Home Antioch Antioch Police Chief Issues Message to Community on 8 Can’t Wait

Antioch Police Chief Issues Message to Community on 8 Can’t Wait

by ECT

On Tuesday, Antioch Police Chief Tammany Brooks issued the following statement after inquiries by both the media and public on the 8 Can’t Wait.

The statement comes a day after Councilmember Lamar Thorpe issued a Press Release stating he was he has outlined his agenda for police reform in the City of Antioch. Thorpe says he endorses eight specific policy recommendations that are part of the national 8 Can’t Wait Campaign.

The message also comes a day after 150 people protested in a Black Lives Matter March from City Park to the Police Station.

Below is his statement:


Message from Chief Tammany Brooks:

In the past few days I have received numerous inquiries from the media and the public regarding a national campaign called 8 Can’t Wait. As such, I wanted to provide some clarifying information so our community can be more informed on the reality of how our current policy compares to the recommendations made by the 8 Can’t Wait campaign. I will also explain why I do not believe at this time it would be prudent to follow all eight of the recommendations.

Three things I want you to consider before I go through each of the 8 Can’t Wait recommendations:

  •  The entire Antioch Police Department Policy Manual is accessible for anyone to review through our police department website, and has been for about two years.
  • The Antioch Police Department uses Lexipol software to continually update our policies. Lexipol is the nation’s leading provider of public safety policy and training solutions for law enforcement. This system ensures that all policies are aligned with State and Federal law and policies are continuously updated as laws change.
  • In 2019, California passed two pieces of legislation that are important to this conversation. AB 392 (Weber) set a new legal standard for police officers’ use of deadly force here in California. SB 230 (Caballero) set national precedent by establishing a minimum use of force policy standard for ALL departments.

Now let’s look at each 8 Can’t Wait recommendation, and whether it is currently in use at the Antioch Police Department:

De-Escalation Requirement: Yes
This recommendation, while not directly articulated, is part of the legal standard for all California police departments. SB 230 requires that “officers utilize de-escalation techniques, crisis intervention tactics, and other alternatives to force when feasible.

Use of Force Continuum: No
The use of force continuum is an outdated model that has proved impractical, even dangerous, when applied in real life situations. Instead, our policy focuses on various factors used to determine the reasonableness of force in any situation, as set forth in the training and policy requirements of SB 230.

Restrict Chokeholds and Strangleholds (including carotid restraint): Yes
During my 25 years here at APD, chokeholds and strangleholds have never been authorized uses of force. However, our current policy as seen on our website allows for the use of the carotid restraint. However, Last Friday, Governor Newsom instructed California POST to cease training officers in its use and stated he intended to sign pending legislation that would ban its use throughout the entire state. Because of this, I have already issued a departmental directive, immediately prohibiting the use of the carotid restraint by our officers. This will be formally documented in an upcoming update to our use of force policy.

Require Officers to give verbal warning when possible before using deadly force: Yes
This is already included in our current policy in section 300.4, and reads, “Where feasible, the officer shall, prior to the use of force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of those facts.”

Prohibit Officers from shooting at people in moving vehicles: No
I do not believe outright prohibitions in all circumstances is reasonable or accounts for situations where the driver of a vehicle may be threatening death or great bodily injury to others. Section 300.4.1 of our current policy already limits when an officer can shoot at a moving vehicle. It reads, “Officers should move out of the path of an approaching vehicle instead of discharging their firearm at the vehicle or any of its occupants. An officer should only discharge a firearm at a moving vehicle or its occupants when the officer reasonably believes there are no other reasonable means available to avert the threat of the vehicle, or if deadly force other than the vehicle is directed at the officer or others.”

Require Officers to exhaust all other reasonable alternatives before using deadly force: No
This language was previously suggested in AB 392, but was removed due to its ambiguity, no clearly defined means of objectively deciding what other alternatives might be reasonable in every situation, and concerns associated with the second-guessing of split-second decisions with the benefit of hindsight 20/20. Officers’ decisions concerning any use of force alternatives should be judged based on the totality of the circumstances and reasonable officer standard in AB 392.

Require Officers to intervene: Yes
This is already in our current policy in section 300.2.1, and reads, “Any officer present and observing another officer using force that is clearly beyond that which is objectively reasonable under the circumstances shall, when in a position to do so, intercede to prevent the use of unreasonable force. An officer who observes another employee use force that exceeds the degree of force permitted by law should promptly report these observations to a supervisor.”

Require comprehensive reporting: Yes
Comprehensive reporting on cases involving use of force is covered in our current policy in sections 300.5, 300.5.1, and 300.5.2. Additionally, SB 230 already requires “comprehensive and detailed requirements for prompt internal reporting and notification regarding a use of force incident.”

*******************************

The Antioch Police Department takes great pride in serving our community with integrity and compassion. As I have previously mentioned, our officers undergo continuous training, covering topics such as proper use of force, fair and impartial policing, interpersonal communications, crisis intervention training, and de-escalation techniques.

These types of trainings have helped us minimize the need to use force in many situations. In 2019, Antioch Police Officers responded to more than 94,600 calls for service – of which, only 0.1% required a use of force. As noted in our current policy, each reportable use of force is tracked in a system called Blue Team, and reviewed and evaluated by a supervisor and members of my command staff to ensure the use of force (and circumstances surrounding it) are in legal compliance and within policy.

I hope this helped answer any questions you may have had.

Sincerely,

Chief T Brooks

You may also like

8 comments

W.Wilie Jun 9, 2020 - 4:09 pm

Chief , lick that black shaft.

LoveableCurmudgeon Jun 10, 2020 - 4:06 am

Good thing you’re anonymous…..

Simonpure Jun 10, 2020 - 10:22 am

Don’t feed the troll Lovable…just a poor soul living with Mommy without common direction.

Elizabeth E. Parker Jun 19, 2020 - 12:17 am

At least Chief Brooks didn’t capitulate to the mob and take a knee like those weaklings (Oakley, Brentwood) chiefs of police did!

Seem like you’re anonymous as well, LoveableCurmudgeon……so you have no bitch coming!

Concerned Citizen Jun 9, 2020 - 10:57 pm

@W.Willie – you apparently are an immature idiot who cannot formulate an argument or educated response. How juvenile.

Chief Brooks has to be and is one of the best Chiefs this city has ever had. Reasons to support this is that this man stands for the city of Antioch as a whole, not just the Police Department. He takes pride in this city and made something of his life. He came from nothing and made something of himself. He has instilled this philosophy in all of the members of the department. He holds the Officers and staff accountable for their achievements and their mistakes. There will always be those who make mistakes, and it’s something this chief has always held those who do accountable. As a department, they have learned from these mistakes and are one of the most professional and respectable agencies in the state.

Very few understand what it take to wear that badge. There is constant training, never ending education, and a commitment to integrity. Those who make that choice signup and agree to sacrifice so much. How many professions short of being a soldier cause you to miss those special events in life. Birthdays, gatherings, holidays, anniversaries, and family events. A profession where you walk out the door not knowing if that is the last time you get to kiss your kids and wife or husband.

To walk that line allows others to rest at night, enjoy those previously mentioned events you sacrifice. But for what, to have you labeled as “ACAB” because those who never deserved the badge do things to disgrace all. What other profession is judged more that that of a police officer? How about all the banks that took people homes? The finance folks that clean out your accounts for their own benefit after offering the reward only for their own rewards? The ones who prey on victims through robbery? Assault? Burglary? iD theft? Rape?

Defund the police and who are going to stand up for those victims who can’t stand up for themselves? Let’s see how long society can police themselves? Who’s going to run into danger while others are running away? That is the most ludicrous idea ever!!!

You get what you pay for. You defund the police, who is going to want to do a job that ever action is second guessed? I dare all these liberals to stand that line and try and survive a 30 year career? You pay nothing for or fail to give the officers training they need, tools they need, and most of all the support they need, see where that gets you?

This will draw the net sayers out of the wood work. I know is perfect, but if society would teach their children to respect one another, a lot of this argument would not exist. If you get stopped doing something wrong, don’t argue, don’t fight, do as your asked to do and simply provide the information asked. Own your mistakes!!!

There is no place for Officers who are badge heavy, heavy handed, criminals by stealing or lying, or not upholding the oath they take when sworn in. But to lump every officer as a “ACAB”’is wrong. There are more than there are bad, but it only takes one bad cop to bring them all down.

When was the last time some of you simply waved or said thank you?

This can go on and on, but one thing is for sure, officers are human!!! Humans make mistakes!! But to label all Officers as bad is a mistake.

Chief Brooks is an amazing and honest man. To label him anything hit that is a sin. Those who do, apparently have never sat and spoken with him.

I challenge any of you to simply approach an officer and have a conversation. Not an argument. But a conversation. It is welcomed and it will open the eyes of most skeptics to see that 99.9% of those in Law Enforcement condemn those tarnish the badge. They would love to spend a little time in a dark room to remind them of their oath and how their actions damage all Ofc’s. Punish those who deserve it, but don’t punish the profession as whole. There are brave and women who suit up everyday with the intent to help, not hurt others.

Chief Brooks is one of those officers. He would give you the shirt if his back if it would better your situation.

This counsel is a joke, especially that idiot Lamar Thorpe!!! He needs to look at his own life before he tries and pass judgement on a profession or others. How is that couch Lamar? Rumor has it his wife kicked him out again? How’s that personal life? Those in glass houses really shouldn’t cast stone!!!

And his week minded followers on this counsel really should re evaluate their situation. Stop making this their personal agenda everyone’s agenda and do what the voters put you in office for, to make Antioch a better place.

Robert C. Jun 11, 2020 - 5:57 am

The police chief is applying a bit of common sense – unlike the elected politicians.

Rich Jun 12, 2020 - 9:50 pm

Support your local hero, our police department.

Elisabeth P. Jun 17, 2020 - 6:22 pm

Please note there is a difference between INTERCEDE and INTERVENE –
Require Officers to intervene: Yes — except not really — requiring to intercede is not the same as requiring to intervene.

“As verbs the difference between intervene and intercede is that intervene is (ambitransitive) to come between, or to be between, persons or things while intercede is to plead on someone else’s behalf.”
https://wikidiff.com/intervene/intercede

Comments are closed.