Not to put too fine a point on it...CA...WTF?

[blues]

What an inane and utterly impossible-to-follow standard. Reasonableness is used throughout the law precisely because it's an objective overall standard to present to a jury. The phrasing "necessary" implies that there ever IS an objective necessity in situations like these. It entirely disregards the jurisprudential reasons we have a "reasonable" standard in the first place.

As a lawyer, it irritates me. As the brother of a cop, it infuriates me. I don't want to go to my brother's funeral because a legislature did all it could to inject doubt and fear into his defense of his own life. God am I glad not to be in California.

Very well said, LB. There was and is no need to further "refine" the standard of "reasonableness" and the consequences of this uninformed effort may be dire if it is adopted.

[Suvorov]

You guys haven't seen nothing yet! The next round of leadership will make Moonbeam look like Bismark.

California is done. It's over. It really is sad as if it wasn't for the politics of the state it would be paradise.

Sometimes I think my voting strategy needs to change, instead of trying to prevent the collapse of the state, I should try to hasten the day. Perhaps once the state collapses on itself and can no longer support all those who are sucking off of the taxpayers hard work, the leaches will leave for greener pastures and those who are left can try to rebuild with the knowledge of what awaits those who follow the same path again? Unlikely I know but the best chance there is.

[TheNewbie]

It's sad but people flee California and then vote in the same values in their new home. Just like people fleeing Latin America.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=10uX2EhSflA

[critter]

Oh yay. Another stupid Leftist policy that will drive more Californian Leftist out of their state to inflict their stupidity on other peoples.

The Wall should really be built on the Ca border.

Or, we could arm the Rebel Alliance and let them take their damn state back.

[critter]

It's sad but people flee California and then vote in the same values in their new home. Just like people fleeing Latin America.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=10uX2EhSflA

I fled Seattle a decade ago for that very reason. Californians were everywhere spreading their disease.

[Hambo]

Get me out of here!!!

Before you need Snake Plisskin to come and get you.

[Joe in PNG]

Or, we could arm the Rebel Alliance and let them take their damn state back.

What, the people who fled because of the rampant crime, super high cost of living, and oppressive taxes that later decide gun control, more regulations, and more taxes is just what their new home needs?

[critter]

What, the people who fled because of the rampant crime, super high cost of living, and oppressive taxes that later decide gun control, more regulations, and more taxes is just what their new home needs?

Well, there's Suvurov and CS Tactical... They should be able to handle 50 million idiots if we send enough ammo.

[blues]

Well, there's Suvurov and CS Tactical... They should be able to handle 50 million idiots if we send enough ammo.

Only if it's "necessary".

[TGS]

Legal question:

So, I understand that agencies can implement stricter policies than the US Constitutional standard (ex: PERF 30 rules vs the US Constitution).

What if this CA baloney becomes law, and an officer is charged criminally because under their new 20/20 hindsight subjective standard they feel s/he is wrong? Can that officer then appeal all the way up to federal courts and have the law struck down because it is in obvious conflict with the US Constitutional standard, or does some nuance of current case law allow a state to institute a stricter legal (not policy) standard in conflict with Graham v Connor, Garner v TN, et al?