,

As state government stabilizes, a dangerous bill inspires debate

Becks Lawson Avatar

The Barbant Administration has enjoyed a honeymoon with the public during their early days, with an unprecedented approval rate and a strong public presence on social media and in person. The Legislature, too, has been rated higher by the public in recent months. After a string of disastrous Executive teams mismanaging the state, San Andreans can finally relax with the knowledge that a competent hand is at the wheel.

But despite these successes, one recent bill has sparked controversy. Representative Barber has been vocal about his intent to write a “State Your Reason” act, which has yet to be posted as of the time of this article’s publication. This theoretical bill would require officers to state the reason for a traffic stop before proceeding with the rest of their interaction. Barber has touted this bill as a way to “promote communication” and prevent potential self-incrimination. Critics claim that the bill will lead to more violent encounters at traffic stops, and put officers at serious — or even fatal — risk.

Representative Barber, to his credit, was present at the Dec. 1 legislative meeting to answer members of the public regarding their concerns about the bill. Useless News’ recording of the meeting is below:

Barber was unable to mention any specific incident or landmark case that such a bill could answer. Barber was also unable to point to any data or consistent patterns related to traffic stops. When questioned further on police conduct, Barber stated: “No, I cannot name specific names, dates, or times when people have shared concerns about traffic stops, or law enforcement, or whatever there is.”

Instead, he remained vague, stating that over his three-and-a-half years in the state, he had heard many complaints about police, which had led to a “mood” shared by the populace. The sole piece of evidence that Barber could produce was the Shout News Politipoll, which currently shows an approximately 30% public disapproval rate in law enforcement.

Indeed, while Barber is unable to come up with a single use case for his bill, he is able to articulate a retributive attitude towards law enforcement. Barber’s statements at the legislative meeting betray a chilling attitude: legislation that hampers the police is good, regardless of whatever side effects that bill might have. In the case of police being put at risk of being shot, it’s not a bug — it’s a feature. Much like a witch hunt, the victim is seen by the persecutor as no victim at all — instead, Barber’s rationale implies that these officers would deserve it.

There’s a grain of truth to what Barber is saying — law enforcement have failed to maintain a consistent line of communication with the public and press over the last three years. There have been recent improvements in that area, which are at risk thanks to not just Barber’s bill, but the dismissive attitude he took in response to long, personal testimonies by Garry Shoeman and Jay Lamb. During my own history in the state, I have rarely advocated for the police. I think that there parts of Barber’s philosophy that are correct.

In a call with Shout News, Governor Barbant confirmed that he would be prepared to veto a “State Your Reason” bill if the circumstances called for it, and it doesn’t appear as if any other Representative in the 11th Congress is willing to lend their vote to this bill. My concern is that the damage may already be done, and our newly functional government will fall back into in-fighting, finger pointing, and recriminations. If Rep. Barber wants to try and watch the watchmen, he should make sure his own grasp on public policy is up to snuff.


2 responses

  1. Just a regular person Avatar
    Just a regular person

    Every private citizen (non gov employee) as well as many who work in gov that I’ve mentioned this proposed bill to, has stated that it’s a good idea and it will help protect them. While the bill may not be perfect, it’s so frustrating trying to get a shred of oversight or concession from the PD that can help protect the general population from police over reach or rights violations. How many civil or criminal dockets this past year have arisen due to excessive force or rights violations? Too fucking many, and every time they pay out or get convicted the PD claims it’s some isolated incident and no greater reform is needed. I personally have put in two IA complaints over the past two months for excessive police force against myself, and before you ask, yes I still have a clean record.

    Just because Barber is trying to do something for the people who have honestly given up trying to argue with PD, doesn’t mean he’s some demon trying to get cops killed. Get out of your own world and go talk to average citizens, cause I have and they all like this idea. How bout you try to compromise instead of bitching about hypothetical scenarios cause the PD has to actually know what reasonable suspicion is and articulate it. Sorry if that’s such a tall order.

  2. Human Avatar
    Human

    I know the bill is not perfect but for real, cops should have to let us know why they pulled us over. I have often been doing nothing wrong, least as far as I can tell, then the cop goes back to their cruiser, checks my record and I’m suddenly being pulled out of my car. Or they pull in 4 cars and it’s just for something small like a warning. It would help relieve the stress some of us normal people have when we are not used to talking to the cops. Many people I have spoken to have mentioned that they already hate that the cops will not tell them what they did until after they go back to their car. Sometimes it seems like they are just trying to make things up before they come back. Once I was told i was going 140 on the freeway, when my cruise control was set at 95. that only took 5 minutes to get out of them. If they were expected to tell people why they pulled them over, it might prevent them from randomly pulling people over to make a scene or out of boredom. Not that this is always the case. The cops attempting to speak up about it almost seem as though they only really oppose it because they would be expected to so exactly as the public often pushes them to do. Tell them why they were pulled over.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *