TRENTON, NJ- Once again, busybodies in a blue-state legislature are trying to tie the hands of police officers, this time in New Jersey. NJ Spotlight News, funded by the Public Broadcasting System, reports that under the bill, which is awaiting outgoing Gov. Phil Murphy’s signature, the attorney general would have the power to review and potentially revise when police officers can use deadly force.
The move comes after several high-profile police killings of individuals allegedly experiencing mental health crises occurred in the past few years. Social justice advocates have been pushing for legislation to prevent such incidents.
The proposed bill requires that any revision to the deadly force policy must take into account “core principles” that include respecting the sanctity of human life (as if police officers don’t already do that), while putting a priority on taking “other reasonable measures,” including de-escalation practices that must be attempted before an officer uses deadly force. Deadly force would be used “only as a last resort,” which is already the practice in 99.9% of police departments nationwide. Laws such as this imply that police officers are a bunch of cowboys just itching to pull the trigger and take a life, which couldn’t be further from the truth.
Assemblywoman Ellen Park, a Democrat, implied that such incidents happen “every year.” She said there needs to be a “unified, clear directive,” calling it “not just good for the public, but it’s also good for the police” because they will have clear guidelines.
The New Jersey assembly took action after several people allegedly experiencing mental health crises were shot and killed by New Jersey police in the past few years, with “advocates” claiming there is no accountability for officers in such situations. Of course, it is easy to be a Monday-morning quarterback and tell police what they should have done, with the benefit of hindsight and without having to make a split-second, life-changing decision.
One such incident occurred in August when a New Brunswick police officer shot and killed a 68-year-old woman in a high-rise for senior citizens during what was described as a mental health crisis. Some people claim if a mental health professional had been present at the time, the death could have been avoided. That investigation is still ongoing in the attorney general’s office.
There is already a 2019 law in place that mandates the attorney general conduct investigations of deaths that occur during a police encounter, or while someone is in custody. Those investigations must also be presented to a grand jury to determine whether the evidence supports pressing charges against the officer(s) involved in the incident.
The left-leaning NJ Spotlight News conducted an analysis of hundreds of press releases since that law took effect and found officers involved in over 100 incidents where a person died or was shot and seriously wounded by a police officer are rarely indicted by a grand jury, consisting of peers of the police officer, as the Constitution designed it. Only three cases resulted in indictments since Jan. 30, 2019, and one of those was overturned by a judge.
Examples include this past July, when a grand jury did not file criminal charges against a Jersey City police officer, Stephen Gigante, who shot and killed a man named Andrew Washington while he was allegedly experiencing a mental health crisis in August 2023.
In March, another grand jury declined to charge police officers involved in the shooting death of Najee Seabrooks of Paterson, N.J., who was allegedly experiencing a mental health crisis in March 2023.
The bill awaiting Murphy’s signature would require the attorney general to issue and revise guidelines and procedures about how police officers interact with barricaded persons, NJ Spotlight News reported. Those guidelines require police to distinguish whether a barricaded person is having a mental health crisis that poses a health, safety, or welfare risk, and situations when a person is not experiencing such a crisis. All without direct contact with the individual, except via verbal communication.
Further, the requirements mandate that there must be guidelines on resolving conflicts through negotiations and the use of mental health professionals, if available. Officers must also consider the barricaded suspect’s primary language.
Amber Reed, co-executive director of AAPI New Jersey, told the outlet she was hopeful people experiencing mental health crises would get help.
“We are really eager to see this bill signed into law, just to know that our state is committed to advancing on this and to not going backward,” said Reed. “Because where we are is unbearable, I can’t even imagine losing progress on this.”
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin issued a directive after the August incident that requires officers who first respond to a barricaded suspect call to wait for specialized resources rather than attempt to resolve the situation, among other requirements. The proposed bill would codify that directive into law.
Despite the perceived benefits of the bill, not all social justice warriors are happy about it, although they acknowledge it’s progress. They advocate the use of civilian complaint review boards and want to address qualified immunity for New Jersey police officers.
An ill-advised bill to establish local civilian complaint review boards with subpoena power to review police operations and conduct was introduced in both houses of the New Jersey legislature, but has not yet been voted on in either chamber.
“It’s important to start with the fact that the spirit, the intention of this bill is to set up some real basic guidelines around protecting residents in the state beyond any particular administration,” said Racquel Romans-Henry, the director of policy for Salvation and Social Justice.
The proposed bill would require all use-of-force incidents to be reported to the state Department of Law and Public Safety and posted on the department’s website. The information would also be available to the public upon request under the Open Public Records Act.
One controversial part of the bill would grant correctional and parole officers “full police powers,” while also providing qualified immunity.
One critic of the bill was levied by Jason Williams, a professor of justice studies at Montclair State University, who complained the bill doesn’t address the “core concerns” of communities allegedly disproportionately impacted by “police violence.”
“It talks about the sanctity of life, de-escalation, crisis management, public hearings, yet again it keeps the attorney general and the police hierarchy firmly in control of these use-of-force rules,” Williams complained.
“When I read through it now, I just don’t see any clear language about accountability and prevention. " It seems more like, how can we better control this?” said Williams. “At the same time, it explicitly affirms full police powers and legal immunities, even for correctional officers or parole officers.”
Comments