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

[Emily Lake]

Being shot in the back doesn't prove it was wrongful. In 1-on-1 situations it's a pretty strong indication of it being wrongful but this wasn't 1-on-1.

You're right - it wasn't 1-on-1. It was (ManyCops)-on-(OneGuy)

Regardless of anything else related to this case, how does the MANY-to-1 make it less likely to be wrongful?

 

[Emily Lake]

When the family lawyer comissions an autopsy and pays Dr. Bison or whatever his name is, that is hardly "independent".

Do you understand that in this context, "independent" means that the autopsy is being performed by someone independent of the police department? It's a second opinion, it's an autopsy being performed by someone who isn't directly connected to the organization being questioned.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why do we never see the people criticizing the police in cases like this taking the opposite approach, calling the officers "cowards afraid of their own shadows" etc. Why not co-opt some of the right wing's terminology and machismo here?

 

[Emily Lake]

All else aside, including various presumptions by various parties, here are the facts that are known:

• A person is reported to be breaking car windows - vandalism
• Police show up to find the vandal, including a helicopter to track the vandal
• A person is observed by the helicopter in the backyard of a house, and the person jumps over the fence into the back yard of another house
• Police ask the owner of the house if they can check the backyard, because they've had reports of someone breaking windows - again vandalism
• The police observe a person in the backyard of the house they're checking, fail to identify themselves as police, and in less than 3 seconds open fire on the person
• The person is found to be in possession of nothing more than a cell phone... and also dead

These are the observable and recorded facts of this case, so far as any of us know. Anything else is speculation.

Now, given that, here are my questions:

• Why is helicopter tracking with IR being used for a vandal? Is this normal use of police resources for vandalism?
• Why were the police prepared for a violent conflict on a report of vandalism?
• Why did the police fail to identify themselves as police?
• Why did the police fail to give the suspect time to comply with their orders before firing upon him?

Regardless of anything else (including whether his brother has expensive earphones ) these are important questions. Even if the suspect were found to have been the vandal, I'm not comfortable with such a violent response to a minor crime. I am concerned by the failure to identify as well as the speed with which the cops moved directly to firing upon a suspect. Even if they believed him to be armed, they did not provide him any time to disarm and cooperate. These all seem to be indicators of a dramatic overreaction on the part of the police, which led to the death of an unarmed man, with no justifiable rationale for such an action.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I echo your questions above, except that I think if a guy is breaking car windows that may be fairly suspected to be more than mere vandalism. People usually break windows to steal something, don't they? Still no justification to send a helicopter much less open fire on somebody.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Essentials before luxuries. You are asserting these are people without enough for the essentials. When they put money (or, in the case of a gift, fail to redeem) money to luxuries they are making themselves worse off.

Let's get with the program, folks. Those poor people should suffer, suffer, suffer for the sin of their poverty! Any time they take pleasure in something while still being poor is an affront to good and successful people the world over. Seriously, don't they realize that their only chance for grace lies in ceaselessly tormenting themselves with unending suffering? Any alleviation of their suffering is simply proof that they deserve their poverty.

It's a case of suffer some now (not having the luxury) vs more later (not having the money for some essential.) Choosing the path of immediate gratification means less happiness overall.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Being shot in the back doesn't prove it was wrongful. In 1-on-1 situations it's a pretty strong indication of it being wrongful but this wasn't 1-on-1.

You're right - it wasn't 1-on-1. It was (ManyCops)-on-(OneGuy)

Regardless of anything else related to this case, how does the MANY-to-1 make it less likely to be wrongful?

Many on 1 means they can't all be in front. It's inevitable that some will be off to the side to some degree.

It's moot, anyway, as the shots to the "back" obviously were when he went down.

- - - Updated - - -

When the family lawyer comissions an autopsy and pays Dr. Bison or whatever his name is, that is hardly "independent".

Do you understand that in this context, "independent" means that the autopsy is being performed by someone independent of the police department? It's a second opinion, it's an autopsy being performed by someone who isn't directly connected to the organization being questioned.

English lesson: "Independent" means not connected to anyone involved.

That means neither the police nor the family.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I echo your questions above, except that I think if a guy is breaking car windows that may be fairly suspected to be more than mere vandalism. People usually break windows to steal something, don't they? Still no justification to send a helicopter much less open fire on somebody.

I think it's an interesting question, but I think the helicopter was just in the air doing patrol and heard the call to help. The cops were on the streets for about 7 or 8 minutes before they either got word or saw the suspect.

And for Emily's first list, the three bulletpoints were correct, the 4th and 5th were a little off and the 6th correct.

 

[Emily Lake]

I echo your questions above, except that I think if a guy is breaking car windows that may be fairly suspected to be more than mere vandalism. People usually break windows to steal something, don't they? Still no justification to send a helicopter much less open fire on somebody.

Fair point... but it's still not a violent crime, and I still end up with the same questions with respect the to actions taken by the police.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a case of suffer some now (not having the luxury) vs more later (not having the money for some essential.) Choosing the path of immediate gratification means less happiness overall.

You're assuming that hard work and diligence is all that is needed to rise out of poverty, despite a massive amount of research that suggests otherwise.

Your suggestion isn't one of suffer some now vs more later. It's a choice between having some element of quality of life while continuing to suffer, or being expected to forego all of the things that improve quality of life in order to continue suffering just about as much.

- - - Updated - - -

Many on 1 means they can't all be in front. It's inevitable that some will be off to the side to some degree.

It's moot, anyway, as the shots to the "back" obviously were when he went down.

None of that even attempts to answer the question I posed to you.

When the family lawyer comissions an autopsy and pays Dr. Bison or whatever his name is, that is hardly "independent".

Do you understand that in this context, "independent" means that the autopsy is being performed by someone independent of the police department? It's a second opinion, it's an autopsy being performed by someone who isn't directly connected to the organization being questioned.

English lesson: "Independent" means not connected to anyone involved.

That means neither the police nor the family.

Context is important. Your definition of "independent" has nothing to do with anything ever in this sort of situation.

- - - Updated - - -

I echo your questions above, except that I think if a guy is breaking car windows that may be fairly suspected to be more than mere vandalism. People usually break windows to steal something, don't they? Still no justification to send a helicopter much less open fire on somebody.

I think it's an interesting question, but I think the helicopter was just in the air doing patrol and heard the call to help. The cops were on the streets for about 7 or 8 minutes before they either got word or saw the suspect.

And for Emily's first list, the three bulletpoints were correct, the 4th and 5th were a little off and the 6th correct.

What is off in the 4th and 5th? Or at least, off in a material way?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Emily,
The fourth point is minor but it was somebody else's house they were talking to the owner and left that house to walk down the street.
The fifth one is more important, since they initally told him to stop and show the hands as he was on the side of the house, he ran from there to the back and then was told two more times to show his hands before the third time they shot after that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Now, given that, here are my questions:

[*]Why is helicopter tracking with IR being used for a vandal? Is this normal use of police resources for vandalism?

Choppers are used for the highest priority request they have at the moment. You can't just stow the chopper when there's nobody to find--if you want quick chopper response it's in the air anyway. The additional cost of using it to hunt a vandal is basically zero. Had a more important call come in the chopper would have left.

[*]Why were the police prepared for a violent conflict on a report of vandalism?

When someone flees expect the guns to come out.

[*]Why did the police fail to identify themselves as police?

I don't know, but by their words they certainly sounded like police.

[*]Why did the police fail to give the suspect time to comply with their orders before firing upon him?

Because this isn't a game show.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Emily,
The fourth point is minor but it was somebody else's house they were talking to the owner and left that house to walk down the street.
The fifth one is more important, since they initally told him to stop and show the hands as he was on the side of the house, he ran from there to the back and then was told two more times to show his hands before the third time they shot after that.

SHOW YOUR HANDS!

SHOW YOUR HANDS!

Okay... now in that amount of time, you are now shot. How much movement can you possibly have with such little time to react? Additionally, did the officers have good cover? Was shooting necessary, when they can seek immediate cover?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Emily,
The fourth point is minor but it was somebody else's house they were talking to the owner and left that house to walk down the street.
The fifth one is more important, since they initally told him to stop and show the hands as he was on the side of the house, he ran from there to the back and then was told two more times to show his hands before the third time they shot after that.

SHOW YOUR HANDS!

SHOW YOUR HANDS!

Okay... now in that amount of time, you are now shot. How much movement can you possibly have with such little time to react? Additionally, did the officers have good cover? Was shooting necessary, when they can seek immediate cover?

The first time they asked for him to stop and show hands he was at the side of the house, he then ran around back. When they got around the house they said it again twice. You are running in someone's backyard in the middle of night, very little time to think of cover under those conditions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

[*]Why did the police fail to give the suspect time to comply with their orders before firing upon him?

Because this isn't a game show.

Eyeballs just did it again.
Q: Why didn't officers allow suspect to comply with their orders by giving him enough time to hear, understand, and comply?
A: ...

There is no acceptable answer if a gun isn't brandished in an aggressive manner.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Emily,
The fourth point is minor but it was somebody else's house they were talking to the owner and left that house to walk down the street.
The fifth one is more important, since they initally told him to stop and show the hands as he was on the side of the house, he ran from there to the back and then was told two more times to show his hands before the third time they shot after that.

SHOW YOUR HANDS!

SHOW YOUR HANDS!

Okay... now in that amount of time, you are now shot. How much movement can you possibly have with such little time to react? Additionally, did the officers have good cover? Was shooting necessary, when they can seek immediate cover?

The first time they asked for him to stop and show hands he was at the side of the house, he then ran around back. When they got around the house they said it again twice. You are running in someone's backyard in the middle of night, very little time to think of cover under those conditions.

Why the fuck not? You are a cop, you are supposed to want to go home at the end of the shift, which means not getting into a position where a gun is pointed at your head and you are going to die because you didn't properly assess the situation... all over destruction of property.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The first time they asked for him to stop and show hands he was at the side of the house, he then ran around back. When they got around the house they said it again twice. You are running in someone's backyard in the middle of night, very little time to think of cover under those conditions.

Why the fuck not? You are a cop, you are supposed to want to go home at the end of the shift, which means not getting into a position where a gun is pointed at your head and you are going to die because you didn't properly assess the situation... all over destruction of property.

Running from the cops is bad, and they need to assume more when that happens. But it's their job to go after people who break the laws, and going into peoples cars and house in the middle of night is very bad.

But we could slow down the number of blacks killed by cops, stop policing black and poor neighborhoods and see if the people there are better off or not.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The first time they asked for him to stop and show hands he was at the side of the house, he then ran around back. When they got around the house they said it again twice. You are running in someone's backyard in the middle of night, very little time to think of cover under those conditions.

Why the fuck not? You are a cop, you are supposed to want to go home at the end of the shift, which means not getting into a position where a gun is pointed at your head and you are going to die because you didn't properly assess the situation... all over destruction of property.

Running from the cops is bad, and they need to assume more when that happens.

A guy ran from the cops because he was late in child support payments. Making assumptions is very stupid.

But it's their job to go after people who break the laws, and going into peoples cars and house in the middle of night is very bad.

Which is why you use caution, approach it appropriately, so that when you make that blind turn there isn't a bullet about to go through your head.

But we could slow down the number of blacks killed by cops, stop policing black and poor neighborhoods and see if the people there are better off or not.

I'll take False Dilemma for $800 Alex.

 

[Toni]

Choppers are used for the highest priority request they have at the moment. You can't just stow the chopper when there's nobody to find--if you want quick chopper response it's in the air anyway. The additional cost of using it to hunt a vandal is basically zero. Had a more important call come in the chopper would have left.



When someone flees expect the guns to come out.

[*]Why did the police fail to identify themselves as police?

I don't know, but by their words they certainly sounded like police.

From behind your computer monitor, you all white and safe in your gated community, I'm sure they did.

[*]Why did the police fail to give the suspect time to comply with their orders before firing upon him?

Because this isn't a game show.

Wrong. They are legally required to identify themselves as police officers. They broke the law. Should they have been shot dead on the spot?

 

[coloradoatheist]

From behind your computer monitor, you all white and safe in your gated community, I'm sure they did.

[*]Why did the police fail to give the suspect time to comply with their orders before firing upon him?

Because this isn't a game show.

Wrong. They are legally required to identify themselves as police officers. They broke the law. Should they have been shot dead on the spot?

Can you identify that law and when it has to be told? This article says Sacramento doesn't have that policy

http://whtc.com/news/articles/2018/mar/24/california-police-shooting-of-unarmed-black-man-forcing-look-at-policies/

 

[fast]

From behind your computer monitor, you all white and safe in your gated community, I'm sure they did.

Gated for a mother fucking reason. Guess what color that reason is!

I'm sure since you're merely smart, you won't grasp the reason for my outburst, but your use of "white" is unacceptable.