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

[Jimmy Higgins]

From behind your computer monitor, you all white and safe in your gated community, I'm sure they did.


Wrong. They are legally required to identify themselves as police officers. They broke the law. Should they have been shot dead on the spot?

Can you identify that law and when it has to be told? This article says Sacramento doesn't have that policy

http://whtc.com/news/articles/2018/...f-unarmed-black-man-forcing-look-at-policies/

Egad!

Jim Pasco, executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police, said that policies for departments vary across the country, but it would be impractical under such circumstances to expect officers to identify themselves.

"If you're in a chase and everybody's running, there isn't a lot of talking back and forth going on," he said.

But they weren't in a chase anymore. What is odd, is that after they shot the guy, they remained concealed, fearing the guy was playing dead, instead of bleeding out. So this location was good enough to remain concealed for their protection then, but not before jumping out and almost immediately blasting away without identifying themselves as cops?

 

[laughing dog]

Many on 1 means they can't all be in front. It's inevitable that some will be off to the side to some degree.

It's moot, anyway, as the shots to the "back" obviously were when he went down.

- - - Updated - - -

When the family lawyer comissions an autopsy and pays Dr. Bison or whatever his name is, that is hardly "independent".

Do you understand that in this context, "independent" means that the autopsy is being performed by someone independent of the police department? It's a second opinion, it's an autopsy being performed by someone who isn't directly connected to the organization being questioned.

English lesson: "Independent" means not connected to anyone involved.

According to a dictionary (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/independent), your definition is wrong. In this context, independent as an adjective would mean
not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself:

1. not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself: an independent thinker.
2. not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free: an independent businessman.
3. not influenced by the thought or action of others: independent research.
4. not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc

.

But, even using your biased definition, then there is no independent autopsy possible since the coroner is part of the local gov't just like the police.

 

[Emily Lake]

Choppers are used for the highest priority request they have at the moment. You can't just stow the chopper when there's nobody to find--if you want quick chopper response it's in the air anyway. The additional cost of using it to hunt a vandal is basically zero. Had a more important call come in the chopper would have left.



When someone flees expect the guns to come out.

[*]Why did the police fail to identify themselves as police?

I don't know, but by their words they certainly sounded like police.

[*]Why did the police fail to give the suspect time to comply with their orders before firing upon him?

Because this isn't a game show.

Given your answers here, what is your take on a pack of teenagers egging a house? Let's say there are three of them egging a neighbor's house and someone calls the cops. Cops come in, and the teens scatter like cockroaches. The cops give chase, guns drawn, and gun down a teen when they turn around with an egg carton in their hand. Does that sound acceptable to you?

 

[Emily Lake]

Running from the cops is bad, and they need to assume more when that happens. But it's their job to go after people who break the laws, and going into peoples cars and house in the middle of night is very bad.

Again, let's think about... shoplifters, underage parties with alcohol, egging the PE teacher's house, TPing the jerkwad neighbor's trees, pickpockets... all manner of people run away from police. Are you sanguine with all of those people being shot multiple times until dead because the cops assumed ill intent?

But we could slow down the number of blacks killed by cops, stop policing black and poor neighborhoods and see if the people there are better off or not.

You know, right now this is a problem that disproportionately affects black people. But it's not a concept limited to black people. Your proposal here seems to amount to the insinuation that black people are just more inherently bad, and if we're not okay with cops shooting and killing black people with insufficient cause... the only other option is to withdraw all bodies of law from their neighborhoods? I'm sure that can't possibly be what you intend, so please clarify for me.

Because right now I see a persistent behavior by cops, and I have no good reason to expect that behavior to stay limited to one skin color. And seriously, if it did stay limited to one skin color, is that not at least as bad? There's no positive light in this situation. There's no positive interpretation of cops overreacting and treating civilians as enemy combatants.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Running from the cops is bad, and they need to assume more when that happens.

A guy ran from the cops because he was late in child support payments. Making assumptions is very stupid.

But it's their job to go after people who break the laws, and going into peoples cars and house in the middle of night is very bad.

Which is why you use caution, approach it appropriately, so that when you make that blind turn there isn't a bullet about to go through your head.

But we could slow down the number of blacks killed by cops, stop policing black and poor neighborhoods and see if the people there are better off or not.

I'll take False Dilemma for $800 Alex.

In other words, the standard leftist answer--make no meaningful attempt to apprehend those who resist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But they weren't in a chase anymore. What is odd, is that after they shot the guy, they remained concealed, fearing the guy was playing dead, instead of bleeding out. So this location was good enough to remain concealed for their protection then, but not before jumping out and almost immediately blasting away without identifying themselves as cops?

The world is analog, not binary.

Remaining concealed was better than approaching. That doesn't mean it's a perfect defense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But, even using your biased definition, then there is no independent autopsy possible since the coroner is part of the local gov't just like the police.

1) Whether an independent autopsy is possible or not says nothing about whether this one was. You don't get to water down "independent" just because nothing meets the definition.

2) How about the state or the feds? I would consider either independent in a situation like this.

 

[laughing dog]

But, even using your biased definition, then there is no independent autopsy possible since the coroner is part of the local gov't just like the police.

1) Whether an independent autopsy is possible or not says nothing about whether this one was. You don't get to water down "independent" just because nothing meets the definition.

As I showed, no one had to water down the definition of independent. This autopsy was independent, as anyone even remotely conversant with the English language and context would know.

2) How about the state or the feds? I would consider either independent in a situation like this.

State - no. Feds - maybe.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The autopsy was independent of the police dept.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

As I showed, no one had to water down the definition of independent. This autopsy was independent, as anyone even remotely conversant with the English language and context would know.

Yes, you are correct. The authority [or default] is the police dept, and we're discussing possible wrongdoing by them. So in that context, "independent" is synonymous with "independent of the police dept." I don't think the label matters though. We are now all informed about who did the autopsy. We know the results are compatible with our observations as per video of Stephon Clark lying on his stomach while many shots were fired.

 

[Derec]

The autopsy was independent of the police dept.

So what? That does not make it independent any more than the official autopsy is independent because it is independent of the family and their lawyers.

In fact, I would trust the official autopsy, where an ME gets paid by county or state, more than where a physician is paid directly by the family or the lawyer.

- - - Updated - - -

As I showed, no one had to water down the definition of independent. This autopsy was independent, as anyone even remotely conversant with the English language and context would know.

No, it was not. It was "private" and "family ordered", both terms used by some more responsible media in place of misleading "independent".

State - no. Feds - maybe.

Family shyster - hell no.

 

[Derec]

But, even using your biased definition, then there is no independent autopsy possible since the coroner is part of the local gov't just like the police.

How is his definition biased? It treats both sides the same, as opposed to yours where an autopsy ordered and paid for by one of the parties, and thus directly connected to that party, is somehow "independent".

 

[LordKiran]

But, even using your biased definition, then there is no independent autopsy possible since the coroner is part of the local gov't just like the police.

How is his definition biased? It treats both sides the same, as opposed to yours where an autopsy ordered and paid for by one of the parties, and thus directly connected to that party, is somehow "independent".

Derec once again casting doubt onto someone else's character in place of a proper argument (Yet he thinks this is wrong.) If you have reason to believe the person paid for services rendered is being dishonest in his findings then make your case, otherwise stfu and get out of everyone else's way. If all it takes to cast doubt on the doctor's findings is the fact that the Clark family paid for his services, then congratulations you've just implied that nobody can be trusted or know for certain who is truthful, since all coroners have to be paid by somebody.

Now either you created this scenario because you can't think your argument out more than a step in advance and once again failed to follow your own assertion to its logical conclusion or you did this intentionally so that nobody can "Win" and you can't be wrong.

So which is it Derec: is this your cunning strategy or are you just an imbecile?

 

[laughing dog]

No, it was not. It was "private" and "family ordered", both terms used by some more responsible media in place of misleading "independent".

It was independent of the police. It is consistent with the normal meaning of independent, especially in the context.

 

[laughing dog]

How is his definition biased?

Go back and read the post and look at the definitions of independent. He (and you) are ignoring relevant meanings of the word "independent".

It treats both sides the same, as opposed to yours where an autopsy ordered and paid for by one of the parties, and thus directly connected to that party, is somehow "independent".

The autopsy is independent of the police. Using your "definition", there is no such thing as an independent autopsy because someone or some group paid for it.

If you don't wish to accept the results of an autopsy, that is your choice And it is your choice to torture the English language to provide cover for your biases. But no rational person has to accept your poorly reasoned rationales.

 

[Derec]

No, it was not. It was "private" and "family ordered", both terms used by some more responsible media in place of misleading "independent".

It was independent of the police. It is consistent with the normal meaning of independent, especially in the context.

Nope. An autopsy directly connected to one of the parties is definitely not consistent with normal meaning of independent.

 

[Derec]

Go back and read the post and look at the definitions of independent. He (and you) are ignoring relevant meanings of the word "independent".

I did. Nothing biased there. It is your usage of "independent" that is biased because you only care about being independent of one side.

The autopsy is independent of the police.

So? The official autopsy is independent of Benjamin Crump and the Clarks. That doesn't make either autopsy independent.

Using your "definition", there is no such thing as an independent autopsy because someone or some group paid for it.

Even if this were true, that would only mean that we should not use the word "independent". It would not give you an excuse to misuse the word.
But as it happens, what you say is not true. If an autopsy was organized by somebody not connected to the case, somebody disinterested, a different law enforcement agency (such as Feds) or say a news organization, that would count as independent. An autopsy organized by Benjamin Crump, who stands to make millions from this case, not so much.

If you don't wish to accept the results of an autopsy, that is your choice

I do not think that the doc would fib with the chart showing wound positions but I think he might on the interpretation of the facts. Just like with the private autopsy of Tyre King.

And it is your choice to torture the English language to provide cover for your biases.

You are the one who is torturing the English language.

But no rational person has to accept your poorly reasoned rationales.

No rational person thinks your biased rantings approach a rational thought within a megaparsec.

 

[Juma]

No, it was not. It was "private" and "family ordered", both terms used by some more responsible media in place of misleading "independent".

It was independent of the police. It is consistent with the normal meaning of independent, especially in the context.

Nope. An autopsy directly connected to one of the parties is definitely not consistent with normal meaning of independent.

What planet are you from?

 

[Derec]

Derec once again casting doubt onto someone else's character in place of a proper argument (Yet he thinks this is wrong.) If you have reason to believe the person paid for services rendered is being dishonest in his findings then make your case, otherwise stfu and get out of everyone else's way. If all it takes to cast doubt on the doctor's findings is the fact that the Clark family paid for his services, then congratulations you've just implied that nobody can be trusted or know for certain who is truthful, since all coroners have to be paid by somebody.

For one, it certainly does not make it independent. It makes it private, or family-ordered.
Second, certainly who paid for something can affect the outcome. Trials often have dueling expert testimony. The plaintiff has experts testifying to something, and defendant's experts say the opposite.
Now, the county medical examiner gets paid independent of the outcome and is not hired by the police officers connected with this case, by their lawyers, or by the police union. So I think the official autopsy is less susceptible to bias than family-ordered private autopsy.

Now either you created this scenario because you can't think your argument out more than a step in advance and once again failed to follow your own assertion to its logical conclusion or you did this intentionally so that nobody can "Win" and you can't be wrong.

Bullshit. None of what I said leads to any of these.
The only thing I said
a) the term "independent" does not properly apply to private, family-ordered autopsies.
b) there is a possibility of a biased report . An example of that is the private autopsy in the Tyre King case. That does not mean the doctor in this case did the same, of course, but there is the possibility.

So let's wait until the official autopsy is out and see if they match. If they don't, then maybe we need a real independent autopsy.

So which is it Derec: is this your cunning strategy or are you just an imbecile?

Cheap insults are usually dog's domain. I thought you were better than that. I guess I was wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

What planet are you from?

Earth. Using normal Earthling language.
On what planet does an autopsy directly connected to one of the parties count as "independent"?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Family shyster - hell no.

Written by the other Derec:

I thought you were better than that. I guess I was wrong.