TexasCHLforum.com

https://youramerica.news/2019/05/20/cal ... r-on-cops/

I'm not at all surprised at either the bill or the State in which it is being pursued.

I have a number of personal thoughts about this but want to see the conversation develop a bit first.

What say you?

Well that will most likely make some hesitate and get some officers killed!

On the surface, this doesn't seem too bad. After all, as a private citizen I would hope that I would only use deadly force if it is "necessary" to save the lives of myself or someone else. Imposing this same standard does not seem like "declaring war on cops". That said, I am not a lawyer, so I don't know the practical implications of this legal standard. It seems like LE should have a similar standard as private citizens, maybe a bit more stringent since LE has been vetted and trained more than your average Joe citizen, and again, the "necessary" standard seems to be in line with the requirements on me regarding the use of deadly force. But there may very well be something that I am missing here.

For example, if I wake up at 3 AM to the sound of glass breaking and turn the corner to see a man in my house, I would think that would meet the "necessary" standard. If it does not, then I agree that this standard is overly strict.

Also the title of the article makes it pretty clear that the author has some bias here.

So, what person would want to be a law enforcement officer in California now? These legislators may as well just take the guns away from law enforcement. These legislators are stupid to think they can armchair quarterback the decisions officers have to make in a split second with normally less than perfect information.

This legislation will get people killed.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 2:12 pmFor example, if I wake up at 3 AM to the sound of glass breaking and turn the corner to see a man in my house, I would think that would meet the "necessary" standard. If it does not, then I agree that this standard is overly strict.

I may be wrong, but the way I read it is that unless deadly force has or is about to be used against an officer (i.e. - the suspect has already fired or is pointing a gun at the cop), then deadly force is not "necessary". So in your scenario above, if you did not see that man with a gun in his hand pointed at you, then you'd be charged. If you say him with "something" in his hand, and you fired, and it later turned out it was a cell phone or something similar, you'd be charged.

This is going to be bad law if it gets that far.

RottenApple wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 2:39 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 2:12 pmFor example, if I wake up at 3 AM to the sound of glass breaking and turn the corner to see a man in my house, I would think that would meet the "necessary" standard. If it does not, then I agree that this standard is overly strict.

I may be wrong, but the way I read it is that unless deadly force has or is about to be used against an officer (i.e. - the suspect has already fired or is pointing a gun at the cop), then deadly force is not "necessary". So in your scenario above, if you did not see that man with a gun in his hand pointed at you, then you'd be charged. If you say him with "something" in his hand, and you fired, and it later turned out it was a cell phone or something similar, you'd be charged.

This is going to be bad law if it gets that far.

I suspected it might be something along those lines. If that's the definition of "necessary" then I agree that this is a terrible standard.

Well it is LA LA land.

Did not read the article, but it seems that less-than-lethal force needs to be very much more effective and foolproof. And less-than-lethal should not mean less-than-really-hurt.

Another proposal to move this country, closer to the UK style of law enforcement. Police are trained, in de-escalation techniques, but split second descisions, regarding use of force, are a fact of life. The majority, of these cases, are proven to be justified, and "necessary"
We only hear about the few cases, where that is disputed. When those who are not tasked, with the job of a LEO, want to be the puppet masters, nothing good can come from it. JMHO

This law will produce several effects.

1. A significant number of the existing force will either change careers, or take LEO jobs in other, more rational states.

2. Only those currently employed officers who swallow the leftist coolaid will continue to work in law enforcement, as they will buy this crap hook, line, and sinker.

3. LEO recruitment will fall, and agencies will have to reduce standards to attract the kind of people who will put up with this crap.

4. Crime will go up.

5. Large swathes of area will become no-go zones to both LEOs and outsiders.

6. Eventually, the pendulum will swing the other way, and these under-qualified officers will be given Gestapo-like powers to enforce the will of the state.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 2:00 pm This law will produce several effects.

1. A significant number of the existing force will either change careers, or take LEO jobs in other, more rational states.

2. Only those currently employed officers who swallow the leftist coolaid will continue to work in law enforcement, as they will buy this crap hook, line, and sinker.

3. LEO recruitment will fall, and agencies will have to reduce standards to attract the kind of people who will put up with this crap.

4. Crime will go up.

5. Large swathes of area will become no-go zones to both LEOs and outsiders.

6. Eventually, the pendulum will swing the other way, and these under-qualified officers will be given Gestapo-like powers to enforce the will of the state.

Sounds like a history lesson.