Assembly Bill 392, co-written by Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, will hold law enforcement officers liable for homicide if an investigation finds the use of deadly force on a civilian was necessitated by the officer’s own actions. Law enforcement will still be able to use deadly force as self-defense, but only when “necessary.”
The boards of directors of the unions representing law enforcement officers — the Los Angeles Police Protective League and Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs — issued a joint statement with Protect California and the San Bernardino County sheriff’s union saying the legislation mirrors procedures already in place.
“The new state law’s standards codify those currently utilized in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose and other major law enforcement agencies throughout our state,” according to the groups. “These current standards emphasize de-escalation of volatile situations and a reverence for life.”
The unions, however, called for the passage of companion legislation, Senate Bill 230, which would standardize de-escalation training requirements statewide in an effort to ensure all stakeholders are on the same page.
That legislation “will provide California public safety officers critical mental health, continued de-escalation and other necessary training on an ongoing basis to improve officer and community outcomes,” according to the unions.
Weber introduced a similar bill last year after two Sacramento police officers shot and killed Stephon Clark, an unarmed black man, but it made little progress in the Legislature. Weber said she battled with former Gov. Jerry Brown and opposition from law enforcement over the bill, even threatening a hunger strike last year.
The two officers were not charged in Clark’s death. Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert ruled in March that they were legally justified in killing Clark because they said they felt they were in imminent danger. The decision prompted public outcry and further inflamed the national conversation about police violence and its ties to race.
At one time, AB 392 appeared stalled again amid unresolved tensions between state legislators and law enforcement officials. That tension dissolved when the two sides struck a deal in May to amend the bill by changing the word “reasonable” to “necessary” and removing language mandating officers to use lethal force only after using non-lethal alternatives.
As a result of the deal, state law enforcement groups like the California Highway Patrol, Peace Officers Research Association of California and California State Sheriffs’ Association shifted their official stance on the bill from opposition to neutrality.
The companion legislation, SB 230, is going through the Assembly committee process. SB 230 is supported, in part, by a coalition of PORAC, the California Police Chiefs and the California Association of Highway Patrols.
“Together, AB 392 and SB 230 will modernize our state’s policies on the use of force, implementing the very best practices gathered from across our nation,” CPCA President Ron Lawrence said. “Once both bills are signed and take effect, the real work can begin using the training made available to officers by SB 230 to implement the AB 392 standard.”
The Greater Los Angeles chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations applauded the legislation.
“The passage of this legislation is both historic and important because the lives of people of color are on the line,” said CAIR-LA Police and Advocacy Manager Fayaz Nawabi. “This law will hold peace officer accountable for use of excessive force and to implement better de-escalation training for peace officers throughout the state.”
–
Ignacio P. says
Gruesome Newsom needs to go!!
Trumpist#1 says
“Gruesome Newsom”. LOL. That’s great.
Alexis says
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law: Title 18, U.S.C. Section 242. Breaking the law with impunity can only be changed when their house is cleaned internally.
Bobdob says
The police should treat everyone equally, regardless of race, and this is the consequence, because the exact opposite is happening…
Robert says
The man is trying to make a difficult job even more difficult.
I respect any person stepping into law enforcement for a living. Governor’s like this guy must frustrate many, trying to enforce the law to protect the law abiding.
Criminal says
Hands Up. Don’t Shoot!
Trumpist#1 says
Pants up. Don’t loot.
Doug says
Read the linked bill. Nowhere does this bill state the word “liable” as this author insinuates.
To quote the bill, “This bill would redefine the circumstances under which a homicide by a peace officer is deemed justifiable to include when the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that deadly force is necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person, or to apprehend a fleeing person for a felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless the person is immediately apprehended. The bill would also affirmatively prescribe the circumstances under which a peace officer is authorized to use deadly force to effect an arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance.”
officers can still use deadly force to protect themselves, protect others, to stop a felon who is fleeing the scene. The way this article reads, is the opposite. I notice this article doesn’t use the name of an author. Step up and do a real journalistic job guys. Don’t hide behind, “city news service,” and stop serving up articles just to generate heat.
Honestly, this bill changes little to nothing of what already exists. But thanks to your post, AV forums and fb groups are flaming up with fear tactics. I guess this was meant as a political post to fear the voters. What a joke. Gonna spread this stupid article all over the forums to show how it doesn’t add up to the actual bill. Try harder.
KayDee says
The article does say that officers can still use deadly force when necessary. But officers CANNOT use deadly force to stop someone from fleeing the scene unless the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless the person is immediately apprehended. This prevents them for shooting unarmed black men like Stephon Clark who was unarmed so therefore posing no threat. From your comment it looks like you are upset that officers will be held liable? Well too bad!!
Alexis says
Historic? Reverence for life? The LAPPL and ADALS issued a joint statement with Protect California and the San Bernardino Sheriffs union saying the legislation mirrors procedures already in place. So this is going nowhere, and no it is not a step in the right direction because there is no transparency for a reason.
Tim Scott says
It does do one valuable thing Alexis. When a police shooting is being investigated under those “procedures already in place” and some believer in the “brotherhood of blue” sidelines the investigation they are just breaking department policy. The worst that can happen to them is a slap on the wrists, while their brothers in blue are lining up to pat them on the back. With this in place such sidelining of the investigation becomes abetting after the fact and makes that person subject to pretty severe prosecution.
Will that limit the “code” and reduce cover ups? Hard to say, but it can’t really hurt. You are right though, it certainly doesn’t merit “historic” or any such grand description.