Wisconsin - What really happened...?

First topic message reminder :




https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8660213/Video-shows-Jacob-Blake-brawling-cops-shot-Wisconsin-cops-placed-leave.html

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didgee wrote:Jacob Blake, the black man shot in the back seven times by Wisconsin police, had a knife in his posession, the Wisconsin Attorney General said Wednesday

Blake, 29, was shot in front of his three children by officers in Kenosha Sunday

Officers responded to a 911 call by Blake's girlfriend who said her boyfriend was present and he was not supposed to be on the premises
Officers tried to subdue Blake with a taser, but were unsuccessful

The DOJ said Blake told officers he had a knife in his possession
Investigators later 'recovered a knife from the driver's side floorboard' of his car

Officer Rusten Sheskey, a seven year veteran with the department, was identified as the cop who fired all seven shots into Blake's back


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8668375/Jacob-Blake-armed-KNIFE-cops-shot-says-Wisconsin-AG.html

Maybe quill should read this news report...

Indeed, Quill does not want to pursue all possibilities here

He has already made up his mind through bias. Which leads him to his beliefs. He is not open minded and takes the precedent that the cop is always guilty. A poor way for a lawyer to behave to be honest

I am open to all possibilties here and more likely if he did say he had a knife. Then  with the officers failing to restrain him and even after using a taser. That they then saw the knife on the floor. Led to a panic reaction by the cop. Or that he did reach for the knife. We may never know, but again what created this in the first place and led to the events. Was the ressisting arrest. Would he have been shot if he had peacefully gone with the Police?

Unlikely, though taking nothing away from the reality that the cop in my opinion panicked

It seems to be the recurring theme, that this always happens whilst ressiting arrest. I mean if a number of officers are unable to restrain and even after using the taser, panic with adrenaline will start to set in

The key witness will be the victims testimony

Blake was not the victim here... he brought it on himself...


Once he reached into that car he was shot for being an imminent dangerous threat... And the cop is entitled to shoot and keep shooting until the man stopped doing what he was doing...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didgee wrote:Jacob Blake, the black man shot in the back seven times by Wisconsin police, had a knife in his posession, the Wisconsin Attorney General said Wednesday

Blake, 29, was shot in front of his three children by officers in Kenosha Sunday

Officers responded to a 911 call by Blake's girlfriend who said her boyfriend was present and he was not supposed to be on the premises
Officers tried to subdue Blake with a taser, but were unsuccessful

The DOJ said Blake told officers he had a knife in his possession
Investigators later 'recovered a knife from the driver's side floorboard' of his car

Officer Rusten Sheskey, a seven year veteran with the department, was identified as the cop who fired all seven shots into Blake's back


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8668375/Jacob-Blake-armed-KNIFE-cops-shot-says-Wisconsin-AG.html

Maybe quill should read this news report...

No shit. It's not like he doesnt know exactly what has happened everywhere in the world and doesn't have the time to explain it to everyone.

It could be one more of his gifts to mankind.

Tommy Monk wrote:


Blake was not the victim here... he brought it on himself...


Once he reached into that car he was shot for being an imminent dangerous threat... And the cop is entitled to shoot and keep shooting until the man stopped doing what he was doing...

He is a victim here as he is now paralyzed Tommy

What has to be established is whether the shooting was justifiable

7 shots is excessive and to me points to someone not in control and panicking. Even more so being the fact he never killed him. That is some fairly poor aim. Which consider they train to shoot. Points again to someone panicking

My view is that the events whilst trying to arrest him, gave rise to a fear in the cop. They failed to restrain him with two of them and with using a taser. Then when he says he has a knife and this is seen in the car and Blake leaning in. To me again points to panic. As adrenaline has taken over control of the cop

Is questionable this and I keep an open mind. To me the issue that goes against the cop, is firing 7 times

Tommy Monk wrote:

Blake was not the victim here... he brought it on himself...

Once he reached into that car he was shot for being an imminent dangerous threat... And the cop is entitled to shoot and keep shooting until the man stopped doing what he was doing...

The US Supreme Court says no, in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). Deadly force is not legal to stop a citizen from going about his own business.

The cop is allowed to shoot and keep shooting until the threat stops being a threat.


Everybody knows the way to behave when there are armed police trying to arrest you...


YOU DO WHAT THEY BLOODY WELL TELL YOU TO DO!!!


YOU DONT START BRAWLING WITH THEM AND PULLING OUT A KNIFE AND START TRYING TO REACH INSIDE A VEHICLE FOR WHAT THEY MIGHT WELL THINK IS FOR TRYING TO PULL OUT A GUN OR OTHER DANGEROUS WEAPON!!!


IF THEY ARE POINTING GUNS AT YOU AND YOU GIVE THEM GOOD READON YO START SHOOTING AT YOU... THEN THAT IS YOUR OWN STUPID BLOODY FAULT!!!

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Blake was not the victim here... he brought it on himself...

Once he reached into that car he was shot for being an imminent dangerous threat... And the cop is entitled to shoot and keep shooting until the man stopped doing what he was doing...

The US Supreme Court says no, in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). Deadly force is not legal to stop a citizen from going about his own business.

Please stop being a twat.

Tommy Monk wrote:


The cop is allowed to shoot and keep shooting until the threat stops being a threat.


Everybody knows the way to behave when there are armed police trying to arrest you...


YOU DO WHAT THEY BLOODY WELL TELL YOU TO DO!!!


YOU DONT START BRAWLING WITH THEM AND PULLING OUT A KNIFE AND START TRYING TO REACH INSIDE A VEHICLE FOR WHAT THEY MIGHT WELL THINK IS FOR TRYING TO PULL OUT A GUN OR OTHER DANGEROUS WEAPON!!!


IF THEY ARE POINTING GUNS AT YOU AND YOU GIVE THEM GOOD READON YO START SHOOTING AT YOU... THEN THAT IS YOUR OWN STUPID BLOODY FAULT!!!

Cut with the shouting tommy

That is not how things work Tommy

As questions will be asked as to how many bullets do you think it takes to incapacitate someone as a threat

For example the armed forces typically use two shots to the head, dead

Lets start with this view point, as again why 7 shots in quick succession?

Do you not think a police officer with 7 years duty has panicked firing his gun that way?

I have no issue with the view that nobody should resist arrest, as I have made the point already about this

What the courts will argue is over how excessive shooting 7 times is.

As it is, being that the officers are trained to shoot

Like I say, only things like adrenaline taking control. Would lead to such an erratic spout of 7 shots

Tommy Monk wrote:

The cop is allowed to shoot and keep shooting until the threat stops being a threat.

Everybody knows the way to behave when there are armed police trying to arrest you...

YOU DO WHAT THEY BLOODY WELL TELL YOU TO DO!!!

YOU DONT START BRAWLING WITH THEM AND PULLING OUT A KNIFE AND START TRYING TO REACH INSIDE A VEHICLE FOR WHAT THEY MIGHT WELL THINK IS FOR TRYING TO PULL OUT A GUN OR OTHER DANGEROUS WEAPON!!!

IF THEY ARE POINTING GUNS AT YOU AND YOU GIVE THEM GOOD READON YO START SHOOTING AT YOU... THEN THAT IS YOUR OWN STUPID BLOODY FAULT!!!

The US has a Constitution, and it's says what the cops can and cannot do. The Constitution is one of express powers; so, it give blanket authority to no one. "DO WHAT THEY BLOODY WELL TELL YOU TO DO!!!"; "THEY ARE POINTING GUNS AT YOU". Your language speaks the words of a dictatorship.

There was no gun. There was no dangerous weapon. It was the cops that were brawling. You are injecting allegations that are not a part of the picture painted by the video. Try to stay with the facts we have.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), calmly, and decisively holds that unless there is an immediate and present threat to the police or a by-stander, there is no justification for deadly force. There is a video of the entire episode. There was no immediate and present threat.

Don't go off half-cocked, yelling there were UFO's in the air, or the Russian Army was marching...or he had a knife or gun in his hand. None of those things were true, and hysterically shouting them doesn't make them true.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

The cop is allowed to shoot and keep shooting until the threat stops being a threat.

Everybody knows the way to behave when there are armed police trying to arrest you...

YOU DO WHAT THEY BLOODY WELL TELL YOU TO DO!!!

YOU DONT START BRAWLING WITH THEM AND PULLING OUT A KNIFE AND START TRYING TO REACH INSIDE A VEHICLE FOR WHAT THEY MIGHT WELL THINK IS FOR TRYING TO PULL OUT A GUN OR OTHER DANGEROUS WEAPON!!!

IF THEY ARE POINTING GUNS AT YOU AND YOU GIVE THEM GOOD READON YO START SHOOTING AT YOU... THEN THAT IS YOUR OWN STUPID BLOODY FAULT!!!

There was no gun.  There was no dangerous weapon.  It was the cops that were brawling.  You are injecting allegations that are not a part of the picture painted by the video.  Try to stay with the facts we have.

1) Its a stated fact there was a knife in the car.
2) Its was not the cops brawling with each other, being as there is witness statements to the events and video evidence
3) A knife is certainly a dangerous weapon

"The Wisconsin Department of Justice provided some of the first details surrounding the police shooting on Wednesday, revealing Blake had a knife and the name of the officer who opened fire. "

That is coming from the attorney general

So Quill we are going off the evidence

You are not doing so and making things up[ as you go along. Mainly I guess because the evidence points to many of your previous points as inaccurate. Hence why you dig your heels in. Incapable of admitting you were wrong......

Aaaaagain

So stay with the facts quill

Didgee wrote:

Original Quill wrote:


There was no gun.  There was no dangerous weapon.  It was the cops that were brawling.  You are injecting allegations that are not a part of the picture painted by the video.  Try to stay with the facts we have.

1) Its a stated fact there was a knife in the car.
2) Its was not the cops brawling with each other, being as there is witness statements to the events and video evidence
3) A knife is certainly a dangerous weapon

"The Wisconsin Department of Justice provided some of the first details surrounding the police shooting on Wednesday, revealing Blake had a knife and the name of the officer who opened fire. "

That is coming from the attorney general

So Quill we are going off the evidence

You are not doing so and making things up[ as you go along. Mainly I guess because the evidence points to many of your previous points as inaccurate. Hence why you dig your heels in. Incapable of admitting you were wrong......

Aaaaagain

So stay with the facts quill

Quill?

Facts?

Maddog wrote:

Didgee wrote:


1) Its a stated fact there was a knife in the car.
2) Its was not the cops brawling with each other, being as there is witness statements to the events and video evidence
3) A knife is certainly a dangerous weapon

"The Wisconsin Department of Justice provided some of the first details surrounding the police shooting on Wednesday, revealing Blake had a knife and the name of the officer who opened fire. "

That is coming from the attorney general

So Quill we are going off the evidence

You are not doing so and making things up[ as you go along. Mainly I guess because the evidence points to many of your previous points as inaccurate. Hence why you dig your heels in. Incapable of admitting you were wrong......

Aaaaagain

So stay with the facts quill

Quill?

Facts?

+1

Didgee wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Quill?

Facts?

+1

I mean my position has been that deadly force should never have been used against this guy. It's an opinion.

However, a knife was found. That's not an opinion. It's a fact. One that Quill won't acknowledge. Its. Because of that behavior and dishonesty that he gets nothing but my contempt. Fuck him. I'll talk to others around here while pointing out his dishonesty.

1) It was a pen-knife; the devil is in the details.
2) It was the cops brawling with anyone and everyone. I saw the video for myself. They were out-of-control.
3) A gun is a dangerous weapon, as the cop proved. Let's not forget who is the victim here.

You are going off the evidence of a RW Attorney General for the State of Wisconsin, whose sole purpose is to avoid having to prosecute a killer cop. He makes things up, so you can just copy them and feed your own RW appetite.

Why does he release the fact of the knife, and fail to reveal the details of the knife? Has the cop been arrested? Why did he refuse any questions about facts put to him by the NBC reporter...saying he had to withhold evidence for trial? Once you go public, you can't cherry-pick what facts you want to release. He's setting things up for a defense.

I find it amazing that since Trump, the RW’ers are the ones who champion criminals. In the not-too-distant past they were strong on law and order.

Original Quill wrote:1)  It was a pen-knife; the devil is in the details.
2)  It was the cops brawling with anyone and everyone.  I saw the video for myself.  They were out-of-control.
3)  A gun is a dangerous weapon, as the cop proved.  Let's not forget who is the victim here.

You are going off the evidence of a RW Attorney General for the State of Wisconsin, whose sole purpose is to avoid having to prosecute a killer cop.  He makes things up, so you can just copy them and feed your own RW appetite.
 
Why does he release the fact of the knife, and fail to reveal the details of the knife?  Has the cop been arrested?  Why did he refuse any questions about facts put to him by the NBC reporter...saying he had to withhold evidence for trial?  Once you go public, you can't cherry-pick what facts you want to release.  He's setting things up for a defense.

I find it amazing that since Trump, the RW’ers are the ones who champion criminals.  In the not-too-distant past they were strong on law and order.

1) no source offers a view that it was a pen-knife. By you alluding to a pen-knife. Its why your reply to Tommy was you clearing stating you know the evidence proves there was a knife
"There was no gun.  There was no dangerous weapon."

You deliberately go from gun to then saying no dangerous weapon. Thus proving the fact you know the evidence shows there was a knife
Hence your answer of a pen knife. A invention by you. In order to attempt to create a perception to people. That the knife in question posed no threat.

Its you admitting to the fact, as a lawyer. That there is factual evidence of a knife, and why you used the words, no dangerous weapon..Instead of saying:
"There was no gun.  There was no knife."

Its a Motte and bailey switch going on by you

You know there was a knife, and hence why you attempt to diminish the threat by claiming its a pen-knife

Its you trying to remove the defence of a threat. By inventing a view of a pen knife, to then claim they are not dangerous

2. Well we all saw the video and as of yet nobody even backs your claim Quill

Not even on twitter

Let me help explain why even this bait and switch shows up your stupidity here mate

Even a pen knife is a threat, as it can certainly kill someone

The facts are this, there was a knife and even with your poor attempt to deny the officer a defence. By trying to remove his ability to claim self defence. Is based on you poorly lying. Claiming the knife was a pen-knife and then even worse trying to claim its not a threat

3. is answered in number one.

This is why I detest lawyers

If they can looked to try to downplay a case where it may actually have been justifiable. Quill would not care about the facts, but misconstrue the evidence. With a view to finding a potentially innocent man as guilty

Its like the Jim crow south hall over again. Lawyers fucking with people. As not a single news article claims it was a pen knife.

Let alone the fact they can certainly kill people

Sorry. I've seen the video. No amount of lawyer-speak can change a video view of the action, in itself.

Original Quill wrote:Sorry.  I've seen the video.  No amount of lawyer-speak can change a video view of the action, in itself.

I have seen the video also

All amounts of concepts are open to this video view. When you regard all the known evidence

Didgee wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Sorry.  I've seen the video.  No amount of lawyer-speak can change a video view of the action, in itself.

I have seen the video also

All amounts of concepts are open to this video view. When you regard all the known evidence

No. It was a cowardly act, aimed at killing. Fortunately, he didn't succeed. It was a classic case of crime behind the badge.

Original Quill wrote:

Didgee wrote:

I have seen the video also

All amounts of concepts are open to this video view. When you regard all the known evidence

No.  It was a cowardly act, aimed at killing.  Fortunately, he didn't succeed.  It was a classic case of crime behind the badge.

Subjective babble, as you have closed to your mind to all other potential possibilities

That would rule you out of being on the jury

No, I was a witness. That would also preclude me from being a juror.

Original Quill wrote:No, I was a witness.  That would also preclude me from being a juror.

Was this during a wet dream?

Behave. You are regressing/

Quill was in Kenosha last week?

Here is the actual criminal complaint.

It explains exactly what happened, for those of us that were not there like Quill.

Sorry, here is the next page. Not that it matters to Quill. He was there and knows what happens.

And back to Blake.

He was in violation of a restraining order because of domestic violence. The female with the restraining order on him, called the police.

He still shouldn't have been shot, but he damn sure should be in jail.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/nation/2020/08/25/jacob-blake-kenosha-police-shot-black-man-minutes-after-arriving/3438802001/

More of the story. The ex/current girlfriend called the cops because he was starting problems at her house and he wasn't supposed to be there. He took her keys.

Cops are informed about the suspect having warrants. This guy wasn't breaking up any fight. He was starting one.

He still shouldn't have been shot, but his sorry ass belongs in jail.

Maddog wrote:Here is the actual criminal complaint.

It explains exactly what happened, for those of us that were not there like Quill.

Correction: it explains one side of what happened.  You always forget that it's an adversarial system.  That means each side has it's own spin.

I should add that if you completely miss the equity of the balance, you are also missing democracy. Democracy is likewise based on a system of balance. If you don't believe in democracy, what did I say about the south? They are highly rigid, believing in status and manipulation of voting (particularly over black people), with a high propensity for violence and authoritarian rule. Recall? Guns? Jim Crow laws? Even today, voter suppression? The south is highly anti-democratic.

Oh dear...

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Here is the actual criminal complaint.

It explains exactly what happened, for those of us that were not there like Quill.

Correction: it explains one side of what happened.  You always forget that it's an adversarial system.  That means each side has it's own spin.

I should add that if you completely miss the equity of the balance, you are also missing democracy.  Democracy is likewise based on a system of balance.  If you don't believe in democracy, what did I say about the south?  They are highly rigid, believing in status and manipulation of voting (particularly over black people), with a high propensity for violence and authoritarian rule.  Recall?  Guns?  Jim Crow laws?  Even today, voter suppression?  The south is highly anti-democratic.

I dont need a correction. This is the actual criminal complaint not your twisted fucking lies..

How about you go fuck yourself.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Correction: it explains one side of what happened.  You always forget that it's an adversarial system.  That means each side has it's own spin.

I should add that if you completely miss the equity of the balance, you are also missing democracy.  Democracy is likewise based on a system of balance.  If you don't believe in democracy, what did I say about the south?  They are highly rigid, believing in status and manipulation of voting (particularly over black people), with a high propensity for violence and authoritarian rule.  Recall?  Guns?  Jim Crow laws?  Even today, voter suppression?  The south is highly anti-democratic.

I dont need a correction.

That's right, you're a southerner. All you need is a gun.

If any wants to actually see a lawyer discuss the case. He lays it out pretty damn clear.

Maddog wrote:


If any wants to actually see a lawyer discuss the case. He lays it out pretty damn clear.

That is a pretty clear assessment of what happened...


Quill will ignore all the facts.

Here is a commentator, who originally said what y'all say, correcting himself:



The video shows that the first killing happened at the garage/service station.  The running/shooting incident (the one y'all say was the first killing) was the second killing.

Original Quill wrote:Here is a commentator, who originally said what y'all say, correcting himself:



The video shows that the first killing happened at the garage/service station.  The running/shooting incident (the one y'all say was the first killing) was the second killing.

The first shooting happened after Rosenbaum chased and cornered the kid and attempted to take his rifle. The second killing was dumbass with the skateboard which was the second chase when Kyle ran and fell on the ground,

Kyle was running away from Rosenbaum. He was retreating and attempting to leave the scene.

This all quite clear in the arrest complaint.

Original Quill wrote:Here is a commentator, who originally said what y'all say, correcting himself:



The video shows that the first killing happened at the garage/service station.  The running/shooting incident (the one y'all say was the first killing) was the second killing.

He says the first guy to get shot was Rosenberg after he threw something at Kyle and ran at him etc...


It also says Rosenberg is a convicted child sex offender...

He said he was correcting himself about Jacob Blake... Because he previously said Blake was dead but he had realised that Blake was not dead after all...

Tommy Monk wrote:


He said he was correcting himself about Jacob Blake... Because he previously said Blake was dead but he had realised that Blake was not dead after all...

Exactly. He stated that Rosenbaum chased and lunged at Kyle.

But I want to thank Quill for that video. Now I know why Rosenbaum wanted to beat the hell out of Kyle. Kyle put out a fire in a dumpster and that pissed people off.

Yes Rosenbaum... I put Rosenberg by mistake...


I don't think quill even watched that video that he posted up...


Or he just blatantly tried lying about what the video actually said...?

Oh and Maddog... That video you put up earlier, Kyle was being interviewed and he had said something about putting out a fire there too... Something about having been over by the church that can be seen in the vid clip and putting out a fire...

Tommy Monk wrote:



Yes Rosenbaum... I put Rosenberg  by mistake...


I don't think quill even watched that video that he posted up...


Or he just blatantly tried lying about what the video actually said...?

He may have read the title.

I'm glad he posted it. I never knew what Kyle did to piss off the sex offender. Now I know.

Tommy Monk wrote:


Oh and Maddog... That video you put up earlier, Kyle was being interviewed and he had said something about putting out a fire there too... Something about having been over by the church that can be seen in the vid clip and putting out a fire...

Yeah, I thought he said they were protecting the church. I didn't know he put out a fire. Glad it's on video too.

Yes... I'm sure he said something about being at the church earlier, and pretty sure he said something about putting out or helping to put out a fire too...



Interestingly, the vid that quill put up, the guy says that he will always admit when he is wrong, and never double down on bullshit... Quill should heed that advice...

It appears that Kyle was in Wisconsin because he worked at the Kenosha pool as a lifeguard earlier that day.