California has proposed a new lethal force law that allows cops to open fire 'only when necessary' rather than 'when reasonable' after the police killing of unarmed Stephon Clark.
The changes in legislation were suggested by several lawmakers and the family of the 22-year-old.
It 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.
Wasn't that the guy that was running through yards, breaking windows and doors on neighbors houses ? then was chased by the police when they tried to question him. maybe if he wasn't doing that sort of thing the police wouldn't have been called on him in the first place...
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
- Thomas Paine
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."
I'm sure 90% of the people don't even know the full circumstances of the shooting. Medias reports are always " Police shoot unarmed man in his grandparents backyard". The fact that he was recorded trying to break into a occupied home where an elderly man was home alone, and the recording followed him into his grandparents yard. That seems to come out late in about 40% of the reports on the incident, if at all...
Somewhere, Darwin is crying...
Just remember, the largest mass murder in US history was committed with box cutters...
dustymedic wrote:I'm sure 90% of the people don't even know the full circumstances of the shooting. Medias reports are always " Police shoot unarmed man in his grandparents backyard". The fact that he was recorded trying to break into a occupied home where an elderly man was home alone, and the recording followed him into his grandparents yard. That seems to come out late in about 40% of the reports on the incident, if at all...
Didn't you know that the liberal media in the state now establishes police policy. The legislation just follows their recommendation. Yeah, I'm being sarcastic.
dustymedic wrote:I'm sure 90% of the people don't even know the full circumstances of the shooting. Medias reports are always " Police shoot unarmed man in his grandparents backyard". The fact that he was recorded trying to break into a occupied home where an elderly man was home alone, and the recording followed him into his grandparents yard. That seems to come out late in about 40% of the reports on the incident, if at all...
I agree that this is a "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" situation, but the 20 rounds fired that I heard does seem a bit excessive. On the other hand, it sounds like they only hit him eight times.
-- Mike
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
djthomas wrote:Texas has a similar rule. Not sure if it's codified or just an accepted practice but it comes down to "did the perp need shootin''?"
The "he needed killin'" is still a valid, if not codified, defense in parts of the south.
I'm pretty sure that's covered under the "waste of air and space" defense.
AlanM
There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men. - RAH
Four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo - use in that order.
If you aren't part of the solution, then you obviously weren't properly dissolved.
It 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,
In the particular case mentioned, if based on the circumstances the officers had a legitimate reason to think the subject was armed with a gun, what reasonable alternatives would there have been? Letting the suspect shoot first a few times? Who defines reasonable? I doubt the family of the 22 yr old is going to find anything the police do will be reasonable, short of just letting him go.
dustymedic wrote:I'm sure 90% of the people don't even know the full circumstances of the shooting. Medias reports are always " Police shoot unarmed man in his grandparents backyard". The fact that he was recorded trying to break into a occupied home where an elderly man was home alone, and the recording followed him into his grandparents yard. That seems to come out late in about 40% of the reports on the incident, if at all...
I agree that this is a "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" situation, but the 20 rounds fired that I heard does seem a bit excessive. On the other hand, it sounds like they only hit him eight times.
If it's ok to shoot him once or twice it's ok to shoot him twenty, fifty or a hundred times. Lethal force has no degrees.
"20% accurate as usual, Morty."
Striking down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not bickering! Carpe Noctem- we get more done after 2 am than most people do all day.
And this works from an objective/scientific angle, too.
The correct thing to do is to shoot until the threat is no longer a threat. Given how the human body responds to handgun rounds and the time it takes for the threat to "drop," how log it takes for the police officers' eyes/brains to register that the threat is "down," and further then signal their trigger finger to stop pulling the trigger (versus how rapidly they are triggering follow-up shots), quite a number of rounds can be sent downrange.
This can easily be simulated at the range with a training partner - on the threat command, your task is to shoot the target as many times as you can as fast as you can (remember the scenario is that this is an active lethal threat that you are trying to stop, so play it realistically) but to cease fire as soon as your training partner tells you to stop. How many more shots did you take after the cease-fire was called? Understand as you do this drill that you're in an ideal atmosphere and under no stress. With stress added (and this goes back to police training), it's easy to see precipitous decline in shooter performance on this drill...the use of a target that actively advances towards the shooter and/or one where shots do not visually register with clarity (such as a 3D humanoid target dressed with a dark-colored checkered shirt) will work to dramatically increase the difficulty of this drill.
dustymedic wrote:I'm sure 90% of the people don't even know the full circumstances of the shooting. Medias reports are always " Police shoot unarmed man in his grandparents backyard". The fact that he was recorded trying to break into a occupied home where an elderly man was home alone, and the recording followed him into his grandparents yard. That seems to come out late in about 40% of the reports on the incident, if at all...
I agree that this is a "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" situation, but the 20 rounds fired that I heard does seem a bit excessive. On the other hand, it sounds like they only hit him eight times.
If it's ok to shoot him once or twice it's ok to shoot him twenty, fifty or a hundred times. Lethal force has no degrees.
They didn't stop shooting. This was California, so ten round magazines are the rule. The guns just stopped firing after a while.
-- Mike
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand