Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

While I may agree with your post and SD council, I mainly came here to say I hate your bullshit click bait style title. All the  similar titles on every newsfeed is a sign of the apocalypse, imho

  • Like 6
Posted
Quote

The San Diego City Council on Tuesday voted to support a bill pending in the state Legislature that would change the legal standard under which police officers could use deadly force.

The nonbinding resolution passed 6-2, ...

The bill, authored by Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (D-San Diego), is one of the most closely-watched bills in the state house, ...

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-safety/story/2019-05-14/san-diego-council-supports-weber-use-of-force-bill

So the city council voted in a non-binding resolution to support a bill authored by a State Rep who's district covers the city.  This is the sort of radical, principled leadership we need.

I'm kidding a bit.  I haven't read the bill, but it sounds good on the surface.  Thread title is a bit over the top though.

Posted

The proposed language would not change anything. The current laws are fine, they are just never applied in a way that actually matters. The proposal defines "necessary" as "given the totality of the circumstances, an objectively reasonable peace officer in the same situation would conclude that there was no reasonable alternative to the use of deadly force that would prevent death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or to another person."

Is the person black and scary? Is he holding something that could be a gun? Is he refusing to comply? Well then, it's objectively reasonable for that peace officer to use deadly force. Cause he needs to be sure he gets home to his family. The other guys should have complied, or should have not had something in his hand. 

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, 'stache said:

The proposed language would not change anything. The current laws are fine, they are just never applied in a way that actually matters. The proposal defines "necessary" as "given the totality of the circumstances, an objectively reasonable peace officer in the same situation would conclude that there was no reasonable alternative to the use of deadly force that would prevent death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or to another person."

Is the person black and scary? Is he holding something that could be a gun? Is he refusing to comply? Well then, it's objectively reasonable for that peace officer to use deadly force. Cause he needs to be sure he gets home to his family. The other guys should have complied, or should have not had something in his hand. 

Gagreed.  But the bolded does change things slightly.

And it's not just police unions.  A lot of Americans are pearl-clutching cunts that need the big policeman to save them from the dirty browns and other undesireables.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted

Prosecutor: Officer Smith, was it really necessary for you to shoot the the unarmed civilian?

Officer Smith: Yes

Prosecutor: No further questions your honor, the DA concludes this was a legal use of force.

Posted

I lived in San Diego when I was in the Navy. The cops would ride dirt bikes thru Balboa park and round up the homeless and drive them out like a herd of cattle being taken to market.

/csb?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...