Talk:Shooting of Jacob Blake

Excessive use of force by police

I am confused why my wikilink was reverted. The first sentence on Police brutality in the United States is “ Police brutality is the use of excessive or unnecessary force by personnel affiliated with law enforcement duties when dealing with suspects and civilians.” - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Because no reliable source refers to the incident as "police brutality". WWGB (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's a RS that does: [1]. But I'll wait for consensus here on whether we should restore the piped link. Captain Calm (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

So does this mean that we cannot say it was excessive force? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, so I read that source and it seems that Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers believes it is excessive use of force. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

What the source says in full is "The shooting comes amid heightened tensions in the US over racism and police brutality following the death of African-American man George Floyd earlier this year." So, it does not refer to this incident as police brutality. WWGB (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you need you need to reread the article. It says the Governor condemned the excessive use of force. I have quoted him to clarify. Evers states that “[Blake] is not the first black man or person to have been shot or injured or mercilessly killed at the hands of individuals in law enforcement in our state or our country”. That’s fairly unequivocal in condemning it as police brutality. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the claim of "excessive force". The issue is your pipe that the incident was "police brutality", which no reliable source has applied to this event.. WWGB (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

As I stated above, excessive force by police is a form of police brutality. It’s even in the first sentence of that article, which is “Police brutality is the use of excessive or unnecessary force by personnel affiliated with law enforcement duties when dealing with suspects and civilians”. Unless you are disputing this definition? Try clicking on Excessive use of force and see where it goes. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It's excessive force. And it's police brutality. There is literally no argument to the contrary by any sane, breathing person. —danhash (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Any sane, breathing person does not jump to conclusions. Other evidence suggests that Blake had a warrant out, which police well could have been aware of, and other video evidence suggests he was resisting arrest. He then gets up and does not follow police orders before reaching for something in his vehicle. Any reasonable person aware that the suspect has a violent criminal record, was just resisting arrest, is trying to go for something, might react in a way to save his own life. What, are the police supposed to wait until after they have been shot, stabbed, run over, etc.? --24.112.201.120 (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Is this wiki or youtube? He had a knife for a start. Hard to say it's flat out excessive force.LegendLength (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Weapon was recovered: Press conference right now- Wisc State Attorney General. Blake's girlfriend called police saying Blake should not be there. Blake told police he had a knife, and the police recovered a knife from the driver side floorboard of the vehicle. I will present when published. Lightburst (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Here are press releases: 1 2 and here is the news of the weapon. CBS 58 Lightburst (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Also the official Attorney General press release about the shooting. Revealing the knife. Lightburst (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Armaments

It is not relevant to this article that some news outlets are unable to confirm that Blake was unarmed, but the assumption that a Black man may have been is racist, and the implications are unencyclopaedic. Therefore I am removing the Kenosha News statement. 24.183.75.20 (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This part has nothing to do with race. Whether or not the person who was shot was armed is an important detail, and it will be updated when we learn more. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh come on. There are many things we don't know. Wikipedia is not a collection of things we don't know, it is a collection of things that we do. Kenosha News's speculations and ignorance is not relevant to this article, and no one would be fixated on whether or not he was armed were he not Black. This sort of speculation runs afoul of BLP, and will continue to be reverted until there are secondary sources reliably asserting one way or the other. 24.183.75.20 (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The second argument seems incorrect. In fact, the opposite is true: had he not been black, it would be assumed that the police had reason to assume some level of threat, and there would be reasonable question as to what that threat was. Instead, because he was black, the apparent and discriminatory assumption 'police are racist' (and, I guess too, the people addressed as 'no one would be fixated...'?) is used to argue that there was likely no greater reason (i.e. a threat) than racism for the police's action. 63.143.203.40 (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

We do know he had a knife though. It's visible on video, you can hear the cops tell him to drop it, and the camera person was interviewed and admitted hearing that too.LegendLength (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:FORUM, this is not appropriate content for a Talk page. 24.183.75.20 (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the second level of the Talk Pyramid, refuting your point; a point that I assume follows guidelines as being relevant to editing the article, given that it was made, and thus should be refuted if incorrect. 63.143.203.40 (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I've added that he was "reportedly unarmed", with a RS. Captain Calm (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks Captain Calm! 24.183.75.20 (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know the rules for editing the main page, so I won't do it, but this article states "They were also yelling 'drop the knife,'" White said. "I didn’t see any weapons in his hands, he wasn’t being violent." Indicating claims in both directions: police assert he had a knife, a bystander asserts he didn't (or at least, more precisely, didn't see it). 63.143.203.40 (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

That is a far cry from a reliable source asserting there was a knife. Unless a reliable source does, it's not appropriate content for Wikipedia. 24.183.75.20 (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't assert there was a knife. It asserts that police did, and bystander didn't. Why is what it does assert (summarized) "The bystander who filmed the incident reported police yelling "drop the knife", but not seeing any in Blake's hands." significantly less reliable or relevant than the (unsourced) "Witnesses alleged that Blake had been attempting to break up a fight between two women." currently on the page? 63.143.203.40 (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Putting A bystander who heard police yelling "drop the knife", recorded a video which showed Blake surrounded by police with their weapons drawn.[5] ahead of "Blake was reportedly unarmed" is also undue, it seems like an attempt to discredit the following statement. It should be removed entirely since it's basically a game of telephone. Praxidicae (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Definitely agree. BBC reporting that Blake was unarmed should precede cops shouting about a knife, and I still question whether the latter is appropriate at this time at all. 24.183.75.20 (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Both reports are important, in my opinion. It's hard to prove a negative (i.e. he had no weapon), but unless a weapon was found or witnessed, the presumption should be he was unarmed. However, since police shouting "drop the knife" is part of witness testimony and reported by reliable sources, it should still be included. MonsieurD (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Why is the voice in the recorded video a far cry from a "reliable source" like the one asserting "reportedly unarmed" without any source given or even existing outside that one report? Sure, it is "reportedly unarmed" as reported by BBC itself who reports the "reportedly unarmed" and therefore logically coherent, but the things following "reportedly" is the real "far cry from a reliable source" imo. --CirfiBozi (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

"He ignored their demands"

I removed the awkward and unclear claim that "He ignored their demands" from this article, as it does not seem to be supported by any of the sources listed. They all describe him walking around the car, attempting to get in the driver's side, and then being shot in the back by cops; it says nothing about any demands. Before re-adding please identify a source that asserts this specifically, and clarify the text to indicate what demand, exactly, was ignored. 24.183.75.20 (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly why it shouldn't be included. Your own inference is not a reliable source. Praxidicae (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You can easily cite the numerous websites that have uploaded the video. In fact this morning a 2nd video was uploaded for everyone to see and you can clearly hear the police telling him to get on the ground. So yes, he did ignore their demands and your deleting relevant information and pushing a fabricated lie. 100.42.255.43 (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Harold

Yep this definitely needs to be reinstated. The video and audio shows him refused to drop the knife 3 times while he walked to the car. Not to mention the refusal of the implicit demand to stop resisting (4 guns on him). LegendLength (talk) 09:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that's quite bad use of a primary source. Can you provide any reliable secondary source that says he had a knife? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

"Looting"

I'm not convinced that any of the sources back up the claim there was "looting" in Kenosha last night. Of the sources given, only Newsweek uses that word, but only in the context of reporting that it was otherwise reported. They also highlight a tweet from "Breaking911" that uses the word "looting", but that is not a reliable source. Looting is generally defined as taking of goods by force in the course of a riot; but since a courthouse does not offer goods, how can it be looted? I have not found any sources indicating that Kenosha area businesses were plundered, so I think the claim should be removed from the article. 24.183.75.20 (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

agreed. The further detailing of every single ancillary incident is unnecessary and really heavy on the POV. Praxidicae (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Please remove the statement 'looting occurred' from the Reactions section of this article. 24.183.75.20 (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Only Newsweek mentions "reports of looting". EvergreenFir (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

And the Newsweek report is an unattributed one at that...Praxidicae (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, according to WP:RSP Newsweek (2013–present) is not regarded as a reliable source. Captain Calm (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Tons of video sources for looting in response to this on youtube. e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK4rd5JRdI4 . Surely that's classed as a primary source, seeing it with your own eyes? Otherwise you'd need to take down the video of Blake's shooting as well to be consistent. LegendLength (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Warrant

Chicago Trib does not assert that yesterday's police interaction with Blake was at all related to the charges or warrant from July. Including that in this article-- "Shooting of Jacob Blake"-- implies that they were related; however it is not even known whether the officers who shot him were aware of the warrant. As such it is synthetic to include as it implies a causative relationship, and should be removed. 24.183.75.20 (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed on this point too. I've removed it again (the archived version of the article I'm looking at makes no mention of it whatsoever.) It certainly does not belong in the lead as it implies causation. Praxidicae (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The source cited, with that headline "Protests erupt overnight after Kenosha police shoot man in back in incident caught on video", states: "Online court records indicate Kenosha County prosecutors charged Blake on July 6 with third-degree sexual assault, trespassing and disorderly conduct in connection with domestic abuse. An arrest warrant was issued for Blake the following day". How is this not germane to this article, and how is Blake magically not wanted on an arrest warrant? Magnolia677 (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It was not in the version that I was seeing because it was archived (thanks to a paywall.) However your edit summary and edits imply causation. It's inappropriate and given this is a BLP, it's not exactly relevant at this point or appropriate. And certainly wildly inappropriate in the lead. The fact that there was a warrant issued for someone at some point does not mean that the officers were aware of it in this case and is not relevant to him being shot, it also doesn't state that it was an active warrant. You should know better. Praxidicae (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

That content is not appropriate for the article Shooting of Jacob Blake unless you can connect the warrant to the shooting with a reliable source. The Trib does not. 24.183.75.20 (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, he was wanted on a warrant by police. How one earth is this "not exactly relevant"? Are the references to BLM appropriate? How about the name of his lawyer? You should know better. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Magnolia677, this is your third and final warning before I take your tendentious editing to the administrators for review. You've been here too long to not know exactly what you're doing, and why it's inappropriate. 24.183.75.20 (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you even read the discussions here? See the comment above. There's no indication it has anything to do with the shooting, it also does not state that it was an active warrant despite your claim in your edit summary. Praxidicae (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: You are involved in a content dispute on a WP:BLP with content that has been repeatedly removed and discussed here. Yet you're still re-adding it without actually following through with a very active discussion here. Why? Praxidicae (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The source cited says "arrest warrant". There are many types of warrants. Readers need clarification. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Look at the diff I provided, it's irrelevant to the type of warrant or even the warrant. You're re-adding contested information about the knife, scroll up. Might I suggest you stop editing this article directly since you don't seem to be willing to actually engage in discussion and get consensus? Praxidicae (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Further, per our own policies (like you know, the most important one) including the warrant at this time is WP:UNDUE and irrelevant. The fact that he had a warrant at some point in his life has nothing to do with the incident or at least, has not been reported to be relevant. Should we also include that he once had a parking ticket? Praxidicae (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I've reported User:Magnolia677's conduct to WP:ANI. 24.183.75.20 (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I've removed its mention as WP:SYNTH. The topic of the article is the shooting. We do not know yet if the warrant was at all related to this shooting. Iff reliable sources say it was part of these events, then we include it. Or, if RS make it a key issue in their reporting, we should consider including it. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Warrant: Wisconsin is open records. He has a warrant for 3rd degree sexual assault in Wisconsin. Here is the rest of his record just punch his name in. Police attempted to arrest him for a warrant. News reports say he was 29. Lightburst (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:BLPPRIVACY and also WP:SYNTH. Using court records to make a claim in an article on a BLP or to infer guilt is absurd. Praxidicae (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: Hi...I did not say to add this into the article or to infer guiillt... but there is clearly an argument above about whether he had a warrant or not so I presented this here. I used the official court documents to add an accurate birthday for the person and that has now been erased. Lightburst (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst as per our WP:BLP policy, specifically WP:BLPPRIMARY it explicitly states: Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. and Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Praxidicae (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: Thanks. I presented the official Wisconsin Circuit Access website here for editors to see. I realize there is no guilt without conviction. In regard to the birthdat we will wait until the birthdate is published by one of the "media" outlets. Lightburst (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• It appears the warrant has been readded despite the discussion here. Praxidicae (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: Local Milwaukee largest paper claims that police have not said the police were aware, however there was an active warrant. So still too early to add. Lightburst (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Which again, is why it shouldn't be in the article. At this point it's just gossip in a local paper. It has as much relevance to the article (about the shooting) as the cop who shot him having a parking ticket. Praxidicae (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: I am agreeing with you above your comment "...too early to add". However his warrant was for: 940.225(3)(a) 3rd degree Third degree Sex Assault in Wisconsin Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person without the consent of that person... - so not really a parking ticket equivalence. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You're missing my point and creating BLP violations by posting this here even now. How is this relevant to him being shot in the back 7 times? Praxidicae (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: I am ending the conversation. We are debating these issues on a talk page. And my reading of the above thread was that others were speculating about warrants. I have said about all I can here to agree with your position about this not being added at this time. There is good advice in the movie Moneyball, when you get the answer you want, hang up, Billy Beane. Lightburst (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Police have the means to be aware of warrants. If they are aware that their suspect has a violent history, and that suspect has just resisted arrest, is disobeying police orders, etc., it gets to why they were justified using potential deadly force to protect themselves and others. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

But we aren't here to make judgement or justification of why someone did something and certainly not here to justify extrajudicial killings. Praxidicae (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding warrant: The Wisconsin attorney general Josh Kaul just gave a press conference: no mention of the warrant, but a weapon was recovered. so a warrant is likely not part of this CBS 58. Lightburst (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Audio of police scanner shows a warrant for Blake did exist and police had knowledge of this. https://madison365.com/kenohsa-police-opened-fire-less-than-5-minutes-after-being-called-scanner-audio/

To add to this article: mention of the warrant. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment We should only mention the warrant if the reliable sources make it a fundamental part of the shooting, ie: a key factor in why the interaction was started in the 1st place. It's very possible that the warrant was found out -afterwards-. Adding to this, there are some sources that mention the warrant, so we don't have to delve into court records. Newsweek Nypost BBC The Sun (which I recognize isn't the best). Really the BBC says what I suspect "Court records show there was an active arrest warrant against Mr Blake, related to charges of sexual assault, trespassing and disorderly conduct. But it is unclear if police were aware of this at the time of his shooting." Tutelary (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

Remove the source for his birthdate because the court record is irrelevant. 97.113.130.39 (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It provides a reliable source for his DOB. Needs to remain unless an alternative is available. WWGB (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I have removed it as per WP:BLPPRIMARY which very clearly says: Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Praxidicae (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

How would it be possible to show evidence of his age otherwise though? Birthdates rarely appear by themselves without a name attached etc.. LegendLength (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Simple. We don't. Praxidicae (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

Change "Blake was reportedly unarmed" to "witnesses reported to the police that Blake was carrying a knife" 185.37.122.251 (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

At the moment, there are two conflicting narratives: one that he was unarmed, and one that he was carrying a knife. Time will tell which is correct. WWGB (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

2nd night of unrest

Reuters is reporting widespread arson in Kenosha, largely targeting and impacting the "Black business district." The article quotes a protestor who believed the instigators were largely white and from out of town. Additionally, the article notes black and white agitators deploying baseball bats to smash things. There could be material here to add. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

911 Call

”According to the audio obtained by Madison365, someone called police to report that Blake was at her home and wasn’t supposed to be, and that he had taken her keys and was refusing to give them back. A dispatcher relayed this message to patrol officers at about 5:11 pm Sunday.

“About 30 seconds later, she let patrol officers know that there was “an alert at this address for a 99 for this subject,” apparently to indicate that a warrant had been issued for Blake’s arrest. Court records indicate a warrant was issued on three charges — two misdemeanors and one G-class felony — on July 7. Court records indicate no previous criminal charges in the state of Wisconsin.

“About a minute after the initial call, the dispatcher indicated that Blake was leaving the premises, and that the woman who had initially called had hung up.”

See: Kenosha police opened fire less than 5 minutes after being called: scanner audio ( https://madison365.com/kenohsa-police-opened-fire-less-than-5-minutes-after-being-called-scanner-audio/ ).

Internet Esquire (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

911 calls are often incorrect and misleading. Until multiple reliable sources, not some local scanner blog, report on this in detail, it should not be included. Using this would be WP:SYNTH and a wP:BLP violation, even on the talk page it's a violation...Praxidicae (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Madison 365 is not a “local scanner blog.” (See: https://madison365.com/about-us/ .) It is an extremely reputable and mainstream news source, and citing it on the Talk Page for this article is the best way to bring this information to the attention of Wikipedians who are editing this article. Suggesting that my/me doing so is a violation of SYNTH or BLP is a bad faith attempt to shut down good faith research on the article in question. — Internet Esquire (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest Madison365 is not a reliable source, or that their audio recording is fraudulent. Several Wikipedia articles cite Madison365 (see List of first women lawyers and judges in Wisconsin, Sarah Godlewski), and other reliable media outlets are linking to the Madison365 article. I will add this back to the article until a consensus is formed for its removal. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Praxidicae has twice reverted this, despite no consensus not to include it. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I removed content about the warrant since again, there is no consensus to include it. It was also reverted by Primefac but thanks for pinging me so that I know what I already know since I was conscious when I made my own edit...Praxidicae (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Magnolia677 The one edit warring is you. I wasn't even the last person to remove it. Also what part of WP:BLPPRIMARY do you not understand? Also what part of WP:BLPCRIME or the general WP:BLP policy is unclear to you? Praxidicae (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

In case it wasn't obvious I am referring to: that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. There are 0 reliable sources indicating that his warrants have anything to do with him being shot in the back 7 times in yet another example of police brutality. Praxidicae (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This isn't about the warrant; it's about the 911 call, which happens to mention the warrant. The consensus has been that, per BLP, until word of the warrant is official or pertinent to this article, it doesn't get added. Now the transcript of the police dispatcher is as public as the videos, and it mentions the warrant. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Magnolia677, I was about to revert it, before Primefac just did. On top of all other issues mentioned "apparently to indicate that a warrant had been issued" is directly copied from the source without even an attempt to paraphrase. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Reread WP:BLPCRIME. BLPs are specifically under arbitration sanctions. Remember this the next time you try to throw in serious accusations into a low-profile individual's BLP. Praxidicae (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The lead section of WP:BLP states "we must get the article right". Just because sourced and relevant content casts a negative light on someone is no reason to not included it. This undermines WP:CENSOR. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Lol. No. BLP exists to protect living people. I don't know if you're American but the victim here is. Merely having a warrant for arrest or charges does not mean guilt in the US, no matter how much the police would like to push that narrative. But tell me, how is this any more relevant than say, the cops history of traffic tickets or that time he probably yelled at an old lady? Of course, if the goal here is to impugn the credibility of a victim and justify an attempted extrajudicial killing, include it. Praxidicae (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, “we must get the article right.” That is, don’t be in a rush and use excellent sources. WP:NODEADLINE O3000 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Praxidica, these are details about a high-profile police shooting. Wikipedia should not censor itself just because the details of the event don't fit a particular editor's "narrative". You need to stop threatening to "lock the article" just because the sourced content upsets you. Take a step back friend. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Magnolia677, that is not what WP:NOTCENSORED means. It means that we don't exclude things merely because they are profane or offensive. There are plenty of other reasons to not include various aspects. Perhaps you should "take a step back" yourself? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The removed text said, About 30 seconds later, the dispatcher told officers there was "an alert at this address for a 99 for this subject," apparently to indicate that a warrant had been issued for Blake's arrest. This sentence immediately followed a sentence about the dispatchers instructions to the officers. Moreover, it was added to a section entitled "shooting", in an article about a police shooting! Magnolia677 (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

You can easily resolve this dispute by finding other sources. Volunteer Marek 17:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Here is another mention in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "The dispatcher tells officers that there’s an alert for a person wanted for some reason, known in police radio code as a 10-99, at that address". Magnolia677 (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This has now been published in USA Today, the most widely circulated newspaper in the United States. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Scanner: I broke down the police scanner up to the point just after the shooting. FWIW I do not think we can use this because there is no way to attribute or even authenticate at this time. FYI: at :25 seconds dispatch tells police "We have a alert at this address for a 99 for that subject" In police code a 10-99 (Records indicate wanted or stolen).

Police scanner with times - some not intelligable

04 Police officer: 707 06 Dispatch: 707 2805 40th street two-eight-zero-five, four-zero street. Complainant says Jacob Blake isn’t supposed to be there and he took the complainant’s keys and he is refusing to give them back. 18 Police officer: 60 20 Police officer: 707 25 Dispatch: (Police identifiers) We have a alert at this address for a 99 for that subject 33 Police officer: 60 35 Police officer: 707 58 Police officer: 707 (garbled) 1:01 Dispatch: (Police identifiers) looks like he is trying to leave and we are trying to get a vehicle description. 2:07 Police officer: 707 We need a description 2:13 Dispatch: 707 negative, she became uncooperative, she gave us the plates though, BVJ935 but not what state or what kind of vehicle it would be 2:25 Police officer: She said he did leave though? 2:31 Dispatch: She said he left and then she hung up 2:36 Police officer: 10-4 I am out 2:39 Dispatch: (garbled and unintelligible) 2:41 Police officer: (garbled and unintelligible) 2:44 Dispatch: (garbled and unintelligible) 2:47 Police officer: (7 Fogerty?) I am out 2:50 Dispatch: caller is on hold 14 3:15 Police officer: 6-18-50 we are going to be out with him on 28th and 40th. 3:23 Dispatch: be out with him actually involved 4:04 Police officer: 7-14Z inspection now open, a lieutenant 4:09 Dispatch: (garbled and unintelligible) 4:10 Police officer: (Sounds like) Do you have any more headed 4:13 Dispatch 6-70 6-83 and 7-26 2840 4:23 Police officer: (hard to distinguish) 6-80 need help 4:25 Police officer: (garbled and unintelligible) 4:31 Dispatch reads a series of numbers 28403 4:40 Police officer: Shots fired 4:47 Dispatch: copy (garbled and unintelligible) 4:52 (hard to distinguish) concludes with the word down 5:00 Dispatch: channel is closed if you are not actually waiting for a 17-60 5:08 Police officer: (hard to distinguish) actually waiting for 2840 5:11 Police officer: (garbled and unintelligible) 5:16 Police officer: 70 is out 5:23 Police officer: Describing vehicle (garbled and unintelligible) 5:30 Police officer: Ah can you advise if all officers are ok? 5:33 Police officer: Negative I am not there yet, I will let you know on channel 2. As soon as I get there ok? 5:35 Police officer: copy

Lightburst (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Details to add to article

Details to add to article:

"A witness said police responding to the scene attempted to wrestle Mr Blake to the ground. At some point Mr Blake gets free and attempt to walk away. The witness claimed the police yelled out that Mr Blake had a knife, and tried to stop him from getting in his car before shooting him.

The witness said they did not see a knife in Mr Blake's possession."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jacob-black-kenosha-wisconsin-shooting-hospital-update-police-a9687556.html

One of the officers is pointing a gun directly at Blake as Blake walks away from him.

https://www.tmz.com/2020/08/24/jacob-blake-shooting-new-angle-struggle-cops-kenosha/

173.88.246.138 (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

This is already covered above in multiple sections, further TMZ isn't a reliable source. Praxidicae (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

?? knife isn't mentioned in the article. LegendLength (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Where to put Ben Crump in all of this?

Ben Crump is a trial attorney and master of publicity (I strongly suspect that his staff edits Wikipedia) who has represented several prominent grieving families in civil suits seeking money from companies/governments. He is not a criminal attorney and will in no way be participating in the State's criminal investigation of the shooting. He should be included, but it feels wrong to include him as part of the "Investigation" section. He is not affiliated with law enforcement and he will not be investigating anything. Is there somewhere else more appropriate to mention him? Juno (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning him in the "Investigation" is kind of misleading. I think it is relevant to the subject that the family has retained council, just not sure it belongs in "Investigation". Perhaps the header could simply be renamed to "Legal proceedings", since evidently it could be foreseen that Ben Crump may sue the police department, but that's more of a crystal ball theory than fact. Tutelary (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

What the Attorney General wouldn't say!

User:RabbitCastle has added the following: "Attorney General Josh Kaul declined to answer a question about whether Blake was armed with a weapon". Reporting on what people don't say seems to cross into WP:NOTGOSSIP, and certainly seems to undermine the neutral tone of Wikipedia. "Oh my gosh, he had NO COMMENT! They must be hiding something!" The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Readers may wonder if a weapon was present, this statement informs them on the matter. Nothing more to it. Of 19 (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it tells them nothing. We don't list what wasn't said unless RS say the omission is important. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't tell us anything about whether or not he had a weapon. The AG is not commenting because he knows that there will be legal proceedings that come from this. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I assume readers have some level of perspicacity. I didn't mean that the statement says whether a weapon was present or not, but it does inform on the situation which is that whether a weapon was there or not is still not public knowledge and I think having this statement is better than having nothing. Of 19 (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

When we find out if there was a weapon, we'll add that. O3000 (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Knife

Article never mentions the knife. Even though the video shows police telling him to drop it 3 times. And the cameraman confirms he heard it. Widely reported.LegendLength (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Read the Shooting section. WWGB (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

See https://twitter.com/DisclosureBP/status/1298763265233756160 and https://imgur.com/51BTEyp Oathed (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Twitter is not a reliable source, whether or not it's true. Please provide a proper RS and we can debate how to include it Anon0098 (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

second shooting

[2] Volunteer Marek 17:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Criminal charges

"Jacob Blake, 24, of Racine, was charged Monday (21 September, 2015) in Racine County Circuit Court with one felony count of resisting arrest causing a soft tissue injury to a police officer and one misdemeanor count each of carrying a concealed weapon, carrying a firearm while intoxicated, endangering safety-use of a dangerous weapon, and disorderly conduct. ... At the time he was taken into custody, Blake was searched and police say he had a holster on his hip but no gun. A subsequent search of the SUV turned up a black handgun on the floor behind the drivers seat. A box of ammunition was also found, and two loaded magazines were discovered in Blake’s coat."

Seems relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CirfiBozi (talk • contribs) 13:34, August 26, 2020 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTH and WP:RS EvergreenFir (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Seen. Please elaborate how they apply here. --CirfiBozi (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

How exactly does this 2015 event relate to the 2020 event? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Being an attributive clause of the SUV, "where he had put his gun behind the seat" would seem at least as related here as "where his children were in the backseat". --CirfiBozi (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with this present case. We cannot connect two unrelated things per WP:SYNTH unless reliable sources say there's a connection.  EvergreenFir (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

As said, whether Blake's sons were in the SUV was as causally unrelated as this information. As background, though, this information is not unrelated when provided with explicit exclusion of causality. --CirfiBozi (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

In your opinion. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not a "criminal record". A criminal record would be a conviction. This was a charge. Volunteer Marek 19:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Edited. --CirfiBozi (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Add name of officer who shot Jacob Blake: Rusten Sheskey

Source: https://www.fox6now.com/news/doj-identifies-officer-who-shot-jacob-blake-as-rusten-sheskey-says-blake-had-knife

DoneVikingB (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: mention of this serious incident from 2015. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Charges dismissed. Please don't try to find ways to smear a dead person in a WP:BLP. O3000 (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Not dead. Lightburst (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Cancelled Events in Support of BLM Please add that MLS Inter Miami - Atlanta United game was also cancelled in protest: https://nationalpost.com/pmn/sports-pmn/inter-miami-atlanta-united-game-postponed-due-to-protests#:~:text=The%20Major%20League%20Soccer%20match,milled%20around%20until%20the%20announcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.32.208.5 (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2020

Jacob Blake was not armed with a knife - they have only statwd that one was found in the vehicle. No reports that he actually had the knife on his person.

It is also stated that he was helping break uo a dispute - someones 911 calls stated a domestic between two people.

There is no proof he was being detained by the officers.

He was shot withing 3 minutes of officers arriving.

Please educate yourself on the story before posting false information. 2601:404:80:D5B0:5863:8F92:635:B38A (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2020

Please change "Officers attempted to subdue Blake, and stun-gunned him." to "Officers attempted to subdue Blake, and tasered him, without success."

First, because stun-guns and taser are different (contact vs wires), and the sources used mentioned tasers.

Second, because the cbs source mentions "Police officers deployed a taser, which was unsuccessful", the success of which is potentially important context for their following actions (because it implies one continuous process of attempted subduing and resistance, rather than being subdued and tasered, and separately, at some later time, walking away for another reason). 108.15.33.17 (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Citation is incorrect

Blake also had an active arrest warrant related to charges of sexual assault, trespassing, and disorderly conduct. [3] The article never mentions any of this information. Chappydee1978 (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

see above discussion. That does not appear to be relevant to the shooting according to reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Arrest warrant

From the talk page, it seems like it was agreed upon that the arrest warrant wouldn't be mentioned, as it was not relevant enough to the shooting. Any reason why it was added back in? Stavd3 (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit: nevermind, from this talk space and the editors talk space it's seems pretty clear that he has been warned by admins against adding this multiple times. I'm gonna delete the section real quick. Stavd3 (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Stavd3: USA today reported that the officers were told about the warrant before they arrived at the scene. A discussion about whether to include this has not yet reached a consensus; see Talk:Shooting of Jacob Blake#911 Call. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

"Sometime before 5 p.m. Sunday

A neighbor sees Jacob Blake barbecuing outside his apartment at 2805 40th St.

5:11 p.m.

Officers are sent to Blake’s address for a complaint of “family trouble.” A dispatcher notifies officers that a woman called police and said Blake “isn’t supposed to be there and he took the complainant's keys and is refusing to give them back.”

The dispatcher tells officers that there’s an alert for a person wanted for some reason, known in police radio code as a 10-99, at that address. Blake had a warrant issued for his arrest stemming from a domestic case in May.

5:12:07 p.m.

An officer tells the dispatcher he is close but has not yet arrived at the call."

Source: USA Today.

”According to the audio obtained by Madison365, someone called police to report that Blake was at her home and wasn’t supposed to be, and that he had taken her keys and was refusing to give them back. A dispatcher relayed this message to patrol officers at about 5:11 pm Sunday.

“About 30 seconds later, she let patrol officers know that there was “an alert at this address for a 99 for this subject,” apparently to indicate that a warrant had been issued for Blake’s arrest. Court records indicate a warrant was issued on three charges — two misdemeanors and one G-class felony — on July 7. Court records indicate no previous criminal charges in the state of Wisconsin.

“About a minute after the initial call, the dispatcher indicated that Blake was leaving the premises, and that the woman who had initially called had hung up.”

Source: Madison365.

Additionally, Politifact has verified the existence of the warrant, so we have primary and secondary sources regarding the facts, with USA Today and Madison365 making the connection which was already evident ("domestic dispute" 911 call by girlfriend<->domestic violence arrest warrant). Therefore, WP:DUE, without question. Fa suisse (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

None of the sources make the direct connection that the call was because of domestic abuse. Further with USA Today and Madison365 making the connection which was already evident ("domestic dispute" 911 call by girlfriend<->domestic violence arrest warrant). is a prime example of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Praxidicae (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Funny thing, no one objects to the description of (minor) Kyle Rittenhouse (who is not even the main subject of this article) as a "police admirer", but the inclusion of a much (much) more relevant fact on the subject of the article, namely that the victim had an arrest warrant to his name and the police was alerted to that fact, is controversial. Hard to assume good faith here. Fa suisse (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fa suisse: Are you trying to equate reports of someone's hobbies to someone's legal record? There's a huge difference here. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I am precisely not. I am just pointing out that we're being very liberal about mentioning details that could be unwarranted regarding a given character, and very conservative regarding another, and I see this as a form of news-media-ization, or politicization, of Wikipedia. Fa suisse (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: They are of course not equal, and the way of dealing with this inequality is *not* mentioning the hobbies while ignoring the legal record, which is even more absurd than treating them as equal. It should clearly be the other way around. --CirfiBozi (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@CirfiBozi: Incorrect. Per WP:BLP (WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:BLPCRIME), we hold back info like warrants unless WP:RS clearly show that it's important to the subject. E.g., we don't list DUIs for politicians because they are not important to that politician's biography. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: The warrant was informed to the officers during their involvement in this event. The officers are important to the subject. I see no logic underlying that it could possibly be unimportant to the subject, unless you are suggesting that it is the WP:RS's responsibility to exclude the possibility for their readers that the warrant could be some sort of pronunciation training material that happened to be read out loud through the scanner and was supposed to be ignored by whoever discovered the cute pronunciation problem of the speaker. --CirfiBozi (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@CirfiBozi: I am not sure I follow the entirely. But that the officers were informed likely makes this more important, but WP:RS must say it was related to and important to this event. If he was indeed being arrested for these warrants, that would bring them into play and they should be mentioned (but we wouldn't need to specify their content, but that's another discussion). If they were informed but the warrants were not part of the arrest, then they are not germane to the shooting. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Please elaborate what you mean by "germane to the shooting". Whether or not the warrant is "germane to the shooting" is not likely to affect the fact that the officers being informed about this warrant was part of the event. I consider it excessive and unreasonable to require WP:RS to explicitly clarify that the event is important to the event itself. --CirfiBozi (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Then you need to read WP:NOR and WP:DUE. I'm not sure what more i can say to help explain this, though i recognize it is a common stumbling block for new editors.

You could probably explain how WP:NOR and WP:DUE apply here: what part of my comments do you consider as original research? Mentioning that the officers had been informed about the warrant is due or undue against what counterpart? --CirfiBozi (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I would tend to disagree, since informing officers that someone has a warrant is likely to influence their behavior. CirfiBozi: EvergreenFir seems to be acting very much in good faith, giving coherent policy-based arguments. It's other contributors that have given the impression of playing a game. Fa suisse (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae:What exactly is a "direct connection"? Is there any source giving a "direct connection" between the "17-year-old white male"'s shooting and this event may I humbly ask? --CirfiBozi (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The 17 year old shooter killed protestors that were protesting in response to Jacob Blake being shot by police, and RS have in fact made the connection. Persistent Corvid (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW RN I'm deferring to EvergreenFir, who has much more experience than I do. To clarify, I do think that the arrest warrant could be added back in if a RS said that it contributed to the shooting in a significant way besides just officers being generally informed of it. Even then, I wouldn't see the need to go into detail about what the arrest warrant was for. Stavd3 (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The arrest warrant is relevant and reliably sourced. The sentence "About 30 seconds later, the dispatcher told officers there was "an alert at this address for a 99 for this subject," apparently to indicate that a warrant had been issued for Blake's arrest", should be added back to the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

IMO, it seems likely the warrant is eventually going to be in the article. I haven't looked into the sourcing to decide if it's ready for inclusion now. I think we should put aside the question of whether police were trying to arrest him because of the warrant since that's unanswerable from the info available. The fact that there was an alert and police we now know from RS that police were informed of this, mean it is likely to come up since police will say it affected how they dealt with him. This doesn't mean it justifies their actions, it simply means it will be part of the discussion, and their defense if it comes to that. The reason why I haven't looked at the source is the same one I've been avoiding commenting on this. It seems like one of the cases where we're probably getting a bit worked up about something that doesn't really matter much. It's likely to be resolved in a few days and frankly whether we include it now or in 8 days from now (random example) when things become clearer is IMO not going to make any real difference in the grand scheme of things. Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The statement: "the dispatcher that there was a "wanted" alert for someone at the address" isn't correct because the dispatcher told officers there was "an alert at this address for a 99 for this subject". The keyword "this" which the dispatcher previously named the subject "Jacob Blake". So the alert was not just for "someone", it was for Jacob Blake. [unsigned].

The above unsinged non sequitur carries no weight. I have removed the warrant again: until the sources say the officers knew the warrant was for Blake, it's out. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The wikipedia article now includes information that "On August 28, Blake's father visited his son in hospital and noted he was handcuffed to the bed." To the degree that this is relevant (i.e. there is no source that it has anything to do with the shooting), mentioning that he has an outstanding warrant for arrest is also relevant. To not do so would imply the unsourced conclusion that the cuffing and shooting were related, when it equally well may be related to the outstanding warrant. Placing both bits of information on the page allows readers to draw whatever conclusion they want, without implicitly supporting either. 108.15.33.17 (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

That is silly. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Not the best source, but there is additional info about the warrant and the sexual assault charge here. MonsieurD (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

not supposed vs not allowed

More recent articles state:

According to the [DOJ], officers were called to a home [...] after a woman reported that her boyfriend was there, but was not allowed to be at the home. After they arrived, officers said they tried to arrest Blake and unsuccessfully deployed a Taser to try to detain him. [3]

after a female reported that her boyfriend was present and not allowed to be on the premises. [4]

Have fun figuring out how not to insert this into the article. 2601:602:9200:1310:B8BF:684F:9727:4F3F (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@2601:602:9200:1310:B8BF:684F:9727:4F3F: USA today reported that the officers were told about the warrant before they arrived at the scene. A discussion about whether to include this has not yet reached a consensus; see Talk:Shooting of Jacob Blake#911 Call. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I don't think spamming this to every thread on the page is helping your case. I can understand posting about it on threads where it's relevant to try and centralise discussion, but the OP's comments didn't concern the warrant in any way and there's no reason the discussion on the issues the OP raised, if there is any discussion, should take place in the warrant thread. Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Rittenhouse's motive for shooting

The current text of this article strongly implies Rittenhouse intended to commit an act of terrorism, similarly to numerous mass shooters in recent years. However, many videos have surfaced that bring into question the real possibility that he acted only with intentions of self-defense. This current text can be quite damaging if not revised. Oktayey (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Oktayey: are you reading some other article? This looks like it was probably the version when you saw it [5] and I don't see how it leads to the conclusion anyone intended to commit an act of terrorism. I do find the fugitive stuff a bit overblown, but that seems to be a quirk of US law and prosecutors that we can't resolve but it also doesn't suggest any such conclusion. As for the self-defense issue, unless this is well covered in reliable secondary sources there's not much we can do. Nil Einne (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that the lack of any mention regarding motive is responsible for said implication. After all, motives are seldom discussed on the topic of mass shootings, so a statement such as "a man shot five demonstrators" would be interpreted by most as meaning the shooter had murderous intent. Oktayey (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Oktayey: The lack of info regarding motive is because there is no info. Also, you first said "act of terrorism" but you now say "murderous intent". These are fairly different things. Someone can have murderous intent and kill multiple people without carrying out an act of terrorism. Someone can carry out an act of terrorism without killing anyone (and having no desire to do so). If you want to read weird and different things into that section just because there's no info, I think that's a problem on your end. I would think most readers are able to understand that sometimes we just don't know, especially when something has only recently happened. Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

What's with the fixation on naming the race of other persons than the principal in this article? I've removed these as politically slanted. For example, how is Rittenhouse's race material to the article? Pkeets (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/why-kyle-rittenhouse-filmed-fleeing-armed-attackers-was-charged-with-murder/ar-BB18tscQ Dream Focus 05:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2020

In Infobox event

FROM --- | time = c. 5:10 pm === TO --- | time = c. 5:15 pm

FROM --- | location = Kenosha, Wisconsin, U.S. === TO --- | location = 2800 block of 40th Street
Kenosha, Wisconsin, U.S.

FROM --- | coordinates = "coord|LAT|LON|region:XXXX_type:event|display=inline,title" === TO --- | 42°36′02.3″N 87°50′35.8″W

In Shooting section

FROM --- and that Blake tried to enter his vehicle to check on his three sons inside. === TO --- and that Blake tried to enter his vehicle to check on his three sons, ages 8, 5, and 3, inside.

REASON: Provides more accurate details in terms of incident time, location and ages of his three sons.

SOURCE:

References

69.209.224.238 (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done. Everything added except the "2800 block of 40th Street" line. The coordinates make it specific enough in this case. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2020

Investigators found a knife belonging to Blake at the scene of the confrontation, the state attorney general said on Wednesday. Neither Crump nor law enforcement officials have mentioned court records showing that an arrest warrant was filed against Blake in July by Kenosha’s district attorney for three domestic abuse-related charges – criminal trespass, disorderly conduct and third-degree sexual assault, a felony. 70.25.68.101 (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

NBA players are striking, not boycotting

Template:NBA players are striking, not boycotting Change "boycott" to "strike" when discussing the NBA's response to the shooting. A boycott is when you withhold cash, a strike is when you withhold labor. This is a strike. 2601:4B:400:FF00:18CA:718F:69E:4D2C (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC) +1 to this if we someone can find an RS that supports it. 02:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.207.198.74 (talk)

"Leaned in to where a knife was located"

User:SPECIFICO has twice removed "where a knife was located" from the sentence "He was shot as he opened the driver's door to his SUV and leaned into the vehicle where a knife was located". This has been sourced in the article, and this nearly-exact phrase "leaned in to where a knife was located" has been published in hundreds of news sources by now. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I oppose mentioning the knife. He had a knife in the car, so what? If he had tried to use the knife, that would be something. There's no indication that he was going for the knife. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The presence of the knife is critical to the incident. It means that Blake was armed, or had the capacity to arm himself. This removes the assertion that “Blake was unarmed”. Blake has also admitted having a knife. It is unclear to me why anyone would want to hide this important fact, WWGB (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Really? It was in the floorboard, i.e., he wasn't "armed". He was unarmed when he was shot. If he had gone after the cop with a knife, that would be one thing. People have knives and other tools in their car. It appears to be another attempt to invalidate a Black victim of the police using excessive force by suggesting he had it coming. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

WWGB: Do you believe it's common procedure for police to shoot a person in the back even when they are "armed"? Like what about the couple in St. Louis who were on tv for the Republican Convention this week? Should police have come and shot them? I know the wife only had a little pistol, but still... The lead is a condensed summary that can only tell just the few most significant facts relevant to the event. The event was his being shot seven times in the back. There's no narrative that tells us a knife under the car seat is relevant to that. The news articles you cite are longer and give more context to many details to avoid the kind of misunderstanding that surely would result from the wording I removed from the lead. SPECIFICO talk 23:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

He was shot in the back as he leaned into the vehicle to where his knife was located, followed by millions of dollars in property damage and two deaths. This is sourced and highly relevant. This article has had almost 400,000 views in two days. Let's try to get our facts straight for our readers, who may find the truth refreshing. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

So if I have a knife in my car, the police can shoot me in the back? Just in Wisconsin or anywhere in the world, or what are you telling us? SPECIFICO talk 23:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Please don't troll other editors; you know full well that he said nothing of the sort. Of 19 (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The sentence in the lede appears to be a synthesis of two separate statements in the inline cited source, probably "moved toward his car and leaned in" and "agents recovered a knife on the driver's side floorboards of Mr. Blake's vehicle."". The lede sentence portion in question makes several assertions not present in the source: 1) the knife was already in the car 2) that the knife was present at the time of the shooting. 3) That the knife is relevant at all. I've removed the prose in question. Restore if there are reliable sources explicitly stating that he 'leaned in to where a knife was located'. Zindor (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Magnolia677, are you blaming the mutilated person for the property damage and the deaths caused by a vigilante charged with homicide while he lay in a hospital? O3000 (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I propose, "He was shot as he opened the driver's door to his SUV and leaned in; a location where a knife was later located". There are sources already in the article supporting this. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source where he was in reach of a knife, and the officers knew this. O3000 (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

It's obvious that he is not, please don't get emotional and stick to the facts. Of 19 (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:AGF O3000 (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, you should have done that. But you now know about AGF for next time, we all make mistakes. Nil Einne (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Magnolia i appreciate your willingness to word this differently. Your proposed reword reads as if the knife was found in the driver's door. Did you perhaps intend something like "He was shot as he opened the driver's door to his SUV and leaned in. A knife was later found on the driver's side floorboards."? I have an uneasy feeling that discussing Blake's movements and the location of the knife in the same paragraph creates an undue implication regarding Blake and the knife. I'll have to read more about the subject before i support any new wordings. Thanks for discussing this. Regards, Zindor (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Zindor, Much better wording. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The knife is irrelevant. SPECIFICO talk 11:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Pray tell how? Given that the article mentions the police yelling "drop the knife", and a witness not seeing one, it is highly relevant that one was found on the scene. That the AG and sources thought so too is also telling. Though of course the later wording is correct, since we don't know that it was necessarily the one police yelled of. If you are concerned that relevance is synonymous with total justification, as stated in earlier posts, I am afraid the two concepts are being confused. Perhaps this demonstrates the difference: Do we mention the motivations of a serial killer or terrorist in wikipedia articles (when reliably sourced)? Of course. Do we claim that such facts are justification for their actions? Of course not. The narrative is relevant, in as much as it lends understanding of, and explanation for, actions taken, not because it necessarily justifies them. Given that a knife is reliably sourced as something police were yelling about, reliably sourced details of knives at the scene are relevant to painting a picture of their interaction, one piece at a time. 108.15.33.17 (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The same source used for police yelling “drop the knife”, says in the next sentence: “Police then fired shots as Blake moved to open the driver’s side door”. That’s in direct contradiction to "He was shot as he opened the driver's door to his SUV and leaned in.” Such is the problem with articles on recent events, and particularly controversial events, and why we should not include any detail that isn’t solidly based. O3000 (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

We should include this information unless a judge rules the evidence inadmissible. RSs seem to think it's important Anon0098 (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

By default, even if there were any plausible NPOV reason to include this, we always omit such content. The default is not to include, and fix it when a judge rules it inadmissible in court. Moreover, we follow WP policies, not rules of criminal evidence. SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• The article now reads: Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul said that a knife was recovered from the driver-side front floorboard of the car Blake was leaning into when he was shot in the back. Blake also told investigators he had a knife. Important enough that the state's Attorney General mentioned it. They did tell him to drop the knife, he saying he had one, and he ignoring them and opens the door to his vehicle where there is a knife. That is clearly relevant here. Dream Focus 20:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• The fact (mentioned in the National Post, among other sources) that Kaul, when asked point-blank, specifically refused to say whether the knife was related to the shooting, does seem relevant enough to mention in the article if we mention this aspect at all. It's also enough to make the detail WP:UNDUE for the lead at the very least, and probably undue overall, though we can wait and see. My feeling is that if the sources are specifically highlighting that the Attorney General refused to say that the knife was related to the shooting, then it's still trivia for now (especially given that his attorneys are contradicting the police account that you're quoting) - perhaps we could make the inference you're suggesting under normal circumstances, but not when the sources directly imply otherwise (ie. the caution they use there clearly indicates that, while the AG brought it up, there is currently no reason to think the knife found on the floor of his car is important or relevant - if the AG knew otherwise he would obviously have answered the question in the affirmative.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• They don't say anything not prepared beforehand for legal and political reasons. And the lawyers working for the guy who got shot aren't really reliable sources. Dream Focus 20:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• But lawyers for the police (let's be real, that's what SA/DAs/AG are) are? Interesting. Praxidicae (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• We trust the WP:SECONDARY sources that cover events, and reflect what they say; obviously police and prosecutors (who by definition want to make their case) are no more trustworthy than the guy's lawyers. Since this concerns WP:BLP and the accusation of a crime, the fact that his lawyers dispute the AG's narrative of events must be mentioned every time it is brought up, ie. every time we mention the knife we must also mention that it is under dispute from his lawyers. Beyond that, the sources treat Kaul's reluctance to state the knife's relevant as important, so we must treat it as significant well - if Kaul has evidence that the knife is relevant, he will doubtless bring it up at a future press conference and we can update our coverage then. But without that we absolutely cannot mention it in any way that would imply that it is relevant when the sources plainly question that fact. Similarly, we have to be extremely careful to word anything that sources report as merely a claim by Kaul as something he said rather than as fact. Kaul's claim about the knife's presence, what Kaul said Blake said to investigators, etc - all of this must be attributed to Kaul every time it is mentioned. We must cover things as our best sources do, and they are taking a cautious tone with anything claimed by police, prosecutors, or the AG; it is absolutely not acceptable to turn a sources saying "the AG said that [X was true]..." into "[X was true]" in the article voice. In particular, I notice that Kaul's claim that Blake said he had a knife seems to keep getting metamorphism from an assertion by the AG into an undisputed statement of fact, which isn't acceptable. Police screw up, misstate themselves, or outright lie all the time - this is why the sources are being cautious, and it's why we have to be careful to reflect that caution. That's especially true given that in this particular case the shooting victim happily survived, which means that 1. WP:BLP will continue to apply to them for the foreseeable future, and 2. they are able to give their own account of events (through their lawyers, currently), which will have to be properly reflected in the article, at least with weight appropriate to the credence sources give conflicting accounts (and currently, sources seem to be giving Blake and his lawyers as much credence as the police.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The knife issue seems to be another one where IMO we should just relax and include what we can based on reliable sourcing and not worry so much about what we can't include. Does it matter that much if we can't cover certain details for a few weeks? It seems obvious that the knife is going to be a significant/noteworthy issue in the future since one of the officers said "drop the knife" as per the video and witness, and also the fact a knife was found. So whether he actually had a knife or the officer misidentified something else as a knife or if this is an area of dispute which is never resolved will eventually be covered once the sourcing is there. BTW, the above discussion seems to illustrate why we have to wait for the sourcing. Some people seem to be suggesting that he was reaching for a knife in the car. Yet others suggest based on what they think they see in the video and/or the officer's comments, that he was holding a knife; which we presume he dropped probably when he was shot. Only one knife was found, so unless it's a magic knife it seems unlikely both of these are true, either he was holding a knife or he was reaching for a knife. And it's equally possible he never had a knife nor was reaching for it. Hence why we wait for sourcing. IMO all editors will do well to remember just because something will eventually have to be included, doesn't mean we have to include it right now. We do have to wait for the sourcing especially in a BLP case. And repeating something I said at AN, while BLP applies all ways and technically excluding important information has negative ramifications, ultimately it's still more important to exclude information if the sourcing doesn't meet BLP standards. (BTW I said that in relation to the warrant not this since these 2 examples seem very similar cases of people getting into too much of a fuss about something which will eventually be resolved. The biggest differences is that the warrant one is simpler and seems likely to be resolved sooner.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, as long as there are questions we should err on the side of caution. I keep saying that in BLP territory, and I mean it. "Lean in to where a knife was located" is leading. "There was a warrant for someone at that address" is leading. Yes, it takes time, and we're always rushing here. I read today that the dude who was shot at the White House, just when Trump was finally giving something like a press conference, had a comb. He was armed with a comb. So yes, "...doesn't mean we have to include it right now" is the right attitude, and the slower we go, the less chance of us falling victim to the trolls, or at least wasting SO MUCH TIME on them on these talk pages. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The news media reported this, it is important enough the state's Attorney General mentioned it, it should be in the article. There is no valid reason to remove it. It is written in a neutral way. Maybe he was reaching for it, maybe he was just getting in his vehicle to drive off, there no way to tell by watching the video. Dream Focus 02:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The knife is mentioned in the main body of the article, which seems fine to me. I removed that prose from the lede because the sentence was created using synthesis of separate information, and its presence so close together (in the lede) created an undue implication regarding Blake and the knife.

The RS are careful not to synthesize the information they've found, and we should exercise caution too, as Drmies quite rightly advises. There's a mass of conflicting narratives going on, and the information being given by the police and justice department is evidently being taken with a pinch more salt than previously given by RS. Regards, Zindor (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Previous Charges

Considering there is no personal page for Blake, background information should be reported. Snopes reported yesterday that Blake was being charged with "sexual assault, criminal trespass, and disorderly conduct, all of which were additionally designated as acts of domestic abuse." [1] Charges were obviously dropped since there is no person to be convicted, so no status of guilty or non-guilty verdict was reached. Thoughts on inclusion? Anon0098 (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The charges remain but it's unclear how they factor into this shooting. We need to adhere to BLP and not post any negative info unless it is vital to the readers' understanding. Police have not said if the warrant was the reason for the arrest. Likewise, we should not post about Rittenhouse's traffic citation from earlier the week. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Why BLP? Charges are only a referendum on Blake. Plus, protests are included here, not just the shooting. My point was to give a fuller context Anon0098 (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Why wouldn't BLP apply? And the protests are a direct result of the shooting of Blake. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Never mind about BLP, don't know what I was thinking Anon0098 (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I think mentioning any previous charges not directly related to his shooting is a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, and definitely a violation of WP:BLP. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

"Citizens armed with long guns patrolled parts of the city."

We do not know their citizenship status, moreover, the word has a positive connotation. "Civilians" is more neutral, but "individuals" is probably most correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schizoform (talk • contribs) 12:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, we should use "civilians" rather than "citizens". Fa suisse (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Sexual assault (third-degree)

User:SPECIFICO has reverted an edit, changing "sexual assault" to "third-degree sexual assault". While most readers will know what "sexual assault" is, "third-degree" contributes little to readers' understanding without a definition. Is third-degree more serious than second-degree? It has an extra number so it must be worse! Or would easy-to-understand "sexual assault" suffice? Thank you for your input. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

"third-degree sexual assault" is more precise and should stay. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Your argument has already been rebutted in my edit summary and bringing it to the talk page with no substantive concern is borderline disruptive. Please consider a more collaborative mode of participation here. SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO - This is probably not the venue to instruct you on the shortcomings of using edit summaries to solve content disputes, but "Your argument has already been rebutted in my edit summary" is not acceptable. Please take a moment to read WP:REVTALK and WP:RCD. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The extra detail is of value. O3000 (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Strawman links. SPECIFICO talk 18:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Magnolia677, this is funny. Earlier, you've said that we have a duty to our readers to include information about Blake's knife. Now, you think we should take away information that would clarify the degree of the sexual assault charge. I wonder why? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Sexual assault is not a charge, third-degree sexual assault is. I agree with the addition Anon0098 (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Reactions to protests

Reactions to protests do not generally belong in this article, especially not under "reactions" since this is about the shooting. Hence, Mike Pence staff reactions are irrelevant, as I stated here. PenulisHantu You've inexplicably restored them despite this clear reasoning. You are aware that we have an entire article dedicated to the protests where reactions to protests should be placed. Not here. We don't need reactions to reactions to reactions. Praxidicae (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2020

Please change 'Blake is secured to his hospital bed with restraints because it is Kenosha Sheriff's Department policy "to restrain people accused of felonies while in custody, but out of jail".' to 'Blake was secured ... The warrant was later vacated for unknown reasons, and the restraints removed."

The source article says "Jacob Blake is no longer handcuffed to his hospital bed and a warrant for his arrest has been vacated" and "It's unclear why the warrant was vacated."

This is also a clear example of why mentioning the warrant for his arrest is relevant to this article. It is information that provides context for police and judicial action surrounding the event. In this example, it would have provided ambiguity as to the reason for the cuffing, prior to confirming it: the shooting or the warrant. If the warrant were not mentioned, the implication of mentioning the cuffing in context of the shooting is that they are connected, when in fact this implication is unsourced. 108.15.33.17 (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Done Thank you. O3000 (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2020

Within the following phrase at the end of the third paragraph, you using Jacob Blake's first name rather than last name -- change "Jacob" to "Blake" in two places: "Jacob's lawyers disputed the implication that the knife was in Jacob's possession." 2601:645:4001:9000:C109:32F:51D1:E958 (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Done Reasonable request. O3000 (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Sexual assault

I think the footnote clarifying sexual assault charges is a great idea, but can we get a reference to this in the note? Does anyone have a link to the statute? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's needed, particularly since there wasn't even a trial and the warrant was withdrawn. O3000 (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

So how do I know that the assertion made is correct? It would be absurd if I had to add a {{cn}} to a footnote, and a terrible precedent as it effectively allows people to add unsourced material to an article through footnotes. WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:NOR still applies, even to footnotes.

To be clear, I believe the footnote is valid. I just want it sourced. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It's sourced in the secondary cite immediately after the note template. I'm not crazy about it and wouldn't mind removal. Need more input. O3000 (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Thanks, I didn’t notice that. I’ve moved that citation into the footnote as the citation is about the footnote, not the fact being referenced. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems unnecessary to elaborate on Wisconsin's definition of "3rd degree sexual assault", especially as no RS are cited and it seems to be bordering on WP:NOR and WP:BLPPRIMARY violations. We don't expound on or define the murder charge when it comes to Rittenhouse's charges; there it says "charged with multiple felonies, including first-degree intentional homicide (murder) related to the shootings." Not sure why they need to be treated differently—as a compromise, I would suggest including a similar link to sexual assault but see no need to expound upon the specifics of Wisconsin law. Elle Kpyros (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

"Third degree sexual assault" is vague. Is third degree more serious than second degree (it has an extra number). In fact, it's less serious. Not all readers of this article are familiar with American legal jargon. An explanation in a footnote is harmless and provides clarity and context. Also, sexual assault does not need a link; most readers know what it means. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Photos

Possible photos to use in the article. See here. Lightburst (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Assault on police officers

If the article is going to give the version of events of the victim's attorney, the article should also give the version of events of the police union's attorney:

“Blake forcefully fought with the officers, including putting one of the officers in a headlock,” Matthews said. A second stun from a Taser also did not stop him, he said. AP.

That is if wp:NPOV is still a basic principle on wikipedia. 2601:602:9200:1310:B458:2F73:854C:6B3 (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I have noted this. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 04:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, per AP the union's press release contradicts several other assertions that are included in the article:

• they say the knife is visible in the video, although the man who shot it says he didn't see one
• they say he did not try to "break up a fight" as atty Crump alleged
• they say that police were aware he had an active warrant for 3rd-Degree Sexual Assault before arriving on scene
• they say that despite being Tased twice, he continued to defy instructions

The police statements on all the above points absolutely need to be included, especially given that Blake's attorney is so widely cited. Elle Kpyros (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I've added this. We now have attorney, police union, and bystander versions. Fa suisse (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Snopes piece

Hi folks,

I just read this Snopes piece which is not yet included in the article and I thought it could be a useful reference. MonsieurD (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed—and it links to the actual criminal complaint from the May 3 incident itself, which seems especially important now that the NYT is reporting that it's the same woman whose 911 call led to Blake being shot in August.. Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

We could add the criminal complaint but I'm not so sure about the false rumor regarding the sexual assault of a minor (which has also been fact-checked by Reuters). But I'm not strongly opposed, given that multiple fact-checks could make this due. Fa suisse (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

New facts come to light...

According to this article from the NY Post ( https://nypost.com/2020/08/28/this-is-why-jacob-blake-had-a-warrant-out-for-his-arrest/ ), it appears that the story of Jacob Blake being on the scene to "break up a fight" (still in the article) is completely false.

Apparently he broke into the home of a woman who had a restraining order against him, sexually assaulted her (she says it wasn't the first time he did that), and stole her car keys. She then called the cops on him, and that's why the cops showed up to arrest him.

The article should be edited to reflect this new information. -2003:CA:871F:47D6:14B2:8545:7425:4022 (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The two events occurred 3 months apart, and the NY Post is not a good BLP source. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Politifact (and many others) report the same. Also, NY Times is reporting that it was the same woman who filed the complaint about the May incident who placed the 911 call in August which led to Blake's shooting. This seems essential to include. Elle Kpyros (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, on what basis do you claim the NY Post is "not a good BLP source"? The Post (and it's Page Six) is cited in innumerable BLP pages—everyone from Bill Clinton and Donald Trump to Frank Sinatra and Muhammed Ali. I don't see any reason to suspect the Post is unreliable here, especially as it's quite literally quoting a criminal complaint, which can be seen in its entirety elsewhere. There's no reason to suppress this publicly available and relevant information—obviously the fact that the same woman who said Blake sexually violated her in April was the one who called 911 is critical to understanding the case. Elle Kpyros (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

"Also, on what basis do you claim the NY Post is "not a good BLP source"?" See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: "There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post. The New York Post is a tabloid newspaper with high circulation, and most editors prefer more reliable sources when available. The New York Post operates Page Six, its gossip section." Dimadick (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I read that—but the fact that most editors prefer other sources doesn't mean it can't be cited—especially when it's referring to a government document in the public domain. It may not be the best source, but if it's "not a good BLP source" then why is it cited thousands of times in BLP articles? Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the NY Post misled you into thinking that what happened in a previous incident happened this time. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

References

should the lead mention Blake's sons in the backseat

I removed it but was reverted. [6] So discussing it here. The subject of the article is the shooting of Jacob Blake. Does his children being in the backseat have anything to do with that? Its in the article already, why should it be in the lead? It currently reads: Jacob S. Blake is a 29-year-old African American man who was shot and wounded by police on August 23, 2020. He was hit by four of seven shots fired at his back during an arrest by police officer Rusten Sheskey. The incident occurred in Kenosha, Wisconsin, as officers were attempting to arrest Blake. During the encounter, Blake was tasered and scuffled with officers. He was shot as he opened the driver's door to his SUV and leaned in. Three of Blake's sons were in the backseat. What does the last part have to do with that or anything? Dream Focus 16:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

This (Blake's children in the car) is well-sourced, and shows the incredible irresponsibility of the officer's action. What is not well-sourced, but is apparent from the video from the passenger side of the car, is that other people, including officers, other civilians (including at least one child) were in the officer's line of fire. I haven't seen sources on this yet, but I'm sure they'll be coming. Jacona (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jacona: The officer did not necessarily know that the kids were in the car. The father did. That "well-sourced" information is not well-formed, as evidenced by your interpretation of it. --CirfiBozi (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I have yet to read a source that doesn't prominently mention the kids in the car. The kids in the car is what makes this one different from the others. Lev!vich 17:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

IMO, The children's names should not be added reguardless, the fact they were in the car and possibly in the line of fire (if sourced) should be. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

As Marek says below, of course not their names. Lev!vich 17:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It should definitely be in there. Of course not their names. Volunteer Marek 17:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Judging by some of the comments, it seems this was added for dramatic effect. Whether his kids were in the car, or his grandmother, or next door neighbor, or what brand of sneakers he had on is irrelevant, particularly in the lead. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Which reliable sources about this shooting do not include the kids? Lev!vich 18:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Magnolia677, you still didn't answer my question in #Sexual assault (third-degree). Judging by your comments throughout this talk page, I have to assume you have a pro-police / anti-Blake bias in what information you want to see included and excluded. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Please assume good faith. Baseless accusations about the motivations of other editors is not appropriate. If you have concerns about my editing this is not the place to discuss them. Concerning the "third degree sexual assault", it was fixed here. Pay attention. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Magnolia677, what exactly was baseless? I'm pointing out a pattern. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it is a relevant part of the event, based on its coverage in reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a side note. There's a possibility of a different role in this case of the children in the back seat. For example, the officer didn't know those were Blake's children and Blake had just been in a fight with the police who thought he had a knife, and the police had responded to a domestic disturbance call. The officer's legal defense may give the protection of the children as a reason for the shooting. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

We should not make predictions. Dimadick (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes they should be added. The article is about the shooting, and the shooting resulted in damage to more than one human. Having your father shot multiple times within reach must be incredibly traumatic. They're not likely to ever feel comfortable in the presence of a police officer again. Clearly no names. O3000 (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course we should include the fact that the kids were there; every source mentions it, and the importance is that with gunshots flying around, one of the kids could have been hit. IMO it's most likely that the officers didn't notice the kids in the car, being focused entirely on Blake, but their presence adds to the gravity and risk of the situation - as well as adding a human interest element that no source has been willing to omit. (If I were the officers' attorneys this is what I would claim, that they were unaware of the presence of children - because it would make the officer appear downright reckless if he fired seven shots knowing there were kids a few feet away.) -- MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree 100% with @MelanieN: Here. The officers might have not noticed the present of the children. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Is this the place for unions and lawyers to battle it out?

The article filling with un-encyclopedic counter-accusations. The input of others about whether these are necessary in a Wikipedia article would be appreciated:

• "One of Blake's attorneys disputed this version of events, calling it "overblown", and saying that the police officers were the aggressors and immediately became physical with Blake upon arriving at the scene."
• "Blake's lawyers disputed the implication that the knife was in his possession."
• "On August 28, the local police union said most narratives about the shooting were wholly inaccurate and purely fictional, including information from Blake's attorneys. It also criticized a statement released by the Wisconsin Department of Justice's Division of Criminal Investigation, which is leading the investigation into the police shooting, as "riddled with incomplete information"." Magnolia677 (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Considering that there are warring versions of what happened out there, I think we do probably need to give some reporting of the various versions. I think it should relate only to factual statements - "this happened," "that happened" - of course with attribution. For that reason I removed the police union statement, because it contains no actual information and no version of events, just accusations and polemics - but I was reverted. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Following up on your message, I copied from the section Shooting the parts that were attributed to Blake's attorney or the police union.

Blake's attorney, Benjamin Crump, said Blake "was attempting to de-escalate a fight between two other people when officers arrived at the scene,"[15] and that Blake tried to enter his vehicle while his three sons were inside.[17] According to the Kenosha Professional Police Association, the local police union, the officers were dispatched because of a complaint that Blake was attempting to steal the caller’s keys and vehicle.[18]

The local police union says that Blake was armed with a knife in his left hand, but officers did not initially see it, and he "forcefully fought with the officers, including putting one of [them] in a headlock", while ignoring orders to drop the knife[22]. “Based on the inability to gain compliance and control after using verbal, physical and less-lethal means, the officers drew their firearms,” the police union added.[18][23] One of Blake's attorneys disputed this version of events, calling it "overblown", and saying that the police officers were the aggressors and immediately became physical with Blake upon arriving at the scene.[24]

Crump said Blake was hit by four of the seven bullets.[3]

Blake's lawyers disputed the implication that the knife was in his possession.[26]

Bob K31416 (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I don't see any value at all to statements from the police union about what happened. How do they know anything? What investigation have they done, who are they quoting? I would prefer to be able to report what an actual police spokesman says. Have the police issued any report or description of what happened yet? -- MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes and, both lawyers and unions really have little to add as a part of their jobs is to make misstatements. I don’t mean that as an insult, or even a criticism. It is part and parcel of the adversarial system. O3000 (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• The police union are the official spokespeople for the accused police officer. That's how it works with union representatives. Dream Focus 01:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

So he's got two spokesmen - the union and his own lawyers? Do we have to quote them both? I'd still rather hear something official from the police the Department of Justice which I assume will be forthcoming eventually. At least if we must quote the union, can we limit ourselves to their actual descriptions of what happened, and not quote the union when it is just vaguely blathering about how the other side's version is wrong? In other words I still want to get rid of this worthless paragraph: On August 28, the local police union said most narratives about the shooting were wholly inaccurate and purely fictional, including information from Blake's attorneys. It also criticized a statement released by the Wisconsin Department of Justice's Division of Criminal Investigation, which is leading the investigation into the police shooting, as "riddled with incomplete information."[23] -- MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

That is "official from the police". They speak through their union. How its done in some states. Dream Focus 02:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Would you agree that the two sentences I quoted above contain nothing of substance? Is this unfocused blather adding anything to our article, other than "the other side is all wrong"? -- MelanieN (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

They offer plenty of substance. You list the claims of one side, the other side has the right to comment on it. Dream Focus 02:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, Would you care to offer your thoughts on the comments from Blake's lawyers? Bob K31416 (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Blake’s attorneys say that the police were the aggressors and immediately became physical, and that the knife was not in his possession. The police union says that Blake became physical with the police officers and did have a knife on him. Eyewitnesses offer their versions of who was aggressive and whether he had a knife. At this point we don’t know whose version is right, so all should be quoted, without bias against any of them as a source. Maybe more videos will surface that will help sort this out, but for now it is all he-says, he-says. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN: Giving the statements of the principles (through their representatives) is critical to understanding what's going on. No one is "battling it out here" on Wikipedia—we are including highly relevant, widely published statements that are often contradictory. Even if it appears obvious to you that one of the reps is lying, the fact that it's been said is important—it's not like we don't include OJ Simpson's or Richard Nixon's defenses because they appear prima facie implausible. Elle Kpyros (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. We need to list all the versions of what people are saying. We don't make judgments about who is right or wrong and I have no opinion about who is telling the truth and who is mistaken and who is lying. My point here is that we should report what they say about FACTUAL matters, but we should not quote simple name-calling. Things like "he had a knife," "he didn't have a knife" - those are substantive claims and both should be reported. My problem is with statements like the one I cite above, statements that offer nothing specific, no facts for us to report, nothing to add to the record of what happened - just accusations of "wholly inaccurate and purely fictional" and "riddled with incomplete information". Such a statement is worthless. Tell us WHAT exactly is inaccurate or fictional or incomplete, tell us your version of what is accurate and complete, then we'll quote you. But just saying "it's all inaccurate, it's fictional, it's incomplete" - without any specifics as to WHAT is inaccurate or incomplete - that is nothing but "nyah, nyah" and adds nothing to the article. So I still think that particular statement should be removed. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

On another approach, suggest looking for alternate sources for the same info that's attributed to Blake lawyers or union. Here's an example [7]. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Please populate the 'See also' section in a similar fashion to that found in Shooting of Michael Brown, minus the lists about police killings. Essentially, provide links to the other 'shooting of X' articles.

I'd do it myself but i'm not extended-confirmed at the moment. Don't ask. Thanks Zindor (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't agree with listing a bunch of other examples of killings by police. There are so many such articles that we would either overwhelm the article, or else end up arbitrarily choosing a few as seems to have been done at the Michael Brown article. Clearly relevant things such as Black Lives Matter are already cited in this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the inclusion of links to articles on the shootings of POC by police, in recent years, arbitrary or as is seemingly implied; irrelevant. The 'See also' section in this article is under-populated, hopefully someone can fix it. I'm desisting from this page for now. Zindor (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is perfectly relevant. However, I am also against making such an addition, given that the article includes the Black Lives Matter template, which mentions Jacob Blake's shooting as a protested case among others, which include the Shooting of Michael Brown. I do concede that your suggested addition would make this more visible, and I understand the wish to link these articles. Nevertheless, I still believe it is better the way it is, with the more comprehensive BLM template at the bottom. Fa suisse (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Zindor, problem is, there are just so many of them. Maybe this is a job for a navbox? Guy (help! - typo?) 00:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I take your point Fa suisse and JzG. What are you thoughts on substituting the BLM template and uncollapsing the navbox? The template's content is quite hidden from readers at the moment, and imo it doesn't look unreasonable when it's open. Zindor (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I must say I'm rather unfamiliar with the nuts and bolts of navboxes (never collapsed or uncollapsed one for instance). It's true that the template's content, but also the template itself, are quite hidden from readers. I don't see an issue with uncollapsing it. Fa suisse (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree, Leave it alone. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Rittenhouse -- "17 year old man"

I'm sorry, but on what planet is a 17 year old a "man"? By literally every standard, journalists only use "man" once the person turns 18.

Kyle Rittenhouse is a 17-year-old boy. Let's be accurate as possible here. 2001:569:7611:1800:FCD5:1881:7C11:4091 (talk) ADS —Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Quite right. The article now states "17-year-old boy". Fa suisse (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Changed to male. O3000 (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Male, while my first thought, is quite impersonal. BBC uses 'boy', Wall Street Journal uses 'antioch resident'. Other sources seem to drop the qualifier entirely. Zindor (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

"Male" is the perfect word. Neither "boy" nor "man" nor "teen" works here, he kind of falls in the cracks. Especially since they are charging him as an adult. Thanks, O3000, "17-year-old male" solves the problem. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

It’s the most neutral term. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add that the woman who called 911 on 23 August, 2020 was the same woman who claimed that she was sexually assaulted and robbed by Blake on 3 May, 2020.

Please edit to include that it was the same woman who filed the criminal complaint regarding sexual assault and theft of her vehicle on 3 May 2020 who subsequently placed the 911 call in August which led to Blake's shooting. Per The NY Times, Blake "faced an arrest warrant from July on charges of third-degree sexual assault, criminal trespass and disorderly conduct. The same woman who had filed that complaint had called 911 before the shooting on Sunday to report Mr. Blake’s presence to the police, according to interviews and records." This seems essential to include, and the obvious place is the first paragraph of the "Shooting" section, where both the call and the sexual-assault complaint are described. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

References