Stephon Clark was shot 7 times in the back

[esquared]

I looked for a thread on the Sacramento shooting but I could not find it.
Shooting was on 3-18 by two cops who said he had a gun and was facing the two cops.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...9a8e4b0a47437ab62dd?ncid=edlinkushpmg00000313

Autopsy shows that of the 20 bullets the cops fired, 8 hit Stephon Clark, 7 of them in the back, one bullet in the leg.
So goes the police saying this: "Police said Clark advanced on them with an object in his hand."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...-in-own-back-yard_us_5ab2708fe4b008c9e5f35eda

So goes that theory. More incompetent police. Will this ever end?

 

[Lanyap]

I watched the helicopter infrared video numerous times when he was shot and i don't see Clark turning his back to the police. Clark is walking towards the police when they start shooting him. He then falls forward on his knees then on his stomach with his right side facing the police who are still shooting at him. The private autopsy doesn't show the trajectory path of the shots in the back so you can't really tell what angle they came from but you can see the bullets ricocheting off of the pavement behind him when he is laying there. It doesn't appear that Clark was running away from the police. I don't condone the shooting but I don't think the current narrative is correct.

Take a look at the helicopter video and see what you think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdEosmiPWlc

Private autopsy report:
http://media.sacbee.com/static/newsroom/graphicsembeds/2018/autopsy0330/autopsy-medium.jpg

Has the official autopsy been released yet?

 

[umbrella39]

I just watched for the first time, several times, and am not seeing the exact same things you saw. I see two bodies stepping to their left behind the house for cover. When the helicopter does finally get in position to see the deceased, he appears to take 1 slow, non menacing step forward then one to his diagonal left, him get shot and fall to his face immediately in a prone position arms collapsed under the weight of his body. I can see flashes off the pavement in and around him for a few seconds afterwards. I see them shooting a prone man in the back as he lay face down with his arms folded under his body... What I cannot discern is whether or not he dropped in compliance to their commands or dropped secondary to already being shot dead. I am at work with a choppy connection but I never see him move once after he drops...

 

[Greenman]

And it will end up being declared a clean shoot.

 

[Lanyap]

I just watched for the first time, several times, and am not seeing the exact same things you saw. I see two bodies stepping to their left behind the house for cover. When the helicopter does finally get in position to see the deceased, he appears to take 1 slow, non menacing step forward then one to his diagonal left, him get shot and fall to his face immediately in a prone position arms collapsed under the weight of his body. I can see flashes off the pavement in and around him for a few seconds afterwards. I see them shooting a prone man in the back as he lay face down with his arms folded under his body... What I cannot discern is whether or not he dropped in compliance to their commands or dropped secondary to already being shot dead. I am at work with a choppy connection but I never see him move once after he drops...

I watched it again several times and saw what appears to be the first muzzle blast from the cop on the left while Clark was still standing and walking towards them. That's when Clark started to fall and turn to his left while the cops kept shooting. The shots to the right side of his back came from the side that corresponds to what I saw in the video and corresponds to the bullet holes on the right side of the back in the private autopsy. Again, the private autopsy drawings are very basic, they don't show bullet trajectory. Did the bullets go into the side of his back or directly into his back from behind as if the cops shot him in the back while he was running away or had his back turned to them. I believe the current narrative is that they cops just shot him in the back which does not correspond to the helo video. The official autopsy will show what happened as far as bullet trajectories and should clear this up.

 

[jackstar7]

As some kind of weird tangent, a cop ran over a protester today, and then fled the scene.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/protester-...phon-clark-march-sacramento/story?id=54157457

 

[compuwiz1]

As some kind of weird tangent, a cop ran over a protester today, and then fled the scene.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/protester-...phon-clark-march-sacramento/story?id=54157457

I knew, when I was 4 years old, that you don't get in front of vehicles. People getting hurt because they stand in front of vehicles is their own damn fault. Protest all you want, and I support their cause, but getting in the road is just asking for it.

 

[jackstar7]

I knew, when I was 4 years old, that you don't get in front of vehicles. People getting hurt because they stand in front of vehicles is their own damn fault. Protest all you want, and I support their cause, but getting in the road is just asking for it.

No peaceful protester is asking to get hit by a car driven by a police officer.

A tank stopped for a protester once. This cop needs to see trial.

 

[umbrella39]

I, too, learned that if you hit someone with your car, whether they jumped out in front of you or not you don't flee the scene.

I imagine the same holds true for police officers...

 

[compuwiz1]

No peaceful protester is asking to get hit by a car driven by a police officer.

A tank stopped for a protester once. This cop needs to see trial.

Did you even read the article? They [protesters] were asked several times to get out of the way. The second police car clipped the person. The officer might not have even known he hit anyone, considering people were yelling and beating on the cars as they passed. Stay the fuck out of the street. It's common sense. The stupidity, or evil of the officers gunning down an unarmed man, doesn't warrant more stupidity.

 

[jackstar7]

Did you even read the article? They [protesters] were asked several times to get out of the way. The second police car clipped the person. The officer might not have even known he hit anyone, considering people were yelling and beating on the cars as they passed. Stay the fuck out of the street. It's common sense. The stupidity, or evil of the officers gunning down an unarmed man, doesn't warrant more stupidity.

Stop blaming victims, dude.

 

[compuwiz1]

Stop blaming victims, dude.

Yeah, because people being idiots are victims.

 

[jackstar7]

Yeah, because people being idiots are victims.

Okay. My fault for engaging you.

You can fuck off now.

 

[tweaker2]

It seems to me that if the official autopsy exonerates the LEO's , it won't matter to those who have an anti-cop agenda and those who have sympathy for the victim for one reason or another. The first thought in their minds will probably be that the fix was in for the cops, that the "real autopsy results" showed the cops were criminally at fault but will never be revealed to the public.

 

[Paladin3]

I, too, learned that if you hit someone with your car, whether they jumped out in front of you or not you don't flee the scene.

I imagine the same holds true for police officers...

The protesters were surrounding the police vehicles, which has lights and sirens on, pounding and kicking it. Should the cop have gotten out to check the welfare of the protester ever time there was a bang against his vehicle?

The protester who was struck stood still playing chicken with the moving cop car as it came towards her. I think it's reasonable to believe the cop driving thought she kicked or hit the car and jumped out of the way. Or you can believe he hit her on purpose and drove off laughing because he doesn't give a shit about human life or his career. It looks pretty hard to prove the later case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Of course, if you hate cops, you've already made your mind up.

 

[Paladin3]

From watching both the helicopter and body camera footage it appears as though the cops started shooting as Stephon Clark was moving towards them. Clark was NOT shot in the back while running away. The cops yells "gun" so I assume they thought he had one and they fired in what they thought was self-defense. Reasonably enough to be justified? That's for a judge and jury to decide.

But the shooting as seen from muzzle flashes in the helicopter video, and how long they fired on the body cam footage, means they kept shooting probably after Clark was down. Once the decision to use deadly force is made, you shoot to kill, not injure. This is something cops are often trained to do, especially since the could not see the suspects hands as they were under him. Again, is that reasonable? Up to a judge and jury.

Continuing to fire after Clark was on the ground would account for the family's autopsy showing gunshots in his back, and they would almost certainly be entering from his right side and traveling towards the left. Again, cops are often trained to not automatically assume someone on the ground is down and out after a shooting. Was this reasonable? That's up to a jury to decide.

I wish Mr Clark has stopped and put his hands up, or just kept running and never turned and advanced towards the cops with something in his hand. He didn't deserve to die, but that doesn't mean the cops murdered him or it was a bad shoot either.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Based on the released footage...the police follow him into his grandparents backyard. The victim is underneath the back porch overhang, and you can see a picnic table is close to the house. It appears he steps towards the police while he's between the picnic table and the house, it looks like not a lot of room between the two, is shot immediately, falls away from the house onto his hands and knees, police continue firing, victim lays down, police are still firing.

Guilty until proven innocent applies to some. Shoot first, ask later. Our bad! Oops!

Good guys with guns stopped bad guy with phone. Drink it in America.

 

[Paladin3]

Based on the released footage...the police follow him into his grandparents backyard. The victim is underneath the back porch overhang, and you can see a picnic table is close to the house. It appears he steps towards the police while he's between the picnic table and the house, it looks like not a lot of room between the two, is shot immediately, falls away from the house onto his hands and knees, police continue firing, victim lays down, police are still firing.

Guilty until proven innocent applies to some. Shoot first, ask later. Our bad! Oops!

Good guys with guns stopped bad guy with phone. Drink it in America.

Tell me, if you were a cop and believed someone was pointing a gun at you, would you shoot or stop to ask questions?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Tell me, if you were a cop and believed someone was pointing a gun at you, would you shoot or stop to ask questions?

Slippery slope there pal. What's my training say to do?

 

[Paladin3]

Slippery slope there pal. What's my training say to do?

Training says to defend yourself and don't die. I'm sure that's exactly what you would do.

You seem to think cops want to shoot someone with a cell phone and basically end their career, lose everything and jeopardize their freedom.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Training says to defend yourself and don't die. I'm sure that's exactly what you would do.

You seem to think cops want to shoot someone with a cell phone and basically end their career, lose everything and jeopardize their freedom.

Haha, wtf are you on? These cops will be just fine. You just defined why, that's what they're trained to do. Anything can look like a gun, since we already know eye witness accounts can be completely wrong. In the heat of the moment situation, LEO's will almost always walk away unscathed.

 

[Paladin3]

Haha, wtf are you on? These cops will be just fine. You just defined why, that's what they're trained to do. Anything can look like a gun, since we already know eye witness accounts can be completely wrong. In the heat of the moment situation, LEO's will almost always walk away unscathed.

Better safe than dead, I say. I'm sure you would do exactly the same if you were a cop and thought someone was pointing a weapon at you. Han shot first, as would any thinking individual if they believed a gun was pointed at them.

It doesn't matter if it actually turns out there was no gun. It only matters if the officer reasonably believed it was a gun, which a judge and jury decide.

I'm starting to believe a lot of folks would like to see cops forced to wait until they got hit with the first bullet or at least shot at before they returned fire.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Better safe than dead, I say. I'm sure you would do exactly the same if you were a cop and thought someone was pointing a weapon at you. Han shot first, as would any thinking individual if they believed a gun was pointed at them.

It doesn't matter if it actually turns out there was no gun. It only matters if the officer reasonably believed it was a gun, which a judge and jury decide.

I'm starting to believe a lot of folks would like to see cops forced to wait until they got hit with the first bullet or at least shot at before they returned fire.

Right, protect and serve means you have the right to gun people down if you think they have a gun. As I said, shoot first, ask later, oops! Our bad!

So, you can disagree, but here you are basically admitting it works the same way as I stated. You may not like the way I word it, but it's the way it is.

This is our America.

 

[mikeymikec]

Better safe than dead, I say.

Tell it to the victims.

It's not a police officer's job to remain safe. It's their job to ensure the safety of civilians. Shooting civilians should be the last resort. The other way around is the same sort of pure insanity that would ensue if firefighters decided that their safety came first , or if paramedics started shooting the injured in case they were armed.

It doesn't matter if it actually turns out there was no gun. It only matters if the officer reasonably believed it was a gun, which a judge and jury decide.

Wow. So if you found out that your unarmed son was shot by a police officer for no good reason, you would say that the particulars of the case don't matter.

I'm starting to believe a lot of folks would like to see cops forced to wait until they got hit with the first bullet or at least shot at before they returned fire.

Context matters rather a lot. If police were pursuing a suspect who is known to be violent and use firearms or something equally deadly like make bombs (and not a "we think he may be a particular known suspect" situation), then I would sympathise with a "shoot first, ask questions later" scenario. That's about it. Everyone else should be treated as innocent until proven guilty and therefore not be shot because they moved their feet.

 

[HomerJS]

Anyone have a justification for muting their mics after firing their guns? That smells of coverup.