By Crescenzo Vellucci
Vanguard Sacramento Bureau
SACRAMENTO – The State Legislature sent controversial “use of force” legislation designed to reduce the number of peace officer killings of Californians to the Governor Monday – but about the same time, three Black families here accused city of Sacramento police officers of “terrorizing” their children last month with a gun.
Approved by the full Senate Monday, AB 392, the “California Act to Save Lives,” would reduce the number of deaths cause by police, according to author Assemblymember Shirley Weber (D-San Diego). The measure was amended to appease law enforcement, which had sworn to defeat it. Co-author was Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento).
Still, most supporters continue to back the measure – state laws regarding use of force haven’t changed since 1872 – because they claim California peace officers kill more people than any other state.
In fact, the killing of unarmed Blacks and Latinx by police is almost epidemic. AB 392 would mandate that officers use deadly force to only when “necessary.” And use other non-lethal force when possible.
Woodland’s Marissa Barrera, whose brother Michael Barrera was killed in 2017 by Woodland police officers, said Monday: “My family and I have been fighting for change for the past two and a half years, since my brother was wrongfully killed. Since then, I have met countless other families that are affected by the loss of their loved ones to police killings. I see this bill as a start to change, which we desperately need.”
To many, the bill can’t into effect soon enough.
In Sacramento Monday morning – just across the street from the State Capitol where AB 392 was being heard – three Black families accused city of Sacramento police officers of “terrorizing” their children last month with a drawn gun.
The teens – two were 13 and another was 14 – were headed to breakfast at a south area McDonald’s Restaurant when they were confronted by Sacramento police, identified as officers “Virk” and “Matthew,” who detained the young teens June 21 with a loaded weapon.
The officers forced the teens to press their faces on the hot pavement, according to the families. Police later said they were looking for suspects in a crime. The teens were eventually released. No information was provided by police about the “crime” they said they were investigating.
“Our 13-year-old son’s life was changed forever. Our boys were clueless about what they did to deserve such treatment from law enforcement (who) they thought were there to protect them. Unfortunately, the officers assume all African American teens look alike, My son was treated like a criminal…he has not been the same since,” said Angel Totten.
Not Perfect, but Cop Deadly Use of Force Measure Gets OK by Assembly
Even after the officers realized the teens didn’t fit the description, added Totten, they “were still treated as if they were criminals. No apologies were given. We were only notified because one of the boys asked to call his mother….the officers failed to mention (to us) that the boys were held at gun point.”
Roderick Totten, the father of one of the teens and a local coach, said the trio were “aggressively approached” by police and ordered to the ground, with an officer drawing a gun “shaking.”
“There was a lack of empathy. It was traumatizing to my son. It perpetuates the division between police and the community,” he added, noting that police exhibited “fear.” Totten said that police were not only “unclear” but also “intimidating” by putting the call on speaker so that his son couldn’t speak freely.
Paris Flores said her son, 14, is “struggling to understand” what happened.
“These boys are babies (but) the officers treated them like they were a threat. It takes one second to pull the trigger,” Flores said, noting that the gun was pointed at the teens for 15 seconds.
“Sacramento police didn’t have dignity and respect. Those officers were once children. To me, this is harassment. These children can’t even get breakfast. It’s a hard lesson (but) now they know what it’s like to be their color,” said Flores.
Black Lives Matter Sacramento founder Tanya Faison, who called the news conference Monday at the ACLU offices near the Capitol, listed the families’ demands, including the “public” release of all audio and video (dash cams and body cams), a “pubic apology” by officers to the teens and the full names of all the officers involved.
Faison also demanded that Sacramento police “stop terrorizing” the Black and Latinx community, stop using “abusive language” and compensation, paid for the city or the officers, for mental health support for the teens.
???
What is the question?
That seemed a non sequitur –
OK, reread and see they were on their way to get breakfast. Nevermind.
????
Faison, mais, no raison… incroyable, n’est ce pas… juste en disant.
What are you disagreeing with here? I think she’s quite correct about the treatment of the Black and Latino communities by the police in Sacramento and the lack of accountability.
Read the bolded text… I did not question the unbolded text. Watch out for selectively selecting, then “spinning”… can cause vertigo… whatever…
Got cut off by the “shot clock” with 56 seconds remaining…
Your response to my post (by ignoring my bolded text) well implies I’m “for” bad/inappropriate treatment of
BS! Again, I say, read my bolded text, previously… I did not say, nor imply, any problem with the rest of what I quoted. Yet you focused on on the fact I questioned the statement as a whole (which, I didn’t), did not cite what I disagreed with, and focused on the part I had no disagreement with, and attributed it to me. That’s dishonest, at best.
And, now the common journalistic term is ‘Latinx’… or do you differentiate between Latinos and Latinas? I can spin, too… only to point out your spinning of the words I posted…
I think it would be more clear next time, if instead of bolding, you state, I have a problem with this: “xxx yyyy…”
There’s a debate in the Latino community over the term Latinx vs. Latino/a.
There’s a freakin’ debate everywhere these days . . .
David… I understand… but there is the “dark side” of what you suggest… being (sometimes “rightfully”) accused of ‘cherry-picking ‘, phrased from a quote, only in part…
We’re both right, and both wrong. Go figure. [think, damned if you do, damned if you don’t]
Oh, and 15 points for not addressing the demand for the compensation from City and individual officers for MH treatment… well played!
A 9.7 on deflection!
Alan… acknowledged… will ‘check my jets’… I need to fully understand my ‘trigger points’… as should others…
Still, no regrets, back-pedalling, on what I posted… felt it needed to be said
Not sure what you are acknowledging WM, nothing pointed at you.