Interesting article, but I have always been bothered by reporting such as the following. ". . . Kevin Stuckey . . . did not immediately respond to a voicemail."

Interesting, regarding the recent Charleena fatal shooting. Per recent Mahoney v. City of Seattle and SPD use of force policy, " “shall consider whether a subject’s lack of compliance is a deliberate attempt to resist or an inability to comply based on” a variety of factors, including the subject’s possible medical conditions, mental impairment, developmental disability, drug interaction, and behavioral crisis. The UF Policy requires that “when safe under the totality of the circumstances and time and circumstances permit, officers shall use denied escalation tactics in order to reduce the need for force[.]”

Sorry about the poor use of quotes on mobile phone!

The UF Policy also advances the City of Seattle’s
important government interest of ensuring the safety of its
police officers. The UF Policy requires Appellants to employ
de-escalation techniques only “[w]hen safe under the totality
of the circumstances and time and circumstances permit.”
Thus, the UF Policyexpresslycontemplates that de-escalation
techniques will not be feasible in every situation, and even
states that “sometimes, the use of force is unavoidable.” The
UF Policy also provides that Appellants may use deadly force
where an objectively reasonable officer would conclude that
the “threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or
others is imminent.”

Hah! I love that the police argued that a use-of-force policy restricting officers to the use of "objectively reasonable force, proportional to the threat or urgency of the situation" is an unconstitutional constraint on their gun rights.

Their argument, in other words, is that they should be allowed to shoot people even shooting is an unreasonable and disproportionate response!

*even when.