|
Calguns LEOs LEOs; chat, kibitz and relax. Non-LEOs; have a questions for a cop? Ask it here, in a CIVIL manner. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
||||
|
||||
This is the same type of people that passed Measure B in San Jose. It seemed like a good idea. Years later and millions of dollars as well as an uptick in crime, not so much.
|
#42
|
||||
|
||||
i am glad i will be out of here in a short number of years.
already have some of my things out of this state, in free America. i feel for the leos stuck here. soon it will be like that cheap future cop movie. demolition man i belive?? where a street cop has to have a computer tell him what to do.
__________________
big gun's...i love big gun's |
#43
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Whoever created that checklist idea shoulda been tarred and feathered. It took common sense thinking and tossed it out the window in patrol.
__________________
It`s funny to me to see how angry an atheist is over a God they don`t believe in.` -Jack Hibbs -ΙΧΘΥΣ <>< |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I **** you not |
#45
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Step one.... Poop your shorts.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick! |
#46
|
||||
|
||||
I suspect this will pass constitutional muster if it ever becomes law. Graham v Conner set a minimum standard for when use of force is constitutional under the 4th Amendment. States are free to raise the bar, they cannot lower it.
__________________
Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. Mark Twain "One argues to a judge, one does not argue with a judge." Me "Never argue unless you are getting paid." CDAA "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." George Bernard Shaw |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
After it passes do you think this will affect relations between LEO AND politicians? Less bodyguards wishing to follow Gavin Newsum or Pelosi? Also will it effect people not in the field of LEO, who may want to get in, but find the rules to harsh to work with?
|
#48
|
||||
|
||||
The text of AB931 is finally up - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...201720180AB931
Note that at this point in the bill's life, blue italic is "new" and red strikeout is "old" and will be deleted next revision.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
What it will effect is the morale of your average street cop. It will bring proactivity even further down and cause hesitation when and where there shouldn't be any. When we hesitate we die. |
#50
|
||||
|
||||
I don't get it:
from the bill: Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Far and away the best prize life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." - Theodore Roosevelt |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I thought I was reading it wrong somewhere, somehow last night and blamed it on my lack of sleep. Glad to know that others had a similar interpretation. |
#53
|
||||
|
||||
I wish you guys the best.....jugded is better than dead
No take down looks good......it's not a Hollywood movie......just saying.....
__________________
One life so don't blow it......Always die with your boots on! |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
So, I just talked to some DAs in my county and they were stating that although the amended 196 and 835a seem the same, they still very much feel it significantly handcuffs us.
Essentially saying that necessary is more seen as what a reasonable officer deems necessary rather than what a reasonable officer would do. Tough one. We’ll see how it all plays out. Stay safe, brothers and sisters. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
More stupid legislation by our ignorant overlords who want to “do something.”
__________________
Stay classy, CGF and Calguns. |
#57
|
||||
|
||||
Like their job is not already as dangerous as it could possibly be.
This will only guarantee that someone's watch will tragically come to an end and families will be disrupted forever due to the complete & total ignorence of the buffoons in the California Legislature. I would not like California Law Enforcement to start acting like Broward County. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Stay classy, CGF and Calguns. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
As if proactivity hasn't gone down enough already. I agree. What would be the point? I can see most of my coworkers opting out of proactivity altogether as well.
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
No point in arguing around the edges. The people who run this state have absolutely no interest in protecting its CITIZENS. Leo's might want to follow that example and simply stand down. Let the goblins run free and let's see what happens.
|
#63
|
||||
|
||||
No need to use any force or "de-escalate" if you don't find the suspect.
Code three... Speed limit. Stop at every signal. Far to dangerous to run any red lights... Wait for at least three units before entering any location. Be sure to leave an exit for the suspect. After all that's "de-escalation" at it's finest. If a suspect runs... No need to chase as that could lead to having to use force.. Classic de-escalation. 415 subjects... Please stop fighting.... Please... Oh well, sooner or later they will tire out or run away... You have now successfully de-escalated the situation. Somebody gives you lip on a T stop. Smile, hand them their license back and drive away... Can't give any citations as that would be confrontational and unnecessarily escalate a situation where you might have to use force... Smile and wave.... And on and on.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick! |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
California’s Goals
1- Turn whole State into a gun free prison. 2- No common sense penalties for crime. 3- Murder the Constitution. 4- Blame Freedom not the wicked. 5- Silence Free speech with violence. 6- Dumb down the population. 7- MSM propaganda in Lg. Doses. 8- Kill business 9- Bankrupt State and tax us to death. 10- Give the State back to Mexico. |
#66
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
What on earth for???? Screw that noise....
__________________
It`s funny to me to see how angry an atheist is over a God they don`t believe in.` -Jack Hibbs -ΙΧΘΥΣ <>< |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
11 years later, I get it. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
1. Make criminals into victims 2. Make cops into criminals 3. Take everyone's money |
#70
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
"Graham, still suffering from an insulin reaction, exited the car and ran around it twice. Berry (his driver) and Officer Connor stopped Graham, and he sat down on the curb. He soon passed out; when he revived he was handcuffed and lying face down on the sidewalk. Several more police officers were present by this time. The officers picked up Graham, still handcuffed, and placed him over the hood of Berry’s car. Graham attempted to reach for his wallet to show his diabetic identification, and an officer shoved his head down into the hood and told him to shut up. The police then struggled to place Graham in the squad car over Graham’s vigorous resistance." https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-6571 It would be great if case law had been decided on a case where law enforcement behaved with a different level of decorum. The California intended law is crap, but Graham vs. Connor is really not the best our Supreme Court has to offer, even if it was a unanimous decision based on the context of the case. "A friend of Graham's brought some orange juice to the car, but the officers refused to let him have it." "At some point during his encounter with the police, Graham sustained a broken foot, cuts on his wrists, a bruised forehead, and an injured shoulder; he also claims to have developed a loud ringing in his right ear that continues to this day." So from this event, we get a unanimous decision where Rehnquist writes for the majority. Here are the gems that support LE action - everyone on this subforum knows them, by definition: http://www.policemag.com/channel/pat...-v-connor.aspx "Any use of force by law enforcement officers needs to take into account "severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight." "The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." "The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation." In what universe is an officer going to disagree with the actions of fellow officers given the calculus at hand involving reprimand, suspension or termination? The more important clause, though far less paid attention is paid to it, is: “Because the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application, however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Consider this list from a different article on the reasons around deploying a K9 and the "4th prong" - described in the article as "decision making process if known in advance" but also called (articulatable) facts (in other words, how to write it up)... Prior criminal history that may include violent offenses Prior actions or know violence by the suspect(s) that may include physical resistance to arrest or attempts to do so Parole or probation status, and its relation to any violent crimes Potential for “third strike candidate” if applicable Pre-assault indicators Size, age, and physical condition of the officer and suspect(s) Known violent gang membership or affiliation Known or perceived physical abilities of the suspect (e.g., karate, judo, MMA) Previous violent or mental history known to the officer at the time Perception of the use of alcohol or drugs by the subject Perception of the suspect’s mental or psychiatric history based on specific actions The availability and proximity to weapons, and any prior history related to weapon possession and/or use Environmental factors The number of suspects compared to the officers involved and availability of back-up Injury to the officer or prolonged duration of the incident Officer on the ground or other unfavorable position Characteristics or perceptions of suspect being armed and not previously searched Then...ask yourself the question: How many of these did Officer Connor know prior to the use of Force on Mr. Graham? I agree that California laws tend to not be ideal - and yes, Graham vs. Connor offers a titanium fig leaf that protects officers in the event of use of force, but...geezus, what a crappy case to decide on. A man in diabetic shock who isn't listened to by the officers pending investigation who ends up with a broken foot and other injuries at the hands of officers, though he was not reported as resisting?
__________________
On hold.... |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
I don't think he is because in another thread he wrote that he finished the background investigation for reserve probation officer for LA County...
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
I figured as much.
|
#75
|
||||
|
||||
Oh! I guess that was aimed my way.
CSMR Military Police. Got picked up by Probation but as someone else pointed out, waiting for the academy which hasn't been scheduled for months and months. Decided to go to Rio Hondo instead. Does that make the information I provided less valid? I hope not. It would be a shame to perpetuate the stereotype that only LEO's understand the issue at hand.
__________________
On hold.... |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
While I can appreciate your several dissertations, that does not mean you completely grasp the ideas, concepts, or mindset of a peace officer. If you finish the academy, get a FT job with a PD, Sheriff’s Department, etc., I’d be interested to see what and how your perspective on use of force has changed. I’d bet that it will have changed drastically. Last edited by esy; 05-25-2018 at 12:00 PM.. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
On the contrary, Graham v. Conner is excellent case law and saves cops from being victims of the pitch and fork when ignorant ppl decide what's best instead of giving the cop a fair shake. More often then not, it is not reasonable to collect a lot of information about someone before using force on them. That takes an investigation. The priority during an investigation is safety and control. Uses of force most often occur right up front, hense the unreasonableness for the officers to do an indepth medical and psych evaluation prior to using force. I too agree that if you make it out on your own as a street cop, your views will take a 180 degree turn. |
#80
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
And you’ve proven my point exactly. It shouldn’t take a cop or a Supreme Court justice to understand proper use of force. Moreover, my issue with Graham revolves around it not being a “clean case” given the plaintiff and surrounding case. While much of the condescension sent my direction revolves around “not being a street cop,” the last thing I want is less protection on the street as I do a job. I also didn’t state it is either practical or possible to search a suspect’s background prior to Use of force; good attempt on someone taking another quote and cutting and pasting them on my mouth. My issue with law enforcement has been the disparate standard between law enforcement and the citizen. Rather than casual criticism, I’ve made it clear I’ve done my share to carry my weight. But y’all retired folk feel free to tell me what it was like during the old days, roll your eyes and dismiss the issue- which is that bashing the face of a diabetic lad on the hood of a cruiser who was not resisting and ended up with broken bones makes for case law that you’re proud of. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
On hold.... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|