Sent in from: Nothingbutthetruth
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 28, 2020
The following is the release of information from the KPPA and the officers involved:
“The recent officer-involved shooting in Kenosha has produced a variety of feelings and narratives; most of which are wholly inaccurate. The purely fictional depiction of events coming from those without direct knowledge of what actually occurred is incredibly harmful, and provides no benefit to anyone whatsoever, other than to perpetuate a misleading narrative. The lawyers for Mr. Blake, among others, have continued to provide false and misleading “facts” to the public, in what can only be considered a ploy for attention and sympathy. Unfortunately, even the incident update from the Wisconsin Department of Justice, Division of Criminal Investigation (“DCI”) — the agency charged with investigating the incident independently — is riddled with incomplete information, and omits important details that would help to paint a more complete picture of the incident. While DCI updated that release earlier today (8/28/20), it is still lacking.
The Kenosha Professional Police Association, including the officers involved, believe the public deserves to know the truth.
Here are the actual and undisputed facts:
• The officers were dispatched to the location due to a complaint that Mr. Blake was attempting to steal the caller’s keys/vehicle.
• Officers were aware of Mr. Blake’s open warrant for felony sexual assault (3rd degree) before they arrived on scene.
• Mr. Blake was not breaking up a fight between two females when officers arrived on scene.
• The silver SUV seen in the widely circulated video was not Mr. Blake’s vehicle.
• Mr. Blake was not unarmed. He was armed with a knife. The officers did not see the knife initially. The officers first saw him holding the knife while they were on the passenger side of the vehicle. The “main” video circulating on the internet shows Mr. Blake with the knife in his left hand when he rounds the front of the car. The officers issued repeated commands for Mr. Blake to drop the knife. He did not comply.
• The officers initially tried to speak with Mr. Blake, but he was uncooperative.
• The officers then began issuing verbal commands to Mr. Blake, but he was non-complaint.
• The officers next went “hands-on” with Mr. Blake, so as to gain compliance and control.
• Mr. Blake actively resisted the officers’ attempt to gain compliance.
• The officers then disengaged and drew their tasers, issuing commands to Mr. Blake that he would be tased if he did not comply.
• Based on his non-compliance, one officer tased Mr. Blake. The taser did not incapacitate Mr. Blake.
• The officers once more went “hands-on” with Mr. Blake; again, trying to gain control of the escalating situation.
• Mr. Blake forcefully fought with the officers, including putting one of the officers in a headlock.
• A second taser (from a different officer than had deployed the initial taser) was then deployed on Mr. Blake. It did not appear to have any impact on him.
• Based on the inability to gain compliance and control after using verbal, physical and less-lethal means, the officers drew their firearms.
• Mr. Blake continued to ignore the officers’ commands, even with the threat of lethal force now present.
The foregoing facts need to be added to the story to correct what is currently out there. As the uncontested facts above demonstrate, the officers involved gave Mr. Blake numerous opportunities to comply. He chose not to. None of the officers involved wished for things to transpire the way it did. It is my hope that truth and transparency will help begin and aid in the healing process.”