William Blackstone, The TV Office Bust
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 ...
10 U.S. Code § 246? Thank you! That should help, if it ever comes to trial.
I know his lawyer claimed that but other sources say he was laid off his job as a lifeguard in suburban Chicago back in March. So who knows?
We'll see.
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.
I don't think Rittenhouse had been convicted of a felony prior to this. And if he is convicted of open carry while under age then that's a misdemeanor.
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.
It's not a law so much as a legal doctrine. So I imagine the defense will claim he is covered under that doctrine while the prosecution will claim he isn't.
See this detailed thread with texts, photos, videos and analysis:
“The Kenosha Shootings / Kyle Rittenhouse: A Tactical and Legal Analysis: UPDATED: 1st Shooter ID’d?”
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3879040/posts
In Wisconsin a 17 year old can legally open carry a rifle. The law is totally clear that a 17 year old who is under the supervision of an adult, or who has passed the Wisconsin hunter safety course can open carry a rifle.
More detailed analysis of the Wisconsin law by some attorneys suggests that there are no particular restrictions on 17 year olds other than a prohibition on their carrying of short barrel rifles and shotguns.
William Blackstone, The TV Office Bust
Given the militia law pointed out by Beagle, Rittenhouse is unorganized militia at age 17, and perhaps all these “age 18” laws have never been challenged.
Nowadays most people clear high school at 18, so it’s customary to consider them adults at that point. But if federal law says 17...law trumps custom.
The facts refuting the leftist media lie that you have repeated here have been available for a couple days. Thanks for spreading the leftist narrative and letting everyone here know where you get your information. By repeating a known lie about a minor on a public forum, you may be opening yourself up to legal jeopardy.
He was working as a life guard in Kenosha. Earlier in the day he was also working with a group to clean up the mess that rioters had made the night before at a local school and at local businesses. He and a friend he were also working to help keep local small businesses from being destroyed by rioters.
Now, go look up the facts from sources other than CNN and MSNBC.
Those conditions aren't true, so there is no basis for your analysis.
Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha, and was with a group of people he knew in the area where the rioting happened before the rioting even started. Going to work as a lifeguard at a pool isn't illegal.
It is very likely that Rittenhouse's carrying of the rifle was legal under Wisconsin law.
Rittenhouse was present before the curfew, and he like everyone else in the neighborhood was trying to deal with the ramifications of the government's abject failure to enforce the curfew.
The predicament Rittenhouse ended up in was a direct result of the blundering police. The police drove the rioters towards where Rittenhouse and others were, and then after Rittenhouse provided medical aid to injured people the police were ignoring, the police prevented Rittenhouse from returning to the building where he and others were sheltering from the riot.
You need to refer to him by his new name: Lefty!
btt
Rodef = One Who Pursues
You are incorrect...he DID work in Kenosha.
That's not what Rittenhouse's attorneys have said. Do you have better evidence than them? If so let's see it.
You two have got a cute little exchange going on here don't you? Way to go, but I think all the two of you are accomplishing here is outing yourselves as drones that buy into the leftist media lies and narratives. Do both of you also have Black Lives Matter signs in your front yard?
Apparently 17 year olds can be charged as adults in Wisconsin. Seems like you could argue this implies that he is, indeed, an adult and therefore should be treated as adult when it comes to carrying firearms.
DoodleDawg has been spreading the false narrative to the point that I believe he is opening himself up to legal jeopardy.
Where?
Actually they are. Open carry in Wisconsin is legal for those 18 and above. Rittenhouse is 17. There was a curfew in effect at the time of the shooting so everyone involved was guilty of violating that.
According to the Chicago papers he didn't.
Whatever.
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.