Unarmed man killed by Sacramento police shot 8 times

originally posted by: howtonhawky
you presented the claim as if i refused all evidence

Correct, because you have.

i just wanted to clarify that i have reviewed all the evidence i can legitimately make a determination on.

If you haven't viewed all the evidence than the statement is inaccurate.

this video really only consist of blurs and darkness

Do you know this because you watched it?

a reply to: howtonhawky

By all means please present them now.

You want me to repost everything because you didn't like it the first time around and don't want to go back and reread it within your own thread?

In a word: no.

Honestly and respectfully you have messed all over the thread and it would be expedient for all if you just could give a "professional recap" as to why you can not say if the cops murdered the man.

Again, nobody forces you to reply to me. If you think I've "messed" all over the thread then it's as simple as not replying to me. Continually engaging me and then whining that I've "messed" all over the thread is nonsensical.

ENOUGH!

This is NOT the Mud Pit!

Normal Terms and Conditions apply here.

ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

Go After The Ball, Not The Player

Personal insults and attacks are NEVER acceptable here on ATS. Even in the Pit.

Rude and obnoxious behavior is something else we do not tolerate.

Anymore behavior like this and posting rights will be removed.

Do not reply to this post.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I am asking nicely for you to make a valid point instead of derailing the thread.

You are not helping anyone here.

So again please state your evidence or leave the thread in peace.

All the facts add up to murder.

Help me see otherwise.

You have posted mountains of nonsense and to wade through it takes time so do us a favor and post your reasons for not calling things they way they are.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes i have viewed some of the video but i do not watch the death scenes.

From what i have seen it shows nothing except they had no right to be there.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Yes i have viewed some of the video but i do not watch the death scenes.

So one of the most critical segments of the video is ignored. I stand by my comment that you have not reviewed all the evidence.

Some is never all.

a reply to: howtonhawky

I am asking nicely for you to make a valid point instead of derailing the thread.

I've already made them.

So again please state your evidence or leave the thread in peace.

I already have.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Yes i have viewed some of the video but i do not watch the death scenes.

So one of the most critical segments of the video is ignored. I stand by my comment that you have not reviewed all the evidence.

Some is never all.

No the most critical moment is too dark to make a determination.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
No the most critical moment is too dark to make a determination.

Because you watched it?

Video showed officers shouting at Mr. Clark minutes after the shooting stopped. “We need to know if you’re O.K.,” an officer yelled about three minutes after the gunfire ended. “We need to get you medics but we can’t go over to get you help unless we know you don’t have a weapon.”

nyt

sounds like cya in action

In its initial account, the Police Department said Mr. Clark had “advanced toward the officers” while holding what they believed to be a firearm. In body camera footage provided by the police, it is not clear which direction Mr. Clark is facing, and the family’s lawyer, Benjamin Crump, said the independent autopsy contradicted the assertion by the police that he was a threat.

you do not have to take my word for the footage being too dark to determine.

Mr. Crump said the results proved that Mr. Clark could not have been moving toward the officers in a threatening fashion when they opened fire. “These findings from the independent autopsy contradict the police narrative that we’ve been told,” he said. “This independent autopsy affirms that Stephon was not a threat to police and was slain in another senseless police killing under increasingly questionable circumstances.”

surely you all trust a professional over poster typing nonsense over and over in an attempt to justify their worth.

Justin Nix, who teaches policing at the University of Nebraska Omaha, said, “Any police shooting on camera is going to look bad. But when the guy is on his stomach and they continue to shoot, a lot of people are going to be bothered by it.”

I implore you all to read the full article

a reply to: howtonhawky


If you prefer to have The New York Times supply your opinion that's your prerogative but it doesn't exclude you from making the false claim you viewed all the evidence.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: howtonhawky
No the most critical moment is too dark to make a determination.

Because you watched it?

Because i listened to it and i have listened and read several accounts of the video.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Because i listened to it and i have listened and read several accounts of the video.

That's not how video evidence functions. But I think you know that.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Saw some video, but not all of it. Listened to some, but not all of it. Read what other people think about it.

Case closed.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: howtonhawky


If you prefer to have The New York Times supply your opinion that's your prerogative but it doesn't exclude you from making the false claim you viewed all the evidence.

I prefer truth over opinion.

It is not a false claim.

This has been argued several times on ats and there is more than one way to make a determination in such cases.

What part of the video not being worthy of making a determination do you not understand.

How about you read the article and see if the nyt is biased in this instance instead of spreading more bs all over the thread.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Saw some video, but not all of it. Listened to some, but not all of it. Read what other people think about it.

Case closed.

When John Q. Law finally catches up with this bad hombre that's not the defense strategy I want my team of attorneys to take.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
I prefer truth over opinion.

Says the person who just took the opinion of a newspaper and didn't view the video in question being discussed by that newspaper.

How about you read the article and see if the nyt is biased in this instance instead of spreading more bs all over the thread.

Last time I checked this was AboveTopSecret and we don't normally take as gospel what the Main Stream Media says without doing our due diligence. Hence the motto, 'Deny Ignorance'.

Once they confront the suspect however, the officers order Mr. Clark to “show” his hands, rather than raise his hands, which Mr. Clark may have been doing when he was shot, Mr. Harris said.

murder is murder

even if you choose not to recognize it

again if the video was clear then these questions would not be raised

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

One would think that one wouldn't want prosecutors to take that strategy, either.

Always strange when people want to literally ignore evidence because it doesn't support their idea, rather than look at all evidence before coming up with an idea.

a reply to: projectvxn

or use your guns and take the system down. what else are they for again?