California proposal would limit when officers can open fire

[ansible]

Source: ABC

Several lawmakers and the family of a 22-year-old unarmed black man who was fatally shot by police proposed Tuesday that California become the first state to significantly restrict when officers can open fire. The legislation would change the standard from using "reasonable force" to "necessary force."

That means officers would be allowed to shoot only if "there were no other reasonable alternatives to the use of deadly force" to prevent imminent serious injury or death, said Lizzie Buchen, legislative advocate for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is among the groups behind the measure.

"We need to ensure that our state policy governing the use of deadly force stresses the sanctity of human life and is only used when necessary," said Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, a San Diego Democrat who introduced the bill. "Deadly force can be used, but only when it is completely necessary." The goal is to encourage officers to try to defuse confrontations or use less deadly weapons, said Democratic Assemblyman Kevin McCarty of Sacramento, who is co-authoring the legislation.

"We should no longer be the target practice or victims of a shoot first, ask questions later police force," said Assemblyman Chris Holden, chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus.



Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/california-eyes-lethal-force-law-shootings-police-54201152

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

1. Sounds like "a distinction without a difference".

At night, after chasing a suspect through backyards and over fences, with adrenaline boiling, it's a good time to stop and ponder what actions are necessary vs reasonable. Reflect on what was debated in the advanced philosophy class at the police academy. Maybe log on to a favorite website and post a poll.

This sounds like a well-intentioned, but basically useless proposal.

[still_one]

2. I think you are right. Better screening and criteria who can become a police officier would offer a

better chance to avoid a police officer whose personality carries abusive tendencies

[mr_lebowski]

5. There's an awful lot of cops who seem to think the 'defiance of cops' alone is good enough reason ..

to shoot a person dead. There's a lot who'll reach for the gun before the tazer as well. There's a lot that would never think of just 'falling back' as a reasonable alternative in situations where there's no credible/immediate threat to their, or the public safety, just someone 'running away from the cops' for some unknown reason, which doesn't dictate that person must be a threat to cause physical harm.

By changing the 'standard' in this way, we just might get a few cops 'thinking twice' about going to deadly force as early and easily as they now do. "Reasonable" is a considerably looser standard than "necessary". "Reasonable" means 'can I come up with ANY reason why it made sense', whereas "necessary" involves some semblance of 'proof there were no alternatives'.

Consider the following two assertions:
1) Us humans took all reasonable steps to avert a climate disaster from anthropomorphic climate change, vs
2) Us humans took all necessary steps to avert a climate disaster from anthropomorphic climate change

Which one is CONSIDERABLY harder to honestly assert 50 years from now to your grandchild who's wondering why the planet ... is so F'D up?

Personally I think police have no more 'right to life' than the public, but they seem to be trained to believe their lives, ARE, in fact, more important, and then they generally seem to act 'accordingly'.

That's the attitude we need to change more than anything, IMHO. If 'I felt threatened so I shot and killed this person' would not work as an excuse and get a random member of the public off the hook in a shooting, it should 'work' even LESS in a similar scenario for a trained, armed LEO, not MORE.

[brush]

10. Yes, yes, yes! K&R.

[brush]

9. Maybe not in the field, but having that law on the books should result in more prosecutions of...

killer cops. The killers know they can get away with "I feared for my life" so there's nothing to now to stop them from blasting away at unarmed AAs and POCs.

If they know they're not going to just get desk duty until being exonerated, they'll start holding their fire—especially when a couple of them go to jail as a result of the new "de-escalation" law.

[Soxfan58]

3. Invest in training, and screening

Everything else will fall into place.

[scipan]

11. This will change how they are trained.

They don't want a lot of million dollar settlements.

[RandiFan1290]

4. Good!

Time to rein in these violent thugs.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. "encourage officers to try to defuse confrontations"

Oh they "defuse confrontations" when the perp is white, waves a gun around, and even points or fires a weapon at an officer.

But when they are black holding a cell phone (or nothing at all because they are purportedly "reaching into their waistband" while running away), then that means empty your entire magazine into him so you can get a fresh, full unused replacement when you get back to the station.

[bucolic_frolic]

7. At one time beat policemen only carried a billy club

because few citizens were armed

[SCVDem]

8. We learned in Marine Corps basic training

when deadly force is authorized.

Most all of the cop shootings do not meet the criteria.

Simple burglary, theft or property damage is NOT a good enough reason.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

12. Even trained Marines can cause unnecessary deaths

One famous incident, no blame intended, just a judgement error.

http://ndsn.org/july97/goats.html