100 signatures reached
To: To Members of the California State Legislature
Licensing for California police officers; police must pay settlements, not taxpayers
Proposed California laws that would end brutality right away:
1. All law enforcement officers in California must be licensed by the state. The California Board of Consumer Affairs oversees the licensing of doctors, nurses, CPA's, attorneys, architects, barbers, cosmetologists and many more but not law enforcement officers. If a beautician must have a California license to cut your hair, it's reasonable to expect police officers to pass a state test and meet professional standards set by the state (such as a requirement to carry liability insurance) and be licensed before they can use any level of force against you. We should be able to go to the state consumer affairs website and look up the status of any officer's license, just as we are able to do when choosing a building contractor or dentist. This would make it very easy to get rid of "bad apple" officers because their license could simply be suspended pending an investigation. Under this law, so-called internal investigations would have no legal meaning and would be disregarded by the independent investigatory body.
2. Police pension funds, not taxpayers, will pay settlements for the bad behavior of a police officer. A California law must be passed that makes it mandatory that all civil/criminal settlements pay outs arising from police brutality be paid exclusively from the police retirement funds. Under this proposed law, taxpayer funds can never be used to pay settlements until after all police pension funds for the state are exhausted. Putting police pension funds at risk of being used to pay settlements to citizens will cause police unions to police themselves, if you will, and weed out bad officers. Currently there are rarely negative consequences to police for brutality against citizens which explains why the police brutality continues decade after decade in spite of citizen outrage. Because of lack of negative consequences, police officers also find it easier to just shoot someone so they don't have to try to de-escalate the situation; and further, they can expect paid leave while the incident is under review. But the moment police pension funds are at risk, police will have to face negative consequences of their actions. Thus, in every situation, the police will be highly motivated to find creative ways to de-escalate. The law should also make it mandatory that all leave pending and investigation be UNpaid because police should not be rewarded for choosing to escalate. The statement "I feared for my life" will no longer be applicable to investigations of police actions.
3. A California law must be passed to require the immediate demilitarization of all police in the state and forbid any future militarization.
1. All law enforcement officers in California must be licensed by the state. The California Board of Consumer Affairs oversees the licensing of doctors, nurses, CPA's, attorneys, architects, barbers, cosmetologists and many more but not law enforcement officers. If a beautician must have a California license to cut your hair, it's reasonable to expect police officers to pass a state test and meet professional standards set by the state (such as a requirement to carry liability insurance) and be licensed before they can use any level of force against you. We should be able to go to the state consumer affairs website and look up the status of any officer's license, just as we are able to do when choosing a building contractor or dentist. This would make it very easy to get rid of "bad apple" officers because their license could simply be suspended pending an investigation. Under this law, so-called internal investigations would have no legal meaning and would be disregarded by the independent investigatory body.
2. Police pension funds, not taxpayers, will pay settlements for the bad behavior of a police officer. A California law must be passed that makes it mandatory that all civil/criminal settlements pay outs arising from police brutality be paid exclusively from the police retirement funds. Under this proposed law, taxpayer funds can never be used to pay settlements until after all police pension funds for the state are exhausted. Putting police pension funds at risk of being used to pay settlements to citizens will cause police unions to police themselves, if you will, and weed out bad officers. Currently there are rarely negative consequences to police for brutality against citizens which explains why the police brutality continues decade after decade in spite of citizen outrage. Because of lack of negative consequences, police officers also find it easier to just shoot someone so they don't have to try to de-escalate the situation; and further, they can expect paid leave while the incident is under review. But the moment police pension funds are at risk, police will have to face negative consequences of their actions. Thus, in every situation, the police will be highly motivated to find creative ways to de-escalate. The law should also make it mandatory that all leave pending and investigation be UNpaid because police should not be rewarded for choosing to escalate. The statement "I feared for my life" will no longer be applicable to investigations of police actions.
3. A California law must be passed to require the immediate demilitarization of all police in the state and forbid any future militarization.
Why is this important?
For decades we have watched, appalled, while the police have engaged in brutal attacks against Californians, especially if they happen to be people of color. The police are our employees. We literally pay their salaries and benefits. It is we the taxpayers who pay out huge settlements in the rare instances when the police are found guilty of engaging in brutal acts against us. Instead of working with us to stop police violence, they have exhibited a sneering disregard for our concerns and have militarized against us. It is not right that we the people are afraid of our employees and what they might do to us. That dynamic needs to be reversed. Immediate action to fix the situation is needed. Not long-term studies, not coffee meetings with local police or fruitless efforts to get them to take us seriously, not empty promises by politicians. We require the California legislature to take action NOW.