The 17 year old in Kenosha will be charged with murder. But will it be felonious, excusable, justifiable, or praiseworthy? After all, there were very fine people on both sides.
1 Like
Yes, Blake. Regardless if the claim was correct or not, is it not the cop’s job to sort out if he was supposed to be there or not? Imagine the outrage if they walk onto the scene of a 911 call and just let everyone leave who wanted to leave, only to find out later they let the bad guy walk away to go do more bad things…
And the report says they were arresting him, which would indicate they’d already determined that he wasnt supposed to be there. Regardless, that doesnt change the scenario much, he ignored them and escalated the situation by not letting them do their job. The cops dont have the benefit of hindsight and can only deal with what’s there at the time - and what was there was a guy repeatedly defying them and repeatedly escalating the situation no matter what they tried.
1 Like
That’s SOP in police. If someone’s peaceably leaving or fleeing and the officer did not witness a violent crime, they let the suspect run or pursue with only non-lethal force. If they do pursue, lethal force is in no way warranted, again unless there is immediate threat of loss of someone’s life or incapacitation of the officer (in cases with a lone officer on the scene) coming from the suspect. That’s pretty much universal in policing procedures in the US.
There may be other information released later, but currently the one side of information (from law enforcement) does not seem to indicate that the officer or others’ lives were threatened. That doesn’t mean the officer is automatically presumed guilty, but he is clearly a suspect and an investigation is warranted to determine the facts. Due to the violent and excessive nature of seven shots into an unarmed person’s back, he should also probably be in custody until the investigation is resolved. Like almost anyone else would be, even if they claimed they were acting in self defense but could provide no evidence of such.
As to why cops might be afraid to let a criminal they’re trying to arrest to “get something from his car”, here’s a short reminder how fast things go bad.
https://mobile.twitter.com/mfoxhunter/status/1297768327935397888
2 Likes
The subject of the 911 call was forcibly leaving with a knife and carload of kids after being arrested. If you cant see there’s something wrong with that picture, I really dont know what to tell you.
Obviously, plenty of people disagree with you. They arent shutting down professional sports because a cop might end up proven guilty of something. They’re already scheduling his execution.
3 Likes
I can’t say it wasn’t but I have not seen this, the articles from this morning did not include this information. (Like the one I linked). Where is the source of this information?
The article I linked reports from the police department only:
"Sunday’s incident began when a woman called police saying “her boyfriend was present and was not supposed to be on the premises,” according to investigators.
In a police call, a dispatcher names Blake and says he “isn’t supposed to be there” and that he took the complainant’s keys and refused to leave. The dispatcher later explains she doesn’t have more details because the caller was “uncooperative.”"
There was a second 911 call with other content? And are you saying this call came in after the arrest attempt was made?
What part of that makes you think he was not the subject of the call? Everything else happened after they were there, is pretty straightforward, is pretty clear from the video (except the presence of the kids in the car), and has been widely reported.
1 Like
You just said that the call included details that someone was forcibly leaving with a knife and a carload of kids after being arrested…
Where is your source of these contents of the call?
The source is the cops arresting him. Why would you think there would have to be a second call for anyone to know that he was being arrested?
1 Like
Here’s some transcript of the police dispatch associated with the Blake call. They knew he had a warrant out for his arrest.
Officers are sent to Blake’s address for a complaint of “family trouble.” A dispatcher notifies officers that a woman called police and said Blake “isn’t supposed to be there and he took the complainant’s keys and is refusing to give them back.”
The dispatcher tells officers that there’s an alert for a person wanted for some reason, known in police radio code as a 10-99, at that address. Blake had a warrant issued for his arrest stemming from a domestic case in May.
4 Likes
But that radio chatter didn’t outline the other details that have been claimed by glitch. That the officer was responding to a call of someone forcibly leaving with a knife and a carload of kids. There is no mention of knives. Or even running. Just walking. The chatter you linked has them not even knowing if the person is actually who the call was about, there’s no description of the person or the vehicle.
The article you link disclaims that it’s not the best source for reporting and they shouldn’t even reference the radio chatter, but that there’s no official information yet from Police. (and the info about the warrant doesn’t seem to be a quote from the radio chatter. Warrants aren’t typically lethal force dead-or-alive though, this isn’t the Old West.). Lets ignore the article saying it’s dangerous to make inferences from the radio chatter and that they shouldn’t even be reporting on it (but curiously are anyways… for… clicks?)
However, there is now official information from Police. It was linked above. Unless someone is saying we can’t believe the information the police is releasing is valid and they’re intentionally not giving a clear picture of what is apparently “obvious”.
It’s all conjecture to make up other stories and details not supported by the available evidence or released by the police so far.
We know there was a call the officers responded to, with the caller indicating that someone was there that shouldn’t be there (with no description of the person). We know they ran after a man after arriving at the address. We know the police say he was unarmed at this point. We know he did not stop for them and he walked to his vehicle. We know he opened his vehicle door and was shot in the back seven times. We know when asked he informed the police he had a knife of some sort, somewhere inside the vehicle, and that they retrieved it.
There’s plenty of information that is not known currently. There’s multiple things that should or could have gone differently. Sure, he should have stopped rather than going to his vehicle.
When did I claim that? They responded to a call. Once they were there, the subject, who they were called to that location because of, forcibly tried to leave while they were arresting him.
And, given the timeline, the cops had very little, if any, time to have ascertained if the car he was getting into was even his own (the 911 caller didnt even give a vague description). In what possible world would anyone expect the cops to just let a fleeing suspect (or was he a fugitive, since he had been arrested?) drive off with kids in the car? Should he have been shot? Of course not. But he is the one who left them with no other option.
1 Like
Car thief and sexual assault? I’m going to weigh in on the side of having those arrest warrants served rather than just letting him leave because he feels like it. Here’s his warrant from a few months back.
LNB stated at about 6AM she was woken up by the father of her children, Jacob Blake, herein known as the defendant, standing over her saying, “I want my shit.” As LNB lay there, on her back, the defendant, suddenly and without warning, reached his hand between her legs, penetrated her vaginally with a finger, pull it out and sniffed it, and said, “Smells like you’ve been with other men.”
There’s more if you really care in the above link.
1 Like
English… Could read either way, I see where my confusion was from. I read it as “the subject of the call was _______” (as in,referring to details the 911 call was about) vs the only referring to the person referenced in the call. Anyways…
I think we have a pretty irreconcilable difference in understanding of use of force principles.
Any explanation for a trained officer shooting an unarmed suspect seven times in a row, in the back at close range other than out of a homicidal rage seems like a real stretch to me.
"White House officials did not immediately return a request for further clarification from The Hill regarding what supposed false claims the dossier describes or which other reporters were included.
Farenthold has covered the Trump Organization for years and in 2017 won the Pulitzer Prize, one of the most prestigious awards in journalism, for his 2016 coverage of the president’s charity organization which was later shut down in 2018.
"
What? No… they pulled that out of Watchmen…
I love it.
Violent Crime 101:
Rule 36: When confronted by police, turn your back towards them as you continue spraying them with bullets. They will not be able to return fire, as shooting someone in the back is inexcusable.
1 Like
I’d say string him up… Unbelievable behavior. 7 bullets are ok, makeup for other assaults not mentioned.
Really animal behavior but probably an animal is worth more than this one. 
.
1 Like
Gross.
A family man, a beacon of his community… not.
1 Like
On the topic of all this crime, violence, and so forth, I think we could all learn a lot from Joe Biden if we would just come together and listen to his honest assessment of the problem, our limitations in dealing with them, and the kind of solutions we have available.
3 Likes