Police Work, Politics and World Affairs, Football and the ongoing search for great Scotch Whiskey!

Wednesday, April 4, 2018

Why do I have a real bad feeling about this...

Oh, yea, it's from California.

All my life I've heard a saying, "You want to see America in 20 years, look at California today...." Well, in twenty years, I'll be retired from law enforcement. Thank God!

The latest from the Cereal State, the land of fruits, flakes and nuts:

Proposal would limit when Calif. police can shoot

‘Necessary’ force suggested; cops wary of change

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Several lawmakers and the family of a 22-year-old unarmed black man who was fatally shot by police proposed Tuesday that California become the first state to significantly restrict when officers can open fire.

The legislation would change the standard from using “reasonable force” to “necessary force.”

That means officers would be allowed to shoot only if “there were no other reasonable alternatives to the use of deadly force” to prevent imminent serious injury or death,said Lizzie Buchen, legislative advocate for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is among the groups behind the measure...

So a cop hate group is pushing this with the largest cop hate group, the Democratic party. No, no issue with this.

...“We need to ensure that our state policy governing the use of deadly force stresses the sanctity of human life and is only used when necessary,” said Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, a San Diego Democrat who introduced the bill. “Deadly force can be used, but only when it is completely necessary.”

The goal is to encourage officers to try to defuse confrontations or use less deadly weapons, said Democratic Assemblyman Kevin McCarty of Sacramento, who is co-authoring the legislation.

“We should no longer be the target practice or victims of a shoot first, ask questions later police force,” said Assemblyman Chris Holden, chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus.

I am recalling the great quote of Al Pacino in Scent of a Women, "What a crock of s^&t!" The goal is not to defuse confrontations, the goal is to stop cops from using firearms, and letting crooks go. The people ain't stupid, they know if a cop is worried about being fired if he is doing his job, he will not do his job. He will "Go Galt," answer calls for service, but otherwise not stick their neck out. They have lives, families to support, mortgages to pay. If they do nothing but the bare minimum, they will make it to retirement.
But some in law enforcement called the proposal irresponsible and unworkable.

Officers already use deadly force only when necessary and are taught to try to defuse dangerous situations first when possible, said Ed Obayashi, a Plumas County sheriff’s deputy and special prosecutor who trains officers and testifies in court on police use of force.

Tinkering with legal protections for police could make it more difficult to hire officers and be dangerous because they may hesitate when confronting an armed suspect, threatening themselves and bystanders, Obayashi said...

And that is the purpose sir.

Now I find this interesting:
Two Sacramento officers chased Clark, who was suspected of breaking into cars, into his grandparents’ darkened backyard and opened fire within seconds and without identifying themselves as police because they said they thought he had a gun. Investigators found only a cellphone...

Mr. Clark didn't know two men, in police uniforms, with badges, flashlights, pistol belts, etc were not cops. Got it. Please, give me a break. The investigation will show what it will, but implying Clark didn't know they were cops is another "...crock of s^&t!" Oh, I repeat myself, this is AP.

Now here's another great legal mind giving a YouTube/Facebook training opinion on use of deadly force:
Changing the legal standard might mean that more people confronted by police “could go home. They may be able to wake up” the next day, said Clark’s uncle, family spokesman Curtis Gordon.

“A life may be saved in that blink” of time before officers open fire, he said. “If you feel some sort of repercussion, you may act a little more cautiously.”

Mr Gordon, you are somewhat right, but not for the reason you think. A "blink" is all the time a cop often has to make a decision to fire or not. And your nephew put them into that position. If he had simply show the officers his hands, not run, put both in the mindset that they were pursuing a guilty man, this could have been averted. But if you get what you want, you can live with it. The cops won't pay for it. The politicians, living in their gated communities won't pay for it. The police will simply pull back, and the wolves will move back into the neighborhoods to prey on you and your family. Congratulations, you got what you wanted.

Again, "What a crock of s^&t!"


  1. Donuts and parking tickets.

    1. Join the fire department. Sign on at the beginning of your shift, park at your "safe space," answer your calls for service, if an assault is in progress, don't go too fast, you don't want to upset the "community members,"....and the fact crime will explode. Well, the legislators and ACLU members won't care about that.