Minneapolis PD Suffocate Unarmed Black Man Who Later Dies in Hospital

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Looch City

Where are you getting all your conclusions from? Were there new articles recently?

Which ones, specifically?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ja...ssault-charge/

Blake faced charges of having sexually assaulted his ex-girlfriend, with whom he has three children in common.

https://www.kimt.com/content/news/In...572233431.html

Authorities say Jacob Blake resisted arrest and admitted to having a knife when he was shot seven times on Sunday.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...rt/ar-BB18vjYY

The restraining order stemmed from a criminal complaint, which was obtained by The Post, that accused Blake of breaking into the home of a woman he knew and sexually assaulting her in May. The victim, who goes by her initials in the paperwork, told police she was asleep when Blake broke in at 6 a.m. and said, “I want my sh-t.”

She reportedly told police that Blake used his finger to sexually assault her. The record states she told police the incident "caused her pain and humiliation and was done without her consent” and she was “very humiliated and upset."

Keep in mind that just like we shouldn't have believed the original reporting (unarmed man breaking up fight shot by police), we shouldn't believe everything now which is why I have been using in my posts a lot of "(if that is the case)."

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

You are aware there were children in the SUV he was trying to get into, correct?

Because if he had a knife as alleged, and was climbing/reaching into the vehicle (no less with the hand that had the knife), and those are the rape victim's children, cops need to take action.

How close do you want a violent criminal with a lethal weapon get to children before lethal force is required?

Where are you getting this dumb fantasy about them being the rape victim’s children?

Milwaukee ABC affiliate WISN spoke to Blake's fiancé, Laquisha Booker, who said two of their kids were sitting in the back of the car when Blake was shot by police. She claimed the officers threatened to shoot her as well.

"They didn't even know the kids were in the car, and I'm telling the woman cop, 'Can you please?' She said, 'Get back before I shoot you,' I'm like, 'Shoot me? My kids are in the car,'" Brooks said.

Referring to Blake's being shot, Brooks added, "It wasn't just one shot -- 'Let me just put you down for a little bit.' That man just literally grabbed him by his shirt and looked the other [expletive] way and was just shooting him with the kids in the back screaming. Screaming! While I'm trying to fight this woman cop, saying, 'Let me get my kids out the car.' Her telling me no, they're handling it."

Booker told WISN she never called police and wasn't sure why they were there. She said her fiancé wasn't armed and didn't own any guns or weapons.

"It doesn't make sense to treat someone like that," Booker told WISN.

And where are you getting this fantasy that he was there to intimidate the rape before trial?

[Oling_Roachinen]

I could be mistaken, but I do not believe Laquisha Booker is the ex-girlfriend. It was the ex who called 911 and has the restraining order on him. She said that he took his keys and refused to give them back. This is inferred from the dispatch call and snope's usage of ex-girlfriend, not fiance.

Three of Blake's children were in the car, two of hers? Blake has six children, this seems like a bad math problem but, sure, whatever doesn't matter who's kid they were, all need to be protected from a violent knife wielding man (if that's the case....)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr-UWPUiFIk

[White Out 403]

The full throated defense of Blake, outside the shooting incident, is so puzzling. He went to the home of a person who accused him of sexual assault, or someone else he was terrorizing, and she called 911 for to be dealt with. This is not a commentary on the shooting itself, but the really off-putting defense of a person who, by all accounts, is a miserable human being. Allegedly.

[Looch City]

Who is defending Blake outside of the shooting? We're all discussing why it's okay to shoot someone (guilty or not) multiple times in the back.

These discussions truly go round and round in circles.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Looch City

Who is defending Blake outside of the shooting? We're all discussing why it's okay to shoot someone (guilty or not) multiple times in the back.

These discussions truly go round and round in circles.

Pepsi seems to be making these posts downplaying Blake's criminal history and actions that day, as a start

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Where are you getting this dumb fantasy about them being the rape victim’s children?

And where are you getting this fantasy that he was there to intimidate the rape before trial?

[jayswin]

What?! Pepsifree was questioning Oling's sources on "facts" that OLING presented to the thread.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Two things.

1. The number of times someone is shot does not matter. I wish people would stop doing that every time there's a shooting. The issue is the decision to kill the guy.

2. Even if he had a knife in his hand (which it doesn't look like), he didn't make any movements to suggest that he was going to attack the police with it. He was moving away from them. If the suggestion is he was going to kill the children in the car with the knife, why was he trying to get into the front seat? Weren't they in the back? This whole theory makes very little sense to me.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Two things.

1. The number of times someone is shot does not matter. I wish people would stop doing that every time there's a shooting. The issue is the decision to kill the guy.
Agree
2. Even if he had a knife in his hand (which it doesn't look like), he didn't make any movements to suggest that he was going to attack the police with it. He was moving away from them. If the suggestion is he was going to kill the children in the car with the knife, why was he trying to get into the front seat? Weren't they in the back? This whole theory makes very little sense to me.

think the issue here is the guy has already fought off the officers physically, put one in a headlock, and has resisted 2 attempts to be tazered. The police had a decision to make on the spot; do they let the guy get in the vehicle with children that are now possible hostages, or shoot? The safety of the children and the public were in play, and they had to make a call. I wish the narrative and talk was about this, and not about it being a racial thing. Maybe the cops made the wrong call. Or maybe they saved the kids lives or someone from being ploughed over by this dude as he fled. Impossible to tell.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

he wasn't wanted for rape by the way, his ex accused him of going over to her house, taking her car keys and touching her without her consent, that's 3rd degree sexual assault, it covers slapping her arse on the way on the door or actions like that, 2nd degree would include penetration but we aint talking about that here, we are talking about an ex complaining he took the cat and touched her, prior to the ex's accusations Blake had no prior arrests or convictions, clearly death is the only answer

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The real irony of this conversation is that only one person hasn't been proved to do anything criminal, we know full well the white kid has broken the law multiple times just schlepping his gun to a riot across state lines, he also killed 2 people and seriously wounded a third.

The guy the cops shot was not a criminal, never had been, didnt have a gun (although as we have seen, clearly having a gun is not proof you are a criminal or a threat in Kenosha, hell you can wander the streets strapping a smoking AR15 having just shot 3 people and you aint considered a threat to the cops) no the guy they shot was not a criminal, his ex had called the cops on him, and far be it from me to minimise the reality of domestic abuse but my ex called the cops on me once for trying to get my winter boots that I had forgotten, and I have never raised a hand to a woman in my life, seperations are messy and angry, he may have been guilty of breaking the law for the first time in his life apparently or the whole thing might have been dropped a week later as is often the case if the cops hadnt shot him as he was trying to leave with his kids.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Let's think, he is getting into his car, one leg is wholly in, his arse is half way in, he has three kids in the car, you know from dispatch he has no criminal record at all, you have no reason to think he is some mad dog criminal at all, just some guy in a lousy breakup, and on top of that he cant shoot you from inside the car if you are behind him and he is sitting down, what I would have done is kept the car door open and probably tried to decide whether to shoot the cars tires as he was obviously trying to take off. Just so we are clear Blake had no gun, the dispatch call to the house never mentioned a gun, even before the cops get there Blake is trying to leave, I dont believe for a moment he told the cops he was going to get a gun, he was just trying to escape

At no point would I have assumed he had a gun or was going to shoot me, he was a regular citizen with no criminal record at all.

Originally Posted by Looch City

Who is defending Blake outside of the shooting? We're all discussing why it's okay to shoot someone (guilty or not) multiple times in the back.

These discussions truly go round and round in circles.

Well AFC seems to be, Pepsi Free as well.


As for the discussion there’s a difference between if something is ok (shooting Blake in the back) vs if a judge would deem the action justified. And based on the evidence, facts and witness accounts, this case is not and will not be cut and dried, no matter what ones emotional reaction is.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

The police had a decision to make on the spot; do they let the guy get in the vehicle with children that are now possible hostages, or shoot? The safety of the children and the public were in play, and they had to make a call.

If there was some legitimate reason to think he intended the kids harm, maybe I'd see that side of the argument. But as far as I'm aware, there wasn't.

In literally any situation, you can come up with a hypothetical terrible thing that a shooting victim might have done if he weren't shot. But you can't just say "maybe", you have to have a reasonable basis for believing it's going to happen. Did the police form that view in this case? Doesn't look like it from the video. According to accounts, doesn't sound like it either (i.e. the information that's available suggests that the officer didn't even know there were kids in the car when he decided to shoot Blake).

And of course, this is all predicated on the notion that he was holding a knife, and it's not even clear if that part is true.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

The full throated defense of Blake, outside the shooting incident, is so puzzling. He went to the home of a person who accused him of sexual assault, or someone else he was terrorizing, and she called 911 for to be dealt with. This is not a commentary on the shooting itself, but the really off-putting defense of a person who, by all accounts, is a miserable human being. Allegedly.

You are aware that the charges were leveled by Blake's ex? A relationship that was toxic? Having seen more than a few dozen acrimonious DV cases I can tell you that a lot of complaints are made because of power plays. A DV charge is extremely damaging to an individual, especially in any court battle. A DV change can actually really mess up your life, whether you're guilty or not. I know cops that got put on suspension because their ex made a DV complaint that involved a gun, just because the officer had their service piece on them. I am always highly skeptical of DV charges until they are adjudicated. I would suggest you do the same as this has all the hallmarks of a spurned spouse looking to mess with their ex.

[PepsiFree]

I can’t tell you how funny I find it that two posters who have been very publicly upset over accusations they didn’t think were fair have no problem saying I’m defending Blake outside of the shooting. I mean I don’t have a problem with it because I’m happy to explain myself, but I guess the “high road” was just less interesting haha.

I am 100% fully defending Blake within the context of the shooting against the idea that he deserved to be shot. Arrested? Wouldn’t have bothered me at all, dude has a warrant, he fought with cops, we know these things for a fact. But shot in the back? Nah, 100% against it. And that means I have no problem defending Blake against it, especially against some of the ridiculous lies and “what if???” scenarios that a few of you want to peddle. I mean first he had a gun, or he was saying he had a gun, then he had multiple warrants, now he was gonna hurt the kids which were all his, but wait they weren’t! They were the rape victims! He was intimidating her before the trial which I guess we’re assuming had been set before he’s been arrested for the crime! Yeah! But wait, ok, two of the kids are with his fiancé? Oh, well then there were five kids, even though there were three, or uhh uhhh uhhh I dunno but something must justify this shooting! Why didn’t MORE of the cops shoot him? Damn, another Black criminal lives to see another day!

I just find it silly that the same few of you talking about facts matter are happy to make up or believe literally anything. The same guys who go on about “narratives” while eating up whatever fits your own. Racism? Nah, no evidence. A criminal about to get his gun and hurt some children? “Gee I can get behind that one!” Someone points out actual facts, like there being no gun, or whose kids they were, or an actually witness account? “Way to defend a rapist, bro.” I get it, I like when things fit my belief, so do you. It happens. But let’s think a little.

If you can reasonably justify him getting shot in the back based on what we actually know, not what you heard offhand somewhere or what you just made up out of thin air, good on ya. But I see a whole lot of bending over backwards to make nice little stories that make you feel good about a guy getting shot in the back. Racism or not, criminal or not, it is actually ok to look at that video and think “That was too far.” If you have to make up stories to justify it or bring up his past to justify it, that seems weird to me.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by New Era

You are aware that the charges were leveled by Blake's ex? A relationship that was toxic? Having seen more than a few dozen acrimonious DV cases I can tell you that a lot of complaints are made because of power plays. A DV charge is extremely damaging to an individual, especially in any court battle. A DV change can actually really mess up your life, whether you're guilty or not. I know cops that got put on suspension because their ex made a DV complaint that involved a gun, just because the officer had their service piece on them. I am always highly skeptical of DV charges until they are adjudicated. I would suggest you do the same as this has all the hallmarks of a spurned spouse looking to mess with their ex.

#metoo

[Wastedyouth]

I'm of the mind that the cops should never be allowed to shoot ANYONE, unless the situation is immediately dangerous to the life and health of another citizen.

Take their ####ing guns away.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

I'm of the mind that the cops should never be allowed to shoot ANYONE, unless the situation is immediately dangerous to the life and health of another citizen.

Who adjudicates those situations, and when does this person(s) make this judgement?

[afc wimbledon]

I think it's also reasonable to ask if you are going to try to kill the kids dad in front of them because he might drive away with them, even if you discount the massive psychological trauma that will affect them for the rest of their lives witnessing their father gunned down in front of them, there is also a significant physical risk of ricochets also harming the kids

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Who adjudicates those situations, and when does this person(s) make this judgement?

Same as with the rest of us, we get arrested for murder or manslaughter, we have to persuade a judge and jury

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Same as with the rest of us, we get arrested for murder or manslaughter, we have to persuade a judge and jury

So you are in agreement that we should wait for a court case to reserve judgement.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

He was intimidating her before the trial which I guess we’re assuming had been set before he’s been arrested for the crime!

In May he broke into his ex's house and raped her. He proceeded to take her debit cards, keys and fled in her vehicle.

In July he was charged with a felony for 3rd degree sexual assault stemming from that incident. Because of this the woman had a restraining order on him.

In August the incident took place where he broke the restraining order and apparently tried to steal her car again or whatever other reason he grabbed her keys. Obviously she felt threatened enough to call 911 on this man breaking his restraining order.

Her having three kids with him and him being shot in front of his three kids was connecting dots that may not have been there. But like I said, who cares they all deserved to be protected.

I think most of this comes down to how I feel about knives. They are far deadly than some people give them credit. In that vicinity, he might as well had a loaded gun (which I never once claimed...).