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 ...
The left learns the right way to kneel.
LOL! Wrong because you say so?
Wrong, because you’re wrong.
Why apologize? It’s two millennia old, older in oral law, and just as relevant today.
I think this is a chicken and egg example.
I'm no expert on these matters, but I wonder why the matter of Rittenhouse going into a "riot area" would be held against him more than the matter of the others creating the "riot area" in the first place?
I'm personally disgusted by the current doctrine that people should let rioters go about their business, and trying to stop them is the crime. To me, it's the rioters who venture into peaceful neighborhoods to terrorize that are the criminals, and that anyone who tries to stop them is justified.
I can't speak to the legal citations, but setting aside "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" principles, what about "good Samaritan" laws? Even if Rittenhouse wasn't a resident of the area he was protecting, if there was a recent pattern of nightly terror and destruction and good reason to conclude it would happen again that night, wouldn't a "good Samaritan" be allowed to give reasonable assistance to the locals (who may not have the means to protect themselves from a mob) who are in peril or in fear of being injured?
Wouldn't good Samaritan principles justify Rittenhouse's presence, and then the others (stand your ground, castle doctrine) would justify his use of force when the mob turned on him?
-PJ
“Why apologize? “
Cause I watched the video multiple times.
5.56mm
You're not keeping up. Rittenhouse already has prestigious legal defense lined up, pro bono. The legal defense fund has already collected several $100k in donations. They already put a halt to the specious extradition proceedings, and probably get him bail on the grounds that he was not fleeing and tried to turn himself in to the Wisconsin police at the time of the incident and they told him to "go home", whereupon he then went to his nearby home town in Illinois and found some police to surrender to. So the extradition based on "flight" is a false predicate. Likely the prosecutors will have to start over, and now there is more publicly available evidence Rittenhouse was being pursued by violent lawless types, (Rosenbaum, the first guy shot was an actual felon ex-convict with an active warrant), and the witness told the police the he was trying to get Rittenhouse and also the original complaint presented by the police didn't incorporate the fact that the surviving "victim" told his friend he was trying to kill Rittenhouse at the time Rittenhouse defended himself.
Thought you meant apologize for Hehehe. Can’t help chuckle at something like that. The videos are compelling in the context of self defense. The felon he shot in the arm holding the handgun, ping me when you see an article about the charges brought for felon in possession. If the state won’t, is the ATF sleeping? A photo of a felon in possession of a handgun. A video. Can’t make a case with that.
It goes back to the point of the thread. When speaking of the Law of the Pursuer, it notes "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." So the question is whether purposely going to the riot negates the Law of the Pursuer? It's not like trouble came to him, he deliberately went where there was trouble. So is that evidence of malicious intent?
I'm personally disgusted by the current doctrine that people should let rioters go about their business, and trying to stop them is the crime. To me, it's the rioters who venture into peaceful neighborhoods to terrorize that are the criminals, and that anyone who tries to stop them is justified.
I'm not justifying those rioting and I support the police in trying to prevent it and arrest the rioters. That is what should be done with any law-breakers. But it's not a job for amateurs.
Wouldn't good Samaritan principles justify Rittenhouse's presence, and then the others (stand your ground, castle doctrine) would justify his use of force when the mob turned on him?
We'll see.
Apparently, it becomes so when the taxpayer funded authorities refuse to do their jobs.
I do hope the voters throw these people out of office at the next chance they get, but people shouldn't be "potted plants" who stand around and do nothing, either.
The 2nd amendment is there primarily to protect against a tyrannical government. I guess we're seeing that tyranny doesn't just show itself in overt government force; in this case, the tyranny is in the government refusing to protect the citizens. Isn't this really government tyranny by proxy?
-PJ
So he crossed state lines with a gun to do what? Restore “order”? Now it’s a federal matter. If I were his father, he’d most definitely be grounded. But I’m glad for him that he’s now got a lawyer and a source of payment for same.
Wrong. He didn’t cross state lines with any weapons. See post #115. Has the initial statement put out by the legal defense team.
OK. Hurray for Rittenhauer and hurray for the 2nd Amendment. His chances of beating the weapons charge are now hopeful, but the DA will still be after him. If he had only just raped, murdered and plundered like a normal kid, he’d be OK. But nooooo. He just had to clean graffiti and defend an auto dealership;-)
do you think going armed for your own protection is always a crime and an offense against “order”? I don’t see anything despicable about Rittenhouse, why do you judge him?
here’s the statement from his attorneys ”Attorneys say accused Kenosha shooter acted in self-defense”.
If Kyle has not been armed, he would likely be dead.
Are you basing that on Wisconsin law or on the Second Amendment?
Admin moderator, feel free to remove this post if it violates solicitation rules, but I wanted to post that if one wants to contribute towards his case, make sure to search for the official site (which I will not post here)...there are several out there that may or may not be legitimate. Best to be cautious.
“do you think going armed for your own protection is always a crime and an offense against “order”?”
OK. I’ll vacation in Afghanistan. I’ll go armed for my own protection, and it’s all hunky dory. Bad argument. But it’s moot.
In Post 115, it was already established that he did not cross state lines to join the fray, and that the arms were obtained locally. So what is the point of contention here.
He didn’t work in Kenosha.
************************
Yes he did. He was a life guard. After he got off work, he helped clean off graffiti. A business owner sent a request for help. He and a friend answered that request. The friend gave him the gun.
There were adults at the location. On camera, the adult asks Kyle to go check on some injuries, and he leaves the reporter interviewing him.
BACK GROUND INFO:
At least one source indicates Rittenhouse’s father may be a police officer in or near Antioch. Pictures from various social media accounts appear to show Rittenhouse handling firearms (particularly AR platforms) from a young age (7-10 years).
The Antioch Fire Department acknowledged that Rittenhouse was a “Fire Protection Cadet” at one point.
According to the Grayslake Police Department Rittenhouse was a member of the joint Public Safety Cadet Program for the Lindenhurst, Grayslake, and Hainesville police departments. The program offered ride-along sessions as well as firearms training, though it is not clear how extensive these elements were or to what extent Rittenhouse participated.
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.