California 392 Form: Fill & Download for Free

I will soon be eligible for retirement and this new law will likely be the straw that breaks this camel’s back. I don’t want to retire. I’m still young and healthy and I would prefer to work the streets for another five to ten years. I love this job and I really do come to work every shift hoping I can help people in need, protect people from crime and victimization, and catch violent and predatory criminals. My best shifts often include finding the proper assistance for persons in crisis, care for the elderly, and making strong connections with kids. My greatest reward is a simple thank you.But this job has changed. In the United States, enforcement and prosecution requires community participation and, over my thirty years in the profession, I have watched basic human respect and citizenship principals erode to the point that modern law enforcement is increasingly ineffective and the judicial system even more so. I am often seen as the enemy by young and old alike. Or I am feared just like the predators I so diligently try to unearth and remove from free society. American law enforcement is incredibly misunderstood by the public it serves. I don’t know why. I don’t have the answers. I do know that law enforcement shoulders some of the blame. We need to do more to maintain strong, positive connections with the communities we serve and to educate the reality of law enforcement and counter the misinformation presented by “reality TV” and the portrayal of law enforcement in the entertainment industry. The “us verses them” mentality has no business in this business.In California, it is expected that a law enforcement officer will be tried civilly if Use of Force results in injury to the offender. Law Enforcement unions spend a lot on legal defense. When I hit the street at the beginning of my shift, I expect to be sued if I have to use force to gain compliance, effect arrest or defend myself or someone else. Is there any other profession in California where the employee begins their workday expecting to get sued? Those of you who have been sued know what a nightmare it is. I couldn’t even begin to explain what a traumatic and destructive experience it is.In California, if I respond to assist someone who is having a mental health crisis such as threatening suicide or acting irrational or erratic and is not a threat to anyone but themselves and I am forced to defend myself from assault by that person by Use of Force, I will be sued for violating the ADA and likely prosecuted as well if my defense results in injury or death to that person. But, if I don’t respond then I am failing the public expectation and my agency’s Policies and Procedures. If I don’t respond, I won’t go home at the end of shift knowing that I did my job, that I helped those in need.And now we have AB 392 and the “reasonably necessary” standard. AB-392 Peace officers: deadly force. Previously, Use of Force was judged under the “reasonable officer” standard laid out in Graham-v-Connor in 1989 and clarified by the courts since. Graham v. Connor - Wikipedia. I understand the “reasonable officer” standard. It is fair and well defined. I do not understand the “reasonably necessary” standard. Why? Because it is not defined in the Bill. The California legislature has left it to the courts to decide. And that scares me. Very much. It will take years and numerous court cases to define “reasonably necessary”. Eventually, the US Supreme Court will make the ultimate determination. Until then, legal experts, law enforcement leaders, and all manner of other interests will attempt to provide guidance or attempt to influence how law enforcement in California will apply the “reasonably necessary” standard.And here is where my greatest fear lies: If I apply Use of Force as I understand it under Graham-v-Connor, will I be one of those officers, deputies, or agents that will be prosecuted or sued under this new standard despite my best, most noble efforts to do the right thing? Will this new standard allow the municipality that employs me to sever itself from my defense and will I have to shoulder the financial burden by myself? Will I be arrested, booked into jail, and forever known as a murderer because what I, based on all my training and experience, used what I believed to be appropriate Use of Force to stop what I, again based on my training and experience, believed to be a deadly threat but was later determined to be “unnecessary” force by an as yet undefined standard? Is that possibility worth the risk at this point in my life? I think not. No, I think its time to take the safe route and all my training, experience, leadership and supervisory skills and move to a State where I can actually live on my retirement and where Law Enforcement is still viewed by my neighbors as a noble and valued career.

Honestly? I think Assembly Bill 392 is a new benchmark for stupid legislation in a state known for stupid legislation.I think that if this bill becomes law, the state of California is going to have a serious problem with recruiting and retaining police officers. I think veteran law enforcement officers are going to retire in droves.I that the authors and sponsors of this bill should spend some time doing solo patrol because they don’t have a clue what it’s like.I also think that every time a police officer discharges his or her sidearm, there’s an investigation. In cases where a suspect is injured or killed, there is going to be an in-depth investigation to determine whether or not the shooting was justified.Why do I think that? Because it is the way things are done in every law enforcement agency of any size.Following any shooting with fatal or non-fatal injuries, an officer’s weapon is collected and the officer is either suspended or reassigned to non-patrol work. They may or may not be required to surrender their credentials and badge while the investigation is ongoing.This is in addition to the trauma that affects an officer who is forced to shoot. When an officer is forced to take a life, it is generally up close and personal. They are there to see the person’s life end and know they are responsible for that end.Cops are generally accustomed to violence and violent deaths; that goes with the job. The vast majority of police officers, deputies and state troopers will go though full careers without ever firing a shot outside of a range. A heck of a lot of them will never even remove their sidearm from its holster until their shift is over.For once, let’s be brutally honest with ourselves: How many sworn law enforcement officers currently serve in the United States? How many police-involved shootings occur? How many of those are legitimately questionable under the laws governing police conduct and use of deadly force?A couple of years ago, the Washington Post provided a list of 965 fatal shootings by police. Unlike the vast majority of Post readers, I looked at each and every incident. I found five that could reasonably be subject to review and only one where there could possibly be charges.I am not whitewashing this issue; cops that kill without cause should go to prison because homicide is homicide, no matter who commits it. Cops with a pattern of questionable use of force, deadly or not, should be fired and have their licenses, commissions, or certifications revoked.I can say from experience that a situation that requires a weapon to be drawn can unfold in an instant. Deadly-force confrontations are often over in a handful of seconds. This bit of Monday-morning quarterbacking is going to get cops killed and it’s going to make qualified people reluctant to step up and replace them.

There are several bills in the pipeline that affect the H1-B program. If the question is about “H.R. 670: High-Skilled Integrity and Fairness Act of 2017,” a.k.a. ‘The 130k bill,’ the likelihood of it passing is very low (Govtrack assigns it a 3% chance of being enacted.)The bill has been introduced by a Democrat from California with provisions that would benefit only a few companies in high COL locations. Similar bills haven't even come out of committees in several years.So, my guess is that this bill would never be passed.There are other bills with stronger bipartisan sponsorship, like “H.R. 392: Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2017”, which, in my opinion, have a higher likelihood (in a relative sense) of being enacted later this year.