Nobody has anything to say about Jamar Clark? (Lynd, Viking: incomes, military)

[chessgeek]

It is sad when someone dies violently at such a young age, but I do not know whether the killing was justified or not. Unfortunately, I have read articles and reports indicating the video of the incident will not be available to the public any time soon. That will only increase the suspicions of many people that the police officers have something to hide. At the same time some of the antics of some people in the BLM movement (burning flags, referring to officers as pigs, etc) do not help their cause either. I am certain the Minneapolis police chief could help get the video released with her clout if she really wanted to do so. There will be public pressure to do so.

I am willing to let the facts be determined and we can still believe that the majority of police are good people while also believing the relatively few bad ones should be punished. The simplistic "either you support the police or not" monolith is a false one. It is used too often to intimidate those that believe there should be investigations and inquiries into these matters. We should support the majority of good, dedicated officers and the others that are not, need to be encouraged to find another line of work.

Police officers are accountable to the citizens. The public has every right to see the video. It is too early for anyone that was not there to state with any certainty whether the officers were guilty or innocent IMO. Both sides are jumping the gun with their usual innuendo and biases. Let the investigation proceed. Then opinions can be based on far more evidence and facts.

[Drewcifer]

Call me crazy, but I am going to wait until the facts come out before I decide what I think. If it turns out that the cops shot an unarmed man who was basically subdued I will be outraged and think that perhaps charges should be pending or at the very least some people should lose their job. If he was in the midst of a struggle and was within an inch of grabbing an officer's gun, I will think it might be justified.

The fact that he was unarmed and they shot him is troubling. The police should only use deadly force if someone's life is in jeopardy. You aren't supposed to shoot somebody just for resisting arrest or being a pain in the ass.

[piper89]

Originally Posted by srsmn

A couple of thoughts:

1. If you are one of those "wait for the investigation is done" types (and there is nothing inherently wrong with that, if you are), then you cannot in good conscience assume that Clark "attacked EMTs just doing their job." What I read that as is you asserting that police always = right, and suspect always = wrong. And that is terribly, terribly naive of you (at best).

2. I don't think that interfering with EMTs (even to the point of an attack) justifies being shot in the head. You can describe that as a "blind execution" if you so choose; those are your words, though, not mine. If he was unarmed, then it is totally unjustifiable. If he was armed, then police should be trained to shoot to subdue, not to kill. Shooting point blank in the head does not fall within the parameters of shooting to subdue, unfortunately.

The fact that we know is that he was shot point blank in the head (above the left eye, if you would like to be technical). Let's speak to that fact, as you suggest, and not conjecture. How would you care to justify our public servants shooting a member of the public in the head?

3. His criminal history is totally irrelevant to me, as it should be to you. Police need to interact with suspects on the spot and given the circumstances of the offences that have occurred that warranted the police call. You may be one of those "remove the scum of the earth" types, but if you are-- and to be more frank than I have ever been on this board or any internet forum-- you are really no better than a Nazi or any other genocidiare. "Remove the scum of the earth" is the exact logic that leads to people losing their lives based on preconceptions or previous actions, as opposed to their actions that are present and presently demanding.

4. His upbringing has no bearing, either. See above.

5. Not to your post, but a general question: did we ever get law passed about body cameras on cops? I know Hodges pushed hard for it, and if we did pass it, then these cops are in direct violation of city statute and should be suspended indefinitely from the force for that alone. Of course, it does not surprise me in the least that cops would bypass and usurp the law when they intend to kill an unarmed (black) civilian...

I get the feeling that we are not going to agree. So I will end the discussion on my end here.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I gave the benefit of the doubt under the current evidence available.

I take great offense to being proclaimed in the same boat as a Nazi for pointing out facts to your feeble leftist mind. You sir/ma'am are the exact definition of what is wrong with our country currently and especially Minnesota. Actions don't have consequences. You are just a victim right? I'm sorry, but if you attack innocent people for no reason, you deserve to die. There are too many variables to suggest shoot to wound is an acceptable option. There is a problem within Law Enforcement in this country, but not when it is in this kind of situation.

[tonybarnaby]

Originally Posted by srsmn

A couple of thoughts:

1. If you are one of those "wait for the investigation is done" types (and there is nothing inherently wrong with that, if you are), then you cannot in good conscience assume that Clark "attacked EMTs just doing their job." What I read that as is you asserting that police always = right, and suspect always = wrong. And that is terribly, terribly naive of you (at best).

2. I don't think that interfering with EMTs (even to the point of an attack) justifies being shot in the head. You can describe that as a "blind execution" if you so choose; those are your words, though, not mine. If he was unarmed, then it is totally unjustifiable. If he was armed, then police should be trained to shoot to subdue, not to kill. Shooting point blank in the head does not fall within the parameters of shooting to subdue, unfortunately.

The fact that we know is that he was shot point blank in the head (above the left eye, if you would like to be technical). Let's speak to that fact, as you suggest, and not conjecture. How would you care to justify our public servants shooting a member of the public in the head?

3. His criminal history is totally irrelevant to me, as it should be to you. Police need to interact with suspects on the spot and given the circumstances of the offences that have occurred that warranted the police call. You may be one of those "remove the scum of the earth" types, but if you are-- and to be more frank than I have ever been on this board or any internet forum-- you are really no better than a Nazi or any other genocidiare. "Remove the scum of the earth" is the exact logic that leads to people losing their lives based on preconceptions or previous actions, as opposed to their actions that are present and presently demanding.

4. His upbringing has no bearing, either. See above.

5. Not to your post, but a general question: did we ever get law passed about body cameras on cops? I know Hodges pushed hard for it, and if we did pass it, then these cops are in direct violation of city statute and should be suspended indefinitely from the force for that alone. Of course, it does not surprise me in the least that cops would bypass and usurp the law when they intend to kill an unarmed (black) civilian...

I get the feeling that we are not going to agree. So I will end the discussion on my end here.

2. Police are trained to shoot at center mass. Most police officers are not gun fanatics who can hit a bullseye from 50 yards at will. In the heat of the moment there's so much pressure and adrenaline that it's humanly impossible for them to just try to hit an arm or leg. They are trained to "shoot until the threat is ended". Someone who is on drugs can take several shots and not go down. Are the cops supposed to shoot once then wait for the suspect to either go down or shoot back? Now if I hear a suspect was shot 37 times that's excessive as hell. Most police officers have between 15 and 17 round magazines in their handguns.

Shooting someone execution style is never acceptable. The story has changed several times already. First he was shot in t he head. Then it was he was on the ground and shot execution style while handcuffed. Now they're saying he was having a seizure. People say they want justice, but what most protesters want is revenge on white people. I'm from down there and have seen it first hand. It's a damn shame, but let's be real. Most blm protesters are just looking for a fight. I was there Sunday night. At one point a woman said if you're white you need to go. They were telling the white cops they were going to kill them and their whole families. The few black cops were walking thru the crowd hugging the protesters. These are my friends, but most dp not care about justice they just want to see white people have to deal with the pain and anger they have been facing.

[polo_golf_guy]

I support the protesters.

The time frame for the investigation is asinine. How long does it take law enforcement to investigate a typical homicide? I have heard of arrests made within days in recent cases. We have witnesses, a number of pieces of recorded evidence and so forth.

Police should be held to a higher standard. Period. You cannot go around executing people. Now Mr Clark probably wasn't the best person in the world but why smear his character. We still do not know these officer's identifies nor their history of complaints or discipline records.

[treemoni]

Great contributions, srsmn.

[Chester Burnett]

Originally Posted by treemoni

Nothing?

Do you have anything to say?

[Steve Bowen]

Originally Posted by piper89

I'm sorry, but if you attack innocent people for no reason, you deserve to die.

So simple assault should be considered a capital crime? Really? Wow.

[Thedosius]

I think that people who dismiss BLM completely out of hand are just plain knuckle-dragging idiots.

That being said, I disagree with the tactic taken by many in the BLM movement where they assume it is a certainty Clark was handcuffed. It's perfectly reasonable to me that, given the lack of police body cams and the probable chaos at the scene, piecing together the facts will take time and effort. I'm willing to give investigative agencies- who are not part of the police force- ample time to come to a solid conclusion.

Even if Clark was handcuffed, there will still be a question of whether shooting him in the head was a valid, legal, justifiable use of force.

[Thedosius]

Originally Posted by piper89

. You sir/ma'am are the exact definition of what is wrong with our country currently and especially Minnesota.

Right back at ya.