D.C.'s New Crime Bill: Too Little, Too Late?

Plus Protect & Serve Act update and a letter from a reader

Make no mistake, our country needs a major public safety overhaul. The type of revival most of us want will require bold policies that are crafted to fix the widespread damage and re-instill public confidence. Success will hinge on police leaders and elected officials -including judges and district attorneys- who place the rule of law before politics, and who refuse to capitulate to the loudest, most unreasonable voices.

We’re not at this point yet. Not even close.

Not that there isn’t reason to hope. Bills like the Protect and Serve Act (H.R. 743), which is gaining momentum in the U.S. House, and Florida’s comprehensive anti-crime law are signs of progress.

It’s just that given the urgency of our situation, you’d think that there would be a clarion call from a greater number of our legislators and leaders. I’m just not seeing it.

Until public safety is given the attention it duly deserves, we’ll have to take progress wherever we can find it. One of the places it’s happening is in our nation’s capital.

D.C.’s ACT Now Crime Bill: Too Little, Too Late or the Start of Something Good?

Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser recently proposed an anti-crime bill called Addressing Crime Trends (ACT) Now Amendment Act of 2023 (ACT Now). It loosens some of the rigid reforms that city government enacted in 2020.

The results of those misguided policies resulted in a new wave of crime victims. Washington, D.C., like many other American cities, is experiencing a public safety crisis. Crime has spiked in almost every category since 2022, including homicide, robbery, and auto theft.

And in a theme that’s become all to common, Metro PD is unable to meet its staffing requirements. As we’ve seen, fewer officers result in longer response times for service (including for high-priority calls), leaves officers with less time for community engagement, and leads to officer burnout.

The proposals in Mayor Bowser’s bill address some of these issues by emphasizing proactive policing and allowing officers to perform their duties in good faith. To a certain degree.

Some of the more notable proposals in this bill . . .

Creates new criminal penalties for organizing retail theft operations. It would, in part, create a new crime category that more adequately penalizes the masterminds of retail theft sprees.

Renews restrictions on masks. It prohibits wearing masks on public property if the intent is to commit a crime, intimidate, or threaten others. The proposal is situational. For example, it would be reasonable for an officer to be suspicious of someone wearing a woolen mask on a hot day while loitering in a known drug zone.

Loosens the restrictions on restraining techniques. Officers would still be banned from using techniques that cause asphyxiation. This proposal does, however, remove some of the rigid language in the current law, and allows officers reasonable leverage when trying to restrain a subject. Having tempered latitude is critical in unpredictable situations, and when confronted with someone who poses a threat to officers and the public.

Renews privacy rights for police officers. Transparency and accountability in policing are, of course, important when trying to build public trust. The public’s need to know, however, must be balanced with officer privacy. This bill includes proposals like redacting officers’ faces from body-worn-camera releases and prohibiting the release of personally identifiable information.

This past week, I submitted testimony in support of this bill on behalf of the National Police Association (NPA). If you’d like to read it, please visit the D.C. government site and once there, search for my name then download the testimony.

To be clear, this is not a bold, Rudy Giuliani-era type of policy. It attempts to fix a problem that this very government helped catalyze. It will also likely face fierce opposition.

That said, it’s something, and something is better than nothing. It’s also more than other cities (including Chicago and NYC) are doing to restore public safety.

If you live in or near D.C., what are your thoughts on this crime bill?

The Protect & Serve Act Update

If you read this newsletter, you know I’m closely watching the Protect & Serve Act (H.R. 743). This federal bill would create a new crime category for purposefully assaulting a police officer and causing serious bodily harm. The penalty includes a sentence of up to 10 years in prison, or life in prison for killing or kidnapping an officer.

Of all the federal bills in this category, H.R. 743 is gaining the most momentum (it has 90 co-sponsors in the House!), has the most bipartisan support, and the most realistic chance of passing.

This past week I spoke with Rep. John Rutherford’s (the bill’s main co-sponsor) staffer to inquire about upcoming public hearings on this bill, and she kindly offered to keep me informed. Once I have a date for the public hearing, you’ll be among the first to know. The Feds don’t allow written testimony, so if you’re interested in speaking in favor of this bill, you’ll need to do it in person.

Even if you can’t get to D.C., your voice is still very much needed! If you haven’t already, please urge your congressperson to co-sponsor the Protect and Serve Act (H.R. 743). If you’re in a rush, the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) has a convenient form that takes but a few minutes to read and sign.

Though the major police organizations support this bill and there’s momentum for it in the House, passing it won’t be a cake walk by any stretch. It has a lot of opposition; currently, an estimated 70 groups oppose it.

It’s why those of us who support police officers and value public safety need to speak up in greater numbers for this bill. Please also consider writing a letter to the editor of your local newspaper in support. I’m here if you need help; and I’ll be happy to publish your article in my newsletter. : )

Letter From a Retired Police Officer

If you’re still on the job, take comfort in knowing that there are reasonable people across the country who share your concerns. You’re not alone.

The following is excerpted from a letter I received from a retired police officer. It’s re-published with his permission.

Chief Tom Weitzel (Ret.)

. . .When I was Chief in Riverside, I was constantly criticized for being too pro-police, too much for the guys or two outspoken. I never listened to any of that crap.

All three of my sons are suburban Chicago Police officers, two in North Riverside, Illinois, and one in Lockport, Illinois; these are suburbs of Chicago.

My brother is a retired sergeant with Grundy County sheriff's office, and my cousin is a former Illinois state trooper and command officer.

I can tell you that that video of the Chicago police officer trying to make an arrest is probably a little bit of both. But it’s that they don’t want to be the following YouTube video star, gets prosecuted by Cook County state security, Kim Fox,  Have their department throw them under the bus to the local media and have the local press do an expose on them, which would paint them as some biased, police officer, or overzealous. I know this because my kids tell me every day that there’s no proactive Police going on anymore, unfortunately, or not to the level at once was for sure . . .

Chief Tom Weitzel (Ret.)
Riverside, IL Police Department

There are some positive events for law enforcement in the works, and I can’t wait to tell you about them in upcoming issues. So please, remember to keep the faith. We’ve got this. : )

---

For the Blue is a solutions-based initiative. I’m just an American patriot asking questions. I don’t work with any political party and I answer to nobody. For me, the health of the nation, due process (including for police officers), the rule of law, and respect for individual liberties, will always transcend party affiliation. I welcome your thoughts, even if you disagree; though personal attacks will be ignored. You can reach me at fortheblue@substack.com.