In response to the April 3rd, 2018  shooting of Stephon Clark in Sacramento, California lawmakers are proposing a bill that will create new standards for police use of deadly force. Under this proposed law, a police shooting is only justified if the force used was "necessary force" (meaning that de-escalation techniques either failed or are impractical). If an officer's use of force does not follow this standard, they will be disciplined, fired, or even charged with a crime.

Thoughts?

Sources:http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/04/03/california-eyes-lethal-force-law-after-shootings-by-police/

                https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/10/california-police-chiefs-denounce-proposed-use-of-force-legislation/

                http://www.capradio.org/articles/2018/04/03/california-eyes-lethal-force-law-after-shootings-by-police/

                http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-california-lethal-force-law-20180403-story.html

Edited April 17, 20187 yr by Westcoaster
O instead of A

Was that young man innocent and standing on his porch holding his phone when he was shot?, mistaken identity during a foot pursuit?. Or did he run to his own backyard and was a suspect?. I have seen video and everyone is all over the place telling me different things.

Sounds good to me, depending on the case. De-escalation and non-lethal techniques should always be a priority before resorting to deadly force.

 

I like California.

Is that like the only rule that is provided to police officers for the use of deadly force? Let me tell you when the police here (Netherlands) are allowed to use their weapon:

• To arrest a person on whom is reasonable suspicion that he is carrying a for-instant-use (so, loaded etc.) firearm and that he will use this against people (be it a police officer or a bystander
• To arrest a person who is actively resisting arrest and who is suspected or sentenced for committing a crime that goes with 1. More than 4 years of prison. 2. that is a great danger to someone bodily integrity (So rape, trying to run someone over with a car, anything that is able to gravely harm someone.) or 3. That is a danger for society (I imagine the lawmakers mean a terrorist that is fleeing and dropped his gun already. You don't want him to get away in any possible way. That terrorist qualifies for 1. though anyway.
• Only on persons or vehicles in or on which there are persons.

 

And then they even make an exception: 

In case the police officers know the identity of a suspect, they are not allowed to shoot him in the leg unless he is a danger to society when he is not being arrested at that exact time.

 

 

I think this gives proper benchmarks with plenty of freedom for officers to choose, but also to make sure they don't turn into triggerhappy people.

 

To conclude:

Necessary force sounds better than reasonable force. Necessary leaves less to interpretation if you ask me.

This is going to change nothing. They know legislation that specifically tells cops when they can use deadly force, won't get passed, so they did this instead. Which makes the politicians involved look good, and makes it seem like there's change going on. But this bill has no meat to it.

 

The legislation would change the standard from using “reasonable force” to “necessary force.”

That means officers would be allowed to shoot only if “there were no other reasonable alternatives to the use of deadly force” to prevent imminent serious injury or death.

 

It's just semantics. If an officer feels it was reasonable to use deadly force, then they'll already feel it was impractical to use other methods first, hence them using deadly force.  It's the same use of force law, with an extra step in their reports. They'll just have to add an extra detail about why other tools where impractical to use in that situation. It won't encourage the use of less lethal weapons anymore than actually telling them to use those tools when it's practical to do so.

 

Necessary forces leaves the same amount to interpretation. An officer just has to interpret why they felt it was necessary, as opposed to reasonable. This bill changes nothing, but its real goal is working lol

Edited April 18, 20187 yr by Black Jesus

Prepare to have a mass exodus of cops from California.

 

Stupid.

3 hours ago, Black Jesus said:

This is going to change nothing. They know legislation that specifically tells cops when they can use deadly force, won't get passed, so they did this instead. Which makes the politicians involved look good, and makes it seem like there's change going on. But this bill has no meat to it.

 

Alright, I can agree to that.

 

42 minutes ago, TylerF said:

Prepare to have a mass exodus of cops from California.

 

Stupid.

 

I disagree, this bill shouldn't make their job any more dangerous than it already is. It just tries to force cops to use other methods on the force spectrum first. I have seen quite many videos in which cops shoot at people that walk around angrily with a bat and all of a sudden attack the officer. What they should do, whilst the guy is still walking around angrily is either pepperspray or taser him first. If there's a K9, use that. Keep a nice distance and use your voice to talk him down. You should only shoot when your life is in direct danger, so when someone is 10 meters away from you trying to hit you with a bat, it's not really life-threatening YET. Bats are only useful short-range so I'd then choose to shoot when he is like 3 meters away, 5 if he is running towards me. First legs, if no success, go for torso. That's usually how Dutch police do it and it seems to work pretty well.

3 hours ago, TylerF said:

Prepare to have a mass exodus of cops from California.

 

Stupid.

 

You can pass as much legislation as you like, but you can't force people to work under it.

26 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

You can pass as much legislation as you like, but you can't force people to work under it.

I think you meant to reply to Antia.

Edited April 17, 20187 yr by Westcoaster

On 4/16/2018 at 9:09 PM, GTALawEnforcer said:

Was that young man innocent and standing on his porch holding his phone when he was shot?, mistaken identity during a foot pursuit?. Or did he run to his own backyard and was a suspect?. I have seen video and everyone is all over the place telling me different things.

The police were looking for a suspect who was breaking into car windows and running into backyards. A helicopter from the Sheriff's Department was already tracking the suspect, the pilots radioing the officers that he shattered a  window with a toolbar, ran to Clark's grandmother's front yard, and then looked into an adjacent car. They then went to the front yard where Clark fled as he was spotted. Police believed that he was the suspect. There was a short chase into the backyard and the officers ordered him to show his hands while yelling something about a gun in Clark's hands. Finally, the officers fired 20 shots, hitting Clark 8 times. Six were in the back, two were in the front. The object that the officers thought was a gun was an iPhone.

Edited April 19, 20187 yr by Westcoaster
Got a minor detail wrong

20 times. 

 

Lol.

10 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

You can pass as much legislation as you like, but you can't force people to work under it.

Of course not. If they wanna leave their job for this, they can go ahead. I just think cops won't leave their job for something this minor. They'd leave when they have to give up their guns or when only special teams get to carry firearms, but not for this.

7 hours ago, Antia said:

Of course not. If they wanna leave their job for this, they can go ahead. I just think cops won't leave their job for something this minor. They'd leave when they have to give up their guns or when only special teams get to carry firearms, but not for this.

 

This legislation can be the difference between an officer firing to save his/her life and the life of another person, or holding back in fear of legal repercussions and being killed or allowing someone else to be killed. I can't speak on behalf of any LEO's that we may have here, but I don't think this is something that would help make the decision to pull the trigger any easier for officers. It would certainly deter a lot of officers from working under such micro-managed circumstances. Officers in California probably expect this type of crap regardless, so I don't think they'll lose anybody.

7 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

This legislation can be the difference between an officer firing to save his/her life and the life of another person, or holding back in fear of legal repercussions and being killed or allowing someone else to be killed. I can't speak on behalf of any LEO's that we may have here, but I don't think this is something that would help make the decision to pull the trigger any easier for officers. It would certainly deter a lot of officers from working under such micro-managed circumstances. Officers in California probably expect this type of crap regardless, so I don't think they'll lose anybody.

I don't think this is micromanaged though. It's micromanagement when every possible scenario is written out with instructions on how to use their weapons. Not any officer will not fire his gun in order to save someones or his life. Saving someone's life sounds like 'necessary force' to me. Personally I think police in the US in general are quite quick to pull the trigger in comparison to other civilized western countries in the world. I also think that emptying the entire magazine is little bit overkilling. So tweaking the rules here and there a little bit isn't bad at all.

 

This bill will not change anything to the situations in which it's 100% clear the officer had to shoot. It's focusing on the grey area between a clear lethal-situation and a clear non-lethal situation.

3 minutes ago, Antia said:

I don't think this is micromanaged though. It's micromanagement when every possible scenario is written out with instructions on how to use their weapons. Not any officer will not fire his gun in order to save someones or his life. Saving someone's life sounds like 'necessary force' to me.

 

Passing legislation such as this will probably deter officers from shooting altogether. You believe that saving a life is considered necessary force, but to what extent can the force be taken to? That's where the hesitation will probably come into play when an officer has to decide on pulling the trigger. 

Quote

This bill will not change anything to the situations in which it's 100% clear the officer had to shoot. It's focusing on the grey area between a clear lethal-situation and a clear non-lethal situation.

The bill will not change anything, period. The intentions are good, but I'd refer you back to what  @Black Jesus posted. It's only a move to give society a feeling of progression within the system.

Quote

Personally I think police in the US in general are quite quick to pull the trigger in comparison to other civilized western countries in the world. I also think that emptying the entire magazine is little bit overkilling. So tweaking the rules here and there a little bit isn't bad at all.

It's quite obvious why Police in the US are quicker to pull the trigger in comparison to other countries. They die at alarmingly higher rates here in the US than other "civilized" countries, and they're more likely to be shot at. Sometimes it takes an entire magazine to neutralize your target. This isn't a video game where one or two shots equals a death.

 

1 hour ago, TheDivineHustle said:

It's quite obvious why Police in the US are quicker to pull the trigger in comparison to other countries. They die at alarmingly higher rates here in the US than other "civilized" countries, and they're more likely to be shot at. Sometimes it takes an entire magazine to neutralize your target. This isn't a video game where one or two shots equals a death.

 

Why though? Why do American police officers die more than police officers of other countries?

 

About the shooting part: Sure, not every shot means death, but shooting 20 rounds and only hitting 8 (60% missed!!) sounds more like reckless shooting somewhere in the direction of the suspect instead of being aware of what you're actually doing. I know I know, of course you can't expect someone who is under maximum stress to hit every shot, but having a hit chance of only 40% isn't pretty either.

I'm not sure what the fuss is all about... Out here law enforcement must extend every effort to minimize the harm done to the perp under the law. This means guns are the last resort and even then lethal force is only acceptable if no legs/arms shot were possible. 

 

Of course, there is a negative side: cops are somewhat reluctant to use their firearms. as even drawing the gun may be considered unnecessary force by the prosecution. So sometimes they won't do it until it's too late.

 

25 minutes ago, Antia said:

Why though? Why do American police officers die more than police officers of other countries?

 

Gun ownership first comes to mind... Then -- the abundance of gangs and gang members who either think it's cool to shoot cops or who won't go to jail... I'm not sure. In my country shooting cops is a rare and tragic event.

I have to lol when people talk about use of force, laws, and ramifications for use. Just like when departments or cities create "Citizen review boards" for police officers.

 

Also, as far as I can tell, no-one here has really used a handgun, particularly under high stress. Adrenaline is a bitch.

 

It's not like the movies. The real world is messy.

 

I'm a member of verified LE forums. Yes, really, cops will be quitting Cali agencies if this goes through. In some cities where higher levels of force expectations have already been created by department policy, proactive policing has tanked. The same will happen in California. What's the incentive to do your job if you feel every action will possibly be used to get you in trouble? Hyperbole or not, that's how many cops feel about doing their job.

1 hour ago, Antia said:

About the shooting part: Sure, not every shot means death, but shooting 20 rounds and only hitting 8 (60% missed!!) sounds more like reckless shooting somewhere in the direction of the suspect instead of being aware of what you're actually doing. I know I know, of course you can't expect someone who is under maximum stress to hit every shot, but having a hit chance of only 40% isn't pretty either.

It's well known, that in dynamic situations accuracy will go out the window. This is because the target is moving, actively attacking (or you perceive them to be actively attacking you), and you yourself will be on the move and with adrenaline pumping. Most police shootings are defensive situations. Not offensive, where they can prepare how they're going to shoot their target. So 40% is not bad actually, and it's the whole reason cops have 13+ round mags. 

 

It would be reckless if they didn't know where the target was at all, and decided to shoot anyway. But I wouldn't call it reckless if the shoots were all downrange towards their intended target.

Comply and don't die. Only a dumbass runs from the cops and then removes an object from his pocket when they approach. Stupid is as stupid dies. Think i heard that in Tribes in 2001. Still applies.  Now that i know he resisted and ran and was not some innocent young man standing in his backyard i don't feel bad at all. More tax dollars saved as far as i am concerned. 

Edited April 18, 20187 yr by GTALawEnforcer