Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How do you know what he had in his hand?
When was he ordered to put the object down?
He was never told to put his hands up, he was told "show me your hands"
At what point in the video do you see him 'running at the cops"
Yes he had a criminal record and had spent time in jail, did you know that 30% of the people in the US have a police record for something other than a traffic offense? https://outline.com/qTA3BK
I hope you are not inferring that everyone who has been arrested deserves to have a target on their chest.
He was never ordered to put any object down. He was never ordered to put his hands up. He was told to show his hands and ordered to stop when he started running towards the back yard. Stephon ran towards the far corner of the yard then circled back under the overhanging roof which is when the police saw him moving their direction. He did not run at the police. He was walking towards them (between the picnic table and the wall.) I imagine it would be difficult to navigate through there quickly.
They had no identity so criminal record is of no consequence in the decision to shoot or not shoot.
I do believe Stephon created a situation in which he could be shot. According to the helicopter pilot and items retrieved after the shooting, Stephon was vandalizing the house next door. If he had not been vandalizing the home and possibly other cars in the area, the police would not have been in that area. Additionally, running away from the police into a dark back yard creates a very dangerous situation in which the police would fear being ambushed.
I am in no way say it was proper for them to shoot him. However, if you want to avoid being shot by police, not committing crimes and not leading police on a chase into the dark are two good ways to avoid it.
He was never ordered to put any object down. He was never ordered to put his hands up. He was told to show his hands and ordered to stop when he started running towards the back yard. Stephon ran towards the far corner of the yard then circled back under the overhanging roof which is when the police saw him moving their direction. He did not run at the police. He was walking towards them (between the picnic table and the wall.) I imagine it would be difficult to navigate through there quickly.
They had no identity so criminal record is of no consequence in the decision to shoot or not shoot.
I do believe Stephon created a situation in which he could be shot. According to the helicopter pilot and items retrieved after the shooting, Stephon was vandalizing the house next door. If he had not been vandalizing the home and possibly other cars in the area, the police would not have been in that area. Additionally, running away from the police into a dark back yard creates a very dangerous situation in which the police would fear being ambushed.
I am in no way say it was proper for them to shoot him. However, if you want to avoid being shot by police, not committing crimes and not leading police on a chase into the dark are two good ways to avoid it.
There still does not appear to be any evidence that he in fact vandalized anything. There is evidence he was in the area. But that still appears to be it. And the failure to find the tool he purported used damages the inference.
So your attempt to place quilt on him for starting the incident fails unless some clear evidence that it was him is brought forth.
Not trying to suggest there is evidence saying it was not him...but that the case that it was him has bad holes in it.
He was never ordered to put any object down. He was never ordered to put his hands up. He was told to show his hands and ordered to stop when he started running towards the back yard. Stephon ran towards the far corner of the yard then circled back under the overhanging roof which is when the police saw him moving their direction. He did not run at the police. He was walking towards them (between the picnic table and the wall.) I imagine it would be difficult to navigate through there quickly.
No one ordered him to stop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CtrlEsc
I do believe Stephon created a situation in which he could be shot. According to the helicopter pilot and items retrieved after the shooting, Stephon was vandalizing the house next door. If he had not been vandalizing the home and possibly other cars in the area, the police would not have been in that area. Additionally, running away from the police into a dark back yard creates a very dangerous situation in which the police would fear being ambushed.
There's no video showing him vandalizing anything and I'm not sure what items were found that could put him at the scene of the vandalism. I'm not saying he didn't commit a crime but I don't see any evidence to prove that he did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CtrlEsc
I am in no way say it was proper for them to shoot him. However, if you want to avoid being shot by police, not committing crimes and not leading police on a chase into the dark are two good ways to avoid it.
He was not running from anyone when the cops entered the yard, he was somewhere near the rear of his grandmother's house. No cop should even consider shooting someone just because they are running. When I was a kid the cops rolled up on a bunch of us kids partying, we all ran - no one pursued us and shot at us even though we were guilty of underage drinking.
No one ordered him to stop.
There's no video showing him vandalizing anything and I'm not sure what items were found that could put him at the scene of the vandalism. I'm not saying he didn't commit a crime but I don't see any evidence to prove that he did.
He was not running from anyone when the cops entered the yard, he was somewhere near the rear of his grandmother's house. No cop should even consider shooting someone just because they are running. When I was a kid the cops rolled up on a bunch of us kids partying, we all ran - no one pursued us and shot at us even though we were guilty of underage drinking.
This is not the wild west where cops get to play judge jury and executioner. The cops had cover, they chose to expose themselves and shoot Clark, I think it's fair to say that they had other options, and it's quite clear that the Police were not forced into a "deadly chase". The ambiguous command "show me your hands" could well have resulted in Clark extending his hands in front of him while holding a cell phone and dying as a result.
Why defend the cops here, especially before the investigation is completed?
So why don't YOU criticize the protesters for protesting and terrorizing before the investigation is complete?
No one ordered him to stop.
There's no video showing him vandalizing anything and I'm not sure what items were found that could put him at the scene of the vandalism. I'm not saying he didn't commit a crime but I don't see any evidence to prove that he did.
He was not running from anyone when the cops entered the yard, he was somewhere near the rear of his grandmother's house. No cop should even consider shooting someone just because they are running. When I was a kid the cops rolled up on a bunch of us kids partying, we all ran - no one pursued us and shot at us even though we were guilty of underage drinking.
Apples and oranges. You're underage drinking didn't hurt anyone else. Vandals NEED to be caught and arrested so that they can pay the victims for the damages to their property.
You don't get to make the rules luckily. It's about the rights of the individual and if there is a threat. Running away from police isn't a legitimate reason for law enforcement to shoot.
My statement wasn't in regard to "rules", but probability and personal agency in regard to risk. Your misunderstanding is indicative of either living with an entitled mindset or living in a bubble.
A criminal is well outside of any standard of interaction with police wherein the interaction is guaranteed to be safe, if not in practice (zero of anyone's interactions with police are guaranteed safe in practice) then at least in law.
When a person is committing mischief they have just mandated that the police are going to have an increase in caution in regard to the officer's own safety. When they run, that uncertainty on the part of the police is amped to maximum limits. This person has just guaranteed a condition in the interaction that maximally reduces their chances for safety as well as effective legal protection. This is by their choice of criminal action, not the choice of the police.
The police are doing a job that puts their lives in danger multiple times per day. They are jumpy due to the need to protect themselves from the often lethal choices of criminals. If criminals don't wish to be seen as potential lethal risks, then they need to obey police upon first sight. This will always be so. People who run are seen as extremely dangerous by virtue of their non-compliance. Compliance of police demands is mandatory for all of us.
This guy played a game with a risk of death and lost. His rights are moot by virtue of the officer deciding that he looked like he was going to take lethal action, which was by his choice when he ran into a dark yard. That's it.
Are you familiar with the Amadou Diallo shooting in NYC a few years back? In a case of mistaken identity New York cops shot unarmed Amadou Diallo 42 times (they actually managed to hit him a few times) as he stood in front of his apartment building. His crime? Attempting to show the cops his identification. How about the Philando Castile shooting? The Daniel Shavers shooting? None of these victims were running. All were attempting to comply with the cop's commands. They were shot anyway.
Philando Castille failed to follow the officer's commands after admitting to being armed. While regrettable, his case is not a social justice travesty except in the minds of those who would choose to litigate every regrettable shooting regardless of the facts. Bringing up his case does your overall attempted point zero favors.
I can't and won't litigate the current case under discussion based on every other case that you care to mention. What's your point, exactly?
This nation has 300 million people in it. Statistically, this is always going to happen and it will keep happening. It's the nature of law enforcement in a nation with unprecedented large numbers of disparate people. Each case has to be litigated separately.
How about the Michael Brown case that the liberal junta succeeded in making a federal case out of after he committed a strong arm robbery and then attempted to take Darren Wilson's gun (firing a shot in Wilkson's car)? This alone casts your litany of complaints in serious doubt. And if the stack of complaints was not in doubt, then what exactly would your preferred solution be?
We aren't getting rid of cops. Everything that is tired is shouted down eventually, even if it reduces crime. How about this? Don't commit crimes and this type of thing will drop to insignificant numbers. You'e also going to want to compare shootings per interaction across races. This will give you the only number that you could begin to complain about, if there is anything to complain about. Everything else is noise.
That's only true in the sense that all people have a chance of being randomly or accidentally shot by Police even if they are the victim of a crime. There is no logical explanation for killing a suspect who has, or is about to commit a minor crime.
Yes, there is a "logical explanation". It's called statistics. In a non-complaint interaction with police, after committing a crime, you ruin a statistical risk of being shot. This is the risk that anyone takes when they choose to commit a crime and then run from the police.
This is borne out of the risk that police officers take, and their resultant duty to protect their own lives when interacting with non-compliant criminals. Fortunately for society, internet quarterbacks with social agendas do not get to fully prosecute police officers for choices they make in regard to protecting their lives from criminal action (though show trials are often fine, as we saw in the case of Darren Wilson).
Quote:
What disturbs me about the allegations that this suspect was the one with the pry bar seen by the helicopter is that there is no contiguous video footage of Clark between the time he had a pry bar and when he jumped the fence into his grandmother's yard without anything in his hands, can you say with any certainty that it was even the same guy because I can't
It does not matter if I can and you ca not or vice versa. You do not understand the legal status of the police officer. His or her witness carries judicial weight, far more than any non-police officer. This is always necessary for the enforcement of the law. Barring a prior suspect track record, the word of the officers on site is primary.
So why don't YOU criticize the protesters for protesting and terrorizing before the investigation is complete?
That's priceless...should I drive up and down the streets of Sacramento and yell out my car window for them to start protesting?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
