Updated: 'Show me your hands.' Police video shows death of Stephon Clark in a hail of gunfire

The Sacramento Bee ^ | March 21st, 2018 | By Anita Chabria, Benjy Egel And Nashelly Chavez

[Mariner]

Sacramento police shot Stephon Clark dead Sunday night within seconds of encountering him next to his grandparents’ home in south Sacramento, video released Wednesday by the department shows.

About six minutes after the shooting, after backup arrives, an officer can be heard telling another officer, "hey mute."

Sound then cuts out as officers apparently turn off their microphones. But video continues and the officers can be seen speaking to each other and to at least one civilian on scene for about two more minutes before the video ends.

“We asked, ‘Can they do that,’” said Les Simmons, a pastor and social activist in Sacramento who viewed the footage with two of Clark’s family members Wednesday afternoon prior to its public release. “They all just muted their mics. … It was a moment of, what are they doing? What are they saying?”

Sacramento Police spokesman Sgt. Vance Chandler said, “there are a variety of reasons why officer have the opportunity to mute their body worn cameras.”

Chandler referred a Sacramento Bee reporter to the department's general orders for details.

Simmons and Clark’s aunt, Saquoia Durham, said after viewing the videos, they believe the fatality could have been avoided.

"As soon as they did the command, they started shooting. They said 'put your hands up, gun' and then they just let loose on my nephew,” said Durham.

"They didn’t give him a chance to put his hands up or anything, and then when they shot him down, they knew they messed up,” she said.

[familyop]

After the California police shot him, they said he was holding at “tool bar.”

[So we know that they never did a day of real work in their lives.]

That story didn’t hold up. So they said that he was holding a cellphone.

[familyop]

"The majority of people out for a walk are jabbering into their phones."

Then with the good policy of shooting them all, the law enforcement officers won't be so outnumbered for long. Besides, some useless civilians (e.g., infantry soldiers in our Army: all like Timothy McVeigh, of course) might be carrying concealed and thus armed: an obvious threat!

[Irony, sarcasm! LOL! A deputy once told me that because of my prior service, I was like McVeigh. Now you'll all hear about that for the rest of my life.]

[familyop]

"Lesson here: if you’re accosted by the police at night, drop whatever is in your hand immediately. Even if it’s a priceless Ming vase."

There aren't as many people walking at night any more in most places. More people avoid saying anything private on their cellphones (e.g., personal money matters). Many more avoid driving at night, especially those who drive older vehicles. Many people avoid carrying large amounts of cash.

A woman in my family does not drink, smoke or indulge in any vices. She's absolutely clean in every way. While driving home from work at night, she's had patrolmen drive fast to get very close to her vehicle and stay in her blind spot for many minutes, headlights reflecting into her face in the side mirror. I was with her recently one time, when this happened and saw it for myself. Told her to slow down, until they drove reluctantly past her.

We're installing hi-res cameras in the vehicle, front and back, high and low mount.

Be careful out there. There are more evil characters (literally SOBs) in every walk of life after the campaigns against traditional family structure over the past several decades, in case you haven't noticed the bizarre violent crime trends lately.

[AnalogReigns]

I watched the video too. If a “textbook shoot” is killing an unarmed man with multiple shots....we’re all in trouble.

[kelly4c]

How did things ever become so bad in this country? No, cops should not be killing people who are posing no verifiable threat to them or an innocent bystander, period. our police force are not supposed to be judge, jury and executioner all wrapped up into one.

[kelly4c]

“the police DO NOT GET TO EXECUTE SOMEONE JUST BECAUSE THEY DON’T COMPLY.”

Exactly. Only, it appears THEY believe they can. Smh.

[Telepathic Intruder]

Evil is certainly increasing in the world, and it affects all walks of life. There’s a general breakdown of reason and ability to even recognize right from wrong. Moral relativity means depravity is a virtue, and virtue is intolerable.

[Eagles6]

Bookmark

[DoodleDawg]

“ A defendant is justified . . . in using deadly force if, at the time of the homicide, she had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that she was in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily injury, and that deadly force was necessary to repel the threat, although it turned out later that these appearances were false.”

Then that cop in Minneapolis who shot that lady has nothing to worry about.

[TexasGurl24]

How old are you? Because prior to 1985, when the Supreme Court decided Garner, it was not only Constitutional but rather common for States to authorize and for officers to use deadly force to capture fleeing felons who presented zero threat and who were running away. Yes, prior to 1985 and through most of our history, if an officer were chasing someone whom they had probable cause committed a felony, they could shoot them in the back.

It wasn’t until Garner that the Court put the brakes on that practice. So you must not be very old.

[precisionshootist]

So you think prior to 1985 maybe in the late 70's when cops carried revolvers, dressed like cops, and SWAT was still known as a TV show that cops routinely shot unarmed people in the back while they were running away? Is that what reading court cases has in your head?

Looking at the world through the lens of case law seems to have distorted your view of reality.

[TexasGurl24]

That’s exactly what happened to cause the Garner case to go all the way to the Supreme Court. The TN statute authorized the use of deadly force to apprehend an unarmed fleeing felon. The officer acted, legally according to the statute, and shot and killed an unarmed 15 year old who was scaling a fence after fleeing a burglary.

What the officer did was also an ancient common law rule:

“[I]f persons that are pursued by these officers for felony or the just suspicion thereof . . . shall not yield themselves to these officers, but shall either resist or fly before they are apprehended or being apprehended shall rescue themselves and resist or fly, so that they cannot be otherwise apprehended, and are upon necessity slain therein, because they cannot be otherwise taken, it is no felony.” 2 M. Hale, Historia Placitorum Coronae 85 (1736).

You seem to get upset when I point out that your legal ramblings are way off base. You aren’t even arguing the law anymore, which is where this started, but rather your feelings on what you think the law should have been and what the law should be.

That’s a different discussion entirely.

[ABN 505]

Either on their phones or they have earbuds on and they can’t hear a thing>. But police work IMO.

[precisionshootist]

I'm not sure if maybe you saw LAPD detective Mark Furhman on Laura Ingraham show tonight.

To sum it up I was exactly correct on every point in this case. Mark stated there are many problems. First the officers were responding to a "property crime". No one had been hurt so there was no resonable expectation of violent threat. Then the officers confront the suspect from a tactically advantageous position of cover. The officer shouts to the suspect to "show me your hands" and the suspect immediately complied while holding his cell phone. The officer seeing the cell phone yells gun gun gun and almost simultaneously both officers immediately open fire and fire a total of 20 rounds. There was no pause from the officers at all to assess the threat, there was a command, suspect complies but officer thinks he sees a gun and both fire. Mark also stated the first officer yells gun gun gun but the other officer had a DUTY to verify the threat otherwise he is not authorized to fire. All officers MUST SEE and VERIFY the threat before they can use deadly force. In addition the officers had a chopper in the air over the scene.

Watch the show or catch it on youtube. Mark Furhman is a former LAPD detective and always takes a very open minded position but not in this case. He did not give these officers any chance of justifying their actions. This was clearly unjustified use of deadly force.

[TexasGurl24]

With respect, Mark Furhman is an entertainer and has never been an expert on deadly force. You might not like it, but your understanding of the law is just wrong. Your contention that an officer (or anyone else) has to positively identify a weapon beyond a shadow of a doubt before using deadly force is simply misguided. That has never been the standard in the United States, nor should it be. I’ve provided you with jury instructions, case examples and a use of force video. You cite to an entertainer and a convicted perjurer. I haven’t seen his interview, but if he is saying what you are suggesting, he’s just wrong. If you truly want to educate yourself on this topic, and want to read a book written for the lay person, I would suggest the excellent “Deadly Force: Understanding Your Right To Self Defense” written by Massad Ayoob. Unlike Furhman, Ayoob IS a use of force expert, and is probably one of the most qualified use of force experts in the country. The book is easy to read, and if you value the Second Amendment and the inalienable right to self preservation, I’d suggest you pick it up. If you do so, you will find that your knowledge about the use of deadly force, and what to do in the immediate aftermath of an encounter, if God forbid, you should ever have to use deadly force, is quite a bit different from what internet folklore teaches.

[precisionshootist]

Ha Ha. You're kidding right? He was an LAPD detective, not a beat cop and in California where this took place no less. Detectives are going to know a thing or two about use of force policy and law. And the perjury charges were expunged. You are correct that is just his opinion but like I said he is usually pretty even handed and is very defensive of law enforcement so when he comes down like he did I would not take that as a good sign that use of force policy was followed or the shooting justified.

I'll update you after the charges are filed and trust me they will be. These officers are in serious serious trouble. Massad Ayoob, do you really think I don't know who that is? Sorry, I know you don't know me but I just think that's kinda funny. Think about it and you will figure out what I mean. Anyway Ayoob's focus is on the civi side not so much law enforcement.

[precisionshootist]

I forgot to add. You know my position on this but even I was a little surprised Furhman really did not offer any defense for these guys at all. I would have thought he might say well it was dark and this officers could have mistaken the phone for a gun, bla bla bla but not at all.

He clearly thought they had the upper hand and should have waited to assess the situation before firing. What is going to cook their goose is not pausing at all before firing and the fact they both fired a total of 20 rounds. This guy was given almost zero chance. I'm pretty sure anyone on this board if they were in his shoes would be just as dead. No one is going to react to "show me your hands" and immediately drop their cell phone at the same time. These guys are toast.

[precisionshootist]

I forgot to add. You know my position on this but even I was a little surprised Furhman really did not offer any defense for these guys at all. I would have thought he might say well it was dark and this officers could have mistaken the phone for a gun, bla bla bla but not at all. He clearly thought they had the upper hand and should have waited to assess the situation before firing. What is going to cook their goose is not pausing at all before firing and the fact they both fired a total of 20 rounds. This guy was given almost zero chance. I'm pretty sure anyone on this board if they were in his shoes would be just as dead. No one is going to react to "show me your hands" and immediately drop their cell phone at the same time. These guys are toast.

Replying to myself. It's late, lol.

[precisionshootist]

Here's another thread going on this.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3643316/posts?page=25

Some are trying to claim this was racial oriented which is just silly. Furhman answered that question very well saying first the officers were called to the scene so they had no discretion on the suspect. Second there was one white cop and one black cop and both acted exactly the same making it very difficult to claim this was racially motivated.

Of course it had nothing to do with race but the usual suspects are going to claim such. Which is a big mistake on their part because in my opinion they have a major beef with this shooting but it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with unjustified use of force.

If you get a chance to see Furhman on Laura's show take a look. He made a very fair assessment. One thing I did not mention he said about having a problem with a "property crime" escalating so fast to lethal force levels. That should not have happened and is one of the points I originally made. The police were called to someone damaging property, expecting a violent offender was unreasonable as no person had been harmed or threatened. So they spot the guy and he runs a bit, people that are vandalizing tend to run when they see the police, that's still not any excuse to escalate to deadly force. Then when they have him in the backyard "show me your hands, gun gun gun, bang bang bang" not even a second pause to assess the threat level or the object in the suspects hands.