Posted on 08/21/2019 9:14:48 AM PDT by Kaslin
The California legislature has been batting around Assembly Bill 392 for most of the year without getting across the finish line. The legislation was crafted in response to “deadly shootings of unarmed black men” in the state and it had originally been billed as one of the toughest use of force laws regulating police activity in the country. But negotiations with law enforcement officials resulted in some changes being made to the language (without which it wouldn’t have passed) and activists are saying it’s too watered down to be effective. (Including some complaints from a very curious choice of people to represent the families of suspects who were killed by the police, but we’ll get back to that in a moment.) That didn’t stop the Governor from signing it anyway. (CBS San Francisco)
On Monday Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a landmark bill that was once described as one of the toughest police use-of-force standard in the country, but some believe the law is watered down from its original version.
“The bill they have today, what they signed today, wouldn’t have prevented our loved ones from being killed,” said Rosie Chavez…
Surrounded by relatives of people killed in police shootings, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB392 at a ceremony in Sacramento on August 19, 2019. (CBS)”It was very important that a reasonable standard remained for us, that’s what’s in this bill, it supports what’s already in law,” said San Jose Police Officer Association Vice President Sean Pritchard.
The original bill was of great concern because it changed the definition of when an officer could employ potentially deadly force during an encounter with a suspect. The bill’s authors wanted to have it say that deadly force can only be used when “necessary” rather than “reasonable.” It had also included language saying that the officer would have to be able to show that they had “exhausted all other measures” before resorting to deadly force.
That would have hamstrung the police even further. Cops don’t put on their uniforms in the morning hoping to go out and shoot somebody. That’s a course of last resort. But when things get out of hand and it looks like their own lives or the lives of nearby civilians are at risk, split-second decisions have to be made. The more of these rules we put on the books, the less inclined police will be to get out of their squad cars and investigate crimes. Fortunately, all of that language was scrapped and this bill turned out to be little more than word salad, changing almost nothing while allowing the Governor and the legislature to look like they were doing something.
I want to return for a moment to the original announcement of the new law. You’ll notice that the press sought out Rosie Chavez for a quote. She complained that the new law “wouldn’t have prevented our loved ones from being killed.”
While I’m sure we can all sympathize with anyone who has lost a family member, the death that brought Chavez to this fight really shouldn’t be invoked. She was the aunt of Jacob Dominguez, who was shot and killed by police in September of 2017. That might lead you to believe that excessive use of force by the police was in play. Allow me to assure you that it was not.
You can read about the circumstances of Dominguez’ death here. This wasn’t somebody who randomly encountered some “killer cops” or who had been pulled over in an instance of “driving while black.” The cops had been on a manhunt for Dominguez for the better part of a week following what they described as a ten-day crime spree. He was driving a stolen Mercedes-Benz. He’d been caught on camera robbing a gas station with a .357 handgun. He’d been identified pulling off a drive-by shooting. This guy was a menace and the cops were desperately trying to find him and put an end to the violence.
When they finally pulled him over, he was instructed to keep his hands visible and exit the vehicle. How did he respond? By shouting, “(Expletive) you, bitch! Shoot me!” He then lunged toward the floorboards of the car with his hands. At that point, the police accommodated his request.
The fact is, there comes a point where you’re simply begging the cops to kill you (in this case, literally) and giving them every excuse in the world for doing so. The cops still hadn’t recovered his handgun when they caught up to him and for all they knew he was reaching down to grab it. Is this really the poster child you want to hold up as the face of the need to reform police use of lethal force? Not for nothing, but I think there were better candidates out there.
Result = Fewer felons killed but more police killed.
I suspect the “activists” want at least an equal number of police to die in these encounters. It is better that ten police die than that one murderous thug get shot.
Also, fewer police as officers either quit the job entirely or move out of state to other departments.
Laws very rarely PREVENT any crime. They are used to punish people after they have committed a crime. That's all.
This desperation for a Tom Cruise "Pre-Crime Division" to prevent all harm to all people at all times is simply a call for all of the worst aspects of 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 and every other example of a dystopian government gone psychotic with power.
But, as always, the Left seems to control the vocabulary in the discussion, and so we talk about "how to prevent crime", when we can't stop murder, rape, drugs, and even cell phone usage in SuperMax prisons.
In many cities the police just respond slowly to violent situations—waiting until the gunshots are over and hoping the perp has fled the scene.
“The bill they have today, what they signed today, wouldn’t have prevented our loved ones from being killed,” said Rosie Chavez…
Well your loved ones were ####ing animals like the generation before them and 2 generations back
Now they’re dead.
Here’s where I get the “I KNOW LOTS OF (PUT AN ETHNICITY/RACE HERE) AND THEY ARE WONDERFUL PEOPLE!! YOU’RE A DISGRACE TO FR!!!)
If that IS your response let me give you the reply right now...no, you know what...just fill in the words for me
Reminds me of one of the funnier lines of Liar, Liar, in which Jim Carrey’s (the moron) character offers the following response to a repeat offender client seeking “legal advice”:
“Stop Breaking the LAW, Asshole!!”
Seems to apply here, for those “black men” not wishing to be shot by law enforcement.
Well, the politicians had to do SOMETHING.
What’s really disgusting about this is that at the same time they were celebrating this garbage bill, there was a funeral being held for a CHP officer who was killed in the line of duty.
I can’t believe any sane officer would use deadly force unless they believed it was necessary.”Reasonable” is for the lawyers later.
A fleeing suspect in dark back yard points something at you? It is indeed necessary that you use deadly force.
Oh, and speaking of Stephon Clark...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Stephon_Clark#Domestic_Incidents_Leading_Up_to_Shooting
Notice there’s NEVER a move to prevent criminals from using lethal force.
The graph in the LA Times article that is based upon percentages of deaths of blacks is for the entire nation, not just California. Even the picture posted for the article is from North Carolina, on the east coast is a couple of thousand miles from California.
The misuse of lethal force by police is unlawful. But taking the opportunity to protect themselves by establishing less than safe tactics is an open invitation for perps to take chances by attacking officers that the perps know are hamstrung with a law that was not put in the books to protect criminals, but does while placing the police in harm’s way.
The black population of California is approximately 7% of the state and is mainly situated in Los Angeles and Oakland. But the crime rate in Oakland alone is 165% higher than the national average. If the state removes even the smallest of threats from the arsenal of capacity of law enforcement to protect themselves, Then the deaths of people, to include blacks, will go down but will be replaced, if not increased, with police and citizens.
I’m reminded of a couple of lines from a Dragnet show. A cop had been killed and when the Joe Friday character was getting information from a store owner, the owner mentioned that when a cop gets killed, the police appear to work harder to catch the guy. And Friday asked him, “If the killer wasn’t afraid to shoot down an armed cop, why would he not care to shoot down an unarmed citizen?” The show was portrayed in Los Angeles.
rwood
California the master of fail,illegals and taxes.
The new law changes absolutely nothing, for cops or criminals.
Nothing.
It does precisely NOTHING.
But the Dims can claim they “did something”.
And that’s the truth.
I guess there aren’t enough dead police to suit Any Twosome Newsom.
Liberals make laws and police utterly useless. They have no right to govern people and shape our future. Unfortunately, half of this country disagrees.
“Laws very rarely PREVENT any crime. They are used to punish people after they have committed a crime. That’s all.”
Amen, amen!!!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.