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

[scmom]

Getting far afield here but to offer another view on that 40% rate of domestic violence:
http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-50-DV-Myths.pdf

 

[K_Z]

I will tip my hand and say that I strongly do not approve of these kinds of demonstrations/ protests. I do understand that they have the “right” to “free speech” and “assembly”, and to “petition” the government for redress of grievances. However, I strongly disagree with how this has been conducted by groups such as Black Lives Matter, the New Black Panthers, and other social/ racial “justice” groups. I consider these groups to be hate groups, whose speech and activities often incite violence and riot behavior, cost a lot of taxpayer money to supervise and manage, and are largely ineffective at anything except promoting hostility and divisiveness—and that’s on good day.

That said, I know that others feel differently, and emotionally want and “need” to act out when they disagree with things in society, because they feel powerless to do anything except protest and get attention for negative and destructive behavior. They don’t want to work to make changes in a positive, law abiding way, IMO—they just want to be angry, perpetually offended/ aggrieved, and exact revenge. For that reason, these kinds of anger and revenge protests are an outlet for strong negative emotions, and if authorities work effectively to manage the “protest” behavior with the least amount of violence and destruction, we can hopefully head off worse violence. That’s the compromise.

It’s my opinion that these groups have been given wide, and unjust latitude beyond simply their “right” to “free speech” and “assembly.” I believe their crowd behavior in Minneapolis and across the U.S. has broken many laws that others would be arrested and criminally charged for—but not *these* groups. For some reason, they are treated as though they are *special*, and their clearly unlawful behavior has been tolerated “differently”, and much more leniently, by law enforcement and the justice system. I don’t think that is right, or fair, or just. These groups always seem to get a pass on their unlawful behavior—a scant few will be arrested, when dozens upon dozens should be arrested, IMO. No one should be able to block public roads or highways without a lawfully issued permit, and certainly not block access to airports, or blockade public transportation, or impede emergency services, just because they happen to feel like “protesting” something. Those who do these things should be immediately arrested, IMO. In this day and age, these kinds of groups are very, very dangerous, because with little provocation, things can deteriorate into riots and terroristic scenarios.

I’m fine with “yell and shout” protests being conducted in a designated protest area in a public place, or park, where their behavior doesn’t impact OTHER citizens who don’t want to participate. Non-participants IMO, also have RIGHTS to not be the target of crowd violence, or prevented from proceeding through society, or have their personal property/ homes/ businesses damaged or destroyed. The minute “protest” behavior impacts the rights of other citizens to not be a part of that, then it is no longer a legal protest, IMO, and it should be shut down. Blockading a highway at rush hour should earn you multiple felony charges, IMO.

I am fully aware that these loosely knit groups want to create the most extreme havoc and social unrest they can, and they want to menace and threaten others to try to create some kind of fear or bully effect. They really get a real charge out of that, as is obvious on social media. IMO, many of the participants WANT the crowd behavior to deteriorate into a full blown riot, so they have some kind of “revenge” justification to destroy, loot, and assault. I think most of the “we just want peaceful protest” language rings sickeningly hollow. The leaders of these groups regularly egg-on their followers to commit violence.

I just personally don’t think that these kinds of protests do anything at all effective, or positive, nor do they promote any kind of REAL thoughtfulness or social change. Most people don’t respect the participants—they look down on them for their childish tantrums, and impulsive behavior. It’s stupid, dangerous and pointless, IMO, except as a mechanism for exacting their brand of REVENGE for their anger. That’s just my opinion—others certainly will vary!

<rant complete> See how that works? I solved exactly nothing, likely did not persuade anyone to think differently, but I also didn't hurt anyone, or destroy anything, or block any highways, or interfere with anyone else's rights.

 

[Montjoy]

Getting far afield here but to offer another view on that 40% rate of domestic violence:
http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-50-DV-Myths.pdf

That is not a credible source, in the least. 'Mediaradar.org' is a "men's rights" group (i.e., anti-women group) that constantly complains about how unfair domestic assault laws are. You're welcome to salute whatever flag you want, but I consider them to be tantamount to a hate group, and many others do too. They likely complain about rape laws as well.

http://jezebel.com/5397939/the-misguided-message-of-mens-rights-groups

 

[bluesneakers]

Sure why not? If the LEO was justified, he can get his day in court, and be exonerated by a fair and impartial jury. Of course even that will not work. Because when DAs do charge LEOs, they then present as weak a case as possible to help their LE partner.

So often it seems LE is willing to pay someone off, but having the officers held accountable for their actions and for the victim and families to get justice is off the table. Isn't it easier to charge and convict someone than it is to come up with $8million? If the officer truly did nothing wrong, why pay the victim's family anything at all?

 

[bwt42]

So often it seems LE is willing to pay someone off, but having the officers held accountable for their actions and for the victim and families to get justice is off the table. Isn't it easier to charge and convict someone than it is to come up with $8million? If the officer truly did nothing wrong, why pay the victim's family anything at all?

No. If you try and convict, there would still be a lawsuit. If you try and don't convict, there could still be a lawsuit & damages awarded. JMO

 

[bwt42]

Justice & conviction are not synonymous.

 

[scmom]

Since there were no charges brought it seems there was no crime committed at this time?

 

[bwt42]

Since there were no charges brought it seems there was no crime committed at this time?

True. However the family will most likely sue. Some lawyer will tell the jury how the perp "was getting his life back together". He/She will tell the jury there were other ways to subdue the perp. The jury, since they don't have to pay the award, will make the family rich.

 

[K_Z]

Contrary to what the news media is promoting, not everyone believes County Attorney Mike Freeman made the "wrong" decision to not bring charges against the 2 officers.

Not every black feels this way. Peter Bell is the former President of the Metropolitan Council. He says Freeman did a thorough investigation.
"In addition to the unusual transparency that was provided by Mr. Freeman, I'm satisfied with the results," he said.

Bell says Clark's death is tragic. But he believes a large portion of the black community has gone awry. He says black on black violence is excessive while personal responsibility is lacking.

"Seventy percent of all black children are born out of wedlock," Bell said. "I think too often we use the tragic realities of racism and oppression, the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow as an all-purpose excuse," Bell said.

http://kstp.com/news/black-communit...lark-decision-african-american/4091540/?cat=1

BBM below here.

Robert Bennett, a Minneapolis attorney who has won civil rights cases against several area police departments, said he thinks a suit against Minneapolis police in this case would be difficult. If officers believed Clark was a suspect in a domestic assault, they had a right to arrest him with force, and if one officer said Clark was going for his gun, the other officer most likely would be found to have “qualified immunity” from civil action for using deadly force.

Bennett said he lost a similar case 16 years ago. Woodbury police shot and killed a man in the midst of a struggle during a domestic assault call. One officer said Perry Parks, 42, was trying to grab his gun. A fellow officer shot him, even though Parks’ wife was there and telling them her husband didn’t have a hand on the gun.

The court ruled the officer who fired the shot had immunity because his fellow officer said he feared for his life.

“It makes a case with this kind of evidence essentially prohibitive, especially if they got (Clark’s) DNA on the gun,” Bennett said.

Freeman said, and others agreed, that his decision was bound by the law, but he thinks it would be better to focus on improving police training on de-escalating situations than on changing the law.

“I think he’s exactly right. This is the law,” Colbert said. “That doesn’t mean they should shoot all the time. … There’s a world of difference between murder charges and proper police conduct. I never heard (Freeman) say this is exactly how we want our officers to behave; what he said was these are not appropriate circumstances to bring murder charges.”

http://www.grandforksherald.com/new...legal-experts-keep-close-eye-jamar-clark-case

There is still an open civil rights investigation at the federal level. I don't think there will be any charges arising from that.

I think the family will have offers of free representation, and will file a lawsuit. I do not think they will succeed in recovering money, especially if they use Wrongful Death as the basis for complaint. The lack of criminal charges, combined with the criminal conduct of Jamar Clark during the incident, will make that an un-winnable situation, IMO.

There will be an internal investigation at the conclusion of the federal investigation, according to Chief Harteau. I do think there will be something coming out of that. I think Officer Riggenberg, at a minimum, will receive an official form of discipline for using the take down method that he did. Unquestionably, this is an approved technique in other states, in which he was trained, however, the minute technicalities of MN law make it a murky situation. Therefore, I think he will face official discipline for that, which could range from internal discipline, up to firing. I doubt Riggenberg will ever be a beat cop again-- his career is over, IMO. I'm on the fence as to whether Schwarze will receive any internal discipline-- leaning toward not.

Another article I read said that there are only about 300 tasers in the department-- not enough for all officers, and newer officers usually do not receive one. Neither Schwarze nor Riggengerg had tasers. I do think that will change quickly-- especially as the new body cams come on line in May. I think budget will be approved for each officer to have both a camera and a taser, in addition to their duty pistol, mace, etc.

The other think I think will change is the policy on lights and sirens during response. The responding officers were so close-- about 2 blocks, from the call, they didn't turn on their lights and sirens. Because the lights and sirens weren't activated, their dash cam didn't turn on automatically. I think that it's possible that the rules on dash cam activation will be looked at, and maybe changed. I'm not sure about all the rules involving lights and sirens-- it definitely can escalate a situation, IMO--and maybe they shouldn't be required to turn on every time, but there has to be a method to ensure the dash cams are activated appropriately. I don't think that should be up to the officers to do that while enroute with sirens off-- I'd favor some kind of automatic enabling, if possible.

 

[K_Z]

Clark's relatives have hired attorneys, and lawsuits against the city and police officers are possible. Attorney Albert Goins, who represents two of Clark's biological sisters and other siblings, said he's just started reviewing the evidence Freeman released and needs to gather more information before deciding on a lawsuit. Clark's adoptive parents, James and Wilma Clark, have also retained an attorney.

The state criminal investigation is over, but the FBI, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota and the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division are still conducting a federal criminal investigation to determine whether police intentionally violated Clark's civil rights through excessive force. That's a high legal standard because an accident, bad judgment or simple negligence on the officer's part is not enough to bring federal charges.

In addition, the officers could be disciplined. Once the federal investigation is complete, the Minneapolis Police Department will conduct an internal review, said police spokesman Scott Seroka. For now, the officers are on non-patrol duties. It's unclear when they will return to the street.

The Justice Department is also reviewing how the city responded to protests after Clark's death. His shooting prompted numerous demonstrations, including an 18-day occupation outside a police precinct.

http://www.kcbd.com/story/31614129/a-look-at-whats-next-in-the-jamar-clark-case

 

[bluesneakers]

Justice & conviction are not synonymous.

No, but a conviction could be seen as justice. People say that all the time - they hope the victims (or the victim's family) get justice.

I don't think an $8million payoff is justice.

 

[K_Z]

Since there were no charges brought it seems there was no crime committed at this time?

There was no crime committed by the 2 officers.

There were crimes committed by Jamar Clark during the incident the officers responded to (for which he can't be charged or convicted now), and those would be discussed at any civil trial. However, it's those crimes that will make it impossible, IMO, for the family to prevail in a civil suit. It would take at least 2-3 years to get a suit like that thru all the pre-trial activity, and I doubt it would ever see trial.

It's also quite telling, IMO, that a *very* liberal city such as Minneapolis, with very vocal liberal advocates on the city council, and in elected positions, has not offered this family a "pay out", like what happened in Baltimore.

I think I read that JC is the father of a child-- and that may complicate who has standing to bring any potential civil lawsuit. His parents may not have standing-- dunno for sure.

 

[KaaBoom]

There was no crime committed by the 2 officers.

Yes, there was. Homicide is a crime in this country. There was one crime committed. The homicide of Jamar Clark by Mark Ringgenberg and Dustin Schwarze. There is zero evidence of any other crimes being committed.

Fatal Minneapolis Police Shooting Ruled a Homicide

The Minneapolis police shooting of an unarmed black man has been ruled as a homicide, says Minnesota state officials.

The Hennepin County Medical Examiner has deemed the death of Jamar Clark, 24, as a homicide on Tuesday,

Fatal Minneapolis Police Shooting Ruled a Homicide

 

[scmom]

Justifiable homicide is the killing of one person by another that is committed without malice or criminal intent. When a person commits a justifiable homicide they are not guilty of a criminal offense. Homicide can be considered justifiable homicide if it is committed in self defense, the defense of others, while trying to prevent of serious crime, and in the line of duty. Capital punishment is also considered justifiable homicide. Preventing a prisoner from fleeing by means of deadly force may also be considered justifiable homicide

http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/justifiable.html

IMO this is why there were no criminal charges brought against the officers.

 

[magnolia]

What is Justifiable Homicide?


​

Justifiable homicide is homicide that takes place in the reasonable belief that a serious crime is being committed and in an attempt to prevent the crime. Essentially, it is a homicide with a good excuse. It may also be in self-defense, in defense of others, or an action taken in the line of duty, such as one by a police officer. Someone who hits another person over the head to prevent the assailant from raping a woman has committed homicide if the assailant dies, but the homicide would be justifiable if the amount of force used was necessary to prevent the crime of rape. A police officer who shoots and kills someone who he thinks is about to shoot a gun may also be justified. Some states have what is called a &#8220;castle doctrine&#8221; or &#8220;castle rule&#8221; which allows any person to use deadly force to protect their home from an intruder. This type of homicide is usually set out in a state's penal code, rather than just in common law applications.

​

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/violent_crimes/offenses_homicide.htm


​

 

[K_Z]

Yes, there was. Homicide is a crime in this country. There was one crime committed. The homicide of Jamar Clark by Mark Ringgenberg and Dustin Schwarze. There is zero evidence of any other crimes being committed.



Fatal Minneapolis Police Shooting Ruled a Homicide

I think you may have manner of death confused with criminal charges for murder or manslaughter.

Manner of death is a different finding than a criminal charge of murder or manslaughter. It is the medical examiner who determines both the CAUSE of death (gunshot wound to the head), and MANNER of death (homicide, accident, suicide, natural causes). The ME can also designate a death "undetermined" for manner of death. A medical examiner does not bring charges. A prosecutor (with, or without the assistance of a Grand Jury), determines if criminal charges are brought.

In this particular case, Jamar Clark, his manner of death is STILL a homicide. His cause of death is still a gunshot wound to the head. Those findings were determined by the medical examiner. Homicide does not necessarily equal crime, as discussed in the above 2 posts. Homicide is not a criminal charge, it is only manner of death. The investigation and evidence guides prosecutors to determine whether the homicide is a crime, or not. Or more correctly, whether the prosecutor believes the evidence supports criminal charges. In the case of Jamar Clark, the investigation and evidence do not support criminal charges, as determined by the county prosecutor.

County attorney Freeman determined the killing was not supported by the evidence to be a crime, in accordance with MN law. In essence, justifiable use of force during the course of a police officer's duty. He went into great detail explaining this at his hour press conference, and has posted all that justification on his website, as well. He specifically emphasized that unlike other recent police shootings in this country, these officers did not, and COULD NOT, withdraw from engaging this suspect. They did not have the option at that time to let Jamar Clark leave, or not engage him. They were obligated to detain/ arrest, and remove Jamar Clark, from the altercation/ scene/ situation.

Link to the Hennepin County Attorney website files on the Jamar Clark case:

http://www.hennepinattorney.org/news/news/2016/March/jamar-clark-decision

Link to the one hour press conference by County Attorney Mike Freeman, declining to file criminal charges against the 2 officers:

[video=youtube;pip7_eOnrHI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pip7_eOnrHI[/video]

 

[KaaBoom]

I think you may have manner of death confused with criminal charges for murder or manslaughter.

I have nothing confused. His death was ruled a homicide. Homicide is a crime. A hundred years ago black people were lynched all the time, and no charges were ever filed. The fact that no charges were ever filed, does not change the fact that those lynching were crimes.

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

I have nothing confused. His death was ruled a homicide. Homicide is a crime. A hundred years ago black people were lynched all the time, and no charges were ever filed. The fact that no charges were ever filed, does not change the fact that those lynching were crimes.

I don't understand. .. are you saying that the concept of justifiable homicide doesn't exist under any circumstances?

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[K_Z]

I have nothing confused. His death was ruled a homicide. Homicide is a crime. A hundred years ago black people were lynched all the time, and no charges were ever filed. The fact that no charges were ever filed, does not change the fact that those lynching were crimes.

Homicide is "death at the hands of another." Death at the hands of another is not automatically a crime, even if one disagrees with those laws. The lynching example is not at all a fair or reasonable comparison to what occurred with Jamar Clark, and is provocative hyperbole.

A surgeon who makes a mistake, (or even one who does everything right), and the patient dies, is not charged with a crime. A judicial execution is not a crime. A killing in self defense is not a crime. A person who kills a pedestrian because of a malfunction in the brakes of a car, is not charged with a crime. A physician who legally prescribes a barbiturate overdose of medications to a terminally ill patient (in a state with laws permitting this), is not charged with murder when the patient takes them.

As hard as it may be to accept, there are situations when a police officer, in the line of duty, can be found not criminally liable when they shoot a suspect. And let's be clear-- Jamar Clark was unquestionably a dangerous criminal suspect, for whom three emergency calls had been placed for assistance. (The girlfriend, and the paramedics, and the responding EMS supervisor.) This was not a case of "profiling" (racial or otherwise), not a case of mistaken identity, nor a case of unprovoked police brutality, nor a case of "picking on" a law abiding citizen who was going about his business. Jamar Clark committed numerous VIOLENT felonies on November 15, 2015, BEFORE he was shot. That was clearly criminal conduct, for which the officers were called to the scene. And despite the chest pounding by the liberal media, Jamar Clark was clearly NOT "un-armed". He had obtained control of the police officer's gun, duty belt, mace canister, etc. The evidence makes that very clear.

Had JC cooperated at all, he would still be alive, charged with those felonies, and facing decades in prison for those criminal actions. He was no stranger to the criminal justice system. I have to seriously wonder if he was attempting to "commit suicide by cop" once he realized he was definitely going back to prison again.

 

[K_Z]

If there is any doubt that Jamar Clark was engaged in criminal behavior, here is a brief list of actions that he would have been charged with, had he cooperated with officers and lived:

1. Violated a 5 year restraining order against the GF
2. Physically assaulted the girlfriend, who was injured with broken ankle and facial injuries
3. Fled the scene
4. Returned to the scene
5. Was identified from just a few few feet away by the assault victim
6. Lied to paramedics about who he was (claimed to be victim&#8217;s son, to get closer to her)
7. Interfered with, and intimidated paramedics attending to the victim
8. Intimidated/ menaced, and verbally threatened the victim again
9. Tried to aggressively break into the ambulance where EMS and victim were barricaded against him
10. Prevented ambulance from departing for the hospital with victim
11. Lied to EMS supervisor on the scene; gave an alias; refused to move away from the ambulance
12. Resisted arrest by officers passively. Repeatedly refused to show his hands.
13. Resisted arrest by officers actively
14. Assaulted police officer/s
15. Attempted to disarm a police officer
16. Aggressively gained control of officer&#8217;s duty belt, gun, holster, and mace
17. Continuously and actively refused to surrender or release the gun when instructed by police
18. Made verbal threats to officers

Jamar Clark was a criminal suspect, still actively engaged in criminal activity when officers arrived. He was not a victim. Not a bystander. The officers did not have the option to ignore him or leave him alone. It was their DUTY to engage him, and detain/ arrest him.

And, by the way, JC was facing trial on other outstanding charges for which he was out on bail, but the officers would not have even known that at the time they engaged him. He had not yet been identified by his real name, so it's not like they held his previous crimes and previous incarceration against him. All of this was his own behavior at the scene, witnessed by numerous people.