First Report Of Injury Wisconsin: Fill & Download for Free

Well, the Dept. of Justice and some states have actually begun to recognize deliberately coughing on somebody during the pandemic as assault and committing a terroristic act, so depending on your area your action could be construed as an act of self defense. Deliberately coughing on somebody in an attempt to spread the coronavirus or create fear of infection is a criminal offense because the virus qualifies as a “biological agent” under national terrorism-related statutes, according to US Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen.Assault is the act of purposefully injuring someone, or causing the fear of injury in another person. So, claiming to have COVID and coughing or spitting on someone is definitely assault. However, the degree of assault depends on the interpretation by the state or the municipality. In NYS, for example, to be charged with assault there has to be evidence of physical injury. However, a charge of Harrassment in the 1st Degree and Making a Terroristic Threat would be the charges, the first being an A Misdemeanor, and the second a felony.Reckless endangerment, or whatever legal terminology used to describe reckless behavior toward others, is another charge which can be either separate or considered part of an assault. The offender must be aware they are infected and either cough on another person, or be in a public space where their proximity endangers others.In Pennsylvania, 57-year-old Daniel Tabussi was accused of deliberately making coughing sounds while smiling and laughing near an older man wearing a face mask and gloves, CBS News reported. He then told the man he had the coronavirus. Tabussi was charged with terroristic threats, simple assault, disorderly conduct and harassment. In another incident, a 26-year-old man in Missouri faces charges of terrorism after he made a video of himself licking a several items at a Walmart, and New Jersey prosecutors charged a man with harassment and making terroristic threats after he coughed on a Wegmans employee.However, A Wisconsin woman is accused of doing something similar. A 53-year-old licked a freezer handle in a grocery store while “protesting” the coronavirus. The woman was not charged but was banned from returning to the store.You can't be the aggressor, nor can you use more force than necessary to stop your assailant, but if somebody walks up to you and coughs in your face, you can rap him or her right in the piehole. I know if somebody walked up to me and purposefully coughed in my face, they would probably be chewing on my knuckles regardless what state I'm in.

Yes, although how it is administered and what sort of transgressions are tolerated vary in different parts of the country, and even with individuals.The term within the industry is "professional courtesy," (PC) and everybody tries to get it. One of the more common questions on police discussion forums is whether officers would extend professional courtesy to firefighters, dispatchers, criminal justice students, members of the military, medical personnel, friends, family, wives, sons and daughters, etc. People buy "thin blue line" stickers for their cars, associate and "friend of" memberships in the Fraternal Order of Police, state troopers' association, sheriff's posse, etc. all in the hopes of currying favor when they're pulled over for a traffic violation. Do these things work? Sometimes, but not often.The most common scenario for a professional courtesy request is a common traffic violation. The more brazen police violators stick their badge in the enforcement officer's face as soon as he reaches the car (I know of a few instances where the violator held his badge out the window and then sped off before the officer reached the car). A more subtle approach is to open the wallet and let the badge inside show, hand the officer a police ID card along with the driver's license, drop some police jargon into the conversation ("my 10-27 will show valid class 3"), or say "I have to get my registration and insurance out of my glove box. It's in there with my duty weapon."If the violation is a low-grade speeding offense or something similarly trivial, and the violator isn't too much of a jerk about it, there's a good chance that PC will be extended. I don't know too many cops that take any pleasure in busting another cop, and most will go out of their way to avoid it. We all commit minor traffic offenses, and there is a "there but for the grace of God" sentiment operating. In many cases, the same PC will be offered to one or more of the occupational and special interest groups listed above.When the violation involves reckless driving or, God forbid, DUI, things get stickier. In some parts of the country, the cop will still get a pass if there is any possible way to pull it off. This can involve anything from driving the violator home to delaying breath/blood tests or other processing for so long that any prosecution is impossible. Now and again, one of these operations becomes known to the press, and there is a scandal. The public is intolerant of cops who drive drunk, and even more intolerant of cops who permit them to do so without consequences.[text added] A PC incident that made national news took place shortly after Hurricane Katrina. A contingent of deputies from a New Jersey sheriff's office had gone to New Orleans to assist with peacekeeping duties in the aftermath, and were returning home to NJ in a convoy of marked patrol cars. There wasn't any special urgency, other than they wanted to get home. The convoy was moving in the left lane of the highway at speeds in excess of 90 mph, with their overhead emergency lights on. A Virginia sheriff's deputy, with some effort, pulled the convoy over and advised them that emergency vehicles were allowed to use their lights and sirens only when responding to an actual emergency, convoys had to obey the speed limit for trucks, and convoys were restricted to the right lane. The NJ cops were not especially receptive to this, and went back on their way, returning to the same mode of travel as before.When the NJ cops got home and reported the incident to their sheriff, the sheriff called the Virginia agency and told the deputy he was a disgrace to the badge for delaying and lecturing his deputies, and he urged the deputy's sheriff to fire him. The Virginia sheriff declined.In some agencies, particularly some in the northeast U.S., recruits about to finish the academy meet with a representative of the Patrolmans' Benevolent Association (PBA--the officers' labor union), who briefs them on benefits and procedures. During this meeting, he gives each new officer a fixed number of "associate" cards. Everybody gets the same number, and no more. The cards say that the bearer is a close associate of Officer _______ of the XYZ Police Department, and every due courtesy should be extended to them. The new officer can give them to anyone he chooses--siblings, parents, spouse, boy/girlfriends, etc. When the "associate" is stopped by another officer, he presents the card.The officer who is presented with one of these cards will normally tell the violator to be more careful, give the card back, and send them on their way. However, the officer has two other options. He can take the card from the violator and send him on his way, then find the officer who issued it and give him a report on what his buddy has been up to. If the buddy was disrespectful, excessively reckless, or did something else to distinguish himself, the enforcement officer may request his colleague to tell his friend how the world turns (e.g. dispense an ass-chewing or ass-kicking, as may be appropriate).The other option is potentially more perilous. The enforcement officer can issue the ticket or make the arrest in spite of the courtesy card. This is called "writing over the card." There is a chance that the officer who issued the card will understand why the enforcement officer did what he did, and nothing will come of it. However, it is equally possible that the enforcement officer's zeal will not be appreciated, and the enforcement officer will come to work one day to find his locker has been moved to the parking lot and filled with dog excrement.As I said before, the custom varies regionally. I've found that Oregon and Washington are especially intolerant of officer misconduct. Those states will de-certify (revoke his training certificate, ending his career) an officer for a serious traffic offense, or for allowing another officer to get away with one. In other parts of the country, whatever you can get away with is common and expected.[added after some comments were posted]As Roger Curtiss observed, state troopers can be less forgiving than members of local agencies with regard to PC. One agency that I have heard condemned time and again by local cops is the Wisconsin State Patrol. Wisconsin has always done things a bit differently with regard to traffic enforcement. Before wireless data communications were so commonplace, out-of-state drivers receiving citations from the WSP were required to post bail or see a magistrate immediately. If they didn't have the cash on them, the trooper would escort them to a convenience store or other business where they could purchase a money order. The citation and money order would then go into a lockbox in the trunk of the patrol car.Out of state cops violating traffic laws in Wisconsin are reportedly shown no mercy from the state patrol, and I have heard more than one cop threaten to arrest and/or make life miserable for any WSP trooper they encountered in their own jurisdiction. This is one of the paradoxical aspects of PC. The ethos behind it is supposedly fraternal, brotherhood of the badge and all that, but any cop who ignores the PC custom is condemned and shunned. This is not always the case, and not every cop feels this way, but the more vocal proponents of PC might make you think it was that way.State police/patrols often hold themselves as a rung above local law enforcement in quality and in other respects, and the status is often justified. State patrols tend to have higher standards for recruitment and tougher police academies. Even in states where every local cop attends the same state-level academy, the state patrol almost always has their own. Their appearance standards are generally tougher, as are their organizational cultures with regard to physical fitness. This is all generalized; there are exceptions to these rules.My personal experience is that state patrols, including Wisconsin's, are as professional and amiable as any other cops I've run into, and they have always treated me with courtesy (the common kind, not the professional kind). They didn't know who I was or what I did for a living unless they asked directly. Some "made" me instantly as a cop, and the others didn't say anything about it if they did. None of them gave me a ticket since I became a cop in 1979, but I should also point out that the violations in question were pretty mild (window tint from Nevada the first day the car was registered in Wisconsin, 7 mph above the speed limit).I've had many, many conversations with other cops about this, and my sentiments on the topic are definitely the minority opinion. I personally believe that police officers should be held to a higher standard than the public at large, and that officers who break the law should be subject to the same consequences as anyone else. That doesn't mean that I've cited or arrested every cop I've ever stopped. In the early part of my career, I stopped many cops who were driving recklessly, and a couple who were drunk. My fear of ostracism by my peers outweighed my sense of justice. Later on, I got over this. (http://nv.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.1989_40108.NV.htm/qx)One officer I worked with, and for whom I have a great deal of respect, characterized PC as "when you work at the bakery, the bread is free." I was never able to persuade him of the difference between a private business that a customer can patronize or not, as they choose, and a public agency that is funded and authorized by the people, has authority over them, and is still responsible to them.[more text added] Concealment or ignorance of on-duty misconduct is related to PC, but is more commonly labeled the "Blue Curtain" or "Wall of Silence." The mantra here is that you never rat out another cop, even under pressure from internal affairs or some other authority. In practice, this works about as well as the tradition of omerta in organized crime. A few hard core types will never rat, but most, threatened with the loss of their jobs or even arrest, will usually roll over.Stepping up to volunteer information is another thing. I think most cops have a moral boundary here. There is a line of misconduct beyond which they will not keep silent. It's not unlike seeing a fellow student in school cheating or playing a prank on the teacher, or a fellow employee violating some workplace rule. Do you raise your hand and blow the whistle on him or her? Most wouldn't, although there is again a moral boundary beyond which you'll make the report.Of course, the public expects cops to not tolerate misconduct, because the misconduct often results in injury to a citizen's well-being, freedom or civil rights. The nature of the cop's job makes episodes of misconduct pretty grave events. The other side of that coin is that the cop's very survival depends on the support of his fellow officers. If a cop gets into a bind on the street--and everyone does, sooner or later--and calls for help, he is hanging out a mile if help is not in the offering. I've known cops who put other cops on their personal list for transgressions as small as taking an unpopular overtime assignment other cops didn't want to staff, and would either refuse to cover them on calls, and/or would obscure their radio traffic by clicking their mics when the offending officer was transmitting. My personal rule was that a cop in need is a friend indeed, no matter how I felt about them personally. I might refuse to shake their hand and even spit on their shoes when the incident was over, but in my world, refusing assistance to a fellow officer was the worst kind of sin. You might have a different standard for reporting misconduct in your own workplace, but you probably don't depend on your fellow employees to save your life on a regular basis.This is one of my "hot button" issues. I could write a book on it, and someday I might. If this answer is unclear or needs amplification, please indicate so much in a comment, and I'll edit/supplement the answer.

This is in regards to Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17 year-old charged with the shooting death of two people at the protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin.I’ll begin with where Kyle and others went wrong before the event ever happened. Kyle was part of a “militia” group that went to the protests to ensure order, provide care in the event of injury to anyone there, and protect property during the protests. And yes, I’ll agree that such things are necessary, because America is fed up with the chaos emanating from these “mostly peaceful protests”. As of yet, millions of dollars of damage has been done in dozens of cities, and at least thirty people have been killed.The problem, and this is part of where Kyle comes into play, is the sort of reckless amateurism of these militia groups on display. Let’s just ignore the big question for now and look at the fact that Kyle got in trouble for a number of reasons. First, he was 17 carrying a weapon, that seems to have been both a violation of open carry laws requiring one to be 18, and for transporting a weapon across state lines. Whoever was in charge should never have let him carry during the protests. This is dumb. A 17 year-old should not be part of any armed militia. While a 17 year-old is old enough to join the military, the military provides actual training, organization, discipline, and a chain of command responsible for making informed decisions. A lone 17 year-old larping with a rifle is not a member of a militia. He’s a liability. He also claimed he was a medical responder and other reports document him even providing medical aid to the rioters and looters. So maybe helping out in that role specifically would have been better suited to him.Now he’s facing numerous charges including use of a dangerous weapon, possession of a dangerous weapon, reckless endangerment, and 1st-Degree Intentional Homicide. That situation could have been easily avoided, but the group that organized the action was so inept and undisciplined, that Kyle was allowed to leave a cordoned area by himself in the middle of a hot protest surrounded by hostile protesters/rioters.The real problem was where he was apparently restricted to one area, and left. The problem occurred when he wasn’t allowed to come back into his area by the police. I haven’t seen a good explanation for why he left, and none as to why he wasn’t allowed in. But what is clear is that an armed teenager was allowed to go out into a mob controlled area alone (which is the fault of whoever was in charge of him) and wasn’t allowed to come back to his side of the line (which seems to be the fault of the police.) Frankly, whoever was in charge of this “militia” is someone I would want to see held accountable for why a 17 year-old was even allowed to be wandering alone in that environment without someone there to back him up. Hindsight being 20/20, this should have been a huge red flag for everyone.(More information has come out since this answer that indicates that Rittenhouse did not travel across state lines with a weapon, and was also not part of any organized militia group. Rather than rewrite the whole answer, please observe this seems to absolve the others who were there, as it seems he wasn’t really under anyone’s command or charge. )From that point on, I’m going to continue to be frank, he was the wrong person in the wrong place, but the video evidence shows that his acts were clearly in self-defense.Kyle is being billed as a radical white supremacist who went on a shooting spree by left wing media. The more you learn about the incident, the less that narrative holds up. Here he was photographed prior to the event cleaning graffiti from the rioters. While that doesn’t in and of itself prove guilt or innocence, this is not the typical behavior of a radical right wing white supremacist intent of hunting down and killing peaceful protesters.The New York Times did a full investigation, recreating the timeline of the events, tracing many of the recordings that were available. While left-wing memes and various media outlets have painted him as a radicalized Trump supporting terrorist hunting peaceful protesters, the New York Times describes the situation very differently.Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha ShootingsHe eventually leaves the dealership and is barred by the police from returning. Six minutes later footage shows Mr. Rittenhouse being chased by an unknown group of people into the parking lot of another dealership several blocks away.First shootingWhile Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.Second shootingMr. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene. Several people chase him, some shouting, “That’s the shooter!”As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him. One person appears to be hit in the chest and falls to the ground. Another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm and runs away.Mr. Rittenhouse’s gunfire is mixed in with the sound of at least 16 other gunshots that ring out during this time.From video shared by the Times, beyond finding himself deeply in an area he should not have been alone, his actions were clearly self-defense. Before he ever fired lethal shots, he was being actively chased and assaulted by a grown man and may have already been fired at by another gunman who fired the first shots. From there, he defended himself and killed his attacker.That man, by the way, was 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum, a convicted child molester who was found earlier in the evening to have been using racial slurs, including the n-word, while confronting the armed counter-protesters. He was throwing things at Rittenhouse and chasing him before Rittenhouse opened fire.After the video clearly shows Rosenbaum attacking Rittenhouse and Rittenhouse shooting the man, Rittenhouse even stays behind and makes a phone call. Allegedly this call was to the police to report the shooting. Rittenhouse then stays by the body as he’s making the call until others in the mob continue to pursue him, at which point he flees. Here are stills captured from multiple angles showing when he stayed around after the shooting to call someone, not fleeing the scene and not attacking anyone else.I’ve written a great deal about active shooters and other high profile mass shootings. This is not the normal behavior of a murderous killer or radicalized terrorist. I have never seen a single instance of any mass shooter or terror event do this.From there, Rittenhouse is pursued by others, and attacked repeatedly in the street by a pursuing mob. One of the pursuers was also armed with a handgun, clearly visible in the video footage shared by NYT. After being forced to the ground, Rittenhouse opens fire again on one two of the attackers, one of them armed and only a few feet away.The second man killed, 26 year old Anthony Huber, was described as a “peaceful protester and victim.” Huber also has a criminal history including charges of battery and domestic abuse. Say what you want about him, but attacking the fleeing Rittenhouse with an armed gunman by your side does not qualify one as a peaceful protester. The gunman, Gaige Grosskreutz, also has a criminal record and allegedly a member of the “People’s Revolution Movement”. That’s 3 for 3 of the people that Rittenhouse shot who had criminal records, all having attacked him already, and one with a gun.Moments later, Rittenhouse attempts again to surrender to the police.This image has been criticized by many as evidence of wrongdoing by the cops because they “murdered an unarmed black man, but drove by a white terrorist who just killed two peaceful protesters.” What the video actually shows is a police force who have no idea what is going on in a chaotic scenario. In attempting to reach the wounded people, the police don’t react to the person doing everything in his power to cooperate and not make himself into a threat to the police. Rittenhouse was later detained and held on charges.As far as my opinion goes, the more I looked into this case, the more I went from assuming that some kid finally snapped and gunned down some protesters (thanks to my own left wing friends on Facebook). As I learned more, I thought it was a stupid kid out playing vigilante. Then you learn more and really looks to be someone out doing things he shouldn’t have, while by all accounts trying to be good, in a place where he didn’t belong, with no adults to supervise or watch over him. Now, I still think he shouldn’t have been there and he shouldn’t have been armed. Not that I am against others being armed, but I just don’t trust people that young with that kind of power in that kind of situation. But looking at what most people who get their news from meme factories aren’t hearing, I am hard pressed to wonder if I would have done everything as well as he did, given the situation he found himself in.Of course, if events played themselves out the same way and he not have been armed, Mr. Rittenhouse would have been the one killed as he would have been defenseless against a demonstrably armed mob filled with convicted felons, perfectly happy to start firing first, perfectly happy to murder a teenager. And I can sure guarantee you no one would have made it a national news event if they did. It would have just been another “mostly peaceful protest.”I say that because, since George Floyd’s death, at least 30 people have been killed in riots across the country. That includes numerous police officers — some assassinated in the line of duty, local business owners, and people in the wrong place at the wrong time. Most were victims of mob beating and attacks against random bystanders. But it isn’t until we know the name of a white Trump supporter that we give a **** about one of the killers? And now he’s the terrorist? Why doesn’t he get Michael Brown’s treatment? That was the 19 year-old who robbed a store then tried to fight a cop and steal his gun before being killed by the police officer. That was billed as “cop murders unarmed black teenage boy.” Why is everything always different?He didn’t even shoot first.I want to remind people, the same people calling Rittenhouse a terrorist are the same people who nodded along when Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamaic State, was called an “austere religious leader” when the American military finally were able to get him for good.But yes, here is the real terrorist.Rittenhouse was not a terrorist. No one in the history of terrorism acted the way he did. Not a single time have I ever heard of a terrorist attacked first, shoot his attacker, then try to call for help for the person who just tried to assault him. People saying this are losing their right to be heard because of their criminal ignorance and deceit.Absolute insanity. It’s complete hypocrisy the way this kid is being depicted given, what we know and especially given how little anyone cares about the other 30+ people killed by radical left wing mobs and rioters. They aren’t even worth investigating because they were the victims of “mostly peaceful protests.” Had only moments differed in Rittenhouse’s reaction time, Gaige Grosskreutz, the third man shot who was carrying the gun, would have killed him after a mob chased him to the ground. And even with the whole thing caught on camera, there would have been none of the national outcry we’re seeing when a 17 year-old defended himself from multiple armed adult male felons attacking them. No, we’re the nation that calls the murderous felons the victims.Compare the images above with the one below, one made very public in pages trying to depict the event differently than the NYT’s investigation.The one image clearly shows Grosskreutz moments before gunning down Rittenhouse, while the second shows what appears to be Rittenhouse threatening a peaceful protester, which appears to also be Grosskreutz only this time, with his gun put away. All of this is why the conservatives are so angry and why support for Rittenhouse is building.I’ve been very fair in showing that someone his age should not have been armed at a protest like that and should have never been allowed to wander alone in the streets. There is clear evidence that a need to protect property does exist, so I am not against those protesters who do arm, but I don’t trust 17 year-olds to not get themselves into trouble in this situation. I’ve also been fair in calling out the people responsible for him and the police for effectively setting up the situation that led to the shootings. It was a lot of people making bad choices.But then the 17 year-old, by numerous credible sources, looks like he wasn’t the first to instigate the violence, was clearly attacked by numerous adult men with criminal records, at least one of which with a gun, defended himself, and even attempted to call the police to bring aid to the man he just shot. Then he fled a violent mob that nearly killed him. He was then saved only by his own quick reactions and the gun I acknowledge, I say he shouldn’t have had, before Grosskreutz could get off a shot. He then turned himself in and now sits facing multiple murder charges.While he should not have been in that situation, once I understood a bit more what he actually went through and investigated past the stories told about him communicated through dishonest memes, I cannot help but sympathize with him, as are many, many others. His is a flashpoint of anger where it appears that a person who did so much right, is treated as a white supremacist terrorist while literally dozens of others can be killed and their killers are never even investigated. It is as if one side is literally allowed to get away with murder while this kid’s life is effectively over.Relaxed. Researched. Respectful. - War Elephant