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

[laughing dog]

What you're missing is that when he tried the Who, me? defense he now appeared to be a threat.

WTF? How does that necessarily make anyone a threat?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

None of what you are saying addresses the issue. People pull out cell phones for all kinds of reasons. Including at night. In his case, maybe he was going to call the police after the people who yelled at him, video record them, or use the light of the phone so he could put his key in his door since he was next to the door.

It's obvious he was trying to play the Who, me? defense. He probably wasn't doing anything with the phone.

None of your scenarios make sense--he wouldn't be moving towards the cops in them.

He was trying to pretend he wasn't the guy they were chasing, just an innocent investigating the commotion. Without the phone and the helicopter he probably could have pulled it off, at least enough to avoid conviction.

- - - Updated - - -

They thought he was armed.

They were very very wrong. And all because they did not bother to ascertain whether he was actually armed or not. At the least, that is negligence.

Yeah they should have asked the TSA to show up a few minutes earlier and put up a metal detector and once he went through they can continue the chase without pulling out their guns.

The TSA would probably take his water and ignore his gun.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah they should have asked the TSA to show up a few minutes earlier and put up a metal detector and once he went through they can continue the chase without pulling out their guns.

That would be pretty fucking stupid and expensive compared to withholding fire for a few seconds.

No, what would be expensive is dying because they withheld their fire for a few seconds and it really was a gun.

- - - Updated - - -

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 - - -

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

You can ambush someone coming at you around a corner--you know they're coming, they don't know you're waiting for them.

That would be a good reason to not charge into the enclosed back yard before pausing to assess the situation.

Seems charging blind into that situation creates a situation where you as the charger are either shot or shoot.

If they charge into a similar environment and the person is planning to ambush rather than holding a cell phone then they are going to get shot at even if they pull the trigger as quickly as they did. Their tactics there were foolish and should place on them some of the responsibility for shooting an unarmed suspect.

Might as well get rid of the police entirely if we are going to hobble them this way.

 

[scombrid]

Hobble? They are trying to get themselves killed if they do that and the person is actually hiding back there waiting to ambush them.

Rockledge PD had a similar case. Nutcase neighbor of mine was vandalizing cars and running up and down the street yelling obscenities. He retreated to a back yard when the blue lights turned down the street. They waited him out. He didn't even get tazed. He got cuffed and Baker Act detention.

Resolution took longer. But he is back on his meds instead of dead.

 

[laughing dog]

No, what would be expensive is dying because they withheld their fire for a few seconds and it really was a gun.

And the suspect shot and the suspect hit the targets so that they dies. Lots of assumptions in your scenario to make it valid. BTW, my son during his tour in Afghanistan had a standing order to withhold fire unless he was sure the person had a weapon and was about to use it. That was war zone, not a backyard. And no one in his unit got shot in these situations nor did they end up killing a civilian. I wonder why that was.

De-escalating the situation and withholding fire works for the Toronto police. And, it probably would save a lot more needless deaths all around.

[

Might as well get rid of the police entirely if we are going to hobble them this way.

Wow, I don't think I have ever seen such an example of the fallacy of the excluded middle and most of the end points.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yeah they can wait until they are shot.

They can wait to confirm what is in the hand. That may mean getting shot at, it may not. Like it or not, it is part of the job description for the police to sometimes get in harm's way. Allowing them to kill citizens who pose no bodily threat without serious repercussions is wrong.

I expect that within the next couple of years, someone is going to be found not guilty of pre-emptively killing a police officer because of their credible fear of being killed by the police.

It's a very big hurdle to overcome that. Killing a police officer so you can get away after a felony isn't going to be easy.

 

[James Brown]

They thought he was armed.

Is there a penalty for police when they kill someone while mistakenly thinking the victim was armed?

 

[Derec]

Is there a penalty for police when they kill someone while mistakenly thinking the victim was armed?

If the initial thinking was reasonable, then no, and neither should they be. Hindsight is 20/20 and also well lit and not in real time.

 

[laughing dog]

Is there a penalty for police when they kill someone while mistakenly thinking the victim was armed?

If the initial thinking was reasonable, then no, and neither should they be. Hindsight is 20/20 and also well lit and not in real time.

What if there was no initial thinking, just fear-driven reaction? And who gets to determine whether the initial thinking was "reasonable"?

[

 

[bilby]

Wrong.

Police are not unlike civilians.

The police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

- Robert Peel, founder of modern policing.

Doesn't change the fact that police are expected to go after bad guys, civilians are not.

Police are expected to go after SUSPECTS. It's up to the courts to decide if someone is a 'bad guy'.

In the civilised world, we have the right to the presumption of innocence. Summary execution without trial should be reserved for only the most extreme of circumstances.

Police should not fire unless fired upon (or otherwise unequivocally attacked with deadly force). Yes, that could put police in danger. If they can't handle that, then they should find a different career. What is the use of a fireman who refuses to enter burning buildings because that's a dangerous thing to do? What is the use of a cop who refuses to wait for absolute positive confirmation that a suspect is shooting at him, before gunning him down?

Police should never be the first to open fire (or employ deadly force) in a given situation. Yes, that means that their job is very dangerous. That's the job. If they don't want to put themselves in danger to protect and serve the public, they can get a job as a greeter at Walmart.

 

[bilby]

No--police are predisposed to expect violence from a fleeing criminal.

There are no 'fleeing criminals', other than those who break out of jail.

You are talking about fleeing suspects, and the distinction is critical.

For you to fail to grasp this is forgivable. But for police to be unaware of this vital distinction that is central to their chosen career is unforgivable.

 

[Trausti]

No--police are predisposed to expect violence from a fleeing criminal.

There are no 'fleeing criminals', other than those who break out of jail.

You are talking about fleeing suspects, and the distinction is critical.

For you to fail to grasp this is forgivable. But for police to be unaware of this vital distinction that is central to their chosen career is unforgivable.

'cause fleeing suspects never pose a threat to police? M'kay.

 

[bilby]

No--police are predisposed to expect violence from a fleeing criminal.

There are no 'fleeing criminals', other than those who break out of jail.

You are talking about fleeing suspects, and the distinction is critical.

For you to fail to grasp this is forgivable. But for police to be unaware of this vital distinction that is central to their chosen career is unforgivable.

'cause fleeing suspects never pose a threat to police? M'kay.

No, because police are required to expose themselves to threats in order to protect the public - a public that includes suspects.

Your overarching assumption that threats to police are unacceptable shows that you either didn't read, or didn't understand my posts.

The police are paid to risk their lives for the protection of the public. That's why they are worthy of our respect.

A policeman who is too scared for his own safety to protect the public (including suspects) is as useless as a fireman who won't risk his own safety to protect the public. Neither coward is worthy of the uniform they fraudulently wear.

 

[Trausti]

No, because police are required to expose themselves to threats in order to protect the public - a public that includes suspects.

Absolutely correct. We ask the police to run to danger while we flee. Because we expect them - and not us - to encounter these threats and risks, we do not hold police to 20/20 hindsight perfection. If we did, no one would be a cop.

 

[bilby]

No, because police are required to expose themselves to threats in order to protect the public - a public that includes suspects.

Absolutely correct. We ask the police to run to danger while we flee. Because we expect them - and not us - to encounter these threats and risks, we do not hold police to 20/20 hindsight perfection. If we did, no one would be a cop.

Perfection is not expected.

But what happens in US police force interactions with suspects doesn't only fail to meet the 'perfection' standard. It falls WAY short of the minimum standards expected elsewhere in the world.

I don't expect perfection. But apparently I can't even expect 'good', or even 'tolerable'.

There comes a point when 'nobody's perfect' becomes a truly pathetic excuse for incompetence. And the shooting in the OP is yet another example of that.

Perfection is not required. Competence is. And police in your country routinely exhibit incompetence that leads to needless deaths of civilians. You should be fucking horrified - you, or someone you care for, could be the next victim of this woeful state of affairs.

 

[James Brown]

"Officer! Arrest that man! He's breaking car windows."

"Okay. There he is!" <bam> <bam> <bam>

"Officer! Why did you shoot him?!"

"I thought he was holding a gun. Nobody's perfect."

"You can't shoot everyone who might be holding a gun!"

"What's your problem? You told me to arrest him."

 

[laughing dog]

No, because police are required to expose themselves to threats in order to protect the public - a public that includes suspects.

Absolutely correct. We ask the police to run to danger while we flee. Because we expect them - and not us - to encounter these threats and risks, we do not hold police to 20/20 hindsight perfection. If we did, no one would be a cop.

Utter nonsense. Expecting the police to withhold deadly fire until they are sure they are in mortal danger is not expecting perfection. The Toronto police just demonstrated that with that deranged van killer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Police should not fire unless fired upon (or otherwise unequivocally attacked with deadly force). Yes, that could put police in danger. If they can't handle that, then they should find a different career. What is the use of a fireman who refuses to enter burning buildings because that's a dangerous thing to do? What is the use of a cop who refuses to wait for absolute positive confirmation that a suspect is shooting at him, before gunning him down?

Police should never be the first to open fire (or employ deadly force) in a given situation. Yes, that means that their job is very dangerous. That's the job. If they don't want to put themselves in danger to protect and serve the public, they can get a job as a greeter at Walmart.

In other words, the bad guys get a free shot at the cops.

Good luck finding anyone willing to be a policeman.

- - - Updated - - -

No, because police are required to expose themselves to threats in order to protect the public - a public that includes suspects.

Absolutely correct. We ask the police to run to danger while we flee. Because we expect them - and not us - to encounter these threats and risks, we do not hold police to 20/20 hindsight perfection. If we did, no one would be a cop.

Utter nonsense. Expecting the police to withhold deadly fire until they are sure they are in mortal danger is not expecting perfection. The Toronto police just demonstrated that with that deranged van killer.

The Toronto police realized they were facing someone only pretending to be armed.

 

[laughing dog]

The Toronto police realized they were facing someone only pretending to be armed.

Because they did not immediately gun him down when he acted in a "threatening" manner. In other words, the police officer took the time to ascertain that the suspect was not armed which proves that the police can apprehend unarmed suspects without gunning them down just because they might have a weapon.

 

[Derec]

Because they did not immediately gun him down when he acted in a "threatening" manner. In other words, the police officer took the time to ascertain that the suspect was not armed which proves that the police can apprehend unarmed suspects without gunning them down just because they might have a weapon.

That it was a broad daylight played a role as well, as did the fact that he did not run into a yard and then abruptly turned around.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The Toronto police realized they were facing someone only pretending to be armed.

Because they did not immediately gun him down when he acted in a "threatening" manner. In other words, the police officer took the time to ascertain that the suspect was not armed which proves that the police can apprehend unarmed suspects without gunning them down just because they might have a weapon.

It was during the day in daylight and from 10 feet away. The subject was also engaged with the officer.