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

[Derec]

Really? If you are in your own backyard at night

You are misrepresenting the situation again. He wasn't just in the backyard, he literally just got there by jumping over the fence from the neighbor's yard. Which necessitated him climbing onto some object or structure in neighbor's yard.

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?

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

If I had my phone on me, I'd have it out and be calling 911 and so would you, I'll bet.

Was he calling 911? Citation needed.

It was 7 seconds, Loren, from the time the police entered the yard until Clark was dead and even then they wouldn't stop barking orders at him and never identified themselves as officers.

It was more like 20s between officers first seeing Stephon and him taking off running and the officers opening fire. When exactly he died is uncertain.

As you pointed out, there was a helicopter overhead, so why wouldn't an innocent person think that the person shouting at them in the dark, threatening them was the same person the police were looking for?

Because he is the person they were looking for.

He got shot for turning toward the police to show them he had no weapon. That is just as likely as what you are claiming, especially since HE HAD NO WEAPON.

But he didn't just turn around but also started walking toward them. And he did not drop the object he was holding, showing his empty hands.

 

[barbos]

I am all for police being less loose with their guns, but this is clearly a case of individual who is at the bottom 5% of IQ distribution.
It's a lot of people and they die at much higher rate, all according to Darwin.
And I would like to point out that OP should get some kind of prize for creating completely false impression about incident.

 

[Toni]

You are misrepresenting the situation again. He wasn't just in the backyard, he literally just got there by jumping over the fence from the neighbor's yard. Which necessitated him climbing onto some object or structure in neighbor's yard.

So? You've never taken a short cut through someone's yard? Hopped a fence? I have. And yet I wasn't being chased by anyone, much less the police. The thing is, in the video, he doesn't look like he's running from the police.

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

I have no idea if the police were looking for Clark or not. I have no idea if he thought they were looking for him or not. Neither do you.

Nor do you have any right to refer to this man you've never met by his first name, as you are want to do when that person is black and preferably deceased. It's disrespectful, which is why you do it. It's unnecessary. It makes you look like a petty racist who has to rely on such tactics to make himself look big. Did you get that from Fox news?

If I had my phone on me, I'd have it out and be calling 911 and so would you, I'll bet.

Was he calling 911? Citation needed.

That is as likely as what you've provided.

It was 7 seconds, Loren, from the time the police entered the yard until Clark was dead and even then they wouldn't stop barking orders at him and never identified themselves as officers.

It was more like 20s between officers first seeing Stephon and him taking off running and the officers opening fire. When exactly he died is uncertain.

I find it hard to believe that if you were standing in your back yard at night in the dark and multiple people rushed in shouting at you in an extremely hostile manner that you would not run towards the back door.

As you pointed out, there was a helicopter overhead, so why wouldn't an innocent person think that the person shouting at them in the dark, threatening them was the same person the police were looking for?

Because he is the person they were looking for.

Gonna need more than your assumption here.

He got shot for turning toward the police to show them he had no weapon. That is just as likely as what you are claiming, especially since HE HAD NO WEAPON.

But he didn't just turn around but also started walking toward them. And he did not drop the object he was holding, showing his empty hands.

And the police didn't identify themselves. Anybody who is so terrified when someone walks towards them--that they told to walk towards them! that they open fire, lie about the number of shots fired (they say 5-7 shots; it was 20. Yeah, I know: adrenaline. In your mind, police are allowed to be frightened or confused. Ordinary citizens who have done nothing wrong are not) should not be allowed to be police officers or to touch firearms. Ever.


Personally, I avoid dropping my cellphone because if it breaks, it's hella expensive to replace.

 

[Frikki]

CNN quotes his brother saying:

"He was arrested before, but he's been different lately, he really changed his life. He was a people person who everybody wanted to be around. We came from underprivileged, broken homes, but he didn't care about nothing else but his kids."

The "he was turning his life around" is a bit of a cliche in these types of cases, right up there with "church every week" and "aspiring rapper".

Other than breaking into cars, what did Stephon Clark do for a living anyway?

I would think that you, an admitted criminal would be sympathetic to people turning their lives around.

 

[Frikki]

Automatically??

The guy was breaking into cars. The cops chased him. There's little doubt he was the right guy.

Oh that's right. You will defend cops no matter what they do.

Mostly when the kill brown people. But remember that Loren has described himself as a libertarian but at the same time worships authority.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

 

[Toni]

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.

Inconsistency? Is that what we're calling it these days????

 

[marc]

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?

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

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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."

 

[barbos]

Watched the video and got an idea how to fix it. I think first time criminals should be trained on how to get arrested properly.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

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.

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.

 

[laughing dog]

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

Whether he knew or not is irrelevant. Just like whether or not he has a criminal record is irrelevant. What is relevant are the actions of the Mr. Clark and of the police. Mr. Clark, like Tamir Rice, was not given much time at all to comply with the shouted orders of the police. Mr. Clark, like Tamir Rice, was unarmed but yet gunned down.

Police have a difficult job - there is no doubt about that. But police who quickly gun down unarmed people who pose no immediate threat are a danger to the public. These officers screwed up and they killed a civilian. Even if one thinks their mistakes were innocent and understandable, that does not make them justified.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

Whether he knew or not is irrelevant. Just like whether or not he has a criminal record is irrelevant. What is relevant are the actions of the Mr. Clark and of the police. Mr. Clark, like Tamir Rice, was not given much time at all to comply with the shouted orders of the police. Mr. Clark, like Tamir Rice, was unarmed but yet gunned down.

In this and the Rice cases, neither were armed and knew they didn't represent a threat to the police. Even in this case, we hear arguments from some about how they acted or moved in a certain way to grab something, which makes little sense as they couldn't be grabbing for a gun. Therefore the threat implied by officers was incorrect. And in both cases, the officers rushed into a situation, putting everyone into potential danger.

Regardless what the dead person did or didn't do in the minutes prior, he and Rice did nothing that warranted being killed.

Police have a difficult job - there is no doubt about that. But police who quickly gun down unarmed people who pose no immediate threat are a danger to the public. These officers screwed up and they killed a civilian. Even if one thinks their mistakes were innocent and understandable, that does not make them justified.

Police apprehend lots of people, and most of them aren't killed in the process. It seems unlikely that in all those cases those that were apprehended weren't holding a phone, moved a little, walked a little, etc...

The officers in this case made several bad decisions that ultimately led to this person dying, and for at worst, destruction of property.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.

Huh in this case? He was running, jumping a fence and it was late at night. The helicopter was directing them where to go.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Huh in this case? He was running, jumping a fence and it was late at night. The helicopter was directing them where to go.

The pursuit was as if he was guilty of a violent crime and presented an existing dangerous threat to the general public.

If some idiot broke the windows on my car or house, I'd hope they be apprehended and held accountable, not killed.

 

[Derec]

So? You've never taken a short cut through someone's yard? Hopped a fence? I have.

Not since I was a child. And there was no shortcut here. I already posted the link to the Google map of grandma's house. There is no shortcut coming from the yard to the north. If he was coming from Twilight Dr. he could cut through the empty lot, I guess, but then he would be hopping the fence directly from the empty lot to grandma's yard.
No, the "shortcut" dog won't hunt. I see no reason to disbelieve the police story that he was breaking windows and that the helicopter tracked him and directed officers to grandma's house to apprehend the suspect. Stephon's extensive (for a 22 year old) criminal record certainly increases the chances of that being correct.

And yet I wasn't being chased by anyone, much less the police.

Yes, but you were not breaking windows, unlike Stephon.

The thing is, in the video, he doesn't look like he's running from the police.

Really? It does to me.

I have no idea if the police were looking for Clark or not. I have no idea if he thought they were looking for him or not. Neither do you.

Not 100%, but 95-99% yes.

Nor do you have any right to refer to this man you've never met by his first name, as you are want to do when that person is black and preferably deceased.

Really? I have no right? Says who? Are only black people allowed to use other black people's first names? Is it like n-word privileges?

Are you sure the girl holding the sign knew St. Stephon personally? Or is it ok because she has a politically correct slightly brown complexion and even more politically correct hijab?
What is the maximum albedo my skin must have for me to have the right to refer to Stephon by his first name?

It's disrespectful, which is why you do it. It's unnecessary.

Would you prefer I call him Zoe?

It makes you look like a petty racist who has to rely on such tactics to make himself look big. Did you get that from Fox news?

So now using first names is "racist"? Un-fucking-believable!

That is as likely as what you've provided.

Nope. A convicted robber and thief being observed breaking car windows and being tracked by police via helicopter is much more likely than your "dindu nuffin" scenario.

I find it hard to believe that if you were standing in your back yard at night in the dark and multiple people rushed in shouting at you in an extremely hostile manner that you would not run towards the back door.

Again, he wasn't just standing in his back yard.

And the police didn't identify themselves.

Yes, I acknowledge that. However, since he was running from police already (and again, your "shortcut" apologetics does not hold water) who is he going to think they were?

Anybody who is so terrified when someone walks towards them--that they told to walk towards them! that they open fire, lie about the number of shots fired (they say 5-7 shots; it was 20. Yeah, I know: adrenaline. In your mind, police are allowed to be frightened or confused. Ordinary citizens who have done nothing wrong are not) should not be allowed to be police officers or to touch firearms. Ever.

Why do you assume Zoe did nothing wrong?

Personally, I avoid dropping my cellphone because if it breaks, it's hella expensive to replace.

Less costly than getting holes in you though.

 

[Derec]

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?

In this case it is the cops who are (potential) defendants. And thus they deserve presumption of innocence. Of course, many posters here have already decided it was "murder".

...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 have called black men innocent until proven guilty. One of the cops who killed St. Stephon is black for example. And I have argued against prejudging a black college student (likely falsely) accused of rape at FSU a few years ago. And I supposed the five innocent black college students falsely accused of rape at Hofstra. This has nothing to do with race.

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.

Gates could have handled it differently. As I recall he did have to force his door open, which of course looked suspicious to a neighbor. When police came to investigate, Gates was belligerent and immediately played the race card even though the issue could have been resolved in about 10s by him showing his damn id. Gates had (has?) a chip on his shoulder about race.'
As you said, he was coming home from vacation. Wouldn't he want police to investigate potential break-ins while the house was unoccupied? Wouldn't he want his neighbors to report potential break-ins to police while the house was unoccupied?

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.

Who was taking out garbage?
Also, there was no shortcut (look at the damn map, I post stuff for a reason!), so let's quit with that particular apologetics. And no, a phone call does not prove guilt. But police still have to investigate. And if you run, you increase your chances of things going south.
And lastly, he broke windows of several cars and a house. That is not consistent with the apologetics that he was trying to get into his own car (and you would not do it by breaking the window anyway).

Police said two items that could be the "tool bar" that deputies in the helicopter saw were recovered from near the broken sliding glass door in the neighbor's yard: a cinder block and a piece of aluminum similar to what might be used for a gutter.
On Monday, police said Clark used the tool bar to shatter a sliding glass door one house away from where he was shot. Police also said in a release that they believe Clark broke the windows of at least three nearby vehicles.

And note Stephon's criminal record. He has a history of stealing shit. He was just released from prison a month before his death.

Derec and Loren sure are certain this black male was guilty, though.

Given the totality of the evidence, it is very likely. Of course, had he survived he'd still enjoy presumption of innocence and would have his day in court. But the same should apply to police.

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.

Trayvon did likely break into a house in Miami. That's where he got that jewelry school police officers found on him.

Btw, Don2, are you black? I am asking because Toni thinks whitey has no "right" to refer to black people by their first names. She wants you to say "Mr. Martin" or else you are "racist".

 

[Derec]

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.

Rival gangs do not have helicopters. If it wasn't the police though, a more likely scenario than "rival gangs" would be the owners of the cars he vandalized coming after him.

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.

Well his error did start with fleeing. But I agree, it is the turning around, coming at officers with an object in his hand that caused the shooting.

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.

No, he wasn't just some random guy.

 

[Derec]

Whether he knew or not is irrelevant.

Really?

Just like whether or not he has a criminal record is irrelevant.

Of course it is relevant. It tells us what kind of a man Stephon was. He wasn't what his brother is feeding CNN and other mainstream media.

What is relevant are the actions of the Mr. Clark and of the police.

Yes, that is relevant too. Clark ran, than turned around and came toward police. Holding an object in the dark. Previously he jumped the fence from a neighbor's yard where he broke a glass door and before that he broke some car windows. All that is relevant.

Mr. Clark, like Tamir Rice, was not given much time at all to comply with the shouted orders of the police. Mr. Clark, like Tamir Rice, was unarmed but yet gunned down.

Very different scenarios. The only similarity is that in both cases the police thought the suspect had a gun - in Stephon's case because he was holding an object in the dark after running and turning around and in Tamir''s case because he had a realistic looking replica with orange tip removed.

Police have a difficult job - there is no doubt about that. But police who quickly gun down unarmed people who pose no immediate threat are a danger to the public. These officers screwed up and they killed a civilian. Even if one thinks their mistakes were innocent and understandable, that does not make them justified.

If they made a reasonable mistake then the shooting may still be justified. Police should not be judged based on hindsight but based on information they had at the time, taking into account that they only had a very short time to make the "shoot or don't shoot" decision once the suspect turned around and came toward them.