ON AIR NOW

LISTEN NOW

Weather

cloudy-day
84°
Mostly Clear
H 90° L 68°
  • cloudy-day
    84°
    Current Conditions
    Mostly Clear. H 90° L 68°
  • clear-day
    90°
    Today
    Mostly Clear. H 90° L 68°
  • clear-day
    91°
    Tomorrow
    Mostly Clear. H 91° L 69°
LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

Wsb news on-demand

00:00 | 00:00

LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

Wsb traffic on-demand

00:00 | 00:00

LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

Wsb weather on-demand

00:00 | 00:00

National
‘Gun! Gun! Gun!’ Body cam, aerial video shows police kill unarmed black man 
Close

‘Gun! Gun! Gun!’ Body cam, aerial video shows police kill unarmed black man 

VIDEO: Graphic Footage Released In Killing of Unarmed Black Man In Sacramento

‘Gun! Gun! Gun!’ Body cam, aerial video shows police kill unarmed black man 

Sacramento police officials have released the harrowing audio and video, including footage from two officers’ body cameras, in the shooting death of an unarmed black man killed by police Sunday night

Stephon Alonzo Clark, 23, was shot multiple times in the backyard of his grandparents’ house, where he lived with several siblings. Sacramento Police Chief Daniel Hahn previously said the two unnamed officers involved in the shooting, who are on administrative leave while the case remains under investigation, fired on Clark 20 times. 

The footage was made public after it was shared with Clark’s family, per department policy. 

The body camera footage shows that the officers opened fire upon Clark seconds after encountering him on his patio. It also shows that, while the two officers involved ordered Clark to show them his hands, neither identified themselves as police officers. 

Clark’s aunt, Saquoia Durham, told The Sacramento Bee that her nephew did not stand a chance. 

“As soon as they did the command, they started shooting,” Durham told the newspaper. “They said, ‘Put your hands up, gun’ and then they just let loose on my nephew. They didn’t give him a chance to put his hands up or anything, and then when they shot him down, they knew they messed up.”

Family members and local activists also wondered why one of the videos shows, about six minutes after the shooting, an officer saying, “Hey, mute.” Officers are then seen muting the microphones on their body cameras for the rest of the recording released to the public. 

A police spokesman told the Bee there are a number of reasons officers may choose to mute their microphones, but did not go into detail. 

The officers who shot at Clark said they believed he was armed, but all that was found with his body was a cellphone. The killing has sparked protests and demands from Clark’s family and friends, as well as Sacramento officials, for answers about why an unarmed man was killed outside his own home. 

The Bee reported that the Rev. Al Sharpton has been in touch with Clark’s family and plans to travel to Sacramento to help ensure that Clark has a proper burial. The family has established a GoFundMe page to help fund his funeral arrangements, which include being buried next to a brother also cut down by gun violence, the Bee reported

>> Related: 20 bullets fired: Police kill unarmed black man holding cellphone in own backyard

Clark’s grandparents and other family members were inside the house as the shooting took place. His grandfather called 911 after hearing the gunshots, and his grandmother, Sequita Thompson, said she only learned the dead man was her grandson when she looked out the window after hours of police questioning on what she heard that night. 

“I opened that curtain and he was dead. I started screaming,” Thompson told the Bee

(Renee C. Byer/The Sacramento Bee via AP)
Sequita Thompson, of Sacramento, Calif., recounts the horror of looking out of her window to see her grandson, 23-year-old Stephon Clark, lying dead in her backyard after he was shot by police officers. Clark lived in the home with his grandparents and several siblings.
Close

20 bullets fired: Police kill unarmed black man holding cellphone in own backyard

Photo Credit: (Renee C. Byer/The Sacramento Bee via AP)
Sequita Thompson, of Sacramento, Calif., recounts the horror of looking out of her window to see her grandson, 23-year-old Stephon Clark, lying dead in her backyard after he was shot by police officers. Clark lived in the home with his grandparents and several siblings.

The shooting and the events surrounding it are laid out in the audio and video released Wednesday night, beginning with a 911 call from a resident in Clark’s neighborhood. The caller tells a dispatcher that there is a man going through the neighborhood and breaking vehicle windows, including those on the caller’s truck. 

“What did he use to break the windows?” the dispatcher asks.

“I have no idea,” the man responds. “I heard the noise and I came outside and he was standing right there on the side of my truck, and I grabbed my ball bat … (unintelligible) … I didn’t hit him, or nothing like that.”

The caller tells the dispatcher that the man is now in another yard, trying to get over a fence, but that he is trapped because of a neighbor’s dogs.  

The dispatcher asks for a description of the man, and the caller tells her he could not determine the man’s race because of the dark hoodie he was wearing. The suspect was wearing pants that appeared to have white stripes or dots on them, he says. 

During silent periods in the call, at least one dog can be heard barking in the background. The dispatcher continues to get the scant details of the vandal’s appearance: he’s tall, at more than 6 feet, and thin. 

The dispatcher tells the caller that the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office is sending a helicopter to search for the man and keep an eye on him until city police officers arrive. The weekend was a busy one because of St. Patrick’s Day, she says. 

The caller, a mechanic, tells the dispatcher that he keeps his tools in his truck, so the sound of his windows being broken alarmed him. 

“He’s lucky to be alive, if I would have gotten a hold of him,” the caller says, laughing. 

At that point in the 911 call, the officers who would shoot and kill Clark were about a block and a half away, according to the dispatcher. 

Audio from the dispatch office gives a glance into the same time frame from the viewpoint of law enforcement officers. The dispatcher relays a description of the accused vandal, and a male voice from the helicopter overhead mentions two large dogs as the only heat sources he can see on the infrared camera. 

A few minutes later, the deputy in the helicopter comes back on, telling the responding officers below he sees a man looking in the window of a home. 

“Two yards to the south of you, I’ve got a guy in a backyard looking into their window,” the deputy says. “He’s picking up a -- looks like a toolbar, or some sort of thing. He might be trying to break the window. Stand by.”

A moment later, the deputy says, “Okay, he’s breaking the window! Running south! Running to the south!”

The footage from the circling helicopter does not show Clark smashing the window, but picks up immediately afterward. The deputy is relaying his movements as Clark, seen only as a white figure in the camera’s infrared vision, jumps onto what appears to be a shed and vaults over the fence into his grandparents’ yard. 

At that point, he stops running and walks up to a vehicle between the fence and his grandparents’ home, briefly looking inside. 

As the helicopter continues to circle, the two police officers on the ground can be seen on the road in front of Clark’s grandparents’ home. One of the officers spots Clark and begins to run toward him, gun drawn. 

His partner follows and, as both officers run in his direction, Clark goes around the corner into the backyard of the house. Both officers follow, with one running into the open for a second before grabbing his partner and taking cover at the corner of the house. 

The officers huddle there and, as the helicopter’s camera gets a full view of the backyard, shots can be seen fired from the officers’ guns. 

Clark falls to the ground on his grandparents’ patio as the bullets ricochet off the pavement around him. He appears to try crawling away before becoming still. 

“Shots fired! Shots fired!” the deputy in the helicopter says. 

“Copy, shots fired,” the dispatcher responds. 

One of the officers on the ground, sounding out of breath, tells the dispatcher that the man is down, with no movement. He requests that backup officers arrive from a specific direction and asks that fire medics be en route. 

The officers have been criticized for waiting five minutes, until backup arrived, before rendering aid to Clark. Fire medics pronounced him dead at the scene. 

At one point, the dispatcher asks the officers if they also need medics. 

“Negative,” an officer responds. “Neither one of us are hit, we’re okay. Suspect’s down.”

The footage from the officers’ body cameras prior to the gunfire starts out quiet, as they make their way through the neighborhood, searching for the man suspected of vandalizing people’s vehicles. In the videos, the officers are seen asking a neighbor’s permission to search her backyard for the man. 

As they search, the dogs heard in the original 911 call are much closer. The officers clear a shed before heading back onto the street. 

A few moments later, the officers begin running toward the area where the deputy in the helicopter spotted Clark looking into the vehicle window next to his grandparents’ house. 

“Show me your hands! Show me your hands! Stop!” one officer screams at Clark when he spots him. He runs after Clark, who is heading around the corner toward the patio.

As the officer rounds the corner, he again screams, “Show me your hands!” and, “Gun!” before pushing his partner back.

As both officers huddle at the corner, the same officer yells, “Show me your hands! Gun! Gun! Gun!” 

They then both open fire.

See the body camera footage from both officers, beginning when they first spot Clark, below. Warning: The images and language may be disturbing for some readers. 

Footage from the second officer’s body camera shows his hands holding his service weapon around the corner of the house as he and his partner unleash a barrage of bullets. It is not clear from the location of his body camera, which would be attached to his chest, if the second officer could see who he was shooting at. 

The second officer’s body camera captured the fiery blasts from his partner’s gun as the gunshots rang out. 

“Five seven, shots fired,” the first officer breathlessly tells the dispatcher. “Subject down.”

Over the next few minutes, the officers continue ordering Clark to show them his hands, with no response.

The second officer says that Clark was “still pointing” when he saw him prior to the shooting. They both spend a few moments quietly trying to catch their breath, during which time the officers determine that neither of them was shot.

The officers agree to do a “tactical reload,” a maneuver in which law enforcement officers reload recently-fired weapons with fresh, full magazines to ensure they don’t run out of ammunition. The second officer estimated that he fired his weapon about five times, though his body camera footage shows more.

Hahn has previously said that each officer fired 10 times. 

The second officer’s body camera footage shows that additional police officers began to show up about that time, with one officer asking if the suspect had a gun. 

“We haven’t secured it,” the second officer said. “We’re not moving in until we have more (backup).”

The first officer is also heard saying, “(Clark’s) still down, he’s not moving. We can’t see the gun.”

>> Read more trending news

The officers tell their colleagues that Clark walked toward them with his hands out in front of him and that he held something that looked like a gun. 

As the officers speak, their flashlights highlight Clark’s body, lying face-down on the patio. They continue to search from a distance for a gun.

They also continue to try to get a response from Clark. 

“Hey, can you hear us?” one officer yells. 

“We need to know if you’re okay,” a female officer says. “We need to get you medics, but we can’t go over there to get you help unless we know you don’t have your weapon.”

They continue trying to speak to the motionless Clark as sirens are heard in the background. 

“Sir, can you move?” the female officer asks. “Can you hear us?”

At least one officer keeps a gun trained on Clark the entire time and, for a few moments, the second of the first two officers on the scene suggests firing a non-lethal weapon at his body to ensure he isn’t faking unconsciousness, the footage shows. It does not appear that the officers did so.

A few minutes later, the footage shows the officers finally approaching Clark’s body. 

“Hey, if one of you guys want to go hands, cover him … oh, (expletive),” the second officer says as they get to Clark.

The body camera shows the edge of something flat and light-colored peeking out from underneath his body. As they handcuff his limp hands behind his back and turn him over to start CPR, their flashlights show what the item is.

It is the iPhone Clark was carrying.

Read More

News

  • The annual Barbacoa & Big Red Festival is a food festival in San Antonio, but organizers are happier when visitors leave their knives at home. >> Read more trending news  Along with stun guns and other weapons, KSAT reported. Officials said they collected more than 600 weapons Sunday during the event, according to the festival’s Facebook page. 'Safety for our patrons is our number one priority. We are very proud to say that not a single altercation or arrest occurred at our festival,' a spokesman for the festival wrote on its Facebook page. Vigilance by festival organizers resulted in no arrests, KENS reported. Event founder DJTONYC said the delays caused by searching bags for weapons were worth it. 'Fast forward to the end of the night, if you want to know how many arrests we had, how many altercations, how many intoxicated people that we had to arrest and kick out, the answer was zero. So I mean, to me, that's successful,' DJTONYC told Spectrum News.
  • Little Caesars is making the Impossible possible for pizza lovers.  The pizza chain announced on Monday it is launching the Impossible Foods’ Supreme pizza, topped with Impossible sausage made from plants, caramelized onions, mushrooms and green peppers. >> Read more trending news  “Little Caesars has a long history of innovation aimed at providing our customers with value, quality, and convenience. Any product we introduce must deliver on those brand pillars while appealing to our loyal, mostly carnivorous, fans,' Little Caesars President and CEO David Scrivano said in a Monday news release. “I’m confident that the Impossible Supreme Pizza will go down as one of the most surprising and satisfying menu sensations of 2019. This is likely just the beginning of plant-based menu items from Little Caesars.” Burger King announced in April it is adding the Impossible Whopper to its menu nationwide. Related: Burger King to offer plant-based Impossible Whopper at US restaurants The plant-based vegan patty, made of water, plant proteins, coconut oil and heme, a natural molecule that gives burgers their distinctive taste and is found in plants, is designed to look and taste like a traditional red meat burger. The same technology used for the Impossible Burgers makes the Impossible sausage possible. “Customers have been asking for Impossible Sausage for years — and when Little Caesars said they wanted a unique, delicious pizza topping, our team developed more than 50 prototypes,” Impossible Foods’ CEO and founder Patrick O. Brown said in a statement. “One product stood out from the rest. You need to taste it to believe it.” The Impossible Supreme Pizza is currently available in three Little Caesars test markets in Ft. Meyers, Florida, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Yakima, Washington. It is $12, not including tax.
  • An Indiana family is calling for the end of lunch shaming after they said their kindergarten student was a victim of the trend. Dwight Howard told WISH is granddaughter, Anya Howard, 6, had to return a tray of hot food after her cafeteria account came up short of the $2.25 total on Friday. At the time, she had 10 cents according to a note sent home that same day. >>Read: Cafeteria worker fired for giving food to student who couldn't pay refuses offer to be rehired The student told the television station she had to walk past about 20 students to get to the back of the line as some students commented on the financial woe. When she got there, she received a peanut butter and jelly sandwich instead. But the elder Howard believes that what he called, the “cafeteria walk of shame” was not necessary and humiliated his granddaughter. >> Read more trending news  “They waited until there was a dime left, denied her the opportunity to eat the lunch that she had [been served and tried to pay for] and then she had to go to the end of the line to wait for a PB&J,” Howard told WISH. School officials told the station that other students do get the alternate lunches when they do not have the funds to pay for the hot meal, and that there are payment reminders sent once accounts drop to $5. >>Read: Chef José Andrés hears plight of lunch lady fired after giving lunch to student who couldn’t pay “Any time this happens, our staff looks to handle all of these as discreetly as possible. We do allow elementary students to charge two hot meals before receiving the alternate meal,” Greenwood Community Schools Superintendent Dr. Kent DeKonnick told WISH. DeKonnick said the Howard family has not contacted district officials and didn’t specifically speak about Anya’s case. But a note attached to the balance slip Anya received said her school, Southwest Elementary, would not allow debts. According to the letter, “Starting Monday, 5/13/2019 we are no longer allowing any Café accounts to go into the negative. If there is not enough money in your child’s account to cover the entire meal, they will be receiving a peanut butter sandwich and milk,” WISH reported. >>Read: Fired lunch lady was 'dishonest,' didn't follow rules, food vendor says Howard told WISH he wasn’t informed of his granddaughter’s account balance, or of the policy change prior to Friday’s incident.
  • House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, warned former White House counsel Don McGahn Tuesday that he will be held in contempt of Congress if he does not testify about special counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. >>Former White House counsel Don McGahn ignores subpoena, skips Congressional hearingThe warning came Tuesday after McGahn failed to appear before the committee for a scheduled hearing. >> Read more trending news McGahn will be the second Trump official – U.S. Attorney General William Barr was the first – to be held in contempt by Nadler’s committee if he continues to refuse to testify.What happens when someone is held in contempt of Congress? Here’s a look at the process. What is contempt of Congress?  Congress can hold a person in contempt if that person's conduct obstructs congressional proceedings or obstructs an inquiry by a congressional committee. Refusing to testify or refusing to turn over documents can constitute contempt. Where in the Constitution does it say Congress can bring contempt charges?  There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the specific authority to hold someone in contempt. However, the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that Congress has the right under some circumstances to compel people to comply with its requests when it is legitimately overseeing an inquiry. What law governs Congress’ ability to hold someone in contempt?  A law enacted in 1938 – 2 USCA § 192 – says that any person who is summoned before Congress who 'willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry' shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment. So Congress can convict anyone of contempt for any matter?  While its power is broad, there are limits to what Congress can do. Before a congressional witness can be convicted of contempt, it must be established that the person being charged has something to do with a subject that Congress has the constitutional power to legislate. In other words, Congress cannot just go after anyone for anything. Congress must have the authority to look into a matter in order to bring contempt charges against someone who is preventing them from getting information on that matter. Also, a person cannot be made to answer questions if there is a legal basis that allows them not to answer – such as the right against incriminating yourself guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment. What is the process of finding someone in contempt?  Once a contempt citation is issued, a vote must be taken. The vote can take place in a House or Senate committee or on the floor of either the House or Senate.   A simple majority of the body is needed to support a finding of contempt. Then what happens?  After the vote is taken and if the matter passes the full House, the speaker of the House turns the matter over to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. It’s the same process for the Senate – if a vote passes, the matter is turned over to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. The U.S. attorney could then decide if the matter is to be pursued and would bring the issue before a grand jury.  If prosecuted and convicted of contempt of Congress, a person could be fined up to $1,000 and sentenced to a year in jail.  Is there anything else Congress could do?  There is a method that has not been used for many years but is an option for the leadership in Congress. A method called “inherent contempt” would allow a person to be arrested by the sergeant-at-arms of the House or Senate and brought before the accusing legislative body for a trial.  If convicted, the person could be imprisoned until they agree to comply with what Congress wants from them. They can be held in jail until the end of the current congressional session – that would be Jan. 3, 2021 – or they could be released whenever Congress decides to let them go before Jan. 3, 2021. If the House were to invoke inherent contempt charges, technically the person could be imprisoned in a spare room at the Capitol, a Capitol Police holding cell or a nearby hotel. However, this is not likely to happen. Inherent contempt has not been used since 1935. What is likely to happen?  If a deal cannot be worked out, Congress is likely to bring a civil lawsuit asking a judge to get involved. If the judge rules that a person must answer questions or surrender documents, then the person must do so or face contempt of court charges. Contempt of court is usually enforced with daily fines or imprisonment.  
  • A Michigan man was hospitalized and later arrested after police said he swallowed baggies of cocaine while resisting officers. The Detroit News reported that Michigan State Police said 38-year-old Paul Wagner was stopped for an equipment malfunction around 1 a.m. May 12. >> Read more trending news  Police said they saw a baggie of white powder believed to be cocaine inside the vehicle as they approached. When they asked Wagner to hand them the bag, he put it in his mouth and tried to swallow it. WNEM reported that when police tried to physically stop Wagner from swallowing the substance, he revved his vehicle’s engine and tried to put it in gear, according to officials. When police sensed danger to Wagner and the public, they stunned him. Wagner still managed to swallow the baggie. He was taken into custody and admitted to  the hospital for several days. He later passed three small baggies, which police said was determined to be cocaine, based on a preliminary field test, WXYZ reported. Once released from the hospital, MLive reported Wagner was charged with possession of cocaine and resisting and obstructing. WJRT reported Wagner remained in haul Monday under $100,000 bond.
  • Actor Robert De Niro honored longtime friend Al Pacino on Sunday at the American Icon Awards, and then took a shot at President Donald Trump, noting that impeachment and imprisonment would “make America great again,” Variety reported. >> Read more trending news  During the ceremony, De Niro praised Pacino, his “lifelong compatriot,” along with the program’s other inductees -- music producer Quincy Jones and former pro boxer Evander Holyfield. The pair have starred in four movies together, most famously in “The Godfather, Part 2,” in which Pacino uttered the line, “Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.” On Sunday night, De Niro kept Trump close in his thoughts. “You didn’t think you were going to completely get away without a ‘(expletive) Trump’ moment, did you?” De Niro said during his speech. In a video obtained by TMZ, De Niro is heard praising the night’s honorees, saying “They’ve earned our respect and admiration, and they deserve this tribute.” “On the other hand, the individual who currently purports to lead America is not worthy of any tribute,” De Niro said, to a mixture of cheers and boos. “Unless you think of his impeachment and imprisonment as a sort of tribute. Now that’s how you can make America great again.”