With the amount of negative comments against law enforcement officials after a shooting I would imagine this bill will be fuel for the fire if it goes through. I'm not arguing for or against the bill here, just looking to the future in these news articles. I would hope that the bill, as it sounds it should, will help law enforcement throughout the state implement policies and procedures to assist them in situations where force is necessary.

Review of a police shooting is always appropriate, 2 reviews, one local and one from the AG is exactly as it should be. My concern now is that we are going to begin yet a third review by an independent board and most importantly what has the sponsors of this bill have in mind when they began this study, what is their motivation? Do those sponsors have an ax to grind? If we citizens of this state cannot trust the 2 reveiws being conducted now, then get rid of the local department doing one of the reviews, and get rid of the AG's office. It is obvious to me that the sponsors of the bill are saying that both are incompetent, if they deny this then why not just add depth to the reviews instead of re-inventing the wheel. Answer the questions that the public have through an addendum to the current reviews. Something is not quite right with the reasoning behind the sponsors bill. Where exactly are they from?

This looks to me like a relative of some scumbag was on the recieving end one of these shootings....so now instead of trying to understand why his/her relative was a degenerate...they want to handicap our officers.

As a retired Law Enforcement Officer, with some 30 years experience, I offer this.

In nearly every instance where a "civilian review board" had been established, nearly every officer involved shooting has received negative reviews. And why? Because in nearly every "civilian review board" not ONE of the board members have ANY law enforcement experience. They have NO idea what a law enforcement officer experiences in that one half to one and one half seconds he or she has to "recognize the and react to the threat" to himself/herself, and respond to that threat. In a life or death situation the officer has less than two seconds to make the decision to use deadly force to save his/her own life or the life of an innocent bystander or potential victim.

Now comes the "civilian review board" who has several days or weeks to critically review the actions the officer took in that two second window. Yes, Monday morning quarterbacks have the advantage of time. The officer, in making his/her decision is either alive to state his case or the remaining members of his/her department attend his/her funeral.

In the end, it comes down to this: "I would rather have twelve sitting in judgement, than have six carrying me out."

Civilian review boards are a detriment to law enforcement. When instituted, they are proven to cause police officers to hesitate. Hesitation will get you dead.

An internal investigation is a good way to protect the department but I have doubts about its ability to be objective.

Sounds like someone has forgotten who they worked for. We do not want a police state. There needs to be oversight . If your job is too dangerous for you , go be an "ice road trucker" or something. Why is it we don't let the families handle complaints of domestic violence amongst themselves? It's because they have an agenda and a conflict of interest. We place a lot of trust in the law and one thing we expect is integrity.

I agree that in many cases the law enforcement personnel were at risk, but what about the cases where there should have never been a conflict in the first place, like the intoxicated woman in her own cabin in the middle of the night in the northwoods quite a few years ago, or the young man who only a few months ago ran into the woods to escape arrest on what was a misdemeanor violation? There indeed needs to be oversight, at the very least to offer suggestions as to how these situations should be handled in the future. Ok, I am ready for your cop-bashing tirade at me to begin....

I don't understand the push for less deadly force. I think that every police officer who goes out and puts his life on the line everyday has the right to use whatever force the situation demands to be sure that he or she gets to go home to thier family. Bottom line if you dont want to be on the wrong end of an officers gun then dont put yourself in that position in the first place. If I were an officer and it came down to kill or be killed, Im sorry but Im not the one leaving in a body bag its going to be the scumbag criminal.

Why dont the idiots in augusta just take the officers guns away all together....that would solve the problem. Just pray that you never need the assistance of an officer with a weapon to defend you....start picking up rocks and throw them at the criminals.

WE NEED TO FIRE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE LAW MAKERS IN AUGUSTA, THEY ARE COMING UP WITH THE MOST BRAIN DEAD LAWS

I agree, most of them need to go. There are a small number of good legislators, however they are vastly outnumbered.

I'm sure that the internal investigations look at things like 'what else could have been done'. For good reason, this information would likely not be released to the public, but I'd be willing bet that additional training would be given to the entire police force if something were found.. Please be reasonable and don't tie the hands of our police officers - their job is hard enough.

This is just one more step on the way to a socialist government. Great Britain doesn't allow their police to be armed - nor their citizens. The criminals rule the streets because they are the only ones that are armed.

Sounds GREAT!! NOT!! Just what we need is another layer of oversight, cost, extra manhours, and ways to make it unattractive enough to start losing trained police officers. Reviewing and deciding if an officer was within his/her legal rights by two different groups is as far as it should go!! We can always second guess any action and ruin someones life that was protecting the rest of us from violence. Those cops involved in police shootings now go through a ton of issues including lawsuits and personal attacks on their judgement. They are there to protect the general public from harm. If someone is waving a gun around or has taken shots at someone, then the issue has to be settled with as few injuries as possible to both the public and the officer involved! Some situations can't be put on hold until a tactical team arrives and the threat is real and personal. Give the majority of good cops a break and learn what some of the stresses on them are. There will always be "bad" cops and "bad" decisions but there is a review process in place now for TRAINED professionals to review the events and to decide if the events were justified. LEAVE IT THERE!! There are people out there with problems and those that need treatment and understanding but when they have a weapon and are threatening others they have entered a "no mans land" where their life is in danger and may come in second best to an innocent person's life.

Someone needs to send Rep. Don Pilon to the 100 hour school and 18 weeks of academy training. Then we'll put him on the streets. Maybe once he understands the training and environment of being a police officer he will understand why law enforcement and a law enforcement related board judge the actions of other cops. It isn't because they want a biased review, it is because civilians don't understand "how things work" and therefore are far LESS capable of making unbiased decisions than those who know the job.

If it started to become obvious that Maine was having a problem with numerous police shootings, many with questionable details, and all were being dismissed, I could see the need to get involved, and would encourage it, but that is not the case here.

Maybe someone should remind Pilon that we are in an economic crisis and that, like the police, he is responsible for aiding in the public good. There are far better measures he could be working on than this one. He should get back to his job and let the cops do theirs.

Civilian Review Board, great. Why don't we have those for military engagements? Intelligence operations? Neurosurgery cases? Maybe it's because a certain level of experience and expertise is required to make a sound judgement regarding such cases. This article makes it seem like there is no review, nothing learned from these kinds of incidents, where nothing could be further from the truth. And anyone who thinks that the AG's office is on the officer's side when they investigate a deadly force case has obviously never been through, or known someone who has been through such an investigation. This is going to set up a situation where every officer AND their town/county/state will be open to civil suits based on second-guessing. This will also put yet another bit of stress on the officer's mind when his/her split-second decision could cost them their life (or you yours). Nice. Always taking the side of the dirtbags who put themselves in these situations to begin with. "Why didn't you HUG him instead of shooting him officer?" "Why doesn't your two-man department in East Overshoe have guns that shoot nets, soft cottony bullets, and phasers set to stun?" (No way we should allow TASERS, because a few cracked-out psycho 's had bad reactions, you should whack them with your flashlight instead). And please don't keep bringing up the Jackman incident with Ma Barker. Her tough luck she died, but here's a useful piece of advice she apparently didn't know: Don't shoot a gun at people in the dark when you are drunk. Don't get me wrong, lot's of extra training evolved from that unfortunate incident, which should show that the system is working.

It is always easier to be a "Monday morning quarterback" than to actually be in the thick of the action. The training and education of officers are very large determining factors which will influence how they react in the field. I am all for providing training and educational opportunities to increase the effectiveness of our law enforcement officials. I don't think adding further oversight to their actions would achieve a positive benefit. If you or your loved one was in a life or death struggle and needed an officer to make a quick decision to save their life, do you really want another layer of political bureaucracy to come into play? Recognize that officers involved in lethal use of force actions are initially investigated by their agencies and the AG's office. These investigations look into the legality of the action. After that, the officers still have to endure the inevitable civil actions by a "lynch mob" of the victim(s), relative(s), bystander(s), property owner(s), and whoever else feels like they were civilly wronged. Officers go through "Hell" to protect the public, then go through it again with the civil litigation. This proposed panel would, in effect, create the perspective of another "lynch mob."

We don't have a rash of police shootings in Maine as do other states. Yes, these events are occurring more frequently. In my opinion, that is due to an increase in crime and criminals, not due to the "inefficiency" of officers to make a sound decision. Violence occurs in the blink of an eye. Action is faster than reaction. I personally want our officers to be able to act, without worrying about the current political views, or special interest pressures of the proposed panel.

Maine officers have nothing to gain from taking lethal force action except protecting the people they are supposed to protect, and themselves at the same time. And usually in that order.

Rep. Don Pilon, D-Saco, is more than likely, another do nothing politician who wants or needs to see his name in print. I'm betting he's circling around the helmet law also. These people need to come to reality.

As it stands right now, ANY citizens group can get the entire AG investigation for the price of copying, and address exactly that question.

Issues:

1) They want to set up ANOTHER board, on the public fisc?

2) Why is a clergyman on the panel?

3) Since they are "the state", aren't they subject to all the same criticism's as the AGs office?

4) I'm concerned as to a few kinds of confidentiality issues.

5) Municipalities can do this TODAY, and I think a few have.

Many laws on the books today can be found here: http://www.mainecwptraining.com/IMPORTANT_LINKS.html

This is a great bill! Lets be honest here, police have been operating with complete impunity for far to long. Any regulation that increases their accountablity is a sound judgement in my opinion. I think the real statement here is that the Stations themselves and the A.G's office are completely incompetent. I dont believe that 26 peole were shot and killed as a last line of defense. Furthermore I think that if the appropriate agency had given the full undistorted story to the public, negligents would have been found. When did keeping the peace become so convoluted? There was a time when police were respected and sought out for their abillity to make sound decisions in tough situations. No one trusts police anymore and as far as I am conserned they are more dangerous than anyone. This is a major issue that involves people, shooting people and should be addressed with all the care and attention in the world.

Geeze JBaird123, you're not biased or anything, are you? Wonder why you're so opinionated? Maybe something to hide? Just saying.

"2 reviews, one local and one from the AG is exactly as it should be"

Yeah and the next time we are deciding if someone has committed a crim lets let their relatives decide. What a load of "protect our own butts".

"If I were an officer and it came down to kill or be killed, Im sorry but Im not the one leaving in a body bag its going to be the scumbag criminal."

Yeah we all know mistakes never happen and it is always a "scumbag" who gets shot right?

If he isn't there is always that nifty little throw down to take care of the issue.

"Why dont the idiots in augusta just take the officers guns away all together....that would solve the problem. Just pray that you never need the assistance of an officer with a weapon to defend you....start picking up rocks and throw them at the criminals. "

I own my own weapons so I don't have to rely on the trigger happy half trained red-necks you people hire.

Face it. You local yokals have been abusing the power WE give you for too long and when ever something comes up you"look in to it" yourselves.

We are done trusting you since you have failed to earn that trust.

Yikes Newportres, I think you've been watching a little too much "The Shield", or else you think this is still 1950 Alabama.

And JailBird123 does indeed sound just a wee bit biased. Remember, EVERYTHING is skewed in the favor of the dirtbag, from training to procedures to the DA's to the Judge. If you can't be bothered to find out the truth for yourself, at least watch Cops, or Law & Order. (Forget CSI )

"Yikes Newportres, I think you've been watching a little too much "The Shield", or else you think this is still 1950 Alabama."

I wish that were true.

The sad truth is I work with these guys on a daily basis.

The only difference between the cops and the criminals in this state is their ability to pass the test or not to pass it.

Once some poor kid gets on the wrong side of these guys just once they hound him and drive him until he messes up again.

Let the offender be one of their own officers kid, or his wife and things get a lot more forgiving.

If it is the officer it never gets mentioned again and the wagons circle.

OF COURSE THE COPS DON'T WANT ANOTHER REVIEW. HAVE YOU EVER READ A POLICE REPORT YOU WERE INVOLVED WITH? REMEMBER THE SPIN, AND IT BEING RIFE WITH ERRORS? THEY KNOW HOW TO WRITE IT SO IT LOOKS LEGAL-- THE POLICE/DA VERBAGE. BEN FRANKLIN WOULD HAVE THEM DRAWN AND QUARTERED.