE GROUND IS ALSO ABIDING BY
THE LAWS WITHIN
THE CITY, LAWS AND POLICIES.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
NOTE THAT AS EVIDENCED BY THE
MANY EMAILS WE RECEIVED FROM
THE
PUBLIC ON THIS TOPIC AS WELL AS
PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY -- I
KNOW FROM MY CONVERSATIONS
IN COMMUNITY THAT EVEN SO,
THERE'S CONCERN THAT SPD WILL
FOLLOW
OR ABIDE BY WHATEVER MAY BE
PASSED BY THIS COUNCIL.
EVEN IF WE HAVE MADE
IMPROVEMENTS ABOVE OUR
BASELINE FROM WHAT WE HAD
BEFORE
GOING INTO 2020.
I THINK THAT'S A CRITICAL DATA
POINT.
FOR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.
WE HAVE NOT ADDRESSED
POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE
DEGREE WE HAVE NEEDED TO TRULY
REMEDY THE
HARMS THAT HAVE HAPPENED
ACROSS THE CITY AND TO
SEATTLE RESIDENTS TO GIVE OUR
COMMUNITY PEACE OF MIND.
I JUST WANTED TO CHIME IN
WITH THAT PIECE.
I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING
TO WORK ON THIS AS
IT COMES BEFORE
FULL COUNCIL. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RINK.
I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK.
I APPRECIATE THE
POSITIONS. SOMETIMES IT'S A
MATTER OF
DEGREE.
I ALSO APPRECIATE THE INPUT
THAT MAYBE WORKED -- THAT WE
RECEIVED
BETWEEN NOW AND THE FULL
COUNCIL
AS NOTED.
MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE
THIS.
WITH THAT, WILL THE CLERK --
VICE CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
>> WHEN I LOOK AT THE SCREEN
AND I DON'T SEE ANYTHING, I'M
--
VICE CHAIR, OVER TO
YOU.
>> I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS
TODAY.
I AM DEFINITELY OPEN TO THE
ADDITIONAL IDEAS.
I THINK THE CURRENT VERSION AS
AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY
TODAY AT THIS MOMENT AND THIS
TIME, BUILDS UPON AND MAKES THE
MAYOR'S ORIGINAL LEGISLATION
BETTER.
THAT SAID, I'M OPEN
TO HEARING -- WE HAVE ALL
SHARED HOW WE APPROACH AND
THINK ABOUT
THESE VARIOUS ISSUES.
I'M OPEN TO ADDITIONAL IDEAS
TO
MAKE IT BETTER.
I WANT TO JUST CLARIFY.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MADE A
COMMENT ABOUT IT IS OUR JOB --
WE NEED TO BE MINDFUL
AND UNDERSTAND THE GUIDANCE,
THE ADVICE WE GET FROM OUR
EXPERTS. IN THIS CASE, LEGAL
EXPERTS.
IT IS UP TO US INDIVIDUALLY --
INDIVIDUALLY TO INTERPRET THE
IMPACT
OF THAT ADVICE. IT'S ADVICE.
MAKE DECISIONS AND
BE POTENTIALLY WILLING TO
OVERRIDE IT BASED OFF WHERE WE
LAND.
IN THAT PARTICULAR
CIRCUMSTANCE, I JUST SO
HAPPENED TO
DISAGREE WITH WHAT THE LEGAL
ADVICE
FOR THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE,
WHATEVER IT WAS AT THE TIME.
THAT
IS EXACTLY OUR JOB. OUR JOB IS
TO LISTEN TO
THE ADVICE AND GUIDANCE OF
EXPERTS, WHETHER IT'S LEGAL
POLICY
EXPERTS, DEPARTMENT EXPERTISE.
WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION, NOR
SHOULD WE BE IN A POSITION TO
RUBBER STAMP EVERYTHING PUT IN
FRONT OF US.
EXCELLENT POINT.
I HAPPENED TO DISAGREE ON
THE CONCLUSION HERE IN THIS
PARTICULAR CASE.
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
I DO WANT TO CALL OUT WHAT I
CALL IS GRAVE BEHAVIOR BY ONE
OF OUR COLLEAGUES IN
PARTICULAR,
COUNCILMEMBER RINK.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING FORWARD YOUR PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS AT THIS BODY THROUGH
A SPONSOR.
I THINK WE NEED TO DO MORE OF
THAT
FOR THOSE COMMITTEES THAT WE
DON'T SIT ON INDIVIDUALLY.
FOR ME,
THAT SHOWS COLLABORATION.
EFFORTS TO RESOLVE THINGS AS
MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
WE CAN'T ALWAYS DO IT AT THE
COMMITTEE LEVEL RATHER THAN
FULL COUNCIL LEVEL.
KUDOS, HATS OFF, EXCELLENT
SHOWING OF COLLABORATIVE
BEHAVIOR.
WE SHOULD ALL EMULATE
THAT. I OFFER MYSELF --
CLEARLY, GOING
ON RECORD, I'M OPEN TO
DOING THAT KIND OF THING,
EVEN IF I WON'T SUPPORT IT
ULTIMATELY.
TALK TO ME.
I
WILL LISTEN. I MIGHT EVEN
SUPPORT IT.
IN ANY EYE EVENT, GREAT
BEHAVIOR. THANK YOU FOR LEADING
THIS
PROCESS, MR. CHAIR.
IT'S CLEAR THERE MIGHT BE
WORK TO DO.
I'M OPEN TO HEARING SPECIFIC
FEEDBACK FROM MY COLLEAGUES.
WANT TO THANK THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE.
FOLKS WITHIN SPD FOR THE TOUR
LAST WEEK.
BRIAN MAXEY LEFT THE ROOM.
APOLOGIES FOR PUTTING HIM ON
THE
SPOT.
A REQUEST LAST MINUTE AT
THAT SITE VISIT TO PERSONALLY
GET THAT DEMO AND SEE WHAT THE
BLAST BALLS ARE LIKE.
I PUT HIM IN AN
UNCOMFORTABLE POSITION WHEN
THAT'S SOMETHING -- I CAME TO
MY
SENSES.
LET'S DO THIS THE RIGHT WAY.
WE ESCALATED UP THE CHAIN.
WE SEEN AN EXERCISE OF
AUTHORITY
AND POWERS AND SEPARATION
OF POWERS AT THE BRANCHS.
I MADE THE REQUEST PERSONALLY.
THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
SAID, THANK YOU FOR
YOUR REQUEST. NO THANKS.
THAT'S FINE.
THAT'S HOW THINGS WORK.
WE CAN DISAGREE.
WE CAN AGREE
AND DISAGREE WITHOUT BEING
DISAGREEABLE.
I DO -- I DO APPRECIATE THE
COLLABORATION AND PARTNERSHIP
WITH THE MAYOR'S OFFICE
THROUGHOUT THIS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU, VICE
CHAIR.
I'M NOT LOOKING AT MY SCREEN
ANYMORE.
NO OTHER COMMENTS.
I JUST WANT TO
THANK ALL THOSE THAT
PARTICIPATED.
WITH THAT,
WILL THE CLERK CALL THE ROLL ON
THE
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO
PASS COUNCIL
BILL 120916 AS AMENDED?
[ ROLL CALL ]
THREE IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED
AND ONE ABSTENTION.
>> THANK YOU.
THE MOTION CARRIES.
THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BILL
PASS AS AMENDED
WILL BE SENT ORIGINALLY
FOR JANUARY 28th, CITY COUNCIL
MEMBER. I BELIEVE THAT WILL BE
SHIFTED TO FEBRUARY 4 th.
WE HAVE REACHED THE AGENDA.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER
BUSINESS? WE ARE ADJOURNED.