When the Denver Police Department invited the public to comment on proposed changes to its use-of-force policy via e-mail, it received a mixed bag of thoughts and ideas, ranging from thoughtful remarks on legal standards for law enforcement to long diatribes about modern policing in American society.

There were serious comments among the 64 messages received, although some messages neared the absurd and some people just used the opportunity to vent their frustrations over modern policing.

The responses came from Denver residents and people who live out of town. At least nine officers, including a captain, sent comments. A large police union that does not represent Denver police in collective bargaining sent a letter — as did the Sam Cary Bar Association, which represents the African-American legal community.

The e-mails were sent to a Denver Police Department address at the invitation of Denver Police Chief Robert White. He invited public comment after rolling out a draft of his revised use-of-force policy in early January. He and deputy chief Matt Murray promised to read every e-mail and incorporate appropriate recommendations into the policy.

The Denver Post obtained the e-mails, as well as handwritten notes from three community forums through an open records request. The Post also received e-mails sent directly to the city’s public safety officials, including Stephanie O’Malley, the safety department’s executive director.

In all, common themes continue to emerge. Plenty of people find the policy’s language to be vague and open to interpretation. They want it to be more specific in how it instructs officers to use Tasers and chemical weapons.

Multiple people, including officers, questioned the department’s decision to ban police from shooting at moving cars in light of terrorist attacks in Nice, France, in July and in December at a Christmas market in Berlin where people drove large trucks into dense crowds.

“If an officer hesitates even one second in discharging their weapon to try to disable the vehicle operator or the vehicle itself, many innocent lives could be put at risk,” one e-mail said.

Last week, Murray said an officer would be permitted to shoot at a driver in such an extreme circumstances because of a broad statement in the department’s operation manual that says all situations have mitigating circumstances and officers are allowed to explain their decisions in those cases.

Officers continue to express concern over how they will be trained on the policy and how they will be judged during internal investigations into their actions.

Although the policy indicates officers’ tactical decisions will be reviewed after they use force on a suspect, the policy says nothing about what those tactical standards entail, wrote Don Sisson, a Denver attorney who represents the Fraternal Order of Police.

“The tactics of each encounter are clearly subjective beyond a few well-established fundamentals and invariably lead to different opinions from the officers that are present,” Sisson wrote.

His letter also questioned the training that will be given to bring officers up to speed on the new policy. He and others have complained that too much officer training relies on watching online classes. The FOP also believes the policy’s emphasis on de-escalation could have a negative impact on officers’ reactions to threats.

“The over-complication of this policy can have dangerous ramifications for officers who have to apply it under extreme stress,” Sisson wrote.

Jason St. Julien, president of the Sam Cary Bar Association, asked on behalf of his group that outside representatives be appointed to a use of force review board.

Some people wrote that they were sending an e-mail because they could not attend one of the three community meetings.

At the three community meetings, residents listened to a pitch from White and then held small-group discussions to form recommendations. Those meetings also produced a wide range of ideas and suggestions, including more complaints about vague language and more calls for White to include stakeholders in writing the final policy.

In e-mails and in forums, people said they wanted the city’s independent monitor, Nick Mitchell, to be more involved.

White’s decision to write the policy without forming a committee has been an ongoing controversy since he announced intentions to rewrite the policy about six months ago.

But White has insisted for months that the e-mail address and community forums were sufficient avenues for community engagement.

Last week, Mitchell told City Council’s safety committee that community forums were important because they allowed the chief to hear direct feedback.

“But they often tend toward the theatrical and people come to make their points at the microphone and they’re not necessarily places where you get a lot of important work done,” Mitchell said.

The e-mails reflect a similar situation. Police policies are complex, and the average person, while capable of expressing philosophy on how police should use force, is not equipped to write a policy that is clear, concise and meets legal standards.

Last week, Mitchell called on White to invite him, rank-and-file cops and people who are experts on the subject to gather to hash out details and finalize the policy.

“People need to be ready to sit down at a table and work through these problems and come to compromises to address everyone’s needs,” Mitchell said.

And City Council appears poised to ask White to agree.

“There should be better communication with all of us to help write policy, especially one as sensitive and important as this one is,” Councilman Wayne New said.