This column reflects the opinion of the writer. To learn about the differences between a news story and an opinion column, click here

The Department of Justice went to Seattle and examined the police department.

It determined that the department had a pattern of using excessive force and biased tactics. It imposed a series of reforms, through a court-ordered agreement in 2012 with the city leadership, that limited and more clearly defined when officers could use physical force. It established more specific limits on when a cop can hit someone with a club or shoot them. The reformed policy says when officers use physical force, it must be because the circumstances are objectively threatening and the level of the force should be proportionate to the threat.

Who could argue with that? A lot of Seattle police officers.

More than 125 Seattle cops have filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the reforms. Their arguments against the Seattle reforms are a chilling reminder that police oversight and reform, even when supported by the mayor and the police chief and the attorney general, can run into the biggest obstacles of all: the ones in the police cars.

Obviously, not all cops are obstacles to reforms. Maybe not even most are. But they sure can be, and the Seattle lawsuit exemplifies this to the hilt.

The Seattle cops – though not their union – sued in May. Last week, they turned to the Internet in an effort to crowd-fund their lawsuit. As of Thursday, they’d raised just over $3,000, toward a goal of $100,000. It would be excellent if no one gave them another dime, given the alarming ideas about police accountability that they are trying to advance.

In a nutshell, these cops are arguing that they, and only they, should determine how to use force. They say making officers consider options before turning to their guns requires them to go through “mental gymnastics” that are unfair and dangerous. They argue they should not be limited to “proportionate” force. They say it is unconstitutional to try to put the use of force by cops in check – and they make it clear that they will punish the public by refusing to respond to situations if they don’t want to.

It’s pretty ugly, unless you worship police power. Does it matter over here on the dry side of the state? It certainly would if the officers were to win the case, given that the DOJ is currently evaluating the Spokane Police Department and preparing a similar evaluation. Short of that, it’s an interesting moment of comparison and contrast.

Let’s hope, in the end, for a very stark contrast.

So far, it has been. Crucially, the mayor and police chief here have asked the DOJ to come and conduct its review, whereas the agency had forced its attentions on the department in Seattle. The review is underway, with investigators already having visited and interviewed people from all angles of the criminal justice system. My attempts to reach the DOJ representative involved were not successful this week, but officials have said the effort is expected to produce a report with recommendations, perhaps by early next year.

Of particular interest will be the subject of how Spokane is implementing other reforms so far, such as the ombudsman program – whether the walk measures up to the talk. This is an important piece of the puzzle right now. Though the city and police department have taken many worthy steps in the past year, there is an unmistakable desire to present the situation as “fixed.”

We should hope for the best and fear the worst from this process. Seattle’s imbroglio reminds us not to jump to any conclusions.

Reading through the Seattle officers’ complaint, one is left with the unmistakable impression that these cops do not merely take issue with the particulars of the city’s new policies – they take issue, contemptuously, with the whole notion that anyone, anywhere, at any time, gets to set a boundary or cast a retrospective eye on the decisions they make in the heat of the moment.

What a citizen might call oversight these officers call “unconstitutional second-guessing, 20/20 hindsight critiques, Monday Morning Quarterbacking.” The lawsuit repeatedly asserts claims about the police officers’ rights to defend themselves, while referring to “suspects’ alleged rights.” It claims the new rules force officers to “under-react” to threats, until they have no choice but to overreact. It alleges the policies actually are intended to “trap” police officers into violations.

The suit complains that their uses of force will be reviewed, even the lesser ones. “This includes, for example, any time a patrol officer takes down a suspect in order to arrest him or her, and the suspect ‘complains’ that there was an injury (as the overwhelming majority of criminal suspects reflexively and glibly do when placed under arrest.)”

The lawsuit refers to the spectre of “de-policing” – standing down from enforcing the law in certain situations. Statistics already reflect this happening, according to Seattle news reports. The lawsuit presents de-policing as a kind of inevitability, an eventuality growing from the officers’ constitutional right to self-defense, but it’s hard not to see it as a cynical threat.

It’s hard not to see it as a perfect example of the reason the feds showed up in the first place.