Yesterday I shared about AB931, a new bill to address police violence in California. Today, the police unions came out against the bill. So let’s methodically debunk their arguments with the facts. A thread.
Exhibit A is Craig Lally, president of the LA Police Protective League. He says more restrictive use of force standards would 1) cause police to be harmed and 2) cause crime to rise. Exhibit B is from the Police Officers *Research* Association. Same basic argument. 
Their argument is always that police need unlimited discretion to shoot people in order to protect themselves and others from dangerous criminals. They do not provide data to support their claims - not even the Police “Research” Association. And that’s because they’re dead wrong.
Let’s examine point 1: that more restrictive police use of force standards endanger officers. The data shows the opposite: police are most likely to be assaulted or killed in places with the *least* restrictive standards - standards the police unions want. useofforceproject.org
Point 2: that more restrictive use of force standards “handcuff” officers and increase crime. Just ran the numbers. Cities with more restrictive use of force standards have *less* crime. Guess that’s why police unions never offer evidence to support their claims: there is none.
The police unions have been using these same tired arguments, fake news to obstruct progress. They depend on there not being data or anyone fact checking or “second-guessing” them. Enough.
