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

a reply to: Flesh699

"Running at police"

abcnews.go.com...

www.sacbee.com...

"Stephon Clark was shot six times in the back and eight times total by Sacramento police officers, according to a private autopsy released Friday morning by his family's legal team, a finding that may roil emotions in a city already on edge about the shooting of the unarmed black man.

The autopsy found that there were no bullet entries from the front. Instead, the review concluded that Clark was facing a house with his left side to officers when they opened fire and hit him first in the left side under the arm. The force of that round spun him around with his back to officers, and six rounds penetrated his back moving in a forward trajectory, the Clark family legal team said.

The last shot struck his left thigh area as Clark was falling or had fallen, the autopsy found."

a reply to: XAnarchistX


SIX TIMES IN THE BACK? That's disgusting! I thought California police gave hugs and sanctuary to lawbreakers.

a reply to: donnydeevil

I was interested in this thread until i saw the cheap race baiting ....

originally posted by: donnydeevil
So you don't find it wrong that the police shot this man twenty times? You think the result was justice for breaking into cars or whatever?

Right wingers screamed and yelled when police even pointed a gun at the bundy's and even whined when he was shot while armed yet a black man shot twenty times because police thought he had a gun is perfectly OK.

They shot him 20 times to make sure he was dead, I suspect. That's fair enough.
He was a criminal who came at them after they chased him down. I don't see why an officer should take a chance of not klilling the guy and potentially losing their own life.

a reply to: CrazyK22

So your only source for this allegation is your brother? I guess I believe that 100% now.

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: Flesh699

"Running at police"

abcnews.go.com...

www.sacbee.com...

"Stephon Clark was shot six times in the back and eight times total by Sacramento police officers, according to a private autopsy released Friday morning by his family's legal team, a finding that may roil emotions in a city already on edge about the shooting of the unarmed black man.

The autopsy found that there were no bullet entries from the front. Instead, the review concluded that Clark was facing a house with his left side to officers when they opened fire and hit him first in the left side under the arm. The force of that round spun him around with his back to officers, and six rounds penetrated his back moving in a forward trajectory, the Clark family legal team said.

The last shot struck his left thigh area as Clark was falling or had fallen, the autopsy found."

There is a video of him coming toward police.
Perhaps he turned as police opened fire. The autopsy already explained why some bullets were in the back. I suspect the continued firing was to ensure he was dead. Rightly so.

a reply to: UKTruth

There is footage. He didnt have time to do anything before they shot him. He turned when they called out.


Was it proven he was the one they were chasing? They'd lost sight of their suspect, and when they reacquired a target it was this guy. Are we certain hes the right guy?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: donnydeevil
So you don't find it wrong that the police shot this man twenty times? You think the result was justice for breaking into cars or whatever?

Right wingers screamed and yelled when police even pointed a gun at the bundy's and even whined when he was shot while armed yet a black man shot twenty times because police thought he had a gun is perfectly OK.

They shot him 20 times to make sure he was dead, I suspect. That's fair enough.
He was a criminal who came at them after they chased him down. I don't see why an officer should take a chance of not klilling the guy and potentially losing their own life.

What happened to "we can't pass judgement until all the facts are in?" Oh, I see... that only applies to Mother Russia.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: donnydeevil
So you don't find it wrong that the police shot this man twenty times? You think the result was justice for breaking into cars or whatever?

Right wingers screamed and yelled when police even pointed a gun at the bundy's and even whined when he was shot while armed yet a black man shot twenty times because police thought he had a gun is perfectly OK.

They shot him 20 times to make sure he was dead, I suspect. That's fair enough.
He was a criminal who came at them after they chased him down. I don't see why an officer should take a chance of not klilling the guy and potentially losing their own life.

What happened to "we can't pass judgement until all the facts are in?" Oh, I see... that only applies to Mother Russia.

I don't know what Russia has to do with it?
Police officers can use deadly force if they feel their own or others lives are in danger.
The scene was not a courtroom.

a reply to: UKTruth

I suspect the continued firing was to ensure he was dead. Rightly so.

In this country, even a violent criminal has a right to a fair trial. It's called "due process." Pumping twenty rounds into a wounded suspect's back is called "murder."

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: UKTruth

There is footage. He didnt have time to do anything before they shot him. He turned when they called out.

That's the point. They shot him before he had the time to shoot them. As it turns out he did not have a gun, but how were the police to know that? Unfortunately, that is the climate brought about, in no small part, by the hatred spewed at police along with violent threats.

Was it proven he was the one they were chasing? They'd lost sight of their suspect, and when they reacquired a target it was this guy. Are we certain hes the right guy?

Highly likely it was indeed him.

a reply to: UKTruth

I don't know what Russia has to do with it?

You insist we can't know who tried to assassinate a Russian defector because we don't have all the facts, yet you accept the allegation that Clark was a car thief because... someone's brother supposedly said he was?

Police officers can use deadly force if they feel their own or others lives are in danger.

And they seem to be more afraid of blacks than whites.

The scene was not a courtroom.

And the cops saw to it that Clark would never have to face trial. Fortunately, in this country, the cops will now have to face an investigation. Unfortunately, they will probably walk free.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

I suspect the continued firing was to ensure he was dead. Rightly so.

In this country, even a violent criminal has a right to a fair trial. It's called "due process." Pumping twenty rounds into a wounded suspect's back is called "murder."

Please read Tennessee vs Garner and Graham vs Conner.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

I suspect the continued firing was to ensure he was dead. Rightly so.

In this country, even a violent criminal has a right to a fair trial. It's called "due process." Pumping twenty rounds into a wounded suspect's back is called "murder."

Please read Tennessee vs Garner and Graham vs Conner.

Please stop meddling in American politics.

a reply to: DJW001

False equivalence.
We know the officers shot the guy.
We know he was a criminal and it's highly likely he was the same guy running from police.

Yes, more afraid of black people because they march and threaten to kill them and then actually do ambush them and kill them in multiple instances. I can understand fully police being more on edge in Democrat hell holes.

Yes, they will walk free because they did their job according to the rules.

a reply to: UKTruth

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

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.

a reply to: UKTruth

We know the officers shot the guy.

Correct, we know that.

We know he was a criminal and it's highly likely he was the same guy running from police.

Incorrect. All we have is the shooters' word. For some reason they turned their body cams off at a crucial moment.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

We know the officers shot the guy.

Correct, we know that.

We know he was a criminal and it's highly likely he was the same guy running from police.

Incorrect. All we have is the shooters' word. For some reason they turned their body cams off at a crucial moment.

No, they didn't turn their body cams off. I have seen the full video. Are you just uninformed or lying?
They chased the guy down an alley shouting for him to stop and put his hands up. He ran around a corner. The officers took cover, shouted again then shot him when he did not comply. It's clear they thought he had a gun as they shouted 'gun, gun, gun' before they opened fire.

The guy simply had to stop and put his hands up. He didn't. Maybe others will learn from this, but squealing about police officers and threats against them makes these situations more likely, not less likely.

If you actually wanted to help then you should be helping to make it clear. When you are confronted by an armed police officer, stop and show your hands, be compliant and respectful.

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.