FirstAlerts

Wisconsin Man Charged After Daughter Accidentally Shoots Coworker and Son

James Lehman faces four felony charges after prosecutors say his 3-year-old daughter pulled the trigger of a shotgun, wounding a coworker and the coworker's 7-year-old son. The case is pending, and Lehman has not been tried.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 24, 2026, 7:46 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 24, 2026, 7:12 p.m. ETWritten Aug 24, 2026, 7:54 p.m. ET
James Lehman has been with four felonies, according to the , as reported by FOX6 News. The charges stem from an incident involving a firearm, as alleged by prosecutors. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is investigating the case. The charges were announced on August 24, 2026. Further details, including the specific counts and the status of the victims, have not been disclosed. As this is only a charging stage, the matter is undecided, and Lehman has not been tried. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 24, 2026, 7:46 p.m. ETFirst report

    Wisconsin Man Charged After Daughter Accidentally Shoots Coworker and Son

    A Walworth County man has been charged with four felonies after prosecutors say his 3-year-old daughter accidentally shot a coworker and the coworker's 7-year-old son. The charges were announced on August 24, 2026, according to Fox6Now. The matter is undecided and has not been resolved in court.

    James Lehman is accused of letting his daughter pull the trigger of a 12-gauge shotgun aimed at what he thought was a turkey head, accidentally shooting the coworker and the child, prosecutors said. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is investigating.

    The case is at the charging stage, and Lehman is presumed innocent until proven guilty. No trial date has been set, and the allegations have not been proven.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 124 Aug 2026, 23:54current

    First published.

  2. Version 124 Aug 2026, 23:46current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.