Governor Gavin Newsom hopes to change the culture of policing and signed a new law changing the use-of-force policy. It’s interesting to note that Newsom does have a strong base of voters who support felons and don’t like cops.
California’s use-of-force policy had been in effect since 1872 before the new law was signed Monday, and it had allowed police officers to use deadly force if it was “reasonable.” The new law now requires law enforcement to only use deadly force if and when it becomes “necessary” in order to protect against death or a serious injury.
Right now, the law is just codifying a law already in existence in practice which emphasizes de-escalation, but there’s another law pending in the Senate that requires officers be trained in ways to de-escalate confrontations, alternatives to opening fire and how to interact with people with mental illness or other issues. Together, those laws seem troublesome.
“It’s a false sense of security to those that think this is going to shift the needle,” Plumas County sheriff’s Deputy Ed Obayashi said.
Hacks seem to be leveling the playing field in a way that puts officers’ lives in danger.
It sounds like they expect officers to know if a person is mentally ill or drugged and if officers shoot him/her, they will be responsible legally. It has been happening. Along with the anti-police rhetoric, political hacks have put innocent officers on trial to feed the mob.
Then, as in the case of New York, they get fired.
In New York, Daniel Pantaleo did nothing wrong in the Eric Garner arrest. It was found that Pantaleo used a then-legitimate hold. In any case, Garner, an obese asthmatic died of asthma in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. Under pressure, the medical examiner said the chokehold led to bleeding and to an asthma attack and then to his death.
In reality, it was found that the officer used “a legal submission hold,” not a chokehold.
The Police Commissioner, a hack named James O’Neill, allegedly once told the police union — according to the union — that he reviewed the videos and no one should worry — he has their backs and Pantaleo will definitely be guaranteed his pension. That isn’t how it worked out. Pantaleo lost his pension and will now sue.
When he fired Pantaleo, O’Neill said he didn’t believe it was deliberate but Pantaleo should have let go of the hold sooner.
Mrs. Garner, who received a settlement of somewhere between $6 and $8.9 million for her criminal husband’s bad behavior leading to his death, is now planning to fight to get the other four officers fired. She also wants Pantaleo to never get any job ever again and will do what she can to make that happen.