I’m pretty sympathetic generally to BLM’s observation of racially unjust CJ but have thought these months that with the Clark case they were flogging a somewhat non-egregious example for lack of a better one to serve as the focal point for a regional activism effort.
Well when all is said and done and the docs are released you can see where this case may not be that non-egregious.
What’s right to know as truth is the gal has changed her story… that she was assaulted by Clark, that she called the police, that she pointed him out to the paramedics and that they and the police were then right to act with wariness of him.
If proper procedure is for the two cops to square off against Clark for the purpose of keeping him back and / or detaining him for his inevitable arrest…That’s fine, I suppose…
And if proper or accepted procedure is to take him down for cuffing, that also might be fine….I guess…. But it’s the police escalating this chaos at this point.
Clark wasn’t fighting / assaulting / resisting anyone up until the moment Ofc. Ringenberg employs his take down move. With the take down move, then Clark probably is fighting / resisting, but this is much a fight or flight reaction that is not quite malevolence… it’s instinct, now that you are on the ground wrestling with some guy.
Clark gets shot ostensibly because Ringenberg thinks Clark has a grasp of his holstered pistol. Meh. The cops alway say that, because it makes the incident exceed the justification threshold and because it’s unfalsifiable. Could be true or it could be crap.
Freeman says Clark’s DNA proves the grasped pistol. Really? Clark’s DNA was probably all over the place now that Schwartz opened his skull up.
What’s true is that Clark got shot because Ringenberg’s take down move ended up being a wrestling match and it wasn’t obvious the officer was going to be able to subdue Clark over the course of say 10 or 15 seconds.
Does Freeman have a case to take to trial there? No, he does not. But this thing is not alternately ‘just’ or ‘justified’.