Political Gumbo: Fontucky and AB392

Got a text from somebody offended by my use of the term Fontucky.

So today I am not going to use the term Fontucky.

That’s right, in this column I won’t talk about my exile by fire with the use of the word Fontucky.

I did run the word through ChatGPT though.

This is part of what came back.

“Fontucky” is a playful nickname for Fontana, California. It’s used by some residents and in local publications, such as a coloring book called “Color the City, Fontana: \’Fontucky\’”,according to Amazon.com. The nickname is also the title of a song by Alibi Music on Spotify.

They are indoctrinating the kids. Wow is that guy going to be mad.

Don’t blame me. Blame AI — or the terminator.

Rise of the Machines and all that.

By the way I looked, yes, there are several people named John Connor in Fontu – … the area.

Scary that Armageddon could start here.

Then again …

On to the serious stuff, the business at hand in the latter part of the week is the Public Safety Committee.

The committee will receive an update on the police department’s implementation of AB392.

Here’s the skinny on it.

AB 392, the California Act to Save Lives, limits the use of deadly force by police officers to two scenarios: when defending themselves or others from an “imminent threat” of death or serious bodily injury, or when apprehending a fleeing person who poses that same level of threat.

Read it again.

Unless the threat is imminent, police officers are called upon to use de-escalation tactics.

Funny, I thought that was always the deal.

AB392 entered the local conversation after a Pasadena police officer fatally shot Anthony McClain in 2020.

McClain fled police after they pulled over a vehicle McClain was riding in. Police say McClain had a gun.

A weapon was recovered at the scene, and according to police, McClain’s DNA was on that weapon.

Now that we have the background out of the way. Let’s break down a possible AB392 application in this case.

Of course I’m not a mouthpiece, that’s what Jimmy Cagney used to call lawyers in those old movies, but I can break down a sentence.

Removing the emotion, I’ve said it before and I will say it again, I have watched the tape of the shooting a grip of times and I don’t see a gun.

However, from an AB392 perspective that’s not the point.

You see, there is this part of AB392 that doesn’t get talked about a lot when people speak on the applications of the law.

Yes, AB392 redefined the legal standard for police use of deadly force by replacing the long-standing “reasonable force” standard with one that requires force to be “necessary” under the circumstances.

Naturally people key in on the word “necessary” or if there was an imminent threat situation.

And they should.

But, you can’t just get five digits of a woman’s phone number and think you’re getting somewhere.

There’s a few more digits to AB392.

Here’s the rest.

AB392 still directs the evaluation of an officer’s use of force from the perspective of a “reasonable police officer” in the same situation, taking into account the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time—not with the benefit of hindsight.

The law works on what a reasonable police officer would do in the situation, not a reasonable citizen absent training.

Again, not discussing the law’s merits, just laying out the facts.

That said, remember this.

Interim Police Chief Jason Clawson wrote this line in his determination that cleared the officer of wrongdoing.

“Under the City of Pasadena policy, the Chief of Police is solely responsible for determining whether a use of force complies with Department policy.

“Neither the City Manager nor the City Council have a role in reviewing a use of force incident under City policy. Since the Chief found the officer’s use of force in compliance with Department policy, the Chief’s determination is final,”

Like I said before, of course there is room for interpretation of the law and laws can be changed.

When he wrote this, Clawson was a “reasonable police officer.”

The case itself is closed.

However, there is always room for discussion and additional policy.

Should make for an interesting meeting.