A compromise was tentatively reached Wednesday between San Francisco’s police union and police watchdogs over the details of new rules governing officers’ use of force.
That compromise came as dueling versions of the rules that will govern how and when police use force in San Francisco went before The City’s Police Commission on Wednesday night for a final unanimous vote.
“A lot of what we’re fighting over are very, very particular,” said Commissioner Petra DeJesus. “I think we need to take a stand for strong language.”
While the union agreed in theory with the majority of the compromise, it did not agree to promise to give up its rights in negotiation.
“We cannot make that agreement here and now,” said Union President Martin Halloran.
In response, commission President Suzy Loftus said if the union holds the process hostage then temporary department bulletins could enforce rules such as making sure officers “shall” use de-escalation techniques.
“We’ll use any means that we have,” said Loftus.
Still, the commission moved forward on each point of disagreement before finally passing the reforms, which included many points the union disagreed upon.
Specifically, the commission passed rules barring the use of carotid restraints, barring the shooting at vehicles unless there is an imminent threat other than the vehicle, and stripping stun guns from the policy.
Their position also included that officers shall reassess the situation after each discharge.
The department has been under continued pressure after a number of recent police shootings, one of which prompted the resignation of former Chief Greg Suhr — and has not changed its use-of-force policy for more than two decades. The final version will be the guiding principle around force for the department’s more than 2,000 officers.
“The people of San Francisco have demanded that we make meaningful change,” said Loftus about the importance of the reforms.
Following the killing of Mario Woods Dec. 5, 2015, Mayor Ed Lee directed the department to draw up new rules that make sure fewer people die at the hands of police.
Since then, the department, community groups, the Police Commission and the police union have met a number of times to craft a new use-of-force policy. At its core that policy’s aim has been to reduce deadly encounters with police by enshrining de-escalation techniques and guidelines centered on the sanctity of life.
Three main proposed versions of the policy put before the commission seek to define what kinds of force can be used and in what circumstances. They also attempt to define use of force as well as de-escalation and when it should be used.
The policies specifically speak to when firearms, batons and other weapons can be used and when they should not be an option, as well as the responsibility of supervisors and fellow officers during such an incidents.
A packed Police Commission included many speakers who critiqued the police union and some of its proposed changes to the policy.
“This document [negotiated version] virtually strips” the strength out of the other two versions, said one speaker.
Dueling versions
Up until Tuesday, there were several main versions of the use-of-force policy. Those policies have been presented at public hearings held by the Police Commission so the public can give their input. But the latest version handed over to commissioners by the San Francisco Police Officers Association has had no public review.
Still, the new version was the result of negotiations between community groups, watchdogs and the POA.
While similar in many ways to the other versions, the negotiated version still had a number of additional sticking points.
Those points, which were mostly passed, also supported including the language about building rapport and creating time and distance. The commission also included language about reporting use-of-force incidents and punishments for failing to do so.
All those differences were passed by the commission.
Aside from the 20 percent of the proposed document not yet agreed upon, the union’s position has differed in the past on a number of issues.
The POA, for instance, wanted to change “sanctity” of life to “reverence,” since, they argue, that sanctity is a religious phrase and not appropriate.
Community groups
Community groups who have opposed many of the POA’s positions say it may sound simply as if they have issues with wording, but that will make all the difference.
“People will die if the POA has its way and you approve this restraint,” said a woman speaker about the union’s position on carotid holds.
Alan Schlosser with the ACLU of Northern California said that there are verbiage changes made by the union it has no legal say over.
For instance, the use of “minimal force” versus “reasonable force,” which is favored by the union, should not be subject to negotiations, he said.
“If this is your policy, fight for it,” he said.
Wednesday’s policy must go through a labor negotiation with the POA, which in the past has altered policies during that process.
