The Real Crime Diary Blog Hate Crimes State lawmaker stands behind controversial pursuit bill
Hate Crimes

State lawmaker stands behind controversial pursuit bill

State lawmaker stands behind controversial pursuit bill

Washington State Rep. Jesse Johnson was the chief architect of a new law that drastically limits when police can pursue a suspect. Amid growing pushback over the bill’s perceived consequences, Johnson says he stands behind it.

Listen to the unDivided Podcast wherever you get your pods:

Become an [un]Divided subscriber for bonus episodes and more:
Patreon.com/unDivided (OR)
BrandiKruse.Locals.com

Follow Brandi Kruse on social media:
Twitter: @BrandiKruse
Facebook: Facebook.com/BrandiKruseNews
Insta: @KruseNews

source

23 Comments

  • Reply
    @subaruamazon June 26, 2024

    criminal coddler. i hope this bill triggered his not pursuing reelection.

  • Reply
    @jamesjohnson2469 June 26, 2024

    Thank God he is quitting after he ruined our public safety. He is ignorant and all lives matter. All lives matter. How about eliminating black violence on black violence. If black people would stop commiting the majority of crimes they can avoid police interactions. What a horrible example of a representative.

  • Reply
    @LarsBars17 June 26, 2024

    Mad props to him for showing up!! Great discussion.

  • Reply
    @RisingSun0203 June 26, 2024

    Keep the bill, support vigilantly justice.

  • Reply
    @brianpruiett5399 June 26, 2024

    Thank you for this exposure, Brandi.

  • Reply
    @brettlee6325 June 26, 2024

    I disagree greatly with representative Johnson on this bill. However, I do give him credit for coming on the podcast.

    I remember him talking about this bill before it was passed and from what I recall he greatly minimized any possible negative consequence that could happen. The negative consequences have been far greater than I would have ever imagined and rather than fixing the problem he is leaving office. He does not sound like he has any remorse at all for the causes that his bill has caused.

    I understand he is wanting to be on a coalition of police accountability once out of office. My wondering is why he does not sound concerned about reducing crime? Is that not a concern of his because people feel scared and unsafe in many communities including the region he represents! Rather than focusing on supporting police and laws to reduce crime he is viewing police as if they are the problem. Hopefully I'm not mischaracterizing him but I didn't hear very much support of average citizens that are fed up with all the crime they have to live around and experience. Also, I didn't hear much support for the the men and women that put their lives on the line to help keep all of us safe.

    Police certainly should not pursue every criminal. However, it boggles my mind to even think that I would have the right to drive off from the police if I had a minor infraction such as a tail light out or something else like that. Maybe if anything the police could have hold a bit more leniency in regards to giving people warnings for having tail lights out… but people definitely need to pull over!!

  • Reply
    @Todaystruecrimereport June 26, 2024

    Could you be more closed off to an honest open minded conversation? Your body posture and scowl is a sign you are only looking to continue a negative perspective.
    Most criminals are not murderers, therefore, it’s reasonable to believe that the majority of those who run from the police are not going on to commit murder or other heinous crimes. If this bill saves 1 innocent life then it is well worth it. I know I’d rather let a car thief escape then lose a friend or family member in an accident caused by a police chase. In fact, statistics show that deaths caused by police chase decreased by 55%. Now, with this being said, the bill is not perfect, no bill ever is, and does need some changes but those lawmakers need to be open minded and understanding. Nothing ever is black and white and this includes the law.

  • Reply
    @L--Z June 26, 2024

    Rep. Jesse Johnson lives in LALA land, and I just get more frustrated with his every word.

  • Reply
    @herrbrahms June 26, 2024

    "2/3 of police pursuits end in death or injury to an innocent bystander."

    Complete bullshit. This is a pernicious lie being uttered by an elected official.

  • Reply
    @herrbrahms June 26, 2024

    What's really telling is that Rep. Johnson is far more concerned about police violence against community members (a very rare occurrence where every single instance is publicized) than he is about criminal violence (which occurs dozens of times every single day in our state, of which only a few high profile examples receive any attention at all.)

  • Reply
    @BabyYodaNow June 26, 2024

    “The majority of the people in public believe police should not be pursuing stolen vehicles…if the majority of what the complaints are, are not actually being outlined in the bill..”this guy was contradicting himself all over the place.

    He forgot his arguments against modifying police pursuit law 😂

  • Reply
    @nkartes June 26, 2024

    So the man who knows so little about actual law enforcement is dictating their policies that are hurting the public. When he can't even admit there were unintended consequences, you can no longer take him seriously.

  • Reply
    @coachdion6954 June 26, 2024

    lol of course Jesse Johnson forwarded this bill😂😂😂😂😂😂
    You can’t make this stuff up!

  • Reply
    @MrMousekillaz June 26, 2024

    Ut's official, the inmates are running the asylum

  • Reply
    @randallsnell5767 June 26, 2024

    Year after year, session after session, WA Democrats advocate for the criminal and against law enforcement. Until that changes, expect more of the same. We need new Republican leadership in WA. This go along to get along stuff has to end. Until it does, this will continue.

  • Reply
    @daveadock2874 June 26, 2024

    I admit this is quite funny that politicians are now wanting the public's support to repeal or change a law that was perpetrated onto the public by politicians. It makes perfect sense for Washington state. Just a few short years ago it was the trendy thing to do, and the politicians embraced these "reforms". That's too bad that those wonderful reforms are not working for you during an election year!

  • Reply
    @breakingbolts8871 June 26, 2024

    there is nothing but emptiness from this Individual.

    Buzz words and rhetoric.

  • Reply
    @breakingbolts8871 June 26, 2024

    "because I think that…."

  • Reply
    @vexicon June 26, 2024

    I have to say, Mr. Johnson provides some pretty good arguments. But it sure makes me want to drive off from a standard traffic stop. Of course law enforcement would likely use dash cam footage to mail me a ticket. As well as tacking on an eluding charge. And since I'm mostly law abiding, they could reach me without much difficulty. That said, I think the pursuit piece needs to be fixed.

  • Reply
    @proudamerican3117 June 26, 2024

    We are relying WAY TOO MUCH on criminals to do the right thing when confronted by law enforcement, and laws like this DO embolden criminals without a doubt!

  • Reply
    @nicolassa8059 June 26, 2024

    99% of these stolen vehicles are being driven by persons addicted to drugs/ alcohol. I would be curious to see the statistics of DUI/ DWI accidents involving stolen vehicles since 2021

  • Reply
    @WalkiTalki June 26, 2024

    I am not attempting to be contradictory but, I did read that bill and it actually has many appropriate exceptions. Sec9, 2a are the listed exceptions. 2a(1) states that if the person in the vehicle has committed a violent offense. In the previous video you posted on Patreon titled "is our sanity showing", you actually showed three different violent offenses being carried out and the officers did not attempt pursuit. 2a(2) is if the pursuit is necessary to apprehend the suspect. 2a(3) is if the suspect is a danger to the public. Also in your report you played the 911 call for the kid napper to be allowed to escape. Everyone of the previously listed exceptions supported pursuit. None of these I feel are inappropriate.
    The only part I do not agree with is the final item 2a(4) that the officer must get pursuit permission from a supervising officer. And that is only because it is vague. The officer could follow from a distance until receiving permission and then engage.
    Unless people are referring to the sections that do not allow shoot outs on occupied streets or the section disallowing the use of tanks and 50cal guns.

  • Reply
    @goyofoyo June 26, 2024

    Jesse is a
    Joke

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version