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

[Derec]

It means impoverished blacks who live in the hood.

Impoverished? I would hardly describe him as such what with $200-$400 headphones.

It's really about culture. Culture that is characterized, among other things, by ostentatteous disrespect for authority. Hence the disturbing of the city council meeting. But also hence the hostile attitude toward police. This was hardly the only police shooting in Sacramento in recent years. #BLM Sacramento has condemned all of them. For example Adrienne Ludd tried to shoot deputies before they shot him, but #BLM still protested demanding "killer cops" be imprisoned and calling police racist even though they merely defended themselves.

Derec will likely try to play innocent and pretend we don't know what dog whistles are and say "Well it doesn't apply specifically to blacks" or some other bullshit, but it will be bullshit whatever its form.

Yeah, hood/ghetto in US parlance is mostly a black phenomenon, but then again, "hillbilly" or "redneck" or "trailer trash" are mostly white. That does not mean we should not criticize those cultures. And equally we must be able to talk honestly about negative cultural traits of some blacks, or we will get absolutely nowhere, out of overabudnance of political correctness.

 

[fast]

In court of law, a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That neither means he's innocent in the beginning or truly guilty at the end. Proven guilty is a confusing notion...it assumes guilt, but remember, it's just a finding. Case in point: A murders B. C is mistaken for A. A is innocent, but he is charged. They don't assume A is innocent, but they do presume A is innocent; when he is wrongly convicted (remember, he's actually innocent), the court will find him guilty and people will say he was proven guilty, but being proven guilty (in reality) is a superset to being proven guilty in a court of law.

I believe I follow what you're saying... but I think some of your letters might be wrong. This section is very confusing to me.

We have the truth on the one hand, and we have the verdict as found by a jury on the other. Sometimes, they get it right; sometimes they don't.

If a person is innocent yet a verdict is rendered of guilty, then don't confuse the two, no matter what people say. Guilt thus, is not a function of verdict but of reality. Remember, if A murders B, then A is guilty of murdering B. A verdict changes that not one bit.

Quiz question 1) are people innocent until proven guilty? Hell no.

Question 2) in a court of law, are people assumed innocent before being proven guilty? Nope. If that were true, the defendant would have to prove his innocence without any evidence brought forth by the prosecution that any crime was even committed.

Question 3) in a court of law, are people presumed innocent before being proven guilty? Yes

If an innocent person is charged and a verdict of guilty is rendered, then Houston, a travesty is before us.

 

[Derec]

This is exactly what we need and we need more of it.

Really? Public discourse should not be about trying to intimidate others into getting your way by disrupting council meetings or blocking highways etc. Those are hood tactics, thug tactics.

There needs to be way more people screaming about it when police kill someone they shouldn't have killed.

Investigations into police killings should be done professionally, impartially, which means without undue influence from either side. A certain outcome should not be effected by intimidation tactics by the likes of Stevante Clark.

And we need way less of those people in the background in the suits and ties who allegedly represent the people, but don't. They're in with the police [state] and will do nothing.

They represent the majority of the people, not the loud and obnoxious minority of thugs and thugs adjacent. Majority of the people, including law-abiding blacks, want to get home without suffering a blockaded interstate. They want to be able to take their families to a ballgame without being prevented from doing so by "protesters". They don't want people who break into cars and homes or beat their girlfriends to be glorified.

 

[Derec]

Hey look, more racially tinged

The only thing that is racially tinged is the double standard that says that blacks must be given a pass for such behavior. That attitude, the soft bogotry of low expectations, is what's really racist here. Unlike you, I do not think black people are incapable of acting in a civilized manner. And thus, when one of them doesn't, I condemn it.

class-ism from Derec

If you mean wealth, Stevante is obviously not too hard up for money, given the very expensive headphones he is sporting.
But what's really going on here is the utter lack of class Stevante and his supporters are showing. And that kind of class has nothing to do with money, you can be poor as a church mouse and show class and be a rich motherfucker who is utterly classless (see Trump, Donald J.) Stevante has zero class.

in order to distract from how wrong he was and how embarrassed he should be for acting like a fool in a public forum.

It is Stevante who is acting a fool in a pubic forum. I have nothing to be embarrassed about.

Can you fill me in on how this is relevant to the conversation you were having and lost at?

Can you fill me in on what conversation you erroneously believe I "lost at"?

 

[Emily Lake]

I just want to clear up some confusion solely around the notion of innocent until proven guilty.

Let's say A murders B. Long before trial, and most certainly afterwards as well, A is guilty. That is a fact that cannot be altered. If the court finds A not guilty, A's still guilty. If we presume he's innocent, or even worse, assume he's innocent, the fact that he's guilty remains. It's the one unalterable fact that remain no matter what anyone says or does.

However, let's say we don't know whether A is guilty. Guess what, either he is or he isn't. Which way do you want to go? Do you want to assume that he's guilty thereby placing the burden of proof on A--to prove he's not guilty, or do you want to presume he's innocent thereby placing the burden of proof on the prosecution?

Courts have decided. They place the burden not on the defendant but instead the prosecution. That means the courts have decided not to assume he's innocent but rather presume he's innocent. It says nothing about his innocence. His innocence is reality dependent. Remember, if A in fact murdered B, he is in fact guilty, but we can still assume or presume innocence.

In court of law, a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That neither means he's innocent in the beginning or truly guilty at the end. Proven guilty is a confusing notion...it assumes guilt, but remember, it's just a finding. Case in point: A murders B. C is mistaken for A. A is innocent, but he is charged. They don't assume A is innocent, but they do presume A is innocent; when he is wrongly convicted (remember, he's actually innocent), the court will find him guilty and people will say he was proven guilty, but being proven guilty (in reality) is a superset to being proven guilty in a court of law.

Do we need to mention the 8th Amendment about "cruel and unusual punishment"? Even if he did what is alleged, death is rarely (never) the punishment. That he was shot and killed and it is possible he wasn't even the person committing those acts, is outrightly frightening.

And that some people want to defend his execution is mind blowing.

Was this intended as an add-on to fast's post, or a counter to it? I can't really tell.

 

[Emily Lake]

In court of law, a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That neither means he's innocent in the beginning or truly guilty at the end. Proven guilty is a confusing notion...it assumes guilt, but remember, it's just a finding. Case in point: A murders B. C is mistaken for A. A is innocent, but he is charged. They don't assume A is innocent, but they do presume A is innocent; when he is wrongly convicted (remember, he's actually innocent), the court will find him guilty and people will say he was proven guilty, but being proven guilty (in reality) is a superset to being proven guilty in a court of law.

I believe I follow what you're saying... but I think some of your letters might be wrong. This section is very confusing to me.

We have the truth on the one hand, and we have the verdict as found by a jury on the other. Sometimes, they get it right; sometimes they don't.

If a person is innocent yet a verdict is rendered of guilty, then don't confuse the two, no matter what people say. Guilt thus, is not a function of verdict but of reality. Remember, if A murders B, then A is guilty of murdering B. A verdict changes that not one bit.

Quiz question 1) are people innocent until proven guilty? Hell no.

Question 2) in a court of law, are people assumed innocent before being proven guilty? Nope. If that were true, the defendant would have to prove his innocence without any evidence brought forth by the prosecution that any crime was even committed.

Question 3) in a court of law, are people presumed innocent before being proven guilty? Yes

If an innocent person is charged and a verdict of guilty is rendered, then Houston, a travesty is before us.

I got all of that - I literally meant that some of your letters were wrong. I think that some of your "A"s were supposed to be "C"s.

 

[laughing dog]

Sephon's brother Stevante and others acting like hood rats

How do hood rats act and how do you know how they act?

He said something about "poverty is uncontrollable". Quite ironic with him wearing expensive wireless Beats by Dr. Dre headphones...

Unless one foolishly believes that only the poor who look poor can make statements about the poor, your observation makes no sense.

 

[fast]

We have the truth on the one hand, and we have the verdict as found by a jury on the other. Sometimes, they get it right; sometimes they don't.

If a person is innocent yet a verdict is rendered of guilty, then don't confuse the two, no matter what people say. Guilt thus, is not a function of verdict but of reality. Remember, if A murders B, then A is guilty of murdering B. A verdict changes that not one bit.

Quiz question 1) are people innocent until proven guilty? Hell no.

Question 2) in a court of law, are people assumed innocent before being proven guilty? Nope. If that were true, the defendant would have to prove his innocence without any evidence brought forth by the prosecution that any crime was even committed.

Question 3) in a court of law, are people presumed innocent before being proven guilty? Yes

If an innocent person is charged and a verdict of guilty is rendered, then Houston, a travesty is before us.

I got all of that - I literally meant that some of your letters were wrong. I think that some of your "A"s were supposed to be "C"s.

Oh yeah, that. You're right.

 

[Derec]

To any rational human being, yes..

You meant to say "irrational". Of course it is relevant whether Stephon knew he was pursued by police. If he was, then he bears a greater share of blame for his own death than otherwise.

It is not relevant to the issue of whether the police acted properly.

It is relevant because the narrative pushed by the family and many in the media was all about how he was not a thief and thus not guilty of breaking those windows. That is even believed by some on here (see the "shortcut" apologetics). It makes a big difference whether Stephon was an innocent man and victim of mistaken identity or whether he was the guy they were looking for, who tried to evade police but then reversed and came at them. And his excessive and violent criminal record bolsters the second scenario.

It is relevant if you wish to smear the reputation of the victim.

No, setting the record straight about who Stephon Clark was is not a "smear". We went over that in other #BLM cases.
To smear means to "damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander."
Pointing to his true criminal record is not smearing by definition.

Then address the relevant facts, not the irrelevant ones which correlate with your biases.

The dead guy's criminal record is very much relevant. Don't you find it interesting how tightly criminal record is correlated with probability of being shot by police? Do you think that's a coincidence?

No. In both cases,
1) the police did not know they had the right person,

And yet they did have the right person.

2) the police rushed in and shouted orders,
3) the suspect had little or no time to comply,

True for Tamir Rice. Not true for Stephon Clark. Stephon had ~20s between police first made contact to when the first shots were fired. He had enough time to run around the corner of the house and to reverse.

4) the suspect was unarmedd,

Stephon was unarmed but he did have an object that, in dark, was mistaken for a gun. Had he not run and reversed, that mistake would most likely not have been made.
In Tamir's case, he had a realistic looking replica. Such replicas look real enough that they have been used to rob people, for example by Tyre King and Quanice Hayes.

5) the police did not bother to check to see if the suspect was armed,

You are assuming they had that luxury. I admit they went too hot in the Tamir Rice case, but I do not think they made any mistakes when they first engaged Stephon Clark. Had he not taken off running they would have had more time to assess what he was holding.
Remember, arrests outnumber fatal police shootings by 4 orders of magnitude. Most arrests happen without a major incident. But if you run, resist or even fight with police you increase chances of being one of the small minority of cases that result in shooting.

6) the suspect presented no immediate threat to the officers' safety,

Only in hindsight.

7) the suspect was gunned down. and
8) the suspect was a black male.

'
7 and 8 is really all #BLM care about. Even when the suspect tries to shoot police, they still think police are racist murderers.

Nonsense. The failure on the part of the police to ascertain information in a timely fashion is important.
When you needlessly kill a person, your actions are not justified. It really is that simple.

You can only judge whether police actions were justified based on what they knew or should have known. Hindsight is irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course you can. But when you pull out the "innocent until proven guilty" argument with charged rapists, then we are permitted to point out your blatant hypocrisy.

Again, innocent until proven guilty is the standard in the court of law. If Stephon had allowed himself to be arrested, he'd have his day in court and his presumption of innocence.
If you have a rape suspect and he resists arrest in a dark yard and police think he is armed, he still might get shot. If police want to arrest you, let them. That's what courts are for.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

... If he was, then he bears a greater share of blame for his own death than otherwise. ...

It is interesting that you claim to believe in some kind of spectrum of blame, some continuum, but later in your diatribe, there is this:

If Stephon had allowed himself to be arrested, ....

You would expect you to apply that spectrum so that it's not really Stephon disallowing himself from being arrested but in some part the police, but, no, you are putting complete blame on him...OR more likely you are making this claim to be offensive. It is after all quite offensive since he is dead, for you to claim he killed himself so his innocence or guilt in our liberal system of justice could not be discerned, when in reality it was the police who shot him 20 times. You know it's offensive and made sure that you used the name "Stephon" because Toni was finding that offensive, like you know the guy, have to call his brother a "hood rat" and accuse him of causing his own death...though you try to provide some cover earlier in your post that you can refer back to if anyone accuses you of that. At the very least, you must address your inconsistency. At the very least...

Oh and by the way, none of your pictures of black males and others is relevant to the police shooting Stephon Clark.

 

[LordKiran]

The only thing that is racially tinged is the double standard that says that blacks must be given a pass for such behavior. That attitude, the soft bogotry of low expectations, is what's really racist here. Unlike you, I do not think black people are incapable of acting in a civilized manner. And thus, when one of them doesn't, I condemn it.


If you mean wealth, Stevante is obviously not too hard up for money, given the very expensive headphones he is sporting.
But what's really going on here is the utter lack of class Stevante and his supporters are showing. And that kind of class has nothing to do with money, you can be poor as a church mouse and show class and be a rich motherfucker who is utterly classless (see Trump, Donald J.) Stevante has zero class.

in order to distract from how wrong he was and how embarrassed he should be for acting like a fool in a public forum.

It is Stevante who is acting a fool in a pubic forum. I have nothing to be embarrassed about.

Can you fill me in on how this is relevant to the conversation you were having and lost at?

Can you fill me in on what conversation you erroneously believe I "lost at"?

The post you made prior to this particular leaf of the conversation (Which was not relevant either actually...) Was you arguing that what happened to Trayvon Martin was justified because he had jewels in his pocket. LD rightfully called you out on this attack of Trayvon's character rather than the relevant actions of the person who wrongly killed him. This is what I find so amusing. You'll get butthurt when people bring your character into question and decry it as irrelevant personal attack but aren't willing to lend that same courtesy to others, as if Trayvon's character has any bearing as to whether it was okay for Zimmerman to hunt him down and shoot him. So why don't you go back to that post LD made and respond to it, or concede?

 

[laughing dog]

You meant to say "irrational".

No, as any rational person familiar with the English language would know.

Of course it is relevant whether Stephon knew he was pursued by police. If he was, then he bears a greater share of blame for his own death than otherwise.

Wrong again. It has no bearing on the police actions.

It is relevant because the narrative pushed by the family...

Wrong again. It has no bearing on the actions of the police.

No, setting the record straight about who Stephon Clark was is not a "smear". We went over that in other #BLM cases.

You werewrong then and are wrong now. Mr. Clark's record is irrelevant to the issue of whether the police actions are justified. Bringing up an irrelevant criminal record is an attempt to smear the victim as a victim - an attempt to paint the victim as deserving of his fate. You are only fooling yourself.

The dead guy's criminal record is very much relevant.

Not to the actions of the police. Wrong again.

Don't you find it interesting how tightly criminal record is correlated with probability of being shot by police? Do you think that's a coincidence?

I think you are confusing causation with correlation.

And yet they did have the right person.

They got lucky and their victims did not. But that makes the cases even more similar regardless of your pathetic attempts at denial.

You can only judge whether police actions were justified based on what they knew or should have known.

And "should have known" includes taking the time to find out, instead of blowing the unarmed victim away in less than 3 seconds.

Again, innocent until proven guilty is the standard in the court of law.

And yet you and other rape apologists trot that the alleged rapist is innocent until proven guilty. Sorry, you are only fooling yourself here.

 

[LordKiran]

It means impoverished blacks who live in the hood.

Impoverished? I would hardly describe him as such what with $200-$400 headphones.

It's really about culture. Culture that is characterized, among other things, by ostentatteous disrespect for authority. Hence the disturbing of the city council meeting. But also hence the hostile attitude toward police. This was hardly the only police shooting in Sacramento in recent years. #BLM Sacramento has condemned all of them. For example Adrienne Ludd tried to shoot deputies before they shot him, but #BLM still protested demanding "killer cops" be imprisoned and calling police racist even though they merely defended themselves.

Derec will likely try to play innocent and pretend we don't know what dog whistles are and say "Well it doesn't apply specifically to blacks" or some other bullshit, but it will be bullshit whatever its form.

Yeah, hood/ghetto in US parlance is mostly a black phenomenon, but then again, "hillbilly" or "redneck" or "trailer trash" are mostly white. That does not mean we should not criticize those cultures. And equally we must be able to talk honestly about negative cultural traits of some blacks, or we will get absolutely nowhere, out of overabudnance of political correctness.

You don't think people who are poor in America can't have nice things and still be poor? For all you know those headphones could have been a gift from someone more well off. For all you know he could have won them from a contest of some sort.

You know far less than you might like to imagine Derec. Far far less.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How would this situation have played out differently if it occurred in a police state?

He wouldn't have tried the "who, me?" bit.

Seriously, Loren? I mean WTF?

I'm sure Trump would be happy to facilitate your immigration to Russia or North Korea. I'll even throw you an online party if you decide to go. But this is America and good Americans take things like civil liberties, civil rights and the right to be in your own back yard without being gunned down by police who don't even bother to identify themselves as police very seriously.

What in the world are you talking about?

The question was what would have been different. I'm saying the difference would be he wouldn't have tried to play innocent with the security services--he would either have surrendered or fled, not tried to bullshit the security services.

- - - Updated - - -

All these folks who think running away is a sign of aggression and/or a crime deserving of a street execution must have been playground bullies as children.

How about paying a little attention to the facts?

His running is simply evidence he wasn't simply minding his own business in the back yard.

And he got shot for advancing on the police when they thought he was armed.

Really? If you are in your own backyard at night and some intruder you cannot see comes into the yard and begins shouting at you, your first impulse would not be to get inside as quickly as possible? If I had my phone on me, I'd have it out and be calling 911 and so would you, I'll bet.

Sounds like you've bought his garbage hook, line and sinker. The helicopter chased him--he wasn't just minding his own business in the back yard.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You can (a) raise your hand and they think the phone is a gun. *bang* (b) drop the phone and it makes a noise on the sidewalk. "He's shooting at us! Return fire quick!" (c) Try explaining the situation while they are yelling at you with increasingly physical threats. "Shut up and show your goddam hands. If you don't do exactly as I say, we will shoot you in the head! You have 3 seconds."

If you're worried about that, extend your arms out, not towards the police and lower the contents to the ground.

Gun safety 101: If someone is pointing a gun at you, make no sudden movements unless you have determined that your best chance is to go for a disarm.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let's stop pretending that Stephon didn't know that police were looking for him.

Why would we presume that he thought that they were? The report says this wasn't a manhunt but somebody having noticed him breaking car windows. Why wouldn't he think it was a rival gang member or just some thugs coming to harass or rob him? Would you presume some shadowy figures yelling at you and walking towards you were the police? I'd have doubts even if they did identity themselves as such.

Being followed by a whirlybird makes it extremely likely that it's the police.

His error wasn't so much fleeing (they really shouldn't shoot people for running away) but turning and coming towards the officers with what they guessed was a gun.

Correct. It's very rare to get shot for running away. (And when people are shot for "running away" it generally involves dropping something and trying to catch it.) Advancing on someone pointing a gun at you is a very good way to get shot, though.

Also noticed it said the helicopter spotted someone, but didn't say, and certainly didn't show, them seeing him doing anything illegal.

Did I misread? I thought it said he was spotted breaking windows? If he wasn't and was just some random guy then this is even more crazy.

The shooting-blacks-is-always-wrong crowd is trying to pretend he's an innocent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And in both cases, the officers rushed into a situation, putting everyone into potential danger.

That really is the big failing here. Why would the police not get out a megaphone and talk to him or something instead of rushing in on him guns blazing? This isn't a case of him sneaking up on the officers. It isn't a case of him being an imminent threat to anybody before they charged in. They had all the space and time they needed to approach things safely.

Your approach works only if they have containment. In this sort of case a stand back approach could easily turn into a hostage situation.

 

[LordKiran]

And in both cases, the officers rushed into a situation, putting everyone into potential danger.

That really is the big failing here. Why would the police not get out a megaphone and talk to him or something instead of rushing in on him guns blazing? This isn't a case of him sneaking up on the officers. It isn't a case of him being an imminent threat to anybody before they charged in. They had all the space and time they needed to approach things safely.

Your approach works only if they have containment. In this sort of case a stand back approach could easily turn into a hostage situation.

Which is somehow worse than wrongly killing someone?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You don't think people who are poor in America can't have nice things and still be poor? For all you know those headphones could have been a gift from someone more well off. For all you know he could have won them from a contest of some sort.

You know far less than you might like to imagine Derec. Far far less.

If you're poor and economically sensible and somehow come to own a luxury good like this there's e-Bay or even Craigslist.

 

[RavenSky]

Remember back in the other threads (like metoo movement threads and threads about rapists who are white guys), Derec and Loren talk about defendants as innocent until proven guilty? ...and how those white men are victimized because they haven't had a trial yet, like we're a court that must presume innocence no matter what when we write on the Internets? Then I say, "why don't you call black men innocent until proven guilty?" Well, here we go again...

I am reminded of the Professor Gates incident as I read posts about this one. Remember the phone call to 911 that some guy was trying to break into a house. He had suitcases and coming back from vacation.

So how does a phone call prove his guilt? Maybe. Maybe he tried to break into a car. Or maybe it was his own car like the black guy taking out his own garbage had someone call police on him. Then he took a shortcut back to his house. Or maybe he was avoiding police. Maybe.

Derec and Loren sure are certain this black male was guilty, though. Just like how Loren said Trayvon was breaking into houses. You won't hear any backpedaling or apologies for no presumption of innocence. Just raw, unadulterated inconsistency.

^^^ that 100000x