NPR had an informative take yesterday on California’s new law changing the way in which authorities review and evaluate the circumstances of police use of deadly force.
It came in a segment of the program “All Things Considered.” I heard in broadcast late Saturday afternoon on Hawaii Public Radio.
A story in the Sacremento Bee summarized the new law.
Prior to the new law, California police officers could use deadly force if their actions were considered “reasonable.” It’s a standard that dates to 1872, and it has frustrated activists who wanted to see prosecutions of cops after shootings of unarmed people.
The new standard restricts lethal force to when it is “necessary in defense of human life” as perceived by a “reasonable” officer and based on the “totality of circumstances.” It also emphasizes deescalation as an effective alternative to lethal force.
If questioned, officers will have to prove there is an “imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury,” and they’ll be evaluated based on the facts they knew leading up to the deadly action.
“The bottom line is that deadly force should only be used when absolutely necessary,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a written statement after he signed the law.
The NPR segment featured an interview with Seth Stoughton, a law professor at the University of South Carolina and a former police officer, who reportedly consulted on the new law as it was being debated in California’s legislature.
SETH STOUGHTON: One of the big changes in this law is it directs reviewers, courts, juries, judges to look at all of the actions leading up to a use of force, including the officer’s actions, not just the subject’s actions. That’s a really important change because it can address a problem called officer-created jeopardy. Officers take risks. The job requires them to expose themselves to a certain amount of danger. But at the same time, we don’t want them to put themselves into danger, recklessly, when it’s not justified by the situation. So if an officer does that, if they put themselves into a dangerous situation in a way that’s not justified, then that action prior to the use of force can affect the ultimate determination of whether the officer’s use of force was appropriate.
Let me offer a little more specific example. If an officer steps in front of a car and then shoots the driver because the car starts moving toward them, under this new law, the jury, the judge, the prosecutor will analyze the propriety, the appropriateness of the officer’s actions not just at the moment that the shots were fired but also the officer’s actions leading up to the moment that the shots were fired. And one of the questions there is whether the officer put themselves into an unnecessarily dangerous situation and then used force to address the danger that they should’ve avoided in the first place. [Emphasis added]
Honolulu police officers use precisely the tactic Stoughton labels “officer-created jeopardy.” And in a series of cases in recent years, theses incidents have resulted in police fatally shooting suspects.
According to the NPR host, “many are saying the new law could influence policing standards nationwide.”
I certainly hope so. And, based on our track record, Hawaii really needs to follow the California example. And sooner rather than later.
See also:
“Latest HPD shooting again raises familiar questions,” iLind.net, Dec. 4, 2016.
“Could Honolulu police have avoided recent shootings?” iLind.net, Oct. 14, 2014.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
NPR also had a segment on studies as regards police handling of racial minorities, mostly blacks. One conclusion was overuse of force often stemmed from officer fear.
Personal experience w/in another police department, and as a female in the ‘60s, saw a good deal of this: the most fearful often the most brutal. Trying to fix this culture goes beyond laws and more into leadership inspired education programs on how to be a good cop.
Why is it that when a police officer or sheriff shoots and kills someone in Hawaii, their identification is kept secret and the media don’t even question why, even if the case is being investigated as a murder? Yet when anyone else is merely arrested, even for a relatively minor offense, and certainly after killing someone, their identification is made public. The public arguably has more of an interest in transparency when someone acting under state authority kills, whether justified or not. Is there any law that mandates secrecy, do authorities just make up the rules, or do the media fail to even inquire?
Thank you for writing about this. I agree: Hawaii should follow California’s lead.
Many folks do not understand how difficult a police officer’s job is. In a crisis situation, the officer has to instantly sort out a rush of incoming information, much of it contradictory. Office workers, judges, and others typically have time to sort out complex inputs and make solid decisions. But police officers often do not have the luxury of time, and adrenaline is flowing. And Kate makes an excellent point about the role of fear.
I wonder how many of us could handle the job of a police officer.
BTW, I am not connected with the police department. I did spend one summer riding in a police car in a major city as an observer. That was an eye-opener!
Yep, cops have a very tough job and often deal with terrible people! Unfortunately, some folks don’t realize that some cops also illegally assault people, escalate conflict, and otherwise abuse their authority, sometimes in deadly ways. Some also falsify evidence, lie, sabotage trials, engage in illegal conspiracies and obstruction… And some even give $130 jaywalking tickets to 92-year-old ladies!
Sure, policing is hard. That doesn’t mean they should not be held accountable. The stakes are high, so should the standards be.
Your comment about ‘how many of us could do the job?’ Is just a deflection. If a surgeon recklessly killed someone, would you refuse to criticize them? If a mechanic poorly repaired your car, would you say nothing because you cannot do it yourself? These thoughtless comments only obstruct a productive conversation.
I have to wonder if they should, during police recruit screening, actually sit down one-on-one with EACH AND EVERY recruit and simply ask: What is your MOTIVATION for joining the PD? What are your GOALS? If we let you patrol the streets on foot for six months without a gun but only with a pad and pen as a probationary exercise alongside a social worker, would you still want the job?
Love Chaz’s suggestion!
Deedy’s case sounded like a possible case of officer-created jeopardy.
60,000, more or less, assaults on police officers, annually, nationwide, are in comparison to about 1,000 shootings by police officers, of which about 300 are determined unjustified. …. so, yes, many of the few shootings that occur are unjustified, already…if new rules make it even less likely a shooting would be justifiable, or would likely put the officer in unpredictable legal jeapardy, the result may be fewer police shootings, but also more assaults on officers? fewer actual arrests of suspects? would the police draw back, play it safe, and let observed miscreants’ behavior abound just a bit more? ….. It is a fine line. I for one will be willing to heed police ‘orders most anytime and will refrain from running at them with an automobile….will others?