Posted on 08/30/2020 5:10:51 AM PDT by Kaslin
Wisconsin recently charged Kyle Rittenhouse with first degree murder for killing two people who were, from what I can see from the videos, attacking him with weapons. Whether Rittenhouse should have been in Kenosha in the first place, and with a weapon a 17-year old cannot legally carry in public, is a separate issue for courts of law to decide. The question at hand is however why he was charged with murder while his surviving alleged assailants were, as far as I know, not charged with anything.
This leads to the need to educate potential jurors (i.e. all citizens who are eligible to serve on juries) proactively about important self-defense principles. This must happen before they are called for jury duty because it is illegal to do so afterward. Jurors need to understand the simple concept of din rodef, "the law of the pursuer." This gives defense attorneys a single word – rodef -- to explain the concept if jurors are not already familiar with it.
Rodef = One Who Pursues
A rodef (plural rodfim) is somebody who pursues somebody else with the objective of causing death or serious physical injury. Din rodef entitles the one pursued, or a bystander, to use reasonable force, up to and including deadly force, to stop the rodef from completing the intended violent crime. The principle is actually very similar to most modern laws. Deadly force cannot be used if lesser force will suffice, and the rodef ceases to be a rodef the instant he desists from his violent actions. Din rodef is also reflected by the modern adages (in the context of a fight or argument) such as "Never follow anybody into the parking lot" and "Never follow the other guy home" because these are prima facie evidence of malicious and violent intent.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I don’t know, but it seems to me if he was using his weapon and shot the person, he’s guilty
“Din rodef” is ancient Jewish law. It would be better to explain in terms of modern law.
“Actually until recent history it was perfectly normal for young men to own guns and even take them to school or scout meetings.”
When I lived in Charlotte, an older co-worker told me that when he was in high school in NC, it was completely normal to bring a rifle to school, because operating and shooting a rifle was part of gym class. He brought his back and forth to school on a school bus(!). I got the impression that he grew up in a poor rural area and shooting/hunting was probably an important adult survival skill at the time. Maybe it still is. And this says a lot about the relative maturity of most teen-agers today vs. 70 years ago.
<<I don’t know, but it seems to me if he was using his weapon and shot the person, he’s guilty<<
He was protecting the business that provides his livelihood and returned fire against attackers.
Protected by 2A and right to defend your property and life.
When I was in college, I had a shotgun in my dorm room. The ag school grew special crop fields especially for dove shooting. I was trained to shoot a rifle on the ROTC rifle range as were all male freshmen.
I transferred and lived in a house where several kept shotguns for duck season.
If he can't claim self-defense then yeah, I'd say it doesn't look good for him. If a claim of self defense is an option then I would think it would boil down to his actions and the actions of those he shot before the actual shooting.
Wisconsin added the clear wording of Section 25 to the Wisconsin Constitution in 1998.
Text of Section 25:
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.[1]
The Wisconsin statue which bans minors from carrying guns carves out exceptions for hunting and training, but not for security or defense, so it may be vulnerable to be overturned.
He didn't work in Kenosha.
Protected by 2A and right to defend your property and life.
He wasn't on his property. Defending his life may be a valid defense. A jury will decide that.
“As for someone underage with a weapon, I think it will make an interesting court case. The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow individual to be armed to defend themselves. There is no age limit on the 2nd amendment.”
The Militia law clearly states...all able bodied males from 17 to...
All is a moot point if there is a soros installed DA
They can say it, but it probably won't hold up.
There are several cases where felons, armed in violation of the law, were found to have acted in self-defense, then charged with felon in possession of a firearm.
You do not give up your rights to self defense because you are a felon.
In this case, I expect the defense to challenge the constitutionality of the Wisconsin law, because it makes no provision for security or defense, which are specifically protected in the Wisconsin Constitution.
Open Carry.
Open carry is legal anywhere concealed carry is legal. It is legal for all adults (over the age of 18) unless they are prohibited from possession of firearms. A license is not required unless in a taxpayer-owned building or within 1000 feet of school property and not on private property.
It seems to me that he was under age he carried the rifle illegally and is therefor guilty and deserves what he gets.
His parent should have made sure he can carry the rifle legally. Not doing so makes them guilty
Is it too much to ask authors writing about this topic to at least get the basic facts and law correct?
Rittenhouse works in Kenosha, which seems like a pretty good reason for him to be there. Much better than the rioters who drove up from Chicago, or flew in from Seattle.
In Wisconsin a person under the age of 18 can carry a firearm legally under a set of varying conditions. Those conditions likely covered Rittenhouse.
Rittenhouse worked as a lifeguard in Kenosha.
And now that information has the pursuer now says he wished he had pulled his gun out sooner and emptied the magazine (paraphrased). Doesn’t that lead to intent on the pursuers case?
What does that have to do with Wisconsin? Wisconsin was never a colony of England.
He was on private property at the invitation of the owner. He was forced off that property by an angry violent mob.
Kyle will walk on that charge, too.
L
Yes, there is video showing Rosenbaum, the first person shot, chasing Rittenhouse. In that video as Rittenhouse is running from Rosenbaum somebody else fires the first shot.
Here is a detailed analysis that includes video of the first engagement where Rosenbaum was shot. Scroll down to the section titled "The First Engagement"
But Wisconsin's Castle Doctrine applies when you're defending your own property. So that probably wouldn't protect him. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.