This week, the California State Assembly proposed a law that dictates when an officer can fire their weapon in self-defense. I previously touched on how dangerous such a law would be to officers, their families, and society. A recent officer-involved shooting in Pasadena, Texas shines some light on these problems. 

Officer Marc Adams, a 13-year veteran of the department, conducted a traffic stop on March 29th. The suspect took his time to pull over, and when he did stop, he do so abruptly and quickly pushed his door open. Officer Adams began giving loud verbal commands for the suspect to stay in his car, but the man shouted back “no.” He then turned the right side of his body away from Adams. Since the majority of the population is right-handed, common sense tells the officer the man is hiding something in his hand. So, he commanded the suspect to show his hands. Instead, the suspect presented and pointed a firearm at the officer. Before the suspect could shoot, Adams got off multiple shots, striking the suspect in the left arm. This was enough of a distraction for him to retreat to the rear of his patrol vehicle, take cover, and create distance. The suspect then stumbled to the middle of the street while still holding the handgun. Officer Adams took a position on the passenger side of his vehicle, keeping the suspect in view. When the suspect began to take aim again, Adams fired a few more rounds, striking the suspect in the right side of his rib cage. The shot was fatal. 

And the California assembly wants to legislate this? Leftists must be further out of touch than I realized. They believe they can write a bill that dictates when an officer can determine, often times in dark, whether a perceived firearm is an actual firearm or just an airsoft gun with the orange tip removed. Or if a real firearm has a chambered round or inserted magazine. Unfortunately, there is no time for “making sure” in these situations. Officers Adams didn’t have time to determine if the suspect had a projectile in the chamber of his handgun. Yet, liberals in California think it’s logical to do so.

Officers don’t want to go through a critical incident like taking a life. Some handle the task better than others, some don’t handle it eel at all. In fact, it is not uncommon for officers to leave law enforcement altogether after being compelled to use deadly force.  

New officers are taught in field training that when a driver takes time to pull over, there is a higher chance for nefarious activity such as hiding contraband, or they may be looking for a place to bail out and run. Officers senses become heightened, and rightfully so, as in this case.  

Let’s put this into context and place Officer Adams and the suspect in California after the law has passed. Officer Adams would not be allowed to shoot first in self-preservation. He would have to become a target first. All the while, having a perfectly capable weapon and authorization by federal law to stop the threat to his own life. Officers should not be expendable for the sake of criminal who decides to point a firearm, or what can reasonably be perceived as a firearm, at an officer. Yes, there are inherent dangers in law enforcement. We all know that being shot is one of them. However, officers do not “sign up to get shot,” as critics ignorantly say.

Don’t point a firearm, or something that is intended to look like one, at an officer, and no one will get shot. It’s common sense.