California Passes Watered Down Limits On Police In Deadly EncountersThe California legislature has been batting around Assembly Bill 392 for most of the year without getting across the finish line. The legislation was crafted in response to “deadly shootings of unarmed black men†in the state and it had originally been billed as one of the toughest use of force laws regulating police activity in the country. But negotiations with law enforcement officials resulted in some changes being made to the language (without which it wouldn’t have passed) and activists are saying it’s too watered down to be effective. (Including some complaints from a very curious choice of people to represent the families of suspects who were killed by the police, but we’ll get back to that in a moment.) That didn’t stop the Governor from signing it anyway. (CBS San Francisco)
...
The original bill was of great concern because it changed the definition of when an officer could employ potentially deadly force during an encounter with a suspect. The bill’s authors wanted to have it say that deadly force can only be used when “necessary†rather than “reasonable.†It had also included language saying that the officer would have to be able to show that they had “exhausted all other measures†before resorting to deadly force.
The new "standard" is "necessary" to prevent death or serious injury. It subjects officers' judgment to second-guessing by people have no law enforcement experience and to activists and other people with axes to grind.
1. It will get police officers killed.
2. It enables activists and ambulance-chaser-grade lawyers to destroy the careers and lives of police officers who do their jobs well.
3. It's like a steroid-meth cocktail for the
Ferguson Effect.
