Kyle Rittenhouse and The Law of the Pursuer

American Thinker.com ^ | August 30, 2020 | Civis Americanus

[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.

[Trailerpark Badass]

She always intrudes on these threads, throwing spurious legal theories around, and she’s usually quite wrong.

[outofsalt]

“10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

*****(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”*****

Excellent point!

[T. P. Pole]

The same Chicago papers that describe the Blake shooting as a simple “shot in the back” while “getting into his vehicle”?

Chicago Tribune:
an officer’s shooting of Blake, a 29-year-old Black man, who according to a video appeared to have had his back turned to the cop who fired.

Chicago Sun Times:
who was shot in the back by a Kenosha, Wisconsin, police officer

Chicago Crusader:
a Kenosha city police officer pumped seven bullets into the back of James Blake, after the 29-year-old scuffled with officers and then allegedly attempted to get into his vehicle

WGN:
officers were responding to a domestic abuse call last Sunday when Sheskey shot Blake in the back.

WBEZ:
Blake was shot, apparently in the back, on Sunday as he leaned into his SUV, three of his children seated inside.

AP:
The shooting of Blake on Sunday in Kenosha — apparently in the back while three of his children looked on — was captured on cellphone video and ignited new protests over racial injustice in several cities, coming just three months after the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police touched off a wider reckoning on race.

New York Times:
shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black father who was partially paralyzed after a white officer fired at him in front of his children.

NPR:
Blake was shot in the back by police in Wisconsin on Sunday.

There is a difference between “telling the truth” and telling the whole story. Maybe he was working in a pool in Chicago and lost that job earlier in the year. That doesn’t mean he didn’t get another job in Kenosha.

[fireman15]

I have a 19 year old grandson cut from the same mold as Kyle Rittenhouse. He is currently out risking life and limb braving harsh terrain and fighting wildfires in 100 degree heat to try and make sure we do not have another Paradise California type of catastrophe. He was working as a resident volunteer firefighter before he received the call to join the wildland firefighting crews. Earlier in the year he was planning on joining National Guard so he could get jump training. I could not be more proud of him.

I have met many of my grandson’s friends; they may not be perfect in every way, but they are patriotic and they want more than anything to help others. They are certainly not racists. They are excellent marksmen and would defend themselves to the best of their abilities if attacked.

I can envision them getting in the middle of nonsense like this with only the best intentions in their hearts. When I read the crap from a few of the people here I can’t help but get angry.

[fireman15]

She always intrudes on these threads, throwing spurious legal theories around, and she’s usually quite wrong.

Thanks! Unfortunately, she is not the only one here who fits that description.

[Bshaw]

Here is one of the most comprehensive breakdowns and analysis of the events of that night, using all known pictures and videos available:

https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/The-Kenosha-Shootings-Kyle-Rittenhouse-A-Tactical-and-Legal-Analysis-WARNING-Bandwidth-Intensive/5-2362796/

Good shooting Rittenhouse.

[SJackson]

Sorry, shouldn't have said accompany, the non-hunting exemption is under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. Instruction means more than formal range instruction, in my mind if I'm walking through the woods with my son instruction may be involved. The courts may well say that doesn't require being accompanied/in the presence of. Or they may not. As I mentioned earlier, this seems to be the only basis for the murder charges.

[Revolutionary]

Yes he is being chased in the first shooting. Items thrown at him and a gun shot. I think the first pursuer was also shot by another pursuer trying to hit Kyle. That guess is based on how minor the head wound was.

[freeandfreezing]

the non-hunting exemption is under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult.

The provision you cited is 948.60 (3)(c). Keep reading and look at 948.60 (3)(c). That section says:

" 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. "

941:28 is a ban on short barreled rifles and shotguns, so presumably that does not apply, and 29.593 only relates to the need for a hunting license when hunting. 29.304 when you actually read it has regulations for 16 and under.

So a 17 year old is only subject to 948.60 if they happen to be carrying a short barreled rifle or shotgun.

Poorly drafted laws, but clear that they don't apply to Rittenhouse.

[Eleutheria5]

Now he’ll never be a concert violinist.

[Colinsky]

“Din rodef” is ancient Jewish law. It would be better to explain in terms of modern law.

Perhaps it has been superseded by din dunuffin.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Is it a fact that a 17-year old cannot legally carry such a weapon in public there?

No. It is one of those rules to which there are exceptions so it is not a fact. A minor can indeed carry such a weapon in public if they have completed the hunter safety course or they are with adults.

Can an adult do so?

Yes.

[lastchance]

A rodent rodef. Has a certain ring to it.

[Eleutheria5]

Prosecutor will argue that he was the rodef, because he came there illegally armed and with no legitimate business. When he started running away, that argument would cease to work. But the bottom line is, his parents will either go bankrupt paying a good lawyer who will get him acquited of Murder 1, or he’ll get a public defender, who will railroad him into a plea deal. And one charge that will stick is carrying a weapon illegally. I fear the boy is going to go to jail regardless, and get butt-humped or worse while in there. Very sad. When he comes out, will CW 2 still be ongoing?

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

It seems to me that he was under age he carried the rifle illegally and is therefor guilty and deserves what he gets.

It seems to me you do not know anything about the issue and deserve what you get.

[Pajamajan]

Didn’t know this. Interesting.

[lastchance]

So let me see. He is an adult as far as using the weapon to defend himself per the homicide charges but he is a minor for the purpose of having it in his possession? How does that compute?

[lastchance]

He was doing work but I got the impression it was volunteer work as a lifeguard.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Thank you for the further information.

[GranTorino]

I don’t guess how old you are.
I used to carry guns to school and around the neighborhood in the 80’s.