Stephon Clark killed by Sacramento police - he was in his own family's backyard

[laughing dog]

Calling me wrong but then using a personal attack rather than actually rebutting it shows I'm actually right.

That logic doesn't follow. Toni's lack of a rebuttal diminishes the value of her post form a debate standpoint... but a lack of a rebuttal in no way serves as support for your accuracy.

If people have a proper rebuttal they usually provide it.

Well, when people have a proper argument, they usually provide it. In your case, it has been shown you have not bothered to learn the actual of facts of the case. In otherwords, you have literally made up a scenario in order to defend your historically shown kneejerk defense of the police.

People generally resort to attacks when they can't address the issue.

1st, it was not necessarily a personal attack. 2nd, when people get frustrated with others who persistently and insistently promote counterfactual arguments, they understandably get upset.

 

[laughing dog]

Trayvon did likely break into a house in Miami. That's where he got that jewelry school police officers found on him.

Totally irrelevant. "Likely" is not a fact but an opinion. And "likely" is not a presumption of innocence.

 

[Derec]

Totally irrelevant. "Likely" is not a fact but an opinion. And "likely" is not a presumption of innocence.

It's not totally irrelevant. Sure, had the police ever bothered to charge him in the burglary (would have saved his life if they had), he would have enjoyed presumption of innocence.
But we are still allowed to look at the case and say how likely we think he was guilty.

 

[laughing dog]

Really?

To any rational human being, yes..

Of course it is relevant. It tells us what kind of a man Stephon was. He wasn't what his brother is feeding CNN and other mainstream media.

It is not relevant to the issue of whether the police acted properly. It is relevant if you wish to smear the reputation of the victim.

Yes, that is relevant too. Clark ran, than turned around and came toward police. Holding an object in the dark. Previously he jumped the fence from a neighbor's yard where he broke a glass door and before that he broke some car windows. All that is relevant.

Then address the relevant facts, not the irrelevant ones which correlate with your biases.

Very different scenarios.

No. In both cases,
1) the police did not know they had the right person,
2) the police rushed in and shouted orders,
3) the suspect had little or no time to comply,
4) the suspect was unarmedd,
5) the police did not bother to check to see if the suspect was armed,
6) the suspect presented no immediate threat to the officers' safety,
7) the suspect was gunned down. and
8) the suspect was a black male.

If they made a reasonable mistake then the shooting may still be justified. Police should not be judged based on hindsight but based on information they had at the time, taking into account that they only had a very short time to make the "shoot or don't shoot" decision once the suspect turned around and came toward them.

Nonsense. The failure on the part of the police to ascertain information in a timely fashion is important.
When you needlessly kill a person, your actions are not justified. It really is that simple.

- - - Updated - - -

Totally irrelevant. "Likely" is not a fact but an opinion. And "likely" is not a presumption of innocence.

It's not totally irrelevant. Sure, had the police ever bothered to charge him in the burglary (would have saved his life if they had), he would have enjoyed presumption of innocence.
But we are still allowed to look at the case and say how likely we think he was guilty.

Of course you can. But when you pull out the "innocent until proven guilty" argument with charged rapists, then we are permitted to point out your blatant hypocrisy.

 

[Derec]

Sephon's brother Stevante and others acting like hood rats interrupting city council meeting.

He said something about "poverty is uncontrollable". Quite ironic with him wearing expensive wireless Beats by Dr. Dre headphones...

Why wasn't the fool and the others arrested for disorderly conduct?

And the #BLM protesters blocked fans from entering the Sacramento Kings game for the second time. Just like the first time, nobody was arrested so of course they are emboldened to do it over and over again. Police needs to start doing their jobs and stop treating #BLM creeps with kid gloves!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If they made a reasonable mistake then the shooting may still be justified. Police should not be judged based on hindsight but based on information they had at the time, taking into account that they only had a very short time to make the "shoot or don't shoot" decision once the suspect turned around and came toward them.

Nonsense. The failure on the part of the police to ascertain information in a timely fashion is important.
When you needlessly kill a person, your actions are not justified. It really is that simple.

Yeah, it isn't a justified shooting if they honestly fucked up, it just isn't criminal.

To use the defense that they had to make a split second decision, in a case where they rushed into a situation without assessing threats is incredibly obtuse. The officers put themselves in potential danger. They put whomever was in the backyard in potential danger.

 

[marc]

To use the defense that they had to make a split second decision, in a case where they rushed into a situation without assessing threats is incredibly obtuse. The officers put themselves in potential danger. They put whomever was in the backyard in potential danger.

Why it is always a split second decision when it is an unarmed black guy who they don't even know if it is the person they are looking for, but there is plenty of time when it is a white mass shooter? The usual excuse is the white guy isn't resisting, but the black guys are usually not even given the chance to show if they are resisting or not.

 

[LordKiran]

Sephon's brother Stevante and others acting like hood rats interrupting city council meeting.

He said something about "poverty is uncontrollable". Quite ironic with him wearing expensive wireless Beats by Dr. Dre headphones...

Why wasn't the fool and the others arrested for disorderly conduct?

And the #BLM protesters blocked fans from entering the Sacramento Kings game for the second time. Just like the first time, nobody was arrested so of course they are emboldened to do it over and over again. Police needs to start doing their jobs and stop treating #BLM creeps with kid gloves!

Hey look, more racially tinged class-ism from Derec in order to distract from how wrong he was and how embarrassed he should be for acting like a fool in a public forum.

Can you fill me in on how this is relevant to the conversation you were having and lost at?

 

[laughing dog]

Oh noes, the BLM bogeyman is loose again.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This is exactly what we need and we need more of it. There needs to be way more people screaming about it when police kill someone they shouldn't have killed. And we need way less of those people in the background in the suits and ties who allegedly represent the people, but don't. They're in with the police [state] and will do nothing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"Hood rats"?

 

[LordKiran]

"Hood rats"?

It means impoverished blacks who live in the hood. Derec will likely try to play innocent and pretend we don't know what dog whistles are and say "Well it doesn't apply specifically to blacks" or some other bullshit, but it will be bullshit whatever its form.

 

[Emily Lake]

Calling me wrong but then using a personal attack rather than actually rebutting it shows I'm actually right.

That logic doesn't follow. Toni's lack of a rebuttal diminishes the value of her post form a debate standpoint... but a lack of a rebuttal in no way serves as support for your accuracy.

If people have a proper rebuttal they usually provide it. People generally resort to attacks when they can't address the issue.

That still doesn't serve as support for your accuracy.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If people have a proper rebuttal they usually provide it. People generally resort to attacks when they can't address the issue.

That still doesn't serve as support for your accuracy.

You're wrong, you crazy person.*

* so using the Loren Hypothesis you must be right. I feel like I am getting close to a paradox here. How confusing.

 

[Emily Lake]

Let's stop pretending that Stephon didn't know that police were looking for him.

Whether he knew or not is irrelevant. Just like whether or not he has a criminal record is irrelevant. What is relevant are the actions of the Mr. Clark and of the police. Mr. Clark, like Tamir Rice, was not given much time at all to comply with the shouted orders of the police. Mr. Clark, like Tamir Rice, was unarmed but yet gunned down.

Police have a difficult job - there is no doubt about that. But police who quickly gun down unarmed people who pose no immediate threat are a danger to the public. These officers screwed up and they killed a civilian. Even if one thinks their mistakes were innocent and understandable, that does not make them justified.

Well said.

I have several police and military in my family. I can understand that things get tense, adrenaline is up, etc. But this is really just reckless endangerment of the public. It's NOT justifiable. Even if it were proven that he was the person breaking car windows... that still doesn't excuse a deadly response.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"Hood rats"?

It means impoverished blacks who live in the hood. Derec will likely try to play innocent and pretend we don't know what dog whistles are and say "Well it doesn't apply specifically to blacks" or some other bullshit, but it will be bullshit whatever its form.

So we have moved on from using the term "thugs" or "thugs with expensive headphones"?

 

[fast]

I just want to clear up some confusion solely around the notion of innocent until proven guilty.

Let's say A murders B. Long before trial, and most certainly afterwards as well, A is guilty. That is a fact that cannot be altered. If the court finds A not guilty, A's still guilty. If we presume he's innocent, or even worse, assume he's innocent, the fact that he's guilty remains. It's the one unalterable fact that remain no matter what anyone says or does.

However, let's say we don't know whether A is guilty. Guess what, either he is or he isn't. Which way do you want to go? Do you want to assume that he's guilty thereby placing the burden of proof on A--to prove he's not guilty, or do you want to presume he's innocent thereby placing the burden of proof on the prosecution?

Courts have decided. They place the burden not on the defendant but instead the prosecution. That means the courts have decided not to assume he's innocent but rather presume he's innocent. It says nothing about his innocence. His innocence is reality dependent. Remember, if A in fact murdered B, he is in fact guilty, but we can still assume or presume innocence.

In court of law, a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That neither means he's innocent in the beginning or truly guilty at the end. Proven guilty is a confusing notion...it assumes guilt, but remember, it's just a finding. Case in point: A murders B. C is mistaken for A. A is innocent, but he is charged. They don't assume A is innocent, but they do presume A is innocent; when he is wrongly convicted (remember, he's actually innocent), the court will find him guilty and people will say he was proven guilty, but being proven guilty (in reality) is a superset to being proven guilty in a court of law.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I just want to clear up some confusion solely around the notion of innocent until proven guilty.

Let's say A murders B. Long before trial, and most certainly afterwards as well, A is guilty. That is a fact that cannot be altered. If the court finds A not guilty, A's still guilty. If we presume he's innocent, or even worse, assume he's innocent, the fact that he's guilty remains. It's the one unalterable fact that remain no matter what anyone says or does.

However, let's say we don't know whether A is guilty. Guess what, either he is or he isn't. Which way do you want to go? Do you want to assume that he's guilty thereby placing the burden of proof on A--to prove he's not guilty, or do you want to presume he's innocent thereby placing the burden of proof on the prosecution?

Courts have decided. They place the burden not on the defendant but instead the prosecution. That means the courts have decided not to assume he's innocent but rather presume he's innocent. It says nothing about his innocence. His innocence is reality dependent. Remember, if A in fact murdered B, he is in fact guilty, but we can still assume or presume innocence.

In court of law, a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That neither means he's innocent in the beginning or truly guilty at the end. Proven guilty is a confusing notion...it assumes guilt, but remember, it's just a finding. Case in point: A murders B. C is mistaken for A. A is innocent, but he is charged. They don't assume A is innocent, but they do presume A is innocent; when he is wrongly convicted (remember, he's actually innocent), the court will find him guilty and people will say he was proven guilty, but being proven guilty (in reality) is a superset to being proven guilty in a court of law.

Do we need to mention the 8th Amendment about "cruel and unusual punishment"? Even if he did what is alleged, death is rarely (never) the punishment. That he was shot and killed and it is possible he wasn't even the person committing those acts, is outrightly frightening.

And that some people want to defend his execution is mind blowing.

 

[Emily Lake]

In court of law, a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That neither means he's innocent in the beginning or truly guilty at the end. Proven guilty is a confusing notion...it assumes guilt, but remember, it's just a finding. Case in point: A murders B. C is mistaken for A. A is innocent, but he is charged. They don't assume A is innocent, but they do presume A is innocent; when he is wrongly convicted (remember, he's actually innocent), the court will find him guilty and people will say he was proven guilty, but being proven guilty (in reality) is a superset to being proven guilty in a court of law.

I believe I follow what you're saying... but I think some of your letters might be wrong. This section is very confusing to me.

 

[fast]

I just want to clear up some confusion solely around the notion of innocent until proven guilty.

Let's say A murders B. Long before trial, and most certainly afterwards as well, A is guilty. That is a fact that cannot be altered. If the court finds A not guilty, A's still guilty. If we presume he's innocent, or even worse, assume he's innocent, the fact that he's guilty remains. It's the one unalterable fact that remain no matter what anyone says or does.

However, let's say we don't know whether A is guilty. Guess what, either he is or he isn't. Which way do you want to go? Do you want to assume that he's guilty thereby placing the burden of proof on A--to prove he's not guilty, or do you want to presume he's innocent thereby placing the burden of proof on the prosecution?

Courts have decided. They place the burden not on the defendant but instead the prosecution. That means the courts have decided not to assume he's innocent but rather presume he's innocent. It says nothing about his innocence. His innocence is reality dependent. Remember, if A in fact murdered B, he is in fact guilty, but we can still assume or presume innocence.

In court of law, a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That neither means he's innocent in the beginning or truly guilty at the end. Proven guilty is a confusing notion...it assumes guilt, but remember, it's just a finding. Case in point: A murders B. C is mistaken for A. A is innocent, but he is charged. They don't assume A is innocent, but they do presume A is innocent; when he is wrongly convicted (remember, he's actually innocent), the court will find him guilty and people will say he was proven guilty, but being proven guilty (in reality) is a superset to being proven guilty in a court of law.

Do we need to mention the 8th Amendment about "cruel and unusual punishment"? Even if he did what is alleged, death is rarely (never) the punishment. That he was shot and killed and it is possible he wasn't even the person committing those acts, is outrightly frightening.

And that some people want to defend his execution is mind blowing.

Oh come on Jimmy, I haven't been drinking this time, so I know I haven't addressed the OP, just a side issue stemming from it. As to the OP, the person killed was not found guilty in a court of law. He wasn't even punished (unless you are using a very broad meaning of the term.) He certainly wasn't punished in a court of law.