Alabama legislators approve extra legal protection for police officers

Montgomery, Ala. – Alabama’s legislators approved improved legal protection for police officers on Wednesday, changes that, according to Republicans, supported support for law enforcement, but Democrats called ‘a green light to kill black people’.

Alabama’s legislative power gave the final approval legislation This sets legal standards for the use of violence and provides a hearing of immunity. The bill states that an officer will be “justified” in the use of physical strength as long as it is not constitutionally excessive or “reckless” outside the officer’s discretionary authority.

Republicans, who called the legislation the “Back the Blue” law, said it is necessary to offer a clear legal framework and to show support to law enforcement officers who were confronted with taking a fraction of a second.

“We ask them to take care of us, to protect ourselves in our houses while we sleep at night. This bill gives them the guarantees that we support them and it does not deterior,” said Senator Lance Bell, a former deputy sheriff. Bell said that officers who act incorrectly can still be prosecuted.

The approval came after an emotional debate in which black legislators read the names of black people killed by the police and described their own meetings with law enforcement.

“HB 202 is a license to kill black people. That’s what it is,” said Sen. Rodger Smitherman, a black democrat from Birmingham.

Smitherman said that departments have very good officers, but they also have officers who are “racist against black people” or impulsive decisions because they are afraid.

Senator Merika Coleman, a black democrat from Pleasant Grove, said she fears that the bill will protect ‘bad apples’ in police departments. She described her that someone would ever see her student son as a threat as a threat because of his high frame and twisted locs.

“If this bill passes and young black men, women, brown and other people are killed, you will have blood on your hands because of this piece of legislation,” said Coleman.

Bell insisted on opponents “to walk a mile in the shoes of a law enforcement officer and find out what they are dealing with.” Smitherman replied: “Walk a mile in the person’s shoes when the person is dead.”

The Senate of Alabama approved the bill about a late night voice in the last hour of the legislative session. The House of Representatives accepted changes to the Senate. The bill is now going to Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey who said she will sign it in the law.

“There is no doubt that Alabama does not support it!” Ivey stated on social media after the passage of the bill.

According to the existing state law, both the police and citizens are currently entitled to a “Stand -Jurid” hearing in criminal cases in which a judge can determine whether the suspect has acted in self -defense. The legislation allows a hearing of immunity when a judge will decide whether a case can continue on the basis of whether the officer has acted recklessly outside the reach of the duties of the law enforcement. It would add similar protection in civil lawsuits of the state. It would also require legal enforcement departments to collect data that keeps track of the use of strength complaints.

The executive director of the Alabama Sheriff’s Association, Hoss Mack, testified for the bill in April.

“This is just a benefit for law enforcement and the public. Let me repeat what this bill does not do. It does not give general immunity of law enforcement,” said Mack, who added that he had personally arrested officers who worked for him for misconduct during his 39-year career in the law enforcement.

Leroy Maxwell, a civil rights lawyer based in Birmingham, said he is afraid that the bill would encourage misconduct.

“Leaving like this makes the way free to a police state, where law enforcement operates above the law and without fear of consequences,” said Maxwell.

Civil rights lawyer Harry Daniels Against the law, but doubted the overall impact on the cases of civil rights that could still be submitted to the federal court and will not be influenced by the legislation.

“It is a lion without teeth. It seems to be big and bad, but it has no teeth and no claws,” said Daniels.