What is the hidden agenda MSM is trying to pull of with the shooting of Stephon Clark?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: UKTruth

Wait.. "Highly likely" is sure enough to kill someone?!?!?

That is not why he was shot, though.
He was told to stop running and to show his hands. He did not do so.
The officers actually had to take cover behind a wall and clearly assessed danger.
That is why he was shot. Running, non-compliance with an officer's demands and posing a clear and present danger.

It actually doesn't matter whether he was the car thief or not.

Actually....


....they lost site if their suspect, saw this guy pop up on IR, and bamboozled him in his back yard.

They need to prove he was their target initially. Fingerprints or something. Police are not death squads. I reject that this is acceptable.

I reject that this is acceptable. In case it needs repeating.

That's not true.
The body cam shows that they chased him, shouting to him as they chased him to stop and put his hands up. They did not fire during the chase. When he ran down the alley and into the garden the officers initially ran around the corner into full view and then dived back behind the wall exclaiming 'gun'. They still did not fire. They shouted again for him to put his hands up.

It's only then that they looked back around the corner, shouted 'gun gun gun' and opened fire.

The body cam shows it all.
The guy had plenty of time to comply.

The media is lying and spinning to divide further. They've done it before and they will continue to do it.

We live in a country where American citizens are giving the police right to kill someone for resisting.
There is no due process. Of course race had nothing to do with it. Not in the United States. Never.

originally posted by: Prisoner60863
We live in a country where American citizens are giving the police right to kill someone for resisting.
There is no due process. Of course race had nothing to do with it. Not in the United States. Never.

Due process for a police officer if they believe there is a real threat to themselves or others is to shoot.
That's within their remit, as it should be.
The war on police is only going to make it worse. It's time to respect and comply with law enforcement.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Prisoner60863
We live in a country where American citizens are giving the police right to kill someone for resisting.
There is no due process. Of course race had nothing to do with it. Not in the United States. Never.

Due process for a police officer if they believe there is a real threat to themselves or others is to shoot.
That's within their remit.

Yes we all know the they "feared" for their lives.

originally posted by: Prisoner60863

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Prisoner60863
We live in a country where American citizens are giving the police right to kill someone for resisting.
There is no due process. Of course race had nothing to do with it. Not in the United States. Never.

Due process for a police officer if they believe there is a real threat to themselves or others is to shoot.
That's within their remit.

Yes we all know the they "feared" for their lives.

The actions and words of the officers in the bodycam footage clearly shows that they believed themselves to be imminent danger. They actually showed some initial restraint.

What you see on TV and read in the papers is not what actually happened.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Prisoner60863

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Prisoner60863
We live in a country where American citizens are giving the police right to kill someone for resisting.
There is no due process. Of course race had nothing to do with it. Not in the United States. Never.

Due process for a police officer if they believe there is a real threat to themselves or others is to shoot.
That's within their remit.

Yes we all know the they "feared" for their lives.

The actions and words of the officers in the bodycam footage clearly shows that they believed themselves to be imminent danger. They actually showed some initial restraint.

What you see on TV and read in the papers is not what actually happened.

I saw the body cam video and the helicopter video.
We all know the outcome of the investigation will be and we all know what the excuse is going to be.
They will get away with it because they were scared for their lives. They might get some more training or something. Case closed.
Always the same excuses.


I'm willing to bet through pay pal that is how this case will play out. I can predict now the next time an officer shoots and kills an unarmed person they will get away with it because fear or resisting will also be there reason. We been hearing the same excuses for decades. I really felt bad for Daniel Shaver because he was crying begging for his life and knew what was going to happen. The cop had "Your f#@" etched in his service weapon. Still you know the guy reached for his waist cop was scared you know.

a reply to: Prisoner60863

Shaver reached behind his back. Bad move.

If you saw the body cam of the shooting in the OP, then you already know the officers gave the guy plenty of opportunities to stop and show his hands.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Prisoner60863

Shaver reached behind his back. Bad move.

If you saw the body cam of the shooting in the OP, then you already know the officers gave the guy plenty of opportunities to stop and show his hands.

Shaver did not reach behind his back . This current case the officer shot a second after yelling gun. At the end of the day could have, should have, we have another unarmed person killed by police with the excuse that they feared for their lives. Another one. I'm willing to bet the next time an officer shoots an unarmed person it's because" they feared for their lives".

originally posted by: Prisoner60863

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Prisoner60863

Shaver reached behind his back. Bad move.

If you saw the body cam of the shooting in the OP, then you already know the officers gave the guy plenty of opportunities to stop and show his hands.

Shaver did not reach behind his back . This current case the officer shot a second after yelling gun. At the end of the day could have, should have, we have another unarmed person killed by police with the excuse that they feared for their lives. Another one. I'm willing to bet the next time an officer shoots an unarmed person it's because" they feared for their lives".

The video of Shaver clearly shows him reaching behind his back. You can't change reality.



You are incorrect about the officers in the current case. They identified they thought there was a gun long before they opened fire. Watch the full body cam footage. The first clear indication they believed the guy had a gun was when they took cover behind the wall - the single word 'gun' is clearly heard. Later, just before they opened fire you can hear 'gun, gun gun' being shouted. You are either watching part of the video and are misinformed or you missed the first identification of what they thought was a gun.

a reply to: UKTruth

An independent autopsy just released shows that Clark was shot 8 times; once in the left thigh (possibly the first to hit him), 6 times in the back, and once in the neck. It is thought that the leg wound caused Clark to turn to his right (away from the police officers), turning his back to them, as they continued to fire at his back, hitting him in the back and neck, inflicting the fatal wound(s).

The autopsy report calls into question the official claim that Clark was advancing toward the officers, causing them to fire in self-defense.

Furthermore, it casts serious doubts about the officers actions following the shooting; specifically their reason for muting their body microphones.

The officers would have been able to immediately assess that their shots had hit Mr. Clark in the back, not the chest, since he appears to have fallen face down on ground. The autopsy reports claims that Clark could have been alive for up to ten minutes after he was shot. The police delayed approaching Clark for five of those minutes, claiming that they feared he was still armed.

Perhaps they muted their mic’s to discuss how to coverup what they must have immediately known to have been a murder?

And finally according to the reports of the incident, the officers on scene fired a total of 20 rounds at Mr. Clark from a distance of what appears to be less than 50 feet, but hit him just 8 times? That’s an accuracy rating of less than 50%!

I thought the police were supposed to be trained better than that. Or is “spray and pray” the actual, official, police shooting policy?

And what about those other 12 rounds, the ones that didn’t hit Clark in the back? Where did they go, what did they hit?

Maybe the police were hoping that, given the neighborhood, everyone would just write it off as another “drive-by”.