2086

So California is taking what I consider a pretty strong step forward on this issue with a new law updating the obselete cowboy era CA law on police use of deadly force. The old law was a Wild West era law that did not require a threat to human life to use deadly force, merely “resistance” to the police, and it also had a very vague “reasonable” standard on the use of deadly force, which meant that CA was not even able to bring charges on some of the recent police shootings.

The new law makes 3 changes, all of which IMO are fairly significant. The first two changes basically brings CA into line with the modern era in the US, and the third change actually pushes CA into what I consider a more progressive overall posture.

First, the law clearly states that deadly force can only be used in defense of human life and makes that both expressed in the law and also clearly defined statutory intent.

Second, the law replaces the old “reasonable” use of force standard with a “necessary” standard for use of deadly force.

Third, the law doesn’t just focus on the instant of pulling the trigger but also looks at the totality of the circumstances, including the actions of the police leading up to the use of deadly forces. That’s actually a big change, and IMO a much-needed one. Progressive activists around the country have pointed out that the current standard of only looking at the very second the trigger is pulled allows police to create, escalate, fail to manage, and other facilitate deadly encounters and then escape liability by claiming “I was afraid for my life”.

Overall, I am fairly pleased with CA for this law.

There is an interesting side note in that although the ACLU and many other civil rights organizations endorsed the new law, the CA chapter of Black Lives Matter withdrew its support late in the process. I read the article on the BLM objections and I have to say I feel like their objections are not that strong. They wanted the definition of “necessary” to include “no reasonable alternatives” and I feel like the legal meaning of the word “necessary” is well established and doesn’t need that extra definition. To me that’s a minor issue. Second, BLM wanted a part of the law that would find manslaughter if the police “negligently” escalated to the use of deadly force. I actually disagree with BLM on this point for 3 reasons: 1)the law as written actually does take into account actions leading up to the use of force, so their desired change is partly redundant; 2)I don’t actually agree with imposing criminal liability for negligence like this - manslaughter is a serious felony, and the law as written covers things IMO; and 3)I think using the criminal law on this specific point is not the best use of the tools available; I think having the law more broadly take into account escalation is the right way to go in the big picture, and in terms of the small picture I would actually prefer CA to work on police training, personnel standards, civilian review boards and so forth, to improve both officer and citizen safety. That is actually an ongoing process right now. The City of Sacramento is in the process of making a bunch of changes in response to the unnecessary shooting of Stephon Clark, and other parts of CA are also working on these things. It’s also my understating that the CA legislature has other bills pending on the issues of police training, police personnel standards, and civilian review.

Anyway, I feel like CA is making progress here.

2087

Indeed, this is the sort of legislation we need other states to take up in order to begin to roll back the current state of abusive law enforcement.

2088

I’ll save my praise for when the law is put to the test, to see how it holds up. I will give them credit for trying at least, and we all know addressing the cultural and recruiting problems within the police will take generations to change.

2089

The TV News story I saw regarding the law actually thought it didn’t go far enough and that it would still lead to abuses. I guess it would be up to the courts to decide what the real meanings of certain words meant. They would also have find against the police in most cases. I don’t see that happening.

2090

Does this EVER actually hurt the police? Do they take pay cuts, have lowered pensions? Or does that cost just go to the taxpayers?

2091

The taxpayers is where the ultimate authority (and thus, blame) lies. We hire these people, fund them, and allow them to operate. It’s our responsibility to fix it when it goes wrong.

2092

I feel like we don’t have the power to do that thanks to psycho republicans, racists, and the police union.

2093

Step One: Vote out the Republicans.

2094

Psycho Republicans are part of the “we”, sadly.

At least until the populace comes to its senses and proclaims me God-Emperor, and I ban voting in the southern states.

2095

You have my vote!

2096

You also have my vote!

At least, until you ban it. -signed, Sadly living in a Southern (bonkers) state

2097

The individual cops? Seems not so much and especially when justice takes so long. East Cleveland is an impoverished neighborhood of Cleveland, as well, however I assume this will likely wind up being a payout from insurance rather than directly from the city so the cost will be spread out a bit over time and the risk pool.

2098

Yup. Every story that I’ve read about misconduct payouts (and there are a lot of stories) have it being paid out by insurance. Not only does it spread out the risk, it disincentives the local jurisdiction from making true reform because of the expense of said reform (which isn’t covered by insurance) and reduces the return on successful reform (e.g., reducing the damages from future suits).

I don’t know what the easy answer is—without insurance, you could see smaller jurisdictions cratering and whole towns/cities destroyed. But with insurance, you get a tragedy of the commons situation.

2099

Insurance companies could provide incentives reducing the premiums on jurisdictions that have certain reforms?

I mean, it’s a lot of heavy lifting on the insurance company for a public benefit, so that’s probably as unlikely as the individual jurisdictions reforming themselves.

2100

Insurance companies are not duty bound to produce a public benefit. They are 100% motivated by what makes them the most money.

Offering incentives for reforms would reduce their profit. In fact, out-of-control police are what insurance companies want, because it allows them to charge more.

2101

Have the individual officers carry insurance, rather than the city. Like doctors, and dentists, and contractors, and… not to mention all the jobs that require you to be bondable.

And insurance is required to be licensed as a law enforcement officer.

2102

Yeah, this feels closer to the right thing. The problem is Qualified Immunity.

2103

There’s more problems than that. Specially, the market doesn’t support that and there would have to be federal level reform to make it happen. The police unions are currently strong enough to fight even firings of single bad cops for years, much less the magical wand waving it would take to shift the burden to individual cops.

2104

Usually a city or county insurance policy takes care of payouts like that. I don’t know how those work or who is willing to handle the insurance but I believe that is what my city and county have done in the past. It is merely looked on as a “cost of doing business”.

2105

So being sued for gross negligence and downright evil isn’t even a penalty to those who commit the atrocities. That sucks.