House Subcommittee Passes Police-Protecting 'Thin Blue Line' Bill
from the more-privilege-for-the-over-privileged! dept
There's no shortage of existing laws protecting law enforcement officers. So, of course, there's no shortage of new legislation being introduced to further protect a well-protected subset of government employees. Using a nonexistent "War on Cops" as impetus, legislators all over the nation are submitting bills designed to make harming a cop more of a crime than harming anyone else.
This isn't just happening at the state level. Last year, Colorado representative Ken Buck introduced a federal "Blue Lives Matter" law, which would have turned attacks on cops into "hate crimes." The bill is a ridiculous extension of protection to officers who aren't in any more danger than they were a decade ago, histrionic statements by various federal officials notwithstanding.
Buck's bill has gone nowhere in the last year. It's been sitting in a House subcommittee since April of last year. But one bill's failure doesn't predict the future performance of similar legislation. As Reason's C.J. Ciaramella reports, a similar bill -- Florida rep Vern Buchanan's "Thin Blue Line Act" -- has cleared the House Judiciary Committee.
The House Judiciary Committee advanced a bill Thursday, the Thin Blue Line Act, by a 19-12 vote that would make the killing of a state or local law enforcement officer during the commission of a federal crime an aggravating factor for juries to consider when weighing a death penalty sentence.
All well and good, I suppose, although the bill is pretty much a carbon copy of Florida rep David Jolly's 2015 proposal, right down to the bill's name. Like Rep. Buck's bill, Jolly's made it as far as a committee referral before stalling out. Buchanan's bill, however, now has a greatly increased chance of being pushed towards the President's desk.
But to what end, asks Ciaramella? The law apparently does nothing more than signal supporters' cop-supporting virtue.
The legislation would be largely symbolic. Federal death penalty cases are exceedingly rare, and executions at the federal level are even rarer. The last federal execution took place in 2001, when Timothy McVeigh was executed for the Oklahoma City bombing. Most homicide cases are prosecuted by states.
Congressman Bob Goodlatte seems to feel the bill will be most useful when deployed in terrorism cases, but otherwise admits practical applications will be few and far between. The bill has support from police unions but, more importantly, it certainly has the support of the DOJ and the President. This bill caters to Trump's "law and order" push and does a fair amount of sucking up to Attorney General Sessions himself.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions introduced similar legislation in 2015, when he was a U.S. senator, saying "the alarming spike in violence directed against the men and women entrusted with ensuring the safety and order of our society must be stopped..."
The "alarming spike in violence" Sessions was apparently referring to was the increase of police killed in the line of duty by one over 2014's total of 122… which itself was below the average for the preceding ten years (~150 per year).
The bill's being tossed into a pretty receptive Congress. It won't really need the support of powerful police unions, though -- not when the head of the DOJ has previously expressed his legislative desire to give cops even more protection.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blue lives matter, congress, ken buck, speech, thin blue line, vern buchanan
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Why are they rushing to pass a pointless bill to get soundbites & support from police unions (who often push to have officers fired for misconduct put back on the job to abuse more citizens?)
Did we not have enough real problems in this country that we had time to waste on insipid bullshit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Apparently, upholding the corrupt laws is more important than any form of common decency, basic human rights, or common good.
Oh, well. Full steam ahead to the totalitarian regime!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US Congress: What is it Good For?
The law apparently does nothing more than signal supporters' cop-supporting virtue.
This is what the morons in congress do for a living - when they're not stealing our money under the guise of progressive taxation - they work on very important matters of state like passing feel good legislation, renaming bridges/highways/postoffices and completely abdicating their constitutional duties of providing oversight of the federal government and in declaring war.
A heartfelt thank you to US congress for completely selling out the republic and bankrupting an entire continent in your vainglorious quixotic quest for Pax Americana in order to keep us safe from the boogeyman du jour.
Congratulations you've done it was a bipartisan effort as republicans and democrats hand in hand have ensured generations of Americans will live in complete debt servitude (aka serfdom) in order that you may have your cake and eat it too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Congress: What is it Good For?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trying to ignore realtiy?
Now I know you are trying to make your point and prove your opinion, but do you really think that fatalities are the only valid statistics for looking at violence against police? Is an officer shot but not killed not a victim? Is an officer punched, kicked, or otherwise assaulted not a victim?
I never thought I would see Techdirt going so low to try to justify their anti-establishment, anti-law, anti-law enforcement message.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trying to ignore realtiy?
You don't think civilians getting manhandled by "shoot first, ask later" cops to be alarming. Probably just a drop in the bucket, right? Why should we be outraged on their behalf?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trying to ignore realtiy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trying to ignore realtiy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trying to ignore realtiy?
I can't speak for the staff but I totally believed the above comment was you. To me, you're so damn authoritarian you totally do sound like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trying to ignore realtiy?
Another point in favor of creating an account in the face of impersonation like that: if you don't, the impersonator can, and may beat you to it - leaving you without the option of posting under your own chosen name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not learning from lessons in history
The fact that politicians ad police unions want to "protect" those who are under no obligation to "protect and serve", even though that is the motto will only lead to further attacks on these same people. Civil uprising will be the result.
Giving people privileges without the attendant responsibilities only causes harm to those people and to everyone they come in contact with.
The first thing to do is to actually find out why there was any spike in violence and secondly, was the spike of any significance. If the trust in these people is wrong, then the fix is not increasing penalties against those who were violent against these people, but instead getting rid of those who have failed in their entrusted duty and appropriately punishing them for their actions would be more effective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not learning from lessons in history
I agree 100%. And while you're at it, do the same for the supposed police brutality.
In this day and age, it doesn't matter what the truth is, just what accusations can be thrown around.
I'm reminded of that scene from G.I Jane when she tells the senator that it appears that accusations are enough.
And while we're on the subject, why do "protected classes" need special laws? Isn't it still a crime to attack another person? If someone is trying to hurt another person, wouldn't it be an obvious assumption that the one doesn't like the other? Why the need for anything defining hate crimes? All violent crimes are a result of hate, are they not?
Why do I not see any outrage over new laws designed to protect these already protected classes? We already have enough laws protecting them. More than necessary, I would argue.
I am saddened by the hypocrisy in our country, and on this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not learning from lessons in history
Because if you hate a class, you have more incentive to commit a crime against someone who is a member of that class than you do against someone who is not, so the standard levels of counter-incentive from the general law may not be enough.
The idea behind hate-crime laws is to provide enough increased counter-incentive to discourage people from committing crimes against members of hated classes, without also unnecessarily (and perhaps harmfully) increasing penalties for crimes that don't need that increased counter-incentive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not learning from lessons in history
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This matters very little
As a symbolic gesture, it is at least somewhat more economical than the 60 "symbolic" votes against the American Health Care act (AKA "Obammy Care" in case you are just as ignorant as I expect some to be.)
At least it was just one vote costing 3 million dollars versus the 60 at 3 million each.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Practical? What's That Got to Do with Anything?
[Dr.EvilVoice]Riiiight[/Dr.EvilVoice]...just like bearcats, automatic rifles, and stingrays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Probably not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You may want to check your facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police deserve extra protection, do you bitch about your mail man having additional protections? How about the conductor on a train? Bus driver?
What a bunch of snowflakes. No, the cops are not out to hurt you (especially you keyboard warriors posting from your gated communities.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Officers killed, 2014: 96
51 by "felonious acts"
45 by work-related accidents
of the 51;
11 during domestic disturbance calls
9 doing traffic pursuits or stops
7 ambushed
7 "investigating suspicious circumstances"
5 other investigations
4 "tactical situations"
3 "handling persons with mental illnesses"
1 "unprovoked attack"
50 of the assailants had prior criminal arrests
11 were under "judicial supervision"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]