Tell Senator Wiener to Vote No on SB 230--Use of deadly force
My name is __________. I am a constituent, and my zip code is _______. I am a member of Indivisible SF.
I’m asking Senator Wiener to vote NO on SB 230 when it comes up in the Public Safety Committee. SB 230 is a weak policing bill being pushed by law enforcement as a counterpoint to AB 392, which is the real progressive police reform that our state needs to save lives.
The Senator has said that SB 230 has its good side, insofar as it would require police to go through additional training. This is highly misleading. SB 230 requires that additional training be developed, but police officers would not be required to take that training, and the bill has no specificity as to what that training would look like. In contrast, AB 392 would require police officers to update their basic training and would create genuine police reform.
The Public Safety Committee already passed the stronger policy through committee last year as AB 931, and it would be disappointing to see the committee move a weaker bill this year.
Can I count on Senator Wiener to help block SB 230 in the Public Safety Committee by voting NO?
Senator Wiener has not committed to opposing SB 230, a weak policing bill being pushed by law enforcement in order to deter the progress of SB 392, the California Act to Save Lives. SB 392 is endorsed by a coalition of organizations including the ACLU and Black Lives Matter, and would end unnecessary killings by police officers.
Current California law does not set a clear standard for when police officers can use deadly force, and instead provides a patchwork of statues dating back to 1872. In 1989, the Supreme Court that police officers may use deadly force when they consider it “reasonable” to do so – regardless of whether there was an immediate threat to life or bodily security, or whether there were available alternatives. This vague standard has resulted in the deaths of many unarmed civilians, a disproportionate number of them black men.
Now law enforcement groups are opposing a bill, AB 392, that would specify the circumstances in which officers can use deadly force. This is the second year in a row that they have opposed legislative efforts for reform, but this year they have introduced their own bill, AB 230, which according to the Sacramento Bee Editorial Board, “co-opts the language of reform without actually doing much”.