Jump to content

San Diego just did something HUGE to curb police abuse


Gil Bang

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

How is this not the law of the land everywhere?

As detailed by bernorange, above, it's not even the law in California.  Here's the bill.  https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB392

It would appear that the tweet grossly oversimplifies the effect of the legislation.  Twitter  . . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...