Anchorage Assembly member Meg Zalatel offered has offered an ordinance to limit the ability of police to use force.
Under the Zalatel no-deadly-force plan, law enforcement officers would be prohibited from using the following tactics in response to noncompliance or resistance:
- Warning shots.
- Shooting at or from moving vehicles.
- Shooting when innocent bystanders are near the line of fire so as to create a substantial risk of harm.
- Drawing and pointing weapons, unless deadly force is authorized by police department policy.
- Use of firearms to destroy animals.
- Unless deadly force is authorized, necessary, and objectively reasonable under the circumstances, and only used as long as needed to protect others and separate the arrestee from others:
- Any chokeholds, with or without a device, that restricts a person’s airway or flow of air.
- Any vascular neck restraint that restricts the flow of blood by compressing the carotid arteries on each side of the neck.
- Striking a person’s head or neck with an impact weapon or object.
7. Sitting, kneeling, or standing on the chest or back of a person in a manner that compresses the diaphragm for longer than reasonably necessary to restrain the person.
“Under no circumstances shall deadly force be authorized against a person in handcuffs or restrained to similar extent by any device. Non-deadly force may be used to prevent imminent bodily harm to officers or others, prevent escape, or physically remove an arrestee/detainee,” Zalatel’s ordinance reads.
The ordinance was introduced, but the Assembly has since been preoccupied by Mayor Ethan Berkowitz’ plan to house and treat vagrants in hotels and other buildings around Anchorage.
Now, a letter from the Anchorage Police Department Employee Association has expressed concern about the Zalatel plan.
The group says that shooting from a moving vehicle is already prohibited, but the APD policy provides for extenuating circumstances.
“For example, the policy would allow officers to fire at a person driving a vehicle who at the same time was shooting at citizens or officers. APD’s policy allows for officers to bring their training, experience, and critical analysis to bear in such a situation, with the understanding that an extreme amount of scrutiny will be used in determining if the officer placed themselves in a position where the vehicle could be used against them.”
The APD policy also has language prohibiting shooting when it could create a substantial risk of harm to a bystander.
“While our current policy has language similar to this, the policy again allows for extenuating circumstances where the ordinance does not,” APDEA wrote.
Under the current policy, the officer is allowed the discretion to decide, based on the totality of the circumstances, whether discharging his/her firearm would constitute a greater risk to innocent human life than the subjects’ actions would.
“There are any number of ways such a situation could arise. For example, when officers are dealing with an active shooter, or with a suspect who is taking action that threatens the lives of hostages, officers may have to make the difficult decision to use deadly force against the suspect even with bystanders or hostages near the line of fire to save the lives of many.”
The police group also pointed out that if Zalatel’s ordinance is understood literally, it prohibits shooting when innocent bystanders are near the line of fire, even if the officer has no knowledge that a bystander is present.
The drawing and pointing of weapons section of Zalatel’s ordinance is also problematic. The ordinance would change the police department policy, which now says that officers may not point their firearms at or in the direction of a person absent an objectively reasonable determination that the situation may escalate to the point where deadly force would be authorized. The ordinance prohibits drawing and pointing weapons unless there is justification for use of deadly force.
“APD officers are trained to deploy with their weapons in any number of situations where deadly force would not be justified. For example, drawing and pointing weapons is allowed on felony traffic stops, building searches, K9 tracks, etc. When guns are drawn in these circumstances, the result is the potentially hazardous situations never reach the point of becoming appropriate for the use of deadly force.”
The group wrote that science backs up this training, because there is a lag time for the brain to recognize a threat, make a decision based on what an officer is perceiving and then take action. When an officer sees a threat of death or serious injury to themselves or another person, a suspect can fire three to four times before the officer can fire once.
The officers also wonder why use of firearms on animals would be prohibited. The ordinance differs from current policy, which allows use of deadly force against an animal that represents a threat to the public or to the officer. It authorizes police to dispatch an animal that is gravely injured, such as a moose that has been struck by a vehicle, for humanitarian reasons.
As for using deadly force, such as chokeholds, or striking a persons head or neck with an impact weapon or object, the proposed ordinance would be different from current policy Officers are now only allowed to use impact when a subject is actively resisting, such as kicking, biting, punching, pushing, barricading, or pulling away.
“Sometimes officers aim for the leg and hit the hip, aim for an arm and hit a shoulder, all inadvertently. In the ordinance, an officer could be punchiest for using an impact weapon in a situation of active resistance if the weapon strikes the person’s head or neck, even if it was not the officers intent to strike the person in either are.
Finally, the officers say that the ordinance section saying that “under no circumstances shall deadly force be authorized against a person in handcuffs or restrained to a similar extent by any device, is already in current policy. There are extenuating circumstances if it’s objectively reasonable to prevent bodily harm to the officer or another person or persons.
The officers have asked for greater communication with the Assembly to help them understand current policy and to share with them feedback they have received from their association members.
