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

[AMC]

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.

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?

I think ultimately it would end up in Federal Court, and eventually SCOTUS, if an officer were convicted criminally using a different standard than Graham, et. al. California is increasingly unconcerned with Federal Law, Supreme Courts precedent, or Constitutional standards, though. Our states ruling Democrat Party is really letting their inner Confederate show lately. We already have policy in my department that explicitly states that it is more restrictive than State Law and SCOTUS case law, and includes language about "minimal force", "proportional force" and other ill advised language that would make a rational city attorney faint dead away....but here, the City Attorney is one of the Chief SJW's, so he feels no fiduciary duty to the taxpayers. On the state level, this is gonna face a firestorm of opposition....not everywhere in California is San Francisco or Berkeley. We'll see if they can gain enough support right now. My own belief is that if current trends continue, you will see a move to disarm police officers in some cities here, and it will likely be successful. No for public safety, of course....but that was never the goal.

[psalms144.1]

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.

Never happen. There's a reason NY leads the country in population loss - but the leeches are not leaving, only the working folks (leaving those stuck behind with ever-increasing tax burdens).

[blues]

Never happen. There's a reason NY leads the country in population loss - but the leeches are not leaving, only the working folks (leaving those stuck behind with ever-increasing tax burdens).

[CraigS]

Apparently these idiots haven't seen the results of a couple of years ago when those kids were killed by cops, the cops started getting blamed for everything, and they naturally stopped policing. When it becomes obvious that your superiors don't have your back, and in fact will sacrifice you to avoid themselves being blamed for policies they enacted, it is no wonder that officers begin to look the other way rather than getting involved.

[Joe in PNG]

Apparently these idiots haven't seen the results of a couple of years ago when those kids were killed by cops, the cops started getting blamed for everything, and they naturally stopped policing. When it becomes obvious that your superiors don't have your back, and in fact will sacrifice you to avoid themselves being blamed for policies they enacted, it is no wonder that officers begin to look the other way rather than getting involved.

Forget Craig, it's California.

[Drang]

Forget Craig, it's California.

[FNFAN]

Are they trying to get cops killed?

I've had conversations with people who basically shrug and say, "hey, they get the public money, nobody forced them to join." Much the same as the people who bitch about LE and Fire retirements. If you want to reduce the public service gene pool to those who will keep a badge for a pittance and a cat food retirement, then don't bitch about the service you get, the burger-flipper level decision-making or be surprised when you have corruption like NOPD had in the 70's and 80's with dozens of officers supplementing their income anyway they could.

[Peally]

Said it before, will say it again.

Fuck California. Fuck it into the ground.

[Hambo]

My own belief is that if current trends continue, you will see a move to disarm police officers in some cities here, and it will likely be successful. No for public safety, of course....but that was never the goal.

Why stop there? With no means to protect themselves they won't need cars to respond. Just have a few officers at the station to take reports. Better yet, get a webmaster and put the report forms online. Of course after the dystopia that follows no police, there won't be a functional government to report crimes to.

[Drang]

Of course after the dystopia that follows no police, there won't be a functional government to report crimes to.

Objection! Stipulates facts not in evidence, i.e., whether they have a functional government now.