Protests over the deadly police shooting of 22-year-old unarmed Stephon Clark are continuing on Saturday, with a former NBA player set to lead a rally in Sacramento to continue the call for justice and accountability.
I believe this is the case I read about locally here near Sacramento about a young Black man being shot by police, and then the article mentioned that he had a cell phone in his hands that the police mistook for a weapon. The articles I have read so far mention him being shot five or six times, and then later it was documented that they were all in the back.
Unfortunately that leaves me with the impression that he was shot because he was Black. From my perspective the police have not come forward with compelling rationale for deadly force to be used. Which leaves me close to assuming he was shot 6 times in the back because he was Black in a high crime area and had something in his hand they assumed was a pistol/ weapon despite the fact that cell phones and pistols do not really resemble each other.that closely. I feel sorrow for the family as this was clearly INJUSTICE. It makes me wonder that if Stephon were white he would not have been shot. In short, racial stereotyping?
My bet is Trump is on the side of the police officers. From the very first moment he read about this case. We do not need that type of president in the White House.
After the criminal trial (assuming there is one), I want to see the police involved personally sued, apart from any action taken against the city. Bankrupt these killer cops. I think it’s the only way to slow this down. When a cop pulls his gun, I want him to think, can I be financially bankrupted for my actions.
We need a Thurgood Marshal.
He was breaking into cars, breaking into houses, didn’t stop when the police told him to, moved toward police with something in his hands and there is some expectation that deadly force wouldn’t be used. This has nothing to do with race. It was very dark, he could’ve been black, white or blue and he would be just as dead for acting stupidly. The protesting and claiming racism is a disservice to the people that have suffered at the hands of racism. The protesters should be ashamed of themselves.
I guess you didn’t read the article. The autopsy shows he was shot in the back–so you’re saying he was moving backwards toward the police? He could really harm them that way, right?
And you believe the police are entitled to be judge, jury and executioner now? IF the victim was the one breaking in to houses, etc, or was suspected of being that person, he was entitled to a trial to determine whether or not he was guilty. Neither you nor the police have the right to pass judgment on his guilt or innocence.
This issue is an absolute mess. I wonder what is our way out. Do European countries have this problem to the degree that we do? If they don’t why not? My gut reaction is that police need a TON more training and the bad ones who can’t make it through the training just can’t become officers and need to do something else that doesn’t involve carrying a gun (they can’t be security guards either). If that means we don’t get enough officers to fill the need, then raise the salary.
Obviously police that make it through training and still make a major mistake with their firearm - they certainly need to be fired and possibly face criminal prosecution. As to the status of whether they can or should face civil prosecution, I think that should be considered too. This problem needs some low hanging fruit solutions ASAP.
Criminal trial, your kidding. Civil suit positively and the city will pay out maybe a million dollars, paid for by the taxpayers of Sacramento. The ONLY way this will end is when the state finally decides to indict ALL cops that have an obvious and blatant disregard for the law and the belief that innocent until proven guilty just doesn’t apply to “criminal types”. Once these ass holes start getting convicted and going to jail it will end pretty damn quick, but not until then.
Two of the cops get out of jail free cards are; “he/she was weaving” or the really great one; “he was reaching for my gun”. These are the two biggest for illegal traffic stops and a way to legally murder whoever they wish.
We have elected terrorists in Washington and brownshirts in the cop shops all over this country; stick a fork in it, this country is done!
The first article I read about this said that the 2 brownshirts shot him a total of 20 times! My husband – who was a cop – said there is no reason for 2 cops to shoot someone that many times even when they are taught to “stop the perp’s criminal intent” and you sure as hell don’t shoot an unarmed person that many times!
The politics and racism around this issue clearly document a society that continues to enable unaccountable, repeated, state murders.
Embedded in the aggressive ideology is that control is much more important than people’s lives. Justice is overlooked decade after decade. No amount of historical data seems to over-ride the glaring racist contradiction. Rule of law apparently supports murdering and victimizing minorities.
And the political/media framing will be completely unfriendly when people strike back using their Christian beliefs of an eye for an eye. How rich is that?
Any media that doesn’t report accurately on this will once again undermine its claim of neutrality and professionalism. As civil unrest continues to grow, and America becomes even more dysfunctional, watch the apologists squirm their way around state sanctioned mass murder while criminalizing vigorous opposition.
What seems to escape most analyses in these instances are the number that are shot in the back. I shoot guns and yet can’t get one to shoot backward no matter how hard I try. I think cops get scared and empty their guns in all the ensuing excitement of the chase or hunt as may be the case. Perhaps some cops shouldn’t be allowed to have guns proving to unstable to be armed. Just maybe the cops were justified but I doubt it,
When Sessions came to Sacramento to highlight his fight against the State of California over immigration and sanctuary issues, he was joined by police agencies and border guards who have supported him and Trump. For more information on this take a look at this article in the East Bay Express: https://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/trump-has-a-friend-in-california-law-enforcement/Content?oid=14580514
They were with Trump from the beginning. What does that say about our thoughts and relationship with police and border guards?
Most of the DA’s rubber stamp the police behavior. The people do not hold them accountable at election time. Juries somehow always seem to be sympathetic to the state’s position - meaning the police. This is a fine art which has been developed over the years with the talent and co-operation of District attorneys, police unions and their lawyers and right wing closed minded citizens who get on these juries by design.
Apparently the police didn’t even announce that they were police. Responsible police would have backed off and approached the situation completely differently. Back-off, de-escalate and bring some control (not chaos) to the situation. They should have had a speaker and told Clark to get on the ground. They ran up and engaged just like they were taught in Iraq and Afghanistan. This did not need to have happened.
I wouldn’t put too much faith in Sacramento’s court system.
Police in Europe get more training. Countries vary of course, but, in general, they receive several years of training including deescalation training. Cops in the US get several months of training and most of that is “How to fire your gun: 101.” If they have any kind of deescalation training, they either got it from their criminal justice class in college (if they went to college) or from the military. Most police in Europe don’t even carry. Even in Britain (the country that John Oliver calls “Europe’s America”), their beat cops are armed with just night sticks and their detectives are unarmed.
Haven’t you noticed the change in language in recent years? How politicians talk more about the “rule of law” rather than “justice?” It’s meant to sound the same but there are two different meanings. “The Rule of Law” is laws written by politicians (mostly white, mostly male) in order to protect the power and privilege of the elite (almost all white and mostly male). Justice is interested in the fair and equitable treatment of all, which is why she’s blind. We have a jury of 12 peers rather than lawyers for a reason. Of course, those peers have been increasingly white and affluent in recent years.