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

[coloradoatheist]

You are not fooling anyone but yourself.

[
The running increases the chances of him getting shot whether it turns out to be justified or not.... *blame the victim*..

He was not running when he was gunned down. You don't know if he could have prevented the police from shooting him. Interestingly, we do know who could have prevented the police from gunning him down - it is the police. And yet you refuse to place any of the responsibility on the actual party who we know could have prevented the shooting. Instead we get the same old bs of "well, he shoulda known better" and "well, he was a thug, so he kinda deserved it".

You could always go join the LAPD and ask for the night patrol and then show us and everyone how it's done right. Maybe get Kapaernick too.

 

[laughing dog]

You could always go join the LAPD and ask for the night patrol and then show us and everyone how it's done right. Maybe get Kapaernick too.

Thanks for presenting a non-sequitur version of "well, he was a thug, so he kinda deserved it".

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Regardless of the details, firing 20 shots into a man is disgusting, evil, and outrageously stupid. And then, cuffing him, so his grandmother can come out and see that? Revolting, and disgusting.

You're right. Disgusting is a good word for it. There are people who excuse everything a police officer does, though.

 

[Toni]

Yes, it was a big fucking deal. I was a poor student and I had to replace the window glass and the stolen book bag including contents.

A helluva lot older than I was the first time I fought off a rapist--the first several times, in fact. Probably about the same age I was when I stopped a gang rape as well as someone attacking me.

But your book bag!!!!!!!! OMG and YOUR WINDOW!!!!!!!

How terrible. Poor little Derec. The injustice!!!!!!

But presumably you hate and malign rapists. Or at least you would not like it if a rapist got killed by police in an unrelated crime and all accounts of him were saying what a great guy he was, and ignored his serious crime.

I don't hate people nor do I malign them.

Nor do most women who have also experienced various types of violence at the hands of men.

And lo and behold, Stephon Clark was that kind of a man.

And he was shot for harming a woman? For harming..anyone?

Nope.

I realize you don’t look at it this way but there are those who would consider your prostitutes to be victims of sexual violence. By all of their johns.

I certainly don't. The sex workers I see are consenting adults. It is amazing how having consensual sex is some sort of unforgivable sin but robbery and actual violence still make one a "great guy". I mean he never hired a hooker, so he's a great guy.

One does not need to be a great guy or a perfect human being to deserve to not be shot in the back by police while you are unarmed.

And note, your and Toni's attitude toward sex work robs these women of agency by basically saying that only choices the Matriarchy approves of are legitimate. It's a very authoritarian and illiberal form of feminism.

You're losing track of whom you are maligning.

 

[James Brown]

Either our militarized police officers are free to kill anyone for any reason without penalty, or we have a tougher time recruiting new cadets.

Sounds like a false dichotomy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Either our militarized police officers are free to kill anyone for any reason without penalty, or we have a tougher time recruiting new cadets.

Sounds like a false dichotomy.

Is there any better type of dichotomy?

 

[Trausti]

Either our militarized police officers are free to kill anyone for any reason without penalty, or we have a tougher time recruiting new cadets.

Sounds like a false dichotomy.

Sounds like a strawman.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Either our militarized police officers are free to kill anyone for any reason without penalty, or we have a tougher time recruiting new cadets.

Sounds like a false dichotomy.

Sounds like a strawman.

Alright, lets fix it.

Either our militarized police officers are free to kill anyone for any reason (short of criminal intent) without penalty, or we have a tougher time recruiting new cadets.

Sounds like a false dichotomy.

 

[laughing dog]

Either our militarized police officers are free to kill anyone for any reason without penalty, or we have a tougher time recruiting new cadets.

Sounds like a false dichotomy.

Sounds like a strawman.

it is a false dichotomy, but it is exactly what Derec and LP and coloradoatheist appear to be arguing.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Either our militarized police officers are free to kill anyone for any reason without penalty, or we have a tougher time recruiting new cadets.

Sounds like a false dichotomy.

Sounds like a strawman.

it is a false dichotomy, but it is exactly what Derec and LP and coloradoatheist appear to be arguing.

Both are present there. I would not have supported the cop shooting that guy because he pocketed the mentos. So the current standard is a cop must have a reasonable belief that he or she or someone else has a fear of being hurt or killed to fire their weapon. They can't do it for no reason. So there are things that could be changed. We could not allow cops to carry guns. We could only officers to only shoot after they have been shot. They could have to consult this board before shooting (JK) or they have to identify a gun or knife before or shooting, or keep the current rule in place.

 

[laughing dog]

it is a false dichotomy, but it is exactly what Derec and LP and coloradoatheist appear to be arguing.

Both are present there. I would not have supported the cop shooting that guy because he pocketed the mentos. So the current standard is a cop must have a reasonable belief that he or she or someone else has a fear of being hurt or killed to fire their weapon. They can't do it for no reason. So there are things that could be changed. We could not allow cops to carry guns. We could only officers to only shoot after they have been shot. They could have to consult this board before shooting (JK) or they have to identify a gun or knife before or shooting, or keep the current rule in place.

Or they could follow the Toronto practice which is to try to engage and de-escalate first. Really, this is not rocket science.

Last year, I saw a story on police training. It had a clip of LAPD cadet training where the instructor was yelling "You just wasted over $20,000 of training because you are dead - shoot to kill first." to a cadet. It is that attitude that fosters the "kill first, find out second" mentality. And that mentality will continue as long as the public allows it to continue.

I keep repeating this story about my son. He fought in Afghanistan in a war zone. He patrolled on foot in hostile territory. They were not permitted to shoot anyone unless it was clear that person was going to attack. That meant no weapon, no shooting. This was war zone, not a city or a town.

If the military can expect its soldiers to follow such a protocol in a war zone, why can't we expect our police to follow such a protocol in peace? I have yet to get an answers. BTW, soldiers are paid less the police officers are on duty in a war zone at lot more, and they don't get to go home at the end of the day.

 

[Derec]

Either our militarized police officers are free to kill anyone for any reason without penalty, or we have a tougher time recruiting new cadets.

Sounds like a false dichotomy.

Who said anything about "any reason"? Nobody wants that!
What Bibly demands (and what I said will lead to hardly any recruits) is that police should wait to be fired upon to be allowed to respond with deadly force. That's a ridiculous standard, and there is nothing in either fact or logic demanding that if we reject Bilby we automatically believe that police should be "free to kill anyone for any reason".

 

[Toni]

it is a false dichotomy, but it is exactly what Derec and LP and coloradoatheist appear to be arguing.

Both are present there. I would not have supported the cop shooting that guy because he pocketed the mentos. So the current standard is a cop must have a reasonable belief that he or she or someone else has a fear of being hurt or killed to fire their weapon. They can't do it for no reason. So there are things that could be changed. We could not allow cops to carry guns. We could only officers to only shoot after they have been shot. They could have to consult this board before shooting (JK) or they have to identify a gun or knife before or shooting, or keep the current rule in place.

Shouldn't that fear be reasonable and justifiable? Should I be justified in calling the cops and they be justified in opening fire if when walking down the street, I see a group of young men milling about? Any color? Or just if they are black or brown? Because right now, I just walk on by. If there were any reason that I felt like maybe that wouldn't be a good idea, I would cross the street. Note: this is something that would happen only if I were walking my dog and the other person/people happened to have a dog that seemed to not be well under control. My dog is older and over 100 lbs. I'm not actually afraid my dog would get out of control or be attacked or either be a danger or be in danger, but sometimes people have yippy little things that don't have good leash manners so I will just cross the street. Should I be 'afraid' and call the police who might also be 'afraid?' Note: these people are almost always white. Does that matter?

Let's face it: some people are afraid for little or no reason.

Consider the mom on a college tour who called the cops on two Native American brothers because they were 'too quiet.' Also one mentioned that they were from New Mexico and apparently all she heard was Mexico. Also, I think they were browner than she found acceptable. Oh, they were both scheduled to be on the campus tour but got lost driving from NM to CO and so were a bit late to join the tour.

 

[James Brown]

Either our militarized police officers are free to kill anyone for any reason without penalty, or we have a tougher time recruiting new cadets.

Sounds like a false dichotomy.

Who said anything about "any reason"? Nobody wants that!
What Bibly demands (and what I said will lead to hardly any recruits) is that police should wait to be fired upon to be allowed to respond with deadly force. That's a ridiculous standard.

So do you feel that the police officers who killed Stephon Clark overstepped their bounds? They certainly didn't wait until they were fired upon. They didn't even wait to determine if Clark was armed.

The justifications I'm hearing from this thread are A) Clark was engaged in suspicious behavior AND B) he might have been armed. Therefore, the shooting was justified.

As has been explained in this thread, A) is not a sufficient reason by itself to shoot an unarmed person, and B) is true of everyone.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

it is a false dichotomy, but it is exactly what Derec and LP and coloradoatheist appear to be arguing.

Both are present there. I would not have supported the cop shooting that guy because he pocketed the mentos. So the current standard is a cop must have a reasonable belief that he or she or someone else has a fear of being hurt or killed to fire their weapon.

A "reasonable belief". I like that you want to have a standard, but what in the world is a "reasonable belief"? It appears that 'being a suspect that ran' or 'being a suspect that ran and turned around' is considered a "reasonable belief".

They can't do it for no reason.

That is so comforting.

So there are things that could be changed. We could not allow cops to carry guns. We could only officers to only shoot after they have been shot. They could have to consult this board before shooting (JK) or they have to identify a gun or knife before or shooting, or keep the current rule in place.

The current rule requires the most egregious violation of civil rights, shooting someone, from behind, and then planting evidence on them... on video.

 

[laughing dog]

Either our militarized police officers are free to kill anyone for any reason without penalty, or we have a tougher time recruiting new cadets.

Sounds like a false dichotomy.

Who said anything about "any reason"? Nobody wants that!

Anyone who argues that we cannot use hindsight and only judge with the information the police actually had is effectively advocating "any reason".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Either our militarized police officers are free to kill anyone for any reason without penalty, or we have a tougher time recruiting new cadets.

Sounds like a false dichotomy.

Who said anything about "any reason"? Nobody wants that!

Anyone who argues that we cannot use hindsight and only judge with the information the police actually had is effectively advocating "any reason".

If an officer shoots for "no reason", are they actually going to come out and say "I shot that guy for no reason"? No, they'll say they thought the suspect had a gun. So short of videotaping a shooting from a distance, we are stuck with "We thought he had a gun" as a viable excuse for real world 'unreasonable' shootings.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Anyone who argues that we cannot use hindsight and only judge with the information the police actually had is effectively advocating "any reason".

If an officer shoots for "no reason", are they actually going to come out and say "I shot that guy for no reason"? No, they'll say they thought the suspect had a gun. So short of videotaping a shooting from a distance, we are stuck with "We thought he had a gun" as a viable excuse for real world 'unreasonable' shootings.

Of course they'll try and defend no reason. But if that guy in the Mentos thread just shot him would there have been a reason there for him to defend it?

- - - Updated - - -

Either our militarized police officers are free to kill anyone for any reason without penalty, or we have a tougher time recruiting new cadets.

Sounds like a false dichotomy.

Who said anything about "any reason"? Nobody wants that!

Anyone who argues that we cannot use hindsight and only judge with the information the police actually had is effectively advocating "any reason".

No, it's the decision at the time and the conditions. They can't just just shoot anyone and do have to defend it. You also have civil court to go after them if it's a bad decision as part of the job.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Anyone who argues that we cannot use hindsight and only judge with the information the police actually had is effectively advocating "any reason".

If an officer shoots for "no reason", are they actually going to come out and say "I shot that guy for no reason"? No, they'll say they thought the suspect had a gun. So short of videotaping a shooting from a distance, we are stuck with "We thought he had a gun" as a viable excuse for real world 'unreasonable' shootings.

Of course they'll try and defend no reason. But if that guy in the Mentos thread just shot him would there have been a reason there for him to defend it?

But what about the suspect shot for holding a phone after running from the cops?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Of course they'll try and defend no reason. But if that guy in the Mentos thread just shot him would there have been a reason there for him to defend it?

But what about the suspect shot for holding a phone after running from the cops?

And after being told three times to show them his hands, yes.