Advertise in The Nooner to reach over 8,000 readers
MAY NOONER SUPPORT DRIVE: Consider this the equivalent of your public radio pledge break.
I truly hate nagging/begging/pleading as I'm a political/policy writer and not a salesperson, but you know how it is. And like me, you're probably barraged daily by candidates and newspapers for more of your dough. I try to be restrained.
To keep this going, I need to more than double the current number of subscribers to Nooner Premium. Because it's an off year with few elections, subscriptions have dropped off and currently stand at 8% 8.4% of active readers. Meanwhile, my costs go up as newspaper subscriptions and everything else increases in price.
I hope you'll jump aboard and make this endeavor possible to continue. You can subscribe one-time for a few months ($5/month), ongoing and cancellable anytime ($4.99/month), or buy an annual subscription ($49.99 w/ no auto-renew). Instructions for payment by check are on that page as well.
If you are currently Nooner Premium (your email subject line should say "The Premium Nooner..."), your expiration date is displayed in the subscriber portal. If you have never set or forgot your password, click forgot password on that page. Any renewal will be for one year from that date, rounded up to the next month.
Thanks for tolerating me! Let's get to business.
RECENT AURAL PLEASURE:
Happy Friday! You made it! I'm scraping the surface this morning. This is the graf I usually write last, but I've spent the last six hours on what appears below and I need to spell-check (don't laugh) and save as the hour of 11:30 is dropping like it's hot.
Of course, I'll be in your inbox the next few days and this afternoon I'll be poring over yesterday's Senate and Assembly actions on the other major bills that were approved or died this week that I have not yet covered. If there is one you were particularly watching, let me know. Yes, I get most of your press releases and my definition of "major" is likely different than yours.
The (literally) bright side is that's an incredible morning and for the second day in a row I've been able to write outside. The bad news is that the SacTown flies have realized the summer sun is emerging.
WHEN DOVE(S) SING AND DANCE: If you watched the pod with her and the animation she showed when we talked about SB 50, you get that Assemblymember Sydney Kamlager-Dove is a lot of fun. Well, she dialed that up to 11 with a tweeted video yesterday as she danced and sang about her three implicit bias training bills (SB 241-physicians, SB 242-attorneys, SB 243-peace officers) all reaching the Senate.
Thank you Sydney. We needed that this week. When are we opening the Capitol Cabaret? Will there be space in the "Swing Space," Ken Cooley? It could also be used for karaoke nights hosted by Treasurer Fiona Ma.
Speaking of the "Swing Space," which is the building currently being constructed on O Street between 10th and 11th that will house the legislative offices, committee rooms, offices of the governor and lieutenant governor, and legislative support offices while the "Annex" is rebuilt, there is now a web site, and Twitter and Instagram accounts for the project. I'm guessing they are new as I'm one of four followers of the Twitter account, which hasn't had any posts yet. I think if you get in on the ground floor, you'll get a temporary committee room named after you.
WHAT'S LEFT? Friend of the Nooner (FOTN) and lobbyist Chris Micheli gives us our report card for this week and what next week has in store:
AB 392 (Assembly members Weber, McCarty, Rendon, and Senator Atkins): Peace officers: use of deadly force.: This has been a strange week from me. Three days ago, I was foreperson on a jury facilitating a discussion on whether or not the defendant reasonably believed he or his family was in imminent life-threatening danger that justified use of deadly force in firing seven shots at the person he claimed his need for self defense. Last night, I was reading the AB 392 amendments unveiled yesterday and trying to digest them to explain in this space in language for those who haven't spent a semester studying criminal law and then relearning it 2.5 years later for the bar.
I literally then dreamt overnight that I and a few fellow jurors were sitting with the attorneys and defendant to explain why we found him guilty and rejected his claim of self defense. That does not happen in real life. In a strange way, I wish he could have seen the seriousness with which we took our duty.
In advance of official floor analysis, let's see if I can get this right. This is an attempt at a simple explanation and is by no means comprehensive and should not be considered legal advice.
Current law provides a standard for peace officers for the use of deadly force that is different than that which applies in the normal reasonable standard for non-peace officers. The standard for excusable homicide by non-peace officers is found in Penal Code §195 and §197, which is generally in the heat of passion or for self-defense or defense of others. That is the exact thing that we as a jury were considering in deliberations on Tuesday, albeit for the same standard for attempted murder.
The existing standard for peace officers is generally that use of deadly force is deemed reasonably necessary for the execution of the officer's legal duty, which can include situations that are not life-threatening to the officer or others. Penal Code §196.
AB 392, as introduced, would have changed the standard for peace officers for the acceptable use of deadly force for self defense or defense of others as found for non-peace officers in §197 and would have added a new standard for peace officers to excusable use of deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect who has used or threatened the use of deadly force in the commission of a felony, continues to pose a threat of death or seriously body injury if not immediately and, if possible, with the identification of the officer involved.
That's a long paragraph, I know, but they are sometimes required in discussing law. Sorry, English profs.
There were intermediate changes to the bill in March between introduction and yesterday's compromise, but I'm not going to get in to them to avoid confusion.
Yesterday's compromise language provides that a peace officer may use deadly force when the officer believes it is reasonably necessary to:
The bill provides that an officer may not use deadly force toward a person who poses a threat to themself if an objectively reasonable officer believes that the person poses no threat of death or serious bodily harm to others, including the officer.
The bill provides that there is no "duty to retreat" in an apprehension attempt in which deadly force and is not deemed the aggressor in the evaluation of self defense. For non-peace officers, there is a limited, but not general, duty to retreat.
Again, that is a quick summary and I've tried to simplify it for you. Stay tuned to this space for further clarifications as the subject matter analysts dive in to this very complex area of law.
As I noted in last night's Nooner Nightcap, when the amendments were put in print (in an unusual a midday update to the public LegInfo), Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins and Speaker Anthony Rendon were added to the bill. As Joe Biden would say, that's a BFD. While Atkins has a few bills this year, Rendon is carrying no policy bills.
In Assemblymember Shirley Weber's press release this morning, she has quotes from the Police Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), California Police Chiefs Association, and the California Association of Highwaypatrolmen (no, they have not de-gendered their historic name). Also, according to the release, Governor Newsom's team was involved in reaching the compromise.
Anyway, I know that's more detail than many of you are interested in, but many honestly last week we thought we were at a dead end on the issue, with the law enforcement-supported SB 230 tied to AB 392 and moving to the Assembly while the liability reform-minded AB 392 parked in Assembly Rules. With next Friday's "house of origin" deadline for AB 392 to pass the Assembly, it will be interesting to see if there is still any significant law enforcement opposition or whether this bill flies through as a major bipartisan accomplishment on a very emotional issue.
From a legal perspective, AB 392 is not watered-down milquetoast legislation for the sake of a simple declaration of legislative victory. Not every
I tweeted this morning about a great CBS limited series that has been airing starring Noah Wyle (Dr. Carter in "ER" and Steve Jobs in the great "Pirates of Silicon Valley"). I'm through the first three double-episodes, and it's so strange how it so parallels this discussion we're having in Sacramento right now. Of course, I haven't researched Illinois law, and the show takes place in Chi-town.
AB 539 (Assembly members Limón, Grayson, and Gonzalez): California Financing Law: consumer loans: charges.: Speaking of BFDs, the Assembly approved this year's bill to cap the fees/interest on short-term loans ("payday loans") and which limits terms of principal repayment based on loan size and whether or not they are secured by real property.
I know a little bit about criminal law but very little on this topic except that it's been perennially been around for most of my time in Sacramento. What I also know is that this appears a big breakthrough and I know lots of the industry folks are not happy.
The final vote was 60 "ayes," 11 "noes," and 4 not votings. Here's are votes of interest from my perspective:
MONEY MATTERS: As if yesterday wasn't crazy enough on the legislative front, it was also the final pre-election filing for candidates in the two open State Senate seats befiore the June 4 special general election.
While these are numbers are normally only now included in Nooner Premium because it's nighttime calculator work, you all have been pretty cool and patient lately through jury duty, etc. Also, several new Nooner Premium subscribers have joined during the May subscription drive, moving the needle from 8% to 8.5% of unduplicated readers. Still a ways to go, but thank you!
CAKEDAY after the jump...
#CAKEDAY: Happy birthday to Chad Carlock, former assemblymember and great guy Jim Cunneen, Chris Kahn, John Myers, and Daniel Zingale!
TOP HEADLINES ON AROUNDTHECAPITOL.COM