• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Police shot at a man 20 times in his own yard, thinking he had a gun. It was an iPhone.

Can you tell what you posted that changes anything that i said? all you did is further prove it. Fact remains that even LEOs dont agree among themselves about this issue, so your personal opinion (like mine) since we are not LEOs hold even less weight and little to no water. What part are you having trouble understand it and Ill try to help you.


I did not disagree with anything you said.
Because you pointed out that the spokesperson “…didnt say its NOT a policy or IS a policy”, I gave other statements by LEO’s that make it more apparent that there is no such policy. I thought the police guidelines were the most definitive. You made a pertinent point, so I gave information that might help clarify your point.

I agreed that “…even LEOs dont agree among themselves about this issue…” I’m just saying their opinion doesn’t make a difference in these cases. It doesn’t “hold water” in court. I know of two different police departments where one thought the other a “bunch of ******s” because they tended to shoot the suspect rather than take the risk of other measure. That was a long time ago. My only stated opinion, that is my point, is that this case will not be prosecuted and find the defendant(s), the police, guilty. I heard today of a SCOTUS ruling. They cited the LEO’s qualified immunity, which protects public officials from damages for civil liability. Qualified immunity is about as broad a protection as can be had.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2018/04/03/scotus-ruling-on-police-shooting-n2467046
 
A white cellphone is not something that sounds like it could be easily mistaken for a gun. Shooting him 6 times in the back does not sound like he was threatening them.



“A white cellphone is not something that sounds like it could be easily mistaken for a gun. Shooting him 6 times in the back does not sound like he was threatening them”

According to what the police have released:

“A Sheriff’s helicopter, flying overhead, observed Clark in the yard adjacent to his home and that Clark broke a window of the house.”

“Police on the ground entered the front yard of Clark's grandparents' house and saw him along the side of the house, according to the original department press release. Police said officers "gave the suspect commands to stop and show his hands," but that he "immediately fled from the officers and ran towards the back of the home." It was there that police said they pursued Clark and where he "turned and advanced towards the officers while holding an object which was extended in front of him." Police said officers believed the object was a gun and fired, "fearing for their safety."”

If the officers even go to trial, the prosecuting attorney may make the same points you made in your post. I’ve seen a number of more questionable police shootings than this where the officers did not go to trial or were found not guilty. Remember, the prosecuting attorney’s office is the DA, who is married to the police department. That’s one of the built-in flaws in the system.

Police fired 20 times at south Sacramento man fatally shot while holding a cellphone | The Sacramento Bee
 
Did you just send us a link to a YouTube blogger reading a quote from one of the police officers that killed Clark as proof of what you think happened? Serious people don't do that.

Posted a video of a former law enforcement officer who has experience in police response. In the still photo, you can see the suspect raise his hands in a shooting stance.
 
A white cellphone is not something that sounds like it could be easily mistaken for a gun. Shooting him 6 times in the back does not sound like he was threatening them.

A white cellphone in the dark looks like silver.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...un-it-was-a-cellphone/?utm_term=.5ff0c228db24


Back-up Links:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/22/us/sacramento-police-shooting/index.html
Police release videos of fatal shooting of unarmed black man | Fox News
https://www.usatoday.com/news/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ease-video-fatal-shooting-unarmed-man-n858926
https://www.yahoo.com/news/unarmed-black-man-stephon-clark-172106486.html

Still info coming out on this but in general it seems many forces need more training. This seems like a split second decision but it also seems to happen way to often. The speed which some of these cases escalates to the use of lethal force is what needs focused on, thats where the training needs improved.

I learned the hard way that when the cops stop you make sure you have nothing in your hands. When I was working at Texas Instruments, I pulled a double shift one day, troubleshooting a computer system. When I got off, it was late at night, and I was dog tired. Stopped at a Burger King, and as I was driving out swerved my car a bit. 2 cop cars were nearby, and lit me up immediately. After I stopped, and as 2 cops were approaching my car, I reached for my wallet and was bringing it up to get my license out, when one of them yelled "Drop it. If you come up with anything, I will shoot you". I dropped my wallet and slowly raised my hands and put them on the steering wheel. That action most likely saved my life. Some cops are quick to shoot, but at the same time, they only have a split second to react to a given situation. Do some cops need to be better trained? Yes, I will give you that. But, at the same time, surviving an encounter like this is going to depend on what you do yourself in that kind of situation. With only a split second decision for a cop to make, an occasional mistake by even the best trained cops is going to be a certainty. I"m not talking about right or wrong here, but how to survive an encounter with the police late at night. If you don't follow their orders to the letter during a stop, there is a chance that it won't end well for you.
 
Last edited:
I learned the hard way that when the cops stop you make sure you have nothing in your hands. When I was working at Texas Instruments, I pulled a double shift one day, troubleshooting a computer system. When I got off, it was late at night, and I was dog tired. Stopped at a Burger King, and as I was driving out swerved my car a bit. 2 cop cars were nearby, and lit me up immediately. After I stopped, and as 2 cops were approaching my car, I reached for my wallet and was bringing it up to get my license out, when one of the yelled "Drop it. If you come up with anything, I will shoot you". I dropped my wallet and slowly raised my hands and put them on the steering wheel. That action most likely saved my life. Some cops are quick to shoot, but at the same time, they only have a split second to react to a given situation. Do some cops need to be better trained? Yes, I will give you that. But, at the same time, surviving an encounter like this is going to depend on what you do yourself in that kind of situation. With only a split second decision for a cop to make, an occasional mistake by even the best trained cops is going to be a certainty. I"m not talking about right or wrong here, but how to survive an encounter with the police late at night. If you don't follow their orders to the letter during a stop, there is a chance that it won't end well for you.

I agree with all that. the issue is though what seems to be the vast differences in so many cases that logically has to point to training/personnel. Like I said theres plenty of videos with people fighting the cops and going for their guns and those people arent killed (even though i would support them being shot) then tons of videos of people being shot and they have zero weapons.

there has to be more and better middle ground IMO


also with me agreeing with what you said I also feel its lopsided . . . I have said very similar things to what you have said, so have many others but dont you think its odd that we all say sometimes cops make mistakes while pointing out that person shot should know what to do?

if supposedly TRAINED professionals make mistakes and we admit that, I think to little focus is put on the fact that most of us are untrained and NOT professionals and a person or muitiple people screaming at you with a gun pointed at you can very well make you not follow instructions properly or panic and do the wrong thing or simply freeze . . .

thats why im not happy with the seemingly quick escalation. Yes i agree, i have cops and troopers in my family and circle of friends and i want them to come home safe every night but they do get training and there is risk to their job. Seems too many cops shoot way to fast and thats what all the family and friends i talked to about this case feel. The feel this was piss poor training, execution of said training or faulty personnel

now of course thats just their opinions but i do agree with them. They also feel that there are a lot of cops that are ******s nowadays more so than before. They feel you always had that bully type, racist type, want actions type and of course the do good type but most of the time none of them were really ******s. They feel alot of new people are scared of their own shadow. Not sure how you would fix that but if true that is a legit issue.

anyway they feel the pursuit was poorly executed because it put them in danger, them not identifying themselves was bad, the choice not to retreat when they were in a covered position if they did think there was a gun, and the order of show me your hands in the dark are all piss poor decisions.

Not saying that all adds up to LEGAL guilt and of course my friends and family are playing armchair quarterback but thats how they feel.

Being a cop is a tough job that can get you killed every day and it goes why underappreciated. I feel most cops are good cops. when they do good its EXPECTED and when they mess up its front page news but it is the job and i feel training and evaluation needs improved. Dont have the answers how but it seems evident to me IMO.
 
Really?

Under all lighting conditions?

Under all stress conditions?

Did you know that under some conditions a gun doesn't look like a gun?

well maybe, but why did they wait 5 minutes, 5 minutes to try and get the accidentally shot black guy some help from DYING!

Because that is what video evidence has given us. A full 5 minutes of nothing and one minute handcuffing a dying man (or maybe already dead man, who knows) before trying to help him from not dying after they shot 20 bullets at a guy. Now I would assume officers know that if you fire 20 bullets at someone the odds are pretty good that this person is so seriously hurt that he cannot respond to commands?

And why did they feel they needed to mute their cameras after the shooting? That does not sound kosher IMHO. That sounds suspicious, if you have nothing to hide, hide nothing.

But what is an issue is that even a phone can make officers so jumpy that they potentially pump 20 bullets into someone they do not know anything about, just on the off chance his phone is a gun and he is a bad guy. Kill first and ask questions never. Because that is the practice, shootings are almost always whitewashed by the police themselves or a justice department, jury system that seems awfully over protective of police officers.

And do not get me wrong, they need good protection especially in a country where simply everyone can be running around with a gun and the legal system not giving any incentive to criminals to not use guns when caught (you are going away for life or close to it anyway so why not take a shot), it is not had to understand that police officers have a legitimate fear of most everybody but at some point this senseless killing of innocent people has to stop, not every situation needs a gun being emptied into someone, and I know, training and all that but other police forces do not feel the need to do this so why does it happen in the US that often?

I now this issue is not going to be solved with anything we write here (especially me because I am safe and sound far away in the Netherlands where you really have to be very unlucky to be shot and killed by the police when not posing a threat) but at some point this senseless shooting thing of especially not threatening black people has to end.
 
well maybe, but why did they wait 5 minutes, 5 minutes to try and get the accidentally shot black guy some help from DYING!
As I said, They don't know if he still has the perceived gun and you can still shoot from lying down.
Because that is what video evidence has given us. A full 5 minutes of nothing and one minute handcuffing a dying man (or maybe already dead man, who knows) before trying to help him from not dying after they shot 20 bullets at a guy. Now I would assume officers know that if you fire 20 bullets at someone the odds are pretty good that this person is so seriously hurt that he cannot respond to commands?

And why did they feel they needed to mute their cameras after the shooting? That does not sound kosher IMHO. That sounds suspicious, if you have nothing to hide, hide nothing.

They mute it when discussing police or case sensitive topics or personal business.
But what is an issue is that even a phone can make officers so jumpy that they potentially pump 20 bullets into someone they do not know anything about, just on the off chance his phone is a gun and he is a bad guy. Kill first and ask questions never. Because that is the practice, shootings are almost always whitewashed by the police themselves or a justice department, jury system that seems awfully over protective of police officers.

And do not get me wrong, they need good protection especially in a country where simply everyone can be running around with a gun and the legal system not giving any incentive to criminals to not use guns when caught (you are going away for life or close to it anyway so why not take a shot), it is not had to understand that police officers have a legitimate fear of most everybody but at some point this senseless killing of innocent people has to stop, not every situation needs a gun being emptied into someone, and I know, training and all that but other police forces do not feel the need to do this so why does it happen in the US that often?

I now this issue is not going to be solved with anything we write here (especially me because I am safe and sound far away in the Netherlands where you really have to be very unlucky to be shot and killed by the police when not posing a threat) but at some point this senseless shooting thing of especially not threatening black people has to end.
Again, the phone was pointed as if he was pointing a firearm in a two handed grip.
 
As I said, They don't know if he still has the perceived gun and you can still shoot from lying down.

What are they the Keystone Cops from the silent movies? Twenty shots and someone not responding for a minute or moving isn't enough of an indication that a few of your TWENTY shots injured someone seriously?

They mute it when discussing police or case sensitive topics or personal business

Except that is then for the police or the judge to decide, not for the police. This is about evidence for a proper police shooting and when you shut off your microphone you make that impossible.

Again, the phone was pointed as if he was pointing a firearm in a two handed grip.

I am not the officer but I am talking about the actions AFTER the shooting and I was not talking about this case but about shootings in general. And you cannot hold a phone like it has a grip IMHO, they are square boxes and guns are not square, they have a barrel for one and again I was talking about shooting cases in General.
 
well maybe, but why did they wait 5 minutes, 5 minutes to try and get the accidentally shot black guy some help from DYING!

Excellent question.

Every first aid course in the country teaches the "Golden Minute" theory.

Because that is what video evidence has given us. A full 5 minutes of nothing and one minute handcuffing a dying man (or maybe already dead man, who knows) before trying to help him from not dying after they shot 20 bullets at a guy. Now I would assume officers know that if you fire 20 bullets at someone the odds are pretty good that this person is so seriously hurt that he cannot respond to commands?

It takes time to reload your magazines.

And why did they feel they needed to mute their cameras after the shooting? That does not sound kosher IMHO. That sounds suspicious, if you have nothing to hide, hide nothing.

"Departmental Policy"?

But what is an issue is that even a phone can make officers so jumpy that they potentially pump 20 bullets into someone they do not know anything about, just on the off chance his phone is a gun and he is a bad guy.

That, indeed, is an issue.

Kill first and ask questions never. Because that is the practice, shootings are almost always whitewashed by the police themselves or a justice department, jury system that seems awfully over protective of police officers.

Hyperbole.

And do not get me wrong, they need good protection especially in a country where simply everyone can be running around with a gun and the legal system not giving any incentive to criminals to not use guns when caught (you are going away for life or close to it anyway so why not take a shot),...

I'm in favour of progressive punishments for having guns in connection with committing crimes - something along the lines of:

  1. simply HAVING one when you commit a crime = X years (mandatory and in addition to all other sentencing)
  2. simply DISPLAYING one when you commit a crime = 2X years (mandatory and in addition to all other sentencing)
  3. simply DISCHARGING one when you commit a crime = 4X years (mandatory and in addition to all other sentencing)
  4. actually HITTING someone when you discharge the gun when you commit a crime = 8X years (mandatory and in addition to all other sentencing)
  5. seriously WOUNDING someone when you discharge the gun when you commit a crime = 16X years (mandatory and in addition to all other sentencing)
  6. actually KILLING someone when you discharge the gun when you commit a crime = 32X years (mandatory and in addition to all other sentencing)
  7. HITTING, WOUNDING, or KILLING more than one person when you discharge the gun when you commit a crime = [penalty above x number of people HIT, WOUNDED, or KILLED; and
  8. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE any of the above = 50% of the penalty that would have been imposed.
.

That means that, for example, someone who kills 17 people in a school shooting would be facing a minimum of (32 x 17) 544 years in jail (plus the jail time involved for the actual killings) if convicted, and any prosecutor who refused to prosecute the "gun use clauses" would be facing a minimum of 272 years in prison. Very few prosecutors would agree to "plea bargain" away the "gun use clauses" in situations like that.
it is not had to understand that police officers have a legitimate fear of most everybody but at some point this senseless killing of innocent people has to stop, not every situation needs a gun being emptied into someone, and I know, training and all that but other police forces do not feel the need to do this so why does it happen in the US that often?

I now this issue is not going to be solved with anything we write here (especially me because I am safe and sound far away in the Netherlands where you really have to be very unlucky to be shot and killed by the police when not posing a threat) but at some point this senseless shooting thing of especially not threatening black people has to end.

This issue is not going to be solved as long as the "debate" is on the level of "Is putting a band-aid on the right hand or putting a band-aid on the left foot the best way to treat a sucking chest wound?" - which (essentially) the "MORE Guns"/"LESS Guns" crowd tends to keep it at.
 
I'm in favour of progressive punishments for having guns in connection with committing crimes - something along the lines of:

  1. simply HAVING one when you commit a crime = X years (mandatory and in addition to all other sentencing)
  2. simply DISPLAYING one when you commit a crime = 2X years (mandatory and in addition to all other sentencing)
  3. simply DISCHARGING one when you commit a crime = 4X years (mandatory and in addition to all other sentencing)
  4. actually HITTING someone when you discharge the gun when you commit a crime = 8X years (mandatory and in addition to all other sentencing)
  5. seriously WOUNDING someone when you discharge the gun when you commit a crime = 16X years (mandatory and in addition to all other sentencing)
  6. actually KILLING someone when you discharge the gun when you commit a crime = 32X years (mandatory and in addition to all other sentencing)
  7. HITTING, WOUNDING, or KILLING more than one person when you discharge the gun when you commit a crime = [penalty above x number of people HIT, WOUNDED, or KILLED; and
  8. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE any of the above = 50% of the penalty that would have been imposed.
.

That means that, for example, someone who kills 17 people in a school shooting would be facing a minimum of (32 x 17) 544 years in jail (plus the jail time involved for the actual killings) if convicted, and any prosecutor who refused to prosecute the "gun use clauses" would be facing a minimum of 272 years in prison. Very few prosecutors would agree to "plea bargain" away the "gun use clauses" in situations like that.
it is not had to understand that police officers have a legitimate fear of most everybody but at some point this senseless killing of innocent people has to stop, not every situation needs a gun being emptied into someone, and I know, training and all that but other police forces do not feel the need to do this so why does it happen in the US that often?

I am going to answer this things first and foremost. I do not agree with these kinds of mandatory punishments and sentencing someone to 544 years in jail is a bit silly IMHO. Instead of that just convict them to natural life without the possibility of parole.

The issue I have with the US crime sentencing with regard to the use of violence towards police and crime victims.

Like in a case where someone has committed an armed robbery, something like when a Middletown man was sentenced to 90 years for armed robbery. The man did not discharge his weapon but still got 90 years. If you know that this is the likely punishment you would get if you let yourself get arrested. Why should that man not shoot at a police officer to try and escape capture? He is already going to sit the rest of his life in jail so why not shoot and kill the officers?

As long as you already know that your life is over, why not go to the next step and actually use your weapon?

In the Netherlands you might get 10 years for an armed robbery (or lower if no violence actually took place) and you get out in about 7 years. When you however shot and killed the officers who tried to arrest you, you would get natural life (sitting in jail until you die). Now if you are a 30 year old man in the first case you would get a new chance at rebuilding your life at age 37, in the second case you would never get out again.

The difference between the 2 punishments would make a criminal think twice about using a weapon or violently resisting arrest. 7 years in jail is a lot better than life in jail.

In the US if the difference between the 2 crimes is not of any significance, why not use violence. If you risk 90 years for an armed robbery with no actual weapon use, and you get 120 years for using a weapon to rob a place and 300 years if you shoot at the police, what reason is there for a criminal to not use violence?

That is the issue, this endangers the police and that worries me a lot because it makes officers more likely to shoot first and ask questions later because they know that if they stop an armed robber the odds of him using his weapon is significant, because he is done for no matter what his response is to being stopped by the police. That in my mind leads to more violence towards the police.
 
I am going to answer this things first and foremost. I do not agree with these kinds of mandatory punishments and sentencing someone to 544 years in jail is a bit silly IMHO. Instead of that just convict them to natural life without the possibility of parole.

I agree, and so (probably) would:

  • Charles Scott Robinson - Sentenced to 30,000 years in jail in 1994;
  • Allan Wayne McLaurin - Sentenced to 20,750 years in jail in 1994;
  • Darron Bennalford Anderson - Sentenced (on appeal from his 2,250 years in jail) to 11,250 years in jail in 1994;
  • Rene Lopez - Sentenced to 1,503 years in jail in 2016; and
  • Richard Speck - 1,200 (minimum 400) years in jail in 1972

    The issue I have with the US crime sentencing with regard to the use of violence towards police and crime victims.

    Like in a case where someone has committed an armed robbery, something like when a Middletown man was sentenced to 90 years for armed robbery. The man did not discharge his weapon but still got 90 years.

    Absent further details on this person's criminal record and the facts of the crime, all I can say is that 90 years does appear to be a bit much.

    If you know that this is the likely punishment you would get if you let yourself get arrested. Why should that man not shoot at a police officer to try and escape capture? He is already going to sit the rest of his life in jail so why not shoot and kill the officers?

    Quite right, but if the sentences for the underlying crime were "more reasonable" then why would someone want to risk the extra jail time?

    As long as you already know that your life is over, why not go to the next step and actually use your weapon?

    Agreed, if you already know that your sentence will be disproportionate, you have a point.

    In the Netherlands you might get 10 years for an armed robbery (or lower if no violence actually took place) and you get out in about 7 years. When you however shot and killed the officers who tried to arrest you, you would get natural life (sitting in jail until you die). Now if you are a 30 year old man in the first case you would get a new chance at rebuilding your life at age 37, in the second case you would never get out again.

    Quite right, but then the Dutch were always considered rather rational.

    The difference between the 2 punishments would make a criminal think twice about using a weapon or violently resisting arrest. 7 years in jail is a lot better than life in jail.

    My point exactly, but you are right, it won't work if the sentencing process is irrational to start with.

    In the US if the difference between the 2 crimes is not of any significance, why not use violence. If you risk 90 years for an armed robbery with no actual weapon use, and you get 120 years for using a weapon to rob a place and 300 years if you shoot at the police, what reason is there for a criminal to not use violence?

    It may surprise people to learn that the "theoretical sentence" has next to nothing whatsoever to do with "deterrence" - ESPECIALLY when the criminal "jesnoz" that they aren't going to get caught.

    That is the issue, this endangers the police and that worries me a lot because it makes officers more likely to shoot first and ask questions later because they know that if they stop an armed robber the odds of him using his weapon is significant, because he is done for no matter what his response is to being stopped by the police. That in my mind leads to more violence towards the police.

    Your point is sound. Once the sentence is (effectively) "forever" then there is nothing whatsoever stopping the criminal from "piling on" and committing further crimes in order to avoid capture, trial, and sentence.
 
What are they the Keystone Cops from the silent movies? Twenty shots and someone not responding for a minute or moving isn't enough of an indication that a few of your TWENTY shots injured someone seriously?

People have functioned normally with more holes. Or at the very least able to pull the trigger with more holes in them.

Except that is then for the police or the judge to decide, not for the police. This is about evidence for a proper police shooting and when you shut off your microphone you make that impossible.

I agree but I'm just saying why they mute it to dispel the idea that they were conspiring to make it look justified or something.


I am not the officer but I am talking about the actions AFTER the shooting and I was not talking about this case but about shootings in general. And you cannot hold a phone like it has a grip IMHO, they are square boxes and guns are not square, they have a barrel for one and again I was talking about shooting cases in General.

I just did it with my phone. You can point it as if you have a firearm.
 
Back
Top Bottom