California governor signs law to limit shootings by police

[Andylusion]

Won't do a ******* thing. Criminals who assault cops will still be shot, sjw idiots will still screech and riot, and the dumbfounded leftist politicians will stand around going "but wait, we have this 'law'..... WHY ISN'T IT WORKING?!?!"

Except that the cop has to show it was necessary. It lowers the hurdle for the cop to be prosecuted.

Which would result in police being less likely to confront criminals.

If I know that approaching that guy over there, could result in me going to prison because some camera at a bad angle, looks like I shot an unarmed person...... Then I'm not going to approach that guy over there.

I'll wait until he kills someone, and then apprehend them when I know some idiot with a cell phone, won't try and get me sent to prison.

 

[pismoe]

If I were a cop in California I'd be leaving in one big hurry. As a certified LEO officers can get jobs in other States.

That Governor has effectively tied both hands behind their backs.

Who the hell would work in a State like that. The Governor is a ******* moron.

If there is any justice in the world the State won't have any LEO's left. Lets see what that moronic governor does then. Better yet lets see what the California citizens do when they have no LEO's to call and have to fend for themselves.

Gruesom, brainless Newsome is correct. What a ******* moron.

---------------------------------------- just hire a buncha third world invaders of the USA and 'california' and make them into Police . Its Easy money and the new style Police will be big shots in the illegal alien third world community in 'california' .

 

[skookerasbil]

Im laughing........just when you think you've seen the nuttiest thing coming out of California, along comes some other story that makes your jaw hit the floor and your shorts stained from shitting them from laughing so hard.

Its all good.........this stuff coming from California these days becomes a lesson as to how not to do it. In 90% of the country, chances of this shit happening is near 0%.

Progressives still don't understand the concept of de-policing............never will

 

[SavannahMann]

Im laughing........just when you think you've seen the nuttiest thing coming out of California, along comes some other story that makes your jaw hit the floor and your shorts stained from shitting them from laughing so hard.

Its all good.........this stuff coming from California these days becomes a lesson as to how not to do it. In 90% of the country, chances of this shit happening is near 0%.

Progressives still don't understand the concept of de-policing............never will

In Georgia, half of those shot by police were unarmed, or shot in the back. The sixth leading cause of death for young men is death by police. While police aren’t in the top ten for dangerous jobs, those that interact with them face an arbitrary and uncertain future. Whatever the cop feels like doing is fine, so long as he sings from the hymnal, I was afeared for my life. While we don’t know that California is similar to Georgia regarding unarmed people shot, we certainly have reason to believe it is don’t we?

So what change is happening? Well. The cop now has to explain why he was afeared for his life. Instead of pretending that everyone shot was potentially a faster and more accurate gunfighter than Wyatt Earp, the cop has to explain what made him afeared. Instead of Reasonable, the standard is Justified.

Explain why this is such a disaster. Explain why expecting the cops to show a little more restraint in the use of deadly force is so bad. We won’t eliminate the killing of unarmed people by police. We won’t see the numbers of dead cops skyrocket. Surely you know that. So far this year, California has lost seven cops. The Officer Down Memorial Page (ODMP)

4 were to gunfire, one to Duty related illness. One was struck by vehicle, which is being dealt with as second degree murder, but will certainly result in a lesser charge for conviction. The last is auto accident. That one the accident happened in 2015 and she was having more surgery related to it.

So what horrors will result from this change? What intolerable to society results do we face? Come now, I am sure you can give us a glimpse of your incredible analytical mind here.

 

[pknopp]

Won't do a ******* thing. Criminals who assault cops will still be shot, sjw idiots will still screech and riot, and the dumbfounded leftist politicians will stand around going "but wait, we have this 'law'..... WHY ISN'T IT WORKING?!?!"

Except that the cop has to show it was necessary. It lowers the hurdle for the cop to be prosecuted.

Which would result in police being less likely to confront criminals.

If I know that approaching that guy over there, could result in me going to prison because some camera at a bad angle, looks like I shot an unarmed person...... Then I'm not going to approach that guy over there.

I'll wait until he kills someone, and then apprehend them when I know some idiot with a cell phone, won't try and get me sent to prison.

If he is armed, he is armed. A camera angle can not disarm him.

 

[Andylusion]

Won't do a ******* thing. Criminals who assault cops will still be shot, sjw idiots will still screech and riot, and the dumbfounded leftist politicians will stand around going "but wait, we have this 'law'..... WHY ISN'T IT WORKING?!?!"

Except that the cop has to show it was necessary. It lowers the hurdle for the cop to be prosecuted.

Which would result in police being less likely to confront criminals.

If I know that approaching that guy over there, could result in me going to prison because some camera at a bad angle, looks like I shot an unarmed person...... Then I'm not going to approach that guy over there.

I'll wait until he kills someone, and then apprehend them when I know some idiot with a cell phone, won't try and get me sent to prison.

If he is armed, he is armed. A camera angle can not disarm him.

Right, and yet I have seen numerous videos where the individual was most certainly armed, but the camera angle didn't show it, and people were freaking out about police brutality.

Regardless, the reality is that when police feel that everyone is not supportive, but rather chanting 'we want dead cops', the police are going pull back if they don't feel they will be backed by the public. That's a fact.

If I know that going into a burning house, means you are going to beat me over the head for doing it.... then I am not going into your burning house to save your butt.

Now that doesn't happen with firemen, but it does happen with police routinely. They go out there, and put themselves in harms way to fight the criminals in our society, and for that they get attacked from all sides.

Then I'll sit in the suburb on the opposite side of town, and wait for the call to come in. Then I'll take my time getting to that location, by then all the bodies have hit the floor already, and I'll take some statements, clean up the crime scene, and collect my paycheck. I'm not going to risk confronting a suspicious person, who could try to grab my gun, and then when I shoot him, I get put on trial. Sorry.

Let that suspicious person shoot somebody, then I just go take some statements, and no one try to put me in prison.

 

[pknopp]

Won't do a ******* thing. Criminals who assault cops will still be shot, sjw idiots will still screech and riot, and the dumbfounded leftist politicians will stand around going "but wait, we have this 'law'..... WHY ISN'T IT WORKING?!?!"

Except that the cop has to show it was necessary. It lowers the hurdle for the cop to be prosecuted.

Which would result in police being less likely to confront criminals.

If I know that approaching that guy over there, could result in me going to prison because some camera at a bad angle, looks like I shot an unarmed person...... Then I'm not going to approach that guy over there.

I'll wait until he kills someone, and then apprehend them when I know some idiot with a cell phone, won't try and get me sent to prison.

If he is armed, he is armed. A camera angle can not disarm him.

Right, and yet I have seen numerous videos where the individual was most certainly armed, but the camera angle didn't show it, and people were freaking out about police brutality.

So what? If he was armed, he was armed.

Regardless, the reality is that when police feel that everyone is not supportive, but rather chanting 'we want dead cops', the police are going pull back if they don't feel they will be backed by the public. That's a fact.

They shouldn't always be backed. Sometimes they are wrong.

If I know that going into a burning house, means you are going to beat me over the head for doing it.... then I am not going into your burning house to save your butt.

So you shouldn't be a fireman then. Be a crossing guard.

Now that doesn't happen with firemen, but it does happen with police routinely. They go out there, and put themselves in harms way to fight the criminals in our society, and for that they get attacked from all sides.

Then I'll sit in the suburb on the opposite side of town, and wait for the call to come in. Then I'll take my time getting to that location, by then all the bodies have hit the floor already, and I'll take some statements, clean up the crime scene, and collect my paycheck. I'm not going to risk confronting a suspicious person, who could try to grab my gun, and then when I shoot him, I get put on trial. Sorry.

Let that suspicious person shoot somebody, then I just go take some statements, and no one try to put me in prison.

There are tens of thousands of police interactions everyday. None of them make the news. On occasion the police do the wrong thing. When that is the case it should not be swept under the rug.

 

[Andylusion]

Won't do a ******* thing. Criminals who assault cops will still be shot, sjw idiots will still screech and riot, and the dumbfounded leftist politicians will stand around going "but wait, we have this 'law'..... WHY ISN'T IT WORKING?!?!"

Except that the cop has to show it was necessary. It lowers the hurdle for the cop to be prosecuted.

Which would result in police being less likely to confront criminals.

If I know that approaching that guy over there, could result in me going to prison because some camera at a bad angle, looks like I shot an unarmed person...... Then I'm not going to approach that guy over there.

I'll wait until he kills someone, and then apprehend them when I know some idiot with a cell phone, won't try and get me sent to prison.

If he is armed, he is armed. A camera angle can not disarm him.

Right, and yet I have seen numerous videos where the individual was most certainly armed, but the camera angle didn't show it, and people were freaking out about police brutality.

So what? If he was armed, he was armed.

Regardless, the reality is that when police feel that everyone is not supportive, but rather chanting 'we want dead cops', the police are going pull back if they don't feel they will be backed by the public. That's a fact.

They shouldn't always be backed. Sometimes they are wrong.

If I know that going into a burning house, means you are going to beat me over the head for doing it.... then I am not going into your burning house to save your butt.

So you shouldn't be a fireman then. Be a crossing guard.

Now that doesn't happen with firemen, but it does happen with police routinely. They go out there, and put themselves in harms way to fight the criminals in our society, and for that they get attacked from all sides.

Then I'll sit in the suburb on the opposite side of town, and wait for the call to come in. Then I'll take my time getting to that location, by then all the bodies have hit the floor already, and I'll take some statements, clean up the crime scene, and collect my paycheck. I'm not going to risk confronting a suspicious person, who could try to grab my gun, and then when I shoot him, I get put on trial. Sorry.

Let that suspicious person shoot somebody, then I just go take some statements, and no one try to put me in prison.

There are tens of thousands of police interactions everyday. None of them make the news. On occasion the police do the wrong thing. When that is the case it should not be swept under the rug.

So what? If he was armed, he was armed.

Which does not stop the evil left, from trying to destroy the police officer. I've watch them do it.

They shouldn't always be backed. Sometimes they are wrong.

Innocent until proven guilty is the law of the land. If you abide by that, then so will I.

So you shouldn't be a fireman then. Be a crossing guard.

And no should by that logic. If you are saying to me, that no person should be a fireman if they are not willing to get destroyed for doing their job.... then no one should be a fireman, or police officer.

And honestly if you are trying to suggest that you would be willing to risk your life, for someone who will try and destroy you for saving them... then you are liar. No human being is going to do that.

There are tens of thousands of police interactions everyday. None of them make the news. On occasion the police do the wrong thing. When that is the case it should not be swept under the rug.

Out of the all the supposedly do the wrong thing, few... very few... was the officer actually in the wrong. Garner was an evil criminal, with a history pages long, who refused to obey police officers. They did nothing wrong. He did. Brown was a criminal thug, who robbed a store, attacked a police officer, and tried to steal his gun. The officer did nothing wrong. Brown did.

The list goes on. You can sit there and tell me that you don't support evil, over the good, but if you defend any of those criminals, and believe the officer should be put on trial... then you have done exactly that.

 

[SavannahMann]

Except that the cop has to show it was necessary. It lowers the hurdle for the cop to be prosecuted.

Which would result in police being less likely to confront criminals.

If I know that approaching that guy over there, could result in me going to prison because some camera at a bad angle, looks like I shot an unarmed person...... Then I'm not going to approach that guy over there.

I'll wait until he kills someone, and then apprehend them when I know some idiot with a cell phone, won't try and get me sent to prison.

If he is armed, he is armed. A camera angle can not disarm him.

Right, and yet I have seen numerous videos where the individual was most certainly armed, but the camera angle didn't show it, and people were freaking out about police brutality.

So what? If he was armed, he was armed.

Regardless, the reality is that when police feel that everyone is not supportive, but rather chanting 'we want dead cops', the police are going pull back if they don't feel they will be backed by the public. That's a fact.

They shouldn't always be backed. Sometimes they are wrong.

If I know that going into a burning house, means you are going to beat me over the head for doing it.... then I am not going into your burning house to save your butt.

So you shouldn't be a fireman then. Be a crossing guard.

Now that doesn't happen with firemen, but it does happen with police routinely. They go out there, and put themselves in harms way to fight the criminals in our society, and for that they get attacked from all sides.

Then I'll sit in the suburb on the opposite side of town, and wait for the call to come in. Then I'll take my time getting to that location, by then all the bodies have hit the floor already, and I'll take some statements, clean up the crime scene, and collect my paycheck. I'm not going to risk confronting a suspicious person, who could try to grab my gun, and then when I shoot him, I get put on trial. Sorry.

Let that suspicious person shoot somebody, then I just go take some statements, and no one try to put me in prison.

There are tens of thousands of police interactions everyday. None of them make the news. On occasion the police do the wrong thing. When that is the case it should not be swept under the rug.

So what? If he was armed, he was armed.

Which does not stop the evil left, from trying to destroy the police officer. I've watch them do it.

They shouldn't always be backed. Sometimes they are wrong.

Innocent until proven guilty is the law of the land. If you abide by that, then so will I.

So you shouldn't be a fireman then. Be a crossing guard.

And no should by that logic. If you are saying to me, that no person should be a fireman if they are not willing to get destroyed for doing their job.... then no one should be a fireman, or police officer.

And honestly if you are trying to suggest that you would be willing to risk your life, for someone who will try and destroy you for saving them... then you are liar. No human being is going to do that.

There are tens of thousands of police interactions everyday. None of them make the news. On occasion the police do the wrong thing. When that is the case it should not be swept under the rug.

Out of the all the supposedly do the wrong thing, few... very few... was the officer actually in the wrong. Garner was an evil criminal, with a history pages long, who refused to obey police officers. They did nothing wrong. He did. Brown was a criminal thug, who robbed a store, attacked a police officer, and tried to steal his gun. The officer did nothing wrong. Brown did.

The list goes on. You can sit there and tell me that you don't support evil, over the good, but if you defend any of those criminals, and believe the officer should be put on trial... then you have done exactly that.

Innocent until proven guilty. We return to the issue finally. For more than a decade I have been calling on reform of the use of for e standards and practices for police. I predicted, that is a little strong. I saw the inevitable future we are entering. If the police would not change, then change would be forced upon them. The changes are being forced.

If a person has committed a crime depends upon the definition of the crime, or allowed actions. Under the “Reasonable” standard. The police could and did get away with nearly every shooting regardless of how excessive it was because they memorized the magic words. I was afeared for my life. Now, under the “Necessary” standard, the cop has to explain why he was afeared for his life. What specifically did the suspect do, or what actual threat existed. The sixth leading cause of death for young men is death by cop.

It has to change. It is changing.

 

[pknopp]

Except that the cop has to show it was necessary. It lowers the hurdle for the cop to be prosecuted.

Which would result in police being less likely to confront criminals.

If I know that approaching that guy over there, could result in me going to prison because some camera at a bad angle, looks like I shot an unarmed person...... Then I'm not going to approach that guy over there.

I'll wait until he kills someone, and then apprehend them when I know some idiot with a cell phone, won't try and get me sent to prison.

If he is armed, he is armed. A camera angle can not disarm him.

Right, and yet I have seen numerous videos where the individual was most certainly armed, but the camera angle didn't show it, and people were freaking out about police brutality.

So what? If he was armed, he was armed.

Regardless, the reality is that when police feel that everyone is not supportive, but rather chanting 'we want dead cops', the police are going pull back if they don't feel they will be backed by the public. That's a fact.

They shouldn't always be backed. Sometimes they are wrong.

If I know that going into a burning house, means you are going to beat me over the head for doing it.... then I am not going into your burning house to save your butt.

So you shouldn't be a fireman then. Be a crossing guard.

Now that doesn't happen with firemen, but it does happen with police routinely. They go out there, and put themselves in harms way to fight the criminals in our society, and for that they get attacked from all sides.

Then I'll sit in the suburb on the opposite side of town, and wait for the call to come in. Then I'll take my time getting to that location, by then all the bodies have hit the floor already, and I'll take some statements, clean up the crime scene, and collect my paycheck. I'm not going to risk confronting a suspicious person, who could try to grab my gun, and then when I shoot him, I get put on trial. Sorry.

Let that suspicious person shoot somebody, then I just go take some statements, and no one try to put me in prison.

There are tens of thousands of police interactions everyday. None of them make the news. On occasion the police do the wrong thing. When that is the case it should not be swept under the rug.

So what? If he was armed, he was armed.

Which does not stop the evil left, from trying to destroy the police officer. I've watch them do it.

They shouldn't always be backed. Sometimes they are wrong.

Innocent until proven guilty is the law of the land. If you abide by that, then so will I.

So you shouldn't be a fireman then. Be a crossing guard.

And no should by that logic. If you are saying to me, that no person should be a fireman if they are not willing to get destroyed for doing their job.... then no one should be a fireman, or police officer.

And honestly if you are trying to suggest that you would be willing to risk your life, for someone who will try and destroy you for saving them... then you are liar. No human being is going to do that.

There are tens of thousands of police interactions everyday. None of them make the news. On occasion the police do the wrong thing. When that is the case it should not be swept under the rug.

Out of the all the supposedly do the wrong thing, few... very few... was the officer actually in the wrong. Garner was an evil criminal, with a history pages long, who refused to obey police officers. They did nothing wrong. He did. Brown was a criminal thug, who robbed a store, attacked a police officer, and tried to steal his gun. The officer did nothing wrong. Brown did.

The list goes on. You can sit there and tell me that you don't support evil, over the good, but if you defend any of those criminals, and believe the officer should be put on trial... then you have done exactly that.

I discussed Garner endlessly and won't again but you are wrong and I will always side with the citizen, even a criminal one when their civil rights are violated

It's funny you preach "innocent until proven guilty". Garner was "guilty until he proved himself innocent".

That isn't how it works.

 

[pknopp]

Some people are simply not fit to be police officers and should be removed.

Glendale officer facing firing over use of force resigns

 

[Andylusion]

Which would result in police being less likely to confront criminals.

If I know that approaching that guy over there, could result in me going to prison because some camera at a bad angle, looks like I shot an unarmed person...... Then I'm not going to approach that guy over there.

I'll wait until he kills someone, and then apprehend them when I know some idiot with a cell phone, won't try and get me sent to prison.

If he is armed, he is armed. A camera angle can not disarm him.

Right, and yet I have seen numerous videos where the individual was most certainly armed, but the camera angle didn't show it, and people were freaking out about police brutality.

So what? If he was armed, he was armed.

Regardless, the reality is that when police feel that everyone is not supportive, but rather chanting 'we want dead cops', the police are going pull back if they don't feel they will be backed by the public. That's a fact.

They shouldn't always be backed. Sometimes they are wrong.

If I know that going into a burning house, means you are going to beat me over the head for doing it.... then I am not going into your burning house to save your butt.

So you shouldn't be a fireman then. Be a crossing guard.

Now that doesn't happen with firemen, but it does happen with police routinely. They go out there, and put themselves in harms way to fight the criminals in our society, and for that they get attacked from all sides.

Then I'll sit in the suburb on the opposite side of town, and wait for the call to come in. Then I'll take my time getting to that location, by then all the bodies have hit the floor already, and I'll take some statements, clean up the crime scene, and collect my paycheck. I'm not going to risk confronting a suspicious person, who could try to grab my gun, and then when I shoot him, I get put on trial. Sorry.

Let that suspicious person shoot somebody, then I just go take some statements, and no one try to put me in prison.

There are tens of thousands of police interactions everyday. None of them make the news. On occasion the police do the wrong thing. When that is the case it should not be swept under the rug.

So what? If he was armed, he was armed.

Which does not stop the evil left, from trying to destroy the police officer. I've watch them do it.

They shouldn't always be backed. Sometimes they are wrong.

Innocent until proven guilty is the law of the land. If you abide by that, then so will I.

So you shouldn't be a fireman then. Be a crossing guard.

And no should by that logic. If you are saying to me, that no person should be a fireman if they are not willing to get destroyed for doing their job.... then no one should be a fireman, or police officer.

And honestly if you are trying to suggest that you would be willing to risk your life, for someone who will try and destroy you for saving them... then you are liar. No human being is going to do that.

There are tens of thousands of police interactions everyday. None of them make the news. On occasion the police do the wrong thing. When that is the case it should not be swept under the rug.

Out of the all the supposedly do the wrong thing, few... very few... was the officer actually in the wrong. Garner was an evil criminal, with a history pages long, who refused to obey police officers. They did nothing wrong. He did. Brown was a criminal thug, who robbed a store, attacked a police officer, and tried to steal his gun. The officer did nothing wrong. Brown did.

The list goes on. You can sit there and tell me that you don't support evil, over the good, but if you defend any of those criminals, and believe the officer should be put on trial... then you have done exactly that.

Innocent until proven guilty. We return to the issue finally. For more than a decade I have been calling on reform of the use of for e standards and practices for police. I predicted, that is a little strong. I saw the inevitable future we are entering. If the police would not change, then change would be forced upon them. The changes are being forced.

If a person has committed a crime depends upon the definition of the crime, or allowed actions. Under the “Reasonable” standard. The police could and did get away with nearly every shooting regardless of how excessive it was because they memorized the magic words. I was afeared for my life. Now, under the “Necessary” standard, the cop has to explain why he was afeared for his life. What specifically did the suspect do, or what actual threat existed. The sixth leading cause of death for young men is death by cop.

It has to change. It is changing.

Again, you need to absolutely prove that force was excessive, before I condemn the cop.

So what if the sixth leading cause of death for young men is death by cop? So what? That proves nothing.

Unless you can prove that police are randomly shooting people, then that statistic only proves too many people are violently resisting officers.

You want to eliminate that? Eliminate police. The number of deaths will dramatically increase from the anarchy that follows, but at least we won't have death by cop, right?

Dumb position.

The number of police shootings, by every single study on the topic, finds that the number of shootings is directly proportional to the number of violent encounters.

So.... Here's a thought... stop breaking the law, and then the police won't bother you.

When you are confronted with an officer, treat him like an officer. "Yes sir", and obeying given commands.

Do what you are told. Keep your mouth shut. Don't give an attitude.

I watch people constantly give endless attitude to an officer, provoke the officer as much as possible, and then complain they get tazed. No. you deserve it.

 

[Andylusion]

Some people are simply not fit to be police officers and should be removed.

Glendale officer facing firing over use of force resigns

I agree with that.

Here's an idea. Cut food stamps and Obama phones, and welfare.

Take that money and pay for better training, and higher wages to attract more qualified people.

Fact is, police are paid crap. Then you complain you have unfit police.

Many of these officers are following the exact training they were given. So how about you improve the training? I'm all for it.

 

[pknopp]

You do not obey when they demand you do something they can not require you to do. They have to understand that they can not violate your rights.

We've made improvements there.

 

[pknopp]

Some people are simply not fit to be police officers and should be removed.

Glendale officer facing firing over use of force resigns

I agree with that.

Here's an idea. Cut food stamps and Obama phones, and welfare.

Take that money and pay for better training, and higher wages to attract more qualified people.

Fact is, police are paid crap. Then you complain you have unfit police.

Many of these officers are following the exact training they were given. So how about you improve the training? I'm all for it.

If the solution is better pay, I'm good with that.

 

[Andylusion]

Some people are simply not fit to be police officers and should be removed.

Glendale officer facing firing over use of force resigns

I agree with that.

Here's an idea. Cut food stamps and Obama phones, and welfare.

Take that money and pay for better training, and higher wages to attract more qualified people.

Fact is, police are paid crap. Then you complain you have unfit police.

Many of these officers are following the exact training they were given. So how about you improve the training? I'm all for it.

If the solution is better pay, I'm good with that.

Part of the solution. But that requires you to cut spending elsewhere to pay for it. So say goodbye to some of your programs and entitlements.

 

[Andylusion]

You do not obey when they demand you do something they can not require you to do. They have to understand that they can not violate your rights.

We've made improvements there.

I have never seen a situation where an officer ordered you to beat someone else, or take money from the cash register, or some other illegal command.

 

[pknopp]

Some people are simply not fit to be police officers and should be removed.

Glendale officer facing firing over use of force resigns

I agree with that.

Here's an idea. Cut food stamps and Obama phones, and welfare.

Take that money and pay for better training, and higher wages to attract more qualified people.

Fact is, police are paid crap. Then you complain you have unfit police.

Many of these officers are following the exact training they were given. So how about you improve the training? I'm all for it.

If the solution is better pay, I'm good with that.

Part of the solution. But that requires you to cut spending elsewhere to pay for it. So say goodbye to some of your programs and entitlements.

What you mentioned are Federal programs. The police are funded on the local level.

 

[pknopp]

You do not obey when they demand you do something they can not require you to do. They have to understand that they can not violate your rights.

We've made improvements there.

I have never seen a situation where an officer ordered you to beat someone else, or take money from the cash register, or some other illegal command.

We have seen where they beat someone for refusing to cede their civil right.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Well officers, isnt it time to collect your pension (if you can before THAT is done away with by your DemonRATIC legislature in favor of giving it to all the illegal invaders ....I understand the illegals # over 1 million now in Kalipornia with hundreds more dsily) or perhaps put in applications with other state police departments? Give it 5 maybe 10 years and we can VOTE that state out of the Union and let it become it's own Venezuela!

California is changing its standards for when police can kill under a law signed Monday by Gov. Gavin Newsom, as it tries to deter police shootings of young minority men that have roiled the nation.



"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.

(Excerpt) Read more at kcra.com ...

What officer in their right mind would now do ANYTHING to protect and serve the public when their every action is subject to THEM being arrested for assault or worse of the BAD GUY.... Remember all you white privileged people in Kalipornia to VOTE DemonRAT and watch you rights to protect yourselves slowly fade into darkness..... A Second Revolution MUST happen or all is lost to the insane left!

Well, they are working for a law that you can not use deadly force if they shot and hit you, then you can us the Taser, if you are shot and dying you can return fire. Did I fix it for you Progressives.