California advances biggest change to police use of force – Police spokesman: ‘A radical departure from criminal and constitutional law’

Assemblywoman Shirley Weber listens as members of the public speak in support of her bill to limit police use of deadly force, at the Capitol Tuesday, June 19, 2018, in Sacramento, Calif. California senators are advancing a first-in-the-nation bill to significantly change the standards for when police can open fire, acting after an emotion-charged debate over killings that have recently roiled the country. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)

By SOPHIA BOLLAG and DON THOMPSON,  Associated Press  SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) 06/20 — California would lead the U.S. in significantly changing the standard for when police can fire their weapons under legislation that cleared its first hurdle Tuesday after an emotionally charged debate over deadly shootings that have roiled the country.

It’s time to change a “reasonable force” standard that hasn’t been updated in California since 1872, making it the nation’s oldest unchanged use-of-force law, said Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, a San Diego Democrat who introduced the measure.

“It must be guided by the goals of safeguarding human life,” she said.

A state Senate committee advanced the legislation that would allow police to use deadly force only in situations where it is necessary to prevent imminent and serious injury or death to the officer or another person.

Now, California’s standard makes it rare for officers to be charged after a shooting and rarer still for them to be convicted. Frequently it’s because of the doctrine of “reasonable fear”: if prosecutors or jurors believe that officers have a reason to fear for their safety, police can use deadly force.

Rosa Cabrera, foreground, joined others in support of a measure to limit police use of deadly force, during a hearing of the Senate Public Safety Committee, Tuesday, June 19, 2018, in Sacramento, Calif. The committee approved the bill by Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, and sent it to another committee.(AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)

 

Law enforcement lobbyists said the stricter standard could make officers hesitant to approach suspects out of fear their actions could be second-guessed.

Democrats on the committee acknowledged that officers have difficult and dangerous jobs but argued the bill would make everyone safer by promoting de-escalation and fostering trust between police and people of color.

“It always blows me away when law enforcement only fear for their life only when they’re facing black and brown people,” said Democratic Sen. Steven Bradford of Gardena, who is black. “We don’t have a problem with law enforcement, we’ve got a problem with racism.”

Dozens of advocates lined up to list the names of young men killed by police across California, including Stephon Clark, who was shot this year when Sacramento officers say they mistook his cellphone for a handgun. The shooting sparked protests, and a prosecutor says it may be months before her office decides if police broke the law.

It comes as police killings of black men have stirred upheaval nationwide.

David Mastagni, a lobbyist for the California Peace Officers Association, said the proposed language creates “a hindsight, second-guessing game that puts not only the officers at danger but puts the public at danger as well.”

Randy Perry, representing several rank-and-file police unions that encompass 90,000 officers, called it “a radical departure from criminal and constitutional law.”

Critics could almost always argue that deadly force wasn’t necessary because officers could have considered alternatives such as “tactical repositioning,” which Perry called “a euphemism for retreat.”

Republican Sen. Jeff Stone of Temecula, the only senator on the committee who spoke in opposition, said the measure could stop people from becoming police officers and deter officers from responding to calls for help.

Democratic Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara pointed to “troubling” statistics about California’s high incidence of police shootings and the disproportionate use of force against black men.

She and fellow Democrat Scott Wiener of San Francisco said they believe the changes clarify when police can use lethal force and adequately address concerns raised by law enforcement opponents.

“We all agree that we don’t want to put police officers in harm’s way, but we also don’t want to put the public in harm’s way,” Jackson said.

The measure now heads to another committee.

https://www.apnews.com/69515bd71c8e4e13b40f750a919ec65a/California-advances-biggest-US-change-to-police-use-of-force

Copyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Posted in: Legislation, Non-Lethal Alternatives, Officer Safety, Police, Policies & Practices, Public Safety, Racial Issues, Use of Deadly Force

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

eight + 11 =

Terms of Use for Posting Comments

Terms of Use

This site (the “Site”) is operated and maintained by Law Enforcement Education Foundation, Corporation (“Company”). Throughout the Site, the terms “we”, “us” and “our” refer to Company.  The words “user,” “you” and “your” as used herein refer to you.

Please read these terms and conditions of use (“Terms of Use”) carefully before contributing content. If you do not agree to these Terms of Use, please do not contribute content. Your use of the Site is subject to the Terms and Conditions found here .

By contributing content to the Site, you represent and warrant that you are at least eighteen (18) years old and that you have read and understand these Terms of Use and any amendments thereto and agree to be bound by them. If you are not at least eighteen (18) years old or you do not agree and accept these Terms of Use, you are prohibited from contributing content.

From time to time, we may permit users to submit content to the Site.  You hereby acknowledge and agree that by submitting remarks, comments, suggestions, ideas, graphics, feedback, edits, concepts, comments, photographs, illustrations and other materials (other than personal information and/or registration information) through the Site (individually and collectively, “Submissions”), you (i) grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, transferable, irrevocable and fully sub-licensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, translate, distribute, publish, create derivative works from and publicly display and perform such Submissions throughout the world in any media, now known or hereafter created, without attribution to you; (ii) grant us the right to pursue at law any person or entity that violates your and/or our rights in your Submissions; and (iii) forever waive any and all of your rights, including but not limited to moral rights, if any, in and to your Submissions, including, without limitation, any all rights or requirements of attribution or identification of you as the author of the Submission or any derivative thereof.  We reserve the right to remove any of your Submissions from the Site, in whole or in part, without notice to you, for any reason or no reason.

Submissions are made voluntarily. Any submissions which include personally identifiable information are subject to our Privacy Policy found here .  You may not upload or otherwise publish content on the Site that (i) is confidential to you or any third party; (ii) is untrue, inaccurate, false or other than an original work of your authorship; (iii) that relates to or impersonates any other person; (iv) violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property rights of any person or entity; (v) contains any content, personally identifiable information or other information, or materials of any kind that relate or refer to any other person or entity other than the provider of the products, goods or services to which the Submission relates; or (vi) violates any law, or in any manner infringes or interferes with the rights of others, including but not limited to the use of names, information, or materials that (A) libel, defame, or invade the privacy of any third party, (B) are obscene or pornographic, (C) are harmful, threatening, offensive, abusive, harassing, vulgar, false or inaccurate, racially, sexually, ethnically or are otherwise objectionable or otherwise contrary to the laws of any place where such Submissions may be accessed; (D) constitute personal attacks on other individuals; (E) promote criminal, immoral or illegal activity; (F) promote or advertise any person, product or service or solicit funds; or (G) are deemed confidential by any contract or policy.

You are solely responsible for any Submissions you make and their accuracy. We take no responsibility and assume no liability for any Submissions posted by you or any third party.

Unless approved by us in writing in advance, you agree not to: (i) provide or create a link to the Site; or (ii) create any frames at any other sites pertaining to any of the content located on the Site.

We reserve the right, in our discretion, to update, change or replace any part of these Terms of Use for Posting Comments by posting updates and/or changes to our Site.  It is your responsibility to check this page periodically for changes.  Your continued use of, and/or access to the Site, following the posting of any changes to these Terms of Use for Posting Comments, constitutes your acceptance of those changes.