SACRAMENTO (CBS13) — Video from the Stephon Clark protest on Saturday night appears to show a Sacramento County Sheriff’s deputy accelerating into a protester.

The video, shot by legal observer Guy Danilowitz shows a deputy accelerating and hitting a protester who wearing dark clothes was walking toward the curb. The video shows the protester moving laterally toward the curb and waving at the driver as she tries to get around.

The incident happened around 8:30 p.m. on Saturday near 56th Street and Florin Road.

The front right side of the vehicle struck the woman, sending her tumbling to the street. She was transported from the scene by police.

The California Highway Patrol said the woman suffered minor injuries.

Witnesses at the scene have identified her as Wanda Cleveland, a 61-year-old retired bus driver.

The incident happened after a march following a rally held by the Answer Coalition. This appears to be the first event held by the group in the wake of the Stephon Clark shooting. Other protests have been coordinated by groups such as Black Lives Matter.

Later in the night, deputies along with California Highway Patrol officers broke up a vocal protest that was blocking part of Florin Road.

Comments (13)
  1. Um…if you walk infront of a car, you may get hit.

    This, one learns, at a very young age.

    1. Unfortunately, not so much anymore. It’s amazing how many millenials start crossing the road without even the slightest glance upward towards the road – and this problem has become exponentially worse with the advent of smart phones.

  2. Chris Palmer says:

    he had to get through & couldn’t wait on a naca shufflin’ on along

  3. Gene Rey says:

    EXCELLENT!!!!! ALL motorists need to do the same!

  4. Jerry Cason says:

    IF THEY ARE BLOCKING THE STREET THEY SHOULD BE RUN OVER,DO THEY NOT KNOW WHAT SIDEWALKS ARE FOR?

  5. Jason Lago says:

    If she was on the sidewalk it is the policeman’s fault. If she was on the road then it’s her fault”. Got it?

    1. Gene Rey says:

      She was in the street. Got it?

  6. Ethan Hill says:

    Previous commenters need to have a heart. This was a 61 year old lady… that was knocked down by a sheriffs car… who then fled the seen. The road was obviously being used by a protest. You all sicken me with the disrespect of this elder. Don’t just say she was stupid for being in the road. Because these protesters see something that you are ignorant of in America and they are doing something about it instead of being systematically killed off and silenced. Hats off to Wanda folks, my new elderly hero.

    1. Gene Rey says:

      1, I don’t care if she was 11, 21, 61 or 161 years old; act stupid, in a street, ILLEGALLY and poo happens.
      2. I doubt these “people” even had a permit to assemble and “protest” but even if they did it doesn’t give them permission or the right to block traffic.
      3. Yes she was stupid.
      4. The whole “protest” is asinine anyway; Clark was responsible for his own demise by breaking into cars, running through the neighborhood (trespassing), disobeying the police and then advancing towards them in the dark with something in his hand. Again, poo happens BUT, he won’t do it again!

  7. Gene Rey says:

    I wonder; did she push the button on the little thingy given to her by welfare and say “I’ve fallen & can’t get up”?????????????????????????

  8. I’m not sure what legal system Gene, Jerry, Douglas want, but a system where government officials can arbitrarily decide to punish citizens by driving into them for exercising their right to air grievances without fear of retribution or censorship is not a system that any of our founding fathers would support. In fact, it goes directly against the system that they had envisioned.

    The (lack of a) legal system and the ability for government agents to arbitrarily enact physical harm in response to actions that they disagree with directly contradict our constitutional rights (notably, the first and fourth amendments). Moreover, it goes directly our retributive justice system, a system where the best response to a crime is a punishment proportional to the offense. Our legal system was designed around the writings of Beccaria who argued directly against a legal system that was excessive, brutal, arbitrary, and unequal. A government official running his car into protesters because they are simply impeding traffic or because he doesn’t agree with their message is unequivocally excessive, brutal, arbitrary, and unequal. No reasonable person would agree the government has the right to run cars into its people for simple civil infractions, and certainly not without due process.

    Moreover, in the state of California, we have already drafted laws, which our officers are supposed to know and enforce, that directly relate to the situation at hand. In Chapter 5 of our Vehicle Code, 21950 points out explicitly, “The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian… [Except] no pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk… [However, this] does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.”

    The take away being, yes, blocking traffic is a civil infraction, but drivers (including cops, who are not above the law in a free society) are required to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian. So while the senior citizen appears to be violating the rules of the road, our officer, instead of writing her a ticket for her civil infraction, also appears to be violating the rules of the road (and possibly her 1st and 4th amendment rights, if he did this to arbitrarily punish her).

    Finally, Gene, your reaction to this situation has nothing to do with the situation itself (the actions of our senior citizen and the response of our police officer), instead, you are so ideologically wrapped up in what the protest was about, you are willing to argue away our Constitution in favor of a lawless society, full of excessive punishments, revenge, and arbitrary punishments for individuals that you personally do not agree with. Gene, your hate filled reactionary ideology has taken you very far away from the ideals laid out in our Constitution and lays the groundwork for a very scary society.

    1. Gene Rey says:

      Lol. Ok!
      See that’s the difference between people like you (liberals) and people like me (conservatives)…I don’t like criminals and criminal activity. Spin it anyway you wish but don’t try to block the road when I’m driving on it!

      1. Gene,

        The difference between us is very simple.

        You do not support our American Constitution, you do not support the legal system developed by our founder fathers, and you do not support a rule of law. Instead, you support a society where the rights of Americans are ignored and government officials are allowed (and in your case even encouraged) to act in arbitrary and excessive manners.

        Moreover, you aren’t a conservative (please, do not give conservatism a bad name by trying to associate yourself with it). No conservative would openly advocate for ignoring our Constitution or the rights that it assures every American.You appear to be a reactionary, who is arguing for something closer to totalitarianism or authoritarianism.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s