Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation on Monday that changed the state’s long-standing use-of-force statute, limiting when police are allowed to use deadly force and holding them liable if that was brought on by an officer’s own actions.
Democratic Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, who co-wrote AB 392 – otherwise known as the California Act to Save Lives, had introduced the bill in the state Senate and stood on the platform alongside Newsom and the families.
California’s use-of-force policy had been in effect since 1872 before the new law was signed Monday, and it had allowed police officers to use deadly force if it was “reasonable.” The new law now requires law enforcement to only use deadly force if and when it becomes “necessary” in order to protect against death or a serious injury.
State legislators and law enforcement officials previously wrangled over the measure’s definition of “necessary” which allowed officers to use deadly force only when there is “no reasonable alternative.” The change of “reasonable” to “necessary” made a way for groups like the California Highway Patrol, Peace Officers Research Association of California, and California State Sheriffs’ Association to not be officially opposed but only neutral to the bill, KSWB reported.
“It’s a false sense of security to those that think this is going to shift the needle,” Plumas County Sheriff’s Deputy Ed Obayashi said.
"Save your bullets and your tear gas for the people. We're going to need them when this rotten government Ponzi scheme comes tumbling down, and we can't keep getting more taxes to keep it teetering upright. If the criminals weaken and kill the people in the meanwhile, it saves us the trouble!".
I can recall the law in Florida for people who are carrying a concealed weapon.
To paraphrase; a weapon can be used if severe bodily harm or death is imminent to yourself or another person.
1. a guy is about to hit you with a swimming pool noodle; don't use a weapon. the noodle cannot cause severe injury or death. 2. a gun is about to hit you with a baseball bat; use a weapon on him is legal. 3. a guy is pointing a gun directly at you, or walks aggressively towards you holding a knife; use a weapon on him is legal. 4. a guy is on top of you smashing the back of your head onto a sidewalk; use a weapon (Trayvon Martin) 5. a guy is about to hit someone next to you with a baseball bat; use a weapon is legal.
"using" a weapon may or may not involve shooting a gun; you can show a guy a gun pointed at him and this may be enough; but shooting him is also a legal use.
I think that law in California is vague and won't be significant; it's a "difference with no distinction" of wording.
Democratic Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, who co-wrote AB 392 – otherwise known as the California Act to Save Lives, had introduced the bill in the state Senate and stood on the platform alongside Newsom and the families.
California’s use-of-force policy had been in effect since 1872 before the new law was signed Monday, and it had allowed police officers to use deadly force if it was “reasonable.” The new law now requires law enforcement to only use deadly force if and when it becomes “necessary” in order to protect against death or a serious injury.
State legislators and law enforcement officials previously wrangled over the measure’s definition of “necessary” which allowed officers to use deadly force only when there is “no reasonable alternative.” The change of “reasonable” to “necessary” made a way for groups like the California Highway Patrol, Peace Officers Research Association of California, and California State Sheriffs’ Association to not be officially opposed but only neutral to the bill, KSWB reported.
“It’s a false sense of security to those that think this is going to shift the needle,” Plumas County Sheriff’s Deputy Ed Obayashi said.
SEE: https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/08/20/california-gov-newsom-limits-use-of-lethal-force-by-police-with-new-law-787669?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=BPR%20Email&utm_campaign=DMS