Re: California Bans Non-White Paper Shooting Targets

In article <v52m0i$2usni$6@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:

On 6/20/24 2:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

Ah, California... the stupidity never stops. <sigh>
 
This is the target we used for requals. We always questioned why it is that
we were only shooting white guys.
 
--------------------
https://americancop.com/banning-targets/
 
Since at least 2013, a tremendous number of agencies have suffered from
"Good Idea Fairy" visits. I�m specifically addressing those "good ideas"
that will reportedly fix society's ills but have little to no factual
foundation. Generally, these stem from politicians "doing something" to fix
a problem.
 
Some of these include-- claiming there is no national standard for using
force while trying to throw out Graham v Connor, ignoring SCOTUS rulings
like United States v Whren to attack pro-active policing, or protesting the
release of positive body-worn camera footage.
 
Then, we had wholesale changes to various penal codes. These came from the
various legislative bodies and ballot initiatives. One is California's
Proposition 47-- deceptively titled (by Kamala Harris, no less) "the Safe
Neighborhoods and Schools Act". It radically elevated the dollar threshold
for felonies while mandating citations versus custodial bookings and no
practical consequences. Then, there are the various bail �reform� efforts.
No need to make bail while releasing people without consequences.
 
California now has Senate Bill 1020 working its way through the system.
After passing the state senate, it is going to the Assembly. The bill will
ban any paper shooting target in which the subject's race can be
identified. Suppose it passes California's Assembly and is signed by the
governor. In that case, cops in my old state will lose valuable training
tools. In addition to targets that aid in judgment, they will lose one way
that removes "novelty"--new or previously unseen problems-- from training.
State Senator Steven Bradford authored the bill.
 
After hearing about SB-1020, I looked at Braford's web page. It mentions
the intent of the bill is to correct "inherent racial bias that certain
ethnic groups are more dangerous". I wonder if his staff looked at the Law
Enforcement Officers Killed & Assaulted data. Data, not opinion.
 
SB1020 would enact Penal Code section 13658, which reads:
 
(a) Each law enforcement agency and police academy basic course presenter
shall have a policy prohibiting the use of ethnic shooting targets for any
training, qualification, competition, or other range activities that are
sponsored by the agency or academy, presenter, take place on any agency or
academy presenter property, or involve the participation of any agency or
academy presenter personnel or academy trainees. those attending a basic
course.
 
(b) The policy described in subdivision (a) shall also prohibit providing
ethnic shooting targets to any peace officer or trainee basic course
attendee for personal use.
 
(c) As used in this section, the following definitions apply:
 
(1) "Ethnic shooting target" means any physical range target that depicts a
human form or part of a human form that includes skin colors or facial
features from which a person might reasonably discern a race or ethnicity
of the person depicted. An "ethnic shooting target" does not include a
silhouette target or a human form target with a nonhuman skin color such as
green or blue that does not have facial features.
 
How does that improve law enforcement's performance in deadly force
situations? Does it result in better judgment skills? Does it positively
impact the Don�t Shoot/Shoot decision-making process?
 

 
Sorry you don't have the right to indulge your racist fantasies any more.
(Sorry, not sorry...)

If I actually had those fantasies, I definitely would still have that
right.

This law would only apply to police agencies and other governmental
bodies. Private citizens can still shoot at whatever paper pictures they
want. If the government tried to outlaw that, it would be a violation of
the 1st Amendment.

Sorry that the Constitution is still getting in the way of your ability
to dictate what others can do and say.

(Sorry, not sorry...)