- Jul 25, 2018
- Reaction score
They addressed that.Yeah, you are right, I just confused the fuck out of that by what I quoted.That there was a gun involved?
Are you saying you think it's inconclusive that a gun was involved?
No, about what was said about him HAVING A GUN and going to get it.
"Here’s what we know.
There was no gun
The Facebook post avoids directly claiming a gun, instead attributing statements to Blake about having and getting a gun.
We don’t know what was said, and we may never know since the responding officers weren’t wearing body cameras. The Kenosha Police Department doesn’t use them. Audio in the cell-phone video shot by a witness is hard to discern due to bystanders’ shouts.
So there’s no way to prove this part of the claim directly — though no witness reports have emerged since the incident that offer this account. The man who made the Facebook post did not respond to a request for the evidence behind the claim.
But we know there was no gun."
Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
They addressed the issue, considered the evidence, and then made a final ruling on it. I think it's difficult to encapsulate the complexity of a story with "true" or "false", but it looks to me like they went about it in a fair way and came up with the likely correct ruling. More importantly, if you actually read the article, they elaborate on their findings and lack there of.