BLM Jamar: the no bill

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.

First thing…

http://www.startribune.com/accounts-vary-of-who-and-why-police-were-called-the-night-jamar-clark-was-shot/374293971/

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.

But…

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’.

Advertisements

One thought on “BLM Jamar: the no bill

  1. pm1956

    I am in general agreement with you here.

    One thing that I would point out–I think that you are correct that Freeman does not have a good case to bring to trial here–but a large part of that is because the laws are generally on the side of the police. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be, but maybe not as much as they currently are.

    I’d also point out that while there might not be a strong legal case to be made against the police in this instance, the Minneapolis police could utilize administrative punishment of varying degrees in this case. The City/Mayor/Police could say that the officers erred in escalating the incident, and punish the officers administratively (demotion/suspension), although this would undoubtedly be fought by the police union. I think and hope that something will be done along these lines. I agree with you that BLM really does have a case (and this might not be a particularly strong example) that racially biased police violence exists, and needs to end.

    Sort of like high speed police chases of speeders and traffic violations. People in charge have finally realized that they can catch the person later and not have to worry about killing/injuring innocent bystanders in the process. It is possible to change police culture, but they need to admit that there is a problem first.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s