Posted on 03/28/2018 5:57:11 AM PDT by C19fan
On Thursday, for the second time in a week, protesters blocked the entrances to Golden 1 Center and prevented thousands of fans from entering a Sacramento Kings game in an effort to continue calling for action by local officials following the police killing of Stephon Clark.
Sacramento police responding to a call about someone breaking car windows shot and killed Clark, a 22-year-old black man, on Sunday, March 18, in his grandmother’s backyard. Video of the shooting released last Thursday showed that officers, reportedly believing Clark had a gun, fired 20 shots at him. An after-the-fact search revealed that they’d mistaken Clark’s iPhone for a firearm.
(Excerpt) Read more at sports.yahoo.com ...
I'm just trying to determine where the line is between the police being justified in shooting an unarmed suspect and when they are not justified.
Just curious, is it illegal for a mob to block a highway and harass vehicles and assault cars with their hands and sticks?
It is illegal at least according to The Law of Physics. When a 4,200 pound SUV meets two or three 200 pound street-blocking protesters at, say, 20 miles per hour the SUV sort of has the upper hand on the Boulevard.
No thinking person is going to do that and then get sued by these hucksters - I'd prefer the police protect and serve and keep them off the streets.
When the protect and servers are not around and you have a couple heading your way to block your path, what are you gonna do? Stop to chat with them?
You don’t seem to be able to remain focused on the subject of this conversation.
You can start by remembering what it was you were discussing in the first place.
The subject is the police shooting of an unarmed man and the lengths people will go to in order to justify it. That's not hard to see. What I'm trying to determine is where the line between justified and unjustified lies. As near as I can tell from your responses it's: 1) Stephon Clark - justified, 2) Justine Diamond, justified. Can't tell what you think about shooting unarmed guys with their pants down.
And lest you have any confusion where I stand I believe that shooting an unarmed suspect who is not posing any immediate threat to the safety of the officers or any innocent bystanders is not a justified use of deadly force, and the officers in question should be charged. Because under the laws in place at those locals, you or I certainly would be.
I only commented on one case, which was the subject of your thread.
I’m not interested in your attempts to confuse the issue.
Since we know from the video that there was a police helicopter overhead and these back yards (from the view of the body cams) is pitch dark other than the flashlights the cops are carrying, I would have waited for the helicopter to put a spotlight on the subject where perhaps the cops on the ground could see if the subject was unarmed or not.
Two major factors are always involved in police shootings - lighting and speed. How well can the officers see the suspect and at what speed does the officer need to decide if the suspect is armed.
That is why you should *always* when encountering an officer on foot drop anything in your hands and raise them skyward then obey the policeman’s commands, whatever they are.
If stopped in a car, keep both hands on the steering wheel and obey the policeman’s commands. If you need to reach into your pockets for any reason (such as getting an ID), get permission first.
Had Mr. Clark done this, had Ms. Diamond done this, had the naked man done this, had Mr. Castille done this, they would still be alive. Do not rush toward the police for any reason (reduces decision time and can appear threatening) and do not point anything at the police when stopped.
IMO, the question is not ‘who’s responsible?’ but, in all practicality, ‘what did the subject do to cause police to fear an attack?’ Even ghetto kids are taught to cooperate with the cops. It’s all about surviving the encounter, not who’s justified.
That's true for anyone facing the same situation. Under California law, if you shot an unarmed person in your back yard, even if they were trespassing, then you would be facing charges. Why should police be held to a different standard?
Police are representatives of the community who are forced into dangerous circumstances because of their training and experience to confront these situations in ways the average citizen may not be adequately equipped for in hopes the results of the confrontation will end peacefully and lawfully. This, unfortunately, does not always happen.
Any police-involved shooting is followed by investigation and some are indeed prosecuted for their actions. In Texas, where I live, shooting someone on your own property will be investigated but it may not always lead to charges or conviction.
Has anyone asked the woman he abused how she feels about ol’ Stephon’s demise? She might have sent the cops a thank you note.
How did the police know he was unarmed before they opened fire? You are arguing that the police need to wait until the perp opens fire before they respond.
Stop an think about that for a moment. If there is no need for the police to determine if a threat to their safety exists then what is to stop them from shooting any and every suspect on sight?
If police are using deadly force then isn't it kind of important for them to have a reason for doing so? If the suspect is unarmed then why the need to shoot him?
“If the suspect is unarmed then why the need to shoot him?”
If you are innocent, why are you running away? If you are unarmed, why aren’t you obeying commands from people pointing guns at you? The time to find out if someone has a gun is not after they have shot you.
Same logic. If two guys walk up to you, point guns at you and say “Gimmee your wallet”, that’s a bad time to start a debate on justice. Give them your wallet or run but never try to reason with people pointing guns at you.
Why didn't the police shoot him the moment he started running? If having a weapon is no requirement to being shot in the first place then why wait? Why make the police run and get all out of breath and all? Shoot the suspect on sight.
“Shoot the suspect on sight.”
Good idea.
Democrats out making more enemies. These fools are so out of touch.
I'm sure you think it is. You are aware, are you not, that under California's castle doctrine had you or I shot an unarmed man in our back yard we would be facing manslaughter charges at best? Why are civilians held to a higher standard than police officers are?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.