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

[Gun Nut]

Suspects are civilians.

correct, but I was using the word as you did... someone that has presumption of innocence... I don't have a word for that... what do YOU call a non-criminal civilian? I just call them people.
edited to add... maybe call them, "persons of interest", or "detainees", or "bystanders"?

Whatever else you call them, they are still civilians. And shooting unarmed civilians, regardless of whether they are bystanders or persons of interest, ought to considered wrong in any civilized society.

sure.. that makes a lot of sense... although, we are talking about "dangerous suspects", not "unarmed civilians".

 

[Gun Nut]

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 missed the category of person called "Suspect". You are correct that all people are presumed innocent... and the part you missed is the part that goes... until there is probable cause to suspect the person has broken or is breaking the law... that is called a Suspect. Cops shoot Suspects that are perceived to be a danger to others. They don't shoot "civilians"... they don't shoot convicted crimminals... they potentially shoot Suspects.

Suspects are a subset of civilians, not a subset of criminals. The only way for a suspect to become a criminal is via a court of law. Suspects have the exact same rights as other civilians. Including the right to be protected and served by the police.

That the number of innocent civilians killed by police (who categorize them as 'suspects') is FAR too high in the US can be easily seen by comparing the proportion of such of killings in the US with the proportion in other jurisdictions. In the rest of the world, it is not a routine matter for suspects to be killed by cops. If the rest of the world can arrest and bring to trial these suspects, then so could the USA, if only they would stop summarily executing them instead.

Judge Dredd is intended as a satire, not a 'how to' guide.

humans are a subset of animals.... following your logic, it is wrong to eat animals. That may be consistent with your worldview, but it is not for most Americans.
I do agree there are far too many criminals in America. Maybe thin the herd?

 

[laughing dog]

Whatever else you call them, they are still civilians. And shooting unarmed civilians, regardless of whether they are bystanders or persons of interest, ought to considered wrong in any civilized society.

sure.. that makes a lot of sense... although, we are talking about "dangerous suspects", not "unarmed civilians".

"We" were not talking about dangerous suspects. There is no indication that Mr. Clark was dangerous.

 

[Gun Nut]

Whatever else you call them, they are still civilians. And shooting unarmed civilians, regardless of whether they are bystanders or persons of interest, ought to considered wrong in any civilized society.

sure.. that makes a lot of sense... although, we are talking about "dangerous suspects", not "unarmed civilians".

"We" were not talking about dangerous suspects. There is no indication that Mr. Clark was dangerous.

of course there was... re-read page one of this thread, or read the news article again.

Officers arrived at the front yard and gave the man commands to stop and show his hands, according to police. The man immediately fled to the backyard, police said, and they pursued him. At that point, the man "turned and advanced toward the officers while holding an object" extended in front of him, according to police.

any person fleeing police after smashing car windows with a tire iron that suddenly stops, turns around, and advances in the police's direction with an object in their hand, is, by definition, a dangerous suspect. Or suicidal. Or both.
All of those type of people's lives are not worth a single police officer's life. Too bad, so sad, they can go fuck themselves.

 

[laughing dog]

any person fleeing police after smashing car windows with a tire iron that suddenly stops, turns around, and advances in the police's direction with an object in their hand, is, by definition, a dangerous suspect.

Only to the irrational.

 

[Gun Nut]

any person fleeing police after smashing car windows with a tire iron that suddenly stops, turns around, and advances in the police's direction with an object in their hand, is, by definition, a dangerous suspect.

Only to the irrational.

Feel free to provide a definition of "Dangerous Suspect" that contradicts this... everyone knows that a simple hand wave away is not exactly a rational argument. Mine is perfectly rational, regardless of your feelings about it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

any person allegedly fleeing police after allegedly smashing car windows possibly with a tire iron that suddenly stops, turns around, and does not advance in the police's direction, but IS holding a cell phone in their hand, is, NOT by definition, a dangerous suspect.

 

[laughing dog]

any person fleeing police after smashing car windows with a tire iron that suddenly stops, turns around, and advances in the police's direction with an object in their hand, is, by definition, a dangerous suspect.

Only to the irrational.

Feel free to provide a definition of "Dangerous Suspect" that contradicts this... everyone knows that a simple hand wave away is not exactly a rational argument. Mine is perfectly rational, regardless of your feelings about it.

Mr. Clark did not have a weapon in his hand and he was nowhere near either police officer. There is no way any rational person would describe him as dangerous in the normal sense of the word.

 

[Gun Nut]

Feel free to provide a definition of "Dangerous Suspect" that contradicts this... everyone knows that a simple hand wave away is not exactly a rational argument. Mine is perfectly rational, regardless of your feelings about it.

Mr. Clark did not have a weapon in his hand and he was nowhere near either police officer. There is no way any rational person would describe him as dangerous in the normal sense of the word.

Firstly, I note you failed to provide a definition of a Dangerous Suspect... how can you expect the police to obey your expectations if you cannot even communicate them?

Secondly, in the moment, he ran, turned abruptly, and pointed a thing. Everything you posted above was only determined after the fact. While it would be very... interesting... if police were omniscient... or at least could transcend time and space to be able to see what is as of yet unseen and know what is yet unknown... They are just people, limited by the same 3 dimensions as you and I.

 

[laughing dog]

Feel free to provide a definition of "Dangerous Suspect" that contradicts this... everyone knows that a simple hand wave away is not exactly a rational argument. Mine is perfectly rational, regardless of your feelings about it.

Mr. Clark did not have a weapon in his hand and he was nowhere near either police officer. There is no way any rational person would describe him as dangerous in the normal sense of the word.

Firstly, I note you failed to provide a definition of a Dangerous Suspect... how can you expect the police to obey your expectations if you cannot even communicate them?

True, I focused on your stupid definition. I suppose the presumption that the police are minimally intelligent enough to understand that someone who is not actively attacking them or who they do not know is armed is not an immediate danger is unrealistic.

[
Secondly, in the moment, he ran, turned abruptly, and pointed a thing. Everything you posted above was only determined after the fact. While it would be very... interesting... if police were omniscient... or at least could transcend time and space to be able to see what is as of yet unseen and know what is yet unknown... They are just people, limited by the same 3 dimensions as you and I.

Taking a little more time to ascertain what is happening does not require omniscience or the ability to transcend time and space. So your sarcasm reveals more about the lack of probity in your argument that it does about the reality of the situations. The police were not under fire nor was Mr. Clark close enough to them to pose a danger.

The police made a tragic mistake, and Mr. Clark lost his life. His death was wrongful. And it speaks volumes about our country that so many people shrug their shoulders about his death or cheer it.

My son patrolled villages in Afghanistan were almost everyone was armed. He was under strict orders that they were only to return fire. He was in more danger consistently than any police officer. Guess what - he never killed an unarmed person. And he is neither omniscient nor can he transcend space or time. If young men in a war zone with little to no experience can better avoid killing unarmed people who pose no immediate threat, it is not unreasonable to expect our police to do as well.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's utter horseshit. All of the nations I listed above are safe places with low levels of crime. And there are literally dozens of others I could have included. None are significantly more dangerous than the USA. All have very low levels of police shootings of civilians, compared to the USA, and in none is a shooting by a police officer considered a routine or casually accepted event in the way that it is in the USA.

The issue is with the distribution of crime. If you're in a decent part of town the odds of being the victim of violence is minuscule. Bad guys operating in decent areas do so by stealth and almost always run away when discovered.

 

[bilby]

That's utter horseshit. All of the nations I listed above are safe places with low levels of crime. And there are literally dozens of others I could have included. None are significantly more dangerous than the USA. All have very low levels of police shootings of civilians, compared to the USA, and in none is a shooting by a police officer considered a routine or casually accepted event in the way that it is in the USA.

The issue is with the distribution of crime. If you're in a decent part of town the odds of being the victim of violence is minuscule. Bad guys operating in decent areas do so by stealth and almost always run away when discovered.

The issue is that you are talking utter bollocks.

The distribution of crime is irrelevant to the fact that crime is no higher in other developed nations than it is in the USA, despite the fact that in those countries, police very rarely shoot anyone.

You are clutching at straws.

 

[laughing dog]

That's utter horseshit. All of the nations I listed above are safe places with low levels of crime. And there are literally dozens of others I could have included. None are significantly more dangerous than the USA. All have very low levels of police shootings of civilians, compared to the USA, and in none is a shooting by a police officer considered a routine or casually accepted event in the way that it is in the USA.

The issue is with the distribution of crime. If you're in a decent part of town the odds of being the victim of violence is minuscule. Bad guys operating in decent areas do so by stealth and almost always run away when discovered.

The issue is that you are talking utter bollocks.

The distribution of crime is irrelevant to the fact that crime is no higher in other developed nations than it is in the USA, despite the fact that in those countries, police very rarely shoot anyone.

You are clutching at straws.

I think you misunderstand LP - he is using an analogy because he is arguing the USA is "the bad part of town" not the decent part.

 

[RVonse]

Thus the cops have to consider the suspect alive. They're going to cuff.

Why is it that a black man is automatically a "suspect?"

For the same reason it is always the man who is automatically at fault in a domestic dispute.

Life isnt fair. Black men are never going to be treated the same as everyone else by the police. And men are never going to be treated right in family court either.

The police and women get to choose who lives and dies. And its the way its always going to be so just get used to it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I've been looking for the legal outcome of previous incidents reported in different threads to see where they end up, and there's been a decision on this one from almost a year ago, so here's the update:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/officers-killed-stephon-clark-face-federal-civil-rights/story?id=65901923

 

[Elixir]

The issue is with the distribution of crime. If you're in a decent part of town the odds of being the victim of violence is minuscule. Bad guys operating in decent areas do so by stealth and almost always run away when discovered.

So if you're black and you want to do something like, say, go jogging, you should do it in the nice part of town.
Oh wait. That's bullshit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The issue is with the distribution of crime. If you're in a decent part of town the odds of being the victim of violence is minuscule. Bad guys operating in decent areas do so by stealth and almost always run away when discovered.

So if you're black and you want to do something like, say, go jogging, you should do it in the nice part of town.
Oh wait. That's bullshit.

Sorry, but the world is the way it is, not the way you wish it would be. The criminals concentrate where people don't report them.

 

[Rhea]

I've been looking for the legal outcome of previous incidents reported in different threads to see where they end up, and there's been a decision on this one from almost a year ago, so here's the update:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/officers-killed-stephon-clark-face-federal-civil-rights/story?id=65901923

That took forever to load - request that people always post a paragraph of what's in the link. It's very helpful to all who have limited internet. Go ahead and post the spoiler.

Two police officers in Sacramento, California, are back on duty after federal authorities cleared them of federal criminal civil rights charges in the shooting death of 22-year-old Stephon Clark.

U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott and Special Agent-in-Charge Sean Ragan of the FBI's Sacramento Division said there was insufficient evidence "to prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that officers Terrance Mercadal and Jared Robinet violated a federal statute.

"The tragedy that took place after a 911 call to our communications center will always have a profound effect on our department and community as a whole," Sacramento Police Chief Daniel Hahn said in a statement. "We are forever dedicated to finding reasonable alternatives that may prevent similar tragedies."

 

[Derec]

That outcome is fair as far as that goes, but St. Stephon's family and their shyster still got millions of dollars on taxpayer dime, unfortunately.

Break into cars, break into a house, flee from police ---> profit!

 

[laughing dog]

That outcome is fair as far as that goes, but St. Stephon's family and their shyster still got millions of dollars on taxpayer dime, unfortunately.

How did that happen?

Break into cars, break into a house, flee from police ---> profit!

Mr. Clark did not profit from his actions at all.