HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/16/2020 Item Amendment A, James
Clerk, Intern
From:Marshall <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:RE: Cantrell's SLOPD Policy memo
Councilors,
During this time of heightened public scrutiny of the police throughout the country, now is a time to take a
harder look at how police behave here in SLO county. Just a short two weeks ago the police fired tear gas
and foam bullets into a crowd of peaceful protestors. The grounds for the attack was 'failure to disperse'
meaning that citizens refused to curtail their First Amendment Right - not that there was a threat to the
public or to property (as no damage to property has yet been tied to any protest resulting from the police
murder of George Floyd.) This came after two days of menacing tactics in which squads of police in riot
gear, brandishing clubs, guns, and shields confronted peaceful marches, the officers slapping their clubs
into their hands and pointing weapons at chanting protest attendees. The police responded to non-
violence with violence, they purposefully raised the temperature by showing up to the demonstration with
the intent to intimidate. As public servants, their goal should have been to protect the freedom of speech
of the protestors, but instead they demonstrated that what the protestors were marching about was all
too real: the police are violent and dangerous accellerationists.
The SLOPD are using our tax dollars to buy cover for themselves from irresponsible private policy farms.
Chief Cantrell’s June 13 memo gives the false impression that she and SLOPD are listening to Black voices
and are responsive to their needs; but they buy policy from the fraudulent for-profit policy clearinghouse
Lexipol. That company is dedicated to shielding law enforcement from liability or accountability. Several
of those policies are demonstrably non-compliant with state and federal law, and even though many
California law enforcement agencies contract with Lexipol, the City’s excessive and uncritical reliance on
Lexipol policies puts it at considerable legal risk of liability.
Chief Cantrell cites these Lexipol policies extensively in her June 13 memorandum, particularly with regard
to AB 392 and SB 230; this should be of considerable concern to the Council. After the California
Legislature passed AB 392, Lexipol released an unlawful use of force policy which they encouraged many
local law enforcement agencies to purchase and adopt. SLOPD is one of the agencies that has adopted this
illegal use of force policy.
Lexipol disregards the very core of AB 392: the necessary standard for police use of deadly force. The
necessary standard is the new and stricter legal standard that determines officers can use deadly force
only when necessary to defend against an imminent threat of harm to themselves or others. Lexipol use
of force policies omit the word “necessary,” ignore the plain meaning of AB 392, and disregard
its legislative history.
Ominously, Lexipol’s subscription terms and conditions specify that the company is not liable for its
own policies, and it will not indemnify customers, which lays all the legal risk in the lap of the City and
leaves us responsible for legal costs if the materials are challenged in court, especially if there were an
unfortunate incident in which those policies play a role. Again, the Council should have considerable
concern over the uncritical use of Lexipol policies. I urge you to discontinue use of Lexipol’s materials and
immediately revise the cited Use of Force policy to be compliant with AB 392 and other law.
In addition to the unjustified reliance on Lexipol policies, Chief Cantrell’s memo does not answer some
fundamentally critical questions:
1
· Who issued the order to unleash chemical weapons on unarmed civilians who
were peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights?
· Why weren’t the de-escalation tactics touted in the Chief’s memo employed
on June 4.
· SLOPD has not agreed to ban the use of chemical weapons in the future. Why
won’t the City be explicit about forbidding us of such weaponry?
· It’s outrageous that officers should be permitted to shoot at moving vehicles
under any circumstances. Why won’t the City ban this practice?
· The memo repeatedly cites the training requirements of SB 230 but does not
state whether those requirements have been met. SLOPD should provide the
data documenting who received training and when, rather than just citing
unverifiable statistics.
As a witness to the chemical weapon attack on June 4th, I can say that I was horrified. I moved to SLO
because I thought this community would be safer, friendlier, with a greater space for community-building.
The police demonstrated that they are opposed to this. I have attended several marches and
demonstrations throughout the county and have seen the way the police attempt intimidation tactics on
peaceful protestors, many of whom are students. The city council must make a stand -
Do you stand with violent unaccountable paramilitary cops or do you stand with the young
voices, the people of color, the queer community, and those who value our freedom from state
violence?
Marshall James
859-552-5524
Co-founder of Time Traveler Media
"Sending Messages into the Future!"
Congressional Liaison with Citizens Climate Lobby
2