The CA AG's Office can investigate any crime already - requested or not. Yet, you see no investigations of police shootings. What would be useful is the mandatory use, preservation and examination of RECORDINGS OF SHOOTINGS and other uses of force producing serious injury - including from vehicle and body cams.

Read Article I, section 13 of the California Constitution on the powers and duties of the state Attorney General. You will immediately realize the bill is a diversionary tactic.

I mean Article 5, section 13.

It doesn't matter if the the county district attorney's office, the state attorney or the federal government. The overall majority of these shoots are justified because law enforcement was called to deal with a situation caused by others and instead of complying with the police people like to fight or do something that any reasonable person would know any one of would feel threatening. The shooting is investigated and when it shows it is justified there is always an outcry by a loud voice that is not listening to any facts and is instantly showing that they are not using any critical thinking skills to understand the cause of the situation. Reaching for your waistband - threat. Pulling out an object and moving towards a police officer - threat. Beating on a person with a an object and not listening to orders to STOP - threat. That loud voice is all that is heard by the media instead of supporting those that are out there to help keep us all safe. All these legislative moves are political. The best thing about having the attorney general investigate and clear these incidents is then there is no one else to complain to and say it was not done fairly. Of course the attorney generals mentioned don't want this because they would be forced to actually look at the facts and then disagree with the loud voices.

The state Attorney General already has the power and duty to investigate crimes statewide. Article V, section 13 of the California Constitution. When do you imagine the police would ask for the AG's Office to investigate? What is needed is (1) a clear legal standard for the use of deadly or other force and (2) evidence of what actually happened. When police MUST be on camera (audio and visual), the recordings cannot be destroyed or altered with impunity and there is appropriate access to recordings, misconduct will be (even more) uncommon. Of course, not everything should be recorded or made public. I suggest that activists and others who want to reduce and identify police misconduct should read current policies and procedures and propose changes to legislators for inclusion in legislation - state or local.

An impressive display of the authoritarian mindset above by the poster suggesting that someone moving their hands to their waist justifies the use of lethal force.

#shameful Why can't Cali get our act together regarding police action transparency & accountability. Everyone wants it! Or do they??? Kudos to the Mountain View Voice &
@CalMatters for keeping this issue before us!

Mindset is what keeps people alive. If an officer or anyone in a situation had to wait to be shot at first then we have a bunch of officers and military personnel killed. The brain has just a fraction of second to make a decision of what is happening when someone makes a move to grab something.

It may sound silly but just like in sports, you have a split second to make a decision that can win or lose a game. Every watch how fast someone can pull a weapon and shoot?

Easy survival skill:
1) Don't get involved in criminal activity.
2) Listen and follow instructions.
3) Always keep your hands where an officer can see them.

This message from your local military veteran who served in two combat tours.

and, dear valued veteran, please remember DWB etc.

This is not a combat situation we are examining. Civilian oversight in a non-war, non-combat situation is different than you experienced in a combat tour. Even then - guess what - the military in the US is under the control of the civilian authorities (for better or worse) even then.

I for one am not convinced by your particular posted public policy opinions/theories.

The bill - which would call for a state AG Office investigation if requested by police - would not change anything - except to give the state Attorney General an excuse for not investigating police shootings under his or her existing powers and duties in Article V, section 13 of the California Constitution. Like the county district attorneys, the state Attorney General is elected with police support and the AG and most AG Office employees work directly with state and local police. I suggested a different change above - involving the consistent use of cameras-recordings. The protests are mostly gone. Activists need to agree on real and rational changes. Language such as "defund police" is not helpful - even if some intend it to mean evaluating what is expected of - and paid to - police. The term already is part of a Trump campaign ad.