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

[James Brown]

It's amazing how well your mind reading crystal ball always helps you to reinforce your prejudices.

It's not a prejudice. It's a fact that Stephon was fleeing police long before these two cops made contact with him in the yard. He wasn't hanging out at his grandma's house minding his own business, like some have claimed.

The same ones that made you think you were making good point when you posted that picture just above this one.

It is a good point about Stephon protesters hating police and hating US.

Is it your position that fleeing the police is grounds for police using deadly force?

Is it your position that anyone who hates the police and/or the US should be treated with deadly force by police?

 

[James Brown]

Now we have a third point--the victim was suicidal.

Of course, the police did not know he was suicidal during their pursuit, so that factor could not have entered their thinking that night. And being suicidal is not grounds for deadly force, any more than evading arrest or possibly carrying a weapon.

But it's a good reason for charges not to be brought. The defense would point out he was suicidal which suggests suicide by cop. Reasonable doubt--a jury would be unlikely to convict.

But Loren, you were defending the police actions before it was learned that he was suicidal.

"Being suicidal" is a much lower bar than "trying to commit suicide by cop." If a person is suicidal, we don't prevent them from driving a car on the grounds that they are "possibly going to commit suicide by car." We don't prevent them from boarding an airplane on the grounds that they are possibly going to smuggle aboard a bomb and commit "suicide by bomb while flying."

If a defense attorney says, "The shooting was justified because it's possible the victim was committing suicide by cop," then he might just simplify matters and say, "The shooting was justified because the victim was suicidal." Is that the position you wish to take?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To reiterate from long ago:

Looking at the video again.

"ShowMeYourHandsGunGunGun!*Bang**Bang*" Less than 2 seconds from the start of that 'sentence' to shooting. Can anyone really argue that there was sufficient time in that for the guy to comply to the command, and the cop to in any real way assess what he had in his hand?

They told him to show his hands. He pulled his cell phone, knowing it was the police and while apparently suicidal.

If you make the police wait until they are sure of what is in his hand you'll have a lot of dead cops.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Now we have a third point--the victim was suicidal.

Of course, the police did not know he was suicidal during their pursuit, so that factor could not have entered their thinking that night. And being suicidal is not grounds for deadly force, any more than evading arrest or possibly carrying a weapon.

But it's a good reason for charges not to be brought. The defense would point out he was suicidal which suggests suicide by cop. Reasonable doubt--a jury would be unlikely to convict.

But Loren, you were defending the police actions before it was learned that he was suicidal.

"Being suicidal" is a much lower bar than "trying to commit suicide by cop." If a person is suicidal, we don't prevent them from driving a car on the grounds that they are "possibly going to commit suicide by car." We don't prevent them from boarding an airplane on the grounds that they are possibly going to smuggle aboard a bomb and commit "suicide by bomb while flying."

If a defense attorney says, "The shooting was justified because it's possible the victim was committing suicide by cop," then he might just simplify matters and say, "The shooting was justified because the victim was suicidal." Is that the position you wish to take?

The point is he took an action that was extremely risky--pulling something out when confronted by the cops.

He knew he was being chased by the cops, he knew he should show empty hands when challenged. He didn't.

Now we have a likely reason for his actions--he was trying to provoke exactly what happened. Before I thought it was just major stupidity.

 

[zorq]

But Loren, you were defending the police actions before it was learned that he was suicidal.

"Being suicidal" is a much lower bar than "trying to commit suicide by cop." If a person is suicidal, we don't prevent them from driving a car on the grounds that they are "possibly going to commit suicide by car." We don't prevent them from boarding an airplane on the grounds that they are possibly going to smuggle aboard a bomb and commit "suicide by bomb while flying."

If a defense attorney says, "The shooting was justified because it's possible the victim was committing suicide by cop," then he might just simplify matters and say, "The shooting was justified because the victim was suicidal." Is that the position you wish to take?

The point is he took an action that was extremely risky--pulling something out when confronted by the cops.

He knew he was being chased by the cops, he knew he should show empty hands when challenged. He didn't.

Now we have a likely reason for his actions--he was trying to provoke exactly what happened. Before I thought it was just major stupidity.

"Show me your hands," is not the same as "Empty your hands." I don't think I have ever had an actual human use that sentence in my presence in my entire life. Actually if I was holding my cell phone and someone told me to show them my hands I would probably just hold out my cellphone holding hand. You see, I have this really strong aversion to dropping my expensive, useful and delicate devices. Don't you?

It's amazing how you think a suspect should be mind reading the police in a situation like this when the police couldn't even remember to identify themselves as police. These are tense situations and people really don't have the time that you are insisting they do to perform the perfect necessary feats that you insist they should have performed to save their lives. It's ridiculous.

 

[marc]

To reiterate from long ago:

Looking at the video again.

"ShowMeYourHandsGunGunGun!*Bang**Bang*" Less than 2 seconds from the start of that 'sentence' to shooting. Can anyone really argue that there was sufficient time in that for the guy to comply to the command, and the cop to in any real way assess what he had in his hand?

They told him to show his hands. He pulled his cell phone, knowing it was the police and while apparently suicidal.

No, he didn’t ‘pull’ his phone, he had it in his hand.

If you make the police wait until they are sure of what is in his hand you'll have a lot of dead cops.

So it is better that cops simply kill anyone with something in their hands, just in case it might be a weapon, instead of taking the time to find out. So you don’t mind lots of dead innocent bystanders.

Of course ignoring the whole 2 seconds aspect of the command. As if most people could understand the command, follow it, and the cop recognize that the person is complying in that amount of time. Reminds me of this clip (starting at 1:35)

Show

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/WakNbFu--XE[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Mumbles]

Wasn't perfect? Not being perfect is getting a B on a test.
This dindu

Try it again, without the racial slur.

 

[laughing dog]

If you make the police wait until they are sure of what is in his hand you'll have a lot of dead cops.

BS. But you will have a large reduction in dead civilians.

 

[bilby]

To reiterate from long ago:

Looking at the video again.

"ShowMeYourHandsGunGunGun!*Bang**Bang*" Less than 2 seconds from the start of that 'sentence' to shooting. Can anyone really argue that there was sufficient time in that for the guy to comply to the command, and the cop to in any real way assess what he had in his hand?

They told him to show his hands. He pulled his cell phone, knowing it was the police and while apparently suicidal.

If you make the police wait until they are sure of what is in his hand you'll have a lot of dead cops.

That would be tragic. But far better than having a lot of dead civilians.

First responders are supposed to risk their lives to save the lives of civilians. That's their job.

If you don't want to risk your own life to save others, don't become a firefighter, and don't become a cop.

 

[Gun Nut]

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.

Well, to prevent a false comparison, that burning building would have to be known to have been brought upon by arson. In the case of an intentionally lit fire, extra precautions are made.. the assumption being that the building is booby trapped, or otherwise setup to cause harm to firefighters... and no, they do not just charge into such a burning building.
Paramedics... charged with the responsibility for saving lives... will not enter an environment that is dangerous to them. If people are shot, and in need of immediate medical attention, and there is still an active shooter, then those victims will continue to bleed out until the scene is secured.
So... what were you saying about how Police should act similarly?

 

[Derec]

Is it your position that fleeing the police is grounds for police using deadly force?

But it increases the chances of things going south. Especially at dark. And running from police is not the only thing Stephon did. He also turned around and advanced, while having an object (again, it was dark) in his hand. It's a combination of these things that led to his shooting.

Is it your position that anyone who hates the police and/or the US should be treated with deadly force by police?

No, I never said that these protesters should be shot. Arrested if their protesting is breaking the law, but no, not shot for burning flags. Where do you come up with such false allegations?

 

[Derec]

That would be tragic. But far better than having a lot of dead civilians.

Mostly dead criminals. By all accounts Stephon Clark's death was not a big loss to society.

First responders are supposed to risk their lives to save the lives of civilians. That's their job.

They are not supposed to enter undue risk just to avoid shooting a perp.

If you don't want to risk your own life to save others, don't become a firefighter, and don't become a cop.

All of these carry some risk, but nobody would expect firefighters to risk their lives more than necessary.

- - - Updated - - -

Wasn't perfect? Not being perfect is getting a B on a test.
This dindu

Try it again, without the racial slur.

What racial slur? Oh, you must mean dindu. Ok.

Wasn't perfect? Not being perfect is getting a B on a test.
This "didn't do nothing" ...

 

[laughing dog]

Mostly dead criminals. By all accounts Stephon Clark's death was not a big loss to society.

So? Neither my death or your death would be a big loss to society, but that would not justify either one of our wrongful deaths.

They are not supposed to enter undue risk just to avoid shooting a perp.

No one faced an undue risk with Stephon Clark - he was unarmed.

 

[Derec]

No, he didn’t ‘pull’ his phone, he had it in his hand.

False. He was jumping fences, which requires two hands. He pulled the phone after he jumped into his grandma's yard. For what purpose, I do not know.

So it is better that cops simply kill anyone with something in their hands, just in case it might be a weapon, instead of taking the time to find out. So you don’t mind lots of dead innocent bystanders.

Stephon Clark was not an innocent bystander. Let's not pretend police shot some random guy just because he was holding a cell phone. Stephon Clark
- was breaking into cars and broke one sliding door to a house
- was fleeing from police form yard to yard, jumping fences
- when confronted by the police officers on foot, he fled deeper into the yard.
- he turned around and advanced while holding an object

It was the combination of all these facts that led to him getting shot.

Of course ignoring the whole 2 seconds aspect of the command.

He knew police were looking for him. That's why he was jumping fences. He knew police officers caught up with him. That's why he fled deeper into the yard.

- - - Updated - - -

So? Neither my death or your death would be a big loss to society, but that would not justify either one of our wrongful deaths.

Speak for yourself. And you are presupposing that this was a "wrongful death" just because police shot a "civilian".

No one faced an undue risk with Stephon Clark - he was unarmed.

Risk assessment is done with the information you know, not with information only known later.

 

[laughing dog]

Speak for yourself.

The death of very few people impose a large loss on society. I seriously doubt your or I am one of those few.

And you are presupposing that this was a "wrongful death" just because police shot a "civilian".

Mr. Clark was unarmed and posed no threat.

Risk assessment is done with the information you know, not with information only known later.

Irrelevant - judgments are made all the time after the fact. Using your reasoning, ignorance excuses any action. The police did not bother to ascertain if Mr. Clark was actually armed or if he actually posed a threat.

 

[bilby]

Western law is founded on a presumption of innocence. Police are only shooting criminals if they wait to draw their guns until after the suspect has been arrested, charged, tried, and found guilty.

Until those things have happened, they are only able to shoot civilians (or each other) - the one exception being pursuit of convicts engaged in a prison break-out.

Summary execution without trial should not occur in a nation that aspires to become civilised.

 

[laughing dog]

Western law is founded on a presumption of innocence. Police are only shooting criminals if they wait to draw their guns until after the suspect has been arrested, charged, tried, and found guilty.

Until those things have happened, they are only able to shoot civilians (or each other) - the one exception being pursuit of convicts engaged in a prison break-out.

Summary execution without trial should not occur in a nation that aspires to become civilised.

To be fair, there is abundant evidence that strongly suggests the USA abandoned the goal of becoming civilized at least 20 years ago.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you make the police wait until they are sure of what is in his hand you'll have a lot of dead cops.

BS. But you will have a large reduction in dead civilians.

You mean the cops will magically bring people back to life?

Because the number of unarmed people shot by the cops is very low. To make a large reduction in the number would have to make it negative.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Western law is founded on a presumption of innocence. Police are only shooting criminals if they wait to draw their guns until after the suspect has been arrested, charged, tried, and found guilty.

Until those things have happened, they are only able to shoot civilians (or each other) - the one exception being pursuit of convicts engaged in a prison break-out.

Summary execution without trial should not occur in a nation that aspires to become civilised.

You realize that the laws for what counts a sufficient threat for civilians to shoot is the same as for cops? They have a reasonable belief someone is pulling a gun on them to shoot them, they can shoot and face only civil penalties if it turns out it wasn't a gun.

Where the laws differ is a matter of what came before. A civilian who initiates the confrontation isn't allowed to shoot even in a clearly deadly threat. (You start using someone as a punching bag, they pull a gun on you--they can pull the trigger with impunity, you would be guilty of murder if you shot them instead.) Cops do not have this restriction as most such situations will arise when they confront a criminal.

 

[laughing dog]

If you make the police wait until they are sure of what is in his hand you'll have a lot of dead cops.

BS. But you will have a large reduction in dead civilians.

You mean the cops will magically bring people back to life?

Because the number of unarmed people shot by the cops is very low. To make a large reduction in the number would have to make it negative.

Must you twist everything? Clearly the large reduction is in relation to the total.