California cited ax George Floyd’s law to punish Lux police


Angered that Minneapolis officials stood up to assassinate his colleague George Floyd, California lawmakers are considering a stricter law to punish police that fail to intervene when they witness possible excessive force Is – which includes possible criminal charges and being banned from law enforcement.

If enacted, the proposed legislation would put California at the forefront of legal efforts to criminalize the “Blue Code of Silence”, in which many contributed to Floyd’s death.

But the bill, written by Speaker of the Assembly Chris Holden (D-Pasadena), has set up a fight with law enforcement agencies around the state that violate the rule, but it is largely meaningless, but during conditions officials A criminal penalty is imposed which often includes split-second decisions. .

Floyd, a black man, was killed on May 25 by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, who held his knee on Floyd’s neck for about eight minutes, until Floyd went unresponsive. Three other officers at the scene failed to stop Chowin, though Floyd said he could not breathe.

“It broke my heart,” said Holden. “It was the inaction of the other officers that caused real concern as they never tried to stop it.”

Chauvin has been charged with third-degree murder, second-degree murder and manslaughter. Three of his colleagues, Thomas Lane, Too Tho and J. Alexander Kueng has been charged with second-degree murder and manslaughter.

Holden’s bill would make the officer a facilitator for any crime committed by the officer using undue force if they failed to take action.

Holden said that despite current orders and policies that give officers a duty to intervene, their measure needs to clarify what the action means and how officers should be trained. This would provide whistleblower protection to officers who report excessive force, and prevent an individual from remaining an officer if they were found to use excessive force unnecessarily resulting in major bodily injury or death. Occurred, or failed to interfere in that situation.

“There needs to be physical intervention,” he said. “There is also a need to ensure that the body camera is on, an attempt to worsen the situation.”

But law enforcement officials said the bill is unfair to officials because it does not note that the Floyd case, in which officers had time to react, is a discrepancy. He said that most of the use-force occurs quickly and often in chaotic situations, and that it is not practical or appropriate to hold officers to an inflexible duty to intervene.

“This misleading proposal criminalizes officials who do not have a complete understanding of the incident and who have different perspectives. Strong policies, strong training and fair discipline are far more appropriate than criminal sanctions, ”the Los Angeles Police Protective League board of directors said in a statement.

Statewide police instructor, Ed Obayashi, said the measure was “impractical” and presented a comprehensive solution to a narrow problem. Obayashi said a situation like Floyd’s death, where other officers are present, but not actively participating, is rare, and legislating for it can cause confusion in more common situations.

He cited the example of recent protests where the use of rubber bullets and other projectiles has been questioned as excessive force, pointing out that it would be difficult for other officers in those situations to determine whether the force warranted And if they had the duty to intervene.

“It’s a slippery slope because what are you going to say, that you’ve got 30 officers in a skirmish line and deploys a projectile and it hits someone in the head. What should the other officers do?” He asked. .

The proposal also demolished law enforcement’s decorum for the language, which would have pushed forward a deal to pass Assembly Bill 392 last year, which re-enforced California’s use of force law. That controversial measure brought weeks of emotional protest in the Capitol in the wake of the shooting of Stephen Clarke by Sacramento police who mistook his cellphone for a gun.

Gov. Gavin Newsom struck a last-minute settlement between law enforcement and corrections advocates, which convinced police to end their opposition to the measure, but softened some of its language. The deal largely focuses on the definition, or lack, of a single word: essential.

Police reform advocates wanted a clear definition that lethal force can be used only when other options have been exhausted. Law enforcement successfully argued that strict definitions were not always possible. The term was eventually dropped into law, but its meaning was left to the discretion of prosecutors and the courts.

Earlier this week, the definition of “necessary” means was added by Holden’s Bill and AB 392 author Shirley Weber (D-San Diego).

Law enforcement lobbyists were angered, considering it was a backdoor measure to undo the deal brokered by Newsom.

The Weber Bill, AB 1709, will not proceed this year.

Holden said on Wednesday that he was unaware of the importance of the language, and is in the process of removing that part of the bill. He said that it was recently brought to our attention that this was part of the Governor’s interaction with law enforcement [AB] 392 ”and he did not intend to change the use of the force of state law again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.