Comments on: Assembly passes stricter use-of-force bill, suggesting police unions have lost clout at state Capitol

By: Standing Fast

Standing Fast — Wed, 19 Jun 2019 22:18:44 +0000

Ricky Smith:
You raised the right point in this discussion:

What is the difference between the legal definition of “reasonable” and the legal definition of “necessary”?

I cannot quote from memory the legal definition of “reasonable” as applied to law enforcement officers, but I can tell you that the way “necessary” is defined in the new bill the two are not interchangeable.

Those who think this is an improvement do not understand the difference between reality and fiction. In reality, if a suspect is already reaching for his weapon an officer will not have time to draw his gun before the suspect is able to fire at him. That means officers have to draw their weapons before they know they will actually need to use them, or draw theirs the moment they see the suspect reach for his.

How do I know this? Because years ago I contact POST to ask some questions nobody else did after the Tyisha Miller shooting. She was shot because she reached for the weapon in her lap, not because the officers were trigger-happy.

So now tell me, how would you like to go into police work under these kind of unreasonable restraints?

By: Queeg

Queeg — Wed, 19 Jun 2019 21:39:30 +0000

We are due our monthly unpithy article-

By: ricky smith

ricky smith — Sun, 02 Jun 2019 15:41:59 +0000

” …It says officers may only use lethal force if it is “necessary” for public safety. Existing law says officers can use such force if they believe it is “reasonable” to ensure public safety.
The change qualifies as weasel words of the first order.
The language seems similar but the legal differences may be substantial.
Citizens have the right of self defense and use deadly force if they fear their lives are endangered.
So does this legislation give officers less rights than an ordinary citizen? Might see this one in front of SCOTUS someday.

By: Standing Fast

Standing Fast — Thu, 30 May 2019 19:44:30 +0000

The problem of police use of excessive-force could be addressed more intelligently with attitude adjustment exercises for everybody. Hostility toward police by good citizens inspires hostility toward the public even by good officers. If we want police officers we can trust, they have to be able to trust us, too.

Also, underfunded police departments usually do not have as many sworn officers as they should have to provide adequate protection. This results in overtime, and lots of it, too much. Burn-out happens earlier now than it used to when cities weren’t wasting our money on nonsense.

I predict that one of the unintended consequences of this new law will be even more violence. I mean, if you were a criminal, who would you rather resist–a fully equipped peace officer who is obligated by law to take whatever action is necessary to protect himself, his colleagues, and most of all the public OR an under-equipped officer who is not allowed to do his job?

Ask yourself, who would you be more likely to trust, a sleep-deprived policeman working his second full shift in 24 hours or the meth-crazed maniac he is trying to subdue to save your life?

By: Ulysses Uhaul

Ulysses Uhaul — Thu, 30 May 2019 17:02:35 +0000

We took in Baby and Vicious for their annual check up and Vitamin B shots.

They are doing well and pleased to announce our, free to doomers, cd of their workday trailer yard highlights.

So cute hanging with doomers in our Comfort Bunker!!!!