Both Kenosha, Wisconsin, prosecutors and an outside police use of force independent expert hired by the city found that the police shooting of Jacob Blake by Officer Rusten Shesky was a justifiable use of police force in the circumstance where, among other things, Blake was holding a knife and turned towards Shesky in a sweeping and threatening manner.
We covered the findings, as well as the history of the shooting and subsequent riots, looting, and arson, in Kenosha Prosecutor – No Charges Against Police In Jacob Blake Shooting. Please see that post for the details, including the exhaustive presentation by the prosecutor and outside expert. You can read the written report here.
It was a truly devastating destruction of the false media and activist narrative that Blake was “shot in the back” while unarmed.
Now Blake has filed a civil suit against Shesky. The Complaint (pdf.)(full embed at bottom of post), brought by attorneys Benjamin Crump and the Chicago law firm Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard. While only Shesky was named, he likely has little money, so Blake pleads that the City of Kenosha would be responsible for any judgment:
7. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 895.46, the City of Kenosha has a legal obligation to pay damages and costs against Defendant SHESKEY if it is determined that Defendant SHESKEY was acting within the scope of his employment at all material times.
The substance of the allegations are that Blake posed no threat to the officers, was moving away from them, and already had dropped the knife at the time he was shot. The Complaint uses still photos to illustrate the allegations. This all stands in stark contrast to the presentation by the prosecutors and independent expert.
Blake asserts a single Count:
Count I: §1983 Excessive Force62. Plaintiff BLAKE re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 61 as if fully restated herein.63. As a citizen of the United States, BLAKE is protected against the use of excessive and deadly force without cause or justification as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.64. As more fully described in the preceding paragraphs, the intentional conduct of Defendant SHESKEY was objectively unreasonable and constituted excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.65. The misconduct described above was undertaken with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of Plaintiff BLAKE.66. BLAKE suffered catastrophic, permanent injuries as a result of the hereinafter described actions of Defendant SHESKEY.67. As a direct and proximate result of the use of excessive force by Defendant OFFICER SHESKEY, Plaintiff BLAKE has suffered and will continue to suffer physical and emotional damages which will be proven at trial.
————–
Jacob Blake v. Rusten Shesky – Kenosha – Complaint by Legal Insurrection on Scribd
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY
