California Considering Unprecedented Law Restricting Police Firearm Use

[ZiprHead]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-police-force-legislation_us_5ac3c013e4b00fa46f872c28

"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."

 

[untermensche]

The only thing that is going to make the police calm down is the elimination of handguns. Assault rifles for other reasons. Any weapon that is a semi-automatic.

Of course every weapon cannot be eliminated but the number can be greatly reduced and the penalties for having an illegal weapon can be made severe.

The second amendment needs to be altered.

It's purpose does not exist anymore.

Manual action rifles do serve a purpose in hunting.

A home can be protected with a shotgun.

 

[Underseer]

The only thing that is going to make the police calm down is the elimination of handguns. Assault rifles for other reasons. Any weapon that is a semi-automatic.

Of course every weapon cannot be eliminated but the number can be greatly reduced and the penalties for having an illegal weapon can be made severe.

The second amendment needs to be altered.

It's purpose does not exist anymore.

Manual action rifles do serve a purpose in hunting.

A home can be protected with a shotgun.

The second amendment doesn't need to be altered.

The Supreme Court needs to stop pretending the first half of that sentence doesn't exist.

 

[untermensche]

The only thing that is going to make the police calm down is the elimination of handguns. Assault rifles for other reasons. Any weapon that is a semi-automatic.

Of course every weapon cannot be eliminated but the number can be greatly reduced and the penalties for having an illegal weapon can be made severe.

The second amendment needs to be altered.

It's purpose does not exist anymore.

Manual action rifles do serve a purpose in hunting.

A home can be protected with a shotgun.

The second amendment doesn't need to be altered.

The Supreme Court needs to stop pretending the first half of that sentence doesn't exist.

The Court works off capricious precedent sometimes.

A new interpretation of the Amendment would do the trick.

But that interpretation could be changed tomorrow.

A change to the Amendment would be the most stable fix.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I agree with unter that it will have to go through the amendment process and to control guns you have to explicitly put that in the amendment to control guns because if not gun ownership would fall under the other amendments.

And where unter might agree, we need to dump the war on drugs.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think the biggest thing that needs to be addressed is how we address legally with police shootings. Currently the criminal law set up isn't anywhere near set up to deal with anything but the most egregious use of police force. They is so much gray in these conditions, officers usually don't have to worry, because they are cops and cops get a pass even by juries because of the conditions they work in. That needs to stop and we need to put together some sort of legal board that addresses police violence and only police violence, and also lays out what punishments there are for use of needless police force that causes harm or death. Being Police, the bar would be a bit higher for punishment and the punishments likely lower, but we need something that can handle these unique cases.

The board would need to have some separation from the Police as there would otherwise be a problem of conflict of interest.

As far as amending the 2nd Amendment... might as well suggest 'thoughts and prayers'.

 

[thebeave]

Not that there isn't a need for reform on police procedures, but I would be skeptical of any law that the California legislature passes. They're mostly a bunch of morons.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Finally a common sense gun law targeting those who do the most harm.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Finally a common sense gun law targeting those who do the most harm.

How are you measuring that? We've got police, military, govt officials and civilians. What are the harm numbers you used?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Finally a common sense gun law targeting those who do the most harm.

The police account for less than 3% of gun deaths.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Finally a common sense gun law targeting those who do the most harm.

The police account for less than 3% of gun deaths.

The majority of the population are not police and before police are police, many are military sometimes causing death elsewhere in the world. Maybe they are often dealing with bad guys though. Maybe. Therefore, I think you need to adjust your method of measurement while trying to maintain objectivity. It's quite a bit more complicated than you insinuated.

 

[Wiploc]

Finally a common sense gun law targeting those who do the most harm.

How are you measuring that? We've got police, military, govt officials and civilians. What are the harm numbers you used?

Jason make joke.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Finally a common sense gun law targeting those who do the most harm.

How are you measuring that? We've got police, military, govt officials and civilians. What are the harm numbers you used?

Jason make joke.

You sure about that?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Finally a common sense gun law targeting those who do the most harm.

The police account for less than 3% of gun deaths.

But they account for 100% of police related gun deaths.

 

[Wiploc]

Jason make joke.

You sure about that?

I've gone back and read it again. "Finally a common sense gun law targeting those who do the most harm." Yes, it reads like a joke, so I'm confident.

Could Jason really think that police are the group that does the most harm with guns?

And that "common sense" adjective. Does that strike you as serious? The new law could make police afraid to fire their weapons. It could be ignored by the courts the way the old law was ignored. It could result in police strikes, unenforced laws, a great deal of painful litigation (because next-of-kin can so easily, argue that a shooting wasn't yet quite "necessary"), and more fraudulent police reports. ("Hmm. I don't have a drop gun, so I'll say that he had a friend with him who took his gun and ran off with it.")

And let's not forget recruitment and retention. Would you become a cop in a place that sets you up to be sued and imprisoned if you have to fire your weapon?

Wrapping all that up as "common sense," it may be dry humor, but it definitely seems humorous. Deadpan.

Am I absolutely sure of Jason's intent? No. Am I reasonably confident? Yes.

 

[Politesse]

Won't pass.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Although there was snark in my post, it was using humor to make a serious point. Anyone who has actually taken the time to read my posts (and you'd be surprised how many people on this board "know" where I stand on the issues without having done so) will know that I am no friend to law enforcement. I think they are over-armed and abuse the anabolic steroids leading them to testosterone rages. They have a policy these days where anything and everything done in the name of officer safety is excused, no matter how egregious, based on the feeling of having been threatened. They also have a policy of killing dogs in order to demonstrate who is in charge in a situation, making the family sit and watch as Fido bleeds to death right in front of them. They are apparently no longer trained in de-escalation. They are known to administer street justice on people for contempt of cop.

If they are entering a premises, they have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later, such as the case of Baby Bou Bou. But if they know there actually is an active danger in place, they will form a perimeter and not go in, subjecting everyone at that premises to the danger, until they know they are safe to go in, such as school shooters. They are so brave they'll pull their guns on anyone except an actual threat. Yes, there are exceptions, which you will no doubt name, that prove that 90% of cops are giving the other 10% a bad name.

 

[Wiploc]

Am I reasonably confident? Yes.

Now not so much.