Discussion in 'Up to the Minute' started by Tawny, Mar 24, 2018.
How does that apply here - are you saying if he had a gun he would have been able to defend himself?
According to this article, the only shot from the front was to his thigh. Six to his back, and one to the side of his neck
How do you explain the statement made by the ME that said "7 Entered left side. Omalu theorizes this could have been the first bullet to hit Clark, and its impact rotated Clark to expose his back to the next shots fired."
Are you saying that this shot hit Stephon from behind and it caused him to rotate so that his back was exposed to the next shots? That doesn't make any sense. Besides its says that the shot to his leg was at an angle not the front.
Do you think the rest of the world lives in a police state?
All of Europe?
If that had been me, I can assure you I would be arrested for assault with a deadly weapon, hit and run, and any other charges they could lay on me, they would put me in jail until a magistrate decided my bail.
They may rough me up a little bit, first.
According to the article, and illustrations, that shot was not full on front, but in the armpit area. Closure to the back.
The car was stopped when she walked in front of it.
She probably thought the stopped driver would allow her to pass, rather than accelerate before she could make her way across.
Like one would expect from any sane person driving through a crowd.
Victim blame, much?
The shot in the leg is at an angle because he was falling.
If he was down when he was shot in the back, as you suggested, those shots would be at an angle, as well.
Thank you for posting junebuggy!
And welcome to Websleuths!
Sorry for the multiple posts but I was out today and had to catch up.
In regards to this woman being hit by the cop, I don't consider it only a hit and run.
This cop was stopped, then accelerated to hit this woman.
I consider it ..
1)"Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon".
( Ca. penal code section 241 (a) (1)
2) "Aggravated Battery".
(Ca. penal code section 243 (d)
3) "Hit and Run with Bodily Injury"
(Ca. vehicle code 20001 VC.
My guess says this cop will say he "feared for his life" and that will be his excuse.
My guess is that if the tables were turned, and a civilian did this to a cop, he/she would not live to tell about it.
I guess it's possible that six shots in the back occurred when Stephon was still standing and all of the shots fired while he was on the ground missed. The ME doesn't say anything about straight thru or at an angle when referring to those shots so I don't know. JMO
So, he was shot in the back, side and leg, right? Six shots to his back? So he wasnt facing police when he was shot.
And? Does that mean she deserves to be hit by a car?
I don't think anyone is saying that.
So why even mention it? It has nothing to do with her being hit by a police officer.
If it were drug charges or some other crime unrelated to activism, it probably wouldn't have been mentioned in MSM. IMO
We can agree to disagree on whether or not it's worthy of being mentioned.
Sure it would be mentioned.... Whatever is needed to victim blame...
Agreed, the police need to make sure that the public think of her as less than the average Joe, and by reading some of the responses in this thread it has already worked. The police have received support just because she did something once, as if she deserved to be knocked down by a car because of her past actions. Sickening.