Listen: Officer, Stefan Clark And Vandalism discussed on KNX Evening News with Diane Thompson
"For often Kennex ten seventy NewsRadio scattered showers hanging around tonight and overnight in the forties and fifties in the overnight temperatures and then tomorrow in the fifties and sixties dry on Saturday. Currently Culver city. Fifty eight degrees. We continue our broadcast of KNX in-depth with segments recorded earlier today. You're listening to KNX in-depth with Mike Simpson. I'm Charles Feldman. Who is the Sacramento county district attorney and also the California attorney general we're deciding not to press criminal charges against these Sacramento. Police officers who shot and killed Stefan Clark. The state legislature is considering making it tougher for police officers to Hughes force, and that has touched off a fierce debate organizations. Like black lives matter argued that police simply of too much leniency to use force against suspects resulting in needless shootings. Police agencies counter that saying tiger hens in life or death situations. Well, that's going to be a recipe for disaster. Assemblywoman Shirley, Weber a democrat from San Diego is author of the toughest legislation that would change the standards for police to use deadly force. So in a nutshell tell us what this legislation would do. Well, thank you very much for the opportunity, this this this legislation is designed to change conduct on the ground in terms of basically, creating them different standards for the use of force or a new standard for use of force right now, this this the standard that is used as what is reasonable. We want to deal with the standard that is necessary. And this says that lethal force should only be used when we're when only when it is necessary to prevent imminent and serious bodily injury or death this for and so and this is a statewide policy, which means it takes into consideration to tally of the situation. And therefore a person should only officer should only use deadly force if their life is in imminent danger or the life of someone that immediate area. Otherwise. They should look use other methods of de escalation with regards to the situation. And so we believe very strongly because it's been proven by this policy being Seattle where we've seen the implementation of it and the training of officers, and as a result, there have been fewer deaths an arm individuals in Seattle as well as it has not made our officers anymore at harm, the we've seen no increase. They've seen. No increase in officers, death or injury as a result of a policy that says, you do not usually the force unless it is absolutely necessary to prevent the death of the officer or or or the death or injury of somewhat in the immediate community. Okay. So you base it on some of these other laws throughout their bullets. Go back to the one of the counter arguments is look this is a split-second decision. Do they really have time to do a checklist in their head when they've chased somebody down in many cases? Well, the question is if you chasing someone down, and we can, you know, the issue chasing, someone is always a major issue that people talk about. But when we look at situations, for instance, if it's definitely if it had been Stefan Clark situation, people were called to that officers were called to deal with an issue of vandalism not immediately if they are properly trained, they realized that vandalism. Someone breaking windows in a car does not say the person has a gun doesn't say the person shooting threatening someone else's life. You're the person is in their backyard. There's no one in the backyard, but that person there are there opportunities there, and you don't have to bum rush. The person there opportunities there right there start talking about what is available to me to escalate the situation 'cause we're really. But wait, wait. Wait, wait, wait a minute. Because you're making kind of a leap here. And I'm not sure how you make that leap. I mean, just because somebody is the call that goes out because somebody is breaking windows in a car door window, or whatever. How if you're a police officer, can you therefore just as you can't presume, they're armed how can you presume that they're not in these two said, they did believe he had a gun. You said they didn't believe what they did. They did. Well, the question is if that's the case then you need to figure out that for. Sure. Okay. And in other words, if if your call to a situation, and you have a helicopter above you is it and there's no one life in that's being threatened. Yours is not because you're not facing a person you on the other side of the house. Okay. And the and the person in the backyard has no one with them, but that that person himself. So is there not anything else available? Now. This doesn't say that that deadly force may not be used a lethal force may at some point maybe using may become necessary. But just in the information you have you don't go to a situation of vandalism. Somebody breaking windows in a car writing on the wall. Whatever the thing is you don't you shouldn't end that situation believing that one that this person has a gun, you gotta be conscious of it. And so as a result, do you need to rush it very quickly. If they're if they're breaking windows or writing on the wall or do you need to find out getting more formation concerning the situation and in this case being able to figure out the situation. Deescalate the situation would have been obviously much more beneficial to the Clark family as well. As to the office himself, not have to deal with the fact that they taking someone else's life. Our Bill says, basically, it doesn't it doesn't prevent officers for using lethal force for defense. No. But it says given the totality of the situation. We she is it necessary to use force to basically accomplish the goal that you want to accomplish. Now, we know that the officers do know how to use other methods and means because they do all the time. They, you know, whether it's in California somewhere else. You know, when you get a situation like the parkland incident, and you have a situation where you know, the person has weapons because they'd killed seventeen people. You know, they have the propensity to do that they have the equipment to do it. And yet you're able to take that person without incident. Yeah. And that's the situation with truly we knew had weapons and yet there's no incident. There was no incident with that person that we took person and without any injury to that person or or shooting or anything of that nature. So we do know how to read the issue read, the situation and do other things and do other strategies. This would simply say that the question becomes if an incident occurred was it did this person really taken consideration totality the situation and an understanding and use whatever methods they had to try to deescalate the situation. Oftentimes, people say the best method is distance and time getting away from it and spending a little bit more time because you didn't have a person who had anybody in the backyard the that was with them. So they weren't hurting anybody there and officers weren't not confronting the person at the time. Thank you. A time we've got around, but that's assemblywoman Shirley Weber democrat from San Diego author of this Bill. There's another one as well. Back by law enforcement groups would add in some more training for officers. Civil CFO any of this winds up, and that's going to be the point of contention here is whether there's a happy medium between the two coming up next debate over anti-semitism and support for Israel threatening to tear apart the Democratic Party stylized lounge presents an evening."