Gavin Newsom signs law to limit shootings by police

[CPRAFAN]

"SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California is changing its standards for when police can kill under a law signed Monday by Gov. Gavin Newsom, as it tries to deter police shootings of young minority men that have roiled the nation.

"We are doing something today that stretches the boundary of possibility and sends a message to people all across this country that they can do more and they can do better to meet this moment," Newsom said as he stood alongside family members of people killed by police . . . "

Comments: "Results: More Police officers needlessly killed or unjustly prosecuted.

I am assuming that the dead relatives of these families were not committing a crime, were not armed, and were studying for their PhD’s.

This is insanity, there’s no other way to describe it. These virtue signaling idiots are going to destroy their State.

Informal guidance among the police: Stay in the station house; don’t respond to other than the most dramatic reports; ask the survivors to come down and fill out the paperwork." AKA, do what the Baltimore, Maryland PD did after they were thrown under the bus by the local politicians.

[JCHavasu]

On the one hand it is amazing that we elected Newsom to be governor, but one the other it should be completely expected. What a moron...

[yzErnie]

Now granted I have been retired for several years but even when I was working LE didn't roll into a neighborhood and just randomly shoot people without just cause. There have always been requirements via laws and policies that must be met to be justified in the application of deadly force.

Sure, there is the rare occasion when it shouldn't have happened but the overwhelming majority (99%) of the time the cops are justified in their actions. IMO, this is simply a feel good move for those losers in Sacto to appease their loser constituents.

[micro911]

I think he is pretty stupid. Not thinking about LEGAL PEOPLE in California. I am glad that I retired. I hope everyone stays safe.

[Foebia]

Its threading the needle in a stressful situation. Democrats hate cops, they want chaos and civys to doubt the law and lack confidence in it.

[1911su16b870]

Here is the text of the bill, section 835a(2) has the word "necessary"...

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 392, Weber. Peace officers: deadly force.
Existing law authorizes a peace officer to make an arrest pursuant to a warrant or based upon probable cause, as specified. Under existing law, an arrest is made by the actual restraint of the person or by submission to the custody of the arresting officer.
Existing law authorizes a peace officer to use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance. Existing law does not require an officer to retreat or desist from an attempt to make an arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested.
Under existing law, a homicide committed by a peace officer is justifiable when necessarily committed in arresting a person who has committed a felony and the person is fleeing or resisting such arrest.
Existing case law deems such a homicide to be a seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and as such, requires the actions to be reasonable.
This bill would redefine the circumstances under which a homicide by a peace officer is deemed justifiable to include when the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that deadly force is necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person, or to apprehend a fleeing person for a felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless the person is immediately apprehended.
The bill would also affirmatively prescribe the circumstances under which a peace officer is authorized to use deadly force to effect an arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance.
DIGEST KEY
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: no Local Program: no
BILL TEXT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 196 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
196. Homicide is justifiable when committed by peace officers and those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, under either of the following circumstances:
(a) In obedience to any judgment of a competent court.
(b) When the homicide results from a peace officer’s use of force that is in compliance with Section 835a.
SEC. 2. Section 835a of the Penal Code is amended to read:
835a. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(1) That the authority to use physical force, conferred on peace officers by this section, is a serious responsibility that shall be exercised judiciously and with respect for human rights and dignity and for the sanctity of every human life. The Legislature further finds and declares that every person has a right to be free from excessive use of force by officers acting under color of law.
(2) As set forth below, it is the intent of the Legislature that peace officers use deadly force only when necessary in defense of human life. In determining whether deadly force is necessary, officers shall evaluate each situation in light of the particular circumstances of each case, and shall use other available resources and techniques if reasonably safe and feasible to an objectively reasonable officer.
(3) That the decision by a peace officer to use force shall be evaluated carefully and thoroughly, in a manner that reflects the gravity of that authority and the serious consequences of the use of force by peace officers, in order to ensure that officers use force consistent with law and agency policies.
(4) That the decision by a peace officer to use force shall be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation, based on the totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time, rather than with the benefit of hindsight, and that the totality of the circumstances shall account for occasions when officers may be forced to make quick judgments about using force.
(5) That individuals with physical, mental health, developmental, or intellectual disabilities are significantly more likely to experience greater levels of physical force during police interactions, as their disability may affect their ability to understand or comply with commands from peace officers. It is estimated that individuals with disabilities are involved in between one-third and one-half of all fatal encounters with law enforcement.
(b) Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use objectively reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance.
(c) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), a peace officer is justified in using deadly force upon another person only when the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary for either of the following reasons:
(A) To defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person.
(B) To apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended. Where feasible, a peace officer shall, prior to the use of force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of those facts.
(2) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger that person poses to themselves, if an objectively reasonable officer would believe the person does not pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or to another person.
(d) A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or desist from their efforts by reason of the resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested. A peace officer shall not be deemed an aggressor or lose the right to self-defense by the use of objectively reasonable force in compliance with subdivisions (b) and (c) to effect the arrest or to prevent escape or to overcome resistance. For the purposes of this subdivision, “retreat” does not mean tactical repositioning or other deescalation tactics.
(e) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) “Deadly force” means any use of force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury, including, but not limited to, the discharge of a firearm.
(2) A threat of death or serious bodily injury is “imminent” when, based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable officer in the same situation would believe that a person has the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or another person. An imminent harm is not merely a fear of future harm, no matter how great the fear and no matter how great the likelihood of the harm, but is one that, from appearances, must be instantly confronted and addressed.
(3) “Totality of the circumstances” means all facts known to the peace officer at the time, including the conduct of the officer and the subject leading up to the use of deadly force.

[mausercat]

I know that LEO unions tend to lean Democrat because unions in general favor Democrats, but sometimes they are making a deal with the devil.

[1G75]

here we go again....

[1320Fastback]

Inversely he should also make a law limiting the shooting of law enforcement officers.

[1911su16b870]

FWIW The Washington Post is tracking the number of people killed by Law Enforcement and it is about 1000 per year. This number is larger than that of the CDC and FBI UCRs. I didn't down load the data and sort it by CA, but I would think the number is very low and this bill/law will not change anything IMHO.

So...I downloaded the WAPO data, sorted by CA and counted the totals:

2019 79 to August
2018 114
2017 156
2016 135
2015 189

If you look at the data, a huge percentage of those shot had some sort of weapon...

[HUTCH 7.62]

On the one hand it is amazing that we elected Newsom to be governor, but one the other it should be completely expected. What a moron...

I believe the ballot boxes were stuffed, he is not our rightful governor. The proof is out there. The sooner he is recalled the better

[ja308]

This will give anti cop prosecutors and political hacks lots more leeway in 2nd guessing any police homicide.

Recently 2 presidential candidates called the killing of Mike Brown murder! No one in the press challenged that 100% wrong slander by Kamela Harris or Liz Warren.

This is another democrat law that will make police reluctant to challenge violent thugs released by Voters !

Thanx Governor you just made life more dangerous for we disarmed sheep !

[esy]

Even more reason for us to be less proactive on the streets.

Stay safe, all!

[yzErnie]

Even more reason for us to be less proactive on the streets.

Stay safe, all!

I disagree with that philosophy. If I was still working this would only act as more motivation to do the right things for the good people of our communities. They deserve that from us and we should be willing to persevere to accomplish that for them.

[Gun Kraft]

I know that LEO unions tend to lean Democrat because unions in general favor Democrats, but sometimes they are making a deal with the devil.

The new law requires that police officers use deadly force only when “necessary,” in response to an imminent threat of death or serious injury, while the previous statue required only that the use of force be “reasonable.” But as the result of an amendment, the law does not define “necessary,” leaving it open to interpretation by police departments.

Lawmakers dropped an explicit definition of "necessary" that said officers could use maximum force only when there was "no reasonable alternative." They also removed an explicit requirement that officers try to de-escalate confrontations.

I'm not sure this was a deal with the devil. Time will tell.