I just spent the last few minutes watching the helicopter video over and over again. And, while it’s partially obscured by the overhang (that I guess is the porch), it seems very clear to me that Clark is moving towards the officers at the time of the first muzzle flash (can’t see his hands). Am I missing something?
I certainly didn’t think that incident was morally justified, but Brailsford (who, incidentally, did not “empty his gun”) was acquitted. I hope Shaver’s family sues him and wins.
That’s not clear at all by my viewing.
Really? Is the issue the timing of the first shot?
I mean, it seems indisputable that he ends up (on the ground) closer to the officers than when he first comes into the video. (I don’t think its a perspective thing with the helicopter moving around the house.). And–I think–it’s clear that the entire time you see him in the helicopter video, he is generally moving towards (and certainly not away) from the officers.
Where I had some uncertainty is whether the first shot was fired before he comes into the video and (as a result what he was doing when the first shot was fired), but it looks to me (at least fairly clearly) like they open fire after he comes into the video and while he is moving in their direction.
Do you see it differently?
There’s an autopsy report that saw it differently-does that count?
Who am I going to believe, the autopsy or my own lying eyes?
Of course it counts. Although I don’t think it claims to answer the question I have. They clearly keep firing at him after he’s on the ground, so that could explain the shots in the back. (I am curious about how he got shot from the front in the left thigh by people who were off to his right… that doesn’t seem to make sense).
I’m not looking to defend the shooting. I’m asking a question about something that strikes me as inconsistent.
Reading the internet, I’ve seen three (inconsistent) claims about what happened: (1) he moved towards them “threateningly” and they fired and kept firing after he was down; (2) he turns towards them and began getting on the ground to surrender and they shot him (and kept shooting); and (3) they shot him in the back as he fled.
All three possibilities would account for being shot in the back. The third one seems inconsistent with what I see on the video. I don’t think the autopsy purports to identify which one is correct and I’m asking if I’m seeing the video differently from other people.
I haven’t watched it in a day or two, and I may have seen a different link. What link are you using?
The legal system is corrupt. That is part of the problem.
It’s off to the side around the 3 minute mark here. And (a better rendition of the video) around the 1:45 mark here.
The exact sequence of events and movements are not at all clear to me based on those; I can’t tell if Clark is moving at all when the shooting starts (and I’m not sure if I can tell exactly when the shooting starts), much less what direction he’s moving.
Falchion, in watching the second video you provided, I think it’s pretty clear Clark was advancing towards the officers when shot. From the helicopter, you get a first glimpse of him at 1:49 where he is behind / alongside the picnic table. In the next few seconds he moves along the side of the picnic table towards the officers, and eventually falls / lays down and comes to rest on the ground a few feet in front of the picnic table. I don’t think that that alone is enough to justify the shooting, but I think it’s pretty obvious which direction Clark was moving.