ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

cms186 said:

---

SIC EM 94 said:

---

cinque said:

---

As more is known, I post it here.

---

Where is your thread about Blake having a knife in his car? We expect you to keep us updated!
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/08/26/wisconsin-doj-confirms-that-jacob-blake-was-armed-with-a-knife-when-he-was-shot-by-a-police-officer/

---

is owning a knife cause for a law enforcement officer to shoot someone 7 times in the back? are Law Enforcement officers in America THAT incompetent that the only method of dealing with someone who MIGHT be reaching for a knife, to shoot them in the back 7 times?

---

1. Had warrants for arrest
2. Was cause/perpetrator of immediate police response call
3. Ignored lawful orders
4. Ignored lawful orders with guns drawn on him
5. Ignored lawful order with guns drawn on him while reaching for a deadly weapon inside his car

Anyone who thinks this is a bad shoot is a fool

---

theres been no evidence that he was actually reaching for a weapon, has there?i havent seen any claims that he was actually reaching for a weapon anyway, why should there be a "Shoot first, ask questions later", its been shown there was no gun in the car, Violence isnt always the answer

---

I listed the steps he went through so people like you would have to confront all the choices he made to get shot. As usual, people like you ignore them all.

---

And at each step, the officers failed. Once again multiple officers can't subdue or restrain a single subject, and end up shooting someone in the back multiple times. Any yahoo can unload on an unarmed and/or belligerent subject. It takes zero training or a badge.

---

Each of those tactics used to subdue will be and have been deemed police brutality and been called the primary cause of death of violent resisting offenders. He was tased and the police tried to physically subdue him. He fought them off and went for a weapon.

The police succeeded in not letting a scumbag ignoring lawful orders kill them. The woman he'd been assaulting was no longer being assaulted and he's not likely to engage in any of the violence he had warrants for. Shooting him was the right thing to do.

---

You must have some information I don't. All I've seen and read is about a bunch of yelling with guns drawn.

---

Try and keep up.

https://www.insider.com/police-used-taser-grappled-jacob-blake-before-shooting-witnesses-2020-8

---

So they did fail to restrain him, and gave up and let him walk to his vehicle. I know you don't care as you prefer the judge, jury, and executioner style of policing.

---

No. The officer who shot him had hold of his shirt while he continued to reach for the knife in his floor board to kill them.

Keep up

---

Holding his shirt??? Well there's a great way to restrain someone. Officers put the victim and themselves in danger by not getting and keeping him on the ground. They have tasers, batons, and pepper spray not to mention two on one advantage, yet they couldn't get this guy restrained. I'm not even arguing the moment of firing wasn't justified, but why does it even get there?

---

Well, it's the last thing they could grab after the guy shrugged them off, shrugged off a TASER and went for a knife to kill them.

How dare they let the guy be stronger and more violent than they were, right? I mean if he wants to ignore them and then stab them to death, who are they to object? You believe police are there to die if criminals decide they don't want to obey the law, right?

Jinx 2 said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

cms186 said:

---

SIC EM 94 said:

---

cinque said:

---

As more is known, I post it here.

---

Where is your thread about Blake having a knife in his car? We expect you to keep us updated!
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/08/26/wisconsin-doj-confirms-that-jacob-blake-was-armed-with-a-knife-when-he-was-shot-by-a-police-officer/

---

is owning a knife cause for a law enforcement officer to shoot someone 7 times in the back? are Law Enforcement officers in America THAT incompetent that the only method of dealing with someone who MIGHT be reaching for a knife, to shoot them in the back 7 times?

---

1. Had warrants for arrest
2. Was cause/perpetrator of immediate police response call
3. Ignored lawful orders
4. Ignored lawful orders with guns drawn on him
5. Ignored lawful order with guns drawn on him while reaching for a deadly weapon inside his car

Anyone who thinks this is a bad shoot is a fool

---

theres been no evidence that he was actually reaching for a weapon, has there?i havent seen any claims that he was actually reaching for a weapon anyway, why should there be a "Shoot first, ask questions later", its been shown there was no gun in the car, Violence isnt always the answer

---

I listed the steps he went through so people like you would have to confront all the choices he made to get shot. As usual, people like you ignore them all.

---

And at each step, the officers failed. Once again multiple officers can't subdue or restrain a single subject, and end up shooting someone in the back multiple times. Any yahoo can unload on an unarmed and/or belligerent subject. It takes zero training or a badge.

---

Each of those tactics used to subdue will be and have been deemed police brutality and been called the primary cause of death of violent resisting offenders. He was tased and the police tried to physically subdue him. He fought them off and went for a weapon.

The police succeeded in not letting a scumbag ignoring lawful orders kill them. The woman he'd been assaulting was no longer being assaulted and he's not likely to engage in any of the violence he had warrants for. Shooting him was the right thing to do.

---

You must have some information I don't. All I've seen and read is about a bunch of yelling with guns drawn.

---

Try and keep up.

https://www.insider.com/police-used-taser-grappled-jacob-blake-before-shooting-witnesses-2020-8

---

So they did fail to restrain him, and gave up and let him walk to his vehicle. I know you don't care as you prefer the judge, jury, and executioner style of policing.

---

No. The officer who shot him had hold of his shirt while he continued to reach for the knife in his floor board to kill them.

Keep up

---

The report you posted does not state he was reaching for a knife or continuing to reach for a knife.

It states that a knife was found in the floorboard. It doesn't even state what kind of knife; I've had paring and cooking knives in my car often as a result of taking food to the dinner I used to cook and serve to a crowd of low-income patrons at a church.

I also keep scissors in the front of my car to use for self-defense if that's ever needed.

Does that make me eligible to be shot in the back by police--because those items are in my car?

---

Yes. When you are not listening to police and you reach into your car...yes, you could get shot. They don't know what you're reaching for...watch the MULTIPLE youtube videos of seemingly innocent traffic stops that turn deadly.

Are you really thins thick?

Oh yeah, you are...Blasey-Ford

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

cms186 said:

---

SIC EM 94 said:

---

cinque said:

---

As more is known, I post it here.

---

Where is your thread about Blake having a knife in his car? We expect you to keep us updated!
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/08/26/wisconsin-doj-confirms-that-jacob-blake-was-armed-with-a-knife-when-he-was-shot-by-a-police-officer/

---

is owning a knife cause for a law enforcement officer to shoot someone 7 times in the back? are Law Enforcement officers in America THAT incompetent that the only method of dealing with someone who MIGHT be reaching for a knife, to shoot them in the back 7 times?

---

1. Had warrants for arrest
2. Was cause/perpetrator of immediate police response call
3. Ignored lawful orders
4. Ignored lawful orders with guns drawn on him
5. Ignored lawful order with guns drawn on him while reaching for a deadly weapon inside his car

Anyone who thinks this is a bad shoot is a fool

---

theres been no evidence that he was actually reaching for a weapon, has there?i havent seen any claims that he was actually reaching for a weapon anyway, why should there be a "Shoot first, ask questions later", its been shown there was no gun in the car, Violence isnt always the answer

---

I listed the steps he went through so people like you would have to confront all the choices he made to get shot. As usual, people like you ignore them all.

---

And at each step, the officers failed. Once again multiple officers can't subdue or restrain a single subject, and end up shooting someone in the back multiple times. Any yahoo can unload on an unarmed and/or belligerent subject. It takes zero training or a badge.

---

Each of those tactics used to subdue will be and have been deemed police brutality and been called the primary cause of death of violent resisting offenders. He was tased and the police tried to physically subdue him. He fought them off and went for a weapon.

The police succeeded in not letting a scumbag ignoring lawful orders kill them. The woman he'd been assaulting was no longer being assaulted and he's not likely to engage in any of the violence he had warrants for. Shooting him was the right thing to do.

---

You must have some information I don't. All I've seen and read is about a bunch of yelling with guns drawn.

---

Try and keep up.

https://www.insider.com/police-used-taser-grappled-jacob-blake-before-shooting-witnesses-2020-8

---

So they did fail to restrain him, and gave up and let him walk to his vehicle. I know you don't care as you prefer the judge, jury, and executioner style of policing.

---

No. The officer who shot him had hold of his shirt while he continued to reach for the knife in his floor board to kill them.

Keep up

---

Holding his shirt??? Well there's a great way to restrain someone. Officers put the victim and themselves in danger by not getting and keeping him on the ground. They have tasers, batons, and pepper spray not to mention two on one advantage, yet they couldn't get this guy restrained. I'm not even arguing the moment of firing wasn't justified, but why does it even get there?

---

Well, it's the last thing they could grab after the guy shrugged them off, shrugged off a TASER and went for a knife to kill them.

How dare they let the guy be stronger and more violent than they were, right? I mean if he wants to ignore them and then stab them to death, who are they to object? You believe police are there to die if criminals decide they don't want to obey the law, right?

---

I believe police should be able to handle the job they are tasked with, which isn't shoot every sucker who doesn't comply with everything they say. If you can't, then don't put them out there. That's how officers get killed just like citizens.

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

cms186 said:

---

SIC EM 94 said:

---

cinque said:

---

As more is known, I post it here.

---

Where is your thread about Blake having a knife in his car? We expect you to keep us updated!
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/08/26/wisconsin-doj-confirms-that-jacob-blake-was-armed-with-a-knife-when-he-was-shot-by-a-police-officer/

---

is owning a knife cause for a law enforcement officer to shoot someone 7 times in the back? are Law Enforcement officers in America THAT incompetent that the only method of dealing with someone who MIGHT be reaching for a knife, to shoot them in the back 7 times?

---

1. Had warrants for arrest
2. Was cause/perpetrator of immediate police response call
3. Ignored lawful orders
4. Ignored lawful orders with guns drawn on him
5. Ignored lawful order with guns drawn on him while reaching for a deadly weapon inside his car

Anyone who thinks this is a bad shoot is a fool

---

theres been no evidence that he was actually reaching for a weapon, has there?i havent seen any claims that he was actually reaching for a weapon anyway, why should there be a "Shoot first, ask questions later", its been shown there was no gun in the car, Violence isnt always the answer

---

I listed the steps he went through so people like you would have to confront all the choices he made to get shot. As usual, people like you ignore them all.

---

And at each step, the officers failed. Once again multiple officers can't subdue or restrain a single subject, and end up shooting someone in the back multiple times. Any yahoo can unload on an unarmed and/or belligerent subject. It takes zero training or a badge.

---

Each of those tactics used to subdue will be and have been deemed police brutality and been called the primary cause of death of violent resisting offenders. He was tased and the police tried to physically subdue him. He fought them off and went for a weapon.

The police succeeded in not letting a scumbag ignoring lawful orders kill them. The woman he'd been assaulting was no longer being assaulted and he's not likely to engage in any of the violence he had warrants for. Shooting him was the right thing to do.

---

You must have some information I don't. All I've seen and read is about a bunch of yelling with guns drawn.

---

Try and keep up.

https://www.insider.com/police-used-taser-grappled-jacob-blake-before-shooting-witnesses-2020-8

---

So they did fail to restrain him, and gave up and let him walk to his vehicle. I know you don't care as you prefer the judge, jury, and executioner style of policing.

---

No. The officer who shot him had hold of his shirt while he continued to reach for the knife in his floor board to kill them.

Keep up

---

Holding his shirt??? Well there's a great way to restrain someone. Officers put the victim and themselves in danger by not getting and keeping him on the ground. They have tasers, batons, and pepper spray not to mention two on one advantage, yet they couldn't get this guy restrained. I'm not even arguing the moment of firing wasn't justified, but why does it even get there?

---

Well, it's the last thing they could grab after the guy shrugged them off, shrugged off a TASER and went for a knife to kill them.

How dare they let the guy be stronger and more violent than they were, right? I mean if he wants to ignore them and then stab them to death, who are they to object? You believe police are there to die if criminals decide they don't want to obey the law, right?

---

I believe police should be able to handle the job they are tasked with, which isn't shoot every sucker who doesn't comply with everything they say. If you can't, then don't put them out there. That's how officers get killed just like citizens.

---

Show evidence where police shoot everyone who doesn't comply...we'll wait

fadskier said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

cms186 said:

---

SIC EM 94 said:

---

cinque said:

---

As more is known, I post it here.

---

Where is your thread about Blake having a knife in his car? We expect you to keep us updated!
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/08/26/wisconsin-doj-confirms-that-jacob-blake-was-armed-with-a-knife-when-he-was-shot-by-a-police-officer/

---

is owning a knife cause for a law enforcement officer to shoot someone 7 times in the back? are Law Enforcement officers in America THAT incompetent that the only method of dealing with someone who MIGHT be reaching for a knife, to shoot them in the back 7 times?

---

1. Had warrants for arrest
2. Was cause/perpetrator of immediate police response call
3. Ignored lawful orders
4. Ignored lawful orders with guns drawn on him
5. Ignored lawful order with guns drawn on him while reaching for a deadly weapon inside his car

Anyone who thinks this is a bad shoot is a fool

---

theres been no evidence that he was actually reaching for a weapon, has there?i havent seen any claims that he was actually reaching for a weapon anyway, why should there be a "Shoot first, ask questions later", its been shown there was no gun in the car, Violence isnt always the answer

---

I listed the steps he went through so people like you would have to confront all the choices he made to get shot. As usual, people like you ignore them all.

---

And at each step, the officers failed. Once again multiple officers can't subdue or restrain a single subject, and end up shooting someone in the back multiple times. Any yahoo can unload on an unarmed and/or belligerent subject. It takes zero training or a badge.

---

Each of those tactics used to subdue will be and have been deemed police brutality and been called the primary cause of death of violent resisting offenders. He was tased and the police tried to physically subdue him. He fought them off and went for a weapon.

The police succeeded in not letting a scumbag ignoring lawful orders kill them. The woman he'd been assaulting was no longer being assaulted and he's not likely to engage in any of the violence he had warrants for. Shooting him was the right thing to do.

---

You must have some information I don't. All I've seen and read is about a bunch of yelling with guns drawn.

---

Try and keep up.

https://www.insider.com/police-used-taser-grappled-jacob-blake-before-shooting-witnesses-2020-8

---

So they did fail to restrain him, and gave up and let him walk to his vehicle. I know you don't care as you prefer the judge, jury, and executioner style of policing.

---

No. The officer who shot him had hold of his shirt while he continued to reach for the knife in his floor board to kill them.

Keep up

---

Holding his shirt??? Well there's a great way to restrain someone. Officers put the victim and themselves in danger by not getting and keeping him on the ground. They have tasers, batons, and pepper spray not to mention two on one advantage, yet they couldn't get this guy restrained. I'm not even arguing the moment of firing wasn't justified, but why does it even get there?

---

Well, it's the last thing they could grab after the guy shrugged them off, shrugged off a TASER and went for a knife to kill them.

How dare they let the guy be stronger and more violent than they were, right? I mean if he wants to ignore them and then stab them to death, who are they to object? You believe police are there to die if criminals decide they don't want to obey the law, right?

---

I believe police should be able to handle the job they are tasked with, which isn't shoot every sucker who doesn't comply with everything they say. If you can't, then don't put them out there. That's how officers get killed just like citizens.

---

Show evidence where police shoot everyone who doesn't comply...we'll wait

---

Show where I said that, I'll wait.

ATL Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

cms186 said:

---

SIC EM 94 said:

---

cinque said:

---

As more is known, I post it here.

---

Where is your thread about Blake having a knife in his car? We expect you to keep us updated!
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/08/26/wisconsin-doj-confirms-that-jacob-blake-was-armed-with-a-knife-when-he-was-shot-by-a-police-officer/

---

is owning a knife cause for a law enforcement officer to shoot someone 7 times in the back? are Law Enforcement officers in America THAT incompetent that the only method of dealing with someone who MIGHT be reaching for a knife, to shoot them in the back 7 times?

---

1. Had warrants for arrest
2. Was cause/perpetrator of immediate police response call
3. Ignored lawful orders
4. Ignored lawful orders with guns drawn on him
5. Ignored lawful order with guns drawn on him while reaching for a deadly weapon inside his car

Anyone who thinks this is a bad shoot is a fool

---

theres been no evidence that he was actually reaching for a weapon, has there?i havent seen any claims that he was actually reaching for a weapon anyway, why should there be a "Shoot first, ask questions later", its been shown there was no gun in the car, Violence isnt always the answer

---

I listed the steps he went through so people like you would have to confront all the choices he made to get shot. As usual, people like you ignore them all.

---

And at each step, the officers failed. Once again multiple officers can't subdue or restrain a single subject, and end up shooting someone in the back multiple times. Any yahoo can unload on an unarmed and/or belligerent subject. It takes zero training or a badge.

---

Each of those tactics used to subdue will be and have been deemed police brutality and been called the primary cause of death of violent resisting offenders. He was tased and the police tried to physically subdue him. He fought them off and went for a weapon.

The police succeeded in not letting a scumbag ignoring lawful orders kill them. The woman he'd been assaulting was no longer being assaulted and he's not likely to engage in any of the violence he had warrants for. Shooting him was the right thing to do.

---

You must have some information I don't. All I've seen and read is about a bunch of yelling with guns drawn.

---

Try and keep up.

https://www.insider.com/police-used-taser-grappled-jacob-blake-before-shooting-witnesses-2020-8

---

So they did fail to restrain him, and gave up and let him walk to his vehicle. I know you don't care as you prefer the judge, jury, and executioner style of policing.

---

No. The officer who shot him had hold of his shirt while he continued to reach for the knife in his floor board to kill them.

Keep up

---

Holding his shirt??? Well there's a great way to restrain someone. Officers put the victim and themselves in danger by not getting and keeping him on the ground. They have tasers, batons, and pepper spray not to mention two on one advantage, yet they couldn't get this guy restrained. I'm not even arguing the moment of firing wasn't justified, but why does it even get there?

---

Well, it's the last thing they could grab after the guy shrugged them off, shrugged off a TASER and went for a knife to kill them.

How dare they let the guy be stronger and more violent than they were, right? I mean if he wants to ignore them and then stab them to death, who are they to object? You believe police are there to die if criminals decide they don't want to obey the law, right?

---

I believe police should be able to handle the job they are tasked with, which isn't shoot every sucker who doesn't comply with everything they say. If you can't, then don't put them out there. That's how officers get killed just like citizens.

---

Show evidence where police shoot everyone who doesn't comply...we'll wait

---

Show where I said that, I'll wait.

---

"which isn't shoot every sucker who doesn't comply with everything they say"

C'mon...you can at least make it harder than just copying and pasting...

This boy wanted to be a cop. Probably would have made it before he got a couple of bodies on his sheet.

"...the Grayslake Police Department confirmed that Rittenhouse was a former member of the Lindenhurst, Grayslake, Hainesville Police Department's Public Safety Cadet Program."


https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/kenosha-suspect-kyle-rittenhouse-trump-rally

fadskier said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

cms186 said:

---

SIC EM 94 said:

---

cinque said:

---

As more is known, I post it here.

---

Where is your thread about Blake having a knife in his car? We expect you to keep us updated!
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/08/26/wisconsin-doj-confirms-that-jacob-blake-was-armed-with-a-knife-when-he-was-shot-by-a-police-officer/

---

is owning a knife cause for a law enforcement officer to shoot someone 7 times in the back? are Law Enforcement officers in America THAT incompetent that the only method of dealing with someone who MIGHT be reaching for a knife, to shoot them in the back 7 times?

---

1. Had warrants for arrest
2. Was cause/perpetrator of immediate police response call
3. Ignored lawful orders
4. Ignored lawful orders with guns drawn on him
5. Ignored lawful order with guns drawn on him while reaching for a deadly weapon inside his car

Anyone who thinks this is a bad shoot is a fool

---

theres been no evidence that he was actually reaching for a weapon, has there?i havent seen any claims that he was actually reaching for a weapon anyway, why should there be a "Shoot first, ask questions later", its been shown there was no gun in the car, Violence isnt always the answer

---

I listed the steps he went through so people like you would have to confront all the choices he made to get shot. As usual, people like you ignore them all.

---

And at each step, the officers failed. Once again multiple officers can't subdue or restrain a single subject, and end up shooting someone in the back multiple times. Any yahoo can unload on an unarmed and/or belligerent subject. It takes zero training or a badge.

---

Each of those tactics used to subdue will be and have been deemed police brutality and been called the primary cause of death of violent resisting offenders. He was tased and the police tried to physically subdue him. He fought them off and went for a weapon.

The police succeeded in not letting a scumbag ignoring lawful orders kill them. The woman he'd been assaulting was no longer being assaulted and he's not likely to engage in any of the violence he had warrants for. Shooting him was the right thing to do.

---

You must have some information I don't. All I've seen and read is about a bunch of yelling with guns drawn.

---

Try and keep up.

https://www.insider.com/police-used-taser-grappled-jacob-blake-before-shooting-witnesses-2020-8

---

So they did fail to restrain him, and gave up and let him walk to his vehicle. I know you don't care as you prefer the judge, jury, and executioner style of policing.

---

No. The officer who shot him had hold of his shirt while he continued to reach for the knife in his floor board to kill them.

Keep up

---

Holding his shirt??? Well there's a great way to restrain someone. Officers put the victim and themselves in danger by not getting and keeping him on the ground. They have tasers, batons, and pepper spray not to mention two on one advantage, yet they couldn't get this guy restrained. I'm not even arguing the moment of firing wasn't justified, but why does it even get there?

---

Well, it's the last thing they could grab after the guy shrugged them off, shrugged off a TASER and went for a knife to kill them.

How dare they let the guy be stronger and more violent than they were, right? I mean if he wants to ignore them and then stab them to death, who are they to object? You believe police are there to die if criminals decide they don't want to obey the law, right?

---

I believe police should be able to handle the job they are tasked with, which isn't shoot every sucker who doesn't comply with everything they say. If you can't, then don't put them out there. That's how officers get killed just like citizens.

---

Show evidence where police shoot everyone who doesn't comply...we'll wait

---

Show where I said that, I'll wait.

---

"which isn't shoot every sucker who doesn't comply with everything they say"

C'mon...you can at least make it harder than just copying and pasting...

---

Amazingly taken out of context! Well done! I mean by saying that their job isn't to do that, you say I'm saying that it's all they do.

ATL Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

cms186 said:

---

SIC EM 94 said:

---

cinque said:

---

As more is known, I post it here.

---

Where is your thread about Blake having a knife in his car? We expect you to keep us updated!
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/08/26/wisconsin-doj-confirms-that-jacob-blake-was-armed-with-a-knife-when-he-was-shot-by-a-police-officer/

---

is owning a knife cause for a law enforcement officer to shoot someone 7 times in the back? are Law Enforcement officers in America THAT incompetent that the only method of dealing with someone who MIGHT be reaching for a knife, to shoot them in the back 7 times?

---

1. Had warrants for arrest
2. Was cause/perpetrator of immediate police response call
3. Ignored lawful orders
4. Ignored lawful orders with guns drawn on him
5. Ignored lawful order with guns drawn on him while reaching for a deadly weapon inside his car

Anyone who thinks this is a bad shoot is a fool

---

theres been no evidence that he was actually reaching for a weapon, has there?i havent seen any claims that he was actually reaching for a weapon anyway, why should there be a "Shoot first, ask questions later", its been shown there was no gun in the car, Violence isnt always the answer

---

I listed the steps he went through so people like you would have to confront all the choices he made to get shot. As usual, people like you ignore them all.

---

And at each step, the officers failed. Once again multiple officers can't subdue or restrain a single subject, and end up shooting someone in the back multiple times. Any yahoo can unload on an unarmed and/or belligerent subject. It takes zero training or a badge.

---

Each of those tactics used to subdue will be and have been deemed police brutality and been called the primary cause of death of violent resisting offenders. He was tased and the police tried to physically subdue him. He fought them off and went for a weapon.

The police succeeded in not letting a scumbag ignoring lawful orders kill them. The woman he'd been assaulting was no longer being assaulted and he's not likely to engage in any of the violence he had warrants for. Shooting him was the right thing to do.

---

You must have some information I don't. All I've seen and read is about a bunch of yelling with guns drawn.

---

Try and keep up.

https://www.insider.com/police-used-taser-grappled-jacob-blake-before-shooting-witnesses-2020-8

---

So they did fail to restrain him, and gave up and let him walk to his vehicle. I know you don't care as you prefer the judge, jury, and executioner style of policing.

---

No. The officer who shot him had hold of his shirt while he continued to reach for the knife in his floor board to kill them.

Keep up

---

Holding his shirt??? Well there's a great way to restrain someone. Officers put the victim and themselves in danger by not getting and keeping him on the ground. They have tasers, batons, and pepper spray not to mention two on one advantage, yet they couldn't get this guy restrained. I'm not even arguing the moment of firing wasn't justified, but why does it even get there?

---

Well, it's the last thing they could grab after the guy shrugged them off, shrugged off a TASER and went for a knife to kill them.

How dare they let the guy be stronger and more violent than they were, right? I mean if he wants to ignore them and then stab them to death, who are they to object? You believe police are there to die if criminals decide they don't want to obey the law, right?

---

I believe police should be able to handle the job they are tasked with, which isn't shoot every sucker who doesn't comply with everything they say. If you can't, then don't put them out there. That's how officers get killed just like citizens.

---

Show evidence where police shoot everyone who doesn't comply...we'll wait

---

Show where I said that, I'll wait.

---

"which isn't shoot every sucker who doesn't comply with everything they say"

C'mon...you can at least make it harder than just copying and pasting...

---

Amazingly taken out of context! Well done! I mean by saying that their job isn't to do that, you say I'm saying that it's all they do.

---

What you did was called an implication.

An implicature is something the speaker suggests or implies with an utterance, even though it is not literally expressed. Implicatures can aid in communicating more efficiently than by explicitly saying everything we want to communicate. This phenomenon is part of pragmatics, a subdiscipline of linguistics

fadskier said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

cms186 said:

---

SIC EM 94 said:

---

cinque said:

---

As more is known, I post it here.

---

Where is your thread about Blake having a knife in his car? We expect you to keep us updated!
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/08/26/wisconsin-doj-confirms-that-jacob-blake-was-armed-with-a-knife-when-he-was-shot-by-a-police-officer/

---

is owning a knife cause for a law enforcement officer to shoot someone 7 times in the back? are Law Enforcement officers in America THAT incompetent that the only method of dealing with someone who MIGHT be reaching for a knife, to shoot them in the back 7 times?

---

1. Had warrants for arrest
2. Was cause/perpetrator of immediate police response call
3. Ignored lawful orders
4. Ignored lawful orders with guns drawn on him
5. Ignored lawful order with guns drawn on him while reaching for a deadly weapon inside his car

Anyone who thinks this is a bad shoot is a fool

---

theres been no evidence that he was actually reaching for a weapon, has there?i havent seen any claims that he was actually reaching for a weapon anyway, why should there be a "Shoot first, ask questions later", its been shown there was no gun in the car, Violence isnt always the answer

---

I listed the steps he went through so people like you would have to confront all the choices he made to get shot. As usual, people like you ignore them all.

---

And at each step, the officers failed. Once again multiple officers can't subdue or restrain a single subject, and end up shooting someone in the back multiple times. Any yahoo can unload on an unarmed and/or belligerent subject. It takes zero training or a badge.

---

Each of those tactics used to subdue will be and have been deemed police brutality and been called the primary cause of death of violent resisting offenders. He was tased and the police tried to physically subdue him. He fought them off and went for a weapon.

The police succeeded in not letting a scumbag ignoring lawful orders kill them. The woman he'd been assaulting was no longer being assaulted and he's not likely to engage in any of the violence he had warrants for. Shooting him was the right thing to do.

---

You must have some information I don't. All I've seen and read is about a bunch of yelling with guns drawn.

---

Try and keep up.

https://www.insider.com/police-used-taser-grappled-jacob-blake-before-shooting-witnesses-2020-8

---

So they did fail to restrain him, and gave up and let him walk to his vehicle. I know you don't care as you prefer the judge, jury, and executioner style of policing.

---

No. The officer who shot him had hold of his shirt while he continued to reach for the knife in his floor board to kill them.

Keep up

---

Holding his shirt??? Well there's a great way to restrain someone. Officers put the victim and themselves in danger by not getting and keeping him on the ground. They have tasers, batons, and pepper spray not to mention two on one advantage, yet they couldn't get this guy restrained. I'm not even arguing the moment of firing wasn't justified, but why does it even get there?

---

Well, it's the last thing they could grab after the guy shrugged them off, shrugged off a TASER and went for a knife to kill them.

How dare they let the guy be stronger and more violent than they were, right? I mean if he wants to ignore them and then stab them to death, who are they to object? You believe police are there to die if criminals decide they don't want to obey the law, right?

---

I believe police should be able to handle the job they are tasked with, which isn't shoot every sucker who doesn't comply with everything they say. If you can't, then don't put them out there. That's how officers get killed just like citizens.

---

Show evidence where police shoot everyone who doesn't comply...we'll wait

---

Show where I said that, I'll wait.

---

"which isn't shoot every sucker who doesn't comply with everything they say"

C'mon...you can at least make it harder than just copying and pasting...

---

Amazingly taken out of context! Well done! I mean by saying that their job isn't to do that, you say I'm saying that it's all they do.

---

What you did was called an implication.

An implicature is something the speaker suggests or implies with an utterance, even though it is not literally expressed. Implicatures can aid in communicating more efficiently than by explicitly saying everything we want to communicate. This phenomenon is part of pragmatics, a subdiscipline of linguistics

---

So we are LITERALLY arguing about semantics. LOL!

ATL Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

cms186 said:

---

SIC EM 94 said:

---

cinque said:

---

As more is known, I post it here.

---

Where is your thread about Blake having a knife in his car? We expect you to keep us updated!
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/08/26/wisconsin-doj-confirms-that-jacob-blake-was-armed-with-a-knife-when-he-was-shot-by-a-police-officer/

---

is owning a knife cause for a law enforcement officer to shoot someone 7 times in the back? are Law Enforcement officers in America THAT incompetent that the only method of dealing with someone who MIGHT be reaching for a knife, to shoot them in the back 7 times?

---

1. Had warrants for arrest
2. Was cause/perpetrator of immediate police response call
3. Ignored lawful orders
4. Ignored lawful orders with guns drawn on him
5. Ignored lawful order with guns drawn on him while reaching for a deadly weapon inside his car

Anyone who thinks this is a bad shoot is a fool

---

theres been no evidence that he was actually reaching for a weapon, has there?i havent seen any claims that he was actually reaching for a weapon anyway, why should there be a "Shoot first, ask questions later", its been shown there was no gun in the car, Violence isnt always the answer

---

I listed the steps he went through so people like you would have to confront all the choices he made to get shot. As usual, people like you ignore them all.

---

And at each step, the officers failed. Once again multiple officers can't subdue or restrain a single subject, and end up shooting someone in the back multiple times. Any yahoo can unload on an unarmed and/or belligerent subject. It takes zero training or a badge.

---

Each of those tactics used to subdue will be and have been deemed police brutality and been called the primary cause of death of violent resisting offenders. He was tased and the police tried to physically subdue him. He fought them off and went for a weapon.

The police succeeded in not letting a scumbag ignoring lawful orders kill them. The woman he'd been assaulting was no longer being assaulted and he's not likely to engage in any of the violence he had warrants for. Shooting him was the right thing to do.

---

You must have some information I don't. All I've seen and read is about a bunch of yelling with guns drawn.

---

Try and keep up.

https://www.insider.com/police-used-taser-grappled-jacob-blake-before-shooting-witnesses-2020-8

---

So they did fail to restrain him, and gave up and let him walk to his vehicle. I know you don't care as you prefer the judge, jury, and executioner style of policing.

---

No. The officer who shot him had hold of his shirt while he continued to reach for the knife in his floor board to kill them.

Keep up

---

Holding his shirt??? Well there's a great way to restrain someone. Officers put the victim and themselves in danger by not getting and keeping him on the ground. They have tasers, batons, and pepper spray not to mention two on one advantage, yet they couldn't get this guy restrained. I'm not even arguing the moment of firing wasn't justified, but why does it even get there?

---

Well, it's the last thing they could grab after the guy shrugged them off, shrugged off a TASER and went for a knife to kill them.

How dare they let the guy be stronger and more violent than they were, right? I mean if he wants to ignore them and then stab them to death, who are they to object? You believe police are there to die if criminals decide they don't want to obey the law, right?

---

I believe police should be able to handle the job they are tasked with, which isn't shoot every sucker who doesn't comply with everything they say. If you can't, then don't put them out there. That's how officers get killed just like citizens.

---

Show evidence where police shoot everyone who doesn't comply...we'll wait

---

Show where I said that, I'll wait.

---

"which isn't shoot every sucker who doesn't comply with everything they say"

C'mon...you can at least make it harder than just copying and pasting...

---

Amazingly taken out of context! Well done! I mean by saying that their job isn't to do that, you say I'm saying that it's all they do.

---

What you did was called an implication.

An implicature is something the speaker suggests or implies with an utterance, even though it is not literally expressed. Implicatures can aid in communicating more efficiently than by explicitly saying everything we want to communicate. This phenomenon is part of pragmatics, a subdiscipline of linguistics

---

So we are LITERALLY arguing about semantics. LOL!

---

No, I am just pointing out that you wrote an implication that police shoot everyone who doesn't do what they say and when pressed for evidence, you back track.

Maybe you don't get english?

It's okay. You just implied something that maybe you didn't mean to...just say it and move on.

fadskier said:

---

It's okay. You just implied something that maybe you didn't mean to...just say it and move on.

---

I stated a fact that it wasn't their job to "shoot every sucker that doesn't comply". You made the logical leap that I'm dumb enough to think they shoot everyone who resists. I will state that no, police don't shoot everyone that resists or doesn't comply, as if that even requires stating.

ATL Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

It's okay. You just implied something that maybe you didn't mean to...just say it and move on.

---

I stated a fact that it wasn't their job to "shoot every sucker that doesn't comply". You made the logical leap that I'm dumb enough to think they shoot everyone who resists. I will state that no, police don't shoot everyone that resists or doesn't comply, as if that even requires stating.

---

It's not your job to rape every woman you find moderately attractive. What's that? You think I was suggesting you rape women? Noooooo.

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

It's okay. You just implied something that maybe you didn't mean to...just say it and move on.

---

I stated a fact that it wasn't their job to "shoot every sucker that doesn't comply". You made the logical leap that I'm dumb enough to think they shoot everyone who resists. I will state that no, police don't shoot everyone that resists or doesn't comply, as if that even requires stating.

---

It's not your job to rape every woman you find moderately attractive. What's that? You think I was suggesting you rape women? Noooooo.

---

Yes, that's what you are impling...that I do that. Otherwise, why would you say it like that?

Bearitto said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

It's okay. You just implied something that maybe you didn't mean to...just say it and move on.

---

I stated a fact that it wasn't their job to "shoot every sucker that doesn't comply". You made the logical leap that I'm dumb enough to think they shoot everyone who resists. I will state that no, police don't shoot everyone that resists or doesn't comply, as if that even requires stating.

---

It's not your job to rape every woman you find moderately attractive. What's that? You think I was suggesting you rape women? Noooooo.

---

If I'd raped several, you might have a point.

Young Kyle had a nice little rap sheet on him


His prior criminal history,
In 2018, he has a charge for disobeying officers.

2016

Case Number: 2016CM000410
Case Type: MISDEMEANOR
Classification: MISDEMEANOR CLASS A
Counts: 1
Crime Type: MISDEMEANOR
Degree Of Offense: MISD. A
Crime County: ROCK
Offense Code: 941.20(1)(B)
Offense Date: 01/29/2016
Offense Description: OPERATE FIREARM WHILE INTOXICATED
Charges Filed Date: 03/01/2016
County: ROCK
Plea: NOT GUILTY
Disposition: CHARGE DISMISSED BUT READ IN
Disposition Date: 10/04/2016
Status: CLOSED
DISORDERLY CONDUCT

2016

Case Number: 2016CM000410
Case Type: MISDEMEANOR
Classification: MISDEMEANOR CLASS B
Counts: 1
Crime Type: MISDEMEANOR
Degree Of Offense: MISD. B
Crime County: ROCK
Offense Code: 947.01(1)
Offense Date: 01/29/2016
Offense Description: DISORDERLY CONDUCT
Charges Filed Date: 03/01/2016
County: ROCK
Plea: NO CONTEST
Disposition: GUILTY DUE TO NO CONTEST PLEA
Disposition Date: 10/04/2016
Status: CLOSED
POSSESSION OF THC

2016

Case Number: 2016CM000410
Case Type: MISDEMEANOR
Classification: MISDEMEANOR
Counts: 1
Crime Type: MISDEMEANOR
Degree Of Offense: MISD. U
Crime County: ROCK
Offense Code: 961.41(3G)(E)
Offense Date: 01/29/2016
Offense Description: POSSESSION OF THC
Charges Filed Date: 03/01/2016
County: ROCK
Plea: NOT GUILTY
Disposition: CHARGE DISMISSED BUT READ IN
Disposition Date: 10/04/2016
Status: CLOSED
POSSESS DRUG PARAPHERNALIA

2016

Case Number: 2016CM000410
Case Type: MISDEMEANOR
Classification: MISDEMEANOR
Counts: 1
Crime Type: MISDEMEANOR
Degree Of Offense: MISD. U
Crime County: ROCK
Offense Code: 961.573(1)
Offense Date: 01/29/2016
Offense Description: POSSESS DRUG PARAPHERNALIA
Charges Filed Date: 03/01/2016
County: ROCK
Plea: NOT GUILTY
Disposition: CHARGE DISMISSED BUT READ IN
Disposition Date: 10/04/2016
Status: CLOSED
FAILURE TO OBEY TRAFFIC OFFICE...

2018

Case Number: 2018TR011432
Classification: FORFEITURE U
Counts: 1
Offense Code: 346.04(2)
Offense Date: 08/09/2018
Offense Description: FAILURE TO OBEY TRAFFIC OFFICER/SIGNAL
Charges Filed Date: 08/13/2018
Plea: NO CONTEST
Disposition: GUILTY DUE TO NO CONTEST PLEA
Disposition Date: 09/18/20

He is being called a "patriot" and started a GoFundMe account for his legal fees.

robby44 said:

---

Young Kyle had a nice little rap sheet on him


His prior criminal history,
In 2018, he has a charge for disobeying officers.

2016

Case Number: 2016CM000410
Case Type: MISDEMEANOR
Classification: MISDEMEANOR CLASS A
Counts: 1
Crime Type: MISDEMEANOR
Degree Of Offense: MISD. A
Crime County: ROCK
Offense Code: 941.20(1)(B)
Offense Date: 01/29/2016
Offense Description: OPERATE FIREARM WHILE INTOXICATED
Charges Filed Date: 03/01/2016
County: ROCK
Plea: NOT GUILTY
Disposition: CHARGE DISMISSED BUT READ IN
Disposition Date: 10/04/2016
Status: CLOSED
DISORDERLY CONDUCT

2016

Case Number: 2016CM000410
Case Type: MISDEMEANOR
Classification: MISDEMEANOR CLASS B
Counts: 1
Crime Type: MISDEMEANOR
Degree Of Offense: MISD. B
Crime County: ROCK
Offense Code: 947.01(1)
Offense Date: 01/29/2016
Offense Description: DISORDERLY CONDUCT
Charges Filed Date: 03/01/2016
County: ROCK
Plea: NO CONTEST
Disposition: GUILTY DUE TO NO CONTEST PLEA
Disposition Date: 10/04/2016
Status: CLOSED
POSSESSION OF THC

2016

Case Number: 2016CM000410
Case Type: MISDEMEANOR
Classification: MISDEMEANOR
Counts: 1
Crime Type: MISDEMEANOR
Degree Of Offense: MISD. U
Crime County: ROCK
Offense Code: 961.41(3G)(E)
Offense Date: 01/29/2016
Offense Description: POSSESSION OF THC
Charges Filed Date: 03/01/2016
County: ROCK
Plea: NOT GUILTY
Disposition: CHARGE DISMISSED BUT READ IN
Disposition Date: 10/04/2016
Status: CLOSED
POSSESS DRUG PARAPHERNALIA

2016

Case Number: 2016CM000410
Case Type: MISDEMEANOR
Classification: MISDEMEANOR
Counts: 1
Crime Type: MISDEMEANOR
Degree Of Offense: MISD. U
Crime County: ROCK
Offense Code: 961.573(1)
Offense Date: 01/29/2016
Offense Description: POSSESS DRUG PARAPHERNALIA
Charges Filed Date: 03/01/2016
County: ROCK
Plea: NOT GUILTY
Disposition: CHARGE DISMISSED BUT READ IN
Disposition Date: 10/04/2016
Status: CLOSED
FAILURE TO OBEY TRAFFIC OFFICE...

2018

Case Number: 2018TR011432
Classification: FORFEITURE U
Counts: 1
Offense Code: 346.04(2)
Offense Date: 08/09/2018
Offense Description: FAILURE TO OBEY TRAFFIC OFFICER/SIGNAL
Charges Filed Date: 08/13/2018
Plea: NO CONTEST
Disposition: GUILTY DUE TO NO CONTEST PLEA
Disposition Date: 09/18/20

He is being called a "patriot" and started a GoFundMe account for his legal fees.

---

Link the gofundme please. I'd like to contribute.

Thanks.

That's pretty impressive, until you realize it's TWO incidents, one of which is a traffic ticket.

Bearitto said:

---

robby44 said:

---

Young Kyle had a nice little rap sheet on him


His prior criminal history,
In 2018, he has a charge for disobeying officers.

2016

Case Number: 2016CM000410
Case Type: MISDEMEANOR
Classification: MISDEMEANOR CLASS A
Counts: 1
Crime Type: MISDEMEANOR
Degree Of Offense: MISD. A
Crime County: ROCK
Offense Code: 941.20(1)(B)
Offense Date: 01/29/2016
Offense Description: OPERATE FIREARM WHILE INTOXICATED
Charges Filed Date: 03/01/2016
County: ROCK
Plea: NOT GUILTY
Disposition: CHARGE DISMISSED BUT READ IN
Disposition Date: 10/04/2016
Status: CLOSED
DISORDERLY CONDUCT

2016

Case Number: 2016CM000410
Case Type: MISDEMEANOR
Classification: MISDEMEANOR CLASS B
Counts: 1
Crime Type: MISDEMEANOR
Degree Of Offense: MISD. B
Crime County: ROCK
Offense Code: 947.01(1)
Offense Date: 01/29/2016
Offense Description: DISORDERLY CONDUCT
Charges Filed Date: 03/01/2016
County: ROCK
Plea: NO CONTEST
Disposition: GUILTY DUE TO NO CONTEST PLEA
Disposition Date: 10/04/2016
Status: CLOSED
POSSESSION OF THC

2016

Case Number: 2016CM000410
Case Type: MISDEMEANOR
Classification: MISDEMEANOR
Counts: 1
Crime Type: MISDEMEANOR
Degree Of Offense: MISD. U
Crime County: ROCK
Offense Code: 961.41(3G)(E)
Offense Date: 01/29/2016
Offense Description: POSSESSION OF THC
Charges Filed Date: 03/01/2016
County: ROCK
Plea: NOT GUILTY
Disposition: CHARGE DISMISSED BUT READ IN
Disposition Date: 10/04/2016
Status: CLOSED
POSSESS DRUG PARAPHERNALIA

2016

Case Number: 2016CM000410
Case Type: MISDEMEANOR
Classification: MISDEMEANOR
Counts: 1
Crime Type: MISDEMEANOR
Degree Of Offense: MISD. U
Crime County: ROCK
Offense Code: 961.573(1)
Offense Date: 01/29/2016
Offense Description: POSSESS DRUG PARAPHERNALIA
Charges Filed Date: 03/01/2016
County: ROCK
Plea: NOT GUILTY
Disposition: CHARGE DISMISSED BUT READ IN
Disposition Date: 10/04/2016
Status: CLOSED
FAILURE TO OBEY TRAFFIC OFFICE...

2018

Case Number: 2018TR011432
Classification: FORFEITURE U
Counts: 1
Offense Code: 346.04(2)
Offense Date: 08/09/2018
Offense Description: FAILURE TO OBEY TRAFFIC OFFICER/SIGNAL
Charges Filed Date: 08/13/2018
Plea: NO CONTEST
Disposition: GUILTY DUE TO NO CONTEST PLEA
Disposition Date: 09/18/20

He is being called a "patriot" and started a GoFundMe account for his legal fees.

---

Link the gofundme please. I'd like to contribute.

Thanks.

---

I looked and GoFundMe took it down shortly after it went up.
What a shame he's going to need that to pay for protection once he's in lockup

When asked why he shot the black man, the police said, "I don't know.". Until those of you who continue to rationalize the spree killing can deal honestly with why so many unarmed black men are shot, there will never be peace:

cinque said:

---

When asked why he shot the black man, the police said, "I don't know.". Until those of you who continue to rationalize the spree killing can deal honestly with why so many unarmed black men are shot, there will never be peace:

---

What happened to the officer? This was from 2016.

cms186 said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

cms186 said:

---

SIC EM 94 said:

---

cinque said:

---

As more is known, I post it here.

---

Where is your thread about Blake having a knife in his car? We expect you to keep us updated!
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/08/26/wisconsin-doj-confirms-that-jacob-blake-was-armed-with-a-knife-when-he-was-shot-by-a-police-officer/

---

is owning a knife cause for a law enforcement officer to shoot someone 7 times in the back? are Law Enforcement officers in America THAT incompetent that the only method of dealing with someone who MIGHT be reaching for a knife, to shoot them in the back 7 times?

---

1. Had warrants for arrest
2. Was cause/perpetrator of immediate police response call
3. Ignored lawful orders
4. Ignored lawful orders with guns drawn on him
5. Ignored lawful order with guns drawn on him while reaching for a deadly weapon inside his car

Anyone who thinks this is a bad shoot is a fool

---

theres been no evidence that he was actually reaching for a weapon, has there?i havent seen any claims that he was actually reaching for a weapon anyway, why should there be a "Shoot first, ask questions later", its been shown there was no gun in the car, Violence isnt always the answer

---

Quote:

---

The Wisconsin Department of Justice Wednesday evening named the officer who shot Jacob Blake and provided additional information about the shooting.

Blake had a knife on the driver's side floorboard and had no other weapons, the DOJ said in a news release.

The officer who shot Blake seven times is Rusten Sheskey, on the Kenosha police force for seven years. He has been placed on administrative leave.

---

Don't know if he was reaching for it. There were enough officers there to subdue him before he got to the drivers side door. Yes, I know people say he has already been tazed and they had tried to tackle him. They should have kept trying.

Police were called out on him. It was a domestic situation. He had a warrant out for his arrest for sexual assault. He wasn't breaking up a fight.

He was not cooperating, he wasn't trying to protect anybody, he was a criminal trying to protect himself and willing to put his own kids in harms way to do it. If he was up and up, he would have stopped, laid on the ground and allowed himself to be arrested, instead of trying to get into the van where a knife was in the drivers side floorboard.

Still shouldn't have shot him 7 times.

Friscobear said:

---

cinque said:

---

When asked why he shot the black man, the police said, "I don't know.". Until those of you who continue to rationalize the spree killing can deal honestly with why so many unarmed black men are shot, there will never be peace:

---

What happened to the officer? This was from 2016.

---

5 months of probation and a clean criminal record

Bearitto said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

cms186 said:

---

SIC EM 94 said:

---

cinque said:

---

As more is known, I post it here.

---

Where is your thread about Blake having a knife in his car? We expect you to keep us updated!
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/08/26/wisconsin-doj-confirms-that-jacob-blake-was-armed-with-a-knife-when-he-was-shot-by-a-police-officer/

---

is owning a knife cause for a law enforcement officer to shoot someone 7 times in the back? are Law Enforcement officers in America THAT incompetent that the only method of dealing with someone who MIGHT be reaching for a knife, to shoot them in the back 7 times?

---

1. Had warrants for arrest
2. Was cause/perpetrator of immediate police response call
3. Ignored lawful orders
4. Ignored lawful orders with guns drawn on him
5. Ignored lawful order with guns drawn on him while reaching for a deadly weapon inside his car

Anyone who thinks this is a bad shoot is a fool

---

theres been no evidence that he was actually reaching for a weapon, has there?i havent seen any claims that he was actually reaching for a weapon anyway, why should there be a "Shoot first, ask questions later", its been shown there was no gun in the car, Violence isnt always the answer

---

I listed the steps he went through so people like you would have to confront all the choices he made to get shot. As usual, people like you ignore them all.

---

none of those are reasons to shoot a guy 7 times in the back, and as i said, 5 is conjecture on your part.

You go and arrest him if that stuff happens, you dont shoot someone just for not doing as they are told and being a nuisance

cinque said:

---

When asked why he shot the black man, the police said, "I don't know.". Until those of you who continue to rationalize the spree killing can deal honestly with why so many unarmed black men are shot, there will never be peace:

---

Just to counter the misinformation machine here,

Here is a quote from an NPR report on the incident:

"Aledda testified that when he encountered Kinsey and Rios in the street, he thought Rios was holding Kinsey hostage. The officer, who fired three times, said he had intended to hit Rios."

cms186 said:

---

Friscobear said:

---

cinque said:

---

When asked why he shot the black man, the police said, "I don't know.". Until those of you who continue to rationalize the spree killing can deal honestly with why so many unarmed black men are shot, there will never be peace:

---

What happened to the officer? This was from 2016.

---

5 months of probation and a clean criminal record

---

And fired from his job as an officer.

Also, the victim filed a federal lawsuit against the City of North Miami and the officers and reached an undisclosed settlement in the case shortly after officer was sentenced.

cms186 said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

cms186 said:

---

SIC EM 94 said:

---

cinque said:

---

As more is known, I post it here.

---

Where is your thread about Blake having a knife in his car? We expect you to keep us updated!
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/08/26/wisconsin-doj-confirms-that-jacob-blake-was-armed-with-a-knife-when-he-was-shot-by-a-police-officer/

---

is owning a knife cause for a law enforcement officer to shoot someone 7 times in the back? are Law Enforcement officers in America THAT incompetent that the only method of dealing with someone who MIGHT be reaching for a knife, to shoot them in the back 7 times?

---

1. Had warrants for arrest
2. Was cause/perpetrator of immediate police response call
3. Ignored lawful orders
4. Ignored lawful orders with guns drawn on him
5. Ignored lawful order with guns drawn on him while reaching for a deadly weapon inside his car

Anyone who thinks this is a bad shoot is a fool

---

theres been no evidence that he was actually reaching for a weapon, has there?i havent seen any claims that he was actually reaching for a weapon anyway, why should there be a "Shoot first, ask questions later", its been shown there was no gun in the car, Violence isnt always the answer

---

I listed the steps he went through so people like you would have to confront all the choices he made to get shot. As usual, people like you ignore them all.

---

none of those are reasons to shoot a guy 7 times in the back, and as i said, 5 is conjecture on your part.

You go and arrest him if that stuff happens, you dont shoot someone just for not doing as they are told and being a nuisance

---

He had been resisting, fighting and then reached into his car.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cinque said:

---

When asked why he shot the black man, the police said, "I don't know.". Until those of you who continue to rationalize the spree killing can deal honestly with why so many unarmed black men are shot, there will never be peace:

---

Just to counter the misinformation machine here,

Here is a quote from an NPR report on the incident:

"Aledda testified that when he encountered Kinsey and Rios in the street, he thought Rios was holding Kinsey hostage. The officer, who fired three times, said he had intended to hit Rios."

---

The cop was wrong and was fired. Let's not act like this was done because of race. There is no evidence of that.

Friscobear said:

---

cinque said:

---

When asked why he shot the black man, the police said, "I don't know.". Until those of you who continue to rationalize the spree killing can deal honestly with why so many unarmed black men are shot, there will never be peace:

---

What happened to the officer? This was from 2016.

---

What do you mean, what happened to him? Why can't he explain why he reflexively shot a black man who was not a threat to him?

cinque said:

---

Friscobear said:

---

cinque said:

---

When asked why he shot the black man, the police said, "I don't know.". Until those of you who continue to rationalize the spree killing can deal honestly with why so many unarmed black men are shot, there will never be peace:

---

What happened to the officer? This was from 2016.

---

What do you mean, what happened to him? Why can't he explain why he reflexively shot a black man who was not a threat to him?

---

Why do you lie?

"Aledda testified that when he encountered Kinsey and Rios in the street, he thought Rios was holding Kinsey hostage. The officer, who fired three times, said he had intended to hit Rios."

cinque said:

---

Friscobear said:

---

cinque said:

---

When asked why he shot the black man, the police said, "I don't know.". Until those of you who continue to rationalize the spree killing can deal honestly with why so many unarmed black men are shot, there will never be peace:

---

What happened to the officer? This was from 2016.

---

What do you mean, what happened to him? Why can't he explain why he reflexively shot a black man who was not a threat to him?

---

NPR says otherwise. Time to move on to some different fodder for your narrative.

Friscobear said:

---

cinque said:

---

Friscobear said:

---

cinque said:

---

When asked why he shot the black man, the police said, "I don't know.". Until those of you who continue to rationalize the spree killing can deal honestly with why so many unarmed black men are shot, there will never be peace:

---

What happened to the officer? This was from 2016.

---

What do you mean, what happened to him? Why can't he explain why he reflexively shot a black man who was not a threat to him?

---

Why do you lie?

"Aledda testified that when he encountered Kinsey and Rios in the street, he thought Rios was holding Kinsey hostage. The officer, who fired three times, said he had intended to hit Rios."

---

When asked why he shot the man, he said he didn't know. Do you?

Jacob Blake should have been tased but the officer had his gun out really early and already had his mind made up with how he would end any such threat. That being said your job as a citizen is to comply and follow the rules when you are in this situation.