The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board has long advocated for criminal justice reform and has been heartened by the momentum the reform movement has built in recent years. But while our board has decried what appeared to be the unnecessary killing by police of unarmed civilians — often young African-American men — have balked at endorsing a change in the California law that allows police officers to use lethal force if an officer believes it is objectively reasonable to do so under the circumstances.
Until now.
Related: Why Assembly Bill 392 is so badly needed
Related: How proposed bill criminalizes law enforcement profession
Related: Why Senate Bill 230 is no solution to bad shootings
Related: Why Senate Bill 230 can reduce use of force
The argument made by many defenders of the police status quo — that laws with the potential to “criminalize” split-second, life-and-death decisions are dangerous and rash — has long seemed convincing. In a nation awash in guns — one increasingly plagued by more deadly mass shootings — the argument that California should keep using the minimum standard for use of lethal force established by a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision remains powerful. But just as evidence has increasingly persuaded lawmakers across the nation that prison sentences that warehouse salvageable people for decades are destructive and counterproductive, the evidence is now convincing that California would benefit from a bill introduced by Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, that “would authorize the use of deadly force only when it is necessary to defend against a threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person,” in Weber’s own words. Her bill would also require that officers use de-escalation tactics when “safe and feasible.”
The record of the city of Seattle is instructive. After an investigation by the Obama istration’s Justice Department found Seattle police were far too inclined to use force, the city agreed in 2012 to pursue reforms quite similar to those advocated in Weber’s bill. In 2017, the federal monitor overseeing Seattle’s implementation of the rules reported that there had been a 60 percent decrease in the frequency of moderate and high-level use of force. Contrary to warnings from critics of the reforms, crime did not increase and the number of injuries to officers was flat or slightly down.
In opposing Assembly Bill 392, police unions and their allies simply haven’t made an evidence-based case that the use of a higher standard will endanger either the public or officers. The thoughtful measure they are pushing — Senate Bill 230 — would improve and standardize training on use of force. But this should not be an either-or decision. The Legislature should approve both measures — then closely monitor the results. It’s time for change.
Twitter: @sdutIdeas
Facebook: San Diego Union-Tribune Ideas & Opinion
