BillforPresident.com

The Minneapolis Police shooting of Jamar Clark

discussions on the Minneapolis e-democracy forum compiled by William McGaughey

 

Jamar Clark was shot to death by police about a mile from William McGaughey's home in north Minneapolis. He and others discussed this incident on the Minneapolis issues list e-democracy.org.

William McGaughey is also on the ballot in New Hampshire in the 2006 Democratic Presidential primary. Among his issues is an appeal to support white dignity. Since racial stereotypes prevail, many will assume that adopting a position sympathetic to the white race entails white-supremacist views. Since police relations have been characterized by black/white racial tension, a pro-white candidate can be assumed to sympathize with the police in incidents of claimed brutality against black people. McGaughey's view, however, is that facts trump theory. In the latest shooting and another two years earlier, he finds cause to criticize police behavior. The issue plays out in a vigorous discussion on e-democracy.org.

 

Background of Facts as reported by the BBC

(1) November 16, 2015 PROTESTS IN MINNEAPOLIS AFTER POLICE SHOT BLACK MAN

Protests are ongoing in Minneapolis over the police shooting of a black man who witnesses say was unarmed and handcuffed at the time.

A state agency is investigating the incident, which happened on Sunday morning. Relatives of the man concerned say he is on life support.

On Monday, Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges called for a federal civil rights investigation into the case.

Black Lives Matter protesters have been demonstrating in the city.

The group gained prominence after the police shooting of a black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014.

That sparked protests nationwide about the police use of excessive force against African Americans.

Jamar Clark, 24, was shot after police were called to a reported assault, and police say he "interfered" with the paramedics assisting the assault victim.

Police officers have said "misinformation" is spreading about the Clark case, and some have told reporters he was not handcuffed.

On Sunday about 150 people gathered to demonstrate at the scene of the shooting and some camped out outside the police station.

The officer involved in the shooting has not been identified yet but two officers have been placed on paid leave.

Black Lives Matter organisers are demanding the release of any video footage that may exist of the altercation.

"We have been saying for a significant amount of time that Minneapolis is one bullet away from Ferguson," Jason Sole, chair of the Minneapolis chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), told Minnesota Public Radio.

"That bullet was fired last night. We want justice immediately."

Mr Clark has convictions for making terroristic threats, aggravated robbery and possessing a small amount of marijuana.

In 2013, Minneapolis police shot and killed 22-year-old black man Terrance Franklin, who was suspected of burglary.

Minneapolis is participating in a federal Justice Department programme for increasing trust between police and their communities.

 

(2) November 17, 2015 MAN AT CENTRE OF MINNEAPOLIS RACE PROTESTS DIES

A black man shot by police in an incident that sparked large protests in Minneapolis, Minnesota, has died.

Jamar Clark, 24, had been on life support in hospital since the shooting on Sunday morning.

Police say that he was the suspect in an assault case and was interfering with medics who were working on the victim when he was he was shot.

Protesters have camped outside the police station for two days, and blocked a major highway on Monday.

That demonstration led to the arrest of 51 protesters on Monday night.

Police have released few details about the shooting of Clark - who some say was handcuffed when he was shot. Police have denied that claim.

Monday night's demonstrations came after the mayor's decision to ask the federal government to launch a civil rights investigation.

Mayor Betsy Hodges said she was asking for the investigation in the "interest of transparency and community confidence".

While a state agency has already launched a criminal investigation, the mayor said that the city needs "all the tools we have available to us".

Two officers involved in the shooting are on paid leave - which is standard procedure after incidents such as this.

The police chief has said that the officers were not wearing body cameras, but would not say whether the squad car or other surveillance video captured the incident.

Protesters have welcomed the federal investigation, but have vowed to continue demonstrating until any video of the situation is released and the officers involved are identified.

The protests began on Sunday and included an overnight encampment at a Minneapolis police station near the scene of the shooting.

At least eight tents were seen at the campsite on Monday, and a few protesters were sitting inside the glass doors of the station - including one who was knitting.

"We're still not moving until we get that footage," said Michael McDowell, a demonstrator with the Black Lives Matter movement.

According to police, the incident began early on Sunday when police were called to north Minneapolis following the report of an assault.

At the scene, police found Clark interfering with paramedics who were attempting to help the victim. They attempted to calm him, which resulted in a struggle and a shot being fired, police said.

His father told the Associated Press news agency that his son suffered a single gunshot wound over his left eye.

His brother told the AP that family members assembled at the hospital on Monday night to take Clark off of life support.

A number of high-profile police shootings of black people have sparked protests nationwide about the police use of excessive force against African Americans.

 

 

This web site includes the entire record relating to the two killings on the e-democracy forum so far as the website editor (himself an active participant) was able to determine. Any person is able to join this discussion group and post messages to the entire group of members. The stated purpose of the Minneapolis issues forum is: “ to discuss local-level Minneapolis civic issues. With over 1600 registered participants, this is a vibrant online space where citizens, elected officials, and community leaders - with diverse ideas and backgrounds - can discuss the important local issues facing our city in a civil and respectful manner.” The messages are uncensored although there are rules for postings relating to frequency and civility which members must accept.

The postings on the Minneapolis e-democracy forum in regard to this police killing come against a backdrop of events. The messages are reacting to the events and to previously posted messages on the same topic. The topics are organized in “threads” - a string of messages on the same topic, each identified by a header. Participants must use their real names. The date of each sequential posting is also listed.

 

The shooting of Jamar Clark

From: Jim McGuire Date: Nov. 16, 2015 8:28 am

Just wanted to share the little I know about the shooting of Jamar Clark in
North Minneapolis and the Community Response.
 
As most of you know, Jamar was the assailant in a domestic dispute the
other night. He, apparently, was interfering with paramedics efforts to
tend to the injuries of the woman (presumably his girlfriend) in the
dispute. There was a scuffle.
 
Eyewitnesses state that Jamar was shot in the head after being handcuffed.
The police deny this. There may be video of the incident as a security
camera was trained on the area where it took place. The police have that
footage.
 
The Community response has been to occupy an area near the 4th Precinct.
I've seen video footage of people chanting and of people dancing in the
streets. They want answers.
 
These are the demands that have been made:
 
1. We want to see the footage from the incident.
2. We want an independent agency (to investigate). The BCA is not
independent.
3. We want the media to cover eyewitness testimony, not just the Police's
point of view.
4. We want Community oversight with full disciplinary power.
5. We want officers to live in the communities they serve.

 

From: Jason Goray Date: Nov. 17, 2015 9:47 am    

I really wish our officers had body cameras so this could be cleared up one way or the other.

From: Bill McGaughey Date: Nov. 17, 2015 10:51 am     

It’s time to weigh in on the shooting death of Jamar Clark. Yes, my
information is that this victim of a police shooting in Minneapolis has died.
 
The headlines are that Mayor Hodges has called for an investigation of this
incident by the FBI and U.S. Justice Department. Patience and calm are urged.
The state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension will also do an investigation which
its head has said might take two or four months. Then the case may be referred
to the Hennepin County attorney for possible evaluation by a grand jury.
Police chief Harteau wants the public to have all the facts before making a
judgment. Sound familiar? Remember how the deaths of Terrance Franklin and
Ivan Romero were handled two years ago? Nothing happened in response.
 
Chief Harteau, who was not present at the shooting, stated that Clark was not
in handcuffs when he was shot. A number of eyewitnesses said he was shot while
on the ground and in handcuffs. There was even a little boy, presumably
unbiased, who reported seeing Clark in handcuffs when he was shot. I am rushing
to judgment in concluding that the eyewitnesses were telling the truth and
Harteau was not.
 
A news report some time after the shooting said that the two officers involved
had not been interviewed yet. It was not explained why there was a delay.
Chief Harteau declined to say if there was a video showing the shooting.
Presumably, it might hurt the “investigation” if the public knew. The chief
would also not say if a dash board camera caught the scene of the shooting.
She would not say how far the officers were from Clark when he was shot. She
did say that the officers involved were not wearing body cameras.
 
The public has a right to know about this incident while it is still fresh in
people’s minds. Whatever Michael Freeman decides to do about prosecuting the
two officers, citizens of Minneapolis have a right to decide whether the police
administration and city government have done their jobs properly and whether
current personnel should be retained in their present positions. Chief Harteau
is up for reappointment early next year. In my view, she does not deserve to be
reappointed. The mayor should submit another name for the position of
Minneapolis police chief.
 
Now let me address Black Lives Matter, the demonstration at the 4th precinct
police station, and blocking of traffic on Highway 94 last evening. I support
what the protesters did. While I am not a big fan of blocking traffic, the sad
fact is that it takes dramatic and sometimes violent protest activities to
catch the attention of government officials and the media.
 
Some of us demonstrated at length in support of justice for Terrance Franklin
but nothing happened. Perhaps it was because those demonstrations were
entirely peaceful. On the other hand, demonstrators in Ferguson, Missouri,
burned buildings and turned over squad cars. The national media covered those
activities and change took place. If city government wants peaceful protest, it
should listen to just demands. It should make changes in the way things are
done.
 
Let me say that I admire the people who are camping out at the 4th precinct
police station, especially with winter coming on. For the police to shoot an
unarmed man in handcuffs in the face is an intolerable act. All citizens of
Minneapolis should be outraged. But it is mainly blacks who are protesting.
 
Last summer, I walked through downtown Minneapolis carrying a sign that said I
was not ashamed to be white. I may have to change that message if white people
continue to tolerate the abusive acts of the Minneapolis police department. I
am now ashamed that more whites are not demanding better policing and better
city government. This is a requirement of good citizenship from everyone who
lives in Minneapolis.
 
The protesters of Jamal Clark’s death had a list of demands. To those, I would
add:
 
Harteau has to go as police chief. She should not be reappointed to her
present position. The chief could make a difference in reducing police
violence but Harteau has not done this. The mayor should send another name for
consideration by the city council.
 
There should be a police policy that any officer who fires a shot without
wearing a body camera that is turned on should be immediately fired. Maybe an
exception could be made for unusual circumstances but the officer would have to
prove his innocence. We do expect the armed police to be held to a relatively
high standard of restraint.
 
To me, it is immaterial what the person’s race is if someone is killed by
police. It is also immaterial what the demographic identity of the police
chief and the mayor is if the police department engages in wrong doing. The
person at the top needs to be held accountable. We have a problem with
policing in this city and it is a problem for everyone.

From: Peter Tobias Date: Nov. 17, 2015 10:54 am     

Yes, having body cameras in place and operating would have been good.
 
Some of their demands sound reasonable to me, others not so:
 
1. We want to see the footage from the incident.
- An attorney to the victim should certainly see but not copy the footage. The
footage was made in a domestic case with an expectation of privacy and should
NOT automatically become public domain.
 
2. We want an independent agency (to investigate). The BCA is not
independent.
- I heard Hodges had asked the US Dept. of Justice to investigate.
 
3. We want the media to cover eyewitness testimony, not just the Police's
point of view.
- The media should, but you can't force them, due to press freedom.
 
4. We want Community oversight with full disciplinary power.
- Yes, that's the city council. Or which community were they thinking of?
 
5. We want officers to live in the communities they serve.
- Yes, but the state legislature has made it difficult for cities to demand or
even incentivize this. Thank our sheriff Rick Stanek when he was in the
legislature. /sarcasm

From: Charlie Quimby Date: Nov. 17, 2015   11:10 am  

This began as a domestic disturbance case, one apparently loud and severe
enough to have scores of witnesses on the street in the middle of the night.
 
While this is not to comment on this specific incident, prejudge Jamal Clark or
excuse what happened to him, we should note that domestic calls are dangerous
for the women being assaulted, the perpetrator and the police.
 
Although I haven't seen recent statistics, for decades, home disturbances
account for the majority of on-duty police deaths.
 
I hope the investigation takes into account the full circumstances leading up
to this terrible outcome. So far, there's been next to no mention of the
original victim.

From: Emily Quast Date: Nov. 17, 2015 11:12 am   

A friend of mine who lives in Canterbury, England emailed me to ask if I
felt safe living in Minneapolis with all those people getting shot by the
police. Helen was referring to Clark's death. Minneapolis is, indeed,
becoming a familiar name-place around the world.

 

From: John Gaylord Date: Nov. 17, 2015 12:16 pm   

The reason the officers have not been interviewed may have to do police union
rules.
 
The calls for "immediate justice" and "#ReleaseTheTapes" are simply wrong.
There is scientific research to back up the assertion that early statements
often don't match up to evidence.
 
To repeat the rumor that Clark was shot in the face while handcuffed is simply
irresponsible.

From: Dave Garland Date: Nov. 17, 2015 1:51 pm     

On 11/17/2015 12:16 PM, John Gaylord wrote:
The reason the officers have not been interviewed may have to do
police union rules.
 
How can police union rules trump law enforcement? If my union
(Amalgamated Neer-do-wells Local 55407) has a rule that I cannot be
interviewed by the police until I've had a chance to get together with
my buddies and come up with a good story, do police have to honor that
rule?

 
The calls for "immediate justice" and "#ReleaseTheTapes" are simply
wrong. There is scientific research to back up the assertion that
early statements often don't match up to evidence.
 
Does this apply to all perp statements, or just when the perp is a law
enforcement officer? Are LEO statements inherently less reliable than
the statements of ordinary bozos? You seem to be arguing that we need
a rule that police have to give everybody a week's notice before
interviewing them.

 
To repeat the rumor that Clark was shot in the face while
handcuffed is simply irresponsible.
 
It's not irresponsible to refuse to release videotapes that may show
whether or not it happened that way?

From: Gail O'Hare Date: Nov. 17, 2015 2:18 pm     

The news outlets have repeated the "rumor," as they have repeated police
statements about the gunshot and the handcuffs. These are witness statements,
whether or not accurate. Yes, witnesses will say different things and it all
has to be sorted through, but it's not unreasonable to want the information
while it's fresh.
 
Since prosecution may result, I guess (mostly from TV shows?) that there's a
determination to keep evidence from being tainted and later muddying what might
go before a jury. Nevertheless and very understandably, people in the midst of
the crisis want answers now and are angry at what seems feels like
stonewalling.
 
What frustrates me most is the assumption that police will pull their gun
whenever things get rough. Aren't they trained to subdue people in any other
way? Can't they throw a punch or use basic martial arts? Why did a gun have to
be drawn at all?

From: John Gaylord Date: Nov. 17, 2015 2.22 am    

I didn’t write or endorse the union rules, I just mention it as a possible
answer to a question many have posed.
 
I must not have been clear in my second point – I’m referring to eyewitness
accounts by either party. I’m arguing that a fair investigation can’t be
immediate. (The investigation will answer the question "why did a gun need to
be drawn?")
 
Repeating rumors and releasing videotapes are two independent issues.

From: Jim McGuire Date: Nov. 17, 2015   2:31 pm

I glanced at the union contract that's online on the MPD Federation
Website. It's out of date and I may be missing something, but it doesn't
appear that union rules apply to an investigation of an officer involved
shooting. They may apply later in the case of discipline, but they don't
appear to apply to the speed of investigation.
 
What does apply is the Departments Tactical Response Rules. They don't seem
to say anything specific about the timing of the investigation, though I
might be missing something.
 
If someone else wants to peruse the details they're here -
http://www.ci.minneapolis?.mn?.us?/police?/policy?/mpdpolicy?_7?-800?_7?-800?.
Specifically, you're looking for the sections starting with 7-810.03.
 

From: Jim McGuire Date: Nov. 17, 2015 2:38 pm     

I stand corrected. Here's the portion that, I believe, applies:
 
- Involved Officers shall be allowed a reasonable opportunity to consult
with Federation representatives, legal counsel, Police Chaplin, and Police
Assistance Program personnel. After meeting with counsel, Involved Officers
who so request shall be given an opportunity to meet with an Assistant City
Attorney, if appropriate, and shall be given reasonable time to do so.

- After consultation with legal counsel, the Involved Officers or legal
counsel will inform the Lead Investigator or designee if the Involved
Officers are willing to give a Voluntary Statement. Voluntary Statements
should be given as soon as possible, but in all cases within 48 hours of
the Critical Incident to ensure the continuity of the investigation unless
the involved officer is not able to do so. Involved Officers statements
shall be given at Investigative Headquarters or such other location chosen
by the Lead Investigator. All statements from involved officers will be
taken in question and answer (Q&A) format.
 
That has to do with Voluntary statements. I can only surmise that if one
hasn't occurred yet then the officer(s) involved chose not to make any
voluntary statements.
 
There's another section regarding being interviewed by homicide detectives
prior to being released from duty, but I wonder if that didn't happen since
the victim in the shooting hadn't died. It wasn't until later that this
officially became homicide.
 
Perhaps someone smarter than me can find something more specific.

 

From: Bill Dooley Date: Nov. 17, 2015 2:41 pm     

European Police Officers discharge their firearms at a substantially lower
rate than U.S. Police Officers. There has got to be a better way to train
officers in how to subdue unruly suspects.

From: Emilie Quast Date: Nov. 17, 2015   2:53 pm    

Comment from my friend in England, "Here, only certain, highly trained
officers are armed, and if anyone has to shoot there is a serious inquiry
after – whatever the circumstances, and whatever the law does thereafter."
 
There is a video, possibly uTube, that shows two English?, Swedish?
officers diffusing a potentially violent situation on a train, I believe.
They use their heads, their training, their words and body English to take
care of the situation, and no one gets hurt.
 
That might be a training goal for us to consider.

From: Bill McGaughey Date: Nov. 17, 2015 5:16 pm     

I drove by the 4th precinct police station at Plymouth and Morgan a short time
ago. Protesters have cordoned off Plymouth for the block in front of the
station. There are maybe 50 to 60 people there, some in front of the police
station and others near a food table to the left. It looks as if many of the
people are there for the long haul. The station itself seems deserted - no one
behind the desk. The entrance is crowded with protesters but not blocked. It is
not an angry or surly mood. There are maybe a dozen sleeping tents on the
grass nearby.
 
For me, the whole question is whether Jamar Clark was shot while he was in
handcuffs or otherwise subdued. The local television news reports included
testimony from several persons who claimed to have seen the incident and said
Clark was handcuffed. On the other side, we have Janee Harteau saying Clark
was not in handcuffs. For various reasons, I believe the eyewitnesses. I
have, therefore formed a conclusion about this before the official
investigation has been completed.
 
Someone posting on this thread, who is assuming a superior moral vantage point,
calls it “irresponsible” for me to repeat the “rumor” about handcuffs but my
opinion is based upon testimony from persons with alleged first-hand experience
of the incident. Running the same testimony through channels of bureaucratic
evaluation would not seem a way to improve its level of truth. If somehow the
“rumor” is credibly refuted, I will cheerfully change my opinion.

From: Dave Garland Date: Nov. 17, 2015  10:59 pm   

On 11/17/2015 2:22 PM, John Gaylord wrote:
I didn’t write or endorse the union rules, I just mention it as a
possible answer to a question many have posed.
 
Indeed. But the Chief, as management, is not a union member. She can't
say "question that bozo immediately"? If union members refuse, can't
she bring in an outsider to do the questioning?

 
I must not have been clear in my second point – I’m referring to
eyewitness accounts by either party. I’m arguing that a fair
investigation can’t be immediate. (The investigation will answer
the question "why did a gun need to be drawn?")
 
I don't trust eyewitness accounts any more than I trust police
accounts. But we need to see what evidence there is. If past history
didn't show that, given a chance, police will cover up instances of
police misconduct, maybe it wouldn't be so much of an issue.

 
Repeating rumors and releasing videotapes are two independent
issues.
 
So how long (assuming that investigators are permitted to talk to the
perps) can an investigation take? Rumors will continue to circulate
until more concrete information is available to the public. We've seen
that governments have no problem spilling information about terrorist
crimes to the public, why should this be any different?

From: Lara Norkus-Crampton Date: Nov. 18, 2015    11:18 am  

According to MPR, The Hennepin County medical examiner ruled that Jamar Clark
died from a gunshot to the head and they are calling it a homicide-- hand cuffs
or not.
 
This story played second on the BBC world news service right after the
paramilitary police raid against terrorist suspects in Paris.
 
I am very glad the FBI has been called in.

From: Bill McGaughey Date: Nov. 18, 2015 11:18 am     

The people of Minneapolis and the world have a right to know soon if a
Minneapolis police officer shot Jamar Clark in the head while he was in
handcuffs. The investigations announced by Mayor Hodges will frustrate that end
if they mean that no pertinent information will be released for several months.
 
Legal procedures to ensure a fair trial for the officers are one thing. Public
information that allows residents of Minneapolis to know whether their police
force executed someone is another thing. The legal procedures cannot trump the
public’s right to know, especially if chief Harteau is scheduled to be
reappointed early next year.
 
The police have refused to release any tapes that show what happened when Clark
was shot. But there is an alternative. What about the young woman who was the
victim of domestic assault? What does she have to say about the shooting?
Presumably, she would know if Jamar Clark was in handcuffs, as would be
paramedics who came to her rescue.
 
Obviously, if we ask the police to name this woman, they will refuse citing
privacy concerns. But maybe someone in north Minneapolis knows the name of
Jamar Clark’s girl friend and can persuade her to talk. Failing that, I would
suggest that the mayor and City Council members concerned with public safety
compel the Minneapolis police to give that name to them so that, safeguarding
the woman’s privacy, they can learn her opinion of the incident, especially if
she has something to say about the handcuff issue.
 
In short, city officials outside the police department need to interview the
domestic-assault victim and the paramedics who were presumably eyewitnesses to
the shooting incident to ascertain the truth about this matter. Janee Harteau
has said that Jamar Clark was not in handcuffs but she is a self-interested
party. It served the MPD’s public-relations interest to cast doubt upon the
eye witnesses to what they said was a police execution while the shooting was
in the news.
 
And if the testimony shows that Clark was in handcuffs while shot, then Harteau
deserves not to be reappointed police chief because the public cannot believe
what she says.

From: Bill Dooley Date: Nov. 18, 2015 11:25 am    

This story is also in the *New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street
Journal.*

From: Connie Sullivan Date: Nov. 18, 2015 11:38 am    

Incredible. The only interest shown here in the victim whose assault by her
"boyfriend" led to paramedics and cops coming to the scene is whether or
not she was paying proper attention to the circumstances of the male
assaulter involved, and not to her own injuries and trauma. The guy who was
sot by a cop was interrupting the paramedics treating her, so according to
Bill, she should not be permitted to stay silent about whether HE was
mistreated at the time. Bill's assumption is that, Surely the woman had to
have been paying close attention to the man, rather than to her own
injuries.
 
Let's push aside any consideration of the right of a victim to privacy. We
must all agree that the man in question is the only important person, and
she had better cough up eye-witness testimony made very, very public,
because that's our only interest, and we want it sated no matter what it
costs her.
 
Why pick on her, the original victim? Why re-victimize her?
 
This insistence is a weapon of patriarchy, the model for all forms of
suppression.

From: Su Su Jeffrey Date: Nov. 18, 2015   11:52 pm   

Police training is crucial but the a priori concern is police recruitment. When
Honeywell Project and AlliantACTION folks were doing mass civil (dis)obedience
our lawyers repeatedly warned us about the hair trigger violent reputation of
Minneapolis police.

Perhaps you recall when two Native America men were locked in the trunk of a
police vehicle. At one Honeywell event peaceful (white) demonstrators who were
laying down were pepper sprayed.

"Peace officers" and the idea to Protect and Serve appear to no longer describe
police-civilian interactions in our city.

From: John Gaylord Date: Nov. 18, 2015 12:26 pm     

1: Can the school superintendent overrule teacher's union work rules at will?
If not, I wouldn't believe the police chief can do so either.
 
2: "Homicide" simply means one person killed by another. That was already
assumed. It doesn't mean an unlawful killing.
 
3: I assume everyone involved, the victim, the paramedics, the bystanders, are
all being questioned. That would be standard practice. However, there's no
reason for the original assault victim to "go public."


From: Bill McGaughey Date: Nov. 18, 2015 5:20 pm     

Connie Sullivan takes umbrage over the fact that I suggest someone contact the
victim of the domestic abuse and ask her opinion about the shooting. From
there, it gets further twisted.
 
No, Connie, I am not proposing that Jamar Clark’s girl friend be forced to
testify. I would, however, be interested in her opinion about this incident.
If she was an eyewitness to the shooting, her testimony would have much
credibility in regard to this issue of whether Clark was handcuffed when he was
shot. A number of witnesses said he was but their testimony seems to be
outweighed by what chief Harteau said. She is an authority figure for some.
 
I’m sure that Clark would have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law
for the unspecified “injuries and trauma” that his girl friend suffered, had he
lived. But there is a difference between this and being shot to death. It
becomes a major public issue when the city police do the shooting. I think the
female victim ought, at least, to be asked to comment on the shooting with her
anonymity being protected if that is her wish. If she refuses to comment,
that’s fine. But at least ask.
 
It’s terribly important to know if Jamar Clark was executed or he died in a
bona fide struggle with police officers. Connie is grossly stretching the
truth in saying that I would not have permitted the domestic-abuse victim to
remain silent.
 
I can see that Connie Sullivan views this situation through the narrow prism of
gender politics. There is this huge “patriarchy” that is orchestrating
everything. Some people are stuck in the ‘70s. My guess is that Clark’s girl
friend, from a more current generation, would be upset that her boy friend was
killed.

From: Doug Mann Date: Nov. 19, 2015 1:30 am    
 
Eyewitnesses report that Jamar Clark was handcuffed before he was shot. A
"scuffle" between Clark and cops while Clark is handcuffed?
 
The head of the police union says that Clark was never handcuffed, and that
Clark was attempting to disarm a police officer.
 
The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension is likely in possession of film that
shows whether Clark was, or wasn't handcuffed, but a BCA spokesperson says that
the BCA is keeping video records of the incident under wraps so that it won't
influence the testimony of eyewitnesses, etc.
 
Was Clark handcuffed? Would the BCA sit on evidence that would support the
no handcuff scenario? I don't think so.

From: Bill Kahn Date: Nov. 19, 2015   10:01 am    

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable and influenced by all manner of
things as memories have always been a continuous reconstruction of the
perceptions of one individual over a lifetime. It is horrible that this has
happened, but I don’t know exactly what happened and I doubt many other folks
do either, yet. Some of us on any given side of things may be incapable of
believing the truth of the matter given one memory or more of this and other
things. That is life.
 
I’m not prepared to form any opinion about these events and the conflicting
accounts of them so far even though I can come up with many plausible
explanations of what went down, e.g., the two officers were in the process of
cuffing Jamar Clark, fouled it up somehow, compounded their errors in a vicious
cascade that resulted in one of them mortally wounding the suspect, eventually
crippling a police precinct and perhaps the whole department; I’ll try and form
an accurate memory of these events when I have more information that I can
trust.
 
I have the same opinion I have had for some time about Black Lives Matter: they
have valid issues on which I am with them, but they do not always choose their
fights or handle them all that well.
 
I have the same opinion I have had for some time about the Minneapolis Police
Department: officers have a difficult job for which they are highly trained and
well compensated, but also have a few fellow officers who cannot do that job
well if at all.
 
I have the same opinion I have had for some time about how well MPD interacts
with various groups of citizens in their precincts and vice versa: it is hit
and miss as the MPD’s 4th Precinct is probably doing the best of any to engage
everyone proactively, but a few individuals on the force and in the
neighborhoods are not.
 
I have the opinion that my opinion is revisable given changes in me and those
around me: we can get through this, know the truth, and deal with it well at
some point.
 
A little game theory might help. The prisoner’s dilemma is a useful tool to
figure out the problem and players here (google it). You are either working for
common goals or you are gaming the system for all you can, and all sides have
both types of players. It is how we evolved (google “evolutionary stable
strategy” as well).
 
I also have the opinion that it is time for many to chill for a few weeks or
months while the truth gets sorted out and hopefully told.

From: Bill McGaughey Date: Nov. 19, 2015 11:43 am     

You get the kind of police department that you deserve; and it seems that many
on this list want and deserve a department that suits the convenience of the
police chief and head of the police union. I want an end to the group swagger
and the demographic politics. I want more active civilian review of the
department.
 
In that regard, Michelle Gross of Citizens United Against Police Brutality is
leading a group of people who will show up tomorrow, Nov. 20, at a City Council
meeting at 9:30 a.m. in room 317 of Minneapolis City Hall to express their
opinions about the shooting of Jamar Clark a week ago. She is inviting others
to participate.
 
Yes, none of us who were not there know for sure whether Clark was handcuffed
when he was shot. But I do tend to believe the 4 or 5 eyewitnesses whose
videotaped statements were reported on the local television news. I tend not
to believe the police chief and the union head who were not there because they
have an interest in denying the testimony. Police sometimes lie.
 
I must backtrack, however, in expecting that the young woman who was the
assault victim can provide useful information about Clark’s killing. It now
appears that she was inside the ambulance when Clark was shot so she may not
have seen this take place. The same might pertain to the paramedics. However,
I would still be interested in hearing the woman’s opinion of this incident if
she is willing to talk.
 
Having a police chief who is effective and dedicated to public service does
make a difference. William Bratton is credited with reducing crime and
restoring trust in the Los Angeles police department when he headed that
department a decade ago. If Janee Harteau has instituted policies and
procedures to improve department performance after the tragic incidents of May
10, 2013, I am unaware of them. On the other hand, I have seen numerous puff
pieces about her on the local television news programs.

From: Bill Kahn Date: Nov. 19, 2015 12:12 pm     

I left out the spiteful player; I think we have some of those as well.

From: Dyna Sluyter Date: Nov. 19, 2015 1:25 pm     

This quote came not from Black Life Matters, but from the founder and
admin of a Facebook group that some consider to be white supremicist:
 
"We are learning part of the reason we are not seeing video of this
incident. ... the BCA is given witnesses back... wiped devices.
 
Further... these investigators are threatening people with up to 7 years
in jail if they share them... which they have no right to do...
 
Big problem"
 
If this is true, it totally destroys the credibility of the BCA's
"independent" investigation. I've often wondered why MPD did such a
lousy job of busting really flagrant and downright dumb criminals, while
at the same time harassing minority folks. Is it possible that MPD has
been playing whites against blacks, while pursuing their own corrupt
agenda? And is BCA equally corrupt by covering for MPD?
 
From the Buffalo Ridge, where we elect our top cops...

From: Gail O'Hare Date: Nov. 19, 2015 12:43 am     

Yes, we're going to have to chill, but I can't let go of one glaring question -
why did Jamar have to be shot? There were two police officers. If he went for
the gun and belt of one, why didn't the second officer club him with the butt
of his gun rather than shoot him? I don't see why the cuffs were all that
important. It sounds as if they were trying to cuff him (hence the cuffs
dropped to the ground) and he was very aggressive. Maybe he was drunk or high;
presumably he'd already assaulted his girlfriend and was in a raging temper,
pounding on the door of the ambulance. However, even if he did grab for one
officer's gun (which sounds a lot like the Ferguson officer's hard -to-believe
defense), the second could have stopped him.
 
Whatever we learn about this case, I want to know why cops aren't trained to
avoid shooting if at all possible. Jamar doesn't sound like a great guy, but
he was unarmed.

From: Bill McGaughey Date: Nov. 20, 2015 9:00 am     

I agree with Gail O'Hare's position. However, the handcuff issue is important
because eyewitnesses have said that Jamar Clark was in handcuffs and lying on
the ground when he was shot in the head. The police deny this.
 
It seems now that we are in a position of having to decide who is lying. Many
are proposing that we let the BCA and Justice department make this decision.
The public will just have to wait 2 to 4 months to learn this and it is
"irresponsible" to do otherwise.
 
I think we are each able to use our common sense to evaluate the claims of both
sides and, perhaps, hold the MPD accountable.
 
Yesterday's news showed a clip of Janee Harteau at a news conference claiming
that the protesters at the 4th precinct threw three Molotov cocktails at the
police and threw "hundreds" of rocks at police. She held up a 10 pounder as an
illustration. The police chief also claims that "anarchists" are behind the
demonstrations - she's seen anarchist flags - and that people from outside
Minneapolis are trying to make the demonstration violent.
 
If Molotov cocktails were used, were any officers injured or were the bombs all
duds? If hundreds of rocks were thrown there must be a pile of rocks
somewhere. Maybe I've missed a news conference where such evidence was
presented. Maybe not.
 
We also had separate news conferences from the head of the police federation
and from an attorney representing the two police officers who said Clark was
not in handcuffs but was reaching for a gun when he was shot. This contradicts
what a number of eyewitnesses said.
 
Dyna Sluyter's posting about the BCA erasing images and threatening jail time
to anyone who tells is quite disturbing. Can she, perhaps, be more specific
about this information?
 
I am willing to stop complaining if credible evidence is presented to show the
officers' innocence; but it hasn't happened yet. I do believe that Minneapolis
police and attorneys sometimes lie and the testimony of a small boy who
witnessed the shooting is more likely to be the truth.

From: Bill McGaughey Date: Nov. 20, 2015 1:30 pm     

I dropped by the scene at the 4th precinct and was told by someone that, yes,
Molotov cocktails were thrown at the police but unknown persons outside the
regular group of protesters did this. So, chief Harteau did have a basis for
claiming this. There is little information about the people involved or their
motives.
 
Citizens United against Police Brutality did show up at the City Council
meeting this morning but they were not allowed to speak. Instead, Michelle
Gross and Dave Bicking were interviewed by camera crews in the hallway outside
the Council chambers. This will probably be on the local news tonight.

From: Joe Nathan Date: Nov. 20, 2015 3:30 pm    

Spent perhaps 90 minutes on site today, about 8:30 AM, and then again about
1:30. Brought some coffee (in part donated by Caribou & Starbucks) and at
lunch time, some chicken, red beans & rice, in part donated by Popeye's on
west Broadway. They has asked for Popeye's chicken. Also brought some
hot chocolate which they requested.
 
Things very peaceful then this was hours before the vigil. Perhaps 100-125
people there, talking quietly with each other.
 
I appreciate someone posting the Letter from the Birmingham Jail. For me,
this is a stand to stand with the folks on Plymouth Avenue. I don't
condone what allegedly was done to the young woman. But abuse, though
awful, does not call for a death sentence.
 
VIrtually all people with whom I talked on Plymouth - perhaps 20-25 feel
that the city should have released the videos. Many wonder if the police
are altering the videos. It's a great question. I think the city should
have released the videos by now.

iu

From: Steven Clift Date: Nov. 20, 2015 3:59 am     

Have any witnesses released their own pictures or videos from the evening
directly?
 
Are there any public witness statements with details about what happened
just before the shooting? A time line?
 
Are any details on how Jamar was interfering with the paramedics and for
how long?
 
I saw a report in the media suggesting the state law prohibits the release
of data (including video) tied to an active investigation. Does anyone know
more about that? Has the media sued to try and force the release of the
video? (If they don't think the law is being interpreted right, that is
their usual role.)
 
Thanks,

Steve

From: Carol Overland Date: Nov. 20, 2015 4:57 pm    

Exactly.  There's been no dispute that he was on the ground. As I understand
it, there were two officers on him, and a third shot him. Cuffs, one cuff on,
or none, shooting someone in the head will surely kill him. Further, if there
were exhonorating videos, I can't imagine we'd be going through this,  they'd
be produced, end of story.I also find the white supremist rants and plans to go
and inflame the situation very disturbing. Thankfully they outed the two guys,
and found a video and chat thread about their plans to disrupt the protest,
both masked, one was armed and waving his gun around in the video.  See the BLM
Facebook page. They're planning on being there tonight.  Keep your eyes
open

From: Emilie Quast Date: Nov. 20, 2015 5:08 pm     

Friday night gets better press. Very sophisticated!

From: Ed Felien Date: Nov. 20, 2015 9:23 am     

Clift:
 
As you note, the Minnesota Data Practices Act prohibits the release of data
gathered by law enforcement officers involved in an active investigation.
 
Is this done to protect the presumption of innocence? That doesn't make sense.
People will judge an event based on rumor and prejudice if they are not given
facts gathered by professionals. It would seem a person's reputation and
stature would suffer more from the lack of good information than by providing
the public with all the known facts.

From: Steven Clift Date: Nov. 21, 2015 1:11 am     

This is very useful:
http://www.mncogi.org?/status?-of?-data?-in?-the?-jamar?-clark?-investigation?/
 
Status of data in the Jamar Clark investigation
 
Posted by: mncogi on Nov 20, 2015 | No Comments
As has been widely reported in the local press, Twin Cities resident Jamar
Clark was shot during an encounter with police in the early hours of
November 15, 2015, and later died from that gunshot wound. Controversy
over the incident sparked demonstrations outside of the Minneapolis Police
Department’s Fourth Precinct headquarters, and led to a protest-related
shut-down of Interstate 94.
 
At present, both the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) and
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are conducting investigations
into the shooting. Much discussion in the press has focused on questions
of when investigative data will be available to the public, in order to
provide a clear picture of the incident. MNCOGI presents the following
summary of the status of such data:
 
Criminal investigative data: When data gathered by police becomes part of
an active criminal investigation, it becomes “confidential” or “protected
nonpublic” data, depending on whether the data pertains to an individual or
not. While data is classified in this way, it cannot be shared with either
the subject of the data, or with members of the public who ask for it.
This data classification extends to any video of the incident obtained by
the police, with the exception of certain arrest or incident data. After
an investigation is closed, the “not public” data reverts to a public
status, with certain exceptions.
 
Arrest data: Even after a criminal investigation has been opened, certain
data still remains public, even though other, related data gets converted
into various forms of “not public” data. Data that is public “at all
times” includes certain arrest data, including data documenting whether any
weapons were used by police, or whether there was any resistance
encountered by police. If this data exists in the form of a video
recording, any portion of the recording that documents such details is
public data. In the Jamar Clark case, the BCA has indicated that it holds
certain video of the incident.
 
Incident data: Like arrest data, certain law enforcement “incident” data
is always public, even after a criminal investigation has been opened.
Such data includes the date, time, and place of the police action, police
report numbers, and other factual information similar to the “arrest data”
discussed above.
 
Names of officers: The names of the officers involved in the shooting were
released on November 18th, several days after the incident occurred.
MNCOGI notes that the names of officers involved in any arrest or law
enforcement incident are public “at all times” under Minnesota law. This
is true even if other data connected to an arrest or incident has been
converted into criminal investigative data.
 
Public benefit data: The law enforcement section of the Data Practices Act
has a little-used provision that deals with “public benefit data.” That
section states that even when certain data is being maintained as “not
public” criminal investigative data, police agencies can choose to release
particular data to the public if the release would “aid with the law
enforcement process, promote public safety, or dispel widespread rumor or
unrest.”
 
Federal criminal investigative data: Any Minneapolis Police Department
(MPD) data related to the Clark case that has been transferred to the FBI
will have its own classification under federal law. Exemption 7(a) of the
federal Freedom of Information Act prohibits the release of data on ongoing
criminal investigations. Federal law does not contain provisions that make
some law enforcement data (such as certain arrest data) public during an
investigation, as Minnesota law does. To obtain arrest data related to the
Clark case, it would be necessary to request it from the MPD or the BCA –
not the FBI.

From: Bill Kahn Date: Nov. 21, 2015 1:19 am    

I saw a video of the two cops with Jamar Clark on the ground shortly following
the shooting shared on Facebook a while ago, but it is gone now. It did look
like he might be cuffed, but it was not a good or clear view. It also
disappeared shortly from everyone’s feed who shared it after I watched it. It
was a sad and ugly scene, but I’m still in the dark.
 
I share Gail’s desire to learn MPD SOP in situations like this; it really seems
like a violent apprehension might have been unavoidable, but this one seemed to
have demanded at least one of these two officers standing by with a control
weapon like a conducted energy device (e.g., taser) or a baton, weapons that
both should have had with them (not that some would not have complained about
any injuries from such use of force). I have strong suspicions about what went
down, but we do all need to see any available videos or hear some
unquestionably truthful accounts to really know.
 
Another thing that bothers me about this incident--aside from the white
supremacists of course--is that both officers seem to be relatively short
timers with MPD. Is it normal to have them together? Do officers have much
choice about with whom they ride? Have other 4th precinct officers had problems
riding with one or both of these men? Were they stuck with one another for some
reason?
 
If the story of losing a service weapon to Jamar Clark is true, such losses
tragically would seem to be almost commonplace with MPD.
 
Domestic violence calls have always been dreaded by police, I think, but I
suspect this one should not have been so challenging. Maybe Emilie’s Swedish
example is relevant, but maybe not; this guy was pretty wound up to stick
around while EMTs *and* MPD officers were helping his alleged victim.
 
Yes. Chill. It would be nice to have all of this explained and resolved now,
but I still don’t think it is going to happen very soon.

From: Wizard Marks Date: Nov. 21, 2015 1:19 am     

It might be helpful to add that "domestics" are the most dangerous situations
for officers. How that figures into this instance I don't know, but in other
instances, the abuser and/or the abused have turned on the officers responding.
 
Also in domestic abuse cases, the abused person--overwhelmingly female--dies as
a result of the abuse.
 
What if both Jamar Clark and the police are the bad actors here?

From: Constance Pepin Date: Nov. 21, 2015 12:00 am      

"What if both Jamar Clark and the police are the bad actors here?"
 
Jamar Clark is dead.
 
Should anyone be killed for being a "bad actor"?
 
The police are more than "bad actors" for killing him.

From: Doug Mann Date: Nov. 21, 2015 2:49 am       

According to the MN Coalition on Government Information, any video (or
other evidence) that documents whether any weapons were used by police, and
whether police encountered resistance during an arrest, any such video should
be classified as "public" at "all times." Is there a news organization, or some
other organization (e.g. the NAACP) willing to go to Court to seek an order to
release the video.
 
If there is video evidence that supports the police version of events, it
could also be classified as "Public Benefit Data" because its release “aid with
the law enforcement process, promote public safety, or dispel widespread rumor
or unrest.”
 
MN Coalition on Government Information status of data in the Jamar Clark
Investigation
http://www.mncogi.org??/status??-of??-data??-in??-the??-jamar??-clark??-investigation??/
 
Quoting two paragraphs from the mncogi article:
 
Arrest data: Even after a criminal investigation has been opened, certain data
still remains public, even though other, related data gets converted into
various forms of “not public” data. Data that is public “at all times”
includes certain arrest data, including data documenting whether any weapons
were used by police, or whether there was any resistance encountered by police.
If this data exists in the form of a video recording, any portion of the
recording that documents such details is public data. In the Jamar Clark case,
the BCA has indicated that it holds certain video of the incident.
 
Public benefit data: The law enforcement section of the Data Practices Act has
a little-used provision that deals with “public benefit data.” That section
states that even when certain data is being maintained as “not public” criminal
investigative data, police agencies can choose to release particular data to
the public if the release would “aid with the law enforcement process, promote
public safety, or dispel widespread rumor or unrest.”

From: Bill McGaughey Date: Nov. 21, 2015 3:33 am     

Again, there are two legitimate interests in determining the facts surrounding
Jamar Clark’s death:
 
1. the official police instigation that could have a bearing on the possible
indictment and the two officers involved, and
 
2. information released that would have a bearing upon public opinion as to
whether government officials have acted properly or competently - in
particular, the police chief.
 
Now we are told that state law prevents police investigative units from
releasing critical information about Jamar Clark’s shooting death. If that is
so, we are living in a police state sanctioned by the legislature in which it
is not possible for citizens to judge police behavior. I would protest that.
The public does legitimately have a right to know the key facts of a case such
as this.
 
The BCA is talking about an investigation that could take two to four months
during which time key information about the case will be withheld. Government
employees used to refer sardonically to a principle of mediocrity: “close
enough for government work”. Now we must add: “fast enough for government
work”. Even in a case of great urgency, the police agencies take their own
sweet time in investigating cases and embargoing the related information.
 
I am less concerned about prosecuting the two officers involved because, even
if guilty persons are convicted, it will not necessarily change police policies
and procedures that could result in future police shootings. But if we change
police administration, the bad policies and procedures stand a much better
chance of being changed.
 
Chief Harteau is indeed using the delay in releasing information to her
advantage in affecting public opinion which might affect her own reappointment
next year. She is playing an aggressive public-relations game while discussion
about what happened to Jamar Clark is being stifled.
 
Remember how she did it two years ago when having to answer for the deaths of
Terrance Franklin and Ivan Romero. She turned the controversy into a crusade
against white racists. White racism in the lower ranks of the MPD was
responsible for those killings, it was suggested. In rooting out racism in the
police ranks, she won over the public. I do not know the racial thoughts of
the officers who shot Franklin but I do know that mistakes were made in police
administration. Harteau, however, managed to deflect attention from herself
and towards the body of police officers if not the entire white race.
 
A similar tactic is now being employed. Chief Harteau has cited Molotov
cocktails thrown at officers, “hundreds” of rocks being thrown at officers, gun
shots being heard near the 4th precinct stations, and anarchists being seen.
The head of the police federation accused Harteau on Almanac about not being
tough enough on the protesters. The officers’ lives were being put in
jeopardy, he said. Harteau came off as a moderate trying to keep the peace. So
the issue was shifting away from Clark’s death to the behavior of the
protesters as it had been shifted, two years earlier, from Franklin’s and
Romero’s death to white racists and homophobes in the police department.
Someone’s PR play book is being followed here.
 
Who were the people who threw the Molotov cocktails and the rocks and who fired
the guns at police? It seems that they were “outsiders” but, otherwise, not
much is known about them.
 
As for motive, there are several possibilities:
 
1. These were hotheads who sympathized with the protesters. They may not have
come from the ranks of Black Lives Matter or other protesters but their bad
behavior shows how protest activities can get out of hand.
 
2. These were people who wanted to discredit the protest demonstrations.
Maybe they were white supremacists. Maybe they were law-and-order types.
 
3. These were police provocateurs who wanted to hand chief Harteau an issue to
deflect criticism from herself.
 
I do not know the answer. It would be good to gather more information about
the people who caused this mischief. It’s clear that they were not helping the
Black Lives Matter cause. But who were they and what was their motive?
 
Yes, we should punish the officers if they were guilty of murder and find them
innocent if they were not. But beyond that, we need a police chief who sends a
message through the ranks that killing civilians is not approved policy. We
need one who will not tolerate turning off body cameras in sensitive situations
like this. Surely, there can be intelligent and humane police administration.
 
Meanwhile, I salute those individuals who remain encamped outside the 4th
precinct police station. They are the community’s brave warriors against the
police state. This is our Valley Forge.

From: Emilie Quast Date: Nov. 21, 2015 4:29 pm       

Great scripting and directing, though. You have to admit that.

From: Casey O'Brian Date: Nov. 22, 2015 5:56 am     

This is absolutely incorrect.

Investigative data is not public until the investigation is complete, and
that may include waiting until after any trial that may take place.
While the agencies investigate this shooting, it is considered a criminal
investigation, and the tapes are not public.

And even if body cam video of Mr. Clark being shot in the head existed, it
could be withheld as "offensive to common sensibilities".

If you want to see the video, go to court and ask a judge to order the
release.

But since this is now a Federal investigation, MGDPA may not apply.
 
 
MGDPA 13.82 (emphasis added)
Subd. 7.Criminal investigative data.
 
Except for the data defined in subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, investigative data
collected or created by a law enforcement agency in order to prepare a case
against a person, whether known or unknown, for the commission of a crime
or other offense for which the agency has primary investigative
responsibility are* confidential or protected nonpublic while the
investigation is active*.
 
Inactive investigative data are public unless the release of the data would
jeopardize another ongoing investigation or would reveal the identity of
individuals protected under subdivision 17. Photographs which are part of
inactive investigative files and which are clearly offensive to common
sensibilities are classified as private or nonpublic data, provided that
the existence of the photographs shall be disclosed to any person
requesting access to the inactive investigative file. An investigation
becomes inactive upon the occurrence of any of the following events:
 
(a) a decision by the agency or appropriate prosecutorial authority not to
pursue the case;
 
(b) expiration of the time to bring a charge or file a complaint under the
applicable statute of limitations, or 30 years after the commission of the
offense, whichever comes earliest; or
 
(c) exhaustion of or expiration of all rights of appeal by a person
convicted on the basis of the investigative data.
 
Any investigative data presented as evidence in court shall be public. Data
determined to be inactive under clause (a) may become active if the agency
or appropriate prosecutorial authority decides to renew the investigation.
 
During the time when an investigation is active, any person may bring an
action in the district court located in the county where the data are being
maintained to authorize disclosure of investigative data. The court may
order that all or part of the data relating to a particular investigation
be released to the public or to the person bringing the action. In making
the determination as to whether investigative data shall be disclosed, the
court shall consider whether the benefit to the person bringing the action
or to the public outweighs any harm to the public, to the agency or to any
person identified in the data. The data in dispute shall be examined by the
court in camera.

From: Steven Clift Date: Nov. 22, 2015 5:56 am    

CNN has updated their story:
 
Witness: Man shot while handcuffed
 
http://www.cnn.com?/2015?/11?/21?/us?/minneapolis?-jamar?-clark?-police?-shooting?/index?.html
 
It includes named witnesses for a change (I think) and more timeline
information.
 
I find it quite notable how the mayor is being accused by both/the most
strident sides of essentially being on the other side.
 
My personal sense is that the courts are the only realistic avenue for
those who feel releasing the tapes quickly for the reasons they articulate
are more compelling than the BCA investigators statements that they want
eyewitness statements not to be influenced by watching such recordings.
 
Another question I have is how often are the police called in because
someone is interferring with paramedics? Monthly? Yearly?
 
I noted the police union disclosed that the woman being treated had a
broken ankle. Is this true? If yes, how did that happen?
 
The CNN report mentioned union rep also claimed that Jamar was attempting
to pull the woman out the ambulance. True?
 
I do wonder how the police union is in a position to release this
information while others are not?
 
Was Jamar attempting to apologize to the woman or was he in attempting to
hurt the woman (further? assuming he was the reason 911 was called in the
first place)? That seems quite important ... was he "in the way" but not
violent at the time or was he something dramatically different?
 
What information did the police have that would influence their thinking
about the most appropriate or required response? Or did this all happen
within seconds of the police arriving? What is the timeline?
 
I have seen suggestions that the digital video evidence could be tampered
with or lost. (As one of the reasons to release the video asap verse next
week or next month.) Has this ever happened in Minneapolis? Or Minnesota?
I would assume for court purposes that an extensive audit trial is
required. So what is that? If there is tampering, what are the legal
penalties if caught?
 
Anyway, watching this from a far over the last week (while in France at a
democracy conference also watching the impact of violence there), I
strongly encourage people to ask more questions and gather and share more
information.
 
Keep the peace - everyone.
 
Steven Clift

From: Linda Mann Date: Nov. 22, 2015 9:18 am   

Plowing through all of these posts, I gleaned the following facts: The abuse
victim and paramedics were safely inside the ambulance when the shooting
occurred. If the shooting victim was on the ground as so many have said, the
autopsy will likely show a downward trajectory for the bullet. An attempt is
being made get rid of video evidence and I don't think we will ever see the
alleged police video of this incident. It is too difficult in this day and age
to doctor films as the bogus Planned Parenthood videos demonstrate. The best we
can hope for is white wash (no pun intended) that is so clumsy and botched that
we can see through it and which will bring discredit on everyone associated
with it.

From: Bill McGaughey Date: Nov. 22, 2015 5:56 am     

Casey O’Brien says my analysis of issues is “absolutely incorrect” because
MGDPA 13.82 (whatever that is) has strict rules relating to release of
information during active police investigations. It were as if this regulation
had been handed down on Mt. Sinai.
 
No, the moral imperative here is that police not shoot and kill people unless
in self defense. We need to know whether or not the two police officers killed
Jamar Clark in self-defense. We need to know this in order to make timely
public-policy decisions such as whether to reappoint Janee Harteau as the
Minneapolis police chief.
 
Written laws and regulations can be changed. Public opinion, especially its
considerations of human decency, needs to drive written law. Elections to
public office, in turn, determine what laws will be enacted.
 
The shooting of Jamar Clark has mobilized public opinion. Hopefully, the
discussion will be fact-driven rather than be determined by public-relations
strategies carried out in the absence of fact. Hopefully, it will lead to broad
changes in the way that police deal with situations of this kind.
 
Any eligible person - i.e., most of us - can run for public office to try to
improve society as we see it. I have decided to exercise that option with
regard to national office. I am one of 28 candidates on the ballot in the 2016
New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary. I am also the only candidate
from the midwestern states.
 
While my campaign will not be about the shooting of Jamar Clark, it will, I
hope, deal forthrightly with some larger issues that trouble Americans today.
I have a campaign website at http://www.billforpresident.com that lays out some
of them.

From: Kristina Gronquist Date: Nov. 22, 2015 12:57 pm    

I'd like to thank Bill McGaughey for his reasoned and articulate commentary on
this thread, and at this time, instead of posting it allows me to say, "What he
said".
 
This gives me time to attend and support the peaceful encampment for justice
and work on other fronts to ensure long overdue police accountability measures.
 
RIP Terrance Franklin, Jamar Clark and the many others felled before. Some of
us will continue to work for a police department in Minneapolis that provides
professional, trained, measured responses when arresting suspects. That is what
the rule of law and due process is supposed to be all about.

From: Bill Kahn Date: Nov. 22, 2015 2:19 pm     

Yay! This is fun. First we watch Bill trying to tar many folks in government
with the same brush, but seeing Kristina then tar Bill thinking she is heaping
great praise, is beyond ecstasy.
 
Casey O’Brian is right. If folks want to see those videos, they must make the
case under state law as all Minnesota cities are creatures of the state, even
Minneapolis. File suit for releasing the videos under some argument of the law,
or wait for the investigation to conclude; anything else is political theater
(nothing wrong with that).
 
It is a shame that the 4th Precinct appears like a Roman garrison under siege
in some far flung region of an empire, but it will look much better with Ms
Gronquist out there in blue face like a latter day William Wallace or perhaps
in garb of a hero of the Visigoths or Vandals.
 
We don’t have to take sides to want the rule of law; when I am convinced we
don’t have our republic, I’ll revolt with the rest of the barbarians against
the empire.
 
If the the Department of Justice does not take steps to help solve our police
problems in the next few months, then I’ll heat my kettle and gather feathers;
until then, I’m chilling.
 
Good luck to Bill in New Hampshire ;-)

From: Bill McGaughey Date: Nov. 22, 2015 3:40 pm        

Sorry, the campaign website for the New Hampshire primary is at
http://www.billforpresident.org. Too often, I mix up the dot orgs with the dot
coms. See my posting on this list five hours ago.

From: Ed Fesler Date: Nov. 22, 2015 5:06 pm       

On 11/17/2015 2:22 PM, John Gaylord wrote:
I didn’t write or endorse the union rules, I just mention it as a
possible answer to a question many have posed.
 
Indeed. But the Chief, as management, is not a union member. She can't
say "question that bozo immediately"? If union members refuse, can't
she bring in an outsider to do the questioning?

 
I must not have been clear in my second point – I’m referring to
eyewitness accounts by either party. I’m arguing that a fair
investigation can’t be immediate. (The investigation will answer
the question "why did a gun need to be drawn?")
 
I don't trust eyewitness accounts any more than I trust police
accounts. But we need to see what evidence there is. If past history
didn't show that, given a chance, police will cover up instances of
police misconduct, maybe it wouldn't be so much of an issue.

 
Repeating rumors and releasing videotapes are two independent
issues.
 
So how long (assuming that investigators are permitted to talk to the
perps) can an investigation take? Rumors will continue to circulate
until more concrete information is available to the public. We've seen
that governments have no problem spilling information about terrorist
crimes to the public, why should this be any different?

From: Marie Przynski Date: Nov. 22, 2015 5:06 pm    

When individuals such as https://mobile.twitter.com?/RUthIess187??s?=07 are so
bold as to post their agenda for violence and looting as a part of BLM - then
we shouldn't wonder why BLM is viewed with a jaundiced eye -

From: Doug Mann Date: Nov. 23, 2015 9:23 am    

Casey O'Brian writes
 
"This is absolutely incorrect.
Investigative data is not public until the investigation is complete, and
that may include waiting until after any trial that may take place.
While the agencies investigate this shooting, it is considered a criminal
investigation, and the tapes are not public."
 
He then cites the following:
 
MGDPA 13.82 (emphasis added)
Subd. 7.Criminal investigative data.
 
Except for the data defined in subdivisions 2, 3, and 6, investigative data
collected or created by a law enforcement agency in order to prepare a case
against a person, whether known or unknown, for the commission of a crime
or other offense for which the agency has primary investigative
responsibility are* confidential or protected nonpublic while the
investigation is active*.
 
[Doug Mann]
 
"Except for data defined in subdivisions 2, 3, and 6 . . . "
 
Please note the exceptions listed in subd 2, including evidence of the use of a
weapon by police officers and any resistance encountered by police officers.
 
https://www.revisor.mn.gov?/statutes?/??id?=13?.82
 
13.82 COMPREHENSIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT DATA.
Subdivision 1.Application.
 
This section shall apply to agencies which carry on a law enforcement function,
including but not limited to municipal police departments, county sheriff
departments, fire departments, the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, the
Minnesota State Patrol, the Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training, the
Department of Commerce, and county human service agency client and provider
fraud investigation, prevention, and control units operated or supervised by
the Department of Human Services.
 
Subd. 2.Arrest data.
 
The following data created or collected by law enforcement agencies which
document any actions taken by them to cite, arrest, incarcerate or otherwise
substantially deprive an adult individual of liberty shall be public at all
times in the originating agency:
 
(a) time, date and place of the action;
 
(b) any resistance encountered by the agency;
 
(c) any pursuit engaged in by the agency;
 
(d) whether any weapons were used by the agency or other individual;
 
(e) the charge, arrest or search warrants, or other legal basis for the action;
 
(f) the identities of the agencies, units within the agencies and individual
persons taking the action;
 
(g) whether and where the individual is being held in custody or is being
incarcerated by the agency;
 
(h) the date, time and legal basis for any transfer of custody and the identity
of the agency or person who received custody;
 
(i) the date, time and legal basis for any release from custody or
incarceration;
 
(j) the name, age, sex and last known address of an adult person or the age and
sex of any juvenile person cited, arrested, incarcerated or otherwise
substantially deprived of liberty;
 
(k) whether the agency employed an automated license plate reader, wiretaps or
other eavesdropping techniques, unless the release of this specific data would
jeopardize an ongoing investigation;
 
(l) the manner in which the agencies received the information that led to the
arrest and the names of individuals who supplied the information unless the
identities of those individuals qualify for protection under subdivision 17;
and
 
(m) response or incident report number.

From: Bill McGaughey Date: Nov. 23, 2015 3:12 pm     

I want to respond to the posting from Marie Przynski. I have read some of the
messages posted by Jamaal Williams on Twitter and, like Marie, find them to be
offensive, racist, and uncivilized. Evidently, Williams is a member of Black
Lives Matter in New Orleans.
 
On the other hand, Americans have a right to free speech. This man’s Twitter
messages were meant to be read by his followers, not by the general public.
Also, Black Lives Matter seems to be a group without central administration so
that it would be hard for anyone to discipline individuals sympathizing with
this group who do offensive things. If they become violent or physically
destructive, then, of course, the police have a right and a duty to intervene.
 
The question is: Is the protest demonstration by Black Lives Matter and others
in north Minneapolis a good or bad thing? I think, on balance, it is a good
thing - and that even includes blocking traffic on I-94. Here is my reasoning:
 
For the police to shoot someone in the head who is in handcuffs and on the
ground is intolerable in a society such as what we believe ourselves to be.
Yes, mistakes can be made by the police but for the police administration
successfully to deny and cover up incidents such as Jamar Clark’s shooting
death is a prelude to a police state in which no one is safe from abusive
police. It is a matter of paramount important that this be nipped in the bud -
now.
 
This kind of thing has happened once before - with the shooting death of
Terrance Franklin in May 2013. In that case, chief Harteau successfully BSed
the public and nothing was ever done. The case was eventually turned over to
the Hennepin County Attorney’s office which generally does what the police
want. No officers were disciplined. No policy changes were made. The police
got away with murder.
 
Now it has happened again. More BS from chief Harteau. More diversionary
tactics in her aggressive public-relations game. Yes, I support Jan Nye’s call
for the chief to provide evidence about the rock throwing and the gun shots
heard near the precinct station. Who were the mysterious persons who did this?
 
Some residents of Minneapolis including me think that the chief may be lying.
We need evidence to support or refute her claims. But, of course, we have
people saying that we cannot have the evidence because of certain laws and
regulations. It may be 2 to 4 months before the public is allowed to see
evidence. How convenient this is for chief Harteau’s game! She and the police
union head and attorneys wearing well-pressed suits can state emphatically on
the local news that Jamar Clark was not in handcuffs and no one can possibly
refute them. Harteau can get on television whenever she wants to spread her
self-excusing propaganda.
 
What is at stake here is civilian control over the police. The mayor has a
direct supervisory responsibility here. To a lesser extent, our elected
representatives on the City Council also have a responsibility. They also have
a responsibility to the citizens of Minneapolis. Therefore, City Council
representatives can legitimately show up at Black Lives Matter demonstrations
both to see for themselves what happened and to support the protesters if they
feel so inclined. I have confidence in my representative, Blong Yang, that he
will do the right thing. End the kick-ass attitude among certain officers that
is condoned by the chief.
 
Assuming that Jamar Clark was wrongfully killed by police, this is what I would
like to have seen:
 
1. A statement from the mayor or police chief stating exactly what happened,
including an admission of guilt,
2. An apology from the city of Minneapolis to Clark’s family,
3. A review of police policies and procedures, hopefully resulting in changes
that would prevent future police killings, and
4. If Clark’s family sues Minneapolis over Jamar’s wrongful death, the city
should try to reach a reasonable settlement agreement.
 
What is not acceptable is for chief Harteau to lie to the public and avoid any
admission of guilt by erecting a wall of secrecy that conceals the facts. If
she continues to do that, then she deserves not to be reappointed next year.
The public cannot have confidence in such a police chief.

 

Background of Facts as reported by the BBC

November 24, 2015 JAMAR CLARK: FIVE PEOPLE SHOT AT MINNEAPOLIS POLICE PROTESTS

A search is under way for three white men who allegedly shot five people protesting about the fatal police shooting of a black man in Minneapolis.

None of the victims suffered life-threatening injuries in the incident on Monday night, which involved three masked men, according to witnesses.

Regular protests have taken place since Jamar Clark was shot by police 10 days ago. Police deny he was handcuffed.

Protesters are calling on police to release video of that shooting.

The shooting of the five protesters happened about a block from a Minneapolis police station that has been the site of demonstrations for about a week.

A witness told the Associated Press news agency that three mask-clad people, who "weren't supposed to be there", showed up at the protest site.

They soon left and were followed by a few protesters to a street corner, where the masked men began firing.

No suspects are in custody, and police are interviewing witnesses and conducting a search.

The shooting on Monday has prompted Clark's brother to call for an end to the protests "out of imminent concern for the safety of the occupiers".

Black Lives Matter, the movement organising the protest, had planned to announce "next steps" in their protest strategy. It is not clear if the announcement will happen in light of the shooting.

Police said that Clark was the suspect in an assault case, and was shot during a struggle with police that followed him trying to interfere with paramedics tending to the assault victim.

Protesters have alleged that Clark was handcuffed when he was shot - a claim that police deny.

A federal investigation is also being conducted to determine whether police intentionally violated Clark's civil rights during the incident.

The shooting and protests in Minneapolis are the latest in a series of similar incidents that have taken place across the US.

The incidents have fuelled a months-long national debate over police use of force, especially against black people.

 

White supremacists shoot Black Lives Matter protesterss

From: Dyna Sluyter Date: Nov. 24, 2015   6:04 am

From BLM's facebook page:
 
"2 unarmed protestors shot by white supremacists who were asked to leave
& followed them out. One block up they shot one in leg & one in stomach"
 
I've seen this confirmed by three separate sources, so it doesn't appear
to be a rumor. The only disagreement between the accounts is the number
of people shot, between two and five. Please be careful tonight in the
coming days, and let's not let this turn into the "race war" Armageddon
the white supremacists have been dreaming of.
 
From peaceful Florence, MN

From: Karlie Cole Date: Nov. 24, 2015   6:14 am    

Audio clip of police dispatch for this incident:

http://www.mnpoliceclips.com?/audio?-minneapolis?-shooting?-with?-multiple?-victims?-1123?.html

From: Frederica Scobey Date: Nov. 24, 2015   6:25 am    

The on-line Star Tribune says 6 shot but nonlife-threatening injuries.


From: Jordan Kushner Date: Nov. 24, 2015   12:55 pm   

This has huge implications on many levels. There is no contemporary
precedent for such a violent and overt racist attack in Minnesota. It
may reflect a rising national tide of racial hatred, perhaps having
parallels and impetus from the likes of Donald Trump and other figures
appealing to hatred. This needs to set off alarms.
 
Also, police indifference and possibly even collaboration. reports of
people on the scene indicate that police were slow to respond, and
ambulances were slower. Police maced protesters after the racist
attack. How did these gunman firing multiple shots right in front of a
police station all get away so easily?
 
My heart and best wishes go out to the victims.

 
 
sources -
 
http://www.startribune.com?/several?-people?-were?-shot?-near?-black?-lives?-matter?-protest?-site?/353121881?/
 
#‎4thPrecinctShutdown

<https://www.facebook.com?/hashtag?/4thprecinctshutdown??source?=feed?_text?&?;story?_id?=10100123267193755>

 

From: John Gaylord Date: Nov. 24, 2015   1:12 pm 

How do we know they are "white supremacists"?

 

From: Casey O'Brian Date: Nov. 24, 2015   3:15 am     

Can I just point out the hypocrisy of this situation. According to the
Strib:

"The shooting happened Monday night as Black Lives Matter activists tried
to move away the men who had been taunting them, according to protesters."
So if people taunt the BLM protesters it's OK for them to be moved away
from the BLM protest by activists, but if BLM taunts the police (documented
they shouted obscenities, threw rocks and sprayed graffiti on the
building), it's not OK for the police to remove the protesters from the 4th
precinct. Base on past actions by BLM protesters, the "white" counter
protesters may have feared for their lives while being chased by these BLM
activists?

Remember their has tag has been "#4thprecinctshutdown". Not a very civic
minded protest if your plan is to close down the police precinct that
serves your community.

Mind you I'm not condoning the shootings, I'm just saying that it is
clearly time for this protest to end as it has not achieved it's goals.
Even the Clark family wants it to end.

There are two sides to every story - I'd love to hear what the
counter-protesters have to say on why they opened fire. But I doubt we'll
be seeing them again.

BTW, closing down a freeway during rush hours was extremely counter
productive to the groups cause. It just made
the people stuck in traffic
despise BLM.

 

From: Jim McGuire Date: Nov. 24, 2015   3:18 pm  

I would respond to this, but I'm unable to do it while remaining civil and
following the rules of this forum. Anyone else?

 

From: Dan McGuire Date: Nov. 24, 2015   3:36 pm   

Why, Casey, do you think we'll never be hearing from the shooters again, or
'counter-protesters' as you call them- "I'd love to hear what the
counter-protesters have to say on why they opened fire. But I doubt we'll be seeing them
again." Do you doubt that the MPD will find who did this shooting? And,
shooting a gun at peaceful protesters is not counter-protesting; it's
shooting a gun a protesters.

 

From: Mohamed Ali Date: Nov. 24, 2015   3:42 pm   

Very sad. The Police know more than they admit, maybe collaborators in this
attack.

From: Ed Felien Date: Nov. 24, 2015   3:53 pm
    
Mr. O'Brian is employing the "Stand Your Ground" defense.
 
It was the defense of George Zimmerman in the stalking and murder of Trayvon
Martin.
 
It was the defense of Dylann Roof when he murdered nine people in Mother
Emmanuel in Charleston, "You're raping our women."
 
It's Donald Trump, "They're rapists."
 
Stand Your Ground
 
Protect Your Property

From: Allan Muller Date: Nov. 24, 2015   3:57 pm   

The sentiments in this post really stink. Is that civil to say? I don't know.
 
Reading the comments on almost any story in the Strib or PP suggests
something about the levels of anger, malice, alienation ... bubbling
beneath the surface in Minnesota. What does it mean? Where does it
come from? I don't know, but the popularity of the Trumpet of Evil
suggests it's not limited to Minnesota.
 
Evil is on the march, and people need to stand up against it. Stop
bitching about BLM unless and until you have something better to
offer. And until YOU are willing to vigil during a Minnesota winter.
to "protest" a shameful killing by the police.
 

From: Bill McGaughey Date: Nov. 24, 2015   4:03 pm    

This is strange, indeed. Three counter-protesters, identified as white
supremacists, some of them masked, taunt the protesters in front of the 4th
precinct police station and then shoot five of them, when asked to leave. Then
the gunmen flee. Presumably the police department is investigating.
 
I have to assume that the Minneapolis police department has had the protest
scene under surveillance. I would also have to assume that wearing masks in
front of the 4th precinct station would arouse suspicion. Why, then, didn't
the police apprehend the gunmen shortly after the shootings?
 
Maybe some more facts will come out but it doesn't look good. Fortunately, no
one was killed this time.

From: Carol Overland Date: Nov. 24, 2015   5:54 pm   

The police indifference and possible even collaboration is evidenced in
the disregard for the many online posts of specific, detailed, and ugly
threats against the protesters, the repeated attempts by the white
supremacists to infiltrate, the exposure of them, once livestreamed, and
their gun waving youtube discovered and publicized, and their boasting
and planning subsequent actions online.
 
Has anyone made formal complaints to law enforcement about the repeated
threats (not that 4th Pct. cares, but the feds are here now, maybe Mpls
or the feds might take it seriously.)?
 
Minnesota does have a terroristic threat statute. To let all these
hateful specific plans be public (if I can find them, law enforcement
certainly can), and sit on their hands and let a shooting happen,
SHAME! Where's Anonymous when we need them?
 
 
609.713 THREATS OF VIOLENCE.
 
 
Subdivision 1.Threaten violence; intent to terrorize.
 
Whoever threatens, directly or indirectly, to commit any crime of
violence with purpose to terrorize another or to cause evacuation of
a building, place of assembly, vehicle or facility of public
transportation or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience,
or in a reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or
inconvenience may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than
five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or
both. As used in this subdivision, "crime of violence" has the
meaning given "violent crime" in section 609.1095, subdivision 1
<https://www.revisor.leg.state?.mn?.us?/statutes?/??id?=609?.1095?#stat?.609?.1095?.1>
paragraph (d).
 
 
Subd. 2.Communicates to terrorize.
 
Whoever communicates to another with purpose to terrorize another or
in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror, that
explosives or an explosive device or any incendiary device is
present at a named place or location, whether or not the same is in
fact present, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than
three years or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.

From: Randy Jackson Date: Nov. 24, 2015   6:24 pm 

Carol, since you are an attorney, I find it interesting that you are
automatically assuming police indifference and collaboration. I think in court
you would call this leading a witness. As someone who claims to be a
professional, your posting on here is anything but. I would like to bring your
argument full circle, regarding your: threat of violence, intent to terrorize.

This is what the multiple felon, Jamar Clark, did when he beat up the
girl....again. I'm not saying it isn't tragic what happened to him, but it
seems everyone has forgotten about the other victim in this whole deal. This
isn't the first run-in he has had with the law. If BLM's true intent is just
that, Black Lives Matter, then where were the protesters when three kids died
in a house fire, while their mother was at the bar.....do those lives not
matter? It appears the only ones that do are the one's BLM can get into the
media for and distort details about.
 
Everyone needs to back down, let things sort themselves out, and then let the
details and facts come out. Right now there is so much rumor, speculation and
heresay going on, that people don't know what's what..

From: Jack Ferman Date: Nov. 24, 2015   6:32 pm 

Have one problem with 609 - the words "with purpose to" seem to create a
'loop-hole" that a defense lawyer would gleefully use to do you know what. Is
there case law clarifying. In this case it would seem punctuation and
construction makes all the difference.
 

From: Carol Overland Date: Nov. 24, 2015   6:54 pm

I'm not "automatically assuming," but am raising that potential as an
issue, joining with Jordan Kushner, also an attorney, in his concerns
(6:45 a.m post). I'm making my statements based on the threads I read,
and saved, videos seen, filled with hateful and ugly plans and
encouragement to harm BLM protesters. I'm hoping that the feds will dig
down into that, and determine whether there are links between
threatening commentors and shooters or not.
 
This is about a police killing, and no one's past record, of domestic
abuse or other crimes, means that police have right to kill someone.
There this thing called due process...
 
"As someone who claims to be a professional, your posting on here is
anything but." That and your statement sounds just like George Snyder
for his LTE in the Republican Eagle.

 

From: Wizard Marks Date: Nov. 24, 2015   6:58 pm   

One of the problems with police departments is that they are reactive forces.
They cannot suppose a crime will be committed, they have to wait until it is
committed.
 
To answer John Gaylord's question: when I have encountered white supremacists
in a bunch (not since 1994) they announce their presence early in the day. At a
gathering of Native Americans on Peavey Plaza at 11th and Nicollet, they
announced themselves by their tattoos, their bald heads, and, when Vernon
Bellecourt spoke they shouted "Why don't you go back to where you came from!"
Hello?
 
They are not nondescript, undercover types.

From: Alan Muller Date: Nov. 24, 2015   7:27 pm    

This is a twisted, racist post. The point is not that Clark had a
clean record or was behaving well that day, but that he didn't
deserve to be executed by the Minneapolis Police Department. In case
you are not aware of it, we do not--thankfully--have the death
penalty in Minnesota. If we did, it would be administered through
the courts, not by the police in back alleys and basements. Scary
and depressing, the amount of racism, and hate bubbling in Minnesota
these days. The acceptance in some quarters of criminal violence,
even hypothetically, by "law enforcement."

From: Randy Jackson Date: Nov. 24, 2015   7:39 pm  

I'm glad you stated it that way Alan. Per Carol's post, and which I agree,
people ARE entitled to due process. So are the police force! But almost
everyone on here has already tried and convicted the police officers of, as you
put it....executing him. Were you there Alan? I doubt it. My post was in no
way racist, as I was doing nothing but stating facts. However, as is typical
with so many people on here, if they don't like the facts that are presented to
them, they just call that person a name, rather than having rational discourse.
 
Right now, the only sensible thing to do is wait for everything to get sorted
out and, as I agree with Carol, have their due process.

 

From: Heather Fraser Date: Nov. 24, 2015   8:10 pm   

If anyone is going down to the 4th today, may I make a suggestion that they
bring some signs that say "let's go home and watch the video"?
 
This seems like a great moment for both sides to trade away a big, potentially
problematic protest in return for release of the videos. Someone ought to seize
entry-content.

From: John Gaylord Date: Nov. 24, 2015   8:16pm    

"One of the suspects, a 23-year-old white male, was arrested in suburban
Bloomington, police said. The second suspect, a 32-year-old Hispanic man, was
arrested soon after, police announced." (http://tinyurl.com/q8yd6q9)
 
Apparently a White Hispanic Supremacist.

 

From: Tim Salo Date: Nov. 24, 2015   8:16pm     

An interesting article in the New York Times, which I don't
believe has been posted here:
 
"Man Held in Shooting of 5 at Minneapolis Black Lives Matter Protest"
 
Oops, headline was updated:
 
"2 Men Held in Shooting of 5 at Minneapolis Black Lives Matter Protest"
<http://mobile.nytimes.com?/2015?/11?/25?/us?/minneapolis?-shooting?-protest?-police?-jamar?-clark?.html>
 
"Miski Noor, an organizer at the Minneapolis arm of Black Lives Matter,
said the shooting happened as demonstrators were escorting three masked
men who had been behaving suspiciously away from the site of the rally."
 
Interesting video, purportedly of some protesters, referenced in the
comments suggests an alternative scenario:
 
Line continues

bb

From: Casey O'Brian Date: Nov. 24, 2015   8:25 pm  

To those people spreading false rumors that police, file, & ambulance
deliberately did not respond, or were in collaboration with the shooters,
listen to the police tapes.

You will discover that the police were alerted by the "ShotSpotter" system
and were responding. Immediately after they started to respond the 911
calls came in about the shooting. Since the scene was not determined to be
safe from gunfire, fire and ambulance waited for the police to declare the
situation "Code 4". Police were notified the protesters from the 4th
precinct had rushed to the shooting scene, and responding squads waited
until they had back-up before arriving in case there were ongoing
altercations. Video posted to Facebook/Twitter shows protest leaders
struggling to keep other protesters away from the scene so the medics could
help. It appeared to be quite a mob scene.
 
I was wrong with my prediction that the shooters were long gone, as two
have been arrested, thanks to the professional work of our Minneapolis
police. I know that some think this could have been avoided if the police
took action sooner. But what were they supposed to do? Protesters pro and
con have the right to protest. The police don't have the luxury of telling
one group to leave in favor of another.

The question to be answered is would the shooters have shot if they were
not being chased? Maybe? Maybe not? There are two sides to every story.
Maybe now we'll get some more answers since there has been arrests.
 
I agree with Randy's statement: "However, as is typical with so many people
on here, if they don't like the facts that are presented to them, they just
call that person a name, rather than having rational discourse." I prefer
to have the actual facts, not someones assumptions or opinion.
False rumors are extremely dangerous, and can lead to massive and
unproductive situations that endanger lives. We don't need a "Ferguson" in
Minneapolis.
 
http://www.mnpoliceclips.com?/audio?-response?-time?-to?-jamar?-clark?-shooting?-1123?.html
 
http://www.rawstory.com?/2015?/11?/white?-supremacists?-shoot?-5?-black?-lives?-matter?-activists?-protesting?-jamar?-clarks?-killing?-in?-minneapolis?/
 
This uses up my second post for today.

From: Brian Sticherz Date: Nov. 24, 2015   8:52 pm     

John Gaylord quoted: "One of the suspects, a 23-year-old white male, was
arrested in suburban Bloomington, police said. The second suspect, a
32-year-old Hispanic man, was arrested soon after, police announced."
 
John Gaylord wrote: "Apparently a White Hispanic Supremacist."
 
Don't you know Saint Paul white supremacist history? Panzerfaust Records was a
Saint Paul white supremacy record label fronted by a Hispanic man. Once he was
outed as having Hispanic roots, the label folded. Hardly unprecedented. Not
to mention, being Hispanic does not mean you aren't white; ever see the racial
categories on any number of government forms?

From: Wizard Marks Date: Nov. 24, 2015   10:27 pm     

For everyone speculating about the events of last night and the event of Jamar
Clark being shot dead by a police person, PUT A SOCK IN IT! We know sod all
about what happened and we are not going to know any more until the powers that
be tell us. It could result in charges, it could result in any number of
things. Why not wait until we know before we decide what should happen or run
around like headless chickens.

From: Bill McGaughey Date: Nov. 24, 2015   8:17 pm     

Please indulge me in some conspiracy theories. I do not know the truth of
these matters but have my suspicions.
 
Regarding Casey O’Brian’s postings, I’ve seen this before. Two years ago, when
there was a lively discussion about the shooting death of Terrance Franklin, we
had a poster named Susan Goldberg playing the role of apologist for the police.
Today we have someone named Casey O’Brian doing much the same thing.
 
I say: Come out of the closet, Mr. O’Brian. Admit that you’re on the police
payroll. I think the Minneapolis police department has a right and a legitimate
interest in telling its side of the story but I would respect its spokespersons
more if they honestly identified themselves.
 
Now, maybe I’ve gone off the deep end here. But I’m wondering why “Susan
Goldberg” is silent on this forum when we are discussing a matter much like
that discussed two years ago. If it were then, she would be chomping at the
bit. Is Mr. O’Brian the new stealth spokesperson for the police? I smell the
bureaucratic PR style.
 
Another conspiracy theory: I wonder what is the connection between the white
supremacists who were arrested and the MPD. The news report of the arrest in
Bloomington this evening quoted a neighbor who said that the police knew right
where to go in making the arrest. Why wasn’t the arrest made in north
Minneapolis near the shooting scene?
 
Did the MPD directly plan or participate in the shootings? I doubt it. That
would be too stupid and the Minneapolis police are not stupid. But it may be
that these “white supremacists” were hangers on or persons known to the police.
 
In any event, I applaud the arrests and call for full prosecution of the
guilty. I will have nothing further to say about their innocence or guilt as
the process judicially unfolds.

From: Marie Przynski Date: Nov. 24, 2015   8:28 pm     

There are so many different posts with links that I'm not sure if this link has
been posted -
 
Raeisha Williams, communications chair of the Minneapolis NAACP, during a
national broadcast told CNN that members of law enforcement were “behind” the
Monday night shooting of Black Lives Matter protesters.

From: Marie Przynski Date: Nov. 24, 2015   8:52 pm    

Minneapolis Police Release
 
1 Arrestee, Take 2 More Men into Custody
 
November 24, 2015 (Minneapolis) The Minneapolis Police Department has
questioned and released one of the men arrested related to Monday night’s
shooting near the 4th Precinct. The investigation has revealed that the man
arrested in South Minneapolis in his car this afternoon was not at the shooting
scene.

It should also be noted the man arrested by the MPD in the city of Bloomington
this morning remains in cu stody.

Around 2:30 p.m., investigators took 2 additional men into custody after they
voluntarily turned themselves in. A 26 year old white male and a 21 year old
white male are currently being interviewed by investigators.
MPD investigators continue to work with the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office
and the FBI on this case.
entry-content

From: Constance Pepin Date: Nov. 24, 2015   8:52 pm

Watching these videos, I wonder whether, if the victims had been white men
instead of black men, and if these killings kept happening year after year and
in city after city, white men would still be saying things like "Everyone needs
to back down, let things sort themselves out, and then let the details and
facts come out" or "We are not going to know any more until the powers that be
tell us." Especially knowing as we know that in these cases, things don't sort
themselves out, the details and the facts often don't come out, and the powers
that be are historically more invested in defending rather than reforming our
racist institutions.

From: Dave Garland Date: Nov. 24, 2015   10:48 pm

On 11/24/2015 8:17 PM, Bill McGaughey wrote:
 
Another conspiracy theory: I wonder what is the connection between
the white supremacists who were arrested and the MPD. The news
report of the arrest in Bloomington this evening quoted a neighbor
who said that the police knew right where to go in making the
arrest. Why wasn’t the arrest made in north Minneapolis near the
shooting scene?
 
At this point, hard to say. Could be there wasn't a cop on that side
of the protest (we have to assume there were cops at the scene, though
perhaps not in uniform), or the perps drove away before they could be
grabbed.

 
Did the MPD directly plan or participate in the shootings? I doubt
it. That would be too stupid and the Minneapolis police are not
stupid. But it may be that these “white supremacists” were hangers
on or persons known to the police.
 
The latter is entirely possible (with or without MPD approval). As is
the possibility that the "molotov cocktails" and rocks came from the
"white supremacists". At this point it seems no one knows (or is
saying) where those "attacks on the police" came from, and I think we
have only the suggestion of one demonstrator that the shooters were
"white supremacists" (though that's certainly a possibility, as is the
possibility that they are someone else pretending to be for one reason
or another)..

From: Wizard Marks Date: Nov. 25, 2015 8:41 pm     

C Pepin: "Especially knowing as we know that in these cases, things don't sort
themselves out, the details and the facts often don't come out, and the powers
that be are historically more invested in defending rather than reforming our
racist institutions."

Right. And, if the FBI, DEA,ATF, CIA, Homeland Security and any of the other
secret squirrel agencies decide they don't want you to know, you won't. Even
should you go through all the hoops with the FOIA, they will give you
something, but everything you wanted to know will be redacted.

The thing is the "needs" of Empire always, always trump any law.

And the powers that be are not only defending, they are actively working to
keep racism in place. In the end, it will probably answer all the questions
about the so unfortunate Jamar Clark and thousands of other people.

 

From: Bill McGaughey Date: Nov. 26, 2015 223 am     

Who shot the five Black Lives Matter protesters Jamar Clark a two blocks away from the 4th
precinct station in Minneapolis? Was it:

1 Minneapolis police officers?
or
2 white people?

Now, of course, the two identified officers are both police officers and white
males. But there is an important issue here which is being played out in the
ongoing PR struggle being orchestrated by police chief Janee Harteau.
Initially public outrage was being directed narrowly at the Minneapolis police.
Now increasingly it is being directed at the white race in general.

Today I saw a sign at the 4th precinct that said: “If you do not recognize
your white privilege, you’re part of the problem.” The issue of murderous
activity by police officers has partly gone away. Now white racism is said to
be the problem exposed by Jamar Clark’s death.

The shootings several days ago are a sideshow to the main issue, which is that
on November 15th Minneapolis police officers shot and killed a young man. But,
all of a sudden, we got reports from chief Harteau of outsiders playing off the
Black Lives Matter demonstration, throwing rocks, shooting guns and tossing
Molotov cocktails, and waving anarchist flags. I suspected that this was a
diversionary tactic in the PR game played by the police administration.

The first time I heard about the Monday night shooting it had already been
established that the perpetrators were “white supremacists”. None of the
gunmen had yet been arrested. But a You Tube video was circulating that showed
the masked gunmen in a car making racist remarks. Something here did not pass
the smell test. How did we know that the gunmen were white racists if they had
not been caught yet? And why were the gunmen so eager to make their racist
natures known?

Leslie Redmond, an eyewitness to the confrontation with the gunmen, told Amy
Goodman on Democracy Now! that she saw an officer at the 4th precinct who was
wearing a mask peeking over a wall about an hour before the gunmen arrived.
Not long afterwards police maced the protesters in front of the 4th precinct
station and fired rubber bullets at them.

The counter-protesters who later became gunmen approached the protesters
wearing masks that resembled the one earlier worn by the officer, according to
Redmond. They were also wearing bullet-proof vests. She said the police took
an unusually long time to respond to the shooting incident at 14th and Morgan.
A spokesman for Black Lives Matter told Goodman that she believes that the
Minneapolis Police Department was behind this incident.

One should recall that, when chief Harteau was being criticized for her
handling of Terrance Franklin’s death, she deflected the criticism by launching
a campaign to weed out white racists in the MPD ranks. She also formed an
advisory committee of “community leaders” to help with the anti-racist
campaign. I have it on good authority that the city came up with this strategy
after hiring an outside public-relations relations firm. “White supremacists”
seem to have become a favored fall guy for police in situations like this. That
theme plays especially well in Minneapolis.

I am a white man. I am not a Minneapolis police officer. I resent having the
blame for Jamar Clark’s death shifted from the Minneapolis police department,
by implication, to all members of the white race.

 

Minneapolis, Where is your Mayor? And your Council?

From: Dyna Sluyter Date: Nov 24, 2015 9:46 pm     

Last night white supremacist terrorists shot several innocent protesters
in your city. This level of racial hatred and violence against
minorities is unprecedented in Minneapolis history. Despite the
neighborhood of the shooting being swarmed by police and ambulances
located within minutes away, it's reported that police made no attempt
to catch the white supremacist shooters and ambulance response for the
victims was so slow that the most of the victims had to be driven to the
hospital in samaritan's private cars. The description of the white
supremacist attacker's vehicles sound suspiciously like police unmarked
cars, and their dress included police tactical gear and body armor.
 
Minneapolis is now a smoking powder keg, with no precedent short of the
Teamster strike of 1934. Armed fascist terrorists freely roam the
streets, aided by a police department that conveniently looks the other
way. Congressman Ellison was on the scene last night to calm the crowd
after the shootings, and Governor Dayton just spoke out about the
unprovoked attack. Minneapolis' mayor and council now have a police
force they can't trust, a protest march planned for this afternoon, kids
leaving school in protest, and for good reason a citizenry that is
anxious and distrustful... This may not end well.
 
So where are the mayor and council... Taking off early for a long
thanksgiving weekend, or hunkered down in the Emergency Operations
Center for the duration? Mayor and Council, we need leadership... Yesterday!

From: Constance Pepin Date: Nov 24, 2015 12:23 pm     

Mayor Hodges is being very poorly served by her advisors if she thinks her
academic response in a recent video is acceptable.
 
To watch, scroll down to the second video at this link, to the video window
with a still photo of the Police Chief and a caption NOV. 19: Minneapolis
Police Chief: 'We Support the First Amendment' 2:57:
 
http://www.nbcnews.com?/news?/us?-news?/minnesota?-governor?-calls?-federal?-review?-police?-actions?-n467746
 
During a crisis of this magnitude, the Mayor's statement is hard to believe,
reciting as she does numerous "principles on which I'm operating these
days...." and a strange reference "I also bring to the table...."
 
Then the Police chief lists the current estimate of "the damage thus far"
consisting of property damages to squad cars, portable cameras, broken window,
damaged fence, "a retaining wall is totaled" etc. Perhaps her acknowledgment of
Jamar Clark's death was edited out of the video, leaving her list of property
damages in defense of police behavior.

 

Shooting at Black Lives Matter Jamar Clark Assembly

From: Cam Gordon Date: Nov 24, 2015 2:35 pm     

We are all going to have to do our best to be our very best selves as we
struggle through this difficult situation. Below is the statement I recently
posted elsewhere in repsonse to the shooting last night. I wanted to share it
with you all here: ----- I am deeply disturbed by the violence that occurred
last night at the 4th precinct. It is totally unacceptable and must not - and
WILL not - be tolerated. I have heard from the Police Department that two of
the people suspected of being responsible have been arrested. This is very good
news, and I look forward to the persons responsible being held accountable for
their violent actions. I want to express my deepest gratitude to the MPD for
working so quickly and effectively to make these arrests and all the
individuals who have helped provide information to them so that these arrests
have been possible. Now more than ever we need to be united as a people, as a
government standing arm in arm with those most impacted by this violence, to
protect one another, ensure that all of us are safe, that the violence is
stopped, that people’s rights - including the right to speak to their
government, loudly and forcefully, for redress of grievances - are preserved.
Then, united and safe, we can move together, to find the truth and see that
there is justice and healing, for Jamar Clark, his family and friends, and our
entire community. And let us not forget as we do this, that what happened last
night is a horrific symptom that has erupted from a deeper malady that has
plagued our city for decades and decades. This malady of injustice, violence,
racism and hatred, must be faced, it must be treated and cured, as difficult,
costly and complicated as that may be, or we will doom ourselves, and our
children to be victims of more acts of hatred and violence like this in the
future. We must respond to this violence and hate with nonviolence, justice and
love. Let us hold these precious values in our hearts in the days and weeks
ahead. As Martin Luther King, Jr., said: "Darkness cannot drive out darkness;
only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." Cam
Gordon
Seward

(Note: Cam Gordon is vice chair of the Public Safety Committee of the Minneapolis City Council.)

 

Jamar Clark endgame

From: Bill McGaughey Date: Nov 27, 2015 10 pm

First, let’s acknowledge that the protest is no longer about Jamar Clark. He has died and is not coming back. But Jamar’s memory has been honored. His death has had an impact upon the community far greater than most. He did not live and die in vain. The protest demonstrators at the 4th precinct police station helped make this happen.

A clergyman at Jamar Clark’s funeral at Shiloh Temple last Wednesday pointed out that in Jamar’s last posting on Facebook he said that he did not have much time left to live but he thought his life had had a purpose. That prophecy has now come true. But the purpose has not completely been realized.

The question now is whether to continue the protest and to consider its objectives. Black Lives Matter is demanding release of the tapes. While this is a good idea, it will probably solve little. Gov. Dayton has looked at the tapes, or a tape, and has said that it does not conclusively determine whether Jamar was in handcuffs and on the ground when he was shot or whether, as the police say, he was reaching for an officer’s gun. Furthermore, there have been reports that investigators erased part of the tapes and threatened people with jail time if they told.

As far as I can see, the battle over evidence boils down to the credibility of the respective witnesses - the four or five bystanders who saw Jamar being shot or the two officers involved in the shooting. I think the bystanders’ testimony is more credible. First, there are more of them. Second, and more important, there is no apparent motive for them to lie as there would be for the two officers and for the police chief.

The protesters demand that the two officers be prosecuted. That is up to the Hennepin County Attorney. If the past is any indication, Freeman’s office will summon a grand jury which will not indict the officers. And that will be the end of it. You and I might complain about the process but it will do little good. In fact, any attempt to interfere with the established legal procedure would be heavily criticized. The only recourse is to vote Michael Freeman out of office the next time he stands for reelection.

Therefore, I think that protester demands to release the tapes and to prosecute the two officers are misdirected. The struggle for justice for Jamar Clark is now a public-relations battle between the Minneapolis Police Department and those of us who want more honest and less violent policing in Minneapolis.

The police chief, Janee Harteau, is playing an aggressive public-relations game to cast doubt upon the claim that Jamar Clark was murdered by police and also to engage in diversionary tactics to draw public attention to other matters. Those who want justice for Jamar need to become equally aggressive opponents in this “game”, part of which is played in the e-democracy forum.

Harteau’s motives are clear. First, she wants to keep her job. Harteau is up for reappointment as chief early next year. Those who oppose her PR game should resolve that she not be reappointed and that her successor be someone dedicated to reforming the Minneapolis police department. The new chief, to be effective, might have to come from the outside.

A second motive, which is even more important in my opinion, is that Harteau wants this whole controversy to blow over so that she doesn’t have to change police policies and procedures. That is what happened after the Terrance Franklin killing and it can happen again. While I am not privvy to Harteau’s thinking, it seems that she might want to retain support from the gung-ho, kick-ass officers who have assumed a privileged position with respect to the citizens they allegedly serve. She must prove herself to that type of officer. As a female leader, she must be as tough as any man. This can be done by effectively stonewalling the public to protect the two officers.

It seems to me that justice is a higher priority than keeping chief Harteau in her present position or allowing the police to lord it over the public and shoot people with impunity. There needs to be a “kinder, gentler” model of policing. The civilian authorities need to assume greater control over the police, including the chief. Possibly, the city council needs a greater voice in decisions regarding the police if the mayor will not act.

I am not anti-police. In fact, unlike most, I sided with the police and its union in criticizing the mayor in the “pointergate” controversy. Yes, the cocked finger and thumb, suggesting a gun, was a known gang sign and it was disrespectful to the officers for the mayor to allow herself to be photographed using it. I also criticized Black Lives Matter when they marched down a street with a chant that suggested killing police officers. At the same time, however, I do not condone police killing civilians except in clearly delineated cases of self-defense. It is not an issue of being for or against the police but, rather, of making sure that their immense power is exercised with restraint. Their mission is to serve the public rather than project a certain kind of identity.

In my view, the police public-relations offensive in response to Jamar Clark’s killing has involved deceptive tactics which, in and of themselves, reflect negatively upon chief Harteau and the officers who carry out her PR offensive. In particular, the deception involves the use of others besides clearly identified officers to act as spokespersons for the MPD or as street agitators on its behalf. We require police officers to carry a badge but surrogates are not required to do so.

Earlier in this thread, I expressed the opinion that a certain “Casey O’Brian”, who consistently represented the police point of view in this forum, might be on the police payroll. I asked him to come out of the closet and identify himself. It has now been nearly three days since my posting and we have not yet heard from Mr. O’Brian, who had once posted messages twice a day. I think this is circumstantial, if not totally convincing, evidence that Mr. O’Brian does have an undisclosed relationship with the police department. There may also be others.

A more serious matter is the relationship between the MPD and the “white supremacist” masked men who shot five of the Black Lives Matter protesters last Monday evening. The Minneapolis NAACP claims that the police were behind this incident. Supporting evidence is the fact that the gunmen wore masks similar to that of a police officer spotted at the 4th precinct. I don’t think police officers should be allowed to wear masks when dealing with the public.

There are lots of unanswered questions here. Perhaps some of the questions will be answered when the authorities prosecute the people who were arrested or fail to prosecute them. But it is strange that a video surfaced on You Tube of masked men making racist remarks who, somehow, turned out to be the gun men who shot the protesters Monday night. We knew these people were “white supremacists” even before they were arrested. We do not know what their relationship, if any, might be with the Minneapolis police. But the police have used surrogates to fight some of their other public-relations battles.

In other words, it’s possible that the gunmen are also PR surrogates for the police. As “white supremacists” straight out of central casting, they make an excellent target for protest by Black Lives Matter, diverting attention from the shooting of Jamar Clark and from the Minneapolis police to an old bogeyman we have learned to hate and fear.

In summary, I think the objective of further protest should be to clean up the Minneapolis department so that the likelihood of more police shootings will be minimized. If chief Harteau persists in orchestrating a campaign of denial, she has to go. This is the endgame that makes the most sense to me. We need to send a message that the police are subject to civilian review and that, in some people’s eyes, police killings are a supremely serious, impermissible matter.

 

Warning from the Minneapolis forum moderator

From: Matt Perry Date: Nov 28, 2015 12:57 pm

Mr. McGaughey,

Your post below violates Rule 2.4. Be Civil and Rule 2.7 Avoid Unsubstantiated Rumors, Respect Privacy; You Are Liable.

You write:

"Earlier in this thread, I expressed the opinion that a certain “Casey O’Brian”, who consistently represented the police point of view in this forum, might be on the police payroll. I asked him to come out of the closet and identify himself. It has now been nearly three days since my posting and we have not yet heard from Mr. O’Brian, who had once posted messages twice a day. I think this is circumstantial, if not totally convincing, evidence that Mr. O’Brian does have an undisclosed relationship with the police department. There may also be others."

I consider your overall statements about Mr. O'Brian a personal one-on-one argument/attack and your implications of his veracity about who he represents as strongly inflamed speech. I also consider your statements about his supposed relationship with the police and his lack of response to your attacks as evidence of this to be "rumors of a personal nature and unverified. This is the second post in which you have gone after Mr. O'Brian.

The rules cited can be found below. The full set of rules can be found at here:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/support/rules/full-rules/

I strongly encourage you to re-read them before you make another post.

Stick to the issues Mr. McGaughey and knock it off with the unsupported allegations against individuals who happen to not share your opinion. Everyone is entitled to express their opinion on this forum as long as they are within the scope of the forum rules, including Mr. O'Brian.

I am issuing you a formal warning for violating the forum rules, today, November 28, 2015. If you receive a second formal warning within 12 months of today you will be suspended from the forum for two weeks. Three formal warnings within 12 months can lead to a six month suspension.

If you have any questions about this decision you can contact me directly and *offlist* at mattp@pobox.com

2.4 Be Civil

No name calling, insults, personal one-on-one arguments, or strongly inflamed speech. This applies to all people and groups of people including all other participants, any member of the public including public figures, and groups of people including political groups, and social or racial/ethnic groups. Each Forum Manager shall provide guidance to participants on what is inappropriate and prohibited on that forum through communications on forum or via a forum’s charter. There is no uniform standard of civility promised across different E-Democracy.org-hosted forums due to variations in local culture and expectations.

2.7 Avoid Unsubstantiated Rumors, Respect Privacy; You Are Liable

Rumors of a personal nature are prohibited as are disclosures of personal information about other participants related or unrelated to the topic being discussed (e.g., personal health or finances, relationship status, unlisted telephone numbers, etc.). Your posts must be accurate based on your full knowledge and never intentionally false. Unverified "grapevine" information of a public nature must be within a forum's issue-based scope to be appropriate. You must correct your previous expressions of "known" information via the forum that you later find it to be false or substantially incorrect. Exceptions include assertions already publicly corrected or clarified by others in forum discussions. Corrections must be made within any daily posting limit or via the Forum Manager if urgent. You and you alone are liable for the content that you post. E-Democracy.org is not responsible or liable for the content posted by others to any online service that we host. No one threatening legal action against E-Democracy.org may participate until any threat is clearly lifted. See our Forum Content and Removal Policy and Policy on Legal Threats for details.

Matt Perry
East Harriet Farmstead/Minneapolis
Forum Manager

 

Background of Facts as reported by Newsweek

November 30, 2015 MINNEAPOLIS MAYOR ASKS FOR END TO BLACK LIVES MATTER POLICE STATION ENCAMPMENT

Minneapolis's mayor on Monday called for protesters from the Black Lives Matter movement to end their 16-day encampment of a city police station, which has been occupied since Jamar Clark was killed by a police officer earlier this month.

Clark, a 24-year-old African-American man, was shot by police on November 15 and died the following day. Hours after his death, protesters marched from the site of the shooting to north Minneapolis's 4th Precinct police station, which they have refused to leave until authorities release video of the shooting.

"The occupation of the 4th Precinct is unsafe for everyone," Mayor Betsy Hodges said Monday at a press conference, adding that she hasn't set a deadline to force out the protesters from the station, but said she hopes they leave voluntarily. "I am still willing to talk with any of the protesters willing to come to the table," she added.

Local officials said residents have voiced their concerns about the dangers and inconveniences posed by the protesters as they block streets and burn wood to keep warm. Over the weekend, fire officials met with demonstrators to discuss safety and health concerns about the smoke from the fires.

City leaders and public safety officials said they approve of the protesters using their First Amendment rights, but only if they do so lawfully. They said that many of the protesters' demands have been met.

Steve Belton, interim president and chief executive officer of the Minneapolis Urban League, told demonstrators that leaders will stand beside them as they continue to draw attention to police misconduct and racial injustices. But for now, he added, they must be satisfied.

"Take 'yes' as an answer," he said. "We're asking that you respect the community and the people that you have said you are here to serve."

Demonstrators were initially upset that officials didn't immediately release Clark's identity or condition. They also asked the police department to fire and prosecute the officers responsible for the shooting, and release the video from the incident. They also called for a federal investigation. Police since have released the names of the two officers and, following demands by Hodges and activists, the FBI agreed to conduct a criminal civil rights investigation into the shooting. At the request of the Minneapolis Police Department, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension also is reviewing the incident.

Officers Mark Ringgenberg and Dustin Schwarze, who both served for seven years, have been placed on standard paid administrative leave during the ongoing investigations.

U.S. Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota, whose district includes north Minneapolis, said the demonstrators have a worthy goal in calling for justice for Clark, but they are causing trouble and asked them to avoid harming other people.

"The byproduct of that goal are having very negative impacts on people in the neighborhood," he said at the press conference. "My plea is to minimize the impact—the negative impact—on the neighbors."

Clark's family has asked for peace in memory of their son.

Questions remain about whether Clark was handcuffed when he was shot. Authorities haven't released video from the scene of the shooting, saying they don't have footage that captures the event in its entirety. Belton on Monday said police releasing footage while investigations are ongoing would violate the law.

Reverend Alfred Babington-Johnson asked demonstrators to relocate from the 4th Precinct to open spaces nearby to conduct peaceful protests.

A week ago, five demonstrators were shot and wounded near the 4th Precinct. Four men were arrested in connection to the shooting. On Monday, charges were filed against the alleged suspects. Allen Scarsella III, 23, was charged with one count of second-degree riot while armed and five counts of second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon, according to the Star Tribune. The other three men, Nathan Gustavsson, 21, Daniel Macey, 26, and Joseph M. Backman, 27, were charged with the same riot count as Scarsella.

Authorities are considering whether to treat the shooting as a hate crime. The four suspects are expected to appear in court on Tuesday afternoon.

 

Minneapolis Mayor Asks Jamar Clark Protesters to Stand Down

 

From: Steven Clift Date: Nov 30, 2015 5:52 p.m.

Video from:

http://kstp.com?/article?/stories?/s3977346?.shtml
 
If someone has the transcript of the Mayor's remarks, please share.

 

From: Matt Perry Date: Nov 30, 2015 7:41 p.m.

The Star Tribune is reporting:
 
"Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges on Monday called for an end to the Black Lives
matter encampment outside the North Side police precinct headquarters that has
entered its third week since a black man was fatally shot by police a few
blocks away.
 
Hodges made her announcement while backed by Keith Ellison, the Congress member
whose district includes north Minneapolis, police and fire officials and key
members of the City Council. She said the situation outside the police station
is unsafe. The mayor cited the wood-burning fires, threats against officers and
a shooting last week that resulted five activists being wounded and felony
charges filed Monday against four suspects."
 
"'There are near-daily threats to burn the precinct, kill our officers and hurt
people, and it must end,' the mayor said, adding that she is not issuing a
deadline to the demonstrators but hopes they will decide to leave."
 
Keith Ellison weighed in per the Star Tribune:
 
"'I believe the people protesting, their purpose and their intent is to raise
the issue of police brutality, police accountability,' he [Ellison] said. 'But
the unintended affect is that North Siders can’t use their main thoroughfare,
Plymouth Avenue. The unintended effect is domestic terrorists are coming to the
protest to start trouble.'"
 
Per the Journal:
 
"Meanwhile,Black Lives Matter Minneapolis leaders continue to maintain the
encampment. On their Facebook page today, they posted: 'Please join us at the
#4thPrecinctShutDown this morning. We need warm food, help with snow, and cars
to warm people up!'"
 
and
 
"In a tweet, the Minneapolis chapter of the NAACP wrote: 'Stand with us now.
Tell the @CityMinneapolis that we are not moving. Stand with us today. Get down
to the precinct. They may come in earlier.'
 
Full Star Tribune story at this link:
http://www.startribune.com?/charging?-deadline?-nears?-for?-suspects?-in?-shooting?-of?-black?-lives?-matter?-protesters?/358855091?/
 
Full Journal story at this link:
http://www.journalmpls.com?/news?/news?/hodges?-community?-leaders?-call?-for?-an?-end?-to?-4th?-precinct?-occupation

 

From: Jim McGuire Date: Nov 30, 2015 7:55 p.m.
 

Translation: "It's unsafe! People Must leave! The only organization allowed
to block a major thoroughfare for a long period of time in this city is
KMart!"
 
http://www.startribune.com?/charging?-deadline?-nears?-for?-suspects?-in?-shooting?-of?-black?-lives?-matter?-protesters?/358855091?/

http://www.journalmpls.com?/news?/news?/hodges?-community?-leaders?-call?-for?-an?-end?-to?-4th?-precinct?-occupation

From: Matt Perry Date: Nov 30, 2015 8:00 p.m.

A message from a community coalition, including the Mayor and Congressman
Ellison, posted today, November 30, calling for an end to the occupation of the
4th precinct.
 
A full list of signers is at the very bottom of the letter which can be found
at this link:
 
http://mayorhodges.com?/2015?/11?/30?/a?-message?-from?-the?-community?-to?-end?-the?-occupation?/
 

From: Steven Clift Date: Nov 30, 2015 8:09 p.m.

I encourage everyone to watch the video.
 
One personal comment - the crowd behind the mayor certainly had many
community elders, but the message might be made more effective with under
30s visible as well.

From: Allan Muller Date: Nov 30, 2015 8:40 p.m.

In her statement Mayor Hodges mentioned the air pollution and health
hazards from all the wood fires. She's right about that, but there
is more to the story:
 
Karen Monahan of the Sierra Club has tried to get the people to stop
burning wood and rely on propane "patio heaters." I believe Sierra
contributed funds for these heaters. At least on person on an
e-democracy list contributed propane tanks.
 
But this has not happened. I don't know why but one can
speculate: Wood burning is deeply embedded in human culture and many
people take comfort from it even though it's unhealthy. Perhaps in
this high-stress situation people want and need that comfort.
 
Whether the occupation should be ended is not for me to say, but it
would be reasonable to ask the occupiers to stop burning wood. In
addition to patio heaters, heated tents and suchlike are far from
unknown in Minnesota
.
 

 From: Ed Felien Date: Nov 30, 2015 8:40 p.m.

Yes, it is true. The demonstrations have gotten out of control--out of the
control of City Hall, out of the control of the police, out of the control of
the established powers that be.
 
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
 
The Mayor's statement is an embarrassing platitude:
 
More broadly, and no less urgently, we must continue to reduce and eliminate
the many racial disparities that plague African Americans and people of color
in our city in almost every measure — health, wealth, education, employment,
and certainly criminal justice, among others. The work requires the honesty to
admit what has not worked, the resolve to look racism in the face, and the will
to change course. And it will continue to require willing partners at every
level: community, government, philanthropy, education, nonprofit, and others.
 
Are we really ready "to look racism in the face?" Then, release the tapes.
Let us judge for ourselves what happened. The investigation, the testimony of
witnesses is complete. Let us see what the cameras saw on November 15.
 
Is City Hall ready to "admit what has not worked?" Are we ready to look again,
this time more closely, at the police report on the murder of Terrance
Franklin--another young black man killed by the MPD? Are we ready to condemn
the racist lending practices that decimated North Minneapolis?
 
Do not ask us to trust the "willing partners" that caused these problems.
 
Black Lives Matter has peacefully petitioned City government for a redress of
legitimate grievances. Do not insult their efforts by refusing to even mention
their legitimate demand.
 
Release the tapes!


 
 From: Jim McGuire Date: Nov 30, 2015 8:51 p.m.

I see that Barb Johnson signed the letter asking demonstrators to end the
occupation (you know that will sway minds).
 
Barb getting a chance to support the police while simultaneously opening up
more parking spaces is the perfect metaphor for her entire political career.


 
 From: Dyna Sluyter Date: Nov 30, 2015 9:28 p.m.

The patio heaters are useless at these temps, they put their heat up too
high and it goes to waste. They also eat propane like crazy, and often
won't even make it through a night on a tank. What can I say, typical
Sierra Club stupidity. The wood fires are better and the Northside has
no shortage of free firewood and the fires are at a level where they'll
warm bodies gathered around them, even at a sitting height. But both
waste most of their heat to the atmosphere.
 
The best solution would be a portable building with proper propane or
electric heat, and the city has a few of them in inventory that they
could loan. Failing that, the biggest available portable fish house with
a propane heater would make sense.
 
Heating with waste wood on Minnesota's western frontier, Dyna

 

From: Bill McGaughey Date: Nov 30, 2015 10:03 p.m.

Yes, definitely end the occupation if it is proven that Jamar Clark was lunging
at a police officer and trying to grab his gun. If proven otherwise, what
should be done? Just let the Minneapolis police ride this one out and continue
violent policing?
 
This is a time, I think, when police violence has caught people’s attention and
maybe something can be done about it. The continued occupation of the 4th
precinct keeps the movement alive. It takes a scene like this to gain media
attention, and with media attention you sometimes get public policy to change.
 
This question should be asked of Mayor Hodges: If the protesters disband at
your suggestion, what do you bring to the table? What are you willing to do to
end police violence in Minneapolis?
 
It would be easy for me to say to the protesters gathered outside the 4th
precinct: Hooray for you! Continue the demonstration outside the 4th precinct,
however cold it gets at night. But really this is a choice that the
demonstrators themselves will have to make. All I can do, from a distance, is
to applaud the demonstrators so long as they are non-violent and reasonably
well-behaved.
 
But keep your eye on the object of this protest - Jamar Clark’s death and the
larger question of police violence in America.

 

From: Dennis Hill Date: Dec 1, 2015 12:43 a.m.

The protest can go on for as long as people feel they are necessary. It is the
illegal activities surrounding the "occupation" that needs to stop. Barricading
Plymouth Ave, camping on the grounds, campfires fires in the street, impeding
access to the 4th Precinct building and interrupting bus service. The kind of
activities that has nothing to do with First Amendment rights and disrupt the
lives of the people living in the community.

 

From: Casey O'Brian Date: Dec 1, 2015 4:01 a.m.

What Dennis said + It is worth pointing out that recreational fires
(campfires) after 10pm are unlawful. And most likely the fires they have
are unlawful period according to information provided by the fire
department.

If we can't have a recreational fire for our block party, why should they
be allowed to have multiple fires burning in the street?


 
 From: David Tilsen Date: Dec 1, 2015 4:15 a.m.

Because it is cold!
 

From: Doug Mann Date: Dec 1, 2015 4:35 a.m.

Mayor Hodges makes some vague promises to do something to eliminate racial
disparities in employment and other areas, but nothing in particular, as a
candidate for Mayor in 2013, and now, two years after the election. Most of the
community members who signed off on the mayor's memo are the usual suspects:
Folks who are deeply indebted to the DFL machine for the jobs that they hold.
 
Ongoing investigations by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and by
federal authorities are necessary, but not sufficient. There are videotapes
and other evidence documenting the arrest of Jamar Clark that must be released
now. Arrest data that originates in MN law enforcement agencies, as described
in MN Statutes, section 13.82, subd 2 is "public data at all times." Accounts
by police and those of other eyewitnesses differ radically. The release of
videotapes, the autopsy report, and other relevant evidence at this time could
force the BCA to file charges, and the County Attorney to seek a grand jury
indictment and put the cops on trial, not only the guy who pulled the trigger,
but also those who are aiding and abetting. MN Statutes section 13.82, subd 7
allows law enforcement to classify evidence as nonpublic during an
investigation, except for arrest data described in MN Statutes 13.82 subd 2.
 
The only legal remedy available to Black Lives Matters Minneapolis and
other who want the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to comply with the law and
release the videotapes and other arrest data is to file a petition for a writ
of mandamus in Ramsey District Court, to command the Superintendent of the BCA
to release the arrest data to the public. That needs to be the next step.
 

From: Casey O'Brian Date: Dec 1, 2015 5:34 a.m.

What arrest data?

Mr. Clark was never arrested, never booked into jail, or charged with a
crime. Therefore, there is no arrest data. There is no arrest data to be
made public.

Mr. Clark was the victim of a homicidal death at the hands of the
Minneapolis Police Department. That homicide is being investigated, and
that investigative data is non-public under MS13.82.

I'd love to see if the tapes shed some light in what actually happened. I
wish some judge would order the release so we can find out once and for all
if the tapes reveal anything. Governor Dayton has viewed some of the tapes
and said they reveal nothing, I'll have to take his word until I can view
them myself.

I'm really tired of people who were not there, claiming they know what
happened. Unless you were actual eye witness who was up close when Mr.
Clark was shot, you do not know what happened. I'd really like to read the
statements from the ambulance crew and police officers.

I was not there when Mr. Clark was shot, I do not know what happened. I
cannot make any judgments until I have all the facts. All I know is the
police killed another citizen, and that's one citizen too many.

I'm also really tired of politicians, those that aspire to public office,
and community activists struggling for community control, using Mr. Clark's
tragic killing as a bully pulpit promote to their personal agendas.
The focus should be on Mr. Clark, and learning the truthful facts of his
death.


 From: Bill McGaughey Date: Dec 1, 2015 4:23 p.m.

I agree with Mr. O’Brian on this. The issue really is what happened in the
scuffle between Jamar Clark and the police. If videotapes prove this, then
good. Otherwise, we have our recollection of alleged eyewitnesses telling
television reporters that Jamar Clark was handcuffed and on the ground when he
was shot and Janee Harteau, the police federation head, and the officers’
attorney (none of whom were present at the shooting) saying that Clark was
reaching for an officer’s gun.
 
I suspect that, as Gov. Dayton suggests, the videotapes will show nothing.
Then what happens? The likelihood is that the case against the two officers
will be referred to the Hennepin County Attorney, who will convene a grand jury
that will decline to indict. There will then be no real resolution of the
matter. The Hennepin County Attorney’s office is the grave yard of charges
against Minneapolis police officers if the Terrance Franklin case is any
indication.
 
Whatever case is developed against the two officers, the public has a right to
know whether Jamar Clark was killed without cause by Minneapolis police. It
would be good if a jury trial were convened to decide the cause of Clark’s
death in which witnesses could be called, but that will not happen without the
Hennepin County Attorney’s permission. The county prosecutor therefore
controls the information about the killing that the public will be allowed to
see and judge. That’s not right.
 
I watched the press conference which Mayor Hodges flanked by black community
leaders and elected officials gave to request that the protesters vacate their
encampment at the 4th precinct station. She presented the issue in terms of
racial justice and gave examples of how the city administration had served the
black community. I, on the other hand, think the issue is police brutality
and, specifically, the killing of Jamar Clark. It makes no difference whether
he was black or white. The city police should not kill people unless in
self-defense.
 
Where were the white people at the mayor’s press conference? Are not white
citizens of this community, Asians, and others also concerned with the issue of
police brutality? If not, they should be. At stake here is nothing less than
civilian control of the police and a police force that conscientiously serves
the public. We also need a police administration that does not lie to the
public or try to conceal facts.
 
Sometimes the German people are criticized for allowing Hitler brutally to
control their nation as he did. But when a brother and sister named Scholl
dropped anti-Nazi leaflets from a balcony at the University of Munich, they
were arrested and executed. We in America have it relatively easy in resisting
police or government brutality. To keep our community free and safe from
police abuse, we need to protest when something goes wrong. And that also goes
for white people in Minneapolis.
 
Wanton killings of civilians by the police that go unpunished can lead to a
police state. I see the protesters at the 4th precinct as persons who are
personally purchasing better policing for us all. To my mind, that benefit
outweighs the disadvantage of blocking Plymouth Avenue and the other
inconveniences or safety hazards cited by the mayor. It is of supreme
importance that the well-armed city police be kept under control.
 
We can rebuild public trust in the police. First, however, the city should
admit wrongdoing when it has done something wrong instead of putting out other
narratives and blocking the release of essential information. I’m sure the
average police officer in Minneapolis wants to be part of a police force that
is honest and open in its dealings with the public.
 
The other, unspoken consideration is the extent to which the police
administration is responsible for what happens on its watch. I tend not to
believe the “few rotten apples” theory when police misconduct is proven. No,
the police chief sets the tone for policing under his or her direction. That
person must be made to accept blame when unjustified police killings have taken
place. Our public officials (mayor and police chief) need to be held
accountable, not just the low-ranking officers immediately involved.

 

 From: Aaron Neumann Date: Dec 1, 2015 5:14 p.m.

I've got to say I'm really disappointed in our elected officials here on
this. It's seems pretty straight-forward to me: Want the occupation to
end? Meet the #1 demand and release the video footage. Work that out and
negotiate an end to the 4th Precinct occupation.
 
I can understand why Mayor Hodges wants the occupation to end without
releasing the footage; this is her police department after all. But for
Congressman Ellison and other elected officials to not stand with the
demonstrators and HELP them get their top issue resolved - getting the
footage released and therefore getting to the end of the occupation - is
baffling. It's looks like they'll be standing on the side of those who are
about to forcibly remove the peaceful protesters. And that's called being
on the "wrong side of history."

 

 From: Wizard Marks Date: Dec 1, 2015 5:31 p.m.

The mayor doesn't get it, nor does Jackie Cherryhomes, Kieth Ellison, Steve
Belton, the black ministers who stood with the mayor at the press conference!
Minneapolis could have--or may still--go up in flame.
 
Can you at all sympathize with the pain people are going through? This was a
hate crime by a police officer.

 

 From: Peter Tobias Date: Dec 1, 2015 8:07 p.m.

Wizard: "This was a hate crime by a police officer."
 
We have procedures in place to deal with such accusations. They are
investigated, preferably by people from outside, and, if warranted, prosecuted
in a court of law, not an online forum.

 

 From: Wizard Marks Date: Dec 1, 2015 8:49 p.m.

According to the law as given by an attorney for this situation in yet another
press conference, the way MN's hate crime law is written excludes this case
from being prosecuted in MN. It would then be the responsibility of the US
Attorney General to charge the crime, though I'm not sure there is a federal
hate crime law.
 
My point is this: the protesters are angry, there is a lot of pain out there,
and having a long protest is way better than having riots. Therefore, I'm
appalled at the Mayor's stance and appalled at those who stood with her.
 
With five cops and two EMT's at the scene, just what would you call it, Mr.
Tobias?

 

 From: Carol Overland Date: Dec 1, 2015 9:29 p.m.

There's also a Minnesota terrorism statute that would increase penalty, the one
used for charges against the RNC 8.  That seems applicable.  That's distinct
from MNs hate crime statute.  Why not used in this situation?

 

From: Carol Overland Date: Dec 1, 2015 9:29 p.m.

Error, this is about Jamar shooting, not protesters. Doubt they'd stretch the
statute that far.

 

From: Michael Thompson Date: Dec 1, 2015 9:30 p.m.

Let me get this straight:
 
Are you actually suggesting the possibility that a terrorism law be applied
toward the police officers in this case?
 
Please say that I misunderstood that.

 

From: Jordan Kushner Date: Dec 1, 2015 10:28 p.m.

The state terrorism law has been discussed in relation to the white
supremacists who shot BLM protesters. It seems clearly applicable, and
based on its initial use against the RNC 8 (but later dropped by the
prosecution because it was unsupportable), it would seem much more
fitting for these obviously violent rightwing radicals. There is a
question about whether it should be demanded because of the further
precedent for terrorism's political use in the legal system which in the
long run is more likely to be used against progressive dissidents.
 
Also cannot resist a comment on the Mayor's press conference yesterday.
I can give her credit for being able to rally more African American
supporters than Donald Trump. But beyond that, the dozen or two people
have overwhelmingly established themselves as down with the power
structure and/or have been self-proclaimed leaders who are threatened by
the new young leadership/organizers arising from Black Lives Matter who
have been so effective in bringing out large numbers of committed
supporters and forcing issues for public consideration. It was quite
ironic and revealing that Betsy Hodges had Sharon Sayles Belton and
Jackie Cherryhomes behind her (with their spouses). Hodges' political
identity in community activism was forged in opposing their policies
when they were in power. That she now relies on these political figures
reveals the reactionary political direction she has taken at this time.
Of course, the most politically significant participation was Keith
Ellison. The advantage of this development is that after spending so
many years of politically feeding off of progressive movements and
paying lip service as a congress person, in this time of crisis and
focused conflict, Keith reveals which side he is really on. some
insightful commentary on MPR -

http://blogs.mprnews.org?/newscut?/2015?/12?/ellison?-loses?-grip?-influence?-on?-police?-shooting?-protest?/
 
Finally the arguments against the occupation were substantively
ridiculous. Other list members have pointed out the obvious that the
government has NOT met the key demands and offered NO substantive
commitments to address the problems.. As to the noise and the fires,
civil disobedience is necessarily and to some extent intentionally
inconvenient. I don't see how this small selection of "leaders"
establishes the effected community is against forcing the government to
deal with issues of police abuse and other brutal manifestations of
racism. And then there is the most absurd canard that the violent
attack by white supremacists/domestic terrorists makes the protest
unsafe. Can Keith more clearly blame the victims? What if the civil
rights movement stopped protesting everytime they were attacked by white
supremacists/domestic terrorists?! obviously they would not have
accomplished their objectives, and the white supremacists would have
won. Frankly Keith knows this. Non-violently fighting for justice is
undoubtedly dangerous. I would not tell anyone they have an obligation
to subject themselves to such danger. But if they choose to do so, they
deserve nothing but support.

 

From: Dennis Hill Date: Dec 2, 2015 1:01 a.m.

If Rep. Keith Ellison and Mayor Hodges are considered "sellouts" by the
protesters I think that is a sign that the negotiations to end the occupation
of the 4th Precinct Police Station have reached an impasse.
 
When Nekima Levy-Pounds states publicly using a bullhorn to protesters that
"Everybody that stood with Mayor Hodges is not part of the solution, they're
part of the problem." I would call that negotiating in bad faith.
 
At this point I think Mayor Hodges has a duty to enforce the law without fear
or favor in Minneapolis. The rule of law should be respected. Protesters should
be confined to the sidewalks as long as they remain peaceful and Plymouth Ave
should be cleared of campfires and debris and opened to traffic.

 

From: Doug Mann Date: Dec 2, 2015 5:33 a.m.
 

Casey O'Brian writes,
 
"What arrest data?
 
"Mr. Clark was never arrested, never booked into jail, or charged with a
crime. Therefore, there is no arrest data. There is no arrest data to be
made public.
 
"Mr. Clark was the victim of a homicidal death at the hands of the
Minneapolis Police Department. That homicide is being investigated, and
that investigative data is non-public under MS13.82."
 
Bill McGaughey writes,
 
"I agree with Mr. O’Brian on this. The issue really is what happened in the
scuffle between Jamar Clark and the police. . . ?"
 
Doug Mann: Arrest data is always public data, but there was no arrest?
 
Where did you guys get your law degrees? The Attorney General or whatever law
firm is retained by the BCA will have to come up with something better than
that.
 
Police arrived at the scene in response to a reported assault (and battery) and
efforts by the suspected assailant to obstruct ambulance personnel who were
trying to assist the victim. Police on the scene did in fact use force to
restrain the suspect, Jamar Clark. That is an "arrest" as defined in Minn
statutes, section 629.30. One of the cops shot Clark in the head during the
arrest, after an alleged scuffle (a short, confused fight at close quarters)
during which Clark allegedly tried to disarm one of the cops (yet another crime
that Clark could have been charge with). The cops argue that this was a
justified killing in self-defense. Because the alleged "scuffle" and actual
shooting happened during an arrest as defined in Minn. Statutes 629.30,
evidence which could shed light on these events is "arrest data" as described
in Minn Statutes section 13.82.
 
An arrest can be made before any charges are filed, and without an arrest
warrant, if police have probable cause to believe that a crime was committed,
and the suspect is on hand when they arrive at the scene. A suspect may be
arrested and incarcerated (booked into jail) before any criminal charges are
filed.
 
Minnesota Statutes
629.30 ARRESTS; BY WHOM MADE; AIDING OFFICER.
Subdivision 1.Definition.
 
Arrest means taking a person into custody that the person may be held to answer
for a public offense. "Arrest" includes actually restraining a person or taking
into custody a person who submits.
Subd. 2.Who may arrest.
 
An arrest may be made:
 
(1) by a peace officer under a warrant;
 
(2) by a peace officer without a warrant
. . . ."
 

From: Jim Bernstein Date: Dec 2, 2015 6:04 a.m.

Ironic I think that for much of the past 70 years, African Americans in our
community have been asking to be part of the "power structure" that Mr. Kushner
references.
 
Now they are accused of being part of that "power structure" because they
believe that ending the protest at the Fourth Precinct is the right and
responsible thing to do on behalf of the larger North Minneapolis community.
 
Black Lives Matter is certainly one voice from the African American community
but it is not the only one.

 

From: Tim Bonham Date: Dec 2, 2015 10:24 a.m.
 

Casey O'Brian said: "Mr. Clark was never arrested".
 
I don't believe this is correct.
 
I understand that Mr. Clark has a criminal record, with multiple previous
arrests.

This isn't his first incident of woman beating.

 

From: Joan Vanhala Date: Dec 2, 2015 6:13 p.m.

What I don't understand is why did the Mayor call a press conference at city
hall after organizing substantial support from North Minneapolis leaders to
send a message to the Black Lives Matter encampment at the 4th Precinct?
 
They all should have gone over to the encampment and took as much time as
needed to sit around the fire and talk it out with BLM. That would have been
the respectful approach. Instead they chose to grandstand in front of press at
city hall making it look as if the leadership standing behind the Mayor did not
support the efforts of BLM and were patronizingly chastising their immense
effort.
 
I think it is overdue for city hall and the North Minneapolis leaders to give
appreciations to BLM for taking on the structural entrenched racism in our city
that has led to poverty, violence, and death.
 
I want to say thank you Black Live Matter for standing up to the evil of racism
in our city and reclaiming our humanity and our conscience!
 

From: Bill Kahn Date: Dec 2, 2015 6:35 p.m.

It is theater, plain and simple, from both sides, and there is no desire to
share the same marquee.
 
The Mayor needs to cement her One Minneapolis bone fides in the face of Black
Lives Matters endless protests to do the same.
 
Trouble is, no one has any bone fides at this point in an endless campaign of
BS.
 
We’re just working towards the point where Mayor Hodges feels ready to clear
the 4th Precinct and surrounding area or BLM clears out on their own as she
would prefer, and the former will provide the headlines for which BLM is
looking.

 

From: Emilie Quast Date: Dec 2, 2015 6:37 p.m.

Naming my biggest worry, Bill wrote: We’re just working towards the point
where Mayor Hodges feels ready to clear the 4th Precinct....
 
Please. NO!
 

From: Wizard Marks Date: Dec 2, 2015 8:10 p.m.

C'mon, Joan, you know darn well that the mayor does not respect BLM, nor black
lives. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that she doesn't even hear the pain,
suffering, disgust, etc. that many, many Minneapolitans (including many
"whites") are feeling about the daily effects of inculcated racism in the
bureaucracy of this city and, indeed, all of MN.
 
And Bill, it isn't just theater. What BLM is doing in the wake of yet another
totally unnecessary death, is just the tip of the iceberg. There are thousands
and more people who are bone tired of being ground down or seeing neighbors
ground down. And, yes, without BLM doing this prolongated sit in stuff, there
would have been riots and lootings and shootings and perhaps more deaths and
injuries.
 
The mayor's press conference at city hall just puts another reason to be
thoroughly honked off. Trouble is, as the mayor pulls other stunts like
that--and pushing BLM out before we all get to see those tapes--could make the
pot boil over. They've had two weeks to "investigate" what's on the tapes and,
the MPD has very sophisticated machinery to pinpoint what, in any photo or
video, is at issue.
 
I don't believe one scintilla of Hodges or any of her supposed allies. It's a
disgrace.

 

From: Bill McGaughey Date: Dec 2, 2015 9:45 p.m.

There has been discussion of moving the protest demonstration from the 4th
precinct to a safer location. In her so-called “message from the community to
end the occupation” of November 30th, Mayor Hodges cited safety hazards from
blocking Plymouth avenue and burning fires in large containers in the middle of
the street. She also claimed that many or most of the demonstrator’s demands
had already been met. In particular -
 
? "An independent, state, criminal investigation was launched within hours.

? An independent, federal, civil-rights investigation was launched within two
days, at Mayor Betsy Hodges’ request. The Assistant U.S. Attorney General
personally assured protest leaders that this investigation will be fair and
thorough.

? The names and service records of the officers involved in the shooting were
released within days.

? Protesters asked for and received support for free, culturally-appropriate
grief counseling for Mr. Clark’s family and themselves.

? Governor Mark Dayton reiterated his call for a special session of the
Minnesota Legislature to address racial disparities in North Minneapolis and
elsewhere in Minnesota.

? Governor Dayton called on federal officials to investigate any matters that
occurred in Minneapolis during the first week of the protest that may have
violate the civil rights of any Minnesota citizens."
 
Wouldn’t some of these things been done in any event? For example, wouldn’t
the names of the officers have been released or the investigation been referred
to federal and state authorities? It seems to me, however, that the critical
needs relating to the protest have not been met. In my opinion, the issue is
not racial disparities or racism in north Minneapolis but the fact that
Minneapolis police officers shot and killed an innocent man.
 
Was Jamar Clark, indeed, innocent? That’s what the protesters and everyone
else want to know. The protesters’ chief demand, which has not been met, is to
release the tapes so that we do know with certainty what happened to Jamar
Clark. The truth will not necessarily come out of police agencies (at any
level) but from tapes that do not lie. It could have come from police body
cameras but the MPD does not seem to have policies in place to ensure that the
cameras will be turned on when police become aggressive.
 
What should be done? Governor Dayton wants to convene a special session of the
legislature to address racial disparities in north Minneapolis. He is ready to
throw $15 million at this problem. Probably some of the people who flanked
Mayor Hodges or signed her petition will get some of this money But money or
poverty are not what caused Jamar Clark to be shot. It was bad policing. It
was Minneapolis police who crossed a moral line and killed someone.
 
If the governor’s special session is convened, I would suggest that Minnesota
statute 13.82, subdivision 7 which calls for certain information to be kept
confidential pending a police investigation be amended to give the public
timely access to investigations that involve possible misconduct by police.
The public deserves to know whether the police have murdered someone if only to
judge the performance of the city police and its top administrators. Perhaps
the law could be amended to require that police investigations of possible
police misconduct be completed within two weeks and all pertinent information
about the case be released after that date. As it is, the police are using
Minnesota statute 13.82, subdivision 7 to keep the public in the dark as long
as possible. Then the Hennepin County Attorney makes the “darkness” permanent.
 
Something else that needs to be done is to replace the top leadership of the
Minneapolis department. It was chief Harteau who set the tone for the
department that may have led to Jamar Clark’s death. She has shown no
willingness to tackle the problem of police violence or change policies and
procedures. It’s obvious to me that nothing will be done unless the MPD
receives new leadership which is specifically tasked with reducing police
violence.
 
This will be hard to achieve. For many, Janee Harteau is a sympathetic figure.
She has certainly worked hard to gain favorable publicity for herself in
high-fiving children at picnics or personally walking on side walks in
crime-ridden neighborhoods in front of television cameras. But when things go
wrong, she shifts into denial mode. We need a police chief who owns up to
mistakes made under her leadership and institutes new policies to address those
mistakes. We do not need a chief who plays racial or gender politics. Since
Harteau is up for reappointment early next year, now would be the time to look
hard at her job performance.
 
In summary, Mayor Hodges’ purported concessions do not go far enough to address
the central issue of the protest demonstrations. It’s police violence, stupid!
It’s also about turning on the police body cameras. Unless the city’s leaders
speak the truth to city residents and, if appropriate, admit wrongdoing in
regard to Jamar Clark’s death and do something to minimize such events in the
future, the political leadership in Minneapolis deserves to continue to be
embarrassed by the encampment at the 4th precinct police station.

 

From: Casey O'Brian Date: Dec 2, 2015 10:07 p.m.

Tim Bonham writes:

I don't believe this is correct.

I understand that Mr. Clark has a criminal record, with multiple previous
arrests.

This isn't his first incident of woman beating.

REPLY: Absolutely correct. He has a criminal history and any arrest data
would be public.

I was referring to Mr. Mann's claim that there is arrest data on Jamar
Clark from the shooting.

 
Doug Mann: Arrest data is always public data, but there was no arrest?

REPLY: Correct, Jamar Clark was never arrested. The police attempted to
remove him from the ambulance and in the process shot him dead.

Mr. Clark was never arrested or detained. He was killed. And even if he was
not killed, there is a difference between detention and arrest. A person
can be detained without being arrested, and there may not be any data on
the detention.

 
Doug Mann: Where did you guys get your law degrees?

Reply: The same school you did. But I know enough about the law to know
that you don't just look at statues, you need to look at case law. The
Hennepin County Law library is a great resource, and branch libraries have
access to case law. And MN Appellate Court decisions are online. I also
have a couple of subscriptions to case law.

 
Doug Mann: An arrest can be made before any charges are filed, and without
an arrest warrant, if police have probable cause to believe that a crime
was committed, and the suspect is on hand when they arrive at the scene. A
suspect may be arrested and incarcerated (booked into jail) before any
criminal charges are filed.

REPLY: Correct. But the arresting officer must tell you that you are under
arrest and being taken into custody (you are not free to leave) and what
you are being arrested for, and read you the Miranda Warning.

 
Doug Mann: Police arrived at the scene in response to a reported assault
(and battery) and efforts by the suspected assailant to obstruct ambulance
personnel who were trying to assist the victim. Police on the scene did in
fact use force to restrain the suspect, Jamar Clark. That is an "arrest" as
defined in Minn statutes, section 629.30.

REPLY: Not necessarily, look at case law. A person can be detained, even
taken into custody (restrained [handcuffed]) without it being an arrest.
When the police stop you for a traffic violation and take your drivers
license back to the squad car to run it, you are being detained for the
purposed of the 4th amendment because you are not free to leave. But you
have not at that time been arrested.

If you match the description of a bank robber, the police can detain you
(take you into custody for the purpose of investigation), handcuff you,
place you in the back of a squad car as a suspect and you still are not
arrested until they formally state that they are arresting you and state
the charge or probable cause for the arrest. And when they apologize
for detaining you by mistake, there will not be any arrest data because
there was never an arrest.
 
629.30 ARRESTS; BY WHOM MADE; AIDING OFFICER.
Subdivision 1.Definition. {emphasis added}
 
Arrest means taking a person into custody* that the person may be held to
answer for a public offense*.
 
A person is not under arrest, until an "officer" takes the person into
custody * that the person may be held to answer for a public offense*.
 
A detention, or being taken into temporary custody is not necessarily an
arrest, and may not generate arrest data.
 
I submit that Jamar Clark was not under arrest at the time he was removed
from the ambulance and killed by the police. He was in the process of being
removed from the ambulance at which time he may have been detained, and
eventually arrested for domestic assault, had he not been killed.
Based on the facts that I know from reading and watching all the published
reports in the media. I see no facts that clearly state that Jamar Clark
was in the process of being arrested when the police seized and killed him.
Therefore, there is no arrest data available. All other data is non-public
investigation data.
 
If you want to see Jamar Clark's arrest data go to the city hall and ask
for a copy. If it exists, it must be released as it is public data. Maybe
there is arrest data, has anyone actually asked for it? 
 
Let me state very clearly that I am not an agent of the police. I have no
official connections to the police. The OPINIONS I state or my own and do
not represent any group of organization.
 
And again I state that I find it very disturbing that people that were not
an up close and personal witness to events make false statements, spread
false rumors, and make unproven accusations.
Unless you have factual evidence you can share, please state your opinion
as such.
 
My *OPINION* is that the cops involved in the shooting may have been
coached by union president Lt.Bob Kroll, but I cannot prove it. The "he had
his hand on my gun" defense just seems to crop up too frequently. I see no
facts or evidence that the shooting of Jamar Clark was a "hate crime".

 

From: Dave Bicking Date: Dec 2, 2015 11:23 p.m.

These are interesting arguments as to what constitutes an arrest for the
purpose of determining whether information is public under Section 13.82, Subdivision 2 of
the MN Data Practices Act. However, this argument is irrelevant - the data is public
whether or not an actual arrest was made. The text of that subdivision says:
 
"The following data created or collected by law enforcement agencies which
document any actions taken by them to cite, arrest, incarcerate or otherwise substantially
deprive an adult individual of liberty shall be public at all times in the originating agency:"
 
It goes on to list the types of data which are always public (regardless of any
ongoing investigation). The key term here is, "otherwise substantially deprive an
adult individual of liberty". We don't have to delve deep into case law to recognize that there is
no doubt that Jamar Clark was deprived of liberty when he was killed by a bullet to the head.
So section 13.82, subd. 2 applies.
 
Note also that the text ends with "in the originating agency" meaning, of
course, Minneapolis. The city can't say that we have to ask the BCA for this information.
 
Rather than filing a Writ of Mandamus - difficult, rare, and expensive - the
first step is to file a Data Practice request with the city. CUAPB (Communities United Against Police
Brutality) has already done that. This morning we received the public portions of the
incident report, containing virtually none of the data that is supposed to be public. We are
submitting some questions informally, but we will almost certainly have to take the next step,
which is filing an administrative appeal with the City of Minneapolis. If that does not obtain
the data, the next step in a case like this is to obtain an opinion from the MN Information Policy
Analysis Division (IPAD), if there is not already a relevant opinion on the matter. The next step in a
case like this is to file an actual lawsuit in District Court.
 
CUAPB has taken all these steps on a number of occasions; we know how to do it,
we have access to lawyers experienced in this area, and we have won several such lawsuits, including
against Minneapolis.
 
The data made public by Section 13.82 is very limited, but it is substantially more than we
have so far. We would still urge the Police Chief to use her discretion under subdivision 15
to make further information public, for the public benefit.
 
Link to Section 13.82: https://www.revisor.mn.gov?/statutes?/??id?=13?.82
 
We will make public the data we obtain. If anyone would like to see the data
as we obtain it, or would like to assist us in this work or the many other behind-the-scenes
steps we are taking to further Justice 4 Jamar, please email me off-list.
 

 

From: Heather Fraser Date: Dec 2, 2015 11:25 p.m.

Maybe a replacement goal/demand: leave the precinct when the police body
cameras turn on? Or in exchange for a commitment to turn the body cameras on by
January 1?

Might make for a nice fresh start to the year.
 

From: Doug Mann Date: Dec 3, 2015 4:35 a.m.


Thank you for your comment, Dave Bicking. "Arrest data" described in minn
statute section 13.82, subd 2: "The following data created or collected by law
enforcement agencies which document any actions taken by them to cite, arrest,
incarcerate or otherwise substantially deprive an adult individual of liberty
shall be public at all times in the originating agency:"
 
City officials may be correct in telling you to ask the BCA for the data,
because the BCA immediately took over the investigation. The MPD is the target
of the investigation, and not the agency conducting it, e.g., collecting and
creating the evidence. It will be the BCA who files, or doesn't file charges
against police with the County Attorney.
 
Minn statute section 13.82, subd. 14 provides a legal remedy when law
enforcement withholds public data: Anyone can ask the law enforcement agency to
give reasons for withholding the data, and the agency shall provide a written
statement setting forth the reasons for withholding the data. Anyone can
petition the district court that has jurisdiction over the law enforcement
agency in question to order the release of public data.
 
A petition for a writ of mandamus won't fly because there is a legal remedy for
law enforcement improperly withholding public data, which is described in Minn
statute section 13.82, subd. 14. One of the requirements for a writ mandamus,
an extraordinary writ, is that there is no other available legal remedy. One
downside of extraordinary writs is that they can be dismissed at first glance.
The judge doesn't have to schedule a hearing if he believes your petition has
no merit. The ordinary remedy that is available is less stringent than a writ
of mandamus in its requirement of showing a clear violation of the law, or
failure to comply with it. The petition for an order to release public data
pursuant to Minn Statutes, section 13.82, subd 14 requires that you show that
the law enforcement agency is abusing its discretion to withhold public data,
or merely that benefits to the public of releasing the data outweigh benefits
to the law enforcement agency in conducting an investigation (the public
benefit provision in subd. 15.

 

From: Wizard Marks Date: Dec 3, 2015 3:48 p.m.

WCCO News: "Police moved in with a show of force at the Fourth Precinct." Says
it all. Force and king of the mountain trumps people in pain at a peaceful
demonstration of their right to speak truth to power. Why are we not surprised?

 

From: Matt Perry Date: Dec 3, 2015 4:02 p.m.

The Star Tribune is reporting:
 
"Minneapolis police early Thursday met little resistance as they broke up a
Black Lives Matter encampment that protesters set up more than two weeks ago
outside the Fourth Precinct police station in north Minneapolis.
 
Police issued dispersal orders around 4 a.m. and gave the 50 or so
demonstrators protesting the fatal shooting of 24-year-old Jamar Clark 10 to 15
minutes to leave the site outside the station in 1900 block of Plymouth Avenue,
a few blocks west of where Clark, who was unarmed, was shot by police on Nov.
15.
 
Police said eight activists were arrested, seven for obstructing the legal
process and one for trespassing. The Twitter account for the Minneapolis
chapter of Black Lives Matter said those arrested during the 'military-style'
raid have since been released from custody."
 
Full story at the link:
http://www.startribune.com?/minneapolis?-police?-clear?-out?-4th?-precinct?-protesters?/360417651?/?#1

 

From: Fred Markus Date: Dec 3, 2015 5:00 p.m.

I remember seeing Mayor Hodges stepping briefly from a police squad car to wave
at the crowd along the May Day parade route this past May. Did she fear that
the highly decorated children would attack her if she mingled with the rest of
us mere citizens?
 
I also recall the episode where a goodly crowd was assembled at Sabathani at
the request of one or more city council members and the Mayor refused to let
the Chief of Police make an appearance - for fear of physical risk to the
Chief, or perhaps for fear of embarassment?
 
It gives new meaning to the notion of "weak mayor". Timid, perhaps. Forced to
operate beyond her pay grade, perhaps. Certainly lacking in the personal
fortitude one would wish in our City's chief executive officer's public
persona.
 
Nor does Congressman Ellison do justice to his high office IMHO. Gladhanding
for votes comes naturally to him, but heavy political lifting, not so much.
Governing from a safe distance with bulldozers and a tainted police presence
doesn't de-escalate tensions.
 
We already know this.

 

From: Bill Kahn Date: Dec 3, 2015 5:09 p.m.

Doing it when they did avoids the headlines BLM wants as the print edition of
the paper was well on its way; BLM has to start the next act quickly or this
show ends and they'll have to produce another for the same exposure.
 
Show business is tough; just ask Her Honor, who now has a similar problem to
BLM's: she has to come through with her own crazy 13 director, cast of hundreds
of thousands show, One Minneapolis. Lots of luck.
 
Hopefully MPD won't make BLM folks main characters again in a show within a
show where you can't tell which is which.
 
I can't help wondering how this might have turned out without a mayor; I
suspect the Council would be forced to deal with these matters effectively.

 

From: Jim McGuire Date: Dec 3, 2015 5:52 p.m.

You say that as if BLM believes people get their primary news from the morning
paper. How quaint.
 
They did it early in the morning because that's the hardest time to rally
supporters to the encampment.

 

From: Wizard Marks Date: Dec 3, 2015 9:43 p.m.

The city is doing their CYA dance in the vain hope that they won't be sued.
Hodges has for years been able to talk the talk, but never once demonstrated
that she can walk the walk. In fact, it's clear that she has no idea at all how
racist she has demonstrated herself to be. This is a person who never, ever
should be elected to public office. Fourteen or fifteen days of peaceful
demonstration by a group of young people of every color and persuasion. That
says something very complimentary about the youth who participated. Considering
they are still young enough to believe they are not mortal, they have behaved
in a very adult way. Wish the same could be said for the mayor, the city
council, and their press conference hangers on.

 

From: Laura Waterman Wittstock Date: Dec 4, 2015 5:57 p.m.

On Dec 3, 2015, at 3:44 PM, Wizard Marks wrote:

Fourteen or fifteen days of peaceful demonstration by a group of young people
of every color and persuasion. That says something very complimentary about the
youth who participated. Considering they are still young enough to believe they
are not mortal, they have behaved in a very adult way. Wish the same could be
said for the mayor, the city council, and their press conference hangers on.
 
An odd juxtaposition is happening between the pledge drive of KTCA public
television and the forced closure of the BLM encampment in Mpls. KTCA has been
airing the usual looks back at the 1960s and 1970s and the popular music stars
of those decades. The songs contain strong messages of ending war, no future
wars, love of fellow humankind and most pointedly, unity.
 
Meanwhile, the City of Minneapolis signaled its distaste for calls for unity
that happen in its streets. Offering no alternatives for the demonstrators, the
City followed on the NYC tactic (Wall Street) of arriving at 4 am to break up
the crowd of peacefully camping BLM members.
 
There also seems to be a generation gap in who gets to speak legitimately for
the African American community. The scolding elders told the younger ones to go
home, as if their voices carried more weight than the younger ones. The elders
got more ink in the newspaper, too.
 
We will learn eventually that listening to the words of the young are not
wasted time. Throughout history the young have been among the first to
understand social disaster and have leaped forward to send out the call that
change is needed — often abrupt change — because something has gone dreadfully
wrong in society.
 
The elders that are scolding need to remember that they started out as young
voices in the 1960s. Their deafness is remarkable and hypocritical.

 

From: David Tilsen Date: Dec 4, 2015 6:20 p.m.

Nice post. Thanks

 

From: Bill McGaughey Date: Dec 5, 2015 11:24 p.m.

A couple of things in the official explanation of events surrounding the
occupation of the 4th precinct station don’t add up and I have not seen them
discussed.
 
First there is the claim by the police chief that the two-week occupation cost
$750,000 in overtime pay. What‘s she talking about? What were the officers
doing when they worked overtime? Were the officers peeking out the window at
the scene on Plymouth Avenue? Were they playing cards in the back room? And
is the Minneapolis police department so resource-rich? (Maybe it will be. The
city tax assessor just jacked up my property tax by 24 percent from last year.)
 
Second is the matter about the four white men who engaged the protesters and
later shot them. The question is the relationship between these men and the
police. It seems to me that the men wanted to be caught. The shooter
supposedly told an old friend from high school - a police officer in Mankato -
that he had just shot some people. That officer would then be duty-bound to
inform the Minneapolis police.
 
If the shooter had directly told a Minneapolis police officer that he had shot
some people in Minneapolis, it would look funny. The Mankato high-school
connection offers a better story. And then after the shooter confessed, some
others turned themselves in.
 
An NAACP spokesperson thinks that the police were behind the shootings. Police
officers were observed wearing the same kind of mask. And, of course, the
shooters previously posted themselves on YouTube doing a racist rant.
 
Frankly, it all seems to me to be a fabricated diversion from the main issue,
which is the shooting of Jamar Clark. But the public seems to have bought the
story. We get the kind of policing we deserve.

 

From: Janet Nye Date: Dec 6, 2015 7:07 a.m.

About the Miranda Warning reference:
 
The Miranda Warning is only required to be read to a person before that person
is to be formally interrogated. An officer has the discretion to read it to a
person if the officer believes that the "suspect" is making self-incriminating
statements that could damage his/her case in court but is NOT REQUIRED to do
so. Old TV cop shows are probably responsible for the widespread
misinformation about the Miranda Warning.
 
The best thing a person can do upon being detained is to ask, for
clarification, "Am I being detained or am I free to go?" Upon being detained,
the person should say "I have the right to remain silent. I want to speak to an
attorney." No matter how innocent a person may believe himself, it is dangerous
to talk to the police.
 
It is best to know how to use our rights directly rather than expecting law
enforcement officers to protect our rights. This is important information to
protect our privacy and our future in the courtroom should we end up there. If
I am wrong about the Miranda Warning, please someone correct me.


 


 

Minneapolis police break up the encampment

Star Tribune Dec. 3, 2015 1130 a.m.

Minneapolis police early Thursday met little resistance as they broke up a Black Lives Matter encampment that protesters set up more than two weeks ago outside the Fourth Precinct police station in north Minneapolis.

Police issued dispersal orders around 4 a.m. and gave the 50 or so demonstrators protesting the fatal shooting of 24-year-old Jamar Clark 10 to 15 minutes to leave the site outside the station in 1900 block of Plymouth Avenue, a few blocks west of where Clark, who was unarmed, was shot by police on Nov. 15.

Police said eight activists were arrested, seven for obstructing the legal process and one for trespassing. The Twitter account for the Minneapolis chapter of Black Lives Matter said those arrested during the "military-style" raid have since been released from custody.

In the predawn hours of the 19th day of the protest, at least two city dump trucks carried away tents, blankets, food and supplies used to make fires that protesters have used to block Plymouth Avenue.
Video from the alternative news outlet Unicorn Riot showed officers, some wearing helmets with shields and others in stocking caps amid 20-degree weather, mingling among the activists and distributing fliers announcing their intentions.

A bullhorn alert heard on the video soon sounded: "This is an unlawful assembly. You need to exit this area. … You are subject to arrest if you refuse to leave."

With that, officers approached the protesters and herded them off the street, saying, "Got to go, please. … Got to start walking. … Everybody go home," the video continued.

While in retreat to the sidewalk, some of the activists yelled obscenities at the officers and chanted, "Indict, convict, send those killer dogs to jail; the whole damn system is guilty as hell" and "Whose streets? Our streets."

Other than verbal objections, the activists for the most part did not physically resist police orders.

Within an hour of daybreak, traffic started moving again on Plymouth Avenue as city personnel continued to erect a concrete barricade around the police station that was topped by metal fencing.

Mayor Betsy Hodges and Police Chief Janeé Harteau explained the city's decision to clear out the encampment, which had become the subject of intense debate over its disruption to the neighborhood and the scene of a shooting that left five activists wounded in a clash with several adversaries.

"It was time," Hodges said during a news conference. The continued safety risks posed by the encampment "made this morning the time do [this]."

Hodges said the dispersal had a "positive and peaceful outcome," and she thanked the protesters for not resisting.

Harteau said there were no injuries during the police action, and she went on to praise her officers' poise and professionalism, not only at the encampment site but at various protest events since Clark's death.

Looking ahead, the police chief said, "We will continue to support and facilitate [protesters'] First Amendment rights and freedom of speech" while at the same time ensuring public safety.

Black Lives Matter Minneapolis on its Facebook page announced a Fourth Precinct Shutdown Eviction Rally for 4 p.m. Thursday at City Hall, the next phase in the activists' ongoing actions in response to Clark's death. Some protesters have said that Clark, an unarmed black man, was handcuffed before being shot by a white officer during a scuffle. Police have said he was not cuffed.

"We will converge on City Hall in response to our Mayor and City Council's continued brutality against peaceful protesters who have endured a white supremacist terrorist attack, police violence, and freezing temperatures to demand justice for Jamar Clark," the group said in its announcement. "We reiterate our demands: Release the tapes, appoint a special prosecutor with no grand jury for Jamar Clark's case, and institute a safety plan to protect Minneapolis resident's (sic) from continued police violence.

"We will not be intimidated or silenced. We have nothing to lose but our chains. We ready, we comin'."

The eviction notice police presented to protesters said the department remains steadfast to its commitment to help facilitate demonstrations outside the Fourth Precinct. "It is a city building within city grounds and people have the right to peacefully demonstrate or protest," the notice said.

But it said that neither structures nor fires will be allowed on city property and that access to the police station must remain open.

"You will have 10 minutes to collect your property and leave the area," the eviction notice read. "City workers will be along to help people remove their structures and property from the grass area in front of the Precinct."

On Wednesday, neighborhood frustrations with the protest site spilled into an impromptu City Hall hearing and police separately said the protests likely played a role in slower recent response times.

A handful of neighbors upset about noise, vandalism and blocked streets vented concerns to the City Council's public safety committee Wednesday, the first time the council has invited the public to formally weigh in on protests over the shooting of Clark on the street by a white police officer. Several supporters of the protesters interrupted a City Council meeting last month to speak on the topic, but were escorted out.
Data released by police Wednesday showed that response times for top priority calls — typically a serious crime still in progress — rose both citywide and in the Fourth Precinct in late November.

Between April and September, the time between dispatch and police arrival for those calls averaged 5 minutes, 26 seconds citywide. In the last two weeks of November, it was 6 minutes, 5 seconds. Isolating the Fourth Precinct, the difference was 5 minutes, 23 seconds vs. 6 minutes, 17 seconds.

Harteau and Hodges have previously raised concerns about protesters throwing rocks and threatening police at the precinct.

 

BLM encampment on Plymouth Avenue forcibly uprooted

 

From: Bill McGaughey Date: Dec 3, 2015 6:17 p.m.

The Minneapolis police in a pre-dawn raid removed the Black Lives Matter
protest encampment in front of the 4th precinct police station on Plymouth
Avenue.
 
What can I say? It was not unexpected. But the encampment was one of the most
daring and effective acts of resistance to police abuse in recent years. It
will not be forgotten.
 
The fact is that city officials forcibly brought an end to this phase of the
protest without making significant concessions to the protesters. We do not
know, and perhaps will never know for sure whether Jamar Clark was executed by
Minneapolis police officers. All this talk about slower response times for
emergency vehicles, etc. pales in importance before the question of whether
Minneapolis residents can trust their police force to act with reasonable
restraint and can expect police officials to tell the truth when bad things
happen.
 
I hope the protest continues. Evidently a rally will be held at Minneapolis
City Hall at 4 p.m. today.

 

From: Emilie Quast Date: Dec 3, 2015 6:41 p.m.

WE. DID. NOT. HAVE. A. RIOT. IN. MINNEAPOLIS!
 
Luck, merit, skill, training, patience, respect, . . .
 
Whatever made it happen, we did not have a riot in Minneapolis!

 

From: Peter Tobias Date: Dec 3, 2015 9:22 p.m.

That development was somehow expected. When Occupy camped out on the people's
plaza (or government plaza) in Minneapolis, they got a warning in early winter,
too, to clear the place. Then, one morning around 4am, the county police
appeared and cleared everything.
 
What is upsetting me is the behavior of the city council the day before, of the
committee of public safety They had long been asked to hold a hearing with
input by the public on the events around the 4th precinct. Yesterday, council
member Palmisano unexpectedly asked to open the floor to public comments, which
surprised most, but not the president of the fraternal police organization who
was forewarned and allowed to speak his view while the many people supporting
BLM had no chance to do so - instead the BLM camp was cleared. It is important
to give BLM a voice where it matters. Yesterday, the opposite happened.

 

From: Bill McGaughey Date: Dec 3, 2015 10:56 p.m.

What a difference a day makes! I thought something was up when I saw the KSTP
helicopter fly over the protest area when I was walking the dog this morning.
 
Around 11 a.m. the scene was quiet and deserted. The 4th precinct station was
completely surrounded by concrete barriers. The front door was blocked. The
only way to get in seemed to be through a gate to the back parking lot which
was guarded by a squad car. Traffic was proceeding normally along Plymouth
Avenue.

 

From: Dennis Hill Date: Dec 3, 2015 12:34 a.m.

Good to see that Minneapolis city officials were able to bring an end to the
occupation of the 4th Precinct Police Station without anyone getting injured.
Let the demonstrations continue for as long as people feel they are needed.

 

From: Dave Garland Date: Dec 4, 2015 6:24 a.m.

On 12/3/2015 4:56 PM, Bill McGaughey wrote:

What a difference a day makes! I thought something was up when I
saw the KSTP helicopter fly over the protest area when I was
walking the dog this morning.

Around 11 a.m. the scene was quiet and deserted. The 4th precinct
station was completely surrounded by concrete barriers. The front
door was blocked. The only way to get in seemed to be through a
gate to the back parking lot which was guarded by a squad car.
 
As appropriate for an army of occupation.

 

 

Tape of Jamar Clark with police is released

 

From: Bill McGaughey Date: Dec 8, 2015 4:58 p.m.

No, it’s not the tape or tapes that people have been wanting to see but the
tape of Clark being chased by Minneapolis police through the streets of north
Minneapolis and then arrested two or three months before his death. This tape
was the lead story on WCCO-TV yesterday in the 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. news. I did
not see it on other stations.
 
It’s possible to draw the conclusion from watching this tape is that Jamar
Clark was a troublemaker. He was endangering innocent bystanders with his
high-speed chase. He also wanted to sue the Minneapolis police for excessive
force.
 
I am wondering what was the purpose of showing the tape at this time. Clark is
dead. Even if he had a bad record and reputation, he did not deserve to die as
he did.
 
Did the tape show up as a result of a WCCO investigation? Or did the
Minneapolis police department shop it around to the TV stations and, if so,
why?
 
After Terrance Franklin was shot and killed by police in May 2013, police chief
Harteau made a point of explaining to the public that he had a criminal record.
By implication, we should not care so much if he was killed. It seems to me
quite possible that she is doing the same thing belatedly in the case of Jamar
Clark. He was a “bad guy” who got what he deserved. Of course, I do not know
the police motive in releasing this latest tape but I have my suspicions. It’s
another shot in the PR game.

 

From: Jim McGuire Date: Dec 8, 2015 5:09 p.m.
 

I suspect that it was shopped around by the police, but it's hard to say
for certain. If true, however, I'm surprised the WCCO bit before KSTP.
Perhaps Jay Kolls was on vacation? Jay could've made it another one of his
brilliant deeply investigative reports. There may even be photos somewhere
of Mr. Clark pointing.
 
Ultimately, the fact that WCCO reported this as "news" is suspect at best.
It's sad how low the media stoops these days. Especially considering the
bar wasn't very high to begin with.

 

From: Dave Garland Date: Dec 9, 2015 6:30 a.m.

On 12/8/2015 10:41 PM, Casey O'Brian wrote:
Wouldn't it be great if people gathered all the facts before speculating
what happened?
False reports and rumors can be dangerous.
 
Which is a good argument for the authorities releasing ALL videos
immediately, since only massive incompetence (or worse) on their part
could explain not having all the eyewitness testimony more than a
couple of days after the event.
 
True reports and rumors can be dangerous as well, but dangerous to a
different set of people.
 
What Jamar Clark may or may not have been involved in at some prior
time is irrelevant to this event. Frankly, to me the only issue is
that he shot by police while in custody, and can they prove that he
was in fact trying to grab a weapon (that's a standard excuse, along
with "I was in fear of my life", so just saying it shouldn't get any
credibility beyond the point where it work as an explanation for you
or me, and maybe not as far, since these are personnel trained in the
skills of subduing others).
entry-content

From: Ed Felien Date: Dec 9, 2015 6:38 a.m.

You're exactly right, Casey: "False reports and rumors can be dangerous."
 
That's why the City must Release the Tapes of the shooting of Jamar Clark. As
I say in an article published in this week's Southside Pride:
 
The Mayor has said she cannot order the tapes released because there is an
ongoing investigation and the Data Privacy Act rules that all evidence in an
ongoing investigation should be non-public.
 
However, the Minnesota Data Privacy Act also has this important qualification:
If it is in the public interest to release data, if there is "widespread rumor
and unrest," if it would "promote public safety," if it would "aid with the law
enforcement process," then the Mayor and Chief of Police can choose to release
the data.
 
People may disagree about a lot of things with regard to the homicide of Jamar
Clark, but few would disagree that withholding the tapes has caused “widespread
rumor and unrest.” Releasing the tapes would “promote public safety” because
that is the demand that drives the protest, and the Mayor and a number of
elected officials, ministers and Northside authority figures have said that
continuing the demonstrations is a danger to public safety. Finally, releasing
the tapes would "aid with the law enforcement process” because it would restore
confidence in the police.
 
On Nov. 19 an Illinois judge ruled that Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago must
release tapes of the police homicide of a young black man that happened in
October of 2014. The Mayor had argued that he shouldn’t release the tapes
because of an ongoing federal investigation. Cynics observed that release of
the tapes last fall might have been seen by him
 
as a serious threat to his re-election. On the same day the tapes were
released the white officer, Jason Van Dyke, was charged with First Degree
Murder in the killing of Laquan McDonald.
 
Two years ago when Terrance Franklin was murdered by the MPD, none of the
evidence was made public until after County Attorney Mike Freeman had taken the
case to a Grand Jury and the Grand Jury had declined to indict the police
officers. That seems to be the accepted method of denying justice to the black
community in Hennepin County: stall the investigation for as long as possible,
then (once everybody has their story straight) bring it to a Grand Jury and
shape the presentation in such a way that the jurors will come to believe the
police actions were reasonable and restrained.
 
In addition to demanding that the Mayor release the tapes, Black Lives Matter
is demanding that County Attorney Mike Freeman not hide behind a Grand Jury
when determining whether to indict police officers in the killing of Jamar
Clark.
 
Black Lives Matter would also like to see civilian oversight of the police with
full disciplinary powers and residency requirements for police officers.
 
At an NAACP meeting Dec. 1 Nekemia Levy-Pounds said the non-violent protest at
the 4th Precinct is probably the best insurance that the building won't be
burned down. There is a lot of anger on the Northside, and the protest is
trying to channel that anger into something positive and constructive.
 
Many people in South Minneapolis are quite sympathetic to the protests at the
4th Precinct. Joan Vanhala wrote on the Minneapolis Issues List: “What I
don't understand is why did the Mayor call a press conference at city hall
after organizing substantial support from North Minneapolis leaders to send a
message to the Black Lives Matter encampment at the 4th Precinct?
 
“They all should have gone over to the encampment and took as much time as
needed to sit around the fire and talk it out with BLM. That would have been
the respectful approach. Instead they chose to grandstand in front of press at
city hall making it look as if the leadership standing behind the Mayor did not
support the efforts of BLM and were patronizingly chastising their immense
effort.
 
“I think it is overdue for city hall and the North Minneapolis leaders to give
appreciations to BLM for taking on the structural entrenched racism in our city
that has led to poverty, violence, and death.
 
“I want to say thank you Black Live Matter for standing up to the evil of
racism in our city and reclaiming our humanity and our conscience!”
 
Yes, Casey, you're right: "False reports and rumors can be dangerous." That's
why state law provides for public access to those police reports and
videotapes.
 
Release the Tapes!

 

From: Wizard Marks Date: Dec 9, 2015 2:53 p.m.

It really cheeses me off when the police release months old tapes in order to
build up a justification for a current event. Yes, Mr. Clark may not have been
the guy who will be on the cover of Time magazine as man of the year, but how
does that even begin to justify how he died? And, if he was a nogoodnik, it
still doesn't mean he deserved to die. He may have been beating up his
girlfriend; it doesn't mean that he deserved to die. If he was beating her, he
deserved jail and, we have jails--lots of them.
 
Also, it occurs to me that it might have been an accident. If so, the police
have to man up and admit that. If they had done that the day after Mr. Clark
died, all this angst could have been avoided.

 

From: Bill McGaughey Date: Dec 9, 2015 4:50 p.m.

With regard to Casey O’Brian’s suggestion that we wait until all the facts are
in before passing judgment, I would say: That’s fine but we do not live in a
perfect world. Under the guise of statute, the authorities are denying the
public visual evidence of Jamar Clark’s shooting for as long as possible. Even
after the police investigation is completed, we cannot be sure we know the
truth. Police sometimes lie. They sometimes falsify or alter evidence. And
Mike Freeman is in their pocket. The whole system is broken and it will not be
fixed unless the public reaction to Jamar Clark’s death prods the authorities
to do something about this problem.
 
I am not one who thinks that releasing the tapes from the Elks Club will solve
anything because I tend to believe Governor Dayton who said that the evidence
was inconclusive. What we do have, however, is several eyewitnesses who said
that Jamar Clark was handcuffed and on the ground when he was shot. Let their
testimony go up against the officers’ testimony at a trial. See who the jury
believes. This assumes, of course, that Mike Freeman will let this case go to
trial. There is certainly a chance that he will not. Then Jamar Clark’s death
will be disposed of the same way that Terrance Franklin’s was. Nothing will be
done. The police will go on in an undisciplined way. Chief Harteau’s
public-relations offensive will have worked.
 
While O’Brian wants us all to suspend judgment until the facts are in, chief
Harteau is waging a very aggressive public-relations battle to mold public
opinion in the absence of facts. She is telling people that Jamar Clark
reached for the officer’s gun while we are being asked to say nothing. And
now, in this WCCO news report, it seems that the Minneapolis police department
may be trying to bemirch Jamar Clark’s reputation. It is dishonoring the
defenseless dead. Am I the only one who finds this behavior disgraceful? Is
the public ever going to know the facts of the MPD’s latest PR campaign?
 
I think the outcome which makes the most sense here is for the Minneapolis city
council not to reappoint Janee Harteau as police chief. The offense is not
only that another police killing occurred on her watch but that she has again
orchestrated a deliberate cover up. Remove Harteau from her present position
and appoint a reform-minded chief who will send a message to the ranks that
killing civilians is not OK unless there is an extremely good reason.
 
The ball is really in the court of the mayor and city council to clean up the
MPD. We don’t have to wait for the tapes to demand this. We must have better
police leadership.

 

From: Doug Mann Date: Dec 9, 2015 6:45 p.m.

Ed Felien writes:
 
"The Mayor has said she cannot order the tapes released because there is an
ongoing investigation and the Data Privacy Act rules that all evidence in an
ongoing investigation should be non-public.
 
"However, the Minnesota Data Privacy Act also has this important qualification:
If it is in the public interest to release data, if there is "widespread rumor
and unrest," if it would "promote public safety," if it would "aid with the law
enforcement process," then the Mayor and Chief of Police can choose to release
the data."
 
Doug Mann replies:
 
The Mayor is wrong. And so is Ed Felien. The MN Commissioner of Administration
recently weighed in on a request by many law enforcement agencies to classify
all body cam evidence as "nonpublic" except for video documenting the use of
deadly force by a police officer. In rejecting this request, the Commissioner
stated that evidence described in the Data Privacy Act, Minn Statutes section
13,82, subdivisions 2, 3, and 6 is "public" data, and the Commissioner has no
authority to reclassify it.
 
The MN law enforcement agencies specifically did not ask the commissioner
to reclassify any evidence documenting the use of deadly force by a police
officer.
http://www.ipad.state??.mn??.us??/docs??/kh092815??.pdf
 
Minn, Statutes, section 13.82, sub. 14 allows law enforcement to
temporarily withhold public data, and provides a legal remedy for anyone who
believes that withholding data for the duration of the investigation is not
necessary to achieve a valid goal of law enforcement.
 
The only reason I can see for temporarily withholding video tapes and other
documentation of the killing of Jamar Clark is that eyewitness testimony could
be tailored to fit the documentation. How much time is required to get
statements of police officers, paramedics, and other witnesses.
 
Law enforcement may release "nonpublic data" that would benefit the public.
But there is no legal remedy available to anyone who disagrees with a decision
to withhold nonpublic data. A writ of Mandamus is not an option, because a writ
of mandamus will issue only if a public official is required by law to do what
the writ demands.
 
The mayor may be correct in asserting that any demand for the videotapes
should be directed at the BCA, because the BCA is in charge of the
investigation. It is the "originating" law enforcement agency as the term is
used in Minn Statutes section 13.82, subd. 2. The Minneapolis Police Department
is the target of the investigation, not the agency that is primarily
responsible for collecting and creating data related to the use of deadly for
by a member of the MPD against Jamar Clark.
 
If even one frame of one videotape shows Jamar Clark in handcuffs the night
he was killed, the cops' cover story goes up in smoke, and an indictment is
sure to issue, unless that evidence is buried. Governor Dayton reportedly saw
one tape, or set of tapes, and said that it was inconclusive. He is not on the
record saying that he saw all the tapes. We might never know unless someone
goes to the trouble of suing the BCA to get all of the tapes and other
documentation. No such lawsuit is possible except on the basis of a demand for
"public data."

 

From: Janet Nye Date: Dec 9, 2015 12:50 a.m.

What has happened to the cell phone videos that were undoubtedly recorded that
night. There were a number of witnesses. Where are the videos? We don't hear
anything about them from witnesses or from the police. There is a huge blackout
here. If the police have them, shouldn't we know that they do? I've heard a
few rumors of serious witness tampering and given the record of the police,
have no reason to doubt it.
 
 
Then again, rumors are just that - rumors, like the convenient one that was
floated directly after the event in which Jamar Clark was said by the police to
have NOT been handcuffed. Simultaneously the residents of the area who
witnessed it have said he WAS handcuffed. Perhaps the release of the video
would not clarify anything, but we don't need to see it because the Governor of
the State of Minnesota says it's not conclusive. You can't make this stuff up.

 

From: Wizard Marks Date: Dec 9, 2015 1:05 a.m.

We don't have to make anything up. The Gov. says it's inconclusive. Fine. That
being the case, let us see the inconclusiveness of the situation.
 
Still, my problem with the old information about Mr. Clark stands. Apparently,
he was not a swell person. OK. I'm willing to accept that. But is that an
excuse for killing him?
 
Maybe I'm old fashioned (not surprising, I'm 72), but the fact that Mr. Clark
was a "loose canon" or a nogoodnik does not justify killing him. End of story.
 
Also, to Mr. McGaughey's interest in firing Chief Harteau, (maybe a different
thread) that;'s not going to change anything. The Mayor has the right to direct
Harteau. So the burden is on the Mayor--not the Chief. So let's put the blame
where it belongs.

 

From: Bill McGaughey Date: Dec 9, 2015 1:57 a.m.
 

I think most of us are in agreement that the police department or the city
administration is not doing the right thing in keeping the public in the dark
about Jamar Clark’s death.

However, I want to respond to Wizard Marks’ argument that the mayor, rather
than the police chief, ought to be blamed for this situation. Marks states:
“The Mayor has the right to direct Harteau. So the burden is on the Mayor--not
the Chief. So let's put the blame where it belongs.”

Mayor Hodges has the right to direct chief Harteau; but did she? I see no
evidence of that.

I may be focusing on Harteau because I’ve seen the same scenario play out two
years ago in Terrance Franklin’s death. This happened before Hodges became
mayor. Also, Harteau seems to be the front person for the misleading press
conferences.

The fact is that we cannot fire Hodges unless she is voted out of office in
2017. We need to clean up the Minneapolis police department and that probably
means new leadership. In my mind, Harteau needs to go.

 

From: Casey O'Brian Date: Dec 10, 2015 2:37 a.m.

I was in fact replying to the comments that the police shopped around the
Clark video. These type of comments, which start false rumors, are
dangerous. These are the type of comments that get repeating out of
context, and suddenly become facts in other people's posting (i.e. Wizard
Marks @8:53am ). The facts are, as published in the Strib, that WCCO asked
for and obtained the video. The police have stated that they had no part in
distributing the video. What pisses me off is some people that are so smug
that they know what happened before any facts are released. I like to
speculate as much as the next person, and it's fun to see of I'm right. But
I don't publish my speculation as facts until I know they are verified.
I try to see both sides of an issue, and be non-judgmental. Sure I have my
opinions and biases, but I believe is being fair to all sides.

To make and publish your judgments with out supporting facts is just plain
poor and irresponsible reporting.
 
I believe we have forum rules that prohibit the spreading of false rumors
and statements, name calling, being uncivil, and not flaming people because
you disagree with their position.
 
Further, Terrence Franklin was not "murdered". He was the victim of
homicidal violence when he was killed by the police. No charges were filed
against anyone for his killing. To state he was murdered is a false and
irresponsible statement.

Murder is defined as, "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being
by another." Or the Merriam-Webster definition: " the crime of unlawfully
killing a person especially with malice aforethought" The police didn't go
on the call with the intent of killing anyone. No charges were filed, and a
Grand Jury failed to indict.

The fact is all lives matter, and we should be concerned whenever the
police kill someone no matter what their skin color.

Did you know there were 8 homicides in Minneapolis in November, bringing
the total to 47?

We should all be concerned about the black-on-black crime that has killed
so many this year. Like a Wisconsin police chief stated last week these
activists can name those blacks killed by police this past year, but they
do not know the names of the last five people shot dead on the street.
Who is protesting for the 46 other people that were gunned down this year?
And don't tell me that equity will change that.

Our legal system is what it is. Don't like it? I don't know how to respond.
It could be worse, if this was China this forum wouldn't exist.
Be fair, that's all I can ask.
 
*"Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple
adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper
and unlock the secrets of the universe". - *Lex Luthor

From: Jim McGuire Date: Dec 10, 2015 2:51 a.m.

Barter all, we know the Police Federation has never shopped around a fake story
about the mayor flashing a gang sign. There's no reason to later speculate that
they'd shop another story. Basing speculation on such a thing would be
dangerous.
 
In other words when I speculated that the police (or the police federation) may
have shopped the video around I did it based on the fact that they've shopped
around stories for political purposes before. I don't feel bad about having
done it. Especially since when I did I admitted it was speculation.
 
I will not hesitate to do it again.

 

From: Ed Felien Date: Dec 10, 2015 3:02 a.m.

Mr. O'Brian, thank you for your continued interest in reviving the Terrance
Franklin investigation. There are so many inconsistencies and outright lies
that, even though the officers were given three days to get their stories
straight, the police report is completely unbelievable.
 
Yes, the City of Minneapolis owes its citizen's clarity and honesty in dealing
with the serious matter of Minneapolis police officers taking the life of
Terrance Franklin, a young black man who was guilty of nothing more than
running from the police.
 
Yes, the City of Minneapolis owes its citizen's clarity and honesty in dealing
with the serious matter of Minneapolis police officers taking the life of Jamar
Clark.
 
Release the Tapes! Release all the police reports.
 
You can read my summary of the Police Report and Medical Examiner's Report on
the death of Terrance Franklin here:
 
http://southsidepride.com?/wp?-content?/uploads?/2015?/03?/Terrance?-Franklin?-ebook?.pdf

 

From: Bill McGaughey Date: Dec 10, 2015 5:29 p.m.

Casey O’Brian says it is “dangerous” for people on this forum to state or
assume that the Minneapolis police “shopped” the story of Jamar Clark’s
high-speed chase. Why is that piece of information dangerous? Assuming that
it was tacky to criticize the dead in this manner, it shows bad judgment on the
part of WCCO or the police, whoever initiated the contact, to put out this type
of story. (How can the police claim they had nothing to do with distributing
the video when the video must have come from them?) But the lapse of judgment
does not rise to the level of danger. Institutional reputations are not a
public safety concern. And, of course, we the public have no way of knowing
what communications took place between WCCO and the police. I doubt if those
facts involving communication between two bureaucracies will ever be released.
 
With respect to Terrance Franklin, the reason that charges were never filed was
because the Hennepin County Attorney decided to summon a grand jury instead of
prosecuting the officers involved in Franklin’s killing. Franklin may well
have been murdered. No trial was ever held. The Hennepin County Attorney has
displayed less than honest prosecution in other cases and cannot be trusted in
this one either.
 
Yes, black-on-black crime is a problem. But we have to hold police to a higher
standard of conduct. They have the equipment, training, and organization to
deal with various situations. They are also directly accountable to the public
where the thugs among us are not. The thugs need to be dealt with according to
law as the facts dictate. But it’s an ominous, even dangerous, situation if
police use their immense powers of communication to evade responsibility for
wrong-doing.

 

From: Bill Kahn Date: Dec 11, 2015 4:32 p.m.

If it is dangerous, it is time to take seriously my suggestion of dissolving
and later reconstituting the Minneapolis Police Department at the end of the
current contract (contracting with Hennepin County Sheriff in mean time); I
certainly feel like it is possible I might be in danger suggesting it (not just
from police), but that is just another aspect of the problem we have (Remember
Ralph Remington’s experience? http://www.southwestjournal.com?/node?/7701 Not
much difference between Lieutenants Delmonico and Kroll). Pay everyone their
due and carefully rehire a portion of them to rebuild and hope they go for a
better union and union leadership. The DOJ will do something like if things are
as bad as some of us fear.
 
There's this piece about Lt. Bob Kroll in the Strib today:
 
http://m.startribune.com/controversy-follows-minneapolis-police-union-chief/361517061/
 
I sit and wonder just what the ratio is of Kroll and Sauro types to something
more appropriate to this century. A choice between Delmonico and Kroll for
president does not do much to inform us.
 
I continue to suspect that Terrance Franklin is dead because of MPD
incompetence, not because anyone murdered him; but hopefully body cams will put
an end to the cowboy stuff I think led to that mess (although not the related
incident that killed Ivan Romero, a different problem).
 
As far as ‘CCO TV goes, something has happened there, and it ain’t good, not
that it matters too much; it just contributes to the conditions that make it
impossible to take accounts about anything from anyone in government or the
news media as accurate. Both local and network television news is not useful to
anyone but advertisers and for the rest of us anymore as it is often a waste of
time or simply escapist propaganda for the powers that be to muddy the waters.
 
There is danger and there is danger.

 

From: Casey O'Brian Date: Dec 11, 2015 5:02 p.m.

Well said. Not a bad idea.

 

From: Janet Nye Date: Dec 11, 2015 6:57 p.m.

It's quite brazen of "Million Dollar Mike" Sauro to defend Police Federation
president Robert Kroll. The nickname Million Dollar Mike refers to payouts by
the city from lawsuits against him. Fairly recently both he and Kroll were
mentioned in one city resident's complaint that was received by the OPCR
(Office of Police Conduct Review). As far as I can tell, Sauro looks upon
officers who don't have lawsuits as inferior cops, lacking zeal. The truth is
that the great majority of cops don't have lawsuits on their records and don't
fire a shot during their whole career.
 
I question the idea that body cams will change a thing. Why would body cam
footage be any more accessible than any of the other videos from a crime scene?
We have the Jamar Clark case to illustrate the problem. There are police who
would comply with the rules for body cams, but the worst cops would find the
ways around this form of accountability, as they have with "lost" squad car
videos, videos that got turned off or "accidentally destroyed".
 
I'm still rooting for the project to amend the City Charter to require police
to carry individual professional liability insurance. It may not be the whole
answer but it would be a giant step forward to a truly professional police
force. For more information, go to: insurethepolice.org

 

From: Bill Kahn Date: Dec 12, 2015 5:10 a.m.

I suppose if I were a cop, I’d probably be a bad one for many reasons, maybe
even for the same reasons some of those causing our problems today, but there
really has to be a universally accepted archetype for a good cop.
 
Wouldn’t it be nice to have a police force with no one in it but those
emulating that archetype for Minneapolis?
 
One way or another, I hope we get there, but I think we all have to be on the
same page as to what cops are doing now, what cops should be doing, and how to
get them closer to that ideal.

 

From: Bill McGaughey Date: Dec 12, 2015 7:38 p.m.

All persons posting on this forum are dealing with Jamar Clark’s death in the
absence of facts - facts that the police authorities could provide but will
not. It would be good if the police would release the tapes to the public and
they showed clear evidence of innocence or guilt as the tapes did in Chicago.
But I doubt this will happen.
 
I disagree with the agenda of Black Lives Matter in its assumption that racist
white cops are the problem, and they need to be prosecuted and sent to prison.
If a cop killed Jamar Clark out of hatred of black people, then, yes, that’s
what should be done. He should be punished. My uninformed opinion is that
racism was not the motive. In a tense situation on the street, the officer
could also be afraid of his safety. I simply do not know the officers’ state of
mind.
 
Another explanation, which I find more plausible than racism, is the kick-ass
attitude of police departments, the military, and others having an advantage in
weaponry. In contrast with police of former times, we have SWAT teams serving
warrants, cops kicking down doors, and officers being verbally abusive in
routine traffic stops. It’s the stuff you see on television cop shows - part
of the mystique of modern policing.
 
When I think of reforming the police, I imagine toning down this kind of police
behavior. The police are supposed to serve the community, not lord over it.
It would be the responsibility of the police chief to set the tone of policing.
I see Janee Harteau as someone unwilling to do this because of possible blow
back from the more prestigious, gung ho officers. She’s much more comfortable
in going against low-ranking “racist” cops. Demographic politics is right up
her alley.
 
But somehow the attitude problems need to be addressed. Yes, deal with racism
if racism is the problem, imprison the officer who shot Jamar Clark if his
killing was not done in self-defense, but we need to get to the heart of the
problem which is attitude and direction. Mayor Hodges and Chief Harteau are
charged with fixing it. The focus of attention should be on them.

 

From: Bill Kahn Date: Dec 13, 2015 7:12 a.m.

We *have* got some facts; Jamar Clark, his family and girlfriend were already
having a violence packed evening before the EMTs and police arrived for the
last assault, one fatal to Clark.
 
There are gaps and inconsistencies in many of the accounts and hopefully these
will be filled and resolved. I don’t think showing our own prejudices through
one guess or another helps a great deal.
 
http://www.mprnews.org?/story?/2015?/12?/04?/jamarclark?-shooting?-what?-happened
 
These fatal interactions probably are culture clashes, not incidents of race
based violence, but they might indeed be more likely simply because of the way
some police officers think about residents.
 
In my work as a cabbie some years back I dealt with a pretty complete cross
section of society, and every level and group in my part of the Metro
occasionally bothered me a great deal in the beginning; but I did my job one
fare at a time and eventually I knew a whole lot more about my customers than I
imagined I could in the beginning. Eventually almost no one bothered me and I
counted on my knowledge and experience to serve even those who still did bother
me, perhaps even well. I suspect police work, a whole lot of service work, is
the same, or should be.
 
I did wonder earlier if the two cops involved in this did not have a similar
kind of knowledge about those with whom and about where, they worked, but I
just don’t know; I still can’t help feeling this is about ignorance,
inexperience, and stupid mistakes.
 
The thin blue line stuff doesn’t help.
 
http://www.cnn.com?/2014?/12?/22?/opinion?/moskos?-thin?-blue?-line?/
 
We’re not New York, but perhaps it is only a difference in the size of the
problem.
 

 

See discussion of the shooting death of Terrance Franklin in May 2013.

back to: home page

 

COPYRIGHT 2015 Thistlerose Publications - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
http:/www/Billforpresident.org/jamarclark.html

Note: Permission is granted to quote from this website at any length. Attribution would be appreciated, however.