Report on Deadly Sacramento Police Shooting: "Just Another Day of Being Black"
The struggle over Assemblywoman Shirley Weber’s AB 392 is an important step toward making law enforcement accountable...
Everybody knew there would be protests in the state capitol after Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert announced results of an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Stephon Clark.
It was a foregone conclusion that the Sacramento police officers who killed 22 year old Clark would not face criminal charges.
Prior to the formal announcement, community activist Berry Accius told the media: It’s “just another day of being black in a community that doesn’t believe black people’s lives matter, so of course we will go out and stand accordingly.”
The DA announced on Saturday that Officers Terrence Mercadal and Jared Robinet acted legally when they fired 20 rounds the young black man last March after chasing him into his grandmother’s backyard and apparently confusing his iPhone for a weapon.
A New York Times analysis of video of the shooting found that the gunfire continued after Mr. Clark had fallen to his hands and knees.
The ACLU’s statement, issued following the press conference points to the broader implications of the DA’s conclusions:
No family should have to live through what Mr. Clark’s family is going through: first traumatized by a system of policing that violently and unjustly takes the lives of unarmed Black men at alarming rates and retraumatized again by a justice system that is set up to sanction these unnecessary killings. Sadly, they are not alone. Instead, they join hundreds of other California families who have been robbed of their loved ones and seen no justice.
Nonetheless, it was a “legal” killing.
The Los Angeles Times quoted Ed Obayashi, a lawyer and Plumas County sheriff’s deputy who consults statewide on use of force, saying the DA’s analysis was a reflection of current case law and that the decision against filing charges was legally sound.
“It would be a complete abuse of prosecutorial powers if she did,” he said. “There is no way they can prosecute this beyond a reasonable doubt.”
https://twitter.com/angryoptimist16/status/1102000920009887746
Stephon Clark’s life was dispatched a second time as DA Schubert described what she thought might have been his state of mind at the time of his death.
She revealed Clark was facing possible jail time after a domestic violence complaint two days earlier from Salena Manni, the mother of his two children. He also had researched suicide websites including those that suggested using a tranquilizer, which was among several drugs found in his system after his death.
“I can’t tell ultimately what was going on in his mind,” Schubert said. “He was in a state of despair and he was impaired, and that may have affected his judgment.”
The disclosures brought additional outcries from protest leaders and Clark’s relatives, including Manni, who said they weren’t relevant to whether the officers acted properly.
From the Guardian:
Dr Flojaune Cofer, senior director of policy at Public Health Advocates, a sponsor of the use of force bill, questioned why the district attorney shared such personal information from Clark and not the officers who killed him.
“I listened to an explanation for why this person deserved to die,” Cofer said. “And what was most troubling about that is that I didn’t hear similar investigation into the officers’ behavior, even though they were the ones who should have been under investigation for criminal negligence.”
“Legal” or not, the public outcry and media coverage has already forced some incremental changes.
From a Sacramento Bee editorial:
Let’s be clear: Stephon Clark did not deserve to die. He was unarmed in his grandparents’ backyard when police shot him seven or eight times, including multiple times in the back. In total, they fired 20 rounds – some of them after he had already fallen to his hands and knees – all because they allegedly mistook his cell phone for a gun.
“Show me your hands!” they yelled, as Clark lay dying.
How is a man with seven bullets in his body supposed to comply with such a command? It doesn’t make any sense. Neither does the current law regarding use of deadly force by police.
Sacramento District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert’s decision to let two Sacramento Police Department officers walk free after killing Clark is beyond disappointing. Unfortunately, it comes as no surprise. The existing standard for using deadly force – laid out in a patchwork of statutes dating back to 1872 – lets officers use deadly force when they consider it “reasonable” to do so.
This overly broad authority over life and death has resulted in the tragic killings of many unarmed civilians. A disproportionate number of them are black men like Stephon Clark.
Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg said the department has since increased training, limited foot pursuits like those in the Clark case, and committed to quickly releasing videos of officer-involved shootings.
Regardless of whether officers acted legally, Steinberg said, “the outcome was wrong — he should not have died.”
A second review of the incident by state Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra will be released “soon,” according to his spokeswoman.
Sacramento police chief Daniel Hahn now says the department will conduct its own investigation. Depending on the findings, Hahn could recommend to the city manager that the officers be fired.
In January, Clark’s family filed a $20 million lawsuit against the city of Sacramento.
Still more needs to be done, as activist Samuel Sinyangwe points out:
California has one of the highest rates of police violence in the nation and there is zero accountability for it. Of 1,072 people killed by CA police from 2013-18, 99.7% of killings did not result in officers being held accountable by the criminal justice system
California’s laws are designed to encourage police violence - the state’s deadly force law is the oldest in the nation, it actually *discourages* officers from using de-escalation and does not require police to even attempt alternatives when possible before deciding to kill.
That would change if CA lawmakers pass AB 392, removing legal protections for police who kill people when they could’ve used non-lethal alternatives instead. But apparently the idea that deadly force should be a last resort is “controversial” in this “progressive” state.
A bill introduced by Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (D-San Diego) redefining the circumstances where deadly force can used died last year, following heavy lobbying by police unions from around the a state.
This year Weber and Assemblyman Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) are sponsoring a slightly modified version of that bill, AB 392. It is again being opposed by law enforcement groups, which have lined up behind SB 230, focused solely on training and de-escalation policy.
From Politico:
Dueling bills before the Legislature this session speak directly to that issue. The two-track dispute seems certain to split Democrats, with law enforcement recruiting moderate members to support a use-of-force measure that police reform advocates dismiss as inadequate.
It is fundamentally a question of standards. The bill sponsored by the ACLU, CA AB392 (19R), would say peace officers can use lethal force only when necessary — meaning it is “objectively reasonable” to conclude that no alternative exists, which is more stringent than the current rule that officers must reasonably believe they’re at risk.
Officers whose “criminal negligence” led them to use force, including pursuit of the wrong suspect, would not be shielded under the bill by Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (D-San Diego). If enacted, the change could expose law enforcement to criminal or civil penalties and cost wayward officers their jobs.
AB 392 updates California’s use of force law to ensure police officers use deadly force only when necessary to prevent serious harm. It also mandates that officers use de-escalation tactics whenever possible.
To express support for AB 392, the ACLU has a handy online form allowing you to communicate directly with your state legislator.
It’s safe to say the arguments against redefining use of force are, to be polite, disingenuous. They cite crime statistics --unconnected with use of force incidents-- implying police officers and communities will be endangered.
Cities with similar policies around the country have less people dying and they don’t have more crime. Police departments requiring officers to use non-lethal alternatives when possible instead of deadly force are 25% less likely to kill people.
Opposition to AB 392 and other criminal justice reforms bring to light a larger problem, namely the “Blue Wall” between law enforcement and the people they are supposed to be serving.
Nowhere is this more obvious than the furious reaction to SB 1421 signed by Gov. Brown in 2018. The legislation says records, reports, investigations or findings may be subject to disclosure if they involve discharge of a firearm, an officer involved shooting, incidents of deadly force, or occurrences of sustained sexual assault or dishonesty by a peace officer.
Some police departments in California have been destroying records rather than complying with the law. Others have gone to court, saying the law applies only going forward and doesn’t cover past reports.
The First Amendment Coalition—a nonprofit public interest organization dedicated to advancing free speech and a more open and accountable government—is suing California Attorney General Xavier, accusing him of failing to comply with SB 1421.
Labor unions representing San Diego, Carlsbad and Coronado police officers, the Harbor police, and the San Diego Unified School District police lost in court last week as they sought to halt the release details of any officer discipline that happened before the law took effect. (The ruling is on hold, pending appeal)
The San Diego County Sheriff's Department initially tried to charge media organizations seeking records under the act the hundreds of thousands of dollars, but backed down after negative publicity.
***
The problem here is this pattern of behavior by “public servants” isn’t limited to just a few reforms where differences of opinion exist. These folks continually act like they have something to hide. And when called on it, they get mean and play dirty.
In 2017, Voice of San Diego reported on the watering down of a San Diego State University study on racial profiling by police. A draft copy of the was far more aggressive than the final version, with harsh language softened and some troubling findings taken out entirely.
The issuance of the report was postponed repeatedly during 2016, and ultimately the City Council voted to accept the report, but declined to implement any of its recommendations.
In 2018 a reform candidate running for District Attorney in San Diego was targeted with anti-Semitic ads paid for by law enforcement, implying here election would lead to anarchy.
Last week, in San Francisco, the unauthorized release of a police incident report on the death of Public Defender Jeff Adachi to media organizations triggered salacious coverage about an individual who’d successfully held law enforcement accountable during his career.
This reeked of revenge, and an “investigation” is underway. We all know where that won’t end.
Whether it’s use of force or covering up for sexual assaults, there are repeated examples of law enforcement agencies putting their own interests ahead of the public while playing the victim.
I know law enforcement is a dangerous business. I also know we the taxpayers are all-too-often being taken advantage of under the guise of fighting crime. This needs to change, and if it takes a hundred legislative acts and a thousand street protests, so be it.
Let's make sure all of our local legislators know they can't ignore this problem. Some people who seem progressive talk the talk on this issue, but can't walk the walk.
Hey folks! Be sure to like/follow Words & Deeds on Facebook. If you’d like to have each post mailed to you check out the simple subscription form and the right side of the front page.
Email me at DougPorter@WordsAndDeedsBlog.com
Lead image credit: Smarter Every Day video grab