[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Bang / Guns Title: California Considering Unprecedented Law Restricting Police Firearm Use California Considering Unprecedented Law Restricting Police Firearm Use
Opening fire should be enforced as the last resort, the bill’s supporters say. By Lydia O’Connor On the heels of police officers shooting a young, unarmed black man to death in Sacramento, California, last month, state lawmakers announced a first-of-its- kind bill on Monday that raises the standard for when officers may open fire. The proposed legislation would change the guidance in California’s use of force laws so that police may open fire ”‘only when necessary’ rather than ‘when reasonable,’” Sacramento-based Assemblyman Kevin McCarty (D), said at a press conference Tuesday. He co-authored the bill with fellow Democrat Assemblywoman Shirley Weber with support from the American Civil Liberties Union and fellow members of the California Legislative Black Caucus. They were joined at Tuesday’s press conference with Sacramento leaders from the NAACP and the Black Lives Matter movement, along with the grandfather of 22-year-old Stephon Clark, last month’s shooting victim.
“We should no longer be the target practice of a ‘shoot first, ask questions later’ police force,” Assemblyman Christopher Holden (D) said, before listing the names of several other unarmed black victims of police shootings. BE THE FIRST TO KNOW DOWNLOAD The legislation is aimed at tackling the reality, as seen in studies, that police kill unarmed black men at disproportionate rates compared to unarmed white men. Supporters of the bill hope raising the standard for when lethal force is permitted will encourage officers to make de-escalation their first line of defense. The current standard comes from an “over-100-year-old law that too often justifies deadly force incidents,” McCarty said. In the weeks since Clark’s death, McCarty’s district has been stormed by protestors furious about the emerging details surrounding the shooting. Upward of 300 demonstrators gathered in Sacramento last Friday after an autopsy revealed the young father was shot at least seven times in the back in his own backyard. “It’s clear that the current law protects the police, not the people,” ACLU legislative advocate Lizzie Buchen said at Tuesday’s announcement as activists recounted similar shooting incidents involving police. Weber is confident the state can pave the way on this issue. “If California can’t do it,” she asked, “who can?” Poster Comment: Good plan, the first rational law by the progressives in a long time, ---- about gun use.. Far to many cops are cowboys, eager to use their weapons. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest It will last until they lose a bunch of officers. Hesitation and seconded guessing will lead to officers dying. How about just making less laws so officers can deal with real crime?
#2. To: tpaine (#0) The legislation is aimed at tackling the reality, as seen in studies, that police kill unarmed black men at disproportionate rates compared to unarmed white men. This may be a slanted claim. The reality is that urban areas have disproportionately higher black populations. Does anyone contest that? Whatever the reason I believe it's true. And it's also true that urban areas have the highest crime, so I would expect urban areas therefore to have the highest rates of police shootings. So to measure things fairly, you need to look at the black/white police shooting victim rates in comparison with the black/white population rates where the shootings occur. There may well still be racial profiling, but it's certainly not fair to compare national racial stats with national police shootings and conclude there is profiling, if most shootings are in urban areas where blacks make up a higher percentage of the population. When people are packed into cities, crime will go up no matter what race they are.
#3. To: Justified (#1) Good plan, the first rational law by the progressives in a long time, ---- about gun use.. Far to many cops are cowboys, overly eager to use their weapons. I see a lot of cowboy shootings, very few where officers die from hesitating. I've got no problem with them drawing their guns, but being so quick on the trigger needs some change..
#4. To: Pinguinite (#2) This may be a slanted claim. Yep, I agree it is.. But race aside, cops are a bit too eager to blast away for my comfort.
#5. To: tpaine (#3) I think the problem is officers are ask to do too much and the tactics that save their life will cause officer to act fast. Done over and over these actions are going to cause premature discharge. Really its comes down to officers are ask to do too much and the statics are in the favor someone getting killed. If you demand officer to slow down the statics will push back to were officers are killed more. In the end its the fact that we should not ask officer to do so much bring down the odds of something bad happen. Its about the destruction of society by the progressives to make it impossible for officer to do their job with out great harm.
#6. To: tpaine, Pinguinite (#4) cops are a bit too eager to blast away for my comfort. I disagree. I think they are terrified which cause them to act fast or die(or greatly harmed). How did we in the old days have so little problem with so few officers? To me it keeps coming back to we ask them to do too many things which require more officers which means we will get unqualified officer in the field because we need numbers on the street.
#7. To: Justified, tpaine (#6) I think they are terrified which cause them to act fast or die(or greatly harmed). No, cops are clearly not "terrified". If they truly were that, they would simply not be able to ever function as cops day in and day out. No one would be able to put up with going to do a job that terrifies them day in and day out. But they are constantly armed, and deeply trained and reminded very frequently about how failing to instantly shoot at the first sign that a target may be a threat makes them, for lack of a better word "trigger happy" though I would not say "happy" enters into the equation. Certainly some cops are, as I'm confident the infamous "simon-says" cop was. And certainly some cops have survived hostile encounters because of that training. But what I would like to see is a statistical count of the number of cops that killed people who were not threats at all vs the number of cops that were killed in hostile encounters. I suspect that ratio is very lopsided against innocent civs, but I'd like to see the stats.
#8. To: Justified, tpaine (#6) How did we in the old days have so little problem with so few officers? To me it keeps coming back to we ask them to do too many things In the old days, local cops had their "beat" which was their section of the city or town they patrolled. They knew the people who lived there and what they were like, and those people knew the cops. The cops also knew when someone didn't belong. With that knowledge and understanding of the community, cops knew who was a threat and who wasn't. With more time comes more bureaucracy and laws and cops now have to enforce more edicts, like shutting down lemonade stands by 3rd graders and yard sales lacking a permit, and confiscating money from people for not wearing a seatbelt or speeding somewhat, so they deal with less real crime and no longer represent protection, but rather become the symbol of big brother government who more often than not, mean bad news for anyone they have dealings with. And that bad chemistry means cops will have less inhibition about reaching for a gun.
#9. To: Pinguinite (#2) When people are packed into cities, crime will go up no matter what race they are.
East St Louis IL => pop - 26,672; murder rate 100.9/100K Gary IN => pop - 74,186,; murder rate - 60.1/100K San Jose CA => pop - 1,025,373; murder rate - 4.5/100K San Diego CA => pop - 1,381,069; murder rate - 3.5/100K _________________________________ Source: city-data.com
#10. To: Pinguinite (#7) No, cops are clearly not "terrified". You do not have to be terrified all the time. Just in a really bad situations. Like wars officers are bored 90% of the time and that 10% is where all the training comes to bear. That 10% can be shear terror. Remember police are called to a place where someone is having their worst day ever and some of these people are pure shit for human beings(human animals). Truth is how often does an officer shoot an unarmed person anyway? Of those that are shoot how many where attacking the officer? To me people are always saying its the officers fault when in my mind I see most of these problems coming from nanny state where officers are always having to deal with stupid stuff not really part of dealing with real criminals. Because we require so much of them that there isn't enough good officers and government is forced to hire anyone with a pulse. These tend to be the officers that causing all the problems. So is it the officer problem or a over burdensome government who can't find enough qualified officers the problem? I say its the governments fault.
#11. To: Pinguinite (#7) I would like to see is a statistical count of the number of cops that killed people who were not threats at all vs the number of cops that were killed in hostile encounters. Me too...
#12. To: tpaine (#0) Give them pop guns to use against the multitudinous gaggle of imbecilic monkeys.
How scary it is for a policeman to stop a car on the highway at night. He doesn't know what's hunched over that steering wheel, or if he'll get home tonight. Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|