Public Comments for 01/14/2021 Public Safety - Public Safety Subcommittee
HB1875 - Law-enforcement officers; modifies minimum qualifications.
Law-enforcement officers MUST be held to the highest level of training and certification that can be afforded to them. Law-enforcement personal must know that is a carrier (life time) job, not something to do until something better comes along and they can move to bigger and better job.
RISE for Youth opposes any effort to lower the criteria for law enforcement officers. These officers, who are tasked with enforcing the Commonwealth's laws, must be held to a higher standard. Therefore, we oppose HB 1875.
HB1894 - Naloxone or other opioid antagonist; certain employees of DJJ authorized to administer.
I would ask you to support this bill ONLY IF the person(s) would hold a minimum certification of a EMT (Emergency Medical Technician).
This bill is designed to protect youth in the juvenile justice system by allowing DJJ employees to administer life-saving drugs in the event of an overdose. LAJC supports this bill.
HB1948 - Law-enforcement officer; duty to render aid, duty to report wrongdoing by another officer.
An Law-enforcement officer's responsibility is "Serve and Protect". This is to "Serve and Protect" the needs of everyone "Good guy or Bad". If an Officer see's some one doing something wrong to another it his / her responsibility to STOP that action being taken at that time. This also includes and should not limited to report that "action" the to authorities having judication and to see that this never happens again. There also should some requirement added that the reporting officer be provided with what ever level of protection so that NO ONE can identify that reporting officer so no "In House" punishment can given to that officer. With that said I would like to see this bill be supported. NOTE: This bill needs to be looked at for Fire Service Personnel.
Vote YES for HB 1948. I support this bill.
Equality Virginia, the leading organization for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender equality in Virginia, supports HB 1948. LGBTQ people – especially LGBTQ Black, Latinx, and Indigenous people – are more likely to be victimized by discriminatory police practices such as stop-and-frisk, profiling and policing of gender norms, zero-tolerance policing, and biased enforcement of anti-drug, anti-prostitution, and HIV criminalization laws. This bill would broaden the definition of “bias-based profiling” to include sexual orientation and gender identity, and would therefore effectively ban discriminatory policing against LGBTQ Virginians. This would ensure that police that engage in these harmful practices face consequences, and provide the LGBTQ community in Virginia with increased protection from police harassment and abuse.
In case I am held up, Stevens-Rucker v. Frenz and Jason White, the US Army vet in 2013, and the SCOTUS ruling: Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981), DC Court of Appeals case ruling holding that police don't owe even police services based on the public duty doctrine.
Stevens-Rucker v. Frenz? Jason White, the US Army vet in 2013, what about that precedent? DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the failure by government workers to protect someone from physical violence or harm from another person adid not breach any substantive constitutional duty.
Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee. I would like to express my support for HB1948. A police officer has a sworn duty to protect and serve. There should not be a question of whether or not any sworn officer renders aid to a person in need. There should never be a concern about whether or not a person receives medical attention based on whether or not a law enforcement professional uses their discretion to give them support. No one should die based on those who are sworn to protect and serve, deciding when or IF they should show up for that person today. It's about much more than preferential treatment or biased behavior. It's about having the honor of being a trusted comrade in the community. It's about the trust that people should feel when a police officer comes to render aid. There should never be a fear that a police officer will cause harm - physical or mental - and a person should not be forced to feel that no one came to help when other officers stand by and watch harms be done. This is not anti-police; this is about human decency. While we have been forced to watch atrocities unfold around the country, and right here in Virginia, we have seen time and time again officers causing harm to those they have sworn to protect and serve. The most disheartening part is watching other officers either participate in the harm or standing by and allowing the harm to continue, then banding together to support each other, even though they were wrong. I wholeheartedly support HB1948.
I work closely with law enforcement on a daily basis. I have never witnessed law enforcement officers refuse to assist an injured person whether it was serious or minor. On occasion, the fact that a law enforcement officer rendered aid has ensured a citizen's survival. However, their primary responsibility is to make the situation they have responded to safe. In the past, it was common practice to attend to injured citizens first. This practice had to change due to an increase in active shooter events such as Sandy Hook. Officers can not stop to render medical aid while a shooter continues his rampage, killing and injuring countless others. Respectfully, law enforcement officers are not paramedics. I urge you not to unnecessarily tie their hands. As far as requiring law enforcement officers to report incidents or actions involving other officers, I have to agree. I know there are some great law enforcement agencies out there that already have this requirement, but for those that don't, it would make a lot of good sense. Thank you for your time and consideration.
HB2085 - Emergency Services and Disaster Law; local and interjurisdictional emergency operations plans.
The bill does not the additional language "Such plan shall also contain provisions to ensure that the plan is applied equitably and that the needs of minority and vulnerable communities are met during emergencies". The existing regulations cover everyone in all jurisdictions.
As a citizen with some knowledge of local emergency preparedness plans, this law seems unnecessary. The very nature of emergency preparedness is to help those who are the most vulnerable in the community.