What kind of person was Stephon Clark?

[Derec]

Of course you do.

You disagree?

Of course you disagree. But the kind of person has no relevance to what he did and what the officers did.

Of course it does. Him being a habitual thief and robber since at least the age 16 influenced his decision to break windows and steal from his grandma's neighbors.
Him still being on probation for the robbery he did when he was 18 (in 2014) influenced his decision not to surrender which would have prevented the shooting.

What motivated him to behave in the manner he did is not relevant to the issue of whether the police acted appropriately - only what he did.

I think motives are highly relevant.

This is very simple to understand.

More like simplistic.

And you feel the need to balance that "uncritical" praise of "these people"? Wow.

Yes, the uncritical praise by the family and his supporters must be balanced. All the family is harping on is his reproductive status and him liking shoes and video games. I guess you think that is more relevant to the case than his criminal record.

Not only does your posting history betray you, this thread and the Stephon Clark thread betray you with your calling him trash, and your references to "hood rats" and "these people". Really, you are not fooling anyone but yourself.

Stephon Clark was trash. Stevante acted very hood when he interrupted the council meeting. And "these people" was merely reference to those defending Stephon that I mentioned before.
What's wrong with any of those statements? Is any criticism of black people automatically problematic?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The reason it's relevant is that almost all these shootings are cases of resisting arrest where the guy does something that makes the cops think there's danger.

The black community always tries to portray them as innocents but they almost never are.

So, you believe that being in your backyard, holding a cell phone is a capitol offense if you are black?

How about some reality instead of the BLM fantasy?

And how can you resist arrest if police are not trying to arrest you? Especially when they do not identify themselves as police?

Doesn't matter--it's obvious they're police.

BTW, the autopsy is out. He was shot in the back 7 of the 8 bullets that hit his back; the other one struck his thigh, probably as he was falling.

You're looking at the shyster version of it.

In reality we have one front-to-back, one side-to-side and 6 that hit the side, angle unknown. Either you need three shooters, or he moved while being shot. Two shooters from a roughly frontal position, plus continuing to fire as he fell (which is to be expected) gives the observed impact points.

So try again. This time, let actual information AKA facts guide your opinions, not your prejudices.

You're the one going on prejudice.

- - - Updated - - -

The reason it's relevant is that almost all these shootings are cases of resisting arrest where the guy does something that makes the cops think there's danger.

The black community always tries to portray them as innocents but they almost never are.

I must have missed the part of the law where it says that making cops nervous is a justification for summary execution.

Using this argument shows you don't understand the issue.

 

[LordKiran]

To further derail, all consumer goods are technically luxuries if we define luxury purely as a state of being superfluous to your continued survival. The notion that poor people should be discouraged entirely from consumer spending would not only destroy the economy but would reduce the standard of living for people back to something closer to serfdom.

I define luxury as items that are significantly more expensive than the usual price of that kind of an item.

That's an arbitrary distinction. All items vary in price based on who manufactures and sells it. So what's the price bar something has to pass beyond the lowest priced option before it's a luxury? $100? $200? Is a snickers bar a luxury because it's 25 cents more than a giggles generic bar? Surely you can see how unworkable this train of thought is without having to follow it through to its logical conclusion, right?

 

[laughing dog]

You disagree?

Yes.

Of course it does. Him being a habitual thief and robber since at least the age 16 influenced his decision to break windows and steal from his grandma's neighbors.
Him still being on probation for the robbery he did when he was 18 (in 2014) influenced his decision not to surrender which would have prevented the shooting.

None of which has anything to do with what actually happened once he was in the backyard. Duh.

I think motives are highly relevant.

Not in this situation where the issue is the actual actions.

More like simplistic.

If you think focusing on the actual issue instead of conjecture and character assassination, then I agree.

Yes, the uncritical praise by the family and his supporters must be balanced. All the family is harping on is his reproductive status and him liking shoes and video games. I guess you think that is more relevant to the case than his criminal record.

Unlike the irrational, I know neither is relevant to what actually happened. And I don't understand why a family praising one of its own would compel a complete stranger to feel the need to denigrate an unarmed shooting victim of the police.

Stephon Clark was trash. Stevante acted very hood when he interrupted the council meeting. And "these people" was merely reference to those defending Stephon that I mentioned before.

You don't have to provide more evidence to buttress my observation.

What's wrong with any of those statements? Is any criticism of black people automatically problematic?

Thanks for proving the point once again.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Saying that poor people can't have any luxury items is crazy talk. Of course poor people have to survive--to have food, water, shelter, clothing, but those are not the only needs a person has. A person also needs at least a little compassion from others and at least a little happiness, otherwise things are unbearable. Babies without compassion from an adult fail to thrive. Adults without compassion get depressed. There is no real magic formula for how much property a poor person ought to have, except that if they have enough property and happiness, then they are no longer poor, but instead middle class. All this talk is really besides the point, it's like a derail on a derail on a derail.

 

[Ford]

The reason it's relevant is that almost all these shootings are cases of resisting arrest where the guy does something that makes the cops think there's danger.

The black community always tries to portray them as innocents but they almost never are.

I must have missed the part of the law where it says that making cops nervous is a justification for summary execution.

Using this argument shows you don't understand the issue.

So far, your justification for the shooting is basically...

1. Clark was black.

2. Clark had a record.

3. The shooters were cops.


So in your mind, whenever cops encounter a black man who they think may be armed, they're justified in shooting him to death immediately. If it is found out after the fact that the black man had been arrested before, that makes it double plus justified, since they took a scary black man off the streets.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In a nutshell, it seems being black = being perceived as being more of a threat.

Which would make 'He was a black person' one apparently relevant answer to the OP. Possibly a significant one, since the police didn't know anything about him otherwise. Other than that he was acting suspiciously (clambering through back gardens), was not stopping when pursued and had been, I think, reported as engaging in criminal activity (breaking car windows).

Except real-world shooting data doesn't support this. The police are slightly less likely to actually pull the trigger when they're pointing their guns at a black person.

Two things to note: (a) helicopter footage shows Clark moving towards the officers when first shot and (b) police officers, although they shouted 'stop, show me your hands' and he continued away from them (around the corner of the house), did not seem to identify themselves as police, though it appears Clark may have seen them as they 1st approached the house.

ETA: My tuppenceworth: I think this killing will probably go down as 'justified' (by American legal standards). On a wider level, prejudice about black people is probably a factor in police killings.

"Stop, show me your hands" is pretty obviously the police.

 

[laughing dog]

You're the one going on prejudice.

That is pretty rich coming from someone who posed "BLM fantasy" and "shyster versions". In this thread, you have demonstrated a lack of command of the commonly known facts of this case and have persistently constructed make believe scenarios to defend the police's shooting of an unarmed civilian.

It is likely these two officers will not be charged with a crime. But that does not make what they did right, just that it is considered acceptable. But as these easily avoidable tragedies mount, the momentum for real change for the better is increasing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I define luxury as items that are significantly more expensive than the usual price of that kind of an item. Cars by themselves are not luxuries. A Mercedes AMG S65 certainly is. A smart phone in itself is not a luxury, but an iPhone X is. And so on.
Nobody is begrudging people consumer goods, but there is a wide range of price points for almost all consumer goods.

Exactly. Is there a substantially cheaper and pretty much equally serviceable item? If so, it's a luxury item.

I think it mostly has to do with high availability of guns and higher crime rate.

We don't actually have a higher crime rate, just a higher murder rate.

The thing is, the vast majority of those murders are criminals killing criminals. The average person actually sees a lower crime rate.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

"Stop, show me your hands" is pretty obviously the police.

Or a neighbor that thinks you stole something when you didn't
Or an angry, murderous vigilante like George Zimmerman
Or someone pretending to be the police.

 

[Ford]

"Stop, show me your hands" is pretty obviously the police.

Or a neighbor that thinks you stole something when you didn't

And if it were the neighbor?

Take the cops out of the situation for a moment. What if it was two other black guys from the neighborhood who were looking for the person who smashed in the window of their 1998 Nissan (black people can't have nice things, you know) and they came upon Clark jumping into a yard. Thinking they found their suspect, they give chase. When Clark stops and appears to have something in his hand, the neighbors pull their guns and shoot him repeatedly.

That is at the very least manslaughter. The "well we thought he was carrying a gun, your honor" defense wouldn't work, and the news would cover it (if they did at all) as just another instance of "black on black" violence and folks like Derec would use it as evidence that all black people are "thugs."

 

[ZiprHead]

Saying that poor people can't have any luxury items is crazy talk. Of course poor people have to survive--to have food, water, shelter, clothing, but those are not the only needs a person has. A person also needs at least a little compassion from others and at least a little happiness, otherwise things are unbearable. Babies without compassion from an adult fail to thrive. Adults without compassion get depressed. There is no real magic formula for how much property a poor person ought to have, except that if they have enough property and happiness, then they are no longer poor, but instead middle class. All this talk is really besides the point, it's like a derail on a derail on a derail.

Did I miss something? How do we know the guy with the headphones is poor?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Saying that poor people can't have any luxury items is crazy talk. Of course poor people have to survive--to have food, water, shelter, clothing, but those are not the only needs a person has. A person also needs at least a little compassion from others and at least a little happiness, otherwise things are unbearable. Babies without compassion from an adult fail to thrive. Adults without compassion get depressed. There is no real magic formula for how much property a poor person ought to have, except that if they have enough property and happiness, then they are no longer poor, but instead middle class. All this talk is really besides the point, it's like a derail on a derail on a derail.

Did I miss something? How do we know the guy with the headphones is poor?

Exactly. This is some unrelated tangent to a different unrelated tangent. It's so far removed we might as well be discussing Star Wars.

 

[Ford]

Saying that poor people can't have any luxury items is crazy talk. Of course poor people have to survive--to have food, water, shelter, clothing, but those are not the only needs a person has. A person also needs at least a little compassion from others and at least a little happiness, otherwise things are unbearable. Babies without compassion from an adult fail to thrive. Adults without compassion get depressed. There is no real magic formula for how much property a poor person ought to have, except that if they have enough property and happiness, then they are no longer poor, but instead middle class. All this talk is really besides the point, it's like a derail on a derail on a derail.

Did I miss something? How do we know the guy with the headphones is poor?

Exactly. This is some unrelated tangent to a different unrelated tangent. It's so far removed we might as well be discussing Star Wars.

I disagree. The thread is about what sort of person Clark was. Some people are trying to make the point that he was a bad guy. A "thug." Beats are expensive, and if Clark was poor that means (to folks like Derec) that he was at the very least irresponsible with his money, or perhaps even criminal. If he had a "luxury item" like Beats, then he must have done something nefarious to afford them. Perhaps he even stole them from some upstanding citizen?

That's why the headphones were brought up. To impugn the character of the dead man and make people feel better about justifying his killing.

 

[ZiprHead]

It was the dead man's brother that had the headphones.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Exactly. This is some unrelated tangent to a different unrelated tangent. It's so far removed we might as well be discussing Star Wars.

I disagree. The thread is about what sort of person Clark was. Some people are trying to make the point that he was a bad guy. A "thug." Beats are expensive, and if Clark was poor that means (to folks like Derec) that he was at the very least irresponsible with his money, or perhaps even criminal. If he had a "luxury item" like Beats, then he must have done something nefarious to afford them. Perhaps he even stole them from some upstanding citizen?

That's why the headphones were brought up. To impugn the character of the dead man and make people feel better about justifying his killing.

From my rational perspective, it's multiple levels of speculation. A criminal has rights and ought not be killed unnecessarily. Beats doesn't prove he was a criminal either. On top of that he could have been poor or middle class since maybe he lived with his grandmother. I know Derec and Loren are desperate to jump to wild conclusions, but in truth these things aren't really relevant to anything.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Take the cops out of the situation for a moment. What if it was two other black guys from the neighborhood who were looking for the person who smashed in the window of their 1998 Nissan (black people can't have nice things, you know) and they came upon Clark jumping into a yard. Thinking they found their suspect, they give chase. When Clark stops and appears to have something in his hand, the neighbors pull their guns and shoot him repeatedly.

That is at the very least manslaughter. The "well we thought he was carrying a gun, your honor" defense wouldn't work, and the news would cover it (if they did at all) as just another instance of "black on black" violence and folks like Derec would use it as evidence that all black people are "thugs."

Murder because the neighbors initiated the confrontation. Unclean hands, no use of force in self defense.

- - - Updated - - -

From my rational perspective, it's multiple levels of speculation. A criminal has rights and ought not be killed unnecessarily. Beats doesn't prove he was a criminal either. On top of that he could have been poor or middle class since maybe he lived with his grandmother. I know Derec and Loren are desperate to jump to wild conclusions, but in truth these things aren't really relevant to anything.

We are looking at the most likely scenario, not at the most favorable to black scenario.

 

[laughing dog]

We are looking at the most likely scenario, not at the most favorable to black scenario.

First, you always make up the most favorable scenario to the police, regardless of the facts.

Second, the "most favorable to black scenario"? Really?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Take the cops out of the situation for a moment. What if it was two other black guys from the neighborhood who were looking for the person who smashed in the window of their 1998 Nissan (black people can't have nice things, you know) and they came upon Clark jumping into a yard. Thinking they found their suspect, they give chase. When Clark stops and appears to have something in his hand, the neighbors pull their guns and shoot him repeatedly.

That is at the very least manslaughter. The "well we thought he was carrying a gun, your honor" defense wouldn't work, and the news would cover it (if they did at all) as just another instance of "black on black" violence and folks like Derec would use it as evidence that all black people are "thugs."

Murder because the neighbors initiated the confrontation. Unclean hands, no use of force in self defense.

- - - Updated - - -

From my rational perspective, it's multiple levels of speculation. A criminal has rights and ought not be killed unnecessarily. Beats doesn't prove he was a criminal either. On top of that he could have been poor or middle class since maybe he lived with his grandmother. I know Derec and Loren are desperate to jump to wild conclusions, but in truth these things aren't really relevant to anything.

We are looking at the most likely scenario, not at the most favorable to black scenario.

No, you are speculating about things you and Derec want that aren't relevant to the shooting. Thus this thread.

 

[repoman]

"And Clark had a criminal history, four cases in four years that included charges of robbery, pimping, and domestic abuse. Sacramento County court files show he pleaded no contest to reduced charges, spent time on a sheriff's work detail and was on probation for the 2014 robbery when he was killed. Community leaders were adamant that Clark's criminal record was immaterial to how he died, and said the officers who killed him are the ones who ought to be scrutinized."

"If you understood most of the culture of African Americans in the city, when police officers get near us, there's a nervousness," Williams said. The urge to run is prevalent, she said. "I think understanding our culture and our young men being traumatized so much, their first reaction is not the first reaction of a white male."

"Rumors have swirled in the Meadowview neighborhood that someone turned himself in for the vandalism that took place the night Stephon Clark was killed. "That is not accurate," said city police Sgt. Vance Chandler. "At this time, [Clark] is the only suspect that we have." He reiterated that deputies in a sheriff's helicopter observed Clark smashing the window of a sliding glass door of a home to the north of his grandmother's home."

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-stephon-clark-profile-20180328-story.html

This should have been the end of the thread.

All that was asked was what kind of person what Stephon Clark.

There already is another thread about this incident.