Citing training concerns, police chiefs seek to delay use of deadly force policy
HARTFORD — With the law scheduled to change April 1, Connecticut police chiefs and lawmakers asked Monday for changes and an 18-month delay of the police use of force policy that was part of the sweeping accountability law passed last summer in response to high-profile police killings and racial justice protests.
The chiefs, police unions, and local mayors and selectmen say the delay is necessary because there is no way to train 9,000 state and local police officers on new standards of deadly force in the 38 days remaining before the scheduled law change.
The chiefs are concerned that the law says police must have “exhausted” all other options before using deadly force, as officers say their decisions are made in split seconds. They instead want the law to say officers must have “considered” other reasonable options — such as using a Taser or pepper spray — before using deadly force.
And in addition to allowing deadly force against those with a “deadly weapon,” the chiefs want the law to include allowing such force against someone with a “dangerous instrument” because “a bat can kill you, a pipe can kill you,” said Milford police Chief Keith Mello, immediate past president of the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association.
Testifying Monday in front of the legis
“It’s the most restrictive use of force policy in the country.” — Milford police Chief Keith Mello, immediate past president of the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association
“Let’s not forget what happened to George Floyd. What I’m seeing is wordplay.” — Rep. Robyn Porter, a New Haven Democrat
lature’s judiciary committee, Mello said, “It’s the most restrictive use of force policy in the country.’’
Police and local officials support a two-page bill that would push back the effective date of the changes to the use of force policy to Oct. 1, 2022, so that they have adequate time for training.
But Rep. Robyn Porter, a New Haven Democrat who has spoken out against police brutality, was not immediately convinced, saying that lawmakers must remain cognizant of the national outrage over the death last May of a handcuffed man in police custody in Minneapolis that spawned protests around the nation.
“Let’s not forget what happened to George Floyd,” Porter said during Monday’s public hearing. “What I’m seeing is wordplay.”
She added, “I’m also struggling why it’s necessary to change these words” when a new Connecticut inspector general will be able to make determinations on police shootings, which was a key part of the new law. The inspector general, for example, would be able to determine what is a “dangerous instrument” and make judgments on the issues debated Monday.
The inspector general has not been hired yet after the state’s Criminal Justice Commission deadlocked in a 3-3 vote in September and sent the names of two nominees to the legislature. Lawmakers, however, said it is not their job to choose among two candidates and instead would vote when one nominee is sent by the commission.
In the battle over the definitions of force, Porter said legislators need to remember the big picture.
“Just for the record, I don’t have experience of being a police officer, but I would like to state that I do have experience of being a victim of excessive force — in my opinion, for no good reason, other than the color of my skin,” Porter told her colleagues. “We’re not saying all cops are bad, all cops are rogue and all cops set out to brutalize Black and brown communities. What we can say is it is happening and this legislation was passed to address that.”
The proposed change in the law is supported by the 110-member Council of Small Towns, which represents communities with fewer than 35,000 residents in municipalities across the state.
“Providing peace officers with sufficient time to obtain the necessary training in use of force policies will be beneficial for both officers and the public by ensuring that the provisions are fully understood and complied with,” COST said. “This is a modest change which is important to the safety of the public and our officers.”
Rep. Steve Stafstrom, a Bridgeport Democrat who wrote portions of the police accountability law as co-chair of the judiciary committee, said lawmakers remain open minded to improvements in the law.
“This committee would be open to reasonable tweaks” that “would not undercut the substance of the law we passed last year,” he said.
Sen. Gary Winfield, the Senate co-chair of the judiciary committee, said the goal is to make changes that “improves upon what we did” last year.
Brian Anderson, a longtime union activist for AFSCME Council 4, said the legislature has been sharply divided over the police accountability bill, but added that all sides should agree that every officer should be trained adequately on the new standards.
“This is a move in the right direction,” he said. “It really behooves all of us.”
Sen. Dan Champagne, Vernon Republican and former police officer for 22 years, said officers have a difficult job that often leads to injuries in scuffles with suspects.
“I’ve been hit with chairs. I’ve been hit with many things at domestics when you don’t expect it,” he said. “Wedo need to push this off to make sure that we train all officers in the state.”
While the bill has the support of police, it is strongly opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut.
“Every change proposed in this bill weakens the already imperfect compromise standard created in the July 2020 police accountability bill,” said Kelly McConney Moore, ACLU’s interim policy counsel. “The millions of people in the streets across the U.S. last summer were not there for incremental changes to police violence — they were there to bring about lasting change and an end to police killings. This bill will not do that. We oppose this bill and its unfounded watering down of Public Act 20-1. This committee must also oppose it.”