California considers restricting police firearm use

Mar 2012
57,242
38,798
New Hampshire
#1
On the heels of police officers shooting a young, unarmed black man to death in Sacramento, California, last month, state lawmakers announced a first-of-its-kind bill on Monday that raises the standard for when officers may open fire.

The proposed legislation would change the guidance in California’s use of force laws so that police may open fire ”‘only when necessary’ rather than ‘when reasonable." The legislation is aimed at tackling the reality, as seen in studies, that police kill unarmed black men at disproportionate rates compared to unarmed white men. Supporters of the bill hope raising the standard for when lethal force is permitted will encourage officers to make de-escalation their first line of defense.

“It’s clear that the current law protects the police, not the people,” ACLU legislative advocate Lizzie Buchen said at Tuesday’s announcement as activists recounted similar shooting incidents involving police.

Weber is confident the state can pave the way on this issue.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-police-force-legislation_us_5ac3c013e4b00fa46f872c28
 
Likes: 3 people
Dec 2014
13,860
11,472
NWOHQ
#4
Well, something has to be done to limit the police killings of citizens, but knee-jerk legislation may be more detrimental to law enforcement than protective of the citizenry.

This one would be better addressed through intensive training focussing on defusing a situation through other methods.
 
Likes: 3 people

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
75,768
44,646
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#5
The criminals are just loving this...
Someone's status as a "criminal" - or more likely a suspect in these contexts - does not entitle the police to execute someone and make up the reason afterward. The overwhelming majority of actual criminals - i.e., people convicted of a crime - are subject to jail time, not capital punishment, much less summary execution by the police, something you seem by the above statement to support.

While I am not sure such a linguistic alteration would make much difference, unless "only when necessary" is further defined, it is becoming clear that people need to be protected from the police as much as from criminals. Sure, there are more crimes committed than by police, by far, but when the police do it a personis more likely to end up dead.
 
Likes: 7 people
Oct 2015
8,307
2,698
ohio
#6
Well, something has to be done to limit the police killings of citizens, but knee-jerk legislation may be more detrimental to law enforcement than protective of the citizenry.

This one would be better addressed through intensive training focussing on defusing a situation through other methods.
Why should every police officer be allowed to carry a gun?

Hasn't the whole point of the black lives matter movement been to point out how irresponsible and reckless many police officers are with their weapons?
 
Likes: 1 person
Feb 2016
4,089
687
Yoknapatawpha County
#7
Well, something has to be done to limit the police killings of citizens, but knee-jerk legislation may be more detrimental to law enforcement than protective of the citizenry.

This one would be better addressed through intensive training focussing on defusing a situation through other methods.
....or learning to recognize the difference between cell phones and handguns.
 
Feb 2016
4,089
687
Yoknapatawpha County
#8