Protests resume in fatal Sacramento police shooting of Stephon Clark - Sensationalist Headlines

I realize that but his argument is that since they "obviously" look like cops then they don't need to announce that they are cops. All I want to know is if he would hold that same stance had they been plain cloths officers. Just seems like an odd view to me to feel that cops don't need to say "hey, it's the police!".

No, anyone who does that immediately draws the attention of the officer because now that officer is going to think "this man is surrendering, what kind of warrant does he have". Also there's a big fucking difference between "everyone must surrender at the sight of an officer" and "pointing objects at officers to appear like a threat". If we're going to argue ridiculous logical extremes, officers are not allowed to shoot until someone shoots at them. And in that case, I'm thinking law enforcement would collapse as officers become more likely to leave the scene of a crime than follow through and risk dying because of suicidal rules of engagement.

No the fuck it doesn't lol. Taking a job does not strip someone of their natural right to self preservation. You know nothing about factory or construction work if you think that your actions only affect your own safety. I can be unsafe at work and kill a whole lot of people, more than a cop with a gun could. And now we have a reductio ad absurdum fallacy. The goal is to maximize the safety of society, but not at the expense of the officer's safety.

It's upsetting how this guy got shot for taking out a cellphone in his own backyard while Nick Cruz was calmly arrested after killing 17 people and injuring 17 people more.

That asshole surrendered peacefully. The police are not judges. Their goal is to arrest. However, they have the same right of self-preservation that everyone else that lives in the US has. Literally, the law is exactly the same for me as it is for my local police. This in my view is exactly the way it should be. The police have the job of investigating crime, arresting those they believe to be perpetrators. But that is it. It is a job. Their right to defend themselves should be exactly the same as mine. There should be no exception to say that the police have more or less leeway than me when it comes to self-defense.

though you would also face consequence for murdering a dude, even if it was on accident.

Yes, if you did not reasonably believe you or someone else was at risk or serious bodily harm or death from an attacker you'd be charged with a crime. Though certain states have also expanded definitions of when lethal force can be used. If you kill someone while you reasonably thought your life was at stake you will face no criminal charges, even if that belief was mistaken. Courts have repeatedly held that no one is expected to have a crystal ball and know if the persona presenting the threat actually has the means to inflict what they are threatening. Here is the statute for Texas. There is also other times were lethal force is justified in relation to someone attempt to commit other crimes, such as rape or kidnapping. PENAL CODE CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSI..

The difference is that by being unsafe at work you risk your and other people's safety. In the case of the police, it's being argued that it's preferable that the officer prioritizes his own safety in spite of the public's safety. That's not the same thing at all. So if a civilian orders another civilian to put his hands up and the latter doesn't comply and waves around an object loosely resembling a gun, the former is justified in shooting him? Seems to me the right to self preservation isn't equally held up depending on whether you're in the police force. As for announcing themselves, what the fuck would justify not doing it other than laziness? Does it endanger the officers' lives to say that they're police? Seems like it should be basic protocol to me. Didn't the officers who shot this dude put their bodycam on mute after they killed him, too? Seems pretty fishy to me.

If they reasonably believe their life is at stake, yes. The exact same applies. And citizen's arrest is a thing that happens (when someone is holding someone else until police arrive). So the exact same laws apply about reasonable force. Plenty of robbers have died imitating firearms to their potential victims if you've spent any length of time going through the DGU sub-reddit that I linked. They've mostly not been charged unless the police believe otherwise. This doesn't prevent a case being brought before a criminal court in most states so that all the facts of the case can be brought to light. Because someone did die. But if a person reasonably believes they are going to die they don't have to wait until the other party actually starts shooting/stabbing/etc. They can stop the threat before it actually harms them. In this context it does not matter that they did not announce themselves. And the video I've seen doesn't cover the entire pursuit so the dude likely knew he was being chased by the police. Why else would a helicopter be following you?!? But the simple fact of the matter is no police, anywhere in the world that I'm aware of, have to announce themselves before they can use deadly force to stop someone else's use or threat of use of deadly force. That simply is an unrealistic expectation in the very fast moving events of something like this.

The context doesn't matter, there's literally no reason not to do it. How the fuck is it unrealistic to expect the police to say one fucking word?

Because, as posted before, you can't force a person to risk their own safety for a job, which is why we have things like OSHA. Are you just going to make this a circular argument by bringing up the same points I've covered before?

OSHA doesn't rule that workers should prioritize their safety if it risks others', so I still have no idea why you keep bringing them up?

Because OSHA workplace regulations are literally "you can't force an employee to put themselves in danger", the handbook. Everything you're saying flies in the face of that, and says "no, we can and should expect people to be forced to put their safety at risk for a job", and I'm pretty positive everyone thinks that OSHA is an excellent thing that is in place for a good reason. If you're waiting for me to say that cops should accept some harm because of their job, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

I'm really not getting your OSHA comparison. OSHA exists to control how work is handled and how workers are allowed to operate. It doesn't make certain jobs inherently not-dangerous. I worked on bridge repair for a time and there's no OSHA regulation that tells cars not to blow past the stop sign I'm holding and potentially hit another car head on (or hit me), or ignore signs and blow right into a construction zone and kill someone I work with (as has actually happened). It's the #1 thing about working in traffic that we were told time and time again: Anyone at any point could run you over. There's really no way about getting around that risk. I most definitely put my safety at risk for that job, as do police officers - I'm sure. >I'm pretty positive everyone thinks that OSHA is an excellent thing that is in place for a good reason Also, citation needed because I've met plenty of people in the business who would say the opposite.

I am a bit late to the party but as far as I know it is legally required for police to identify themselves. At least that is how it is in most nations. Hell, I'm just a mallcop and even I was taught to identify myself prior to commanding. It's not only practical but it is obligatory when speaking of legality.

Then you don't understand what OSHA is and need to go take some training if you think that OSHA doesn't stop employers from forcing you to work in situations where you feel unsafe. Just because a job is inherently dangerous, it does not mean that we shouldn't take any and all steps to protect the employee. I worked roadway construction as well for years, and now I've been working in nuclear plants for a few years. I know what OSHA entails, why it's in place, and what purposes it serves. Your example doesn't make any sense because a regular person doesn't drive their car as an occupation, and those who do could certainly be found at fault for an OSHA violation if they did so. But let me make this analogy more clear to you. Imagine there are instances where drivers are ignoring or not seeing the stop/slow paddle because you're off to the side of the road with your flag (which is the safest area for you, not in the lane). In response, people are saying "well, he should be standing in the lane where it's much easier for people to see him", to which you reply "but that puts me in more danger, whereas if people would pay attention while driving , we wouldn't have this issue". They respond with "well your job is inherently dangerous, so you should expect that you could get hurt doing your job anyways." What do you then say to these people who are telling you that because your job is inherently dangerous, that you should accept more danger and an increased chance of injury or death? Do you accept it and move the flaggers into the live traffic lanes? How do you react? Not an excuse or reason to place them in a position where their chances of injury or death is greater. Let me clarify, everyone on these forums who think that just because a job is inherently dangerous, that means that employees should be fine with the less safe method of doing their job, would most likely say that OSHA regulations are a good thing, because I'm sure they don't want to go back to the times of the industrial revolution when it comes to workplace safety.

Then you don't understand what OSHA is and need to go take some training if you think that OSHA doesn't stop employers from forcing you to work in situations where you feel unsafe.

Well yeah, but he was unarmed and compliant when they arrested him. Pretty sure if he ran away from them, then cornered them with something in his hands, he'd be dead too.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/30/us/stephon-clark-independent-autopsy.html Update on this story

Of course the autopsy report doesn't match the officers account of events is anyone truely suprised that the police might lie to cover their own ass. But hey let's rationalize how this unarmed man deserved to be shot three times in his lower back, twice near the right shoulder, once in his neck, once under an armpit, and once in the leg. Then let's bitch about the protesters who are tired of this shit.

Dr. Omalu said he believed the first bullet to hit Mr. Clark on his side caused him to turn, so he was facing away from the officers when they fired the barrage of bullets. the cops claimed that Clark was charging them when he was shot, this autopsy contradicts that

Yeah, so in essence, you're fine with anybody not doing their job at all, as long as that job entails taking the slightest modicum of risk, because you can't force an employee to do something that he deems to be unsafe for him, and you can't fire them because of their decision either. I've asked you where you set the bar when it comes to the amount of risk that's acceptable for a police officer, you've failed to give an answer that is compatible with your own statements.

What I'm gonna ask is why do they shoot 15 additional shots when he's already on all fours? Why do they yell "show your han- gun!" then they retreat, then they pop up again and say "show me your hands gun gun gun" immediately afterwards? What were they trying to accomplish? They think they see a gun the first time around, but the subject doesn't try to shoot, and they don't shoot - shouldn't that warrant some skepticism or careful behaviour? They're apparently willing to reengage with someone that they think (though they quickly ask again?) has a gun, but then they need to call in backup, wait for it to arrive, then stand around a bit trying to get the dead guy to respond, just to make sure the guy they just pumped full of lead isn't playing dead? I'm not saying that the officers didn't think they saw a gun, but this "oh the guy was walking towards them" - so what? People move around, and they hadn't even asked him to stand still, put himself on the ground or whatnot. If they think he had a gun, why not tell him to drop it instead of popping out (putting yourself in the line of fire again) and ask him to "show your hands"? I'm also not gonna claim the entire US police force has issues with communication, but this reminds me of the case with the guy crawling on the floor - bad communication, unclear instructions, leading to someone getting killed. If you think someone has a gun in their hands, do you really ask them to show their hands again? Who says the guy wasn't slowly moving towards them to show them what he had in his hands?

Yeah, so in essence, you're fine with using cops as cannon fodder as long as it prevents one person who appears to be a threat from being shot, and they just have to suck it up because being a cop means you have to be ok with being killed. See, I can literally present your views so extreme that it's literally no longer what you're saying as well. I haven't given you an answer because I can't make that determination. There are lots of factors involved, and the answer will differ based on if those factors are present.

Alright. nothings gonna change. Philando Castillo was basically murdered for following orders. Stephon Clark died for failing to follow them. Police never actually face consequences from these events. i guess we should accept every instance of abuse of power without looking at the growing trend that's an issue. Nah. Let's fucking ignore it cause we can't dare look at the issue for what it fucking is. Im done discussing this here but you guys who refuse to think further about this are part of americas problem of acceptance of shit that isn't okay.

So uhh-- are you saying in regards to like, active shooting situations/criminal on the rampage scenarios or are you saying in general? Because the idea of having to get on the ground for my glorious police masters the second a bobby comes into the shop I work at to buy a fucking cornetto is absolutely absurd.

I'm not really convinced you can get anything from the video, he got shot before I saw much movement at all.

Why didn't they ask him to drop the gun they thought he might be holding? Or put himself on the ground? You're saying they couldn't confirm it wasn't a gun without exposing themselves to considerable risk - but that's exactly what they did. They literally went out of cover a second time, after already yelling "gun!" ones (indicating that they thought he had a gun), and they ask him to show his hands; what's that if not trying to confirm whether it was a gun or not, apparently at considerable risk to themselves. To me it's honestly completely irrelevant whether if he had his hands raised or in front of him; it's on the police to give clear instructions so that situation like these can be avoided. If you're told to "show your hands" where are you gonna put them? In front of you, of course, to show what you have in your hands. I don't know what proper police procedure is, but is "show your hands" really a good command on its own? If the suspect actually has a gun (which is what you're looking to confirm/deny), and they simply follow the command, they'd literally be holding a gun in front of them (unless they raise their hands of their own accord), supposedly justifying shooting them. Looking at the helicopter footage, it's hard to see how Clark is acting before he gets shot (as he's obscured by the building) - but it doesn't look like he's moving fast, and well, I guess this isn't for me to decide, especially from bad footage. With the "they will fire as many as necessary until the threat has been neutralized" - at what point is the threat neutralized? Do you really need to shoot someone 15 additional times after they are on their hands and knees, 5-7 of those shots being when they're literally lying on the ground? Why not continue shooting him, since they literally kept thinking of him as a threat for five minutes after? Clark at this point hasn't fired a single shot, has been shot at least a few times, and they still don't feel like they could possibly apprehend them at gunpoint? What kind of suspect could a cop ever apprehend by this logic? A suspect will always pose some theoretical risk. Why did they even make a move after five minutes? Can people not play dead that long or what? I'm not asking police men to take unnecessary risks, but there is obviously some risk associated with this job. I don't buy that the moment a cop doesn't feel completely at ease they have the right to fill a suspect with lead, and I especially don't buy that they should have that right without having clear as day communication. It's also really suspect that they mute their camera afterwards; maybe they just debriefed a bit, but it's such a good way to make people suspicious of this - are they lining up their stories? I'm not saying these cops are bad people - and maybe I'm wrong and they did everything by the book, or close enough - but I think it's important to not brush everything off as "the police felt threatened, so they opened fire preemptively"; because the police's job is to preempt shootings as much as possible, not with guns, but with communication.

My post is the logical conclusion of your reasoning. You claim that people shouldn't be forced to do things within their jobs that are unsafe, and shouldn't be fired for refusing. This supposedly applies to any job, the vast majority of which involve a certain amount of risks. Thus those who work those slightly risky jobs should be allowed to do nothing and get paid. This is the result of my applying your arguments to other lines of work. If you disagree with the conclusion, you should modify your argument, for example by claiming that a certain amount of risk can reasonably be expected to be taken by employees. Extreme arguments beget extreme conclusions. Nuance your stance if you want it to make sense.

No, your post is reductio ad absurdum. Applying my line of reasoning is already applied to other lines of work already. I don't need to modify my argument since you're no longer arguing my argument, but an extreme version you've made up. If you want to argue against my argument, do that. Otherwise, I'm not playing along with your fallacious arguments.