Discussion: CA AG Won't Charge Two Sacramento Cops Who Fatally Shot Stephon Clark

“Becerra said his review found officers believed Clark was armed and their lives were in danger when they opened fire.”

That’s what they said. Is there any proof of it? Is there evidence that they were acting in good faith? Or was it an excuse to shoot someone?

And why isn’t this something that a jury should decide?

In order to charge someone with a crime, you need to define the culpable mind state. Accidentally shooting someone, or shooting someone when you think it’s authorized, but later deemed a mistake is of itself not a crime. Prosecutors need to show either bad intent, recklessness or grave indifference. What the AG is saying, is while the case is most tragic, this was caused by human error.

The family will have to seek its closure from Civil courts who have a different standard and ways to recoup the loss.

The attorney general and district attorney said the evidence showed Clark was advancing toward the officers when they shot him.

I rewatched the video yesterday. The characterization of Clark as “advancing toward the officers” is a gross mischaracterization. The officers are at the corner of the house, not exposed. Clark is against the wall, about 30 feet away.

Within one second, an officer shouts “show me your hands, gun gun gun!”, Clark takes two or three steps toward them, the officers fire five shots, Clark drops to his hands and knees. The officers pause for a second or two, then fire 15 more shots.

The characterization is highly questionable for the first five shots. It is completely and absolutely false for the last 15 shots.

I am really starting to think cops should not be able to shoot until they are shot out. They seem to be terrible at identifying when someone is really got a gun, granted it’s mostly with the suspect isn’t white.

I agree. Far too many LEOs are cowards. Far too many think their lives are more valuable than others.
They should also be forced to leave the job once they’ve fired their weapon in the line of duty. They’ll think twice about shooting if they know it will cost them their job. Whether the shooting is later deemed justifiable or not, you can no longer be a police officer once you’ve fired your weapon at someone.
When I worked with military police, I was told that if I pulled my weapon and did NOT shoot someone, I would go to jail. “You do not pull your weapon to threaten. You do not fire warning shots. You leave that weapon in its holster until you feel you must shoot someone to protect yourself or others. And if you do shoot at someone, you aim for center mass”.
There’s no such thing as “shooting to maim”.

As you might imagine, this decision has not gone over well. The Sac PD, naturally is taking the protests personally and overreacting. They arrested 80+ people last night and protests are currently underway. The Sacramento Bee wrote an absolutely scathing editorial. https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article227124549.html

1 Like

And I personally think a lot of white guys go into LE specifically because they think non-whites need to be kept in line and they like the thought of legally shooting a few. To them a police uniform is an acceptable white hood.

Edit: kind of like some firefighters are in it because they are fire nuts and occasionally are arsonist…

1 Like