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

[coloradoatheist]

No. Here is an article from the lawyer representing the family saying the opposite

https://www.colorlines.com/articles/stephon-clark-update-autopsy-inconsistent-officers-report-deputy-hits-activist-patrol-car

The attorney is disputing the police narrative that Mr. Clark was a threat not the video.

he says, "This independent autopsy affirms that Stephon was not a threat to police " The autopsy itself does not show that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No. Here is an article from the lawyer representing the family saying the opposite

https://www.colorlines.com/articles...ficers-report-deputy-hits-activist-patrol-car

The attorney is disputing the police narrative that Mr. Clark was a threat not the video.

he says, "This independent autopsy affirms that Stephon was not a threat to police " The autopsy itself does not show that.

True... it was him not having a gun or having had laid a finger on the officers that proved that.

 

[coloradoatheist]

he says, "This independent autopsy affirms that Stephon was not a threat to police " The autopsy itself does not show that.

True... it was him not having a gun or having had laid a finger on the officers that proved that.

Not necessarily, that only made it a bigger threat. But saying the autopsy proved it was wrong unless what we were saying was their thought process that being shot in the back meant he was facing away from the officers.

 

[Derec]

Your responses give no indication that you read post 242. If you had read it with at least grade school reading comprehension, you would have seen and understood and avoided embarrassing yourself with incorrect response.

I have. You have failed to show how that means that the family-ordered autopsy is "independent" even though it is directly connected to a party to the case. It is you who is embarrassing himself.

Until you provide evidence (which is not your kneejerk suspicions) to the contrary, yes it does.

I have explained, in detail, why it is not independent.

As I have shown, I am not misusing the term. Do you need someone to explain to you the 4 previously posted meanings?

Yes, you are misusing the term. None of the definitions state that dependence on family and their lawyers doesn't count. Neither definition states that it is only the dependence on police that counts. That's the point. You are completely ignoring the dependence of the autopsy on the family side, which has a vested interest in a particular result. Thus, their autopsy is not independent.

Not true. One can always find within 6 degrees of separation some tie-in.

In the case of the private autopsy there is no separation. So how can you say it is "independent" but FBI autopsy is not because there are "6 degrees of separation"?

If you had some evidence (suspicions do not count) that performer of the autopsy is either incompetent or a shill, you'd have presented it.

That is not necessary to show that the autopsy is not independent, and that those who call it that are full of shit.
I never claimed that the doctor performing the private autopsy is incompetent or a shill, but there is possibility of undue influence by the lawyer who hired him. Take the private autopsy of teenage robber Tyre King.
Tyre King 'more likely than not' running from Columbus police when fatally shot

A 13-year-old boy fatally shot by Columbus, Ohio, police last week was “more likely than not” running away from an officer at the time he was killed, according to an independent medical examiner retained by the child’s family. [...]
Diaz found that Tyre, who the examiner noted was 5ft tall and weighed less than 100lbs, died from three gunshot wounds, “any of which could be determined to have been cause of death”, according to the family’s statement. The wounds were found on his temple, collarbone and the left flank, the statement said.

Note that despite the fact that the shots all were to the side, the private (not independent, contrary to your and Guardian's misuse of the word!) examiner said that the kid was likely running away. That opinion is not backed up by any facts of the autopsy and is only due to the fact that the doctor knows where his bread is buttered.
Compare with the official autopsy, released later.
Full autopsy report released on Tyre King's death

Oritz's report said King was shot a total of three times, once in the left temple, once in the left chest, and once in the upper left abdomen. No evidence of drugs or alcohol was found.

The Columbus Division of Police said that officers, responding to a reported armed robbery, got into a foot chase with King. Police say King pulled a gun from his waistband" when officers attempted to take him and another male into custody. It was later determined the gun was a BB gun.

The autopsy describes the trajectory of each bullet was from left to right. It draws no conclusions about how the shooting took place.

The official autopsy merely lists facts about bullet trajectories and such. It does not offer speculation about what the suspect might have been doing at the moment he was shot.

But the speculation by the private doc did its job. He earned his keep. For a while, the "was likely running away" was at the center of discussion of the case. Root was harping about it even when the police officer was exonerated.
No Indictment: Ohio Grand Jury Finds Police Shooting of 13-Year-Old Tyre King ‘Justified’

]Which indicates you are simply exposing your bias. I cannot speak for the medical profession, but in my field, experts for hire depend on their integrity. You let the results speak for themselves. If the lawyer does not like your results, the lawyer does not use them.

You are the biased one. I acknowledge that both sides have a vested interest in the outcome of the case and thus neither can be described as independent. That does not mean either or both are doing anything wrong necessarily, but that doesn't change the fact that experts, including medical examiners, retained by a party to a case is by definition not independent.

Clearly not, since I have provided 4 meanings of the word "independent" that support my view (as well as the view of many others).

And neither supports your view. You could list 400 definitions and still your ridiculous view that an autopsy commissioned by one party is "independent" would not be supported.

I provided actual evidence (dictionary definitions) to show my stance is correct. All you have provided is suspicions. I can understand why a judgmental bigoted lover of police authority with his head up his ass would make the idiotic claim that providing documented supported evidence is a "biased rantings approach", but I cannot understand why you would do so.

You may have listed dictionary definitions but they do not support your view.

 

[Emily Lake]

In fact, I would trust the official autopsy, where an ME gets paid by county or state, more than where a physician is paid directly by the family or the lawyer.

You are more inclined to trust the opinion of the entity that is being accused of wrongdoing, than the opinion of an entity with no prior relationship to either the accused or the accuser?

- - - Updated - - -

But, even using your biased definition, then there is no independent autopsy possible since the coroner is part of the local gov't just like the police.

How is his definition biased? It treats both sides the same, as opposed to yours where an autopsy ordered and paid for by one of the parties, and thus directly connected to that party, is somehow "independent".

You do realize that the ME's autopsy is ordered and paid for by one of the parties too, don't you?

 

[Emily Lake]

No, it was not. It was "private" and "family ordered", both terms used by some more responsible media in place of misleading "independent".

It was independent of the police. It is consistent with the normal meaning of independent, especially in the context.

Nope. An autopsy directly connected to one of the parties is definitely not consistent with normal meaning of independent.

That makes the ME's autopsy very far from independent.

 

[Emily Lake]

No. Here is an article from the lawyer representing the family saying the opposite

https://www.colorlines.com/articles/stephon-clark-update-autopsy-inconsistent-officers-report-deputy-hits-activist-patrol-car

The attorney is disputing the police narrative that Mr. Clark was a threat not the video.

he says, "This independent autopsy affirms that Stephon was not a threat to police " The autopsy itself does not show that.

I would suspect that the autopsy shows that the majority of the gunshot wounds occurred after he was face-down on the pavement. Which also happens to coincide well with an interpretation of "not a threat"

- - - Updated - - -

he says, "This independent autopsy affirms that Stephon was not a threat to police " The autopsy itself does not show that.

True... it was him not having a gun or having had laid a finger on the officers that proved that.

Not necessarily, that only made it a bigger threat.

Pretty sure I've got to be misreading this... How does him not having a gun and not laying a finger on the officers make him a bigger threat?

 

[laughing dog]

I have. You have failed to show how that means that the family-ordered autopsy is "independent" even though it is directly connected to a party to the case.

You are conflating your inability to understand with a failure on my part to demonstrate. Here are the definitions shown before

1. not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself: an independent thinker.
2. not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free: an independent businessman.
3. not influenced by the thought or action of others: independent research.
4. not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc

You have not demonstrated that an expert opinion, let alone this one, is influenced by others or subject to another ‘s authority or influenced by the thought or action of others or that is not dependent or contingent upon something else for existence, etc… The point that is obvious to almost everyone in this thread is that the autopsy is independent of the police. That makes it clearly independent by the 2nd definition.

In the case of the private autopsy there is no separation. So how can you say it is "independent" but FBI autopsy is not because there are "6 degrees of separation"?

I am saying that according to your usage, no autopsy is independent. For the English-impaired, that means privately authorized and publicly authorized.

That is not necessary to show that the autopsy is not independent, and that those who call it that are full of shit.

Literally, you just admitted you are full of shit because you are saying the autopsy is not independent and that those who call it that are full of shit.

I never claimed that the doctor performing the private autopsy is incompetent or a shill, but there is possibility of undue influence by the lawyer who hired him.

Well, then you are claiming it may be the case the autopsy is not independent from the authorizing agent. Which means that it is incorrect to claim that a private autopsy is not independent from the authorizing agent by definition.

You don’t have to believe the results of an autopsy, even one whose results appear to visually confirmed by police video. But it is logically and linguistically incorrect to say such an autopsy is not independent. Not only is the autopsy independent in the sense that it is not influenced by the police, but there without any evidence about the performer of the autopsy, etc… it is not possible to make a definitive claim that the autopsy is not independent of the authorizing agent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

2) How about the state or the feds? I would consider either independent in a situation like this.

State - no. Feds - maybe.

This wasn't the state police doing it. Thus they are an uninvolved group.

 

[laughing dog]

2) How about the state or the feds? I would consider either independent in a situation like this.

State - no. Feds - maybe.

This wasn't the state police doing it. Thus they are an uninvolved group.

Riiight, because the state police do not tend to watch the backs of the locals.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But they weren't in a chase anymore. What is odd, is that after they shot the guy, they remained concealed, fearing the guy was playing dead, instead of bleeding out. So this location was good enough to remain concealed for their protection then, but not before jumping out and almost immediately blasting away without identifying themselves as cops?

The world is analog, not binary.

Remaining concealed was better than approaching.

I'm glad you agree. So why didn't they do that first, assess, and then try to apprehend? I can't imagine turning a blind corner with a potential suspect with a gun is police protocol.

Why don't you move to Somalia, then? You obviously want a place with no meaningful law enforcement. If the police can't chase a suspect around a corner there's no point in having them in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

Independent is being thrown around because it has a connotation of lacking bias. It shouldn't be used. Doctor hired to give a second opinion should be used.

Yeah, that's a much better term.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Independent is being thrown around because it has a connotation of lacking bias. It shouldn't be used. Doctor hired to give a second opinion should be used.

You might have had a point had it not already been further explained what was meant by "Independant" at this point continuing to quibble over the precise meaning of the word is something of a strawman.

I agree it's minor. We have to wait until the state performs their side of the autopsy and compare and see which one makes sense in terms of the evidence we do have. Even if we use Independent here, it doesn't mean they are right.

I don't see any reason to think the autopsy was wrong. The issue is the interpretation being put on the findings. Note that none of the "back" hits have exit wounds but the others went through. Since the two hits went through we can conclude that the police were not using fragmenting ammo for those rounds and thus almost certainly not for the other six, either. We know the bullets had enough energy to go straight through, so something else must have happened with the remaining 6--either they were stopped by a bone (note: deflection is more likely than simply being stopped) or they weren't headed straight through in the first place. I'm not buying all 6 stopped which means the latter case.

Now, how do we make the geometry work? We need a longer bullet path and the only way we can get that is if the bullet isn't coming in at anything like 90 degrees. I can see two ways (or a combination thereof) to make this work:

1) The bullet is approaching basically from the side. We do have one shot from the side that went through so this is certainly a possibility. However, the timing is problematic on this--why did he turn sideways and stand there?

2) The bullet is approaching from above. This makes far more sense if you figure those wounds came after the guy at least started to go down. It requires no unusual action on his part, the number of shots is well within what you can expect from human reaction times in deciding to cease fire.

Take the scenario that fits the facts and requires the least odd result.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm glad you agree. So why didn't they do that first, assess, and then try to apprehend? I can't imagine turning a blind corner with a potential suspect with a gun is police protocol.

Huh? If they have decided to chase then they still need to go where the suspect goes. They wouldn't hide at the side and then realize that there was no fence and the guy was gone.

They have eyes in the sky, and keeping cover isn't a dumb idea. In fact, it'd help save their lives, which is the purpose of not just jumping into things.

Until you're roasted on the nightly news when the cops stood by and allowed the crook to break into the house to take the little old lady hostage.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That is not necessary to show that the autopsy is not independent, and that those who call it that are full of shit.
I never claimed that the doctor performing the private autopsy is incompetent or a shill, but there is possibility of undue influence by the lawyer who hired him. Take the private autopsy of teenage robber Tyre King.
Tyre King 'more likely than not' running from Columbus police when fatally shot

A 13-year-old boy fatally shot by Columbus, Ohio, police last week was “more likely than not” running away from an officer at the time he was killed, according to an independent medical examiner retained by the child’s family. [...]
Diaz found that Tyre, who the examiner noted was 5ft tall and weighed less than 100lbs, died from three gunshot wounds, “any of which could be determined to have been cause of death”, according to the family’s statement. The wounds were found on his temple, collarbone and the left flank, the statement said.

Note that despite the fact that the shots all were to the side, the private (not independent, contrary to your and Guardian's misuse of the word!) examiner said that the kid was likely running away. That opinion is not backed up by any facts of the autopsy and is only due to the fact that the doctor knows where his bread is buttered.
Compare with the official autopsy, released later.
Full autopsy report released on Tyre King's death

Oritz's report said King was shot a total of three times, once in the left temple, once in the left chest, and once in the upper left abdomen. No evidence of drugs or alcohol was found.

The Columbus Division of Police said that officers, responding to a reported armed robbery, got into a foot chase with King. Police say King pulled a gun from his waistband" when officers attempted to take him and another male into custody. It was later determined the gun was a BB gun.

The autopsy describes the trajectory of each bullet was from left to right. It draws no conclusions about how the shooting took place.

The official autopsy merely lists facts about bullet trajectories and such. It does not offer speculation about what the suspect might have been doing at the moment he was shot.

But the speculation by the private doc did its job. He earned his keep. For a while, the "was likely running away" was at the center of discussion of the case. Root was harping about it even when the police officer was exonerated.
No Indictment: Ohio Grand Jury Finds Police Shooting of 13-Year-Old Tyre King ‘Justified’

Note that they aren't actually even incompatible. The 13 year old very well might have been running away. Pulling a weapon is a far bigger indication of intent than running away. Pull a weapon in a police encounter and you should expect to get shot.

 

[Emily Lake]

2) How about the state or the feds? I would consider either independent in a situation like this.

State - no. Feds - maybe.

This wasn't the state police doing it. Thus they are an uninvolved group.

Your conclusion does not follow.

Just for consideration, the autopsy was performed by Bennet Omalu, the former chief medical examiner for San Joaquin County. Is it your opinion that he lost all credibility and professionalism when he stopped working for the county?

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm glad you agree. So why didn't they do that first, assess, and then try to apprehend? I can't imagine turning a blind corner with a potential suspect with a gun is police protocol.

Why don't you move to Somalia, then? You obviously want a place with no meaningful law enforcement. If the police can't chase a suspect around a corner there's no point in having them in the first place.

Jesus fucking christ man! Meaningful Law Enforcement isn't synonymous with needlessly killing people out of sheer stupidity and panic! For fuck's sake, the rest of the developed world seems to be doing okay on this!

I want responsible law enforcement. Which doesn't seem like it should be too unreasonable an ask.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm glad you agree. So why didn't they do that first, assess, and then try to apprehend? I can't imagine turning a blind corner with a potential suspect with a gun is police protocol.

Why don't you move to Somalia, then? You obviously want a place with no meaningful law enforcement. If the police can't chase a suspect around a corner there's no point in having them in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

Independent is being thrown around because it has a connotation of lacking bias. It shouldn't be used. Doctor hired to give a second opinion should be used.

Yeah, that's a much better term.

Okay, fine, the police should recklessly charge around blind corners into gunfire so that their wife can get a roasted ham and a folded flag. Happy?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I agree it's minor. We have to wait until the state performs their side of the autopsy and compare and see which one makes sense in terms of the evidence we do have. Even if we use Independent here, it doesn't mean they are right.

I don't see any reason to think the autopsy was wrong. The issue is the interpretation being put on the findings. Note that none of the "back" hits have exit wounds but the others went through. Since the two hits went through we can conclude that the police were not using fragmenting ammo for those rounds and thus almost certainly not for the other six, either. We know the bullets had enough energy to go straight through, so something else must have happened with the remaining 6--either they were stopped by a bone (note: deflection is more likely than simply being stopped) or they weren't headed straight through in the first place. I'm not buying all 6 stopped which means the latter case.

Now, how do we make the geometry work? We need a longer bullet path and the only way we can get that is if the bullet isn't coming in at anything like 90 degrees. I can see two ways (or a combination thereof) to make this work:

1) The bullet is approaching basically from the side. We do have one shot from the side that went through so this is certainly a possibility. However, the timing is problematic on this--why did he turn sideways and stand there?

2) The bullet is approaching from above. This makes far more sense if you figure those wounds came after the guy at least started to go down. It requires no unusual action on his part, the number of shots is well within what you can expect from human reaction times in deciding to cease fire.

Number 2 where he is laying down dying fits the facts best.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This wasn't the state police doing it. Thus they are an uninvolved group.

Your conclusion does not follow.

Just for consideration, the autopsy was performed by Bennet Omalu, the former chief medical examiner for San Joaquin County. Is it your opinion that he lost all credibility and professionalism when he stopped working for the county?

That they are willing to be a hired gun for a lawyer strongly suggests they have lost their credibility.

If you don't provide the report your plaintiff wants you're not likely to get hired again.

It's the same problem that binding arbitration has--your ability to get future clients depends on what you say in previous decisions.

It's the same problem that hits the home inspection industry--things have to be pretty bad before a realtor-recommended inspector says a house is a problem. Realtors want inspectors that will say yes, not ones that will tell the truth.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm glad you agree. So why didn't they do that first, assess, and then try to apprehend? I can't imagine turning a blind corner with a potential suspect with a gun is police protocol.

Why don't you move to Somalia, then? You obviously want a place with no meaningful law enforcement. If the police can't chase a suspect around a corner there's no point in having them in the first place.

Jesus fucking christ man! Meaningful Law Enforcement isn't synonymous with needlessly killing people out of sheer stupidity and panic! For fuck's sake, the rest of the developed world seems to be doing okay on this!

I want responsible law enforcement. Which doesn't seem like it should be too unreasonable an ask.

The problem is you are making the standard liberal mistake of thinking there's a good answer for everything if you just look hard enough, and that therefore a bad outcome is always the result of the side with more power not doing it's job right.

 

[RavenSky]

so there are lone forensic doctors wandering the land, performing autopsies on random bodies for the heck of it? Do they at least ask permission before doing it?

^^^ that's what I was wondering, too. Apparently this is the only way to have an "independent autopsy"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

so there are lone forensic doctors wandering the land, performing autopsies on random bodies for the heck of it? Do they at least ask permission before doing it?

^^^ that's what I was wondering, too. Apparently this is the only way to have an "independent autopsy"

After the passing of Jack Klugman, I think the US lost its last one.