AB 392 aims to prevent unnecessary violence committed by law enforcement in California state.

Introducing AB 392 : The California Act to Save Lives: Clark's shooting was one of the main factors that motivated California lawmakers to improve the state's criminal justice system. But this shooting is far from the only catalyst, as it is just one of the latest incidents in a long and sad history of police brutality. A notable case occurred in February of this year when six officers shot at an aspiring rapper who was just taking a nap in his car in California. And in June, two Los Angeles Officers approached an unarmed man in his parked vehicle and shot him 34 times. He was one of four victims of police shootings in Los Angeles on that day alone. The police brutality in California has taken its toll on the residing citizens

In an effort to not only bring healing to the community but also prevent fatalities caused by improper police culture in California, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 392 (AB 392 The California Act to Save Lives) into law last August 19.

AB 392 The California Act to Save Lives is one of the country's strictest laws to tackle the issue of police brutality, as it regulates the use of force used by police. In the past, one of the biggest criticisms regarding police brutality was that the California Penal Code, which dates back to 1872 and hasn't been updated since 1957. It also has loose regulations that allow officers to inflict lethal force.

And once AB 392 The California Act to Save Lives comes into effect right at the start of 2020, much of the language of that law will be amended. The new law redefines when law enforcement agents are permitted to use deadly force, as it states they can only do so when "necessary." In contrast, the current definition of when force is allowed is when it is deemed "reasonable."

What is the Public’s Reaction on " AB 392 - The California Act to Save Lives"?

ab 392 the california act to save lives, police brutality

AB 392 the California act to save lives

The bill is said to be a pioneering force against the police brutality epidemic in the country, but not everyone is happy. Critics of AB 392 The California Act to Save Lives, which includes social activists and the families of victims, claim that it is not comprehensive enough to bring powerful reforms to the state's police culture. Many find that the language of the new law is still too vague and that it would still be difficult to criminally charge officers who exert unnecessary lethal force.

The bill has been criticized as having muddled terminologies that will not really affect law enforcement in a substantial way, and only serves to pacify grieving communities. Its main contribution — and one drawing the most backlash — is that it changes the police's ability to act based on “reasonable belief” to use deadly force only when absolutely "necessary." Many believe that this will not make a real difference in the widespread police brutality in California, and accuse policymakers of being scared of "being too tough on police."

In fact, Mother Jones reports that the prominent activist group Black Lives Matter has withdrawn its support for the bill since it believes that it won’t bring about substantial change. These are all important factors to consider, as Brandon Sample notes that state courts can still erroneously deny rights to individuals and not uphold the spirit of the law.

On the other hand, although Stephon Clark's brother, Stevante, agrees that the bill is "a little watered-down with the changes," he still believes that this small step is a sign of progress. To him, the new law opens up the conversation around this pressing public issue.

Will it Be Effective Against Police Brutality?

On March 18, 2018, Stephon Clark was killed by two Sacramento police officers who had mistakenly thought his cellphone was a gun. Despite the critical error committed by the policemen, they were not criminally charged, since Sacramento County's District Attorney, Anne Marie Schubert, found their use of deadly force on Clark was "legally justified."
This significant decision made by Schubert sparked numerous protests and widespread outrage in the community, which resulted in tension between communities of color and law enforcement. David Klinger, a University of Missouri criminology professor, explains that police officers legally aren't limited to exerting deadly force since the standard for officers is “to protect their life or the life of another innocent party.”In the wake of these events, then newly elected governor of California, Gavin Newsom, released a statement on Twitter, saying, "Our hearts continue to ache for the loss of Stephon Clark and the circumstances that led to his death. This must be a time for change." He also added that systemic reforms must be added to the state's criminal justice system. Although widely regarded as a Democratic stronghold, California still has many issues to address in terms of the behavior of its law enforcement, as the New York Times reports it has one of the highest rates of police shootings in the country. Furthermore, data shows that in Southern California, people of color — specifically, black, Hispanic/Latino, and Native American — have one of the largest percentages of deaths by police officers in America. While AB 392 The California Act to Save Lives still has to deal with different aspects of the epidemic, it is but the first in a series of many steps needed to tackle such a systemic problem. One other initiative would be in training the next batch of police personnel in enforcing safer protocols when it comes to probing suspicious behavior, as endorsed by AB 392 The California Act to Save Lives. Indeed, Maryville University highlight the importance of social science and multicultural psychology in training criminal justice graduates, as this can encourage them to not seek out criminality in others, but our shared humanity instead. At the core of police brutality is a faulty mindset that enables them to find ways to commit their offenses, which is why equipping them with the proper education can do a world of good for both California and the rest of the country.

What Now?

Across the country, police brutality remains a puzzle that many states are trying to solve. Arizona, for instance, has also been taking legal steps towards fighting police brutality, as their state legislators have made it a requirement to document any time an officer points a firearm at someone. Meanwhile, the New York police department's commissioner dismissed the officer who held Eric Garner in a chokehold, which eventually led to his demise.

Police brutality is a global problem as well, with countries like Kenya, Brazil, and the Philippines facing complications with police enforcement every single day. The Economist notes that police brutalities in these countries "are as common as water," and are even celebrated by the general public. The steps taken in California are minuscule compared to the global policies needed for regulating police enforcement, but they are, for many, still steps in the right direction.

Although it falls short on some elements to aid the epidemic, this bill passed by California is a great stepping-stone towards healing the nation's police brutality-inflicted wounds. We cannot forget that these wounds are deep, which is why it is crucial for states to implement laws that address these problems in police culture. If they prove to be successful, further measures to support the fight against this epidemic can be undertaken at the federal level, too.
Contributed By: Holly Thea

About Brandon Sample

Brandon Sample is an attorney, author, and criminal justice reform activist. Brandon’s law practice is focused on federal criminal defense, federal appeals, federal post-conviction relief, federal civil rights litigation, federal administrative law, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Recommended for you

Newsletter July 2nd, 2021

NEWSLETTER July 2, 2021 Welcome to the weekly edition of our newsletter. VIEWS ON THE LAW [-] Borden and 924(c) Whenever the Supreme Court invalidates part of a criminal statute, the question comes up about whether the Court’s reasoning could affect similar statutes and whether this opens the door for relief. The Court held in…

Read More about Newsletter July 2nd, 2021

Amendment 782 Motion Reconsideration

Reinaldo Rivera moved for 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) relief based on Amendment 782 to the Guidelines, commonly known as “drugs minus 2.” The district court granted the motion and reduced his sentence to 420 months from LIFE. But in doing so, the district court believed Rivera’s mandatory minimum was 30 years for his CCE conviction.…

Read More about Amendment 782 Motion Reconsideration

Drug Treatment And Vocational Training Improper Sentencing Considerations

Christopher Thornton moved for a downward variance at sentencing arguing, among other things, that “in-prison treatment during the proposed thirty-eight months would help mitigate any potential risk he posed to the community.” The district court denied the motion, but in doing so said that Thornton had “mental-health issues, and he needs drug treatment” and that…

Read More about Drug Treatment And Vocational Training Improper Sentencing Considerations