I think it’s reasonable to be as skeptical of police accounts for shootings of young black men as of a renovation contractor’s estimate. Sad, and sickening, and not likely to get better any time soon; at least not without some massive changes to our society and culture.
There is really nothing about this shooting that has been relased to the public which makes it appear justifiable. There is a rationale put forward in the article but it isn’t very convincing:*Ed Obayashi, a Plumas County sheriff’s deputy and a legal advisor to the department, said he believes the officers’ decision to shoot was reasonable under the circumstances, especially since they believed the object in Clark’s hands was a weapon and one of the officers had yelled, “Gun, gun.”
“The shots in the back. They don’t change my opinion at all,” he said. “This is a situation of two to two and half seconds with multiple rounds being fired here, and that time passes very fast. The human brain — the mind in these situations — cannot process quick enough to stop firing.”*While the comment about the speed (and implication of the reliability of interpretation under stress) is true, it is a pn argument for training officers to de-escalate or go to a less than lethal alternative rather than draw a service weapon unless a suspect poses an immediate risk to officers or the public. Once an officer draws a weapon, the odds that it will be used are very likely, and with a firearm the consequences are irreversible.
Stranger
"Stephon Clark…was shot six times in the back, an independent forensic pathologist said Friday…Dr. Bennet Omalu conducted an autopsy days after Clark was killed by police…
Omalu was brought in by lawyers for Clark’s family in preparation for a planned federal lawsuit against the city and its police officers."*
That’s a curious definition of “independent”.
However, release of an opinion diametrically opposed to the officers’ account means the county would be smart (and doing the right thing as well) to bring in respected outside forensic experts who are not on the family or county payroll, to render their own opinions.
*bolding added.
So as soon as one officer, for whatever reason, yells “gun, gun” it’s reasonable for all officers to just start blazing away?
That’s a lower standard of suspicion than it takes to get a search warrant.
I guess the Constitution does protect property more than people’s lives.
When the targets have brown skin, yes. Numerous examples exist.
Yes, even though Clark has a constitutional right to bear arms.
Please. American cops have no problem killing white people too. Start with Daniel Shaver and go from there.
Here’s a liveleak post that shows the two cops’ body cams, along with the helicopter FLIR video. I’m not sure if it’s been linked already in the thread.
What should the standard for using lethal force be in a situation like Stephon Clark’s? One officer perceived that Mr. Clark had a weapon in his hand—and from the poor bodycam video, I couldn’t tell you whether he did or didn’t—and that he had already run from the police officers in front of his grandmother’s house. Go watch the helicopter FLIR in conjunction with the bodycam: a cop saw Mr. Clark as he was walking towards the front of his grandma’s house. Clark then turns, runs into the backyard, all the while the cop is screaming at him to show him his hands.
It’s dark, Mr. Clark wasn’t complying through either voice or action that he wished to surrender to LE: I wouldn’t shed tears if you fired either officer, but I don’t think the situation rises to either officer recklessly causing Mr. Clark’s death, or purposely trying to unlawfully kill him. I understand if you disagree.
Do we want the officer to have to wait until being shot at? Do we want the officer to be able to use deadly force if they perceive they are at risk of serious bodily injury, but reserve the right to fire or criminally sanction the officer if their perception is proved to be mistaken?
Personally, I think LE in the US has a problem with an overeagerness to use deadly force and a profound unwillingness to accept any officer safety risk.
Do you want people to stop fleeing from people they think are likely to shoot them?
I think American LEOs should have their limited liability protections removed. They can carry weapons for self-defense, if they want, but they should be as liable as the rest of us are for using them. If cops shoot the wrong person, they should be charged with the same crimes I would face if I shot someone. If they want to argue self-defense, they should have to tell it to a jury, just like you would. American cops should be vulnerable to civil cases if they cause the wrongful death of a person, even if that person is holding an iPhone while running away.
Cops should have to exercise good judgement and restraint when using deadly force, even if that means they face danger themselves. That’s why they get combat pay. They should be penalized for shooting first and asking questions later.
I see this counter a lot, and I’m unsure what it means. Do I congratulate the white community on being targeted as well? Is the argument that other races are whiny because whites are killed too and don’t complain in the media? Or do I point out that there’s still a huge disparity per capita since the other groups are minorities? Blacks make up 10% of the US population, so that argument only holds weight when 9 times as many unarmed white people were killed by police officers. I couldn’t find a cite for that.
What does any of this matter? I’m serious. Even if there is cell phone footage showing the cops deliberately murdered Stephon Clark or footage where you can here them talking about how they “executed a nigger” or equally horrific evidence the cops will still get PAID leave and maybe a cop or two will get a meaningless reprimand.
Yes.
From the article linked in the OP,
Seth Stoughton, a University of South Carolina law professor and former Tallahassee, Fla., police officer who studies police shootings, said that “watching the helicopter video, it seems the officers are shooting after [Clark] is down on the ground.” Stoughton said the shots in the back suggest that the young man was likely down or had fallen to the ground when officers continued to fire.
If that were true, that would be pretty bad.
I posted in the Pit, but the Washington Post had a synced up video of the shooting. Looks like he was down and they still kept shooting.
I do not know whether the police were in the right or in the wrong to open fire.
What I do know is that nobody in this thread appears to have any clue whatsoever about guns. Nor do they know much about reaction times, attentional blindness, or any other of a host of things that happen during a shooting.
A semi-auto, which is what all cops carry these days, can be fired very quickly. A gun can be completely emptied before the shooter realizes that the situation has changed enough to no longer warrant firing.
Then it sounds like beat officers are inappropriately armed.
Independent of the state, which is responsible for having shot and killed their relative. Perfectly acceptable usage.
Uh, okay. I’m a former tactical shooting instructor, have handled firearms since I was eight years old, and was trained to shoot by a Force Recon sniper. I’ve also read extensively on both use of force policies and cognitive neuroscience of stress overload as it pertains to combat situations. But by declaring yourself to be the only knowledgeable person in this threat, you have inarguably invalidated any other opinions or observations.
Oh, except that per what has been presented to the public, there was never any reason for the officers in questions to have their service weapons out of their holsters much less firing at a suspect who was not only not armed, but was not even holding an object that could be readily confused, even in the reduced sensory capacity of a stress situation, of looking remotely like a pistol. I was personally ready to allow that a cell phone in a dark case held in the hand might be confused for a pistol but if it was in fact in a light colored case and the suspect was fleeing rather than facing the officers, there just wasn’t any reason to have weapons out and firing regardless of the number of rounds loosed. Nor does there appear to have been any attempt to apply less than lethal force to stop the perpetrator who had not otherwise attacked or injured anyone.
Police officers, like normal citizens, are entitled to use necessary force in protecting themselves and assuring public safety, and their first necessary duty is self-preservation in the face of threat, because a down or dead officer is useless. This doesn’t mean that their first instinct should be to fire upon a suspect who has not displayed aggression or demonstrated in any way to be a danger. Police certainly shouldn’t be given blanket immunity for excessive and unjustified use of force, and in fact given their training should be expected to be judicious in their application of force which is clearly not the case here. That this scenario of unarmed black men being shot by police has occurred repeatedly is an indication of a pervasive sociological problem within law enforcement which views black suspects as being automatically guilty and rationalizes escalation in use of force regardless of circumstance.
Stranger
Here is the thing. It was night. He had his phone in his hand. This means there is a fair-to-high probability that was using it or trying to use it. What do we know about cellphones made in the last 15 years? That they have screens that light up. Even flip phones have lighted screens. So he has a glowing object in his hand. How does one not realize that a small object with that particular kind of glow is not a gun? Could it be that the police have become so terrified of cellphones because of all these videos they make that keep incriminating officer conduct that to them it has come to be seems as a weapon?
I don’t think it is neccessary to engage in errant speculation to conclude that lethal force was not justified in this encounter. Even if the actions of the officers involved in the shooting were not tainted by racial bias, there is clearly a problem in the escalation of force that cannot be reasonably justified by factual evidence, and that this kind of escalation is not an issue limited to the Sacramento Police Department. Even when a subset of these shootings can be justified, such as in the case of Alton Sterling who was armed and resisting, there is the question of whether an attempt at de-escalation could have resulted in a non-dramatic and non-lethal conclusion. Even if you don’t have empathy for the subjects of these shootings, the legal and emotional consequences of a shooting, however justified, weigh on everyone involved, and it would be highly desirable to avoid the application of lethal force except when there is absolutely no alternative that would protect officers and ensire public safety.
Stranger