1.
2. Briefly discuss the key elements of use of deadly force by officers acting in self-defence or defence of others as currently applied.
Today, California law does not allow the police to kill someone if low levels of force are available and safe. AB 392 is one bill introduced in California to save lives against the deadly use of police force. The law currently applies that the officers acting in self-defence or defence of others are only allowed to use deadly force when it is necessary to stop severe and imminent death or injury (Orr, 2019). This implies that law enforcement can use force if reasonable alternatives such as verbal persuasion, warnings, and other non-lethal methods or resolution are lacking. The legislation also allows the police to kill if the officer is sure that the suspect poses an imminent death threat or severe injury to the police or others or when a running suspect has committed an atrocity.
3. How would each bill affect the standard in Graham?
AB 931 was envisaged on the bogus narrative that the present law and the constitutional standards authorize the police to apply deadly force under the conditions where extrajudicial killing is unnecessary and that such action should not be the last option. In a real sense, the courts have held the police may only apply the necessary force. In using an impartially reasonable standard, Graham held, the rationality of the application of force should originate from an officer’s perspective. Therefore, the AB 931 would alter the rule of the court by superseding the objectively reasonable standard of the Supreme Court and implanting a new subjective standard for embedding necessity of police brutality.
The bill AB932 establishes a highly prejudiced standard for assessing and holding police responsible for applying a force based on retrospection. The bill does not include any practical measure to minimize the use of deadly force by law enforcement in California. If passed, the bill will increase the criminal liability of the officers for failing to make the best decisions before using deadly force on the civilians. AB 392 is also an inconsistent standard with the Supreme Court decision in Graham v. Connor, 490 US 396(1989).
SB 230 is the bill that has received the support of law enforcement. It addresses the issues regarding the existing law. If passed, it will effectively reduce the use of force while ensuring that the peace officers protect California without violence. The proposed amendments to this bill are straightforward and concise and follow the federal standards. As such, it does not affect Graham because it does not interfere with the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Graham v. Connor. 490 US 396(1989).
4. What are the arguments for and against the changes suggested?
The arguments for the changes suggested is that they will save the lives of California civilians by reducing the deadly application of force by the police officers. These changes will, therefore, reduce the number of deaths caused by police brutality in California. However, the amendments will create a subjective standard for assessing the police officers. They will also aim to criminalize the officers, thus, discouraging interested individuals from joining law enforcement. Additionally, the changes will threaten the safety of communities, families and officers.
5. Briefly define how each bill would change the use of force.
AB 392 is the introduced policy to save lives of people in California by preventing the unnecessary use of police force. This Act will clarify that the officers will only use deadly force only when they lack other options. AB 931 will limit the application of deadly force unless the officer needs to defend against an imminent threat or a severe injury as well as defence against the death of an officer or another person. The bill prohibits the brutal acts of law enforcement against a suspect resisting arrest. SB 230 will introduce regular training for the officers regarding state-wide standards of suitable application of force guidelines like legal standards, duty to intervene, de-escalation, and alternatives to force.
6. How would officers in the field be affected?
The officers in the field will be at high risk of being criminalized if they go against the regulations. This will also increase their chances of losing their jobs. Further, the officers in the field will lose morale of protecting the people of California against heinous acts due to fear of being criminalized.
References
Buchen, L. (2019, February 8th). ACLU. Retrieved April 14th, 2019, from https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/new-bill-limits-when-california-police-can-use
Orr, K. (2019, April 9th). KQED News. Retrieved April 14th, 2019, from https://www.kqed.org/news/11738880/measure-limiting-police-use-of-force-advances-in-state-legislature
Alexis562
useofdeadlyforcebylawenforcement1.docx
0
