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

[Derec]

You are correct - the autopsy is independent of the family. But if you are going to be intellectually consistent ahd honest, you also have to be skeptical of the results of this autopsy since it was paid for by the state which has a self-interest in the case as well.

Remember, it wasn't I who referred to one, and only one of the autopsies as "independent". That sort of language implies greater trustworthiness of the family autopsy. As if anything involving Crump could be trustworthy! I am heartened by the fact that news media seem to have gotten a clue and are mostly referring to it as "private" or "family" autopsy.
And yes, both sides have a degree of self-interest here. But the official autopsy has more checks and balances. Five pathologists have been involved, and all would have to be dirty for a cover up. So I would trust it much more than a lone pathologist only accountable to Benjamin Crump.

 

[Derec]

So an autopsy paid for by the state is "official."

That is what "official" means. It is as opposed to the other autopsy which is private.

Anyhoo, he's still got 3 shots in the back according to the fox but moreover, still should not have been killed.

Weren't you the one who thought that the back-to-front bullets were shot when he was already on the ground? That is much more likely as an explanation of three out of seven bullets than for six out of eight, don't you think? It is also consistent with the helicopter video and what the police are saying.

Now, Stephon did not deserve to die. But he died due to his own choices that night. He chose to get drunk and high. That choice probably contributed to his poorly considered choice of going around breaking car windows and sliding doors in his grandma's neighborhood like an idiot. Then he chose to run rather than surrender. He chose to turn around holding an object, which in the dark was mistaken for a gun. That's the bad luck part.

No, he did not deserve to die. Few people do. But neither did the police do anything wrong, unless another shoe drops.

 

[laughing dog]

Remember, it wasn't I who referred to one, and only one of the autopsies as "independent".

I remember your smearing all private autopsies with your claims.

That sort of language implies greater trustworthiness of the family autopsy.

No, it implies that it lies tied to the state's position.

As if anything involving Crump could be trustworthy! I am heartened by the fact that news media seem to have gotten a clue and are mostly referring to it as "private" or "family" autopsy.
And yes, both sides have a degree of self-interest here. But the official autopsy has more checks and balances. Five pathologists have been involved, and all would have to be dirty for a cover up.

Not dirty, simply more mindful of where their paycheck comes from. Lots of this is not pure science but involves judgement.

So I would trust it much more than a lone pathologist only accountable to Benjamin Crump.

Those pathologists are only accountable to the state.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

But he died due to his own choices that night.

Life is more complicated than your ideology. There are simply many factors that contribute to a thing happening in our complex universe. So clearly his own actions were a contributing factor to police involvement. Police, though, through stupidity or something worse thought he had a gun and so that is also a factor. It is sheer idiocy to blame that on the dark. Otherwise, people would ALWAYS get shot in the dark because they MIGHT have a gun but instead everyone has a cellphone. Likewise, the paranoia of 20 bullets and not going near him for such a long time to finally cuff him. Those are all factors. Even if he was a white male Nazi with blonde hair from Germany who raped a kitten, I would say exactly the same thing, Derec. It doesn't matter who the person is or the color of their skin, there are still multiple factors that lead to something and it is foolish (or biased) to say otherwise.

 

[Axulus]

Those pathologists are only accountable to the state.

Cite? Where are you getting this from? Most professional ethics standards focus on a duty to the public, which is not equivalent to the police dept in this case. An accounting firm paid by a private company or government agency to audit the books is required to remain independent of the entity paying the bill, for example. I'd assume it is similar for pathologists.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Those pathologists are only accountable to the state.

Cite? Where are you getting this from? Most professional ethics standards focus on a duty to the public, which is not equivalent to the police dept in this case. An accounting firm paid by a private company or government agency to audit the books is required to remain independent of the entity paying the bill, for example. I'd assume it is similar for pathologists.

No.

 

[laughing dog]

Those pathologists are only accountable to the state.

Cite? Where are you getting this from? Most professional ethics standards focus on a duty to the public, which is not equivalent to the police dept in this case. An accounting firm paid by a private company or government agency to audit the books is required to remain independent of the entity paying the bill, for example. I'd assume it is similar for pathologists.

Derec derides the results from a pathologist who is paid by the victim's party because the pathologist is beholden to the private party for his/her paycheck. The same is true for a pathologist (or pathologists) who are paid by the state. If you had read the entire discussion (which dates back some time), you'd see that I have been one of many who have argued that an expert pathologist is a professional with a reputation to protect regardless who is paying the bill.

 

[laughing dog]

Now, Stephon did not deserve to die. But he died due to his own choices that night. He chose to get drunk and high. That choice probably contributed to his poorly considered choice of going around breaking car windows and sliding doors in his grandma's neighborhood like an idiot. Then he chose to run rather than surrender. He chose to turn around holding an object, which in the dark was mistaken for a gun. That's the bad luck part.

Unless you can show he actually choose to die, your argument is the usual self-serving crapola from the kneejerk worshippers of police authority.

But neither did the police do anything wrong, unless another shoe drops.

An unarmed civilian who posed no threat is dead due to the actions of the police. It is fanciful to claim they did not do anything wrong unless one thinks it is okay to kill unarmed civilians who pose no threat.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I'm curious where in the path they would identify which bullets were fired from which officer and if that explains the differences since they were a little apart.

The major question left, will Sacramento settle a lawsuit prior to one starting and just move on or fight it.

 

[fast]

Derec,

If I hire and pay an outside firm to investigate a matter, I do not have the controls necessary to guarantee the outcome I desire. But, that it's a place from the outside and distant to any authority I may have is what makes it independent.

That the firm is independent also doesn't guarantee impartiality. That being the case, however, doesn't alter the fact it's independent. Often times, an independent source suggests impartiality, but it doesn't guarantee it. You shouldn't let the potential for bias misdirect your assessment for whether it's independent or not.

Don't hold the label of being independent up too high. It's not always as it's cracked up to be. See it for what it is, flaws and all. Don't deny that a group is independent just because it might be influenced; accept that it's independent with the disdain you suspect. Don't let the presence of potential corruption from a source lead you to the incorrect assessment that a possibly biased enterprise isn't in fact independent.

Reasoning for the denial should be separate from the facts.

 

[James Brown]

So an autopsy paid for by the state is "official."

Fox guarding the henhouse: "Hey, I'm the OFFICIAL guard of this henhouse."

Anyhoo, he's still got 3 shots in the back according to the fox but moreover, still should not have been killed.

He got three shots after he went down. Normal human reactions--one can fire another shot a lot faster than one can decide that a target is no longer a threat, stop shooting.

But why shoot him at all? He was unarmed.

 

[Derec]

But why shoot him at all? He was unarmed.

Police mistook his phone for a gun when he turned. Easy to do when it's dark and things are in motion.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

They also do that in the daytime when some people are standing still. Or sitting with their hands up.

 

[Derec]

They also do that in the daytime when some people are standing still. Or sitting with their hands up.

Perhaps (care to cite any cases?), but the chances of misidentification are higher in low-light and dynamic situations.

 

[James Brown]

But why shoot him at all? He was unarmed.

Police mistook his phone for a gun when he turned. Easy to do when it's dark and things are in motion.

Are we citizens free to do that? If someone is coming toward us holding...something...can we shoot him repeatedly until he's dead? Or do only police have that authority?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They also do that in the daytime when some people are standing still. Or sitting with their hands up.

Perhaps (care to cite any cases?), but the chances of misidentification are higher in low-light and dynamic situations.

And when the person they are chasing goes out of view and then turns back on them that will make them suspect ambush.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

They also do that in the daytime when some people are standing still. Or sitting with their hands up.

Perhaps (care to cite any cases?), but the chances of misidentification are higher in low-light and dynamic situations.

And when the person they are chasing goes out of view and then turns back on them that will make them suspect ambush.

How can seeing a person turning back towards the officers be a sign of an "ambush". An ambush is suspect hiding behind a corner in the dark waiting for the officers to rush past him, and then shoot them the officers from behind. THAT is an ambush.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm curious where in the path they would identify which bullets were fired from which officer and if that explains the differences since they were a little apart.

The major question left, will Sacramento settle a lawsuit prior to one starting and just move on or fight it.

Do we know whether the suspect had broken in to any places at this point?

 

[Derec]

Are we citizens free to do that? If someone is coming toward us holding...something...can we shoot him repeatedly until he's dead? Or do only police have that authority?

Sigh. Police, unlike civilians, are not only allowed but expected to pursue suspects. A civilian is not expected to chase a break-in suspect through backyards. A police officer is.
Stephon wasn't just walking casually toward some police officers, he turned around after they chased him for breaking car windows and sliding doors.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Are we citizens free to do that? If someone is coming toward us holding...something...can we shoot him repeatedly until he's dead? Or do only police have that authority?

Sigh. Police, unlike civilians, are not only allowed but expected to pursue suspects. A civilian is not expected to chase a break-in suspect through backyards.

You allowed this for George Zimmerman chasing down Trayvon Martin for "some reason" even though his training and the police told him not to.

- - - Updated - - -

And when the person they are chasing goes out of view and then turns back on them that will make them suspect ambush.

How can seeing a person turning back towards the officers be a sign of an "ambush". An ambush is suspect hiding behind a corner in the dark waiting for the officers to rush past him, and then shoot them the officers from behind. THAT is an ambush.

Maybe he was hiding a midget with a gun behind him. One of these wacky Loren scenarios...

 

[James Brown]

Police, unlike civilians, are not only allowed but expected to pursue suspects.

I have no problem with why the police were pursuing a criminal suspect. I was just wondering why the police were shooting an criminal suspect who was unarmed.

A civilian is not expected to chase a break-in suspect through backyards. A police officer is.

Then why was George Zimmerman acquitted of killing Trayvon Martin. Wasn't he pursuing a criminal suspect with the intent to subdue him?

Stephon wasn't just walking casually toward some police officers, he turned around after they chased him for breaking car windows and sliding doors.

Is turning around toward police officers who are pursuing someone grounds for shooting at him twenty times? How many times should they have shot at him if he did not turn around?