Valkyrie Riders Cruiser Club
November 13, 2025, 01:23:01 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Ultimate Seats Link VRCC Store
Homepage : Photostash : JustPics : Shoptalk : Old Tech Archive : Classifieds : Contact Staff
News: If you're new to this message board, read THIS!
 
MarkT Exhaust
Pages: [1]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Hey perp...can you stop for 30 seconds while I go through my checklist?  (Read 436 times)
98valk
Member
*****
Posts: 13652


South Jersey


« on: April 13, 2019, 07:48:43 AM »

https://californiaglobe.com/legislature/police-use-of-force-bill-is-epitome-of-second-guessing-by-lawmakers/

AB 392, titled the “California Act to Save Lives” would require police officers to go through a mental checklist before using deadly force against suspects.
“This is moving the standard from objective reasonable deadly force to subjective,” attorney Kathleen Mastagni Storm said in an interview following the hearing. Mastagni Storm said this is just a second guessing opportunity by anyone looking atvideo or  body camera footage following a shooting. “AB 392 criminalizes police use of force, and tips the balance, unnecessarily jeopardizing public safety,” Mastagni Storm said. “This proposed law is based on a false narrative that the use of deadly force in situations is not necessary.”

Mastagni Storm said courts have long held that police officers may use necessary force, “but AB 392 seeks to redefine ‘necessary,’ such that there is no reasonable alternative to the use of deadly force. ‘Necessary’ has always been the standard.”

According to attorney Mastagni Storm, AB 392 would override the United States Supreme Court’s objective standard of “necessary,” with a new “subjective” standard for determining necessity. “‘Necessity’ would be officers’ denial of their self-defense rights,” she added. “It creates an impossible standard and is the epitome of second guessing.”

“Real world split decisions don’t have time, tranquility and hindsight,” she added. “Hindsight analysis has been expressly rejected by the courts.”

All Californians have the constitutional right of self defense, Mastagni Storm explained. “This bill proposes an inferior right of self defense for law enforcement officers, violating the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Mastagni Storm said this is whittling away at what police can do, and jeopardizing public safety.
Logged

1998 Std/Tourer, 2007 DR200SE, 1981 CB900C  10speed
1973 Duster 340 4-speed rare A/C, 2001 F250 4x4 7.3L, 6sp

"Our Constitution was made only for a Moral and Religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the goverment of any other."
John Adams 10/11/1798
JimC
Member
*****
Posts: 1826

SE Wisconsin


« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2019, 03:45:23 PM »

Quite a few years ago, our county LEO training academy purchased a Shoot no Shoot program. This program had a projector and electronic weapons, and showed life sized people on the screen doing various scenarios. It registered the shot, the time it took to shoot, and the location of the hit, etc.

When they brought it to our department we invited all of the city officials to come and try it.
You should have seen their surprise when they ether died do to not shooting, or they shot an innocent person. Needless to say, all of them had a new viewpoint on what it takes, and how long it takes to make up your mind whether to shoot or not in a lethal force situation.

That program would be ideal for the sponsors of that bill, but you can bet they would not try it if they had a chance.

Jim
Logged

Jim Callaghan    SE Wisconsin
MAD6Gun
Member
*****
Posts: 2637


New Haven IN


« Reply #2 on: April 13, 2019, 03:53:04 PM »

Quite a few years ago, our county LEO training academy purchased a Shoot no Shoot program. This program had a projector and electronic weapons, and showed life sized people on the screen doing various scenarios. It registered the shot, the time it took to shoot, and the location of the hit, etc.

When they brought it to our department we invited all of the city officials to come and try it.
You should have seen their surprise when they ether died do to not shooting, or they shot an innocent person. Needless to say, all of them had a new viewpoint on what it takes, and how long it takes to make up your mind whether to shoot or not in a lethal force situation.

That program would be ideal for the sponsors of that bill, but you can bet they would not try it if they had a chance.

Jim

 Just like all those dems that didn't show up for the boarder wall hearings the other day. They don't "want" to know. All they know is that mister bad guy is getting shot and they want it to stop. If that means more cops die due to slow reaction times worrying about weather to shoot or not then so be it. Democrats have proven time and time again they are NOT pro police. They are pro PERPS.....
Logged

Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print
Jump to: