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

[marc]

so there are lone forensic doctors wandering the land, performing autopsies on random bodies for the heck of it? Do they at least ask permission before doing it?

 

[laughing dog]

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

Your responses give no indication that you read post 242. If you had read it with at least grade school reading comprehension, you would have seen and understood

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

and avoided embarrassing yourself with incorrect response.

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

Until you provide evidence (which is not your kneejerk suspicions) to the contrary, yes it does.

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.

As I have shown, I am not misusing the term. Do you need someone to explain to you the 4 previously posted meanings?

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.

Not true. One can always find within 6 degrees of separation some tie-in.

An autopsy organized by Benjamin Crump, who stands to make millions from this case, not so much.

If you had some evidence (suspicions do not count) that performer of the autopsy is either incompetent or a shill, you'd have presented it. Which indicates you are simply exposing your bias. I cannot speak for the medical profession, but in my field, experts for hire depend on their integrity. You let the results speak for themselves. If the lawyer does not like your results, the lawyer does not use them.

You are the one who is torturing the English language.

Clearly not, since I have provided 4 meanings of the word "independent" that support my view (as well as the view of many others).

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

I provided actual evidence (dictionary definitions) to show my stance is correct. All you have provided is suspicions. I can understand why a judgmental bigoted lover of police authority with his head up his ass would make the idiotic claim that providing documented supported evidence is a "biased rantings approach", but I cannot understand why you would do so.

 

[coloradoatheist]

so there are lone forensic doctors wandering the land, performing autopsies on random bodies for the heck of it? Do they at least ask permission before doing it?

The distinction would be that they are a second opinion, which is fine. Then the comparison between the two could be made and the argument for one or the other can be made. The state autopsy could say the exact same thing. Since I don't think this will come down to a criminal trial, and probably not a civil trial, it probably won't matter.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

I'm glad you agree. So why didn't they do that first, assess, and then try to apprehend? I can't imagine turning a blind corner with a potential suspect with a gun is police protocol.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.

I'm glad you agree. So why didn't they do that first, assess, and then try to apprehend? I can't imagine turning a blind corner with a potential suspect with a gun is police protocol.

Huh? If they have decided to chase then they still need to go where the suspect goes. They wouldn't hide at the side and then realize that there was no fence and the guy was gone.

 

[thebeave]

If Donald Trump is being suspected of some malfeasance and he hires his own "independent" private investigator to look into it, do we trust the results? Or is this not an apples-to-apples comparison to a privately funded "independent" autopsy?

 

[LordKiran]

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.


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"?

Nobody said it wasn't, you're just getting stuck on the pedantic particulars of a word and ignoring context(English being largely contextual as languages go) to try and cast doubt on secondary findings because it suits your purposes to do so. If you want to dispute the findings then dispute the findings.

Also "Independant" and "Private" are not mutually exclusive terms. In fact in a certain context they can mean the same thing entirely. Words can have more than one meaning Derec.


Also I do take back the imbecile remark and apologize for directing that towards you, though I won't apologize for the sense of frustration you invoke through your unwillingness to capitulate on something you're so obviously incorrect about.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.


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.


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

- - - Updated - - -



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

Nobody said it wasn't, you're just getting stuck on the pedantic particulars of a word and ignoring context(English being largely contextual as languages go) to try and cast doubt on secondary findings because it suits your purposes to do so. If you want to dispute the findings then dispute the findings.

Also "Independant" and "Private" are not mutually exclusive terms. In fact in a certain context they can mean the same thing entirely. Words can have more than one meaning Derec. I don't know if anybody ever clue'd you into that.

Independent is being thrown around because it has a connotation of lacking bias. It shouldn't be used. Doctor hired to give a second opinion should be used.

 

[LordKiran]

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.


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.


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

- - - Updated - - -



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

Nobody said it wasn't, you're just getting stuck on the pedantic particulars of a word and ignoring context(English being largely contextual as languages go) to try and cast doubt on secondary findings because it suits your purposes to do so. If you want to dispute the findings then dispute the findings.

Also "Independant" and "Private" are not mutually exclusive terms. In fact in a certain context they can mean the same thing entirely. Words can have more than one meaning Derec. I don't know if anybody ever clue'd you into that.

Independent is being thrown around because it has a connotation of lacking bias. It shouldn't be used. Doctor hired to give a second opinion should be used.

You might have had a point had it not already been further explained what was meant by "Independant" at this point continuing to quibble over the precise meaning of the word is something of a strawman.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Independent is being thrown around because it has a connotation of lacking bias. It shouldn't be used. Doctor hired to give a second opinion should be used.

You might have had a point had it not already been further explained what was meant by "Independant" at this point continuing to quibble over the precise meaning of the word is something of a strawman.

I agree it's minor. We have to wait until the state performs their side of the autopsy and compare and see which one makes sense in terms of the evidence we do have. Even if we use Independent here, it doesn't mean they are right.

 

[barbos]

All this autopsy discussion is pointless because we have the video of the incident. Clark fell after one of the first shots and the rest of the hits were when he was on the ground face down.

 

[coloradoatheist]

All this autopsy discussion is pointless because we have the video of the incident. Clark fell after one of the first shots and the rest of the hits were when he was on the ground face down.

I agree. But I thought they were trying to say with this autopsy that the video from the helicopter wasn't correct.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm glad you agree. So why didn't they do that first, assess, and then try to apprehend? I can't imagine turning a blind corner with a potential suspect with a gun is police protocol.

Huh? If they have decided to chase then they still need to go where the suspect goes. They wouldn't hide at the side and then realize that there was no fence and the guy was gone.

They have eyes in the sky, and keeping cover isn't a dumb idea. In fact, it'd help save their lives, which is the purpose of not just jumping into things.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I'm glad you agree. So why didn't they do that first, assess, and then try to apprehend? I can't imagine turning a blind corner with a potential suspect with a gun is police protocol.

Huh? If they have decided to chase then they still need to go where the suspect goes. They wouldn't hide at the side and then realize that there was no fence and the guy was gone.

They have eyes in the sky, and keeping cover isn't a dumb idea. In fact, it'd help save their lives, which is the purpose of not just jumping into things.

Even when you have a helicopter you still have people follow behind. Three options. Follow the suspect, put up a perimeter, or let it go. The fleeing only lasted a few seconds, they would at least follow for a little bit and then decide it might be too dangerous. If all arrests were called off because somebody started running in a direction and nobody would get arrested.

 

[laughing dog]

All this autopsy discussion is pointless because we have the video of the incident. Clark fell after one of the first shots and the rest of the hits were when he was on the ground face down.

Of course it is ridiculous. The autopsy results are consistent with the visual evidence in the video, but the usual police apologists have to put up as many stupid and counterfactual arguments as possible.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

They have eyes in the sky, and keeping cover isn't a dumb idea. In fact, it'd help save their lives, which is the purpose of not just jumping into things.

Even when you have a helicopter you still have people follow behind. Three options. Follow the suspect, put up a perimeter, or let it go. The fleeing only lasted a few seconds, they would at least follow for a little bit and then decide it might be too dangerous. If all arrests were called off because somebody started running in a direction and nobody would get arrested.

Following a suspect doesn’t mean not taking as much cover as you can. They had cover, they had time. They decided in the heat of the moment to ignore that and put their lives in needless potential danger.

 

[coloradoatheist]

All this autopsy discussion is pointless because we have the video of the incident. Clark fell after one of the first shots and the rest of the hits were when he was on the ground face down.

Of course it is ridiculous. The autopsy results are consistent with the visual evidence in the video, but the usual police apologists have to put up as many stupid and counterfactual arguments as possible.

No. Here is an article from the lawyer representing the family saying the opposite

https://www.colorlines.com/articles/stephon-clark-update-autopsy-inconsistent-officers-report-deputy-hits-activist-patrol-car

 

[coloradoatheist]

They have eyes in the sky, and keeping cover isn't a dumb idea. In fact, it'd help save their lives, which is the purpose of not just jumping into things.

Even when you have a helicopter you still have people follow behind. Three options. Follow the suspect, put up a perimeter, or let it go. The fleeing only lasted a few seconds, they would at least follow for a little bit and then decide it might be too dangerous. If all arrests were called off because somebody started running in a direction and nobody would get arrested.

Following a suspect doesn’t mean not taking as much cover as you can. They had cover, they had time. They decided in the heat of the moment to ignore that and put their lives in needless potential danger.

Is that from too many spy movies where you see the person following from building to building. They are going to go after the suspect and then when put what they see as a lethal situation will fire and then look for cover.

 

[laughing dog]

All this autopsy discussion is pointless because we have the video of the incident. Clark fell after one of the first shots and the rest of the hits were when he was on the ground face down.

Of course it is ridiculous. The autopsy results are consistent with the visual evidence in the video, but the usual police apologists have to put up as many stupid and counterfactual arguments as possible.

No. Here is an article from the lawyer representing the family saying the opposite

https://www.colorlines.com/articles/stephon-clark-update-autopsy-inconsistent-officers-report-deputy-hits-activist-patrol-car

The attorney is disputing the police narrative that Mr. Clark was a threat not the video.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Following a suspect doesn’t mean not taking as much cover as you can. They had cover, they had time. They decided in the heat of the moment to ignore that and put their lives in needless potential danger.

Is that from too many spy movies where you see the person following from building to building. They are going to go after the suspect and then when put what they see as a lethal situation will fire and then look for cover.

I understand that is what happened. I'm talking about a procedure that would help prevent both that from happening, and themselves getting killed in the process.