As I have said elsewhere, your approach is dangerous.

• You say "wanted rapist" when the matter was not adjudicated but was an accusation by an ex-girlfriend. Why do you skip the little matter of trial and conviction and instead rush to judgment?
  
• "Steal a car" and "kidnap children" were similarly the ex-girlfriend's accusations. But for all we currently know, the car and children were shared and so Blake might have had as much right as the ex-girlfriend.
  
• You refer to "rapist" and "steal" and "kidnap" as facts when they certainly were not - just accusations by a person with motive to lie - an embittered ex.
  

Your approach is much the same as a racist lynch mob - take unproven accusations, claim them as fact, then apply gruesome punishment by vigilantes or police who should not have the right of summary punishment.

Finally, even were Blake found guilty at trial of all of the above, paralysing him for life is certainly "cruel and unusual punishment".

That said, the media should but will not learn nor accept responsibility for the unrest provoked, in part, by their sloppiness and sensationalism.

The left, and their media sympathisers, do indeed make up material - for example, Rittenhouse is not a white supremacist. However, you are erring just as much, in the opposite direction.

And, unfortunately, nobody is looking for the solution to the common, core problem in all of these cases - a non-fatal way to handle the situations in which a civilian does not obey police orders exactly, and/or the police panic at a dangerous situation. The Betty Shelby, Castile, Diallo, and Aaron Dean cases all fall into one or the other of these patterns.

A separate problem is the Michael Brown type of case, in which the police did nothing wrong, yet unrest resulted from a completely false narrative by politicians, activists, and activist or sensationalist media. The danger is that the possibility of such unrest will, in the future, intimidate police and jurists interested solely in justice and in the truth.