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 ...
Whether Rittenhouse should have been in Kenosha in the first place.....
—————————————————
In case anyone didn’t know by now, I want to point out that of course Rittenhouse should have been in Kenosha. After all he works there.
He worked as a lifeguard at a pool. He worked that very same day.
LOL! Oh really?
You could start with the statement released by the kid's attorneys. There is also info available from interviews with eye witnesses like the reporter from the Daily Caller, not to mention info released by commentators like Tucker Carlson. It is obvious that you are more interested in what Rachel Madow, Jaun Williams and Don Lemon have to say, but it is long past time that you broadened your horizons.
..................
Since it hasn't been mentioned I thought I'd add that the law of Din Rodef dates to the Babylonian Talmud. Also applies to rape. And in one of these three instances, ironically, includes as a solution depriving him of use of a limb, such as cutting off his hand
Yes, really! The legal record is strewn with successful lawsuits against people spreading known falsehoods on social media and public forums especially when they are about people who are minors. You have been stating easily disproven falsehoods as facts. You are opening yourself up to legal jeopardy.
IMO that's the only possible reason. Other than the infliction of financial and emotional pain through prosecution.
Don't rely on that advice, check the laws state by state and locally.
Guy with the BAseball bat is fair game.
Nice try, but that's amateur level trolling. Before making yourself look like an idiot it is a good idea to see what the Wisconsin government says instead of some random person posting on Wikipedia.
Here is one example:
Persons under age 18 may not possess firearms for non-hunting purposes unless accompanied by an adult, except that persons ages 14–17 who have completed Hunter Education can possess legal shotguns and rifles without being accompanied by an adult.
Rittenhouse was accompanied throughout most of the evening by others, including people who were clearly adults. In addition, for all you know he has taken the Wisconsin hunter safety course.
If you go directly to the Wisconsin laws you will find that Rittenhouse has an even stronger defense to any claims of illegal firearms possession.
Wisconsin 948.60 makes it a misdemeanor for any person under 18 years of age to possess any firearm, with the caveat that "this section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593."
Wisconsin 941.28 prohibits civilian possession of short barreled rifles and shotguns. That's clearly not relevant to Rittenhouse.
Wisconsin 29.304 restricts the use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age. That's right, 16 years, not 17.
Wisconsin 29.593 requires a certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval. That law has nothing to do with Rittenhouse's right to carry a firearm.
Under the actual Wisconsin law, as it has been amended over time, as a 17 year old Rittenhouse is not obligated to be accompanied by an adult, or take the hunter safety course. Apparently the DA was in such a hurry to draft up the complaint that he forgot to read the entire section of the law he is relying on.
Now that Kyle Rittenhouse has solid legal representation the DA will learn that sloppy, politically biased prosecution of citizens doesn't work.
Hopefully our fellow FReepers will stop repeating the incorrect talking points of the left.
Unlikely, he wasn't supervised by a parent, guardian or authorized (by the parent/guardian) adult. That might apply when he was with the group, but likely not when he went off on his own.
That's not evidence, and you don't even have a link apparently to the source of your belief.
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.
—
Not necessarily. Many high schools in urban areas had rifle clubs and some had shooting ranges on campus.
You seem to be one of our resident legal experts. /s So how come the police gave him water and thanked him 15 minutes before the shooting?
“About 90 minutes into the livestream at 11:30 p.m. — 15 minutes before the fatal shooting — the following exchange with police occurs as Rittenhouse and another armed man walk outside a business.
Police officer (over a loudspeaker): “You need water? Seriously. (unintelligible) You need water?”
Rittenhouse, raising his arm and walking toward the police vehicle: “We need water.”
Police officer: “We’ll throw you one.”
Rittenhouse then walks out into the street amid several police vehicles, holding his hand in the air for a water bottle. An officer surfaces from a hatch at the top of the police vehicle and tosses a water bottle to a person located just out of the camera’s view, where Rittenhouse would likely be standing based on the preceding footage.
Police officer: “We got a couple. We’ve got to save a couple, but we’ll give you a couple. We appreciate you guys, we really do.”
See my post above. The actual Wisconsin law, which I provided links to, does not require anyone to "accompany" a 17 year old. The age limit is actually 16.
Moreover, even if the "accompany" requirement did apply to a 17 year old the act of accompanying someone does not require that the people be together at all times. Think about the ordinary use of the term. And think about what happens when a father and his son go hunting together. They may well be separated at times.
Under the normal use of the word "accompany" one person can go off by themselves and then return. If you accompany your wife to the theater would that be untrue if she went to the ladies room? Of course not.
Kaslin has made an a$$ out of himself this morning. Thanks for refuting the garbage he and a couple others have been spreading here. We can thank them for showing their true colors but not for advancing the false leftist media talking points.
Grosskreutz is a convicted felon. He is pictured clearly carrying a pistol. That’s a felony right there.
He also threatened Rittenhouse with that pistol - another felony.
I think Rittenhouse was asking for the water so he could flush out the eyes of one of the people defending the gas station and the auto repair facility next door who was sprayed with pepper spray by one of the rioters.
Thanks to Smith & Wesson, three of these terrorists ceased to be rodef and desisted from their violent actions.
This ^^^
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.