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

[Derec]

In other words, your position is that poor people don't deserve nice things... not even as gifts.

There is having nice things and then there are headphones for several hundred dollars.

Bullshit.

As YOU said... maybe $200 - $300 new.

Way to split hairs RavenSky. Two to three hundred are still some very pricey headphones.

 

[Derec]

Whirlybirds often fly around. When one is low to the ground and moving with you figure you're being followed. Especially if you were doing something that would attract the interest of a police chopper.

I have encountered a police chopper low and moving slowly exactly once--and I correctly identified which house they were interested in despite the lack of a spotlight or even a good look at it. (They were actually interested in an armed robber that had bailed and gone to ground there.)

Reminds me of that scene in Goodfellas.
Last Day as a Wiseguy

 

[Derec]

1. You don't know he bought them. I say he received them as a gift (with just as much authority as you have)

You have no reason to believe that.

2. So what

It's a messed up state of affairs when people receiving benefits end up having nicer shit than people paying for those benefits.

3. You only harp on this because he is black

Wrong.

 

[Derec]

1. Care to substantiate that with some data? I note your purposefully vague qualifier. "Often" is the sort of thing you say when you have no idea how prevalent something is and so you need to hedge your bets, which signals to me that you don't know what you're talking about.

I do not have data per se, which is why I used the qualitative term "often". But it is certainly not uncommon for people to live beyond their means.
Here is an (sympathetic) article specifically about blacks and conspicuous consumption.
Shopping While Black: Is Conspicuous Consumption Related to Black-White Wealth Gap?

A poor black single mother in a ghetto underclass community may think spending hundreds of dollars on a toddler’s sneakers and jeans is perfectly rational behavior. A middle-aged black working-class man may judge it rational to spend $600 a month to lease a luxury car, even when he does not own his own home. Neither of them can reasonably compete with a rich person who signals success to his peers by expanding his home and land, buying expensive art, or investing in the stock market.

Of course, Alternet being what it is is blaming whitey for it all ...

We have previously discussed this article, this time about a white family.
Rental America: Why the poor pay $4,150 for a $1,500 sofa

2. Whether or not something is probable is entirely beside the point. The point is you don't know, so why act like you do?

Often in life, all we have are probabilities, not certainties. This improbable "it could have been a gift" is the go-to answer of certain posters on here whenever the subject of irresponsible spending on luxury goods in broached.

 

[LordKiran]

I do not have data per se, which is why I used the qualitative term "often". But it is certainly not uncommon for people to live beyond their means.
Here is an (sympathetic) article specifically about blacks and conspicuous consumption.
Shopping While Black: Is Conspicuous Consumption Related to Black-White Wealth Gap?

Of course, Alternet being what it is is blaming whitey for it all ...

We have previously discussed this article, this time about a white family.
Rental America: Why the poor pay $4,150 for a $1,500 sofa

2. Whether or not something is probable is entirely beside the point. The point is you don't know, so why act like you do?

Often in life, all we have are probabilities, not certainties. This improbable "it could have been a gift" is the go-to answer of certain posters on here whenever the subject of irresponsible spending on luxury goods in broached.

I didn't say it was a gift. I didn't even say I thought it was a gift. I said that you don't know it wasn't, so for you to ascribe irresponsibility to him when you don't know the circumstances surrounding the issue just makes you look incredibly ignorant and prejudiced.(Probably because you are )

 

[Derec]

Apparently Stephon aka Zoe didn't like black women much.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Apparently Stephon aka Zoe didn't like black women much.

This is completely irrelevant. I made a separate thread for you:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-person-was-Stephon-Clark&p=524111#post524111

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

Didn’t know it was possible, but my eyeballs just barfed.

Then get some better eyeballs.

My doctor is trying.

Trying containment on a suspect when there are innocents within the containment is just asking for them to take those innocents hostage.

I didn't say the Police should lay siege to the property. I said they shouldn't have burst into the situation without thinking. They put their lives in danger and then killed the person to make certain they themselves didn't get harmed.

It's not liberal fantasyland where better thought on the part of those with the power will always produce a good answer.

I was more hoping for some level of thought, not no thought.

Reality is full of choices with no good option.

And yet, killings like this DON'T happen every day. So clearly, there are other options that were ignored, like "Not putting our lives in danger" and assessing the site first.

 

[LordKiran]

Apparently Stephon aka Zoe didn't like black women much.

See? Derail Derec at it again, galloping off into irrelevancy because he got rekt and can't admit it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There's a completely separate thread for Derec's derail. He hasn't posted in yet, though.

Regarding the killing and pertinent facts about it, Stephon Clark was shot six times in the back, independent autopsy finds.

 

[southernhybrid]

I was going to add a WaPo article that stated the man was shot in the back. I'll add it just to add more information.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/03/30/stephon-clark-was-shot-eight-times-mostly-in-his-back-according-to-autopsy-requested-by-his-family/?utm_term=.16742d35ec20

Stephon Clark, the unarmed 22-year-old killed by Sacramento police officers earlier this month, was shot eight times, with most of the bullets hitting him in the back, according to an independent autopsy requested by his family’s attorneys.

Bullets struck Clark in the neck, back and thigh, breaking bones and piercing his lung, said Bennet Omalu, a forensic pathologist. The bullets combined to make Clark “bleed massively,” Omalu said.

No wonder the cops turned off the sound of their recorders. No wonder they lied about what happened. They shot their victim in the back, and then lied about it. The sad thing is that its unlikely they will even be prosecuted.

Clark is one of at least 269 people fatally shot by police so far this year, according to The Washington Post’s database tracking such deaths. Since The Post began to track these shootings in January 2015, the Sacramento police have fatally shot six people. Including Clark, five of the six have been black men.

So, now it appears as if these cowardly police shot this unarmed man in the back. I don't understand how anyone can defend the actions of these police. Why didn't they use tasers before they decided that the young man was armed? Why did they shoot him in the back, 8 times no less? Why are some of you defending the actions of these incompetent police officers? The police in many parts of the US are totally out of control. They seem to think that the citizens are the enemy, perhaps because many of them are former military personnel, or perhaps because we have militarized our police departments. We should all be outraged! And, don't the police wear protective vests? Why are they such cowards?

 

[Underseer]

Gosh, I read the headline and was able to predict the race of the victime before clicking on the thread. Golly, how is that possible?

- - - Updated - - -

I was going to add a WaPo article that stated the man was shot in the back. I'll add it just to add more information.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/03/30/stephon-clark-was-shot-eight-times-mostly-in-his-back-according-to-autopsy-requested-by-his-family/?utm_term=.16742d35ec20

Stephon Clark, the unarmed 22-year-old killed by Sacramento police officers earlier this month, was shot eight times, with most of the bullets hitting him in the back, according to an independent autopsy requested by his family’s attorneys.

Bullets struck Clark in the neck, back and thigh, breaking bones and piercing his lung, said Bennet Omalu, a forensic pathologist. The bullets combined to make Clark “bleed massively,” Omalu said.

No wonder the cops turned off the sound of their recorders. No wonder they lied about what happened. They shot their victim in the back, and then lied about it. The sad thing is that its unlikely they will even be prosecuted.

Clark is one of at least 269 people fatally shot by police so far this year, according to The Washington Post’s database tracking such deaths. Since The Post began to track these shootings in January 2015, the Sacramento police have fatally shot six people. Including Clark, five of the six have been black men.

So, now it appears as if these cowardly police shot this unarmed man in the back. I don't understand how anyone can defend the actions of these police. Why didn't they use tasers before they decided that the young man was armed? Why did they shoot him in the back, 8 times no less? Why are some of you defending the actions of these incompetent police officers? The police in many parts of the US are totally out of control. They seem to think that the citizens are the enemy, perhaps because many of them are former military personnel, or perhaps because we have militarized our police departments. We should all be outraged! And, don't the police wear protective vests? Why are they such cowards?

Fake News!!!!!!! [/lampoon]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I was going to add a WaPo article that stated the man was shot in the back. I'll add it just to add more information.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/03/30/stephon-clark-was-shot-eight-times-mostly-in-his-back-according-to-autopsy-requested-by-his-family/?utm_term=.16742d35ec20

Stephon Clark, the unarmed 22-year-old killed by Sacramento police officers earlier this month, was shot eight times, with most of the bullets hitting him in the back, according to an independent autopsy requested by his family’s attorneys.

Bullets struck Clark in the neck, back and thigh, breaking bones and piercing his lung, said Bennet Omalu, a forensic pathologist. The bullets combined to make Clark “bleed massively,” Omalu said.

No wonder the cops turned off the sound of their recorders. No wonder they lied about what happened. They shot their victim in the back, and then lied about it. The sad thing is that its unlikely they will even be prosecuted.

Clark is one of at least 269 people fatally shot by police so far this year, according to The Washington Post’s database tracking such deaths. Since The Post began to track these shootings in January 2015, the Sacramento police have fatally shot six people. Including Clark, five of the six have been black men.

So, now it appears as if these cowardly police shot this unarmed man in the back. I don't understand how anyone can defend the actions of these police. Why didn't they use tasers before they decided that the young man was armed? Why did they shoot him in the back, 8 times no less? Why are some of you defending the actions of these incompetent police officers? The police in many parts of the US are totally out of control. They seem to think that the citizens are the enemy, perhaps because many of them are former military personnel, or perhaps because we have militarized our police departments. We should all be outraged! And, don't the police wear protective vests? Why are they such cowards?

It was an independent autopsy (which LP and Derec will read as “biased” and “not trustworthy”).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Then get some better eyeballs.

Trying containment on a suspect when there are innocents within the containment is just asking for them to take those innocents hostage. It's not liberal fantasyland where better thought on the part of those with the power will always produce a good answer. Reality is full of choices with no good option.

Your responses are based on some bs fantasy in your mind. What possible hostage situation - Mr. Clark was in the backyard by himself. He was unarmed. He was not attacking anyone. And the police opened up a fussilade of fire in less than 3 seconds.

Sorry, but what the police did in this case was wrong in every sense of the word. But the usual suspects will go to any lengths to defend the killing of a black suspect by the police with the usual character smears and smokescreens about the family members of the victims.

He easily could have entered the house. The cops had no idea who was in the house.

Now, in this case the occupant was a family member making a hostage situation unlikely but how would the cops know that?

Containment is only a good option when it is basically complete.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was going to add a WaPo article that stated the man was shot in the back. I'll add it just to add more information.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/03/30/stephon-clark-was-shot-eight-times-mostly-in-his-back-according-to-autopsy-requested-by-his-family/?utm_term=.16742d35ec20

Stephon Clark, the unarmed 22-year-old killed by Sacramento police officers earlier this month, was shot eight times, with most of the bullets hitting him in the back, according to an independent autopsy requested by his family’s attorneys.

Bullets struck Clark in the neck, back and thigh, breaking bones and piercing his lung, said Bennet Omalu, a forensic pathologist. The bullets combined to make Clark “bleed massively,” Omalu said.

No wonder the cops turned off the sound of their recorders. No wonder they lied about what happened. They shot their victim in the back, and then lied about it. The sad thing is that its unlikely they will even be prosecuted.

Clark is one of at least 269 people fatally shot by police so far this year, according to The Washington Post’s database tracking such deaths. Since The Post began to track these shootings in January 2015, the Sacramento police have fatally shot six people. Including Clark, five of the six have been black men.

So, now it appears as if these cowardly police shot this unarmed man in the back. I don't understand how anyone can defend the actions of these police. Why didn't they use tasers before they decided that the young man was armed? Why did they shoot him in the back, 8 times no less? Why are some of you defending the actions of these incompetent police officers? The police in many parts of the US are totally out of control. They seem to think that the citizens are the enemy, perhaps because many of them are former military personnel, or perhaps because we have militarized our police departments. We should all be outraged! And, don't the police wear protective vests? Why are they such cowards?

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I was going to add a WaPo article that stated the man was shot in the back. I'll add it just to add more information.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/03/30/stephon-clark-was-shot-eight-times-mostly-in-his-back-according-to-autopsy-requested-by-his-family/?utm_term=.16742d35ec20



No wonder the cops turned off the sound of their recorders. No wonder they lied about what happened. They shot their victim in the back, and then lied about it. The sad thing is that its unlikely they will even be prosecuted.




So, now it appears as if these cowardly police shot this unarmed man in the back. I don't understand how anyone can defend the actions of these police. Why didn't they use tasers before they decided that the young man was armed? Why did they shoot him in the back, 8 times no less? Why are some of you defending the actions of these incompetent police officers? The police in many parts of the US are totally out of control. They seem to think that the citizens are the enemy, perhaps because many of them are former military personnel, or perhaps because we have militarized our police departments. We should all be outraged! And, don't the police wear protective vests? Why are they such cowards?

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.

404 NOT FOUND

The Princess is in another castle

All your base are belong to us

*CRASH*

blink blink

*reboot*

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Okay, I’m back. What in the fuck are you talking about? Two officers shoot a person in the back after just a couple seconds of ‘interaction’ which amounted to blurts... and your imagination can come up with how it is less likely a legit shooting with one cop, but legit with more than one?

You are famed for your absurd hypotheticals, but I think even this is going to be too hard for you.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Okay, I’m back. What in the fuck are you talking about? Two officers shoot a person in the back after just a couple seconds of ‘interaction’ which amounted to blurts... and your imagination can come up with how it is less likely a legit shooting with one cop, but legit with more than one?

You are famed for your absurd hypotheticals, but I think even this is going to be too hard for you.

Maybe they thought he was wearing all his clothes backward to fool them.

[/Loren]

 

[laughing dog]

He easily could have entered the house.

Your basis for this conclusion is....?

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 need to explain this is in more detail, because as written, it is ridiculous.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Fast forward to about 1:20. You can see how most shots would have been in the back. The police were above him since they were standing. He was in a kind of crawl position at shot#1. Then immediately he was laying flat. All or most of the other shots would have hit him in the back, back of the head, back of legs etc. A small number could in theory enter from the side.

What this has to do with Loren's bullshit excuses, I have no idea.

ETA: watching the full video again several more times, I could have been mistaken about the first 1 or 2 shots. It seems like he could have been hit by 1 shot while standing, one while hunched over in a crawl position, and then 6 more times while laying on his stomach. The main point of vast majority of shots entering from the back still being valid and consistent with autopsy.