California bill targets fatal shootings by cops
Critic warns it would endanger police lives
SAN FRANCISCO – A showdown over when police in this state can use deadly force is set to unfold in the California Legislature this week, one that could bring sweeping changes to local law enforcement departments that give officers broad latitude in deciding when to shoot to kill.
At issue is Assembly Bill 392, known as the California Act to Save Lives, which would put the onus on officers to justify discharging their weapon, shifting the standard from “reasonable” – as defined by the Supreme Court’s 1989 Graham v Connor ruling – to “necessary.” That means that, under the proposed bill, police must feel confident that it is truly necessary to shoot to protect themselves or others from danger, or they could be prosecuted for killing their victim.
Instead of reaching for their guns, officers would be pressed to engage in deescalation tactics – in addition to considering options such as a Taser or a baton – that aim to reduce tension between officer and suspect. Experts say these include listening to the suspect’s story, explaining the actions an officer is about to take, and ensuring that the suspect’s dignity is preserved throughout the interaction.
The change to the rules of engagement has the potential to reverse an alarming trend. California has the highest percentage of police shootings per 100,000 people among states with more than 8 million residents, says Seth Stoughton, a former police officer and now law professor at the University of South Carolina who is an expert on deadly force rules.
“The states are all over the map in the way they regulate deadly force, with some being very permissive, and that’s where California is right now,” says Stoughton.
“This new bill would make the preservation of life law enforcement’s top priority in California,” says Stoughton, who wrote letters to California lawmakers in support of the bill. “Having the state Legislature tell police officers, ‘This is the job we expect you to do’ is an important piece of symbolism.”
But critics say 392 ignores the nuanced difficulties inherent in police work and will have a calamitous effect on everything from policing practices to recruiting.
“This bill is an affront against anyone who wears a badge, and if people understood its consequences nobody would vote for it,” said Assemblyman Tom Lackey, R-palmdale, who served on the California Highway Patrol for 28 years. “Unless you’ve been in this arena, you don’t understand how fast things unfold.”
Lackey says a problem does exist with current policing protocols.
“But this bill isn’t the solution to that problem,” he says, adding that adopting a new policy could lead to tragic results for officers. “You change the policy midstream and you’ll cause officers to think before reacting and that time gap is going to be deadly.”