Crime Officer-involved shooting under investigation in Kenosha - Get ready for more riots... there's video

Officer-involved shooting under investigation in Kenosha

Officer-involved shooting under investigation in Kenosha

KENOSHA, Wis. (CBS 58) -- An officer-involved shooting investigation is underway in Kenosha on Sunday, Aug. 23. The shooting happened near 28th Avenue and 40th Street around 5:11 p.m., after officers

www.cbs58.com

KENOSHA, Wis. (CBS 58 ) -- An officer-involved shooting investigation is underway in Kenosha on Sunday, Aug. 23.

The shooting happened near 28th Avenue and 40th Street around 5:11 p.m., after officers were called for a "domestic incident."

According to police, officers provided immediate aid to the person. They were transported via Flight for Life to Froedtert in Milwaukee for treatment. The person is in serious condition.

A large crowd gathered near the scene following the shooting.

Kenosha Sheriff’s Department and Wisconsin State Patrol were requested immediately so that the scene could be turned over to an agency other than Kenosha police.

The Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ), Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) will handle the investigation.

 

[Least Concern]

I hope his lawyer sues all media and gofundme and discover. Would be amazing if the kid ended up owning it all by the end.
It's all malicious and all defamation. It's time the "press" learns it can't just lie about people and cause the deaths of so many innocent people.

Rekieta is hypothesizing the reason a legal team has jumped in to defend Kyle pro bono is exactly that; if he's found not guilty or, even better, his case is tossed out, he can turn around and Sandmann a lot of these groups calling him a murderer and such and the team will get a cut of the payouts.

 

[O.H. Krill]

You're reasoning from emotion. Sandmann won because CNN was dumb a shit and made several incorrect factual claims that they had the clear ability to know were incorrect.

Kyle did kill 2 people in Kenosha. That's a fact. Whether it's a murder is for the court to decide, and if it is moral is something for you to decide. (Obviously it was moral)

But that's an opinion based statement. Even if they did call him a villain it doesn't mean that they made a defamatory statement.

There have been people calling him a "white supremacist," including a US Congresswoman, and so far I have seen zero evidence of that.

 

[OnMoTi]

That is quite possibly the most consistent use of the wrong "you're/your" spelling I've ever seen.

It's actually aggravating to read.

I can usually get past it if it's some rando on twitter who makes the mistake once, but when they keep fucking doing it...

 

[INVCTS]

There have been people calling him a "white supremacist," including a US Congresswoman, and so far I have seen zero evidence of that.

I'm not happy about it, but the court has refused to see "white supremacist" as anything other than an opinion statement for about a decade.

Edit: Also, a being US Congresswoman just makes it less likely anything would come of it. The swamp has been covering for each other for literal centuries.

 

[AnOminous]

I'm not happy about it, but the court has refused to see "white supremacist" as anything other than an opinion statement for about a decade.

There are two kinds of actionable defamation. One is per se, that is, the statement is presumed to be defamatory. Per se defamation includes statements that one has committed a crime, is incompetent in his profession, has committed immoral sexual acts, or has a vile disease.

Anything else is per quod, that is, that the false statement harmed you somehow, but you have to prove it actually did.

So, for instance, falsely stating you are a "white supremacist" might have harmed you, but you'd have to prove how it did. There's nothing illegal about being a "white supremacist" so it isn't accusing you of committing a crime. However, falsely accusing you of burning a cross on someone's lawn, if that were a crime, would be defamation per se.

 

[The Pink Panther]

I have come into this thread to say that Kyle acted in self-defense, but because of the laws of Wisconsin, what he did was technically illegal. He doesn't deserve to be a martyr or a heretic of any kind however.

Is that the stance of most?

 

[TFT-A9]

I have come into this thread to say that Kyle acted in self-defense, but because of the laws of Wisconsin, what he did was technically illegal. He doesn't deserve to be a martyr or a heretic of any kind however.

Is that the stance of most?

Which laws did he break

 

[Least Concern]

Which laws did he break

Yeah, it looks like the only one that's proven so far is violating the curfew order, which would be a misdemeanor at most. If his defense team isn't lying about where he got the gun, the "blah blah across state lines" thing isn't panning out.

 

[JohnDoe]

Yeah, it looks like the only one that's proven so far is violating the curfew order, which would be a misdemeanor at most. If his defense team isn't lying about where he got the gun, the "blah blah across state lines" thing isn't panning out.

The curfew order only covers public property and thoroughfares though. If he was on privately owned property (the car/mechanic lot) at the behest or request of the property owner (as his lawyer claims) then he's in the clear.

Assuming that curfew order was even lawful in the first place, or enforced.

And even if he was committing a misdemeanor by being outside during a curfew, it's going to be a stretch to claim that eliminates his right to self defense from a child rapist who is also out committing the same misdemeanor.

 

[The Pink Panther]

Which laws did he break

He was a minor who had possession of a firearm and because of that, he's not covered by self-defense laws in Wisconsin.

 

[AnOminous]

Which laws did he break

Real ones? Like go to prison for life ones? It would depend on why he shot the chomo at the beginning. Did he mistakenly believe the shot that set the whole thing off, a couple seconds prior, was coming from the "shoot me nigga" child molester and accidentally kill that guy based on that mistaken belief?

That would be a reckless homicide and since that's what the prosecutor has charged him with for that death, I suspect he said something of that sort to the cops.

 

[TFT-A9]

He was a minor who had possession of a firearm and because of that, he's not covered by self-defense laws in Wisconsin.

This is not illegal in Wisconsin.

 

[FlappyBat]

He was a minor who had possession of a firearm and because of that, he's not covered by self-defense laws in Wisconsin.

If you know of a case where just the possession of a gun being illegal invalidates a self defense claim I'd love to see it. But to my knowledge possessing it illegally doesn't remove your right to self defense.

 

[O.H. Krill]

He was a minor who had possession of a firearm and because of that, he's not covered by self-defense laws in Wisconsin.

That‘s not true at all.

 

[TFT-A9]

Real ones? Like go to prison for life ones? It would depend on why he shot the chomo at the beginning. Did he mistakenly believe the shot that set the whole thing off, a couple seconds prior, was coming from the "shoot me nigga" child molester and accidentally kill that guy based on that mistaken belief?

That would be a reckless homicide and since that's what the prosecutor has charged him with for that death, I suspect he said something of that sort to the cops.

Possible. Though if he did not explicitly say that, the prosecutor's going to have a hell of a time proving it.

 

[AnOminous]

If you know of a case where just the possession of a gun being illegal invalidates a self defense claim I'd love to see it. But to my knowledge possessing it illegally doesn't remove your right to self defense.

It's just not true. There are cases everywhere of people acquitted on a self-defense claim who are then convicted of the unlawful possession claim. They're completely unrelated.

Possible. Though if he did not explicitly say that, the prosecutor's going to have a hell of a time proving it.

Not if he admitted it to the cops. Then it's super easy. I can't see why they charged him with reckless homicide for the first if he didn't.

 

[TFT-A9]

Not if he admitted it to the cops. Then it's super easy.

Yes, but we've established that neither one of us knows that that is the case, and I've already acknowledged 1. the possibility that he did (and we won't know until the court hears the case) and 2. if he did not explicitly state that, the prosecutor is up shit's creek. As it is this prosecutor has leveled some charges that seem right out and speculation abounded that he was actually sabotaging the state's case against Rittenhouse.

 

[The Pink Panther]

It's just not true. There are cases everywhere of people acquitted on a self-defense claim who are then convicted of the unlawful possession claim. They're completely unrelated.

In what sense are they unrelated?

 

[AnOminous]

In what sense are they unrelated?

Whether you were defending your life is completely unrelated to what you did it with or its legality. It might not even be admissible as evidence.

 

[FlappyBat]

It's just not true. There are cases everywhere of people acquitted on a self-defense claim who are then convicted of the unlawful possession claim. They're completely unrelated.



Not if he admitted it to the cops. Then it's super easy. I can't see why they charged him with reckless homicide for the first if he didn't.

The charging documents have a witness heavily biased against Kyle saying the guy grabbed his gun. It's hard to get a perfect timeline from the statement, specifically if the gun was aimed before he grabbed it or not. I am pretty sure in Wisconsin if you grab someone's gun, they are in reasonable fear for their life (at least in this type of situation, i.e. did not intentionally cause them to fear for their life first).

McGinnis stated that the first round went into the ground and when the second shot went off, the defendant actually had the gun aimed at Rosenbaum McGinnis stated he did not hear the two exchange any words. McGinnis said that the unarmed guy (Rosenbaum) was trying to get the defendant's gun. McGinnis demonstrated by extending both of his hands in a quick grabbing motion and did that as a visual on how Rosenbaum tried to reach for the defendant's gun Detective Cepress indicates that he asked McGinnis if Rosenbaum had his hands on the gun when the defendant shot McGinnis said that he definitely made a motion that he was trying to grab the barrel of the gun. McGinnis stated that the defendant pulled it away and then raised it McGinnis stated that right as they came together, the defendant fired. McGinnis said that when Rosenbaum was shot, he had leaned in (towards the defendant)