Talk:Killing of Jamar Clark

Proposed merge with 2015 Minneapolis shooting

This is not a notable shooting, as it was a result of protests to the shooting of Jamar Clark. This aftermath should be mentioned there. epic genius (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Agreed. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Both articles are under 10 kB, and should be merged, as the shooting in Minnesota is a subset of the shooting in Illinois. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Best covered in one page, as this shooting occurred at the protests of his death. If it later becomes unwieldy it can be spun out again. Fences&Windows 14:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Insufficient for breakout article, can be adequately covered in main article. WWGB (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, besides having a pretty vague article name (seriously, 2015 Minneapolis shooting?), the shooting of the five protesters should be part of the Jamar Clark article, given its relationship to the protests there. Yksin (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support.Articles need to be combined to give context. -Wowaconia (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. It should be one article, like the "Jamar Clark controversey" or "Jamar Clark protests".Mangokeylime (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• I have now merged the two articles. It is obvious that there is unanimous consensus for this after a week of discussion. epicgenius (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

User:epicgenius There was no notice of this merger discussion posted on Talk:2015 Minneapolis shooting, as was required by WP:MERGEPROP. Any contributors to that article who were not aware of this article were unable to participate in this merger discussion. The merger seems to be appropriate, but I don't know that the title is appropriate. Meters (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

A {{merge to}} template was added to 2015 Minneapolis shooting; my understanding is that that is sufficient notice. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I seem to be a bit brain dead today. Striking. Thanks. Meters (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose The effect, and presumably the intent of this merger is to cover up the incident involving the assault by the BLM protestors on the visitors. When it appeared that the victims were black, and the perpetrators were white, nobody had a problem with separate articles. Now that the existence of at least two videos are known, showing that the victims were white, and the perpetrators were black, everybody in the list above wants to cover up the story. There was very much insufficient notice given, and people weren't given enough time to comment and oppose. The "notice" given was simply that somebody had made a proposal: People were not directed to respond in any particular location. This merger is clearly a sham. There should have been at least 3 months notice given. There is no argument for a rapid merger. Lurie2 (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I missed the notice too, but it was put on the article on Nov 26, and the link to the merger discussion was present. With unanimous support after more than a week of discussion the close was appropriate, per WP:MERGEINIT. Meters (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

At least 95% of the stories on this incident were both the same and false: The claim that the three whites had spontaneously shot the BLM protestors. The truth was diametrically the opposite. Given this falsification of the events, how does that actually support concealing those events by merging the articles, after little more than 2 weeks? Lurie2 (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Both incidents are connected as the BLM group was only in the area to make demands about the shooting of Jamar Clark. So they are inseparably connected. Concerns about balance can be made there if one seems a problem. --Wowaconia (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

We agree that they are "connected". But you do not support your claim that they are INSEPARABLY connected. Try again. Lurie2 (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Caution on Talk Page of 2015 Minneapolis Shooting article.

I didn't post this, but it is an important caution from the article "2015 Minneapolis Shooting" article that should be cited. These videos should be cited. "Be very careful making any strong statements about the motivations or character of any of the people involved in this shooting. Information that has not been widely disseminated may change the media narrative very soon: Video from shooters' perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc3c6cK9p_w First part of this video is before the shooting, second part after: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVgpfvwNEwg 38.75.57.92 (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)" Lurie2 (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

According to http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/25/police-doc-black-lives-matter-protesters-started-confrontation-led-minneapolis-shooting/ "But there’s no indication that Minneapolis police are pursuing any charges against the protesters who have taken over a city street and then, according to multiple witnesses, intimidated or attacked people who were exercising their First Amendment rights."" [end of quote from article] This explains why people here wanted, so quickly, to merge and thus erase the information from the incriminating videos. Lurie2 (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

DA will rule justified homicide soon

Mpls police chief is sending out warnings that they will not tolerate further BLM violence and illegal violation of others civil rights. It is clear Freeman will rule what informed readers already know. The police were justified as the very violent felon tried to use a leo gun against them. There will be riots spurned on by the hatred promoted by the current Mpls NAACP president.17:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:A05A:F7A6:0:45:931E:3B01 (talk)

Section removed

The section detailing the shooting and events leading up to it has been removed this morning. Im going to assume good faith-with yesterdays announcement (that there wiuld be no charges filed,) and subsequent release of materials (a very....illuminating.... video) that the section needs a rewrite. As a side note, i was looking vack at it after reading it last night. The article says that he was attending a birthday party, along with an ex girlfriend. Clarity might be desired, as it also states that jamar was ordered to not contact his ex. An order purported to be in effect until 2020 Was it the same ex?2600:1:831F:C135:E877:3DAA:C8F8:186D (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"African-American man" and "convicted felon"

User:174.20.59.150 has been repeatedly removing the phrase "African-American man" and adding the phrase "convicted felon" to the lead, despite being reverted by multiple editors and despite the fact that reliable sources focus much more on Clark's race than on his criminal record. 174.20.59.150, please stop edit warring and instead discuss why you think these changes should be made. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

"Outcome"

An IP editor changed the |outcome= field in the infobox from "Under investigation" to "Ruled as Justified shooting by police", which was reverted by Mr. Granger. Considering Freeman announced no charges against the officers involved in the shooting, should the field be updated to reflect that? BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 14:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I think so. I've edited the field to "No charges filed". —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Should article mention how Congressman Keith E Hakim tried to get publicity out of the shooting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.44.220 (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Article text needs to be checked to see if it's supported by cites.

The article contains text which claims, "The bystanders, who BLM members said were white supremacists regularly appearing at the rallies over the previous several night...". However, the (Note 18) article merely stated, "Miski Noor, a media contact for Black Lives Matter, said “a group of white supremacists showed up at the protest, as they have done most nights.”". It isn't clear if this means that the specific people who showed up the night of the shooting were known at the time to be the same people who had shown up previous nights, or maybe just groups made up of different people had shown up previous nights. And the cited article doesn't explain how they (BLM protestors) knew that the people who showed up (that night or previously) were "white supremacists": Perhaps the BLM protestors merely knew they were white, and the BLM protestors assumed that nobody white other than white supremacists would show up. If anything, the Youtube videos of this incident which were previously cited here showed that the BLM protestors were not immediately aware of the association and intent of those white people who showed up. I think this article needs to be carefully checked for bias in its text, compared to the actual content of the citations. 75.175.107.226 (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Biography

May Jamar Clark have an entry in the Wikipedia as a person, not ONLY as part the incident which made him famous? (This is not true for "the shooting of Tamir Rice", as well.)Jplvnv (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC) (This is my personal response to https://www.christiancentury.org/ Unlearning Racism download. I did not know who Jamar Clark was by name, only the incident.)

Better sources on what happened prior to the shooting?

Is there a better source on what happened prior to the shooting? Our current source MPR News has the headline about conflicting account but simply says: Sharp said Clark and his girlfriend left — no one has said where they went or what happened while they were gone — and a short time later, someone called for help.
Sharp was outside when the paramedics arrived. She let them into the building and watched as they brought out Clark's girlfriend and put her in an ambulance. Sharp said Clark's face was swollen, as though he'd been hit. which is confusing since there's mention of Clark and his girlfriend leaving, but no mention of them returning, yet they must have otherwise Clark's girlfriend couldn't have been brought out nor would Clark have been there to be shot. I mean I guess Clark could have left but been nearby and approached from whereever he was, but this still doesn't explain how Clark's girlfriend was "brought out". While this may be mostly unimportant, the problem is our article summarises this which leads the reader to similar confusion where Clark and his girlfriend left but then she is lead out. Nil Einne (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)