12-14-2018 09:10:01 PM -0800
12-14-2018 11:13:25 AM -0800
12-14-2018 10:00:59 AM -0800
12-13-2018 04:11:41 PM -0800
12-13-2018 01:40:43 PM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.

Stretch, grab a late afternoon cup of caffeine and get caught up on the most important news of the day with our Coffee Break newsletter. These are the stories that will fill you in on the world that's spinning outside of your office window - at the moment that you get a chance to take a breath.
Sign up now to save time and stay informed!

CA Reps Introduce Orwellian 'Police Accountability and Community Protection Act'

In my April 6 column here on PJ Media, I mentioned the legislative effort in California to address police shootings and change the legal standard by which they are judged. Assembly Bill 931, bearing the Orwellian title of Police Accountability and Community Protection Act, would make it unlawful for a police officer to use deadly force unless it was “necessary.” It sounds reasonable, of course. After all, don’t we want police to refrain from shooting people unless it’s necessary?

But the question then arises: Necessary to whom? At their April 3 press conference introducing the legislation, the bill’s authors and other speakers made it clear. If a police officer’s use of deadly force is deemed to be unnecessary to them and to people who share their beliefs, that officer can expect to be prosecuted and, if not imprisoned, run through a years-long ordeal that will ruin him physically, emotionally, and financially. And this, they promise, will protect the community.

It will not.

In previous columns I have referred to the U.S. Supreme Court case of Graham v. Connor, which, along with Tennessee v. Garner, governs how any police use of force should be evaluated. For our purposes, the key passage of Graham is this: “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.” It bears reminding that the decision was written by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist; there were no dissenting votes on the Court. In the world of the courts, this is as close as one gets to receiving the law at the top of Mount Sinai.

As of this writing, there is no text of AB 931 to be found on the Assembly’s website, but at their press conference we were informed that the utopians in the California State Assembly find the standard set forth in Graham to be unsatisfactory and thus now propose their own. Under ordinary circumstances, legislation that affects the police so significantly is drafted after consultation with organizations like the Police Officers Research Association of California. To date, no such consultation has occurred.

And it’s no wonder. Speaking at the press conference were of course the bill’s authors, Democrats Shirley Weber and Kevin McCarty, but they were joined by, among others, representatives from the ACLU and the Sacramento chapter of Black Lives Matter. Think of your own livelihood for a moment. How would you react if the rules governing your business were crafted by people who would prefer to see it shut down?

This is not to say police use of force should not be the topic of honest debate. But the bill’s authors and their supporters are being anything but honest in their representations. For example, Assemblyman Chris Holden (D-Pasadena) took to the microphone and invoked the name of Michael Brown, who was shot and killed by a Ferguson, Mo., police officer in 2014. Recall that it was Brown’s death that gave rise to the “Hands up, don’t shoot” myth, leading to days of rioting in Ferguson and St. Louis. Recall also that the Michael Brown shooting was perhaps the most scrutinized police incident in history, and that the involved officer was cleared by a St. Louis County grand jury -- and even by Eric Holder’s own Justice Department.