California Move to Restrict Deadly Force

Discussion of other state's CHL's & reciprocity

Moderators: Keith B, carlson1

Post Reply

Topic author
chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3571
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

California Move to Restrict Deadly Force

#1

Post by chasfm11 » Tue May 21, 2019 1:02 pm

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?
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dum Spiro, Spero


crazy2medic
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1612
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:59 am

Re: California Move to Restrict Deadly Force

#2

Post by crazy2medic » Tue May 21, 2019 2:09 pm

Well that will most likely make some hesitate and get some officers killed!
Government, like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master
If you ain't paranoid you ain't paying attention


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3849
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: California Move to Restrict Deadly Force

#3

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Tue May 21, 2019 2:12 pm

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.
Ding dong, the witch is dead


OneGun
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 805
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:22 am
Location: Houston

Re: California Move to Restrict Deadly Force

#4

Post by OneGun » Tue May 21, 2019 2:16 pm

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.
Annoy a Liberal, GET A JOB!


RottenApple
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 3:19 pm

Re: California Move to Restrict Deadly Force

#5

Post by RottenApple » Tue May 21, 2019 2:39 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 2:12 pm
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.
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.


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3849
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: California Move to Restrict Deadly Force

#6

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Tue May 21, 2019 3:02 pm

RottenApple wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 2:39 pm
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 2:12 pm
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.
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.
Ding dong, the witch is dead


DynamicDan
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:07 pm

Re: California Move to Restrict Deadly Force

#7

Post by DynamicDan » Tue May 21, 2019 4:08 pm

Well it is LA LA land.

User avatar

bbhack
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:34 pm
Location: San Antonio Area

Re: California Move to Restrict Deadly Force

#8

Post by bbhack » Tue May 21, 2019 10:58 pm

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.
No Trespassing Violators Will Be Prosecuted

User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 5050
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: California Move to Restrict Deadly Force

#9

Post by Jusme » Wed May 22, 2019 5:55 am

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
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second :rules: :patriot:

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 25107
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: California Move to Restrict Deadly Force

#10

Post by The Annoyed Man » 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.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy
My dream is to have lived my life so well that future generations of leftists will demand my name be removed from buildings.

User avatar

anygunanywhere
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 7357
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:16 am
Location: La Grange, Texas

Re: California Move to Restrict Deadly Force

#11

Post by anygunanywhere » Wed May 22, 2019 2:10 pm

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.
"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: Its patriotism, Its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within." Joseph Stalin

Post Reply

Return to “Other States”