Sacramento Family Hopes To Reduce Police Shooting Power

Police Shooting Power

Although it seems like most people aren't the biggest fans of police, maintaining civility in modern society is necessary, at least if civility itself is considered necessary to society as we know it.

Without courts of law, people used to fight, steal, harm, and even kill one another when disputes couldn't be settled with words. Fortunately for everyone - even though courts sometimes get rulings wrong, and have been known to inadvertently lock innocent people up, courts are unarguably a hallmark of modern society.

If we didn't have police, however, enforcing rules of courts would be pervasively difficult. As such, police are inherently important to living in the modern system of society as we've grown to love - we'd surely love it, and be begging for it back, if our society reverted itself to what it used to be just thousands of years ago.

Police obviously need to be backed by government - but to what extent?

Around the United States of America, countless discussions have centered around whether police have used excessive force in isolated incidents that result in either permanent, serious, or both permanent and serious injuries - if not death.

Considering the police have the objectively most deadly occupation in all of America - at least of mainstream places of work - and, collectively, the entire United States police force experiences more deaths than that of the American military... all five branches.

Sacramento family and a handful of state congresspeople seek out changes

On Tuesday, April 3, 2018, an unarmed 22-year-old male was shot dead by Sacramento, California, police officers. In response to the incident, the man's family members have put forth a measure in the state legislature of California in hopes of cutting down on the frequency of fatal shootings by police toward unarmed citizens.

Currently, members of law enforcement bodies across the state of California are authorized to use firearms against citizens if "there [are] no other reasonable alternatives to the use of deadly force," which means that police officers who killed someone in the line of duty would have likely been killed themselves if they hadn't shot.

In actuality, far too many of these victims of police are unarmed, and were not at all acting to kill.

The family's proposal will change the aforementioned law's use of "reasonable force" to "necessary force."