“No Reasonable Alternatives”: Liberal State To Restrict When Police Officers Can Shoot | Teddy Stick

“No Reasonable Alternatives”: Liberal State To Restrict When Police Officers Can Shoot

District 6 city council member Kevin McCarty at City Hall (pictured) and other leaders are pushing for a change that won't help anything but the liberal agenda.

There have always been laws applying to when police may use a firearm. Liberals and others like to make it sound like there are not, but that is only so further restrictions can be imposed. For better or worse, new rules regarding this may soon go into effect, as the Hill confirmed today.

If the updated legislation passes in the liberal state of California, cops would only be permitted to open fire when “there were no other reasonable alternatives to the use of deadly force.” This sounds perfectly reasonable, but like all things, the devil may be in the details.

As the Associated Press has told in the past, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) supports the new measures, and they are a group that is wrong as often as they are right. In essence, this “rewording” could effectively sentence officers to injury or death as they are forced to consider their life or death decisions even further. Why do liberals seem to think that police shoot just for the fun of it?

Most of the outcry for more rules is a result of the shooting death of Stephon Clark, an unarmed African-American man in Sacramento, California. He was in the backyard of this grandmother’s home when the shooting took place.

To try and prevent this from happening again,”reasonable force” language in the rules will be changed to “necessary force.” This is a nuance that will be debated hotly when more pressing circumstances arrive, which they will.

According to a “spokesman for Assemblyman Kevin McCarty” who co-authored the bill along with Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, the new legislation is designed to “urge officers to attempt to de-escalate situations or use weapons that are less lethal.”

While LA and San Francisco have rules already in place similar to this, as a state, California would be the first to implement such a change in total. ACLU legislative advocate Lizzie Buchen is quoted as saying that the rules as they are now “gives very broad discretion for using deadly force.”

She added, “It doesn’t mean there has to have been a threat. If a reasonable officer could have perceived a threat and responded with deadly force, then it’s legal.”

Buchen seems blind to the fact that Clark was not shot for without reason or as result of malice, but because the officer mistook the man’s cell phone for a gun and pulled the trigger.

Therefore, no matter how the wording is altered, is the same thing happened, the same result would occur. The death was caused by officer error and the way that the criminal was acting, not malicious intent.

Sadly, there is no legislation against error. What there is, however, are democrats looking to change laws so that they can get votes from those who felt that they really accomplished something with this foolish rewording.