MN - Jamar Clark, 24, shot by LE, Minneapolis, 15 Nov 2015

[K_Z]

Entire news conference today with Mayor Betsy Hodges and Minneapolis Police Chief Janee Harteau.
33 min.

[video=youtube;wV22Mt1uyaA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV22Mt1uyaA[/video]

 

[K_Z]

More details released from Police union about the struggle between Jamar Clark and LEOs. Claim Jamar Clark was not handcuffed at all, and not just "reaching" for the officer's gun, but had actual control of the gun while it was still in the officer's holster. Forensics will be able to prove that easily, IMO.

Thank God one of the officers shot Jamar Clark and prevented him from using the officer's gun to kill a police officer, or paramedics, his girlfriend, or bystanders. I'm thankful this violent career criminal wasn't allowed to hurt anyone else. He should not be martyred. Another MN officer was killed with his own weapon just a few weeks ago-- all the police officers in the state are acutely aware of that.

I think this is going to turn out to be exactly like the Michael Brown situation, where all of the false eyewitness (and some who were clearly NOT eyewitnesses) stories were proven wrong by forensics and the DOJ.

And that also, IMO, explains why Chief Harteau was so willing to rapidly turn the investigation over to the BCA-- she knows that the situation will be quickly proven in favor of the officers acting swiftly and correctly, and that this information will be more credible when it comes from outside of the Minneapolis PD. She knows her officers were right and did the right thing, IMO. But she has to play the middle for a while to appease the protesters, to try to keep the peace and try to keep them from rioting. Sucky position to be in, IMO. The Chief and the officers have to sit back and watch the protesters, agitators, and liars control the narrative for weeks, until their side is proven with forensics, since there is no video of the actual shooting. The union doesn't have to play the middle, and is freer to tell the officers' side of what happened. IMO.

Clark not handcuffed, had control of officer's gun, union says

MINNEAPOLIS - The head of the Minneapolis Police Union said Thursday that 24-year-old Jamar Clark was not handcuffed when he was shot, but he was armed -- as he had control of an officer's gun.

He said Clark refused to show his hands or comply with police orders when police arrived to the scene of a domestic assault. He said he was involved in another domestic incident on Nov. 15, which sent a victim to the hospital with a broken ankle, among other injuries.

Kroll said he was "intimidating paramedics" that were trying to tend to the victim when police were called.

As officers were trying to detain Clark, he pushed back, according to Kroll.

"He chose to resist, fight officers and to seize control of an officer's firearm," he said. "Mr. Clark was given multiple opportunities to desist, but instead chose to engage officers in a life-or-death struggle for an officer's weapon."

According to the officer's statements about the incident, Clark had physical control of the hand grip of the gun, while it was in the holster.

http://www.kare11.com/story/news/lo...-control-of-officers-gun-union-says/76071962/

 

[K_Z]

More arrests overnight for vandalism at the police precinct.

Video, 2.5 min

http://www.kare11.com/videos/news/2777759379001/4623297051001/

Also, an SUV rammed the police gate at the precinct (well, "someone" had to be driving it into the gate; the SUV didn't ram the gate all by itself). No shots were fired. However, a 5 year old and a 40 year old nearby were shot. But no one seems at all upset or concerned that a 5 year old was shot. I wonder why?

SUV rams 4th Precinct gate, 2 arrested for Jamar Clark vandalism

Shooting just blocks away

Despite the calls for peace, a 5-year-old boy and 40-year-old man were shot Thursday afternoon in an apartment just a block next to where Jamar Clark died, adding more tension to a community already on edge

The national president of the NAACP will be in Minneapolis on Friday, with a vigil planned for 4 p.m.

EDITOR'S NOTE - A previous version of this story stated that officers fired shots at the vehicle that attempted to ram the 4th Precinct's gate. Minneapolis police insist no shots were fired -- not even marking rounds.

http://www.fox9.com/news/51959667-story

 

[K_Z]

And more details. Jamar Clark was not "just" interfering with paramedics-- he was actively trying to pull his GF out of the ambulance-- the GF with a broken ankle, and other injuries. So that is the "second" domestic assault he was being arrested for-- the first being his initial assault of the GF at the party,producing her broken ankle and other injuries. Then there is the third assault of the police officer. Had he not been shot and killed, he would have faced many felony charges, and significant prison time-- yet again.

From several other articles, JC had not been out of prison very long on his most recent 41 month sentence. Real peaceful, law abiding, non violent guy, right? Nope. Career violent criminal. He cause his own death, IMO.

Officers and paramedics were responding to a call of a woman being assaulted. Authorities have said Clark was interfering with the woman's medical care when Ringgenberg and Schwarze tried to arrest him.

Kroll said Clark was trying to pull the woman out of the ambulance.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/19/us/minneapolis-jamar-clark-police-shooting/

 

[RoiPD86]

Please lets understand this. The remark made (with no substantive support) that the police officers should be fired for allowing an un-handcuffed man access to their weapons? Really? As someone who has gained law enforcement training in multiple federal and state venues I can tell you that this as a baseless assertion, and downright dangerous. It is this kind of thought that allows people to somehow justify aggressive and unlawful behavior towards authority. Lets just remember that whether we like it or not makes no difference, somebody must be in charge.

It is true that most suspects willingly comply and do not resist arrest. It is also very true that human behavior is vast. Because of this it is impossible to account for every action by an offender in an instant. Officers are human, lest we forget.

Can someone please explain this errant comment?

 

[Always Amazed]

We are all never going to agree on this case and that is okay with me.

FWIW I am not a protester and I do not agree with throwing rocks, damaging property, etc.

I believe that the people have a right to hold the MPD accountable for their actions. The MPD already held JC accountable for his.

Releasing the videos will most likely show whether or not police followed proper protocol for the take-down of a non-compliant suspect. Suspects resist all the time and are successfully handcuffed and taken in without having to be shot in the head. What went wrong in this instance?

If proper protocol was followed, can changing protocol keep this from happening again?

 

[Woodland]

Please lets understand this. The remark made (with no substantive support) that the police officers should be fired for allowing an un-handcuffed man access to their weapons? Really? As someone who has gained law enforcement training in multiple federal and state venues I can tell you that this as a baseless assertion, and downright dangerous. It is this kind of thought that allows people to somehow justify aggressive and unlawful behavior towards authority. Lets just remember that whether we like it or not makes no difference, somebody must be in charge.

It is true that most suspects willingly comply and do not resist arrest. It is also very true that human behavior is vast. Because of this it is impossible to account for every action by an offender in an instant. Officers are human, lest we forget.

Can someone please explain this errant comment?

There is no substantive support that JC reached for the officers gun - that assertion came 3 days after the fact from a guy that doesn't have very clean hands, nor is that guy in a position to tell the public what happened - so why is he the investigative spokesperson?

Imo Kroll has made the divide on the issue wider - possibly egging on protesters for accurate answers that can be seen and scrutinized by the public and media.

 

[RoiPD86]

There is no substantive support that JC reached for the officers gun - that assertion came 3 days after the fact from a guy that doesn't have very clean hands, nor is that guy in a position to tell the public what happened - so why is he the investigative spokesperson?

Imo Kroll has made the divide on the issue wider - possibly egging on protesters for accurate answers that can be seen and scrutinized by the public and media.

That didn't answer my question? Stating that there is no substantive support that JC reached for the officers gun does not do this. All it takes is for the individual officer to feel or perceive that the suspect is going for his gun based on his training. That is all the support necessary.


http://www.fox9.com/news/51169866-story

 

[Montjoy]

All it takes is for the individual officer to feel or perceive that the suspect is going for his gun based on his training. That is all the support necessary.

As written, that's not quite correct. The officer needs to have a reasonable fear for his/her safety. That's why things like witness statements matter.

 

[Woodland]

As written, that's not quite correct. The officer needs to have a reasonable fear for his/her safety. That's why things like witness statements matter.

Unfortunately 'fear for his/her safety' also works as a broad, blanket excuse when a shooting is not warranted. A person only has to 'say' that is what they thought, not prove why they would have had such a thought in a particular moment.

 

[Always Amazed]

Joint statement from Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis and attorney for Officer Dustin Schwarze:

http://www.fox9.com/news/51169866-story

 

[RoiPD86]

Yeah, well in all fairness if someone is going for your gun an officer will have a reasonable level of fear. Is it not widely known that most officers killed by firearms are killed by their own firearms?

 

[Always Amazed]

Yeah, well in all fairness if someone is going for your gun an officer will have a reasonable level of fear. Is it not widely known that most officers killed by firearms are killed by their own firearms?

This does not substantiate the claim of most officers killed by firearms being killed by their own firearm:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...eloniously-killed/officers-feloniously-killed

"Weapons
Of officers killed in 2011, most (63) were killed with firearms. Of these, 50 were killed with handguns. (A breakdown of the types of weapons used in these slayings is provided in Table 27.)
5 officers had their weapons stolen.
3 officers were killed with their own weapons.
10 officers attempted to use their weapons; 17 officers fired their weapons.
21 officers were slain with firearms when they were 0-5 feet from the offenders."

 

[bluesneakers]

Joint statement from Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis and attorney for Officer Dustin Schwarze:

http://www.fox9.com/news/51169866-story

On November 15, 2015, Mr. Clark was involved in another domestic incident, sending the victim to the hospital with a broken ankle, among other injuries. He was intimidating paramedics attending to his victim when police were called.

I might have missed this, but have we heard anything from the paramedics at the scene?

 

[Always Amazed]

Here are 2014 statistics, released this year:

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...forcement-officers-killed-in-the-line-of-duty

"Five of the 51 officers killed fired their own weapons, and six officers attempted to fire their service weapons. Seven victim officers had their weapons stolen; one officer was killed with his own weapon."

 

[RoiPD86]

This does not substantiate the claim of most officers killed by firearms being killed by their own firearm:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...eloniously-killed/officers-feloniously-killed

"Weapons
Of officers killed in 2011, most (63) were killed with firearms. Of these, 50 were killed with handguns. (A breakdown of the types of weapons used in these slayings is provided in Table 27.)
5 officers had their weapons stolen.
3 officers were killed with their own weapons.
10 officers attempted to use their weapons; 17 officers fired their weapons.
21 officers were slain with firearms when they were 0-5 feet from the offenders."

Good Data, I misspoke. I guess its more accurate to say over the past 50 years or so a large amount of cops have been slain by their own firearms.

http://www.policeone.com/close-quar...Own-Guns-Likely-Will-Not-Change-R-I-Policies/

This article shows 52 times from 1994-2003, so only a 9 year spread.

 

[Always Amazed]

New information in this article about Officer Dustin Schwarze:

http://www.citypages.com/news/cop-s...-was-holding-a-gun-when-he-was-killed-7847227

"As for Bruno's client, a 2009 lawsuit accused Schwarze of falsely arresting a man a bunch of times in order to force him to become a police informant. A settlement was reached in that case. "

 

[Woodland]

When police arrived, Mr. Clark refused to show his hands or otherwise comply with police orders. While he was being legally detained, he chose to resist, fight officers, and to seize control of an officer's firearm. Mr. Clark was given multiple opportunities to desist; instead, he chose to engage officers in a life-or-death struggle for an officer's weapon.

At no time was Mr. Clark handcuffed, contrary to press reports and social chatter. Contrary to official statements, Mr. Clark was indeed armed, as he had manual control of an officer's firearm.

http://www.fox9.com/news/51169866-story

Here's 2 guys with a lot to say but no back-up. No video proof, no reports to release - but they claim to know everything that happened.

I don't believe them - I do believe they have been recruited to pave the way for what an 'official' investigation will show.

 

[Woodland]

Yeah, well in all fairness if someone is going for your gun an officer will have a reasonable level of fear. Is it not widely known that most officers killed by firearms are killed by their own firearms?

'If' seems to be the key word in this case. 'If' it is the case, predict 100% agreement that JC's death was by his own actions.

People are waiting for 'if' to be removed from the equation.

 

[Always Amazed]

I might have missed this, but have we heard anything from the paramedics at the scene?

I have not been able to find any information that paramedics have made any public statements.