GV bypassing part of police reform law (continued)

Continued from page 1

I am totally comfortable betting on the officers and the leadership of the GV police department.”

The resolution drew the attention of Colorado Governor Jared Polis, who said, about SB 20-217 which he signed into law on June 19, “it was designed to restore trust between communities and law enforcement…I’m confident communities across the state will follow it.”

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser weighed in on Twitter, saying, “This is wrong. We can’t let this stand.”

State Rep. Leslie Herod, who sponsored Senate Bill 20- 217, said, “I’m wondering what message they’re sending to the citizens if they would allow an officer to act in bad faith and still have their back, no matter what. I think that’s completely inappropriate. I think it’s backward-looking and it’s not in the spirit of what we’re trying to do as a community moving forward.”

Republican state Sen. Bob Gardner from Colorado Springs, who voted for the bill, is reported to have described the resolution as an “attempted end run” around the new law.

State Rep. Meg Froelich, a former member of the GV city council, did not mince words. “Greenwood Village City Council could have passed a resolution condemning racism, they could’ve passed a resolution supporting their police, they could’ve passed a resolution putting in additional training or bonuses for good policing. Instead, GV City Council decided to void one of the most important parts of a bipartisan piece of legislation and make the statement that you can kneel on someone’s neck for 8 1/2 minutes in GV if you’re a police officer, the city’s taxpayers will pick up the tab,” she said.

Even Cory Christensen, police chief of Steamboat Springs and president of the Colorado State Sen. Jeff Bridges, whose district includes Greenwood Village, spoke to The Villager after talking to GV City Manager John Jackson about the resolution. Said Bridges, “I understand that the GV city council had reason to believe that they’d lose officers if they didn’t do this, but the bill provides complete protection for officers who act legally. To overrule part of a bipartisan bill and say our police aren’t subject to the very same standard as every other officer in the state is deeply disturbing.”

An official statement issued on July 9 by the city said that the resolution was not intended to “shield its police from accountability,” since officers can be disciplined or terminated at any time. They noted that “many of the items that the state legislature included in SB 20-217 have been in force for a long period of time in Greenwood Village. We already ban chokeholds. We review every show of and use of force case not only when deadly force is used or there is a complaint but when any force is used even including situations where a taser may be drawn and not even fired. We do not chase unless the chase involves a felony and immediate threat to human life that outweighs the greater risk

They explained the adoption of the resolution this way. “Seeing the lack of reasoned support by city councils throughout the country, one senior officer (in GV) has already determined that this risk in addition to his life was not one that he was willing to endure. Other officers who are also risking their lives on a day to day basis seeing municipalities who want to defund their efforts call into question for them whether it is really worth protecting people who don’t want them. Other municipalities may have different cultures, training, and problems that we do not face. We will not judge the efforts of other cities to do what they believe best for their citizens, but based on our workforce, our training and our culture, we do not believe that the potential financial penalties of our police officers in Greenwood Village will make any measurable difference in whether they will act in a professional or criminal way.”

GV’s action continued to have repercussions a week after it was taken. On July 13, the City of Westminster issued a public statement clarifying that it intended to provide its officers only the limited immunity prescribed under the police reform law, after earlier stating it would indemnify them “for any liability.”

Fmiklin.villager@gmail.com