California’s New Police Use-of-Force Law Twists Language to ‘Do Something’ About Police Shootings

(AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)

California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed a bill into law that allegedly establishes a new standard for when police can use deadly force. In reality, it’s likely to do little more than endanger police officers and enrich the state’s litigation lawyers. And the blame for this one goes to Golden State politicians’ desire to pander to their core constituencies.

Not only did politicians play word games with established laws and rules in this new standard (re-wording the ‘old’ standard) — and one that puts symbolism over substance — but they shamelessly used the families of alleged victims of police shootings as props to promote themselves as “doing something” about a perceived problem.

It reminds me of the old expression; if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with…bull poop.

First USA Today’s coverage:

California has adopted one of the nation’s strictest laws regulating police use of force, hoping it will deter shootings by law enforcement agents.

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday signed Assembly Bill 392, which changes the standard for police officers’ justified use of deadly force from instances when it’s “reasonable’’ to when it’s “necessary.’’

Really? The definition taught by reputable experts like Massad Ayoob and attorneys far and wide already says that deadly force is justified only when faced with the immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm. 

And the “reasonable person standard” helps define terms like “immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger.” The reasonable person standard is defined as what a reasonable and prudent person would have done in that same situation knowing what the defendant knew at the time.

Maybe Gov. Newsom’s new legal standard should be called the “necessary person standard.”

The law redefines when police can resort to deadly force “based on the totality of the circumstances’’ and encourages the use of de-escalation techniques and crisis-intervention methods.

As if the “totality of the circumstances” hasn’t already played a role in determining the justification for using deadly force for generations. Who in their right mind would not use de-escalation techniques and “crisis-intervention” methods (whatever those are) when possible?

“We are doing something today that stretches the boundary of possibility and sends a message to people all across this country that they can do more and they can do better to meet this moment,” Newsom said as he stood alongside family members of people killed by police.

Governor Newsom shamelessly used those family members as props for his political grandstanding.

The only message low-information people are going to take from this is that they might be able to get away with more before police react with deadly force. But they will likely find themselves disappointed as police officers continue to employ force — up to and including deadly force where justified — in the performance of their duties.

Newsom said the new law will reduce the number of lives lost and begin to heal communities.

Just because you say it doesn’t make it true. Take “Russian collusion,” for example.

The measure by Democratic Assemblywoman Shirley Weber of San Diego, which initially met fierce resistance from law enforcement organizations, made it through the state Legislature with bipartisan support after it was amended to address police concerns.

They amended Weber’s “groundbreaking” bill to reiterate existing legal standards for the use of deadly force.

After all, just because someone steps into a law enforcement uniform doesn’t mean they should have to surrender their right to defend themselves from death or great bodily injury at the hands of a violent perp…even if the Legislature and Governor think they should.

comments

  1. avatar Defens says:

    Were I a California cop, my deescalation technique would be simple: climb back into my patrol car and drive off. No duty to protect, no obligation to get hurt.

    1. avatar WI Patriot says:

      Pretty much sums it up…

      1. avatar 41mag says:

        “When it’s necessary” is likely when it’s too late.
        How’s your draw stroke???

    2. avatar PK says:

      Yeah… implement a “smile and wave” policy, for sure.

    3. avatar Hank says:

      Baltimore is a good example of what happens when police get neutered, or flat out ordered to stand down. I’m just glad I live in the sticks during these times. Regardless of how everyone sees the future (CW2 or not, societal collapse or not, ww3 ect…) I think it’s a given American cities are a terrible place to be. The slightest incident involving the police or conceal carrier having to defend themselves against a criminal can set a city ablaze, all in a matter of hours.

    4. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

      Yet another reason for CA cops to relocate. If you don’t have your heart set on shooting someone’s pet, you will be welcome anyplace run by normal people.

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        They will when they realize their political masters have openly betrayed them.

  2. avatar Biatec says:

    In illinois people want social workers not police. Europe has social workers. You ever see videos of them fighting with migrants?

    They want police to have to wrestle a deadly weapon out of a criminals hand. I hear people say “Why not shoot them in the leg”

    The anti cop people riot and protest whether a shooting is justified or not. They don’t understand at all. If someone has a deadly weapon and is attacking people or charges them cops should just shoot them.

    I grew up around people who hated the police. Like really true hate. It just seems to keep getting worse. Also it’s still racism when the cop is black too. lol

  3. avatar Dan says:

    Newsom is a certified moron. He actually blamed Texas for the homeless problem in San Francisco.

    1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      It’s not like he is going to blame the previous mayor and board of supervisors – that one is off the table.

  4. avatar tdiinva says:

    Seems like the bill changes the police use of force standard to that of ordinary citizens which is what many faux Libertarians demand it should be. I mean, the police are just ordinary citizens just like you and me, right? Now watch the police start acting like “ordinary” citizens and avoid situations that could escalate into the use of deadly force.

    1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      I really don’t have a problem with that, but anti-gun states also want to make it hard for ordinary citizens to defend themselves against crime and violence. You can’t have both.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        The difference between us an sworn officers is that they authorized to be proactive. We are limited to self defense. Impose those restrictions on sworn officers and they will not engage in a situation that could escalate to deadly force because like us, they would be charged as the aggressor. I hope that helps you see the difference, but it probably won’t.

        The purpose of these restrictions is to handcuff the police and allow the gangs have greater latitude to operate.

        1. avatar Chief Censor says:

          Citizens still have arrest powers. Some states have bystander laws, if you fail to act you could be charged.

          The police have no duty to protect anyone just like everyone else. Their job is mainly to arrest and investigate. This is the position of the government itself. Police are there to enforce the rules after the fact.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          No State has laws requiring the bystanders intervene in criminal situation. Those laws are applicable to medical treatment where you are required to render aid up to your skill level. If there was a law requiring you to intervene it would apply to the police as well which would undermine your premise.

          The “police have no duty to act” meme is a little shop worn and a red herring. The Ferguson Effect is well documented. If the police are not proactive crime rates go up. Why do you think that happens if all the police do is investigate after the fact?

          Some States grant citizens the right to intervene in very narrow circumstances. It is not a general power like a sworn officer.

      2. avatar Hank says:

        The problem with libertarian anti cop philosophy is it simply fails to see reality. They argue we can simply do away with most police forces by having private citizens carry more and step in to stop crimes. That simply doesn’t work in reality. Are you going to step in to the domestic dispute your neighbors are having when you can clearly hear the woman getting the shit beat out of her by someone younger and stronger then you? No. Very, very few people will do that. That’s why we pay the police to deal with that shit.

        1. avatar Salty Bear says:

          Congratulations You’ve committed the false dichotomy fallacy!

          Are you also going to ask who would build the roads?

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          Following the discussion you can see what the faux Libertarians really want and as usual it’s the same as what the left wants — gang rule. That is what this cops should be unarmed babble is all about. Unarmed police in American culture is the same as no police. The groups of “armed citizens” who will take over are also known as gangs. And in the case of the no police crowd here I suspect that their gang colors would be white and brown if you know what I mean.

        3. avatar Red says:

          The problem today is that cops have a tendency to shoot first, ask questions later.
          How many people with fake guns, even with orange tips, have been killed?
          Cops are apparently taught nothing else than kill, kill, and kill.
          If they manage to bring in a criminal alive, it’s a minor miracle.

    2. avatar California Richard says:

      Yep… If, as a citizen, you wouldn’t chase after an armed robber or kidnapper because you’re concerned about the liability you take upon yourself as a private citizen, then NOW you can expect the cops to have the same attitudes. Federal law requires cities, counties, and states to cover the actions of their officers when those actions are taken in good faith. The “necessary deadly force” standard allows those entities to divest themselves of that requirement if a shooting “looks bad”. In California it’s referred to as “lawful but awful”, but you see examples all over the country. If a government will go after it’s agents who act in good faith, who act lawfully, and for whom it is required by law to defend, then ordinary citizens are screwed.

  5. avatar GS650G says:

    They wont let the police nor the populace defend against the scum.
    A recipe for bad times. Wait until the next riot.

    1. avatar 41mag says:

      Or watch the crime rate go up.

      Police force numbers will start to shrink.

      1. avatar Casey says:

        I know several ex-cops (including myself) who have left the profession exactly because people seem to only want cops to gently hug criminals and tell them that they are valued. And also soak up any flying bullets, if it comes to that, because that’s ‘what cops are for”.

        The risk is higher. The demands are greater. The ability and authority to meet the demands are waning. Support is basically non-existent. The politicians are selling the pitchforks to the angry mob. The pay is wanting and the union running around acting like it’s 1970.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Casey,

          Most/all police are partly to blame as well.

          Pretty much no one begrudges police for tracking down and arresting violent attackers, rapists, and murderers. And very few people begrudge police for tracking down and arresting thieves.

          What people despise are the millions of times that police have jacked-up people for other reasons.
          Example: I was on my friend’s speed boat cruising around an inland lake. My friend was driving and I was standing up in the middle of the boat, enjoying the view while securely holding on to the massive overhead frame member for water skiing. The local police were also out on a boat as well. They gave me the evil eye and ordered me to sit down. My internal voice in my head, “fu## you, you petty tyrant douchebag piece of $hit!!! Who the Hell are you to tell me, an adult, that I have to sit down on a boat? Whether or not I stand up or sit down is my business.” That is the kind of horse$hit that really, really irks people.

          The public would show much greater support for police if police only jacked-up people who caused harm (whether financial or physical).

      2. avatar Dude says:

        Didn’t that already happen in some rough urban areas after Obama and his Justice Department demonized cops, and the cops backed off?

        1. avatar Porridgeweasel says:

          Happened in Baltimore for a while if my memory is working.

    2. avatar Southern Cross says:

      The political masters and their appointees see us civilians as acceptable collateral damage in any incident or event. As long as it doesn’t happen to them or their neighborhood, they don’t and won’t care.

  6. avatar enuf says:

    It’s true that more work needs to be done on de-escalation. Some of the cops I’ve known could turn absolutely nothing into a brawl and an arrest inside of a minute. That does happen, it is a thing.

    No faith in any California law though. Maybe they needed to put some money into some training, certainly they need to be watching for the few bad apples, but this reads like a total train wreck.

    1. avatar SoCalJack says:

      It may very well be a feel good law; it make the Dems feel good and it the common folk will shut up for a while. I wonder whose going to pay for all the training the LE may need.

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        They already get training. The problem is low IQ people being hired for a job that requires high IQ. Cops have to deal with humans, to successfully get people to do things without using violence requires intelligence. Dumb people try to solve everything with violence.

        You can train a dumbass everyday of the year yet they will still do dumb shit. Even the military has standards to keep such people out. You don’t even have to have a high school diploma to be a cop.

        1. avatar Hank says:

          That’s not true. During the Iraq war all you needed was a GED to get into the army. Also, while you are correct in that LE hiring standards have lowered, that’s also because all LE across the board is having a hard time filing positions. And that’s directly a result of policies like this. You can’t expect that young, fit, healthy, smart people are going to go put up with this shit for ~30-40~ thousand dollars a year. Just not going to happen. Those same people can take a job with more pay and far less risk, without the media and government scrutiny. The ideal cop that’s seemingly mentioned among many here actually does exist, but he’s not a cop. He took a career path far more lucrative. For example, yes, there are people out there who are brave, strong and fit they would rarely ever need to use a weapon as an officer. However, those people typically become professional athletes and make millions instead of working a rough and stressful LE job.

        2. avatar Chief Censor says:

          @Hank

          When you have a budget to hire cops having less cops means you can spend more on the good ones you have. The more stupid cops you hire to fill quota the worse policing gets and the more rules you need to keep them in check. If you decrease your numbers you can entice better candidates with more money. Instead of having two stupid brute force cops at 60 thousand you can have 1 smart cop.

          The government doesn’t want smart people fixing things and asking questions about their rules. They want people that will do the job without question.

          Go write a bunch of tickets and enforce the unconstitutional rules we made. Oh, and go serve this red flag order.

        3. avatar Hank says:

          I don’t think you seem to understand the realities of LE right now. If we were do to what you claimed we could do (I’d argue it’s not doable) you have the inherent and ongoing problem of low staffing. Quite simply, there’s not enough of these very highly, inherently qualified people to do the job on the scale it needs to be done at. Areas of city and country side have certain numbers of officers needed for that area, and it needs to be staffed 24/7. That requires a lot of manpower, and a lot of logistical manpower to back it up. Then you also need administrative man power for the obscene amount of paperwork that’s required in LE these days. Add to that the extreme scrutiny you want on these people and no amount of money or benefits is going to attract those kind of people. No ones going to take a 120,000$ year job if there’s a high likelihood of you going to prison over a lapse in judgement. For what it seems like you desire, your plan would require an extreme raising of taxes or extreme cut in government spending elsewhere, (not something I’m opposed to, but realistically impossible). You would not only have to offer extreme amounts of money, but have an extremely strict hiring process that coincides with an extremely long and in-depth training regimen. That’s why defense spending costs 700 billion dollars a year. To create a highly effective force it costs an astronomical price. Then you have factor in who’s going to offer all this new training, new training requires new facilities, that requires more money and more government power. At that level your asking for the police to be nationalized… and that’s something no American in their right mind would want. That would lead to a literal KGB/Gestapo like force

    2. avatar Hank says:

      “De-escalation techniques” is a new and fancy buzzword that’s flying around here a lot these days. Let me tell you something as someone who’s actually done deescalation training. It’s really not all that it’s cracked up to be and it’s nothing new. It’s something that’s been taught since at least the 90s and to be honest it has very little impact on people who are aggressive or violent. Especially when you add in that many violent aggressors are drunk or high during their belligerent activity. Many of them also simply don’t think rationally like you and I do. Also, according to several mental health professionals, the current de escalation paradigm might be fundamentaly flawed. Let me explain it like this: think back to the last time you were extremely angry. Someone at some point probably told you to calm down. And at that point you probably got even angrier. This is a pretty common phenomenon with people who are angry and frustrated. There are in fact many mental health professionals who say meeting someone at their level of aggression is actually *better* then trying to calm someone down, because subconsciously you will see someone quietly telling you to relax as submissive and therefore easy to be aggressive upon.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        The “De-escalation” I am thinking of is for the police officer’s behavior and attitude far more so than the irate citizen or bad guy.

        1. avatar Hank says:

          Then you don’t have a clue what your talking about. When de escalation is debated here it’s about what are called “de escalation” techniques which were designed to try to do exactly what everyone wants, calm everybody down in an altercation. The problem is in real life, as opposed to on paper, it’s much harder then it appears.

      2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        De-escalation is not the cop telling the tax payer to “calm down”. It is the cop losing the “Obey me now, down on the ground, I am gonna taze,shoot, f- you up if you wiggle your nose” attitude that modern cops seem to have adopted. It is not using threats over and over again. Cops are reaping the whirlwind they have sown.
        Stand there and talk all day long if that is what it takes. The cop is getting paid no matter if he is trying to talk down a suspect or if he is sleeping in an alley.

        We need to end the war on the American people aka the war on drugs. We need to start repealing laws.

        Disarming cops is going to be the only thing that fixes this. Citizens should carry weapons. Government employees should not be armed.
        If cops are going to be armed, then they should be held to a strict reading of the facts. If they shoot an unarmed man, they go to prison. If they shoot a kid with a toy gun, they go to prison. If they shoot a guy holding a hose nozzle, they go to prison. Yeah, they have to suffer they consequences if they screw up. guess what so do the tax payers that pay the bloated cop salaries and provide the platinum benefits.

        Americans have the right to bear arms. That does not give law enforcement an open season tag on Americans who are armed. If a cop is armed, then the citizen has every right to be armed as well. The lives, rights and property of citizens are more important than officer safety.

        1. avatar Hank says:

          Now that’s funny. You need to get out of your moms basement.

        2. avatar Salty Bear says:

          Well said, Chris!

  7. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    …hoping it will deter shootings by law enforcement agents.

    And if it increases shootings by criminals OF law enforcement agents and inncent citizens?

    Uh, well….

    1. avatar SoCalJack says:

      Crime will go up, criminals will be more inclined to commit with lees chance of being shot, and “don’t taze me bro” memes will make a comback.

  8. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

    The police sit and watch people getting beaten up in Portland, while everyone else takes videos. In Chicago, you can commit a crime and speed off, and the cops don’t chase you. You’d think the criminals (including antifa) would love the cops. They can do what they want.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Boston’s new D.A. has decided not to prosecute drug dealing, shoplifting, and larceny when it’s under $250. So every thug in the city can go out and steal $200 worth of stuff, and they know they’re safe.

      1. avatar bryan1980 says:

        Sounds like the new DA for Dallas county. And they wonder why they have so much trouble recruiting new cops and keeping the ones they already have.

    2. avatar Hank says:

      That’s directly the result of liberal policy making.

  9. avatar Auxwood_rebel says:

    This will be like the body cams, use of force will go down, cop injuries and deaths will go up. Another successfully implemented policy.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Police injuries may actually go down; it’s less likely that you will get injured if you don’t interact with criminals.

      1. avatar Auxwood_rebel says:

        I hope you’re right but when politicians start demanding enforcement of say… a ban on the sale of loose cigarettes?

  10. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    quote——————–Governor Newsom shamelessly used those family members as props for his political grandstanding.—————quote

    No he used the victims of police violence and extreme brutality as living examples of a corrupt and violent organization that needs to be reigned in and regulated and receive much better training and vetting.

    Europe long ago realized they had a “police problem” and long ago took the necessary steps to correct police brutality and cold blooded murder. The result was that back in 2016 Germany who gives 3 years of intensive training to its police force only had to shoot 12 people while in the lawless U.S. that gives the police free reign to mass murder killed 1,500 people and China that has 4 1/2 times the population of the U.S. only shot 4 people.

    The U.S. now has more people in prison than Stalin did during his reign of terror and use of the Gulags. That should make every sane American shudder. More people in prison did not put even a dent in Americas problems of violence, mass murder, and drug addiction which should have rung a mental bell and asked the question “What the hell are we doing wrong in this country when other countries do not have problems as severe as ours”? Perhaps the Far Right have not yet advance far enough on the evolutionary scale to even comprehend the fact that they have fucked up since day one and continue to fuck up the works by failing to study what “actually works” in more advanced and more civilized countries on the planet.

    I think earlier this year when one white woman who was stopped for a traffic violation and panicked in near hysteria was somewhat calmed down by the cop who stopper her when he said “Don’t worry we usually only shoot black people”. I think that really says it all when it comes to the problems we have with police in this country today and the need to reform our system. California traditionally has led the way when it comes to needed social change and its no different this time when they decided to at least take a step in the right direction.

    The U.S. needs not only more police training but it needs to thoroughly vet out the nut cases that are drawn to apply for police work and the nation needs to reform our corrupt court systems that let cops get away with wholesale brutality and murder against the civilian population. If anything California has not yet even begun to catch up with European Police training and laws protecting the public from living in a 21st Century Gestapo climate of fear and violence.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      How are things in Moscow today?

    2. avatar Owen says:

      I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or what? Take a look at the places with the most crime and “police problems”. Guess who they’re run by? It isn’t the far right. Without exception the worst crime happens in the most left leaning places. That’s by design of course. Government causes a problem that is so bad only more government can fix it. It’s an old tactic of the left.

    3. avatar Ironhead says:

      Did your parents have any children that lived?

    4. avatar David Deplorable says:

      … and they lived happily ever after.

    5. avatar jwm says:

      I want a citation on that whole ‘more folks in American prisons than stalins gulags’. If it’s true, and likely it’s not because it came from vlad, it could be that stalin murdered millions so he didn’t need to send them to the gulags.

      And vlad, you’re still dodging your very real support of a genocide against the blacks in America. It’s only racism if others do it, right?

      1. avatar Huntmaster says:

        He’s just making it up as he goes along.

    6. avatar Hank says:

      You hate police, yet you want only the police to have guns… you hate police, yet you want police to fight for you when it comes time to confiscate guns… you hate police yet you want to give them the power to stop political dissent online and in person… you hate the police yet you want them to have all the powers of the KGB, and think they’ll only use those powers against conservatives.

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        He wants a police that is subject to strict political and ideological control. Property crimes are ignored because wealth is being redistributed. Assaults are ignored because the victim must have been a class enemy so the action was justified. But political crimes of commenting how bad the leadership are will result in at least 10 years in prison, unless you are declared mentally ill and end up in psychiatric care.

    7. avatar John8946 says:

      You realize Stalin put people in prison who opposed his regime, and people in prison in the US committed crimes that put them there. So what if we have more people in prison. They committed crimes and lost their rights to freedom. Ironically, Governor Newsom is the sale one who favored a law that allows you to be jailed for calling a tranny the wrong name, or giving out plastic straws or utensils. Tell me which one is more like Stalin.

  11. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

    I’d like to see California 72 hours after every cop in the state walked off the job. It would look like the worst days of the Mau Mau uprising and I’d laugh my ass off.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      The east Asians will hold it down just fine. We seen it before.

      I heard California has the most guns or at least is one of the states with the most guns. Imagine if they didn’t have all that gun control and duty to retreat.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Next major earthquake, we won’t.

      2. avatar Porridgeweasel says:

        Rooftop Koreans to the rescue!

  12. avatar Warlocc says:

    Let’s be honest, though. Cops have been pulling their gun and shooting over every stupid little thing the last few years. They should have just lost qualified immunity. Make them personally liable, like we are.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      They do have multiple layers of protection…

      As long as law enforcement believed it was reasonable, especially so when the sheriff/chief agrees.

    2. avatar Hank says:

      Not really. If you knew anything about police training and legal justifications for them using force you’d know better then to spout such silliness.

      1. avatar Red in CO says:

        In theory. But the law is irrelevant when it’s not actually applied. How often do shitty cops get convicted when they act in a manner that is massively outside of standards or laws?

        In theory it’s illegal for them do act in certain ways. In practice we have, as one example of dozens, irrefutable body cam footage of a man, on his knees, being executed in a hallway in Mesa AZ. Is that cop in prison? Nope, he never even saw the inside of a cell

      2. avatar Warlocc says:

        Except the law isn’t applied to thugs in costume- we have footage of them executing unarmed people that were complying, and they never see the inside of a cell.

        1. avatar Hank says:

          A video of a California cop vomiting a murder, is what we have. There’s no cops executing people in the streets here regardless of what you read on info wars. That cop may be a murderer, and yes one who got away with it, but judging all police based him isn’t going to solve anything.

  13. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Now there are those Marxist’s in Vermont who would do the same.

    California changed its law on police shootings. Should Vermont do the same?

    https://vtdigger.org/2019/08/20/california-changed-its-law-on-police-shootings-should-vermont-do-the-same/

    Vermont lawmaker: It’s time to disarm the police

    https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/vermont-lawmaker-its-time-to-disarm-the-police/

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Disarming the police would be a good move for the 2nd Amendment. If the cops don’t have guns, who are you going to call to bring the gun?

      1. avatar bryan1980 says:

        Only problem is that the same people who want the cops disarmed also want us disarmed, too. They only want ANTIFA to be armed.

        1. avatar Southern Cross says:

          They want a political police, or at least a heavily politicized police.

  14. avatar Chief Censor says:

    What’s reasonable to police is different than what is reasonable to everyone else. Reasonable can change, and has changed, over generations. Shooting someone running away was considered reasonable at one point because that person was suspected of committing a felony. As a cop I can argue my way out of almost every shooting by sticking to fear, officer safety, public safety and reasonably believed.

    Unfortunately, the average gun owner doesn’t get the law enforcement standard of reasonable applied to them when they shoot someone. They get the necessary force standard applied while the government gets the reasonably believed standard and in some areas they have to retreat until they can’t run anymore. Yet law enforcement are the trained professionals with more equipment and backup. The average permit holder only knows the essentials of using a gun, but are judge more harshly and held to a higher standard.

    Michael Drejka’s trial started today in Florida. He is charged for the unjustified homicide of Markeis McGlockton, specifically manslaughter. I believe his lawyer is arguing self defense. Florida’s stand your ground law isn’t being used in this case. The trial is to last about a month. The feeling is he will be convicted on the charge because it wasn’t reasonable to believe he was in danger and needed to use deadly force to protect himself from that danger.

    If what happened to Drejka that day happened to a cop, the cop would likely have been given paid vacation, his/her shooting ruled justified under the law, then back to work like nothing happened. Drejka doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt because he doesn’t have a badge. Subconsciously people judge him and his actions differently; he is considered an unlawful vigilante looking to shoot anyone he can when given the opportunity.

    Either law enforcement should be treated like everyone else or everyone else should be treated like law enforcement. That’s only fair.

    Officer safety is not more important than the public’s safety. Cops choose to put themselves in a position of risk for a paycheck. They can always quit if they don’t like the rules. If they are not there for a paycheck they will stay on the job, follow the rules and take the risks.

    1. avatar Owen says:

      Sounds like the easy fix to this is to coin the phrase “citizen safety” and use it as a defense. And apply the same “reasonable standard” for a citizen as LEO.

      I don’t like the concept of vigilantism. It’s absurd. All the powers the police have come from the people. Therefore, the people still have those powers or how else could they have granted them to the police in the first place?

      1. avatar WhiteDevil says:

        You realize cops are just costumed vigilantes that people have been programmed to socially accept. Reduce it all to its fundamental properties and they merely are the enforcers of a gang, the politicians are the shot-callers, and we are it’s dear victims. It’s that simple. The concept of agents of the state everywhere, I.e. cops, were neither socially nor constitutionally accepted during the founding of this nation. The concept of police is immoral at its core.

        1. avatar Salty Bear says:

          Well said, Devil!

    2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Michael Drejka’s trial started today in Florida.”

      The Clearwater convenience store parking lot shooting, live updates :

      https://www.tampabay.com/news/pinellas/2019/08/17/the-clearwater-parking-lot-shooting-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-case/

      1. avatar Dude says:

        Drejka will probably get manslaughter. That was a bad shooting. The punk that pushed him down started backing away as soon as Drejka pulled his gun. It could have been a successful armed defense without shooting the guy. They were both assholes but no one needed to die.

        1. avatar Ton E says:

          Watching the video shortly after that mess took place. I agree McGlockton shouldn’t have shoved Drejka to the ground just for arguing with his woman. If a guy his size did the same to me I would have drew down on him too. Where Drejka messed up in my opinion was when McGlockton backed off when he saw the gun but fired anyway. My first thought seeing the footage is Drejka is going to have a tough time defending his use of deadly force.

    3. avatar tdiinva says:

      Let’s see how that would have gone if a police officer took notice:

      Cop: “You are illegally parked in a handicapped zone.”

      Lady (Option 1): “yes officer, I will move the car.”. (Drives to another spot)

      Or

      Lady (Option 2): “FOAD”

      Cop: “Here is your $500 ticket, have a nice day”

      BF: “Officer, what’s going on?”

      Cop: “You just got ticketed for parking in a handicapped space. You have a nice day too”

      I will leave it the reader as an exercise as to what happens next. For those who have figured it out see the difference?

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        We are talking about the shove and the shooting. Not the argument about a parking space. The same will be argued in court.

        It’s about the moment that created his belief that he needed to protect himself with deadly force. Not the argument with the woman prior. He is claiming self defense out of fear of bodily harm from the younger, faster and more fit man that pushed him down.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          I see you don’t get it, which doesn’t surprise me. If Drejka were a police officer there would have been no shoving incident. The only way this would have escalated is if McGlockton starts beating on his girl friend for sticking him with a $500 ticket and Officer Dreyka intervenes.

          That’s difference between. Citizen Dreyka and Officer Dreyka.

      2. avatar Chief Censor says:

        You are creating a fictional world to make your own point. We know you want to move the goalpost.

        I was referencing a true world shooting and comparing the outcome to other true world shootings.

        The topic is not Drejka’s community policing of parking spots, it’s him getting shoved from behind and shooting because of it. If a cop was attacked from behind by an angry unknown man and fell to the ground, what would be considered appropriate/lawful action? And would they get charged for using deadly force?

        You can’t create a fictional world where this would have never happened to Drejka if he had a badge.

        It does happen to people with a badge. The Antifa guy that tried to burn an ICE immigration building attacked a cop from behind, wrapping his arms around his neck, when he was trying to arrest his friends. The cop didn’t shoot that dangerous man. The Antifa member ended up being armed with a knife.

        There are no guarantees that a badge will stop angry people from attacking you over small things. There are videos out there of all kinds of scenarios.

        Now back on topic.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          Nope, not moving the goal posts. I am explaining to you why Dreyka is guilty of manslaughter. By playing police officer without the authority he provoked a confrontation that would not have happened to a sworn officer. He was the aggressor by virtue of starting the sequence of events that left to McGlockton’s death.

          You are claiming he is in the dock just because he was a regular citizen and a sworn officer would get off. What makes your claim absolute BS is that a sworn officer would not have had a physical altercation over this but if he did, he probably would have had reason to use lethal force.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          I see from your disarm the cops post above you are a cop hater cum wannabe cop. In American society we have no reason to have unarmed sworn officers. That would leave you and your buddies free to go around playing sheriff. I wonder how that would work out?

    4. avatar Hank says:

      Well I guess if you have all the answers then I guess you should be the attorney general.

  15. avatar Hannibal says:

    The law may very well be struck down should California attempt to prosecute an officer under it. The Supreme Court has long established the necessary standard for using deadly force. So while California may be able to fire police who do not abide by it’s banana republic little laws, actually prosecuting one for shooting when it was reasonable but not “necessary” (after all, you have a kevlar vest, let him run out of ammo!) may violate an officer’s rights under federal caselaw.

    Why even issue ammunition anymore? Oh, that gunman is shooting up the state house? Let’s ask him to stop. He might just agree! And since we haven’t tried, we can’t know if he would, and therefore it is ‘unnecessary’ to use deadly force.

  16. avatar aaron marks says:

    well, There were recent shootings that were very questionable. If the alleged perp had a firearm and ran, why shoot them? if they had a stick? shoot them in the back? The police department should have rules determining what is Necesarry. Of course if the gun is pointed or going to point at you, yes shoot, but if the person is running away? no. if the person had a weapon that’s not deemed an immediate threat, a stick, why engage? they have many non lethal options also they can leave the situation be and wait for more backup. If a civillan has rules of engagement that the state imparts on them, the officers shoul follow the same. Don’t allow the cops to hunt people. There was a incident a while back that a undercover sherrif’s officer shot at a car and killed the person, HE put him self in front of it, He could have let the person go and avoided all of it. People want fixes to the issues so they should retrain all the officers in what situations are right in using force.

    1. avatar Mark H says:

      In the last case, the “weapon” was a cell phone, and the deceased was standing in his grandmother’s fenced back yard.

      You or I would be seening 20 years for this. We are generally subject to the “reasonable person” standard. Officers are (or were) subject to the “Oficer mentality at the time” standard. So as long as the officer thought there was a threat, he’s ok, even if a reasonable person would not have.

  17. avatar former water walker says:

    I have an idea…quit. And give us lowly peasants your immunity!

  18. avatar OBOB says:

    To all cali cops

    you don’t look to well this morning…all of you should call in sick for a few weeks and go see Disney world, or anything out of state or something to rest up….don’t watch the news, turn off the phone make sure no one can contact you…for anything!

    AKA let the state burn for a few weeks..the same state that gives sanctuary to illegal aliens that SHOOT you dead the day after x-mas. the ones who talk shit about you all the time.

    Let it burn!

    1. avatar Salty Bear says:

      Oh no! If we didn’t have people with badges patrolling the streets shooting, threatening, and stealing from us, we might have people without badges patrolling the streets shooting, threatening, and stealing from us!

  19. avatar Half black man says:

    The real problem is society is falling apart. You can have unarmed police if you had a white country. Instead, we have imported violent Latinos, and we’ve removed all controls over Blacks (church, etc.).

    So yah, no shit the cops are always on edge. If you had a kids in the white community threatening the police with a knife, and he got shot- the white parents would probably apologize to the police for their child’s behavior.

    You know what happens with people of color.

    Sorry – this is a hard truth to swallow.

    We don’t need gun control. We don’t need restrictions on police. We need black control. I’m mulatto, and I’m so embarrassed of what blacks do I try to pass as white.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      I know what the typical white mommy does when her precious son does something bad. We have seen the results too many times. Then we end up with more laws against human rights.

      Not taking responsibility for your kids’ behavior and punishing them properly results in society reacting emotionally to the outcomes of your failures.

      Moms are the same. Single moms are even worse. They baby their kids well beyond their baby years.

    2. avatar Half black man says:

      -a kid made a joke on a video game
      -police want to arrest the child (for terrorism lol) for Constitutionally-protected free speech
      -mom calmly talks to police

      What’s the issue?

      Maybe more interesting to examine is why you feel the need to say “white people are just as bad.” We know that’s just demonstrably false. Look at the FBI crime stats- 13% of population commit 52% of all the murders. I’m mulatto- so whatever. Who taught you to hate your self? To whom do you need to prove that you’re not racist? Do you determine your world view more from the Bible or the TV? I’m not even joking here. I bet you’ve watched a lot of TV, and you’ve been brainwashed by people who hate you. How much TV do you watch?

      “The unexamined life is not worth living” -Socrates. Who controls your mind?

      ***

      Agree single moms are the worst. Society needs to shame and punish them.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Truth Man, you trying a different approach?

      2. avatar Chief Censor says:

        Posting on the internet that you vow to murder classmates with your parents’ gun is considered a crime because he can actually do what he said he was going to do. When the Parkland kid did the same thing they refused to go to his house, then he did what he posted on the internet.

        The mom was making excuses for her son’s behavior. She claims it to be a joke because that’s what normal 15 year olds do, they threaten to murder over 7 people at school with their parents’ gun. She freaks out and says her son would never do something like that because he is smart and he is still a little innocent boy. I hear similar things regularly from mother’s of gangsters after they been shot dead by police.

        15 years old is not a little boy anymore and vowing to commit mass murder of your classmates is not a joke.

        Bad parenting isn’t something only minorities do. Doesn’t matter what the race is. However, gender does matter.when it comes to parenting especially when it’s a single mother doing it all.

  20. avatar Mad Max says:

    Does this mean that California cops are just starting to be trained in deescalation techniques?

    I guess the NRA and other civilian firearms training providers were way ahead of the curve😊.

  21. avatar Wheel Gun Guy says:

    …..and these are the same cops that the lib”tards” expect to go door to door confiscating firearms???!!!

  22. avatar Salty Bear says:

    Repeat after me:

    Cops. Are. The. Reason. We. Are. Not. Free.

    The politicians just jabber and write, but the enforcers of their idiotic opinions are cops. We obey immoral laws because we are afraid that the cops will kill us. It continues to baffle me how many of the POTG defend this occupying army.

    1. avatar WhiteDevil says:

      Perhaps, it’s time for a publicly funded police force to be snolished and a privately funded police force to be instituted. That way, the privatization ensures that you get what you pay for or they go out of business, as well as never having a group of armed thugs loyal to a small subset of retarded individuals, again. They only answer to us, as it should have been. This whole thing is a failed experiment and needs to be replaced.

  23. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    No police officer should put his or her life on the line for people who don’t care about testifying against the criminal, who THEY called the cop on in the first place.
    There are blacks who really do like the police. Those that don’t can just do without police protection.

    Police protection is also disappearing in Baltimore. But the white people who run San Francisco have also made their police department worthless. And it seems the folks who run Vermont are also wanting to make the police worthless by disarming them.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email