Police reform negotiations in Congress have reached a stalemate, NBC News reported after interviewing several sources from both political parties, civil rights organizations, and law enforcement representatives speaking on a promise of anonymity. “Outside special interest groups are playing a critical role in the negotiation, as they often do on Capitol Hill, but this time the divide is pitting law enforcement representatives against one another and threatening any chance of success,” journalist Leigh Ann Caldwell wrote for NBC News.

Two of the issues at the center of Democrats’ priorities are Section 242 of federal law, which outlines a harsh standard to convict police officers, and qualified immunity, a legal doctrine freeing individual government officials and police officers from guilt in lawsuits unless they have violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right.

Sen. Tim Scott, who’s leading negotiations for Republicans, suggested a compromise on qualified immunity in March that would allow lawsuits on departments or municipalities but not individual officers. It’s not a compromise progressive Democrats, myself included, are interested in entertaining. “Having Tim Scott lead these negotiations is not helpful,” progressive attorney Kat Calvin told NBC News in April. “Those of us who are dying — I’m Black in America. Everyone in my family is concerned about this issue.”

After House Majority Whip James Clyburn was vigorously criticized for being too willing to compromise on qualified immunity, Scott made the kind of futile play that only feigns the appearance of willingness to compromise. He told Sen. Cory Booker, a lead negotiator along with Rep. Karen Bass: “If you can get police groups on board with a proposal, then I will not stand in the way.”

Even still, Booker got police groups on board with adding four crimes officers could be charged with—“sexual assault, theft, obstruction of justice and some aspects of excessive use of force”— NBC News reported. There would, however, be no changes to Section 242.

The deal unleashed what NBC News described as “a bitter public fight between police groups” that continues to hamper negotiations. NAACP President Derrick Johnson told NBC News: “Many in law enforcement agree that meaningful change is necessary, but unfortunately, a few are committed to standing in the way with a goal of obstructing the process.”

He added in a statement released on Tuesday:

Scott predictably rejected the deal Booker worked out, pinning reasoning on the National Sheriffs’ Association. An unnamed source accused Booker of trying to strike a deal—which Scott basically directed him to do—“without consulting the sheriffs and the Republican negotiators.” Law enforcement officials apparently determined the best way to react was to circulate a memo from sheriffs and the National Association of Police Organizations. The opening paragraph reads something like a transcription of a kindergartner’s rant to his mother.

“Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), is trying to negotiate a deal on police reform with the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the Fraternal Order of Police,” law enforcement officials said. “Sen. Booker froze out NAPO and other police groups, despite the fact that NAPO represents just about all law enforcement officers in the senator’s state of New Jersey.”

They continued in the memo:

The reasons for our opposition are too many to completely list (Sen. Booker’s proposal runs to 125 pages), but in general:

Sen. Booker proposes adding four new federal criminal offenses to incarcerate state and local police officers (Sec. 101).
The bill removes the “knowing” <em>mens rea</em> requirement for the new criminal federal obstruction crime it establishes (Sec. 101). 
Deadly Force is defined to include Taser use in certain circumstances, carotid restraints, and even the “position or posture” of a suspect (Definitions, Sec. 2).
It does away with both Sovereign Immunity for both State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and does not protect officer’s Qualified Immunity at all.  In fact, it <em>reminds</em> readers that they can still sue <em>individual</em> officers “<em>under this section or under any other source of law</em>” (Sec. 102).
It expands pattern and practice investigations and specifically adds prosecutors, not just investigators, to the process (Sec. 103).
It authorizes <em>$750,000,000.00</em> (you read that right) to hire prosecutors to prosecute individual officers involved in use of force incidents (Sec. 104).
It calls for the national establishment of Civilian Review Boards (Sec. 114).
It defines “Serious Misconduct Complaint Information” to <em>include complaints that were not sustained</em> (Sec. 201).
It would establish a public “National Police Accountability Database” into which individual officer information would be entered, without basic due process protections of notice and an opportunity to be heard; officers would only be allowed to include a “personal statement” <em>after</em> their personal information had already been added to the database (Sec. 202).
It expands an FBI national database to collect information on all state and local officers’ use of force, including “less lethal” force, which is defined to include touching someone with a hand (Sec. 223).
It provides for lawsuits against individual law enforcement officers in State and Federal courts for alleged acts of discrimination, which are defined to include disparate impact of official agency policies (Sec. 312).
It does away with no-knock warrants in drug cases where destruction of evidence is occurring (Sec. 361).
It restricts the justification defense for officers in use of force cases (Sec. 363).
It bans facial recognition technology (Sec. 372 and others).
It <em>requires</em> discipline of officers for bodycam policy violations, without requiring due process (Sec. 372).
Tear gas and OC spray may only be used against “violent” offenders, not to disperse crowds (Sec. 393).
Provides $50,000,000.00 for reinstatement of offenders’ suspended or revoked drivers licenses, and $0 for addressing officer suicides (Sec. 803, Sec. 1004).
Calls for looking at the <em>repeal of state and local misdemeanor crime enforcement</em> (Sec. 806).
It greatly limits legitimate law enforcement tools, including further restricting the 1033 Program (Sec. 364).
It severely restricts the confidentiality of peer-counselor communications by officers who have gone through a critical incident, such as a use of force (Sec. 1002).
It lacks any language on Officer Suicide (Sec. 1004).
It lacks any language on protecting officers who are whistle-blowers (Sec. 1005).
It offers, apparently in exchange for all of the foregoing, not more than “a total of 6 months” disability coverage under the PSOB program (Sec. 1301); and repeal of the Social Security WEP and GPO provisions, <em>which are already covered in other legislation NAPO has helped support</em> (Sections 1102, 1103).

“If a union believes this is a good deal for cops, I’d be wanting my dues back if I were a cop,” Sen. Lindsey Graham told The New York Times.

That’s the thing though, isn’t it? True reform isn’t supposed to be convenient. Police officers and sheriff’s deputies using excessive force to brutalize Black and brown people have been protected for long enough. “Persistent, unchecked bias in policing and a history of lack of accountability is wreaking havoc on the Black community,” Booker said. “Cities are literally on fire with the pain and anguish wrought by the violence visited upon black and brown bodies.

“There’s no one singular policy change that will fix this issue tomorrow - we need an entire set of holistic reforms to improve police training and practices, and ensure greater accountability and transparency.”

The Democrat from New Jersey also criticized a Republican proposal on reform as “heavy on gestures and light on real reform.” Booker said in a statement:

RELATED: James Clyburn is wrong on this one. Qualified immunity must be tossed out with other trash