New Policy Dictates San Diego Police Response To Protests

Speaker 1: 00:00 The San Diego police department is out with a new policy on how officers should respond during protest. The department was criticized for how it responded to local protest against police violence. Over the summer. Some protestors said the department at times responded with large numbers of officers in tactical gear. And with force joining me to discuss this is David Hernandez, who covers law enforcement, crime, and public safety for the San Diego union Tribune. David, welcome. Speaker 2: 00:27 Thank you. And thanks for having me. So Speaker 1: 00:29 What spurred the creation of this policy? Speaker 2: 00:32 So essentially this all began after, you know, the months of protests after protests, after protests last year against police violence, not just in San Diego, but across the country. It began with a community advisory board and oversight board. They essentially wanted the police department to look into having a policy. So they began by looking at policies and other cities. And in the end, we're able to share some of those policies with the police department to help guide them as they set out to draft their own policy Speaker 1: 01:07 Policy says the department supports peaceful demonstrations and outlines its role. What is that role? Speaker 2: 01:12 Yeah, so protests can be pretty dynamic and the policy outlines, um, a variety of different responses to different situations. Um, it generally outlines officer's roles during protests that remain peaceful, but a big chunk of it also ventures into situations when protests turn on lawful, but essentially, you know, as they outline it at the top, you know, their, their mission is to ensure that protest stay peaceful and to prevent criminal activities. Um, and then depending on how protests evolve, if you know, they turn violent, for example, uh, the protest that policy, I'm sorry, also outlines different parameters that officers should abide by in terms of when to deem a protest unlawful or when they should use less lethal weapons. Okay. Speaker 1: 02:04 And just out of curiosity, what is their definition of peaceful? Um, would you know, we saw a lot of anti mask, uh, rallies during the summer as well. And there also was the potential of spreading pathogens, deadly pathogens for some during that time. Um, did they go into any detail on that? Speaker 2: 02:25 That's a great question. Um, they don't go into detail in regards to a specific answer to the question you have, but I think the real question here is, you know, how would they define a protest being unlawful? And it does get into that a little bit. It essentially, uh, it gives a lot of discretion to an incident commander, uh, which typically is a ranking officer who oversees that police response to a demonstration. Um, it gives that person a lot of discretion and the policy outlines some things, some factors for this person to consider, uh, including the nature and the number of unlawful acts, um, the threats to people or property and whether it would be more appropriate for officers to make individual arrest as opposed to, you know, largely asking people to disperse. Um, and so that was actually one of the criticisms in general, about the policy from community members. They said that it gives a lot of discretion and leaves too much open to interpretation. So there are some questions that remain Speaker 1: 03:27 It also outlines the department's use of less than lethal force. Remind us what that is, what is less than lethal force? What does that mean? Speaker 2: 03:35 Exactly. Yeah, so that essentially covers anything from beanbag rounds to pepper ball rounds and even tier guests grenades. Um, so it really ranges the policy generally calls, uh, less lethal rounds and weapons, dispersal techniques. And that also covers everything from, as I mentioned, tier grass grenades to rubber sting balls, which are grenades that fire pellets and cause loud blasts and bright flash. So essentially it covers when officers are able to use that. Um, again, there are a lot of questions and community members feel like there's too much, that's left up for interpretation and also gives too much discretion to the incident commander. Um, essentially the policy says that it's up to the incident commander when officers can use some of these less lethal rounds, some of the most, uh, in some of the more intense ones that is up to an assistant chief, uh, to give the authority to use those. And that includes tear gas grenades and the rubber sting balls that I, Speaker 1: 04:39 You know, as you mentioned, you spoke to community members who say the plan is lacking, what do they say is missing in this plan? Speaker 2: 04:47 So they actually kind of all had something different to say about the policy and it is a 15 page documents. So there, it does cover quite a bit. Um, and what was interesting to me is that they all kind of picked something different that they took issue with. Um, but generally, and few of them brought up, uh, these issues. They felt that the policy lacks, uh, restrictions on the use of less lethal weapons and also a lack of a focus on deescalation. So language, for example, that would deem these tools a last resort, or, you know, that would require officers to try any other techniques before moving on to these, uh, less lethal weapons. Those were the main concerns. There were also some other concerns, including some other language that also talks about police in the planning stage, considering the composition of the group, that's expected to turn out. Um, some felt that police shouldn't really consider that because it gets at the identity and the message of the group. Others felt that, you know, police shouldn't really try to work with organizers because organizers don't really have the authority over, uh, demonstrations, demonstrators actions and could scapegoated, if things go wrong, those were the main concerns. Speaker 1: 06:01 All right. I've been speaking with San Diego union Tribune, reporter David Hernandez, David. Thank you. Speaker 2: 06:07 Thank you. Thanks for having me. [inaudible].