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

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 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.

 
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.
This is a great example of it, you've also probably never heard of it because Aaron Little is black.

Aaron Little is a convicted felon, and frankly a pretty bad guy. He went down to his mailbox when he was attacked by two men one armed with a gun, Aaron pulled out a handgun and shot his attacker. The other guy survived.

Ultimately an appeal court found that his status as a felon was irrelevant and ruled in his favor.


It was also a really weird case because the local black community led by pastors and hack cousil members were "outraged" that this black guy got off with shooting another black guy who was attacking him with a Stand Your Ground Defense.
 


NPR is reeling and red-faced after running a softball interview with the author of a book praising looting and a tweet accusing President Trump of defending the Kenosha shooter "without evidence."

Those stories, combined with another interviewing voters, "reflect how NPR audience members needed more context to reconcile the speech of a news source with the broader truth," the outlet's public editor Kelly McBride wrote.

Published on Thursday, McBride's statement included mea culpas from individual editors and plainly admitted that NPR employees should have done more to counteract false claims.

In an interview on her new book "In Defense of Looting," author Vicky Osterweil attacked the U.S.'s idea of property as "derived through whiteness and Black oppression." Osterweil also called it a "Republican myth" that small business owners should be respected and are a part of "the community."

Referring to that interview on NPR's Code Switch, McBride said: "Osterweil went on to say that looting is insured, that looters target businesses that aren't rooted in the local community and that the civil rights movement only adopted non-violence to appeal to white northerners. All of those statements deserved pushback."

According to McBride, Code Switch editor Steven Drummond "said that the article was fact-checked, but not enough." In a quote provided by McBride, he admitted his team should have challenged Osterweil's claims but argued the basic idea of interviewing Osterweil.

"This notion of looting and the role it plays in the public discourse is a fair target, and we often interview authors who have controversial opinions and viewpoints. We should have challenged them more," Drummond reportedly said.

Chief Washington editor Shirley Henry similarly admitted fault, saying the news organization "should have been more precise" in reporting on Trump's comments about Kyle Rittenhouse acting in self-defense when he shot multiple protesters. Fox News reported Tuesday on how despite Trump specifically referencing video footage in his comments, NPR said he made the claim "without evidence." While Rittenhouse has been charged with homicide, video of the Aug. 25 incident shows him being pursued by several people, one of whom was armed, before he shot three people, killing two.

That wasn't the first time the outlet, which has received taxpayer-funded grants, has been criticized for its coverage of ongoing unrest. It previously suggested that Portland authorities might be racist in labeling violent demonstrations as "riots." The outlet's headline read: "Police Declare Portland Protests A Riot But This Definition Could Be Rooted In Racism."

Dan Gainor, vice president of the conservative Media Research Center, accused the outlet of left-wing bias. "There is no legitimate argument for @NPR to exist as a taxpayer-funded entity. It is ridiculously leftist and biased against the right," he tweeted on Tuesday.

Gainor's organization has long accused NPR of bias and documented examples on its blog Newsbusters.org.

McBride suggested it was inappropriate to accuse the outlet of bias, though, pointing to one of the interviews she called out in her post on Thursday.

"If you look at NPR's flawed insertion of 'without evidence' to Trump's assessment of the Kenosha shooting and then look at the lack of fact-checking on the interview with the author of the book on looting, a casual observer might see a bias. But add in the David Greene interviews and you see that as a critic, some calibration is required," she said.

NPR's David Greene had interviewed two women -- Lena Crandell and Mary Jean of Arizona -- whom McBride claimed offered "awkwardly false" information.

Referring to those interviews, McBride said: "When Greene asks Crandell what she would say to a Black neighbor who fears for the life of her child, Crandell blames her neighbor's perception on media coverage. When Greene challenges her, Mary Jean admits that she doesn't really know for sure if New York and other cities are more violent, because she's not there."
 
svoss-nprhq01_custom-292156cc04ea7b3bfe854c70bd98551e9061b9e9-s1100-c15.jpg

"hey, our dc headquarters has lots of large ground-level windows and expensive audio production equipment inside. maybe this wasn't a great idea."
 
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).

I don't see how they get a conviction on this. Even the charging documents don't support the legal conclusions they're trying to push. If Rittenhouse was justified in the first shooting, I don't see how he wasn't justified in all the others after the criminals continued retaliating against him for lawfully defending himself in the first place. He doesn't even lose if he had a duty to retreat, as he was trying to do exactly that while the criminals were trying to murder him.
 
This is a great example of it, you've also probably never heard of it because Aaron Little is black.

Aaron Little is a convicted felon, and frankly a pretty bad guy. He went down to his mailbox when he was attacked by two men one armed with a gun, Aaron pulled out a handgun and shot his attacker. The other guy survived.

Ultimately an appeal court found that his status as a felon was irrelevant and ruled in his favor.


It was also a really weird case because the local black community led by pastors and hack cousil members were "outraged" that this black guy got off with shooting another black guy who was attacking him with a Stand Your Ground Defense.

I think the confusion about this stems from Wisconsin’s self-defense statute itself: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48

It contains a presumption that a person reasonably believed deadly force was necessary:

(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:

but that presumption is lost if the defendant was engaged in illegal activity:

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.

Arguably, Rittenhouse might lose the benefit of the presumption (which means he’d have to prove up his reasonable belief that his use of force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm). He does NOT lose the right to assert self-defense. But it doesn’t seem just that merely carrying as a minor is the type of criminal activity that would cause him to lose the presumption - that will be something a Wisconsin criminal defense lawyer is better suited to address. Of course, the videos make it obvious that he was acting in self-defense, so the presumption issue is really a non-issue.
 
I'd assume that that stipulation in the law means, like, if you're breaking into my house and I pull a gun on you, you can't shoot me and claim self defense.

The idea that Kyle carrying that particular gun on that particular day in that particular place constitutes "criminal activity" seems circular. The end result would seem to be that a minor is not allowed the right of self defense in the middle of a riot, and furthermore, that everyone involved--the militia, the peaceful protesters, everyone--was engaged in a criminal activity at the time.

I suppose one could ask whether the militia needed to be armed in the first place, but since it's an open carry state, the only criminal activity would seem to be a curfew violation for the majority of militia members there.
 
I don't understand your obsession with one single youtube video, but good on you for archiving it at least.

However, it's sensationalist nonsense to claim that "KYLE" is taking the channel down when there is not proof of that, and it's not exactly like it isn't difficult to get videos copyright struck off youtube for fucking nothing by any outside agitator with a hate boner.
 
I don't understand your obsession with one single youtube video, but good on you for archiving it at least.

However, it's sensationalist nonsense to claim that "KYLE" is taking the channel down when there is not proof of that, and it's not exactly like it isn't difficult to get videos copyright struck off youtube for fucking nothing by any outside agitator with a hate boner.
I think it's more likely that someone who really hates Kyle had themselves and their friends throw as many complaints at it as possible as a kind of petty, vindictive "fuck you" to Kyle. He might not even have remembered it existed.
 
I think it's more likely his family decided to remove all online traces of him they can. There's no reason to open yourself up to the public while fighting a legal battle, especially not at 17. It doesn't matter how innocuous, mundane, or innocent it is someone is going to be able to spin it into a negative against you with this much antipathy from certain parts of the public.
 
Last edited:
Arguably, Rittenhouse might lose the benefit of the presumption (which means he’d have to prove up his reasonable belief that his use of force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm). He does NOT lose the right to assert self-defense. But it doesn’t seem just that merely carrying as a minor is the type of criminal activity that would cause him to lose the presumption - that will be something a Wisconsin criminal defense lawyer is better suited to address. Of course, the videos make it obvious that he was acting in self-defense, so the presumption issue is really a non-issue.
We maybe hear about that later today

 
  • Like
Reactions: Draza
I don't see how they get a conviction on this. Even the charging documents don't support the legal conclusions they're trying to push. If Rittenhouse was justified in the first shooting, I don't see how he wasn't justified in all the others after the criminals continued retaliating against him for lawfully defending himself in the first place. He doesn't even lose if he had a duty to retreat, as he was trying to do exactly that while the criminals were trying to murder him.

As much as I'm annoyed by the proliferation of cameras into everyday life and zombie hoards of people filming things instead of just experiencing them.... imagine how much shit he'd be in if it was just his word vs. the 40-strong hivemind of the mob who have no compunction against lying if it means they can take down a self-identified Hilterjugen.

Ironic that their irresistible compulsion to film The Revolution (tm) only exonerates those they've spend all that time and effort to try and get in trouble..... because every one of these violent altercations gets filmed from more angles than the JFK assassination and the "Mystery Gunmen" they claim shot first or "racial slurs" they claim were said.... never are backed up by the footage.



I think the confusion about this stems from Wisconsin’s self-defense statute itself: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48

It contains a presumption that a person reasonably believed deadly force was necessary:



but that presumption is lost if the defendant was engaged in illegal activity:

Seems like a bit of a stretch to argue that breaking curfew counts as the illegal activity..... Even if he was, that's clearly that's not the spirit of the law, even if it's the letter. That's like arguing that if you park your car, step out of it, and are immediately accosted by a knife-wielding mugger, and you kill him, you can't claim self defense because, he assaulted you before you paid the parking meter, ergo your car was illegally parked, ergo you self-defended during a crime and don't qualify....

Like @KiwiFuzz said, it seems to be bizzaro circular reasoning: if you go out armed, you can't claim self-defense because your legal carrying of a weapon invites confrontations from nutters who don't know better than to try and kill you..... essentially, going out prepared is indistinguishable from going out with intent to kill. Which is silly.
 
Last edited:
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.
An appeals court, in a case where Robert Barnes is representing the plaintiff, just made explicit that federal employees (which, they said, includes Congresscritters) effectively have a license to defame if the subject of the defamation can be construed as a matter of public concern or interest, because any such complaints must name the US as the defendant rather than the individual, and the US has not consented to be sued for defamation.
 
Last edited:
An appeals court, in a case where Robert Barnes is representing the plaintiff, just made explicit that federal employees (which, they said, includes Congresscritters) effectively have a license to defame if the subject of the defamation can be construed as a matter of public concern or interest, because any such complaints must name the US as the plaintiff rather than the individual, and the US has not consented to be sued for defamation.
Judges are the swampiest swamp monsters that ever swamped. Life appointment was the biggest mistake of the founders.
 
Back