Autopsy prompts more protests over killing of black man in California

[rooster59]

Autopsy prompts more protests over killing of black man in California

By Bob Strong

 

Demonstrators gather outside City Hall to protest the police shooting of Stephon Clark, in Sacramento, California, U.S., March 30, 2018. REUTERS/Bob Strong

 

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (Reuters) - About 200 people demonstrated in Sacramento on Saturday to protest the fatal police shooting of Stephon Clark, in the latest of nearly two weeks of mostly peaceful rallies since the unarmed black man was gunned down in his grandmother's yard.

 

The death of the 22-year-old father of two was the latest in a string of killings of black men by police that have triggered street protests and fuelled a renewed national debate about bias in the U.S. criminal justice system.

 

Saturday's demonstration brought together a multi-racial crowd, many holding signs such as "Stop Police Rage" and "Power to the People." It was led by retired National Basketball Association player Matt Barnes, who grew up in the area and had two stints with the Sacramento Kings franchise.

 

"We're here today to raise awareness, to come together peacefully and to have some accountability for the officers, not only in Sacramento but across the country, who have been doing this," Barnes told the Sacramento Bee newspaper.

 

Some of Clark's relatives attended the gathering in a city plaza. It followed a more heated protest overnight, during which demonstrators yelled expletives at police clad in riot gear.

 

Clark was shot on the night of March 18 by police responding to a report that someone was breaking windows. Police said the officers feared he had a gun, but that he was later found to have been holding a cellphone.

 

Police have said he was moving towards officers in a menacing way. The shooting was captured on a body cam video released by police.

 

On Friday, an attorney for Clark's family released a private autopsy showing most of the eight bullets that hit Clark struck him in the back, contradicting the police version of events.

 

Clark was shot six times in the back, once in the side and once in the leg, said the attorney, Benjamin Crump.

 

"This independent autopsy affirms that Stephon was not a threat to police and was slain in another senseless police killing under increasingly questionable circumstances," Crump said.

 

The Sacramento Police Department said it would have no further comment until after the release of the findings of an official autopsy by the county coroner, and a review by state and local prosecutors.

 

In several days of sporadic protests, protesters have blocked traffic and twice delayed fans from reaching games played by the Kings at the Golden 1 Center.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-04-01

[mok199]

just obey the law.!!!  try and be defiant, and this is what may happen..police officers have a job to do....

Edited April 1, 2018 by mok199
speliing

[Langsuan Man]

41 minutes ago, mok199 said:

just obey the law.!!!  try and be defiant, and this is what may happen..police officers have a job to do....

And you think that pumping 8 rounds into someones back is part of their job description 

[pedro01]

He's previously been convicted of robbery, pimping and domestic abuse - and at the time of the shooting was a prime suspect in a string of car break-ins.

 

Police were responding to calls about those incidents the night he was shot.

 

As a convicted criminal that is facing another conviction when police catch up with you - you have a choice - try to escape or stop and do as they say. He chose the former, the phone in his hand was mistaken for a gun.

 

I don't see the problem. He is entirely to blame for his own demise. 

 

The comment I heard from his Aunt was Golden...

 

"If anyone wants to ridicule his past ... thank you very much to society for making him grow up too fast,"

 

See - no sense of personal responsibility in his family. It's societies fault.... jeez

 

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2018 by pedro01

[lannarebirth]

11 minutes ago, Langsuan Man said:

And you think that pumping 8 rounds into someones back is part of their job description 

I think they think it is. Law enforcement's increasing militarization and ability to kill with impunity, as much as anything else, is a big driver of private guns sales in America. They do not protect, neither do they serve.

[pedro01]

5 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

I think they think it is. Law enforcement's increasing militarization and ability to kill with impunity, as much as anything else, is a big driver of private guns sales in America. They do not protect, neither do they serve.

 

Their job is not to protect. Supreme court ruling says so... https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

 

Sucks - but that's the way it is...

[lannarebirth]

18 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

Their job is not to protect. Supreme court ruling says so... https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

 

Sucks - but that's the way it is...

 

Yeah, I remember your posting that once before and being surprised by that. Their conduct certainly shows the truth in the ruling. Protectors of neithr persns nor property. Sorta begs the question, what is their raison d'etre?

[starky]

23 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

Their job is not to protect. Supreme court ruling says so... https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

 

Sucks - but that's the way it is...

Maybe they should drop the motto and all that thin blue line crap then

[FritsSikkink]

1 hour ago, mok199 said:

just obey the law.!!!  try and be defiant, and this is what may happen..police officers have a job to do....

Yes, killing everybody when it suits them: "I feared for my life"

[mok199]

1 hour ago, Langsuan Man said:

And you think that pumping 8 rounds into someones back is part of their job description 

back up.....had he obeyed the officers he would be alive today..period..1 bullet or 10 bullets..this hands up don't shoot mike brown bullshit is out of control and a false narrative and is getting officers killed either now by targeting them or random violence......this topic has been debated to death...be the big tough defiant man grandstanding and looking for a leagal settlement and some free facebook time, and you may get killed..police don't need to take time to caudel the criminal nor should they....what would you do if this ''considered armed and dangerous '' phsyco was running loose in your back yard,with you children asleep in the house..he breaks into your house and its a hostage situation.. stop this after the fact bullshit...

Edited April 1, 2018 by mok199
speliing

[keith101]

They should check the facts of how many white vs black buy police and shut up

[DM07]

Aaaaaaahhh...i love the smell of racism in the morning!

[keith101]

not racism just facts and sick of black lives matter

 

[mok199]

23 minutes ago, keith101 said:

not racism just facts and sick of black lives matter

 

yes but the ''facts don't suit their ridiculous narrative''..so they cry racism..

[metisdead]

A post containing off topic trolling comments about Thailand has been removed. 

[geriatrickid]

1 hour ago, Langsuan Man said:

And you think that pumping 8 rounds into someones back is part of their job description 

The deceased may have been shot in his side and rolled or moved over. Remember, he had a  concealed firearm in his waistband that he was reaching for. When the  police officers  shot, the bullets were discharged in seconds. The standard magazine capacity for the Glock 17M is 17 bullets. 8 bullets under such circumstances is understandable.

The key point is that  some bullets in the back mean nothing when there are other entry wounds, and  video recording showing a physical struggle. In plain language a bullet in the back  does not mean someone was intentionally shot in the back.

[geriatrickid]

59 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

Yes, killing everybody when it suits them: "I feared for my life"

How would you disarm a violent felon reaching for his gun who was attacking you?

Would you say, oh please dear sir, reconsider and  let's sing a song of love?

 

[Langsuan Man]

4 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

a bullet in the back  does not mean someone was intentionally shot in the back.

a bullet is not 8

[FritsSikkink]

4 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

How would you disarm a violent felon reaching for his gun who was attacking you?

Would you say, oh please dear sir, reconsider and  let's sing a song of love?

 

He (like many others) was unarmed. So what are you talking about?

From the OP: "the unarmed black man was gunned down in his grandmother's yard. "

Shot several times in the back. Get real.

Edited April 1, 2018 by FritsSikkink

[mok199]

1 hour ago, FritsSikkink said:

He (like many others) was unarmed. So what are you talking about?

From the OP: "the unarmed black man was gunned down in his grandmother's yard. "

Shot several times in the back. Get real.

have you ever lived in an urban crime infested drug area of a violent lawless city,or are you from a gated safe cumminity...your fantasi ,walt disney dream world are not life in an urban war zone...but we can always sign kumbiah together see how that works.get real dude

Edited April 1, 2018 by mok199
speliing

[HLover]

Perhaps less protesting and more cleaning up the neighborhoods are in order?

[attrayant]

4 hours ago, pedro01 said:

Their job is not to protect. Supreme court ruling says so... https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

 

Sucks - but that's the way it is...

 

You've dropped this turd in discussions before.  There's no constitutional mandate for firemen to do their job either.  Does that mean they can show up and a four-alarm blaze and then, realizing their lack of constitutional mandate, just pass the time at a nearby coffee shop while the building burns to the ground?  Then we'd have no recourse but to say "sucks, but that's the way it is".

 

 

Edited April 1, 2018 by attrayant

[FritsSikkink]

1 hour ago, mok199 said:

have you ever lived in an urban crime infested drug area of a violent lawless city,or are you from a gated safe cumminity...your fantasi ,walt disney dream world are not life in an urban war zone...but we can always sign kumbiah together see how that works.get real dude

I grew up I the red light area of Amsterdam, your country without proper gun laws and racist, trigger happy police needs to get real. 

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, mok199 said:

have you ever lived in an urban crime infested drug area of a violent lawless city,or are you from a gated safe cumminity...your fantasi ,walt disney dream world are not life in an urban war zone...but we can always sign kumbiah together see how that works.get real dude

 

Only the urban war zone phenomenon you describe seems very prevalent in the US. Along with school shootings, night club shootings, cinema shootings, etc etc etc.

 

Wonder why that is?

[cabinfever]

3 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

The deceased may have been shot in his side and rolled or moved over. Remember, he had a  concealed firearm in his waistband that he was reaching for. When the  police officers  shot, the bullets were discharged in seconds. The standard magazine capacity for the Glock 17M is 17 bullets. 8 bullets under such circumstances is understandable.

The key point is that  some bullets in the back mean nothing when there are other entry wounds, and  video recording showing a physical struggle. In plain language a bullet in the back  does not mean someone was intentionally shot in the back.

Where did you come up with the falsehood that Stephon Clark had a concealed firearm in his waistband?

'About 200 people demonstrated in Sacramento on Saturday to protest the fatal police shooting of Stephon Clark, in the latest of nearly two weeks of mostly peaceful rallies since the unarmed black man was gunned down in his grandmother's yard.'

 

[geriatrickid]

2 hours ago, Langsuan Man said:

a bullet is not 8

Nor are 8 bullets discharged from a semi automatic Glock with a magazine that holds 17 an indication of something sinister. It was over in seconds.

 

2 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

He (like many others) was unarmed. So what are you talking about?

From the OP: "the unarmed black man was gunned down in his grandmother's yard. "

Shot several times in the back. Get real.

 

I recommend that you consider the camera evidence;

Body-camera footage revealed that two officers ran in and shouted “show me your hands!” and “gun!” and then fired .  In the dark ,when someone disobeys a lawful command, the potential for  serious injury is high. What of the presumption of innocence for the two police officers until there is evidence that confirms guilt? I don't doubt for a minute that there is a likelihood that procedures may not have been followed. it is up to the legal system to  verify that.

 

The pathologist Bennet Omalu is specialized in neuropathology, There is no doubt he is a qualified  pathologist and is well trained and experienced to comment on specialized topics. However, his experience in gunshot  and explosives trauma is quite limited. He worked as the Chief Medical examiner for a decade in a small county in California (about 700,000 people). They didn't get too many gunshot deaths.  This is also the same guy who claimed . Hilary Clinton was poisoned by either Trump or Putin. My point being that this guy while intelligent loves the limelight. He has his own bias and just because he is known and has the title doesn't mean he won't be influenced by his own prejudice.

 

There will be additional autopsy reviews. At the end of the process a judge will weigh the evidence and decide. How about allowing the judicial proceed to work, rather than to try based upon unknown and unverified evidence?

[FritsSikkink]

3 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

Nor are 8 bullets discharged from a semi automatic Glock with a magazine that holds 17 an indication of something sinister. It was over in seconds.

 

 

I recommend that you consider the camera evidence;

Body-camera footage revealed that two officers ran in and shouted “show me your hands!” and “gun!” and then fired .  In the dark ,when someone disobeys a lawful command, the potential for  serious injury is high. What of the presumption of innocence for the two police officers until there is evidence that confirms guilt? I don't doubt for a minute that there is a likelihood that procedures may not have been followed. it is up to the legal system to  verify that.

 

The pathologist Bennet Omalu is specialized in neuropathology, There is no doubt he is a qualified  pathologist and is well trained and experienced to comment on specialized topics. However, his experience in gunshot  and explosives trauma is quite limited. He worked as the Chief Medical examiner for a decade in a small county in California (about 700,000 people). They didn't get too many gunshot deaths.  This is also the same guy who claimed . Hilary Clinton was poisoned by either Trump or Putin. My point being that this guy while intelligent loves the limelight. He has his own bias and just because he is known and has the title doesn't mean he won't be influenced by his own prejudice.

 

There will be additional autopsy reviews. At the end of the process a judge will weigh the evidence and decide. How about allowing the judicial proceed to work, rather than to try based upon unknown and unverified evidence?

The police officers switched of their sound at a certain stage. This means they knew they had a problem. Nice there will be a trail, doesn't bring an innocent kid back to life, does it. 

[geriatrickid]

3 minutes ago, cabinfever said:

Where did you come up with the falsehood that Stephon Clark had a concealed firearm in his waistband?

'About 200 people demonstrated in Sacramento on Saturday to protest the fatal police shooting of Stephon Clark, in the latest of nearly two weeks of mostly peaceful rallies since the unarmed black man was gunned down in his grandmother's yard.'

 

I was confused with another case involving another armed afro american felon who was shot and killed. In this case, it appears that the phone was mistaken in the dark for a firearm. The court will take this into consideration. It doesn't matetr if the deceasedwas uanrmed. If the police perceived he had a weapon and was making threatening gestures as shown in the video, that is all that matters.  In this case, the deceased was on probation for a violent crime and was compelled to immediately obey any lawful order form a police office. As a convicted felon on probation he had no civil rights in respect to stop and search or detention. The obligation was on him to comply.  People commenting on the thread do not understand that a parolee is considered to still be in custody when it comes to legal rights.

 

His past violent criminal history is irrelevant as the police would not have known he was a violent  criminal  with four cases in four years that included charges of robbery, pimping, and domestic abuse. However, it underlines why the police will act to protect themselves. when in doubt.

[geriatrickid]

4 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

The police officers switched of their sound at a certain stage. This means they knew they had a problem. Nice there will be a trail, doesn't bring an innocent kid back to life, does it. 

The cameras became detached during the struggle did they not? 

When you use the expression "innocent kid" what do you mean? Innocent of what, as he was a convicted felon on parole. Do you think the young girls he pimped would call him innocent? How about the women he beat up? Or how about the victims of his armed robberies?  Don't call him "innocent" when the reality was that he was a violent thug who preyed on society's weak. If he was  killed without justification, it will be up to the court to  address the case, not a screaming mob  who ignore the man's violent activities.

[mok199]

19 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

The cameras became detached during the struggle did they not? 

When you use the expression "innocent kid" what do you mean? Innocent of what, as he was a convicted felon on parole. Do you think the young girls he pimped would call him innocent? How about the women he beat up? Or how about the victims of his armed robberies?  Don't call him "innocent" when the reality was that he was a violent thug who preyed on society's weak. If he was  killed without justification, it will be up to the court to  address the case, not a screaming mob  who ignore the man's violent activities.

they called Micheal Brown of fergason ,a gentle good boy and a victim, with his hands in the air..when the ''fact was'' , a 6.3 ,320 lb thug bullie who just strong armed a convience store, then rushed a 5 ft 6 165 lb police officer who ordered him to stop ,head down ragin bull style.... bending the facts to suit an agenda is wrong and dangerous..