Assembly bill would limit police use of deadly force
After an unarmed Stephon Clark, 22, was fatally shot by Sacramento Police in March, two California legislators began working on a way to change the state’s use-of-force policy.
While searching for someone suspected of breaking windows, officers chased Clark into the yard of his grandmother’s house, where he was fatally shot by officers, who believed that the cellphone Clark was holding was a firearm. The shooting sparked weeks of protests and a national conversation about the use of deadly force by law enforcement agencies.
Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, along with Assemblyman Kevin McCarty, introduced Assembly Bill 931 last Tuesday, which would raise the standards for when the use of deadly force by a law enforcement officer would be considered “necessary,” instead of “reasonable,” as it is now.
Lt. Sierra Brucia of the Lodi Police Department expressed concerns that the proposed bill, which is still being drafted, might restrict an officer’s ability to respond during a deadly-force situation, raising the question of who would determine the necessity of force used by officers.
“These officers are making life-or-death decisions in situations that can change in the blink of an eye that aren’t necessarily clear to others. As a law enforcement agency, we’re going to follow the existing laws but this has the potential to make policing that much more difficult. It also has the potential of an officer not acting when they should, causing injury or death to officers or civilians, ” Brucia said.
Joe Kocurek, a spokesman for Weber, said that for deadly force to be considered necessary, there must be a imminent danger of serious injury or loss of life to the officers or nearby civilians.
“Basically, it’s just a change in training that gives officers tools to de-escalate situations. Rules of engagement are not unheard of. Decision making will be left in the hands of the officers, but it’s informed by their training and the standards set forth,” Kocurek said.
Kocurek cited the September 2016 shooting of Alfred Olango in San Diego, in which the unarmed mentally ill man was shot by police after his sister had called 911 to get him help, as an example of how the current use-of-force standard “perpetuates the unnecessary killings of unarmed civilians.”
“The way things are now, nothing changes. There are law enforcement agencies around the country that have voluntarily changed from the ‘reasonable use of force’ standard, which is what we have now, to one where imminent danger is necessary,” Kocurek said.
Seattle changed its use-of-force policy in 2014, Kocurek wrote in an email, and now requires imminent danger and de-escalation tactics before deadly force would be considered necessary. He cited an April 2017 report by the Seattle Police Monitor, which said that “officers are using less force overall, without negatively impacting officer or public safety,” after instituting changes similar to those proposed
by AB 931.
“What we want is for officers to be safe. We also want unarmed civilians to be safe. There are processes to do that, but they’re not required right now (in California), ” Kocurek said.
Lodi Police Chief Tod Patterson also weighed in on the proposed bill, saying that he worries that officers might be hindered by unnecessary requirements when responding to potentially deadly situations.
“I’m concerned we’re jumping to a rush judgment and throwing a blanket policy over something we don’t know everything about. To say that you have to do this, this and this every time when these situations are so fluid, I’m concerned for the safety of our officers, and for the public as well. I’m very concerned about that,” Patterson said.