From [HERE] and [HERE] California’s most prominent bill to restrict when cops can use deadly is moving forward, but with changes that make criminal prosecutions of police officers less likely.

Assembly Bill 392 is now co-sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood, all but ensuring the legislation moves closer to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.

Following the amendments, Newsom said in a news release that AB 392 is “an important bill” that “will help restore community trust in our criminal justice system.”

The changes signify compromise between principal co-author Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, and law enforcement groups that had opposed it.

Police unions and chiefs worried that the bill’s original language declaring that cops could only use deadly force if it was “necessary” would cause officers to second guess themselves in split-second decisions for fear of repercussion and thus compromise public safety. In April, a police lobbyist called the bill an “impossible standard.”

Currently, officers can use lethal force if their actions are considered “reasonable” to protect themselves or others.

“We need this resolution to save lives, protect public safety, and guarantee justice in every community,” Rendon said in a written statement that praised Weber’s dedication to the issue.

The language now allows lethal action only when “an officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that deadly force is necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person” and when apprehending a fleeing felon that threatens considerable harm.

The bill leaves it up to the court to analyze whether an officer’s action is justified.

The proposed bill language leaves out a specific definition of "necessary," which would leave interpretation up to the legal system to figure out case by case. The current law defines necessary as

(3)“Necessary” means that, given the totality of the circumstances, an objectively reasonable peace officer in the same situation would conclude that there was no reasonable alternative to the use of deadly force that would prevent death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or to another person.

The most significant aspect of the bill seems to be that it attempts to make it clear that police officers should only use deadly force when they don’t have other options. The proposal states:

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.

It defines the following:

(1) “Deadly force” means any use of force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury, including, but not limited to, the discharge of a firearm.

(2) A threat of death or serious bodily injury is “imminent” when, based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable officer in the same situation would believe that a person has the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or another person. An imminent harm is not merely a fear of future harm, no matter how great the fear and no matter how great the likelihood of the harm, but is one that, from appearances, must be instantly confronted and addressed.

The entire proposed bill reads as follows:

SEC. 2.

 Section 835a of the Penal Code is amended to read:

 (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(1) That the authority to use physical force, conferred on peace officers by this section, is a serious responsibility that shall be exercised judiciously and with respect for human rights and dignity and for the sanctity of every human life. The Legislature further finds and declares that every person has a right to be free from excessive use of force by officers acting under color of law.

(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.

(3) That the decision by a peace officer to use force shall be evaluated carefully and thoroughly, in a manner that reflects the gravity of that authority and the serious consequences of the use of force by peace officers, in order to ensure that officers use force consistent with law and agency policies.

(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.

(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, other than deadly force,force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape 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.

(2) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger that person poses to themselves, if an objectively reasonable officer would believe the person does not pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or to another person.

(d) A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or desist from their efforts by reason of the resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested. A peace officer shall not be deemed an aggressor or lose the right to self-defense by the use of objectively reasonable force in compliance with subdivisions (b) and (c) to effect the arrest or to prevent escape or to overcome resistance. For the purposes of this subdivision, “retreat” does not mean tactical repositioning or other deescalation tactics.

(e) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) “Deadly force” means any use of force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury, including, but not limited to, the discharge of a firearm.

(2) A threat of death or serious bodily injury is “imminent” when, based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable officer in the same situation would believe that a person has the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or another person. An imminent harm is not merely a fear of future harm, no matter how great the fear and no matter how great the likelihood of the harm, but is one that, from appearances, must be instantly confronted and addressed.

(3) “Totality of the circumstances” means all facts known to the peace officer at the time and includes the tactical conduct and decisions time, including the conduct of the officer and the subject leading up to the use of deadly force.

“Laws Protect No One.” Laws will not change the relationship between racists and Black people or the master servant relationship between Government and people. FUNKTIONARY warns, “obsessions with law bring oppression by law.”

Neely Fuller explains that an otherwise neutral law or policy becomes a "non-law" when it is used by racists in such a manner as to promote injustice. It is the application of policy or laws by racist citizens, prosecutors, jurors and judges that creates injustice for non-whites.  At any rate, if there were a legislative remedy to address the unnecessary and disproportionate use of deadly force on Black and Latino people it would be a law created and funded by white legislators, administered by white Government workers, enforced by white prosecutors and remedied by white jurors and judges - the same racist suspects who participate, perpetuate and/or benefit from this system of white domination and control.

The system of White supremacy/racism, a system of vast unequal power between whites and blacks is the source of police brutality and so many other problems affecting Black people. To end or neutralize white supremacy Black people must end or neutralize white power. This can begin as soon as Blacks stop participating in, legitimizing, consenting to and drop out of white people’s fantastic con game.