California Considering Unprecedented Law Restricting Officers' Firearm Use

The mere act of relaying what a state is doing is not "dissing" the state. Those of us looking askance at California don't respect the lawmakers in the State anyways. I never tire of their antics.

Those who think that California is doing the right thing, should be happy if they think the wonders of California's lawmaker are getting such widespread recognition.

Just like Deerfield IL banning any assault weapons in their village. 1000.00 a day fine until you get rid of them. Idiot's.

SSG Warren Swan - The majority of your post is based on false premises,
1) the person who got shot did absolutely nothing wrong. In many cases, the person involved had a criminal record and was doing something at the time that brought police to their location. This included Alton Sterling, Eric Gardner, Stephon Clark, Freddie Gray, and many more. While this is not a justification for each death, it should not be ignored that many have committed violence in the past and it is reasonable to believe some or many would commit violence to evade arrest. In Sterling's case, he had a gun in his pocket.
2) Police officers are not on the Grand Jury or juries. If a police officer's actions were deemed reasonable by juries, the state, and the Federal DOJ, then the problem isn't that the officer followed procedure, the problem is some in the public want a lynch mob. When you have prosecutors like Baltimore's Marilyn Mosley who decides to seek social justice by filing murder charges against 6 police officers for the simple act of someone not fastening a seat belt, then you have lynch mob justice. In that case, the judge who happened to be a former top DOJ civil prosecutor, threw out the cases because they did not comply with the law.
3) Community policing is widespread and helps, it does not however stop all or even most of the crime. I see officers who frequently have positive interactions with children and other citizens. This does not prevent negative perceptions though. How often have you heard someone say they had the "talk" with their children about police? Have you read news articles about politicians who say they have told their children to run from police? The police can fix somethings, but they can't fix ingrained behavior.
FYI, I have 32 years as a police officer at the city, county, and state level. The reason police have these videos is because of what I posted above.
4) The reason police wear "military" style clothing and bullet proof vests is due to the demands and dangers of police work. Over 100 police officers die each year. Over 50,000 are injured or assaulted each year. Some very seriously. Decades ago, .38 caliber pistols and leather shoes worked fine. So did polyester pants and shirts. Our society has gotten more dangerous. Police officers are sent to more diverse issues than before. If you are sent to a domestic, chances are someone is going to jail. I can't count the number of times they wanted to fight. Polyester gets hot, it melts if you get near flames, and seems to tear easier. There are literally thousands of reports where police were shot and a bullet proof vest made a difference. Is your argument that it is more important that a police officer look non threatening than to survive a violent encounter?
5) You seem to think that the individual police officer cares about affluent areas more than poor areas. That is seldom the truth. The way police officers generally see it, is wealthier areas don't have the type of crimes that require a constant police presence. If a street dealer was selling drugs by the road, someone would call. At the same time, in poor areas, you frequently run into the "no snitch" rule. Someone may make an anonymous call, but it isn't consistent or always accurate. You frequently will not have someone willing to testify to what they saw.
6) You say the populace doesn't trust police, but that goes both ways. I have been in situations where I was arresting someone for something and people were hitting me, trying to help the person escape, etc.
If you look at Baltimore, this was an example of my point. You had members of the community blaming police for all of their problems including crime, violence, etc. After Freddy Gray died, members of the community attacked police who were responding to calls. As a result, police reacted to the community's actions by decreasing their presence, not making arrests for minor crimes, and in general, responding only when called. The murder rate went up, violence and crime in all categories went up, and continues to remain at all time high levels. What this shows is the police were never responsible for any of the issues they were blamed for, they were keeping the community safe.

Your comments perpetuate the myth that many police officers are willing to sacrifice their career to protect a bad officer. While there are occasional ones like this, try to think this through on a personal level. You, having been in the military, see someone from your squad steal something, hit someone, kill someone...are you willing to put your career and your life on the line to protect them? Are you willing to go to jail for them? Don't think you are any more moral than the average police officer, because you aren't.

My suggestion to you is if you honestly believe the police are a threat, don't call them. If you want to actually know why police officers do the things they do, try doing the job. It will open your eyes to our reality.

MSG (Join to see) - My son-in-law thinks that there is a different level of police "threat awareness" based on certain neighborhoods than others. But it has more to do with poverty level than with ethnic makeup. It is not unfair to suggest that minorities tend to see a higher level of confrontational attitude, because a higher percentage of minorities live in impoverished neighborhoods.

Lansing still has some strongly isolated ethnic enclaves. The most dangerous was a white Irish catholic enclave. He said the safest neighborhood for the LPD, bar none income level or not, was an impoverished Korean enclave. When he responded to calls in that neighborhood, it was not unusual that the community elders had already disarmed and restrained the suspect. Quite often, Mom, Dad, or a Grandparent was slapping a kid for bringing shame on the family, even if the "kid" was in his 30's.

He also said that there was very little difference in response to and by LPD in affluent and upper middle class neighborhoods, regardless of the neighborhoods racial or ethnic make up. Kids in affluent or upper middle income neighborhoods were taught to do what the officers told them to do. Suspects might run, but when they were definitely caught, unless they were intoxicated, resistance was almost zero.

MSG (Join to see) - I've worked the road. Just because I hold police to a higher standard and don't spout the standard "party talking points" doesn't mean I am ignorant or ill informed. Far from that. I DO have a strong respect for police, and have said that on MANY posts on here, even when I'm criticizing their actions. I've gone on VA State Troopers FB page to thank them TWICE. I've thanked Prince William PD in person on multiple occasions.

I've done the job, would DO the job, LOVE the job, but am now physically unable to do so. Sometimes instead of insinuating things, conversation and understanding goes a long ways. I KNOW and UNDERSTAND the realities, the complexities, and the hardships of being a cop. I do not say anything negative about them, would not say anything negative about them, and would fully support them, as long as their actions are right. When I DO, it's made to a direct segment, NOT to the whole. You don't even have to be a cop to do that. It's comparable to when civilians come up and thank you for your service. They recognize the hardships, the commitment to service, and the intricate issues, but while not currently serving or have ever served, they STILL support us, or do they have to wear the green to be informed and appreciative of us?

"Don't call the police"....spoken like one of the segments I'm specifically talking about, NOT the whole.

SSG Warren Swan -
When you say that you have "worked the road", it is assumed you mean civilian police. If you mean military police, there is little to no similarities in the actual day to day dangers.
Reading your posts and some of the comments you have made, tend to indicate a lack of understanding about why police do certain things.

"you'll (the cop) get to resign, where the "offender" gets an all expense paid vacation to the cemetery or prison. If their greatest fear really is prosecution, then they really don't fear it at all. How many convictions on cops have been handed down for unjustified shootings in the last two years? If that is their biggest "fear", then Houston we have a problem. They won't be prosecuted no matter what clear cut evidence their is showing guilt. The line takes damn good care of it's own."

This displays a basic lack of understanding about police officers and interactions on the street. I don't know any officer who comes to work wanting to shoot someone, much less get fired, go through the court systems, etc.
Police officers in general go to work everyday trying to do their job. This does not include murdering, robbing, assaulting, raping, people. The people the officers encounter on a day to day basis have their own motivation. The ones officers come into contact with and have violent encounters includes those who murder, rob, assault, rape, etc and are willing to do what they need to do to get away.

Of the "offenders" that have had "unjustified" shootings, it is a very small number where they were truly unjustified and there was no legitimate reason for the shooting. "Unjustified" means no weapons, no threatening moves, no calls from citizens complaining that the person had a weapon, no fighting with police, etc.
These do not include ones like Michael Brown where the shooting was found to be justified and that occurred exactly like the officer detailed contrary to media reports.

It is foolish in the extreme to believe that someone who shoots another yesterday is not willing to do it today as well simply because they are facing a police officer.
The common idea the media loves to peddle is "unarmed" xxxx is killed by police. This tends to elude that an "unarmed" person was not dangerous. It does not explain that people are killed by "unarmed" people everyday who chokes them, slams their head on pavement. pushes them over an elevated area, or in many cases, tries to take the officers gun. It doesn't explain either that over 50,000 officers are injured yearly.

One comment was about the need for military style uniforms and equipment. I answered partially above. Other reasons include examples such as Baltimore where officers were not issued body armor or other equipment during the riots and were injured as a result.
Regarding MRAPs, I am aware of several occasions where one was used to smash into a house where a gunman was shooting at people. This saved lives.

While many citizens do thank the police, my post was about those who accused police of causing the crimes and attacked the police when they were conducting their jobs. This is directed at the general idea that police should not only be held to a higher standard, they should be held to a social justice standard where if the police act appropriately based on the circumstances they encountered, they should still be found guilty.

If you take offense by the statement "don't call the police", you should read it again. It is meant to say that if you believe police are the root of all the problems, that they kill people needlessly, don't call them if you have a problem such as someone breaking into your house. They may have to shoot the burglar. Take care of the problem yourself and then you have no one else to blame if you don't get the desired results.