I wonder if there will be any LEOs left in California?
Fatal police shootings could become a crime under proposed California law
SAN FRANCISCO — A showdown over when police in this state can use deadly force is set to unfold in the California Legislature next week, one that could bring sweeping changes to local law enforcement departments that give officers broad latitude in deciding when to shoot to kill.
At issue is Assembly Bill 392, known as the California Act to Save Lives, which would put the onus on officers to justify discharging their weapon, shifting the standard from “reasonable” — as defined by the Supreme Court's 1989 Graham v Connor ruling — to “necessary.” That means that, under the proposed bill, police must feel confident that it is truly necessary to shoot to protect themselves or others from danger, or they could be prosecuted for killing their victim.
Instead of reaching for their guns, officers would be pressed to engage in de-escalation tactics — in addition to considering options such as a Taser or a baton — that aim to reduce tension between officer and suspect. Experts say these include listening to the suspect's story, explaining the actions an officer is about to take, and ensuring that the suspect's dignity is preserved throughout the interaction.
I wonder if there will be any LEOs left in California?
Fatal police shootings could become a crime under proposed California law
SAN FRANCISCO — A showdown over when police in this state can use deadly force is set to unfold in the California Legislature next week, one that could bring sweeping changes to local law enforcement departments that give officers broad latitude in deciding when to shoot to kill.
At issue is Assembly Bill 392, known as the California Act to Save Lives, which would put the onus on officers to justify discharging their weapon, shifting the standard from “reasonable” — as defined by the Supreme Court's 1989 Graham v Connor ruling — to “necessary.” That means that, under the proposed bill, police must feel confident that it is truly necessary to shoot to protect themselves or others from danger, or they could be prosecuted for killing their victim.
Instead of reaching for their guns, officers would be pressed to engage in de-escalation tactics — in addition to considering options such as a Taser or a baton — that aim to reduce tension between officer and suspect. Experts say these include listening to the suspect's story, explaining the actions an officer is about to take, and ensuring that the suspect's dignity is preserved throughout the interaction.
They need a good contingent of cops in that legislature. Too many sheltered fools who've never dealt with dangerous people making laws about dealing with dangerous people.
One of the problems with non-dangerous people is that they lump all dangerous people together. Another problem is that they genuinely believe that they have some understanding about how to deal with dangerous people.
I saw on the Portland, Oregon local television news that their police department has over one hundred openings that they can't find qualified applicants to apply for today. It is only going to get worse
Too many in California consider LEO “dangerous” for various reasons be it cultural conditioning, rap sheets, outstanding warrants, idiots and bleeding hearts.
One thing I've learned, is that the more stupid you gather in one place, the greater the stupid gets. Exponentially.
Much like the top brass that I currently work for. There is a shortage of people going into the custodial field. The people who normally work those jobs also work in the trades. Right now, the trades are paying more than the school district I work for does. How would rational people attract more candidates? Would they lower the starting wage, and cut the entry level positions to 9 month jobs? That's what was done, and now we have even fewer applicants (as was predicted by myself and many others).
We have a growing number of people in this nation who are truly stupid, truly ignorant, or both. I'm not shocked that this has been proposed. I would never have conceived this as a possibility though.
People, good and bad need to realize that if you don't follow a LEO's commands it probably will not be good. Plain and simple. Just my two cents worth.
People need to realize that officers are given the power to detain and arrest by Law. Don't want to have police officers, change the law. But, don't argue with a cop, litigate with the Judge. Fighting a cop will never end well for the suspect.
This plus, "you go and talk with those good folks first and then offer your recommendation. We'll hold back and reserve judgement on whether we can use force to protect you".
These idiots would probably have a different stance if they were ever in a situation where they are directly threatened with a weapon by a thug on the street or in their home.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Defensive Carry
5.4M posts
117.5K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to defensive firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about everyday carry, optics, holsters, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!