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

[Montjoy]

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:

rsbm

As bad as those things are, I've never read a legal statute that says any of them, or a combination of all of them, provides grounds for a summary execution.

 

[K_Z]

rsbm

As bad as those things are, I've never read a legal statute that says any of them, or a combination of all of them, provides grounds for a summary execution.

Well, then, we are both in agreement, fortunately! "Summary execution" (hyperbole that it is) is not legal in any of the 50 states and territories, nor in the federal system. The officers were determined by the prosecutor to have engaged in the lawful and justified use of force, while in the line of duty, up to and including lethal force. County Attorney Freeman goes into a great deal of detail about the relevant state statutes, and how those apply to this situation. The prosecutor evaluates actions against the STATE, to determine if they are prosecutable criminal offenses.

He is not a defense attorney for either the criminal suspect, or the officers.

Had the officers shot him from a far distance, as in the Laquan Macdonald case, there might be a logical and reasonable basis for criticism of their actions/ use of force in the line of duty. The hand to hand struggle, during which JC gained control of the officer's gun, belt, etc, and of which there is OBJECTIVE evidence (DNA and video), is what moves this case into justifiable use of force, according to many legal experts. Just like the Michael Brown case.

 

[K_Z]

I had another thought I wanted to put out there. I think Mike Freeman has been more than fair, as it relates to the stories of the community eyewitnesses. He made special mention that he didn't consider the community witness reports that were clearly wrong, to be "lying." This is significant, because there were so many reports that were incorrect/ impossible by the objective evidence (including blood spatter on the dropped handcuffs in the grass, DNA, etc).

Some community witnesses reported him cuffed behind his back, laying face down, some reported him cuffed behind his back, face up, some reported him cuffed in front, both standing and laying on his back and front, some reported him cuffed by only one wrist. Some reported seeing officers take the cuffs OFF AFTER he was shot. Freeman goes into detail as to why none of those community witness statements could be correct. In essence, he gently says the witnesses were "mistaken", and that it was a very stressful and scary situation, in the dark, late at night.

Had he been unfair, or aggressively prosecutorial, he could have accused/ charged those witnesses of lying under oath, impeding an investigation, or conspiracy to do so, and charged them as such. But Mike Freeman didn't, and neither did the prosecutor in Ferguson. They gave WIDE latitide to those who made the "mistaken" comments under oath during an official investigation.

Even in the Michael Brown case, where 2 separate investigations (one by the DOJ) produced thousands of pages in their reports, none of the "mistaken" witnesses were charged with lying under oath or on official documents. And for some of the witnesses in that case, it was proven that they weren't even THERE in the area, when they claimed to have seen MB shot in the back running away, or with his hands up, on his knees, begging for his life. The evidence clearly showed how those reports could not possibly be true.

No witnesses in either case were charged with lying, impeding an investigation, or conspiracy. I think that is really significant. The aggrieved community members never seem to notice things like that. They WERE listened to, their statements WERE considered. And when they were proven to be incorrect, their statements could not be regarded as true. What more do they want??

 

[katydid23]

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.

How can this case be compared to lynchings? This man attacked his girlfriend, then assaulted the EMTS when they tried to help her. LE was called in because this young man was violently out of control. Calling this a 'lynching' is a joke. :no:

 

[katydid23]

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.

This is the relevant info:

Freeman says what drove his decision were facts backed by evidence. According to him, all three EMTs told investigators that Hayes had identified Clark as her abuser. But all of this, Freeman says, takes a back seat to the overwhelming evidence that shows Clark had reached for an officer’s gun.

"His DNA is all over that gun and he had no business having his hand on that gun, which is why they shot him [and] which is why I didn't prosecute them,” Freeman said.

In recent days, some have also wondered why the two officers involved did not have or use a Taser.

"I don't know whether in this situation a Taser would have helped,” Freeman said.

"You don't have to believe the cops,” Freeman said. “The DNA is there. DNA is truth serum. DNA is all over the gun, the holster and the belt.”

http://www.fox9.com/news/115173217-story

 

[K_Z]

And to add to katydid's post above about the DNA-- the place Clark's DNA was not, was on EITHER pair of handcuffs. There was Jamar Clark's blood spatter (from the GSW) on only one side of the open handcuffs in the grass, and no skin/ sweat/ epithelial DNA on the inside of the cuffs. From that, it's clear the cuffs were not on JC at the time of the shooting, or any time before that. In addition to the photographs of his wrists, and the autopsy dissection of his wrists looking for any occult damage.

Activists like the NAACP leader Nekima Levy-Pounds continue to confuse this with their comments that there were "no fingerprints from JC on the gun". Freeman has said in several interviews that the textured grip of the gun makes print recovery impossible, and DNA is far more specific and reliable than fingerprints. But still, NLP keeps harping on "no fingerprints". She also has been very outspoken about the police department cleaning JC's blood off the sidewalk. And that has nothing to do with the case at all, except an emotional appeal, because the area had been extensively photographed and processed by evidence technicians when the sidewalk was cleaned.

If they had left the bloodstains on the sidewalk, there would have been outcry about that being disrespectful. So, IMO, for those who are "anti-police" activists, there is no level of investigation or situation management that is ever acceptable to them. They want anarchy, IMO.

Another complaint many activists have is the presence of the 4th Precinct building in this neighborhood, which is one of the most dangerous, crime ridden areas in Minneapolis. A few years back, residents were pleading with the city council to do something about the huge amount of crime in this neighborhood. The city owned a building that years earlier had been a community center in the area, but was closed and not in use. The building was razed, the 4th Precinct was established to give residents a sense that law enforcement was present and engaged in combating crime, keeping the peace, and ensuring a better level of safety for residents. Just as they had ASKED for. Now there is a big movement of people who want the police precinct CLOSED, and the building "given back" to the community for use as a community center. That is part of why the 4th Precinct building was occupied for 3 weeks by community members.

But this is the opposing position promoted by activist/ law professor/ NAACP leader Nekima Levy Pounds, that a police precinct is somehow a negative thing in a crime ridden neighborhood:

One man, the guy on the left in this picture, had much to say about what used to be: “I was raised up right here, 50 years ago. Right here used to be the Old Way,” he said, referring to the community center that once stood there. “And they tore it down just to put this up.”

“We used to have races, talent shows, people pop-locking, breakdancing...” he continued.

Ms. Levy-Pounds remarked on what kind of a message it sends to a community when you get rid of a community center and replace it with a police station. I couldn’t help but agree, particularly when the police are rife with widespread abuse of minorities in particular. The message is unmistakable: You are not a community to support: You are a rabble to control.

This is why members of the community now want the station to be transformed back into a community center. Police out, community in.

“In the wake of a tragedy, the people demand ousting the precinct, transforming it into a community center,” Levy-Pounds said. “I think that’s a great angle, and it will give us some leverage and momentum.” She also wants to get a petition going to that effect.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...recinct-Occupation-A-Movement-And-A-Community


Over 60 people have been shot in Minneapolis since Jan 1, at least 6-7 under age 10. Most of those 60 shootings were in north Minneapolis. Few arrests have been made. Who demonstrates and protests for them? Who protests for the 3 year old and 6 year old shot just a half block away during the occupation?

 

[KaaBoom]

How can this case be compared to lynchings? This man attacked his girlfriend, then assaulted the EMTS when they tried to help her. LE was called in because this young man was violently out of control. Calling this a 'lynching' is a joke. :no:

I didn’t call it that. You all made that connection. I was simply pointing out that homicide is a crime. Just because one man in power, decides not to prosecute one of his LEO partners, does not mean a crime was not committed.

Now if you want to make the caparison, between this and lynching, I don’t think it is a bad analogy. A hundred years ago, the KKK killed black people, and except for a few rare cases, they didn’t get prosecuted for it. Today LE has taken over that job, and except for a few rare cases, they don’t get prosecuted for it. Pretty much the same thing. Blacking lives being taken, some of them guilty of commuting crimes, some not, and nobody being held accountable for it.

 

[bluesneakers]

rsbm

As bad as those things are, I've never read a legal statute that says any of them, or a combination of all of them, provides grounds for a summary execution.

Me neither, but in the world of stand your ground and cops can do no wrong and victims are somehow asking for it, all kinds of people are being summarily executed.

 

[bluesneakers]

I didn’t call it that. You all made that connection. I was simply pointing out that homicide is a crime. Just because one man in power, decides not to prosecute one of his LEO partners, does not mean a crime was not committed.

Now if you want to make the caparison, between this and lynching, I don’t think it is a bad analogy. A hundred years ago, the KKK killed black people, and except for a few rare cases, they didn’t get prosecuted for it. Today LE has taken over that job, and except for a few rare cases, they don’t get prosecuted for it. Pretty much the same thing. Blacking lives being taken, some of them guilty of commuting crimes, some not, and nobody being held accountable for it.

It's an interesting analogy for sure. Considering American history it's hard not to make the comparison, and when you see LE treated as if they did everyone a favor by ridding us of some people the comparison is more obvious. Then you see people giving MONEY to the officers who murdered people? It's a bounty.

eta: I'm not suggesting LE shooting unarmed black men and women equals a lynching. Just making a comparison. It's interesting to consider.

 

[al66pine]

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.

^re bbm
Yes, in some situations, many situations, but not necessarily, as has been shown in multiple posts discussing situations in which the killing of another is not a crime.

The Minn Statute*:
"609.066 AUTHORIZED USE OF DEADLY FORCE BY PEACE OFFICERS.
§Subd. 2. Use of deadly force. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065,
the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only when necessary:
(1) to protect the peace officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm;
(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows
or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of deadly force; or
(3) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the officer knows
or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony if the officer reasonably believes
that the person will cause death or great bodily harm if the person's apprehension is delayed.

Snipped from K_Z post 260, a list of Clark's actions preceding LEO's firing at him
"... 2.Physically assaulted the girlfriend, who was injured with broken ankle and facial injures....
7... intimidated paramedics attending to the victim
9. Tried to aggressively break into the ambulance where EMS and victim were barricaded against him....
14. Assaulted police officer/s....
16. Aggressively gained control of officer’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"


To those who think LEOs' use of deadly force on Clark was not justified ---
Do you think Clark's gaining control of LEO's gun, confirmed by Clark's DNA on duty belt items (or any of Clark's 18 actions in K_K post) did not constitute Clark attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of deadly force?
If a suspect was not attempting to take control of LEO's gun to use on LEO or other, why was he attempting to take it? Anyone?

 

[scmom]

Part of the officers' audio interviews with investigators. Also some of assault victim's interview.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/04/05/jamar-clark-officers-audio/

 

[al66pine]

.... I was simply pointing out that homicide is a crime. Just because one man in power, decides not to prosecute one of his LEO partners, does not mean a crime was not committed....

^ Below & above, mostly bbm, s...bm, rbm.^

^ Respectfully disagreeing. Maybe the following will help ppl who state 'homicide is a crime' to understand that not all homicides are criminal.

Whether any given homicide is criminal requires interpretation or case by case analysis, that is, applying the law to the facts.
Whether Jamar Clark's death was ---
--- a criminal homicide (Murder1, M2, manslaughter, or possibly other crime) or
--- justified homicide/excusable homicide
is a matter of interpretation, first by LE, then prosecutor or state atty, then judge and maybe jury. Then maybe appellate court, etc.

"Homicide
"The killing of one human being by another human being.
Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder, homicide is broader in scope than murder. Murder is a form of criminal homicide; other forms of homicide might not constitute criminal acts. These homicides are regarded as justified or excusable. For example, individuals may, in a necessary act of Self-Defense, kill a person who threatens them with death or serious injury, or they may be commanded or authorized by law to kill a person who is a member of an enemy force or who has committed a serious crime. Typically, the circumstances surrounding a killing determine whether it is criminal. The intent of the killer usually determines whether a criminal homicide is classified as murder or Manslaughter and at what degree."

"Justifiable or Excusable Homicide

A homicide may be justifiable or excusable by the surrounding circumstances. In such cases, the homicide will not be considered a criminal act. A justifiable homicide is a homicide that is commanded or authorized by law. For instance, soldiers in a time of war may be commanded to kill enemy soldiers. Generally, such killings are considered justifiable homicide unless other circumstances suggest that they were not necessary or that they were not within the scope of the soldiers' duty. In addition, a public official is justified in carrying out a death sentence because the execution is commanded by state or federal law.
A person is authorized to kill another person in self-defense or in the defense of others, but only if the person reasonably believes that the killing is absolutely necessary in order to prevent serious harm or death to himself or herself or to others. If the threatened harm can be avoided with reasonable safety, some states require the person to retreat before using Deadly Force. Most states do not require retreat if the individual is attacked or threatened in his or her home, place of employment, or place of business. In addition, some states do not require a person to retreat unless that person in some way provoked the threat of harm. Finally, police officers may use deadly force to stop or apprehend a fleeing felon, but only if the suspect is armed or has committed a crime that involved the infliction or threatened infliction of serious injury or death. A police officer may not use deadly force to apprehend or stop an individual who has committed, or is committing, a misdemeanor offense. Only certain felonies are considered in determining whether deadly force may be used to apprehend or stop a suspect. For instance, a police officer may not use deadly force to prevent the commission of Larceny unless other circumstances threaten him or other persons with imminent serious injury or death.
Excusable homicide is sometimes distinguished from justifiable homicide on the basis that it involves some fault on the part of the person who ultimately uses deadly force. For instance, if a person provokes a fight and subsequently withdraws from it but, out of necessity and in self-defense, ultimately kills the other person, the homicide is sometimes classified as excusable, rather than justifiable. Generally, however, the distinction between justifiable homicide and excusable homicide has largely disappeared, and only the term justifiable homicide is widely used."

"Other Defenses

Other legal defenses to a charge of criminal homicide include insanity, necessity, accident, and intoxication. Some of these defenses may provide an absolute defense to a charge of criminal homicide; some will not. For instance, a successful defense of voluntary intoxication generally will allow an individual to avoid prosecution for a premeditated murder, but typically it will not allow an individual to escape liability for any lesser charges, such as second-degree murder or manslaughter. As with any defense to a criminal charge, the accused's mental state will be a critical determinant of whether he or she had the requisite intent or mental capacity to commit a criminal homicide...."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Homicide

Maybe reading the ^ in conjunction w MN statute posted earlier on LE use of deadly force will aid in understanding: homicide is not necessarily criminal.

 

[scmom]

Whether Clark was cuffed, as some but not all witnesses said, became a key factor in the decision not to charge two Minneapolis officers.

http://www.startribune.com/in-minne...to-conflicting-eyewitness-accounts/374987521/

 

[al66pine]

Whether Clark was cuffed, as some but not all witnesses said, became a key factor in the decision not to charge two Minneapolis officers.
http://www.startribune.com/in-minne...to-conflicting-eyewitness-accounts/374987521/

Interesting article.

I understand that at the scene, over course of ~60 sec's (however long it lasted before shooting), diff ppl would see diff things, but not all are necessarily lying.
Like this, just trying to get the point across w this stripped down example, not describing every action,

Witness 1 & Witness 2 see LEOs & JC struggling, then their attn is distracted elsewhere (tying shoe, minding a child, using phone, etc).
Witness 3 sees JC reaching for LEO's gun on duty belt.
A few/some seconds elapse.
W3 sees LEO get cuffs into own hand, then start to try to put first cuff on JC. In recalling this later to LE and/or MSM, W3 says he thinks JC was cuffed.
A few/some seconds elapse.
LEO's gun is fired.
W-1 returns attn, sees JC is not handcuffed. In recalling this later to LE and/or MSM, W1 says JC was not cuffed.
In recalling this later to LE and/or MSM, W2 says he DK, did not see whether JC was cuffed.

In recalling this later to LE and/or MSM, W4 says JC was not cuffed.
Later in talking to LE and/or MSM, W5 lies deliberately, says JC was handcuffed w hands behind back.
Later in talking to LE and/or MSM, W6 lies deliberately, says JC was handcuffed w hands in front.
Later "W7" who was not even at scene, talked to friend who was at scene and repeated that version, cuffed only1 hand.

JM2cts.

 

[cocomod]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/no...f-minneapolis-black-man/ar-BBtJdOd?li=BBnb7Kz

A key issue was whether or not Clark was handcuffed when he was shot. Several witnesses said he was; police said he was not. The circumstances of the case set off weeks of protests in the city, including an 18-day tent encampment outside the police department's 4th Precinct on the north side.

He cited forensic evidence in the BCA investigation that found no bruising of Clark's wrists that handcuffs would likely have caused and found Clark's DNA on Ringgenberg's gun. Freeman also cited conflicting accounts by witnesses about whether Clark was cuffed.

 

[bluesneakers]

Months after Jamar Clark case closed, FBI still won't cough up its file

Clark’s death in November 2015 led to weeks of protests and added Minneapolis to the national debate over the deaths of black men at the hands of police. When Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman announced in March that the two officers wouldn’t be charged with any state crimes, he complied with state law and handed over videos, interview transcripts, photos, autopsy results and other materials from the now-closed investigative file.

The FBI could have followed suit, once Luger declared in June that no civil rights charges were warranted in Clark’s death. Now, members of the public should have a chance to see for themselves whether their investigation was truly “a thorough analysis of the evidence gathered.”

Yet the FBI sent us a letter June 23 that answered our request this way: Nope.

 

[bluesneakers]

Governor Mark Dayton Appoints BLM Member to Police-Community Council

On Wednesday Governor Mark Dayton (DFL) issued an executive order to form the “Council on Law Enforcement and Community Relations.” The council will be 32 members strong and will include a member of Black Lives Matter

http://www.fox9.com/news/211164609-story

 

[K_Z]

Officers will not face discipline in Jamar Clark case
Sara Pelissero, KARE 4:55 PM. CDT October 21, 2016

MINNEAPOLIS - The officers involved in the November 2015 fatal shooting of Jamar Clark will not face any discipline, as they did not violate any police policies, according to the Minneapolis Police Department.

Officials held a news conference Friday to announce the decision, as the internal investigation reached its conclusion.

Minneapolis Police Chief Janee Harteau acknowledged the "devastating loss that left the Clark family without a son and brother" and emphasized the fatal shooting had a "profound" impact on the community and police department, before announcing full support for the officers involved.

Harteau said she spoke with the family hours before the announcement was made.

The Minneapolis Police Department's internal investigation found the use of deadly force in the line of duty was necessary in this case in order to protect an officer from apparent death or great bodily harm, Harteau said.

"I have concluded that these officers did not dictate the outcome of this incident," she said. "This was an outcome that no one wanted."

Harteau also reiterated findings in the federal investigation, both that Clark was never handcuffed during the incident and that DNA from Clark was found on Ringgenberg’s holster and gun.

Officers Ringgenberg and Dustin Schwarze had been on desk duty while the investigation was ongoing but officials told KARE 11 they are expected to return to patrolling the streets, though a timeline has not been set.

http://www.kare11.com/news/local/officers-will-not-face-discipline-in-jamar-clark-case/339951949

http://www.startribune.com/minneapo...tigation-into-jamar-clark-shooting/397952111/

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2016/...apolis-police-shooting-internal-investigation

I don't think there is anything that can be done, no amount of proof, no level of investigation by anyone, that will convince the family of the truth of what Jamar Clark was, a "career" violent criminal, who attacked his GF, broke her ankle, then tried to pull her out of an ambulance, and then attacked EMS and police. I'm continually astonished at the level of denial of his family and supporters, and their utter lack of honesty and humility for what Jamar Clark was, and his violent criminal behavior. They should be ashamed of his violent criminal behavior, IMO, not screaming at city authorities. They should be grateful for the level of investigation and transparency in this case. IMO.

Virtually the same outcome as in similar cases of men attacking police officers, attempting to take their gun, and getting shot by officers. The family is threatening lawsuits, but I can't see how that could be successful for them. It's too bad the family can't begin to see this for exactly what it is-- multiple investigations over a year, by numerous individuals, AND the Federal Justice Department, have all concluded Jamar Clark's own behavior with police caused his death. But still, they believe "justice" has not been served. They will not "win" a penny in any lawsuits because:

March- State BCA investigation concluded; no criminal charges
June- Federal investigation by DOJ concluded; no civil rights breaches
October - Internal investigation/ procedural investigation concluded; no breach of policies or procedures.

 

[yllek]

Regardless as to whether one feels the shooting of Jamar Clark was justified, the citizens behind the shooting of five protesters were clearly not justified, in my opinion. I was glad to read yesterday that the jury convicted Allen Scarsella of the shootings.

Scarsella and two of his friends didn't like the protesters exercising their first amendment rights and didn't like black people at all, according to his own racist texts which were included in the evidence against him.

So, he and two of his friends went 'locked and loaded' to a protest; wearing masks and taunting protesters. When protesters confronted them, Scarsella shot five protesters, including Jamar Clark's cousin (luckily they all survived).

Scarsella tried to claim self-defense. But, witness testimony and Scarsella's own videos and texts helped the jury to deliver a guilty verdict. He faces up to 20 years (his two accomplices face lesser charges).

Story: http://www.startribune.com/scarsella-guilty-of-assault-riot-in-2015-protest-shooting/412476503/

 

[0101ABA]

Gunman who shot Minneapolis protestors gets 15 years in prison

A Minnesota man was sentenced to 15 years in prison Wednesday in the 2015 shooting of five black men at a protest following the death of Jamar Clark.

Allen Scarsella, who is white, was found guilty in February of first-degree assault and riot, for shooting at a pack of protestors at a demonstration. Clark was shot and killed by police in November, 2015.