Beyond me how anyone can see that video and then try to use it to defend those cops. If they are so scared that they need to kill in that situation they shouldn't have become police officers. Them shooting 20 shots at someone 9 feet away and then waiting 5 minutes before seeing if he's "Ok" is very telling too...
Cop in America doing a bad job, again
- Thread starter Sigma
- Start date
Nor was the one I posted. It was edited for brevity, which happens all the time. And the fact that you clip wasn't any more illuminating suggests it was the right call.
- Jumping the fence to run away isn't grounds for killing a suspect. You continue running and chase them down.
- Whether or not they believed he had a gun was obviously BS combined with a bit of racial profiling (black guy running, he must be armed!). They simply presumed that the fact that he had something in his hand (a cellphone) was a gun, which they then used as an excuse to pump him full of 8 or so rounds.
Plus it was dark, plus they were scared and making assumptions (the wrong ones at that).
Last edited:
Range is probably around 20 feet. Maybe you're not qualified to watch the video and come to any sort of conclusion.
I am not defending the cops nor am I making wild statements about racial profiling or suggesting the cops deliberately murdered Clark.
Last edited:
I don't know, I have a internet connection and a working computer, what more do I need to qualify to watch it
? You did say maybe though, so maybe I am? He's about 2 1/2 body lengths away from them by my reckoning (looking at it again now at 1:36), so yeah it's more than 9 feet, but still very close.My conclusion based on watching that video is that those 2 cops are cowards. And that conclusion is way more qualified than your completely unqualified questioning of my qualification to have an opinion.
I don't know, I have a internet connection and a working computer, what more do I need to qualify to watch it
My conclusion based on watching that video is that those 2 cops are cowards. And that conclusion is way more qualified than your completely unqualified questioning of my qualification to have an opinion.
That's all you really need here - two eyes and a bit of objectivity.
I wonder how Mike feels about the Trayvon Martin killing
Damn dude. Grenade tossed!
I don't know, I have a internet connection and a working computer, what more do I need to qualify to watch it
My conclusion based on watching that video is that those 2 cops are cowards. And that conclusion is way more qualified than your completely unqualified questioning of my qualification to have an opinion.
There is a lot more info in the video to scale off. The home has a double garage which are usually 18-19 feet wide. The distance between the officers and Clark was more than the width of the garage by a few feet. First shot was fired from around 22 feet away.
Lots of people got that one all wrong in the aftermath despite the actual evidence being fairly clear.
Like I said before, eagle-eyed police able to identify a gun, at night, on the run, from 22 feet away.
Supercops.
Supercops.
A nearly 17 minute video. The most damning part is the cops turning off their audio towards the end so their comments, once they were discussing what really happened, couldn't be held against them.
Interesting quote from the Baton Rouge chief after firing one of the officers who murdered Alton Sterling.
“Our police officers are held to a higher standard. Fear cannot be a driver for an officer’s response to every incident,” Paul said Friday. “Unreasonable fear within an officer is dangerous.”
“Our police officers are held to a higher standard. Fear cannot be a driver for an officer’s response to every incident,” Paul said Friday. “Unreasonable fear within an officer is dangerous.”
It could be held against them if it was actually against department rules. Obviously the rules need changing on body cam usage. The cop on the previous page had his cam on charge in the car when the shooting occurred.
Yep. It gets people killed.
Whether it is or isn't they should've left it on to preserve as much information as possible. This will only make them look like they were trying to conceal the substance of what happened when they reviewed the shooting amongst one another.
He was running so we shot him. Basically. I'm unsure how you think the cops have anything to stand on (assuming you do, here).There is more than enough video evidence to see exactly what transpired.
Shots were fired because they he didn't listen to commands to show his hands and they believed he had a gun. Or maybe you missed the office say "gun" in the video?
It would be interesting if one of our US cop posters could chime in on this one.
Did they even announce they were police officers?
Which was obviously wrong and a mistake on their part.
No doubt but if a cop is screaming show your hands its best to comply.
And even then you can still end up shot, never mind the fact that it's easy for you to say what should have be done and how while you're a million miles removed from such a charged and instinctual situation.
Initial statement of the Sac PD right after the shooting was that Clark advanced towards the officers with his arm extended. Autopsy show he was shot in the back though. I suppose they could have missed with their initial shots, he turned, and the rest went into his back.
That's precisely what looks like happened. If you pause it around the 1:27 mark, you can see that he's already down and they keep shooting another 11-12 rounds at him.
I think there's enough there that these cops will not be charged.
The way he moves until he is on his hands and knees doesn't look he is hit before that to me, then he suddenly collapses (at the 7th shot by my count)... and then they shoot another 13 times after he collapses.
No way they get charged. Hopefully some good will come from this though. New rules on body cams and microphones, and hopefully better training for cops.
I am personally amazed the Clark case is getting so much attention yet the shooting on the previous page which is far more controversial is barely getting a mention. The effect of social media and hysteria warps the reality on many of these incidents.
Last edited:
I'm not a policeman and I live in the UK so this seems a terrible waste of life to me but I wonder how fair it is to live in a country where guns are so prevalent and then blame the police all the time for what is a natural consequence of that fact.
In that moment especially in the climate fear comes into play. Officers are trained and civilians are not.
Thats the key part, that I don't think people have been grasping. Also that certain stereotypes perpetuate such fear
Very good observation. The rush to blame the police is wrong IMO. When a police officer acts with malice or makes bad decisions when they had time and options to do something else, then yes they should be heavily scrutinized. The Clark incident is tragic but I don't see too much wrong with the police response considering all the evidence I have seen.
The incident a couple of pages ago when the cop shot a guy with his shorts around is ankle is more news worthy for me. He had other options and could clearly see the perpetrator was unharmed.
I dont want to make a judgment call on this one because even based on the videos available i can't clearly see what Clark was actually doing right before the shots were fired. So I'm still on the fence on this.
IF he was in fact facing the officers and was raising his "gun" towards them, then yes it would be totally justified. When it's that dark and he had been evading the cops and verbal commands then it does not matter that it turned out to be an iphone. You don't take chances with that shit.
If Clark had the phone in his hand but was facing away from the cops then the justification becomes much more questionable since he was not an immediate deadly threat. The cops had distance and cover and could have given more verbal commands to show his hands or drop the weapon.
Thanks!
Personally I don't think there is evidence to suggest the cops acted irresponsibly, even if they did. No one wants to shoot and kill another human being. Hopefully they genuinely thought he had a gun, was facing them and made a motion with his arm/hand.
Bit rich to say you feel threatened by an extended arm with a Iphone in its hand when you just shouted "Show me your hands" 5 times aggressively without ever saying you're the police. I don't think these cops will be charged either, but not because they're innocent or because their actions are excusable, they won't be charged because the criminal justice system is broken.
The cop clearly says "gun, gun" on the video so they genuinely believed he was armed. It was a tragic situation where the cops have to make split second life and death judgement calls.
Clark knew very well they were cops. There was an helicopter overhead and the cops had been in the neighborhood a few minutes. He was caught on camera by the helicopter acting suspiciously and trying to avoid detection.
Let us say all of that is correct (I disagree with some of it but it isn't really worth arguing about it during half time), why shoot at him another 13 times after he is face down on the ground?
You have two cops firing what I presume were 45acp pistols a couple of feet from one another with no eye or hear protection, in what they thought was a life threatening situation. When you are rapid firing and another gun is deafening your ear drums its hard to stop shooting. There was less than a second between Clark landing face down and the last shot. I paused the official video when he went face down then tried to count the rounds fired after that point, and it sound like 5-6 shots.
He was already incapacitated after the first 5 or so rounds. The remaining 12 rounds were completely unnecessary.
How fast can you fire a pistol? 7-8 rounds a second? Its dark and noise and confusion come into it. They both just emptied their clips as fast as possible. With hindsight sat on our comfy chairs with multiple video angles its easy to see the precise millisecond they should have stop shooting.