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

[Derec]

There are no 'fleeing criminals', other than those who break out of jail.
You are talking about fleeing suspects, and the distinction is critical.
For you to fail to grasp this is forgivable. But for police to be unaware of this vital distinction that is central to their chosen career is unforgivable.

And what difference should this distinction make when you are confronted with a suspect who you think is holding a gun?

 

[laughing dog]

Because they did not immediately gun him down when he acted in a "threatening" manner. In other words, the police officer took the time to ascertain that the suspect was not armed which proves that the police can apprehend unarmed suspects without gunning them down just because they might have a weapon.

That it was a broad daylight played a role as well, as did the fact that he did not run into a yard and then abruptly turned around.

He did turn around. It was reported that he was trying to bait the officer into shooting him. His only mistake was doing this in Canada instead of the USA.

- - - Updated - - -

The Toronto police realized they were facing someone only pretending to be armed.

Because they did not immediately gun him down when he acted in a "threatening" manner. In other words, the police officer took the time to ascertain that the suspect was not armed which proves that the police can apprehend unarmed suspects without gunning them down just because they might have a weapon.

It was during the day in daylight and from 10 feet away. The subject was also engaged with the officer.

Which is only possible if the office is not busy pumping him with lead. Duh. And don't forget that this fellow was a suspected killer which made him more dangerous that someone who was breaking into cars.

 

[coloradoatheist]

He did turn around. It was reported that he was trying to bait the officer into shooting him. His only mistake was doing this in Canada instead of the USA.

- - - Updated - - -

The Toronto police realized they were facing someone only pretending to be armed.

Because they did not immediately gun him down when he acted in a "threatening" manner. In other words, the police officer took the time to ascertain that the suspect was not armed which proves that the police can apprehend unarmed suspects without gunning them down just because they might have a weapon.

It was during the day in daylight and from 10 feet away. The subject was also engaged with the officer.

Which is only possible if the office is not busy pumping him with lead. Duh. And don't forget that this fellow was a suspected killer which made him more dangerous that someone who was breaking into cars.

the suspect ran when he was asked to stop. He could have yelled I am stopping and surrendering.

 

[laughing dog]

the suspect ran when he was asked to stop. He could have yelled I am stopping and surrendering.

The relevance of this.........? And, according to all the worshippers of police authority, hindsight is 20/20 and is not useful in judging reactions.

 

[coloradoatheist]

the suspect ran when he was asked to stop. He could have yelled I am stopping and surrendering.

The relevance of this.........? And, according to all the worshippers of police authority, hindsight is 20/20 and is not useful in judging reactions.

Huh? Obeying police officer instructions isn't important?

 

[Derec]

Police should not fire unless fired upon (or otherwise unequivocally attacked with deadly force).

That is a way too restrictive standard. But at least now we know where you stand.

Yes, that could put police in danger.

It would put police in an unconscionable degree of danger. It would give criminals free first shot before the police is allowed to shoot. That puts perps at a distinct advantage and would lead to a lot more dead cops.

If they can't handle that, then they should find a different career.

I do not think too many people would want to pursue a career where they must allow a criminal the first shot.

What is the use of a fireman who refuses to enter burning buildings because that's a dangerous thing to do?

There is a degree of danger in firefighting for sure, but they are not expected to expose themselves to unreasonable danger either. Of course, nobody is suggesting we should impose restrictions on what firemen can do to give an advantage to the fire, so your example doesn't really translate.

What is the use of a cop who refuses to wait for absolute positive confirmation that a suspect is shooting at him, before gunning him down?

The obvious use of such a cop is that he can go out and do his job the next day too instead of lying dead in a morgue.

Police should never be the first to open fire (or employ deadly force) in a given situation. Yes, that means that their job is very dangerous. That's the job. If they don't want to put themselves in danger to protect and serve the public, they can get a job as a greeter at Walmart.

You would be making police work much more dangerous for no good reason. And hardly anybody would want to join the force under Police Commissioner Bilby,who would rather see his cops dead than shooting first.

BTW, Han shot first and he's the good guy.
#JusticeForGreedo #RodianLivesMatter

 

[laughing dog]

the suspect ran when he was asked to stop. He could have yelled I am stopping and surrendering.

The relevance of this.........? And, according to all the worshippers of police authority, hindsight is 20/20 and is not useful in judging reactions.

Huh? Obeying police officer instructions isn't important?

You need to make a logical connection to that with gunning down an unarmed civilian who poses no immediate threat of bodily harm for that question to be relevant.

 

[Derec]

He did turn around. It was reported that he was trying to bait the officer into shooting him. His only mistake was doing this in Canada instead of the USA.

French police is probably just going to fine him for not translating his manifesto into French.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is only possible if the office is not busy pumping him with lead. Duh. And don't forget that this fellow was a suspected killer which made him more dangerous that someone who was breaking into cars.

The police did not start out pumping St. Stephon full of lead. There was a chase. He turned around while holding an object. Yes, they misidentified that object as a gun and thus opened fire, but Stephon should have surrendered instead of running. Note, even in US, most of the time when police chase suspects, they do not shoot them. But your chances of getting shot increase substantially if you run. Especially if you are holding an object as you do so, and turn around while still holding said object.

 

[laughing dog]

French police is probably just going to fine him for not translating his manifesto into French.

Is this an attempt to be funny or a display of ignorance since this occurred in Toronto, Ontario?

The police did not start out pumping St. Stephon full of lead. There was a chase. He turned around while holding an object. Yes, they misidentified that object as a gun and thus opened fire, but Stephon should have surrendered instead of running. Note, even in US, most of the time when police chase suspects, they do not shoot them. But your chances of getting shot increase substantially if you run. Especially if you are holding an object as you do so, and turn around while still holding said object.

Your insult to the dead black victim is duly noted. Your hypocrisy in use of 20/20 hindsight to villify the victim while your denial of the use to 20/20 hindsight on the police actions is duly noted.

 

[Derec]

French police is probably just going to fine him for not translating his manifesto into French.

Is this an attempt to be funny or a display of ignorance since this occurred in Toronto, Ontario?

The first one. Certainly no display of ignorance, as the movie clip also takes place in Ontario, as Dan Aykroyd's character himself mentions.

Your insult to the dead black victim is duly noted.

What insult?

Your hypocrisy in use of 20/20 hindsight to villify the victim while your denial of the use to 20/20 hindsight on the police actions is duly noted.

It's not hypocrisy. We all can act only on information we have at the moment. Stephon did not need 20/20 hindsight to know that breaking windows/doors was wrong, or that he was on probation for past crimes, which is why he ran and tried to avoid getting arrested by police.

 

[laughing dog]

What insult?

St. Stephon - really, you are not fooling anyone.

We all can act only on information we have at the moment. Stephon did not need 20/20 hindsight to know that breaking windows/doors was wrong, or that he was on probation for past crimes, which is why he ran and tried to avoid getting arrested by police.

Which has nothing to do with whether Mr. Clark's running and turning around justifies his shooting - your hypocrisy is duly noted.

 

[Derec]

St. Stephon - really, you are not fooling anyone.

Hardly an insult, and in any case, the "St." quip is directed at the news media who are downplaying his criminal record, probation and fact that he was actively engaged in breaking windows and glass doors. Instead, they focus on his grandma, his girlfriend and his kids. I.e. hagiographies instead of objective, unbiased reporting. Even all the photos are of him posing with his kids and not a single mug shot. That is all intended to shape public opinion in his favor and against police. It is hardly the only case where this kind of thing happens.

Which has nothing to do with whether Mr. Clark's running and turning around justifies his shooting - your hypocrisy is duly noted.

The running increases the chances of him getting shot whether it turns out to be justified or not. It also increases the likelihood of it being a justified shooting. I happen to believe that facts as far as we know them lean toward it being a justified shooting. It was Stephon who broke into these cars and at least one house. It was him who created a situation where police would reasonably, albeit mistakenly, think that he had a gun as he turned. He could have prevented that by not running.

 

[Derec]

None of what you are saying addresses the issue. People pull out cell phones for all kinds of reasons. Including at night. In his case, maybe he was going to call the police after the people who yelled at him, video record them, or use the light of the phone so he could put his key in his door since he was next to the door.

Why would he call the police when the police were after him? Put the key in the door? Only in GTA is entering your house effective in removing your "wanted stars".

The argument I was responding to was justifying police at night shooting someone because they think they have a gun. The counter I made was that this could not be the reason so many blacks are being shot by police because if it were, then we'd expect to have so many other people shot by police who have cell phones. We really don't hear about this.

No, the reason more blacks per capita get shot by police is higher crime rates for that group. Do you think it is just a coincidence that most police shootings involve somebody with a serious criminal record and/or somebody engaging in a crime when shot? Of course, media tends to downplay that. Another California case, of Diante Yarber, has media say things like "Police kill black father with barrage of bullets in Walmart parking lot" or try to besmirch the police officers involved. What they usually do not mention, or bury it deep in the article, is that St. Diante had a lengthy criminal record and had an active warrant for his arrest for stealing a car. He also reversed his car and hit a police cruiser when shot. That's how public is manipulated by presenting a very one-sided picture of these shootings.

Therefore, logically, I support a multi-variate approach like what Emily wrote. I am unsure of why you snipped it from my post when you replied, but here it is again:

Not sure, but I address it below.

It's probably true that the cops couldn't tell that the object in the suspect's hand was a phone, not a gun. It's also true that in general, police are predisposed to expect violence from black men regardless of the situation. A black man and a white man in otherwise similar situations are not likely to experience the same outcome. Regardless of what anyone claims to be the causal factor... at the end of the day, police use race and ethnicity to profile suspects, and if that suspect is black, they are primed to perceive the suspect's actions as aggressive, violent, belligerent, and otherwise uncooperative. A white suspect is more likely to be given a longer time to comply with orders, and is likely to be given the benefit of the doubt with respect to their actions.

I do not think black and white man in a similar situation would experience a different outcome. At least, the evidence offered for the claim is not credible. Mere numeric discrepancy is not enough to bolster that claim, as blacks tend to commit more crimes per capita, and thus interact with police more in the role of the suspect. More such interactions means more opportunities for things to go south. When you adjust for number of interactions with police, the disproportionate number of shootings of blacks disappear.

 

[Toni]

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.

Why are armed police officers alllowed normal human reactions, including continuing to fire into the back of a man face down o the ground but a regular person is not allowed even a couple of seconds to comprehend or comply before being shot to death in his grandmothers back yard?

And yeah, Derec, black men are regular people. Before you start in on his history of petty crime, and making sexist remarks about women, please look in the mirror and decide just how different you are from this young man. My guess is that you’ve got a few pounds and a few years on him and after that? What? White skin?

 

[Derec]

Why are armed police officers alllowed normal human reactions, including continuing to fire into the back of a man face down o the ground but a regular person is not allowed even a couple of seconds to comprehend or comply before being shot to death in his grandmothers back yard?

The chase lasted quite a bit longer than a couple of seconds. And why is it relevant it was his grandmother's back yard? If he was chilling there, playing on his phone, and police gunned him down for no reason, yeah, that'd be fucked up. But what he did is flee into that backyard (and police had no way of knowing he lived there) by jumping fences and the like, because he was caught breaking car windows and glass doors.

And yeah, Derec, black men are regular people. Before you start in on his history of petty crime,

Robbery, domestic violence and breaking windows are hardly "petty crimes".

and making sexist remarks about women,

He did more than that. He had history of domestic violence.

please look in the mirror and decide just how different you are from this young man.

I am very different than him. Not because of our respective skin colors, but because of choices he made.

My guess is that you’ve got a few pounds and a few years on him and after that? What? White skin?

Never beat up anybody. Never robbed anybody or broke into cars. Kind of significant, don't you think?

P.S.: I once was a victim of a man like Stephon Clark. My car window was broken and some items were stolen. So yeah, fuck Stephon Clark and anybody who thinks he was a great guy or that the only difference between me and him is age, weight and melanin.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In other words, the bad guys get a free shot at the cops.

Good luck finding anyone willing to be a policeman.

- - - Updated - - -

No, because police are required to expose themselves to threats in order to protect the public - a public that includes suspects.

Absolutely correct. We ask the police to run to danger while we flee. Because we expect them - and not us - to encounter these threats and risks, we do not hold police to 20/20 hindsight perfection. If we did, no one would be a cop.

Utter nonsense. Expecting the police to withhold deadly fire until they are sure they are in mortal danger is not expecting perfection. The Toronto police just demonstrated that with that deranged van killer.

The Toronto police realized they were facing someone only pretending to be armed.

FFS!

 

[Toni]

The chase lasted quite a bit longer than a couple of seconds. And why is it relevant it was his grandmother's back yard? If he was chilling there, playing on his phone, and police gunned him down for no reason, yeah, that'd be fucked up. But what he did is flee into that backyard (and police had no way of knowing he lived there) by jumping fences and the like, because he was caught breaking car windows and glass doors.


Robbery, domestic violence and breaking windows are hardly "petty crimes".

and making sexist remarks about women,

He did more than that. He had history of domestic violence.

please look in the mirror and decide just how different you are from this young man.

I am very different than him. Not because of our respective skin colors, but because of choices he made.

My guess is that you’ve got a few pounds and a few years on him and after that? What? White skin?

Never beat up anybody. Never robbed anybody or broke into cars. Kind of significant, don't you think?

P.S.: I once was a victim of a man like Stephon Clark. My car window was broken and some items were stolen. So yeah, fuck Stephon Clark and anybody who thinks he was a great guy or that the only difference between me and him is age, weight and melanin.

Oh big fucking deal-your car was robbed.

Somehow I’ve managed to survive multiple attempted rapes and even an attempted murder yet I don’t hate or malign men. Nor do most women who have also experienced various types of violence at the hands of men. Including most of the women you know.

I realize you don’t look at it this way but there are those who would consider your prostitutes to be victims of sexual violence. By all of their johns.

 

[laughing dog]

St. Stephon - really, you are not fooling anyone.

Hardly an insult, and in any case, the "St." quip is directed at the news media ...

You are not fooling anyone but yourself.

[
The running increases the chances of him getting shot whether it turns out to be justified or not.... *blame the victim*..

He was not running when he was gunned down. You don't know if he could have prevented the police from shooting him. Interestingly, we do know who could have prevented the police from gunning him down - it is the police. And yet you refuse to place any of the responsibility on the actual party who we know could have prevented the shooting. Instead we get the same old bs of "well, he shoulda known better" and "well, he was a thug, so he kinda deserved it".

 

[WAB]

Regardless of the details, firing 20 shots into a man is disgusting, evil, and outrageously stupid. And then, cuffing him, so his grandmother can come out and see that? Revolting, and disgusting.

 

[Derec]

Oh big fucking deal-your car was robbed.

Yes, it was a big fucking deal. I was a poor student and I had to replace the window glass and the stolen book bag including contents.

Somehow I’ve managed to survive multiple attempted rapes and even an attempted murder yet I don’t hate or malign men.

But presumably you hate and malign rapists. Or at least you would not like it if a rapist got killed by police in an unrelated crime and all accounts of him were saying what a great guy he was, and ignored his serious crime.

Nor do most women who have also experienced various types of violence at the hands of men.

And lo and behold, Stephon Clark was that kind of a man.

I realize you don’t look at it this way but there are those who would consider your prostitutes to be victims of sexual violence. By all of their johns.

I certainly don't. The sex workers I see are consenting adults. It is amazing how having consensual sex is some sort of unforgivable sin but robbery and actual violence still make one a "great guy". I mean he never hired a hooker, so he's a great guy.

And note, your and Toni's attitude toward sex work robs these women of agency by basically saying that only choices the Matriarchy approves of are legitimate. It's a very authoritarian and illiberal form of feminism.