Gavin Newsom signs law to limit shootings by police

[eta34]

Yzernie, that's a noble statement but a bit naive. What do you mean by persevere?

[Hornman]

[yzErnie]

Yzernie, that's a noble statement but a bit naive. What do you mean by persevere?

What I mean is the beat folks should not be backing down on being pro active. Crap laws like this one over the years made me motivated at being more pro active. Refuse to give the liberals what they want...which is lawless communities and state. The good people of our communities and state deserve the beat cops going in service and doing the right things for the right reasons instead of going in service and finding a good hiding spot. You know, the never give up mentality....never, EVER give up the fight.

[SVGUY]

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...

Compared to a population of 330M that is small potatoes. There are some serious hard core bad guys out there. Of those how many were (1) criminals and/or (2) drew a weapon and the cop drew first ? I would say the % is extreme high. I have no problem with these numbers. Frankly the nation has a lot more hard core criminals we are dealing with.

[JCHavasu]

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

In reality it will not change anything at this point. While the bill has the word "necessary" in it in several places it still says, "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."

It is really a feel good, do nothing law. Graham v Conner is still controlling and the law essentially lays this out. "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."

Now they would LOVE to have officers judged based on what is known to be necessary after the fact, but this doesn't make it happen. It does give an solid indication of just how far they are willing to go though.

[starlight]

- this law changed nothing
- old law said 'reasonable' (subjective)
- new law says 'necessary' (also subjective)

- REMOVED from the proposed law was 'imminent' (which was way less subjective)

I fail to see a big change here... unless something pertinent was snuck into the law and buried somewhere...








.

[esy]

- this law changed nothing
- old law said 'reasonable' (subjective)
- new law says 'necessary' (also subjective)

- REMOVED from the proposed law was 'imminent' (which was way less subjective)

I fail to see a big change here... unless something pertinent was snuck into the law and buried somewhere...








.

While many police and deputy sheriff associations worked vigorously to get the original wording of this bill changed and to implement more training and such, there has not been a single DA or defense attorney, even, who has said PC 835a remains unchanged.

Reasonable to necessary, while appears minimal in change, places what we do under an even finer microscope while making split second decisions.

[1911su16b870]

Compared to a population of 330M that is small potatoes. There are some serious hard core bad guys out there. Of those how many were (1) criminals and/or (2) drew a weapon and the cop drew first ? I would say the % is extreme high. I have no problem with these numbers. Frankly the nation has a lot more hard core criminals we are dealing with.

Agreed. Statistically insignificant when compared to total persons murdered per year in the US. Another knee-jerk legislation that is now law here in CA.

In the WaPo data, a significant majority of people shot/killed by LE had a weapon.

I concur that the change is insignificant, save one thing, any officer involved in any use of force will now add a significant amount of information into the narrative of their report showing why that force was "necessary" (which should already be happening).

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) remains the objective reasonableness standard on LE use of force and the law of the land.

[Whites of Their Eyes]

I am so glad I got out of law enforcement. I would not call my mom anti LE, but she is far from someone who is pro LE. She texted me yesterday saying. "I am so glad you are not a cop anymore. Newsom just signed their death warrants."

The change is bigger than I believe many of you think. It will not quite judge you by hindsight, but gets pretty close. I have a feeling it will be interpreted differently in different areas of the state.

All I will say to everyone still working is good luck and stay safe!

Also, many states accept California POST that are still pro LE!

[yzErnie]

Reasonable to necessary, while appears minimal in change, places what we do under an even finer microscope while making split second decisions.

I wouldn't give two thoughts about this law if I was in a deadly force situation. The fact remains if the application of deadly force is justified, the wording of this new law is absolutely meaningless. The application of deadly force is either justified or not. When justified this law is insignificant.

[CPRAFAN]

People Vote For The Government They Deserve

H L Mencken said "Democracy is the theory that the average person knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard". If the average California voter is voting for moonbat liberal politicians, why should you go to jail and lose your pension trying to protect him? Let the liberal voters in your jurisdiction get it "good and hard" and not you! A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged (by reality) - let the California voters encounter the reality they voted for! When it gets bad enough, then they will vote for better politicians.

What I mean is the beat folks should not be backing down on being pro active. Crap laws like this one over the years made me motivated at being more pro active. Refuse to give the liberals what they want...which is lawless communities and state. The good people of our communities and state deserve the beat cops going in service and doing the right things for the right reasons instead of going in service and finding a good hiding spot. You know, the never give up mentality....never, EVER give up the fight.

[pacrat]

esy said;

Reasonable to necessary, while appears minimal in change, places what we do under an even finer microscope while making split second decisions.

I see this as an apt observation. No matter what the legislative intent. Or how the media spins this "minor" change in statute.

It is not inconsequential. Until after any charges, or law suits are filed in test cases. And judges and/or juries have ruled on the issue.

"CASE LAW" does not necessarily agree with legislative intent, or codified statutes.

[Spaffo]

So glad I'm retired.

[yzErnie]

H L Mencken said "Democracy is the theory that the average person knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard". If the average California voter is voting for moonbat liberal politicians, why should you go to jail and lose your pension trying to protect him? Let the liberal voters in your jurisdiction get it "good and hard" and not you! A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged (by reality) - let the California voters encounter the reality they voted for! When it gets bad enough, then they will vote for better politicians.

It appears you are missing the point I am making. If the shooting is justified then this new law is a non-issue. If the shooting is not justified then nothing really changes as the case still goes to the DA for review and the possibility of charges filed. There could still be department policy violations that come into play as well.

After Rodney King departments across the nation changed policies on the use of force and in the end nothing really changed as far as when it was time to fight and the ability to use force to take someone into custody. It actually got better for us as we got pepper spray and ultimately the Tasers. But, there are still times when you have to go hands on and either you're justified or not justified.

[ugimports]

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.

I think it's ironic that the government basically doesn't trust cops and then in the next breath they say don't own guns and call the cops as they are there to keep you safe.