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

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Broken by a bad cut and paste.

- - - Updated - - -

Fast forward to about 1:20. You can see how most shots would have been in the back. The police were above him since they were standing. He was in a kind of crawl position at shot#1. Then immediately he was laying flat. All or most of the other shots would have hit him in the back, back of the head, back of legs etc. A small number could in theory enter from the side.

What this has to do with Loren's bullshit excuses, I have no idea.

ETA: watching the full video again several more times, I could have been mistaken about the first 1 or 2 shots. It seems like he could have been hit by 1 shot while standing, one while hunched over in a crawl position, and then 6 more times while laying on his stomach. The main point of vast majority of shots entering from the back still being valid and consistent with autopsy.

Ok, you're looking at human reaction time there. The reality is that people will tend to fire a few additional shots once the target goes down. It takes far less brain power to fire another shot than it takes to assess that the threat is over, cease fire.

You are thinking about normal people, not trained police but anyway I accept your tacit concession that the shots were in the back.

I'm talking about humans, period. Being trained police doesn't change the issue.

Yes it does. When you are trained to shoot all the time, you learn to do it with deliberation even under stress. More importantly he shouldn't have been shot in the first place.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Broken by a bad cut and paste.

True, but I already provided links to the non-broken video.

He was running, then broke into the house next to his grandmother's, then jumped into her house, and stopped running. We don't know why he did that, but perhaps he did not intend to run anymore, but stay there, playing it cool and pretending he had been there for a while, just minding his own business, so he was not the person being chased for breaking and entering - he did not know the people in the helicopter could see him so clearly until he got there, if he knew about the helicopter at all.
On the other hand, the people in the helicopter had no idea that he had already reached his destination, and probably expected that he would keep running. As a result, they probably interpreted all of it as part of the same chase - but in any case, after he jumped the fence, the officer in the helicopter said "he's running for the...front yard", even though he was not running at that particular moment. He then described that as "running" even, but immediately after that, he said that the suspect was looking into a car.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Broken by a bad cut and paste.

True, but I already provided links to the non-broken video.

He was running, then broke into the house next to his grandmother's, then jumped into her house, and stopped running. We don't know why he did that, but perhaps he did not intend to run anymore, but stay there, playing it cool and pretending he had been there for a while, just minding his own business, so he was not the person being chased for breaking and entering - he did not know the people in the helicopter could see him so clearly until he got there, if he knew about the helicopter at all.
On the other hand, the people in the helicopter had no idea that he had already reached his destination, and probably expected that he would keep running. As a result, they probably interpreted all of it as part of the same chase - but in any case, after he jumped the fence, the officer in the helicopter said "he's running for the...front yard", even though he was not running at that particular moment. He then described that as "running" even, but immediately after that, he said that the suspect was looking into a car.

I saw the links. I don't think i saw a breaking and entering though. Are you sure about that?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Broken by a bad cut and paste.

True, but I already provided links to the non-broken video.

He was running, then broke into the house next to his grandmother's, then jumped into her house, and stopped running. We don't know why he did that, but perhaps he did not intend to run anymore, but stay there, playing it cool and pretending he had been there for a while, just minding his own business, so he was not the person being chased for breaking and entering - he did not know the people in the helicopter could see him so clearly until he got there, if he knew about the helicopter at all.
On the other hand, the people in the helicopter had no idea that he had already reached his destination, and probably expected that he would keep running. As a result, they probably interpreted all of it as part of the same chase - but in any case, after he jumped the fence, the officer in the helicopter said "he's running for the...front yard", even though he was not running at that particular moment. He then described that as "running" even, but immediately after that, he said that the suspect was looking into a car.

I saw the links. I don't think i saw a breaking and entering though. Are you sure about that?

Hmm...could be, but in the beginning, they say he just broke a window, and he's running from the window in the house next door to some sort of trash bin or something like that, which he uses to jump over the fence and enter his grandmother's backyard. Given that behavior, it seems extremely probable to me that he broke into the house next door, rather than asking for permission to enter.

If he did not and somehow was given permission to enter, then he did not break into that house - though it still looked from the perspective of the people in the helicopter that he had broke into the house that turned out to be his grandmother's.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I saw the links. I don't think i saw a breaking and entering though. Are you sure about that?

Hmm...could be, but in the beginning, they say he just broke a window, and he's running from the window in the house next door to some sort of trash bin or something like that, which he uses to jump over the fence and enter his grandmother's backyard. Given that behavior, it seems extremely probable to me that he broke into the house next door, rather than asking for permission to enter.

If he did not and somehow was given permission to enter, then he did not break into that house - though it still looked from the perspective of the people in the helicopter that he had broke into the house that turned out to be his grandmother's.

I thought you wrote he broke into the house next to his grandmother's. Can you give a specific time in the video?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I saw the links. I don't think i saw a breaking and entering though. Are you sure about that?

Hmm...could be, but in the beginning, they say he just broke a window, and he's running from the window in the house next door to some sort of trash bin or something like that, which he uses to jump over the fence and enter his grandmother's backyard. Given that behavior, it seems extremely probable to me that he broke into the house next door, rather than asking for permission to enter.

If he did not and somehow was given permission to enter, then he did not break into that house - though it still looked from the perspective of the people in the helicopter that he had broke into the house that turned out to be his grandmother's.

I thought you wrote he broke into the house next to his grandmother's. Can you give a specific time in the video?

Yes, I wrote that he did, but did not write that the moment he did so is on video. How do I know he did?

In the house next door, it seems he broke a window there, then run to a trash bin or something, and then use that to jump over the fence into his grandmother's backyard. That does not appear to be the behavior of someone who was in that house because he was allowed to, but that of someone who broke into it.
We can add more evidence: The person who called 911 reported that after breaking a number of car windows (including his truck), he broke into a house nearby, which he identified. That may well not have been the same house (it was a few minutes earlier, and we saw him run when he was in the house next door), but it seems he was breaking into houses in his escape.

That said, assuming that he did not break into that particular house (i.e., the one next door), that would not change my point about why he stopped when he got to his grandmother's backyard, or why the officers in the helicopter probably interpreted that as part of the same chase (i.e., man breaking into houses, escaping police, even if they did not see him enter one particular house, in which they only saw him apparently break a window, jump on a trash bin or something, and then jump the fence into another house). Still, their description that he was running was incorrect.

 

[repoman]

No white privilege for you today, boo

 

[fast]

Where exactly is the wisdom in not advocating violence?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I saw the links. I don't think i saw a breaking and entering though. Are you sure about that?

Hmm...could be, but in the beginning, they say he just broke a window, and he's running from the window in the house next door to some sort of trash bin or something like that, which he uses to jump over the fence and enter his grandmother's backyard. Given that behavior, it seems extremely probable to me that he broke into the house next door, rather than asking for permission to enter.

If he did not and somehow was given permission to enter, then he did not break into that house - though it still looked from the perspective of the people in the helicopter that he had broke into the house that turned out to be his grandmother's.

I thought you wrote he broke into the house next to his grandmother's. Can you give a specific time in the video?

It’s right after he stole King Tut’s face plate and before he jumps the fence in the fastest manner ever.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyLdm1pzujg&index=3&list=UUxm_XB7V2hgNJwVtu6ZShRg

Angra, I am looking at the middle link you provided. Is that the correct one? I don't see anything you are writing about breaking and/or entering. Within the first 30 seconds I do not observe him breaking any windows. I do not observe him entering any premises. I also don't observe him leaving any houses. He was in a neighbor's yard but not their house, it looks like. Can you provide the time in the video (or a different video if this is the wrong one) of him breaking the neighbor's house window, entering the neighbor's house, OR leaving the neighbor's house? You seem to be saying you don't have the first two but you think they are logically implied by having the last one, but I am not clear on where the last one (leaving the neighbor's house) is. Am I looking at a different video?

In the house next door, it seems he broke a window there, then run to a trash bin or something, and then use that to jump over the fence into his grandmother's backyard.

Could you point to the point in the video where "he broke a window there?"

We can add more evidence: The person who called 911 reported that after breaking a number of car windows (including his truck), he broke into a house nearby, which he identified. That may well not have been the same house (it was a few minutes earlier, and we saw him run when he was in the house next door), but it seems he was breaking into houses in his escape.

During the 911 call in question (I followed your links) the caller says he broke 2 of his windows and then car windows across the street or something like that. Are you sure he was talking about house windows and not truck windows of his when he differentiated his windows versus car windows? Are you sure the differentiation wasn't by location and that his own windows broken weren't also car windows? Are you sure the 911 caller was completely accurate in their description and that maybe Stephon was drunk or something like that looking for his own car banging on nearby cars? Finally, the police officer on the phone said that they would get police there which meant they weren't there yet and so why would you conclude this was the house in question? OR that such breaking and entering was part of a getaway strategy if there were no police there to get away from in the first place?

That said, assuming that he did not break into that particular house (i.e., the one next door), that would not change my point about why he stopped when he got to his grandmother's backyard, or why the officers in the helicopter probably interpreted that as part of the same chase (i.e., man breaking into houses, escaping police, even if they did not see him enter one particular house, in which they only saw him apparently break a window, jump on a trash bin or something, and then jump the fence into another house).

We can observe from the video you provided he jumped the fence from a yard into another yard, not from a house into another house.

 

[RavenSky]

Fast forward to about 1:20. You can see how most shots would have been in the back. The police were above him since they were standing. He was in a kind of crawl position at shot#1. Then immediately he was laying flat. All or most of the other shots would have hit him in the back, back of the head, back of legs etc. A small number could in theory enter from the side.

What this has to do with Loren's bullshit excuses, I have no idea.

ETA: watching the full video again several more times, I could have been mistaken about the first 1 or 2 shots. It seems like he could have been hit by 1 shot while standing, one while hunched over in a crawl position, and then 6 more times while laying on his stomach. The main point of vast majority of shots entering from the back still being valid and consistent with autopsy.

Ok, you're looking at human reaction time there. The reality is that people will tend to fire a few additional shots once the target goes down. It takes far less brain power to fire another shot than it takes to assess that the threat is over, cease fire.

You are thinking about normal people, not trained police but anyway I accept your tacit concession that the shots were in the back.

No. He is talking about police.

Police are allowed to have normal human reactions - including delayed reaction times.

Normal humans (if they are black) are not. Normal humans (if they are black) are supposed to have super human reaction times and mind reading capabilities in order to take EXACTLY the correct action (which changes in every situation) or being shot/killed in less than 5 seconds is completely justifiable.

- - - Updated - - -

Broken by a bad cut and paste.

So you are accusing the police of doctoring their own video?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You are thinking about normal people, not trained police but anyway I accept your tacit concession that the shots were in the back.

No. He is talking about police.

Police are allowed to have normal human reactions - including delayed reaction times.

I am fine with that but the sheer number of shots seems very unreasonable. Mistaken thought he had a gun in conjunction with delayed reaction time and not giving enough time for a person to respond seems like it can explain the first few shots. To be open, I have a suspicion that there is [sometimes] an unofficial training that police do where a trainer tells them off the books that if they are going to shoot someone to shoot them dead with a lot of shots to as Loren put it "eliminate the threat." While I am writing about my suspicions, I might as well add that since departments have been adding body cameras, there seems to be too many incidents of malfunctions, police "not having them," police muting mics, etc and I wonder if that is also an unofficial practice some police are learning from others on the job. In any case, I want to bring this back to a higher level of discussion lest we forget. In civil society, police are not judge, jury, and executioner [I am sure you agree]. What that means to me is that just because there is a 911 call of someone saying something doesn't mean it's a claim of truth beyond reasonable doubt. We can see this when people fraudulently call police on someone saying they have hostages to get them swatted or whatever it is being called. Sure, police ought to be able to apprehend someone with probable cause, but killing someone with such a low burden of proof and not just shooting them, I mean firing 20 shots is just way beyond what police ought to be doing in the absence of proper information, like you'd have at trial. Witnesses (in this case 911 callers) are often wrong and calling out someone has a gun in the dark is a crap shoot, but then responding with 20 shots is over the top, if you're going to wait 5 minutes and then handcuff the guy anyway. Maybe someday police procedures will improve, including both the official ones [and what I perceive as the unofficial practices].

ETA: I guess there's probably other speculation as to why I distinguished police from normal persons shooting and that could easily be misunderstood. So I will explain. The other reason I did so is that I am a veteran, not a foreign combat veteran, as I was merely in the reserves. To me the act of shooting is a process involving several trained steps, and for the normal population of persons (such as gangbangers, persons on tv shows, layman) this is not generally the case. Weapons and aim are very sensitive to the shooter, his/her ability to stay still, even breathing. Stress is included in training scenarios, not to mention experiences on the job...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually, it took a lot longer than that. The video shows that the police officers considered him a threat well after they had fired all of the shots. They could see he was on the ground, but appear to be uncertain as to whether he was incapacitated or dead, or pretending to be so. In fact, one of them reloaded after firing all of the shorts, while the other officer covered him. Furthermore, when another officer arrived, she told him they couldn't help until they knew he did not have a weapon. They were still thinking that he might be pretending.

Duh! Of course they do this. They have no way of ascertaining that the guy is truly incapable of action.

However, he's down and not pointing a gun at them at that point, they stop shooting.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes it does. When you are trained to shoot all the time, you learn to do it with deliberation even under stress. More importantly he shouldn't have been shot in the first place.

Which does nothing about the brain focusing on the objective and being slow to recognize that the conditions no longer apply.

For an extreme example of this at work--WWII dive bomber pilots. They had a problem with pilots so focused on getting the dive right that they flew their plane into the target. (Certainly not a kamikaze as it was a problem in training.)

- - - Updated - - -

He was running, then broke into the house next to his grandmother's, then jumped into her house, and stopped running. We don't know why he did that, but perhaps he did not intend to run anymore, but stay there, playing it cool and pretending he had been there for a while, just minding his own business, so he was not the person being chased for breaking and entering - he did not know the people in the helicopter could see him so clearly until he got there, if he knew about the helicopter at all.

That's what I mean by using the "Who, me?" defense. And I think he knew about the helicopter--they don't normally sit around low in a neighborhood unless they're after someone and he's certainly the likely one for the chopper to be looking for. However, he very well might not have realized the chopper had him on infrared and thought it was still searching.

 

[laughing dog]

Actually, it took a lot longer than that. The video shows that the police officers considered him a threat well after they had fired all of the shots. They could see he was on the ground, but appear to be uncertain as to whether he was incapacitated or dead, or pretending to be so. In fact, one of them reloaded after firing all of the shorts, while the other officer covered him. Furthermore, when another officer arrived, she told him they couldn't help until they knew he did not have a weapon. They were still thinking that he might be pretending.

Duh! Of course they do this. They have no way of ascertaining that the guy is truly incapable of action.

However, he's down and not pointing a gun at them at that point, they stop shooting.

Mr. Clark is evidence that you are wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are thinking about normal people, not trained police but anyway I accept your tacit concession that the shots were in the back.

No. He is talking about police.

Police are allowed to have normal human reactions - including delayed reaction times.

Normal humans (if they are black) are not. Normal humans (if they are black) are supposed to have super human reaction times and mind reading capabilities in order to take EXACTLY the correct action (which changes in every situation) or being shot/killed in less than 5 seconds is completely justifiable.

His actions aren't a matter of reaction time.

Broken by a bad cut and paste.

So you are accusing the police of doctoring their own video?

I was saying you broke the URL with a bad cut and paste. It's a very common problem with modern browsers, you copied the URL as displayed but the browser had shortened it, chopped out a section and replaced it with dots. It's common enough that with an older version of the software RayJ wrote a watchdog that could flag such errors, but unfortunately only after the message was posted. It was one of the customizations lost when we upgraded.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Angra, I am looking at the middle link you provided. Is that the correct one? I don't see anything you are writing about breaking and/or entering. Within the first 30 seconds I do not observe him breaking any windows. I do not observe him entering any premises. I also don't observe him leaving any houses. He was in a neighbor's yard but not their house, it looks like. Can you provide the time in the video (or a different video if this is the wrong one) of him breaking the neighbor's house window, entering the neighbor's house, OR leaving the neighbor's house? You seem to be saying you don't have the first two but you think they are logically implied by having the last one, but I am not clear on where the last one (leaving the neighbor's house) is. Am I looking at a different video?

Don2, there's been a misunderstanding. I was using "house" more broadly, and counting breaking into the backyard as breaking into the house. I wasn't speaking in a restricted sense of "house". I did not mean to address the question of whether he actually entered the house in that sense. Sorry if that wasn't clear, though that should have been clear by the fact I said "(i.e., man breaking into houses, escaping police, even if they did not see him enter one particular house, in which they only saw him apparently break a window, jump on a trash bin or something, and then jump the fence into another house)".

So, sorry if that is not common usage in English. I will leave the backyard as not part of the house from now on.

Now, since you ask me, he probably did enter the house as well (though I did not mean to say he did, he probably did), for the following reasons: when the video begins, they say "he just broke the window, running south, running for the south"; the moment at which he breaks a window (perhaps more accurately a glass door, or whatever one calls that) is not on the video, but the video starts with him running from that place, and then he jumps on a large object with a rectangular basis (which I thought was a sort of container for trash; after further watching, I'm not sure, but it's the big object close to the fence between the houses; I'll go with ), then uses that as a platform to climb and jump over the fence into the backyard that belongs to the grandmother.

Now, you're saying that maybe he did not break the window (or glass door, or whatever; I'll go with "window" for short), though the helicopter officers said he did. That seems very unlikely, given that the police say that he did, and if he did not and they're lying, the neighbor who owns the house can testify that the window was not broken, the forensic experts can see that it was not broken, etc. If he did break it, he was very probably leaving the next door's house in that manner.

We can add more evidence: The person who called 911 reported that after breaking a number of car windows (including his truck), he broke into a house nearby, which he identified. That may well not have been the same house (it was a few minutes earlier, and we saw him run when he was in the house next door), but it seems he was breaking into houses in his escape.

During the 911 call in question (I followed your links) the caller says he broke 2 of his windows and then car windows across the street or something like that. Are you sure he was talking about house windows and not truck windows of his when he differentiated his windows versus car windows? Are you sure the differentiation wasn't by location and that his own windows broken weren't also car windows? Are you sure the 911 caller was completely accurate in their description and that maybe Stephon was drunk or something like that looking for his own car banging on nearby cars? Finally, the police officer on the phone said that they would get police there which meant they weren't there yet and so why would you conclude this was the house in question? OR that such breaking and entering was part of a getaway strategy if there were no police there to get away from in the first place?

Okay, several questions:

"During the 911 call in question (I followed your links) the caller says he broke 2 of his windows and then car windows across the street or something like that."
True. He says he broke also the window of his truck.

"Are you sure he was talking about house windows and not truck windows of his when he differentiated his windows versus car windows?"
No. On the contrary, I'm pretty sure he was talking about his truck window, as I mentioned. I did not say he was talking about house windows. He did say he broke into a house. He did not see him leave and the dogs kept barking, so he speculated he was still in that particular house he broke into.
If that was the house next door, that's the one he broke into. However, while it's not specified whether that was the house next door, it seems it probably wasn't, as the police officers have to go apparently farther to find him, so there probably were one or two more houses in between, at least, and he very probably broke into that/those as well, going from one backyard to the next.

"Are you sure the differentiation wasn't by location and that his own windows broken weren't also car windows?"
Actually, his windows were truck windows. If you heard the caller right after he talks about his truck windows, he says he broke into some people's backyard "right now".

"Are you sure the 911 caller was completely accurate in their description and that maybe Stephon was drunk or something like that looking for his own car banging on nearby cars?"
That does not seem relevant, my point was to add the information that the caller described him as breaking into someone's backyard.

That aside, it's very difficult to confuse a car with a truck, and also breaking the window of a truck (or a car) is no easy task. If he was drunk enough to be so confused, it's unlikely that he could have made that jump, climb, etc.

"Finally, the police officer on the phone said that they would get police there which meant they weren't there yet and so why would you conclude this was the house in question?"
I do not. That was the first backyard he broke into. If that was the backyard in question, then he broke into that one as well. But it probably wasn't. However, the point is that he had already broken into a backyard while fleeing, and then got to his grandmother's backyard without getting back on the street, so he must have broken into at least one more in the process if that wasn't the house.
At any rate, he entered the backyard next door somehow, and it seems extremely improbable that he did so with authorization, given that:

a. We see him in the backyard next door (very likely after breaking the window and leaving the house, but even if we leave that aside) running, jumping to the object in the backyard, climbing and jumping the fence. It's extremely unlikely that he would behave like that if he was there authorized by the house's owners. He could have simply stayed there, in the backyard (or in the house).

b. If that was not the first house, he was already breaking into backyards in his escape, so it's not as if he was going to be stopped by lack of authorization - unless, of course, he was also authorized to enter the first backyard by jumping a fence or whatever means led the caller to describe his actions as breaking into, but that's extremely improbable.

"OR that such breaking and entering was part of a getaway strategy if there were no police there to get away from in the first place?"
The caller says he was already running away after he (i.e., the caller) caught him after breaking the truck windows. At that point, he wasn't running from the police yet, though he probably figured that the police would be called.
However, no, I'm not sure it was part of a getaway strategy. As I said in the first post of mine you replied to:

He was running, then broke into the house next to his grandmother's, then jumped into her house, and stopped running. We don't know why he did that, but perhaps he did not intend to run anymore, but stay there, playing it cool and pretending he had been there for a while, just minding his own business, so he was not the person being chased for breaking and entering - he did not know the people in the helicopter could see him so clearly until he got there, if he knew about the helicopter at all.

So, I said that "perhaps" that was his getaway strategy. It's a plausible explanation for his behavior, but no certainty on this.

We can observe from the video you provided he jumped the fence from a yard into another yard, not from a house into another house.

As I've been using them, the word "house" is used more broadly, including the backyard. But if that's not correct in English, sorry about the misunderstanding.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Don2, there's been a misunderstanding. I was using "house" more broadly, and counting breaking into the backyard as breaking into the house. I wasn't speaking in a restricted sense of "house". I did not mean to address the question of whether he actually entered the house in that sense. Sorry if that wasn't clear, though that should have been clear by the fact I said "(i.e., man breaking into houses, escaping police, even if they did not see him enter one particular house, in which they only saw him apparently break a window, jump on a trash bin or something, and then jump the fence into another house)".

So, sorry if that is not common usage in English. I will leave the backyard as not part of the house from now on.

Now, since you ask me, he probably did enter the house as well (though I did not mean to say he did, he probably did), for the following reasons: when the video begins, they say "he just broke the window, running south, running for the south"; the moment at which he breaks a window (perhaps more accurately a glass door, or whatever one calls that) is not on the video, but the video starts with him running from that place, and then he jumps on a large object with a rectangular basis (which I thought was a sort of container for trash; after further watching, I'm not sure, but it's the big object close to the fence between the houses; I'll go with ), then uses that as a platform to climb and jump over the fence into the backyard that belongs to the grandmother.

Now, you're saying that maybe he did not break the window (or glass door, or whatever; I'll go with "window" for short), though the helicopter officers said he did. That seems very unlikely, given that the police say that he did, and if he did not and they're lying, the neighbor who owns the house can testify that the window was not broken, the forensic experts can see that it was not broken, etc. If he did break it, he was very probably leaving the next door's house in that manner.

During the 911 call in question (I followed your links) the caller says he broke 2 of his windows and then car windows across the street or something like that. Are you sure he was talking about house windows and not truck windows of his when he differentiated his windows versus car windows? Are you sure the differentiation wasn't by location and that his own windows broken weren't also car windows? Are you sure the 911 caller was completely accurate in their description and that maybe Stephon was drunk or something like that looking for his own car banging on nearby cars? Finally, the police officer on the phone said that they would get police there which meant they weren't there yet and so why would you conclude this was the house in question? OR that such breaking and entering was part of a getaway strategy if there were no police there to get away from in the first place?

Okay, several questions:

"During the 911 call in question (I followed your links) the caller says he broke 2 of his windows and then car windows across the street or something like that."
True. He says he broke also the window of his truck.

"Are you sure he was talking about house windows and not truck windows of his when he differentiated his windows versus car windows?"
No. On the contrary, I'm pretty sure he was talking about his truck window, as I mentioned. I did not say he was talking about house windows. He did say he broke into a house. He did not see him leave and the dogs kept barking, so he speculated he was still in that particular house he broke into.
If that was the house next door, that's the one he broke into. However, while it's not specified whether that was the house next door, it seems it probably wasn't, as the police officers have to go apparently farther to find him, so there probably were one or two more houses in between, at least, and he very probably broke into that/those as well, going from one backyard to the next.

"Are you sure the differentiation wasn't by location and that his own windows broken weren't also car windows?"
Actually, his windows were truck windows. If you heard the caller right after he talks about his truck windows, he says he broke into some people's backyard "right now".

"Are you sure the 911 caller was completely accurate in their description and that maybe Stephon was drunk or something like that looking for his own car banging on nearby cars?"
That does not seem relevant, my point was to add the information that the caller described him as breaking into someone's backyard.

That aside, it's very difficult to confuse a car with a truck, and also breaking the window of a truck (or a car) is no easy task. If he was drunk enough to be so confused, it's unlikely that he could have made that jump, climb, etc.

"Finally, the police officer on the phone said that they would get police there which meant they weren't there yet and so why would you conclude this was the house in question?"
I do not. That was the first backyard he broke into. If that was the backyard in question, then he broke into that one as well. But it probably wasn't. However, the point is that he had already broken into a backyard while fleeing, and then got to his grandmother's backyard without getting back on the street, so he must have broken into at least one more in the process if that wasn't the house.
At any rate, he entered the backyard next door somehow, and it seems extremely improbable that he did so with authorization, given that:

a. We see him in the backyard next door (very likely after breaking the window and leaving the house, but even if we leave that aside) running, jumping to the object in the backyard, climbing and jumping the fence. It's extremely unlikely that he would behave like that if he was there authorized by the house's owners. He could have simply stayed there, in the backyard (or in the house).

b. If that was not the first house, he was already breaking into backyards in his escape, so it's not as if he was going to be stopped by lack of authorization - unless, of course, he was also authorized to enter the first backyard by jumping a fence or whatever means led the caller to describe his actions as breaking into, but that's extremely improbable.

"OR that such breaking and entering was part of a getaway strategy if there were no police there to get away from in the first place?"
The caller says he was already running away after he (i.e., the caller) caught him after breaking the truck windows. At that point, he wasn't running from the police yet, though he probably figured that the police would be called.
However, no, I'm not sure it was part of a getaway strategy. As I said in the first post of mine you replied to:

He was running, then broke into the house next to his grandmother's, then jumped into her house, and stopped running. We don't know why he did that, but perhaps he did not intend to run anymore, but stay there, playing it cool and pretending he had been there for a while, just minding his own business, so he was not the person being chased for breaking and entering - he did not know the people in the helicopter could see him so clearly until he got there, if he knew about the helicopter at all.

So, I said that "perhaps" that was his getaway strategy. It's a plausible explanation for his behavior, but no certainty on this.

We can observe from the video you provided he jumped the fence from a yard into another yard, not from a house into another house.

As I've been using them, the word "house" is used more broadly, including the backyard. But if that's not correct in English, sorry about the misunderstanding.

It's cool. You don't have to apologize. In a way, it also applies to breaking and entering. That isn't a term used for yards but instead buildings.

 

[Emily Lake]

If you're poor and economically sensible and somehow come to own a luxury good like this there's e-Bay or even Craigslist.

In other words, your position is that poor people don't deserve nice things... not even as gifts.

Fuck that disgusting shit.

Essentials before luxuries. You are asserting these are people without enough for the essentials. When they put money (or, in the case of a gift, fail to redeem) money to luxuries they are making themselves worse off.

Let's get with the program, folks. Those poor people should suffer, suffer, suffer for the sin of their poverty! Any time they take pleasure in something while still being poor is an affront to good and successful people the world over. Seriously, don't they realize that their only chance for grace lies in ceaselessly tormenting themselves with unending suffering? Any alleviation of their suffering is simply proof that they deserve their poverty.

 

[Emily Lake]

No. If you're being lead to your death, better to take a chance on trying to disarm him. The military and some martial arts teach how to do it. It's a high risk move but not something that never should be done.

Okay sure, if you find yourself in a situation straight out of Hollyweird, then sure, go for the disarm. But in the reality in which you and I live, "going for the disarm" is a stupid thing to do in a bout 99.99999995% of the situations one might plausibly find oneself in. But it's okay. If the secret spy organization that has been hunting you for years finally snags you during your weekly grocery visit, feel free to "go for the disarm" before they shove you into their black van and take you away to be tortured.

Being followed by a whirlybird makes it extremely likely that it's the police.

Food for thought, the helicopter was using infrared. There was no spotlight. How exactly do you presume that he knew he was being followed by a helicopter? Do you assume that you're being followed every time you hear a helicopter?

Whirlybirds often fly around. When one is low to the ground and moving with you figure you're being followed. Especially if you were doing something that would attract the interest of a police chopper.

So this one time, in a completely unrelated situation, you were able to figure something out... therefore every other situation is perfectly identical.