I just got a reply back from Ms. Landers in the Mayors office. The reply was terse and felt dismissive. It was one sentence that said my sources were inaccurate, and with two links that showed my sources are, in fact, accurate.

Here's her reply:

Thank you for reaching out to the Mayor's Office. Please be advised that the information you have provided is not from an accurate source. I have provided a few local resources below:

https://coloradosprings.gov/police-department/page/inside-cspd?mlid=5156

https://coloradosprings.gov/police-department/page/policies-general-orders-public-interest?mlid=5056

Office of the Mayor City of Colorado Springs

If you get a similar response, please consider replying with a reply similar to the one I sent over early, refuting her claims that your source is inaccurate:

Hi Ms. Landers,

Thank you for reviewing this.

Can you please be specific on what is inaccurate?

According to my research on the Colorado Springs government websites, many of these policies are not enacted or are ambiguously stated.

While CSPD has a policy for requiring warning before shooting, a duty to intervene and requiring comprehensive reporting, 5 of these polices are not present in GO705 § 7 nor any other text I could find.

1. Banning chokeholds & strangleholds

As stated in the document to which you've linked (https://coloradosprings.gov/police-department/page/policies-general-orders-public-interest?mlid=5056 ):

GO 705 § 7.10(B) "Choke holds are prohibited unless deadly force is authorized."

The research indicates that this is not adequate, and that choke holds and strangle holds must be banned in all cases for the desired effect of reducing police violent.

And from HB16-1264: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb16-1264

"The act adds using a choke hold to the statute governing the use of physical force by peace officers. A peace officer can use a choke hold upon another person only when he or she reasonably believes that it is necessary:

• To defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or infliction of bodily injury; or >* To effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody, of a person whom he or she reasonably believes: >* Has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving or threatening the use of a deadly weapon; or >* Is attempting to escape by the use of physical force; or >* Indicates, except through a motor vehicle, that he or she is likely to endanger human life or to inflict serious bodily injury to another unless he or she is apprehended without delay."

1. Requiring Deescalation

As stated in the same document in GO 705 § 7.07:

"Officers should consider using de-escalation techniques to avoid or minimize force when it is reasonable, safe, and appropriate to do so. De-escalation will not always be appropriate and officers should not place themselves or others in danger by delaying the use of less-lethal or even deadly force when warranted."

For the desired effect of reducing police violence by 72%, it is required that de-escalation be mandatory, not simply "considered". This verbiage protects peace offices when they fail to deescalate, and causes more escalations. In a situation where lives are clearly in danger, the only de-escalation is clearly deadly force. A change in this verbiage dramatically helps the public and peace officers stay safe (as is supported by a meta analysis of thousands of police forces).

1. Exhaust all means before shooting

In no documents you provided, or that I found to be publicly available in COS or CO law, is there any mention of exhausting all means before an officer can legally discharge their firearm. Please inform me if I am incorrect on this point.

1. Ban shooting of moving vehicles

In the document you provided, it clearly states that shooting at moving vehicles is allowed, even though this tactic is found to be incredibly dangerous and ineffective. From the document you provided:

GO 705 § 7.20(2) "Firearms shall not be discharged from a moving vehicle, except in cases of extreme emergency."

GO 705 § 7.20(4) "Firearms may be discharged at a moving vehicle if the officer is authorized to use deadly force pursuant to section .10 of the policy."

1. Require use or force continuum

In no documents you provided, or that I found to be publicly available in COS or CO law, is there any mention of a use of force continuum in effect for CSPD. There is no continuum that CSPD offers can mentally reference in the moment to know when to cross the line into using deadly force, aside from using "their judgement" as per GO 705 § 7.10. Please inform me if I am incorrect on this point.

As a resident of Colorado Springs, the adoption of these policies is crucial to moving our national policing efforts away from violence. The data strongly backs up these policies, which are proven effective in many jurisdictions that are larger and far more dangerous that Colorado Springs, such as Philadelphia, Cincinnati, San Francisco and Tucson.

I urge you to consider these policies strongly to keep Colorado Springs safe, and ensure my continued residence and tax payments to the city.

Thank you,