Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

How policing has changed in the year since George Floyd's death

March in remembrance of George Floyd

People in Minneapolis, Minn., march in remembrance of George Floyd on the one-year anniversary of his death.

Kerem Yucel/Getty Images

The killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, sparked a national reckoning around police violence and racial justice that still reverberates one year later.

His death, compounded by the deaths of countless other Black people at the hands of police, has pushed many states and cities to reform their law enforcement systems and practices to hold officers accountable.

But reform at the federal level could stall for the second year in a row as lawmakers have yet to find compromise on such a divisive issue.


Over the last year, nearly 250 bills related to police reform have been enacted in almost every state. Many measures addressed officer conduct and implemented stronger accountability provisions, especially for police-involved deaths.

Police shoot and kill on average 1,000 people every year, but Black Americans are killed at a disproportionately higher rate than white people. One-quarter of the people killed by police each year are Black, even though they make up just 13 percent of the overall population. According to The Washington Post, in 2020 police shot and killed 1,023 people — 243 of them were Black.

Floyd's death set off months of racial justice protests, prompting some states to take swift legislative action. Minnesota, where Floyd lived and died, was among the first to adopt policing reforms after its Legislature convened for a special session last July. Colorado also quickly approved one of the most comprehensive reform packages that summer.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Here are some of the biggest changes that have been enacted by states in the last year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures' database on policing legislation.

Ban or restrict chokeholds and neck restraints: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Virginia.

Require state investigation into officer-involved deaths: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Utah and Virginia.

Require officer intervention to stop use of excessive force and/or misconduct: Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont.

Mandate or fund the use of body cameras for on-duty officers: Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Vermont and Virginia.

Prohibit or restrict use of tear gas or rubber bullets: California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts and Oregon.

Ban or restrict no-knock warrants: Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts and Virginia.

Limit or end officer's use of qualified immunity as defense against charges of civil rights violations: Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Mexico.

Establish and maintain a database with details on alleged officer misconduct: Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Oregon.

While much has been done at the state level to reform policing, similar efforts have stalled at the federal level.

The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act was first introduced last year, just two weeks after Floyd's death. The legislation would overhaul the country's policing system by increasing accountability for law enforcement misconduct, instituting best practices and training for officers, limiting certain policing practices, and enhancing transparency and data collection.

The bill failed to gain enough momentum last year, and Democratic Rep. Karen Bass of California re-introduced it in February.

The legislation has seen little movement since March, when the Democratic-majority House passed it on a mostly party-line vote. (Only one Republican, Rep. Lance Gooden of Texas, supported the measure. Two Democrats, Reps. Jared Golden of Maine and Ron Kind of Wisconsin, voted against it.)

President Biden pressed the issue during his joint address to Congress at the end of April, urging lawmakers to "get it done" by the first anniversary of Floyd's death. But that deadline has now passed.

As with many issues — especially one as polarizing as police reform — garnering 60 votes to pass a bill in the evenly split Senate will prove to be a Herculean task. But Bass, the legislation's lead sponsor, remains confident it will cross the finish line in the coming months.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less