Crime
California Now Has One of the Strongest Police Use-of-Force Laws in the Country
Thanks to the “Moral Strength” of Black Legislative Caucus Chair Shirley Weber Who Led Effort
On Monday, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law one of the strongest measures in the country intended to deter police officers from killing civilians while pursuing criminal suspects.
After a grueling yearlong process that survived bitter fights, tense negotiations and impassioned speeches, on July 18 the Senate voted 29-1 to pass AB 392, the California Act to Save Lives.
In May, law enforcement organizations, once staunch opponents of the bill, held a private meeting with the governor and members of the Legislature and reached common ground on some of the language in the legislation. Advocates of the bill said those amendments helped the bill gain wider support among members of the Assembly and Senate, many of whom were strongly opposed when the proposal was first introduced.
Assemblymember Shirley Weber (D-San Diego) introduced the legislation she co-authored with Assemblymember Kevin McCarty (D- Sacramento). Both lawmakers are African American.
Inspired, in part, by the 2018 shooting of Stephon Alonzo Clark, an unarmed 22-year-old African-American man, by police in Sacramento, the bill proposes changes to California’s penal code regarding “justifiable homicides” by “peace officers.” Its language requires cops to only use deadly force “in defense of human life” when a suspect poses an “imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to themselves or others.”
Senate Pro Tem Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) championed the bill in the Senate.
“With so many unnecessary deaths, I think everyone agrees that we need to change how deadly force is used in California,” said Weber, who is also chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus. “We can now move a policy forward that will save lives and change the culture of policing in California.”
The bill, which was initially sponsored by the civil justice group Black Lives Matter (BLM), also calls for police officers to rely on training and exhaust all resources available to them, whenever possible, before shooting to kill. The bill defines “imminent harm” as a threat that must be “instantly confronted.” It rules out fear of future harm — no matter how great or likely the potential danger is.
In April, the “Act to Save Lives” cleared its first hurdle when the Assembly Public Safety Committee voted 5-2 in favor of the legislation.
Shortly after, state law enforcement groups —including the California Highway Patrol, the Peace Officers Research Association of California and the California State Sheriffs’ Association —announced that they had taken a neutral position and would no longer oppose the proposal after meeting with Gov. Newsom to smooth out differences.
When Weber presented the revised version of AB 392 with the input of the police groups, Black Lives Matter dropped its sponsorship.
“We knew that it would be an uphill battle, especially with police associations opposing the bill,” said Melina Abdullah, co-founder of the Los Angeles chapter of Black Lives Matter. “Unfortunately, in efforts to get law enforcement to lift their opposition, the bill was so significantly amended that it is no longer the kind of meaningful legislation we can support.”
In its original form, AB 392 explicitly redefined the state’s legal standard for police officers’ use of lethal force, replacing the description “reasonable” with “necessary.” Necessary force, it spelled out, is when “there is no reasonable alternative.”
Although the word “necessary” remains in the current language of the law, its definition has been omitted, leaving it up to the courts to determine on a case-by-case basis.
After the revisions, the bill now requires investigators and prosecutors to consider “the totality of circumstances” leading up to a police officer’s use of lethal force. Before the passing of AB 392, the law only took into account the immediate actions taken before the shooting.
This latest iteration of AB 392 also allows for the behavior of the suspect to be examined.
“This is an important bill, one that will help restore community trust in our criminal justice system,” said Newsom. “I would like to thank Assemblymember Weber, Senate Pro Tem Atkins, Speaker Rendon and our legislative leaders who all worked tirelessly to get us to this point.”
In California, there have been more incidents of police officers using lethal force against African Americans and Latinos than in any other state. In 2017 alone, police killed 172 civilians. Latinos made up a disproportionate 47.1 percent of that total number, and Blacks accounted for 15.1 percent.
“We are proud to stand with Assemblymember Weber in support of AB 392,” said Peter Bibring, Police Practices Director for The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of California. The ACLU is a leading supporter of the legislation.
Activism
Oakland Post: Week of December 31, 2025 – January 6, 2026
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – December 31, 2025 – January 6, 2026
To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.
Activism
Oakland Post: Week of December 24 – 30, 2025
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – December 24 – 30, 2025
To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.
Alameda County
Oakland Council Expands Citywide Security Cameras Despite Major Opposition
In a 7-1 vote in favor of the contract, with only District 3 Councilmember Carroll Fife voting no, the Council agreed to maintain its existing network of 291 cameras and add 40 new “pan-tilt-zoom cameras.”
By Post Staff
The Oakland City Council this week approved a $2.25 million contract with Flock Safety for a mass surveillance network of hundreds of security cameras to track vehicles in the city.
In a 7-1 vote in favor of the contract, with only District 3 Councilmember Carroll Fife voting no, the Council agreed to maintain its existing network of 291 cameras and add 40 new “pan-tilt-zoom cameras.”
In recent weeks hundreds of local residents have spoken against the camera system, raising concerns that data will be shared with immigration authorities and other federal agencies at a time when mass surveillance is growing across the country with little regard for individual rights.
The Flock network, supported by the Oakland Police Department, has the backing of residents and councilmembers who see it as an important tool to protect public safety.
“This system makes the Department more efficient as it allows for information related to disruptive/violent criminal activities to be captured … and allows for precise and focused enforcement,” OPD wrote in its proposal to City Council.
According to OPD, police made 232 arrests using data from Flock cameras between July 2024 and November of this year.
Based on the data, police say they recovered 68 guns, and utilizing the countywide system, they have found 1,100 stolen vehicles.
However, Flock’s cameras cast a wide net. The company’s cameras in Oakland last month captured license plate numbers and other information from about 1.4 million vehicles.
Speaking at Tuesday’s Council meeting, Fife was critical of her colleagues for signing a contract with a company that has been in the national spotlight for sharing data with federal agencies.
Flock’s cameras – which are automated license plate readers – have been used in tracking people who have had abortions, monitoring protesters, and aiding in deportation roundups.
“I don’t know how we get up and have several press conferences talking about how we are supportive of a sanctuary city status but then use a vendor that has been shown to have a direct relationship with (the U.S.) Border Control,” she said. “It doesn’t make sense to me.”
Several councilmembers who voted in favor of the contract said they supported the deal as long as some safeguards were written into the Council’s resolution.
“We’re not aiming for perfection,” said District 1 Councilmember Zac Unger. “This is not Orwellian facial recognition technology — that’s prohibited in Oakland. The road forward here is to add as many amendments as we can.”
Amendments passed by the Council prohibit OPD from sharing camera data with any other agencies for the purpose of “criminalizing reproductive or gender affirming healthcare” or for federal immigration enforcement. California state law also prohibits the sharing of license plate reader data with the federal government, and because Oakland’s sanctuary city status, OPD is not allowed to cooperate with immigration authorities.
A former member of Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Commission has sued OPD, alleging that it has violated its own rules around data sharing.
So far, OPD has shared Flock data with 50 other law enforcement agencies.
-
Bay Area3 weeks agoPost Salon to Discuss Proposal to Bring Costco to Oakland Community meeting to be held at City Hall, Thursday, Dec. 18
-
Activism3 weeks agoMayor Lee, City Leaders Announce $334 Million Bond Sale for Affordable Housing, Roads, Park Renovations, Libraries and Senior Centers
-
Activism4 weeks agoOakland Post: Week of December 10 – 16, 2025
-
Activism3 weeks agoOakland School Board Grapples with Potential $100 Million Shortfall Next Year
-
Arts and Culture3 weeks agoFayeth Gardens Holds 3rd Annual Kwanzaa Celebration at Hayward City Hall on Dec. 28
-
Activism3 weeks ago2025 in Review: Seven Questions for Black Women’s Think Tank Founder Kellie Todd Griffin
-
Advice3 weeks agoCOMMENTARY: If You Don’t Want Your ‘Black Card’ Revoked, Watch What You Bring to Holiday Dinners
-
Activism3 weeks agoAnn Lowe: The Quiet Genius of American Couture





