Readers Write (March 31): Decision in Jamar Clark case, proposed plastic bag ban

Regarding the decision Wednesday not to charge two police officers in the Jamar Clark case, as Jon Tevlin noted recently, it was a "lose-lose" for Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman but a "win-win for the people." Making tough decisions has not been what we have seen out of elected officials in this country. More often we have seen them pass the buck and let someone else take the heat — not Freeman's style. He is to be commended for taking the case out of the grand jury, not sending it to an out-of-state county and making a difficult, but important, decision. Freeman is a current iteration of the Harry Truman saying "the buck stops here." Decisions that are politically expedient are too common, but individuals with the strength of character to make tough decisions are rare.

Without a doubt, Jamar Clark "deserved the opportunity for a full and productive life," and the loss of his life is a tragedy. It seems that every attempt has been made to complete a thorough investigation and make a disclosure of the evidence with analysis of the facts, and all details of the case available to the public for review, including unedited video. This level of transparency is unprecedented in cases such as this. However, it is clear that our society and the justice system still have a ways to go toward providing fair and equal treatment. Maybe this is one beginning instance in the movement toward accomplishing this in terms of the ways cases are analyzed and investigated. As Freeman noted, "violence begets more violence," and "we must find ways to show respect toward every person."

Thanks, Mike, for your careful analysis of the case, taking responsibility, trying to do the right thing to the best of your ability given the facts, and making a difficult decision.

• • •

With claims that the decisions from our judicial system are unjust, prejudicial and discriminating, it was nice to hear Freeman give the detailed why of his decision. As a result, it is my opinion that this decision was just because he showed how it was based on all the available credIble evidence.

• • •

Wednesday's announcement was really a surprise to no one. Two observations:

2) What is conclusive is that the officers came onto a scene and within 61 seconds a young black man was dead. Disorderly conduct ought not be prosecuted quite so summarily. This is the epitome of "disparate outcomes" based on race and class. We have enough armies of occupation overseas. We need to demilitarize the mind-set of aggressive officers.

• • •

So, after the decision, I hear a lot of people saying that justice was not served. I think that if you truly want justice, you have to be open to the possibility that the evidence just doesn't point a certain way. If you're going to accept facts that point to Clark's innocence, then you have to accept facts that might point to his guilt. You have to be open to the possibility that he may have been in the wrong and his shooting was completely justified. Otherwise at this point, with no evidence to support their claim, the protesters are delving into conspiracy theories that just aren't backed up by truth.

• • •

Did he have to be shot in the head?

I was persuaded by the evidence presented by Freeman. However, the evidence does present another question. Freeman noted, in a surprising detail, that one of the officers, "responding as he had been trained in a former police job," decided that Clark needed to be "brought to the ground" because he was refusing to be handcuffed. That officer then put a chokehold on Clark, forcing him to the ground — and the next 61 seconds resulted in Clark's death. I wonder if the Minneapolis Police Department agrees with that officer's former training in this kind of incident? If not, then why wasn't the officer better trained when he came onto the force? It seemed to me, after hearing the evidence, that a stun gun or some other form of restraint might have prevented the shooting yet would have allowed the police officers to subdue Clark. Once Clark and the officer were rolling on the ground, any semblance of control was lost. As Freeman himself noted at the beginning of his news conference, better training of officers is needed. In this case, that training might have saved Clark's life.

• • •

I am a Caucasian male. This means I've not personally felt the pain of discrimination. I support the concepts of equality, freedom and respect, as best I can, both personally and professionally.

I listened carefully to the litany of evidence presented today by Freeman, finding it to be believable and thorough. It was presented by a credible and experienced person who carefully weighed evidence to conclude that no charges would be brought. I support the process and conclusion.

Now, we face a population of those who cannot accept this judgment. They are not interested in being a positive influence in ways for us to improve our city and society. Instead, they have chosen a course of civil disruption, creating discord and confrontation. Raeisha Williams, communications director for the Minneapolis NAACP, said to Freeman, "If the city burns, it's on your hands." This is a shameful prediction of plans.

One of the March 30 letters about the proposed plastic bag ban in Minneapolis commented that the proposal comes down to "a microcosm of the basic divide that exists in this country." No doubt, many people are increasingly viewing virtually all issues through red or blue lenses. This creates a world in which complex issues are dangerously oversimplified and where an individual's positions can be reliably predicted based solely on their party affiliation, the color of their skin or where they live. Sorry, issues like whether to ban plastic bags are complex and deserve to be carefully considered based on data and facts, not on political orientation. Unfortunately, the writer is right in the sense that an alarming number of people, including elected officials and judges, are increasingly resorting to a kind of tribal/gang behavior in how they feel about critical and complex issues. But we have a choice: We can continue along that path and move toward a kind of enlightenment dark age, or we can choose reason based on facts and expert opinion and try to view the world in a truer, three-dimensional way.

• • •

A recent letter writer stated that we need more research into the plastic bag ban issue. Clearly the writer is a younger person. I am 60, so I have a perspective the writer must not have.

I remember a time before plastic was in wide use, before plastic bags on loaves of bread, before furniture was made of plastic, before there were bits of plastic all over the roads and ringing the lakes. And before there were bags caught in trees, in fish innards, or flying in the wind.

As far as I am concerned, the ban can't happen soon enough.