WE WILL GO AHEAD AND LISTEN IN LIVE. >> IT WILL BE A REAL CONVERSATION, NOT A SIMPLISTIC ONE, AND THAT WE TALK ACCURATELY AND THOROUGHLY ABOUT THE LAW AND THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. I WANT TO THANK NOBLE RAY, WHO IS THE INDEPENDENT USE OF FORCE EXPERT IN THIS CASE. FOUND FOR THE K’S BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN. I WANT TO THANK HIM FOR THE REPORT THAT HE PREPARED AND THE CONCLUSIONS REGARDING USE OF FORCE IN POLICE TRAINING THAT HE HAS OFFERED US, AND ALSO BECAUSE HE IS PRESENT TODAY AND HE WILL HAVE THE CHANCE TO PRESENT THOSE FINDINGS TO ALL OF YOU AND TO BE PART OF ANSWERING QUESTIONS. I EXPECT US TO COME -- CONCLUDED 5:00 TODAY AND I EXPECT MY PRESENTATION AND CHIEF RAISE TO BE LENGTHY, SO I APOLOGIZE IF THERE IS NOT A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY FOR QUESTIONS, BUT I FEEL THE OCCASION AND THE TRAGEDY THAT HAPPENED ON AUGUST 23 IS DESERVING OF A LENGTHY DISCUSSION BY BOTH PROSECUTOR, MYSELF, AND BY NOBLE RAY HERE TODAY. AGAIN I WANT TO SPEAK TO THE TRAGEDY OF WHAT HAPPENED. THIS WAS A TRAGEDY, FIRST AND FOREMOST, FOR JACOB BLAKE, WHO STILL SUFFERS FROM GRIEVOUS INJURIES. THESE ARE LIFE LASTING INJURIES THAT HE SUFFERS FROM TODAY. I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TELL HIM WHAT I WAS GOING TO ANNOUNCE TO ALL OF YOU TODAY IN A PHONE CALL JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO, AND THIS UPDATE IS THAT HE IS ON A DAILY BASIS SUFFERING THE INJURIES THAT HE FIRST SUFFERED OF COURSE ON AUGUST 23. THIS IS A TRAGEDY FOR THOSE WHO LOVE JACOB BLAKE. HE IS A FATHER, A SON, AND NEPHEW. I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND SAY I FEEL LIKE THE BLAKE FAMILY AND MR. BLAKE HIMSELF HAVE TRIED TO BE TRULY POSITIVE FORCES IN THE COMMUNITY, ASKING THE COMMUNITY TO HAVE PEACEFUL AND REAL DIALOGUE ABOUT CHANGE THAT I THINK IS NECESSARY IN THIS COMMUNITY, OUTLINED BY THE ISSUES EXPOSED IN THIS CASE. SO I THANK THEM FOR THEIR POSITIVE CONTRIBUTIONS, AND CERTAINLY THERE IS A TRAGEDY HERE FOR THEM AS WELL. I HAVE THOUGHT SEVERAL TIMES, AND HAD A GOOD CONVERSATION WITH MR. BLAKE TODAY ABOUT HIS CHILDREN WHO WERE IN THAT VEHICLE, AND I HAVE THOUGHT AS I CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCE MANY TIMES IN THESE LAST FEW MONTHS, WHAT THE IMPACT ON HIS CHILDREN OF SEEING THOSE GUNSHOTS WOULD BE IN THEIR FUTURES. SO I WAS ABLE TO BRIEFLY SPEAK TO HIM ABOUT THAT TODAY AS WELL. CLEARLY, THIS HAS BEEN A TRAGEDY FOR THIS COMMUNITY. WE HAVE SEEN, BASED ON THE RESULTS OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THE AFTERMATH, THAT THERE ARE PERSONS IN THIS COMMUNITY OR OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY, PEOPLE WHO COME HERE, WHATEVER GUISE THAT IS, THAT ARE CAPABLE OF EXPRESSING THEIR ANGER IN THESE MOMENTS BY BURNING THINGS DOWN. WHAT I HOPE TO BEGIN IN MY CONVERSATION TODAY, IS RATHER THAN BURNING THINGS DOWN, AND MOMENTS OF TRAGEDY LIKE THIS BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD THINGS? ARE THERE TIMES AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE TRAGIC WHERE COMMUNITIES IN THEIR HEALING PROCESS CAN BEGIN TO MAKE THEMSELVES A BETTER COMMUNITY THAT ALLOWS FOR ALL POINTS OF VIEW AND ALLOWS FOR ALL THE PARTIES, EVEN THOSE WHO FEEL SO DISENFRANCHISED, TO HAVE A VOICE? AND I DON’T WANT TO LEAVE OUT THE OFFICERS WHOSE ENTIRE CAREERS, IN FACT THEIR WHOLE LIVES, HAVE BEEN JUDGED BY A FEW SECONDS THAT THEY CONDUCTED THEMSELVES ON THESE SHIFTS, AND TO THEIR FAMILIES, BECAUSE THERE IS A TRAGEDY THERE. THEY HAVE CLEARLY BEEN IMPACTED IN THE SEVERAL MONTHS THAT THIS DECISION HAS BEEN AWAITED. I WANT TO SPEAK BRIEFLY, AN APOLOGY TO ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE KENOSHA COMMUNITY WHO HAVE SUFFERED IN ANY WAY FROM THE FACT THAT THIS DATE AND TIME OF THIS DECISION WAS KEPT SECRET, ALTHOUGH POSSIBLY THE WORST KEPT SECRET IN THE HISTORY OF SECRETS. BUT CERTAINLY THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY WHO FELT LIKE THEIR OWN SENSE OF SECURITY OR THEIR ECONOMIC SECURITY, THEIR BUSINESSES, WERE IMPACTED BY THE FACT THAT NO ONE SET A PARTICULAR DATE A MONTH IN ADVANCE, ETC., TO ANNOUNCE THIS DECISION. THAT WAS DONE DELIBERATELY BECAUSE OF SECURITY CONCERNS. SO THE ADVICE WE WERE GIVEN IS THAT WE COULD NOT DO THAT, AND SO AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE TO PERSONS OUT THERE HEARING THIS TODAY WHO ARE JUSTIFIABLY ANGRY THAT THEY WERE INCONVENIENCED IN THOSE MAJOR WAYS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO BE GIVEN ADVANCE NOTICE. TODAY, THERE IS A VERY NARROW DECISION THAT MUST BE MADE. SO I WILL BE ANNOUNCING TODAY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE IN ITS PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT FEELS THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE TO CONVINCE A JURY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT OFFICER SHESKEY OR ANY OF THE OTHER KENOSHA OFFICERS SHOT JACOB BLAKE UNLAWFULLY, OR COMMITTED ANY OTHER OFFENSE. THAT IS THE TASK. IT’S A NARROW TASK TODAY. IT’S A LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL TASK. BUT I WANT TO SAY THAT I FEEL IN MANY WAYS COMPLETELY INADEQUATE FOR THIS MOMENT. I HAVE NEVER IN MY LIFE HAD A MOMENT WHERE I’VE HAD TO CONTEND WITH EXPLICIT OR IMPLICIT BIAS BASED ON MY RACE. I HAVE NEVER HAD A MOMENT IN MY WHOLE LIFE WHERE I HAD TO FEAR FOR MY SAFETY WITH EITHER POLICE OFFICERS OR INDIVIDUALS IN AUTHORITY. AND YET I HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE THAT I TRUST AND ADMIRE WHO TELL ME THEY DO HAVE THAT LIFE EXPERIENCE. SO THAT IS AN AUTHENTIC EXPERIENCE I DO NOT HAVE, AND I DO NOT BRING TO THIS DECISION TODAY. CONVERSELY, I HAVE NEVER BEEN AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS LEFT MY FAMILY AND GONE TO A SHIFT AT WORK KNOWING I COULD FACE ARMED PERSONS WHO MIGHT TRY TO END MY LIFE. AND FURTHER KNOWING THAT IN THE COURSE OF MY JOB, IN FACING THOSE ARMED PEOPLE WHO MIGHT TRY TO END MY LIFE, I MIGHT NOT HAVE THE OPTION TO RUN AWAY OR TO HIDE, AS ANY PRIVATE CITIZEN RATIONALLY WOULD. AND I KNOW THAT TO BE AN AUTHENTIC EXPERIENCE, AND THAT IS NOT AN EXPERIENCE I BRING TO THIS DECISION TODAY EITHER. WHAT I DO BRING TO THIS DECISION IS ALMOST THREE DECADES AS A PROSECUTOR MAKING CHARGING DECISIONS, WHICH IS WHAT I AM BEIN-- TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TIME HAVE LOOKED AT SETS OF FACTS AND HAD TO MAKE A DECISION WHETHER THERE WERE SUFFICIENT FACTS THAT FIT THE LAW THAT WOULD ALLOW THE PROSECUTORS, INCLUDING MYSELF, TO BE ABLE TO PROVE A CASE TO A JURY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. I HAVE PERSONALLY TAKEN MORE THAN 200 50 CASES TO JURY TRIAL. SO I THINK I CAN CONFIDENTLY SAY WHERE I DO HAVE AUTHENTIC EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE IS IN AN ABILITY TO TALK TO A COMMUNITY AND TO ALL OF YOU ABOUT WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE IN A JURY TRIAL IF ANYONE WAS CHARGED, AND WHETHER THAT EVIDENCE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO GET A CONVICTION. I ALSO HAVE A COMPLETE AND ABSOLUTE COMMITMENT THAT THAT CHARGING DECISION MUST BE MADE INDEPENDENT OF OUTSIDE FORCES OR THE POLITICAL WINDS THAT SWIRL ABOUT IN THIS YEAR AND THIS ERA WE ARE IN. IT IS AN ABSOLUTE COMMITMENT I HAVE, AND I HOPE THAT IN THESE TROUBLED TIMES, THAT OUR COMMUNITY AND MAYBE AMERICA HAS PERHAPS RARELY BEEN IN GREATER NEED OF A NEUTRAL, PROFESSIONAL PERSON TO REFEREE THESE DISPUTES IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. AND SO I PROVIDE THAT PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT AND I BRING THAT TO THE EVIDENCE TODAY. SO THE FIRST THING I WANT TO DO IS TALK ABOUT THE STATUTE IN WISCONSIN DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE INVESTIGATIVE AND CHARGING PROCESS FOR FATAL POLICE SHOOTINGS. THANKFULLY, JACOB BLAKE IS ALIVE. HE IS GRIEVOUSLY INJURED, BUT HE IS NOT DECEASED. AT THIS STATUTE IS STILL AN EXCELLENT GUIDE TO ALLOW US OUR BEST CHANCE AT AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIVE -- AND CHARGING DECISION. SO WHAT IS THE STATUTE, IF IT IS OUR GUIDEPOST, WHERE DOES IT TAKE US? IT FIRST REQUIRES AN INVESTIGATION BY AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY. IN THIS CASE, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS. I WILL CALL THEM DCI, GOT TO THE SCENE AS SOON AS THEY COULD, THEY SECURED THE SCENE AND IMMEDIATELY BEGAN TO BE THE INVESTIGATIVE AGENCY. ULTIMATELY THAT RESPONSIBILITY WAS SHARED WITH THE FBI AND SOME SMALL AMOUNT WHEN THEY NEEDED ADDITIONAL PERSONS. THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT WHEN THAT INVESTIGATION IS COMPLETED IN AS TIMELY AND EXPEDITIOUS MANNER AS POSSIBLE, IT GOES TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE SHOOTING OCCURRED. OF COURSE IN THIS CASE IT IS KENOSHA. IN THIS SITUATION, AN EXHAUSTIVE INVESTIGATION WAS DONE. THERE IS MORE THAN 40 HOURS OF SQUAD VIDEO. THERE’S HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF ELECTRONIC INFORMATION. THERE ARE ALMOST 200 SEPARATE LAW-ENFORCEMENT REPORTS, AND ALMOST 1500 INDIVIDUAL PAGES OF POLICE REPORTS. SO THIS WAS CLEARLY DRAMATICALLY EXHAUSTIVE INVESTIGATION. WAS IT EXPEDITIOUS? THEY GOT IT TO NOBLE RAY, THE INDEPENDENT USE OF FORCE EXPERT BY OCTOBER 8 20 20 AND ULTIMATELY TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE AS WELL. THEN THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, THE ELECTED DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN THAT COUNTY MUST DETERMINE IF THERE IS A BASIS TO PROSECUTE ANY OF THE INVOLVED LAW ENFORCEMENT. IT IS MY DECISION NOW THAT I ANNOUNCED TODAY BEFORE YOU THAT NO KENOSHA LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN THIS CASE WILL BE CHARGED WITH ANY CRIMINAL OFFENSE BASED ON THE FACTS AND THE LAWS AS I WILL DESCRIBE THEM TO YOU NOW. SO IT IS OUR DECISION THAT NO CHARGE WILL BE FILED. I’M GOING TO ALSO TELL YOU, JUST BECAUSE I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT, THAT NO CHARGE WILL BE FILED AGAINST JACOB BLAKE IN REGARD TO THIS INCIDENT AS WELL. FOR MANY OF THE SAME REASONS IN TERMS OF AN OVERALL DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS CASE, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE INTENDS TO PURSUE. NOW, IF THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN, THEN IMMEDIATE TRANSPARENCY HAS TO TAKE PLACE. SO WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN IS FIRST, THE DCI WEBSITE WILL I 5:00 TODAY HAVE AVAILABLE THEIR COMPLETE INVESTIGATIVE FILE. AND SECOND, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, WHICH IS NOT ONLY GOING TO PUT THIS POWERPOINT, WHICH IS AN ABBREVIATED FORM OF OUR REPORT, WILL BE AVAILABLE. WE HAVE A MORE LENGTHY, WRITTEN REPORT THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. BOTH WILL BE AVAILABLE ON A WEBSITE THAT WILL BE IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL SLIDE AND THEY WILL BOTH BE AVAILABLE AT 5:00 TODAY. IN ADDITION, NOBLE RAY HAS DRAFTED A REPORT WITH ALL OF HIS FINDINGS AND THAT ALSO WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME. NOW I INTEND TO TALK ABOUT WHAT STEPS WERE TAKEN SPECIFICALLY BY THE DAS OFFICE TO PREPARE FOR THIS INVESTIGATION AND THEN WHAT OUR CONCLUSIONS ARE ABOUT THE LAW AND THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. AS SOON AS I SAW THE VIDEO AND SHARED THE SAME EMOTIONAL REACTIONS THAT I THINK SO MANY PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC DID IN MY FIRST VIEWING OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE VIDEO THAT CERTAINLY WENT VIRAL IMMEDIATELY, I KNEW AT THAT TIME THAT WE NEEDED TO DO THE MOST INDEPENDENT CHARGING DECISION AND INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE DONE. AND AT THE VERY FIRST MOMENT I LEARNED THAT, I CALLED ON THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE TO DO A PARALLEL CIVIL RIGHTS INVESTIGATION THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE INVESTIGATION IN CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS FROM OUR OWN. THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE HAS A CIVIL-RIGHTS SPECIALIST WHO PROSECUTE AND MAKE CHARGING DECISIONS ABOUT OFFICERS AND ANY MISCONDUCT. SO THEY HAVE SPECIALISTS WHO DO THAT. THEY WORK OUT OF THEIR WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE. THEY DID AGREE THEY WOULD DO AN INVESTIGATION. I KNOW THAT IS GOING ON, AND I INVITE YOU TO CONTACT THAT OFFICE AND FIND OUT WHAT THEIR STATUS IS. I KNOW THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO GET TO A POINT WHERE THEY ARE ABLE TO MAKE CHARGING DECISIONS AS WELL. KENOSHA DESERVES A SECOND LEGAL OPINION OTHER THAN MY OWN. I AM CONFIDENT ABOUT THE THINGS I’M TALKING ABOUT TODAY, WHAT I BELIEVE THAT THE HEALING PROCESS BEGINS OR IS IMPROVED BY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SEE OTHER PROSECUTING AGENCIES BIG DECISIONS EVEN THOUGH THEIR LAWS ARE SOMEWHAT AND SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. THE OTHER THING I DID, AND I THINK THIS IS AN UNPRECEDENTED THING IN WISCONSIN. I DON’T THINK THIS HAS EVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. I ASKED THE WISCONSIN ATTORNEY GENERAL TO SELECT FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE A USE OF FORCE EXPERT WHO I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIRING. SO I ASKED THEM TO FIND SOMEONE, SO THAT THERE WOULD BE A TRULY AND COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT EXPERT ON ISSUES OF POLICE TRAINING AND ON ISSUES OF WHETHER THE USE OF FORCE IN THIS CASE WAS REASONABLE. THE WAY I DID THAT WAS I ASKED THEM TO SELECT THE PERSON WITHOUT ME HAVING ANY INPUT. WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DID WAS HE ASKED NOBLE RAY, WHO IS WITH ME TODAY, WHO ACCEPTED, AND I KNEW HIS NAME. I KNEW HIM AS A NATIONAL AND STATE SPOKESPERSON FOR POLICE REFORM AND TALKING ABOUT BIAS IN POLICING, AND A PERSON WHO HAD SPENT AFTER A LONG CAREER AT THE MADISON POLICE DEPARTMENT, HIS SECOND CAREER WAS TRYING TO BE A VOICE ON THOSE ISSUES ON A NATIONAL LEVEL. WHEN I FIRST HAD MY CONTACT WITH NOBLE RAY, HAD NEVER SPOKEN TO HIM IN MY LIFE, HAD NEVER MET HIM IN PERSON IN MY LIFE UNTIL AFTER THIS SELECTION WAS MADE. MY FIRST CONVERSATION WITH HIM WAS ABOUT HOW I WANTED IN NO WAY TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION HE CAME TO ABOUT THE MATTERS THAT MATTERED IN THIS CASE. I TOLD HIM THAT NO MATTER WHAT YOU CONCLUDE, WE ARE GOING TO PUBLISH THAT. THAT WILL BE AN INDEPENDENTLY FORMED OPINION. I WON’T HAVE ANY INFLUENCE, AND YOU WILL BE ALLOWED TO PUT ANYTHING YOU WANT IN THERE, AND I WILL INVITE YOU TO OFFER ANY OPINIONS YOU FEEL ARE APPROPRIATE. AND YOU WILL HEAR THOSE SHARED BY NOBLE RAY TODAY, AND YOU WILL KNOW THAT AS YOU HEAR THOSE, THAT THOSE ARE FACTS AND FINDINGS FROM AN EXPERT WHO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN THIS CASE MYSELF, DID NOT INFLUENCE. I ALSO TOOK PAINS TO STAY OUT OF ANY CONTACTS WITH ANY FAMILY MEMBERS, ANY CIVIL ATTORNEYS, ANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO SOMEONE MIGHT THINK WOULD HAVE AN ABILITY TO INFLUENCE THIS DECISION. I PURPOSELY AVOIDED THOSE INDIVIDUALS. MY FIRST CONVERSATION WITH JACOB BLAKE WAS TODAY, JUST MINUTES BEFORE THIS PRESS CONFERENCE, AND I HAVE STILL NOT SPOKEN TO ANY OF THE OFFICERS IMPACTED IN THIS CASE. OK. SO THAT IS THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE NVESTIGATION. I NOW WANT TO TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE. I DO THAT BECAUSE MY LASER FOCUS THROUGHOUT THIS PRESENTATION IS GOING TO BE IF ONE WAS TO CHARGE ANY OFFICER IN THIS CASE, WHAT WOULD BE THE LAWS THAT GOVERN THAT CASE? WHAT WOULD A JURY TRIAL LOOK LIKE? BECAUSE IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A CASE YOU CAN PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, AS YOU WILL HEAR ME TALK ABOUT, THEN YOU ARE ETHICALLY OBLIGATED NOT TO CHARGE SUCH A CASE. MY BELIEF IS THAT THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE THERE WOULD BE ANY DISPUTE ABOUT ANY OF THE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, EXCEPT FOR ONE PIECE OF LAW. AND THAT IS SELF-DEFENSE. MEMBER, THESE ARE POLICE OFFICERS WHO ARE UNIFORMED OFFICERS. THEY ARE CALLED TO THE SCENE ON A DESIGNATED DOMESTIC ABUSE CALL. WHEN THEY GET THERE, THEY KNOW THERE IS AN ARREST WARRANT FOR JACOB BLAKE, AND THEY TAKE ACTIONS AT THAT TIME. REALLY THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS CASE WOULD BE, DO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO THE PRIVILEGE OF SELF-DEFENSE? THIS LAW I WOULD SUMMARIZE AS FOLLOWS. THE QUESTION TO A JURY WOULD BE, DID OFFICER SHESKEY REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT THE SHOOTING AT JACOB BLAKE WAS NECESSARY TO PREVENT BEING STABBED BY HIM, OR NECESSARY TO PREVENT SOMEONE ELSE FROM BEING IN IMMINENT DANGER OF DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM? THAT IS THE SIMPLE WAY OF TALKING ABOUT IT. WHAT IS REASONABLE BELIEF? OK, IS IT WHAT YOU AND I WOULD THINK AT OUR COMPUTER SCREEN OR IN OUR LIVING ROOM? WELL, THE STATUTE SAYS REASONABLE -- REASONABLE BELIEF IS ACTUALLY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF OFFICER SHESKEY AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING. THE JURY IS INSTRUCTED THAT THE REASONABLE BELIEF IDEA IS FROM THE SHOES OF OFFICER SHESKEY WHEN HE MAKES HIS DECISION TO FIRE THE FIREARM. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT POLICE OFFICERS, COURTS HAVE HAD TO WEIGH IN ON THIS IDEA BEFORE. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE I AM SIDING HERE IN 1989 HAS TALKED ABOUT THE VERY SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES FOR OFFICERS, THAT THEY ARE IN TENSE, UNCERTAIN SITUATIONS. AND THAT A JURY WOULD BE INSTRUCTED AND THEY CANNOT USE 2020 HINDSIGHT, THAT THEY HAVE TO BE TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE DECISION WOULD REASONABLY BE FROM AN OFFICER, IN THE SHOES OF OFFICER SHESKEY WITH THE INFORMATION AND TRAINING AVAILABLE AT THAT MOMENT. I THINK IT IS QUITE COMMON FOR PERSONS TO THINK, OR HAVE MISTAKES IN THEIR BELIEF ABOUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF REASONABLE FOR SELF-DEFENSE. I’VE HEARD A NUMBER PEOPLE TALK TO ME ABOUT THIS CASE. THEY SAY WELL, THAT THE OFFICERS CLAIM SELF-DEFENSE. THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVE THAT. THE REALITY IS, THAT IS JUST NOT THE CASE. IN WISCONSIN, AND I BELIEVE THIS IS THE LAW THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, WHEN THERE IS ENOUGH INFORMATION TO RAISE SELF-DEFENSE, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE STATE, ON THE PROSECUTOR TO DISPROVE SELF-DEFENSE. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO DISPROVE THE CLEAR EXPRESSION OF THESE OFFICERS THAT THEY HAD TO FIRE A WEAPON TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. YOU HAVE TO DISPROVE THAT NEGATIVE. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE STATE IN THAT SITUATION. SO I’VE TOLD YOU THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE THE STATE, AND WE WILL GO INTO SOME OF THE FACTS IN DETAIL IN A MINUTE, WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE PRIVILEGE OF SELF-DEFENSE IS NOT AVAILABLE, IS NOT A DEFENSE IN THIS CASE. IF THAT IS TRUE, THEN ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS MUST DETERMINE WHAT OUR NEXT COURSE IS. SO I WANT TO TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT THE REST OF WHAT I HAVE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC IN THE SENSE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE DEMANDED OR CALLED FOR CHARGES IN THIS CASE. THERE HAS BEEN A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE SAID YOU NEED TO CHARGE THESE OFFICERS, BECAUSE IT WILL SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE TO ALL OFFICERS EVERYWHERE ABOUT HOW THEY NEED TO POLICE IN THE FUTURE. I CALL THAT THE SEND A MESSAGE CHARGING DECISION. THERE’S BEEN A NUMBER OF WELL-MEANING VOICES WHO HAVE SAID YOU MUST CHARGE THIS CASE TO ADVANCE THE CAUSES OF RACIAL EQUITY AND TO STRIKE A BLOW FORWARD IN THE IDEA THAT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS RACIST AND EXPOSED THE BIAS. I CALL THAT THE CHARGE THE CASE TO ADVANCE A RIGHTEOUS CAUSE. AND THEN THERE’S BEEN THE DEEPLY HUMAN ELEMENT, WHERE PEOPLE HAVE SAID TO ME, JACOB BLAKE IS A HUMAN BEING. HIS FAMILY HAS REALLY SUFFERED, AND SO YOU SHOULD CHARGE THIS CASE SO THAT HE CAN HEAL THROUGH A JURY TRIAL AND SO THAT HIS FAMILY WILL BEGIN TO HEAL THROUGH THAT PROCESS AS WELL. I JUST NEED TO BE CLEAR, ALL THREE OF THOSE BASES ARE NOT ETHICALLY APPROPRIATE TO CHARGE A CRIMINAL CASE IN WISCONSIN, IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE YOU CAN DEFEAT THE PRIVILEGE OF SELF-DEFENSE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. THERE IS A CASE, THOMPSON V STATE. THE STATE SUPREME COURT ALMOST 50 YEARS AGO TOLD US AS PROSECUTORS IT’S AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO CHARGE IF THE EVIDENCE IS CLEARLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION. MEANING YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CONFIDENCE YOU CAN PROVE THAT CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. OK, SO WHY HAVE I TAKEN SO MUCH OF YOUR TIME AND COMPLICATED THIS CONVERSATION WITH ALL THIS STUFF ABOUT WHAT THE LAW IS AND WHAT THE ETHICS ARE? MOST OF YOU ARE HERE TO HEAR THE FACTS. WHAT ARE THE BLOCKBUSTER NEW FACTS THAT I HAVE TO TALK ABOUT? WELL, I’VE DONE THAT BECAUSE I -- I AGAIN WANT TO EMPHASIZE TO YOU WHAT I HAVE TO TALK ABOUT. I’VE DONE THAT BECAUSE I AGAIN WANT TO EMPHASIZE TO YOU THAT THIS CASE HAS TO BE LASER FOCUSED ON WHAT A JURY TRIAL WOULD LOOK LIKE. EVERYBODY HAS SEEN THE VIDEO. FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, THEY HAVE TRIED THIS CASE AT THEIR COMPUTER SCREEN OR IN THEIR LIVING ROOM. AS A PROFESSIONAL, I AM CALLED UPON TO TALK ABOUT HOW TO TRY THIS CASE IN A REALLY ACTUAL EVIDENCE -- HOW WOULD THAT EVIDENCE PLAY OUT AND WITH THE EVIDENCE ADD UP TO A DEFEAT OF THE PRIVILEGE OF SELF-DEFENSE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT? THAT’S GOING TO BE THE REST OF THE FOCUS HERE. WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT THIS CASE IS REALLY ALL ABOUT SELF-DEFENSE, AND CAN IT BE PROVEN THAT IT DOES NOT EXIST? IT IS REALLY EVIDENCE ABOUT THE PERSPECTIVE OF OFFICER SHESKEY. WHAT IS HIS KNOWLEDGE AT EACH MOMENT, AND WHAT DOES A REASONABLE OFFICER DO AT EACH DECISION POINT? THOSE WOULD BE THE THINGS THAT WOULD BE PRIMARY, AND ALMOST NONE OF THOSE THINGS ARE ANSWERED BY THE DEEPLY DISTURBING VIDEO THAT WE HAVE ALL SEEN. ALMOST NONE OF THOSE THINGS ARE ANSWERED. I DIVIDE THE WITNESSES IN THIS CASE INTO THREE CATEGORIES. CERTAINLY THE COPS WOULD ALL BE WITNESSES. ALL THREE OF THESE OFFICERS. THERE IS GENERAL DISAGREEMENT BY THE OFFICERS WHO WERE RIGHT THERE THAT THIS WAS A SELF-DEFENSE SITUATION. THEY DESCRIBED THE SAME MOTION THAT I WILL GO INTO IN DETAIL, WHERE OFFICER SHESKEY FELT THAT HE WAS ABOUT TO BE STABBED. SO IT IS CRUCIAL WHAT THEY KNEW AT EVERY STAGE, HOW THOSE OFFICERS PERCEIVED IT, AND ALSO CRUCIAL IS, IS THERE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE THAT DISPROVES, THAT SHOWS THAT OFFICERS ARE LYING ABOUT THE THINGS THEY OFFER TO INVESTIGATORS? AND BY THE WAY, THE OFFICERS WERE COMPLETELY COOPERATIVE IN THIS INVESTIGATION. JACOB BLAKE WOULD CERTAINLY BE ANOTHER WITNESS IN THIS CASE. HE ALSO WAS COMPLETELY COOPERATIVE IN THIS INVESTIGATION. HE WOULD BE THE KEY WITNESS IF YOU PROSECUTED THIS CASE. HE WOULD BE THE STAR WITNESS OF ANY PROSECUTION CASE, EVE YOU EVEN CONTEMPLATE HAVING A JURY TRIAL WHERE YOU CHARGE AND CONVICT OFFICER SHESKEY OR ANY OTHER OFFICER. SO FOCUSING ON JACOB BLAKE AS THE STAR WITNESS, WHERE ARE THE AREAS WHERE HE AND THE OFFICERS AGREE? WHERE DO HE AND THOSE OFFICERS DISAGREE? AND IF HE DISAGREES WITH THE OFFICERS, IS JACOB BLAKE A CREDIBLE WITNESS IN THOSE AREAS? AND THAT WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IN A SECOND. AND FINALLY, THE OTHER CIVILIANS, AND I KINDA PUT ALL OF US IN THAT SAME CATEGORY, BECAUSE WE ARE SORT OF EYEWITNESSES AS WELL. WE HAVE SEEN A VIDEO WHERE WE HAVE SEEN A SNAP, A FEW SECONDS OF WHAT OCCURRED IN THIS CASE. I BELIEVE THOSE CIVILIANS WHO WERE ON THE SCENE WOULD ALSO TESTIFY. THEY WOULD BE PART OF A TRIAL, OF COURSE. BUT AGAIN, THEY DO NOT TESTIFY TO THINGS THAT ARE REALLY IN DISPUTE. AND SO I BELIEVE THOSE CIVILIANS WOULD BE MORE DEFINED BY WHAT THEY DON’T KNOW, BY THE THINGS THEY ARE NOT AWARE OF, THAN BY THE THINGS THEY DO KNOW. AND THAT WHEN A JURY CONSIDERED THIS CASE, THEIR IMPORTANCE WOULD DIMINISH BECAUSE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTES. HERE ARE THE FOUR THINGS I WANT YOU TO CONSIDER AS I TALK ABOUT THE EVIDENCE. NUMBER ONE, IS THIS A DOMESTIC ABUSE CASE? OK, IF IT IS A DOMESTIC ABUSE CASE, ARE THERE CERTAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND PRIORITIES THAT OFFICERS NEED TO INCORPORATE IN WHAT THEY DO? NUMBER TWO, WAS JACOB BLAKE ARMED? AND IF HE WAS ARMED, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO SAY ABOUT OFFICERS DECISIONS FOR SELF-DEFENSE? NUMBER THREE, WHAT DOES ANY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TELL US? FOR INSTANCE, CAN WE TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT ENTRANCE WOUNDS INTO THE BODY OF JACOB BLAKE TODAY, AND WHETHER THOSE HAVE SIGNIFICANCE IN SUPPORTING OR IN SOME WAY DISPROVING ANY STORE THAT OFFICERS WOULD HAVE ABOUT BEING ON THE VERGE OF BEING STABBED AT THE POINT THAT SHOTS ARE FIRED? WHAT ABOUT THE TASER EVIDENCE? IS THERE EVIDENCE OF TASTING THAT OCCURRED IN THIS CASE? AND THEN, WHAT DOES OUR INDEPENDENT USE OF FORCE EXPERT CONCLUDE IS REASONABLE? WHAT DOES HE SAY THAT A REASONABLE OFFICER WOULD DO AT EACH DECISION POINT? I’M GOING TO SUBMIT TO YOU RIGHT NOW, THE JURY HEARD AND THOUGHT ABOUT THIS CASE, WHEN THEY HEAR AND INDEPENDENTLY APPOINTED USE OF FORCE EXPERT WITH THE LONG CREDIBILITY AND EXPERTISE OF THIS EXPERT THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY, WHEN THEY HEAR THAT HE WOULD BE TESTIFYING THAT EACH DECISION BY THE OFFICERS IN THIS CASE ARE REASONABLE BY POLICE OFFICERS, ARE APPROPRIATE AND REASONABLE USES OF FORCE, THAT THAT WOULD BE DECISIVE TO A JURY IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE PRIVILEGE OF SELF-DEFENSE COULD EVER BE DEFEATED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. OK. SO WITH THAT, I WANT TO GO THROUGH THE EVIDENCE IN SOME DETAIL. FIRST OF ALL, WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE ABOUT MY POLICE WENT TO THE SCENE? WE KNOW ON AUGUST 23 THEY WERE CALLED BY THE QUI BOOKER. SHE CALLED THE POLICE AND REPORTED THAT JACOB BLAKE WOULD NOT GIVE HER BACK THE KEYS TO HER RENTAL VEHICLE AND SHE WAS AFRAID HE WOULD TAKE THE VEHICLE AND CRASH IT. SHE REPORTED HE HAD DONE THAT BEFORE. NOW POLICE KNOW THERE IS A VEHICLE IN DISPUTE. DECCA BLAKE ALREADY HAS THE KEYS, AND THE CONCERN IS WILL HE CRASH THAT VEHICLE IN AN EFFORT TO LEAVE? SO WE ARE GOING TO PLAY THAT 911 CALL NOW SO YOU WILL HEAR THE CALL WHEN SHE REPORTED IT. >> I NEED AN OFFICER TO -- WILLIAMS STREET, UNIT D. JACOB LAKE IS HERE AND HE HAS THE KEYS TO A RENTAL [INDISCERNIBLE] HE IS ON PROPERTY THAT HE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE HERE. HE IS NOT GIVING ME THE KEYS TO THIS RENTAL, AND THAT’S ALL I’M ASKING FOR. HE HAS CRASHED NUMEROUS VEHICLES IN THE PAST. HE IS NOT WILLING TO GIVE ME THE KEYS TO THIS CAR THAT DOESN’T EVEN BELONG TO ME. I NEED YOU GUYS TO COME -- MY NAME IS -- BOOKER. [INDISCERNIBLE] >> IS JACOB THERE RIGHT NOW? [INDISCERNIBLE] >> NOW HE IS GETTING READY TO LEAVE. >> HOLD ON, LET ME GET THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER. [INDISCERNIBLE] >> HE IS PULLING OFF RIGHT NOW. MR. GRAVELEY: SO THAT WAS THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO 911. THE KEY QUESTION THEN, AS I SAID, THE FOCUS IS, WHAT DO OFFICERS KNOW AT EVERY MOMENT THEY MAKE ANY OF STANCIL DECISIONS IN THIS CASE? BASED ON THAT 91 ONE CALL, THE OFFICERS ARE DISPATCHED TO THE SCENE FOR A FAMILY TROUBLE CALL, THAT IS A CODE FOR DOMESTIC ABUSE, INVOLVING A DOMESTIC DISPUTE OVER CAR KEYS. DISPATCH ALSO TOLD THE RESPONDING OFFICERS LAKE HAS A FELONY ARREST WARRANT FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENSES AND SEXUAL ASSAULT. SO YOU WILL HEAR THAT IN THE DISPATCH RECORDING AND KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE OFFICERS WERE TOLD US THEY WERE HEADING TOWARD THE SCENE. >> AUGUST 23, 2020. [INDISCERNIBLE] >> JACOB BLAKE HAS THE KEYS AND IS REFUSING TO GIVE THEM BACK. [INDISCERNIBLE] MR. GRAVELEY: THIS IS WHAT COMES UP ON THE SQUAD COMPUTER. WHAT YOU’RE SEEING NOW IS A PICTURE BUT OFFICER SHESKEY WHO IS IN THE PASSENGER SEAT, A BRAND-NEW OFFICER IS DRIVING, SHESKEY IS ABLE TO OPERATE THE SQUAD COMPUTER AS THEY PROCEED, AND THIS IS WHAT IS ON THERE, INCLUDING THAT WARRANT INFORMATION. AS YOU HEARD, THEY HEARD THAT THE WARRANT IS LINKED TO THE SAME ADDRESS. ANOTHER SIGN TO OFFICERS WHO DO NOT HAVE COMPLETE INFORMATION AVAILABLE THAT THIS IS THE PLACE WHERE THE SEXUAL ASSAULT AND DOMESTIC ABUSE OCCURRED THAT JACOB BLAKE HAS A WARRANT FOR. THAT’S THE WARRANT, IT’S A FELONY WARRANT FOR HIS ARREST. SO THAT’S THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAVE AS THEY PROCEED IN THE SQUAD CAR. YOU WILL HEAR IN A MOMENT THAT OFFICER SHESKEY OPERATES THE SQUAD COMPUTER AND GETS A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE WARRANT AS THEY ARE DRIVING TO THE SCENE. WHAT OTHER INFORMATION DO OFFICERS COLLECT BEFORE ANY FORCE OR ANY ACTION IS DONE BY OFFICERS IN THIS CASE? SO THEY ARRIVE AT THE SCENE. THE THREE OFFICERS GATHER AND HEAD TOWARDS WHERE BOOKER AND JACOB BLAKE ARE LOCATED AT THIS APARTMENT BUILDING. OFFICER SHESKEY SEES BLAKE PUTTING A CHILD IN THE DISPUTED VEHICLE. SO NOW OFFICER SHESKEY HAS THE ADDED INFORMATION THAT THIS VEHICLE THAT HE BELIEVES JACOB BLAKE HAS KEYS FOR, THAT HE KNOWS IS IN DISPUTE, NOW HAS A KID THAT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE MIX IN THAT VEHICLE. OFFICER SHESKEY HERE’S -- BOOKER YELLED IT’S HIM, IT’S HIM. HE HAS MY KEYS. IT’S MY CAR, IT’S REGISTERED TO ME. SHESKEY INDICATES ONE OF THE FEW CONVERSATIONS HE HAS WITH JACOB BLAKE IS LAKE DECLARING HIS INTENTION, I’M TAKING THE KID AND I’M TAKING THE CAR. OFFICER MARRANO HEAR SOMETHING SIMILAR FROM BOOKER. FOR ANY WHO WOULD DOUBT IF THE OFFICERS ARE TRUTHFUL ABOUT THE REPORTING, THERE IS A CIVILIAN WITNESS WHO SAYS SHE HEARS BOOKER YELLED TO THE POLICE, HERE HE IS, HERE HE IS, IS TRYING TO TAKE MY KIDS AND TAKE MY CAR. SO I’M GOING TO SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE HEARD SO FAR IS CLEARLY, TO ANY OFFICER WHO HEARS IT, THE DOMESTIC ABUSE SCENARIO THAT IS THERE FOR THEM TO REFERENCE AND THINK ABOUT IN TERMS OF THE CONSIDERATIONS THEY MUST NOW MAKE. THIS SLIDE REALLY ENCAPSULATES ALL THE REASONS THAT I THINK THIS IS A DOMESTIC ABUSE CASE, AND CLEARLY THAT IS HOW IT WOULD BE PRESENTED TO A JURY AND THINKING ABOUT WHAT POLICE OFFICERS ARE THINKING ABOUT THIS CASE AT THE TIME. NOW I DON’T KNOW IF THAT’S BEEN OUT IN THE PUBLIC. I DON’T KNOW IF ANY PUBLIC TAKE ON THE JACOB BLAKE SHOOTING HAS BEEN, OH WELL, LET’S CONSIDER HOW OFFICERS HAVE TO THINK ABOUT DOMESTIC ABUSE. THERE MAY BE PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD BE DEEPLY SKEPTICAL. THEY WOULD SAY WHAT THIS SOUNDS LIKE SO FAR IS A GUY WHO IS TRYING TO GO SOMEWHERE WITH HIS KIDS AND THERE IS SOME ARGUMENT OVER KEYS. THAT DOESN’T SOUND LIKE DOMESTIC ABUSE TO ME. YOU HAVEN’T SAID ANYTHING ABOUT VIOLENCE, FOR INSTANCE. AND ONLY FOR THAT REASON DO I BELIEVE THIS SLIDE THAT IS COMING NOW ABOUT PRIOR CONTACTS BETWEEN JACOB BLAKE AND BOOKER ON THE ISSUE OF DOMESTIC ABUSE IS ONLY RELEVANT FOR THAT PURPOSE I JUST DESCRIBED. FOR ANYONE OUT THERE WHO SAYS YOU HAVE NOT IN ANYWAY SHOW ME THERE IS ANYTHING REAL ABOUT DOMESTIC ABUSE HERE, FOR THOSE PERSONS, I SUGGEST TO YOU THAT A PATTERN IS VERY CLEAR. LET ME BE ABSOLUTELY FAIR HERE. NO OFFICER INVOLVED IN THIS CALL YOU ABOUT THESE CONTACTS. SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD COME UP IN A TRIAL. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT ANYONE OUT THERE IN THE PUBLIC COULD CONSIDER THAT HE’S SAYING JACOB BLAKE IS A BAD GUY, THEREFORE THIS IS A DIFFERENT PIECES -- OF MS. BOOKER, AND THERE ARE INSTANCES OF VIOLENCE AND SOME OF THESE OTHER CASES, AND THAT THIS IS A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR THAT THE POLICE HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN MANY TIMES, THAT THIS REALLY IS AN ACTUAL DOMESTIC ABUSE SCENARIO PLAYED OUT ONE MORE TIME, UNFORTUNATELY, ON AUGUST 23. CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR IS JACOB BLAKE APPARENTLY -- EVIDENTLY HEARING NEWS HE DOESN’T WANT TO HEAR, AND SO DECIDING NOW I’M GOING TO TAKE THE KIDS, NOW I’M GOING TO TAKE THE CAR. AND MS. BOOKER, POWERLESS IN THAT SITUATION, GOING TO THE ONLY PLACE SHE BELIEVES SHE WILL BE ABLE TO GET SUPPORT, AND THAT IS LAW ENFORCEMENT, TO TRY TO STOP THAT STUFF FROM HAPPENING. SO THAT’S WHAT THESE CONTEXTS ARE ABOUT. THE LAST ONE ON THE LIST I’M A DATED MAY 3, IS THE WARRANT CASE. THE CASE THAT IS THE WARRANT FOR HIS ARREST. IN THAT CASE, A DISTRAUGHT MS. BOOKER REPORTS TO POLICE THAT JACOB BLAKE INVADED HER HOME, SEXUALLY ASSAULTED HER, IN A PLACE HE WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE. A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TYPE SCENARIO, AND TOOK HER CAR IN THAT INCIDENT. THAT IS THE FELONY SEXUAL ASSAULT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE THAT HE HAD A WARRANT OUT FOR ON AUGUST 23. AGAIN, IT INVOLVES HER CAR AND THAT KIND OF CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR. JUST TO FURTHER TALK ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN CASE YOU SAY, THOSE ALL LOOK LIKE OLD OFFENSES. HOW DO I KNOW THAT THIS RECENT STUFF IS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE? WELL, THIS IS A TEXT FROM JACOB BLAKE WHERE HE IS TEXTING HER, THE SAME PATTERN WE SEE SO OFTEN IN THE KENOSHA DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, TELLING -- THE SAME DOMESTIC ABUSE PATTERNS THAT ARE SO CONCERNING, THAT ARE SO DIFFICULT IN TERMS OF SAFETY IN THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE SUFFERING AS VICTIMS BEING PLAYED OUT IN THIS CASE. WHY HAVE I SPENT ALL THIS TIME ON THIS? OK, SO DOMESTIC ABUSE IS PART OF THIS. WHAT POSSIBLE REASON WOULD THERE BE TO SPIN THIS MANY MINUTES ON IT? IT’S REALLY BECAUSE I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT OFFICERS, THESE ARE COMMON CALLS FOR OFFICERS. THERE ARE FACTORS IN THINGS THEY HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT WE AS CIVILIANS PROBABLY DON’T CONSIDER EVERY DAY. AND THAT OFFICERS MAYBE DON’T EVEN CONSIDER ON OTHER TYPES OF CALLS. SO IT’S ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE IS UNPREDICTABLE ANGER THAT HAPPENS EVEN IN FRONT OF OFFICERS IN CIRCUMSTANCES THAT DON’T NECESSARILY HAPPEN IN NONDOMESTIC CALLS. IN THAT CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR, THINGS LIKE MAKING SURE I’M GOING TO TAKE YOUR KEYS, I’M GOING TO TAKE YOUR KIDS, THAT THOSE MIGHT BE THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE LOOKED OUT FOR. AGAIN AND AGAIN, THE FACT THAT CHILDREN CAN BE PAWNS IN THE MIDDLE OF THESE SITUATIONS, THAT PEOPLE WHO IN NO WAY WANT TO HARM THEIR OWN CHILDREN AND SOMETIMES ENDANGER THEIR CHILDREN ACTING OUT THE DOMESTIC ABUSE SCENARIOS. POLICE ARE AWARE OF ALL THOSE THINGS. THOSE ARE ALL THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE PRIORITIES IN THEIR CONSIDERATION OF THESE TYPE OF CALLS. I MENTION TO YOU THAT OFFICER SHESKEY COULD SEE THAT THERE WAS A WARRANT. THAT IS THE OTHER LARGE FACTOR IN THIS CASE. THE COVER SHEET OF THAT WARRANT, AND I BROUGHT THE POLICY OF THE KENOSHA POLICE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE IT IS SO IMPORTANT THAT YOU UNDERSTAND. AND I THINK IT IS POSSIBLE THAT NOBLE RAY WILL SPEAK TO THIS. OFFICER SHESKEY AND THESE OFFICERS DO NOT HAVE DISCRETION ON SOMETHING LIKE A FELONY ASSAULT IN A WARRANT LIKE THIS. WHEN THEY COME ACROSS JACOB BLAKE, THEY MUST ATTEMPT TO ARREST HIM. THEY DON’T HAVE OTHER OPTIONS. THEY CAN’T SAY, THAT GUY SEEMS LIKE HE’S GOING TO FIGHT WITH ME, I’M NOT GOING TO ARREST HIM. THERE IS NOT DISCRETION IN THIS REGARD. SURE ENOUGH, THERE IS RESISTING BEHAVIOR. THAT IS CLEARLY A LARGE PORTION OF THIS CASE. I’M NOT SURE ANY OF THAT IS REALLY DISPLAYED ON THE VIDEO THAT WE HAVE ALL SEEN IN A REAL WAY. BUT THERE ARE MANY COMMANDS DISOBEYED, AND THAT’S NOT ONLY TALKED ABOUT I ALL THE OFFICERS, BUT THAT IS ADMITTED BY JACOB BLAKE IN HIS STATEMENTS AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CIVILIANS WHO TALK ABOUT THAT AS WELL. AND THERE ARE MULTIPLE WAYS THAT OFFICERS TRY TO BRING JACOB BLAKE INTO CUSTODY. AGAIN, NONE OF THOSE I THINK VISIBLE IN ANY OF THE VIDEOS. THEY TRIED TO DIRECT HIM TO THE GROUND. MULTIPLE OFFICERS TRY TO GRAB HIS ARMS AND SECURE HIM SO HE CAN BE CUFFED. HE ADMITS AT ONE POINT, OFFICERS WERE TRYING TO HANDCUFF ME, BUT I WAS ABLE TO GET UP. THERE IS A TIME WHEN HE WAS DOWN ON THE GROUND. WE WILL SHOW YOU A VIDEO IN A SECOND THAT IS ENHANCED. REALLY CLOSE VIEWING OF IT SHOWS JACOB BLAKE’S ON TOP OF SOMEONE WHO HAS TO BE OFFICER SHESKEY. OFFICER SHESKEY SAYS I WAS ON TOP OF HIM AND THEN HE WAS ON TOP OF ME AS I WAS -- AS WE WERE GRAPPLING TO TRY TO GET HIM UNDER ARREST. MOST IMPORTANTLY, HE WAS TASED TWICE, SO I WILL SUGGEST TO YOU THREE TIMES WORK -- THERE WERE THREE TIMES HE WAS TASED TO TRY TO GET HIM INTO COMPLIANCE. MOST IMPORTANTLY, OFFICER SHESKEY, WHO HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A FEW YEARS, SAY THEY HAVE NEVER SEEN A DEFENDANT BEFORE WHO HAD AS LITTLE IMPACT BY TASERS AS JACOB BLAKE DID. SO THAT WAS CERTAINLY A FACTOR IN TERMS OF THE USE OF FORCE OPTIONS THAT WERE EXERCISED IN THIS CASE. VERY IMPORTANT. JACOB BLAKE, WHILE ACTIVELY RESISTING, ARMS HIMSELF WITH A KNIFE. I CONTINUE TO HEAR -- I THINK I HEARD AT THE RALLY LAST NIGHT, THE VIGIL WHERE SOMEONE AGAIN SAID HE WAS UNARMED. IT IS ABSOLUTELY INCONTROVERTIBLE THAT JACOB BLAKE WAS ARMED WITH A KNIFE DURING THIS ENCOUNTER. ON INCONTROVERTIBLE. MOST INCONTROVERTIBLE BECAUSE JACOB BLAKE, IN ALL THE TIMES HE SPOKE TO DCI, ADMITS HE POSSESSED A KNIFE. EVEN TELLS US AT DIFFERENT TIME HE HAD THE KNIFE IN DIFFERENT HANDS AT DIFFERENT TIMES. SO HE ARMS HIMSELF WITH A KNIFE AND REFUSES TO DROP THAT NIGHT. I KNOW THAT KNIFE IS NOT EASILY VISIBLE IN THAT VIDEO, BUT WE ARE GOING TO SHOW IT TO YOU IN A MINUTE. THIS IS THE VIDEO OR YOU CAN SEE AT THE BACK OF THE VEHICLE A STRUGGLE GOING ON. MR. GRAVELEY: SO THERE IS A LOT OF THAT VIDEO THAT IS ON THE OTHERS OUT OF THE VEHICLE, AS MANY OF YOU SAW. THAT IS AN ENHANCED VIDEO, BUT IT IS UNSTEADILY HANDLE. OBVIOUSLY THE PERSON IS VERY UNSTEADY BUT IT DOES SHOW A MOMENT WHERE JACOB BLAKE IS ON TOP OF SOMEBODY WHO HAS TO BE OFFICER SHESKEY AND SHOWS AT LEAST A GLIMPSE OF THE STRUGGLE THAT OTHERWISE IS NOT CAPTURED ON VIDEO. HERE IS THE BEGINNING OF MUCH OF THE VIDEO THAT ALL OF YOU HAVE SEEN. THIS IS JACOB BLAKE AS HE BEGINS TO CIRCLE AROUND THE CAR. OFFICERS ARE NOW KEEPING THEIR DISTANCE. THEY ARE AT GUNPOINT. THAT’S BECAUSE OFFICERS HAVE TOLD US AT DCI THAT THEY ALL AT THAT POINT HAD SEEN HIM WITH A KNIFE. SO THEY ARE KEEPING THEIR DISTANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR TRAINING, AND I BELIEVE NOBLE RAY WILL TALK ABOUT THAT BRIEFLY WITH YOU AS WELL. AT THIS POINT I DON’T THINK YOU CAN SEE THE KNIFE. HE WALKS AROUND THE VEHICLE, AND YOU MAY HAVE SEEN IT THERE. THIS IS AN ENHANCED VIDEO WITH DCI DOING THE MAXIMUM THEY CAN DO. THERE IS A GLIMPSE OF THE KNIFE AT THE FAR LEFT. JACOB BLAKE ADMITS TO DCI THAT HE HAD A KNIFE IN HIS HAND, AND THAT’S WHAT THAT IS. IT’S NOT A CELL PHONE, IT’S NOT ANYTHING ELSE. THE KNIFE ITSELF IS A RAZOR BLADE TYPE KNIFE, AND THEN WE HAVE A DCI ANALYST TAKE THE SHAPE OF THE KNIFE AND THE SIZE AND MATCH IT TO THE PICTURE TO SEE IF IN FACT IT FIT SIZE AND SHAPE, AND IN FACT, IT IS A MATCH. SO WE SAY WITH CONFIDENCE, BASED ON BLAKE’S ADMISSION, BASED ON ALL THE OFFICER SAYING IT IN THIS VIDEO EVIDENCE, HE CLEARLY IS ARMED WITH A KNIFE AS HE WALKS AROUND AND APPROACHES THE DRIVER’S DOOR. NEARLY ARMED WITH A KNIFE IN THAT SITUATION. OFFICERS ALSO YELL, AND CITIZEN WITNESSES HERE THIS, DROP THE KNIFE PAVEMENT UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCE WOULD THEY BE SO SPECIFIC UNLESS IT WAS A KNIFE THAT THEY SAW? HAVING BRIEFLY LISTEN TO THAT ENHANCED AUDIO -- MR. GRAVELEY: ALL OF THOSE THINGS LEAD THE INVESTIGATORS, LEAD MYSELF, LEAD NOBLE RAY TO SAY INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE THAT HE IS ARMED WITH A KNIFE IN THIS SITUATION. SO WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? OFFICER SHESKEY AGAIN, CONFRONTED WITH THE INFORMATION THAT WE KNOW SO FAR, HAS ADDITIONAL DECISIONS TO MAKE AT THE POINT WE JUST LEFT THAT VIDEO. OFFICER SHESKEY KNOWS THAT AN ARMED MAN WITH A FELONY WARRANT WHO HAS JUST FORCEFULLY RESISTED ARREST APPEARS TO BE ABOUT TO FLEE IN A VEHICLE THAT IS A DISPUTED VEHICLE AND THERE IS AT LEAST ONE CHILD IN THE BACK. THOSE ARE ALL FACTS THAT OFFICER SHESKEY HAS IN THE CONTEXT OF A DOMESTIC ABUSE CASE AT THE POINT HE HAS TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO NEXT. AT THAT MOMENT, OFFICER SHESKEY DECIDES TO REENGAGE. UP UNTIL NOW, OFFICERS HAVE DISTANCED THEMSELVES BECAUSE A KNIFE IS POSSESSED BY JACOB BLAKE. SO THE QUESTION IS, SHOULD AN OFFICER REENGAGE? SHOULD HE PUT HIMSELF BACK IN HARMS WAY BY GOING AND GETTING CLOSE AGAIN TO AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS ARMED WITH A KNIFE? OFFICER SHESKEY DECIDES TO DO THAT. HE GRABS THE T-SHIRT OF JACOB BLAKE. WHY DOES HE DO THAT? HE TELLS US THAT HE DID THAT BECAUSE NOW THE APPROACH AND ENTRY IS INTO THE VEHICLE. OFFICER SHESKEY SAYS, AND I’M TRYING MY BEST TO QUOTE HIM, I DON’T KNOW WHAT HE’S GOING TO DO. IS HE GOING TO HURT THE CHILD? IS HE GOING TO TAKE OFF IN THE VEHICLE? ARE WE GOING TO BE IN A VEHICLE PURSUIT WITH THE KID IN THE CAR? WILL HE HOLD THE CHILD HOSTAGE? ALL THESE ARE THINGS HE IS CONSIDERING, THAT ARE RUNNING THROUGH HIS MIND WHEN HE PUTS HIMSELF IN HARM’S WAY AND GRABS THE T-SHIRT OF JACOB BLAKE. AT THAT SAME TIME -- LET ME SAY FIRST OF ALL, USE OF FORCE EXPERT NOBLE RAY FINDS THAT DECISION TO REENGAGE, BASED ON THE FACTORS THAT SHESKEY CITED IN MY QUOTE, NOBLE RAY HAS MADE THE FINDING THAT WAS A REASONABLE DECISION TO REENGAGE AT THAT TIME. OBVIOUSLY RISKING AT THAT POINT THAT THERE WOULD BE FURTHER CONFRONTATION AND THE POTENTIAL FOR HARM. SO THIS IS THE MOMENT IN THIS PICTURE YOU ARE GOING TO SEE NOW , THIS IS THE MOMENT WHERE OFFICER SHESKEY DECIDES I’VE GOT TO REENGAGE. AT THE SAME TIME, JACOB BLAKE TELLS INVESTIGATORS, I HAD SWITCHED KNIFE, WHICH WAS IN MY LEFT HAND, AND I HAVE MOVED IT TO MY RIGHT HAND. BECAUSE HE OPENS THE DOOR WITH HIS LEFT HAND. SO NOW WE KNOW THE KNIFE HAS MOVED TO HIS RIGHT HAND, FOR WHAT HE SAYS TO DCI AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THE DOOR IS OPENED WITH THE LEFT HAND. THIS IS THE MOMENT WHERE OFFICER SHESKEY MAKES THE DECISION, I CAN’T LET HIM GET IN THAT CAR WITHOUT BEING BACK IN HARM’S WAY. THIS NEXT PICTURE IS WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. AND AGAIN, YOU HAVE ALL SEEN THIS IN THE VIDEO. BOTH OFFICER SHESKEY AND OFFICER ARENAS REPORT WHAT HAPPENED NEXT WAS JACOB BLAKE TWISTED HIS BODY, MOVING HIS RIGHT HAND WITH A KNIFE TOWARDS OFFICER SHESKEY. THEY DEMONSTRATE THIS. SO THEY SAY WHAT HE DOES IS HE TAKES -- AGAIN, THE KNIFE IS NOW IN HIS RIGHT HAND. AND HE GOES UNDER HIS LEFT AND MAKES THIS KIND OF MOVEMENT. SO HE SWITCHES HIS TORSO BACK TOWARD OFFICER SHESKEY. BOTH OFFICERS SAY THAT OCCURRED. SO OFFICER SHESKEY IS THE ONE WHO HAS THE T-SHIRT. OBVIOUSLY HE IS IN A PERFECT POSITION TO SEE THAT. OFFICER ARENAS IS LOOKING THROUGH THE CAR WINDOW AND HE IS ALSO IN A PERFECT POSITION TO OBSERVE THAT. UNFORTUNATELY WHEN WE VIEW THE VIDEO, OFFICER ARENAS AND THE CAR DOOR ARE IN OUR WAY AND DON’T ALLOW US TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS TO THE REST OF THE BODY OF JACOB BLAKE IN THIS CASE. SO I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU, HERE IS WHERE THE VIDEO FAILS US BECAUSE IT DOESN’T PROVIDE US ANY INFORMATION OR ABILITY TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHETHER THAT TWIST OF THE TORSO OCCURS. WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT THERE ARE TWO CIVILIAN WITNESSES WHO ALSO SAY THEY SEE OF MOVEMENT THAT I THI ANY DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR THESE OFFICERS WOULD CERTAINLY ARGUE IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE OFFICERS SEE. OK. A WITNESS WHO INDICATES HE HAS SOCIALIZED BEFORE WITH JACOB BLAKE, HE IS ON FRIENDLY RELATIONS WITH JACOB BLAKE, SAYS HE SAW JACOB BLAKE TRYING TO GET IN THE CAR. HE SAW JACOB BLAKE IGNORING OFFICER’S COMMANDS, AND ULTIMATELY HE SAW JACOB BLAKE, WHAT HE SAYS IS TWIST HIS TORSO TOWARD THE OFFICER FROM RIGHT TO LEFT, AND THEN HE HEARD THE SHOTS. HE DESCRIBES THAT TWISTING OF THE TORSO MOVEMENT AS SUDDEN AND RAPID. AND HE IS DOWN THE STREET AT A VANTAGE POINT THAT IS LESS OF SECURE THAN OUR VIDEO IN TERMS OF THE DOORWAY OR THE OFFICER. THERE IS ALSO A WITNESS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. A.H. SAYS SHE SAW JACOB BLAKE WALKINGVERY FAST AROUND THE STREET SIDE OF THE CAR. HE OPENS THE CAR DOOR, THE POLICE OFFICER WAS BEHIND HIM, AND THE POLICE OFFICER PULLED AT JACOB BLAKE’S SHIRT. SHE SAID JACOB BLAKE TURNED SLIGHTLY AND THE POLICE OFFICER STARTED SHOOTING. THERE IS A PICTURE HERE WHERE WE HAVE AN ARROW TO WHERE SHE IS LOCATED. REMEMBER THE SHOOTING OCCURS OVER ON THE DRIVER SIDE OF THIS VEHICLE SO I WOULD SUGGEST HER VANTAGE POINT IS A VERY GOOD ONE. CLEARLY A DEFENSE ATTORNEY DEFENDING OFFICERS IN THIS CASE AND TALKING ABOUT THE PRIVILEGE OF SELF-DEFENSE WOULD HAVE THE CIVILIAN WITNESSES AS KEY WITNESSES IN THEIR CASE. THERE ARE OTHER WITNESSES IN THIS CASE. THERE’S A NUMBER OF OTHER EYEWITNESSES. AND AGAIN I SUGGEST THAT THOSE WITNESSES ARE VERY SIMILAR TO US. WE SAW THE VIDEOS AND WE’VE SEEN SNIPPETS OF WHAT HAPPENED. THERE’S ALSO THINGS WHEN WE WATCH THE VIDEO THAT WE DID NOT KNOW. I SHARE THAT EXPERIENCE WITH ALL OF YOU. THERE WERE WITNESSES WHO WERE APPALLED BY WHAT THEY SAW, BASED ON WHAT INFORMATION THEY HAD, AND OF COURSE THEY DID NOT KNOW WHAT OFFICERS KNEW. HERE’S THE TOP OF THINGS THEY DIDN’T KNOW, THOSE OTHER WITNESSES. THEY DIDN’T KNOW THAT THIS WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF A DOMESTIC DISPUTE AND THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING OFFICERS WOULD HAVE TO FACTOR IN. THEY DIDN’T KNOW THERE WAS A FELONY ARREST WARRANT. THEY DIDN’T KNOW THAT JACOB BLAKE WAS ARMED WITH A KNIFE, THOUGH YOU NOW KNOW THAT. THEY DIDN’T KNOW THERE WAS NO PERMISSION TO OPERATE THAT CAR. AND SOME OF THEM DIDN’T KNOW THAT THERE WAS A CHILD IN THE CAR. SO AGAIN, I WOULD SUGGEST TO I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT MANY OF THE WITNESSES IN THIS CASE WOULD BE VERY CLEARLY DEFINED BY THE THINGS THEY DON’T KNOW AND THAT REALLY MATTER IN TERMS OF THE RELIGION OF SELF-DEFENSE-- PRIVILEGE OF SELF-DEFENSE. I SHOWED YOU WHAT THE MOTION WAS THAT THE OFFICERS DESCRIBED, THAT MOVE WITH THE RIGHT HAND IN A STABBING MOTION WITH THE KNIFE -- BY THE WAY, THE PICTURE OF THE KNIFE THAT WAS IN THE CENTER PICTURE OF THAT SLIDE WAS TAKEN FROM THE DRIVER’S SIDE FLOORBOARD, AND THAT WAS AN OPEN-BLADED KNIFE THAT WAS FOUND EXACTLY AT THIS SEEN ON THE FLOORBOARD OF THE VEHICLE. ALL RIGHT, I HAVE DESCRIBED IT YOU THAT BOTH OFFICERS DESCRIBE THIS MOTION -- FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, ANOTHER VALUABLE PIECE OF INFORMATION IN TERMS OF WHETHER THE DEFENSE --PRIVILEGE OF SELF-DEFENSE IS AVAILABLE, IS THAT OFFICER ARENAS OFFERS TO DCI THAT FROM HIS VANTAGE POINT THAT I SHOWED YOU RIGHT AT THE CAR WINDOW, HE ALSO FELT THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO FIRE TO BE ABLE TO SAVE OFFICER SHESKEY FROM BEING STABBED. HE OFFERS TO DCI -- DIDN’T HAVE TO DO THIS, BUT DOES SAY "I WOULD HAVE FIRED MY GUN AS WELL HAD I HAD THE ABILITY AND BEEN SHOT,-- OEPN SHOT BECAUSE OF EXACTLY WHAT I SAW," THINKING OFFICER SHESKEY WAS A COUPLE FEET AWAY FROM BEING STABBED IN THE SITUATION. NOW, A COUPLE THINGS MATTER TO ME. OFFICER SHESKEY SAYS WE WERE ALL AWARE THAT JACOB BLAKE WAS ARMED WITH THAT KNIFE. WE SEPARATED WAY FROM HIM. OFFICER SHESKEY SAID "I NEVER FELT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO SHOOT MY FIRE JUST BECAUSE HE DISPLAYED THAT WEAPON." OFFICER SHESKEY DOES NOT SAY IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO SHOOT A FIREARM BECAUSE HE WAS ABOUT TO FLEE IN THE VEHICLE. HE SAID "THE FIRST TIME I FELT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO FIRE MY FIREARM IS THE ONLY TIME JACOB BLAKE SHOWED ANY OFFENSIVE INTENT," THAT IS WHEN HE MADE THAT MOTION WHERE HE WAS BRINGING HIS HAND OVER TOWARDS ME TO STAB ME WITH A FIREARM. OFFICER SHESKEY SHOOTS JACOB BLAKE SEVEN TIMES. THIS HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY DISCUSSED, THAT IS CERTAINLY KNOWN TO THE MEDIA. WHAT THE MEDIA MAY NOT KNOW -- AGAIN, I HAVE HEARD THE NARRATIVE MANY, MANY TIMES THE LAST FEW MONTHS WHERE PEOPLE SAY JACOB BLAKE WAS SHOT IN THE BACK SEVEN TIMES. WHAT WE DID WAS WE WENT TO BRIAN PETERSON, WHO IS THE MEDICAL EXAMINER IN MILWAUKEE. DCI WENT TO HIM AND HAD HIM LOOK AT THE MEDICAL REPORTS AND THE X-RAYS. QUITE APPROPRIATELY, THE ER DOCTORS IN THIS CASE WERE NOT PRIORITIZING WHERE ENTRY WOUNDS OR EXIT WOUNDS WERE, BECAUSE THEY WERE TRAINED TO PATCH UP INTO THE FABULOUS JOB OF SAVING JACOB BLAKE’S LIFE, RIGHT? WE ASKED AN EXPERT TO COME AND WHO USUALLY LOOKS AT CASES WHEN PEOPLE ARE DECEASED, A MEDICAL EXAMINER, AND WE ASK HIM TO WEIGH IN. THE OPINION HE HAS OFFERED IS THAT FOUR OF THE WOUNDS ARE TO JACOB BLAKE’S BACK, BUT THREE ARE TWO JACOB BLAKE’S LEFT SIDE. THREE OF THE ENTRANCE WOUNDS ARE TO JACOB BLAKE’S LEFT SIDE. AGAIN, OFFICER SHESKEY FIRED SEVEN TIMES. IT IS ABSOLUTELY APPROPRIATE FOR THE PUBLIC AND ANY OF US TO CONSIDER, WELL, IS THAT SEVEN SHOTS EXCESSIVE? IS THAT TOO MANY SHOTS? HERE IS WHERE HE AGAIN OFFERS HIS EXPERTISE -- HE WENT INTO SOME DETAIL IN HIS REPORT, AND I BELIEVE WE WILL TALK A LITTLE BIT TODAY ABOUT WHY SEVEN SHOTS WOULD HAPPEN AND WHY THAT IS WITHIN WHAT HE WOULD CONSIDER A REASONABLE RANGE OF SHOTS. MOST IMPORTANTLY, OFFICER SHESKEY SAYS "I CONTINUE TO FIRE UNTIL JACOB BLAKE DROPPED THE KNIFE, BECAUSE I AM TRAINED TO FIRE UNTIL THE THREAT STOPS." HERE IS WHAT HAPPENS, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICERS. WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT JACOB BLAKE MAKES THIS MOTION. HE’S FIRED ON. WE KNOW THAT JACOB BLAKE ULTIMATELY ENDS UP SEATED IN THE DRIVER SEAT OF THE VEHICLE. WE KNOW THAT HIS RIGHT HAND HAS THE KNIFE, AND IT IS DROPPED ON THE DRIVER’S SIDED FLOOR. IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE, IF YOU THINK ABOUT HOW THEY WILL TALK ABOUT THIS CASE, ARE THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE BASED ON ENTRY WOUNDS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE OFFICERS SAY? IF YOU GO TO STAB SOMEONE, THE PORTION OF YOUR BODY THAT IS EXPOSED IS LEFT SIDE. THAT IS WHAT IS FACING AN OFFICER, OFFICER SHESKEY WHO IS FIRING THE SHOTS. WE WILL SHOW YOU A DIAGRAM OF WHERE THE SHOTS ARE LOCATED. THIS IS THE BEST ESTIMATE. BRIAN PETERSON, THE DOCTOR OFFERING AN OPINION. YOU CAN SEE THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE WOUNDS ARE RIGHT OVER THE ARMPIT, ON THE SIDE. IF THE NATURAL REACTION OF ANYONE BEING SHOT AT IS AFTER THAT OCCURS, YOU ARE TURNING AWAY FROM THE SHOTS, THEN IT WOULD BE AT LEAST A RATIONAL ARGUMENT BY THE DEFENSE TO SAY THAT IS WHY THERE ARE ALSO SHOTS TO THE BACK, BECAUSE HE MOVED BACK. WE KNOW HIS BODY COMES BACK TO FACING THE OFFICER IN THE BACK, BECAUSE HE BECOMES SEATED THERE. WE HAVE NO WAY OF DETERMINING WHICH OF THOSE SEVEN SHOTS COME WHEN. WE DON’T KNOW THE ORDER. I AM SUGGESTING TO YOU SIMPLY THAT THERE IS A RATIONAL, LOGICAL SCENARIO THAT ANYONE DEFENDING THIS CASE FOR THESE OFFICERS WOULD BE ABLE TO USE THIS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE I AM DESCRIBING TO BE ABLE TO PERSUASIVELY TELL A JURY THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT PEACE OFFICERS TOLD YOU ABOUT WHAT OCCURRED-- WHAT THESE OFFICERS TOLD YOU ABOUT WHAT OCCURRED. YOU HEARD OFFICER SHESKEY SAID "I STOPPED FIRING WHEN THERE WAS NO LONGER A THREAT." YOU WILL HEAR ALSO THAT OFFICER SHESKEY HAD 10 MORE BULLETS IN HIS GUN AT THE POINT DCI COMES ACROSS HIM. CLEARLY HE HAS NOT FIRED TO EMPTY ALL THE CHAMBERS OF HIS WEAPON. HE STOPPED VOLITIONALLY FIRING THAT WEAPON. INDICATES WHY OR WHEN HE DID THAT-- EH INDICATES-- H INDICATESE WHY OR WHEN HE DID THAT. I WANT TO MENTION ONE OTHER MOMA THAT MATTER TO ME -- I DON’T KNOW IF IT WILL DO YOU, BUT IT HAS TO DO WITH THE TREMENDOUS DIFFICULTIES AND CHALLENGING OF MODERN POLICING IN THE ERA WE ARE THINKING ABOUT TODAY. OFFICER SHESKEY SAYS THAT AFTER HE FINISHED SHOOTING, JACOB BLAKE CAME TO A SEATED SITUATION, HE PUT HIS WEAPON AWAY. IMMEDIATELY TRY TO DETERMINE IF ANY OTHER WEAPONS WERE A THREAT, AND THEN HE PULLED OUT JACOB BLAKE AND IMMEDIATELY BEGAN LIFESAVING MEASURES ON HIM. THAT IS ALSO REPORTED BY THE VIDEOGRAPHER IN THIS CASE, WHO SAYS AS THE CIVILIAN WITNESS, THOSE OFFICERS TOOK HIM OUT IMMEDIATELY AND BEGAN TO HELP HIM. HERE’S A MOMENT THAT I THOUGHT MATTERED BECAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT ALL THE THINGS THAT WE ARE DEMANDING AND EXPECT OF OFFICERS. BECAUSE THIS IS THE SECONDS AFTER JACOB BLAKE, ACCORDING TO OFFICER SHESKEY, IS MOVING A WEAPON TO TRY TO STAB HIM, AND AFTER OFFICER SHESKEY HAS FIRED HIS WEAPON AT JACOB BLAKE. SHESKEY SAYS BLAKE KEPT SAYING ON THE GROUND, "I’M GOING TO DIE," AND SHESKEY CAME TO SAYING TO HIM, "YOU ARE GOING TO BE OK," AS THEY WAITED FOR THE AMBULANCE. HERE IS THE OFFICER AND MAN WHO WERE JUST IN, WHAT, MORTAL CONFLICT, RIGHT? AND NOW THE OFFICER’S ROLE IS TO BE