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

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Why are armed police officers alllowed normal human reactions, including continuing to fire into the back of a man face down o the ground but a regular person is not allowed even a couple of seconds to comprehend or comply before being shot to death in his grandmothers back yard?

Cops are humans, their actions should be judged by how humans perform.

And the reason he wasn't allowed a couple of seconds was that the cops didn't think they had a couple of seconds. There's no issue of comprehend or comply anyway--he knew the situation. He was almost certainly trying a deception and didn't realize what it looked like to the cops.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Emotional argument detected.

Two cops, 20 shots = under three seconds of fire.

And you cuff them because it's not the cop's job to evaluate if they are capable of taking further action.

 

[Toni]

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.

In how many seconds? In the dark. In his own back yard.

 

[Toni]

Why are armed police officers alllowed normal human reactions, including continuing to fire into the back of a man face down o the ground but a regular person is not allowed even a couple of seconds to comprehend or comply before being shot to death in his grandmothers back yard?

Cops are humans, their actions should be judged by how humans perform.

And the reason he wasn't allowed a couple of seconds was that the cops didn't think they had a couple of seconds. There's no issue of comprehend or comply anyway--he knew the situation. He was almost certainly trying a deception and didn't realize what it looked like to the cops.

So, are these unarmed persons who are gunned down also human beings? Because I notice you don't seem to believe they are allowed normal, human reaction time. Not even children. Not if they are black.

How about if we just agree that we are all human beings. We can always kill each other later.

And FFS, Loren, the guy was shot IN THE BACK. No one suggested he was armed in any of the pre-shooting police chat. How much of a threat could he have been perceived to be?

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Emotional argument detected.

Two cops, 20 shots = under three seconds of fire.

And you cuff them because it's not the cop's job to evaluate if they are capable of taking further action.

Then you should get yourself under better control, Loren.

It IS the cops' job to determine whether she or he needs to fire a weapon before doing so.

WHY is it that you are willing to allow cops 3 seconds to kill someone but not the suspect or 'suspect' 3 seconds to respond to police commands? And how much does your calculus change if the person is white?

 

[laughing dog]

No, it's the decision at the time and the conditions.

Exactly which means any reason as long as they say "I taught I saw a puddy cat T gun".

Still waiting how our soldiers can be expected to refrain from blowing any unarmed civilians in a war zone unless they clearly have a weapon, but police officers cannot

 

[coloradoatheist]

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

In how many seconds? In the dark. In his own back yard.

I counted 20-25 seconds, with the third time being the shortest.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Emotional argument detected.

Two cops, 20 shots = under three seconds of fire.

Emotional argument detected.

And you cuff them because it's not the cop's job to evaluate if they are capable of taking further action.

Yes it is.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

No, what we are saying is that you guys are expecting a totally unreasonable standard. You want the cops to basically die rather than shoot.

 

[laughing dog]

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

No, what we are saying is that you guys are expecting a totally unreasonable standard. You want the cops to basically die rather than shoot.

Your conclusion is a straw man.

Still waiting how our soldiers can be expected to refrain from blowing any unarmed civilians in a war zone unless they clearly have a weapon, but police officers cannot

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

So a fourth time wouldn't have been worth it?

- - - Updated - - -

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

No, what we are saying is that you guys are expecting a totally unreasonable standard. You want the cops to basically die rather than shoot.

Is your position that indefensible, that you need to make such a ridiculous and baseless assertion?

 

[James Brown]

And the reason he wasn't allowed a couple of seconds was that the cops didn't think they had a couple of seconds. There's no issue of comprehend or comply anyway--he knew the situation. He was almost certainly trying a deception and didn't realize what it looked like to the cops.

Is it your position that if anyone ever tries to deceive the police, then they deserve to be shot to death?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And the reason he wasn't allowed a couple of seconds was that the cops didn't think they had a couple of seconds. There's no issue of comprehend or comply anyway--he knew the situation. He was almost certainly trying a deception and didn't realize what it looked like to the cops.

Is it your position that if anyone ever tries to deceive the police, then they deserve to be shot to death?

Loren believes that almost anyone shot to death by the cops was reasonably shot to death.

 

[WAB]

And the reason he wasn't allowed a couple of seconds was that the cops didn't think they had a couple of seconds. There's no issue of comprehend or comply anyway--he knew the situation. He was almost certainly trying a deception and didn't realize what it looked like to the cops.

Is it your position that if anyone ever tries to deceive the police, then they deserve to be shot to death?

With oh, maybe about 20 rounds, and then of course the cuffs, in case the 20 bullets didn't kill him.

Cops like that we can do without.

 

[bilby]

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.

Given that the rest of the world has police who almost never gun down unarmed suspects; And given that the rest of the world doesn't appear to have any difficulty in recruiting police, it sounds more like a desperate clutching at straws by people determined not to make any attempt to fix the problem.

 

[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.

Given that the rest of the world has police who almost never gun down unarmed suspects; And given that the rest of the world doesn't appear to have any difficulty in recruiting police, it sounds more like a desperate clutching at straws by people determined not to make any attempt to fix the problem.

The US has little to no problem recruiting people to be in the military - where the pay and working conditions are a lot less attractive than the police and the war zones are more dangerous. So, the alleged fear for recruitment of qualified police officers if they are not permitted to gun down suspects at will is really unfounded. In fact, restricting what is acceptable behavior by the police might improve the quality of the recruits.

 

[James Brown]

There are four types of people who join the military. For some, it's a family trade. Others are patriots, eager to serve. Next, you have those who just need a job. Then there's the kind who want a legal means of killing other people.

--Lee Child


I can't help but wonder if the same applies for people who become police officers.

 

[Toni]

There are four types of people who join the military. For some, it's a family trade. Others are patriots, eager to serve. Next, you have those who just need a job. Then there's the kind who want a legal means of killing other people.

--Lee Child


I can't help but wonder if the same applies for people who become police officers.

Quite a number of people join the military for the aid in paying for education, as well.

Generally speaking, there is little trouble recruiting candidates for police work or for the military.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Agreed.

 

[Toni]

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.

Agreed.

Not quite. I am ok with police firing upon someone who is about to kill another person or persons.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Agreed.

Not quite. I am ok with police firing upon someone who is about to kill another person or persons.

That's a reasonable amendment.