CA - Stephon Clark, 22, unarmed, fatally shot by Sacramento police, 18 March 2018

[K_Z]

A representative from the law office of John Burris in Oakland said that the two officers who fired 10 shots each at Clark were Terrence Mercadal and Jared Robinet.

The Sacramento Police Department declined to confirm the names. Department spokeswoman Officer Linda Matthew said the officers involved in the shooting have received "numerous" threats.

The Sacramento Police Department declined to confirm the names. Department spokeswoman Officer Linda Matthew said the officers involved in the shooting have received "numerous" threats.

Mercadal had been identified to The Sacramento Bee by a separate source on Thursday. He was identified then as an African American man who had attended Laguna Creek High School in Elk Grove and was known as a patrol officer in the Meadowview neighborhood where Clark was shot.

An online search confirmed a Terrance Mercadal graduated from Laguna Creek in 2003.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article206557539.html

Lots more about the officers involved in this article.

Very interesting that one of the involved officers is black, yet this shooting is being portrayed by media and activists as racially motivated.

And this is an interesting way to spin a recent incarceration:

Stephon Alonzo Clark, whose legal name is Stephan Clark, was a stay-at-home father of two young sons, ages 1 and 3, according to his family.

Clark had been released from county jail about a month before his death, Stevante Clark told the Bee.

Clark had been staying with his grandparents in that home on and off for more than a month, his family said. He had been released from county jail about a month earlier, said his brother, Stevante Clark.

A search of Sacramento Superior Court records found four related cases for a Stephan Alonzo Clark. The most recent were two felony counts of domestic abuse, to which Clark – who preferred to go by the name Stephon – pleaded guilty and agreed to complete a treatment program. The court record also shows a 2008 robbery charge, and charges in 2013 for possession of a firearm and possession of a controlled substance.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article206055609.html

https://heavy.com/news/2018/03/stephon-clark-sacramento-stephan-stephen-police-shooting/

Stay at home father?? Are you kidding me?? Astounding. Unemployed/ unemployable, with an extensive criminal history, including domestic violence, gun and drug charges, recently released from incarceration is far more accurate.

So he's 30 days out of jail, and busting out car windows, and violently breaking into a neighbor's home? Mm hmm.

I think anyone who is intellectually honest knows exactly what he was doing. And what he was doing would have landed him back in prison again, and then he couldn't be a "stay at home dad" anymore.

I'm very sad for the officers involved, and their families, who have lost so much because of this. They, and the 88 year old victim of the witnessed home invasion, and the property owners whose cars were vandalized, are the real victims, IMO, not the dead criminal suspect.

(Bold and underlined by me in quotes above.)

 

[Rocky1]

"Don't get me wrong, I don't think this Cop meant to shoot this unarmed guy, however he did, and but for his actions, this guy would still be alive today."


Right, and but for the victim's actions, he would still be alive today. He made a lot of poor choices that night, which led to his death. Many poor choices.

He was likely up to no good that night as he ran through the neighbors yards and hopped fences. He also had a few chances to surrender to the cops, and avoid the confrontation at gunpoint. So he made several very poor choices, as he ran through the streets, in the hours before this tragedy.

The cop, on the other hand, was out on the streets for a much different purpose. He was dispatched to that street because neighbors called to report some crimes. And so the cop was trying to help others that night.

In the dangerous process, of providing that help, he was forced into a confrontation by a suspect, who refused to comply to demands, and who tried to flee. And then that suspect approached the officers as he reached into his pocket.

So who is at fault here?

The cop was there for the right reasons, as far as I can see. He was called to the scene by neighbors and was directed by the helicopter. He had a purpose and a job to do.

The suspect was not there , hopping fences that night, for any 'noble' reason, as far as I can see. I think he was committing some petty crimes and trying to flee from arrest.

So if we are looking at who is to' blame' , at this point, I say the young man, because he made the poor choices creating this confrontation. The cop was reacting to the situation created by this young man.


You ask what should happen to the officer. I think that he was doing his job, and WAS FORCED by this suspect, to make a quick, split second decision. It could have gone either way.

The officer had no idea if this guy had a gun or not. But he was walking towards the officers, and when he put his hand in his pocket, in that split second, the officer pulled the trigger.

He had to decide, and to GUESS REALLY, if he was about to get shot by this suspect. It is a gamble for the officer to make that decision. Don't shoot, and he might take a bullet to the head. Shoot, and he might save himself as the perp pulls out his gun. OR, shoot, and find out he was unarmed, and then face the emotional burdens and legal consequences soon to follow.

It is a very hard choice that officer WAS FORCED TO MAKE. The suspect forced the issue. He didn't need to. He could have just surrendered at many points earlier in the night.

I am not sure what 'more training' would do, in a situation where the suspect approaches cops who are pointing their weapons at him.

Thanks for your thoughts. I think you are saying this cop did nothing wrong, being in this situation.
Now let me ask you this...
Under the 4th amendment, Police can shoot as many times as they want to "stop the threat", however, once that threat is stopped, they can no longer shoot.
If you watch the video from the helicopter. I count 5 shots before he is down and no longer moving. At what point would you say during the ramaining 15 shots fired after that point, would you say the threat stopped?

Here's the law.
Page 36, section IV, paragraph 4
https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cg....com/&httpsredir=1&article=1085&context=jolpi

Here's the video. Time stamp @ 1;10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTlZqEsPY78

 

[katydid23]

Thanks for your thoughts. I think you are saying this cop did nothing wrong, being in this situation.
Now let me ask you this...
Under the 4th amendment, Police can shoot as many times as they want to "stop the threat", however, once that threat is stopped, they can no longer shoot.
If you watch the video from the helicopter. I count 5 shots before he is down and no longer moving. At what point would you say during the ramaining 15 shots fired after that point, would you say the threat stopped?

Here's the law.
Page 36, section IV, paragraph 4
https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cg....com/&httpsredir=1&article=1085&context=jolpi

Here's the video. Time stamp @ 1;10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTlZqEsPY78

If they broke that law, then they should be charged for continuing to shoot. But there should be an investigation of the exact timing and an assessment of how much time actually passed.

 

[Rocky1]

The dishonest media also keeps emphasizing that the cell phone Clark had is white, as if to imply there are no "white" guns.

One can easily search "white pistols" for more images.

Although I agree that the media is dishonest, how were they dishonest in this case?
The cell phone was white.

From the above images that you posted, would you agree that if I walk my dog using this device, I should be shot 20 times?

http://www.coolthings.com/gun-shaped-dog-leash/

 

[Rocky1]

If they broke that law, then they should be charged for continuing to shoot. But there should be an investigation of the exact timing and an assessment of how much time actually passed.

I agree. There should be a full investigation, but in your mind, do you think they broke that law?
You can watch that part of the "evidence" in the video.

 

[Rocky1]

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article206557539.html

Lots more about the officers involved in this article.

Very interesting that one of the involved officers is black, yet this shooting is being portrayed by media and activists as racially motivated.

And this is an interesting way to spin a recent incarceration:







http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article206055609.html

https://heavy.com/news/2018/03/stephon-clark-sacramento-stephan-stephen-police-shooting/

Stay at home father?? Are you kidding me?? Astounding. Unemployed/ unemployable, with an extensive criminal history, including domestic violence, gun and drug charges, recently released from incarceration is far more accurate.

So he's 30 days out of jail, and busting out car windows, and violently breaking into a neighbor's home? Mm hmm.

I think anyone who is intellectually honest knows exactly what he was doing. And what he was doing would have landed him back in prison again, and then he couldn't be a "stay at home dad" anymore.

I'm very sad for the officers involved, and their families, who have lost so much because of this. They, and the 88 year old victim of the witnessed home invasion, and the property owners whose cars were vandalized, are the real victims, IMO, not the dead criminal suspect.

(Bold and underlined by me in quotes above.)

Interesting. Again I agree this guy was no saint, but you agree that the shooting was justifed even though those cops knew nothing of his background when they shot him?
It's a shame they are bringing race into this.
Let me ask you this.
How long after the cops realized they shot an unarmed man, should they have waited to check his pulse to see if he was alive?
After watching the video, it appeared to me that the cop went to get life saving devices, but seemed more concerned about shutting off his body cam, and talking with other officers, instead.
Do you think he cared whether he lived or died?
What have the officers and their families lost?

 

[K_Z]

Although I agree that the media is dishonest, how were they dishonest in this case?
The cell phone was white.

From the above images that you posted, would you agree that if I walk my dog using this device, I should be shot 20 times?

http://www.coolthings.com/gun-shaped-dog-leash/

How is the media dishonest?? Seriously?? I'm not going there. It would take hours and hours, and I seriously doubt I'd change any minds.

The dog walking example is a false equivalency.

SC was not simply a law abiding, legally permitted conceal carry owner, who was shot while walking his dog, and carrying a white pistol that looks like a cell phone. Context is everything.

ANY person, of any race or ethnicity, who was doing what SC was doing, and behaved the way SC behaved during the "encounter" with the foot and helicopter police, should expect police to have no other choice than to shoot them, IMO.

We've been through this so many times. Wash, rinse, repeat. "Michael Brown 10.0".

The results of this kind of behavior by suspects is also why there is a colloquial phrase "suicide by cop" when individuals intentionally provoke LEOs into a confrontation where the police have no choice except to shoot them. Such as the Scout Schultz shooting. But that's not what happened here. SC has been in trouble, serious trouble, with the law many, many times. He has recently been incarcerated. He should have known by now how to behave in an encounter with police. And he should have known not to bust in car windows and violently break into the house of an elderly neighbor next to his grandma.

These officers should not be charged, IMO.

And the family should not receive any money in a settlement from the city, IMO.

Hopefully the riots and vandalism by the misguided supporters and activists will stop. Carry signs and march around a park if they want, but property damage, violence, and blockading venues and highways from access by other lawful residents should not be tolerated in a civil society. That's where demonstration and protest cross the line into criminal behavior.

I understand they're emotionally "upset", but this criminal kind of civil disobedience should not be tolerated.

 

[K_Z]

IMO, the shooting was justified. Amply justified by the circumstances.

I'm sorry they had to shoot him, but this is 100% on SC, IMO. Police did nothing wrong at all, IMO. While I may be in the minority here with this opinion, I'm pretty confident many, many (if not most) people would agree.

The activists who riot and demonstrate for these "poor victimized" criminal suspects shot by police are fringe extremists, IMO, or intellectually challenged. They don't represent most reasonable Americans, IMO.

It's too bad he chose to die the way he did. He was a handsome guy with a nice smile, and cute kids. But he was ALSO clearly very deeply troubled, violent, and antisocial.

 

[Rocky1]

How is the media dishonest?? Seriously?? I'm not going there. It would take hours and hours, and I seriously doubt I'd change any minds.

The dog walking example is a false equivalency.

SC was not simply a law abiding, legally permitted conceal carry owner, who was shot while walking his dog, and carrying a white pistol that looks like a cell phone. Context is everything.

ANY person, of any race or ethnicity, who was doing what SC was doing, and behaved the way SC behaved during the "encounter" with the foot and helicopter police, should expect police to have no other choice than to shoot them, IMO.

We've been through this so many times. Wash, rinse, repeat. "Michael Brown 10.0".

The results of this kind of behavior by suspects is also why there is a colloquial phrase "suicide by cop" when individuals intentionally provoke LEOs into a confrontation where the police have no choice except to shoot them. Such as the Scout Schultz shooting. But that's not what happened here. SC has been in trouble, serious trouble, with the law many, many times. He has recently been incarcerated. He should have known by now how to behave in an encounter with police. And he should have known not to bust in car windows and violently break into the house of an elderly neighbor next to his grandma.

These officers should not be charged, IMO.

And the family should not receive any money in a settlement from the city, IMO.

Hopefully the riots and vandalism by the misguided supporters and activists will stop. Carry signs and march around a park if they want, but property damage, violence, and blockading venues and highways from access by other lawful residents should not be tolerated in a civil society. That's where demonstration and protest cross the line into criminal behavior.

I understand they're emotionally "upset", but this criminal kind of civil disobedience should not be tolerated.

I think you misread my question. What I said was,"Although I agree the media is dishonest, how were they dishonest in this case"?
If they reported the cell phone being white, they were right. It was white.

Which part of what SC was doing justified the shooting?. Trying to flee the cops?
According to the Supreme Court (Tennessee V Garner), Cops can not shoot you for trying to flee.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/471/1.html

The cops said that SC had his arms out towards him, however if you look at this video @ timestamp .32 you can see his elbows are almost at his waistline and his hands are down by his belt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B0mCV3vMQ8
The cop never once said, "put your hands up", or "stop". What he said is "show me your hands". If this guys hands were not in his pockets (which they weren't), then he was showing his hands.
I agree he shouldn't have started walking towards the cops, but obviously he wasn't trying to shoot them. What reason would he be walking towards the cops for? To stab them with his cell phone? Has it crossed your mind that maybe he was just surrendering?
The dog walking example is not a false equivalency. If in your words "Context is everything". then maybe you can explain how a 12 year old boy gets shot for carrying a fake gun in a park. Was that justifiable too?
I understand you don't think these cops should be charged, or punished and most Juries think the same way no matter the circumstances involved when it comes to cops shooting people. It appears you have made up your mind before the investigation is even completed.
I agree, It's fine to protest, however, when it resorts to damage of property is crossing the line.
I don't think you answered the question. "What have these cops and these families lost? They are on administrative leave with full pay, while this guys family is paying for his funeral for being shot while unarmed.

 

[Tawny]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTlZqEsPY78

This is a YouTube video posted by Washington Post.

There is so much wrong here I can't even begin to address it.

The police shot a man 15-20 times and then ordered him to show his hands as he lay motionless and dying. They unloaded over 15 shots in his direction and then told each other to "tactically reload" even after the threat was neutralized and motionless. The medics were worried he was "pretending" even though the officers had shot him 15 times. He was never seen as anything but an enemy combatant at any point in this video. Every individual in this video acted out of fear and never once bothered to consider the CITIZEN and potential collateral damage in the surrounding areas. 15-20 shots in the dark? Good thing there were no bystanders in that yard behind him, hanging out on their porch drinking magaritas.

Even IF he had been running from the police, even IF he were the suspect allegedly breaking car windows, their actions showed they had no interest in detaining him alive. This is a huge problem and it seems to be nationwide. We need police reform immediately, IMO.

ETA: The police ran up to him shouting without identifying themselves, so he bolted toward the back door and that's when they shot him. Would YOU just stand there and let unidentified shouting strangers run up to you in your backyard? I sure as hell wouldn't. JMO.

 

[bluesneakers]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTlZqEsPY78

This is a YouTube video posted by Washington Post.

There is so much wrong here I can't even begin to address it.

The police shot a man 15-20 times and then ordered him to show his hands as he lay motionless and dying. They unloaded over 15 shots in his direction and then told each other to "tactically reload" even after the threat was neutralized and motionless. The medics were worried he was "pretending" even though the officers had shot him 15 times. He was never seen as anything but an enemy combatant at any point in this video. Every individual in this video acted out of fear and never once bothered to consider the CITIZEN and potential collateral damage in the surrounding areas. 15-20 shots in the dark? Good thing there were no bystanders in that yard behind him, hanging out on their porch drinking magaritas.

Even IF he had been running from the police, even IF he were the suspect allegedly breaking car windows, their actions showed they had no interest in detaining him alive. This is a huge problem and it seems to be nationwide. We need police reform immediately, IMO.

ETA: The police ran up to him shouting without identifying themselves, so he bolted toward the back door and that's when they shot him. Would YOU just stand there and let unidentified shouting strangers run up to you in your backyard? I sure as hell wouldn't. JMO.

Same, and thank you for sharing the link.

 

[StephanieH]

The last I heard, the USA didn't have the death penalty for breaking into houses. And race DOES come into play because black people are more likely to be killed by police than other races. Sure, economic status also comes into play, but those are also linked disproportionately.
I am not sure when police--and people in general--became so afraid of everything.

 

[human]

IMO, the shooting was justified. Amply justified by the circumstances.

I'm sorry they had to shoot him, but this is 100% on SC, IMO. Police did nothing wrong at all, IMO. While I may be in the minority here with this opinion, I'm pretty confident many, many (if not most) people would agree.

The activists who riot and demonstrate for these "poor victimized" criminal suspects shot by police are fringe extremists, IMO, or intellectually challenged. They don't represent most reasonable Americans, IMO.

It's too bad he chose to die the way he did. He was a handsome guy with a nice smile, and cute kids. But he was ALSO clearly very deeply troubled, violent, and antisocial.

Dylan Roof. Nicholas Cruz.

 

[human]

View attachment 131980

View attachment 131981

View attachment 131982

View attachment 131983

Police cannot "assume" something in an uncooperative, criminal suspect's hand that is flat and rectangular, is a cell phone.

Did Justine Damond have a cellphone?

 

[Rocky1]

The last I heard, the USA didn't have the death penalty for breaking into houses. And race DOES come into play because black people are more likely to be killed by police than other races. Sure, economic status also comes into play, but those are also linked disproportionately.
I am not sure when police--and people in general--became so afraid of everything.

Actually, Whites are almost twice as likely to be shot by a cop, than blacks.
47% Whites
23% Blacks

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

 

[Rocky1]

Police cannot "assume" something in an uncooperative, criminal suspect's hand that is flat and rectangular, is a cell phone.

"Uncooperative"?
Although I don't agree with this guy not knowing it was the cops after him. (Helicopter circling overhead, flashlights everywhere) What did he do that was "uncooperative"?
Take a look at the video. @ timestamp .56 the cop yells "stop stop". less than 2 seconds later, just before he goes under the patio roof, you can see him start to slow his run. You never see him come out the back side of the patio, meaning he stopped.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTlZqEsPY78

As I mentioned before, the only command after that was "let me see your hands". In the cops own words, he says his arms are extended, (which is BS. If you look @ timestamp 1.14, you can see his elbows are at his side. If they were extended, you would not see his arms off to the side at all) So if you are going to take this cops word for it, he had to have seen his hands, if, in his words, he was holding a gun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WYzv7kPYNo
The cop never said "stop" when the suspect was walking towards him, never once said, "put your hands in the air", so, IMO he was not being "uncooperative" at all.

 

[Cappuccino]

Dylan Roof. Nicholas Cruz.

We all saw four armed officers outside that High School in Florida while Cruz was inside shooting. How come they didn't chase after that suspect?

 

[Jax49]

Actually, Whites are almost twice as likely to be shot by a cop, than blacks.
47% Whites
23% Blacks

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

Do Police Kill More White People Than Black People?

More white people are killed in police shootings than black Americans, but overall white people are statistically less likely to be killed by police than black people.

black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/do-police-kill-more-whites-than-black-people/

 

[2Hope4]

Thanks for your thoughts. I think you are saying this cop did nothing wrong, being in this situation.
Now let me ask you this...
Under the 4th amendment, Police can shoot as many times as they want to "stop the threat", however, once that threat is stopped, they can no longer shoot.
If you watch the video from the helicopter. I count 5 shots before he is down and no longer moving. At what point would you say during the ramaining 15 shots fired after that point, would you say the threat stopped?

Here's the law.
Page 36, section IV, paragraph 4
https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cg....com/&httpsredir=1&article=1085&context=jolpi

Here's the video. Time stamp @ 1;10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTlZqEsPY78

Have you ever been in a high adrenaline situation? I haven't in a shooting. I did kill a copperhead snake that was coiled to strike my Mom. Instead of chopping off it's head, or striking hard enough to kill in one strike, I hit that snake so many times that it was in 1'' pieces before I stopped. I didn't mean to. Can't explain how or why I couldn't stop. But I didn't until the hoe was removed from my hands, and then I was shaking so hard I don't know how I was even holding the hoe to begin with.

I took a concealed carry class in VA. Our instructor said to unload the gun if your life is in danger. Don't shoot once, wait and risk being shot yourself. Unload your gun. I think it's probably an action that at that moment you aren't thinking how many shots, you shoot until you can't.

Everyone knows a gun shot can be fatal. When used in self defense, you hope it will be fatal, because usually if a suspect is injured, their self defense is going to kick in and they are going to shoot until they empty their gun as well. A split second difference in reaction time can determine who lives.

I know there are shootings that are murder. There's unjustified shootings. This case I think there was reason to believe the shooting was the correct action. The suspect didn't put his hands up, or lay on the ground, or whatever the command was.

 

[2Hope4]

Did Justine Damond have a cellphone?

???? What does that shooting have to do with this case? Oh that's right, NOTHING. Different situation altogether.