California takes steps to prevent the police from shooting people.

You can't make this up.
"California Governor Signs Law to Limit Shootings by Police"
"California is changing its standards for when police can kill under a law signed Monday by Gov. Gavin Newsom, as it tries to deter police shootings of young minority men that have roiled the nation".

Is there no end to California's stupidity?
Safe to say the Governors security force will now go unarmed?

 

I wasn't able to locate your link, found this though: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...nia-law-raises-standard-use-force/2054368001/

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday signed Assembly Bill 392, which changes the standard for police officers’ justified use of deadly force from instances when it’s “reasonable’’ to when it’s “necessary.’’​

I see no meaningful distinction. Who in their right minds wants police officers to use deadly force unnecessarily?

 

STOP or I'll shoot. I really mean it this time. I said STOP or I'll shoot. I really really mean it this time. STOP or I'll shoot. I really really really mean it this time. STOP or Oh F it have a nice day....

 

Sorry, about the link. I thought I included it in the opening sentence.

https://www.kcra.com/article/california-governor-gavin-newsom-ab-392-police-use-of-force/28749198

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/california-governor-to-sign-law-to-limit-shootings-by-police

 

No worries. What meaningful distinction do you find between "reasonable" and "necessary"?

 

The officers life.

 

Sadly, enough Cops played "Crybaby" to take the real teeth out of the bill.

Next, it is time to crack down on the Cops who shake down women for sex during traffic stops.

I suppose the Cops would oppose that, too?

They wouldn't want to lose one of their main "fringe benefits".

 

Yet several police agencies said the new law, which replaces one passed in 1872, simply codifies policies already used in major California cities that emphasize de-escalation.

In other words....nothing changed.

 

If a cop is worried about his life he should quit being a cop.

 

How can the officer's life be in danger and it not necessary to use deadly force?

 

Message to California Police officers.
Stay safe - avoid conflict - let me know who has the best donuts.

Let the tent people shyt on City Hall.
If Newsom gets re-elected I would be shocked.
I don’t even think the Calif left wing loons can support Newsom anymore.

 

Its against the law for cops to pressure women for sex

And also against the law for women to offer sex in exchange for not getting a ticket

Most women wont do that and most cops dont either

But when they do they should be punished if caught

 

Among the people I work with, when someone wants to commit suicide by cop the choice comes down to choose between non lethal and lethal force. Sounds like a simple choice until the individual has a hostage or comes at you with a knife or gun in hand.

 

That explains our difference of opinion. In my opinion, if someone is holding a hostage and then attacks a police officer with a knife or a gun, it is necessary to shoot him and it is also my opinion that this will be the finding of the jury.

 

If criminals are worried about their lives they should stop committing crimes.

Bet that would never have occurred to you.

 

55 officers were killed by “felonious acts” in 2018 vs 1,165 citizens killed.

 

The problem is you don’t have to be committing any crime to have a deadly interaction with police, you could for instance be crawling down the hallway wrong.

If it was just criminals meeting their end most people wouldn’t shed a tear but our police have turned into a military like force treating citizens like enemy combatants.

 

The old law decades ago of "the least force necessary to compel compliance with police orders" is sufficient to all situations.

 

Yeah the question is more, what are they asking them to stop doing.

Here's one thing about being a cop you may not have accepted but it's a truth. If you become a cop, your job is to protect and serve. Do you know what happens to people sometimes who swear to protect and serve? Sometimes, they die. So the notion that cops aren't risking their lives is foolish. Heroes die, that's the nature of it. If you want to treat them like heroes, then they have to accept all that comes with it.

On the other hand, if they are trained professionals who do their jobs, than like all trained professionals, most of which aren't heroes, then follow the rules of their jobs. And given that a rule says deadly force only when necessary, that makes sense to anyone who thinks about it rationally.

 

You are operating under the assumption that a jury will acquit you in both a criminal AND a civil trial.
You never want to face a jury.

 

I have no idea what that statistic means. Are you complaining about 55 officers dead or the poor 1,165 people dead? Hopefully, you understand the officers roll in enforcing the law but somehow I am inclined to believe otherwise.

 

Doesn't sound like you trust the jury system.
Do you think humans are capable of self-rule or must they administered to by their betters to ensure they don't fall into foolishness?

 

The statistics were meant to highlight that pulling a gun doesn’t need to be an officers first response to a situation unless their life is in imminent danger. Anything that can be done to lower both of those numbers is a worthy cause.

I am not complaining about anything, just providing data. Seems some of you have an issue telling the two apart.

 

I will say this in the calmest terms I can muster, NEVER PUT YOUR TRUST IN A JURY. Most lawyers and judges I know would give you that same answer.

 

Lawyers hate juries. A lawyer can be giving a masterful presentation, while one juror has already made up his/her mind from the newspapers she is not supposed to read, another is thinking about the garden and the dogs next door tearing it up while s/he is at court, and the third juror doesn't like the attorney based on his haircut. Juries are the worst.