Alabama lawmakers approve additional legal protections for police officers
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Alabama lawmakers on Wednesday approved enhanced legal protections for police officers, changes that Republicans said show support for law enforcement but Democrats called 'a green light to kill Black folks.'
The Alabama Legislature gave final approval to the legislation that sets legal standards for the use of force and provides for an immunity hearing. The bill states that an officer 'shall be justified' in the use of physical force as long as it is not constitutionally excessive force or 'recklessly' outside of the officer's discretionary authority.
Republicans, who called the legislation the 'Back The Blue' bill said it is needed to provide a clear legal framework and show support for law enforcement officers faced with making split-second decisions.
'We ask them to take care of us, keep us safe in our homes as we sleep at night. This bill will give them the assurances that we back them and back the blue,' Sen. Lance Bell, a former deputy sheriff, said. Bell said officers who act improperly can still be prosecuted.
The approval came after an emotional debate in which Black lawmakers read the names of Black people who have been killed by police and described their own encounters with law enforcement.
'HB 202 is a license to kill Black people. That's what it is,' Sen. Rodger Smitherman, a Black Democrat from Birmingham, said.
Smitherman said departments have very good officers, but they also have officers who are 'racist against Black people' or will make impulsive decisions because they are scared.
Sen. Merika Coleman, a Black Democrat from Pleasant Grove, said she fears the bill will protect 'bad apples' in police departments. She described her worries that someone might see her honors student son as a threat someday because of his tall frame and twisted locs.
'If this bill passes and there are young Black males, females, brown and other folks killed, you will have blood on your hands because of this piece of legislation,' Coleman said.
Bell urged opponents to 'walk a mile in a law enforcement officer's shoes and find out what they have to deal with.' Smitherman responded, 'Walk a mile in the person's shoes when the person is dead.'
The Alabama Senate approved the bill on a 25-6 late-night vote in the final hour of the legislative session. The House of Representatives accepted Senate changes. The bill now goes to Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey who said she will sign it into law.
'There is NO question Alabama backs the blue!' Ivey stated on social media after the bill's passage.
Under existing state law, police and civilians alike are currently entitled to a 'stand your ground' hearing in criminal cases where a judge can determine whether the defendant acted in self defense. The legislation will allow an immunity hearing where a judge will decide if a case can proceed based on whether the officer acted recklessly outside the scope of law enforcement duties. It would add similar protections in state civil lawsuits. It would also require law enforcement departments to collect data that tracks use of force complaints.
The executive director of the Alabama Sheriff's Association, Hoss Mack, testified in favor of the bill in April.
'This is of equal benefit to law enforcement and the public. Let me reiterate what this bill does not do. It does not give blanket immunity to law enforcement,' said Mack, who added that he had personally arrested officers that worked for him for misconduct throughout his 39-year career in law enforcement.
Leroy Maxwell, a civil rights attorney based in Birmingham, said he is afraid the bill would embolden misconduct.
'Legislation like this paves the way toward a police state, where law enforcement operates above the law and without fear of consequence,' Maxwell said.
Civil rights attorney Harry Daniels opposed the law but doubted the overall impact on civil rights cases which could still be filed in federal court and will not be affected by the legislation.
'It is a lion with no teeth. It appears to be big and bad but it has no teeth and no claws,' Daniels said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
23 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Musk Deletes His ‘Really Big Bomb' Claiming Trump Appears in Epstein Files
In the middle of their very public breakup, a scorned Elon Musk decided to drop a 'really big bomb' on Donald Trump, accusing the president of appearing in the Epstein files. Sometime Saturday, it seems the billionaire decided he wanted to try to disarm that bomb, as he deleted his posts claiming that Trump has links to the famous child sex trafficker. Musk and Trump had been acting catty for a couple of days by the time Musk went nuclear, going back and forth over Musk's opposition to Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill'—a proposal that includes the largest cuts to Medicaid and food assistance programs in history. Musk objected to the bill, but not because it would be devastating to low- and middle-income households, but seemingly rather because it was going to hurt his own bottom line by ending electric vehicle tax credits that Tesla benefits from. Musk tried to kill the bill by posting incessantly about it, creating a rift among Republicans who will essentially need everyone in the party to be on board in order to get the thing passed. Trump, annoyed, took some shots at Musk for his dissent, which led to Musk just blowing the whole thing up. He said Trump appeared in the Epstein files and 'That is the real reason they have not been made public.' Funnily, he also doubled down by saying, 'Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.' Those posts are now deleted—though have, of course, been archived, screenshotted, and quoted many times over. So, too, has a post in which Musk supported the idea that Trump should be impeached. He hasn't gotten around to taking down his post claiming that Trump's tariffs will cause a recession, so, it's clear the two aren't fully ready to make up, even if there is a de-escalation. We're also starting to get more of a picture of what has been happening behind the scenes while these two air out each other in public. A report published Saturday by the Washington Post claims that Trump was 'dejected' during Musk's crash out, and tried to rationalize Musk's behavior by calling him 'a big-time drug addict.' Musk had apparently been acting erratically for quite some time (not exactly a shock if you've scrolled through his posts on Twitter for like, 30 seconds), and a reported physical conflict with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent that saw Musk supposedly throw his shoulder into Bessent was the breaking point where the billionaire started to get pushed out, per the Post. Trump opted not to pour gasoline on the situation—a shocking decision from a guy not exactly known for his restraint—but also is apparently not interested in reconciling with Musk. An official within the administration told the Post that even if they do make up, 'It'll never be the same.'
Boston Globe
26 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Biden's doctor failed to properly assess fitness for office, Obama's doctor says
The rare criticism of one White House doctor by another comes as Republicans have increased scrutiny of O'Connor and other former White House aides. House Republicans subpoenaed O'Connor on Thursday, a day after President Donald Trump ordered White House attorneys to determine whether Biden's inner circle tried to conceal his alleged cognitive decline. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Kuhlman also said the 2024 report merely assessed Biden's health when it should have considered his fitness to serve in one of the most taxing jobs on the planet. Advertisement 'It shouldn't be just health, it should be fitness,' Kuhlman said. 'Fitness is: Do you have that robust mind, body, spirit that you can do this physically, mentally, emotionally demanding job?' O'Connor did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Biden's recent disclosure of metastatic prostate cancer and reporting about his alleged physical and cognitive decline have fueled suspicion - among Democrats as well as Republicans - that the true state of Biden's health toward the end of his term was known only by O'Connor and a few others closest to Biden. Advertisement Journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson sketched a picture of a well-meaning but weakened president in a book they released last month. The book, which draws on interviews with dozens of Democratic insiders after the 2024 election, paints a portrait of a man suffering at times from forgetfulness, incoherence and fatigue. It also says that O'Connor was reluctant to give Biden a cognitive test, though he was assessed by a neurologist for conditions such as Parkinson's disease. Biden gave a sarcastic response last week. 'You can see that I'm mentally incompetent, and I can't walk, and I can beat the hell out of both of them,' he told reporters at a Memorial Day event, apparently referring to Tapper and Thompson. Biden's granddaughter Naomi Biden has called the book 'political fairy smut.' The book isn't the first time Biden's cognitive state has been questioned. Special counsel Robert K. Hur said in February 2024 that Biden had 'limited precision and recall' - including not remembering when his vice-presidential term ended - after Hur conducted two days of interviews with Biden about his handling of classified documents. Kuhlman formerly worked alongside O'Connor in the White House medical unit, a nonpartisan post, and appointed him in 2009 to serve as then-Vice President Biden's personal doctor. Kuhlman was Obama's physician from 2009 to 2013. O'Connor examined Biden - and signed his name to the February 2024 medical report that said the president 'continues to be fit for duty' - four months before a disastrous campaign debate between Trump and Biden prompted Democrats to call for Biden to step down as the nominee. Advertisement Kuhlman, who left the medical unit in 2013, said he tries not to criticize those who have held similar positions. He called O'Connor 'a good doctor' who seemed to do his best to 'give trusted medical advice.' 'I didn't see that he's purposely hiding stuff, but I don't know that,' he said. 'Maybe the investigation will show it.' Kuhlman wrote a 2024 book about his experiences in the White House Medical Unit in which he argued for cognitive testing for older candidates and presidents. O'Connor's six-page report included Biden's lab results and an explanation of various conditions for which he was being treated. It also listed 10 medical specialists, including a neurologist, who also examined Biden. 'President Biden is a healthy, active, robust 81-year-old male, who remains fit to successfully execute the duties of the presidency,' O'Connor wrote. White House doctors have long been under intense public scrutiny, balancing the deeply personal doctor-patient relationship with a responsibility to tell the American public whether the president is fit to serve - and if not, why. Some have gone to great lengths to hide when the president is severely ill - as Grover Cleveland's doctors did when they turned a yacht into an operating room to secretly remove a tumor from the president's mouth in 1893. Presidential physicians also are expected to communicate to Americans personal information about the very person who could fire them. 'Whether it's family who are worried for them or people who work for them and don't want to lose their jobs, no one has a vested interest in hearing the truth about the president's health - except for the American people and the world,' said Barbara Perry, a presidential historian at the University of Virginia. Advertisement It has not always been clear what role the White House doctors see for themselves. Even as they are often close confidants of the president, they must consider the good of the country in their recommendations about what tests and treatments to pursue. O'Connor repeatedly refused last year to administer a cognitive exam to Biden even as aides privately expressed concerns about his mental fitness, according to Tapper and Thompson's book. Trump's former doctors, including Ronny Jackson and Sean Conley, have at times sounded more like cheerleaders for the president than sober judges of his health. His current doctor, Sean Barbabella, mentioned Trump's 'frequent victories in golf events' in the first medical report of his second term. Jackson suggested to the media in 2018 that Trump had 'incredibly good genes' and joked that he might live to 200 years old if his eating habits were more healthful. Jackson, now a Republican congressman from Texas, was demoted by the U.S. Navy after an inspector general report shed light on multiple misdeeds involving alcohol and harassment while he served in the White House medical unit. Conley, who succeeded Jackson, repeatedly downplayed the severity of Trump's symptoms when he was hospitalized with covid-19 in the fall of 2020. Past presidents who didn't want the public to know the truth about their poor health have orchestrated elaborate cover-ups. After Woodrow Wilson suffered a major stroke in 1919, leaving him with a paralyzed left side, his doctor conspired with Wilson's wife to keep his condition hidden from his own Cabinet. Advertisement Cleveland insisted the operation to remove his tumor be secretly performed on a friend's yacht, under the guise that he was on a fishing trip near his summer home on Long Island. The administration denied an initial report about the surgery, and the truth wasn't widely accepted until after Cleveland's death many years later, when one of his doctors publicly confessed. On the other hand, Dwight D. Eisenhower reportedly ordered his press secretary to 'tell them everything' after suffering a heart attack in 1955. His surgeons regularly briefed the public after his heart surgery. But medical transparency is only as strong as the president wants it to be. Like regular Americans, the president is protected by medical privacy laws, so disclosing any health information is ultimately up to him. An additional challenge, former White House doctors and presidential historians say, is that there is no official requirement for how often a president should undergo an exam, what the exam should include and which of the results should be made public. 'There's nothing codified about what to do,' said Kuhlman, who also served on the White House medical unit under George W. Bush. White House doctors traditionally conduct an annual physical exam on the president and release a memo of varying length that includes vital signs, a summary of the physical examination and the results of blood tests. These memos generally conclude with some kind of pronouncement from the doctor that the president is fit to execute the duties of the presidency. Trump's and Biden's doctors have largely followed that pattern, although the reports on Biden's health have been significantly longer and more detailed than the reports on Trump. Advertisement Kuhlman and Lawrence Mohr, who served as physician to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, said they were never asked by any president to withhold medical information in their reports. Mohr said he recalls that there was 'never any question' about being candid about the president's health. 'You never lie; never, never say anything that's not true,' Mohr said. 'You put out a clear press release about what's going on, what to expect and you get it out there. If you don't do that, you end up with all sorts of speculation.' Reagan was 77 when he left office and five years later announced he had Alzheimer's disease. He faced similar questions about his fitness to serve. Mohr recollected administering the Mini-Mental State Examination - a test used to assess cognitive function - to the 40th president. Trump's doctors have given him a different cognitive test, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. But cognitive tests are not standard practice. Neither George W. Bush nor Obama took one, Kuhlman said. But they were much younger while in office than Biden. 'I was fortunate to have 50-year-old patients instead of 80-year-old ones,' Kuhlman said.
The Hill
36 minutes ago
- The Hill
Bucharest gay pride march turns 20 as LGBTQ+ Romanians face growing hostility from right-wing groups
BUCHAREST, Romania (AP) — Thousands of LGBTQ+ supporters took to the streets of Romania's capital Saturday for its annual gay pride parade, following a tense election cycle marked by an increase in hate speech against the community. Marchers of all ages walked through Bucharest's streets and down the central Victory Avenue, as many waved colorful flags, blew whistles and held placards that read: 'Be proud, be bold, be you!' Held since 2005, the event marked Bucharest Pride's 20th anniversary. This year's parade comes on the heels of a highly divisive and chaotic election cycle that saw a rise in support for far-right and conservative political figures and parties in the European Union member, one of the bloc's most religious countries. Victor Ciobotaru, executive director of ACCEPT Association, an LGBTQ+ rights group, told The Associated Press that throughout the 2024-2025 election cycle, the organization registered 'a huge increase' in hate crimes against the LGBTQ+ community. 'We had more people complaining about being harassed on the streets or being attacked,' he said. 'This hate speech doesn't remain without effect, we can feel the tension within the society … We are going to continue to fight for our rights, no matter the political climate.' Earlier on Saturday, right-wing groups who advocate for traditional family values and oppose same sex marriage held an anti-LGBT countermarch in the capital, with many waving the country's tricolor national flags and others holding placards depicting religious icons. Ahead of the parade, the ACCEPT association also reported a large 'STOP LGBT' banner that had been draped over an abandoned Bucharest apartment block, which was later removed. 'These types of actions are now more legitimized by the hate discourse which was spread all during these years, during these electoral campaigns,' Ciobotaru added. 'We will not be afraid to go on the streets.' This year marks 24 years since Romania, a country of about 19 million, decriminalized homosexuality. In ILGA-Europe's 2025 Rainbow Map, which assesses the legal and policy landscape for LGBT people across Europe, Romania ranked last among all 27 EU countries, followed by Poland and Bulgaria, the advocacy group found.
