California Democrats say that they want cops to die; or do they?

Radical leftists Gavin Newsom signed into law AB392 which sends mixed messages about when police officers can protect themselves.

The bill says:

"(2) As set forth below, it is the intent of the Legislature that peace officers use deadly force only when necessary in defense of human life. In determining whether deadly force is necessary, officers shall evaluate each situation in light of the particular circumstances of each case, and shall use other available resources and techniques if reasonably safe and feasible to an objectively reasonable officer."
This is horrible. To see why imagine the following scenario; an officer is shot at by a criminal who then runs into a dark alley. When the officer follows the criminal in instead of halting as ordered the criminal turns to face the officer in such a way that the officer can't see the criminals gun hand and hence can't tell if a gun will be pointed at the officer in a tenth of a second.  The officer shoots to defend himself but it turns out that the criminal had thrown the gun into a dumpster.

In that scenario it wasn't necessary for the officer to shoot the criminal but the officer would have had no way of knowing that short of allowing the criminal the chance to shoot him, the officer, if the criminal had had a gun.  Clearly we don't pay the police enough to ask them to do that.

Historically the rule has been that if a reasonable officer in the same situation would have used deadly force then the use of deadly force was legal.  The Supreme Court has recognized that we can't hold police officers who are faced with the need to make instantaneous decisions to the same standard that we hold a group of lawyers who are reviewing the case with all the benefits of hind sight and no need to make a quick decision.

Hence requiring an officer to shoot only when it's necessary is putting the lives of officers at risk.

But other parts of the bill say something completely different.  For example:

(4) That the decision by a peace officer to use force shall be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation, based on the totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time, rather than with the benefit of hindsight, and that the totality of the circumstances shall account for occasions when officers may be forced to make quick judgments about using force.

That is inconsistent with paragraph 2. The law also says:

(5) That individuals with physical, mental health, developmental, or intellectual disabilities are significantly more likely to experience greater levels of physical force during police interactions, as their disability may affect their ability to understand or comply with commands from peace officers. It is estimated that individuals with disabilities are involved in between one-third and one-half of all fatal encounters with law enforcement.
(b) Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use objectively reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance.
(c) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), a peace officer is justified in using deadly force upon another person only when the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary for either of the following reasons:
(A) To defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person.
(B) To apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended. Where feasible, a peace officer shall, prior to the use of force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of those facts.

Section b directly contradicts the earlier use of necessary.

It's unclear what the real intent of the law is but even if we give the California Democrats the benefit of the doubt the reality is that if a white officer shoots a black gang member in a scenario like the one described above the odds of a politically motivated DA charging them has dramatically increased.

Hence the police are now in a situation where they can reasonable fear being prosecuted if they make a reasonable, in the context of what a reasonable police officer would do, decision to shoot to protect themselves or others when in turns out that shooting the criminal wasn't "necessary".  That will guarantee that the police will be less willing to engage criminals and as a result poor people, mostly Blacks, will be more likely to be the victims of crime since more criminals will stay on the streets.