# Proposed California law to restrict use of deadly force by law enforcement **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 20, 2018, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-california-law-to-restrict-use-of-deadly-force-by-law-enforcement/816437 "2018-06-20T12:02:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2018, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-california-law-to-restrict-use-of-deadly-force-by-law-enforcement/816437/141 "2018-06-26T03:20:18Z")
> [@MikeF](#): > > This is not due to incompetent officers or training. It is due the way human beings work. The courts realize this and allow officers to use force before there is proof- positive that a threat exists. There have a been some “what if” scenarios posited by some contributors to this thread. Almost all are over-simple and lack the details that real life encounters have. So, shoot anyone who has their hand in their pocket is the solution? Or instead of combat training for the police maybe some training in how to handle tense situations without using their gun? ---
**Author:** ![mikecurtis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mikecurtis/32/3284_2.png) [@mikecurtis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikecurtis)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2018, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-california-law-to-restrict-use-of-deadly-force-by-law-enforcement/816437/142 "2018-06-26T03:39:51Z")
> [@MikeF](#): > > . . .We did this around 200 times. I don’t recall a single instance where the officers got off the first shot. In about 80% of the cases the suspect hit an officer with that first, unaimed shot. The ranges involved here were 12-15 feet. This is what is known as the “reactionary gap”. It takes time for the officers to see what is happening, process it, decide on a course of action and then act. All this happens in a second or less. It is still more time than it takes the suspect to draw and fire. > > This is not due to incompetent officers or training. It is due the way human beings work. The courts realize this and allow officers to use force before there is proof- positive that a threat exists. There have a been some “what if” scenarios posited by some contributors to this thread. Almost all are over-simple and lack the details that real life encounters have. > [@pkbites](#): > > As have I, several times. But trying to educate some on these boards will drive you nuts. They simply know more than those who have seen how things actually work in the real world. Speaking of “real life encounters”. . . your training scenarios, as illuminating as they may be, are simply not verified in real life. There are literally scores of cases where if the officer had taken the “second or less” to verify, an unarmed civilian would be alive today. And try as I might, I have been unable to find one verified case of an officer being killed due to the “reactionary gap.” At some point we have to give up the idea of what “could possibly happen” for the real world data of what actually is happening. Alot of people hypothesize that raising the level of proof needed to justify lethal force will result in more dead cops. I ask what proof do you have, beside your gut feeling? And yes, I agree, trying to educate some on these boards will drive you nuts, but it’s not who you think it is. mc ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2018, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-california-law-to-restrict-use-of-deadly-force-by-law-enforcement/816437/143 "2018-06-26T05:14:28Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > Speaking of “real life encounters”. . . your training scenarios, as illuminating as they may be, are simply not verified in real life. Actually they are. Does every single real life situation work the way it does in training? No, of course not. You don’t really think they just make up this stuff up and do no study into real world situations, do you? And if you are so passionate about this, why aren’t you in front of your local police and fire commission or state law enforcement standards board explaining to them how you know better and lay out what training they should actually be doing? Those hearings are public, go for it. Instead of having a bunch of lawyers in the state capitol who know nothing about the subject and are only interested in votes pass a law that will have negative consequences and not eliminate the imaginary problem you think exists. ---
**Author:** ![Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hilarity_n.suze/32/6223_2.png) [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hilarity_N.Suze)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2018, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-california-law-to-restrict-use-of-deadly-force-by-law-enforcement/816437/144 "2018-06-26T06:11:54Z")
> [@Huey\_Freeman](#): > > White folks love to trot out these tired-ass arguments in order to justify the continued dehumanization of minorities. White males rape, grope, and sexually assault white women yet they, for the most part, escape the brunt of police brutality. If memory serves, didn’t white folk let the Brock Turner get away with raping a white woman behind a garbage dumpster truck? Didn’t his white father refer to the rape as “20 minutes of action”? White folk didn’t care. No one in the street. _Blessed Be the Fruit_, I suppose. > > White folk claim to be defenders of white maidenhood yet white folks are its most profane defilers. [Guess which ethnic group commits the most rape and sexual assault against white women?](https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence)It’s white folks across the political isle: Judge Roy Moore (white), Senator Byrd (white), Bill Clinton (white), Donald Trump (white) Harvey Weinstein (white), Chris Savino (white), Robert Scoble (white), Lockhart Steele (white), John Besh (white), Terry Richardson (white), Leon Wieseltier (white), Knight Landesman (white), Rick Najera (white), Mark Halperin (white), Ken Baker (white), Kevin Spacey (white), Hamilton Fish (white), Michael Oreskes (white), Andy Dick (white), Kirt Webster (white), Brett Ratner (white), Jeff Hoover (white), David Guillod (white), Benjamin Genocchio (white), Bill O’Reilly (white), Roger Ailes (white), Louis CK (white), and even Thomas Jefferson (white). The list goes and on ad nauseum both past and present. > > You can keep your violence card. A group of armed white folks raided a government building and pointed guns at the officers. Over some fucking grazing fees . . . and they lived. Can you imagine if a group of black men pointed guns anyone? If a group of blacks pointed guns at officers, white folks would’ve ordered the carpet bombing of the City of Cleveland\* and\* Philadelphia in retaliation. Really? Kevin Spacy? PS, I’m not disputing that he’s white. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2018, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-california-law-to-restrict-use-of-deadly-force-by-law-enforcement/816437/145 "2018-06-26T13:10:19Z")
> [@MikeF](#): > > That sounds reasonable but, in fact, is not true. I have personally conducted training that addresses this very thing. We put a “suspect” in a room with his hands in his coat pockets. Officers are sent to search the building for a burglary suspect. Everybody is armed with guns that fire projectiles that leave a colored mark. When the officers encountered the suspect with guns drawn, and pointed at him they almost always commanded “Show me you hands!”. At that point he would draw the gun and fire at them. We did this around 200 times. I don’t recall a single instance where the officers got off the first shot. In about 80% of the cases the suspect hit an officer with that first, unaimed shot. The ranges involved here were 12-15 feet. This is what is known as the “reactionary gap”. It takes time for the officers to see what is happening, process it, decide on a course of action and then act. All this happens in a second or less. It is still more time than it takes the suspect to draw and fire. It’s funny that the cops were able to draw and get off the first shot when it’s a kid on a picnic table. But not once in your training scenario? Something doesn’t add up. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2018, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-california-law-to-restrict-use-of-deadly-force-by-law-enforcement/816437/146 "2018-06-26T14:07:35Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > It’s funny that the cops were able to draw and get off the first shot when it’s a kid on a picnic table. But not once in your training scenario? Something doesn’t add up. In the training scenario, the suspect has already decided whether or not they’re going to shoot the cop. They already know exactly how, where, and when the scenario is going to play out. So when the cops appear and say “show your hands”, the suspects simply do what they’ve mentally prepared to do; no reactionary gap. The cops still suffer from the reactionary gap, because presumably some training suspects will comply with the orders and the cops will be marked down for shooting without cause. However, in real life, most suspects have not made a decision about how they will react to an armed adversary. They don’t know how, where, or when events will unfold. So when the cops appear and say “show your hands”, the suspect suffers from the reactionary gap. The reactionary gap affects everyone involved in real life. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2018, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-california-law-to-restrict-use-of-deadly-force-by-law-enforcement/816437/147 "2018-06-26T14:19:40Z")
> [@MikeF](#): > > That sounds reasonable but, in fact, is not true. I have personally conducted training that addresses this very thing. We put a “suspect” in a room with his hands in his coat pockets. Officers are sent to search the building for a burglary suspect. Everybody is armed with guns that fire projectiles that leave a colored mark. When the officers encountered the suspect with guns drawn, and pointed at him they almost always commanded “Show me you hands!”. At that point he would draw the gun and fire at them. We did this around 200 times. I don’t recall a single instance where the officers got off the first shot. In about 80% of the cases the suspect hit an officer with that first, unaimed shot. The ranges involved here were 12-15 feet. This is what is known as the “reactionary gap”. It takes time for the officers to see what is happening, process it, decide on a course of action and then act. All this happens in a second or less. It is still more time than it takes the suspect to draw and fire. > > This is not due to incompetent officers or training. It is due the way human beings work. The courts realize this and allow officers to use force before there is proof- positive that a threat exists. There have a been some “what if” scenarios posited by some contributors to this thread. Almost all are over-simple and lack the details that real life encounters have. Maybe you explained this poorly, but if the cops get shot 80% of the time _even when they are allowed to shoot first and the suspect’s weapon is not drawn_, that seems like an even better argument against allowing them to shoot first. Apparently the shoot first policy doesn’t make them more likely to survive if it is a gun, and it clearly makes it less likely for the suspect to survive if it turns out to be a phone. ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2018, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-california-law-to-restrict-use-of-deadly-force-by-law-enforcement/816437/148 "2018-06-26T15:57:24Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Maybe you explained this poorly, but if the cops get shot 80% of the time _even when they are allowed to shoot first and the suspect’s weapon is not drawn_, that seems like an even better argument against allowing them to shoot first. Apparently the shoot first policy doesn’t make them more likely to survive if it is a gun, and it clearly makes it less likely for the suspect to survive if it turns out to be a phone. You’ve claimed that in this exercise “the shoot first policy doesn’t make them more likely to survive if it is a gun.” You can’t possibly make this claim unless you have information about the results of the exercise with a no shooting first policy. Source for your information? In other words, if the result of the no shooting first policy is that the cops get shot 100% of the time, for example, then your claim that shooting first doesn’t make police more likely to survive is obviously false. At that point we still have to decide if the benefits of letting the police shoot first are worth the drawbacks. But your casual insinuation that there are no benefits at all requires actual evidentiary support, and you haven’t bothered to supply it. ---
**Author:** ![JB99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JB99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JB99)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2018, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-california-law-to-restrict-use-of-deadly-force-by-law-enforcement/816437/149 "2018-06-26T17:34:21Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > I think it fortunate for California police officers that this bill stands little to no chance of passing. I wouldn’t want to be a cop in that state if it did. But I’m open to persuasion. Is there any merit at all to this proposal? I wouldn’t want you to be a cop if you intend on using unnecessary force. The language says force must be “necessary.” In my mind, this means the officer had no other option but to use force. I don’t see why that is an unreasonable expectation. If the use of force cannot meet the threshold of ‘necessary’ then it is by definition ‘unnecessary.’ I can’t comprehend what moral system would allow an officer to use force if that force was not absolutely _required._ And if the use of force was indeed just, an officer should have no problem explaining why it was necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2018, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-california-law-to-restrict-use-of-deadly-force-by-law-enforcement/816437/150 "2018-06-26T17:35:57Z")
> [@JB99](#): > > And if the use of force was indeed just, an officer should have no problem explaining why it was necessary. They don’t have a problem now. But it seems like with this new law, they won’t be able to simply say “I was afraid” and get away with shooting unarmed people. ---
**Author:** ![MikeF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MikeF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeF)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2018, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-california-law-to-restrict-use-of-deadly-force-by-law-enforcement/816437/151 "2018-06-26T19:39:20Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > So, shoot anyone who has their hand in their pocket is the solution? > > Or instead of combat training for the police maybe some training in how to handle tense situations without using their gun? Did I say that shooting anyone with their hands in their pockets was the solution? You seem to have missed my point, entirely. Let me be clearer. Some people confuse the reality of potentially violent encounters with what they already believe based on T.V., movies and god knows what else. Kobal2’s post is a perfect example. The point of the exercise I was talking about was to get cops to think more tactically and minimize their exposure to danger. Some cops also believe that a suspect can’t beat them to the shot if they have them at gunpoint and then expose themselves un-necessarily to danger. My job is to get them to learn that lesson in training, not on the street where the stakes are a bit higher. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2018, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-california-law-to-restrict-use-of-deadly-force-by-law-enforcement/816437/152 "2018-06-27T01:46:14Z")
> [@MikeF](#): > > The point of the exercise I was talking about was to get cops to think more tactically and minimize their exposure to danger. Some cops also believe that a suspect can’t beat them to the shot if they have them at gunpoint and then expose themselves un-necessarily to danger. My job is to get them to learn that lesson in training, not on the street where the stakes are a bit higher. I was unclear on the point of the exercise. Given what you’ve said here I can see its usefulness. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2018, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-california-law-to-restrict-use-of-deadly-force-by-law-enforcement/816437/153 "2018-06-27T01:59:13Z")
> [@MikeF](#): > > Did I say that shooting anyone with their hands in their pockets was the solution? You seem to have missed my point, entirely. Let me be clearer. Some people confuse the reality of potentially violent encounters with what they already believe based on T.V., movies and god knows what else. Kobal2’s post is a perfect example. > > The point of the exercise I was talking about was to get cops to think more tactically and minimize their exposure to danger. Some cops also believe that a suspect can’t beat them to the shot if they have them at gunpoint and then expose themselves un-necessarily to danger. My job is to get them to learn that lesson in training, not on the street where the stakes are a bit higher. I think you made some good points here, but I also think you undercut yourself when you wrote this to **Uzi** earlier: > [@MikeF](#): > > The kid in the playground, BTW, was the size of a small adult, had what appeared to be a real gun and had been pointing it at people. He wasn’t playing in the sandbox with his GI Joe. And to say officers shouldn’t put themselves in positions where the might have to use deadly force is a joke. Unless you want them to stay at HQ all day and not respond to anything. I’m sure that there are those who would be just fine with that. Your post seems unnecessarily snarky and adopted an adversarial stance and tone, when in fact, your goal and **Uzi** ’s are at least nearly the same: to get the cops to do their jobs without putting anyone in danger unnecessarily. Or is it just the cops you care about not being exposed unnecessarily to danger? Because the way you wrote your posts, it doesn’t come across clearly. ---
**Author:** ![MikeF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MikeF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeF)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2018, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-california-law-to-restrict-use-of-deadly-force-by-law-enforcement/816437/154 "2018-06-28T16:20:26Z")
Not trying to snark but using examples that are inaccurate or incomplete to support one’s position doesn’t further the conversation in any meaningful way. ---
**Author:** ![I\_can\_t\_think\_of\_a\_name](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ed8c4c/32.png) [@I\_can\_t\_think\_of\_a\_name](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_can_t_think_of_a_name)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2018, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-california-law-to-restrict-use-of-deadly-force-by-law-enforcement/816437/155 "2018-06-28T18:51:01Z")
> [@JB99](#): > > I wouldn’t want you to be a cop if you intend on using unnecessary force. > > The language says force must be “necessary.” In my mind, this means the officer had no other option but to use force. I don’t see why that is an unreasonable expectation. If the use of force cannot meet the threshold of ‘necessary’ then it is by definition ‘unnecessary.’ > > I can’t comprehend what moral system would allow an officer to use force if that force was not absolutely _required._ > > And if the use of force was indeed just, an officer should have no problem explaining why it was necessary. “necessary” can only be accurately assessed by thorough consideration of all relevant information (including information not known at the time) and often not even then. I’ll use an example of something trivial, something that’s very far from a matter of life and death, so that I can make a point regarding the distinction between “necessary” and “reasonable” in isolation. I put some shelves on a wall. After considering the length of the shelves and the weight of the stuff I intended to put on them, I decided to add extra support under the shelves rather than just a supporting bracket at each end. Was that necessary? Even afterwards, I can’t prove that it was. Detailed analysis of the wall, the shelves and the weight might be able to prove it one way or the other. Was that reasonable? I think so. There’s always scope for consideration of what exactly is meant by “reasonable” and it should be closely scrutinised in matters of life and death, but changing “reasonable” to “necessary” is a radical change in meaning that would completely change policing and make it prudent for nobody to be a police officer. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-california-law-to-restrict-use-of-deadly-force-by-law-enforcement/816437.md?page=7)