Tweet
If California voters pass this bill, then they deserve the lawless state that they will surely get. Recidivist criminals already have no respect for our society of laws or for the men and women charged with enforcing those laws. Unfortunately, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has set standards for government use of force, states and local jurisdictions are free to set more restrictive standards on their agents. While Graham v. Connor may prevent California officers for being subject to suits brought under Federal law, nothing will prevent them from being sued, prosecuted, and imprisoned for violations of California law.
San Francisco PD is already subject to a "minimum force" standard (enacted through local Department general orders) instead of the usual "reasonable force" standard. It doesn't take a MENSA gathering to see that San Francisco is beset by rampant lawlessness -- mostly due to decades of so-called progressive policies and cops that are hampered by agency policies that give every edge, advantage, and courtesy to savvy criminals who work the system.
If this passes, except to see a marked drop in any enforcement action on any call from any cop in the state. It'll be safer, both physically and legally, to take no action and argue that you were attempting to "utilize time and distance", "wait for sufficient backup to avoid instigating a lethal conflict", "trying to build rapport with the suspect", or "attempting to deploy less lethal force options."
In the end, it will be citizens disarmed by ridiculous California gun laws that lose out. Most cops will still risk a trial by jury over death by gunfire. Risking incarceration for taking reasonable, justifiable action that unfortunately resulted in the death of a violent, resistive criminal? Probably not.
San Francisco PD is already subject to a "minimum force" standard (enacted through local Department general orders) instead of the usual "reasonable force" standard. It doesn't take a MENSA gathering to see that San Francisco is beset by rampant lawlessness -- mostly due to decades of so-called progressive policies and cops that are hampered by agency policies that give every edge, advantage, and courtesy to savvy criminals who work the system.
If this passes, except to see a marked drop in any enforcement action on any call from any cop in the state. It'll be safer, both physically and legally, to take no action and argue that you were attempting to "utilize time and distance", "wait for sufficient backup to avoid instigating a lethal conflict", "trying to build rapport with the suspect", or "attempting to deploy less lethal force options."
In the end, it will be citizens disarmed by ridiculous California gun laws that lose out. Most cops will still risk a trial by jury over death by gunfire. Risking incarceration for taking reasonable, justifiable action that unfortunately resulted in the death of a violent, resistive criminal? Probably not.
Comment