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

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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"

These random guys are on gofundme.com. They just don't take donations from anyone.

 

[Toni]

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

Loren, you clearly are unfamiliar with Dr. Omalu, who is quite renowned in his field(s).

I realize that anyone who dares to make any statement whatsoever that contradicts an official PD statement or in anyway casts any police officer in any bad light whatsoever has lost credibility with you.

But let's leave that aside: If a family hires a pathologist to autopsy a deceased loved one, does that mean that the pathologist has lost all credibility? Why is this true if a family hires the pathologist vs a county coroner's report? Is a county coroner similarly inclined to give the results that will support police? Why is this different?

Seriously, why?

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

So, a county coroner who prepares an autopsy report will provide the report the COUNTY wants?

I don't really know you in real life but please consider that some people actually have professional standards and professional ethics. Those might not exist or be easily found in your profession or in your area, but I assure you that I work with medical professionals every day and all of them take very seriously the duties and responsibilities of their profession. For you to suggest otherwise speaks volumes about you and says nothing about them.

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

So, obviously, you don't understand binding arbitration.

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.

Wow. Of course, people can do what I did and hire an independent house inspector. Does that mean that the inspector gave me the results I wanted? One did end up saving me quite a lot of money once by finding a problem and helping me ensure that it was properly taken care of before closing. I suppose you would find that corrupt.

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.

I'm going to assume that you wrote the above when it was late at night and you were really tired because it makes zero sense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren, you clearly are unfamiliar with Dr. Omalu, who is quite renowned in his field(s).

I realize that anyone who dares to make any statement whatsoever that contradicts an official PD statement or in anyway casts any police officer in any bad light whatsoever has lost credibility with you.

No. I'm saying that anyone whose job is being an expert witness has very little credibility.

So, a county coroner who prepares an autopsy report will provide the report the COUNTY wants?

You misunderstand. The coroner would have to be fired and that is going to require a basis, not merely not saying what they want. The expert witness who doesn't say what they want will have a hard time getting more clients.

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

So, obviously, you don't understand binding arbitration.

No, you don't understand. The big guys keep track of what various arbiters say. Rule against them and they're not going to want you next time. It's a big problem that's been discussed on here before.

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.

Wow. Of course, people can do what I did and hire an independent house inspector. Does that mean that the inspector gave me the results I wanted? One did end up saving me quite a lot of money once by finding a problem and helping me ensure that it was properly taken care of before closing. I suppose you would find that corrupt.

Please note that I said "realtor-recommended". The problem doesn't exist if you go select one on your own.

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.

I'm going to assume that you wrote the above when it was late at night and you were really tired because it makes zero sense.

You might not like it but that doesn't change the pattern.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The coroner would have to be fired and that is going to require a basis, not merely not saying what they want. The expert witness who doesn't say what they want will have a hard time getting more clients.

This is pretty damning to prosecutions and defenses everywhere. Do you have some evidence for it?

 

[Toni]

No. I'm saying that anyone whose job is being an expert witness has very little credibility.

So, you do not know who Dr. Omalu is. Hint: He doesn't need the money.

You misunderstand. The coroner would have to be fired and that is going to require a basis, not merely not saying what they want. The expert witness who doesn't say what they want will have a hard time getting more clients.

No, I'm not misunderstanding anything. I'm calling you out.

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

So, obviously, you don't understand binding arbitration.

No, you don't understand. The big guys keep track of what various arbiters say. Rule against them and they're not going to want you next time. It's a big problem that's been discussed on here before.

Actually, I DO understand what an arbitrator is, what an arbitrator does, what binding arbitration is and how two parties might find themselves in binding arbitration.

You are the one with the problem of seeing corruption everywhere, if it doesn't fit your world view (authority = always right, especially if it's the police.)


Loren, it is increasingly obvious that you are viewing everyone else through your own personal standards. YOUR opinions may be altered for money but not everybody is like that. You may tailor your opinions to whoever is paying you but quite a few people are specifically paid to offer their own INDEPENDENT EXPERT opinion. And then there are those who render opinions regardless of who, if anyone is paying.

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.

I'm going to assume that you wrote the above when it was late at night and you were really tired because it makes zero sense.

You might not like it but that doesn't change the pattern.

That you aren't making sense?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, you do not know who Dr. Omalu is. Hint: He doesn't need the money.



No, I'm not misunderstanding anything. I'm calling you out.

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

So, obviously, you don't understand binding arbitration.

No, you don't understand. The big guys keep track of what various arbiters say. Rule against them and they're not going to want you next time. It's a big problem that's been discussed on here before.

Actually, I DO understand what an arbitrator is, what an arbitrator does, what binding arbitration is and how two parties might find themselves in binding arbitration.

You are the one with the problem of seeing corruption everywhere, if it doesn't fit your world view (authority = always right, especially if it's the police.)


Loren, it is increasingly obvious that you are viewing everyone else through your own personal standards. YOUR opinions may be altered for money but not everybody is like that. You may tailor your opinions to whoever is paying you but quite a few people are specifically paid to offer their own INDEPENDENT EXPERT opinion. And then there are those who render opinions regardless of who, if anyone is paying.

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.

I'm going to assume that you wrote the above when it was late at night and you were really tired because it makes zero sense.

You might not like it but that doesn't change the pattern.

That you aren't making sense?

You have apparently had your head in the sand for some time. It didn't take me long at all to find https://www.economist.com/news/lead...ployees-have-no-recourse-courts-problem-craze talking about the problems with arbitration.

 

[Toni]

So, you do not know who Dr. Omalu is. Hint: He doesn't need the money.



No, I'm not misunderstanding anything. I'm calling you out.

So, obviously, you don't understand binding arbitration.

No, you don't understand. The big guys keep track of what various arbiters say. Rule against them and they're not going to want you next time. It's a big problem that's been discussed on here before.

Actually, I DO understand what an arbitrator is, what an arbitrator does, what binding arbitration is and how two parties might find themselves in binding arbitration.

You are the one with the problem of seeing corruption everywhere, if it doesn't fit your world view (authority = always right, especially if it's the police.)


Loren, it is increasingly obvious that you are viewing everyone else through your own personal standards. YOUR opinions may be altered for money but not everybody is like that. You may tailor your opinions to whoever is paying you but quite a few people are specifically paid to offer their own INDEPENDENT EXPERT opinion. And then there are those who render opinions regardless of who, if anyone is paying.

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.

I'm going to assume that you wrote the above when it was late at night and you were really tired because it makes zero sense.

You might not like it but that doesn't change the pattern.

That you aren't making sense?

You have apparently had your head in the sand for some time. It didn't take me long at all to find https://www.economist.com/news/lead...ployees-have-no-recourse-courts-problem-craze talking about the problems with arbitration.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between binding arbitration and forced arbitration under which one party with less power gives up all rights to other remedies. I don't believe you actually read the article you liked. Quelle surprise.

From your link:

Arbitration works well when power is balanced between the two sides: in commercial disputes between big firms, say. But the balance between an employer and an employee, particularly in low-wage occupations, is often anything but even (see article). And whereas the judicial system is designed, at least in theory, to treat people equally before the law, mandatory arbitration puts employees at a further disadvantage.

Do you understand the difference between mandatory arbitration as part of an employment agreement and binding arbitration between two equal parties? Do you understand that there is a difference? It doesn't appear that you do.

 

[Malintent]

Jesus fucking christ. They handcuffed his corpse?

This is so tragic and so systemically wrong. And so vile.

Clearly showing you don't understand what's going on.

Only doctors pronounce death barring damage obviously incompatible with life.

Thus the cops have to consider the suspect alive. They're going to cuff.

(Note that in a triage situation cops may tag someone as "dead"--this is not a declaration of death. Rather, it is an analysis that when medical resources are overstretched that they should be directed towards the patients with a greater chance of being saved. Barring a sudden influx of a bunch of doctors a black tag is a death sentence, though.)

People complain about procedure only when the fragments of distorted information they have are inline with their imagination.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

That's a bit of a tautological approach, don't you think? It essentially means that the only examiners that you think have credibility are the ones being paid by the very entity who's actions are being questioned.

Have you considered why the lawyer hired an external examiner? It wasn't due to a lack of trust in the professional ethics of the examiner. It was due to the historical length of time that the police take to release the ME's findings to the public in cases like this. I would suspect that the findings of both the retired ME and the current ME would be in general agreement. As with any other doctor (and indeed most professions with oversight bodies), both are subject to the same standards of professional ethics.

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.

On the contrary, I make a considerable distinction between bad outcomes of otherwise good decisions, and bad decisions. This is a case of bad decisions being made by the police. And my assessment of the quality of decision-making has nothing to do with the power differential, but with very simple common sense, duty, and professionalism. There was no good reason for the police to open fire on a suspect who did not appear to have made any threatening moves and when the police were in cover. It was irresponsible of them, and that bad decision led to the death of an unarmed person.

There are many cases where I will take the side of the police - because sometimes bad outcomes occur despite a good decision being made.

+++++

Aside from that, your presumption of political ideology as a driver for my perspective is misplaced.

 

[Emily Lake]

No. I'm saying that anyone whose job is being an expert witness has very little credibility.

Have you ever even met someone who has served as expert witness? This is an awfully large blanket assumption with no basis in fact.

You misunderstand. The coroner would have to be fired and that is going to require a basis, not merely not saying what they want. The expert witness who doesn't say what they want will have a hard time getting more clients.

Bullshit. Most expert witnesses are engaged because they are trusted to give unbiased, objective, and professional findings.

Please note that I said "realtor-recommended". The problem doesn't exist if you go select one on your own.

But the problem DOES exist if this family goes and selects one on their own?

You might not like it but that doesn't change the pattern.

What pattern?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Have you ever even met someone who has served as expert witness? This is an awfully large blanket assumption with no basis in fact.

I haven't actually met any, but I've seen some of their reports. I've also seen the report get tweaked a little bit when it turns out the "victim" let slip something that meant the first version would sink their case.

But the problem DOES exist if this family goes and selects one on their own?

You really think they selected one on their own in this case?

 

[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"

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

 

[Toni]

Have you ever even met someone who has served as expert witness? This is an awfully large blanket assumption with no basis in fact.

I haven't actually met any, but I've seen some of their reports. I've also seen the report get tweaked a little bit when it turns out the "victim" let slip something that meant the first version would sink their case.

But the problem DOES exist if this family goes and selects one on their own?

You really think they selected one on their own in this case?

I would not be surprised of Dr. Omalu contacted the family and offered to perform the autopsy gratis.

 

[Emily Lake]

But the problem DOES exist if this family goes and selects one on their own?

You really think they selected one on their own in this case?

Seriously, their lawyer selected a well regarded and respected prior medical examiner. What point are you trying to make here?

 

[Derec]

Seriously, their lawyer selected a well regarded and respected prior medical examiner. What point are you trying to make here?

Even so, it still does not make the family autopsy independent. Do you think county examiners are not well regarded and respected?

In other news, Stevenate Clark, the one with the dope headphones, got himself arrested.
Update: Roommates say Stevante Clark arrest came after escalating dispute in their house

Stevante Clark, thrust into the spotlight last month after police killed his brother Stephon Clark, was arrested Thursday on four allegations that included suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon and making death threats, according to Sacramento County jail records.[..]
Alejandro Reylon Rouska said Thursday he and his girlfriend rented out a room of their Acacia Avenue home to Clark in January. They described Clark as unstable since his brother’s death.
Rouska said his girlfriend asked Clark late Monday to stop yelling at police through his bedroom window. Clark was angry at that request and continued to threaten the girlfriend’s life into Tuesday morning, Rouska said.
Clark refused to leave and the couple sought a restraining order after calling police several times, Rouska said. They stayed at a hotel for two nights.

 

[Emily Lake]

Seriously, their lawyer selected a well regarded and respected prior medical examiner. What point are you trying to make here?

Even so, it still does not make the family autopsy independent. Do you think county examiners are not well regarded and respected?

I think most county examiners are well regarded and respected. But I also note that the county examiner has yet to release the results from his/her examination. Do you expect the examinations to be in contradiction with each other? Or are you merely assuming that the not-paid-by-the-county examination is wrong because... reasons?

In other news, Stevenate Clark, the one with the dope headphones, got himself arrested.
Update: Roommates say Stevante Clark arrest came after escalating dispute in their house

Stevante Clark, thrust into the spotlight last month after police killed his brother Stephon Clark, was arrested Thursday on four allegations that included suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon and making death threats, according to Sacramento County jail records.[..]
Alejandro Reylon Rouska said Thursday he and his girlfriend rented out a room of their Acacia Avenue home to Clark in January. They described Clark as unstable since his brother’s death.
Rouska said his girlfriend asked Clark late Monday to stop yelling at police through his bedroom window. Clark was angry at that request and continued to threaten the girlfriend’s life into Tuesday morning, Rouska said.
Clark refused to leave and the couple sought a restraining order after calling police several times, Rouska said. They stayed at a hotel for two nights.

What's your point? Why do you feel this is relevant?

 

[Derec]

I think most county examiners are well regarded and respected. But I also note that the county examiner has yet to release the results from his/her examination. Do you expect the examinations to be in contradiction with each other? Or are you merely assuming that the not-paid-by-the-county examination is wrong because... reasons?

I was not assuming anything. I merely pointed out that calling family autopsy "independent" is erroneous.

But our long wait is over. Another independent¹ autopsy has been released.
Official Autopsy of Stephon Clark Questions Earlier Findings

Mr. Clark, 22, was hit by seven bullets, according to the report released Tuesday by the Sacramento County coroner’s office, not eight as a private autopsy, arranged for by Mr. Clark’s family, had found. According to the county report, three of the bullets entered Mr. Clark’s right side and three entered on the right side of his back. An additional bullet entered Mr. Clark’s left leg. The private autopsy found that most of the bullets had struck Mr. Clark in the back.
Dr. Gregory Reiber, a forensic pathologist whom Sacramento officials asked to review the autopsy conducted by the county, said the apparent sequence of the bullets does “not support the assertion that Clark was shot primarily from behind.” The private autopsy mistook one exit wound, to the left torso, for an entrance wound, Dr. Reiber said.
“This is a significant error, as it leads to incorrect conclusions regarding the relative positions of the victim and shooters during the event,” he said.

Autopsy by coroner sheds light on Sacramento police killing

A pathologist retained by the Sacramento County coroner says that's a crucial distinction because it shows the pathologist hired by the family of 22-year-old Stephon Clark mistook an exit wound for an eighth entry wound, creating an impression that police first shot Clark from the side or back.
Clark was most likely shot as he approached police, a conclusion that is consistent with the officers' story of the fatal encounter, Dr. Gregory Reiber wrote after reviewing the official autopsy along with video taken by the two officers' body-worn cameras and a sheriff's helicopter circling overhead.
The autopsy also says Clark was legally drunk and had traces of marijuana, cocaine and codeine in his system when was shot, but the report said the toxicology findings are not directly relevant to the fatal shooting.

This link also has the actual autopsy report, so I am including it as well.
Stephon Clark official autopsy released. Family autopsy was 'erroneous,' coroner says

What's your point? Why do you feel this is relevant?

The brother inserted himself in the case by disrupting the city council meeting. Thus him getting arrested is relevant.

¹ If family autopsy is "independent" because it is independent of the city/county, then so is the official autopsy by virtue of being independent of the family/shyster

 

[laughing dog]

But our long wait is over. Another independent¹ autopsy has been released.

You are correct - the autopsy is independent of the family. But if you are going to be intellectually consistent ahd honest, you also have to be skeptical of the results of this autopsy since it was paid for by the state which has a self-interest in the case as well.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So an autopsy paid for by the state is "official."

Fox guarding the henhouse: "Hey, I'm the OFFICIAL guard of this henhouse."

Anyhoo, he's still got 3 shots in the back according to the fox but moreover, still should not have been killed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So an autopsy paid for by the state is "official."

Fox guarding the henhouse: "Hey, I'm the OFFICIAL guard of this henhouse."

Anyhoo, he's still got 3 shots in the back according to the fox but moreover, still should not have been killed.

He got three shots after he went down. Normal human reactions--one can fire another shot a lot faster than one can decide that a target is no longer a threat, stop shooting.