This is not strictly correct, though there is confusion about the implications of rhe changes that AB392 brought to California law in this regard. The word "necessary " does appear in the law, but in a slightly different context. The wording of several sections is vague enough that even POST is saying that we're gonna have to wait for some case law to clarify the nonsense the legislature wrote....because they refuse to. Sounds swell.
Personally, I think the "Tactical Conduct" part of the law is far more potentially problematic, depending on how its interpreted by the local DA. There is no more "Final Frame" analysis of use of deadly force in California. You can be judged on every action you took in the encounter leading up to the use of force, and that can have an impact on how the use of force itself is judged. Sure, he pulled a gun on you....but your actions leading up to that moment inevitably led to that negative outcome. A lot is going to ride on the judgement of the local DA in this regard. Not a good model, in my opinion.
Formerly known as xpd54.
The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
www.gunsnobbery.wordpress.com
Don't get too comfortable just because you are not in California. Back in June, Kamala Harris stated that “It should not be that when prosecutors bring these cases around the country, the standard of proof is insurmountable because it only asks the question, ‘Was the use of excessive force reasonable,’ instead of what the question should be, which is asking, ‘Was that use of force necessary?’”
Around the same time, other Democrats in Congress were also advocating a change in use of force standards on a nationwide basis: “the standard to evaluate whether law enforcement use of force was justified [should be changed] from whether the force was ‘reasonable’ to whether the force was ‘necessary,’” according to a bill summary by the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco. It would also require “that deadly force be used only as a last resort and requires officers to employ de-escalation techniques first.”
I suspect the California "not just objectively reasonable but also necessary" standard is going to get pushed hard.
Formerly known as xpd54.
The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
www.gunsnobbery.wordpress.com
There are guys at AMC's agency with 8-10 years on just quitting and doing something non-LE related. If Biden-Harris get elected, I know at least one 15 year veteran officer, SWAT cop, great dude at my agency is going to quit and go into the private sector. The turds, however, will stay and take "perimeter positions."
This is correct. We are nominally a 2000+ sworn agency. We have had 100 young guys lateral out, or quit the job entirely, in the last year. There are over 100 currently in backgrounds with other agencies, including those in other states. The only reason the exodus hasn't become a tsunami is that hiring slowed in other places due to covid. They all come to the range to turn in the roscoe before they leave, and I ask them all what their reason for going is. Number 1 is they are afraid to be a cop here. They know its just a roll of the dice who's going to end up fired and broke, or prosecuted. Second and third reasons are cost of living and quality of life, which are astronomical and garbage, respectively.
Whatever works!
-All views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect those of the author's employer-
Why waste the beanbag when the vehicle will do.